BCC Minutes 05/09/2000 R
May 9, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, May 9, 2000
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting
as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of
such special districts as have been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN: Timothy J. Constantine
Barbara B. Berry
James D. Carter (via speakerphone)
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
John C. Norris
ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Manager
Ramiro Manalich, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~
AGENDA
Tuesda~May9, 2000
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER
PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER
PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,
BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS
AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY
MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE
HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY
NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,
WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS
PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN
ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO
YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE
COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING
DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1 :00 P.M.
I
May 9, 2000
1. INVOCATION - Father Tim Navin, S1. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1) Proclamation proclaiming the week of May 13-20, 2000 as Rotary
International Group Study Exchange Week. To be accepted by Mr.
George Drobinski, Chairman, Group Study Exchange, Rotary District
6960, Naples, FL
2) Proclamation proclaiming the week of May 6-12,2000 as Nurses Week.
To be accepted by Mr. Jim Cato, Vice President and Chief Nurse
Executive, Naples Community Hospital; Ms. Carol McConn, Chief Nurse
Executive, Cleveland Clinic; Ms. Patti Butler, School Health Nurse, NCH
School Health; Ms. Terri Harder, Sr. Community Health Nurse, Health
Department, Collier County; Dr. Joyce Thornton, President, Florida
Nurses Association, District 29; Ms. Pam Behrens, Director of Nursing,
Manor Care and Mr. Roger Evans, OMC Manager, Collier County Health
Department
3) Proclamation proclaiming the week of May 14-20, 2000 as Emergency
Medical Services Week. To be accepted by Chief Diane Flagg, Collier
County Emergency Medical Services Department
4) Proclamation proclaiming the week of May 7-13,2000 as National
Tourism Week. To be accepted by Mr. Joseph Dinunzio, Chairman of
Tourism Alliance, Collier County
5) Proclamation regarding teen pregnancy.
2
May 9, 2000
B. SERVICE AWARDS
1) Pedro Pineiro-Ortiz, Parks & Recreation - 5 years
2) Shelly Goldie, Road and Bridge - 5 years
3) Keith Larson, GG Community Center - 5 years
4) Peggy Jarrell, Planning Services - 10 years
C. PRESENTATIONS
1) Recommendation to recognize Sherry Long, Planning Tech II, Planning
Services Department, as Employee of the Month for May 2000.
2) A presentation by Sam Gorgoglione of the Collier County Senior Men's
Softball League to the Board of County Commissioners and Parks and
Recreation Maintenance crews at Vineyards and Veterans Community
Parks for their dedication and hard work.
6. APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
1) Presentation by Dwight Brock regarding Impact Fees.
7. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Doug Schroeder, executive Director of the Cocohatchee Nature Center regarding
revisions to the Management Plan.
8. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Presentation of the Environmental Advisory Council's Annual Report.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1) Reappropriation of Tourist Development Tax funding for the Clam Pass
I nlet Management Project.
3
May 9, 2000
C. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) A report to the Board on the Recreation/Open Space Element of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan.
D. SUPPORT SERVICES
E. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve Jo-Anne Varcoe-Leamer to the position of
Support Services Administrator.
F. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
G. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1) A settlement agreement and mutual release between the Board of County
Commissioners and Naples Community Hospital.
9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Brief overview by City of Naples Airport Authority regarding improvement project
along Airport Road. (Commissioner Constantine)
B. Appointment of a County Commissioner or a delegate to the Naples Airport
Authority Noise Compatibility Committee.
11. OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
4
May 9, 2000
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
1) Repeal Ordinance CPR-99-1, an Ordinance to rescind and repeal in its
entirety Collier County Ordinance No. 99-63, which had the effect of
rescinding certain EAR-based objectives and policies at issue in
Administration Commission Case No. ACC-99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-
0324GM).
2) Rescission Ordinance, an Ordinance having the effect of rescinding
certain EAR-based objectives and policies at issue in Administration
Commission Case No. ACC. 99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM), more
specifically portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Ord.
No. 97-56), Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge (Ord. 97-59) and
Drainage (Ord. No. 97-61) Sub-elements of the Public Facilities Element,
Housing Element (Ord. No. 97-63), Golden Gate Area Master Plan (Ord.
No. 97-64), Conservation and Coastal Management Element (Ord. No.
97-66), and the Future Land Use Element (Ord. No. 97-67) and the Future
Land Use Map (Ord. No. 97-67); and readopting Policy 2.2.3. of the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
3) Remedial Amendment CPR-99-3, adopting Remedial Amendments to the
Collier County Growth Management Plan, as directed by the
Administration Commission in its June 22, 1999 Final Order in Case No.
ACC 99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM) to the following elements:
Future Land Use, Public Facilities/Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
Sub-Element, Public Facilities Element/Drainage Sub-Element, Housing,
Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Conservation & Coastal Management;
to vest certain properties rezoned in Activity Centers; and to correct
scrivener's errors and map references in the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
resolution to approve the proposed Growth Management Plan
Amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to
establish the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay for
transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs.
a) Adoption Public Hearing for the 1999 Growth Management Plan
Amendments:
5
May 9, 2000
b) CP-99-01, James O'Gara - request to amend the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan, Golden Gate Office Commercial Subdistrict by
adding retail uses, increasing building heights to 35 feet and
providing vehicular access from a residential street.
c) CP-99-02, John D. Jassey - request to amend the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan by re-naming the "CR - 951 Commercial In-Fill
Designation" to "Golden Gate Commercial In-Fill Designation";
changing the subject site from Residential Estates Subdistrict to
Golden Gate Commercial In-Fill Designation; and modifying this
Commercial In-Fill provision to allow certain commercial uses on
the subject site and to provide development standards specific to
this site.
d) CP-99-03, Centrefund Development Corporation - request to
amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan by expanding the
Neighborhood Center at the Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevard
intersection, and including additional acreage in the southeast
quadrant of the same intersection, and to allow five acres of
commercial or conditional use development within the southeast
quadrant.
e) CP-99-04, John A. Pulling, Jr. and Lucy G. Finch - request to
amend the Future Land Use Element by adding a new Subdistrict
to be known as the "Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict" for
specified lands located at the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road
and Orange Blossom Drive.
f) CP-99-06, Capital Improvement Element - staff request to correct,
update, modify certain costs, revenue sources, supporting policies,
and the dates of construction of facilities enumerated in the Collier
County Growth Management Plan, Capital Improvement Element
for capital projects in fiscal years 1999/2000 through 2002/2003.
g) CP-99-07, Transportation Element- staff request to amend Table V,
the Collier County Transportation data base, and various
transportation maps; update lists and tables where appropriate;
incorporate by reference the Corridor Management Plan for the
Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway; incorporate by reference the Public
6
May 9, 2000
Transportation Development Plan; change the minimum standard
level of service on state facilities in rural areas from C to D; and
modify the definition of "significant impact".
h) CP-99-08, Bonita Bay Properties - request to amend the plan text
for Activity Center #9 and amend the map entitled Activity Center
#9.
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
C. OTHER
1) Adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 97-48, simplifying and
reducing water and sewer utility rates.
13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 11, 2000 MEETING.
Petition A-99-04, Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and
Johnson, PA, representing Kensington Park Master Association and the
Yorktown Neighborhood Association, requesting an appeal of the
determination of the Collier County Planning Commission on November
21, 1999 that the changes to the Carillon PUD Master Plan by adding new
commercial building footprints were insubstantial.
2) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE MAY 23.2000 MEETING.
Petition CU-2000-01, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Goodlette, Coleman
& Johnson, PA, representing Barbara and Wilbur Crutchley requesting a
conditional use for a boat dock as a permitted principal use in the "RSF-4"
residential single family zoning district for a property located on the west
side of West Avenue and is further described as part of Lot 1, Block "E",
Little Hickory Shores Unit #2, in Bonita Springs.
3) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE MAY 23. 2000 MEETING.
Petition CU-2000-03, George L. Varnadoe, Esq., of Young, Van
Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing La Playa LLC,
requesting Conditional Use "5" of the "RT" Resort Tourist Zoning District
for a private club per Section 2.2.8.3 for property known as the La Playa
Hotel and Beach Club, located on Gulfshore Boulevard, further described
7
May 9, 2000
as the Lots 25 through 30, inclusive, Block A, Unit No.1, and Lots 24
through 28, inclusive, Block B, Unit No.1, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach
Estates, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
4) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE MAY 23.2000 MEETING.
Petition V-2000-09, George L. Varnadoe, Esquire, of Young, Van
Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing La Playa, LLC,
for a variance to the separation between building requirement from forty-
nine (49) feet to thirty-five (35) feet for property located at 9891 Gulfshore
Drive.
B. OTHER
14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine
and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If
discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Second Amendment to the 1999 Tourism Agreement between Collier
County and the Tourism Alliance of Collier County regarding advertising
and promotion of the Collier County Airport Authority.
2) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Quail West Phase III,
Unit Two", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance
Security.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1) Award Bid No. 00-3055 for the painting of aerial water, wastewater and
effluent lines.
8
May 9, 2000
2) Approve Change Order NO.1 (D) (Final) to Contract No. 97-2771,
Removal of Non-Specification Material from the Naples Beach.
3) Approve Amendment No.1 to the Professional Services Agreement with
WilsonMiller, Inc. for the Santa Barbara Extension Alignment Study,
Project #60091.
4) Approve the Notice for Recordation which stipulates that Collier County
has no maintenance responsibility for the existing sidewalk and landscape
improvements located on property south of Vanderbilt Beach Road at the
Market Place at Pelican Bay Plaza.
5) This item has been deleted.
6) This item has been deleted.
7) Request Board of County Commissioners' confirmation of staff
recommendation not to install a "multi-way stop" at Glades Boulevard and
Lakewood Boulevard.
8) Request that the Board of County Commissioners reduce the Exotic
Vegetation Removal Requirement in Resolution 99-168 and Vegetation
Removal Permit VRP-99-5 to limit the removal of exotics to the
construction area which would limit the requirement as it relates to the
removal of nine Australian Pines along the Pelican Bay Beach.
C. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) A request for a permit to conduct three separate carnivals hosted by the
Parks and Recreation Department.
2) Approve budget amendment to recognize revenue.
3) This item has been deleted.
9
May 9, 2000
4) Approve and execute an agreement to provide the Parks and Recreation
Department $50,000 from the GAC Land Trust to purchase fitness
equipment for the new community center at Max A. Hasse Community
Park.
5) Approve an agreement for sale and purchase to allow for a neighborhood
park within the residential community known as Livingston Woods.
6) Authorize staff to conduct a teen concert not previously budgeted and
approve the necessary budget amendments.
7) Approval of an agreement with performers for the Summer Fest Rock and
Ride Night.
D. SUPPORT SERVICES
1) This item has been deleted.
2) Approve Contract Amendment Number One for RFP 97-2675 "Pre-
Employment Physicals and Drug Testing."
3) Approval of a Budget Amendment for emergency and unanticipated
expenditures for building maintenance.
E. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #00-224;
#00-227.
F. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
G. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1) Award construction contract, Bid #00-3056, to F & D Construction Inc., for
the new EMS-17 Facility located in Golden Gate Estates.
10
May 9, 2000
2) Approve a budget amendment to transfer funds from General Fund
Reserves Helicopter Engine Reserve Fund for an engine overhaul.
3) Agreement approval and adoption of resolution authorizing the
acceptance of said agreement between the State of Florida, Department
of Community Affairs and Collier County, Florida for funds to be used for
the retrofitting of storm shelters.
H. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
I. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Request transfer of $820,300 from reserves for contingencies to the
Sheriffs Office Operating Fund.
J. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Consultant Services Agreement with
George Archibald as technical engineer to assist the County relating to
County's property acquisition interests including eminent domain
proceedings for pending and future road projects.
2) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$50,000 for outside counsel and professional services for pursuit of
County's claims, rights relating to the 1995-96 beach restoration project.
K. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR
APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR
ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD,
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS
ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED
II
May 9, 2000
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.
1 ) To Adopt a Resolution Approving Amendments to the Fiscal Year 1999-00
Adopted Budget.
2) Petition V AC 98-008 to vacate a portion of Highland Drive as shown on
the Plat of Pineland-On-The-Trail as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 60, of
the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to accept a County utility
easement over existing County facilities.
3) Petition V-2000-03, Miles L. Scofield, representing George C. Kellogg,
requesting a 5-foot variance to the required 7.5-foot west side yard
setback to 2.5 feet for property located at 242 Barefoot Beach, further
described as Lot 10, Bayfront Gardens, in Section 6, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
12
May 9, 2000
May 9, 2000
Item #3A, 3B AND 3C
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll call to order the meeting
of the Board of County Commissioners for Tuesday, May 9th. We
have Father Navin from St. Peter the Apostle with us today for
the invocation, and if you'll remain standing, we'll say the pledge
of allegiance to the flag.
REVEREND NAVIN: Let us pray. Our God, the God of
humanity, let your spirit rule this nation and its citizens, that
their deeds may be prompted by love of justice and right, and
bear fruit and goodness and peace. Bless our people with love of
righteousness. Teach us to work for the welfare of all, to
diminish the evils that beset us, and to enlarge our nation's
virtues. Bless our people with civic courage. Bless our striving
to make real the dream of your kingdom, when we shall put an
end to the suffering we now inflict upon each other.
Bless our people with a vision of your kingdom on earth.
You have given us freedom to choose between good and evil, life
and death. May we choose life and good, that our children may
inherit from us the blessings of dignity and freedom, prosperity
and peace. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That moves us on to the
consent agenda, summary agenda and regular agenda.
Mr. Olliff, I understand we have a couple of changes.
MR. OLLIFF: We do, thank you. Good morning.
The first item on your change list is an add-on item. It would
be Item 8(B)(2), and it is a recommendation that we add a
resolution for you regarding some transportation funding issues
Page 2
May 9, 2000
from the state that the board could approve in advance of a
Florida State Transportation Commission Meeting to be held here
on this Thursday.
The next item is 8(G)(2), which is the first and what I'm told
is probably a series of two and possibly three funding transfers
that will provide some funding for the most recent wildfire
operations. That's under emergency services.
There's a request from the clerk's office that Item 6(B) be
moved to 11 (A). And we've also checked with his office and he's
requested that that item be heard at 11 :30, if at all possible.
Next item is a continuance at the petitioner's request.
We're requesting that Item 13(A)(1), which was an appeal of a
Planning Commission determination, that item would be
continued to your next meeting, the meeting of May 23rd.
And the final item would be a continuance as well, Item
8(G)(1), which is a settlement agreement between Naples
Community Hospital and the Board of County Commissioners.
We're requesting that that item as well be continued to your
meeting of May 23rd.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question, if I may.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 13(A)(2), I was advised that there
was an advertising problem. This is a boat dock -- a conditional
use for a boat dock up around Little Hickory Shores. I was
advised that that was not going to be -- has been continued. If I
could read that. Thank you very much. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Happens to all of us.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all the changes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Manalich, anything?
MR. MANALICH: No changes.
Page 3
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, any
changes?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No further changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is Commissioner Carter with
us?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can you hear me, Tim?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, Jim, how are you?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm good.
On your consent agenda, I want to pull Item B, as in boy, (4).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 16(B)(4) will become 8(B)(3).
Anything else, Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, that's all, Tim.
I have a little trouble hearing you guys this morning. Can
you hear me?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We can, although not quite as
well as last week. We'll ask our folks to tinker with that in the
next few minutes as we go through the proclamations, see if we
can't get this squared away.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve consent
agenda, summary agenda --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commission Mac'Kie, do you
have any changes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have none.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 16(C)(7) will become 8(C)(3).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 8(C)(3)?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And with that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
Page 4
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 16(C)(7), Tim?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 16(C)(7).
MR. OLLIFF: That will be 8(C)(2), I believe.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 8(C)(2)?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sorry, I was looking under 5(C).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the consent
agenda, the summary agenda and the regular agenda as
amended.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for that
motion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any discussion?
Any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
MAY 9. 2000
ADD: ITEM 8(G)(2) - FUND TRANSFER FROM RESERVES FOR
CONTINGENCIES FOR INITIAL PAYMENT OF MERRIT BOULEVARD
WILDFIRE OPERATING EXPENSES. (STAFF'S REQUEST).
ADD: ITEM 8 (B) 2 - DISCUSSION REGARDING FLORIDA STATE
TRANSPORTATION MEETING TO BE HELD MAY 11,2000.
MOVE: ITEM 6(B) TO 11(A) - PRESENTATION BY DWIGHT BROCK
REGARDING IMPACT FEES. (MR. BROCK'S REQUEST).
CONTINUE: ITEM 13 (A) 1 FROM MAY 9. 2000 MEETING TO MAY 23. 2000-
PETITION A-99-04, REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE DETERMINATION
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 21,
1999. (PETITIONER'S REQUEST)
CONTINUE: ITEM 8 (G) 1 FROM MAY 9. 2000 MEETING TO MAY 23. 2000-
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND NAPLES COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL. (NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL REQUEST)
May 9, 2000
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 13-20, 2000,
AS ROTARY INTERNATIONAL GROUP STUDY EXCHANGE WEEK -
ADOPTED
Let's go to proclamations. We have George Drobinski here,
and you might have a couple of friends with you, I understand. If
you'd come forward and we'll read a proclamation for Rotary
International Group Study Exchange Week. Hi there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good morning, George.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Please, come right up, turn
around and face the cameras. Don't be shy. Great looking young
people, we need to show you off.
The proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, we welcome the Rotary International Group
Study Exchange Team from Rotary International District 1720,
France to Collier County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International
Group Study Exchange Program has sent us a team of five team
members, including the Rotarian team leader that are visiting us
in Collier County to study our institutions and way of life; and
WHEREAS, the team members will also observe and practice
their own professions and exchange ideas; and
WHEREAS, the team is able to personally experience family
lifestyles as they're hosted by Rotary clubs of Collier County and
given accommodations in local homes; and
WHEREAS, the Rotary Foundation is a non-profit corporation
sponsored by Rotarians and others worldwide. Its objective is
the achievement of world understanding and peace through
international, humanitarian and educational programs.
Page 6
May 9, 2000
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May
13th through 20th, 2000, be designated as Rotary International
Group Study Exchange Week.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 9th day of May, 2000. Board of
County Commissioners, Timothy J. Constantine, Chair.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Will you move acceptance?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll move acceptance.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
Any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: George, every time you have a
team come, no matter what country, I know you always have like
just a hint of the language to give us.
MR. DROBINSKI: Bonjour, you all. For the record, George
Drobinski, district chairman, group study exchange.
And once again this year, I have the pleasure of addressing
the commission and the citizens of Collier County. And I do this
on behalf of our district governor, Dick Dodridge (phonetic) and
the thousands of Rotarians all throughout our District 6960,
which is from Naples all the way past Sarasota. We extend our
heartfelt thanks.
The French team, as we speak, is in Lee County. They
arrived safely over the weekend. We're putting them through
their paces now.
And if I can relay very briefly in words one-tenth of the
enthusiasm and the excitement of this program that is group
study exchange. It opens dialogues, pockets of peace. And
Page 7
May 9, 2000
when they are here next week in Collier County, Tuesday they'll
be traveling through the government complex, seeing how many
of the offices function. And we thank you for this opportunity to
have the proclamations.
And I don't want to come without any types of gifts as well.
So in a moment I'll pass out a rotary pin that is indicative of the
group study exchange this year because our exchange is with
District 1720, the Luar Valley, in France. This is the French flag
and the American flag, which we hope that you will wear.
And we're also equally enthusiastic that Commissioner
Constantine will be at our district conference this Saturday to
formally present these proclamations.
In the past we've had a number of county employees who
participated in this program. Some of the superstars, of course,
were Sam Saadeh. Also Stephanie Salzar and Joe Delate, who
couldn't be with us today. Bob Salvagio, with community
development. We do have two from today, though. One happens
to be Fred Reischl with community development. And the
superstar that has just returned within the last few days, Susan
Murray, who will speak far better and more French than I, has a
few brief comments while I'm passing out the pins.
And once again, thank you for your continued support to this
great program.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much, George.
Bonjour, madam.
MS. MURRAY: Bonjour, merci.
I just returned from a month in the Luar Valley in France,
and it was an incredible experience. To be emersed in a cultural
history and business with French families was one of those life-
changing experiences that rarely comes our way. And for me it
was especially unique, because it was the first time I've ever
traveled outside of this country. And France certainly lived up to
Page 8
May 9, 2000
all of my expectations and then some. It was a beautiful country,
rich in culture and history, and I thoroughly enjoyed my time
there.
An unexpected experience was also the different
perspective I gained on the United States. I have always been,
but I am now even more proud to be an American, and immensely
grateful for all of the opportunities and challenges that this
country provides me and all of our citizens.
Thank you for your support and endorsement of the GSE
program. It is truly an educational and worthwhile program for
young professionals like myself. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
(Applause. )
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 6-12,2000,
AS NURSES WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris has a
proclamation for the week of May 6th through 12th as Nurses
Week.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do indeed, Mr. Chairman. We
have a number of people here to accept this. Let me call their
names and get them up here.
Mr. Jim Cato, vice president, chief nurse executive, Naples
Community. If you would, just come right up in front here. Carol
McConn, chief nurse executive of the Cleveland Clinic. Patti
Butler, school health nurse, NCH School Health. Ms. Terri
Harder, senior community health nurse, Health Department of
Collier County. Dr. Joyce Thornton, president, Florida Nurses
Association, District 29. Not here. Ms. Pam Behrens, director of
Page 9
May 9, 2000
nursing for Manor Care. And our Roger Evans, OMC manager,
Collier County Health Department.
I'll read the proclamation. The proclamation is:
WHEREAS, all registered nurses undergo rigorous education,
clinical experiences and comprehensive examination in
preparation for delivery of professional services; and
WHEREAS, hospital nursing comprises the largest number of
nurses which provides service within an emotionally, mentally
and technologically demanding care environment; and
WHEREAS, community health nurses utilize a holistic multi-
disciplinary team approach in provision of preventive and
curative healthcare services to individuals and families;
therefore, improving the overall health of the community; and
WHEREAS, public health nurses are committed to healthy
prenatal development, excellent outcomes for mothers and
babies and optimum childhood development through the
community Healthy Start Program; and
WHEREAS, community registered nurses with public health
registered nurses provide community emergency and disaster
response services during events which threaten the safety and
welfare of those in Collier County; and
WHEREAS, school health nurses identify probable significant
health conditions and provide interventions which remove or
minimize health-related barriers to education, and facilitate
healthy development of children; and
WHEREAS, home health nurses provide professional skilled
nursing services to those who are chronically ill or convalescent,
making it possible for the person to be in a more comfortable and
less expensive home setting; and
WHEREAS, because of the aging of the American population,
expansion of life-sustaining technology, growth of home health
care services and the need for preventive health services, the
Page 10
May 9, 2000
professional care provided by registered nurses will continue to
increase in demand.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of May
6th to the 12th, 2000 be designated as Nurses Week, and that the
community recognizes the many contributions to the health and
welfare of visitors and residents of Collier County.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 9th day of May, 2000 by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
Timothy J. Constantine, Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I'll move that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause. )
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 14-20, 2000,
AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And now representing the
number one EMS team in the State of Florida, our chief, Diane
Flagg, to accept a proclamation from Commissioner Mac'Kie for
Emergency Medical Services Week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Chief Flagg, come down as I read
this proclamation, because we have a lot of exciting things to
talk about with the best EMS department in the State of Florida.
Page 11
May 9, 2000
The proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Department paramedics provide medical care to victims of
sudden life-threatening injuries and illnesses, often under
stressful conditions and in high-risk situations to save the lives
of others; and
WHEREAS, Emergency Medical Services professionals must
rapidly assess, manage and effectively provide care in
unpredictable situations requiring life and death judgments; and
WHEREAS, Emergency Medical Services professionals are
often the first contact many residents and visitors to Naples,
Collier County have with the health care system. And these
professionals provide education, assessment, prevention and
referral services, in addition to their emergency activities; and
WHEREAS, the residents of and visitors to Collier County
benefit daily from the efforts of skilled paramedics; and
WHEREAS, it is critical the general public be made aware of,
understand and support and effectively use their medical --
Emergency Medical Services system; and
WHEREAS, recognition is due to all Emergency Medical
Services professionals for their unselfish dedication to Collier
County residents and visitors.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of May
14th through 20th, 2000, be designated as Emergency Medical
Services Week.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 9th day of May, 2000, Board of
County Commissioners, Tim Constantine, Chairman.
I'm honored to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Page 12
May 9, 2000
Any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
On behalf of the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Department, I'd like to thank you for your continued support and
commitment to world-class patient care and services for our
community members. Your support makes our organization's
achievements possible. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
In addition to that proclamation, we have several awards for
EMS today. The first one is particularly meaningful, in my
estimation, because each year the Emergency Medical Services -
- the colleagues in the department choose a member whose
attitude, skill and professionalism are outstanding. This
colleague is honored with the title Paramedic of the Year. This
year Lieutenant Paramedic Michael Sullivan has been chosen as
Paramedic of the Year for 2000.
Lieutenant Sullivan, if you'd please come forward to accept
this award.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to read it to you. It
reads as follows: In recognition of your endless dedication to the
care and well-being of the citizens and visitors of Collier County,
and for your devoted service to your profession, organization and
fellow colleagues, presented this 9th day of May, 2000, Diane V.
Flagg, Chief.
Congratulations.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Occasionally a community
member will be honored with a community service award for
Page 13
May 9, 2000
their outstanding contribution. At this time, Collier County
Emergency Medical Services would like to show their
appreciation for the efforts of David Michael Brown. Mr. Brown
designed and constructed the official Collier County EMS
department web page.
Mr. Brown, please come forward to accept your award.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It reads: In recognition of your
dedication and commitment to community service for design and
construction of the official Collier County Emergency Medical
Services Department web page. Presented this 9th day of May,
2000. Diane V. Flagg, Chief.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Today we're pleased to honor a
local couple who provided exceptional assistance to complete
strangers at a rest stop on 1-75. An older couple from out of town
was traveling home when the gentleman became ill. They
stopped to call 9-1-1. The Rowlands allowed this couple to call
their friends in Broward County on their cell phone and then
actually drove the couple's car to Naples Community Hospital so
that the wife could accompany her husband in the EMS unit.
Mr. and Mrs. Rowland, would you please come forward to
accept this certificate of appreciation.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope that you're permanent
residents, if you weren't before.
This reads: Awarded to Mr. and Mrs. Rowland in recognition
of outstanding civic service to the community.
Thank you.
(Applause. )
Page 14
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then in recognition -- would
you guys stay up here? We'd love for you just to stay. Be
honored with this group of outstanding civic servants, because
you're some of them.
In recognition of Emergency Services Week, the Board of
County Commissioners would like to recognize those EMS
department paramedics who have restored a beating heart. The
Phoenix Award is presented to EMS paramedics, who through
their skills and knowledge have successfully brought back to life
an individual who has died.
On February 11 th, 2000, Sidney Capo, an Everglades
National Park ranger, suffered chest pain while on duty. Collier
County EMS paramedics, Bernice Forester and Bruno Lovo, as
well as Firefighter Raymond Schneider responded from our
Everglades City station. They immediately assessed Mr. Capo to
have a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia known as ventricular
tachycardia.
After quickly loading Mr. Capo aboard the ambulance, they
began treatment with cardiac medications and rapid transport.
Within minutes, Mr. Capo's heart stopped pumping. He was
without a pulse. Paramedics Forester and Lovo administered a
shock to reset Mr. Capo's heart rhythm. His heart then returned
to a regular rhythm with a steady, even pulse. He was then
transported to Naples Community Hospital.
Mr. Capo is here today to present their Phoenix Awards.
Lieutenant Bernice Forester, Paramedic Bruno Lovo and Mr.
Capo, would you please come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand you have some
remarks. You can make them here or at the podium, wherever
you'd like.
Page 15
May 9, 2000
MR. CAPO: On behalf of the employees of Everglades
National Park, I present this to Collier County EMS.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are other emergency
medical service colleagues here today that we would like to
recognize. Each of them has used their skills and expertise to
bring a community member back to life. As we call your name,
please come forward to receive your Phoenix Award.
Captain Bill Peplinski.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Captain Peplinski receives two
Phoenix Awards today. That means two restored lives.
Paramedic Tabatha Starling has one, two --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Thomas Ouilette.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Steve Donovan.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paramedic John Yates.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Flight Medic John
Poczynski has two.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Lenny Pohl.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Guy Spieth.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have two this morning for
Lieutenant Kevin Bolinger.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paramedic Pat Saldana.
(Applause. )
Page 16
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paramedic Kathy White.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Bill Chipps.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Eric Watson.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: EMT Nicky Bennett.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paramedic Sandra Watt.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commander Steve Rockey.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Patricia McLaughlin.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She may be saving a life as we
speak.
Paramedic Donald DuBock.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paramedic Jeffrey Coar.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paramedic Louis Llauro.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The next are particularly
meaningful today because they are Emergency Medical Service
colleagues that we'd like to recognize. Each of them have used
their skills and expertise to bring a community member back to
life, and they are firefighters who have served as a part of our
partnering with the firefighters.
The first one is Firefighter Adam Nadelman from the Naples
Fire Department.
(Applause. )
Page 17
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Firefighter Jeff Kutzke, from the
Marco Island Fire Department.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Firefighter Dave Bellamy
from the North Naples Fire Department, who is represented by
the chief.
I omitted an earlier one which is Paramedic Juvert Calero.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the remaining lifesavers who
aren't here today, but we certainly want to honor them, at least
reading into the record their names on the certificates that will
be awarded to them are Lieutenant Patricia Schilling, Paramedic
Eric Havens, Paramedic Dean Oliver, Paramedic Nora Haynes,
Lieutenant Bernice Forester, and Paramedic Bruno Lovo. He's
here. There. Something was wrong there.
We can't begin to express our gratitude for what you do.
And frankly, I can't, and I don't think anybody can begin to
understand the motivation and the dedication you have to the
community. We can only be eternally grateful and at least once a
year tell you how grateful we are and thank you.
(Applause. )
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're proud of our -- I have a
closing here. We're proud of our Collier County Emergency
Medical Services Department. Their dedication to world-class
patient care was honored by the State of Florida, when they were
chosen the EMS provider of the year in 1999.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Mike.
Item #5A4
Page 18
May 9, 2000
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 7-13, 2000,
AS NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK- ADOPTED
Commissioner Berry, I understand you have a proclamation
proclaiming the week of May 7th through 13 as National Tourism
Week.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I certainly do. But I think I'll wait
just a minute until the people clear the room --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and then we'll continue on.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Constantine, would you check
to see if Commissioner Carter is still on? He was cut off once.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, are you
back with us now?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can hear you fine, Tim. Can you
hear me?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We can now. Although there's
ruckus in the back of the room. You know these EMS folks,
they're very excited.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I can -- I watched the whole
thing. You know, my congratulations to them. I think it's just
outstanding.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fantastic. We're just going to
wait about another 30 seconds or so, and we'll be back on.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Mr. DiNunzio, good morning.
Mr. DiNunzio is chairman of the Tourism Alliance of Collier
County, and he is here to accept this next proclamation.
WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry supports the vital
interest of Collier County, contributing to our employment,
economic prosperity, peace, understanding and goodwill; and
WHEREAS, travel and tourism ranks as one of Collier
County's largest industries in terms of revenues generated; and
Page 19
May 9, 2000
WHEREAS, approximately two million travelers visiting
Collier County contributed approximately 27.53 percent of the
annual taxable sales and $721 million in direct and indirect
expenditures to the economy; and
WH EREAS, those travelers provided jobs for approximately
22,000 citizens with a labor impact of $285 million in Collier
County; and
WHEREAS, travel and tourism, the service industry, provides
employment for more people than any other industry; and
WHEREAS, given these laudable contributions to the
economic, social and cultural well-being of the citizens of Collier
County, it is fitting that we recognize the importance of travel
and tourism.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of May
7th through the 13th, 2000, be designated as Collier County
Tourism Week.
DONE AND ORDERED, this 9th day of May, 2000. Board of
County Commissioner, Collier County, Florida. Timothy J.
Constantine, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries, 5-0.
(Applause. )
MR. DiNUNZIO: And thank you, Commissioner Carter.
I'll just keep this brief, since the other ones have been kind
of lengthy. It's once a year we get to thank the County
Commission and the staff present here in the audience of Greg
Page 20
May 9,2000
Mihalic and Jane Eichhorn for their efforts and encouragement
also. With their help, we've become very, very efficient and we
look forward to becoming more so. And your support level has
just been wonderful. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Olliff, can we have somebody on the technical end check
out the Morse code that's coming through on the --
MS. FILSON: They're on their way.
Item #SAS
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF MAY, 2000, AS
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION AWARENESS MONTH- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, you have
another proclamation regarding teen pregnancy.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I do. And I would like to have the
following individuals come forward, please. These are members
of the Life Network of Florida, which includes the Emergency
Pregnancy Service, Gabriel Project, Immokalee Neighborhood
Services, Life Choice Pregnancy Resource Center, Naples Pro-
Life Council, St. Ann Respect Life Committee, Sunlight Homes of
Collier County.
And the individuals that are here are: Renee Beckner, if
she'd come forward, please. Carol Bedinghaus. Is Carol here?
Jeanette Bellman. Gwen Brown. Rosemary Erickson. I know
Rosemary's here. Jan-Marie Etzel. Nancy Farren. Michelle Hains.
Letitia Ann Hale. Diane Hanson. I know Ed and Marilyn Melone, if
you'd come forward, please. I don't see Reverend Jim Nite. Josh
Perez. Allen Rundle. Michael Smith. And the Reverend Grant
Thigpen. Jo An Carter is here. Jo An, would you please come
forward. Lucia Barone. Any of the rest of those individuals out
Page 21
May 9, 2000
there who have come down this morning who wish to stand for
this proclamation, please do so.
The proclamation that I have proposed is:
WHEREAS, over 40 percent of all teens between the ages of
15 and 17, 50 percent of teens over the age of 17, and over 60
percent of the teens over the age 18 participate in sexual
activity; and
WHEREAS, over 10 percent of the teens, as many as one
million pregnancies annually between the ages of 15 and 17,
become pregnant, even though 90 percent of sexually active
teens use some method of contraception; and
WH EREAS, nearly 40 percent of these teen pregnancies end
in abortion; and
WHEREAS, an additional 25 percent of sexually active teens
contract a sexually transmitted disease during their teenage
years; and
WHEREAS, the teaching of birth control apart from
abstinence is appropriate for teenage children, implies tacit
approval of sexual activity during the teenage years; and
WHEREAS, the teaching of abstinence helps teenagers build
an internal resistance to sex outside of marriage throughout their
lives. It is the only effective method of birth control. We believe
that this is consistent with our history and traditional beliefs as a
nation and is the only reasonable response to the ongoing
destruction of young lives by unwanted pregnancies, abortion,
the destruction of the traditional family and the continued moral
lapse of our children caused by teenage sexual activity; and
WHEREAS, sex confined to the marriage relationship helps
to preserve the traditional family, which has been the backbone
of our nation since its inception.
TH EREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the month of May,
Page 22
May 9, 2000
2000, be designated as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Awareness
Month.
DONE AND ORDERED, this 9th day of May, 2000, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J.
Constantine, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move acceptance of this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do have an offer of an
amendment.
Commissioner Berry, I absolutely applaud and support every
word in your proposed proclamation. Abstinence is absolutely
the very first line of defense. It's absolutely the very best thing
to be teaching our teenagers.
My request for an addition to that proclamation is merely to
add the statistical information about the rate of teen pregnancy
in Collier County and to urge -- well, let me just read it. I would
add after the last whereas, in the proclamation, that you
proposed, I would add:
WHEREAS, we the citizens of the State of Florida and the
residents of Collier County believe that the children of this state
should be born healthy, grow up in a safe and nurturing
environment, have the full support of their mother and father,
experience educational success, achieve economic
independence and reach their fullest potential in life; and
WHEREAS, teen pregnancy and parenting increases the
likelihood of low birth weight, developmental delays and
disabilities, child abuse and neglect for the infant, disruption of
education, decreased income potential, economic dependence
Page 23
May 9, 2000
on welfare and subsequent pregnancies in the teenage years for
the mother; and
WHEREAS, the burden associated with teen pregnancy and
parenting is also borne by the taxpayers of Florida to increase
costs in the areas of healthcare, education, welfare and juvenile
crime; and
WHEREAS, Florida's teen birthrate is above the national
average, and Collier County's teen birthrate is higher than the
state average; and
WHEREAS, the prevention of teen pregnancy should be a
priority to Collier County and the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, Collier County should further focus its attention
on the prevention of teen pregnancy by building awareness of the
causes -- sounds like abstinence, the extent --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Abstinence doesn't cause it, Pam.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: See, we need to build
awareness.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we all know what causes
pregnancy, but abstinence isn't one of them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My point being if we build
awareness of the causes of teen pregnancy, we can do that
through the teaching of abstinence as the very first line, the very
best possibility. And as your -- as your -- as your proposal reads,
that the teaching of -- let me find it. The teaching of birth
control, apart from abstinence, is wrong. I agree with that.
So I would add those whereases that I just read. I took out
the reference to the initiative that proposed the initial
proclamation that was objected to, because frankly, that
initiative does not include the people represented here today.
And I think that this problem is so severe and so serious that the
initiative, whatever it is, has to be all-inclusive, has to include
Page 24
May 9, 2000
the people in the room, and not just the people who were on the
earlier proclamation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does the motion maker wish to
amend?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second Mac'Kie's amendment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We haven't heard whether or
not the motion maker wants to amend yet, Jim. Hang on.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not sure that I want to do that
unless I -- I've got to sit down and look at it more carefully.
I mean, Pam, who can say that we don't want children to
grow up in a nurturing family and have all of those kinds of
things? I don't think anybody could deny that. The problem is
that if that doesn't happen, what's the alternative?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there's nothing, not one
word in the proclamation that I'm proposing that says anything
other than we want these good things. It doesn't say what's the
alternative. It instead says exactly what yours says, is that
abstinence is the first line of defense and should not be taught --
birth control should not be taught without teaching abstinence.
And only goes on to cite that there are -- that the issue of teen
pregnancy is serious in Collier County, and we should all work
together.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which ones are you looking at,
this one?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It starts there. And I'm sorry,
because the copies were made of this and supposedly made
available to everybody.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I just didn't know what you
were choosing.
Page 25
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you read it, it's the last six
whereases on the -- or my proposed amendment.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think at this point, Pam, probably
the best thing to do with this proclamation, I would basically like
you to say either vote mine up or down.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, motion on the floor
stands.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I won't be supporting it, but
only for the reason that I think it should be more inclusive. And I
hope that the pro-life abstinence education movement in this
community, that if there is any way that I could help serve as a
bridge to the other portion of the community so that we would
work together on preventing teen pregnancy, I would offer that
service. I would set up meetings, would do whatever I possibly
could. Because I support you in your abstinence education. I've
got two teenagers, guys.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, anything
you want to add?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I've heard both points of
view. I would support Commissioner Berry's proclamation, but I
also heartily support what Commissioner Mac'Kie is saying. And
if I can assist her in that process, I will.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Very good. Motion then. We'll
call the question. All those in favor, please state aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's a 4-1 vote in favor of the
proclamation. Commissioner Mac'Kie in the minority.
Page 26
May 9, 2000
Mr. Olliff, I think we've cleared up the static on the end with
Commissioner Carter, but if we could boost that volume a little
bit, it would help.
Let's present this proclamation.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Renee would like to make a
comment.
MS. BECKNER: I just want to make one comment. Thank
you for --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just for the record, if you'll
identify --
MS. BECKNER: Renee S. Beckner, B-E-C-K-N-E-R.
Thank you, Commissioner Berry, for supporting this
proclamation. The pro-life movement, the Life Network, we are
not about dividing the community. It's not about us versus them.
It's about making available to our teens and singles healthy
choices about their sexual relationships, both emotional and
physically. And those choices should be to remain abstinent
until marriage. And that's the healthiest, both physically and
emotionally. Thanks.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You know, we talk about role
models and athletes and get frustrated sometimes with the -- all
the difficulties that so many of our professionals athletes have.
As you watch the NBA playoffs, on the Los Angeles Lakers,
there's a player by the name of A.C. Green, who is in his thirties,
not married, has publicly declared that he's a virgin and wait
until he -- if he at some point gets married. And I just -- a great
role model for kids.
(Applause. )
Item #5B
Page 27
May 9, 2000
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a number of service
awards today. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We do. Our first one goes to
Pedro Pineiro-Ortiz from parks and rec, five years.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Our next one is for Shelly Goldie,
five years in road and bridge.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Next one is Keith Larson, from the
Golden Gate Community Center, also five years.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Feels like 10 years.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And our big winner today is Peggy
Jarrell, from planning services, for 10 years.
(Applause. )
Item #5C1
SHERRY LONG, PLANNING TECH II, PLANNING SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MAY, 2000-
RECOGNIZED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we could have Sherry Long
come up, planning tech with our planning services department.
We have yet another good award to give away.
Sherry's being recognized as the employee of the month.
And please, turn around and face everybody else.
(Applause. )
Page 28
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sherry Long has been employed
with Collier County--
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. Enthusiastically.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sherry's been with Collier
County since 1985 as a Planning Tech II for the planning services
department. She's always taken the initiative to provide
significant accomplishments beyond her normal work
responsibilities. She makes herself available to staff and the
public at a moment's notice to provide status and approval of
projects. She continues to provide exemplary customer service
to developers, engineers, architects and builders, as evidenced
by the positive feedback received by all of those parties.
Over the past several years her workload has doubled and
yet you've risen to the occasion. Through long hours of work and
dedication to Collier County, through your knowledge, skills and
dependable and consistent performance, you've been chosen as
the employee of the month for May, 2000.
We have for you a plaque that reads: Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida employee of the month,
May, 2000. And then we have a little letter here, and perhaps
most importantly of all, we have a little check for you. So
congratulations and thank you very much.
(Applause. )
Item #5C2
PRESENTATION BY SAM GORGOGLIONE OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY SENIOR MEN'S SOFTBALL LEAGUE TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PARKS AND RECREATION
MAINTENANCE CREWS AT VINEYARDS AND VETERANS
COMMUNITY PARKS- PRESENTED
Page 29
May 9,2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we have a presentation by
Sam Gorgoglione of the Collier County senior men's softball
league -- do I qualify for that yet, by the way? Senior men's
softball league.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Two more years, Tim.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: To the Board of County
Commissioners and the parks and rec maintenance crews.
Hi there. If you'd make that from the podium, we'll record it
forever.
Right here, spin around and see everybody in TV land.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So the camera can --
MR. GINSBERG: Well, first of all, my name is Mike Ginsberg.
I'm the commissioner of the county league. And I'm here as a
pinch hitter for Sam, who had some surgery yesterday. And
we're all very happy to know that he's doing very well but could
not make it this morning.
Our appearance here is very simple and we're here basically
just to say thank you to the members of the -- members and staff
of the parks/rec. county area and in particular to the
maintenance people who do such a great job for us in preparing
the fields.
We have evolved into an organization of now nine teams,
and we know that we've become a more difficult thing to deal
with, because there's more of us. We have about 120 players.
But we're very thankful that the county has taken such good care
of us, allowed our program to grow, and been such a big part of
our success. And we want to present a plaque that says thank
you.
And I'll just very quickly read it. For their participation in
making the Collier Senior Softball Program a Success. Thank you
veteran park staff, Leo Fernandez, crew leader, John Marsh -- I
Page 30
May 9, 2000
can't read this without these -- Darryl Rister and Santiego Ventur.
And for the Vineyards park staff, Irving Biaz, crew leader, Alfredo
Garcia, Carlos Cabrera and Jose Porta.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on down.
MR. GINSBERG: Thanks very much, guys. We appreciate
your great help.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Don't be shy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't be shy. When people want
to thank you, you've got to say yes.
MR. GINSBERG: Don't be shy. I'm more nervous than you
guys.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. You guys do super
work.
MR. GINSBERG: Now if someone will kindly take this for the
group, we'll be through. Thanks very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's nice when people take the
time to say thank you, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it is.
Item #7 A
DOUGLAS SCHROEDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
COCOHATCHEE NATURE CENTER REGARDING REVISIONS TO
THE MANAGEMENT PLAN - TO BE SCHEDULED AS A REGULAR
AGENDA ITEM ON MAY 23. 2000 AGENDA
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to public petitions. We
have one this morning. That is Doug Schroeder, executive
Page 31
May 9,2000
director of the Cocohatchee Nature Center, regarding revisions
to the management plan.
And the way our public petitions work, you have up to 10
minutes to make your comments. The board highly unlikely will
take any action, other than perhaps put something on a future
agenda.
Good morning.
MR. SCHROEDER: Hi. I'm Doug Schroeder of the
Cocohatchee Nature Center. And the reason I'm here this
morning is just to address the issue of a proposed boardwalk up
at Barefoot Beach. And I understand it's on a five-year agenda.
And we wanted to talk about the idea of maybe expediting it for
next year to provide beach parking. And so I don't know if
Marla's got some drawings that can show you where it goes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is the request -- I mean, I want
to make sure we keep this within the confines of what the public
petition is for. Is the request for us to give consideration to
doing that sooner rather than later?
MR. SCHROEDER: Yeah, that's right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Tom, can we have -- can we put
this on a regular agenda for a full presentation and make that
decision, or do we -- is there some reason why we would be
prohibited from doing that?
MR. OLLIFF: None whatsoever. We can schedule this for a
regular agenda item. And in fact, I don't see any reason why we
couldn't have this on the agenda for the 23rd.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Let's have it on the next
meeting and see where we go.
MR. SCHROEDER: Yeah, that would be good.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That wasn't too hard at all.
Thank you very much.
And we'll go to the morning agenda.
Page 32
May 9, 2000
Item #8A1
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL'S ANNUAL REPORT.
ACCEPTED
County manager's report. Presentation of the EAC's annual
report.
Mr. Lorenz?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, natural
resources director.
As you'll recall when we consolidated the functions of
EPT AB and the EAB into the Environmental Advisory Council,
there was a desire to have a little bit more dialogue an
interchange between the County Commission and the
Environmental Advisory Board, now the Environmental Advisory
Council.
And this was an opportunity in the code that we've allowed
for the EAC to present to the board in May of each year an annual
report to highlight its achievements for the prior year, present its
objectives for the coming year, and then to present
environmental issues that need further study.
Mr. Keen Cornell, the chairman of the EAC, is here to
present the report. And I believe Mr. Sansbury, the vice-
chairman, is also here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning. I am Keen Cornell. I'd like to
recognize our new vice chair, Tom Sansbury, who you may know.
Also, I would like to thank Bill Hill, our recently retired chair
who really did an outstanding job of leadership for the council
during the last year.
Page 33
May 9, 2000
You should have our report before you. I know that you
want me to be brief as is humanly possible in my presentation.
And I would really like to invite your attention just to one area.
It's Roman numeral V, early in the report, my Page 2 or 3, I think,
called Future Plans and Missions. We thought this would be the
area that would be of most interest to you at this meeting.
And these are the items that we would like to or are
planning to work on in the coming year. We'd very much
appreciate your guidance, if you have other ideas as to what we
should or should not be doing.
Very briefly, the first three items, A, Band C, are areas that
we regard as action areas. We'd like to work with these with a
definite outcome. One is pursuing a role in the current
assessment process. B, we'd like to look at the whole wetland
picture as to whether additional protections might be necessary.
And C, take a look at habitat and species protections in the same
light. And I think you may know, we've already approved a
gopher tortoise ordinance for the examination of the Planning
Commission and yourselves.
The remaining items, D through K, I would just summarize by
saying that we are looking at them as public participation
opportunities. We have in mind to do maybe monthly public
workshops, focusing on various kind of growth-related Natural
Resource Protection Areas. You can see some of them there,
sewage systems and property rights and potable water supply
and so forth. And we're hoping that this will provide not only us
on the council but the people of Collier County, or those
interested, to learn about some of these very interesting areas.
Anyway, we welcome your input into our work agenda. And
I'll be happy to -- Tom or I would be happy to address any
questions that you might have on the report. We, by the way,
appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you.
Page 34
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Commissioner
Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, Mr. Cornell, thank you for
coming today for this presentation.
You mentioned under Item 4-B, question would be on the
wetland impact and mitigation process. What -- what actually
can we accomplish as a county in light of the ongoing
discussions from the Army Corps, which we don't really know
exactly where that's going to end up? Are we in a state of flux
on this issue --
MR. CORNELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- for the moment?
MR. CORNELL: It's a good question that I'm not able to
stand here and give you a good answer. I think one of the things
we're interested in is just to learn more about it, where we stand,
who are the players, what can be done. I think we're all very
conscious of the final order and trying to --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So your proposal really then
would be to gather the information and start trying to outline a
direction you would like to go --
MR. CORNELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- contingent upon whatever the
Army Corp. dictates --
MR. CORNELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in the future?
MR. CORNELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I see. Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question in regard to
Letter K, which is establishing a closer relationship with the
South Florida Water Management District. Would that be through
Page 35
May 9,2000
-- I'm not sure exactly how that works, because I know we have
the Big Cypress Basin here, which I believe is an arm -- unless I
misunderstood this all this time, but I believe it's an arm of the
South Florida Water Management District.
MR. CORNELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you all currently work with the
Big Cypress Basin? I assume that you do. I've made that
assumption that you've all worked pretty closely.
MR. CORNELL: We do. And I think your point is good. I
think that probably should have enfolded into this K.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I mean, so you're not -- in
other words, what -- I guess what I'm interested in, you're not
going to sidestep the Big Cypress Basin to go directly to the
South Florida Water Management District.
MR. CORNELL: Right. Right, correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If it's Big Cypress Basin and, I'm
fine with that. But I just needed to ask the question.
MR. CORNELL: Sure. Thank you, that's better.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to thank you for the
excellent work you guys have done so far. And it's particularly
challenging, I know, because you're sort of forging the way and
determining a process as you go.
I was happy to see Item F on your list, which is to visit the
review process. And your list is to review your efficiency. I'd
like also to be sure that in addition to having an efficiently run
meeting and an efficient agenda, that we are getting information
from you at every point in the process where you think it's
appropriate.
I'm particularly -- I weigh heavily on your recommendations,
because you are experts and I am not. And I greatly appreciate
Page 36
May 9, 2000
your expertise. I would hope that wherever you see a glitch in
the process where you are not requested, for example, to give us
advice, or where -- for example, in the Army Corps, in our
response to the Army Corps, I would hope that the EAC is
included in the staff review process. As the staff has a
recommendation for how this board should respond to the Army
Corps, I would hope that that's something that's reviewed
through the EAC.
So my view of your charge is to advise the board on issues
of environmental concern. I think your list for future plans is
wonderful. I just hope that Item F includes advising us where
you think we may not be hearing from you when we should.
MR. CORNELL: Okay, we'll work on it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The -- one of the things on Item
A. I think there are a number of good things on here, and I
appreciate the list and the work that you all do. On Item A, I
would want to just caution or be careful, because what I would
hope is once the subcommittee has gone through its process, I
would assume that whatever their rough finished product is
would go to you all, go to the Planning Commission, and go to us.
I'd want to be very careful having you too aggressive of a
participant in that, if you are then going to review it when it's
done.
And I'm hoping you'll participate in that. But I would hope it
would be looking at whatever comes out of that process, and
then making some specific recommendations when that comes
to the board.
I too would circle that. I think we need to do that with a lot
of our groups. So I'm glad you're policing yourself a littler there,
just reviewing for efficiency and trying to hone down, okay, what
is the exact role.
Page 37
May 9, 2000
I think Item G is fantastic, because we get more -- I get more
questions on that than maybe any other issue. Consistently over
long periods of time, people asking what about water, what
about what's going to happen. And so anything we can do there
to be able to educate ourselves better and in turn educate the
public, I think is right on the button for what the public is asking
for.
And on -- I just had written a note by Item E, "investigate
their nature and extent of private property rights." I would
assume the County Attorney's Office would be able to do some
sort of presentation on that without a whole lot of research to
the group. And that might be a great agenda item for you on an
upcoming meeting, just to ask them to do a specific
presentation.
But I think the list overall is great. I'm very, very
encouraged.
MR. CORNELL: Good. Thank you.
Any other questions? Thanks for your time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
Item #8B1
REAPPROPRIATION OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDING
FOR THE CLAM PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PROJECT -
APPROVED
That takes us to Item 8(B)(1), reappropriation of tourist
development tax funding for the Clam Pass inlet management
project.
Mr. Bibby, good morning.
MR. BIBBY: Good morning. Jeff Bibby, public works
engineering director.
Page 38
May 9, 2000
This is our project -- this was our effort for dredging Clam
Pass back last season.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Bibby, could I move approval
of this?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We might have a speaker on
this.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a speaker on this?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have a public speaker on
MR. OLLIFF: You do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I thought so.
Anybody need to hear the rest of Mr. Bibby's presentation, or
shall we go to public speakers?
Mr. Boggess.
MR. BOGGESS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Bill Boggess, residing in the City of Naples, Florida.
Clam Pass apparently does not qualify for tourist tax
funding. Furthermore, the board has allowed abutting Pelican Bay
to develop and to not provide a single public access to our public
beach, virtually creating yet another private beach in
unincorporated Collier County, leaving the bulk of beach access
up to the City of Naples.
Passes and inlets were improperly added to Collier County
ordinances, simply to entice a specified group to vote for the bed
tax. June 20th, 1988, Collier County created that ordinance,
based upon Section 125.0104, et sac, of the Florida Statute.
We voters were aware of the 1988 plan for beaches, which
was to put three and a quarter million cubic yards of fill,
providing us $80 million of storm protection. We got only one and
one-eighth million cubic yards, about one-third of that which we
were told, plus some 40,000 cubic yards of rock, ruining over 30
Page 39
May 9,2000
percent of the reduced beach to never again meet the most
minimum of state or federal standards.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Boggess, the only item
before us --
MR. BOGGESS: So much for the beach --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Boggess? Mr. Boggess, the
only item before us today is dredging of Clam Pass. So I know
your passion on the issue, but I need to --
MR. BOGGESS: My next sentence was, so much for the
beach, on to the Pass.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I need you to stay on the topic.
MR. BOGGESS: I was half a second behind you.
January 4th, 1997 we asked by what legal authority the
county has to use tourist funds for passes, inlets, estuaries, and
suggested obtaining an Attorney General's opinion. Instead,
opinions were sought of Ms. Ashton and Ms. Vasquez. Thusly,
you have spent millions of dollars on passes, inlets and
estuaries. Plus now you're proposing to spends millions more on
virtually private beaches to protect private property, i.e.,
Hideaway, for parking garages, restaurants, boardwalks,
roadways, et cetera, all from beach funds collected from tourists.
In November, 1997, we sought and obtained Attorney
General's opinions from the librarian of the law library in
Tallahassee regarding beaches, and only three were found,
copied and sent to us. All three had similar statements; two of
which are, quote, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding
from its operation all things not expressly mentioned.
Another. Quote, the expenditure of tourist development tax
revenues is limited to those purposes sent forth in the statute.
We have also reviewed Ms. Ashton and Ms. Vasquez's
opinions, and we find absolutely no, quote, nexus, unquote,
whatsoever to what the AGO's state.
Page 40
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bill, respectfully -- it's Pam, up
here. Respectfully, my question is, who is we? Have you
reviewed their legal opinion or have --
MR. BOGGESS: Me and the other people that are concerned
about the misspending of the tourist tax funds in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is, are there lawyers
who have reviewed and disagreed with the legal opinion, is my
question.
MR. BOGGESS: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, I just wanted to know that.
MR. BOGGESS: No.
We find no authority for you to have funded or to fund
projects ever so needed but not eligible for tourist funds, such as
passes, inlets, estuaries, parking garages, restaurants,
boardwalks, roadways, and whatever else your staff might dream
up.
So simply put, by what authority are you claiming for
spending our tourist tax for such projects? It is not that provided
under the enabling Section 125.0104, Paragraph 5, Sub-paragraph
A, Item 4 of the Florida Statute, as was printed in 1988, or for
that matter, as printed today.
We would appreciate your answer as to why you are
authorizing our tourist funds for projects not so mentioned within
the enabling statute.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BOGGESS: Boy, that was timed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, how is our new tourist
tax restaurant coming? Are we building a restaurant?
MR. OLLIFF: Not that I'm aware of, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Page 41
May 9, 2000
Mr. Manalich, do you have some sort of legal opinion for us
here and perhaps can state why we can legally deal with pass
and inlet?
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners.
Mr. Boggess is correct, that we have -- there are two
assistants, Ms. Ashton and Ms. Vasquez, on two prior occasions
given an opinion on this subject. We've reviewed Attorney
General opinions, statutes, as well as Administrative Code. I
have great confidence in their abilities and their opinions, which
indicate that it can be spent for this purpose. However, I do
recognize that --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Define this, because I don't
want anybody to misunderstand. We're not building a restaurant.
Half the things that were on his list are not the case.
MR. MANALICH: This has to do with the pass.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The pass, strictly the item
before us.
MR. MANALICH: Right. Now, I recognize Mr. Boggess. I
have not dealt with him personally before. I understand he's very
informed on this subject and is very thorough, and I commend
him on his efforts. We're always open to continuing to review
this. Although, I do have confidence in the ability of the
assistants that render these opinions.
As a final thought, we could always request an Attorney
General opinion to get a conclusive determination if there's
interest on the part of board.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there even a hint of a doubt in
the mind of our well paid legal staff that we can dredge Clam
Pass? I'm not going to use up taxpayer money on the local level
and on the state level both when not even an attorney has looked
at it.
Page 42
May 9, 2000
I know Bill's intentions here are good, but if every legal
person that has looked at this has said yes, you can dredge, then
if someone doesn't understand that law, perhaps we could spend
a little time explaining that to them, but I'm not going to
encumber the time of the State Attorney General --
MR. MANALICH: We're confident in our position at this point.
I would invite further dialogue of Mr. Boggess and our office, and
we can informally work with them and, you know, review this
further.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Speaking of tourist tax, Mr.
Manalich, doesn't the County Commission have to vote at some
point to formally extend the tourist tax that we had a straw poll
on earlier?
MR. MANALICH: I would have to check that, but I believe
you're correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Has to be sometime before June
30th.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, it has to be. It's getting
close to the time where we'd better do it if we're going to do it.
MR. MANALICH: That's a good observation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: One more clarification. Mr.
Manalich, as far as you're concerned, we are legal -- legally
entitled to do what we're doing?
MR. MANALICH: Yes, that is our position.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I already have one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
Page 43
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There you go.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Carter, anything you want to add?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, first of all, to my knowledge,
there are no private beaches in Collier County. And I disagree
with Mr. Boggess on that issue.
There are also two accesses, one at the north and south end
of Pelican Bay that are heavily utilized and all kinds of people are
-- anybody can walk down that beach. Also, if you want to
access through Clam Bay Pass in there by canoes, and people do
that, they have access to it.
So I respectfully disagree with his opinions, and I move --
well, it's already been moved. But I certainly approve the
expenditure of those funds in that effort.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just for what it's worth, I live in
the City of Naples and my beach is the beach at Clam Pass, and
that's the closest access for me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I live in Golden Gate and my
beach is the beach at Clam Pass.
All those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8B2
RESOLUTION 2000-137, REQUESTING FLORIDA STATE
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SUPPORT SW FLORIDA
PROJECT INITIATIVES- ADOPTED
Page 44
May 9, 2000
Next item is 8(B)(2), transportation funding.
Mr. Kant?
MR. KANT: Good morning, Commissioners. Edward Kant,
transportation services director.
As you're aware, next week the Florida Transportation
Commission, which is an advisory board to the Governor and
Cabinet, will be meeting here in Collier County. At Mr. Olliff's
request, we put together a brief resolution requesting that the
Florida Transportation Commission support local project
initiatives, including funding for 1-75 in Southwest Florida,
funding and programming for Golden Gate Parkway/I-75
interchange, adequate funding for the Collier County
computerized signal system through Phase II, funding incentives
for local governments that help themselves through
maximization of local option gas and sales taxes, and funding
incentives for governments with added trickle down of federal
and state funds for congestion relief initiatives.
This is not a particularly controversial item, and we would
ask only that you support it and take it forward to the Florida
Transportation Commission for approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the resolution.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any discussion?
Seeing none, any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you.
MR. KANT: Thank you.
Item #8B3
Page 45
May 9, 2000
NOTICE OF RECORDATION REGARDING STIPULATIONS
RELATING TO SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATED AT VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AT THE MARKET PLACE
AT PELICAN BAY PLAZA- TABLED UNTIL LATER IN MEETING
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 8(B)(3) was 16(B)(4).
MR. KANT: Again, Edward Kant, transportation services
director.
I believe that Commissioner Carter brought this forward. Is
there a question that I can answer, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. My concern is with this
issue -- and it's in regards to the maintenance of the sidewalks
and landscape improvements located on the property south of
Vanderbilt Beach Road. I don't like where we're letting a trust -- I
think they're pulling our strings here in advocating the
responsibility.
First of all, we said we had a verbal agreement with the prior
owners of this property. This may be a mistake on our part. It
seems to me we better get verbal agreements in writing,
because it seems the whole basis of their objection is it wasn't in
writing, therefore, they don't have to maintain these sidewalks
and landscaping. Now, if we vacate this, who will maintain it?
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners. If I understood it --
there was a little scratchiness there -- that your concern had to
do with the administration of this particular easement by a trust.
I am told that we have all of the other easements and that
this is the only one that was not obtained. As far as our not
obtaining them earlier in the process, I believe the technical
answer to that is we goofed. We messed up. We did something
we shouldn't have done. It won't happen again.
I believe also that we have been maintaining that area. I
would defer to the county attorney with respect to whether or
Page 46
May 9, 2000
not since we've been maintaining it for two years, if we maintain
it for another two years we can request that it become part of
our right-of-way or that we can get that easement through the
maintained right-of-way statute. I'm not that familiar with it.
This is only one property that has -- again, I can't tell you the
footage, but it's a relatively small frontage. It's that area
immediately in front of the driveway and adjacent to the
driveway that goes in at the north end of the Marketplace. If you
go right, you go into Pelican Bay. If you go straight, you go
toward the Albertson's.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just follow up. What I'm
confused about here, too -- thank you for pointing it out,
Commissioner Carter -- is the county attorney proposed three
alternatives; one of which is to record this notice that we have
no maintenance responsibility. Another of which is that we
acquire the easement through condemnation.
Why would we -- why is the recommendation from staff that
we not -- that we acquire the easement through condemnation?
That would seem to me to be the most appropriate, because then
long term we have the maintenance taken care of.
MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county
attorney.
I don't see the specialist here from the real property
department that did work on this, so I really can't give you the
details. But--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe we ought to continue this.
MS. ASHTON: -- I believe that there might have been a
budgeting issue concerning going forward with the
condemnation. You know, we'd be happy to pursue any
alternative that you'd like.
Page 47
May 9, 2000
We thought perhaps if we recorded the notice of no
responsibility, that the property owner at that point might be
willing to convey the easement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's not necessarily a final
MS. ASHTON: But at this point we don't have a right to go
on his property, you know, other than some sort of oral
permission.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this might not necessarily be
the final action the board would take, it would be -- we would be
telling this property owner we're not going to do it in hope that
he then decides it's his obligation to convey the easement to us
without condemnation?
MS. ASHTON: Right. During the discussions, as I
understand it, with the property owner, he was willing to give us
a 10-year easement. But I was concerned that there might be an
administrative problem with that 10 years. We don't have an
easement. You know, we're maintaining it.
Mr. Kant has alluded to a statute that identifies a
presumption of a prescriptive easement when the county's
constructed something and maintained it for four years. That's
something that we can pursue. I don't know that we've met the
four-year maintenance, so --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that we ought to table this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can we have a real property
person here later this morning?
MR. OLLIFF: We can. Why don't we just table this item and
that would be my recommendation. We'll get somebody from real
property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to table.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody opposed to that?
Page 48
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Table it. We'll bring it back
later in the day, maybe.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #8C1
REPORT REGARDING THE RECREATION/OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN-
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That takes us to 16 -- no, I'm
sorry, to 8(C)(1). 8(C), as in Constantine, (1).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is a very informative report.
I move that we accept it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Any public speakers?
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8C2
AGREEMENT WITH PERFORMERS FOR THE SUMMER FEST ROCK
AND RIDE NIGHT. APPROVED
16(C)(7). This is the second of two items on the consent
agenda having to do with the Summerfest teen event. I have no
Page 49
May 9, 2000
problem with the event. The only thing I had a question on here
was it's requesting the board preapprove the selection of
entertainers. I don't mind preapproving the money, I don't mind
preapproving any of that. I'm just a little worried. I want Mr.
Olliff's assurance that we won't end up with someone wildly
controversial as an entertainer out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No Marilyn Manson?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think that's --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No Leon Redbone?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And assuming you can give us
that assurance, then I'll move the item.
MR. OLLIFF: I will give that assurance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll move the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Item #8E
APPOINTMENT OF JO-ANNE VARCOE-LEAMER AS SUPPORT
SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next item is 8(E), as in Earl.
Recommendation to approve Joann Varcoe-Leamer to the
position of support services administrator.
Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. For the record, Tom Olliff, county
manager.
The item in front of you is as per the county manager's
ordinance where I am required to bring to you for confirmation
the appointment for division administrators positions. I've had
Page 50
May 9, 2000
the opportunity to at least introduce Ms. Leamer to two of you
personally, and not had the opportunity to have her meet the
balance of the board, but I will do that.
Ms. Leamer is here in the audience. She has been with the
Clerk of Court's office for a number of years and most recently
with the Airport Authority. We've included in your backup
package some of the resume information from her professional
career.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Very quickly so everybody
knows. CPA, what was her capacity with the finance department
with the clerk, controller?
MR. OLLIFF: She was a controller there. She's got a CPA.
She's also got a master's in public accounting. And she's
currently pursuing a master's in public administration as well. I
think she's going to be a great addition to the staff and someone
who I think is going to raise the bar, frankly, on some of our other
staff.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Enthusiastic motion to endorse.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion from
Commissioner Berry and a second from --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Enthusiastic second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- Commissioner Mac'Kie -- an
enthusiastic second from Commissioner Mac'Kie. Any
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Congratulations. 5-0.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we should take a break.
Page 51
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's do the fund transport from
reserves and then we'll take a break and let the Airport Authority
set up their little presentation.
Item #8G2
FUND TRANSFER FROM RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES FOR
INITIAL PAYMENT OF MERRIT BOULEVARD WILDFIRE
OPERATING EXPENSES- APPROVED
Item 8(G), as in golly gee, (2). Fund transfer for reserves for
contingencies for the initial payment --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- blah, blah, blah, blah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Let's take a seven-minute break, and we'll come back with
Item 10(A), a brief overview of the City of Naples Airport
Authority regarding some great work they're doing on Airport
Road.
(Recess.)
Item #8B3
NOTICE OF RECORDATION REGARDING STIPULATIONS
RELATING TO SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
Page 52
May 9, 2000
LOCATED AT VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AT THE MARKET PLACE
AT PELICAN BAY PLAZA- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there, we're back. We'll go
back to the one item we had passed on before, which was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to remove from the table.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Motion and a
second to remove from the table. Any discussion?
All those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Is there a direction on the item?
MR. KANT: Yes, Commissioner. Edward Kant,
transportation services director.
We would like to change our recommendation and request
that we be given direction to acquire the easement by gift,
purchase or condemnation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Commissioner Carter, did you hear the motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I didn't, Tim. But I think
we've cleared up the static. And I certainly appreciate your
indulgence in that, but I think we've figured it out.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough. It's the item that
we had tabled previously with declaring we no longer had any
responsibility for. We've shifted gears, and our staff has
recommended and we have a motion and a second to pursue via
gift, purchase or other legal means.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
Page 53
May 9, 2000
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #10A
REPORT FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY
REGARDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ALONG AIRPORT ROAD -
PRESENTED; STAFF DIRECTED TO INCLUDE THE COUNTY'S 1/3
PARTICIPATION IN THE TREE PLANTING PROJECT IN THE
UPCOMING BUDGET CYCLE
Let's go to 10(A), which is a brief overview of the City of
Naples Airport Authority. Ron Pennington is with us, and actually
has some pretty good news. Some good stuff happening up
there.
Hey, Ron.
MR. PENNINGTON: That's right. Thank you.
We're set up and we're ready to proceed. So good morning,
Commissioners. I'm Ron Pennington, current chairman of the
City of Naples Airport Authority, with our executive director, Ted
Soliday, who will be highlighting areas on our visuals and
responding to any technical concerns. And our assistant director
for communications, Gail Cureton, who will be directing the
projection.
Thank you for this opportunity to meet with you and to
provide an overview of two of our major projects, North Road and
Airport Road. The North Road project is a long required
relocation to separate North Road from the runway safety area at
the southwest corner of the airport. The requirement was to
Page 54
May 9, 2000
move the road so that it would go around the 1,000-foot safety
area, extending from the end of the runway.
To minimize impact into the wetlands, the runway was
shifted 290 feet to the northeast. And along the new section of
the road, we are adding a pedestrian and bike way, and it will
join the Gordon River Greenway as it proceeds to the north and
to the east where the greenway joins the airport's commercial
terminal entrance.
You will note the city/county line effectively bisects the
relocated roadway. Upon completion, we will formally turn over
the new roadway and related right-of-way to the appropriate
entity, county and/or city.
Now, North Road that lies to the south of the airport is in the
county. To the west of the airport, it is in the city. However, we
understand that in the mid-1950's, there was an agreement
between the two parties that established the entire North Road
as a county road and provided the right-of-way easement to the
county.
Now, that was something that George Archibald had advised
us of. And I guess if anybody knows going back that far, it's
probably George.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's going to be George.
MR. PENNINGTON: There's been little if any maintenance
done on that portion of the road that lies within the city. We
have periodically trimmed the right-of-way and removed trees
that had literally grown through the pavement. We recently
asked the city's determination in this matter, and also ask you,
whose road is it?
Approximately two years ago, we advised you we were
embarking on a program along Airport Road, which would include
capacity enhancements, and stated we would be working with
your staff in those areas of mutual concern. At that time, it was
Page 55
May 9, 2000
estimated to be a $4 million plus program. Subsequently, we
have been more visionary. Our sites have been raised. And, as
you will see, the cost has increased proportionately. Typical
program.
We have received both federal and state approvals of our
environmental resources permit. Although we could have been
grandfathered under 1984 requirements, we chose to meet
current standards for our stormwater management, which will
meet the needs for the ultimate airport build-out plan. Now, this
includes significant expansion or relocation of existing storage
and settling ponds, and establishment of one new pond.
A continuing challenge to our stormwater management is
that in the east quadrant, where we have significant impervious
surface, 80 percent of the stormwater comes from the county's
side of Airport Road. We're providing the drainage side for over
600 acres on that side. To ease the situation, we're moving a
large portion of our east quad generated stormwater across the
airfield to an expanded pond at the north end of the west
quadrant.
For many years there have been community complaints
about the appearance of the east side of the airport along Airport
Road. The ditch along the road is an aesthetic disaster, and we
have termed this photo up there as the ugly ditch.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: As the what ditch?
MR. PENNINGTON: The ugly ditch.
For many years, the Airport Authority has sought ways to
effect improvement. The continuing problem has been the lack
of funds. Through the efforts and ingenuity of our executive
director, Mr. Soliday, many programs involving safety,
stormwater management, roadway improvements, landscaping
and signage have been brought together, which will enable us to
Page 56
May 9, 2000
make the area a mile of beauty which we -- which will meet the
standards we expect for our Naples area.
As we look from south to north, the North Road entrance will
become a boulevard for the first 600 feet, with multiple turn
lanes for ingress and egress, separated by a median. We are also
adding a southbound turn lane from Airport Road, which has been
a long-term desire of Avon Park residents, and at least one of
those has spoken to you on various occasions about that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Various.
MR. PENNINGTON: There will be a pedestrian and bike way,
which will ultimately be extended to our commercial entrance
and join the Gordon River Greenway. The corner will be
landscaped to provide screening for the Rock Creek Trailer Park
and for traffic along the intersection with Airport Road.
Going north, the existing storage pond will be moved outside
the runway object free area. And the input/output will be via
pipes. And there will be four, 4-foot by 16-foot cross-sectional
area pipes, which provide additional filtration, and the existing
ditch will be enclosed.
At the Aviation Drive entrance, a turn lane will be added
from Airport Road and the entrance landscaped.
Between Aviation Drive and Radio Road, the most
conspicuous ditch area, again the ugly ditch, a new pond will be
constructed which will have the features of the canal area along
the Grey Oaks development. And in back of this pond is our entry
park, which will continue as a space for auto shows, boat shows,
with possibly some boats floating on the pond, seafood festivals
and other community events.
At Radio Road, the entrance to the park and our general
aviation terminal will be attractively landscaped and the turn
lane from Airport Road extended.
Page 57
May 9, 2000
At the north end of the airport, the Enterprise Road
entrance, attractive landscaping will be provided.
Along all of Airport Road will be pedestrian and bike ways,
which ultimately will extend around the airport. There will also
be landscaping consisting of palms, canopy and flowering trees.
For this part of the project, we are asking for the county's
assistance and participation. With your concurrence, we will
have our staff work with your staff to establish a budget for a
joint program. We have asked the City of Naples to also
participate in this cooperative venture, a total community
project.
Our budget projection for tree planting along this mile of
Airport Road is $150,000. We propose 50,000 each for the
county, city and the Airport Authority.
We are rapidly moving forward with this program. We are
now in final design and permitting for this very complex project,
and plan to be under construction contract by the end of
September.
I have stated that Mr. Soliday had put this together from
several programs. As we look at our funding sources, we see
that there is two and a half million dollars of federal, that is FAA
funds, 2.3 million of state from Florida Department of
Transportation funds, and 2.3 million from us, from the Authority,
for a total of just over $7 million. Federal and state funding is
assured. We are budgeting multi-year to accomplishing -- to
accomplish the landscaping. And with your and the city's
participation, we can install more mature trees which will help
significantly in effecting beautification of this part of Airport
Road.
I'd be pleased to respond to any of your questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Pennington?
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
Page 58
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not a question, but a great thank
you for bringing forth such a great idea and the community
initiative that -- the opportunity that it provides the county to
participate in the improvement of the Airport Authority, the City
of Naples Airport. Because as we often talked about, it is the City
of Naples' Airport, but it is certainly an amenity for all of the
county.
I wonder if somebody has done the math to see just how
much off of the county budget your -- how much money you're
taking off of our necessity to spend money with the
improvements that you're making.
MR. PENNINGTON: Well, just a small part, I know, and we'd
looked previously at just the turn lane onto North Road, providing
that turn lane. And I think then for the bicycle path and the
pedestrian walkway along Airport Road, and that was -- we
discussed that even back -- way back when I was on the MPO at
that time, and I think it was 400,000 was the budget figure the
county had for that, I believe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:. And those are items, $400,000,
from years ago, and probably those numbers are higher now. But
those are items that the board has prioritized and has requested
and has indicated over and over we want to see constructed
along there.
It looks to me like, and maybe -- you know, correct me if I'm
wrong, but what I think you're asking us is that if we will spend
up to $50,000; we will get to participate in this community
initiative, we will get $400,000 worth of work that was previously
planned to be done by the county is now going to be done by the
Airport Authority using federal and state and Airport Authority
money; and we will get an Airport Road beautification project.
Page 59
May 9, 2000
Typically we ask for a 50 percent match. This is a two-
thirds match in the capital for the installation. Am I getting that
math right, Mr. Pennington?
MR. PENNINGTON: Well, that would be right, just for the
tree program in itself. So that's -- that 150,000 is our budget
projection just for the tree planting, but that's a whole mile along
there. And so we think this is a great boon for the community.
We think it's a great opportunity for our different government
entities to work together. That doesn't happen every day,
unfortunately. And so we think the public can greatly benefit
from this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion that we
instruct staff to include that one-third participation in the tree
planting program in this budget cycle that we're about to begin.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The three entities again, Ron, are --
would be Collier County, the Naples Airport --
MR. PENNINGTON: And the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and the City of Naples? And
after that's all done, the responsibility of maintenance falls to
Airport Authority?
MR. PENNINGTON: The airport's been doing most of that
kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I was just making --
MR. PENNINGTON: So yeah, we've been doing it. It's in
county right-of-way along Airport Road.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand.
MR. PENNINGTON: And I think county right now has been
cleaning the swales. They're working along that one swale along
there now. So the county has been diligent about maintaining the
flow for stormwater through there. And so generally they are --
Page 60
May 9, 2000
like now, prior the summer rain starting, why, they're in there
making sure we can get that flow through.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I agree that it will be a real
plus. There's no question about that. So I applaud your efforts in
moving forward on this and look forward to seeing it happen.
And I think we have a motion and a second, right?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We do indeed. Any further
discussion?
Mr. Olliff, anything you want to add on this?
MR. OLLIFF: No. My only recommendation was going to be
that you do review this as part of your budget cycle in light of all
the rest of your other capital requests. And I think you need to
keep in mind, this is probably going to require an interlocal
agreement too, which we will probably at least be in, putting the
framework together for you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that's the motion, is to
bring it back as part of the budget.
MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you all very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All in those in favor, please
state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thanks,
Ron.
MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2000-135, APPOINTMENT TO THE NAPLES
AIRPORT AUTHORITY NOISE COMPATIBILITY COMMITTEE-
APPROVED
Page 61
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next item I think that we can
dispose of fairly quickly, appointment of a county commissioner
or delegate to the Naples Airport Authority Noise Compatibility
Committee. My suggestion -- and I don't know that this even
requires a motion, if the board agrees, is to give Mr. Olliff the
authority to appoint a delegate to fill that role. Commissioner
Berry has in the past. I have in the past. And I think it's probably
best to have someone else fill that role.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to Mr. Olliff doing
"t?
I .
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great.
Item #11A1
AUDIT REPORT BY DWIGHT BROCK REGARDING IMPACT FEES -
PRESENTED
We'll do Dwight's item at 11 :30, unless they're already here.
Are you here? You want to do it now?
MR. BROCK: Right now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Ladies and gentlemen,
our Clerk of Courts, Dwight Brock. Dwight came, and you
remember, I asked last week, there's been a great deal of news
on the impact fees and the audit, very thorough audit, to point
out a number of weaknesses and deficiencies and so on. I know
Tom's worked very close with our clerk on this. And so I just
thought it would be worthwhile to have not only for our benefit
but for the public's benefit a brief presentation on the audit, what
it did and what you found and where we head from here.
Page 62
May 9, 2000
MR. BROCK: While my staff is setting up the presentation of
the audit funding, you know, there's been a lot of --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the record, who are you?
MR. BROCK: I'm the Clerk of Courts, Dwight Brock.
There's been a lot of information that has been out on the
street. And there are a couple of things, or a couple of points
that I want to make. As you all know, you're all aware, you voted
to hire a new county manager. That county manager has not
been in the job very long. In the dealings with the impact fees
that we've had in this particular audit, we have worked very
closely with your county manager and your county manager's
staff. And they have been very cooperative.
And I think you're going to find in conjunction with our
presentation here today, some of the county manager's staff
have already begun the development of a corrective process to
deal with the issues that we identified.
One of the things that I would like to suggest to everyone is
to give Mr. Olliff, your county manager, the opportunity to deal
with some of the issues that are out there, and let him work
through the process and deal with his staff people in the manner
that is most advantageous for him to get the job done. I think
what you will find when Mr. Olliff gets through with this, is not
only you will be very pleased with it, but the citizens of this
community will be pleased with it as well.
Having said that, I'm going to turn the floor over to Bob
Byrne and his staff from the internal audit department to present
the work that they did in their findings. And immediately upon
conclusion of that, I think Mr. Olliff's staff is going to make a
presentation of the beginning stages of the development of a
solution.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, just for a minute.
Page 63
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Brock, I couldn't agree with
you more. But as you know, this is the first time that this board
has sat at this table and discussed this item, and to be able to
give direction to Mr. Olliff to do that. This has been our
opportunity -- today is our opportunity to do that. And up until
this time, it hasn't been on an agenda.
MR. BROCK: I mean, is there a hidden suggestion there,
Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, but I was wondering if there
was a hidden agenda from what you said.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, I think the whole purpose is
-- and that's why I asked Dwight if he'd do this today -- is what he
does is not always in a public meeting like we have on Tuesdays.
This is just a great opportunity for us to do that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand that. I'm very
pleased. I was very pleased that we were going to do this today
and I still am, because I think it's a great opportunity. But as you
said, there's been a lot said.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there.
MR. BYRNE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Bob Byrne, director of internal audit for the clerk of the circuit
court.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss our findings here on
road impact fees. And without further adieu, we'll just move on.
We have a Power Point presentation. I don't know if you have it
up there yet.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A very blue forecast.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, Kady, can you turn on the
Power Point presentation technology?
MR. BYRNE: Worked great in practice.
Page 64
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here she comes. Oh, it's on.
Kady to the rescue.
MS. ARNOLD: We'll see.
MR. BYRNE: Okay. First thing I'd like to talk to you about is
exactly what we -- what we looked at and how we looked at it.
First of all, we were looking at alternative road impact fees
for golf courses, okay. And we looked at them from October of
1997 through November of 1999. What we did was, we reviewed
the procedures used for these alternative road impact fee
calculations, and we looked at all the files and docu -- supporting
documentation for them.
And based on that, okay, we had the following findings:
Based on our analysis, we found that alternative road impact fee
calculations were approved by the BCC but do not comply with
some provisions of Ordinance 92-22. And that's the Road Impact
Fee Ordinance.
Just as a note, I want to make sure we're clear, is that
alternative road impact fee calculations are provided for within
the ordinance. Those are the ability for a developer to come in
and present a study that says my actual impact is less than what
is provided for in the regular schedule of the ordinance, regular
rate schedule.
Now, as far as those--
MR. BROCK: Let me interrupt for a moment. Those that
were approved by the Board of County Commissioners, okay, I
don't know -- I haven't looked at all of them, but I have looked at
some of them. And if you look at what we set by the ordinance,
without going through the alternative process, and what was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners, there is a huge
differential in some of those. And on some of the ones that I
looked at that were presented to the Board of County
Commissioners, that differential was not placed before the
Page 65
May 9, 2000
board. So there was not a process by which the Board of County
Commissioners could actually see the suggested rate versus that
rate that was set out by the board.
Now, am I saying that that was universally true? No, I do
not know the answer to that. But I know that there were -- out of
the ones that I looked at, I saw none in which that differential
was clearly identified for the Board of County Commissioners in
the executive summary. And they were placed on the consent
agenda where there was no discussion or opportunity for inquiry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BYRNE: Okay, sort of expounding upon what Dwight
was mentioning here is that there are documentation
requirements within Ordinance 92-22, and that we sort of broke
those requirements into major and minor. And what I'm going to
discuss now are the major points.
In order to have an alternative impact fee study accepted,
there is -- one of three things should happen for support. Either a
generally accepted standard source of data. That's a fancy term
for some reference book that's used by the industry. Second
item is a local study performed by a professional engineer. That
would be your traffic counts, you know, origin studies and so
forth, so on. Or you can -- you have the opportunity to come in
and use somebody else's study, okay? And here are some
examples of what we actually found, comparing what was in --
you know, what we found as far as in the files versus what is
required in the ordinance.
For one particular impact fee calculation there were
unsupported trip generation rate estimates. In other words,
there was no engineering study. There was certain assumptions
made -- and we're not making any statement on those
assumptions, right or wrong. What we're saying is that there was
no engineering study, as required by the ordinance.
Page 66
May 9, 2000
Another example, a study was used from Largo, as opposed
to a local engineering study. And then also we've had some
instances where alternative impact fee calculations didn't come
to the board. They were actually assessed by staff. Okay?
As far as compliance issues, we also -- as I said, we had a
major and minor. We had a few minor areas. For example, the
applicant is supposed to submit a calculation rather than staff
preparing it. And we found in cases that they gave staff the raw
data and they did it. These are more procedural areas, by the
way.
We also have applicants that are supposed to be notified in
writing of a hearing before the board. We didn't find evidence of
that. And we also found that a scheduled hearing date is
supposed to be within 30 days of submission, and that didn't
occur.
Our second major finding has to do with golf course impact --
or golf course impact fees were not consistently collected. And I
know this is hard to read, but basically what we have on this is
the golf course that we looked at, the acreage in the second
column. In the third column is the ordinance rate of $1,066 per
acre multiplied by that acreage. And that would be quote,
unquote, the ordinance rate.
Okay, the second -- where are we? We're now in the fourth
column. The fourth column shows where there are BCC approved
road impact fees alternative studies.
And then the next column over is the road impact fee due.
Either the alternative that was approved by the BCC, or the
ordinance rate.
And then the final column is actually what was paid. And
this is all as of January 1 st, 2000.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Have some of those been paid
since that time?
Page 67
May 9, 2000
MR. BYRNE: Yes, staff has provided us copies of receipts,
and they are -- they have shown that some have been paid.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can you tell us later what that is?
MR. BROCK: Staff, I think right after us will make
presentation with regard to that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
MR. BYRNE: Why did this happen? I think the simple
answer is the golf courses are different. No building permit is
required for a golf course. They are approved rather as part of
the approval of a site development plan. And no fees are due at
that time. So in other words, there's no mechanism in place to
ensure that payment will occur prior to construction.
MR. BROCK: Back up one. Let's talk about those for just a
moment.
Okay, as it relates to almost all other aspects of the impact
fee process, the mechanism that triggers the collection point is
the issuance of a building permit. Okay, prior to the issuance of
a building permit, impact fees must be paid, okay? As you are
probably aware, when you're dealing with golf courses, that's
approved as part of the process of the site development plan, in
which there is no building permit issued, okay?
But obviously, when you go through the process of
submitting your plan and getting a building permit for the
clubhouse, staff had designed a process to recognize that impact
fees should have been paid for that in the site development plan
process, but they had not established a procedure sufficient to
catch the imposition at the site development plan process.
Now, your staff members, some of the supervising
managerial staff had submitted letters as late as 1998, pointing
out to the employees the necessity of imposition of that impact
fee at that point in time. And it was not consistently applied.
One of the problems that we identified was coordinating all of
Page 68
May 9, 2000
the activities of the impact fee collection process through one
department.
In our discussions with the county manager and the people
over at community development, Mr. Tinsdale, and the director, it
appears that that process is well underway and they will identify
that for you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So they'll be collected then,
Dwight, when they pull a site development plan?
MR. BROCK: Correct. That's the process as it exists today.
You know, if you look at the -- one of the problems that I think
community development and everybody else had with this whole
process was if you look at the ordinance, the date of the
ordinance says 1992. The Tindale-Oliver study, when it was
originally the basis or underpinnings of the approval of that
ordinance, had a recommendation in it that this be reviewed on a
three-year cycle. It's now 2000, and you just reviewed it.
A lot of what cropped up in this process over the last couple
of years are consequences of the tremendous amount of growth
that we have had, and not having been anticipated in
establishing the ordinances associated therewith.
We went back and looked at some of the information that we
had, and we had information back as far as I think a couple of
years ago where there was some discussion that there was
preparatory work being done for submission of a revised
ordinance to the county. But it never got here. It's here now.
But that's something that I think staff, Mr. Olliff, and you all
need to keep in the back of your mind is that, you know, all of the
things that you do in this process are subject to change and are
probably changing faster than an eight or nine-year period, and
you need to identify those and stay on top of them through your
staff.
Page 69
May 9, 2000
MR. BYRNE: Okay, our third finding, I sort of define as a
typical auditor finding. This has to do with a procedures manual
not being distributed to all parties. And also, they're not -- it's
not updated and incomplete.
Fourth finding was lack of coordination between the
departments. Since Mr. Tindale's position has been established --
or prior to Mr. Tindale's position being established, there was
really no central focus to the impact fee imposition and
coordinating the studies between the departments and that.
And finally, our fifth finding has to do with the fact that
alternative impact fees presented to the BCC as consent agenda
items. I point this out -- felt this was important to point out is
because the alternative impact fees are precedent setting. The
BCC must decide if the requirements are met. That's what's
stated in the ordinance, as far as the documentation is required.
If they are met, the language of the ordinance says that the
alternative impact fee shall be approved. And, therefore, as I
mentioned before, it was -- it's precedent setting. It can be used
for a future applicant to apply if their circumstances are similar.
MR. BROCK: You remember, if you go back to the three
things that has to be presented, you know, basically some
textbook or commonly accepted statistics. Actually, a certified
engineering study, or a previously approved study by the Board of
County Commissioners.
So as a consequence, what we are saying in terms of this
being precedent setting is if you establish that, if you approve
that philosophy that was used in that particular study, it can be
precedent setting for future impact fees that are brought before
you. Obviously the decision to accept or reject the alternative
fee is a discretionary decision that is vested with the Board of
County Commissioners.
MR. BYRNE: As far as our recommendation --
Page 70
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, I thought one of the
previous windows here showed that the ordinance says that if
the -- that the alternative impact fee shall be accepted.
MR. BYRNE: If the BCC determines that the study was done
in compliance with the ordinance, and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right.
MR. BYRNE: -- was sufficient to support whatever
conclusions were made.
Okay, our recommendations are, one, for the compliance
issue, obviously is to ensure that all provisions of the ordinance
are adhered to.
As far as payments, we recommend that staff make sure
that payments are received prior to construction. We had
suggested that perhaps establish a quasi-building permit for golf
courses and whatever. Some mechanism is necessary to ensure
that.
Update all procedures manuals and distribute accordingly.
Also have coordination between all the departments. And like I
said before, that impact fee coordinator position I think will go a
long way toward that.
And also, present the alternative road impact fees to the
BCC on the regular agenda.
We're ready to field any questions you may have. But I do
know that staff has a presentation, and perhaps that you might
want to take their presentation next and they might answer
some of your questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just a quick comment for the
Clerk.
And Mr. Brock, you mentioned in this, we raise a number of
questions of reasons why and who's to blame and how do we
make sure it doesn't happen again. And I agree with your
suggestion that we need to let Mr. Olliff do his job, and I share
Page 71
May 9, 2000
and appreciate your confidence that he will make not only you
and this board happy at the end of that, but I think the public as
well.
One thing we continue to hear circulate in the last week or
so is questions about intent. And I just wanted to ask, is there
any evidence, even a hiff -- even a whiff in what you have done --
and I realize Mr. Olliff still needs to do his end. But is there any
hint of a smoking gun, so to speak, that any of these mistakes
were made intentionally, or with malice or with -- or fraudulent in
fact?
MR. BROCK: The short answer to that is no. Having said
that, that's not something we were looking for.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Understand.
MR. BROCK: That responsibility, I think, rests over here
with your county manager to deal with that particular issue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No particular --
MR. BROCK: We saw no smoking gun. And obviously, you
know, we were there and were looking through the documents
and records, and nothing stood out to us that would evidence, as
you say, a smoking gun, or we would have referred that to the
county manager.
You know, one of the things that I would like to do is I would
like to go through the process of each and every one of the
audits that we do.
Okay, the first thing we do in the process of performing our
audits is we send out an engagement letter to the departments
telling me them that, you know, here's what we're going to look
at, we're going to come over and look. We then go over and look
at the information, and we prepare a preliminary report. I mean,
we're working and interacting with staff members on a daily
basis for a period of time.
Page 72
May 9, 2000
We then compile all of the information that we get and we
prepare a preliminary draft. We then present that to the staff
members of the affected unit, affected department, for them to
look at it and tell us if there's something here that we haven't
seen. And I assure you that happens all the time. Because we're
in there looking for information, and sometimes we overlook the
information. So staff then has an opportunity to tell us if there is
something that we're missing here.
We then take that information and put it back into the
hopper and prepare another preliminary draft. That preliminary
draft is then circulated to the staff members and your county
manager. And we sit down with them and discuss those issues
carefully.
County staff have an opportunity to respond in writing. And
that response in writing becomes a permanent part of the final
audit report, so that you're not just getting one perspective.
I can tell you that in dealing with the department in this
audit, and there's another preliminary that is presently
circulating out there as we speak, it has been a pleasure dealing
with your staff and your county manager. It is a different
atmosphere than, as I perceive it, from the past. It is a group of
people who really, in my impression, have a sincere desire to
identify the issues. If we're wrong, they're going to defend their
position as long as they possibly can. If we're right, they're
wanting to work with us to try to come up with a solution.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The whole purpose of your audit
is a cooperative effort to assure efficiency, as opposed to
anything adversarial.
MR. BROCK: That's right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure the public always
understands that.
Page 73
May 9, 2000
MR. BROCK: Your staff and your county manager that's
seated here today -- I must assume it's at his direction, because
it hasn't been that way in the past -- has approached it totally
from that standpoint up to this point in time. And I'll be the first
to tell you when that changes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from staff and
let's do our best to keep our questions until the conclusion of
their presentation, and then I suspect there will be several.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, commissioners. Vince
Cautero, for the record, community developmental environmental
services administrator.
Building upon Mr. Brock's comments towards the end of his
presentation about stafrs response in writing, the staff
concurred with Mr. Byrne's findings, and steps are underway to
rectify those problems.
But I want to build on that -- there's some overlap -- and talk
about some steps that we're taken that I presented to you in your
executive summary yesterday in dealing with specific points that
were raised in the audit. And there were four. We only need
action -- or request action from you on one of those.
Before this audit was prepared, we were underway with the
revision to the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and the
Library and EMS Impact Fee Ordinances. And those were -- the
transportation fee schedule amendment was taken out of
context, if you will, from the other impact fee ordinances, so you
could deal with those rate issues at an earlier date at your
request.
The other part of that study that's ongoing now is a revision
to the EMS and library ordinances that we're not discussing
today, but what is pertinent to that consultant work is the
procedure manual. That was put in the contract earlier, due to
Page 74
May 9, 2000
previous audits prepared by Mr. Brock's staff. So that was well
underway.
The issues that were raised by Mr. Brock and his staff in this
audit are going to be addressed more specifically in the impact
fee procedures manual, which relates to another comment that I
would like to make and another issue that we dealt with in
Number 3. We talked about a trigger mechanism, and Mr. Brock
and Mr. Byrne have talked about that, that there's no building
permit.
This in no way is brought to you to shift blame to the
system. Human beings were involved in implementing the
system, and there was lack of follow through. But one way to
cure that problem is the creation of a building permit or some
type of permit. The system does not work well today with the
site development plan or the preliminary work authorization.
People can construct golf courses now under two types of
development orders, and a letter is written. Similarly, we have
other procedures in place for different types of land alteration.
For example, excavation permits, vegetation removal--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anything horizontal as opposed
to vertical.
MR. CAUTERO: Exactly. Horizontal development versus
vertical development.
Some state agencies and some federal agencies utilize this
process. I've never liked it. One way to change that is to come
up with a permit and simply call it land alteration permit. A golf
course would be such an activity that would take place.
The way it's done now is an approval is granted to the
business owner of that development in the form of a letter that
meets the test of a development order in accordance with our
Land Development Code and state statute. I don't believe it's
efficient. The way to fix that is to come up with a new procedure
Page 75
May 9, 2000
that would solve the problem and we would call that not a
building permit but a land alteration permit to keep it consistent
with other horizontal types of development.
Another issue that I wanted to talk to you about and that
Commissioner Berry raised a few moments ago deals with the
amount of funds that have been sought since the audit findings
were released by Mr. Brock and county staff efforts. A little over
$550,000 in golf course impact fees that are owed to the county
has been collected since the first of this year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you tell us which of the ones
on the list? I mean, I'd love to know who hasn't paid.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Who hasn't paid?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. CAUTERO: I'm going to put that up in a moment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, I can wait.
MR. CAUTERO: One other thing -- well, let me do that right
now, and then I'll ask you for the action that we recommend that
you take.
Column F is the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You need to back it up. I can't
quite see it.
MR. CAUTERO: I don't know if you'd be able to see this
better on your monitor. But Column F, third in on the end from
the right, deals with the amount of impact fees paid after
January 1st of this year. However, the last column is significant
as well. This column -- this charge changes daily. And what it
shows you is that there are 1. -- a little over $1.6 million that are
still due to Collier County at -- as a maximum.
What we are intending to do, if you shift over to the left, the
first column, A, deals with the alternate calculations that were
either approved by the board, or are pending or have not been
approved.
Page 76
May 9, 2000
One of the issues or one of the findings that was made by
the auditor's staff deals with the fact that some alternative
calculations were conducted but they didn't come to you. Even if
they were done internally, there were problems in collecting in
both instances, whether they were done by staff and did not
come to the board, which creates a dual problem, or they came
to the board and you approved them, the collection did not take
place. Thus the finding that Mr. Byrne talked to you about a few
moments ago about consistent application of the ordinances.
The 1.6 is the maximum. All of these developers have told
us that they intend to come forward with an alternative
calculation. We are working with them right now on what we
believe is a reasonable period of time to come forward with
documentation that you would then review. And I would venture
to say that there's a 99.9 percent chance that the request will be
a lot lower, that they pay then that 1.6 million. However, that is
your decision to make at the appropriate time, based on the
provisions of the ordinance. Again, another finding by the
auditor's staff that all of the provisions of the ordinance need to
be complied with.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is there a problem, Mr. Cautero,
that you see with the ordinance?
MR. CAUTERO: Partially. Dealing first with the building
permit, and I want to make sure -- and the auditor's staff has
made some recommendations in this area that we look at with
our consultants and our transportation engineering staff very
closely at what criteria we expect them to meet. I've always felt
that all the ordinances need to be reviewed in that area.
We've talked with Mr. Brock and his staff on other impact
fees. The EMS Impact Fee Ordinance, for example, are the
criteria spelled out accurately and are the criteria in the
Page 77
May 9, 2000
ordinance even applicable at this point in time, based on industry
changes and so forth. It's partially a problem with the ordinance.
This is more than that.
But the two main issues that we've asked Tindale-Oliver, the
consultants that the board has hired, to look at are -- is the
language with the building permit. However, we believe we can
go a long way in solving that ourselves and having the language
written. The other is the criteria itself. That is outside my
particular area of expertise, when you get deep you into the
methodology and what should go into that methodology. And
that's what we're hiring these consultants to do, is to tell us that.
And the legal firm of Ichard-Merrell to tell you what's legal and
what's not appropriate to be placed in the ordinance.
But the answer to your question is it's partially driven by
problems in the ordinance, but certainly not totally.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is there a probability with the --
let's just take the golf course.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's what we're talking about
here. So just the golf courses. Is there a problem in terms of
golf courses that are built, quote, with development around them
as opposed to -- and I'm going to refer to them as bare golf
courses from the standpoint that they have no development,
housing -- and the different uses for those golf clubs? In other
words, they just -- it's a golf club, you go there, you play golf.
They don't have a swimming pool, they don't have a tennis court.
They may have a small area that they, quote, call a clubhouse. Is
that a problem in this calculation, or does that enter into it? I
don't know.
MR. CAUTERO: The short answer to your question is yes in
how it enters into it. And that gets to my last point about
Page 78
May 9, 2000
changes that we recommend to you today in the consultant's
contract.
The language in the ordinance or the fee dealing with the
golf courses assesses the impact that we believe the golf course
will have on the transportation network. And there's a fee per
acre. I have never been comfortable with that.
We've asked the consultants to look at a tiered schedule for
impact fees, because not all golf courses are the same. And
that's exactly what some developers have brought to you in the
form of the alternative calculation. You may have golf courses
that are open to the public, even though they are run by private
entrepreneurs, which we have in Collier County. You may have
golf courses that are open only to their members and guests.
And then you may have golf courses that are open only to their
members and no guests. You may have situations like that.
That's what we want the consultant to do. They have asked
for an additional fee to do that. The fee is $42,000. That is the
only request they make of you today. Of course, if there's some
action that we've taken that you do not believe is appropriate,
you could certainly tell us. But we want to present these to you
in a proactive fashion and say here's what we've done, here are
the recommendations that Mr. Byrne and his staff have made
that we concur with, and here's some additional things that
we've done to rectify the situation.
So the answer to your question is yes, that needs to be
looked at. I don't think anybody, especially after this audit, is
comfortable with the rate on an acre basis for those golf courses.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You know, if ma and pa are
building a house and they don't pay their impact fees, they may
not be familiar with the system. I find it very hard to imagine
that the large sophisticated developers who are trying to do their
balance sheets and spreadsheets ahead of time to see whether
Page 79
May 9, 2000
or not they can make any money, I find it very hard to imagine
they didn't know that they had a responsibility to pay impact
fees.
And so the idea that we're going to open the opportunity for
them to apply for alternative impact fees now after the fact, I
can't go for it. They just ignored it when the process was going
underway and they thought it could be to their advantage not to
mention it. And so the suggestion that now a year later or two
years later or three years later they can come and apply for
alternative impact fees, I don't buy that at all. I think --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Have they done that? I thought
some of them have paid their --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They have. I'm saying Vince
said there's a suggestion some of these who have not paid are
going to apply for an alternative impact fee. I have two
problems.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I think the ones that are -- have
a zero, absolute zero-zero --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- in other words, they've never
paid anything --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Never paid, never
mentioned it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Some have paid, which is in the
ordinance, where you pay and you pay under protest, I think is
the wording or something like that. So there may be a
recalculation there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But those who some time has
passed and they paid nothing in, whether we build them or not,
for them to come back now and apply for an alternative is two
bites at the apple. They had an opportunity to do that while they
were building the golf course and they did not. If you're a
Page 80
May 9, 2000
developer and you're putting out millions and millions of dollars,
you have some idea that you're going to have $100,000 or
$200,000 or $300,000 encumbered for this use. And they thought
they were going to get away with a free ride. And now after the
fact that they're not going to, they're going to -- they think they're
going to apply and get a deduction. I have a real problem with
that.
Secondly, I haven't heard any mention of collecting any
interest on those that are overdue. The law allows for that. And
I think we should aggressively pursue that to whatever the
maximum amount the law allows. I know there's something with
a 10 percent penalty after a period of time. I don't know if
there's anything beyond that, depending on the period of time
that has elapsed. But I'd like to see us aggressively pursue a
penalty as well. For someone to say well, we weren't billed or
we didn't know or -- I don't buy it for a minute.
MR. CAUTERO: I know Commissioner Mac'Kie wanted to
make a statement before I answered.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that -- as a matter of fact,
that was the point I wanted to make. I was going to approach it
from a different way. And that is, will we be violating our
ordinance again? Is there anything in the ordinance that says a
year later they can come in and pay -. do an alternate
calculation? I don't think so.
MR. CAUTERO: There's a --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Time limitation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and they've -- to the extent
they've exceeded it, end of discussion. You've waived your right
to seek an alternate. You owe the whole fee. And in addition,
you owe interest, you owe penalties, you owe whatever else. But
for God's sake, let's don't let part of the cure of this problem be
Page 81
May 9, 2000
an additional violation of the ordinance by giving an extension of
time to apply for an alternate calculation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It appears on here you only have
two, right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You only have --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If you look at the list, it appears
that you only have two situations. The rest of them are pending,
which means that they've done something.
MR. CAUTERO: Well, pending would --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As of what? As of when?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What does that mean?
MR. CAUTERO: Pending on this list means that they have
expressed an intent to come in with an alternative calculation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So no.
MR. CAUTERO: We have not been told -- I'm sorry, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I say no.
MR. CAUTERO: We have not been told otherwise by legal.
You will get no argument from my staff or I on either issue.
That issue is appropriately a legal one that needs to be
addressed. If we are told that they cannot apply -- if they did not
pay under protest, if we are told that significant time has gone by
and there is a way that I would not allow them to come in front of
you for an alternative calculation, which Commissioner
Constantine and Mac'Kie are raising, then we would send them
the official notice saying this is what you owe and then they
would have to pay that fee. If not, then we bring them to the
Code Enforcement Board.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If they paid at the appropriate
time and filed the appropriate protest, obviously we'd have no
problem with allowing them what the law prescribes. They can
go through and at least apply. But for someone who just didn't
participate in the process and thought they were going to get a
Page 82
May 9, 2000
free ride, I have no interest whatsoever in even reviewing an
opportunity for alternative impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one other question, if I
may.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On that -- the request that you
have for us today, Vince, is for a $42,000 increase to the
consultant.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if I understood you, you're
saying he's asked for -- they've asked for an additional $42,000 to
study the concept of tiering --
MR. CAUTERO: Golf course.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the golf course impact fees.
Well, I have to tell you that I understood they had been hired
for the purpose of proposing an alternative impact fee that
addressed the question Commissioner Berry raised, that -- let me
just tell you what I thought we had already hired them to do.
I understood that in our ordinance, the base amount, we had
one rate for golf courses, and it was out of the manual. It was a
rate that is more akin to a public golf course where all of the
trips traveled to the course and, therefore, the traffic impacts are
high. I had been advised that the reason for this rash of alternate
impact fee calculation requests was because our impact fee
ordinance didn't anticipate private golf course communities, the
kind that Commissioner Berry was describing. But not to worry,
we have our consultant working on provid -- proposing some
language for these private golf courses. And that that was the
explanation for why we had so many alternative calculations
coming through was pending the proposal from our consultant to
correct that glitch in the ordinance.
Page 83
May 9, 2000
Did I -- was I misinformed, or are they asking for an extra 40
grand for something we've already hired them to do?
MR. CAUTERO: I don't believe they're asking for an
additional amount of money for something we've already hired
them to do. I think the number that they came up with in the
impact fee amendment that you approved a few months ago was
their effort at solving that problem.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question. Are they
going to have an entry level college graduate person spend one
year of their life on this?
MR. CAUTERO: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because where does $42,000
come from?
MR. CAUTERO: I'll have to talk to Phil about that. I believe
some of that is legal.
MR. TINDALE: We asked the consultant to see if they could
come up with as many as four possible tiers -- my name is Phil
Tindale. I'm the Collier County impact fee coordinator -- with as
many as four possible tiers and a tiered fee structure. And that
would be at the rate of $3,500 per study. Which means they
would have to do a minimal of three studies per tier, which is a
total of 12, so 3,500 times 12 is how we come up with the
$42,000 figure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what has changed since --
previously when we asked them to address this problem with our
golf course impact fee that dealt -- we had an assessment only
for public versus private. What's changed?
MR. TINDALE: The problem we actually identified to the
consultant back then when we were negotiating the contract and
doing the initial discussions was not based upon the information
we have now that has come to light in its totality regarding the
golf courses.
Page 84
May 9, 2000
What we addressed to the consultants back then is we had a
problem with assessing golf courses on an acreage basis
because it was inconsistent, because based upon the site
development plan information documentation that's provided, the
amount of acreage can vary considerably wildly, based upon the
documentation that's provided. And it would be somewhat
inconsistent and unfair just doing it on the straight acreage
basis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words --
MR. TINDALE: So what they gave us is a fee schedule that
is based on a per hole basis. And that was part of a fee schedule
that you approved back in January. So that is something that
has already taken place.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not prepared to spend
$42,000 to figure that out. I think Commissioner Berry's point
that yeah, there is a distinct difference if it's encouraging more
homes to go in there, as opposed to a club all by itself. However,
that burden needs to fall to somebody other than --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If I might add --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a year's salary.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, it is a year's salary. But on
the other hand, our impact fee ordinances have to be supported
by something that we can --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- hang our hat on legally. And
that's what these studies do for us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And do we have anybody on
staff with any expertise in this area?
MR. CAUTERO: Transportation engineering staff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I know we're shorthanded there.
And maybe that's going to be the explanation why. But I'm
Page 85
May 9, 2000
wondering why we're essentially paying a year's salary for some
expert to go do this study for us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To come to a conclusion that we
already really know. I mean, it's to provide the basis to defend
the conclusion that we already know what it is.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's it precisely.
MR. OLLIFF: Let me try and summarize, if I can.
One, as much as we don't like the news, I have to begin by
saying that we appreciate the audit. Frankly, it's much better to
have an internal auditor tell you these things than to have them
just to go on and then find out just simply as a matter of course.
So I mean, we do on occasion work with Mr. Brock, even to the
point where we're asking him to come in and audit some things.
And just so you know why you don't regularly have these at
your board meetings, is there are a number of these going on at
any given time throughout the year, a lot of which are procedural
type audits, management type things which we are just simply
dealing with. This one happened to be a little higher profile and,
frankly, I think warranted it being presented at a county
commission meeting.
In response, I think what Vince has told you is that one, yes,
there are some ordinance issues that need to be addressed. And
I think we will go back and we'll bring back, if we need to, any
amendment to a consultant agreement as a separate item for you
to consider. I'll go back and take a look at exactly what's being
done. If there are some -- some of that work that can be done
internally as a staff type work, we'll do that and bring that back.
Secondly, I think you've heard that Vince has told you that
there are some of the issues that were caused by organizational
problems. Frankly, I think going back to some of my original
Page 86
May 9, 2000
beliefs that you want to try and put as much responsibility and
accountability in a single place as you can.
I think the creation of the impact fee coordinator, Phil
Tindale, who is standing there, responsible for coordinating all of
those impact fees ordinances is a single person where the
accountability will rest.
And secondly, I think the organization changes that you
made where we restructured DOR, where the collection functions
now are also part of community development, environmental
services in that same house as is going to help create some of
that responsibility within the organization it belongs.
And lastly, I think we will go back and continue to do our
own follow-up response. I think the audit is the beginning for us.
It tells us what the issue was, the problem was. We are
providing for you at least the outline of what the corrective
action plan on our part is. But just so you know, there are will be
a continuing effort on our part to determine the why. How did we
end up here in this position, and making sure that responsibility
falls where it needs to and that we make sure that the changes
structurally, internally and in terms of process don't allow us to
be in this position again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How long do you think that will
take, the why?
MR. OLLIFF: I would say it's probably going to take us 30 to
60 days, by the time I can sort through all of this. Because there
is a lot of paperwork associated with this one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, and to put it into
perspective how enormous a task it is, is -- and how good Dwight
and his people are to find this, I had asked for the numbers. How
many -- in the last three years, how many permits have been
pulled that require impact fees? And I think the number was
Page 87
May 9, 2000
11,285 permits pulled that required impact fees. There are a
little over a dozen of those 11,285 that we've had a problem with.
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so it's -- to be able to
hone in and find those problem areas speaks volumes about
Dwight and his staff, but it also says, you know, how could
somebody possibly have overlooked that? Well, when you've got
11,000, then you shouldn't, that number should be zero.
MR. OLLIFF: I agree.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's where we're
headed. But I think that's probably why you need as much time
as you do to get that sifted out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there any question about the
direction from the board, Tom, that we don't want you to give any
extra time for developers to apply for alternative calculations?
MR. OLLIFF: No. And clearly, I think just so you hear it from
me, I think in any staff response that we have, one, we are going
to be working with the County Attorney's Office to ensure that if
there is a statute of limitations or any sort of an ordinance
limitation in terms of an ability for a developer to apply for or
even be considered for an alternative calculation, that's not
going to be granted. That will not be provided administratively
from us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I assume our legal staff is
taking that direction from us as well, and we can actually have
that prepped prior to this ever coming back.
MR. MANALICH: Absolutely. We'll coordinate with them and
obviously look at the circumstance of each situation.
MR. OLLIFF: And secondly, obviously, if there is any
opportunity for the county to collect in terms of interest and/or
penalties, we will do that as well.
Page 88
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you're going to bring back the
consultant as a separate item? We're not giving that direction
today?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brock.
MR. BROCK: In terms of timing for Mr. Cautero and his staff,
your county manager, you know, one of the things that they're
working with us now, as you look at the timing of what we've
looked at, it was from '97, I think, through '99. We're in the
process of going back and looking at the other stuff in
conjunction with them. And, you know, these are old records
that is taking a tremendous amount of time. And that doesn't
mean simply because we're looking at records over there that
their operations must stop. And we understand that. So, you
know, the time frame to deal with this for Mr. Olliff is going to be
a considerable period of time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BROCK: It took us a long time to look at what we
looked at, and it will take him a long time to deal with the issues
that he has.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brock, thank you for coming
today.
MR. BROCK: Not a problem.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But more importantly,
thanks for doing the audit and bringing everything to our
attention.
MR. BROCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, we have one
speaker on this item?
MR. OLLIFF: You do. Robert ~enkins.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MR. ~ENKINS: Good morning. My name is Robert ~enkins. I
just wanted to say just a couple of things.
Page 89
May 9, 2000
Before I could build my house, I had to pay the impact fees,
as soon as they pulled the permits. I think something should be
put in place like they've been discussing and everything. Almost
everything I thought about, you guys have already discussed.
Late fees for these people, taking it back prior to '97, as far back
as we legally can go. I'd like to support that. I'd like to support
Brock for doing the job that he's done and their staff. That's all I
have to say.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. JENKINS: Just keep working on it. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir, not a thing.
Item #12A1
ORDINANCE 2000-125, REPEAL ORDINANCE CPR-99-1, TO
RESCIND AND REPEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY ORDINANCE NO. 99-63,
WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF RESCINDING CERTAIN EAR-BASED
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES AT ISSUE IN ADMINISTRATION
COMMISSION CASE NO. ACC-99-02 (DOAH CASE NO. 98-0324GM)
- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If not, we'll move on to the
advertised public hearings. Comprehensive Plan amendments,
Item 12(A)(1).
Oh, do we have public comment? I manage to skip through
that each time without thinking, for some reason.
MR. OLLIFF: You have no one registered.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Nobody signed up for that,
great.
12(A)(1). Repeal ordinance CPR-99-1.
Page 90
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearings.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive
planning manager.
This morning and afternoon we have a potpourri of
comprehensive plan related amendments and transmittal
resolutions for you to consider.
The first one I'd like to address with you this morning is a
repeal of Ordinance CPR-99-1. As you may be aware, this is one
of the remedial actions required by the final order of the
Governor and Cabinet last June 22nd. As a result of that, on
September the 14th of 1999, you repealed what we believed to
be the offending language as outlined in the Governor and the
Cabinet's final order.
And on the side of caution, we also readopted the '97
amendments that we had previously adopted, which were not
challenged by the Governor and the Cabinet and found in
compliance. As often as the case, things are not that simple.
And as a result, on November 10th, 1999, the Florida Wildlife
Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society filed a
petition challenging our action with the Department of
Community Affairs and to establish an administrative hearing on
that process.
As a result, over the intervening time of many months of
negotiation and discussion with your legal staff, both internally,
including Ms. Marti Chumbler, with Carlton Fields in Tallahassee,
who is here today, we arrived at a solution which we believe will
bring us back to a point where we have an operational
comprehensive plan as we move forward in an effort to comply
with the final order, which does not leave us relying on our '89
plan, which was their vision of the past.
Page 91
May 9, 2000
What we're proposing to do with this particular ordinance
before you here today in this public hearing is to rescind in its
entirety Ordinance CPR-99-1. It is our belief that by taking this
action, we will render moot the legal challenges initiated by the
environmental groups I had previously mentioned. It will allow
the county to operate under its '97 EAR-based amendments. And
those portions not in compliance at issue will be dealt with in the
next public hearing that I will bring up in the next few minutes.
As a result of this repeal of this Ordinance 99-1, the county,
our interveners, and the Department of Community Affairs will
move to dismiss the related administrative challenges to CPR-99-
1 immediately.
Are there any questions?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Basically we're just repealing that
ordinance?
MR. LITSINGER: You're repealing one ordinance in its
entirely.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: You do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Tell you what we're going to do:
We're going to go to the public speakers and also, just a
scheduling note for anybody who's here for these, we're going to
do these first three items that are all in some way related. And
there are two speakers, I'm told, on each. Then we'll take our
lunch break. So if you are on 12(A)(4) or any of the items after
that, you can safely go to lunch and not worry that we're going to
sneak them past you. So we'll take a break before we do those
items.
Let's go to the public speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, in addition to the public
speakers, Bruce Anderson has submitted for the record a letter
Page 92
May 9, 2000
that he would like entered into the record. I've got copies for
each of you and for the court reporter. But with acceptance of
those letters, he will waive the right to speak on that item, if they
can be part of the record.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Happy to do that.
MR. OLLIFF: Your first public speaker then will be Nancy
Payton, and Nancy will be followed by George Varnadoe.
And just so you know, those are the same two registered
speakers in that order for (A)(1), (2) and (3).
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton, representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation.
A comment is that I went to the public hearing that the
Planning Commission held on this particular item, and for the
record, they took no public comment.
My other comment is that I'd like the record to reflect that
the Florida Wildlife Federation participated in this public hearing.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Varnadoe.
MR. VARNADOE: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman. George
Varnadoe here today, representing on behalf of Barron Collier
Partnership, Collier Enterprises, Pacific Tomato Growers,
Consolidated Citrus Limited Partnership, ~ack Price and Russell
Priddy, Alico, Inc. Individually and collectively you know them as
Eastern Collier Property Owners. Also, on behalf the Collier
Resources Company.
Collectively the Eastern Collier Property Owners own
approximately 165,000 acres in the Eastern Collier County, which
is subject to the assessment the Governor and Cabinet have
owned. Collier Resources Company owns real property interest
under a lot of property in Collier County. Each of the named
Page 93
May 9, 2000
individual clients owns lands and operates a business in Collier
County.
We think the action that you are proposing will dispose of
the administrative challenge on this. Obviously, as you have
heard from Ms. Payton, in order to maintain standing for any sort
of legal proceedings, you have to have participated in a public
hearing, and that's what we're doing, we're making our
comments to you so that if this is challenged, we will once again
intervene on behalf the county. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Stan.
MR. LITSINGER: One other comment, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to note that the Planning Commission on April 20th voted
unanimously to recommend that the board go forward with the
repeal of this particular ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that thought in mind, we'll
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to move --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I move that we
repeal Ordinance CPR-99-1.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the
motion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter makes a
motion, Commissioner Berry seconds it. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12A2
Page 94
May 9, 2000
ORDINANCE 2000-26, RESCISSION ORDINANCE, HAVING THE
EFFECT OF RESCINDING CERTAIN EAR-BASED OBJECTIVES AND
POLICIES AT ISSUE IN ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION CASE NO.
ACC. 99-02 (DOAH CASE NO. 98-0324GM) - ADOPTED
Item 12(A)(2), rescission ordinance.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is the second step
in this process. What we propose to do simply here is that what
we -- in our second look or second judgment, if you will, would
have done in the original proceeding on September 14th of 1999,
and that is to rescind only those offending policies and texts in
the various elements as outlined in your executive summary,
Exhibits A-1 through 7, in order to meet the Governor and the
Cabinet's direction that we remove the offending language in the
'97 amendment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Terribly sorry to interrupt. Do
we have any public speakers on this item?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, you do. Nancy Payton followed by George
Varnadoe.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Really? Ms. Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida
Wildlife Federation.
I'd like the record to reflect that we're participating in this
public hearing. And also, there is not only a repeal, there is a
readoption in this particular ordinance. I just wanted to clarify
that.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, there is a readoption.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Varnadoe?
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Chairman, if you would, George
Varnadoe. I'd just like to have my comments from the previous
Page 95
May 9, 2000
item incorporated into the record on this item, and I won't have
to repeat them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. I'm sure
we can do that.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion from Commissioner
Norris, second from Commissioner Carter.
All those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12A3
ORDINANCE 2000-27, REMEDIAL AMENDMENT CPR-99-3,
ADOPTING REMEDIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS DIRECTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION
COMMISSION IN ITS JUNE 22, 1999 FINAL ORDER IN CASE NO.
ACC 99-02 (DOAH CASE NO. 98-0324GM) - ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
Mr. Litzinger, 12(A)(3). While he's getting organized, do we
have public speakers on this?
MR. OLLIFF: We do. Ms. Nancy Payton.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Are you calling me now?
Page 96
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure. Or we can just let the
record reflect that you did participate in this hearing on behalf of
the Florida Wildlife Federation.
MS. PAYTON: Well, I have a little bit more to say for this.
And I do have a letter to submit to the -- for the record, Nancy
Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation.
I do have a letter that I would like to submit for the record,
but I'll just summarize for you what some of the issues are for us
with 99-3.
First issue is the drainage sub-element, Objective 1.2, and
Policy 1.2.1 should be amended to specify that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency approves state water
standards will be met in Collier County's drainage canals, basins
and sub-basins.
We also feel that it should be amended so that the drainage
canals, basins and sub-basin will have plans developed for their
restoration to compliance with water quality standards with a
margin of safety.
We do have some water bodies in Collier County that do not
meet minimum state standards or EPA standards.
Also relating to the drainage sub-element 1.5 and related
policies should be amended to specify that again, meet the U.S.
EPA approved water quality standards. And also, land use
densities and intensities suitable for natural groundwater aquifer
recharge areas should be stipulated in our growth management
plan.
Goal 2 of the Golden Gate Master Plan references the
federal Save our Everglades Program. There is no federal Save
our Everglades Program. Save our Everglades is part of the State
of Florida's Conservation and Recreation Lands Program, the
CARL program. Kind of a glitch, but one I've been saying for I
don't know how long.
Page 97
May 9, 2000
Next item is the Golden Gate Master Plan, Objective 1.3.
Fails to qualify how the county will protect and preserve the
valuable natural resources within the Golden Gate study area.
One of our concerns is the wetlands of northern Golden Gate
area, and the documented failure of a significant number of
property owners to obtain wetland alteration permits from state
and federal agencies prior to impacting those wetlands.
We propose the following requirements: The areas to have
additional protection need to be mapped now using existing
wetland maps. The county will condition issuance of building
permits in the mapped areas upon field verification of wetlands
and the issuance of state and federal wetland alteration permits
before the issuance of any county permits for buildings that
impact wetlands. In other words, you've got to have all your
other permits before the county will allow you to do your
building.
The Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource
Protection area overlay in the Golden Gate Master Plan is
inconsistent with the Southern Golden Gate Estates' Natural
Resource Protection Area overlay that appears on the Future
Land Use Map and was adopted, but of course is being
challenged at this point. But they're inconsistent and they ought
to be the same. And we feel they ought to be the one that's on
the Future Land Use Map that encompasses all 55,000 acres.
Last item is the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element, 7.2. Establishes an acceptable kill quota of 3.2
manatees each year in Collier County per 10,000 boats. This kill
quota is unsupported by data and analysis and is an unauthorized
take of an endangered species under the Federal Endangered
Species Act.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And just to clarify, that's not a
goal, or we don't go hunting them.
Page 98
May 9, 2000
MS. PAYTON: It just says it's okay in our county to kill 3.2
manatees.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are we in any trouble if we don't
kill 3.2?
MS. PAYTON: You'll get a lot of praise if you -- this is how
we recommend it be amended: To be amended to reduce the
number of manatee deaths and to implement the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Manatee Recovery Plan.
That concludes my comments.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. We'll accept your
letter into the record as well.
MS. PAYTON: And I reserve my comments.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Varnadoe?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask a question with regard
to your comments while he's coming up?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just there are several points that
Ms. Payton raised that are of interest to me for further
investigation with regard to water quality, and several other
issues. If we choose not to go forward today with those
amendments, is there anything to preclude us from including
those issues in future amendments?
MR. LITSINGER: No, ma'am, there is not. I would like to
point out that just about everything in Ms. Payton's comments
were taken from the context in the text of a letter from Mr. Tom
Reese, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation as a result of
a protracted negotiation, which we chose not to recommend to
you today. However, we did leave the avenues for future
negotiation open on all these issues.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
Page 99
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Regarding the water quality, Mr.
Litsinger, would you say that the public in Collier County was in
danger because of the water quality?
MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me? What is my opinion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In your opinion.
MR. LITSINGER: I am not qualified to make that statement.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was just concerned, because a
question was raised, and I was wondering in regard to, do our
residents have to be concerned about this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perhaps a different way of
phrasing that, do you have any information from our staff that is
qualified to make that, that would suggest that our residents are
in danger from water quality?
MR. LITSINGER: No, we do not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. PAYTON: That's the very point, we don't have very good
data. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Varnadoe.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
George Varnadoe, here today on behalf of and representing
Barron Collier Partnership, Collier Enterprises, Civic Tomato
Growers, Consolidated Citrus Limited Partnership, Jack Price,
Russell Priddy, and Alico, Inc., individually and collectively
known as Eastern Collier Property Owners. Also Collier
Resources Company. As I've told you, they own substantial real
property or property interests in Collier County. They also each
individually own or operate a business and own land in Collier
County.
I'll keep my comments very brief, but I do think we need to
make some comments on the records here.
Our clients have been involved in this process since early
1999, and we have intervened in both of the administrative
Page 100
May 9, 2000
challenges that are now pending; one we hope will be gone as a
result of your actions earlier today.
The remedial amendments appear to implement the final
order issued by the Governor and Cabinet. Although we continue
to have some general concerns, and they mainly result from the
potential for Collier County becoming a duplicated environmental
permitting agency, which is not required by the Growth
Management Act, very clearly the 1997 amendments to that Act
state that we don't have to become a duplicative permitting
agency.
The remedial amendments do tend to defer to state regional
or federal standards as to groundwater quality, septic tanks,
storage tanks, things of that nature. I think that's okay as far as
it goes. But I would not like to see us then become another
permitting agency for those kind of activities, since the -- there
are permitting agencies out there, both the state and some at the
federal level. And that would be my comments pertaining to
these amendments.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Litsinger, what would you like to get on the record?
MR. LITSINGER: I have a couple of scribner's errors that I
need to correct in this ordinance before you adopt it, and one
page I'd like to hand out to you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: While he's handing that out, I just needed to
make clear for the record that the letters that were submitted by
Mr. Anderson were separate letters submitted for Items 12(A)(1),
a separate letter was submitted for Item 12(A)(2), and finally, a
separate letter was submitted for Item 12(A)(3).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have any other public
speakers, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
Page 101
May 9, 2000
Do you have a slip?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you're not familiar with the
process, come on up and identify yourself for the record. If it's in
response to one of the other two, don't do that. But if you just
need -- didn't realize you had to sign up --
MR. CURIALE: I'm sorry for the fact that I looked outside on
the desk and I couldn't find any register form to sign myself on
for the speakers.
I really do appreciate to seen what's going on today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the record, you are?
MR. CURIALE: My name is Mario Curiale. I'm a resident of
Marco Island.
The first time I came here in front of you, County
Commissioner, I believe there were three other different people.
And I came here for the fact to get a zoning change for the parcel
of land locate on 951 and 41. That was the idea, for me to put a
large location for a store. I own a Marco Building Supply. And I
was hoping for myself to do that.
It turned out to be, when I finally come over here, through
the cracks, we had some major issues that were raised. I did get
the variance approval. Was granted the change to C-5. But we
had an additional parcel of land that was not changed to C-5, so I
came back two years later, which was -- first time was in 1996.
Then I came here 1997 for a second section to be zoned C-5 also.
The variance was granted also for me to C-5. Unfortunately,
with the DCA problem we been having, that we had the state got
involved to find out the new growth management. My entire
project still stands still today.
It's very unfortunate, because what I would like to see, that
these things would not take place ever again. Because what
happened is we have a section of land which is about anywhere
10 to 12 or 15 acres of land, who in turn is being put in an
Page 102
May 9, 2000
envelope which has got an acreage of land, like 1,000 acres,
2,000 acres, which actually concerned the wildlife. But a small
parcel of land is not concerned with not much more wildlife. And
you have a South Florida Management Can make a study very
briefly. But a person or any kind of a developer, myself or any
other person for that matter, to get involved in this kind of setup
that you cannot get out until the whole package has been
approval, has been a nightmare for me.
Now, it could be for me, it could be another person. I just do
hope that what we learn today, maybe we can alleviate the
problem in the future, for future people that in turn try to get
some kind of approval based somewhat a land use that if you
have 10 acres or 20 acres, you have a different jurisdiction. If
you have 100 acres, you have another jurisdiction. Anywhere
from 500 acres to 1,000, 2,000 should be a different category to
be looked overall differently.
It's very unfortunate that I was -- my hands tied for two and
a half years. Finally I contact the state about a year and a half
ago, I says, "Look, what am I supposed to be doing with this
land?" I got rezoned. I supposed to build. Prior before 1951, I
never got approval, but whatever. They finished the first section
of land in '51. They finished the second section of land in '51.
And guess what? I still haven't a chance to get a building permit.
It's extremely devastating for me, devastating for the
surrounding, and also devastating because a lot of people,
sometime they don't know the procedure going through. Maybe
the reason why I've been so calm about it is because I've been
doing variances for about 25 years. This is the kind of life I've
been involved in. If all variances we touch we succeed, we'd all
be millionaires. Unfortunately, not all comes through.
But I just hope that maybe with this passage, maybe down
on the road we can incorporate, maybe we could change some
Page 103
May 9, 2000
kind of a zoning ordinance that we cannot locate the different
parcels. I really appreciate for your time and thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
Stan, anything else you need to get on?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a few
notes here, those scribner's errors.
I'd like to note that Exhibits A-1 through 6, the title page
should not include the readoption date of September 14th. That
was a scribner's error and will be eliminated from your final
adopted ordinance.
Also, Exhibit A-1, the Future Land Use Element, on Page 41,
needs to have included a couple of underlines and a strike-out, a
strike-out of district and the underline of the word policy added.
And also, the underline of oil extraction and related processing,
which does not change the original intent but merely provides
the required strike-outs and underline.
And also, as a footnote, would like to note that in all of the
amendment pages noted in 99-03 that the words italics
underlined or added by 99-02 should be replaced with words
italicized and underlined or adopted by CPR-99-02 and are for
informational purposes only.
With that, I would like to go forward and tell you about 99-
03, which you transmitted to the Department of Community
Affairs on November 23rd of 1999 with the intent of addressing
Items A through K in the final order.
On ~anuary 3rd, we received the Department of Community
Affairs' Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.
They raised only two objections relative to two elements. One
was the housing element. It had to do with locational criteria for
using -- finding suitable sites for farmworker housing, which
Policy 8.4 has been added to the element with the cooperation of
Page 104
May 9, 2000
drafting with the Department of Community Affairs, which we
believe will address that concern.
Also, with the housing element, there was an issue raised
relative to the number of units that would be provided by the
Department of Community Affairs in working with them. We have
revised the plan to add Policies 4.6, 4.7, 8.5 and 8.6, which we
believe will address that concern with the Department of
Community Affairs.
And also further, the Coastal Conservation Element, they've
raised a number of concerns relative to hurricane evacuation
times, and asked us to adopt some specific policies. As a result,
staff has proposed Policies 12.1(9), 12.1(10) through 12.1(14), in
conjunction with coordination with the Department of Community
Affairs, which we believe will alleviate their concerns and result
in a finding of compliance on this particular amendment.
The next step after this process of course would be the
results of the two assessment studies taking place in the rural
areas and the rural fringe.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. LITSINGER: If you have any questions.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we
approve subject to the amendments as outlined by Mr. Litsinger.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Including the scribner's errors?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All of those.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
~ust a thought. I realize it doesn't go here. We can't do it
specifically here. But I think the point our final speaker made is
Page 105
May 9, 2000
often when we think in terms of these things, and I particularly
think when some of the well-meaning organizations are trying to
prohibit any activity, they think of the big developers, the WCls,
the evil developer, and we forget sometimes that there are
regular people trying to make a living, in this case with 12 acres
on the corner of a piece of property and just trying to make a
regular living. And I think we need to always stay aware of that.
But just because someone has that label "developer" doesn't
mean they're large and millionaires.
So with that, we'll go ahead. All those in favor, please state
aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll come back at 1:30.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there, we're back.
Item #12A4
RESOLUTION 2000-136, APPROVING THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO ESTABLISH THE
BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS- ADOPTED
We'll go to 12(A)(4), recommendation to the BCC, adopt a
resolution to approve the proposed Growth Management Plan,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, but this is one of those that's
not a blah -- I mean, I know you were only --
Page 106
May 9,2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, no, they're not blah-blahs.
Don't misunderstand my blah-blahing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This one is one that is terribly
exciting because it has to do specifically with the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Terribly--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- exciting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I know we'll need to hear
from Ms. Preston, but I'm hoping that the board will indulge me
with a five-minute presentation from Mr. Varnadoe to show you
the kind of project that might result --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there some resistance to
this? Because if there's not resistance, we probably don't want
to spend five minutes on it, that's all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three minutes? Two minutes?
It's worth looking at.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had the presentation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've had the presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I read the presentation. Let's do
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this is the public's
opportunity to see it. But maybe we can do it some other time.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Maybe it's not quite some time yet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything you need to get on the
record?
MS. PRESTON: Good afternoon. Debrah Preston, for the
record.
~ust to let you know that on May 4th the Planning
Commission heard this transmittal of this amendment to the
Page 107
May 9, 2000
Growth Management Plan for both the map and text change, and
the Planning Commission made some minor changes, which are
just to clarify the intent of the proposal, and they passed it
unanimously.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions? Speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: Your only speaker was Mr. Varnadoe, who I
think was prepared to make a presentation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Who I understand is waiving?
Or not. That looked like a waive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would really like for him to
show it to you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We're wasting time. Let him do it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, great.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let him do it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll humor Commissioner
Mac'Kie. I'll be out back when you get done. This is just a waste
of time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not exactly humoring.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I feel my support waning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Quickly, George.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: George, are you on the clock?
MR. VARNADOE: Aways.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: George is always on the clock.
MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. And I
will be very brief.
What we have is the Chlumsky tract on the East Trail at the
corner of U.S. 41 and Sandpiper. I think most of you are familiar
with that development, the strip shopping center that's been
there at least since I've been in town in the mid Seventies.
And the overlay district, the changes that the Planning
Commission approved and staff is supporting, would allow mixed
use development and allow a little more density if we did mixed
Page 108
May 9, 2000
use development. This project would take advantage of that and
be approx -- it's 15 acres, approximately 180 units, about 30,000
square feet of commercial. The commercial would be contained
in the buildings that are outlined in yellow on 41.
And then on the internal street, which would be our
traditional neighborhood development type of street with on-
street parking, a lot of pedestrian walkways, residential above
the commercial. Then we would go to single-family on
Sandpiper, which is the entry into the Royal Harbor subdivision.
And then on the south side of the project, some of the buildings
that are in more of the olive shade would be pure residential.
But I think this would show you the kind of project as a
demonstration of what you could have with a mixed use district,
give you kind of a downtown look internal to the project, and also
incorporate architectural features on the corner of Sandpiper and
41 in terms of a plaza and perhaps a water feature; repeat that
on the corner of Frederick and U.S. 41 and give you a very nice
urban project, which I think will be a good kickoff for this whole
area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It really would. I'd like to say,
Fifth Avenue comes to East Naples. I mean, it's not exactly what
we're talking about, but it's a lot along those lines. Thank you for
that.
MR. VARNADOE: That's as short as I can make it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that.
MS. PRESTON: If there aren't any other questions, staff
would just recommend that the board pass -- or adopt this
resolution with the changes that were adopted at the CCPC
meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing
and entertain a motion.
Page 109
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All those
in favor of the motion, please state aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12A5a
ORDINANCE 2000-28, CP-99-01, JAMES O'GARA REQUESTING TO
AMEND THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN, GOLDEN GATE
OFFICE COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT BY ADDING RETAIL USES,
INCREASING BUILDING HEIGHTS TO 35 FEET AND PROVIDING
VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM A RESIDENTIAL STREET - ADOPTED
Next item is 12(A)(5), adoption public hearing for the '99
Growth Management Plan amendments.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, commissioners, I'm David
Weeks of your comprehensive planning staff. These should go
fairly quickly, I believe, because you've seen these previously at
transmittal hearings. These are all scheduled today for adoption
hearing. That is, your vote would be to adopt these amendments
into the respective elements of the comprehensive plan.
The first petition is CP-99-1. It's an amendment to the
Golden Gate Master Plan, specifically to the Golden Gate
Parkway Professional Office Commercial District within Golden
Gate City. Consists of approximately seven acres. That is the
portion that would be affected by this amendment.
Right now that district or subdistrict is limited to office
uses. This will allow for the subject properties to be developed
with office uses or retail uses.
The staff recommendation that's previously come before you
and again today is not to adopt this amendment. And our issues
Page 110
May 9, 2000
with the petition are that we don't see a need for additional retail
use opportunity in this area. And secondly, we believe it will
change the character of the subdistrict.
The Department of Community Affairs, in their ORC Report,
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, had no
comment on this particular petition. The Planning Commission's
recommendation at their April 20th hearing was unanimous to
approve this amendment. There has been no correspondence
received, and there were no speakers at the Planning
Commission hearing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are there any speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We've supported this in the --
early in the process. As far as changing the character of the
subdistrict, if you drive on Golden Gate Parkway, that may not be
a bad thing within certain parameters. This certainly falls within
those parameters.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What was the Civic Association's
position on this, Tim?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They support it. They worked
with the developers in great detail, and some things came out
and some changes happened, and they were very supportive.
Community supports it, I support it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're going to do these one at a
time?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we should.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think we should, yeah. There's
going to be a couple that are questionable.
Discussion?
Any objection?
Page 111
May 9, 2000
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12A5b
CP-99-02, ~OHN D. JASSEY REQUESTING TO AMEND THE
GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN BY RE-NAMING THE "CR-951
COMMERCIAL IN-FILL DESIGNATION" TO "GOLDEN GATE
COMMERCIAL IN-FILL DESIGNATION", CHANGING THE SUB~ECT
SITE FROM RESIDENTIAL ESTATES SUBDISTRICT TO GOLDEN
GATE COMMERCIAL IN-FILL DESIGNATION; AND MODIFYING
THIS COMMERCIAL IN-FILL PROVISION TO ALLOW CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SUBJECT SITE - DENIED
B, 92-02.
MR. WEEKS: This amendment also is to the Golden Gate
Master Plan. Specifically the site is located at the northwest
corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard,
opposite Golden Gate City. The property is presently designated
and zoned Estates, and comprises of approximately 6.8 acres.
Specifically the amendment will allow for additional commercial
opportunities for the subject property.
The -- at the transmittal hearing, when you saw this petition,
the western 25 percent of the site would be limited to conditional
uses: Churches, child care centers, adult living facilities, those
type of uses. The eastern 75 percent of the site would allow the
additional commercial uses for the property, office uses. And
then the extreme eastern 60 percent would allow a pharmacy or
bank.
Now the petition has changed to do away with the
conditional uses. The entire site will be eligible for the office
uses, and the eastern 75 percent of the site will be eligible for
Page 112
May 9, 2000
the bank, for the pharmacy, and about four or five other retail
uses have been added.
The staff recommendation and our issues: We
recommended not to adopt the petition. We cited our issues as
the lack of need for additional commercial opportunity at this
location. Concern about the change of character of the area of
the Estates and compatibility with surrounding areas, and also
some transportation concerns.
The State Department of Community Affairs had no comment
regarding this petition. The Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval.
The Board of County Commissioners, at the transmittal
hearing, you voted 3 to 2 to transmit it. At the Planning
Commission hearing, there were -- one person spoke in
opposition, and we received seven letters in opposition to this
petition.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And you said the staff is not
recommending?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: You have one. Talitha -- and I think it's Cirou?
MS. CIROU: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are you signed up?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm the agent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. Good afternoon.
MS. CIROU: Good afternoon. My name's Talitha Cirou, and
my family lives on the property directly north of the proposed
project site. Therefore, we will be the most impacted by the
zoning change.
We are adamantly opposed to the rezoning of this property
from residential to commercial. I would like to open with a letter
Page 113
May 9, 2000
from Russell Tuff, the president of the Golden Gate Civic
Association. It was addressed to the planning advisory board of
Collier County, and it's in reference to CP-99-2.
We feel the existing zoning of the above mentioned property
is sufficient for the current conditions. We at the Golden Gate
Civic Association have had numerous meetings with Mr. Jassy,
and appreciated the opportunity to express our concerns.
However, it feels like we are being asked to approve a moving
target. The plan we last saw doesn't resolve traffic issues and
arguably makes traffic problems worse for many reasons. It's
hard to justify any common good that would come about by
changing the zoning on this property. We don't need to act now
on this parcel of land. It will be here when the area is done
shaping up.
The current zoning is best under the present set of
circumstances. If changes develop in the area, a more suitable
use may be found at some time in the future. The current zoning
is sufficient and should remain. Sincerely, Russell Tuff.
We couldn't have said it better ourselves. We thank the
Civic Association for their attention and interest in this proposal.
In approximately 1994, we gave 40 feet by 30 feet of the
front of our property to the county for the turning lanes to Golden
Gate Parkway for the good of the community and to ease the
traffic. The adjacent property owners sold their property to the
county. We didn't give this property to the county so that the
developer of a commercial project could benefit from it next
door.
We agree with the staff recommendation that there not be
an egress off of Santa Barbara Boulevard due to traffic safety
concerns. There just isn't enough room for one.
We also believe that moving the drug store from the
northeast corner to the northwest corner will only bring their
Page 114
May 9, 2000
crime problem next to our homes. According to the owner of the
Santa Barbara Square shopping center, recently potential thieves
attempted to cut a hole through the roof of the Eckerd's. We
would be fearful to have these kinds of activities taking place so
close to our home while we were trying to sleep.
We can find no other place in the county where there is a
drug store located directly next to a single-family home. There
must be a reason for this.
Is it really necessary for the Eckerd's across the street
where it is very appropriately located in a shopping center,
separated by roads to the adjacent residential area, to move
right next door to our homes, which is zoned residential estates
property? I personally think the idea is absurd. I really think
there ought to be a need criteria met to warrant such a drastic
change to the character of our property.
We will be going from private residential property to a very
public urban retail store open day and night. When it closes, we
can look forward to the delivery truck showing up all hours of the
night, not to mention the dumpsters, which I'm guessing will be
located next to our property line.
I'd like to remind you that our homes are unfortunately
located very close to the south property line. When this proposal
is transmitted to the state for approval, there was a single-story
day-care center. Today's proposal has a two-story office
building, which we also feel is inappropriate next to a private
residence. We do feel that a one-story building would be
acceptable.
If the rezoning is approved, we feel that our privacy and our
security are at a great risk. We have requested that a seven-foot
concrete masonry wall be constructed to replace the privacy and
security provided by the natural vegetation that's there now. Mr.
~assy believes that a landscaped fence would be enough and all
Page 115
May 9, 2000
that he could afford. We feel this type of barrier would be
insufficient to keep out traffic noise and potential crime.
I suppose that ultimately if we no longer feel safe and
secure in our homes next to this project, we will be forced to
move. We truly hope that will not be the final outcome in this
case. We've been very happy there for the last 18 years. We
thank you for the opportunity to speak on this matter today and
for your time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the
record, Rich Yovanovich, representing the petitioner, John Jassy,
who is in the audience, as well as Mr. Hoover, the planner on this
project, and the engineer on the project with them.
I just want to give you a brief history and hand out a letter
for the record, which I'm sure you've already received regarding
Mr. Jassy's discussions with the Civic Association and his
attempts to work with them to resolve the issues.
As you will see from this letter, many of the more intensive
uses that could occur at this corner have been eliminated at the
request of the Civic Association, including the removal of the
day-care center. That was done at the request of the Civic
Association. And they request that we replace it with the -- more
office uses. So that in fact -- that has been eliminated at the
request of the Civic Association.
A lot of what was raised today by Ms. Cirou dealt with site
planning issues and rezoning issues, which is a little ahead of the
game for what we're doing today. Simply today is the compo plan
amendment which would allow us to come back with the rezone
to get into the specific details of some of her comments. But I
do want to address those comments.
Page 116
May 9, 2000
As far as the seven-foot concrete wall, we have committed
to that and we will commit to a seven-foot concrete wall on her
property line. We have also -- you know, for the record, we had
proposed a similar buffering to what was on -- by Pelican Marsh,
which was a chain-link fence with dense plantings on both sides
of the fence. If she would prefer the concrete wall, we'll be
happy to give her the concrete wall. It's simply her choice as to
what she prefers.
We have also prepared a site line analysis, which I will place
up here, which I hope everybody can see. I know I showed it to
all the commissioners that I had an opportunity to meet with.
And I hope Commissioner Carter can see that at home.
What we are proposing, if we do do a two-story building, it
will not in any way be visible from her property, and we will not
be able to see her property either. We have marked -- we went
out and marked where you would see out of a window which was
approximately 20 feet in height. And the site line you will see --
this is what you will see from 20 feet up. You will see dense
trees on our property and her property. So we are -- we want to
rest assured that we will not in any way be visible from her sight
and she won't basically see us. So we will not invade her privacy.
And you've received a letter, I believe, from the proposed
developer of the property, which had attached to it another letter
from a neighbor who MGD Capital Partners, Inc. had built a bank
up on Immokalee Road, Gulf Coast National Bank -- I think you're
all familiar with that -- is adjacent to a single-family home. They
had the same concerns about their privacy. And there's a letter
from the adjacent single-family homeowner saying that they were
very cooperative and worked with that person in resolving any
privacy issues, and that commitment is also on the record from
the developer.
Page 117
May 9, 2000
Regarding eliminating some of the uses, I believe a letter
was provided by Mr. Jassy that would eliminate the hardware
store, home furniture store and a general merchandising store
that were not in the previous request. So we have gone back to
the previous request of a drug store, a bank and an office
building, and substituting office space for the day-care center,
which we were requested to remove.
So we have done our best to meet with the association and
the neighbors to resolve all the issues. I think you will find that
there are no compatibility issues with what we're proposing. And
any rezone that we will bring to you will take into consideration
the concerns of the residents, the immediately adjacent resident.
We have tried to -- the reason we went to a two-story
building was to increase the buffer for the resident to the west.
If that's not acceptable, we can try to resolve that issue on the
height of the office building.
With that, if you have any specific questions regarding the
request that I can't answer, Mr. Hoover is here and Mr. Jassy are
here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for the petitioner? .
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
Golden Gate Civic Association opposes this. But what about the
other Golden Gate association where this property lies in, have
they taken a position?
MR. YOVANOVICH: And to answer Mr. -- Commissioner
Carter's response, we have not received any objections from the
Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. And I -- as we all know,
this property is located in the Estates, not in the city, Golden
Gate City.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What happened last fall, best of
my recollection, was the Estates Civic -- the city -- the Golden
Gate Civic didn't want to do anything with it at first, because
Page 118
May 9, 2000
property is zoned Estates, even though it's in the urban area.
And the Estates Civic Association said that's, you know, too far
that side of 951 for us. And then the city civic did actually come
and work in great detail on it after that. I don't know if that's
helpful at all, ~im.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And also regarding -- there was one
comment, do we need more drug stores. It's important to note
that we're talking about relocating an existing drug store and
that we're not adding drug stores in that area.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a little problem. When I
looked at the site plan, when you all came in to see me the other
day, and I've looked at it since, and one of my concerns is
whether it's a bank or a drug store or an office building or
whatever, I need to ask staff, we're going -- you're going to be
six-Ianing Golden Gate Parkway? Is that correct, or am I wrong
in that?
MR. WEEKS: Eventually, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Eventually that's what's coming.
We're not -- right now we're not privy as to any traffic
movement in terms of median cuts and those kinds of things.
When I looked at this plan -- when you first look at it and you
think well, gee, that's not too much of a problem. Everything's
right in, right out. You come off of Santa Barbara, you turn to
your right. If you want to leave by the way of Santa Barbara, you
go to your right. You do the same thing off the Parkway. That's
making an assumption that everybody that's going to use this
particular area is going to be probably westbound.
And the problem is we received a lot of letters of support for
this project from people that live on the east side of Santa
Barbara. My question is, if everybody lives -- or the letters that
we got supporting this happen to live east of Santa Barbara,
Page 119
May 9, 2000
where are you going to turn them around and allow them to go
back eastbound?
And I can just see some traffic problems similar to what we
experienced on Pine Ridge and Airport Road. You don't have a
parcel of land here large enough to make a -- in my uneducated
opinion of traffic, but from my just perception of what I'm seeing
here, you don't have a large enough parcel of land to make a
good traffic flow around that, what is going to become a major
intersection in Golden Gate. And I'm afraid we're going to end up
with the same kind of thing and the same problems that we've
got at Pine Ridge and Airport, which we were fortunate enough to
be able to accommodate to put some roads and some connecting
areas to try and get the traffic to circulate a little bit better.
But that's my concern when I looked at this piece of
property, knowing that you have, right across to the east of
Santa Barbara, you already have a shopping center there. On the
other side, right now currently, you have a school and a church, I
think; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But who's to say in the future that
that -- something won't be renegotiated on that parcel of land?
And this is going to become a pretty good major intersection
here. It's already a heavy traffic intersection. Tim, you know it
better than anyone else, I would think.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Over where the church is, right
now they have plans to expand over there, both the church and
the school.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do they?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They're actually trying to buy
the property, several of the homes that are to the west of that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
Page 120
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you go all the way back to the
next estates zoned street.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure, right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But we'd have to do some
conditional use type purposes for that. And -- but they're in the
process of trying to secure each one of those now.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I'm wondering -- I'm wondering
about the whole traffic circulation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's my concern. And that if we
have an opportunity to address this now, we don't always have
that opportunity. We do in this case. And I think rather than get
so far into a project and then try to remedy and patch and do
some of those things, that maybe we look at this now. And that's
the reason I have a problem with this particular intersection right
now and this use of this property.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What I've tried to balance in all
this and tried to figure out in all this is because it is eventually
going to be six lanes by six lanes --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- you're clearly not going to
have a residential unit plopped on that corner. I mean, that's not
a reasonable use for it. But how do we approach this so we don't
end up in a problem?
And, you know, when you go to the other -- go to the
opposite corner, the southeast corner, and that -- you're actually
going to have to tie together four pieces, because they're so
shallow over there. But again, you're only going to be able to
have right ins and right outs.
And I'm not a transportation planner, I just play one on TV.
And so I don't know what the answer to that question is. But it's
a fair question. And I think the rezone is whether it's -- or the
Page 121
May 9, 2000
change to the GOP is whether it's this exact thing or not, is it not
unreasonable, because nobody's going to build a house there.
But I think you're right, we need to have some answers to that on
the front end rather than try to play catch-up later.
And I don't know if the petitioner knows that or if our staff
can answer it. How do we deal with those transportation issues?
MR. WEEKS: I'm not sure I fully understand the question. I
understand the -- I think I understand the issue of concern about
this being a future six-lane by six-lane intersection. A lot of
traffic movement through here. But I --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is it reasonable to expect -- let
me see if I can make this work. Is it reasonable to expect --
because realistically the only way to exit this property -- you
can't exit the property and go east. I mean, the --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You can't do that.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- Santa Barbara entrance and
exit is so close to Golden Gate Parkway that unless there is no
traffic on Santa Barbara at the time, it would appear to be quite a
challenge to pull out, go across three lanes, get in a left turn
lane. If it's 3:00 a.m., you could probably do that. But during
daytime when there's traffic, that's a legitimate question. And if
you have to go out the other exit to go eastbound, where do you
turn around? How do you go eastbound, if that's where the
majority of people this is going to serve are supposed to be?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's my concern.
MR. WEEKS: The answer is, you're going to have to make a
U-turn. You'll have to go west on the Parkway and make a U-
turn. As far as Santa Barbara exit itself goes, that's a concern
that staff raised at the transmittal hearing. We had suggested
that if you go forward with this petition, that you preclude any
access off of Santa Barbara Boulevard. That doesn't address
Page 122
May 9, 2000
your specific question of people that live to the east, but that is a
transportation related concern that staff has.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And would we do that today or
at SDP?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, I would think that's a lot
of detail to be addressing, the comprehensive plan amendment,
at this point. I would hope that we could address that during the
rezone in the PUD stage. You would -- Mr. Weeks is correct, you
would go down here and do a U-turn to head east, to go back to
the east.
I did want to point out that we did take some pictures of
existing drug stores at 8:00 in the morning, at the time people
were concerned about this impacting traffic. And you'll see at
U.S. 41 and Pine Ridge, there's nobody there at 8:05 a.m. So it's
not like people are going to be going to do shopping at the drug
store at the peak time as people trying to go to work, is the point
we're trying to make. So I don't really see that as really being an
issue here. And the same thing down at Airport Road and
Vanderbilt.
But the traffic issue is there. I think it should be dealt with
at the PUD stage and not necessarily at the comprehensive plan
amendment stage. And we'll have to have answers for you on
the traffic issue at the PUD.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, and again, I go back that this
is where I think the commission, we get ourselves into difficulty.
We go ahead and we do these kinds of things, and then we do
wait for that second stage to pick it up and try to address the
problem. And I wish that on the outset that we could at least
have some idea.
The traffic is there already. This is -- it's not -- it's not a non-
existing entity. Right now the traffic's there. I look at it is that
we're complicating it by whatever we do on any of these corners.
Page 123
May 9, 2000
It's not just this corner, Rich, it's all of the three corners, other
than the one that's not developed.
But I think we need to have some kind of an idea on the
impact that we're going to have right now. And because then I
think we get ourselves into a situation where somebody has an
expectation when they have purchased this property that they're
going to be able to do A, B, C and D, and then the commissioners
say whoop, you're not going to do that. And then we get
ourselves into a predicament of allowing certain things that
perhaps we should have been able to see early on that we've got
some problems.
And this is an opportunity. I'd look at this as an opportunity
where sometimes we haven't had that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We could be very clear on what
expectations should not be assumed.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we should do that at this
point. But if there are questions that can't be answered at this
early stage in the process, then I don't think it's fair to stop the
process. It's important that we make a record and make as clear
a record as possible about what the expectations are and what
the prohibitions will be, because we know that these guys in
particular are coming in with a rezone. And so we will have had -
- and we should have them stipulate on the record today that
when they come in with a rezone, that they will address the
traffic concerns.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's all well and good, but
I think you can take a look at the map and understand that you're
going to be looking at an intersection of two six-lane roads.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
Page 124
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And there's not going to be any
opportunity that close to the intersection to do anything but right
in and right out. I mean, there's no other thing you can do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's a question of whether or not
you have a Santa Barbara entrance.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think so -- I agree with you,
Tim. And I'm not sure that you can do that. I don't think -- I just
don't look at the distance here to have traffic be able to come
out of there. And you stated it very well. You want to come out
of there, you have to assume that everybody that's going to shop
there is going to go westbound when they leave.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- I'm just -- I'm just lost
here. Because I -- the point -- if I'm getting it is that we're going
to have two six-lane roads intersecting and that will cause some
traffic questions. But the question before us is, shall the
property at the intersection of those two six-lane roads be used
for commercial or residential purposes?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The problem, Pam, and the
difference is you have a parcel of land here that is not a very
large parcel of land, that doesn't really allow -- but it doesn't
allow for traffic circulation. Maybe it's the wrong time. Wouldn't
you rather address the problem now than later?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely I would.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: To the extent we're allowed to,
yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: To the extent that we can.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That we legally can. And my
concern is that we are boxing this petitioner in, and that's the
dangerous territory where Ramiro or Ms. Student needs to be
giving us some advice. Because where boards -- where
governments get in trouble is when they box a petitioner or
property owner out of a reasonable use.
Page 125
May 9, 2000
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, I think we've heard loud
and clear, when we come forward with our PUD, we've got to
address your traffic circulation concerns for any Santa Barbara --
Santa Barbara entrance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a couple other
questions along those lines that there -- that are better and will
be dealt with in finality should this go forth at the time of a
rezone and at the time you do a site development plan. But I
think there are some legitimate concerns.
If I lived next door, I wouldn't want a two-story. Regardless
of the fact the building is the same, if you're walking around on
the first floor and you've got a high ceiling, you're not looking at
me. But if you're on a second floor, I want to be out there, you
know, doing whatever I'm doing in my own yard. I don't need
people observing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Dressed as you wish.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Dressed as I wish in the privacy
of my own yard.
Any objection to just acknowledging that you'll make that a
one-story when the time comes? I know you've committed to the
fence and I know all of this is premature, but it just gives me far
more comfort if we can have some idea that's where you're
headed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- Commissioner, we can commit to
one story. The only question is, is we would need to massage
the present language, which only allows 8,000 square feet on the
western 25 percent of the property. If -- we may need to increase
that to bring it down to the one story.
But overall, 36,000 square feet of use would stay the same.
You'd have a one-story building. You'd still have -- the bank can
only be on the east 75 percent and the -- a drug store can only be
on the east 60 percent. But we just may have to -- the western
Page 126
May 9, 2000
25 percent be limited to the 8,000 square feet, maybe to change
a little bit to bring the height down. But we can come down to
one story. And I don't think anybody's going to be taller than -- I
think it's a seven-foot wall?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have another question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, what's the
difference between what -- the action we're taking -- asked to
take here and the assisted living facility that was off of White, at
that corner of 951 and White? You remember the issue I'm
talking about?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In terms of acceptance or denial,
what's the difference between these two?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For me?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. No, no, I'm not --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Or in general?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In general. I'm asking generally
the diff -- I mean, I know, yeah, one's an assisted living facility
and one's a proposed drug store or bank.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think this being at the
intersection of what will be six lanes and having commercial
directly across those lanes, I think the difference just from a land
standpoint, you had the canal and you had some extra
impediments between --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Let me give you the next
little part of it. As you well know, there was a lot of sentiment
out in the Estates about building that assisted living facility. And
the Estates Civic Association took a position on that. And I
believe even though I had originally voted to transmit it, when it
came back and they wanted to do something else, we certainly
Page 127
May 9, 2000
heard them loud and clear. I know this commissioner did. And
we said no.
What's the situation here? We have heard from the Golden
Gate Civic Association, and they have said no.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I spoke with them. We had the
letter and Talitha brought that. And I read -- have certainly have
read that. I also met actually with all parties involved, with the
neighbors, with some other residents in the area, with Mr. ~assy
and his folks and with the Civic Association last Friday, and we
talked about it from everybody's point of view, all at the same
table.
And what the Civic Association said at that point was there
are a number of things going on around the county in land
planning right now. They would prefer to see all that settled
before we decide what we're going to do with this particular
piece of property.
My explanation to Russell at that time is we have to have --
that's not a legal reason to accept or deny. We can say, you
know, no, geez, this isn't compatible or this isn't appropriate.
But we can't say it might be compatible in six months or in 12
months or 18 months, we're just going to wait and see. We don't
really have the authority to just hang it out there for whimsical
reasons. And that seemed to be where a lot of his focus was
when we spoke Friday. He wanted to see where all our land
planning should go.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the only way we get to do
that -- here's a little turn of events for me to be the one arguing
this position -- is if we own the property. People have private
property rights and a reasonable expectation of an ability to
construct something. And when you're on an intersection of a
six-lane road coming off the interstate, it can't be a house. It
can't be a house.
Page 128
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, there's going to be houses
on every other intersection down through there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not at the intersection of six-lane
roads with commercial on two other sides and a church on the
other coming off of 1-75.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's houses right at the
interchange itself. There already are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's true.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, actually, if you look at the
plans, they're going to be frontage roads and so on. So, I mean,
there's no house going to be pulling their driveway onto a six-
lane.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's proposed.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a distinct difference
there. And, you know, to have a residential dead-end road is not
the same as Santa Barbara being six-Ianed running through
there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand. But at the same
time, the staff is voting no on this. Civic Association has
recommended denial.
I share Commissioner Berry's concern about the traffic
problem. I think that's going to be very problematic. So I'm ready
to vote.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm just not sure how you're really
going to be able to fix that traffic problem. I don't know, because
I don't see the size of the parcel of land such as what we did
have at some of these other intersections where we could make
an attempt to fix. And I'm not sure that you're going to have the
fix here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Commissioner Berry, I would
respectfully submit that when I come to you with the PUD, you
could still tell me no. If the traffic issue is not resolved to your
Page 129
May 9, 2000
satisfaction when we bring the PUD, you could tell me no and
that would be a legitimate basis for denying our PUD petition.
I don't think that there's been enough in-depth analysis to
resolve the traffic issue at this point. The question -- and I would
like to at least have the opportunity to come forward with the
PUD and provide that data to you, and if I have not made you
comfortable with the traffic situation, I would expect you to tell
me no.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Case in point. I guess being the
proposed Walgreen's site down on the corner of Golden Gate
Parkway and 951, the petitioner insisted they needed two
entrances and it simply didn't work and the commission said no.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd like the opportunity to prove to you,
you have the -- you know, we can resolve it or not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess I'm going to ask for
the lawyers to tell us what is within our purview for today.
Because as I understand the purview of the day, it's whether or
not the comprehensive plan should show this as a residential or
a commercial use. They have been -- they've -- they've gone so
far as to jump ahead of themselves, as I under -- I believe they've
jumped ahead of themselves in an effort to give us more
information. But--
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's true. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we do appreciate it.
But we have to be careful then that we don't use that
information to start answering questions that aren't asked today.
Because today's question -- please tell us, what is today's
question?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney.
Today you're dealing with a compo plan amendment. It is
legislative and not quasi-judicial. You're making policy today.
Page 130
May 9, 2000
And as long as you don't -- it's based on facts and so forth and it's
not arbitrary and capricious, you're fine.
There is one thing I wish to point out, however, that when an
area is changing and, say, it's going commercial and there's a
refusal, there's case law about this refusal to rezone sole
residential property to commercial, there's case law right in this
district that that is arbitrary and capricious. And in fact it was
the City of Sanibel. The City in fact took the property.
But again, at the compo planning stage, you don't deal with
the level of detail that you do at the rezone stage. So maybe that
based upon data and analysis presented, which the compo plan
amendment must be based upon, you could find that this is
inappropriate for commercial use and then deal with the greater
detail when it comes to the rezone portion of the proceedings.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This requires the support of four
commissioners?
MS. STUDENT: It does, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, anything
you want to add to the mix?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I've listened to all of this and
I understand the situation. But I think we're really dealing with a
rezone issue here, and I truly believe that when they bring the
PUD forward, if it doesn't meet what we need as far as traffic, we
can deny it. But I am really concerned if we deny a rezone here,
that we don't open ourselves up to a legal issue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the
board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion that we
approve this compo plan amendment with the conditions
stipulated.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
Page 131
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Further discussion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not going to support this
motion, because I -- it's not that we are refusing someone zoning,
they already have zoning in place. I just don't feel that in my
opinion that this is going to be an appropriate use for this
property, even though it may be somewhat problematic even for
residential. I just don't believe that we need to change it to
commercial.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ms. Student -- if I may?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ms. Student, should -- if this is --
if this should fail by a vote of 3 to 2, that it kind of looks like it
might, should the opposing commissioners state the data and
analysis for their conclusion, that residential is appropriate
instead of commercial?
MS. STUDENT: I think it's always appropriate to have it on
the record, because we are making a record here as well. And a
compo plan amendment itself has to be, as I stated, supported by
data and analysis. It can't hurt to have it in the record the
reason it doesn't pass, to avoid any arbitrary and capricious
claim.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So, Ms. Student, if I say that after
looking at the data and analysis that's been presented to us, in
my opinion this should not be changed, that's acceptable?
MS. STUDENT: I think it would be helpful if you could just
perhaps state very briefly what the data -- a reason that is
evident from the data that you have before you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Say whatever you want, I
thought you just did actually go through there and say you
thought the information provided --
Page 132
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's -- the information that has
been provided to us, that's all I can go on.
MR. MANALICH: You're referring to the staff analysis in the
agenda package?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Staff analysis, yes.
MS. STUDENT: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, you feel
the need to create any sort of record here?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I'm just going to -- I don't
believe that I can support this. But I'm going to base mine on
what the staff analysis is.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. All those in favor,
please state aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion fails 2-3.
Item #12A5c
ORDINANCE 2000-29, CP-99-03, CENTREFUND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION REQUESTING TO AMEND THE GOLDEN GATE
AREA MASTER PLAN BY EXPANDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER AT THE GOLDEN GATE AND WILSON BOULEVARD
INTERSECTION, AND INCLUDING ADDITIONAL ACREAGE IN THE
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE SAME INTERSECTION, AND TO
ALLOW FIVE ACRES OF COMMERCIAL OR CONDITIONAL USE
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT - ADOPTED
Page 133
May 9, 2000
We go to CP-99-03, Centrefund Development Corporation.
This is the Estates commercial piece that G's is lobbying so
heavily against.
MR. WEEKS: The subject site consists of approximately 7.15
acres. It is located at the southeast corner of Wilson and Golden
Gate Boulevard. It is opposite the first G's Grocery Store, which
lies on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard. This is an
amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan to change the
subject area from -- well, actually, based on your action this
morning, from an Estates designation to a neighborhood center
.
designation.
The total site is a little over seven acres. This amendment
would allow five acres of commercial development or conditional
use development, as allowed in the Estates zoning district.
Staff recommendation is not to adopt. Our concerns about
this petition have to do with the change in scale and character of
the neighborhood centers. The present neighborhood center
language limits these neighborhood centers to two and a half
acres maximum of commercial development. Our concern is that
-- excuse me, five acres. Our concern is that enlarging the size
of the neighborhood center, particularly for one single parcel up
to five acres will allow the amount of commercial development
that will change the character and the scale of these
neighborhood centers.
Secondly, we don't believe there is a need for commercial at
this specific area of Golden Gate Estates. We have never taken
an issue, staff has not, that there's not a need for more
commercial in the Estates east of 951. We have never said that.
In fact, if you go back to 1995 in the EAR process, staff -- the
future lands use subcommittee, the planning commission,
Page 134
May 9, 2000
everyone brought to you a realization, a recognition that there is
a need for more commercial in the Estates east of 951.
Our disagreement perhaps is where that should be located.
Staff does not have a final recommendation to bring to you today
as to where that should be. But probably should be back to the
way we started in 1991 with the Golden Gate Master Plan. That
is having neighborhood centers located throughout the Estates.
For example, in the beginning there was one at Immokalee Road
and Everglades Boulevard, there was one at 858 and Everglades
Boulevard, and there was one at Golden Gate Boulevard and
Everglades Boulevard. Point being again, they are spread
throughout the Estates to serve the surrounding population.
By increasing the size of the neighborhood center at this
location, certainly it will serve areas that need commercial uses.
That is, there's population out there now and certainly will be in
the future that could come to this site and use this commercial.
The question is, should it be here or should it be spread
somewhere else? That's staff's rationale.
The Department of Community Affairs had only one comment
and that had to do with soil suitability for the site because it will
be limited to well and septic tank use.
The Planning Commission's recommendation at the adoption
hearing was to approve by a vote of 4 to 2. No correspondence
has been received. At the Planning Commission hearing there
were three persons that spoke in opposition to this petition. I
see at least some of those persons here again today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The Golden Gate Civic -- the
Golden Gate Estates Civic Association wanted to do a survey and
actually, as it turned out, we opened it up to go beyond just their
membership. But -- and to avoid any appearance of them
tinkering or doing anything with the return ballots, they actually
had them mailed here to our office.
Page 135
May 9, 2000
Page 29-A of your packet in here shows the breakdown on
that. Overwhelming support for this. 127 in favor, 39 opposed.
That includes not only Estate Civic Association members, but
some other folks who had read about that in either the Golden
Gate Gazette or the Naples Daily News and called and said gee,
we're not in the Estate Civic Association? We do live here, can
we participate? And Ms. Filson actually passed that on to them
as well.
So I think the support is there for this. I think if you look at
the numbers, and Commissioner Berry knows this better than
anybody, the number of homes going up out there, the demand is
clearly there. If you look at the amount of traffic on the
boulevard coming in, if there were an opportunity for them not to
have to drive nine miles for a gallon of milk, I bet they wouldn't.
And -- or for a five dollar gallon of milk, I bet they wouldn't. And
so I'm going to support this.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I am, too.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: You do. And you may want to hear from the
petitioner, if he has anything.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Hoover?
MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover
Planning, representing the petitioner.
I don't have anything to add. But I -- if there is any questions
come up, I'll be happy to answer those.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Your first speaker is Patricia Humphries. You
have three total speakers. Ms. Humphries will be followed by
Richard Gollehon.
Page 136
May 9, 2000
MR. HUMPHRIES: My name is Patricia Humphries and I'm a
member of the board of directors for the Golden Gate Civic
Association.
This request to amend the Golden Gate Master Plan at
Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevard involves the construction of a
shopping center. The Golden Gate Estate Civic Association was
enthusiastic about this shopping center when we were assured
that it would include a Publix store.
Upon learning the anchor store would not be a Publix, the
members voted against pursuing this project. The reason Publix
gave to not build on this site is because it is too small. We did,
however, agree to a membership survey in order to get a broader
opinion count. Unfortunately phone calls were made by the
property owner or developer to the recipients of the survey
promoting the shopping center. The association, therefore,
discounted the survey.
We are opposed to this project for the following reasons:
The developer lost his credibility by not following through with
Publix as the anchor store, and by compromising the survey;
confirmation from Wynn's, Albertson's and Winn-Dixie that they
will not be locating at this proposed shopping center; Publix's
confirmation that they have chosen a different site in Golden
Gate Estates for their store, the intersection of Immokalee Road
and Collier Boulevard; the availability of more appropriate sites in
the Estates already zoned commercial; the widening of Golden
Gate Boulevard and construction of the shopping center
happening simultaneously; and the loss of 25 feet in this section,
making it even smaller.
The Collier County planning services department does not
recommend that this petition be approved. Staff contends that
the project is contrary to size and character intended for the
neighborhood centers, as contained in the Golden Gate Area
Page 137
May 9, 2000
Master Plan, and questions the appropriateness of this location
in respect to serving the commercial needs of residents within
Study Area No.4, as well as two members of the Planning
Commission voted against this petition when it was presented on
April 20th.
That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Other speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Richard Gollehon, followed by
Karen Acquard.
MR. GOLLEHON: I'm Richard Gollehon, to be -- I'm going to
build in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm preparing my property right
now.
When I bought the property, as well as all the people that
lived there that preceded me, they all knew it wasn't a grocery
store. They were going to have to go long distance to get their
supplies. And they all knew that. But they still wanted to live out
here with nature, with a unique area. They didn't want to be
cluttered by stores. They still don't want to be.
And you have a man who's been climbing around doing all
kinds of things, anything he can so we can put some dollars in
his pocket for a development. And we don't even have any -- if
you changed the zoning for him, we don't have any idea what
we're going to get. We really don't want it because there isn't a
store there that they promised us.
So anyway, that's all I can say. People's lived out there for
30 years, over 30 years. They haven't complained about a
grocery store. They go to the grocery store, make a trip, get
their supplies and that's it. And they have what they want.
That's the reason they moved out there. It's the reason I'm
moving out there. Because this is exactly what I want.
And if we allow these developers to come in and develop
every little corner here and there, it's all going to be gone. And
Page 138
May 9, 2000
it's one of the last of the fine nature areas in Southwest Florida.
Thank you very much.
MR. OLLIFF: Your final speaker is Karen Acquard.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just to be clear, as she's
coming up, I've got to ask staff: We're not suggesting we amend
every corner, are we? It's one specific piece of property that's
seven acres?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. ACQUARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Karen Acquard. I'm the vice president of the
Golden Gate Estates Civic Association.
Until a couple of months ago, I was the secretary. And as
part of my duties in doing the minutes, I ended up documenting
the history of our dealings with Centrefund.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Karen, are you speaking on
behalf the --
MS. ACQUARD: No, I'm speaking -- Pat spoke on behalf the
Civic Association. I'm speaking strictly as myself.
In the past year, Centrefund has made assurances and
promises to the members of the Estates Civic. And to the best of
my knowledge, to date they have kept absolutely none of them.
When they approached up about a year ago, it was with the
statement that it would be a Publix store or they would drop
everything. There would be nothing there. When Publix declined
to go in, Centrefund was asked only if they would put this
rezoning process on hold until they could come back and tell the
members what was going in there, what store would anchor it.
They flatly refused.
When the Estates Civic agreed to cooperate with them on a
survey of the members, it was with the understanding that no
one would do anything to influence that survey. You can imagine
Page 139
May 9, 2000
my surprise when I received a call from a gentleman who said
that he was a representative of the Golden Gate Estates Civic
Association, and he had been asked to call all the members and
get their support for Centrefund and this shopping center. He
hung up very rapidly when he was told I was the secretary and
knew nothing about it. The call was traced back to the
landowner and Centrefund. That's why the Civic withdrew
support of that survey.
Now, neither my husband or I filled out the survey, because
what goes in on that corner has no impact on our life. We don't
live in that area, we don't really travel in that area. I might pass
that corner a couple dozen times in a year, and three-quarters of
that time it's because I'm on my way to a meeting that happens
to be at the library. I feel that decision belongs with the property
owners and the residents whose lives it will impact. If they want
a grocery store, I'm not going to oppose them.
However, I do oppose very vehemently an organization that
has lost complete credibility. And if we give them a toehold
without having any idea of what is going to go in there -- they
presented a list that there had to be 25 things that they could
possibly put in there. Well, the residents, I think, have made it
clear, they want a grocery store. All the major grocery stores
have now said no. So I am asking you to vote no on this, until
Centrefund can come to the residents and say okay, this is what
we have for an anchor store and the people get to say whether
that's what they want or not. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all your speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately the laws of land
planning don't allow us to get to pick the brand. It's strictly by
land use. And you don't get to pick that you like one. And I spoke
to the Estates Civic Association at least a year ago on this very
topic when Centrefund was pushing Publix, because I for one
Page 140
May 9, 2000
didn't believe Publix was ever interested in building a 27,000
square foot store. And said don't forget, when you support this
you are not just supporting Publix, you are supporting a zoning.
And at the time the Estates Civic Association did support it.
I do think Centrefund has been less than up front in all of
this. However, I also think, and Commissioner Berry will know
this better than any of us, but I think there is a demand for
services out there. And whether that's grocery or the other big
one is that people say -- when you look on here, I think it's the
only other item that got much of a vote on the response on here,
but it's what I hear regularly anyway, is a drug store, a hardware
store. Those are the big items that people frequently want. I
don't think there's a whole lot of interest in a number of other
things, but there is a demand for some.
We're not looking at changing every corner, nor should we.
Because I do think people are in the estates because they want
to be set in a different type environment. However, that does not
mean that the thousands and thousands and thousands of
families that live out there now particularly enjoy a 30-minute
ride to pick up a few items. And I think this particular seven-acre
parcel is appropriate for the rezone.
I think we'll have an opportunity -- and that's what some of
the folks in the association may not realize, we'll have an
opportunity to deal with some of those specifics when they get
come back to actually get their permitting and all. But if we
don't vote yes here, that opportunity never even arises.
And frankly, it is hard for someone to be out there trying to
encourage a retailer of any sort if they don't even have -- if the
Growth Management Plan won't even allow that use in that area.
It's not a simple rezone, it's not even allowed.
So I'm going to vote to support it. I am also going to be very
vigilant, though, in the process, if -- with whomever they bring
Page 141
May 9, 2000
forward and whatever land plan that they have, I know the
community's very sensitive as to what they do and don't want in
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it a public hearing?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I feel that -- I feel the same way
that Commissioner Constantine does. And I would just say to
Centrefund or whomever ends up with this, that look very
strongly at a drug store. Because I know that that was one of the
big concerns from the people who lived out there in terms of if
they could get a grocery store such as like a -- I won't mention a
brand but a Publix which has the ability to have pharmacies, or
Albertson's that has a pharmacy. They were looking for that kind
of service. And those are the kinds of requests that I hear.
Now, maybe it isn't the people that live within, you know, a
few short steps away from this particular center, but certainly
the people that even live east of Wilson, this is a concern that
they have. So all the people that live beyond and in that general
vicinity, this is -- these are the people that I'm trying to address
with their concerns.
You know, and here again, I think that when this does come
back, I think we need to look at it very, very carefully. Because I
just -- frankly, I don't want garbage going in there. I think you all
deserve, you know, something that's going to certainly
compliment the neighborhood out there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll move approval.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
All those in favor, please state aye.
All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 142
May 9, 2000
Item #12A5d
ORDINANCE 2000-30, CP-99-04, ~OHN A. PULLING, JR. AND
LUCY G. FINCH, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT BY ADDING A NEW SUBDISTRICT TO BE KNOWN
AS THE "ORANGE BLOSSOM MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT" FOR
SPECIFIED LANDS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND ORANGE BLOSSOM DR. - ADOPTED
WITH STIPULATIONS
Let's go to Item 12(A)(5)(D), CP-99-04.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, finally unanimous
recommendation to adopt. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Tough crew today. Go ahead.
MR. WEEKS: Me?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: We're finished with the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan, I believe. This is an amendment to the Future Land
Use Element.
It is at both the northeast and southwest corners of Airport
Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive. The total site consists
of approximately 14.4 acres. This amendment to the Future Land
Use Element is to create the Orange Blossom mixed use
subdistrict, a new provision that will allow for office and retail
commercial uses, as well as residential uses, neighborhood
mixed use type of development.
Staff recommendation is not to adopt. Our concerns and
issues with the petition, number one, is the lack of need for
additional commercial in this particular area. And secondly, we
don't believe that the site will meet the intent of the subdistrict,
because part of the intent of this district is to be interconnected
Page 143
May 9, 2000
with the surrounding neighborhood, and we think there's not a lot
of opportunity to do that because of the existing development
pattern.
The Department of Community Affairs, in their ORC Report,
had no comments on this petition, the Planning Commission gave
a unanimous recommendation of approval, and there has been no
correspondence received and there were no speakers at the
Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This seems to be completely
contrary to what we're trying to achieve. I mean, this section is
what, a mile, half mile? How far north of Pine Ridge is this?
MR. WEEKS: From the intersection, a little over a mile.
Probably a mile and a quarter, mile and a half.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How far from the activity center
boundary?
MR. WEEKS: Maybe half a mile.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, because, I mean, we're
looking at the single most congested intersection, busiest
intersection in the county. Already has all kinds of commercial.
And you look at the Pioneer Lakes PUD that has all kinds of yet
to be developed commercial, you're only going to get worse
there. You throw this in there, you're going to create that much
more congestion, it would seem. And it's contrary to what we've
always tried to space out.
I know we're even looking at doing different things with the
activity centers, but try to space those out a certain distance
from each other. It doesn't meet that. And I think your final
point about interconnection is an excellent one. I mean, it just
goes completely contrary to the direction we've been trying to
set and Commissioner Hancock had tried to set when he was
here with the interconnections.
Page 144
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just say, though, this goes
back to the commonsense thoughts about what is an appropriate
land use for a piece of property. I don't see how this piece of
property, anybody could expect that there's going to be a
residential home there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Even though it's surrounded by
residential homes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think that's a very reasonable
expectation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's -- I'm sorry, it's on
Airport Pulling Road across from -- you know, I disagree.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Across from vacant --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's going to be a major -- I hate to
say -- use the word major, but is this not going to be a major road
that's going to go on over to Livingston?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So it's going to be -- in other
words, technically you could come off of Livingston Road and
come across on this roadway, come through the intersection at
Airport Road and continue traveling west on Orange Blossom
over to Goodlette Road?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You think a house could go
there? Because this is not a big enough piece of property for a
multiple -- you know, for a development, a community. It just
doesn't make sense to me that it --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the total acreage?
MR. WEEKS: Approximately 14.4. That's -- there's two
parcels. Close to five acres on the northeast and a little less than
10 on the southeast.
Page 145
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is there a nursery on that
northeast corner?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that what it is?
MR. WEEKS: Plant nursery, yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the current zoning,
underlying zoning?
MR. WEEKS: Agricultural on both parcels.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm just --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which you've -- you've got several
situations along Airport Road that you've got some of the ago
zoning. And I'm not sure it's really appropriate for that area. You
know, it's just the way it is. It happened years ago when that
was out in the country.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's just never been rezoned.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's never been rezoned.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Everything was ago at one time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, what might be more
appropriate than turning that into commercial would be some
sort of, you know, condominium type thing or something other
than -- I just think we're making a huge mistake if you add
commercial in there. It's contrary to everything we're trying to
do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since it's neighborhood
commercial, I disagree. If it were activity center kinds of uses,
I'd agree.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What -- give me some of the types
of commercial that would go in there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we hear from the
petitioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
Page 146
May 9, 2000
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to quickly mention, if the
visualizer could be turned on, it shows the location of the subject
site, the surrounding zoning and so forth. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, there.
MS. MONTGOMERY: For the record, my name is Neale
Montgomery. I just want to pick up on some of the points that
Commissioner Mac'Kie has made.
It is a long narrow piece that has a lot of frontage on Airport
Road. For that reason, because Airport's going to be a future six-
lane road there, it's not really appropriate for conventional
single-family type uses. And it isn't strictly a commercial use.
You know, if you were talking big box, I would agree with you,
this is an inappropriate place for that. I think your big boxes are
all located at your activity center. You know, and you've got
your Lowe's and your Target's and all of those things down at the
major intersection.
What we're talking about here is really a minor commercial,
which is retail and office and residential. So it's a mixed use.
This is your classic infill sort of location. You know, it's an odd
shape, it's long and narrow, so you've got all that frontage on a
noisy road. But you don't really want to have potential -- you've
got a large Greek Orthodox church that's there to the north.
And it is ago right now, which is actually going to have -- is
having more impacts on those residences behind it than if you
had a developed landscape mixed use project. So one of the
reasons why you don't see a lot of people here from those
residences right next door is because they happen to believe
that this will be better for them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because they're in Ohio this
week?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I don't think so.
Page 147
May 9, 2000
You know, and Orange Blossom is programmed to be four-
laned in the future. So again, this isn't really where you want to
put your conventional single family at the -- at the future
intersection of a six and a four-lane road. And you really don't
have a lot of places where you can have small-scale retail and
office uses. Because you have all your big national regional
chains that sort of, you know, latched onto those activity
centers.
So this is really, given all those factors, an ideal location for
a small-scale, minor-scale office and retail and residential mix on
this infield parcel.
And, you know, the traffic issues and all those other kinds of
-- you know, looking more closely at the landscaping and how it
all interrelates, will all be revisited at public hearings through the
zoning stage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question? The--
basically the commercial uses are as intense as C-3. But if I
understand what I'm reading here, this is not a rezone -- in other
words, a PUD will have to come in before this can be developed.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this is a PUD that would have
to come in. It would be primarily office with some neighborhood
kind of retail, all interconnected with pedestrian -- I mean, can
you tell us some of the features of the proposed district?
Because it's not -- with all due respect to Commissioner
Constantine, this is not a commercial district being plopped
down in the middle of Airport Road. This is a mixed use
residential. It seems to me more like a Fifth Avenue kind of
development.
MS. MONTGOMERY: And it's required to be that way. The
way the district's set up is -- you know, sometimes when you
have mixed use, people can come in and develop all, like the
Page 148
May 9, 2000
commercial use, or all residential. And it doesn't end up ever
being truly a mixed use district. It ends up being a district that
avails you in a number of uses, but you don't have to do all of
them.
The way this district's set up, you have to do a mix of uses.
You have to do them. They all have to be interconnected. You
can't build out all the commercial unless you've got some of the
residential. So you've got to bring it in and develop it as a mixed
use project, as an interrelated project. And if --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So you do see it at least in part
as appropriate for residential use.
MS. MONTGOMERY: In part. As a downtown dewani type
traditional development, yes. But not as a single-family type, you
know, like a lot of the other bigger projects, because it's not big
enough. As a second-story type of, you know, lot situation, sure,
it's appropriate for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you say this is more like
what some Fifth Avenue -- I mean, you've got four sides of
architectural --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your theme of the day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's my theme of the day.
More like that because it's got four sides of architecturally
finished buildings, it's got pedestrian interconnections. This is
just not a commercial proposal. I wish we could get a better
picture before us of what might happen.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, maybe we can.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And you've got the new church
that sits right to the north of that, I believe. And then the road, I
guess --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- goes between. Is that correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's right.
Page 149
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that right?
MR. PULLING: It was our intent --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Could you identify yourself?
MR. PULLING: I'm John Pulling, Jr., and I'm one of the
owners of the piece of property.
The property is basically divided up into two sides of that
intersection, with 10 acres on the south side and four acres on
the north side. We really wanted to design something on that
piece of property that would be very, very similar to The
Promenade in Bonita Springs, which is a 10-acre piece of
property also.
Now, they have basically mixed uses of commercial and
office space up there, with no residential on the top of them that
I know of. We did want to add the residential on that, which was
not our thing. When we originally came into the county
commission, we wanted to put a single story waterside
promenade type development in there. And the county staff
wanted us to turn this into a mixed use with the office and the
residential. So we went ahead with that and agreed. That was
not our original intent. But since that's what they wanted, we
decided that that would probably still work all right as long as we
made the area in there kind of interconnected and very, very nice
looking on the inside of it with the fountains and the waterfalls
and things like that and with lots of landscaping.
I've been in the nursery business, and I above all else know
the value of having a beautiful site. And it's not -- it was never
our intent to build a strip mall in there or anything like that.
These are going to be small little 7,000 square foot pads. They
all will be interconnected with walkways, but be separate pads,
not a, you know, big, you know, long commercial buildings or that
type of thing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: With cubby holes.
Page 150
May 9, 2000
MR. PULLING: Little small buildings divided up, you know,
with walkways and stuff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How many residential units do
you see appearing in here?
MR. PULLING: Not very many. About 15, you know. And
they would be apartments on the third floor. There's not very
much room up there that we can put too many apartments,
because you really don't want apartments on the front part that
are going to face Airport Road. We were talking more like about
apartments towards the rear.
This whole development will basically sit in the center with
the parking surrounding that. So on the back side where they're
basically facing over towards the parking lot in the back and
then down on the water area towards the front, if they walk out
of their front door, they'll look out on the garden and waterfalls
and stuff like that. That would be the area that we'll be putting
the residential.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So instead of Fifth Avenue, it's
more like promenade, only with the residential.
MR. PULLING: That would be -- yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does that ruin it for you?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Trying to paint the picture.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, anything
you want to add?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm going to look -- I'm
taking a little different tactic here. I think this is an opportunity
to take a piece of property and I think that design is going to be
king here. And I would look when we bring back the PUD, and
then make sure that everything that Mr. Pulling is telling us this
afternoon does indeed end up in this design. And I'm in favor of it
because of those reasons.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve it.
Page 151
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve it subject to
the conditions we have described--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that Commissioner Carter just
described.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- based on that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Further
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybodyopposed? Me.
Motion carries 4-1. I knew that 5-0 was too good to last.
Item #12A5e
ORDINANCE 2000-31, CP-99-06, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
ELEMENT, TO CORRECT, UPDATE, MODIFY CERTAIN COSTS,
REVENUE SOURCES, SUPPORTING POLICIES, AND THE DATES
OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES ENUMERATED IN THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
ELEMENT - ADOPTED AS AMENDED
The next three look as though they may go a little bit more
quickly. 99-06, Item E.
MR. LITSINGER: Good afternoon. Stan Litsinger,
comprehensive planning manager.
Page 152
May 9, 2000
The next item is your annual update and -- excuse me, your
annual update and amendment to the capital improvement
element, which reflects your direction --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Unless there's something you
need specifically on the record, I'll move approval.
MR. LITSINGER: I need to make one correction, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: On Page 45 of your agenda package, the
designation of level of service standards, state and federal roads
down on the bottom of the page, A-2, I need to enter a correction
for the existing rural area. U.S. 41 will be amended to D from C.
The same applies to SR84, SR951, SR29 and SR82.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So all of the existing state and
federal roads have a level of service of D as in dog except for 1-
75?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I don't expect that there's
enough data and analysis to support a change in the proposed
levels of service for roadways, but I do understand that that
study continues to be ongoing with MPO and that we will be
seeing that as a question for the board on whether or not we
want to continue to have D as an acceptable level of service.
MR. LITSINGER: You'll be hearing more from that from
Gavin. Actually, I'm ahead of him. I'm making the CIE consistent
with the transportation element which follows.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You give us the bad news, he
gives us the good news?
MR. LITSINGER: That's true.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And with that correction, I
believe Commissioner Norris has a motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
Page 153
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
No public speakers.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12A5f
ORDINANCE 2000-32, CP-99-07, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT,
AMENDING TABLE V, THE COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
DATA BASE, AND VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION MAPS; UPDATE
LISTS AND TABLES WHERE APPROPRIATE; INCORPORATE BY
REFERENCE THE CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
TAMIAMI TRAIL SCENIC HIGHWAY; INCORPORATE BY
REFERENCE THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
PLAN; CHANGE THE MINIMUM STANDARD LEVEL OF SERVICE
ON STATE FACILITIES IN RURAL AREAS FROM C TO D; AND
MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF "SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" - ADOPTED
We go to Item F, CP-99-07. Gavin?
MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman. For the record, Gavin Jones,
transportation planning manager.
This amendment has returned unchanged but for the
deletion of the build-out network. We were unable to complete
the study that would have yielded a network that we could
incorporate into the element in this cycle. And that's part of your
-- that's part of your unified planning work program for the
coming fiscal year. So sometime after July 1 --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we better approve this
then.
Page 154
May 9, 2000
MR. JONES: -- we'll do it under the MPO budget and
incorporate it next year.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Be happy to entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There are no public speakers.
We have a motion from Commissioner Norris, second from
Commissioner Carter. All those in the favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's a 5-0, unanimous vote.
Item #12A5g
ORDINANCE 2000-33, CP-99-08, BONITA BAY PROPERTIES,
AMENDING THE PLAN TEXT FOR ACTIVITY CENTER #9 AND
AMENDING THE MAP ENTITLED ACTIVITY CENTER #9 - ADOPTED
We go to Item G, CP-99-08, Bonita Bay Properties. Request
to amend the plan text.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, David Weeks, again, of
comprehensive planning staff.
This petition is to make an amendment at the 1-75 Collier
Boulevard, also known as County Road 951 interchange activity
center. Based upon the action you've taken this morning, you
have in fact put that new activity center boundary into effect.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can you lead me to a page
you're on here? We've kind of gotten lost with all the maps.
MR. WEEKS: 128.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
MR. WEEKS: The short of it, Commissioners, is this petition
was filed as an insurance policy by the petitioner, just in case
Page 155
May 9, 2000
somehow, some way, the action taken this morning did not
occur.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this comports with the action
that we adopted this morning?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I make a motion we approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is it necessary, or is it a moot
point?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's insurance. Can't hurt.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough. Would the
petitioner like to say anything on this item? Very good.
We have a motion and second.
Any other speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Anderson was lurking to answer questions,
was the only speaker.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let the minutes reflects that Mr.
Anderson was lurking. I like that.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 2000-34, AMENDING ORDINANCE 97-48,
SIMPLIFYING AND REDUCING WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
RATES - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Page 156
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And then one final piece of good
news before we let everybody go for the day, 12(C)(1), adopt an
ordinance amending ordinance simplifying and reducing water
and sewer utility rates.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're referring to our already
very low water rates are going to be reduced once again?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hard to believe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They may be very low, but
interestingly still a little bit higher than the City of Naples rates.
I was just curious why that is.
MR. FINN: I'll answer that. For the record, Edward Finn
interim public works administrator.
The city, as you know, has had their utility in place for many
years. They are essentially at build-out. Unlike the county,
they're not growing at as fast a rate as we are. They don't have
the same kind of renewal replacement --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: These are capitals?
MR. FINN: -- expansion, enhancement needs that we do on
an ongoing basis. And that largely accounts for it.
Additionally, being a fairly young utility, we're still carrying a
fair amount of debt, and we still have a fair amount of debt
service built into our rates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I knew that you'd be able to
answer my question. I appreciate that.
MR. FINN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Besides that, they know what
their water's worth.
MR. FINN: If I may, this item is a follow-up to the board's
direction to review and update our district's rates. As a result of
a review conducted by ~ohn Maher and Associates --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff's
recommendation.
Page 157
May 9, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry.
MR. FINN: If I may, just for the record, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Please.
MR. FINN: I do have a scribner's error.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't believe I ever
acknowledged Commissioner Mac'Kie anyway, so keep right on
going.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He never does.
MR. FINN: I was planning to bring Mr. Maher up here for a
very, very brief presentation. He has it down to two minutes. A
scribner's error in the proposed ordinance on Page 2, Line 3, and
on Page 4, Line 10, under sewer. The text should read "service
availability charge for individually metered residential, non-
residential and multi-family," colon, strike the word "and
irrigation." There's no sewer charge on irrigation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes sense.
MR. FINN: If it does please the Chairman, I would ask Mr.
Maher to come up and give you his very brief presentation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Serving the purpose of?
MR. FINN: It's up to the Chair.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Where is Mr. Maher?
MR. WEEKS: There's no particular purpose other than to
have a little bit on the record and answer questions that the
board has.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Couldn't he just put a written
report in the record and we're satisfied?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Pleasure to have you here,
though. We appreciate you spending the day with us.
We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
Page 158
May 9, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion from
Commissioner Mac'Kie and there's a second from Commissioner
Norris to lower the rates, among other things. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ooh, yet another unanimous
vote. Very exciting. Thank you all. That completes our agenda
for today.
Item #14
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Olliff, anything you want to share with us before we go
away for the day?
MR. OLLIFF: Not a thing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ramiro?
MR. MANALICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three very brief
items. First on behalf of County Attorney David Weigel, he just
wanted me to inform you he had a follow-up medical appointment
with his son out of town today, but he'll be very happy to rejoin
you at your next meeting.
Secondly, Item 16(B)(8), which was approved as part of your
consent agenda this morning, just a clarification. That was the
item having to do with a prior resolution limiting the removal of
exotics of Australian Pines along Pelican Bay Beach.
We will need, consistent with the board's approval for the
clerk, to reserve a new resolution number to change what the
prior resolution had provided. So we'll go ahead and do that.
And finally, Ms. Student has a bit of litigation news for you.
Page 159
May 9, 2000
MS. STUDENT: Again, for the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney.
I'm very pleased to announce that we had word last week
that the county prevailed in the Sterns case, which if you recall
was a conditional use which was denied back -- I believe it was
the summer of 1998.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The naked truth came out on
that one.
MS. STUDENT: We prevailed in circuit court. It was
appealed to the Second DCA. We prevailed at the Second DCA.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
Item #15
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, anything?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I wouldn't think of it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: ~ust a quick bit of information for
the board to know that in my conversation with our attorney, Ms.
Linnan, and discussion of the compo plan amendments proposed
today, I inquired of her whether or not the ordinance that the
board adopted last week eliminating people who sue the county
from serving on these committees to study the compo plan
amendments and the settlement agreement with the Governor, I
Page 160
May 9, 2000
asked whether or not anyone had inquired of her opinion in that
regard, and no one did. And as a matter of fact, she indicated to
me it didn't sound like a very good idea. So I wonder -- I just
wanted to share that with the board.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You were on the minority on
that, though, weren't you?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was the minority on that vote.
And I think it was a very bad idea. And I hope that all of you who
were in the majority will discuss it with Ms. Linnan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Nothing like a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, let it go.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- graceful --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good advice.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- loser on an issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Better discuss it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ramiro, how many attorneys do
we have working for us right here in the building?
MR. MANALICH: We have approximately nine, 10.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You hired one as an expert on
this particular issue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't think it was in that
ordinance.
Anyway, thank you. This coming Friday, I invite you all down
to Commissioner Mac'Kie's district on Fifth Avenue. We're
having a little party down there at McCabe's Irish Pub from 4:00
to 7:00. Join me.
Ms. Filson, may we be excused?
MS. FILSON: You may.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Page 161
May 9, 2000
***Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by
Commissioner Berry, and carried unanimously, that the following
items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved
and/or adopted: * * *
Item #16A1
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 1999 TOURISM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE TOURISM ALLIANCE OF
COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $77.855
Item #16A2
FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST PHASE III, UNIT TWO" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
BID NO. 00-3055 FOR THE PAINTING OF AERIAL WATER,
WASTEWATER AND EFFLUENT LINES - AWARDED TO SEACOR
PAINTING CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $44.220
Item #16B2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1(D) (FINAL) TO CONTRACT NO. 97-2771,
REMOVAL OF NON-SPECIFICATION MATERIAL FROM THE
NAPLES BEACH - WITH C.B.E. TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $115.263.48
Page 162
May 9, 2000
Item #16B3
AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WILSONMILLER, INC. FOR THE SANTA
BARBARA EXTENSION ALIGNMENT STUDY, PROJECT #60091 - IN
THE AMOUNT OF $224.123
Item #16B4 - Moved to Item #8B3
Item #16B5 - Deleted
Item #16B6 - Deleted
Item #16B7
CONFIRMATION NOT TO INSTALL A "MULTI-WAY STOP" AT
GLADES BOULEVARD AND LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD
Item #16B8
RESOLUTION 2000-131, REDUCING THE EXOTIC VEGETATION
REMOVAL REQUIREMENT IN RESOLUTION 99-168 AND
VEGETATION REMOVAL PERMIT VRP-99-5, TO LIMIT THE
REMOVAL OF EXOTICS TO THE CONSTRUCTION AREA WHICH
WOULD LIMIT THE REQUIREMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE
REMOVAL OF NINE AUSTRALIAN PINES ALONG THE PELICAN
BAY BEACH
Item #16C1
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2000-07, SUMMERFEST, TO BE HELD AT
SUGDEN PARK JUNE 15-17,2000; CARNIVAL PERMIT 2000-08,
Page 163
May 9, 2000
COUNTRY JAMBORIE, TO BE HELD AT VINEYARDS COMMUNITY
PARK SEPTEMBER 15-16, 2000; CARNIVAL PERMIT 2000-09,
SNOWFEST, TO BE HELD AT GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK
DECEMBER 9, 2000; AND APPLICATION FEES AND SURETY BOND
WAIVED FOR THE THESE SPECIAL EVENTS
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE FROM A ONE
TIME $2,000 DONATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MEMORIAL
BENCH AT VANDERBILT BEACH PARK
Item #16C3 - Deleted
Item #16C4
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE THE PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT $50,000 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST, TO
PURCHASE FITNESS EQUIPMENT FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY
CENTER AT MAX A. HASSE COMMUNITY PARK
Item #16C5
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE (AGREEMENT) WITH MR.
ROBERT C. OTTEMAN, FOR THE PURCHASE OF 2.73 +/- ACRES
OF LAND WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF
LIVINGSTON WOODS, ALSO KNOWN AS GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
UNIT 35, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK AND APPRAISAL WAIVED
Item #16C6
Page 164
May 9, 2000
STAFF TO PRODUCE THE SUMMERFEST TEEN CONCERT; PRE-
AUTHORIZATION TO RECOGNIZE THE REVENUE FROM THE
ANTI-TOBACCO COALITION GRANT AND FIRST NATIONAL
SPONSORSHIP
Item #16C7 - Moved to Item #8C2
Item #16D1 - Deleted
Item #16D2
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE WITH COMMUNITY
HEALTH PARTNERS FOR RFP-97-2675 "PRE-EMPLOYMENT
PHYSICALS AND DRUG TESTING"
Item #16D3
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EMERGENCY AND UNANTICIPATED
EXPENDITURES FOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS #00-224 AND #00-227
Item #16G1
BID #00-3056, FOR THE NEW EMS-17 FACILITY LOCATED IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - AWARDED TO F & D CONSTRUCTION,
INC. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $593.903
Item #16G2
Page 165
May 9, 2000
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM GENERAL
FUND RESERVES HELICOPTER ENGINE RESERVE FUND FOR AN
ENGINE OVERHAUL - IN THE AMOUNT OF $52.144
Item #16G3
RESOLUTION 2000-132 AND AGREEMENT #00-EO-C9-13-00-22-
018, BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR STATE FUNDS TO BE USED
FOR THE SPECIFIED STORM SHELTER RETROFITTING AT PINE
RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND VILLAGE OAKS ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL; AND INCREASING THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
GRANT FUND BY $26.500
Item #16H 1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 166
16H 1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
MAY 9, 2000
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
2. Districts:
A. Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes of meeting held
December 1, 1999 by the Board of Supervisors and Financial Statements -
Unaudited for 10/31/99
AGENO~ ITEM
No. / H
HAY 09 2000
H:DataIFormat
Pg. I
May 9, 2000
Item #1611
TRANSFER OF $820,330 FROM RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES
TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE OPERATING FUND FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF PAY PLAN ADJUSTMENTS
Item #16J 1
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GEORGE
ARCHIBALD AS TECHNICAL ENGINEER TO ASSIST THE COUNTY
RELATING TO THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY ACQUISITION
INTERESTS INCLUDING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS FOR
PENDING AND FUTURE ROAD PROJECTS - AT THE DISCOUNTED
RATE OF $85.00 PER HOUR FOR NON-TRIAL WORK AND $125.00
PER HOUR FOR ALL TRIAL WORK
Item #16J2
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR
OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
PURSUIT OF COUNTY'S CLAIMS, RIGHTS RELATING TO THE
1995-96 BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT
Item #17A
BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 2000-02, AMENDING THE
BUDGET FOR THE 1999/00 FISCAL YEAR
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2000-133, RE PETITION VAC-98-008, VACATING A
PORTION OF HIGHLAND DRIVE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
Page 167
May 9, 2000
PINELAND-ON-THE-TRAIL AND ACCEPTING A COUNTY UTILITY
EASEMENT OVER EXISTING COUNTY FACILITIES
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2000-134, RE PETITION V-2000-03, MILES L.
SCOFIELD REPRESENTING GEORGE C. KELLOGG, REQUESTING
A 5-FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT WEST SIDE
YARD SETBACK TO 2.5 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 242
BAREFOOT BEACH. LOT 10. BAYFRONT GARDENS
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:05 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
TIM
Page 168
May 9, 2000
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
"".
. ".
'.
B~:~'~J--
:. -;; .' ,.. ~~:,.~,',~\' ,:-: '.
. ~~U~t" '!l".to ,Ch.a'~ ~
. ..i~gA~t~ Mi~~" "
, .... ..\ .
',<r,hese' ,minutes approved by the Board on
'("10,1"
presented v-- or as corrected
D.C.
te//3-/OD , as
.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY
PUBLIC
Page 169