BCC Minutes 09/12/2000 RSeptember t2, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 12, 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:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
Timothy J. Constantine
Barbara B. Berry
David E. Brandt
James D. Carter
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Tom Olliff, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page I
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, September 12, 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.
1
September 12,2000
INVOCATION - Reverend David Woerner, East Naples United Methodist Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
APPROVAL OF CONSENTAGENDA
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 1,2000 - Regular Meeting.
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1)
Proclamation designating September as "Leukemia and Lymphoma
Awareness Month in Collier County". To be accepted by Helen Dunn,
Leukemia Survivor and Cis Curtin, Director of Suncoast Chapter of the
Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.
2)
Proclamation designating September 18 - 22, 2000 as "Industry
Appreciation Week". To be accepted by Susan Pareigis.
3)
Proclamation designating October 4, 2000 as "Collier County Walk Our
Children To School Day". To be accepted by Beth Yang from MPO.
4)
Proclamation recognizing the efforts of the Diversity Committee. To be
accepted by Frank Rodriguez.
s)
Proclamation designating September 29, 2000 as "Law Enforcement
Appreciation Day". To be accepted by Sheriff Hunter.
B. SERVICE AWARDS
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Miguel Alvarado, Pelican Bay - 5 yrs
Michele Mosca, Planning Services- 5 yrs
Ruth Szabo, Library - 5 yrs
Gregory Yanda, Public Utilities Wastewater Dept. - 5 yrs
Julio Ordonez, Engineering & Construction Mgmt - 10 yrs
Nancy Frye, Transportation Road and Bridge- 15 yrs
Paul Miller, Ochopee Fire Control District- 15 yrs
2
September 12,2000
=
=
8) Edward Torroni, Parks & Recreation - 25 yrs
C. PRESENTATIONS
1) Recommendation to recognize James H. Wyatt, Plant Operator II, Water
Department, as Employee of the Month for August 2000.
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Dyrel Delaney concerning a rear yard setback.
B. Monte Lazarus with the Marco Island Senior Squadron Civil Air Patrol concerning
construction of the proposed Civil Air Patrol Hangar at the Marco Island
Executive Airport.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection - South District Office - to allow an
environmental professional to be housed in the County's Development
Services Center for purposes of conducting State required wetlands
analysis on building permit applications,
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Authorize the Transportation Administrator to proceed with the design and
construction of Livingston Road as a controlled access six-lane facility
from Radio Road to Lee County Line, and begin processing the
appropriate change orders and amendments, Projects 60061,60071,
62071,65041.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
Board authorization to implement a Radio Technology Water Meter
Reading Program in Fiscal Year 2001..ofessional
2) This item has been deleted
3
September 12,2000
3) A report to the Board on the Potable Water Sub-Element of the Collier
County Growth Management Plan.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
B. Appointment of member to the Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board.
C. Appointment of members to the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals.
D. Appointment of member to the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force.
E. Appointment of member to the Bayshore/Avalon Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
F. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
G. Appointment of members to the Collier County Health Care Planning and
Finance Ad Hoc Committee.
H. Appointment of Commissioner to serve as the Everglades Restoration key
contact person for the County Commission. (Commissioner Mac'Kie)
I. Appointment of member to the Workforce Development Board, Region 24.
J. This item has been deleted.
K. Discussion relating to the naming of a neighborhood park in Golden Gate. (Tract
179) (Commissioner Constantine)
4
September 12,2000
L. Request from the City of Marco to adopt a resolution regarding piping plover.
(Commissioner Brandt.)
M. Discussion regarding speed limit on Collier Boulevard (Mainsail Drive to Judge
Jolly Bridge) (Commissioner Brandt.)
11. OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Request to authorize County Attorney to draft ordinance prohibiting the
retail sale of handguns without a three day waiting period. (Sheriff
Hunter)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 1, 2000 MEETING.
Petition PUD-2000-09 Brad Hedrich, P.E. of Hedrich Engineering Inc.,
representing Meridian Land Co. requesting a rezoning for property
currently zoned "A" Rural Agricultural, "RSF-3" Residential Single Family
and "ST" overlay to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Madeira PUD for a maximum of 438 residential dwelling units for property
located on the west side of Livingston Road, approximately 3A miles north
of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846), in Sections 13 and 24, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 145.93 +/-
acres.
2)
Petition CU-2000-10 Richard Grant of Grant, Fridkin, Pearson, Athan &
Crown, P.A. representing Signature Communities, Inc., requesting
Conditional Use "5" of the "RT" Zoning District per Section 2.2.8.3. for a
private club for property located at 9467 Gulf Shore Drive North, in
Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
5
September 12,2000
3)
Petition PUD-00-10, Ms. Karen Bishop of Project Management Services,
Inc., representing Royal Palm Builders I, Inc., requesting a rezone from
"A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Meadowbrook PUD allowing for 293 residential dwelling units for property
located on the east side of Airport-Pulling Road (C.R. 31 ) and south of the
Carillon PUD, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 48.87 acres more or less.
OTHER
1)
Approval of a Resolution approving the preliminary assessment roll as the
final assessment roll and adopting same as the nomad valorem
assessment roll for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection
pursuant to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste District
No. 1 Municipal Service Benefit Unit Special Assessment levied against
certain residential properties within the unincorporated area of Collier
County pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 90-30, as amended.
2)
Approval of a Resolution approving the preliminary assessment roll as the
final assessment roll and adopting same as the non-ad valorem
assessment roll for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection
pursuant to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste District
No. 2 Municipal Service Benefit Unit Special Assessment levied against
certain residential properties within the unincorporated area of Collier
County pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 90-30, as amended.
3)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 17 2000 MEETING.
Adopt an Ordinance to amend the Collier County Road Impact Fee
Ordinance by clarifying when "use of land" road impact fees, such as
those applicable to golf courses, become due and payable; providing that
when road impact fees become delinquent that penalty and interest
provisions apply as of the first date of delinquency; providing that
specified development orders can be withheld if road impact fees are not
paid in full when due.
4)
Adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 91-107 allowing for
Roadway Lighting Improvements within the Forest Lakes Roadway and
Drainage Municipal Service Taxing Unit (M.S.T.U.), Project No. 68062
s)
An Ordinance amending the Collier County Ethics Ordinance (No. 99-22)
to establish additional and more stringent gift prohibitions.
6)
Adopt an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 97-17, the Collier County
Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance.
6
September 12,2000
7) Review hearing to determine eligibility to submit alternative road impact
fee calculations for Tiburon, Pelican Marsh and Bay Colony golf courses.
8)
Review hearing to determine eligibility to submit an alternative road
impact fee calculation for two nine-hole golf courses at Grey Oaks.
9)
Review hearing to determine eligibility to submit an alternative road
impact fee calculation for the Valencia at Orangetree golf course.
lo)
Review hearing to consider an alternative road impact fee calculation for
Vanderbilt Country Club.
,11)
Review hearing to consider an alternative road impact fee calculation for
Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club.
13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1)
Petition V-98-1, A. Kurt Ardaman, representing ABC Liquors, Inc.,
requesting a 15 foot variance from the required 15 foot landscape buffer
strip to zero (0) feet for property located on the north side of Tamiami Trail
East and further described as Lot 36, Naples Grove and Truck Company's
No. 2, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
2)
Petition V-2000-14, Kirk Sanders requesting a 2.3-foot after-the-fact
variance from the required 10-foot rear yard setback established for
accessory structures to 7.7 feet for a storage building for property located
at 1130 Sperling Avenue and is further described as Lot 14, Block "B",
Sperling's Subdivision, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
3)
Petition V-2000-16, Suncoast Custom Pools, representing Taylor
Woodrow Communities, requesting a 2.2-foot after-the-fact variance from
the required 10-foot rear yard setback to 7.8 feet for property located at
1772 Winding Oaks Way, further described as Lot 202, Stonebridge Unit
4, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
4)
Petition SV-2000-02, Mario Lamendola, Architect, representing Henry and
Marianne Filkoski requesting a 40-foot variance from the required 150-foot
road frontage for a pole sign to 110 feet for a property located at 1301
Airport Road South approximately 650 feet north of Davis Boulevard
intersection on the east side of the road.
7
September 12,2000
14.
15.
5)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 1, 2000 MEETING.
Petition CU-2000-06 David W. Rynders, representing James K. Keiser,
requesting Conditional Use "14" of the "A" zoning district for a Clothing
Optional Social Club per Section 2.2.2.3 for property located at 1311 Pet
Ranch Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida consisting of 8.71 +/- acres.
B. OTHER
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
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.
Approved and/or Adopted with changes - 5/0
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the Collier County School Board
to place ozone monitoring equipment at Laurel Oak Elementary School to
conduct ambient air quality monitoring for the urban area of the County.
2)
Approval of Amendment #2 for Contract GC530 with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to continue to oversee
the clean-up of petroleum contaminated sites in Collier County.
3)
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.753,
"Otero Commercial Excavation No. 4" located in Section 19, Township 48
South, Range 28 East; Bounded on the north by Oil Well Road right-of-
way, on the west by occupied lot, on the south by vacant lot, and on the
east by vacant lot.
4)
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.756,
"Steven's Lake Commercial Excavation" located in Section 7, Township
49 South, Range 27 East; Bounded on the north by occupied lot, on the
west 21st Street S.W. right-of-way; on the south occupied lot, and on the
east by occupied lot.
5)
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.757,
"Jim Weeks Commercial Excavation, NW corner Desoto & 29th" located in
Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 28 East: Bounded on the north by
8
September 12,2000
6)
?)
8)
9)
~o)
~)
12)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
vacant land zoned Estates, on the east by DeSoto Boulevard, on the
South by 29th Avenue NW, and on the west by vacant land zoned Estates.
Request the Board of County Commissioners to set a public hearing date
for November 28, 2000 for consideration of a proposed Development of
Regional Impact and Development Order for Petition DRI-99-03.
Award of RFP 00-3088 and approval of contract to provide independent
legal counsel for the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
Approval of a Business Manager position in the Community Development
and Environmental Services Division.
Final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Eckerds at
Galleria.
Final acceptance of water facilities for Carlton Lakes, Tract E.
Final acceptance of pump station utility facilities for Rookery Bay.
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Timarron Unit One".
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Fiddler's Creek Phase
2A, Unit One".
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit
Nineteen", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance
Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "lsla Vista at Grey Oaks",
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Carlton Lakes Unit No.
3A", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit
Eighteen", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance
Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit
Seventeen", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
9
September 12,2000
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance
Security.
19)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Indigo Lakes Unit
Three", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security,
20)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Tiburon Boulevard East
Extension" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance
Security.
21)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Audubon Country Club,
Unit Three", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance
Security.
22)
Approval of budget amendments to reimburse Community Development
Fund from impact fee revenues for annual cost of impact fee
administration program.
23)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
resolution to correct the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Development area due to a scrivener's error.
24)
Approval of additional technical work to be performed by Richard
Tomasello, P.E., in reviewing the Flood Insurance Rate Map Revisions
(FIRMS) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).
25)
Authorize the County Attorney to draft an ordinance prohibiting
commemial "Pay" telephones on residential property.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve cooperative agreement between the County and Big Cypress
Basin/South Florida Water Management District.
2) Approve the Lakewood drainage system responsibility agreement.
3)
Approve Work Order No. B-1 for Bonness, Inc. for the Construction of
Intersection Improvements at Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84) and Collier
Boulevard (C.R. 951) #66065
4)
Approve Committee Ranking of Firms for Contract Negotiations for
Construction Engineering Inspections Services for Airport-Pulling Road,
1o
September 12,2000
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lO)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
Collier County Project No. 62031, CIE No. 55
Approve a Developer Contribution Agreement between Collier County and
the Developer of Bridgewater Bay (Oak Grove PUD) for Right-of-Way
dedications for Livingston Road and Orange Blossom Drive.
Consideration of Budget Amendment for purchase of replacement Tractor
Mower for the Immokalee Road and Bridge Section.
Request Board of County Commissioners approval of Median Modification
on Immokalee Road (CR 846) at Valewood Drive and incorporate into the
Immokalee Road Widening Project.#69101, CIE #8
Approve committee ranking of firms for contract negotiations for
Construction Engineering Inspections Services for Livingston Road Phase
II, Collier County Project No. 60071, CIE No. 52
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment pertaining to the Eminent Domain
Lawsuit entitled Collier County vs Lucille C. Clemens, et aL
Approve an Amendment to the previously approved Street Lighting Option
for the U.S. 41 widening project between Airport-Pulling Road and Davis
Boulevard, a Florida Department of Transportation Project, currently
under construction.
Approve Bid #00-3094 for purchase of Limerock and Fill Materials.
Approve a Donation Agreement and accept a Drainage Easement to
provide flood relief for property owners within the Kirkwood
Avenue/Gateway Triangle area
This item has been deleted.
This item has been deleted.
Approve Resolution authorizing the County Manager to enter into a
Landscape installation and Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement with
the Florida Department of Transportation for East U.S. 41 Phase "A"
Landscape Improvements.
This item has been deleted.
This item has been deleted.
Update to the Public Transportation Development Plan (PTDP).
ll
September 12,2000
19) This item has been deleted.
20) This item has been deleted.
Authorization for Metropolitan Planning Organization Task Orders.
22) Approve contract for Professional Engineering Services by Wilson Miller,
for Santa Barbara/Logan Six-Laning Design from Radio Road to Pine
Ridge Road, Project No. 62081, CIE No. 56.
23) Approve Petition TM 00-01 for the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program Project on 10th Avenue SW between Logan Boulevard and Napa
Boulevard.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Approve a Goodland Water District Budget Amendment for the
replacement of the telemetry system and for Water Operations.
2) Recommendation to award Annual Bid #00-3105 for hauling and disposal
of lime sludge.
3) Recommendation to award Bid #00-3130 to furnish and deliver Bermad
Valves.
4) Acceptance of a Utility Easement for the relocation of a water meter at the
Dorchester Condominium in Pelican Bay.
5) Approve Addendum No. 2 to the Riviera Golf Club Effluent Agreement
and approve transfer of Agreement to Fore Golf Services, Inc.
6) Approve final ranking of consultants for engineering services related to
Odor Corrosion/Control Study, RFP #00-3066.
7) Award Bid No. 00-3117 for the purchase of strainers and accessory kits.
8) Waive purchasing policy and approve the purchase of a ground-
penetrating radar system for location of underground utilities.
9) Award a Purchase Order to Pulsafeeder, Inc. to furnish and deliver five
chemical metering pumps to the North County Regional Water Treatment
Plant, Bid 00-3116, Project 70057.
10) Award a Work Order to Mitchell & Stark Construction Company, Inc. for
acid feed room modifications at the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant, Project 70890.
12
September 12,2000
Amend the Collier County Wastewater Master Plan to provide regional
service to the new Livingston Road Corridor in the vicinity of Pine Ridge
Road.
12)
Authorize funds for additional engineering services during construction of
County Utility relocations in conjunction with U.S. 41 road widening from
Myrtle Road to Old U.S. 41, Projects 70047, 70048, and 73048.
13)
Approve Work Order VGW-FT-00-03 to the AEC NationalNVilkison Joint
Venture for professional engineering services to replace wastewater
pumping station located on Port Au Prince Road, Contract 98-2835,
Project 73060.
14)
Approve task assignment for professional engineering services by
Malcolm Pirnie, as per Solid Waste Characterization and Program
Analysis Study, RFP 00-3046.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Amend the Vanderbilt Beach Concession Agreement with Day-Star
Unlimited, Inc.
2)
Approve an Agreement for Landscape Services with TECH of Collier
County for Golden Gate Community Park.
3)
Accept and Sign the Grant Agreement for the LSTA Grant Project
"Seniors On-Line" and Approve the Attached Budget Amendments (2) in
Order to Initiate the Grant.
4)
Acceptance of Library Long Range Plan and Approval of Library State Aid
Application.
5)
Award of Bid 00-3128 for the Construction of Max Hasse Community
Center.
6)
Award a Contract for Bid No. 00-3126, "Beach Cleaning Vehicle" to P.G.
Greiner, Inc.
7)
Approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Everglades City to
Provide $30,000 in Local Matching Funds for the City's State Historic
Preservation Grant Application for the Restoration of the Everglades City
Hall.
8)
Approve an Award of Florida State Contract No. 765-900-99-1 for the
Purchase of Tractors for the Beach Cleaning Operation.
13
September 12,2000
9)
Waive the Requirement for Formal Competition and Increase Purchase
Order to Bradanna, Inc. (PO #006438) for the Site Work at Golden Gate
Neighborhood Park.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Authorize staff to utilize state contract pricing for computers, servers and
related equipment.
2)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the canceling of current taxes upon certain
oil, gas & mineral rights obtained by tax deed without monetary
compensation for public use.
3)
Approval of a lease agreement between Collier County and Sprint-Florida,
Incorporated.
4)
Approval of Budget Amendments to Fund 517, Group Health Insurance
list of documents attached.
5)
Approval for a resolution authorizing expenditure of funds for a picnic to
recognize Collier County Board of County Commissioners' employees.
6)
Approval of an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Managed Care
Agreement between Collier County Government and Community Health
Partners.
7)
Approve to award Bid No, 00-3089 for the purchase of electrical parts and
supplies used in County repairs and maintenance.
8)
Award Bid No. 00-3101, grounds maintenance at the Collier County main
government complex.
9)
Approve and execute an amendment to the Arthur Andersen consulting
services agreement to clarify scope of work and obtain additional
services.
Approve the donation of a Christopher Columbus statue from the Knights
of Columbus.
11)
Approve budget amendments totaling $441,000 to fund the cost of
relocating various County Departments and authorize staff to negotiate a
lease for office space on Horseshoe Drive.
12)
Approval to award Work Order VB-00-01 to Vanderbilt Bay Construction
Company, Inc. for the Golden Gate Government Services Center.
14
September 12,2000
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1) Approval of Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program applications for
funding to improve hurricane protection at Collier County shelters.
2) Approve the purchase of property for an EMS substation.
3) Approval of County Grant Application and Distribution Form for EMS
medical rescue equipment and training classes.
4) Agreement approval and adoption of Resolution authorizing the execution
and acceptance of said agreement between the Department of
Community Affairs and Collier County regarding monies available in the
Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund.
COUNTY MANAGER
1) Ratification by the Board of County Commissioners of consentJemergency
items approved by the County Manager during the Board's absence.
a) Approve budget amendment to address various expenses within
the Human Resources Department.
b) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - BA #00-374; #00-371.
c) Reject Bid No. 003110 - Annual agreement for preparation and
delivery of title commitments.
d) Award Work Order SC00-07 to Surety Construction, Inc. for the
construction of Phase II(A) of Sugden Regional Park.
e) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #00-
419.
f) Approve the purchase of e-mail anti-virus software and hardware
for network connections to the Clerk of the Courts and Property
Appraiser's network.
g) Request approval of budget amendment to fund demolition of
unsafe steel building at Marco Transfer Station.
h) Award Letter of Interest No. 00-3087 for annual underground utility
contracting services.
15
September 12,2000
i)
Approve a budget amendment to transfer funds into salaries to
cover merit increases and reclassifications and termination pay for
Public Utilities and Transportation Engineering employees.
J)
Amend Work Order CDM-FT-00-03, to provide engineering
services for upgrading the Pelican Bay Wellfield, Project 74039.
k)
Award Bid #00-31223 Bayshore Drive beautification, landscaping
and irrigation.
i)
Amended 2000 Tourism Agreement between Collier County and
the Marco Island Film Festival regarding advertising and promotion.
m)
Approve increase in the dollar amount for non-bid items for Annual
Bid #98-2821, contractual services for traffic signals and street
lights.
n)
Approve task assignment for professional engineering services by
Malcolm Pirnie, for solid waste characterization and program
analysis study.
o)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #00-
425 and #00-369.
p)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #00-
432.
q)
Recommendation to approve commercial Excavation Permit No.
59.752, "Tim Flick Commercial Excavation" located in Section 15,
16, Township 48 South, Range 27 East; bounded on the north by
33rd Avenue NW, right-of-way, on the west by vacant lot, on the
south canal right-of-way, and on the east by canal right-of-way.
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #00-
450 and #00-466.
s)
Waive the requirement for formal competition and approve the
purchase of light posts, planters, planter posts, decorative railing
and planter embellishments for Bayshore M.S.T.U. Beautification.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1)
Establish the project budget to mitigate for the planned taxiway at Marco
Island Executive Airport.
16
September 12,2000
2) Establish the project budget to widen one-half mile of County Road 846
south of Immokalee Regional Airport.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioners request for approval for payment to attend function.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
l)
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign
Satisfaction of Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos.: 91-
1318-MMA, 92-1639-MI, 96-5048-MMA, 97-9858-MMA, 0001584MMA,
9707184MMA
9908329MMA
9806158MMA
9905664MMA
0002513MMA
0003727MMA
0005069MMA
9908507MM,~
9810034MMA
9907720MMA
9908322MMA
0002193MMA
9901508MMA
0000255MMA
9908856MMA
9800391CFA
9901821CFA, 0003480MMA, 9803636MMA,
0004901MMA, 9801897MMA, 9906773MMA,
0004217MMA, 0004120MMA, 0003940MMA,
9703593MMA, 9908700MMA, 9804129MMA,
9907210MMA, 0000719MMA, 98001710CFA,
9708842MMA, 9001492CFA, 9908874MMA,
9907459MMA, 0004608MMA, 9900394MMA,
0003082MMA, 0000008MMA, 9903382MMA,
9903308MMA, 0002784MMA, 9904067MMA,
9809150MMA, 9807147MMA, 9907188MMA,
9903625MMA,0001794MMA, 9808424MMA,
9903374MMA,0000496MMA, 9910444MMA,
9907602MMA, 0001852MMA, 0000747MMA,
9811411MMA, 9907035MMA, 9808501MMA,
9703792MMA, 9909651MMA, 9908893MMA,
9908388MMA
2) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners serve as the local
coordinating unit of government, endorse the Collier County Sheriffs
Office State of Florida, Department of Transportation, Highway Safety
Funds Grant Application, and upon award, accept the grant and approve
applicable budget amendments for the Sheriffs Office Immokalee D.U.I.
Enforcement Project.
17
September 12,2000
17.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve corrective Stipulated Final Judgment regarding the easement
acquisition of Parcel 84-T in Collier County v. John B. Fassett, Trustee
(Livingston Road from Immokalee Road to Imperial Road).
2) Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $67,100.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR
APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR
ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD,
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS
ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.
A. This item has been deleted.
Petition CU-2000-08, Thomas R. Brown, Esq. representing First Haitian Alliance
Church, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use for House of Worship in the "E"
Estates zoning district for a property located on the west side of County Barn
Road approximately one half mile south of Davis Boulevard. This site consists of
2.3 acres.
Petition CU-2000-09 Jonathan Burt of J.D. Burt Company, Inc., representing
Crossroads Community Church, requesting a Conditional Use for a church, for
property known as Pine Ridge Sports/Recreational School, located at 3285 Pine
Ridge Road, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 5.1+ acres.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 17 2000 MEETING.
Petition CCSL-93-3, NB Hotel Limited, representing the La Playa Resort beach
concession, requesting a Coastal Construction Setback Line variance to allow for
construction of shower/deck, cabana storage boxes,
waverunners/sailboat/kayaks/chairs storage area and volleyball net posts at the
La Playa Resort Hotel at lots 25 through 30 inclusive, Block A, Unit 1, Connors
Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 1~ 2000 MEETING.
Petition CCSL-2000-2, Brett D. Moore of Humiston & Moore Engineers
representing the Halstatt Partnership and Westgroup La Playa, LLC, requesting
18
September 12,2000
a Coastal Construction Setback Line variance to allow for construction of a pool,
covered walkway, fitness facility, tiki bar and grill, second floor balcony and other
associated improvements to the La Playa Resort Hotel at lots 25 through 30
inclusive, Block A, Unit 1, Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Section 29,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition ASW-2000-01, David H. Farmer, P.E., of Coastal Engineering
Consultants, Inc., representing 7-Eleven, Inc., requesting a 300-foot waiver from
the minimum required separation of 500 feet between automobile service
stations for property located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
Petition SNR-2000-04, John Tangorra, representing the Nature Pointe
Homeowners Association, requesting a street name change for a portion of
Outrigger Lane to Gordon River Lane, located in Nature Pointe Subdivision, in
Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East.
Approval of an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2000-37, the Olde
Cypress PUD to correct a scrivener's error due to omission of an intended
revision to the Table of Development Standard for Residential Areas approved at
a duly heard Public Hearing held on May 23, 2000.
Approval of a Resolution amending Resolution Number 2000-158, a Conditional
Use of a private club at the La Playa Resort to correct a scrivener's error to the
legal description approved at a duly heard Public Hearing held on May 23, 2000.
An Ordinance Amending Collier County Ordinance No. 87-25, by revising
Section Five; providing for inclusion in the Code of Law and Ordinances;
providing for conflict and severability; and providing an effective date. (Ordinance
allows officers or employees of the County to purchase surplus property
pursuant to procedures outlined in Section 274.06 Florida Statutes - Surplus
Property Alternative Procedures).
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774~8383.
19
September 12,2000
September 12, 2000
Item #3A, B,&C
CONSENT, SUMMARY, AND REGULAR AGENDA
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
-APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to the Tuesday, September 12th, 2000 meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners.
I'd ask you to join me and stand for an invocation from the
Reverend Marty Green of the East Naples United Methodist
Church. And then we'll have the pledge to the flag.
REVEREND GREEN: Would you bow with me for a moment.
Almighty God, we thank you, Lord, for this meeting, and we
come to you in the precious name of Jesus, which is above every
name named, that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, in heaven
and earth and under the earth.
And we thank you, Lord, for the authority that we give -- that
you give to us to be your servants. And we just open ourselves
up to what your inspiration, to what you would have this group to
do. Inspire this meeting, Lord, and bring your favor and your
anointing, which shows us your activity and the fact that you're
alive and active in our lives. We just yield ourselves to that and
to you, in the precious name of Jesus. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Reverend.
Mr. Olliff, we have a number of changes to this morning's
agenda.
MR. OLLIFF: We do. Good morning and welcome back.
The change list in front of you starts with an add item. It is
Item 8(B)(2}. It is a staff requested item to discuss a
landscaping contract for U.S. 41, Tamiami Trail East. It will be
Item 8(B)(2).
We're also asking that the board add an Item 8(F}(1), F as in
Frank, which is an application for a community foundation of
Collier County grant. Again, that's a staff request.
There are several moves. We're moving Item 12(B}(2) to
13(A)(6). That's Petition CU-2000-10, a conditional use request.
That request is made by staff.
We're also requesting a movement of Item No. 17(D) from
Page 2
September 12, 2000
your summary agenda to t2(C)(12), a Coastal Construction
setback line variance request. And that move is at the request
of Commissioner Brandt.
A similar request, moving Item 17(E) off of your summary
agenda will become 12(C)(13). Again, a CCSL variance. It's
2002-2.
The next three items are items that will be removed from
your agenda. One is a continuance. Item 11(A)(1) is being
continued indefinitely at the request of the Sheriff. I think that's
simply some language changes that need to be made. And I think
rather than trying to commit to a time specific, he just asked
that it be continued indefinitely.
Continuance again for Item 12(B)(1). That's being continued
to the October 10th meeting. That is the Meridian (sic) Land
Company requesting a rezoning. That item is commonly known
as the Meridian PUD item, so if there's anyone in the audience
that may be interested in that particular PUD, that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madeira?
MR. OLLIFF: Madeira, I'm sorry. Madeira.
It is being continued to the meeting of October 10th.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It will not be heard today.
MR. OLLIFF: Not be heard today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At whose request?
MR. OLLIFF: That was a staff request. There was actually
an advertising problem with that particular item, so it's been
re-advertised and it is going to be on the 10th.
Lastly, there's a deletion, Item 16(E)(4). It's a group health
insurance budget amendment that staff is requesting be deleted
off the agenda. Frankly, there's some additional items on that
budget amendment that will be brought back to you and rolled up
into a single item, rather than having two separate items. That
will be on your next agenda.
The last is simply a note. There was going to be a
communication provided to the board and follow-up on the
Goodland overlay in the Dolphin Cove project. If you'll recall,
that item was discussed at your last commission meeting. Under
the communication, under staff communication, the county
attorney is going to give you an update on that project.
And then we did receive, subsequent to the printing of the
agenda, a request from a member of the Goodland Association to
Page 3
September 12, 2000
come and speak. Because she works~ she's requested that both
of those items, the communication item and her response, be
scheduled for a time specific at 1:30 p.m., right after your lunch
break.
That's all the changes that I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel~ any other changes?
MR. WEIGEL: No, none other, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, 16(E)(10). I just have a
question, why we're accepting this, or approving of this donation.
Just seems a little different.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What is the item?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Has to do with the donation of a
statute of Christopher Columbus, and I just want to know what in
the world we're going to do with it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It actually -- it was once
previously approved for Golden Gate Community Center property
out there in between the new buildings~ and it's part of a whole
walkway that's being designed in --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I mean, I don't have a
problem with Christopher Columbus, but I was just curious as to
what -- where we were going to put him.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's going --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not in your office.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's going in your office.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's fine. I don't care what you
do with him, but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No additions?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have none.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: ***Motion to approve consent,
summary and regular agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
objections?
(No response.)
Page 4
September 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12~ 2000
ADD: ITEM #8(B)2: Award a construction contract to Hannula
Landscaping, Inc. for the U.S. 41 Tamiami Trail East - Phase "A"
Streetscape Beautification project from Davis Boulevard to Airport-Pulling
Road, Bid No. 00-3098, Project No. 60038. (Staff request.)
ADD: Item #8(F)1: Application for Community Foundation of Collier
County Grant Program. (Staff request.)
MOVE: ITEM 12(B)2 TO #13(A)6: Petition CU-2000-10 Richard Grant of
Grant, Fridkin, Pearson, Athan & Crown, P.A. representing Signature
Communities, Inc., requesting Conditional Use. (Staff request.)
MOVE: ITEM #'17(D) TO #12(C)12: Petition CCSL-93-3, NB Hotel Limited
representing the LaPlaya Resort Beach concession, requesting a Coastal
Construction Setback Line variance. (Commissioner Brandt request.)
MOVE: ITEM #17(E) TO #12(C)13: Petition CCSL-2002-2, Brett D. Moore of
Humiston & Moore Engineers representing the Halstaft Partnership and
Westgroup La Playa, LLC, requesting a Coastal Construction Setback Line.
(Commissioner Brandt request.)
CONTINUE: ITEM 11(A)1 Indefinitely: Request to authorize County
Attorney to draft ordinance prohibiting the retail sale of handguns without
a three day waiting period. (Sheriff Hunter)
CONTINUE: ITEM 12(B)l to October 10, 2000 BCC meetinq: Petition PUD-
2000-09 representing Meridian Land Co requesting a rezoning. (Staff
request.)
DELETE: 16(E)4: Approval of Budget Amendments to Fund 5~7, Group
Health Insurance list of documents attached. (Staff request)
NOTE: It has been requested that a communication to be provided by the
County Attorney under Item 14 Staff Communications and a corresponding
public comment regarding the Goodland Overlay and Dolphin Cove project
to be heard at 1:30 p.m.
September 12, 2000
Item #4A
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 2000 -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Approval of the August 1, 2000 regular minutes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
objections?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER AS "LEUKEMIA AND
LYMPHOMA AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY" -
ADOPTED
That takes us to proclamations. 5(A)(1), Leukemia and
Lymphoma Awareness Month. Dr. -- Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thanks for the promotion.
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to do this. And I will
read the proclamation and then make the presentation. The proclamation is as follows:
WHEREAS, nearly 108,000 people are diagnosed with
leukemia and other blood-related cancers each year in the
United States; and
WHEREAS, Florida reports the second highest number of
new cases of blood-related cancer annually, with 7,500 people
diagnosed statewide each year; and
WHEREAS, an estimated 4,200 Floridians are among the
60,500 people in the United States who die of leukemia and other
blood-related cancers each year; and
WHEREAS, funds are sorely needed to assist patients,
educate the public and further medical research into the causes
and potential cures for leukemia and other related cancers; and
WHEREAS, citizens of all ages, from infants to seniors, are
susceptible to these potentially fatal diseases; and
WHEREAS, the Suncoast Chapter of the Leukemia and
Page 6
September 12, 2000
Lymphoma Society provides financial aid, moral support and
educational resources to patients and their families throughout
Collier County and all of Southwest Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's, Light the
Night Leukemia Walk on Sunday, September 24th, in Lowdermilk
Park in Naples at 6:30 p.m. will bring awareness to the dire
needs of the organization and the patients it serves; and
WHEREAS, hundreds of Collier County residents plan to
participate in this meritorious event by walking and raising
funds.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the month of
September be designated as Leukemia and Lymphoma
Awareness Month in Collier County.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 12th day of September, 2000, by
the Board of County Commissioners. Signed by Timothy J.
Constantine, Chairman, and attested by Dwight E. Brock, Clerk.
Thank you.
And it's my pleasure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move acceptance of the
proclamation.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for acceptance of the
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: To make that official, we have a
motion and a second. Anyone opposed to that? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If not, motion carries 5-0. Thank
you, Commissioner Brandt.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 18 - 22, 2000, AS
"INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK" - ADOPTED
Commissioner Carter, proclamation designating September
t8 through 22 as Industry Appreciation Week.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is
Susan Pareigis in the room this morning, or a representative? Mr.
Page 7
September 12, 2000
Alan Reynolds is here. Alan, will you step forward so that you
can be on the cameras and everybody in TV land can see your
smiling face this morning. This proclamation:
WHEREAS, industry in Collier County is vital to the
community's economic health; and
WHEREAS, Collier County's existing industries are key to a
prosperous future; and
WHEREAS, the expansion of the industries accounts for the
majority of new jobs created; and
WHEREAS, Collier County's industries help sustain our
quality of life, exemplify high standards of excellence and a
positive, responsible approach to economic diversification and
community enhancement; and
WHEREAS, public knowledge of the continuous contributions
made by industry is essential to maintenance of good
community/industry relationships.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of
September 18 to 22, 2000 be designated as Industry Appreciation
Week, and urge all residents to salute our industries and their
employees for their contribution to our community.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 12th day of September, 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy
J. Constantine, Chairman.
I hereby move for acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 4, 2000 AS "COLLIER
COUNTY WALK OUR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL DAY" - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And Commissioner Berry, you
have Collier County Walk Our Children to School Day.
Page 8
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I do. Is Ms. Beth Yang here
from the MPO, please?
The proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Florida has been shown to be the state that
could most benefit from improvements to the walking
environment, with children identified as the biggest benefactors
of improved safety conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is committed
to the safe travel of children to and from school; and
WHEREAS, Collier County has been active in efforts to
increase opportunities for walking as an activity and mode of
travel through its alliance with the MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian
Program; and
WHEREAS, walking to school promotes child development,
teaches independence and improves local traffic and air quality;
and
WHEREAS, escorting a child to school hand-in-hand is a
pursuit in keeping with quality time and family values.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the day of October
4th, 2000 be designated as Collier County Walk Our Children to
School Day.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 12th day of September, 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Timothy
J. Constantine, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it's my privilege to move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection? Seeing none, all
those in favor -- I guess that doesn't go that way, does it?
All those in favor, state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Have we told the children that
walking to school's good for them?
MS. YANG: I'd like to thank you for this proclamation and
invite everyone to participate in this event. And I'd also like to
thank the county manager's office for allowing employees to
participate and walk their children to school. Thank you so
much.
Page 9
September 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And for the record, your name?
For our court reporter.
MS. YANG: Oh, Beth Yang, from Metropolitan Planning
Organization.
(Applause.)
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE EFFORTS OF THE
DIVERSITY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If Frank Rogriguez would come
to the front, we have a proclamation recognizing the efforts of
the diversity committee.
Frank, come on right up here and turn around for the
cameras. Don't be shy. Keep coming, keep coming. Our proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County unanimously passed a resolution to support, promote and
celebrate diversity within our community and workplace on June
22nd, 1999; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to promote diversity as a positive
value within the organization, the county manager created a
committee that became a shining example of how leaders from
the private sector can partner with employees from all levels of
our organization in an effort to improve county government; and
WHEREAS, this committee was charged with developing a
management plan that will not only advocate, but would hold
accountable employees for making diversity a viable resource in
county management; and
WHEREAS, the members of the committee invested their
time and efforts attending and reviewing other diversity
programs in the private and public sector at the local and
national levels over the past year; and
WHEREAS, their hard work culminated in a management
plan proposed to promote the value of diversity in areas of
recruitment, retention, education and performance; and
WHEREAS, this management plan has been enthusiastically
accepted by the county manager for meeting the Board's goals;
and
Page 10
September 12, 2000
WHEREAS, the employees and community leaders who
served on the committee should be acknowledged for their
efforts in making Collier County a better place to work.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the Board hereby
recognizes the efforts and commitment of the diversity team
toward the advancement of diversity as benefit to Collier County
government and its customers.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 12th day of September, Timothy
J. Constantine, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners.
I'll move approval of the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
We have a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
say a few words?
Seeing no objection, motion
Thank you. Frank, you want to
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for the proclamation. And on
behalf of all the people that work together, including community
representatives and government employees, staff, I extend
recognition to them and hope that some of them may be here
today. I will share this with everyone else.
And this is one of the many steps that we take towards
promoting diversification. We just mentioned the industry
appreciation week and economic diversification. And of course
this is an ingredient which very well helps the community. So
thank you and we would like to keep working with you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Frank.
Item #5A5
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 29, 2000, AS "LAW
ENFORCEMENT APPRECIATION DAY" - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And Commissioner Carter has
Page 11
September 12, 2000
our final proclamation of the day, Law Enforcement Appreciation
Day.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. Is the Sheriff here? Or a
representative? Another sheriff is here.
MR. STIESS: He sent the better looking one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want that on the record.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're looking good this morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He said he sent the better
looking one. I thought that should be on the record.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MR. STIESS: Please.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. But he knows how to face
the cameras and get that smile out there, so that's great. Thank
you.
WHEREAS, the problems of crime touch all segments of our
society and can undermine and erode the moral and economic
strengths of our communities; and
WHEREAS, we are fortunate that law enforcement officers
from all area agencies dedicate themselves to preserving law
and order and the public's safety; and
WHEREAS, we recognize that the men and women in law
enforcement risk their lives on a daily basis to protect our
citizens and maintain social order; and
WHEREAS, we encourage all citizens to pause to recognize
our law enforcement officers so that we may not take their work
for granted.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT WE
THE Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida
hereby take great pleasure in honoring all law enforcement
officers for their outstanding services.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT we
hereby proclaim September 29, 2000 as Law Enforcement
Appreciation Day, and ask all citizens to loin us in honoring these
law enforcement officers and to assist them by exercising
responsible citizenship.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 12th day of September, 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy
J. Constantine, Chairman.
I hereby move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
Page 12
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a pair of seconds.
We are looking for favorable votes. All those in favor, please
state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
Item #5B1-8
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a number of service
awards from employees celebrating particular terms of service
with us. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's my honor this morning to
recognize the outstanding employees that we've had here at
Collier County. And the first three have served Collier County for
five years.
Michelle Mosca, in planning services. Is she here? There
she is. Come on up. (Applause.)
Next we have Ruth Szabo, from the library, also serving for
five years.
(Applause.)
Also for five years, we have Gregory Yanda, from public
utilities wastewater department. (Applause.}
For 10 years of service to Collier County, we have Julio
Ordonez, in engineering construction management.
(Applause.)
For 15 wonderful years, transportation road and bridge, we
have Nancy Frye. (Applause.)
Who obviously started working here when she was 12.
And the grand prize winner today is Ed Torroni, who has 25
years with parks and rec. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Speaking of starting when you
were 12.
Page 13
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, you were how old when he
started?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 10.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: As a matter of fact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're not going down the list.
We're not going down the line with that question.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Time to stop.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's see. I think I was in fifth
grade.
Item #5Cl
JAMES H. WYATT, PLANT OPERATOR II, WATER DEPARTMENT,
RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR AUGUST, 2000
And the next one is my pleasure. We have our employee of
the month for August, 2000. James Wyatt, who is a plant
operator with our water department. (Applause.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Turn around, so everybody in TV
land can -- stay right up here where everybody can see. Don't be
shy. And I will read the following information.
Jim Wyatt has been with Collier County since 1993, working
in the south water plant. He's responsible for a number of
assorted duties which he has taken on above and beyond his
responsibility as water plant operator.
The water plant operates a pump station which supplies
water to the Goodland residents, and part of Jim's responsibility
is to see that the Goodland section functions properly, which
includes operating, maintaining and upkeep of the facility. We'll
check with them when they come in at 1:30 today to make sure
it is.
Over the last several years, Jim has initiated a fire
extinguisher control program for the outlying stations, gives
water plant tours to visitors, as well as new employee
orientation groups, and takes on the responsibility of new
operator training. He has saved the county a large sum of cash
with his suggestion for the location of a programmable logic
controller, PLC, and designed an air conditioning system to be
used at the Goodland re-pump station.
Page 14
September t 2, 2000
Your knowledge, professionalism and concern for customers
warrant the Employee of the Month award, which gets you a fine
certificate; also gets you a plaque and a $50 thank you from the
county.
Jim, thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #7A
DYREL DELANEY CONCERNING A REAR YARD SETBACK - STAFF
TO WORK WITH MR. DELANEY
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have two public petitions
this morning. And the first one is Dyrel Delaney.
I will remind the petitioners for the -- and the public that the
way petitioners (sic) usually work is you have up to 10 minutes
to make your case. We will likely not take any action today other
than to decide whether to put it on as a regular agenda item with
proper advertising and so on in the future. Mr. Delaney.
MR. DELANEY: I understand that. I've asked to use this
podium, because I have a couple of visual aids --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
MR. DELANEY: -- I'd like to present.
I have some documentation from a petition that I'd like to
give to each one of you, if I may.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just while you're away from the
podium, she can't pick you up, so --
MR. DELANEY: Thank you for this opportunity to address
you my public petition. I'll be reading from my notes, which is
substantially what I've provided for, each documentation.
For the record, I have previously talked to Commissioner
Constantine, Commissioner Carter, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I
talked with Commissioner Berry by telephone, and provided
substantially the same identification -- the same documentation
to Commissioner Brandt.
In the matter of the Board of County Commissioners
granting a zone -- a zoning variance and the petitioner Dyrel
Delaney building a storm room, fully equipped with emergency
tools and implements which will be available for public use. For
Page15
September 12, 2000
the title, I have called this proposed partnership between Collier
County and the petitioner.
The intent and purpose is an avenue of getting lifesaving
tools and rescue implements into the community at large in the
event of a hurricane, tornado or disaster.
The rationale. In the matter of hurricanes or tornadoes of
disastrous proportion, the saving of life is the first important
matter. And more often than not, it is -- the first rescue efforts
are not those of the county or the state but the able body
citizens in the immediate vicinity of rubble, destroyed homes and
buildings; meaning neighbors, passersby and people in general
who unhesitatingly jump in and act with impulse and Good
Samaritan.
Almost without exception, however, their good intentions
are severely hampered by lack of tools. These being simple
digging out type of hand tools such as pry bars, prying blocks,
sledgehammers, axes, bolt cutters, shovels, and often that most
needed item of all, a chain saw.
This proposed partnership is a means of alleviating to some
degree this situation by getting emergency tools out into the
community. How? By taking the first step in a new era of storm
self help. If the county, in its infamous benevolence, will grant a
variance to the petitioner, the petitioner will construct a
prototype storm room which will house a supply of emergency
rescue tools.
In substance, this is my idea: I propose to do this by
developing a site plan attached as a single-family room (sic}. It
will be designed and engineered and will withstand storm forces
up to 175 miles per hour. I plan to submit all plans and reviews
for approval by the county building code. The specifications as
developed and approved will then become code for any following
petitions.
Including in and becoming an integral part of the storm room
will be an individualized room, completely equipped with rescue
tools and implements which will be fully and freely available for
public use.
For reasons that other petitions may follow if this prototype
works, the petitioner asks that this format be called a Delaney
Storm Room, and that the Delaney Storm Room will come to
mean the essence of what is herein set forth.
Page 16
September 12, 2000
Specific to the Delaney Storm Room will be the willingness
of the applicant/petitioner to bore (sic) all expenses relative to
buying, storing and maintaining an inventory of tools. Further, to
make available such tools in cases of emergency to whoever is
in need, but in particular, to law enforcement and rescue
personnel.
As proposed, said tools will be housed in an individual
portion of the Delaney Storm Room, shelved, stocked and
displayed in an orderly manner to the end that rescue personnel
will have rapid access thereto.
This divided portion to be clearly identified on this site plan
as tool and implement room. It will have its own individual
access door, equipped with a system of two locks; to wit, it will
have the regular standard door lock with key. The second lock
will be a lock box on the doorknob in the order of those used by
the board of realtors.
Notification and awareness to the county authority. In a
meeting of the minds between the herein board and the
petitioner, the petitioner assumes full responsibility in notifying
rescue and law enforcement agencies of this matter, with an
open invite to come and inspect. Further, the code to the lock
box will be known to the county emergency personnel and will be
an easy identifiable combination thereof.
Public awareness. To ensure that public awareness -- to
ensure of public awareness, a sign or emblem will be designed
by the petitioner with input from the county, secured by and at
the cost of the petitioner and prominently displayed on the site,
either from the street or from the residence or mailbox; the
intent being that the general awareness that the emergency
tools are available any time day or night even at the petitioner's
absence.
In summary, all that is needed for this partnership to
materialize is -- and get underway is to forward and pass a
motion that the rear yard variance be granted on eight feet, four
inches by 15, three inches. That equals 1:30 square feet for the
total of the storm site -- or storm room. Of that, four feet by four
feet, nine inches or 20 square inches will be set aside for an
individual implement room.
I have attached to this presentation my site plans, and I'll
entertain questions. For those of you that have -- I mentioned
Page 17
September 12, 2000
before, if we could go to Page 3, it's in color, and it will set out
the concept.
Is there anyone that would like to ask me any questions?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The only question I have is you're
asking that this room be named the Delaney Storm Room?
MR. DELANEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What do you hope -- obviously are
you looking for some kind of a monetary --
MR. DELANEY: No, no, I'm not. What I'm hoping is that -- I
used to sit on the board of code enforcement. And it seemed to
me that whenever someone came before the board that did
something to benefit the community at large, we were much
more benevolent.
What I'm asking here is that I think we've reached the stage
where we have to have a new concept in storm rooms. Now, the
first thing that happens is no one under this current situation
wants to give up a room of their house. I don't. No one wants to
have this many tools lying around in their garage or wherever.
My concept is if it's a partnership, if the county will grant a
variance, the petitioner in all cases after this will build a storm
room that will have a certain area set aside that will contain
implement tools. These are tools that will be available for
anyone to dig out; pry bars, saws, jacks, whatever.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You would simply like your idea
memorialized in your family name.
MR. DELANEY: Well, what I mean, I'd like also not that so
much is that if we write a code -- I'd like for this to become code.
Anyone from here after could ask for a Delaney Storm Room and
then you could -- the code could go down and check it off.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think he's just ask -- it's got to
be named something so that we can identify it. It could be called
the --
MR. DELANEY: Yeah, that's only the big Jack-of-all-trades
storm room. I did it, so why not.
But it would become code. And each time -- anyone can
apply for it. But if they apply for a setback, a variance and they
want a Delaney Storm Room, that storm room will have a
compartment that has all of these rescue tools set aside. That's
part of it.
Page 18
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a second question, which I
had not seen before. But you're planning a room of some 130
square feet.
MR. DELANEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And only 20 square feet of it is
going to be for this, quote, area to store tools.
MR. DELANEY: Well, you can pack a lot of tools in that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then why are you asking for 130
square feet?
MR. DELANEY: Well, because I've -- that's the storm shelter.
I want to have a storm shelter.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, but that's not what you said.
You said you wanted a storm room where you could store tools.
Now it's becoming a storm shelter. I think that's becoming a
whole different situation.
MR. DELANEY: Well, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
What I'm trying to convey is that I think that the community is
going to have to give focus to storm rooms. I think this -- and the
idea is that to drift in -- or to go into a new area of storm thought,
storm room thought, we're going to have to start giving variances
to encourage people to build.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, but you're -- I know you're
talking -- I think your address is on Heron Avenue. MR. DELANEY: Yes, uh-uh.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which to me, isn't that a flood
zone?
MR. DELANEY: Well, that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, if you're going to have a
storm room, I don't think that's the place I want to be if we're
going to have a Category IV hurricane. I don't think that's the
room I want to be in.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what, the idea this
morning was to bring the concept forward. If you want to go
through with the variance process, there's a procedure to do
that. I assume there'd be no objection from staff to work with
Mr. Delaney and see, as he goes through that process, if this is a
viable idea for county-wide use. And then I think if he brings it
back, his variance, we can get into specifics of sizes and so on.
MR. DELANEY: But I'd like to clarify that tornadoes are also
-- I mean, the fact that I'm in a zone -- flood zone does not mean
Page 19
September 12, 2000
that you can't have a storm room.
Also, there's things that we want to build into it. In other
words, we've put a lot of time and effort into it. But things like it
has to have two entrances, inside and outside. We think we can
build a room that will withstand 175 miles an hour wind.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Oilill, we'll -- staff has no
objection to working with Mr. Delaney, does it?
MR. OLLIFF: None whatsoever. No, we'll do that. And I
think that would be something that the board would weigh in part
of its variance decision.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Delaney, if you'd look over
your left shoulder, you'll see a gentleman in a jacket and blue
shirt back there who will work with you on this. And then we'll
hear it again here in a more full-blown manner. MR. DELANEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
Item #7B
MONTE LAZARUS WITH THE MARCO ISLAND SENIOR SQUADRON
CIVIL AIR PATROL CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PROPOSED CIVIL AIR PATROL HANGAR AT THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT - STAFF TO WORK WITH MR LAZARUS AND
BRING BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM IN OCTOBER
Item 7(B), Monte Lazarus, with the Marco Island Senior
Squadron Civil Air Patrol.
Monte, how are you?
MR. LAZARUS: Good morning, members of the Commission.
For the record, my name is Monte Lazarus. I'm the commander
of the Marco Island Civil Air Patrol Squadron, and I'm here this
morning as a supplicant.
For about eight years we've been trying to put up a hangar
and a headquarters building for our squadron. The squadron's
engaged in emergency services, lifesaving, maritime rescue,
search and rescue, transportation of human organs and the like.
We operate exclusively on donations. We don't have any public
funding at all. We have no money from the county, no money
from the city. And actually, we pay for the privilege of flying to
protect our friends and our neighbors.
Page 20
September 12, 2000
Some time ago we were able to develop an agreement with
John Drury, the executive director of the Collier County Airport
Authority, and the members of the authority have approved this
agreement over a year ago to allow us to put up a building at the
Marco Island Executive Airport. All the plans have been
completed; we have been in the permitting process for many
months.
We have a problem. Our problem is that we have to have
some means of handling any fees, any impact or other fees that
may have to be imposed. And as I understand the process, we
must ask for those fees to be taken out of the general fund. This
is the first time we have ever come to the county to ask for any
kind of financial assistance.
The building itself is being built with money that we have
raised, we have a benefactor, we have solicited funds ourselves.
We have done this all privately. We have a building that will
create no impact on the public. We're not bringing people in;
quite the contrary, what we're doing is providing a lifesaving
service.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Monte, how much are the fees?
MR. LAZARUS: The estimate I have from our contractor is
that they could be over $20,000.
The building itself is going to cost in excess of $t50,000.
It's about a 6,000 square foot building. And we're hoping that the
building will be set up so that we can -- in addition to the Civil Air
Patrol aircraft, we can house the aircraft that belongs to Collier
County Airport Authority and a new incident command center
vehicle, which we have developed which we are going to show to
you within the next couple of months, which will be a great
service to the county. We're coordinating this with all branches
of county government.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, can't we give
direction here for staff to come back with him to establish a
waiver of fees in this instance?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Lazarus?
MR. LAZARUS: Yes, Dr. Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thanks for the promotion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have your certificate out
back.
Page 21
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: With regard to the $20,000 in
fees, can you help me understand what those fees are -- going
back to the comment that Commissioner Carter just made -- so
that we'd have some understanding of what that is and what can
be done about it? Thank you.
MR. LAZARUS: As I understand it, and my knowledge of it,
precisely what the breakdown is, is very limited. But I
understand they're for fire, water and sewer hookup and
whatever impact fees may be involved. The $20,000 figure I
gave you is an estimate from the contractor. I have no personal
knowledge, and I disclaim any knowledge of exactly what the
number would be.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we're consistent with what
we've done in the past, I think we're hard pressed to simply give
away $20,000, no matter how well intentioned.
The only thing, and this is something you'd have to explore
with staff when we bring it back on a regular agenda item, is if
we are going to -- if the county is going to derive some benefit by
actually having its aircraft housed there, whether you have some
fee going toward future rent for that, so we're not having a
surprise payment five years from now or 10 years from now or
something else.
If this is in exchange for a service, I'm not committing to
that, but that's something we could explore. There's a value to
that. But I just -- I'm afraid if we simply say okay and we give
$20,000, even though it's a great program and it's well
intentioned, it's inconsistent with what we've chosen to do with
any number of other well intentioned items.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've just got to add to that, too,
that we know, for example, the Shelter for Abused Women is
building a new shelter. That's something -- I mean, if we start
this, for heaven's sake, where is it going to go?
MR. LAZARUS: John Drury has a few comments.
MR. DRURY-' I'm John Drury, executive director for the
Collier County Airport Authority.
In this case, the Airport Authority, the county will own the
building. So it will be a county-owned building. That's the way
the lease is structured. And therefore, I think, having worked
with your county staff on other buildings that we own, we would
Page 22
September 12, 2000
be eligible for this -- for that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's a realistic time frame to
explore all of those variables and then have it as a regular
agenda item?
MR. DRURY.' I suspect that we could work with county staff
and get all these answers that you've asked probably within the
next -- I would say within the next 30 days.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You want to shoot for the first
meeting in October?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fine.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does that work for the board?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I certainly think we have some
option here to explore this. And I agree, we don't want to open
Pandora's box~ but there's got to be a way to work through the
issues.
MR. LAZARUS: In answer to one of the points made by the
Chairman, we do operate under a memorandum of understanding,
both with the county and with the Sheriff's Department. So we
are providing a specific service or series of services for the
county at the present time.
And as I said, we're going to be housing the county aircraft --
Collier County Airport Authority aircraft, the incident command
center. And as John pointed out, the building does become the
property of the Collier County Airport Authority. It becomes
county property. We're in effect leasing the building. But we're
paying to build it.
So thank you very much for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #8A1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - SOUTH
DISTRICT OFFICE - TO ALLOW AN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROFESSIONAL TO BE HOUSED IN THE COUNTY'S
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CENTER FOR PURPOSES OF
CONDUCTING STATE REQUIRED WETLANDS ANALYSIS ON
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS - APPROVED
That takes us to the county manager's items, 8(A)(1). The
Page 23
September 12, 2000
Chair will entertain a motion on approval of an intergovernmental
agreement with the Florida DEP, south district office, to allow --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- our professional --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you have two registered
speakers on this item.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have two registered
speakers. Let's hear from them, shall we?
MR. OLI. IFF: First speaker is Nancy Payton, followed by --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: She's waiving.
MR. OLLIFF: -- Gary Seardsley.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Gary Beardsley. You want to
talk us out of this one, Gary, or are you --
MR. BEARDSLEY: I'd like to wait and see.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. The speakers will waive.
We have a motion and a second to approve the item. Any
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Wait, wait, wait.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry.
MR. BEARDSLEY: I didn't waive. I didn't waive. Sorry, you
asked me if I talked you out of it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, come on up. I'm sorry, I
thought you said we'll wait and see. Come to the podium. Your
turn.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gary, just in the interest of
accomplishing the goal here, I just want you to understand we've
got a motion and a second for approval of this item on the floor.
MR. BEARDSLEY: Okay, that - really, protocol is wrong
because you have speakers, so I don't know what to say. You're
the lawyer.
My name is Gary L. Beardsley. I'm a resident of Collier
County. 4661 13th Street Southwest, Golden Gate Estates. I
was also the chair of the Conservation Coastal Element in 1989.
I was also on EPTAB, Environmental Policy Technical Advisory.
I'm speaking as an individual and also as a member,
conservation chair, of Calusa Group Sierra.
We adamantly oppose this until specific questions are
answered. And that's unusual, because we basically would like
Page 24
September 12, 2000
to protect wetlands in Collier County. We think there's too many
wetlands being destroyed. So I'll just give you a real brief
background.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who opposes this, Gary? I've got
to hear that list.
MR. BEARDSLEY: Calusa Group Sierra.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The Sierra Club?
MR. BEARDSLEY: Is this part of my five minutes?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
MR. BEARDSLEY: Okay. There's various groups in the
chapter of the State of Florida, and Calusa Group covers six
counties, including Collier County, Lee County.
The difficulty is, you're part of the problem. You have
decided that you would issue building permits without the DEP,
Department of Environmental Protection, or the Army Corps
issuing their permits.
Our questions are basically protocol. One, will you hold up
building permits until the DEP staff person, if this grant goes
through, signs off on those lots that seem to have potential for
wetlands? That's question number one.
Question number two, who will decide where those
potentially wetlands are that then are referred -- the application
is referred to the DEP person that's on staff?
Third question, supposedly in this memorandum agreement,
there's funds to be generated by compensatory mitigation,
offsetting wetlands impact. And these are to be funneled
through the county.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Beardsley, I'm going to ask
you to stay on the agenda item. The agenda item is whether or
not we're going to allow them office space, not what the policy
between the two agencies is. So if you want to address the
agenda item, you're more than welcome to your five minutes.
MR. BEARDSLEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But we're not going to go off on
policy, because that's not what the item is.
MR. BEARDSLEY: Well, I'm asking -- you're going to offer --
you're going to spend $45,000 of county money, my money, to
provide office space for the DEP to do specific jobs. And I'm
addressing that issue. You're not going to give them office
space and just let them sit there and watch TV, right? Okay.
Page 25
September 12, 2000
The other thing is a compensatory mitigation. The difficulty
is that the individual person that has a lot and has wetlands and
has -- provides compensatory mitigation, that person has
potentially the ability to take other wetlands on their lot. Five
acres, they build on one acre, they have four more acres of
wetlands. They have the potential of offering that as
compensatory mitigation. These can be cypress swamps, really
nice functional wetland. The DEP will not allow that.
So the landowner then has to come up with money,
out-of-pocket money to pay the state. In this case, it would be
paying you. I think that's an onus and a burden on the property
owner. I think that compensatory mitigation on-site where the
impacts occur is the appropriate way to go.
But I've sat down with Rick Cantrell and Lucy Blair. They
said we will not accept it. And I think these are issues you --
you're paying somebody to do something and you're going to get
money out of this compensatory mitigation. You need to
understand the issue.
I would like to submit some background information and
also a letter from Calusa. And I would also like to follow up with
additional information to send you, again to help you understand
what's happening.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Other speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a -- can we work on
getting the light system fixed? Because it's going to be a long
day today.
We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the
motion, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8B1
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR TO PROCEED WITH THE
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AS A
CONTROLLED ACCESS SIX-LANE FACILITY FROM RADIO ROAD
Page 26
September 12, 2000
TO LEE COUNTY LINE, AND BEGIN PROCESSING THE
APPROPRIATE CHANGE ORDERS AND AMENDMENTS -
APPROVED
8(B)(1), authorize the transportation administrator to
proceed with the design and construction of Livingston Road as
a controlled access six-lane facility.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that, but I think for the
public benefit, we need to have this presented so that there's a
clear understanding that we are going with a long-range
strategic plan. And we've been criticized in the past for not
implementing or having the political will to do this. This is a
great example to show that it's always been in the plan and how
we're going to go forward.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Agreed. And one of the other
items, I think Mr. Feder may address this, but we want to be sure
and do, there are a couple of neighborhoods that are impacted by
this. I understand we've already met with Wyndemere, but we
still need to meet with Briarwood, I think, so that they don't --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- garner their information from
a column inch newspaper article. We need to have our staff sit
down with them in their neighborhood and go through with them
what this may entail.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I couldn't agree with you more.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, for
the record, I'm Norman Feder. I'm the transportation
administrator for Collier County. I'm pleased to be able to say
that for the first time before you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We like hearing it.
MR. FEDER: I'll be very brief, but I do want to cover the -- as
you requested. What we're talking about is a request for
authorization to proceed with the six-laning of Livingston Road
from Radio Road all the way north up to Bonita Beach, or to the
Lee County line.
In essence, efforts were underway or in process to move to
a four-laning on that corridor, which is a new alignment. The
Page 27
September 12, 2000
request today is to go immediately to six-laning for a number of
reasons. First of all, the needs and demands are out there and
the growth of the area require it.
In addition, you've got long-term savings by proceeding with
six-laning today. While there's some additional costs initially,
basically estimated at this time about five million dollars to
proceed with six-laning initially, that will save an additional five
million versus going from four to six some five to 10 years in the
future, as was planned.
Additionally, what this provides is you will not have future
disruption, once you have 30 to 45,000 vehicles a day on the
open Livingston four-lane, when you go to six-laning five to 10
years in the future, that disruption to motorists and businesses
alike.
It enhances the potential for receipt, and our efforts are
underway in application of about 9.6 million, in what is called the
County Incentive Grant Program Fund, a state program
established by the last legislative session, that basically looks
for projects, either improvements on the state highway system or
the reliever. And by going to six-laning, you're providing
significant relief, not only to Airport-Pulling and to
Goodlette-Frank but as well as to 1-75 and U.S. 4t, which are the
basic criteria for funding under this program. So far we've made
the initial cuts in the department review, and I've been told to be
guardedly optimistic on that funding.
In addition, the benefits that accrue to the network in
six-laning are brought to you today rather than waiting five to 10
years in the future to receive them.
The effort also requests that you authorize that this be
established as a controlled access facility. That is not limited
access like the interstate where you've gone out and purchased
access rights, but it is a provision where once we've built six
lanes initially and you have it in the beginning, you're able to
work with abutting property owners and to establish a control of
access that allows that facilities operations to be maintained in
the future.
Lastly, it does resolve some problems that Lee County is
facing right now. Concurrency issues on 1-75 level of service.
Specifically they're in the process of having to go through a
variance agreement on other facilities that they're going to build
Page 28
September 12, 2000
to relieve 1-75.
In this area, the north section of 1-75 of Collier County, as
soon as we go into our comprehensive plan amendments, which
are coming up soon, that issue would be raised to us, but with
the six-laning Livingston, we would resolve the issues.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Feder.
Do we have speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Feder, when we talked the
other day, we were talking about long-range planning, which is
what you're doing. And I certainly encourage that. One of the
things we also talked about was putting milestones along the
way to be able to measure how we're doing along the way and
whether the milestones are being met or some other item come
up that would keep us from meeting that one so we can do some
corrective action upstream and complete the thing on time,
within budget and all those other good things that we talk about.
And I'm looking forward to seeing some kind of a schedule
like that with those major milestones for the various phases that
you'll be going through. And I think -- I think from the discussion
we had the other day, I'm quite optimistic that we're going to be
able to do the things that you talked about, thank you.
MR. FEDER: I definitely share your desire on that, not only
for Livingston but for the overall transportation program.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, and I thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I just want to echo
Commissioner Carter's comments and that is this is excellent
forward thinking. It's looking at the big picture, looking at
long-term.
I think the one thing we want to be, and I think you are
sensitive to, is making sure we minimize the impact on those
neighborhoods. But I think there are two ways to do that: One is
encroach as little as possible, but the other is, as you said, doing
all the construction at once as opposed to coming back in five
years and tearing up the neighborhood again.
So as long as we're going to make the effort to sit down with
them and minimize the impacts on them, I don't think there's any
downside to this at all.
MR. FEDER: And I appreciate the request, and we will follow
Page 29
September 12, 2000
up with that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I also think, Mr. Chairman,
that again, transportation, as we've requested on several of
these issues, will periodically report to this board, as Mr. Feder
has said this morning. The big picture again of what we're doing
in Collier County in all of our road networks, giving us a periodic
update, not only for the board but for the public so that everyone
out there understands where we are, what we're doing and how
we're meeting these milestones, as Commissioner Brandt has
stated.
So I think this is not only in this area but in other areas,
you're going to get a lot more communications from us on a
regular basis so that they're up to date, and get the factual
evidence straight from the source so that we don't have any
misinterpretation, distortion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One other comment. Just as I
understand it, this suggestion was made on Mr. Feder's first day
on the job. And you know how it is, once you set a high, high
standard, we're going to hold you to it. This was a wonderful
catch and I look forward to it being continued and seeing more
great ideas coming out of your office. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie had a
motion earlier. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second from
Commissioner Berry.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #8B2
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 00-3098- AWARDED TO
HANNULA LANDSCAPING, INC. FOR THE US 41 TAMIAMI TRAIL
EAST - PHASE "A" STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT
FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD TO AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD
Page 30
September t2, 2000
Item 8(B)(2), Hannula Landscaping, Inc. contract.
MR. KANT: Good morning, commissioners, Edward Kant,
transportation operations director.
This is the first part of the landscaping from U.S. 41 east,
from -- this will be the portion from Davis Boulevard to
Airport-Pulling Road. The second portion from Airport to
Rattlesnake Hammock will be the second, the Phase B.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Kant, if you'll excuse me, I
think this is something the board's already looked at in theory
and now we're going to implement it. What's the timing on --
when can we expect completion?
MR. KANT: We're looking -- if you approve this today, we're
looking at starting construction next month, and there's about
120, 150-day construction period, more or less.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second
from Commissioner Carter. If there are no public speakers on
this item, all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #8C1
IMPLEMENTATION OF A RADIO TECHNOLOGY WATER METER
READING PROGRAM IN FISCAL YEAR 200t - APPROVED
8(C)(1), board authorization to implement a radio technology
water meter reading program.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just don't know why that wasn't
on the consent agenda, frankly. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that, but I think --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- from Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- there's some points here again
that Mr. Finn needs to make to help us educate the public on why
we're doing this.
Page 31
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Brief education, please, Mr.
Finn.
MR. FINN: Thank you. Good morning, Edward Finn, interim
public utilities administrator. I will attempt to be very brief. I'd
just like the visualizer for one second. And if we could see that,
we'll just run through this real quick.
We're going to talk about -- this is simply an opportunity to
improve efficiency and save us a little money. We currently read
meters manually. And if you note on this -- on the visualizer,
we're down here in the caveman stage. We're just slightly above
that. We're using some electronics between the caveman to
interact with our computers to generate the actual billing.
What we're talking about is moving up to this stage here
where we actually use a van and radio controlled radio meters
that tell us what the read is, what the usage has been. We drive
by in the van, it picks up the reads, away we go. It provides
tremendous efficiency in terms of time and effort.
We've kind of looked at this whole thing. We're going to
propose moving forward with new construction for the -- using
new construction, new construction money to install the meters
when new houses are brought on line.
We anticipate that the savings in this is going to be a
freezing of meter readers for at least the next six years. And
probably by the time we get back to you with next year's budget,
we'll be able to determine whether we'll ever need meter readers
again, if we move forward with this.
So with that, I would recommend approval of the
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There are no speakers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We already had a motion and a
second from Commissioner Brandt.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
I assume as that goes, we'll do a public education process
so that, saying to Commissioner Brandt, on the sample ones,
these people will say oh, they just drove by, they never even
Page 32
September t 2, 2000
stopped at the house. And we can say -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- that's how it's supposed to be.
Item #8C3
REPORT TO THE BOARD ON THE POTABLE WATER SUB-
ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - APPROVED
8(C)(3), report to the board on the potable water
sub-element of the Growth Management Plan.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Good morning. Paul Mattausch, director
of water department. And I would like to give you a brief update
since we were here last time on the potable water sub-element
of the Growth Management Plan.
I have before you a picture of the eight million gallon a day
expansion to the north regional water treatment facility. That
was completed in 1999, and utilizes brackish water from the
Lower Hawthorne Aquifer. And it also utilizes reverse osmosis
technology. This is a picture of one of the two million gallon a
day skids of the -- inside the water treatment plant.
We -- because we are at 80 percent of our capacity, even
though we just completed this expansion in 1999, we are -- we
are currently at 30 percent design stage for another eight million
gallon a day expansion at the south regional water treatment
plant that will again use Lower Hawthorne Aquifer, brackish
water. And that's consistent as outlined in Objective 1.1 and
Policy 1.1.3 of the Growth Management Plan, which discusses
developing future water supplies for Collier County. We expect
completion of the expansion of that facility in late 2002.
The last picture that I would like to present to you is a
picture of the potable water aquifer storage and recovery well,
ASR well, which was completed early this year. Operational data
that we are gathering from the operation of this well we will use
to determine if expansion of wells in this aquifer is feasible.
And that again is reflected in the proposed changes to the
Growth Management Plan in language in Policy 1.1.1, which talks
about -- actually, the original document talked about providing a
Page 33
September 12, 2000
test well. And now we've gone a step farther than that, we have
an operational well, and so we've changed that language,
proposed language, to reflect that, determining whether the ASR
well will provide water for us during peak demand periods of
time. And we want to make that recommendation to you.
We are also completing an interim update to the water
master plan this year, and plan a comprehensive update to the
water master plan for the coming year, and that's consistent
with Objective 1.3 in the Growth Management Plan.
During that update, we'll look at level of service standards
and revise those standards as necessary, which is also
consistent with the Growth Management Plan in Policy 1.3.4.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' When should we expect to see
that, sir? The -- what I'm interested in are the level of service
standards that are adopted. We talked about this in our private
meeting on this topic. When did you say we would expect to be
looking at a level of service standards for potable water?
MR. MATTAUSCH-' We will look at those level of service
plans, the numbers --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Yes, sir.
MR. MATTAUSCH: -- in the update to the master plan this
coming fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So when will we might see
those?
MR. OLLIFF: That usually is part of your AUIR process
where you look at all those level of service standards and make
any adjustments necessary.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because one of the concerns
that I have is whether or not, as I understand it, long-range
planning for potable water is a 10-year plan, and it's my thought
that we need to do a longer range look at that. And we've
discussed it, and I just wanted to give the opportunity to bring
that to the board. But sounds like that will be the time.
MR. MATTAUSCH.- Yes. And we expect that process to be
about t2 months from now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
MR. MATTAUSCH: We also will look during the update to the
master plan at system improvements to adequately plan for
future growth within the urban boundary areas. And that's also
consistent with Objective 1.2 and the policies that are found
Page 34
September 12, 2000
therein in that objective.
We also have been developing a conservation plan which
now includes xeriscape landscaping, rain sensor devices and low
flow plumbing fixtures. That's consistent with Objective 1.4 in
the Growth Management Plan.
And we have expanded a conservation education program
which has included direct mail-ins to our customers, school
programs and community group presentations. That's also
consistent with Policy 1.4.5 in the Growth Management Plan.
Our recommended changes that we have before you today,
the substantive changes, are removing the level of service
standards from the middle of the document, from the text of the
document, and including those as an appendix at the end of the
document.
There's a couple advantages of doing that. One, it improves
the readability of the document itself. It doesn't break the
document up with a whole table of numbers in the middle of the
document. And also, it allows for easier update of those level of
service standards. If it is a separate appendix to the document,
we can bring that to you separately as we update those
standards.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Before you go on, staff will be --
I mean, the Chair will be happy to entertain a motion for that and
other staff recommendations as outlined in the executive
summary.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless you have something --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Unless you have
something new, different, from what's in the executive summary.
MR. MATTAUSCH: No, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion from
Commissioner Berry, second from Commissioner Mac'Kie.
All those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, just one comment.
I think Paul might discuss this just a moment. There's a lot of
question about ASR wells. There are two types.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes, sir.
Page 35
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There are one for potable water
and there is one for treated effluent. And I think we need to
differentiate here so that people clearly understand what we're
doing, and the latter treated effluent is in the testing process.
And I know from my meeting with you that this is - you know, it's
separated by layers, and it's got a lot of criteria to it so that you
can monitor this to make sure that we don't get any
contamination.
And I'm trying to get up to speed myself and have clear
understanding on ASR wells, but my research indicates that
there's a lot of information out there, that if anyone wants to
take the time to read about it, that they really are effective and
safe, if you follow the rules.
So you might want to comment just a moment on that, if we
could take that time, so people will clearly understand the
difference.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Certainly. Major difference between the
proposed test well that's been before you recently and the well
that we have in use right now is we are putting potable water,
drinking water, water that meets all drinking water standards
into a brackish water aquifer, creating a large bubble of that
treated water down there, and then recovering that water during
periods of high demand time. Typically in March, April of the
year.
So the difference is, and I know that there's been a lot of
concern over whether ASR wells, ASR technology will
contaminate aquifers or not. The significant difference here is
we are putting drinking water down into the aquifer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just add to that, so I
understand it, because I get things in real simple terms, what
we've got right now in operation is drinking water going into
brackish water. So nobody can question whether or not that's
appropriate.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What we are seeking a permit for
is a test well, which is about a two-inch hole into the ground, to
put treated water in to see if it's safe in our system. And that's
the only way we'll know for sure is by monitoring it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. And it has, as I understand
it, two confining layers, and it's over a mile from existing wells.
Page 36
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which seems like a reasonable
test to make, but the test is what we need to know for sure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Finn.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Finn, just to try and get us back on this
item, just for the board's sake, I know there's a lot of questions
about both ASR water and wastewater issues, and that's why
one of the workshop schedules that we have for you is
specifically water and a separate wastewater workshop as well.
And I think that would probably be a good opportunity for us for
a public education standpoint and for a board education
standpoint to have this full-blown discussion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. County Manager.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Will that workshop be coming up
soon?
MR. OLLIFF: We've got that scheduled for when the new
board is seated. There's a series of about eight different
workshops that we're looking at holding.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're welcome to come back
and sit in.
MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you. As long as you refer
to me as Dr. Brandt.
Item #8F1
APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF COLLIER
COUNTY GRANT PROGRAM - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 8(F)(1), application for
Community Foundation of Collier County Grant Program.
MR. PINEAU: Good morning, commissioners. Ken Pineau,
emergency management director.
I have before you a submission -- a request for a submission
with a grant to the Community Foundation of Collier County for
the sum of $10,350 to assist us in publishing some of our
pamphlets in Spanish, Creole and English.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Do we have speakers on the item? Do we have any
Page 37
September 12, 2000
objection?
Seeing none, all those -- that's a 5-0 vote then.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2000-280 APPOINTING ALFRED F. GAL, JR. AND
IAN M. DALY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL -
ADOPTED
Golly. That takes us to Board of County Commissioners'
items. Item 10(A}, appointment of members of the EAC. There
are two members and two openings, two applicants.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All those
in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I need to understand the motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I assume the motion is to
appoint the two folks here to the two vacancies.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
And with that, all those in favor,
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2000.281 APPOINTING CHARLES D. DUGAN, JR. TO
THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD.
ADOPTED
Appointment to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same motion on Item 10(B).
There's one applicant, one position.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There appear to be two
applicants.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Darn. Thought I was going to --
Page 38
September 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Appreciate the effort, though.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, darn it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mark Benson and Charles
Dugan, Jr.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I make a motion that we appoint
Charles Dugan, Jr.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Speakers on the item?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2000-282 REAPPOINTING KENNETH W. RODGERS
AND APPOINTING PEDRO PEREZ TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS - ADOPTED
Item 10(C), appointment to members of the board of building
adjustments and appeals.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm a little gun shy, but I think
there are two applicants and two positions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You are correct, one --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I move their approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have any objection to that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2000-283 APPOINTING NICOLE RYAN TO THE LAKE
TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
Item 10(D), appointment of member to the Lake Trafford
restoration task force. One and one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
Page 39
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second to approve
Nicole Ryan for that spot. Any discussion? Any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, that's a 5-0 vote
as well.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2000-284 APPOINTING LINDA WILLIAMS TO THE
BAYSHORE/AVALON BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
10(E), appointment of member of the Bayshore/Avalon
beautification MSTU.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the committee
recommendation, Linda Williams.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Discussion? Objection? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #1 OF
RESOLUTION 2000-285 APPOINTING LORA JEAN YOUNG TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - ADOPTED
Appointment of members to the Collier County Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I make a motion that we
nominate Lora Jean Young.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
Discussion on that?
Seeing none, is there any objection?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're very welcome.
Page 40
September 12, 2000
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 2000-286 AMENDING RESOLUTION 2000-245 -
ADOPTED. RESOLUTION 2000-287 APPOINTING DAVIS,
RASNICK, SCHNEIDER, DAMPBELL, DINARDO, KINZEL, MANIA,
NEUBARTH, PASSIDOMO, SCHMIDT AND TINDALL AS VOTING
MEMBERS AND AKIN, BURRIS, COLFER, COOPER, EPSTEIN,
FAIN, GIRARDIN, MORTON, WILDERMAN, DAVIS AND
SMYKOWSKI AS EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS - ADOPTED
Appointment to members of the Collier County healthcare
planning and finance ad hoc committee. I have a question and a
comment here. There was -- I got a call this morning. There was
a name who appeared on this list, and Doctor, maybe you can
help me with this, who later apparently was bumped. One
applicant here, I am told, and you can confirm this or not. Carol
Girardin actually submitted her application after the deadline.
DR. COLFER: Good morning. I'm Dr. Joan Colfer, the
director for Collier County Health Department.
Everything you said is true, sir. Our difficulty is that -- and
actually, I'm pleased about this. There were many, many
applicants for the healthcare review committee, and that's
terrific. We need all the help that we can get.
The suggestion that I would make, if you are willing, would
be to allow us to have an additional ex-officio member, and move
the individual that is concerned into that position. I believe it is a
county employee, and that's where all the other county
employees and state employees like myself are. And we would
love to have this individual's expertise.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess my concern still is one
of the things we try very hard to be consistent about is if
somebody turns an application in after, if they don't follow the
rules, they don't get to play the game. And we try to never make
exceptions for that, unless there aren't enough people to fill
those positions. But it doesn't seem fair to those who have
followed the rules if we make the allowance.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me, I didn't understand.
You're saying that she's --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, Crystal Kinzel was the one
Page 41
September 12, 2000
whose name had appeared on here initially. And then five days
after the deadline, Carol turned her application in and Crystal
was bumped and they put Carol Girardin in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is, Carol, Ms.
Girardin, has some particular expertise as a CPA, and this being
a financial emphasis on this committee, do we have that
expertise otherwise without her?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Interesting enough, Crystal
Kinzel used to be a controller in the healthcare industry.
DR. COLFER: I guess I would like to capture as much
expertise as we can in the community. And the fact that these
folks are interested in helping us, if there's any way to include
them both, I would certainly like to do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would have no objection to
doing what you said before, except just twisting, turning them
around and have Carol be the ex-officio member, just because
she's late. Let her participate, use that expertise, and I think we
all know Carol will do a fantastic job.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I just want to make sure we
follow the rules.
So the motion then is to include Crystal there and include
Carol as the extra member.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I second the motion.
We have a question from the county attorney.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Just for clarification, for the record then,
county attorney working with Ms. Filson will consider your
approval today as authorization to make any resolution changes
of the creation resolution, so that the membership -- the full
complement of membership is reflected in those resolutions that
we previously have in place.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I also would like to answer I think
Commissioner Mac'Kie's question do we have the financial
expertise on the voting members. And I will say, in Anthony
DiNardo you have that. If you go through his resume, you'll find --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very impressive.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- he has tremendous financial
background and experience.
Page 42
September t2, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other discussion? If not, we'll
call the question. All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10H
RESOLUTION 2000-288 APPOINTING COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE
AS THE EVERGLADES RESTORATION KEY CONTACT PERSON
FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSION - ADOPTED
10(H), Commissioner Mac'Kie, appointment of commissioner
to serve as Everglades Restoration key contact.
Would you like to be that person?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would very much like to.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second that idea.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second that idea.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So we have a -- everybody's
motioned and second pretty well on that one. Pick 'em.
Any speakers on that?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I had the motion, Commissioner
Berry had the second. And all in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #101
RESOLUTION 2000-289 APPOINTING DR. URSULA PFAHL TO THE
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD~ REGION 24 - ADOPTED
Item 10(I), appointment of member to the workforce
development board, Region 24.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move Dr. Pfahl.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One and one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
Page 43
September 12, 2000
discussion? Any speakers?
Seeing none, is there any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, it carries 5-0.
Item #10K
RESOLUTION 2000-290 NAMING TRACT 179 AS RITA EATON
PARK - ADOPTED
Item 10(K), discussion relating to the naming of a
neighborhood park in Golden Gate.
We have actually started adopting policies, particularly on
roadways and those type things. We've had an informal policy on
parks, and there is a particular name I'd like to put forward for it.
You remember the small neighborhood park, about two and a
half acres up in the northwest corner of the Golden Gate City
area? Rita Eaton, who passed away about a year ago, was very,
very active in Golden Gate Civic Association, Golden Gate
Women's Club, was a volunteer for the Golden Gate Chamber;
very much personified the community spirit of Golden Gate.
We have support from the Women's Club and the Civic
Association and the Civic -- Chamber and so on, and just wanted
to pass that through the board, make sure everybody was okay
with that, that that seems very much in keeping with --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you need a motion on that, Mr.
Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do indeed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move your recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a neighborhood park and the
neighborhood all agrees, it's certainly the way to go.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
MR. OLLIFF: It's got a much better ring to it than Tract 179
they referred to.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough. All those in favor,
please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Page 44
September 12~ 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you for naming it Rita
Eaton Park.
Item #10L
RESOLUTION 2000-291 FROM THE CITY OF MARCO REGARDING
PIPING PLOVER - ADOPTED
Item 10(L) has been pulled; is that right?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I just have a line through it. I
never quite understand Ms. Filson's marks.
Request from the City of Marco to adopt a resolution
regarding piping plover. I'm glad -- okay, Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: A little background on this. As
you're probably aware, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission has
wanted -- has moved in the direction of citing the whole beach of
Marco Island as a habitat for the piping plover.
And talking to a number of people on Marco Island, as well
as people in the Conservancy, the City of Marco Island has
adopted a resolution requesting that the wildlife -- Fish and
Wildlife Commission not include the whole beaches of Marco
Island. So they have sent forward a resolution which they
passed and asked for county support for a similar resolution that
would be sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission.
And I don't know whether it's appropriate to read that
resolution. We all have copies of it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You can, but it's not necessary.
If you want to, you're more than welcome.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: If-- I'll waive that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I have a comment.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I'd like to make a motion
that the Board of Collier County Commissioners adopt this and
forward it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie with a
question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. I want to
support the position espoused by staff, by Mr. Lorenz, and I'm not
sure that this resolution as written does that very --
Page 45
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It doesn't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- carefully.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It doesn't quite do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that -- I'm going to have to
vote against the resolution as it's written. Although I would
support a resolution urging that the piping plover habitat be
redefined to include only the Sand Dollar/Tigertail Beach with
provision for migration and with an assurance that public access
would continue to be allowed. I could support that, but I can't
support the resolution that's here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are there parts of the resolution
that you have specific concern about?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, it's now therefore, be it
resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County
that the county opposes the designation of the beaches on
Marco Island. And I have the same problem that Commissioner
Mac'Kie does. Bill Lorenz wrote I think an excellent response to
Fish and Wildlife and said with the exception of Sand Dollar and
Tigertail, with public access. I can go there. But as it's stated
now, I'm with Commissioner Mac'Kie, I cannot support this
resolution that says all and eliminates those areas.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would rather send a resolution
supporting the designation of this limited amount of beach with
access assurances, but I can't support this resolution.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The City of Marco Island would
prefer not to do that, because it then gives an opportunity for the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission to come in at a later time, they
feel, and include the whole of the beaches of Marco Island.
That's the reason they passed the resolution that they did.
I'm sure at some point in time, if there was a negotiation on
this, the issues that you Commissioner Mac'Kie and
Commissioner Carter bring up would be part of that discussion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm going to support the
resolution as written for that very reason, because I think it will
bring the agencies to the table. And I do think your points are
valid and I understand the concern; however, I'm going to
support it as it's written.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you. Did we have a
second?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I will second --
Page 46
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, Commissioner Berry
seconds the item.
We have a couple of speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: You have one. Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton,
Florida Wildlife Federation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a piping plover there on
your lapel?
MS. PAYTON: No, it's a roadrunner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we can try.
MS. PAYTON: Same idea. They've got to run to get out of
the way.
We support, Commissioner Mac'Kie and Commissioner
Carter, your proposal to seek that middle ground that still
provides beach access but acknowledges that there is important
piping plover habitat on the Marco beaches, the naturally
renourished beaches, not the beach that was paid to be
renourished.
I am passing out a fact sheet that we've developed, dealing
with various issues about critical habitat and trying to address
the concerns that we've heard in various forums.
Most importantly, you have to remember that critical habitat
is not a regulatory tool. That is the Endangered Species Act that
protects ultimately the habitat for the piping plover. And the
power to close down a beach -- that Fish and Wildlife Service do
it, but I don't think that's going to happen -- comes from the
Endangered Species Act, not the critical habitat designation. So
you have to remember that the critical habitat designation is an
effort to have various agencies work more closely together to
make sure that the important habitat, the critical habitat for the
piping plover, is not impacted.
I also want to bring to your attention an ad that the county
pays for, at least every year in Audubon Magazine and several
other nature magazines. The first one that I saw appeared in
September-October of 1997. And it's in your handout, and I
flagged it with a green sticker. And it talks about Marco Island.
It is 10 pages, colored advertisement, in t997 cost $19,000. And
it talks about the importance of birds and the attraction of birds
on Marco and as a tourist draw.
Page 47
September 12, 2000
And it says, "Man has not completely taken over the island,
however. Marco is still a sanctuary for more than 200 species of
birds, especially those that live near the water, including herons,
egrets, ibis and osprey." That's something that was paid for with
tax dollars. It's a beautiful color layout, appearing in Audubon,
attracting bird watchers around the world, actually, to come and
appreciate the piping plover and other species that are found
there.
The most recent one that came out just last week again has
a 10-page color insert, encouraging people to come to Marco
Island. And that one is flagged with that neon yellow. And it
specifically talks about the piping plover in this particular ad,
paid for by Collier County. It says, "Along the shore of the Gulf of
Mexico, saltwater-oriented wildlife reigns supreme, including
plovers scurrying across the wet sand."
So all we're asking for is hey, let's come to the table, meet
that middle ground. Let's protect the habitat that we know that
piping plovers use.
I don't think that the resolution that says there shouldn't be
any critical habitat on Marco, based on the data that does exist,
that it's critical to piping plovers. There's one piping plover that
has come back for 13 years to Marco Island. There's other piping
plovers that have been banded, have been coming back to that
specific area. Tigertail, Big Marco Pass critical wildlife area, for
over five years. It's essential, it is critical for those particular
birds. They are an economic -- they're valuable to Marco.
They're one of our assets. They're one of our green
infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Nancy, how old does the typical
piping plover live to be; do we know?
MS. PAYTON: I think they --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: t3 years is just amazing.
MS. PAYTON: Yes, it's an extended lifetime for piping
plover. It's a female and she's outliving the odds. I don't think
that this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's because of that great habitat.
MS. PAYTON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Females always outlive the male.
MS. PAYTON: Yes, indeed.
So I ask you to please reconsider the resolution and support
Page 48
September 12, 2000
what Mr. Carter and Ms. Mac'Kie are saying, that let's go and
protect that good habitat and recognize that the renourished
beach that's in front of the condos and the homes and such
doesn't need to be in this designation, that we'll focus on the
habitat that we know to be critical habitat, and what your staff
has identified as being appropriate for critical habitat.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Chairman, if I may.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Notwithstanding all of the things
that you have just said, and I don't think it would ever be the
intent of the people on Marco Island to do away with piping
plovers. That's certainly not one of the intentions. It is the
intent of the business people and the people on Marco Island to
assure that the thing you said earlier doesn't happen. You said
you didn't think it would ever come to a point where the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Commission would shut down the beaches. That's
the problem. You don't think it would ever happen, but it could
possibly happen.
MS. PAYTON: But it's not the critical habitat designation
that does that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And it's their concern -- a lot of
other things would come into play. But I'm still going to support
this resolution as presented by the City of Marco Island, and I
would request that the Board of County Commissioners do that
as well. And it doesn't obviate some of the other negotiations,
and as Commissioner Constantine said, it does bring the parties
to the table to come to a reasonable resolution, rather than what
is currently being proposed. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On that point, if I could just
comment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My concern, and I don't think I'm
going to necessarily change anybody's minds, so I'm not going to
talk much more. But this Commission doesn't have the greatest
amount of credibility in the environmental community and with
the environmental regularities. And passing a resolution that
says critical habitat should be ignored will enhance that bad
reputation, instead of our being the leaders that we could be.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Enhance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it will -- well, it will make
Page 49
September t 2, 2000
that bad reputation greater. Instead of being the leaders that we
could be by saying we understand that you have a radical
position, there are other radical positions, we're going to propose
the reasonable middle of the road. I wish we would do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I concur, because I really believe
that when you come to the table, which you've already said this
is what we'll accept, Fish and Wildlife. And it's logical. I think
they went way overboard on this thing without doing their
homework. But we've done it for them and we're giving them an
opportunity to come to the table and get it resolved quickly. This
other says they're going to come and they come with a negative
attitude. So I still have my position, I cannot support this
resolution.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that, we'll call the
question: All those in favor, please state aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 3-2. We have
one speaker under public comment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Following that, we'll take a brief
break.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question on that point.
Since our environmental staff has taken a position previously
contradictory to the resolution we just adopted, what -- have we
given staff direction now at this point that they should do
something other than what they have been doing? Because
that's a problem. They have a professional opinion that some
critical habitat should be designated.
I hope that, Mr. Olliff, we haven't put your staff in a position
to be unable to participate on an professional level.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But I hope the staff doesn't
contradict the position of the majority of the board either.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I would hope that the staff
would hear what the majority of the board has said, and also the
Page 50
September 12, 2000
concern stated by the minority side of the board, and perhaps go
sit down with the City of Marco and whoever else is concerned,
Fish and Wildlife, and come up with something that will work to
make all sides compatible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As long as that's what they can
do is continue --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not disputing what Mr. Lorenz
has said. ! have a great deal of respect for his opinion. But we
had a petition -- or a resolution in front of us today. It was
brought to us apparently by the City of Marco. They asked for
this ratification of this particular item. And I felt good about
supporting this. This is their position. It is down in their area.
And I feel now that it needs to move on to the next level where
they all sit down and talk.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the board does not object to
our staff participating and reaching a middle ground in this
negotiation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, I think staff needs to be
very careful to make sure they follow direction of the board, but
if there's some logical direction to go, they can clearly bring that
back to --
MR. OLLIFF: And I'm not sure it's a moot point, that we're
really not a party that's really involved in that particular issue. I
mean, we've provided public comment.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's one thing, since this was
handed to us, this board in the past has dealt with items
concerning the tourist development tax, and I thought we made a
statement regarding an advertisement that was being used. And
sure enough, Ms. Payton has provided us with information in this
document.
If you'll go to the next to the last page of the document that
she just provided. And I thought we had given direction that
perhaps we wanted to see this disbanded from the use. And here
I'm seeing 2000 Tourism Alliance of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And actually, I read in the
minutes of the -- that were provided to us that they have in their
professional opinion decided that we are wrong and that this was
a very successful campaign and --
Page 5t
September t2, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that's fine, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- they're going to use it anyway.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I would have thought that
perhaps they would have come back with their professional
opinion and come back before the board, rather than just saying
in your face we're going to do what we want to do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So noted. We have one speaker
on general comment.
MR. OLLIFF: You actually have one more item on the Board
of County Commissioners. 10(M).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry, you're correct.
Thank you.
Item #10M
RESOLUTION 2000-292 REGARDING SPEED LIMIT ON COLLIER
BOULEVARD (MARSHALL DRIVE TO JUDGE JOLLY BRIDGE) -
ADOPTED
10(M), discussion regarding speed limit -- I'll tell you what, if
we've got a few more minutes, we'll take our 10-minute break
now and come back in 10 minutes. (Recess.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: ***Hi, we're back. We will go to
Item 10(M), discussion regarding speed limit on Collier
Boulevard. Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you. I unfortunately did
not get a copy of a letter that I had drafted to go to Mr. Don
Deberry, who is the traffic operations officer for the Florida
Department of Transportation. But I would like to read it to you
because of some of the comments that people on Marco Island
made to me about a section of Collier Boulevard, which used to
be 951, has raised some issues.
And the draft of the letter says earlier this year, the last
section of State Road 951, now known as Collier Boulevard,
approaching Marco Island was opened. The speed limit on this
section, from near Fiddler's Creek community to Mainsail Drive,
was set at 55 miles an hour. The section from Mainsail Drive --
incidentally goes over to the Marco Airport -- to the Judge Jolly
Bridge was set at 45 miles an hour.
Page 52
September 12, 2000
The section from Mainsail Drive to County Road 952, which
is the road that goes to Isle of Capri, has no public access on
either of the lanes going toward Marco or coming away from
Marco Island. And the intersection at County Road 952 is
controlled by a traffic light.
My request -- as a result of inputs that I have received, my
request is that the State Department of Transportation
redesignate this section from Mainsail Drive to County Road 952
at 55 miles an hour, so it will be a continuous 55 mile an hour
speed limit all the way to the Isle of Capri Road. Keep the 45
mile per hour limit from County Road 952 to the Judge Jolly
Bridge.
The reason for that is we do have a boat ramp there, there is
a lot of traffic goes through there, and I think it's reasonable and
the people that I've talked with think it's reasonable, the people
who have talked to me think it's reasonable that that still remain
as a 45 mile an hour limit, but with no public access for that
one-mile section. No public access for that one-mile section
from Mainsail Drive all the way to the intersection of County
Road 952, which is the Isle of Capri Road. Seems reasonable to
keep that 55 mile an hour limit there.
And so I am requesting that the board help me and make
that application to Mr. Deberry to change that one-mile section
to 55 miles an hour.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second
from Commissioner Berry. Any discussion?
Seeing none, any public speakers on the item?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That carries 5-0.
Item #11Cl
JEANETTE SHOWALTER REGARDING MANDATORY BULK CABLE
POLICY OF MEDIA ONE - NO ACTION
Page 53
September t2, 2000
Which finally takes us to public comment on general topics.
I understand we have one speaker. Mr. Olliff, if you would call
that speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: You do. The registered speaker is Jeannette
Showalter.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: To the podium, please.
MS. SHOWALTER: I've been told I have five minutes to
speak, and I have something prepared. I'm not quite as talented
as some of your other guests here today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if you'd just introduce
yourself for the court reporter, please.
MS. SHOWALTER: Okay. I am Jeannette Showalter, and I
live at 1976 Countess Court, in Imperial Golf Estates.
I wish to speak to you today about mandatory bulk cable
policy of Media One, why the policy damages me and why the
county as a third party is responsible. Even if we disagree about
your responsibility, maybe we can agree that the county will
begin to champion my cause.
Since 1996, we have stopped using cable TV as a modality
for news and entertainment. Bulk cable is a contract providing
cable services at a discount to such bulk users. Mandatory bulk
cable requires all members of the group to pay for such services,
whether or not they use satellite, commercial free TV or whether
or not they object to conscious religion or for homeowner
associations, whether or not they are handicapped, whether
they're deaf or whether they're blind.
Bulk cable was originally embraced by new builders as a
way to defray costs. But for high-rise buildings which needed to
take down old antennas and put in cable, they needed to defray
their costs. But the cable companies have adopted very
aggressive tactics, because they want to hold their near
monopoly position. They expanded their service from simple
hookup to be full packages, including HBO for some of these
communities. They expanded it from merely simply condo
associations or high-rises to be homeowner associations,
privately owned property.
I expect the county to protect my First and Fourth
Amendment rights to religion conscience and to be left alone.
We happen to believe the Media One programming is
Page 54
September 12, 2000
predominantly bad. The fact that it offers religious content does
not mollify me. MTV, programs which mock the family, senseless
violence, rudeness and instability dominate cable TV. I think
most people agree with that.
The county, in choosing Media One, chose a company which
is not a good neighbor to me and to a lot of other people.
Who are the minorities damaged? The 10 to 15 percent of
the people in these associations who voted against these
contracts. They could be someone like me. Could be a person
with some sort of sight handicap. But I've heard them. And they
are people who wanted to use satellite, they're widows who have
constrained budgets, and they're older people living on Social
Security.
What about the racial minorities? What if we really told
them the truth, the Blacks, Haitians, Hispanics, low and middle
income people who happen to not live in an association, they pay
full price. And not only that, they pay a disproportionately
greater amount of capital cost increases than I do, simply
because I live in an association.
Now, tell me you want to leave something at a beach which
is a concession stand and we'll have two lines, one for the
person who belongs to the association and they pay for
hamburgers and hot dogs at half price, and all the Blacks and
Haitians and the poor people, they stand at another line and
they're going to pay full price. It's all on county land. And this is
your right. You gave this company the right to use this
right-of-way.
What about the young people in this town? They don't relate
to cable converters. They want to use ascendent technologies.
Why should they, their families, have to be paying for an
outmoded form of delivery of entertainment and news? They
don't relate to cable converters anymore or fax machines.
Well, what is a competitive market in Naples? Is it 15
percent by the FCC? I doubt it very much. There are very few
communities in this country that look like Naples. We are largely
homeowner association and condo associations. And basically
what I think has happened is that Media One has intent -- or it
has already achieved the purpose of locking up 75 percent of the
market for five and 10-year long-term bulk cable contracts. Who
wants to enter this market when it's been divided up that way?
Page 55
September 12, 2000
Where will you find meaningful competitors to come in? Who
objects to this? Well, we are isolated. We live in these
communities, we really don't even know who we are within our
own community. We have no political base. We're not liberals or
Republicans, we're just people who didn't want this sort of
imposition on our life.
And further, we have been brainwashed by these
associations that there is no point in complaining to the county.
They're out of the program at this point in time.
And if you look at some of these contracts, you will even see
that the homeowners' associations are taking over the terms of
service and repair. I thought that was something that the county
really wanted to be involved with.
If you feel compelled to represent the interest of residents
who want their special channel aired on cable, please feel
compelled to tell Media One or Comcast that you don't like their
winner-takes-all competitive strategy, that you don't like
mandatory bulk cable contracts. Is that my five minutes?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That is your five minutes.
MS. SHOWALTER: Can I proceed for another minute, or not?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you can wrap up in about 30
seconds.
MS. SHOWALTER: Okay.
I want you to know, Media One's mandatory policy is not
standard in the industry. It -- a bulk cable contract can be for 85
percent, and additional participants can be added on if further
price decreases. And I expect the county to renegotiate with
Comcast and give us a decent good neighbor policy for everyone
in the community.
Thank you very much.
(Applause}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
That will take us to our afternoon agenda, the advertised
public hearings.
Item 12(B)(1) has been continued until October, which takes
us to 12(B}(2}, which was moved to 13(A)(6). Wow, I wish they
could all move that way.
Item #12B3
Page 56
September 12, 2000
ORDINANCE 2000-55 RE PETITION PUD-00-t0, MS. KAREN
BISHOP OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
REPRESENTING ROYAL PALM BUILDERS I, INC., REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS MEADOWBROOK PUD
ALLOWING FOR 293 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AIRPORT-PULLING
ROAD (C.R. 31) AND SOUTH OF THE CARILLON PUD - ADOPTED
WITH AMENDMENTS
12(B)(3), Petition PUD-OO-10. Karen Bishop.
We need to swear in all participants. Anybody who's
participating, either as a professional or just wants to speak on
this item, needs to stand and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of
disclosure, I'm just going to try to do a more thorough job,
pursuant to Mr. Weigel's memo to us about ex-parte
communications and how we need to disclose them more
thoroughly.
I have had a conversation with Karen Bishop about the
neighborhood concerns, and I have had a meeting with this lady
whose name has escaped me, whom I will identify later for the
record and -- about neighborhood concerns. And that is it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I too have had conversation
with Ms. Bishop. I have had just brief conversation with an
attorney for Meadowbrook. Just a casual conversation at no
substance.
I also had a phone conversation with an individual who lives
in the Timberwood residential area concerning -- and mainly just
checking to see if their questions had been resolved, and she
indicated to me that they had.
And that was the communication that I've had. And
however, I will still listen to all considerations at this meeting
and base my decision on that information.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I've had no discussion with any
of the participants on the petitioner's side, or with the
community. I have read the material that has been provided me,
Page 57
September 12, 2000
and I do have some questions as we go on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have met with Karen Bishop,
representing the petitioner. I have met with the president of the
homeowners' association of Timber Lake.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I've met with some of the
residents in Timber Lake that has some specific concerns.
Let's go to staff and hear the story.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows.
This was a summary agenda item that was pulled, I believe
at the request of Commissioner Carter. I'd like to give a brief
overview now of the project, or just answer questions directly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's get a brief overview of the
project, if we could.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay. This project was originally submitted
last year as Banyon Woods PUD at 360 dwelling units proposed
at that time, with a density of 7.6 -- 7.36. It was withdrawn at
that time, and it's now been resubmitted as Meadowbrook PUD.
It has access to two arterial roads: Airport-Pulling Road to
the west and Pine Ridge Road to the north, by a private access
easement.
The site abuts the Carillon PUD to the north, and to the
south is the Timberwood PUD.
The density of the Timberwood PUD is six units per acre.
Across the street is the Naples Bath and Tennis at 3.36 units per
acre. The Carillon PUD to the north has a residential component
tract with approximately 16 units per acre. To the east is the
Kensington PUD at 1.6 units per acre. And to the southeast is
World Tennis Center at 4.5 units per acre.
Staff has reviewed the traffic impacts, and the subject site
will not generate trips that exceed five percent of level of
service C on Airport Road south of -- south of Golden Gate. North
of Golden Gate it exceeds that, but that segment of
Airport-Pulling Road is operating at acceptable level of service.
Pine Ridge Road, from east of Airport-Pulling Road, is currently at
level of service F.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What does it exceed?
MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: North of Golden Gate Parkway
Page 58
September t2, 2000
on Airport Road, what is exceeded?
MR. BELLOWS: That five percent trips coming out of the
driveway will exceed five percent of that level of service C
volume for that four-lane segment of Airport-Pulling Road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's bad, isn't it?
MR. BELLOWS: It's a higher level than can be, but since the
road is operating at levels -- acceptable levels of service, staff is
recommending approval from a traffic standpoint.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When we look at -- and just not
only on this project, but when we look at that five percent
threshold and we look at the big picture, as opposed to saying
well, today Airport Road's operating okay, what do we see
long-term? It seems to me we hear the gloom and doom of what
our long-term road picture is, and that Airport Road and
particularly as you get up toward Pine Ridge Road is just in huge
trouble and five years from now, 10 years from now. So do we
want things to exceed that five percent, even if it's okay today?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the way the traffic impact statements
are to reflect future traffic congestions at build-out of the
project.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. BELLOWS: And at the build-out of this project, the
roadway will be operating at acceptable level of service.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, going right back to my
question, though, shouldn't we be looking at the big picture, not
just when they happen to complete their project?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And it's -- that big picture is sometimes
hard to define. And we basically have to follow policies in the
Growth Management Plan. But that's where staff
recommendations come from. But it does make sense to look at
the overall density and where we want to go. And that's part of
the Growth Management Plan when they created the
transportation elements and how they wanted to create --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just, I want to be sure I
understand the rules. As I understand it, when you review the
traffic impact statements, first of all, you determine whether or
not the traffic will exceed five percent of the accepted level of
service for that road.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
Page 59
September t2, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You did that for this project. And
as to one roadway, it's not going to reach that significant level of
five percent.
MR. BELLOWS: Uh-hum.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As to another road, it is going to
reach the five percent level, which makes you then look more
closely at the project.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, it is not necessarily a
bad thing. It means scrutiny is required to see if we're going to
have a level of service problem resulting from if they built every
single house approved in this PUD.
And then it's only fair -- you're absolutely right, we have to
look at all the long term. But we can't pick a project and say
we're going to say no to this one because it exceeded the five
percent. The five percent is scrutiny to see if in the future this
project will have impacts that are negative. And the math says
they do not.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and we look at all the other projects
combined as called background traffic and future traffic to try to
pull in the effect of all the surrounding developments that are
being developed also.
And the MPO does their analysis, long-range projections,
looking at big picture.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My thought is, I mean, this may
have problems. This may -- this project, I don't know enough
about it yet, but the five percent is not necessarily bad, it just
means --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's certainly a red flag.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- look more closely at traffic
questions than they do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, Mr. Bellows, continue.
MR. BELLOWS: In relation to the density rating system, the
project is eligible for eight units per acre. The base density in
the urban residential is four. It's within a density band, so it's
eligible to receive three additional dwelling units per acre. It's
also eligible to receive one additional dwelling unit per acre,
because it has access to two arterial roads.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And just to be clear, they are
actually eligible for four and then can request the additional.
Page 60
September t 2, 2000
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's a base level of four and
those others are a bonus.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the total is 127
MR. BELLOWS: Eight.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Eight,
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Eight.
MR. BELLOWS: If the project did not have access to two
arterial roads, it would be subject to the traffic congestion zone,
which fronts along Airport-Pulling Road, which you would
subtract a dwelling unit per acre, and they would be eligible for
three units per acre. But since it does have two accesses --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Eligible to request a bonus of
three units per acre.
MR, BELLOWS: Yes. Or actually be limited to three.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you're reducing the three.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that a fact that they will have
two exits?
MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. We requested -- staff
requested that the applicant have the road constructed prior to
the construction of the 50th dwelling unit out to Pine Ridge Road.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And those agreements have been
reached?
MR. BELLOWS: It's in the PUD document, yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What about interconnectivity
with Carillon?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, staff is requesting an interconnection.
And the applicant has agreed to provide that, but has not been
able to obtain agreement from the owners of property within
Carillon.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Now, we went through this last
time, and some of the owners are like owners. And if that's
different now, if this property has moved, then maybe you can
get that on the record, Ms. Bishop, but we had Mr. Fernandez
stand there and tell us they couldn't possibly come to an
agreement. And as it turned out, it was the same owner. So
maybe we can have a little further explanation today. MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop for the record.
You are correct, at one time this whole block was owned by
Page 61
September 12, 2000
several members of the family. The shopping center itself is not
longer owned by them. It's owned by a company called
Developers Diversified, which is a managing company for another
company called Community Centers One, LLC.
Now, the 11-acre parcel that's the multi.family piece in the
back is in fact owned by the trustee that we're buying our
property from. The woman that owns our property is related to
that trustee.
There is also a 60-foot -- there's -- in other words, at this
point there's three pieces of property that was owned by these
family members that is left: That's that 1t-acre multi-family
piece, the 48.87-acre piece that we have, plus the easement that
goes from our property across the 11 acres to Pine Ridge Road.
That is owned also by the woman who -- which we had to buy
separately. It didn't come with the land. We had to go after it.
But the Carillon Shopping Center itself is not owned by the
family, and in fact that's who we've been trying to get the
interconnect with. There is an interconnect between Tract A of
the Carillon multi-family piece and the shopping center itself. But
that easement only runs for Tract A and they have no right -- they
cannot give me access over their property.
We have correspondence back and forth with Developers
Diversified, trying to come to some agreement. We've given
them plans showing them where we want. And I just got a letter
from them September 8th saying that they would -- they do not --
it says be advised we are not agreeable to this easement. Our
reasoning for this decision is based on the existing access
egress of these (sic) center in relationship to your proposed
development. It appears that this easement would only benefit
westbound traffic exiting Pine Ridge Road en route to your
development.
So of course apparently this guy's never really driven
through his shopping center before, because no one in their right
mind would cut through that shopping center to just get out,
when I have a light at my entrance to allow controlled access.
I'm going to try myself to call him again and see if I can try
and reason with this gentleman. But so far we have not been
able to obtain anything more than pedestrian access to Carillon.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because I'll tell you, that
impacts my thoughts on whether or not it's appropriate to have
Page 62
September 12, 2000
four bonus units, because while it may not be your fault that you
don't have the interconnectivity, the end result is still you don't
have the interconnectivity. And after -- for at least t8 months we
have been saying that's what we want to stress on any of these
new projects.
And particularly, you look -- if you say what is the worst
intersection in Collier County, what is the most congested
intersection in Collier County, it's Pine Ridge and Airport. And so
this would be the poster child for where we should have
interconnectivity. And if we don't, that's going to impact the way
I look at the project and whether or not, among other things, that
will be one of the reasons why I question whether eight units to
the acre is appropriate.
MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to point out just a couple of
clarifications. The applicant is requesting 293 units, which
results in six units per acre. They're eligible for the eight.
In addition, in relation to the access or interconnection with
Carillon, the multi-family tract that falls in this area, when they
come in for their site development plan, we can require at that
time that they provide an interconnect with the location that the
applicant would show on this PUD master plan.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I hear request, I don't hear
commitment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could require it for the Tract
A.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But how is that -- realistically,
how does that impact the rest of this development?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know what I want to say
about this? I want to get this out here. Is that we believe, and
we do, that interconnection is appropriate. That's why we have
eminent domain powers. And I don't think we can tell developers
go out and get this when they can't get it. We can't.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, but what we can do is
refuse bonus units to them. That's a privilege, not a guarantee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And they're asking for extra
units, and they don't have that interconnectivity. We do have the
authority, and actually we should do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not arguing with you about
that.
Page 63
September 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have some leverage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I think is more important,
frankly, than how many units per acre they get is whether or not
we get the appropriate traffic flows through here. And whatever
amount of density they end up with, whatever is supported, is
one question. But the other one is do we have the political
wheel to get through the police powers of the county what
private interests are unable to get? If we're going to require it,
then we should condemn it.
MS. BISHOP: And just to take it a little bit further, I mean,
we've offered to pay for that access and they're just not
reasonable.
I've seen this happen before on other commercial projects,
but when this project was approved, that was not one of the
conditions that you guys approved for. So they can stand by
their zoning and say we don't have to, and so I'm stuck trying to
get something done. But I have no mechanism to allow -- there's
nothing with any teeth or any mechanism that will force that to
happen.
And this is not the only case where this happens. There are
many other parcels where this happens where you cannot get
access over a 10-feet easement to a road that's 10 feet away
from my property line.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand, but that -- well,
we could, but it's not government's role to condemn property for
the benefit of private development. What our role is, is to decide
what's an appropriate size there. And if you can't get that
ingress-egress, I feel sorry for you, but it does impact what the
appropriate number we should be approving is. You may have too
many units here if you can't get that interconnectivity.
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner, I tend to agree with
you in terms of the interconnect. At the same time, I'm also
concerned about the number of units, that if -- you know, we're
sitting out here saying we don't want to force urban sprawl and
going out into the -- outside the urban boundary.
In this particular area, you've got an activity center which
has been designated as an activity center. And with that comes
certain bonuses in terms of density and those kinds of things.
Page 64
September 12, 2000
Now, I'm getting -- I'm feeling like I'm being torn one way and the
other, because we don't have a consistency with saying
according to what our plans are that we allow this bonus density.
And at the same time now it seems to me that we're throwing in
the interconnect. And yet I agree with you that the interconnect,
particularly for the residents themselves, would really be
appreciated to be able to get into that shopping center without
having to come out onto a highway.
So you say at the same time that perhaps government
shouldn't do this on behalf of enterprise, and I would tend to
agree. But at the same time, we are saying as government we're
putting the restriction on that this is what we want you to do.
Now, we're either going to help them achieve this so we don't
end up forcing people saying to go out into the rural area, which
we're trying to slow down growth.
What are we trying to do here? I'm just -- I'm a little
confused about what exactly we're trying to do. So if you can
help me out there, I think I'll go there for --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I know Commissioner Brandt
has a comment, but just in response, I think realistically the
unfortunate reality is whether this development has 293 units or
93 units, after it's built out and others like it are built out,
somebody who owns property outside the urban area are still
going to demand that they develop that. And it's going to be up
to the Commission at that time to either take a stand or not. And
those members of the Commission will be able to avoid urban
sprawl or will give in to it. But I don't know, I've never bought
the idea that that's immediately contingent upon the number of
units we allow.
You may remember AI Reynolds and George Varnadoe
coming in when we were talking about density issues saying it
should be higher, we should have higher densities in the urban
area so as not to have urban sprawl. And, you know, the last
thing we want is 12 units per acre in all these urban areas and
that much more traffic and so on.
So I don't think the two have to go hand-in-hand. You're
absolutely right on the urban sprawl issue, we don't want to
allow it outside the urban boundary. But there will be a demand
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't want to use the word allow,
Page 65
September 12~ 2000
but I don't want to encourage it necessarily when we've got area
inside the urban boundary that it seems like we want to
encourage infill. And I guess you might say that this would be
considered infill --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My only thought is --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- because of the services. So I
understand where you're going with the congestion and I agree
with you, there's probably not a worse intersection than that
intersection. But at the same time, I think we've -- we got
ourselves a real kettle of fish here and I'm not sure how we're
going to cook it, so --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's let Ms. Bishop finish her
presentation.
MS. BISHOP: Well, not that I'm going to put on a
presentation more than the staff has already said, but I would
like to point out that this intersection~ as one of the people that
drives it, I of course try to avoid it like the plague, like everyone
else.
We have two connects. We have connect to Airport Road
with a lighted intersection where we can go south or north on
Airport Road. We have connection at Pine Ridge Road that is
between two lights that will allow us to move east. We could go
-- once we move east on Pine Ridge Road, there would be a
U-turn situation at Kensington for anyone that wanted to move in
the westerly direction on Pine Ridge Road.
The problem that I see is obviously the connection to the
shopping center. That's where we would like to see the
interconnect. Now, there is a light between my project and the
Pine Ridge Road's intersection at Carillon. So the worst situation
here that's created is that the people from our project go out
about a quarter of a mile to the first inter -- to the lighted
intersection at Carillon and they take a right. So they in fact are
not passing through that intersection, unless of course they're
going north.
So they're getting right into this intersection, or into the
shopping center, and we still have a connection on Pine Ridge
Road so that people can avoid that intersection if they're heading
to the east.
So there really -- the only difference here with Carillon that I
can see is that the people would be able to go out a lighted
Page 66
September 12, 2000
intersection through Carillon's traffic, get the intersection at
YMCA with a light, and then head left and hit another light at
Pine Ridge Road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, the difference is if you need
to buy a loaf of bread, you don't have to go all the way out
around. And, I mean, if you live in Kensington right now and you
want to buy a loaf of bread, you go onto the busiest road, cross
four lanes, drive two-tenths of a mile, one-tenth of a mile, cross
four lanes again. That's what we're trying to avoid.
MS. BISHOP: And I agree, that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Commissioner Constantine,
that's why it's not just to benefit this project that the county
should be pursuing that through eminent domain. It's for the
transportation system. It's not for the density of this particular
project, it is for the transportation system.
And it's either this commission or the next one that's going
to have to face the question of are we willing to condemn
property to create a system that flows better, that does the
interconnection. We can't continue to say developers, go get it
for us. Because sometimes they can't. Especially in these urban
settings where we have infill development.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's hang on a minute.
Commissioner Brandt had a comment.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I need to go to the TV.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You need to grab a microphone
there.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Is this active? Yes.
I need to understand, Commissioner Mac'Kie, what you're
talking about with regard to eminent domain. And I also need to
understand what the issue is about this access, and what it
takes to get that access put in place so we do have
transportation capability out of the unit -- out of the development
onto Pine Ridge.
And perhaps, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you can help me with
your thoughts about what it needs to have condemned in order to
do something about this traffic flow.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, first of all, I think maybe
staff could tell you about the Tract A and what the possibilities
are for when Tract A comes in, how we could acquire that
through the usual process of requiring it as a condition of an
Page 67
September 12, 2000
SDP.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And what is the commitment that
this access and easement is there and will stay there until we do
some of the other things that are being talked about?
MS. BISHOP: May I interject something here? The access
that we were trying to get from Carillon, believe it or not, is
where -- you see where our Ring Road is on our property line to
the south? Right there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right there.
MS. BISHOP: That's where we were trying -- we're talking a
10-foot strip by 24-foot --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, I understand that, and I
would encourage that that happen.
MS. BISHOP: Right, we have given access to that Tract A to
this roadway. They in fact --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Through here?
MS. BISHOP: -- have access to that roadway. Yes. And the
problem --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Tract A has?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
And they also, Tract A, have access to Carillon. The
problem is we don't have access across Tract A to get to
Carillon, and Carillon will not give us the 10-foot access across
their landscape buffer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So my suggestion on the eminent
domain point --
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
BRANDT: Yes.
MAC'KIE: -- that at the point down below --
BERRY: Go show him so I can see too.
MAC'KIE: That one right there.
BRANDT: Down here.
BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That right there the county
should pursue an eminent domain action for an interconnection.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay, now I understand.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And let me --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- respond to that. Because
when you talk about some day the county may have to condemn
for the betterment of the overall transportation network, that
Page 68
September 12, 2000
may be true on a road like Santa Barbara. But the suggestion
that the county should be condemning for the benefit solely of
one private development I think is wrong.
I think when we look at condemning an interconnection for a
brand new development, that's not right. That's not
government's role. Government's role is to have an overall
transportation network. And if this developer can't work out
something for its own neighborhood, perhaps it needs to have
fewer people there, not have the public at large pay its way, pay
its connection.
I think when you look at an overall road network and the big
carrier roads, that's where unfortunately we are going to get to a
point where we need to condemn and do eminent domain. But
for individual, particularly a brand new development, to suggest
that the government should be paying, the taxpayer should be
paying for an interconnectivity between a brand new
development and a commercial establishment is doing nothing
more than a convenience and increasing the value, the salability
of those homes in there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, both points are
certainly well taken by this commissioner. However, I do think
we have an opportunity that perhaps if we sat with both sides,
meaning we the county, and said look, what we're trying to do
here, this is what we're trying to accomplish overall. And
unfortunately we're dealing with people so far removed from
understanding what we are, the community, and what we're
trying to accomplish that they sometimes come back with
statements that, as you said, they've probably never driven
through their own shopping center.
I would like to use the power of our position, not necessarily
through eminent domain, but the power of what I call jawboning
with these people to say look, this is where we want to go, how
could you help us. Sending a message is yeah, we've got another
way we could do this, but it is not the way we'd like to do it
because we don't want to get involved in working the private
sectors' interest. This serves the public's interest if we can get
the interconnect.
And it really isn't a big issue here in terms of how it affects
Carillon. In fact, they could win by that because if you back up
enough traffic by their traffic light here, that detracts people
Page 69
September 12, 2000
getting into the shopping plaza.
So there's some benefits for them to work with us. And I
don't know exactly how we go about doing that, but I see the
issues of infilling and why the density issue -- I'm never
concerned about density if we do it right in an infill area. I am
concerned when we start spreading stuff out all over the place
and we start getting into beyond the urban boundary area, even
though eventually we will be developing some mechanisms to
address those issues.
MS. BISHOP: Well, might I suggest that these PUD's, when
Carillon PUD came before the Commission at that time would
have been the appropriate time for that language to be in their
PUD that where they should be doing this. I mean, we see this
situation with Piper Boulevard and all these other situations
where we're talking about wanting to see the public get to the
groceries without having to go out on the main drag. I think
everybody would love to have that.
But I can't force this guy to do this unless -- and the access
management plan, we have this happening all over the place
where one person wants to do something, but the other guy says
here's the price tag for that. And we're willing to write a check,
but we can't even get them to say yes.
And as far as the cost to the public for condemnation, I'm
certain that if the county was going the condemnation route, that
the developer would have no problem with covering those costs,
or the attorney's time or the county's staff time so that that was
not a public burden in itself to somehow alleviate this issue of
having to get outside your project and go, you know, 200, 300
feet and you're whipping it back into another parking lot.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I understand. As I said, I
feel bad that you can't get it. But we are where we are in the
year 2000 because the board in 1991 or whenever Carillon was
approved didn't do that. You're still where you are with your
private property. And we still have to make a decision what's
the appropriate number of homes in there.
And just because we feel bad that you can't get an
interconnect isn't necessarily a reason to give you more because
golly gee, a board nine years ago could have done something
different. We've still got to make sure it's an appropriate number
and an appropriate flow.
Page 70
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, what is the
possibility here that it can be conditional? You have to go with
the lesser amount until this is resolved. And then once it's
resolved, you can increase your density. Because I would say
this is not going to be built out all at once. I would think in the
planning of this project where the concentrations have to be, you
can probably still get what you want and at the same time start
your project.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great approach.
Mr. Weigel, can we do that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think you can. But obviously any action
you take today, when those facts change, I think is going to
require it to come back to the board in an advertised setting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why? We change these all the
time. Every week we change pieces and parts of every item that
comes to us.
MR. WEIGEL: No, I don't mean --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Land use items.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't mean the changing what you do on the
floor today is going to require it to come back. But if we're
talking about some place in time, unless I misunderstood, like a
year or two from now where --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, I understand. So you're
saying approve a particular density that has the option of being --
or a particular number of units that has an option of being
increased by this board by action -- by future action of this board
when certain criteria are met.
MR. WEIGEL: Exactly. And that way -- I want to preserve
the defensibility of the action you take, not only from the
county's standpoint but also from the developer's standpoint.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have just a quick question with
regard to the access to the Carillon shopping area.
Do you have in your PUD right now a stub-out that --
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- shows clearly on your PUD?
MS. BISHOP: Master plan, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay, okay.
MS. BISHOP: And also, I'd like to just ask one question of
the staff, or in general. My density bonus -- I mean, my
Page 71
September 12, 2000
connection for density ratings is based on connections to the
roadway of Pine Ridge and to the roadway of Airport Road.
I guess I'm confused somehow that that would be connected
to the connection of a shopping center. I mean, interconnection
itself, but it's two roadways, is it not, that gives me the density
rating?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have trouble with the fact that
you exceed the five percent number. I have trouble looking at
the big picture, what the long-term impacts of that are. I have
difficulty with the fact that I don't know, six is completely
compatible with the area around, when you look at 3.36 for
Naples Baths and Tennis, you look for 1.6 at Kensington, and four
and a half at World Tennis Center.
So if we can alleviate this one problem, I might get beyond
the compatibility question. But if we don't alleviate this one
issue, I think it's a valid point.
We have one public speaker on the item.
MR. OLLIFF: We do. Jay Wolff.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Bob Mulhere. I
just wanted to add a couple of comments.
I wanted to let you know that obviously staff is well aware
of the need to revisit the interconnection policies and we are
working on that and we are preparing to bring back some
information, some recommendations to strengthen those
interconnection policies.
At issue here is to what degree we have leverage to require
an approved PUD that doesn't provide for interconnection to
provide that interconnection. And I'm of the opinion that we still
have some leverage from an administrative perspective when the
site development plan for the multi-family tract is submitted.
That certainly could be challenged through an appeal to you and
ultimately in the courts.
However, I think it's very clear to the staff that we will be
requiring interconnection from that multi-family project to the
adjacent -- to this project which is adjacent to it. And I think we
have that legal ability, the criteria for approval in consideration
of traffic flow and circulation, which, you know, is listed as
issues of concern during the site development review process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let me get this straight.
You're telling us that in your opinion, although it's subject to
Page 72
September t 2, 2000
challenge, I understand that, but in your opinion we could safely
assume that we will be able to acquire the interconnection in the
future?
MR. MULHERE: Right. I don't know to what degree we will
be successful. What I'm saying is that we will -- we will require
that as part of the administrative site development review
approval, based on what we hear the board saying today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does that mean, we will
require it, but you don't know if you're going to be successful?
MR. MULHERE: No, if it's a challenge -- there's a question of
the nexus. If -- and again, I would defer to the county attorney's
office.
We have the ability to ask for external or internal traffic
circulation design that maximizes the flow of traffic. And I
believe that includes interconnections. But to what degree we
would be successful with an approval PUD, I really can't answer
that question. I would defer to the county attorney's office. But
I do think we have certainly the ability to ask for it and require it,
subject to a challenge.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, could Mr. Weigel finish the
answer to that question? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you don't mind. I wanted to
complete the answer to that question.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because Mr. Weigel, if there is in
fact a legal mechanism by which the county can require this
interconnection, then that solves Commissioner Constantine's
problem on that point.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I also heard Mr. Mulhere say I
don't know to what level we'd be successful, which then takes
us back to Commissioner Carter's point that we can do this in a
tiered process. We can approve something and if that is
successful, they come back and have the next level approved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why I'm asking Mr. Weigel
if he could tell us it's going to be -- that we have the right to do it,
then we don't have to bother to have another hearing.
Page 73
September t 2, 2000
MR. WEIGEL: I think that Bob's statement is well taken. We
always have to look very carefully at the specific facts. In this
case, this multi-family -- potential multi-family house adjoining,
whether it will have, if it already has access out to the major
roads, if it will have, and what the advantages are to it, as well
as to neighboring community development for the interconnect.
We have to look at those things very carefully.
But I think that the broad concept that Bob has indicated is
yes, the county does have leverage generally and that there is a
potential and a defensibly potential effort to go forward; an effort
that can be defended to go forward with that tact with another
development adjacent --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
No guarantee of success --
-- but a reasonable chance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And does that differ from the
position you would tell us we're in on every other petition we're
going to vote on today?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, a little bit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How?
MR. WEIGEL: A little bit. And that is I don't know. I
generally know or come to know pretty quickly the facts of
petitions that are before you today. But with potential
development next to a development you're discussing today, I
don't know and can't know all of the facts, particularly the
transportation aspects that may already exist that we're talking
about, sort of hypothetically at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: But I still think that Mr. Mulhere's contention
is a good one, and it's something that I think yes, there's not only
leverage, but there is an ability to work it very hard and then
come back with a studied opinion for the board.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm listening to all of this. I'm a
visual person, and I tell you, I don't understand what you're
talking about with this interconnect with multi-family
organization, and so I'm going back to the TV again.
MS. BISHOP: I have a picture. I have something better.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I understand the
Page 74
September 12, 2000
interconnect here that we've been talking about. I understand
the access here. What I don't understand now is what appears
to be a potential development here, what are the possible
interconnects? And could you show it to me on the map? Could
you trace something? I just don't understand it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Turn it then, please. Thank you.
This multi-family is Tract A. MS. BISHOP: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Back out a little bit, Mr. Bellows.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where is that from the fruit stand?
MS. BISHOP: The road is the fruit stand. The easement --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, I'm just trying to give people
some visual --
MS. BISHOP: So Tract A is between the fruit stand and the
back of the shopping center.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Karen, go please to the visualizer
and point out some landmarks so people can understand what
we have here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There we go.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Mr. Nino, that's what
we needed. Somebody get a black Magic Marker. Where's the
fruit stand?
MS. BISHOP: The fruit stand sits right about here, which will
no longer be there after we're -- this is that parking -- that big
gravel area that everybody crosses over when they want to come
in here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And uses the light to get out --
MS. BISHOP: Right. So this big --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- from the fruit stand.
MS. BISHOP: -- multi-family tract in fact has access right
here to the shopping center.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, if you buy
oranges at the fruit stand and you drive across --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You can do that now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You do that right now.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
MS. BISHOP: That's already built.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That will continue to be there in
the future.
MS. BISHOP: Correct. There's the fruit stands, here's the --
Page 75
September t 2, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hopefully in a little higher grade
MR. BELLOWS: This is the fruit stand. This is an
interconnection. There's the shopping center.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, now move that --
MS. BISHOP: So back to this. See, here's our roadway here
that connects our project to Pine Ridge Road. So there would be
an opportunity -- these people at Tract A have access to this
roadway already. They also have that easement. So they have
access this way. We just don't have access this way. We wanted
to get access this way, and of course right here is the other
place that we were trying to get access, because it was a little
closer for us.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Actually, we're talking two
accesses, Commissioner Brandt, and that's probably the
confusion here. We don't have a timetable for this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For the multi-family.
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. I have no idea when they're going to
build or anything like that. However, I think your suggestion is
something that we could live with if the board's in aggreeance
(sic} that we'll live with four units an acre until we can try to
procure this with the right to come back for those other two.
But at this point we've done what I believe is everything we
can to try to get this at this point.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, and I agree. I agree, Karen,
you have. And I'm just suggesting that that might be a way for
us to get through this to accomplish two interconnects to the
bigger picture for the future.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's try again to go to our
public speaker, Jay Wolff.
MR. WOLFF: Good morning. I am the president of one of the
homeowners' association of the Naples Bath and Tennis Club,
and I am the president of the association of associations at the
Bath and Tennis Club.
I spoke to you earlier. You referred to the Banyon Woods
development, and I spoke at that time that we felt that the
density that they were requesting was grossly incompatible. And
I believe the Commission generally agreed with us at that point.
We are still very much concerned with compatibility. But I also
said at that time that we knew that sooner or later this property
Page 76
September 12, 2000
would be developed, would be developed hopefully residentially
in a way which we would hope would be compatible.
The developers presented a plan to us, and also to other
communities in the neighborhood as to what they intended to do
with this property. And in their presentation, they indicated that
they were planning to build a community of 160 homes, with a
possible maximum number of 200, although they didn't intend to
go to that number, unless they had to.
It occurs to us, or at least we feel that a community of 160
homes on this piece of property is .a. reasonable development. It
would be compatible, especially if ,t had the access that they
propose and the interconnectability (sic).
But two thoughts have occurred to us: We have no reason
to think that this developer is anything other than completely
honorable and completely responsible and will do exactly what
they say they will do -- what they said they would do to us and
that is to say build a community planned at 160 units, with a
theoretical maximum only if market pressures require it of 200
units.
But the future isn't always predictable. It's possible that
this developer may not actually be the one to ultimately do the
project, and if another developer less honorable, let's say, less
responsible were to come in and have an unreasonably high legal
authorization, they might choose to do it.
It also occurs to us that if this development is capped at 160
units with a possible expansion to 200, this current developer
would have no legitimate reason to object, since that's exactly
the plan that they presented to us as their intention.
So it seems to me that we have here a unique situation. We
have a circumstance where the developer and the surrounding
community are in full agreement. We think that a development
here of 160 units with a possible future expansion to 200 units is
a reasonable plan. And we think that because it's reasonable
and because we both agree, that is the level at which the
approval should be made. And then we should have a situation
that everybody will be happy with.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Wolff, when that was
presentation made to you?
MR. WOLFF: The presentation was made, I believe the date
was August 17th. I think they also made a presentation, at least
Page 77
September t2, 2000
one other presentation in the neighborhood, and that was to the
Timberwood development at about the same time. And the
presentation was made to our community at -- on our property,
and they laid out their plans.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: August 17, as in three weeks
ago?
MR. WOLFF: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 160 units, or possibly 200 units.
MR. WOLFF: That's what they said. They were planning --
they were intending to build a 160-unit development. And the
market pressures -- they would like to have enough room, if
market pressures required it, to go up to 200. But under no
circumstances were they planning to build anything more than
that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I wonder why they're requesting
293.
Mr. Bellows, when did this come to the Planning
Commission?
MR. BELLOWS: This went to the Planning Commission on
August 17th, and they recommended 5 to 0 to approve 290 units.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So the same day they were
before the Planning Commission asking for 293 units, they were
in front of these folks saying they would have no more than 200
units.
MR. WOLFF: They said that they intended -- it was their
intention to build 160 units. The 200 unit number was only if
they were forced to. But it was not --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The 290 wasn't even a
consideration.
MR. WOLFF: That number was never -- no, nothing like that
was ever brought up.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Same day to the County
Commission.
Thank you very much, Mr. Wolf.
MS. BISHOP: I'd like to clarify a couple of things. One, that
the planning process for any project goes through an exorbitant
amount of changes and -- mainly based on the market. At this
point the client has a plan that he hopes he can sell. And if that
does sell, then that would be what he wants. But he has to be
ready for changes in the market. Multi-family four-plexes. If for
Page 78
September t2, 2000
some reason the single-family's not selling, he's going to have to
somehow make up the difference with the multi-family.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Bishop--
MS. BISHOP: That's where that edge is.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- it's a pretty simple question.
How do you stand at that podium and say we need 293 units and
at the same day stand in front of homeowners and say under no
circumstance will it exceed 200 units?
MS. BISHOP: It wasn't the same day. And --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How much time? Let's not split
hairs.
MS. BISHOP: I don't remember the dates exactly, but I've
never --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A week, two weeks, six
months? I mean, when you say a project changes -- let's not be
disingenuous here. When a project changes, it does over six
months or a year. But if it's a day or a week, that's a pretty big
change. And it sounds like those neighbors were misled. MS. BISHOP: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Now, if you can tell me that
they weren't and explain to me why, this would be a great time
to do that.
MS. BISHOP: They were not misled. When we presented in
front of them, I was the presenter. We told them exactly what
we were going for, exactly the number that we were asking for,
with the potential that we would have to put four-plexes there,
and we needed that density.
We never said that we were not asking for 293 units. They
had a copy of our documents right there in the room at the time.
We showed an exhibit that's very similar to this with projected
areas of single-family, and the shifting of the single-family to the
multi-family parcels at this point show a ratio of somewhere in
the 160 range.
However, if for some reason this doesn't work out, which is
what we explained to them at that time, we would increase the
amount of multi-family. It would move along the Carillon south
edge and towards the Kensington area. However, the
single-family would be staying on the south end, which is where
we are starting our construction. And that's exactly what I
presented, and that's exactly our plan at this point.
Page 79
September 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a very specific
question. Your wording right there was we never said we
weren't asking for 293.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did you say to that homeowner
group that you were asking for 293?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir, I did.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You did.
MS. BISHOP: Absolutely said it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, you know--
MS. BISHOP: I would have no reason to mislead them,
Commissioner Constantine. I am not known for those kinds of
thing. We were very upfront with them. We tried to put on the
best possible face we could, showing them that we were trying
to work to a higher level of product here. Our product lines are
going to go from single-family, starting the 400,000, and the
multi-family in the 200,000. They were very happy with that.
And of course, if we can sell more single-family at that level,
we'll be glad to, because theoretically we have to build twice as
much multi-family for the same price as the single-family.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me why Mr.
Wolff would be under the impression that 160 with a cap of 200
was the number you were talking about that day?
MS. BISHOP: No, sir, I cannot.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You didn't make any indication
MS. BISHOP: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- that way at all that day?
MS. BISHOP: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And before we go accusing
anybody of misstating the truth or misleading people, I think we
need more than two witnesses. I think we would need to have a
lot of -- a lot more people come forward and say we were misled.
Oftentimes communication results in misunderstanding, and
I for one am not going to for a second suggest that anybody
intentionally misled anybody on this project.
MS. BISHOP: And these documents are public. There -- it's
not like I could hide the fact that I submitted a document.
There's a public notice went out. They had a copy of the
documents. I cannot hide these things. This is up-front, exactly
Page 80
September 12, 2000
as we always are.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And you verbally said to them
we're going to ask for 293 units.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir, I did verbally say that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, you want
to fashion a motion around your suggestion? We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've got a couple other things
before I fashion that, just for clarification from staff. And that is
D acceleration lanes into both the proposed project and into
Timberwood, are those in place so that we know that those can
be achieved?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There's language in the PUD document
requiring the applicant to provide required turn lanes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Secondly, have we worked
out the sidewalk issue along both properties?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir. The applicant has some
information I believe she presented to me about providing access
to Timberwood.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. I am a big pedestrian access
advocate. And so as a part of this application, my client is going
to put a sidewalk on the canal side of Airport Road to replace
any sidewalk that would be along the roadway of Airport Road so
that the people from Timberwood, we will take the sidewalk and
dead end it into their property along their internal roadway so
that they can access Carillon Plaza across the pedestrian access
across the frontage of our property, as well as Bath and Tennis
can now cross over at that light and also utilize that same
scenario, rather than be on the back of curb of Airport Road,
which is frankly very frightening in the big scene.
And also, we have Clarence Tears who is on board with
what he likes to call a linear park on these canal easements. So
we will connect to the Carillon sidewalk, which is also through
that canal side through Timberwood, and hopefully sometime in
the future the rest of the project to the south will come on board
and do the same thing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Well, I think you've
answered my question. In other words, you've taken care of the
projects under consideration here. The future would have to deal
with the project --
Page 81
September 12, 2000
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- south.
Thank you. I would like to move approval of this on the
tiered basis; whereas, we have a base density of four dwelling
units per acre until we resolve the interconnect between Carillon
and Meadowbrook. And at that time, they then could go to the
six units per acre; is that correct? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, six units per acre once that
is resolved. Also incorporate all the recommendations by the
planning council and staff, as outlined in our agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I second --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So that would be if and when
the interconnect is achieved, they would come back to this
board for approval of the additional two acres.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right,
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would second the motion, if I
understand. First, I would like to offer a friendly amendment and
that is that we direct our staff to work with the developer to
encourage as strongly as possible the Carillon and Tract A
property owners to cooperate. It is the county's desire for there
to be an interconnection.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no problem with that.
Better stated than I did.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my other question is I guess
for Mr. Weigel. I'd like to second this motion, but I don't -- I'm not
sure I understand. If the motion is for approval today of four
units and direction that this come back to the board to
acknowledge that the interconnection has successfully been
achieved and at that time the additional two units per acre are
automatically approved, that the only condition is this
interconnection? We're not going to re-hear this petition again,
as pleasant as this was. I'd like not to do it again.
MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to make a point in clarification. I
don't think it would be a PUD amendment, PUD process, but it
would be just a process initiated by the applicant solely going to
the board requesting a hearing to show that they have the
interconnection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that possible legally, Mr.
Weigel?
Page 82
September 12, 2000
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think what we'd do is we'd advertise it
in any event.
But my thought is, is the direction that the board is giving
now, as specific as it is, will probably have slight changes, things
that may need to come back, so that the board blesses it, once
this all gets put together.
And I want both the county and I want the developer to have
an unchallengeable situation. And I feel more comfortable
saying bring it back to the board for the limited purpose that the
goal has been achieved that you've provided for them to have to
do today for them to reach their six units per acre density. And I
think --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With that as the limited purpose
for the re-hearing --
MR. WEIGEL: Limited purpose.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for the second hearing, I'll
second the motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So the motion, if I can be clear,
that -- is for an approval of four units per acre. If and when the
second interconnect is achieved, petitioner can and will come
back to the board for approval of an additional two units,
correct?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And that will be the only item
that we look that for review.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that our staff is to work with
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And our staff is to work with
Carillon and the developer to achieve this goal.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that a second, Commissioner
Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12Cl
RESOLUTION 2000-293 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
Page 83
September t2, 2000
ASSESSMENT ROLL AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND
ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL
FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA
STATUTES, FOR SOLID WASTE DISTRICT NO. I MUNICIPAL
SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED
AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY PURSUANT TO
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 90-30, AS AMENDED - ADOPTED
Item 12(C)(1), approval of a resolution approving a
preliminary assessment roll as the final assessment roll, blah
blah, blah.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir, thank you. Edward Finn --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is the same -- I mean,
motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Speakers on this?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Objection on this?
Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 2000-294 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT ROLL AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND
ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL
FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA
STATUTES, FOR SOLID WASTE DISTRICT NO. 2 MUNICIPAL
SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED
AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY PURSUANT TO
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 90-30, AS AMENDED - ADOPTED
The next item is approval of a resolution approving the
preliminary assessment roll as the final assessment, and
adopting same as the non-ad valorem assessment roll.
Page 84
September t2, 2000
MR. FINN: Yes, sir, Edward Finn, interim public utilities
administrator.
This is the same item, routine --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second from
Commissioner -- motion -- let me try it again. Motion from
Commissioner Mac'Kie, second from Commissioner Carter.
Discussion?
All those in favor of the motion, state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #12C3
ORDINANCE 2000-56 AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY ROAD
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE BY CLARIFYING WHEN "USE OF LAND"
ROAD IMPACT FEES, SUCH AS THOSE APPLICABLE TO GOLF
COURSES, BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE; PROVIDING THAT WHEN
ROAD IMPACT FEES BECOME DELINQUENT THAT PENALTY AND
INTEREST PROVISIONS APPLY AS OF THE FIRST DATE OF
DELINQUENCY; PROVIDING THAT SPECIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDERS CAN BE WITHHELD IF ROAD IMPACT FEES ARE NOT
PAID IN FULL WHEN DUE- ADOPTED
Next item is continued from the August I meeting. Adopt an
ordinance to amend the county road impact fee ordinance by
clarifying when use of land road impact fees, such as those
applicable to golf courses, become due.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, are we going to
take a lunch break today?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Probably. I think let's -- let's
see how many -- particularly until we get down to a couple of our
meaty items, we'll see if we can knock some more of these out.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's 12:00.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is a pretty meaty item is the
reason I was wondering if you wanted to --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: What's the pleasure of the board?
You want to take a break?
Page 85
September t2, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yep.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let's do it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. I'll see you in 30 minutes.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi. Welcome back.
Next item is an ordinance to amend the Collier County road
impact fee, clarifying when golf course stuff is due. Vince Cautero. Hi there.
MR. CAUTERO: Good afternoon, commissioners. Before we
go into the actual ordinance amendment, there's some remarks
that I would like to make to you pertaining to the golf course
impact fee situation as it pertains to transportation.
To say that this has been a difficult process would be a
gross understatement for the entire staff. And I'd like to relay
some remarks to you about that process and where we are
today.
First I'd like to define the problem for you and frame that up,
if I may. The transportation impact fees associated with golf
course construction were either inconsistently or not collected
for a period of approximately eight years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many?
MR, CAUTERO: Eight. Which is basically the inception of
the ordinance itself.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Would you state that again?
MR, CAUTERO: The transportation impact fees associated
with golf course construction were either inconsistently applied
or not collected --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, inconsistently was one of
the words, so everybody's not hearing that they weren't
collected. It was an inconsistent situation, okay.
MR. CAUTERO: The staff understood part of the problem
with the ordinance in 1998, and attempted to correct it through a
memo from our engineering services manager to his senior staff.
The clerk of the court exposed the problem in April, 2000,
through an internal audit.
The problem stems from an ordinance that ties the
collection of an impact fee to a building permit for a golf course,
which currently does not exist today in Collier County. We are
attempting to fix that with an ordinance amendment that you will
hear momentarily.
Page 86
September t2, 2000
Since the audit was conducted by the clerk of the court,
over 800 hours of staff time has been devoted to researching this
issue. Individual employees through the development review,
permitting and payment process in my division have been
questioned and interviewed. Corrective effort meetings between
the clerk of the circuit court, the county attorney, the county
manager and myself were conducted, and just these individuals
alone have invested an estimated 300 hours worth of staff time
in correcting the problems.
What did we find? While the payment process defined by the
ordinance did not match the actual development review process
requirements, payments were made nonetheless for four golf
course developments during the same period. I cannot explain
to you why that happened, but it worked in four cases. It didn't in
14.
In addition, just under 200 million dollars in total impact
fees were collected for all other types of development during this
period. However, 1.2 percent of the total impact fees, or 2.4
million in golf course impact fees were not collected.
Specific responsibilities for ordinance compliance were not
assigned. This was true for all the impact fee ordinances in
Collier County, not just transportation. Seven alternative
calculations were forwarded to the board, even though the
information provided did not completely comply, as required by
ordinance. Alternative calculations are those that are done by
developers as the ordinance allows, with specific criteria that
must be met that would come -- that are supposed to come to the
Board of County Commissioners, where people challenge the
rate, if you will~ that is specified in the ordinance.
Five alternative fee calculations were administratively
approved by various staff members, rather than being forwarded
to the board for approval, as required by the ordinance. Staff,
including the county manager, myself, the planning services
director, the engineering review services manager and his senior
staff and the staff of -- the office of management and budget
could or should have recognized that this directive was not
carried out. Unfortunately, in most cases the directives were not
carried out.
The engineering review services manager did assess the
problem, as I said earlier in my remarks, in early 1998 and
Page 87
September 12, 2000
directed his senior staff to assess golf course impact fees for
transportation prior to the issuance of the approval for a golf
course, which is the site development plan. Again, no building
permit. Unfortunately that directive was not carried out 100
percent of the time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was in 1998.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, January of 1998.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how many of the 14 came
after that date?
MR. CAUTERO: I don't know. I have it in my file. I don't
have off the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to know.
MR. CAUTERO: I will tell you that in years prior, under
previous administrations, it was an accepted practice that
members across the organization did or could play in golf events
with members of the development community and other
community leaders. There was no policy governing this three
years ago. There is today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I apologize, but isn't
that in the personnel handbook, Tom? MR. OLLIFF: It is now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It wasn't three years ago?
MR. OLLIFF: No.
MR. CAUTERO: No, it was not.
MR. OLLIFF: And I'll -- if you could, if you could let Vince 9o
ahead and finish his --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right.
MR. CAUTERO: While this activity did occur, there is
absolutely no link between the poor ordinance and the poor
administration of the ordinance.
I support this contention, not only from the individual
interviews and research conducted, but from some additional
facts. Failure to collect impact fees occurred after the adoption
of policies to prevent these kinds of activities. There are over 10
staff members at least on my staff alone involved in the review
and collection of impact fees associated with golf course
developments. That doesn't even include staff members in other
divisions. But there are at least 10.
The evidence shows too many mistakes to point o- that point
to a system problem, not one stemming from any particular
Page 88
September t 2, 2000
individual.
Perhaps most importantly, it was discovered that within an
organization that assesses and collects over 21 million dollars
per year in revenue, there were no individuals with financial
management experience reviewing the procedures that are in
place until the hiring of an impact fee coordinator one year ago,
and a revenue manager that was secured in our division after the
break-up of DOR in June.
What we have done. We have hired an impact fee
coordinator who serves as the clearinghouse for all calculation
assessments and credits of impact fees in the county. We have
secured the services of a revenue manager who overseas the
work of the impact fee coordinator and is responsible for the
collection of more than 20 million dollars per year in permit and
impact fee revenue. We have contacted all the golf course
development representatives who have not paid their impact
fees and have collected t.5 million dollars to date. Reports you
may have heard to the contrary are absolutely false. We have
collected 1.5 million dollars to date.
Of those not collected, we have instituted the legal process
necessary to either collect or pursue collection through court.
We have ceased issuing any further permits or development
orders related to golf courses to the extent legally allowable
administratively for those courses that have not paid.
We have worked with the clerk of the court and the county
attorney to develop a specific ordinance amendment, which is
the ordinance amendment on the agenda now to specify a point
in time when golf course impact fees will clearly be due or
become delinquent.
What we are doing. The county manager has included in
every division administrator's performance measures
requirements to review the cash collection and handling
procedures throughout the respective division annually.
In community development, I have delegated a review of
each of these procedures to the revenue manager for impact
fees and permit fees, and to the newly created position of
business manager, which I thank you for approving this morning,
for not only reviewing these procedures outlined above, but all
financial procedures in the division, including grants.
We are amending all the impact fee ordinances to correct
Page 89
September 12, 2000
inconsistencies. These are scheduled to come to the board in
November.
I have assigned specific responsibility within my division for
not only this process but for every other ordinance requiring
development review and a collection process.
What actions do I recommend you take? One, adoption of an
ordinance amendment that we will discuss in a few moments.
Two, the approval of the business manager position which
you did earlier this morning. This person will have a financial
management background and will work very closely with the
finance director to review every revenue receipt and cash
handling procedures to ensure systems checks for the public's
protection.
Three, adoption of future ordinance amendments that will be
submitted within the next few months that will ensure
consistency between all the impact fee ordinances, closing all
loopholes.
Four, conclude any alternative fee hearings in a prompt
manner to allow the full collection process to be finalized for any
remaining uncollected balances. And we have several of those
on the agenda today.
My concluding remarks are that this ordinance was very
badly written. However, staff does not blame the ordinance and
accepts full blame for major mistakes that have been made.
While we do not like to admit our mistakes publicly, the best way
to recognize and fix the problem is to deal with it in a
straightforward manner to maintain the credibility that we
believe we have.
I would like to thank the clerk of the court for conducting
the audit, for bringing these issues to our attention and to the
attention of the community. He and his staff have worked very
hard in a proactive manner in order for us to bring this issue to
closure.
I would like to thank Mr. Weigel and his assistants for
assisting me and my staff during this process.
And finally, I would like to thank the county manager for
providing me with the resources to correct these problems, and
having faith and confidence in me to handle such a complicated
and sensitive issue.
If there are questions, I would answer them now and then
Page 90
September 12, 2000
we can proceed with the ordinance amendment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie,
questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My first question is just
something I didn't hear very clearly, Vince. And that was in your
recommendations, your third one had something to do with
closing loopholes. Could you tell us that one again?
MR. CAUTERO: Certainly. What we are going to be bringing
forward to you within the next couple of months are the
ordinance amendments for all the impact fees, where we will
maintain internal consistency. You have hired the services of
Tindale-Oliver and the law firm of Eickhart-Merrill out of Sarasota
to bring all the ordinances together to assure that the language
is consistent, the definitions are consistent and the
responsibilities carried out are consistent. We -- I believe we
have those ordinances in draft form now. We're scheduled to
bring them forward to you in November.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When you talk about closing
loopholes in those, is it the same loophole that's been identified
in other ordinances?
MR. CAUTERO: No. We're concerned mostly in those cases
about processes, language with the alternative calculations,
language with specific responsibilities, if any, on who carries
them out. And more importantly than that, or at least equally as
important to that, a procedures manual, which was never
adopted in Collier County when the impact fee ordinances were
adopted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a couple of other
questions.
They're going to take two tracks, my questions. One is of --
if you have 10 people in your division who have worked on -- who
work on impact fee collect, is there a pattern among the 10 of
who worked on these 14 that were not collected or were
improperly handled?
MR. CAUTERO: No, because there's very few people that
dealt with this specific issue. And there's coordination with
other divisions on the impact fees. In this particular issue, there
were only three, maybe four people that would have touched the
impact fees that would have had a role in assessing those
impact fees. There are 10 people that potentially could assess
Page 9t
September 12, 2000
it. And I stopped at 10. There may be more than that. Which is
part of the problem. Too many people touch the impact fees in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we can talk about how we're
going to solve it, but right this second I'm focusing on how did
we get here.
MR. CAUTERO: We got here because the ordinance is a
mess.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I believe that.
MR. CAUTERO.' And it wasn't administered properly from the
get-go --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my question is --
MR. CAUTERO: -- those two things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if there were three or four
people who could have decided what to charge, was it the same
three or four people? I don't know the answer to this question,
Vince, I'm asking it --
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- straight out. Is it the same
three or four people on all 147 Is there a pattern there?
MR. CAUTERO: No, it's the same people. But the ordinance
wasn't applied. They just didn't do their job.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then who was the person -- who
were the people that applied it on the four?
MR. CAUTERO: I'm sorry, I'm not following.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There were -- you said there were
four times when it worked and 14 times when it didn't work.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are the three or four people who
did it right on the four times the same three or four people who
did it wrong on the 14 times? MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's got to be some
explanation, Vince. That just --
MR. CAUTERO: The only explanation, Commissioner, I'm
going to give you is that the ordinance was a mess and we failed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But how could they get it right
four times?
MR. CAUTERO: Because there's coordination with other
divisions in this. And I think that's where it happened. Because
Page 92
September 12, 2000
what happens is when someone comes in for a golf course, it's
like your planned unit development. When you gave an approval
today to the planned unit development that Ms. Bishop was
representing, you granted a development order. You didn't tell
her or her clients they could go out and move dirt; that comes
later with platting, with site development plan approvals, with
building permits. That doesn't come with the development order
that you granted today. The same is true with some other
developments.
With a golf course you get what is called site development
plan approval. That allows you to start moving dirt. That's
where the process failed. The ordinance says building permit. I
don't give you a building permit when you develop a golf course.
In some cases people said oh, they came in for a clubhouse
permit, we've got to assess the golf course impact fees. That's
where it was caught, in most cases, when people came in for the
permit for the clubhouse.
The ordinance amendment that's on the table today ties the
golf courses to the impact fee ordinance specifically, even if you
don't get a building permit for it.
And I'm not recommending to you that we change that
portion of the system. What I'm recommending to you is the
language in the ordinance amendment, and the title basically
covers it that says if you receive approval for a golf course in
Collier County, you will have to come in and get building permits
for several other things. Before you get the first permit, whether
it be for the cart barn, whether it be for the clubhouse, temporary
or permanent, or for the parking lot, you will get a building permit
and you will pay the impact fee or you don't get the permit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Vince, I know you've got a lot
invested in this, and so you're giving a lot of information here,
but I'm going to ask you to try to answer the question and stop,
because you're telling me about -- you know, I get confused when
you go off to --
MR. CAUTERO: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what we're going to do in the
future. And I know you don't mean to be doing that.
But it sounds like from what you were saying then that the
four that were done correct were done in conjunction with the
issuance of a clubhouse?
Page 93
September 12, 2000
MR. CAUTERO: Probably. I don't know for a fact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' That's what I need to know. I
need to know that. How did the four get done correctly? MR. CAUTERO: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If it was because they had a
clubhouse and the 14 didn't have a clubhouse --
MR. CAUTERO.' They all had a clubhouse. I don't know the
answer. I'll get you the answer to that. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Okay. Well, that's important.
Doesn't it seem like it might be a distinguishing factor? I mean --
MR. OLLIFF: No, there is no distinguishing factor. And I will
tell you, there's not only 10, there are 20, 30, probably 40
different people who are involved in the development process for
a golf course, all the way from --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I know that.
MR. OLLIFF: - your planning staff, all the way through your
engineering staff, all the way through what would have been the
DOR clerical collection staff. And there is simply no point in that
entire staff process where the responsibility was assigned for
collecting of the golf course impact fees.
So for to us be able to even find any theme throughout there,
there wasn't any. For us to be able to find who would have been
the responsible people, there were no people assigned --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I can buy that.
MR. OLLIFF: -- that have responsibility for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can buy that there were no
people assigned and that that was the mistake. I can buy that.
What I don't understand is how four were done right and t4 were
done wrong.
MR. OLI. IFF: Because some staff person, when the
clubhouse came in, just thought to remember we need to check
and see if the golf course impact fees in this particular
development were paid.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Tom, was that the same
person? Did one person get it right four times?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't know that. But I would almost sit here
flat-looted and tell you no. I'm sure that it happened just by
chance, somebody happening to go back and double-check the
ordinance itself.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, here's my other line of
Page 94
September 12, 2000
questions; has to do with if we're going to accept that this mess
came about as a result of a poorly drafted ordinance, because it
said building permit. When anybody who knows anything about
development knows you don't issue a building permit for mounds
of dirt and holes in them, and that's what a golf course is. Did
we -- are we the only county that has this problem?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, as you suggested, we are in the process
of not only contacting the firm that wrote the original ordinance,
because that ordinance is a model type ordinance that is used
throughout the State of Florida. We're also in the process of
contacting the Florida Association of Counties to make them
aware of the issues that we have had here, to make sure that if
other counties do have the same either development process
and/or ordinance, that they are made fully aware that there is
this issue or this possibility out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you know, you and I have
talked about that, because I think if we conclude that that is
really what happened here and that's what was broken, then we
owe it to the other counties who have hired the same consultant
to check their ordinance and check their process.
Last question on that point is Tindale-Oliver wasn't the
original drafter, were they?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Well, then why in the heck are
we hiring them to solve the problem?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, you need to understand that I don't know
that the development process in this county is similar or even
anywhere close to what it is in Sarasota, Lee or any other
county. Those counties may have a permit process for a golf
course.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they -- surely, when we hired
Tindale-Oliver, they had the responsibility of knowing what our
permit process was.
MR. CAUTERO: With all due --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They just printed us one off a
word processor and it didn't match our process, and now it's cost
two million dollars. And we're going to continue to use them?
That doesn't make sense.
MR. CAUTERO: With all due respect, Commissioner, that
process should have been identified by staff, someone on staff,
Page 95
September 12, 2000
when you adopted your impact fee ordinances in the Nineties.
I'm not saying that consultant's work was done completely
adequately here. I just said to you that I believe that the
ordinance was badly written and that there were problems with
it. However, Collier County's development review process could
have been changed in the early t990's when this ordinance was
written.
The major mistake that was made, in my opinion, after
looking at this and working with impact fee ordinances in Florida
for over t 5 years, was that you did not have procedures in place
to govern it. I wrote procedures in Citrus County when I worked
up there, and we had a similar situation in that we did not have
permits for golf courses, building permits. We wrapped it in to
the site development plan approval for the development in the
few we had. That's how we fixed it. We made our development
process conform to the ordinance.
Most lawyers will tell you when they write the ordinance,
you tie it to a building permit, because most types of
development are approved through a building permit. We don't
do that here. We're fixing it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, we've got two
problems, as I see it. One, we've got a management problem and
we've got an ordinance problem. We're fixing the ordinance
problem. I hold the gentleman to my right accountable for fixing
the management problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All the way down there.
MR. OLLIFF: Right here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I mean Mr. Olliff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Dr. Brandt?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I hold the county manager
responsible for fixing the management problem.
I have a lot of questions in respect to how all of this could
have gotten as far as it did without corrective action not taken
place on the management side. I expect that to be fixed, Mr.
Olliff. How you do it, I hold you accountable for it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May -- I just had one other
question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that is I particularly don't
understand how after there is this 1998 memo that we can
Page 96
September 12, 2000
continue to say that it was just an oversight. Because there was
a memo in 1998 apparently that said oh, it looks like we have a
problem. We just continued to ignore that until the clerk came
over and said you have a problem?
MR. OLLIFF: Until he flushed in out in detail, the answer to
that is yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what happened to the 199 --
to whom was the '98 memo addressed? Could I see it, if
somebody has it?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, ma'am, I have it. Could I have the
visualizer?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Back up a little, because I'm
wanting to see to whom and from whom.
Okay. So Tom Kuck tells these four gentlemen that there
appears to be a problem. What was the result of that? What
happened after that?
MR. CAUTERO: He followed up. He found out it wasn't
happening; at the same time the clerk came in and said I'm doing
an audit. It was lack of follow-through in administrative
procedure and lack of management detail, as Commissioner
Carter said.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter's
absolutely right. And ultimately, Tom, it's your responsibility.
And I think all five commissioners, not only these five, but when
you guest three fresh faces in a few weeks, this is clearly a
serious issue. And I think they're going to hold you accountable,
ultimately. I think we are all very frustrated, particularly in the --
mistakes happen, but when there are corrective actions taken
and the mistakes continue, I think we all share your frustration
with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just don't understand why we
would use Tindale-Oliver to close the loopholes when they are
who created the loopholes. So I want to keep that question on
the table.
MR. OLLIFF: And again, I will tell you I think that's staff's
fault. We are the ones who are supposed to review the
ordinances that are provided to us in draft form, bang those up
against the development review process that we have, and make
sure that they make sense and make sure they work. So if
there's blame to be had, send it down to the staff level, because I
Page 97
September 12, 2000
think it's our fault.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I concur with Commissioner
Mac'Kie. That bothers me a great deal, number one. Number
two, when there is expertise within staff and prior experience,
I'm questioning why it wasn't addressed and reviewed, based on
those experiences. But again, Mr. Olliff, I'm going to hand that to
you, because I'm a policy maker, and I'm not going to get into the
management side.
MR. OLLIFF: And I think it's one of the things that you
stressed when you hired me, frankly, was the responsibility and
accountability problems that you felt this organization had. And
it's one of those things that I think clearly on this issue -- and it's
not just this issue, we need to go back and recognize that for
every cash collection process, we need to have specific staff
assigned, and we are in the process of doing that. My hope is
you've got faith in my ability to be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I do.
MR. OLLIFF: You have two registered speakers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do, too.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cautero, is there anything
you want to offer before we go to the public speakers as far as
the fix itself, what you have in front of us as a proposal?
MR. CAUTERO: What you have in front of you is, I believe,
adequate, and the title says it all. I spoke about that in my
remarks earlier.
There is one other administrative issue that's not associated
with this amendment that I'd like to speak to you about. If now
is the appropriate time, fine. If not, I'll wait until after the
speakers are --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's wait till after, if it's not
directly related. Let's go to the two speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: Two speakers are Mike Carr, followed by Gil
Erlichman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second, Mike, so
we can switch out our court reporters. (Brief recess.}
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We have a young lady who's taking
photographs, and it is annoying to have this continual click,
click, click. I am rather annoyed by this whole process. If they
want to take pictures, take pictures and be done with it, but this
Page 98
September 12, 2000
ongoing, when people are speaking and the click, click of
cameras is getting a little annoying.
So, get your pictures done and then let's move on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Respectfully, welcome to
government work.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I know, ma'am, but I have
been in a situation, and what results out of these click, click,
clicks are --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ain't pretty.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- ain't pretty.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I grant you that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And it's just annoying, when I'm
trying to listen to what's going on and trying to deal with those
kinds of issues, and to have that, it just becomes annoying.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sure the click, click, clicks
of both of you ladies will be very pretty. So, Mr. Carr, go ahead.
MR. CARR: I'm here because the Republican party passed a
resolution, which I will confess to drafting, and basically we ask
for accountability regarding the collection of impact fees.
A response to our resolution was prepared by a gentleman
named Vincent Cautero, I believe Vince has been speaking, and,
frankly, there's a -- appears to be a lack of candor in his response
that he sent to the board of commissioners, and, in fact, the
remarks in the memorandum he sent don't appear to match
entirely to what he said here in the open meeting, and I'd like to
go over that.
In the resolution we said that millions of dollars had not
been collected, and they itemize that the lots were not collected,
and then the next item I see is impact fees collected at a
dramatically reduced rate, and the response is that the audit
report did not positively conclude that the reduction of fees were
excessive. Such a conclusion can only be arrived at with
certainty by re-accomplishing the alternative fee calculations
using the properly obtained trip generation data.
Now, the bottom line is that according to the same memo,
that the standards for this data are -- this is a -- standards for this
data are spelled out in the ordinance but were not enforced by
the staff. It's impossible to know with certainty whether or not
the reductions were excessive without re-accomplishing the
Page 99
September 12, 2000
alternative fee calculations.
What it sounds like here is there is no way to know whether
or not anybody would ever have been entitled because no one
submitted the appropriate database, which would be a predicate
requirement to getting money back from the board, and that
would include people -- I think Mr. Dorrell (phonetic} is here in the
audience, but Mr. Dorrell came before the board and got like a 90
percent discount on one of the projects.
I see nothing from Mr. Cautero that indicates that anybody
provided the necessary statistical basis which is a predicate for
either the board or the staff or anybody giving away the
taxpayers' money in any case. If that's not correct, jump up and
tell me that's not correct, but that's -- so far as I can tell, every
dollar that was given away by anybody was done without
providing the alternative fee calculation requirements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mike, I just want to respectfully
correct you on one thing. Giving away the taxpayers' money is
not a fair way to characterize this because what we're talking
about here is people, developers have to pay for the actual
impacts, not the standard impact.
MR. CARR: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if they prove correctly in
compliance with all the regs. --
MR. CARR: If they did that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we don't want them to overpay.
MR. CARR: Neither would I or the Republican party, but to
prove it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. CARR: -- your own ordinance has a pretty detailed
requirement, which according to what I read from Mr. Cautero
and my conversation with Mr. Olliff were not met.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That, I agree with you on.
MR. CARR: And we don't understand how the waivers could
have been granted without following the clearly delineated
procedures. This is not -- I mean, the math may be complicated,
but the idea that some math is required is not complicated.
So, even though we're not all math majors, and I'm certainly
not, and the staff may not be all geniuses, because none of us
are here, at least I'm not, they didn't follow their own carefully
outlined procedures which would have required them to have in
Page 100
September 12, 2000
front of them some paperwork saying here's the mathematical
basis for getting these discounts. As far as I can tell, there's a
zero compliance with that. That's not the only thing that wasn't
complied with, but a zero compliance.
Now, nowhere in his response to our questions does he
make it clear that nobody provided the predicate to get the
money back. That's not clear. It's not anywhere I can find, and
we say why were the fees not collected, and there's a nice long
response, it talks about administrative problems, and nowhere
does it say, and by the way, there's a written memo from 1998
that there are problems that we ignored.
Now, there's a duty of candor that you-all are entitled to
expect, the Republican party is entitled to expect, the taxpayers
are entitled to expect and the staff, the commission. For you
guys to lead, you've got to be given accurate, honest information,
and if the staff has a memo saying that there's problems with the
ordinance in 1998, and they did, they need to mention it to you in
1998.
Furthermore, not only did they not mention it in 1998, but
they didn't mention it when the Republican party, which
shouldn't have to do this, pass this resolution, nowhere in their
response, which went to you board members, did he say, oh, by
the way, I need to mention that in 1998, we had a memorandum
dealing with this which we ignored. That would have been
candor and the whole truth.
You guys are not getting the stuff honestly and openly and
up front as you're entitled to do because you're just not getting
information you're entitled to have.
One last item here, we asked, has anybody gotten anything
of value at any time, and the response here is I have no evidence
of any gifts received by staff. Today, Mr. Cautero announced that
at some time people got golf games, there may have been
lunches or whatever, I think that's a fair addition to add.
Nowhere in the response to our pointed question, which went to
you guys, did he say, yes, at some time, by mistake, some staff
members did get some benefits and we want to explain why.
You're entitled to honesty. You're entitled to candor. You're
entitled to a full and complete explanation of what's going on so
you can give honest, complete and competent judgment. Staff,
and I'm looking at Mr. Cautero because he's the one that -- is
Page 101
September 12, 2000
there anybody on staff besides him?
Another thing is accountability here. The only name I can
attach to any of this stuff is Vince Cautero. If he's the staff
that's responsible for this mess, I'd like him to stand up and say,
I, Vince Cautero, am responsible, because someone did this. A
live human being somewhere needs to stand up and say, I accept
responsibility, and that's all I've got to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next speaker, Mr. Olliff.
Thank you, Mr. Cart.
MR. OLLIFF: Gil Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman, I reside in East Naples, and
I'm a taxpayer and voter in Collier County.
I'm distinctly honored to be able to follow Mike Carr.
I have a few questions and a few statements to make.
The first question, did I hear correctly that in eight years
there hasn't been any impact fees collected for golf courses?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, you did not hear that
correctly.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, what was the eight years involved,
sir?.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The policy was applied
inconsistently over that eight years.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Over the eight year period.
When was the last impact fee collected under the old --
under this policy or policies? My time is valuable, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We won't penalize you.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you.
MR. CAUTERO: May of -- Vince Cautero; May of this year.
MR. ERLICHMAN: May, okay.
So, therefore, we're supposedly or I should say we're
collecting impact fees, correct? MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
MR. ERLICHMAN-' All right.
As Commissioner Mac'Kie kept restating the question, she
cannot imagine how four out of fourteen fees were collected
from four out of fourteen golf courses, and certain people on the
staff, I think they were identified as four people or six, I don't
Page t 02
September 12, 2000
know, but I've been hearing these numbers, I'm totally outraged
at the prospect and aspect of our county not collecting these
impact fees, and all of a sudden, I see on this agenda that we
have seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven number -- seven, eight, nine,
ten, eleven items on the agenda after this where golf courses
want their impact fees recalculated. This is after, I don't know,
three years, two years, what?
I wish I could say this question to FPL and question the
telephone company and have them recalculate my telephone
bills and my electric bills after three years or two years or one
year. I don't have that ability. I have to pay my bills as they
come due, period.
Mr. Cautero says, mistakes were made and the process was
flawed. Mr. Cautero, I believe you were employed by the County
seven years ago, eight years ago, six. I don't know how many
years you've been the planning and -- community development
and environmental services division administrator.
Also, you have -- we have an impact fee coordinator now
that was appointed in September of '99. What has that person
done over a year period? Has he collected -- has he enabled us
to collect more impact fee money or what; I don't know. We're
expanding the bureaucracy to collect money that should have
been due since 1998 or 19 -- pardon me, since 1997.
I just can't believe it. After working almost 40 years in
industry in management, believe me, I have seen people fired for
things less than this, and your mea culpa -- Mr. Cautero, your
mea culpa statement at the beginning of this agenda item
doesn't relieve you of your responsibility. Either -- I shouldn't say
it, okay.
I think that Mr. Olliff, you came on this after Mr. Fernandez,
you became county manager, and I think that a housecleaning, a
thorough housecleaning is involved in this situation, and I would
like to see action taken almost immediately before this
ordinance or after this ordinance is passed.
This, to me, is not an excuse or to excuse what has
happened before. We have to collect the impact fees that are
due. Otherwise, the taxpayers are going to be responsible for
putting up more money for our road construction, and that's what
these impact fees are involved in.
Thank you very much.
Page 103
September 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Cautero, could you state just
for the record how the ordinance reads in terms of if I, as Mr.
Developer, come in to apply for building a golf course, what kind
of, just briefly without going through all the permitting details
and all that kind of thing, but it comes down to I'm going to have
to pay impact fees, and I am not real excited about this, so what
-- how does the ordinance read in terms of what are my -- what
are some options that I have in terms of paying those impact
fees?
MR. CAUTERO: You have two options under the current
language.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
MR. CAUTERO: You can either pay the fee that we say you
owe in accordance with the schedule under protest, which vests
your rights for a hearing in front of this board, or you can request
that hearing in advance of receiving the permit. Very few people
take the latter option. Many developers have taken the primary
option.
However, what happened in some cases was when they paid
their impact fee under protest or if they requested a hearing and
submitted documentation, two problems were discovered; one,
the information was not complete in accordance with what the
ordinance says, and in other cases, those calculations never
were brought to the Board of County Commissioners. They were
done administratively, and then those fees were paid, and now
some of those individuals want to come back and have additional
hearings and talk to you about it. Each case is differently (sic),
and that's why we put them all on the agenda separately.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So, the cases that Mr. Erlichman
referred to as seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven on here, have
most of those or is there some of them on there that have not
paid anything in impact fees or have one, two -- two out of five,
three out of five, four out of five paid something in impact fees?
MR. CAUTERO: There's only one on the agenda today that
has not paid any impact fees. The other six on the agenda have
paid at least what we believe to be partial impact fees.
Whether or not they can come to you and argue is case by
case. Some we're making recommendations they have the right
Page 104
September 12, 2000
to ask for a hearing -- well, they all have a right to ask. What
we're saying is, our recommendation will be, in some cases that
you don't -- you shouldn't conduct the hearing, and in some cases
we're saying we think you should conduct the hearing, and we're
prepared to give you reasons --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And let's be careful not to have
ourselves -- we're on a particular agenda item. I know where
you're trying to go.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I understand. I'm just --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think Vince is getting a little
ahead there, and I appreciate you trying to provide the info., but
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, that's all I wanted to know
was the fact that there has been money paid, and some of these
people are just going to protest or are protesting the fact of the
calculation that was made by the County in regard to their
impact fees, and at this point in time, just for the record, there's
only one out of the group that has not paid anything, correct?
MR. CAUTERO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
We do have an ordinance in front of us. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A couple of questions, one is,
Vince, I wish that you would respond to what Mike Carr had to
say about things that were left out of your report to us.
MR. CAUTERO: I wrote you a detailed report for Mr. OIIiff.
My report to you was not through the questions that were asked
by the Republican Executive Committee. I don't exactly agree
with him and see it that way. The information that he mentioned
about the memorandum and detailed analysis was covered in my
very detailed memorandum with backup to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But here's my -- this is my
specific question, and it's not an easy one, why did you tell us
that nobody ever got gifts, and then you tell us that people did
play golf?
MR. CAUTERO: Because I limited it to three people I talked
to during that period of time. In subsequent discussions with
senior staff and discussing it with Mr. Olliff, that was the course
that we chose to take in discussing it with you today. It had
Page 105
September 12, 2000
nothing to do with those three individuals that were put up in the
memorandum.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I know those individuals.
MR. CAUTERO: There were two distinctly different answers.
They were not different answers to the same question. I
answered two questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, let me -- let me get it
straight then, be sure I'm understanding you. When you wrote
this long memo to Mr. Olliff that was then shared with us --
MR. CAUTERO: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and you said that nobody has
received any gifts --
MR. CAUTERO: I limited it to my staff only, those three
people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to three people, and
subsequent to that date, you've discovered that people did play
golf and go to lunch and those things that they should not have
done?
MR. CAUTERO: I never said anything about lunch. I limited
it to golf, and those discussions came from discussions with Mr.
Olliff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it came -- you became aware
of that knowledge after you wrote that memo?
MR. CAUTERO: I think you would be -- I'd feel more
comfortable if you'd direct some of that to Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: I think -- the question is, is there a correlation,
and his investigation was what happened and was there anything
that we could find in terms of our thorough, and I believe it was
thorough, investigation in terms of was there something
underhanded going on on the part of the staff that was reviewing
the golf course, and I will stand here and tell you, no, there is
nothing that I could find.
Did some staff members participate in some development
sponsored and paid golf tournaments three years ago; absolutely,
they did.
Was there a policy in our books that said that was a bad
thing or a wrong thing; no.
Were the employees who participated in those golf events in
and some not part of the development review process for golf
courses; yes. There were employees up and down the chain out
Page 106
September 12~ 2000
there.
Since then, we've put a policy in place. They do not play
golf, and yet, we still fail to collect the impact fee.
So, what I'm telling you is I can find no correlation
whatsoever between that~ and so his response was dealing
specifically with the issue of the collection of the impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so when I thought the
question was, have staff members received any gifts, that was
not the question he was answering? When he said, to my
knowledge, nobody has received any gifts, that was an answer to
a question that I guess would have --
MR. OLLIFF: It certainly implied that the question is in
response to this issue of the collection of impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Do you understand how
that would be troubling?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me ask, because I share
your concern. I heard Vince say, your initial thing saying no gifts
was specific to three individuals.
MR. CAUTERO: Not three more --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Subsequent to that, you looked
at all kinds of employees well beyond those three and found, yes,
there were?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's a simpler answer. I
mean, I understand that then. If later you found out -- MR. CAUTERO: I apologize for the confusion.
MR. OLLIFF: In terms of the memo, the memo was part of
the clerk of courts' original audit, and it was part of the record
that you had had in advance, and it was certainly nothing that we
were trying to avoid. It was there, and it's already a part of the
public record.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one other question. Of the
four who paid impact fees~ are there developers who are on the
list of payers who subsequently are at different times on the list
of nonpayers?
In other words, did Joe Smith Development always pay his
impact fee or did he pay it sometimes and not pay it if you
wouldn't ask?
Does that make any sense, the question, because what I'm
trying to find out here is are these just the honest,
Page 107
September t 2, 2000
straightforward developers, the -- MR. CAUTERO: No. Let me -- Commissioner, can I please
stop you there? I apologize for interrupting you.
Phil gave me a little sidebar. When you were asking those
questions, I didn't have the answers.
In those particular cases, the system worked because the
people in engineering review effectively coordinated with
transportation to conduct the alternative calculation and bring it
to your attention, even if all of the I's weren't dotted and the T's
weren't crossed. You approved it. We talked to the clerk. We
are not going back and dealing with those. They're done, okay.
That's what happened. In those cases, the system worked.
I don't see from the list any repeats where somebody that
might be on the list now that hasn't paid at least their full
amount. In those cases the system worked.
Engineering review coordinated fully with transportation. In
other cases, that didn't happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' My question though is, did Joe
Smith Developer pay every time? I mean, is there -- help me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There are several developers
that develop multiple properties. MR. CAUTERO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If Developer A had six different
pro -- six different golf course projects in a ten year span, did
they consistently pay, did they consistently not pay, or are those
some who paid four out of the six and didn't pay two out of the
six?
MR. CAUTERO: The only one I'm aware of is one that you
have three courses for the same developer on the agenda today
where the payment wasn't made. That's the only one I'm aware
of.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they consistently did not
pay?
MR. CAUTERO: That's the only thing I'm aware of from the
list here and looking at these 2t courses that all have a different
scenario. That's the only one I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's deal with the ordinance
because I think we're going to have more of that when we get
into each individual, who paid and who didn't and why, but the
ordinance here is intended to correct a problem as it exists.
Page 108
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second. Any
further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
Motion carries five-oh.
We'll go to the next item which is adopt an ordinance
amending -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I want to make a comment, and I
don't know whether I'm hearing right or not. It seems to me, and
we see this in many instances in investigations that go on at the
state level and the national level, and I kind of relate this
discussion that we've just had to those, and oftentimes, the
people who are testifying give a response to something and one
of the persons on the panel will ask, well, why didn't you give us
additional information on this issue, and the response from the
person who is testifying says, but I wasn't asked that question,
and so there is a big issue here, I think, with regard to how we
ask questions and what kind of response we get and whether
there is a more global look at responding to the question as
compared to being very succinct and myopic in the response to
the question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
your definition of "is" is?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
You mean it depends on what
I think that's part of it, and I don't
-- I have to tell you that in my short experience here with the
County, I haven't seen that problem, but I also know it can
happen, and I would hope that as time goes on, that when a
question is asked of someone, they give a global answer and not
the myopic response to that question. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Earlier Commissioner Carter
said, and I think all of us hold Mr. Oilill directly accountable.
This did not happen on your watch. I assume there's no benefit
to you to try to hide anything, to try to cover anything -- do
anything other than correct it. That's the big assumption, and
we will -- I assume as well, and maybe you can answer this part,
is today isn't the end of the road on this, okay.
MR. OLLIFF: Not at all, and, in fact, one of the
recommendations is the hiring of what we call that business
Page 109
September 12, 2000
manager, and it did astound me that in -- when I find and look at
the development services organization, for an organization that
may collect somewhere around twenty million dollars a year,
that there's not a single person on that staff with any financial
background, education whatsoever that's responsible for the
cash handling systems.
So, one of the things that we've done is already sit down
with the clerk of courts and agree that when this person comes
on board, they're going to work with his finance staff to go over
every single cash handling procedure in the development
services organization first and then do it annually thereafter to
make sure that we have these processes taken care of, and
we've also assigned that same responsibility to division
administrators throughout your organization.
So, I think it's one of the fundamental business
responsibilities of county government that we just have not done
a very good job of historically and will.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think that same concept that
Mr. Olliff just went over applies in many places within the county,
and as I've indicated to you before, Mr. Olliff and I have had some
discussions about the landfill and the 28 million dollar asset that
sets there, and I think his point is we need people who are
basically responsible to oversee some major projects, and at
least two of these are candidates as I see it.
Thank you.
Item #14
DISCUSSION REGARDING GOODLAND OVERLAY AND DOLPHIN
COVE PROJECT - TO BE FURTHER DISCUSSED DURING THE LDC
PROCESS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's move on. 12(C)4, adopt an
ordinance amending Ordinance Number 91-107, roadway lighting
improvements for the Forest Lakes --
MR. OLLIFF: Ed, before you get started, I just want to
remind the Chair that we had scheduled a 1:30 item for the
Goodland update. The lady is here if you want to hear this item.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're right. Thank you for that
Page 110
September 12, 2000
reminder.
Let's go to the Goodland overlay and Dolphin Cove project
update.
Do we have a presentation from our folks on this as well?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you do, from the county attorney.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, while we have this
opportunity, I think on Channel 54 we ought to do a bolded
announcement about this new ordinance on impact fees that
states clearly what it's doing. It clarifies the use of land, due
and payable events, what happens under delinquency penalties
and interest provisions, specified development orders, and they
can withhold the project if you don't do that, and also, you can't
open your business unless you comply.
I think we ought to go bullet, bullet, bullet, bullet, that says
this is what the new ordinance accomplishes so the public out
there understands we really had teeth in it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough, and just -- we have
an extremely long agenda today. I'm going to get a little bit
tighter on sticking exactly to the items. I don't want anybody to
get irritated. We just need to stay on task if we're going to get
through this by nightfall.
So, Mr. Weigel, was somebody on our staff going to do a
presentation on this, yes or no, who, and where are they?
MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes, and it is me, and I'm ready
and waiting to.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
On August 1st, the board discussed Dolphin Cove, the
Goodland area, the VR zoning district, and the staff, county
manager and county attorney staff were given the responsibility
to review based upon our information to you at that time whether
it was appropriate to come and have a special meeting prior to
today concerning the question of moratorium and relating to the
overlay, potential overlay district to be created for Goodland.
We have indicated to the commissioners individually and
restate here now, of course it was not necessary to have and
would have been inappropriate to have had a special meeting
prior to today to discuss anything concerning development
zoning or the land development code amendment cycle.
At this time I'm advising the board and letting the public
Page 111
September t2, 2000
know that my review, legal review has not changed from August
1st, and that is, under our land development code, it is actually
impossible under the definition of emergency for the board to
entertain in any legal fashion the enactment of a moratorium
concerning regular development that is provided for in the VR
district zoning without addressing it in the normal, twice a year
land development code amendment cycle.
In the meantime, Mr. Mulhere had responded to legal
interpretation requests, land use interpretation requests that had
come specifically from the Goodland Civic Association. That is
public that is out, and he has responded to specific questions of
the Dolphin Cove development project and VR district zoning.
All I'm telling you at this point is that if the board wishes to
entertain and direct staff to prepare for hearing discussion and
hearing at its December or December/January, this oncoming
land development code amendment cycle, the issue of a
moratorium in the Goodland district or any other area of the
county, you can direct staff to make that preparation to say it's
merely a preparation for discussion. It has no more immediate
impact than the fact that the board is having the staff prepare
something along that line.
Still, it's done in the public forum, the public sector, and the
public is on notice that there's an interest in review that would
be going forward if the staff -- if the board gives that direction to
staff.
Mr. Mulhere may want to comment, but I believe that
independently, through previous board direction, staff is looking
to bring forward to the board in this current ongoing land
development code amendment cycle information and a program
concerning the Goodland district overlay -- overlay district.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, do we have speakers
on this item?
MR. OLLIFF: We do. We have two. The first is Rich
Yovanovich followed by Vivian Holland.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon, commissioners. My
name is Rich Yovanovich with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman
& Johnson.
We represent Goodland LLC, which is one of many property
owners out on Goodland but clearly the property owner that is
now under attack by a proposed moratorium on VR zoning
Page 112
September t2, 2000
district going forward through the current or under the current
rules of the LDC, which this board knows was recently changed a
year ago to allow three livable floors over one of housing, and
that all started in reaction to Dolphin Cove, which thankfully we
no longer represent the owner of Dolphin Cove.
This request for a moratorium or the idea of even having a
discussion about a moratorium has a chilling effect on the sale of
any property zoned VR on Dolphin Cove for the primary purpose,
as Commissioner Mac'Kie will know in representing property
owners, nobody is going to make an offer to purchase any
property while there's a threat of a moratorium or even the
discussion of a potential moratorium.
I would propose that today's discussion stop, that we come
back in a couple of weeks after your staff has had an opportunity
to put together a full blown presentation on the results of the
survey that have been done with the people of Goodland. There's
been a survey. There's been absolutely no report to you about
the results of that survey. Yet, we're going down the road of
assuming there's going to be an overlay, and you're being asked
or potentially being asked to give your staff direction to talk
about a moratorium. I think it's premature. Nothing can happen
in two weeks to stop this from going forward. Your development
approval process takes more than two weeks.
The one piece that is undeveloped that is VR doesn't even
have a site plan in yet. I can assure you there is no way in two
weeks we're going to get a development approval on that
property, but I think you're not hearing all the information today.
You're hearing some comments from a minority of people on
Goodland. Although a vocal minority, they are up here yelling
and screaming and in arms about what they perceive happening
to their island, but when you go through the results of that
survey, you will see that they are not the majority. They are not
even close.
So, we would ask that you continue this discussion item for
two weeks, let us come back to you fully prepared to talk about
these issues.
We have received no notice that this potential moratorium
issue was going to be discussed today. The notice we had is
there was going to be a report back on whether an emergency
moratorium could happen, and I was fully prepared to argue that
Page 113
September 12, 2000
there is no justification for an emergency.
Now you're talking about something different. You're talking
about going through the LDC cycle and potentially imposing a
moratorium, and the very discussion of a moratorium is a de
facto moratorium. Nobody is going to sign a contract to buy
some property. Let's have a well reasoned and well thought-out
discussion in two weeks and make sure you have all the
information before we continue to discuss these items, because
they have great impact on my client and their property rights.
So, I would ask that we do this slowly, let everybody be
notified about what's going on, including the property owner out
in Goodland who's the target of the Goodland Civic Association's
action.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: Vivian Holland.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's the final speaker?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, it is.
MS. HOLLAND: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is
Vivian Holland. I'm a Goodland Civic Association board member.
I have a very brief text here that I would like to present, but
first, in response to Mr. Yovanovich's comments, this has not
been a vendetta by the Goodland Civic Association board, nor
has it been by the Goodland Civic Association alone. We did do
surveys. Ninety-six percent of the people in Goodland who
responded to this survey were against this project and for the
reasons that we have been talking about for the last two years.
So, this is not a vendetta by the Goodland Civic Association
board. I just wanted to make that clear before I start my
presentation.
I'm here today representing the Goodland Civic Association
as a representative body of Goodland property owners. We came
before you on August I to request an emergency moratorium on
issuance of site plans and building permits for any multi-housing
development in the areas of our village zoned village residential.
Since that time, we have learned that the county attorneys
have concluded that this action could put the county in jeopardy,
and as County Attorney Weigel has indicated, he is
recommending the board not move forward with an emergency
moratorium, but rather recommends that a moratorium be put in
Page 114
September t2, 2000
place during the normal LDC cycle in December.
Goodland is in the process of completing our zoning overlay,
and may I add also that we, the citizens of Goodland, have voted
to go through with the zoning overlay. This is not a maybe we'll
have one. We are in the process, and we're hoping to complete it
by the end of this year.
Goodland is in the process of completing our zoning overlay,
and staff has indicated that to best protect Goodland, they are
recommending the moratorium in case the overlay is not
completed during the LDC cycle. We very much appreciate staff
making this recommendation and look to you commissioners to
approve that process.
We must at this time also ask you, what then are we to do to
protect the community from the potential development of the
other large tract of land owned by the Fisk (phonetic) family until
the moratorium is in place? That was the whole purpose of
requesting the emergency moratorium. This is the middle of
September, which provides almost three months for them to do
something with that property. We ask the county attorney, staff
and you commissioners, what can be done to protect Goodland
until the moratorium and/or the overlay are in place?
It is appropriate at this time to state that the Goodland Civic
Association on behalf of village property owners on August 4th,
2000 filed an official appeal to the county planning services
director for an interpretation of the code as it relates to the
issuance of the SDP for Dolphin Cove. He has provided that
interpretation.
On Friday, September 8th, the GCA, having determined that
we disagree with his interpretation, filed an official appeal of his
interpretation, and he will present his comments and position,
statement to you commissioners at some near future date,
having made public notice of the time and date. At that meeting,
you will, again, be presented with materials prepared by the GCA
and property owners. There will be many property owners in
attendance and also media.
We know you will take a very hard look at just how
important this interpretation of the legality of the $DP for Dolphin
Cove is to the community. Having said this, we would anticipate
that planning services will consider every aspect of zoning
requirements before any site plans or permits are issued for
Page 115
September 12, 2000
multi-housing in VR until your position is determined at the
upcoming public meeting.
We are prepared to do whatever it will take to protect our
community of Goodland. We hope you understand that these
efforts are to protect a resource about which we all care and
which is important to the future of the quality of life in our region
of Florida. It is at true risk of being destroyed if proper measures
are not taken now by all of us who have an impact on this
decision.
Again, I need to ask, how can Goodland protect itself from
this inappropriate development until the moratorium and/or the
overlay are complete?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all your speakers.
Just in closing, I will tell you that there's probably very little
that can be done in terms of stopping development other than
just a recognition that in order to get through the development
process before the board could have an opportunity to hear a
land development code amendment that would put in place a
moratorium are fairly slim.
Generally too and in response, I believe, with David and to
Rich's comments, what generally happens here is the board says
yes or no, go develop something for us to take a look at in a
public hearing format. When that amendment would work its
way through the cycle, the public's opportunity to comment
would then be through the planning commission and through the
hearings that would be held at this board level, and those are the
opportunity for public comment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, if the board decided
they did want to have a discussion on this, that would be
advertised, as you said, and when would that reappear?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, if you're talking about a
discussion generally, it could be advertised and could appear
probably not in two weeks but any meeting thereafter.
If you're talking about the land development code
amendment cycle in which the board would potentially give staff
some direction to include another item through that cycle to be
reviewed by the board, it will be advertised at various times as it
comes before the CCPC, possibly the EAC and the board itself
with multiple hearings at both of those agencies.
Page 116
September 12, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: And is currently scheduled to be in front of the
board in December.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So, your recommendation is to
keep it on that schedule, and you're saying in a practical sense,
it would be very difficult for somebody to get something through
in that compressed time frame anyway, which I think is the
primary concern on the -- in the community. They don't want
something to pop up in those 75 days in between.
We can still protect, within reason protect that and stay on
schedule with the regular land development code. That's
probably our best bet.
MR. WEIGEL: I think what you're saying is, is just the
natural processes and the time that's ahead may allow for in the
course of things some protections. The board is taking no action
which provides a protection or an inability for anyone to go
forward at this time.
It already has on record a directlye to staff to come forward
after significant study and public outreach with its information in
this current cycle for the VR district overlay for Goodland.
It has not yet -- this board has not at this point given a
direction to staff to provide any kind of report or documentation
concerning the implementation of a moratorium concurrently
with this ongoing land development code cycle. If you should do
that today, I'm saying that all you're doing is starting a process
where staff puts things together, it gets reviewed and either
saluted or shot down and commented on at various
administrative levels with lots of advertisement. We'll come to
you in December, and the board --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough. I think we're with
you.
When was that handed in?
MR. OLLIFF: It was handed in earlier. It's my fault. I didn't
realize it was for this particular item.
The speaker is Wayne Arnold.
GHAIRMAN GONSTANTINE: Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'll take just a moment.
I think, just to reiterate what Mr. Yovanovich said, our real
request here is to allow us to come back in a couple of weeks as
well as your staff and give you a presentation on what the results
have been over the last year-long process in Goodland. I think
Page 117
September 12, 2000
you'll find when looking at the results of the survey that the
county staff distributed this summer, that it's not overwhelming
that there would even be support for an overlay in and of itself,
and that when you really look at the issues, that they are fairly
narrowly confined, and I think that without that opportunity to
come back and have a full discussion before the board,
discussing a moratorium does seem to be a little bit premature,
and it's also a little bit unprecedented from the other overlays
that you've undertaken in Golden Gate, Immokalee and Marco
Island. No such moratoriums were in effect during those
processes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Also didn't have the village
residential character in any of those. Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
I'd like to see us bring it back in the regular LDC process.
The fact is Goodland has been working on this for about 18
months. I think there is an overlay process in place, and while
gathering all that information is certainly essential to make sure
we know exactly where we're headed with it, I think, if anything,
doing it in the LDC process will allow more time to make sure all
that information is gathered appropriately and still doesn't put it
out so far that you put the community at risk.
Any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If not, hopefully staff will
consider that direction.
Thank you.
Item #12C4
ORDINANCE 2000-57 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91-107
ALLOWING FOR ROADWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT (M.S.T.U.) - ADOPTED
Item 12(C}4, adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance
91-107, allowing for roadway lighting improvements.
Mr. Kant, this sounds like it should go very rapidly.
MR. KANT: Yes, commissioners. Edward Kant,
transportation operations director.
Page 118
September 12, 2000
However, we have been advised by counsel that there are
certain issues that need to be brought out for the public record,
and I would invite your attention to Page 2 of the ordinance and
the insertion on Line 38 of the words roadway lighting. That is
the substance of this request.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
We'll close the public hearing if there are no public
speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion from Commissioner
Berry, second from Commissioner Carter. All those in favor,
please state aye.
Motion carries five-oh.
MR. KANT: Thank you, commissioners.
Item #12C5
ORDINANCE 2000-58 AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY ETHICS
ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL AND MORE
STRINGENT GIFT PROHIBITIONS. ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That takes us to 12(C)5, an
ordinance amending the Collier County ethics ordinance to
establish additional and more stringent gift prohibitions.
MR. MANALICH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Manalich.
MR. MANALICH: -- commissioners. For the record, Ramiro
Manalich, chief assistant county attorney.
To summarize here, basically what this ordinance, based on
your prior board direction, would do is to change the conceptual
approach to the handling of gifts. The statute which we've been
governed under up to this point basically allows gifts subject to
certain limitations. We've discussed those before. What this is
doing is akin to what the City of Naples did, is basically
prohibiting gifts unless they fall within some narrow exceptions,
and I think one of the things that I immediately would draw your
Page
September 12, 2000
attention to would be on Page 4, or excuse me, 5 of the agenda
numbering, Page 5 of the ordinance.
What essentially conceptually becomes necessary here is,
one, you're taking the viewpoint that you're going to prohibit
gifts. You then create, to avoid innocent situations being
captured within the net, you create some exceptions.
One of the ones I think you need to think about this
afternoon is the one on the exception B-3 at the bottom of Page 5
of your agenda package.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What page is this?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Page 5 of 12(C}5.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Got you.
MR. MANALICH: The actual ordinance number is Page 4, but
in the agenda item number, it says Page 5, and basically it says
gifts received where friendship or family relationships clearly
demonstrate that the relationship rather than the business of the
persons involved are the motivating factors, and the question
really there becomes whether that friendship exception is too
broad or not.
This does appear in the City of Naples ordinance. I will tell
you that from my viewpoint and informally discussing it with the
state attorney's office, they indicated that the friendship
provision may be difficult to prosecute. So, I just brought it to
your attention, but I think there's a policy decision that needs to
be made on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I just interrupt briefly to say
that I've had some discussions with Fred Hardt from the
Republican party, and I think he's going to offer us a suggestion
in that regard, so stay tuned.
MR. MANALICH: Another item, we do include, as you see on
that same page, I just draw your attention to, advisory board
members' breach of this ordinance, and I think the legitimate
question has arisen as to whether that may be too broad and
discourage or chill people from participating in the advisory
board process.
One suggestion, which it has been or I could mention to you
if you want to entertain it, is whether you limit the advisory
board members covered by this to only those with final decision
making authority, and there's a few of those, planning
commission, contractor licensing, code enforcement, and you
Page t 20
September 12, 2000
would be able to limit the reach of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- can I put in there too to
just say, that's something I brought up with Ramiro when we
went over this, that I'm concerned that somebody's not going to
be willing to serve, for example, on the health care advisory
board because all of a sudden they can't take a lunch from their
friend without worrying that they're going to come under this
ordinance.
I want anybody -- my position would be that anybody with
any decision making authority should be subject to this
ordinance but not people who merely give advice to the Board of
County Commissioners and don't have any real authority.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And before we finish, we should
probably outline specifically which ones those are, because
you're right, planning commission, something like that.
MR. MANALICH: Moving on, one of the things that the
ordinance also does is at Page -- agenda Page Number 9, you'll
see a letter B there. It, again, following the City of Naples motto,
prohibits gifts between subordinate and superior public officials
subject to a limited exception for voluntary gifts of nominal
value, meaning less than $50 or donation on a special occasion
such as marriage, birth of a child, illness or retirement. I just
bring it to your attention because that's a new item that we will
have in this ordinance that we didn't have before.
You'll also notice the last sentence there does reference
that this paragraph does not prohibit public officials from
participating in fund raising activities for charitable purposes.
The reason I mention that is that when you go back to Page 8 of
the agenda package numbering, in the state statute, which, if
you recall we had previously done, we had taken the state
statute, lowered the lobbyist limit from a hundred down to 50. In
that statute there appears a law -- it allows for gifts to be
accepted for charitable purposes. This would be a gift directly to
the public official which is then passed on to a charitable entity.
Commissioner Brandt astutely observed this morning to me
that we have a reference to the -- down at the bottom of letter B
there, which is the one that prohibits the lobbyists from giving
such a gift, that there's a reference to $50. Frankly, I think that
$50 reference should be removed. It's not consistent~ and it was
a carryover from the prior ordinance version. That would just be
Page 121
September 12, 2000
removed in its entirety, but I think the bigger question in this
area is, do you even want to have any of the charitable gift giving
directly to public officials? I mentioned to you we have earlier or
I earlier mentioned we have in that section of the subordinance
that little reference about charitable fund raising activity.
So, I think you need to determine is that enough for you or
do you want to keep what the statute allows?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me clarify that. Given on the
behalf or directly to for pass-through. Example, when I went
through a transplant, there were organizations that donated
directly to the National Polycystic Kidney Foundation referencing
on my behalf.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. When I got married, there
were people who gave gifts to the Guadalupe Center, directly to
Guadalupe referencing in honor of my marriage.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that goes right back when
we talked about social services and all those things, we have a
unique ability to actually help local agencies, but that should not
be a check to Jim Carter or to Pam Mac'Kie who in turn turns it
over.
MR. MANALICH: The language, trying to answer your
question, it says here, such a gift may be accepted by such
person, meaning the public official, on behalf of a governmental
entity or a charitable organization.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's the way it should be,
that we can collect money -- I can go out and raise money for
United Way and hand it over to the United Way office. I should
be able to do that.
MR. MANALICH: I think the present language, that's how it
would apply, but in any event, as Commissioner Brandt astutely
observed, we do need -- even if we choose to leave it or whatever
you do, whichever way you go, that $50 reference needs to be
taken out of there because it's inconsistent with the change
we've made.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a correction,
MR. MANALICH: Right.
Let me see if there's -- I think those were the main -- well,
actually, there's another thing that came to my attention. Mr.
Hardt and I were speaking earlier, and I'll let him elaborate on
that if he's going to speak today, but there was another item that
Page t22
September t2, 2000
-- on the definitions of what gift does not include, agenda Page
Number 6, Number 8~ I think he has some clarifying language
there that would help strengthen that provision. I'll leave him to
address that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. --
MR. MANALICH: The only other thing that I'd like to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry.
MR. MANALICH: -- mention is, at page -- agenda Page
Number 8, Number 2(A), this is where, like the City of Naples, we
would have a prohibition on public officials accepting items of
value, gifts from anyone who, and to summarize one through five,
is essentially seeking to influence or affect the governmental
decision making process like a lobbyist, and I leave it to your
discretion, but I mean it mentions there, it talks about the
following gift prohibition for public officials in number two, and
then at Sub A it says, public officials shall not solicit or accept
directly or indirectly, and then it mentions any fee compensation,
gift, gratuity, favor, food, entertainment, loan or any other thing
of monetary value. I think we can leave that if you wish. It
might be clearer if we just put the word gift in there~ because gift
essentially, in my view, covers everything that is spelled out
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask you a question, in the
definition section of gift, are all of these items covered?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if not, can they be?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if not, can they be, because
that's a clearer way to draft an ordinance?
MR. MANALICH: Right. My reading of it is that everything
here was covered from the definition, because if you'll notice in
our definitional section here, which starts at Page 4 -- excuse
me, Page 5 of the agenda package numbering, it mentions gifts
shall have the definition contained in Chapter 112 with the
following additions and exceptions.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But it doesn't say anything about
food, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
MR. MANALICH: Food is actually something that can be a
gift, food and beverage.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can we just make sure in the
definition section that all these things are covered?
MR. MANALICH: Yeah, I think -- I think the direction is,
Page 123
September 12, 2000
unless -- if there's any variation, then we keep what is there. If
it's already covered, then we can just use the word gift.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what you're hearing.
MR. MANALICH: Those were the points I wanted to bring to
your attention.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have two public speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: You have two. The first is Fred Hardt, followed
by Tom Henning.
MR. HARDT: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Fred
Hardt, and I'm chairman of the Collier County Republican
Executive Committee. I thank you for letting me speak this
afternoon on this topic.
In April of 1998, almost two and a half years ago, our
Republican Executive Committee unanimously adopted a
proposed ethics ordinance for Collier County providing for no
gifts. That was forwarded to each of the commissioners at that
time on April 21st of that year.
Shortly after that ordinance was proposed, Councilman Fred
Coyle from the City of Naples asked me for a copy of the
ordinance that we had drafted, and he used that as a model for
the City of Naples ordinance, and now, what you have in front of
you for the most part tracks the original ordinance that we have
proposed two and a half years ago.
This ordinance incorporates the basic principles that we
feel are extremely important and which are enumerated in
Chapter 112. These include that public officials are bound to
observe in their official acts the highest standards of ethics
regardless of personal considerations, recognizing that
promoting the public interest and maintaining the respect and
faith of the people in their government must be of foremost
concern; that public office cannot be used for private gain other
than for remuneration provided by law; that no public official
should have any interest, financial or otherwise, or engage in any
business transaction or professional activity which is in conflict
with the proper discharge of his or her duties in the public
interest; and that no public official should accept or solicit
anything of value, including any compensation, payment,
financial or business interest, gift, loan, favor or promise of
future employment based upon any understanding that the vote
Page 124
September t 2, 2000
or official action or judgment of that public official would be
influenced thereby.
I think the ordinance you have before you now barely does
that. There are commonsense exceptions which are in the
ordinance, and I agree with Ramiro's comments about those, and
I'd like to offer some additional items for your consideration.
Ramiro mentioned the language at the bottom of Page -- I
guess it's Page 5 of your agenda, the language about friendship
or family relationships. The ordinance that we proposed to you --
and I believe you have copies of the original ordinance that we
proposed in 1998.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had copies made and
distributed right after lunch.
MR. HARDT: They've been passed out?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. HARDT: Okay.
The ordinance that we proposed to you back then did not
· use the word friendship. Friendship is a pretty wide hole that
you can drive a truck through.
What we had were the words where family, and then contain
the same definition, where family or other personal relationships
clearly demonstrate. So, we would recommend to you that you
would delete the word -- words friendship or right before family
relationships, and at the end of the parenthetical comment
where it says parents, children or spouse, add or other personal
relationships. I believe that would tighten up that language and
would solve the concern that the state attorney has expressed to
Ramiro.
Going to the next page, which is Page 6 --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I'm sorry, Fred, just so I'm
clear --
MR. HARDT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- gifts received where family or
relationship such as those between parents, children or spouse
MR. HARDT: Other personal relationships.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Other personal relationships.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- other personal relationships,
thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Can you help me with what you
Page 125
September 12, 2000
think other personal relationships might include?
MR. HARDT: Sure. You could have a very close friend who
has been a friend of your family for years. You could have a
relationship where two people reside together and do not have --
are not a parent, a child or a spouse, but it helps tighten it up as
opposed to a friendship, because a friendship really means -- the
friendship really emasculates the ordinance, I think. Let me go to -- oh, oh, may I go on?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Take another minute and a half
or so, because we did interrupt.
MR. HARDT: Paragraph -- the next page, Paragraph 8, it
talks about rate or terms of a loan, but then it doesn't add
language that it should regarding the terms of the loan. You
could have a rate and a loan that is comparable to rates in the
community, but if the terms of the loan provide you don't have to
pay it back, that's a very favorable term that's not going to be
offered to other people in the community, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say it isn't so.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sorry, Fred, your time has
expired.
MR. HARDT: Sorry about that.
I would add at the beginning of the first line, at the end of
the first line where it says which rate, and then cross out is the
and then say, which -- add in and terms are. So, it would read
which rate and terms are customary and delete the word rate
and then add are at as opposed to is either a government rate
and -- then insert and terms, and then going on, available to all
other --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait, wait. Tell me -- I've got a
rate or term on a debt, loan, goods or services which rate and
terms are --
MR. HARDT: Customary.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Customary.
MR. HARDT: And are at a government rate and terms
available to all other similarly situated government employees or
public officials or, and then change it to rates and terms which
are available to similarly situated members. So --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Why would you include all
government employees? Why wouldn't you just say the general
populous?
Page 126
September t2, 2000
MR. HARDT: It does. The language follows -- the language --
the language follows, Commissioner, that it relates to
government employees and then also other similarly -- to
similarly situated members of the public.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the answer I got on that one,
Commissioner Carter, was what if Suncoast Federal Credit Union
gives a loan rate to members of the credit union by virtue of their
employment with the county, I would have to turn that rate down
and go find a higher commercial rate unless we allow this
exception for government, standard government officials. I think
that makes sense.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As long as it doesn't penalize,
that's my question.
MR. HARDT: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fine.
MR. HARDT: And if I might, the only other suggestion was
with respect to the paragraph above that, Paragraph 4 regarding
food or beverages. When we drafted our proposed ordinance, if
you look on Page 2 of our ordinance, we had the same language
at the bottom of our proposal, but we also had a provision which
would allow, in certain circumstances you might receive a meal
which would not qualify under either of those two, and the
language we put in there would allow someone to receive a meal
within the per diem allowances provided for in Chapter 112,
which is essentially three dollars for breakfast, six dollars for
lunch, twelve dollars for dinner, not much, but if it goes over
that, you could still have a meal for that particular event or that
one particular sitting, but you would have to disclose it on a form
to the county manager so it would be a matter of public record.
So, if you went to a Kiwanis dinner, and if the dinner was worth
$15, that you could accept that, but you would have to disclose
it, okay.
Those are the changes we would recommend, and in
closing, I just would like to say that it's been a long time going
through this process. We all know the reasons why this
occurred, but the time has come to -- for us to adopt a no gifts
policy in our ethics ordinance. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Henning.
Page 127
September 12, 2000
MR. HENNING: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is
Tom Henning. I am a candidate for Collier County Commissioner
in district three.
I had the opportunity to see the replay of the last time this
came before the board, and I respect the comments that were
made. I can tell you that I banged on a lot of doors in district
three, this is one of the top priorities or concerns of the citizens,
and I commend you for hearing that~ and I hope that you adopt
this ordinance today, but I can also say, if it doesn't happen, I
can assure you it will happen in November.
One thing I do want to say, I have a friend, a very good
friend who is a lobbyist for Collier County, and what I just heard
was that I can't accept a gift from him? Good. That's what I
wanted, to make sure that language is in there, that no lobbyist --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as I understand it, with the
change that we've put in today, taking out friendship, I have also
lifelong friends who happen to lobby the county commission from
whom I could not accept Christmas and wedding gifts and those
kinds of things by virtue of this job, and that would continue with
the ordinance we propose today.
MR. HENNING: And I don't have a problem with that. Our
friendship won't -- will always continue because of that, you
know, but just in the public's eye, we need to keep it clean.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The bad news is, Tom, we can
still give them Christmas presents. They just can't reciprocate.
Doesn't that stink?
MR. HENNING: I want to thank you for the opportunity to
speak before you today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all your speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
A quick question, a couple years ago my mother passed
away, I get flowers, you know, $20 little thing of flowers from
someone. Is that now prohibited? Would I have to return the
flowers under today's scenario to the florist?
MR. MANALICH: I guess, obviously, one relevant
consideration would be who that's from; are they lobbyists or not
and what the worth of the item is, but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And, you know, I mean,
Commissioner Mac'Kie just said lifelong friend who also happens
Page 128
September 12, 2000
to come before the board, they would not be allowed to express
grief in that way, or sort of soften our grief in that way?
MR. MANALICH: The occasion was --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Funeral.
MR. MANALICH: Just looking here --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think they can't.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I just want to be very clear on
where we can go.
MR. MANALICH: I'm not seeing an exception for that unless
it would fall under --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I'm just wondering -- that's
an odd situation, but my mom having just passed a couple of
years ago, that's why it comes to mind.
I'm wondering then, what's the response? It's certainly
probably not at the top of your mind if say a spouse is killed.
You're probably in those three days afterwards not going to be as
focused on this as on your loss, and I'm wondering if someone
then gets a $20 flower bouquet, are they going to end up in
violation of this and in violation of, you know, local laws and --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think what we are really talking
about, bereavement and illnesses and maybe there's got to be
just a simple clause in there that says that doesn't apply. I
mean, if a person is ill, hospitalized, a bereavement, they
certainly are not going to sit down and calculate, gee, I wonder if
this violates the ethics ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm just -- I'm just
thinking, somebody is not going to turn around and send the
flowers back. That's not going to be on their mind at that time. A
week later, the flowers are dead, they're going to think, whoa,
geez, you know, and I don't want somebody inadvertently to get
in trouble. I'm not suggesting we open this up. I'm just saying,
how do we avoid someone inadvertently getting in trouble.
MR. MANALICH: What I'm looking at, what we've done is
we've -- obviously, if it's from a lobbyist, we can't have it. If it's
not from a lobbyist, then it appears that as long as there's no
funny facts surrounding --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or bribing.
MR. MANALICH: -- just the exact circumstance you gave
me, because, you know, funny facts fall into bribery, constructive
bribery, all that, but absent all that, the gift prohibitions we've
Page 129
September 12, 2000
enacted here modeled after the City of Naples talked about not
soliciting or accepting gifts from individuals who have some type
of interaction or business with the County, but the person that
doesn't have that, I'm not finding --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Ramiro, his question --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, his question was, can I get
flowers in the hospital if I get run over by a truck, God forbid,
tomorrow, can lobbyists send me flowers in the hospital? ! think
the answer to that would be no. MR. MANALICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nevertheless, I think you raise an
important question, and maybe the way to address it is this, that
at the bottom of Page 5 of our agenda packet, Page 4 of the
ordinance where Mr. Hardt has proposed a change, I would add
an additional change; gifts received where family relationships,
such as parent, children, spouse, or other personal relationships
or circumstances clearly demonstrate that the relationship or
circumstances rather than the business of the persons involved
are the motivating factor.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes, that's good.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Because what we're talking
about here is prosecutorial discretion and whether or not the
state attorney is going to bring -- this is a criminal violation. Is
the state attorney's office going to bring criminal charges
against us for our mother's, God forbid, bereavement flowers?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and I'm thinking straight
-- I'm trying to come up with something where -- and I think
you've solved the problem there, but you just don't want
someone inadvertently to get caught up in a web if their
attention is not going to be focused on whether or not they
accepted $20 flowers after a spouse is killed. Their attention is
going to be focused on their grief. if the flowers are dead a week
later and they realize it, they can't possibly return the flowers, so
that's -- I think you have solved the problem.
MR. MANALICH: I understand the good intent, but
understand that whenever you add that qualifying language, it
raises additional defenses that may be difficult to overcome in a
prosecution.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Like -- like, for example, suppose
Page t 30
September 12, 2000
you get appointed to a position and somebody sends some
flowers to your house, what do you do about that, and that
individual is an individual you've known for a while? Am I clean?
Am I not clean?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And let me just -- while he's
thinking about that, something else we all have to consider is,
we can adopt all the local ordinances we want to, but the state
law is still going to control, and we may be technically okay
under this exception locally, but the state law doesn't have that
same exception, and so, again, it's going to be prosecutorial
discretion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Or vice versa. You're going to be
all right under the state law and you're not going to be all right
under the local law --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, that's going to happen often.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- because this is going to be -- this
is saying nothing and the state law says that from a lobbyist you
can accept up to $100.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, and we're making -- we're
making our law more restrictive in that case.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right~ and my whole point here
is not to create difficulty. I just want to point out, we don't want
to inadvertently penalize someone for no intended wrongdoing
whatsoever. We want to tighten the law so that the public is
more confident there's no nonsense going on. I don't think the
public is asking us to penalize people inadvertently~ and that's -- I
think your word corrects that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' And keep in mind please that
what we are drafting here is a criminal ordinance that doesn't
automatically -- you know~ I can go down tomorrow and say I
think you've violated this, but it's not like the ethics commission
where therefore by virtue of a citizen petition the process goes
on now for three years. This is where you go to the state
attorney's office and say, I think this may have been a violation,
and he says, I'm going to prosecute it or I'm not.
So, the discretion is there with the prosecution.
I'm going to make a motion to approve the ordinance before
us with the following changes. In the definition section, Section
3 with regard to advisory boards members, that that be amended
to reflect a specific list of advisory boards who have decision
Page 131
September 12, 2000
making authority.
MR. MANALICH: That would be final decision making --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Final decision making authority
and include as amended, because we may create new boards
from time to time, and I don't want a glitch to be created there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I think final is key to this,
and that means like planning council, EAC. There's a couple of --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Airport Authority.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- Airport Authority, and there's a
couple other boards, but we have other advisory boards who
make decisions but they are not the final authority.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that -- that was the
amendment that I would offer there.
There are two corrections on Page 8 of our agenda packet,
Page 7 of the ordinance. One is the $50 change that
Commissioner Brandt caught for us this morning that Ramiro
suggested we correct, and the other is in 2(A) where we have a
long list of gifts, any fee compensation, gift, gratuity, favor, et
cetera, that we eliminate that and replace it with merely the
word gift. So, add -
MR. MANALICH: Provided that everything listed there
matches within the definition?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Provided that it's all there; that
on Page 5 of our agenda packet, that we amend 4(B)3 to read as
follows: Gifts received where family relationships such as those
between the parent, children or spouse, closed parens, or other
personal relationships or circumstances clearly demonstrate
that the relationship or circumstances rather than the business
of the person involved are the motivating factors; that on Page 6
of the agenda packet, Page 5 of the ordinance, Sub 8 there
where we have the terms of a loan -- I hope I got all of these, so
you guys help me see if I've got them all here -- that it read as
follows: A rate or term on a debt, loan, goods or services which
rate and terms are customary and are -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: At.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- are at a government rate
available to all other similarly situated government employees or
officials --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You left out one, and terms. A
Page 132
September 12, 2000
government rate and terms.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And terms, okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Available to all other similarly
situated government employees or officials.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will you read that one if you've
got better notes than me on that one?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Or a rate and terms which are
available to similarly situated members of the public by virtue of
occupation, affiliation, age, religious, sex or national --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect.
And finally, that the food and beverage section be amended
to incorporate the changes on Page 2 of 4 of the Republican
party's proposal of 1998 which references the per diem amounts
identified in state statute so that if a dinner that you accept by
virtue of being a speaker or by virtue of participating in
something that enhances your duties has a value of over than the
per diem amount, it has to be disclosed and made a public
record.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is there a cap on that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think there is, no. As long
as it's disclosed, that's what counts.
In other words, the kinds of things that I have been bringing
to the Board of County Commissioners to pay for, the Industry
Appreciation luncheon, instead of the taxpayer paying it, I can
accept a gift for participating in that luncheon from the EDC --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But declare it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but declare it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But declare it, and same way
with SBA, Chamber of Commerce, EDC --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Et cetera.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- et cetera, so that we can
attend those functions as part of our service and in expectation
by the community that we participate in those annual events or
key events and all we have to do is report the difference.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's a far better way to do it,
because having the taxpayer pay was penalizing --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stinks.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, and it covers my issue, too,
Mr. Chairman, is that you never want to communicate to the
public that only people who have the means or the financial
Page 133
September t 2, 2000
resources can run for public office because they will take out of
their own pocket to go to these events. That -- that establishes
something, that it violates a principle that which this country is
founded. So, I think that provides for that.
I also would ask this question, spouses or significant others
that attend with these people, is that also addressed in this or
does that just apply to the elected official?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: To the elected official.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would assume just to the
elected official, and if it's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, this whole ordinance
prohibits gifts to the spouse as well as to the elected official,
right, Ramiro? Help us with that interpretation.
MR. MANALICH: Well, it's addressed to public officials. It
doesn't talk about the spouse.
However, there are provisions in the statutes like on voting
conflicts, which isn't covered here, which deal with, if it's going
toward the benefit of a spouse, et cetera, but here, we're
basically talking about the public officials themselves, not the
spouses.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So, if your spouse attends or
significant other, then the expectation is that that family pays for
that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You've got to pay for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I guess you've made me
think of something that I didn't understand that I missed, and
that is, you can't give me a gift but you can give my husband a
gift? It shouldn't be there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No, I don't think so, especially if
you accrue some benefit from it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
So, is that included, Ramiro, in this ordinance, a prohibition
of gifts to my spouse or family members? Just like I have this
family member exception for receiving gifts, don't I likewise have
a you can't give golf tournament tickets to my 16 year old son?
MR. MANALICH: Well, I'm not finding that in here quite
honestly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It ought to be there.
MR. MANALICH: Now, there are provisions in the statute in
Page 134
September t2, 2000
terms of -- if I could check real quickly -- in terms of other
provisions that do include spouses, but I don't see it in either the
Naples ordinance or in the statute as to gifts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, could we -- could we --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, wait a minute. It gets to be
slippery, folks.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Suppose your spouse or your son
or daughter is in a business and a lobbyist that comes to you, he
or she also does business with that person, has nothing to do
with county government, what -- that's a personal decision. If
that law firm wants to take your son out and play golf because
he has a business relationship with them, whoa, wait a minute,
that might --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think that's a slippery
slope.
MR. MANALICH: There's a provision in the statute that does
address this which is applicable to you-all, and that is that no
public officer or his or her spouse or child shall at any time
accept anything of value when such public officer knows or with
reasonable care should know that it was given to influence a
vote or other action.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, it's covered in the state law
is what it sounds like to me.
MR. MANALICH: But I think Mr. Carter has hit on perhaps
why we don't have it specifically in the gift law, because then
you get into the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, then that's the end of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: May I just make a friendly
amendment, addendum? It might be a shock to some that after
years of not supporting this, because I hung on to a philosophy
and because I don't believe that you legislate morals or ethics.
However, if this is going to give confidence to the voters in
Collier County that government is going to operate in a better
and more efficient manner and a more honest manner, then it's
fine to do it, but I'd like to go back to the historic perspective of
what happened in Collier County, and I don't know if it was so
much a gift as it was a business relationship. If you look at the
issues at hand of the things that we've been cited for, it seems
Page 135
September t 2, 2000
to me it had to do with problematic business relationships. It
wasn't the lunches. It wasn't the cookie trays that may have
come into the Board of County Commissioners' offices. It may
not have even been the occasional golf game that was played,
but what I would like to propose is that no elected official is
allowed to have any kind of a business relationship with anyone
who has a contractual relationship or that the County maintains
any kind of a contractual relationship with an individual, and that
may seem a hardship on some cases, but I think that this is an
important direction to go, and I think it's spelled out very clearly,
that if you had a business relationship with someone-- let me
give an example. Let's assume that -- I'm not going to pick on
you, Tim, but you had a P.R. relationship, and you did marketing
and P.R. for some company, and let's assume it's an engineering
firm. That engineering firm has a business relationship or a
contractual relationship with Collier County. The state law says
that all you have to do is, you know, probably recuse yourself
from the vote if there's anything that comes before the Board of
County Commissioners, and that you don't vote on that issue.
I think it would be far cleaner that if the time comes when
that company who you've been doing work for, you suddenly say
to them, I can't do work for you anymore because you have a
contractual relationship with Collier County. I will have to step
aside, because what's the difference of Tim getting a salary from
a company who has a contractual relationship with Collier
County than someone handing Tim a bouquet of flowers for his
mother's funeral?
If you're going to look at it one way or the other, I mean, it's
still -- it's still an item, all right. What's the difference?
I think that the amendment or the addendum that I'd like to
see is strictly that no elected public official can have a
contractual relationship with a company or individual who has a
contractual relationship with Collier County government.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let me ask a question. I
understand where you're going with that, Commissioner, but let's
say that I own a business and then I'm elected to the county
commissioner's job, and I turn over that business to professional
management, but I still own that business --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- how would that business
Page 136
September t2, 2000
continue to function if contractors, et cetera, come in there and
buy goods from that business? Now, I still own it. I have a
vested interest in it, but I'm not in day-to-day operations.
Now, aren't I not penalizing that business, that entity which
may be a family -- let's say it's a family business. Let's say two
or three members of the family. I'm the only one that decided to
run for office. Now are we saying that that business can't do any
business with people who do business with the County? I've got
a problem with that because I'm divorced from it, but my family
is not divorced from it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. I understand.
In the same situation, when you become a county
commissioner, you are being compensated for sitting in this
position.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that you need, and I think
all people who decide to become public officials need to take a
look, and certainly, I don't know a business relationship -- it's a
pretty sticky situation, and the only reason I'm bringing this up,
you have three new commissioners coming on board in
November, and ! can't say, and I'm not going to sit up here and
say, well, now if you elect this one, here's going to be a problem,
a potential problem here; if you're going to elect this one,
potential problem, but I do believe that even though you recuse
yourself from a vote, if there is a -- if the County is maintaining a
contractual relationship with an entity -- I'm talking about this
now, I'm talking about if that entity has a contract that Collier
County oversees or has a business relationship, then that's a
different story.
Now, if you have a business and they have done business
with Collier County, maybe that's one client that they're going to
have to say sayonara to until you go off that board.
Is it a hardship; I don't know. On the other hand, because
I'm also saying that you are being compensated when you came
on and accepted this job. Now, granted, nobody is going to get
rich, but at the same time, by virtue of you sitting in the seat,
there's nothing to stop you from going down and leaning on Ed
Finn, if the problem has to do with his area, and saying, Ed, I
really think you need to listen to this situation, and you wouldn't
have that -- I mean, as a commissioner, you can go talk to
Page 137
September 12, 2000
anybody you want to go talk to, and you can ask him to do that,
but there's no loss or gain to any business entity that you might
have, or business relationship that you might have.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, in my case, I resigned from
the company --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I mean, I had a way to do
that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I resigned, and my spouse
continues to own that business, which she consequently
disbanded and reopened -- she has her own business now. There
is no association between that business and me in any way,
shape or form.
So -- I mean, it's not -- it's not an issue for me, but I am
wondering if we do put some people who may come here into a
situation where they are not involved in the business, as I said,
but their families are involved in it, does that remove a
potentially large potential client in any way, shape or form,
whether they are doing it now or in the future?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm not going to accept that
amendment to my motion, and here's the reason why. I think
you've raised a really valid point that we've got to dig into more
carefully, but it's not the kind of thing that I can anticipate all of
the potential repercussions well enough today. I have thought
through this one for two and a half years and am confident that
the benefits outweigh the risks.
The one that you're proposing, Commissioner, would that
mean that your husband can't take CPA clients who do work with
Collier County because you're on the county commission? I
mean, we're going to have -- that's --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm really mainly more concerned
with the commissioner, the commissioner. That's what --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the difference?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, there's a big difference.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You spend the money just the
same. You spend the money just the same if he earns it or you
earn it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: He may have a client. He's not
going to come down here and lean on staff.
Page 138
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you can if it's going to help
his client.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If I know who his clients are. I
don't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you wouldn't, and the point
is, you have to recuse yourself from the vote, and I just think it's
-- that's a can of worms that has a very -- I would be happy to
amend my motion to direct staff to investigate that and to bring
us back something that addresses that very valid concern, but
just not today to pop that in here without more careful review.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, would you be ready
to bring that back to us in two weeks? MR. WEIGEL: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And the other part is, I think we
really need to take this -- we've got some good amendments
here. We've approved on the City of Naples. We've been working
on this. Let's put it into place. Let's let it work. If we find a
wrinkle in it later, we can do something about it, but we've got a
good framework here which I think -- the public should have
confidence that we have done everything possible to make this
work, and let's see what happens in the future.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can I say just one more thing?
Commissioner Mac'Kie, what I'm trying to do is, you know -- you
have said, and rightfully so, that, you know, by accepting gifts, et
cetera, that has a potential for being corrupt, okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Public perception.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Public perception.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second Commissioner
Mac'Kie's --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can you help me -- can you help
me through this of why this other would not be that way?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would. It would, and that's
why I think it's worth looking into.
What I think is if we're going to get on that slippery slope,
we've got to be really careful because, as you have said and is
true, this is already becoming so erroneous that we are going to
scare people out of running for office.
If we're going to say this is a full-time job and you can't
receive any other income from any other source, then let's say
that.
Page 139
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I'm not, because I'm saying
you can still have clients, oh, absolutely. The only client you
can't have are the clients who do business with Collier County.
That's all. You can have clients. Heaven's sakes, yes, Pam, you
can -- in your position, you could have all the real estate if you
wanted to that you wanted to have as long as they didn't come
before the Board of County Commissioners. You can have
umpteen clients. Do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that -- I agree with you that
the --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Or have a contractual relationship
where Collier County oversees something, that's all I'm getting
at.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree that it's something we
should look into, but I don't think it's something we can just pop
in there today.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to
vote on this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I heard a second from
Commissioner Carter. We'll bring the other item back in a couple
of weeks, Mr. Weigel, and --
MR. MANALICH: May I ask a question before you vote? It's
just a clarification, very quick. Commissioner Mac'Kie, what you
want in the language on the friendship amendment is simply, as
Mr. Hardt indicated, the language about personal relationships
and, the word and circumstance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me read it again. Gifts
received where family relationships such as those between the
parents, children or spouse or other personal relationships or
circumstances clearly demonstrate that the relationship or
circumstances rather than the business of the person involved
are the motivating factors.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion,
please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response}.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries five-oh.
Page 140
September 12, 2000
Item #12C6
ORDINANCE 2000-59 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 97-17, THE
COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
ORDINANCE - ADOPTED
12(C)6, adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance 97-17,
Collier County utility standards and procedures ordinance.
Be happy to close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second. All
those in favor -- were there any public speakers on this, by the
way?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
All those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response}.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
I thought probably not.
Five-oh.
Item #12C7
REVIEW HEARING TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY TO SUBMIT
ALTERNATIVE ROAD IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS FOR
TIBURON, PELICAN MARSH AND BAY COLONY GOLF COURSES -
DENIED
All right. We've got one, two, three, four, five, have I missed
any, five hearings on impact fees?
Mr. Weigel, I would like to preface these with your
comments we had privately, you think there is some question as
to whether or not we can legally grant these. You do, however,
think we should provide an opportunity for petitioner --
petitioners to get on the record.
Perhaps you can give us a brief view on that, because then if
we have some limit according to our legal counsel on what
action we can take, we can still allow everybody to get up and
say their piece, but we may not be able to take action.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the question is how much piece you're
Page 141
September 12, 2000
going to let them have to say, and both Mr. Manalich, Mr.
Cautero, and I think Mr. Tindall will probably work with you on
each individual item, but what we will see -- I will generalize
here, what we will see is that part of the concept that we're
going to be talking to you about in regard to the application of
the road impact fee ordinance and the applicants that have come
before you today for a hearing is whether they have met
conditions precedent which allows them to have that which they
have requested, which in some cases is an alternative impact
fee hearing; in other cases, it is a review hearing, and both
Ramiro and Vince can explain what those are, what the
differences of them are and what we believe were requirements
to have been met before someone gets to the board with the
ability to have the hearing on the matter in chief and -
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a question on any of
these five whether or not they have met the requirements?
MR. WEIGEL: The question -- there is a question that they've
met the requirements, and we believe that we have, in our
review, determined those that have not met the requirements,
and we will inform you with our presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you just tell us now?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I think he's saying you want
to take it piece --
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, off the top of my head, I can't run
through them and say. There are little distinctions between two
or three of them, and they will -- the staff will tell you those
distinctions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. Let's go to the first
one, but before we do, I want to know the answer to my
question. If staff has determined that they don't believe they
have the right to be here, why is it on the agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: No, no, I didn't say they didn't have a right to
be here, but it's a right for the ultimate thing that they may be
requesting. We felt -- we felt as part of the due process,
administration of this ordinance, that they do have a right to be
here, but they may not have a right for what they are asking for
and to be heard on that element of what they are asking for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They may have a right to be here,
Tim, but we may not have the right to grant them that which they
petition.
Page 142
September 12, 2000
MR. WEIGEL: That's right. You said it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And as a quasi-judicial group, it is
our obligation to hear these cases independently and render a
decision, the way I'm interpreting that, based on the information
given to us on each case.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: On that chase, let's get to the
first one. Mr. Cautero, 12(C)7, review hearing to determine
eligibility to submit alternative road impact fee calculations for
Tiburon, Pelican Marsh and Bay Colony.
By the way, is there a -- is there a time limit on when you
can apply? Is there like a 30 day window or something where
you could do this?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, there is.
Vince Cautero, for the record.
Let's get right into it, the first three~ and I think we'll be able
to answer your question. The first three are the same developer,
WCI; Bay Colony, Pelican Marsh and Tiburon. The chart that we
have in front of you on the visualizer explains when the first
approval was granted and when the first building permit was
granted. These are important dates, because earlier in the day
when you amended the impact fee ordinance for transportation
dealing with golf courses, we talked to you about the process.
What we are saying in these instances are for Bay Colony, there
were two site development plan or preliminary work
authorization approvals. That's what PWA stands for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we have copies of this?
MR. CAUTERO: Certainly.
Phil, would you get copies, please?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please, because it's just hard to
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So, by November -- let's take
Bay Colony for example. By November 13th, did they file a
request for alternative impact fees?
MR. CAUTERO: No, they didn't, and the next chart -- you're
one step ahead me, Commissioner. Great question. The first
building permit was issued after the site development plan
approval -- after here, where I put my finger on it, right here.
These -- these are the points at which the initial approval was
granted. The first building permit that we have of record was in
1996. Those are the dates, where it says SDP, PWA and first
Page t43
September t2, 2000
building permit. What we are saying is the ordinance ties to the
building permit. Notwithstanding your amendment today, we're
of the opinion under the old ordinance that they should have paid
possibly prior to here, but at least prior to here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And for what was -- that was for
a clubhouse building permit?
MR. CAUTERO: That was a clubhouse building permit, yes.
My finger was covering it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And they did apply for the
alternative impact fee by May 2nd of 19967
MR. CAUTERO: No, they did not, and what we are telling you
is that there are similar cases in Pelican Marsh and Tiburon, and
that our recommendation is that they have the inability to
proceed with that portion of the ordinance on the alternative
calculation. However, in joint meetings with the manager, the
attorney, myself and the clerk, we have agreed that everyone
has the right to come and ask you anyway, even though our
recommendation is denial, and that's why they are on the agenda
today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So, theoretically, any developer
on any project that has ever come before the board has the right
to schedule a public hearing and use up staff time and
commission time and taxpayer time on a whim even if they
haven't followed any of the rules?
MR. CAUTERO: Commissioner, the answer to your question
is no, and if I may add a statement afterwards. I think I know
where you're going with that. We normally don't do that, but
please believe me when I tell you that this process has been so
cumbersome and there have been opinions that have changed on
many occasions. We as a team, including the clerk, agreed it
would be best if we allowed people to come to you and argue
their case in this instance only. We don't do that normally, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of my favorite phrases.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And perhaps the board wants to
do that. If you're telling me they don't have the right to make that
request after the 30 days and the 30 days expired, I don't have
any interest in sitting here and hearing their argument because
we don't have the ability then, under the law, to grant it to them
anyway.
MR. CAUTERO: I hear you loud and clear. Let me just say
Page 144
September 12~ 2000
one more thing before you may turn to either the applicant or the
manager or the attorney, you probably would have gotten it
under public petition anyway. We felt this was the safest course
of action, to bring it and let them hear their case, and then we
can talk about it in one forum.
Our intent was not to waste your time or our time. It was
because of the nature of this beast we're dealing with.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If the balance of the board
wants to hear from them, that's fine. I don't, because they didn't
meet the criteria.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, we are where we are.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think I'm going to hear it one
way or another~ Mr. Chairman, and I would prefer to go through
this today and remove any obstacle.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Let's assume for a moment that
we will hear them and they will make a request, what is our
obligation to give them a response; today or at any time?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If they don't meet the criteria,
we don't have to give them one, I don't believe, but Mr. Weigel is
probably more qualified to say that than I am.
MR. WEIGEL: You're quite qualified, but the fact is, is we
recognize reviewing the ordinance, the administration of the
ordinance, the interplay and correspondence with these
applicants that are before you today, and some of which would
be scheduled in two weeks from now, is that we felt that rather
than the staff say to them -- and staff has made determinations
here in the past, that the staff say, no, we won't give you a
hearing, it puts us in a position where they may go to court and
claim they haven't had an opportunity to come to the board to be
told no or to be told yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there anything to prohibit the
board from saying you didn't meet the criteria before they get up
and make their arguments that they should get them?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think you -- minimally, you need to call
each agenda item and say so unless -- if you want to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, we are on one of the
agenda items right now, 12(C)7, and we've been told crystal
Page 145
September 12, 2000
clear they did not do it within the 30 day window.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Now, I expect public speakers for these
items, and they will wish to speak, to address you on this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: May I -- Mr. Chairman, may I interject
one comment?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Can we recognize him without
listening to David more?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. Hang on, Rich.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: David.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Excuse me, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Dr. Brandt. I have -- I have a
question -- again a question with regard to this. After we hear
each of the petitioners and whatever their request might be, if
they are going to ask for an alternative calculation approach,
how do we get some feel for whether that's a valid approach or
not?
MR. WEIGEL: What I really believe is, is that the staff will
tell you what conditions were met and weren't met and were
required under the ordinance and will make a recommendation to
you in some of these cases, if not all, that we believe that they
haven't met the criteria and, therefore, are not in a position for
you to consider, that you don't legally have the ability under the
application of the law to grant them what they ask.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So, we could -o
MR. WEIGEL: So, you may not necessarily hear the long
drawn out discussion of why the alternate fee, this, that and the
other is appropriate or not, but I think we are asking the board to
have enough process here that the board makes a determination
not to go forward, and we were going to provide you facts and
interpretations of law where you could make that determination
as to whether to go forward and hear the matter in chief or not,
and you'll note that was the language I used in my --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So after we listen to a petitioner,
we can turn to you and to other staff and say, what's your
opinion here, what is your recommendation here? MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Yovanovich, God bless you
Page t46
September 12, 2000
and your five minutes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just here to -- are we going to go
forward or are we not going to go forward, that's my question.
I'm just --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The clock is ticking.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, for the record, Rich Yovanovich
representing WC! Communities. Tom Conrecode is going to go
first, and I'm going to go second.
I don't believe there is any five minute limitation on our
petition. There's no limitations anywhere in the ordinance as to
how long we have to present our case.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We think you'll be reasonable and
MR. YOVANOVICH: We will be reasonable, but, I mean, five
minutes is not reasonable.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, I'm Tom Conrecode, and
I'm representing WCI. I'd like to thank the commissioners for the
opportunity to speak today regarding impact fees.
As you know, Watermark Communities is a master planned
community developer responsible for a number of really rather
nice communities in North Naples and really throughout Florida.
Specifically, I'd like to talk to you today about the Pelican
Marsh community in North Naples and the three golf courses that
fall under this particular issue or series of issues as you've heard
them throughout the day.
The PUD for Pelican Marsh was approved by the county
commission in early 1995, and it was at that time that WCI
committed and reserved in excess of five million dollars' worth of
land, road right-of-way for Goodlette, Vanderbilt Beach Road,
U.S. 41, Livingston Road, and we also agreed and committed that
we would provide the drainage easements from the roadway
drainage and accept the storm water from those projects
throughout the Pelican Marsh development without
compensation. This is particularly important, the date in 1995,
because we feel the community should recognize that we've
mitigated our road impacts years in advance, years in advance of
when they occurred.
In addition to that, the County and the community at large
has had the beneficial use of those donations for years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Weren't these water
Page 147
September 12, 2000
management donations?
MR, CONRECODE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Were these water management
related --
MR. CONRECODE: Road right-of-way and water management
and drainage uses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And didn't you get impact fee
credits for those donations?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am, far in advance of the time
the impacts to the roads were incurred or occurred by the
development.
Now, specific to our three golf course impacts, these have
been paid in full, important to recognize, in full accordance with
the ordinance and have been addressed, as I just described.
The problem that we face today is complicated by the
results of the administration of the ordinance, the ambiguity of
the ordinance and a number of the concerns, particularly related
to golf course impacts when you consider that your road impact
fee ordinance had a 98.8 percent collection rate, that's
phenomenal. The flaws are consistently falling within the golf
course impact portion.
WCI unfortunately has been caught up in this -- the way the
ordinance has been administered. We were notified that we -- we
were first notified that there was a question of whether or not
impact fees had been paid. We were later notified that we
should make arrangements to pay our impact fees or seek an
alternative impact fee calculation. We hired consultants to do
that and have submitted that. That~ in turn, was then rejected by
the County, but the impact from our golf courses are fairly similar
across the board throughout the entire development.
We have not objected to any of the other uses within the
road impact fee ordinance, only the particular one of golf
courses, and as evidenced by your own ordinance changes today
and previous golf course impact fee alternatives, the ordinance
was not adequate in addressing what the true impacts were for
the golf course use in this county.
As a result, WCI would respectfully request to resolve these
three golf courses with an alternative fee calculation over the
next 30 to 60 days and put this matter behind us, in particular in
light and recognition of the series of flaws and questions that
Page t48
September t 2, 2000
have come about as a result of the way the ordinance was
written and the way the ordinance has been administered since
1992.
I'll remain available to answer any questions you may have
following Mr. Yovanovich's presentation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman~ Rich Yovanovich again.
How we got here today is through your alternate collection
method~ which you notified us in June that we had a right to
request a hearing, and we are here following the procedures that
you have outlined in your own correspondence to us, and I
believe we always, under your ordinance, have the right to
question the amount of the fee allocated to our property,
because your ordinance, by law, cannot charge us more than the
impact of our development.
So, from the outset, we have a right to be here, and we have
a right to present our information to you regarding the
appropriate impact fee.
This is an issue that I can only classify as a political issue
and no longer a legal issue. It has moved well beyond what does
your ordinance say and how should it be interpreted. We got
here because of a mistake. We all know there was a mistake.
The ordinance had a glitch, and for some reason the impact fees
were not collected. I don't believe anybody truly believes there
was a conspiracy that the golf course developers were trying to
avoid their impact fees.
I believe a mistake truly happened~ and through that~ we're
fixing the mistake, but what you're forgetting is through this
mistake, the issue of the amount of the golf course impact fee
was not brought up at the right time, and the right time to bring
that up is at the building permit stage. Had your staff said to us,
Mr. Yovanovich -- said to WCI your check for Tiburon is about
$170,000 short and Pelican Bay was also -- I mean Pelican Marsh
was short and Bay Colony were short, I guarantee you WCI at
that time would have said, what are my options? Can I pay it
under protest or do I have to do a study? That did not happen.
That was not WCI's fault.
There was a glitch in the administration of the ordinance,
and I will tell you that I have gotten different opinions as to what
Page 149
September t2, 2000
that ordinance means. I have been told by the county attorney's
office that you can pay under protest and submit your study later
after you obtain a permit. Now, that philosophy is how it's
always been done throughout the years of the administration of
this ordinance.
Now we are being told that the ordinance doesn't really say
we can do it the way we've been doing it, and Mr. Golf Course
Developer, you're going to be punished for that and not be
allowed to come in and submit your alternative impact fee
calculation because our own internal process didn't catch this at
the right time. I think that's an awfully harsh result, and I do not
think it's a legally justifiable result.
Another thing -- the question is, did we pay? Mr. Conrecode
pointed out yes, we have paid. We have paid five million dollars
up front. When we came through with our PUD, you required the
developer to set aside road right-of-way. You didn't pay for it.
You required that it be set aside, and you said you'll pay for it
later by issuing impact fees, but we had the commitment not to
use that land, and that was a five million dollar commitment to
Collier County to address road impact fees that were not caused
by our project.
Did we object to an illegal exaction? We did not because
the development community is doing the right thing. They are
making sure that the transportation network is there. We set
aside the road right-of-way. We could have forced you on the
date you came in with that request to buy the land. We did not
do that. We said we'll set it aside. Give us the credits when
you're ready to get them. That was a five million dollar
commitment.
So please don't say the developer has not paid their road
impact fees for this project. In addition, they had a million dollar
credit for road impact fees on deposit with the County when this
glitch was discovered. There was a million dollars there. The
developer said, okay, I'm going to identify that million dollars'
worth of credits. It's now yours. Let's go forward with an
alternative impact fee calculation, and your staff said sure, let's
do that, and we did it. We met with your staff. We went over the
methodology. Your staff blessed the methodology. We
submitted the study to your staff, and your staff refused the
study. Your ordinance doesn't give your staff that right. That is
Page 150
September t2, 2000
your right. That is a study that should have come to the county
commission.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When did that happen?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That happened in February.
Now, granted, did we meet -- did we submit our study before
a building permit was issued; no, but there are justifiable and
equitable circumstances as to why we did not meet that
requirement. There was a glitch. You know there's a glitch or
else you wouldn't have corrected your ordinance today. This
was a good faith mistake.
We're not pointing fingers at your staff. It seems like the
fingers are really being pointed at us, that we didn't protect your
staff from your own ordinance.
We have done -- we have followed the procedures that have
always been in place for your ordinance. When the amount of
money became an issue, we said here's the credits. They're
paid. The money was always there. There was never a threat
that you had to come to WCI and say, stroke a check. The
money was always there.
This factual situation is very different from one of the other
items on your agenda where they did nothing. They refused to
give you any money.
We already had the money there. We identified it for you
when we knew it was a problem, and we're now simply saying,
let's go through the process, come up with a study that
everybody can live with, including staff, that says this is the true
impact of our golf courses. We want to pay that. You have the
money. You're holding it. If we can prove we've overpaid, you
should give us some of our money back. If we can't prove it,
you've already got the money. It's not a question of your having
the money, and I would submit to you that on other occasions,
you have given back money regarding the payment of impact
fees when your ordinance did not contain a specific provision to
allow you to do that.
If it's in the best interest of the public to avoid a long drawn
out fight over what is the appropriate impact fee for the golf
courses, I think this commission can make the decision that in a
fair -- in an equitable situation, they can allow WCI to go forward
with this alternative impact fee calculation at this time, and you
can distinguish each developer based upon their own facts, and
Page t51
September 12, 2000
in our factual situation, I think you can see that we did the right
thing. We did not try to avoid paying our impact fees. There's a
glitch, and in reality, you're punishing WCI because the glitch
was not caught.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question, Commissioner
Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This -- this is maybe the first time
I've completely understood one point. I don't know if on every
developer the situation is the same. I have assumed that you,
the developer, didn't pay, didn't write a check that they owed to
the County via for impact fees, and if you were going to say to
me, Rich, that, gosh, there was a glitch in the ordinance and
nobody told us we had to pay, then I was going to tell WCI they
should talk to their lawyer because their lawyer should have told
them what their legal obligations were, but if what you're telling
me today is you had already written a check for five million
dollars, you wrote it with dirt instead of cash, if you had already
paid the five million dollars, and the question then becomes
whose responsibility was it to say we're crediting, we're taking
part of that away for this purpose and that purpose, is that where
we are with WCI?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is exactly where you are with WCI.
We have paid. We paid with our land.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the place with -- how
many situations are similar to that?
MR. CAUTERO: I don't believe that there are others similar
to that from WCI from what we've seen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're the only ones with a
credit out there --
MR. CAUTERO: Well, Grey Oaks, excuse me. Grey Oaks and
the three WCI courses had credits that we used once our
notification was presented to them. We notified them, your
impact fees, in our opinion, are delinquent. Here's what you owe,
and we used credits -- they instructed us to use the credits on
the books to satisfy the impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And two more questions; one is,
what is the process? I assume that during this past couple of
years while WCI had this five million dollar impact fee credit at
the County, what's the process by which subtractions are made
Page 152
September 12, 2000
from that credit?
MR. CAUTERO: They're marked off on ledgers as
development permits are applied for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's physically a piece of
paper, and it's just marked off, and do they agree or disagree -- I
mean, there must be more than just that. We don't just say we're
taking a hundred thousand on this one.
MR. CAUTERO: Well, they -- no, they didn't agree. In all
fairness to them, they paid, as you can see on this chart --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no, I'm talking in other
cases.
MR. CAUTERO.' Oh, in other cases. They would actually --
we haven't done this in other cases. They would actually come
in and apply to use the credit. There's a formal letter that's
established by either the County in conjunction with the
developer or by the developer when someone comes in and
applies for a credit, they want to use a credit for a development.
For example, if you have a development that has 100 credits of
road impact fees for 100 homes, the developer may use that as a
marketing tool for those particular sites.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my question is, how do we --
how do we book it when they use it up?
MR. CAUTERO: We just subtract it. It's all done --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what's the process by which
we decide, get out that ledger card and subtract a hundred
dollars?
MR. CAUTERO: A formal application is made.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, you should have made the
application at the time, when you pulled these permits for
clubhouses and golf maintenance facilities, you should have
said, we want to -- instead of paying, we want to be sure that
you're applying a part of our credit here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, my point is, there's the
glitch that never brought that, you should have questioned, to
everybody's attention, and we all know that. We've been
discussing that for several weeks. The money was there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me. There's two points
here, and I will grant you one. One is, that it is unfair to say that
WCI didn't pay, because the money was already there. WCI had
money. They weren't trying to cheap out. They weren't trying to
Page 153
September 12, 2000
get out of paying something they owed, but that doesn't take
away from the question of whether or not they had the obligation
at the time that they sought the permit for the golf course
maintenance facility, the clubhouse, the shelter to say we want a
credit applied -- we want to pay this via a portion of our prepaid
credit, and that's where you didn't do it.
MR. CONRECODE: If I could for a moment, ma'am, I'd like to
correct --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you'll tell me if I'm wrong on
that point, right or wrong on that point, then you can talk all you
want.
MR. CONRECODE: I'll let you draw the conclusion of right or
wrong, but let me describe just very simply how that process
works. Under the ordinance, it was assumed that the impact fee
was paid when the SDP was done for the golf course. WCI then
hires a contractor to come in and build a clubhouse. They come
in. They submit the permits. They go through the review, and the
staff at development services total up what all the costs are,
including EMS impact fees, fire impact fees and everything else
that's imposed.
The contractor then gets a sheet at the bottom of that and
writes the check. If road impact fees are off of that, he doesn't
question it, and nobody else had questioned it either. That's
where it fell through the cracks in this flawed process, the
administration of the ordinance.
So, that's procedurally how -- I'm not saying you're right or
wrong. I'm just saying that's how that happened, and that's how
we got through these clubhouses without paying those --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Tom, when you get that
sheet -- I mean, I just think it would be naive of me to believe
that you get a sheet that says you owe ten million dollars and
you-all just lively go along and write out your check. You don't
have a -- that's your reason for being there as an engineer is to
check out whether or not the County has appropriately assessed
those fees.
So, why didn't you check it out as to the golf course? You
weren't there at the time, I realize. I'm not talking about you, but
I continue to say that -- look, in private practice, if I don't tell
somebody you've got to pay doc. stamps on this deed and five
years later the clerk comes back and says you've got a tax and
Page t 54
September 12, 2000
you've got penalties, guess who gets to pay it; I do, because I
should have told them they owed it. I don't see the distinction
here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And apparently neither do they.
Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have a couple of questions.
Mr. Yovanovich, you indicated that the County can't charge
you more than the impact your effort has on the community, and
I think that's where part of the contention is, because who
determines what your impact is on the community, and,
apparently, that's the County that goes through that to make that
assessment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're absolutely right. If they
think it's different, the onus is on -- to show that it is different --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- within a time frame.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
Now, with regard to an alternative fee calculation, can
someone on the staff help me understand that approach, what is
taken into consideration and how it's arrived at?
MR. CAUTERO.' Vince Cautero~ for the record. What's taken
into account are various factors based on the membership of the
golf course, how you become a member, how you can play there.
All that is placed into a formula based on particular criteria in
the ordinance, and those are the criteria that we take into
account, the various types of trips based on membership and
organization, setup of the golf course. There are many types of
arrangements that are made, and we have about -- at least five
scenarios in the county on different types of membership in play
in the county.
That's what a traffic engineer or a traffic planner would do
in providing the data for their client to us to review, and the
criteria is also spelled out in the ordinance. That will enable a
developer to come in and make the argument to the board that
their impact on the road system is not as great as the ordinance
specifies by the fee.
I will tell you one other thing, the ordinance said, up until
earlier this year -- you amended the transportation impact fee
ordinance in several categories of land use. One of them was
golf courses. We do not charge per acre anymore. We charge by
Page 155
September 12, 2000
holes. That was a major change because the old methodology
was just outdated and not useful anymore, and that's one of the
reasons why we've had so many requests for these alternative
calculations, albeit some were done incorrectly, not brought to
you. Again, it goes back to what we talked about a few hours
ago.
Those are the types of things, Commissioner, that are taken
into account by a traffic engineer or traffic, transportation
planner, and they would make an argument -- for example, our
impact fee isn't $150,000. We say it's only 70,000 and here's
why, and they would make that argument to you.
We're claiming in this case that for reasons you've heard
from legal staff and myself and my staff that that ability has long
passed for them to even make the argument that the alternative
calculation should be in your hands.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The question though is, didn't -- if
I heard this correctly, in February, they brought an alternative
calculation to staff, which was denied by staff, but staff did not
have the right to do that, it had to come to the Board of County
Commissioners?
MR. CAUTERO: The only one we're aware of, and I guess we
can talk about it on the record, is Tiburon in the sheet when it
says that it was submitted on September of '99. Tomorrow will
be one year that it was submitted, and --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Only Tiburon.
MR. CAUTERO: I'm not aware of one for Pelican Marsh or
Bay Colony.
MR. CONRECOI)E: Well, in fact, if we go back to the notice
of a year ago, we received notice and the question from WCI to
county staff was, do we do three independent studies or do we
do a study that demonstrates the impact of a golf course within
our community? The answer was, do one that's within the golf
course. Within your community, do the one that's most recent.
That ended up being Tiburon. That's why Tiburon was the focal
point of that study.
That meeting then occurred in September, the scope of
what that was. We met with the consultant. They completed
their work. I had a meeting with staff in January on the nature of
Page 156
September 12, 2000
that study. It was submitted in February and rejected on April
21.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have another question, two of
them actually. One is, ! understood that, in fact, none -- there
has not to this moment been data submitted to support an
alternate impact fee?
MR. CONRECODE: That's not correct.
MR. CAUTERO: Well, I think a better way, perhaps, to say it
is, we're not satisfied with any of the data we received on one of
these. They fully and t00 percent meet the provisions of the
ordinance.
The issues today that we're talking about isn't that
necessarily. It's whether or not they're even eligible to come
forward. Once we get past that, my recommendation for you is
going to be to come back and hear them at another date because
there's no way we're going to be able to do it on the fly today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow.
Let me ask my other question. My other question is, 14, I
think, letters sent out in 1998 saying we think you owe impact
fees. Did WCI get one?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, we did receive a letter, and the
letter didn't say, we think you owe impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I read the letter.
MR. CONRECODE: The letter said, we're unable to account
for your impact fees on these golf course --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand.
MR. CONRECODE: -- would you please respond.
I just wanted to clarify that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it was just polite though,
Tom. I mean, what it said was -- it didn't say you're a liar, thief
and scum and get in here and give us the money you owe us. It
said, we have been reviewing our records, and it appears that
fees were not appropriately paid for these. If you can prove to
the contrary, please do so.
MR. CONRECODE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, what was your company's
response to that letter in 1998?
Page t 57
September 12, 2000
MR. CONRECODE-' Our response to that was that we
couldn't prove that the impact fees had been paid, either at the
time of $DP or at the time of building permit, and then we went
further and said, we would like to retain a consultant to do an
alternative impact fee, and then we went forward with the
alternative impact fee, the scoping and so on and so forth?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When did you request -- if I
could follow that, when did you request a hearing on alternative
impact fees?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: '99.
MR. CONRECODE.' It was in September of '99.
MR. CAUTERO.' September of last year. Almost a year to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Safe to say more than 30 days
after that letter went out, too?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, actually there was a series of three
letters.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You understand my point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right~ but from the first or the
last letter, when the -- because even if you're right, even if we
accept your point that there's a glitch in the ordinance and staff
should have collected them earlier and they didn't, even if we
accept that point, then in 1998 when your client got a letter that
said, oh~ oh, you hadn't paid your impact fees correctly, then you
had 30 days to pop it out, at the very latest 30 days from that
date, not 30 days from today or some other time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Yovanovich and Mr.
Conrecode, if you have new information, give it to us, but we are
not going to debate back and forth?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I mean, I think that in all fairness,
we should be given an opportunity to respond to that comment,
and, Commissioner, your ordinance -- your staff didn't follow your
ordinances in 1998 and 1999. They never said you have 30 days
to submit a study. They just said, please account for the money.
When it became an issue of collection of the money, we
merely did the accounting of shifting a portion of a million
dollars' worth of credits that were already there that you already
had the use of to say, okay, assign this to this building permit.
You've got to accept that there was payment already made.
That's the equity. The payments were already made. We never
tried to avoid payment.
Page 158
September t 2, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I buy that, but that's not --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It was merely an accounting error. It
was an accounting error, and I think that's what it was.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Rich, you're going to be on really
-- I think you're on thin ice if it's your position that when the
County sent out a letter that said, we don't think you have
appropriately paid the fees, it wasn't at that point their obligation
to say, and we read the ordinance and it says 30 days so hurry
down here. You're the lawyer. You have to do that.
Your client got a letter. If they didn't respond as the
ordinance requires, I think you're on thin ice, and you know, I
understand you already had money paid in, and that does
distinguish you from people who are maybe trying to slip away,
but that still doesn't say that you complied with the legal
requirements after you got notice in 1998.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, do we have any public
speakers on this item?
MR. OLLIFF.' No, sir.
MR. CONRECODE: And that's the reason why --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This will be your final point.
MR. CONRECODE: Mr. Brandt had asked a question
regarding alternative impact fees, and by way of example, I
would like to recite for him Cypress Woods at $17,710 for one
18-hole golf course; Lely Mustang at 20,000; Heritage Greens at
11,000; Old Cypress at 15,000 and Hideout at 38,000 by way of
comparison to the several hundreds of thousands that you're
trying to impose by the ordinance on the three golf courses for
WCI.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I hear the numbers, but I can't
relate to it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And really the numbers --
MR. CONRECODE: That's a good point.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- the numbers are moot if you
didn't meet your 30 day window. There is a responsibility on
your part to actually apply for the alternative in a certain amount
of time.
I think we're going to find out, if the majority of the board
agrees, but I think the majority of the board thinks you failed in
that responsibility. Clearly you disagree, but that's where we
are.
Page 159
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I want to, in fairness, say,
because, Commissioner Brandt, what you were just trying to get
your arms around, this is a fair point to put on the table. Had
they complied within the 30 days --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- had they complied within the
30 days, the history indicates that they would have been able to
prove, because other courses applied and were able to prove,
that instead of $100,000, they owe $20,000.
So, you know, in general, that's what we're talking about is
if they overpaid. I think --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Possibly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that it's possible if history -- if
the pattern would have repeated itself, it is likely that they would
have had a reduced fee, but the problem is technically did they
apply in time, and the question -- Mr. Weigel has told us that we
don't have -- and we are not judges. We are quasi-judicial. We
don't have that judicial authority to say in the interest of equity,
I'm going to overlook what the law says and --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think Mr. Weigel is saying that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the o- Mr. Yovanovich~
thank you.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got a question for Mr. Weigel.
Is he saying that? Are you saying that we do or we don't have
the discretion to say this was technical noncompliance and
nevertheless we are going to allow -- I don't know even how to
ask the question because it's hard to --
MR. WEIGEL: Two things I'm advising you legally, and that
is, is this quasi-judicial? It has some informal procedures to it,
and the fact is though, staff, Mr. Tindall, Mr. Manalich are going
to tell you what they believe the law is and instruct you in the
law in regard to the facts you have before them. What you do
with that recommendation and opinion of law is what you do, and
if you have any kind of--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's get that recommendation.
MR. WEIGEL: -- you will do what you want to do ultimately.
MR. MANALICH: Ramiro Manalich, for the record.
I hear what the petitioner is saying. I think what you're
going to find today is each of these petitioners, we'll call them,
Page 160
September t2, 2000
will have different factual scenarios and may be asking for
different relief, and we'll have to take these individually, but on
these, our view is that under 2.03 of the ordinance, the
alternative calculation section, they did not submit, prior to
building permit, a calculation, and they did not pay their fees
prior to building permit. Consequently under the terms of the
ordinance, they would be barred from their alternative
calculation hearing request.
Now, obviously, they've raised to you certain equitable
substantial compliance type arguments which, you know, they've
asked you to consider, but on the ordinance, our position is they
would not be entitled to the alternative review hearing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to understand the
boundaries of my quasi-judicial authority here, and I don't know
the answer to this question, so you guys are going to have to
answer it.
The question is, do I have the authority to waive Section
2.03's 30 day limit?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And before we spend a whole
lot of time on that, let's poll the board and see if there's a desire
to even if we could, because, one, I hear them -- I hear our staff
saying they don't meet the requirement of law. Separate is the
question, can you waive the law, but is there any desire to. I, for
one, don't have any desire to waive the law.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I want to know what the law is,
and the only reason I was going that direction --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Same here.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- is the fact that they have paid,
and that's want I want to know if they have met.
So, I want to hear what the law says. I think that's
important.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, the law says, Mr. Manalich told
you, is you have to make the payment at the time or prior to the
issuance of the building permit.
Now, the ordinance itself has a definition of building permit,
which includes not only the standard traditional definition of a
building permit which we talked about for vertical construction,
but it even talks about the approval of a siting equivalent to a
site development plan. These facts were not met. They are
Page 161
September 12, 2000
requirements of the ordinance.
Previously, Mr. Manalich alluded -- excuse me, Mr.
Yovanovich alluded to this, and that was that the board has
made a determination in the past with regard to impact fees
based upon public health, safety, welfare and the public benefit.
I will state though that there was, in fact, and had been for eight
years an ordinance amendment to our road impact fee ordinance
specifically talking about not-for-profit medical facilities meeting
a government facility requirement. So, I think there are some
distinctions that may be drawn as far as that kind of allegation.
I do not see, could not advise you under the ordinance. The
law does not provide you with the ability to make judgments on
what's right and wrong, call them external facts, for what we
consider as conditions precedent in the ordinance itself.
If the court -- in a court of law, contesting the determination
that you may make if you follow the legal representation to you
today, the Court may remand it for a hearing, but I'd just as soon
let the Court tell us that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess that's the bottom line is
that we can't do it, but you may well have a remedy in court to
have -- to prove that you've overpaid or --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't know why we are all
acting like we feel sorry for them. I mean, whether they've paid
money up front or not really is moot because you still have to
apply. It's like if I spend money on a credit card and I could get a
$25 rebate by applying for something within 60 days and I don't
apply, I still paid for the item up front, but once my time expires,
my time expires, and they didn't meet the criteria.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, I would absolutely agree
with that if our hands were perfectly clean. If we had done
everything right, then you would be slam dunk absolutely right,
but we didn't.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But since 1998, there has been
repeated opportunity for them, and they haven't. So, the
argument that, oh, we paid money up front, God bless you, you're
better than some of the developers on this list who have yet to
pay, but you still didn't meet the requirement of the law.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I come down to the same
place as you do, just through a different route.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's poll the board and see,
Page 162
September 12, 2000
because we've got a whole list here to go through of other ones
beyond these guys.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just a quick question, I'm still
troubled by the February staff denial which said to come here. Is
that a procedural violation or was that an ordinance violation?
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. First, it didn't
meet the terms of the ordinance, and secondly, we don't believe
that the criteria that were established in the ordinance were met
for me to bring it forward to the board.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, thank you.
MR. CONRECODE: But that wasn't stated at the time --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Conrecode, thank you very
much.
Is there anybody on the board who thinks we should be
waiving the law right now?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
So, we're not scheduling an impact fee reduction hearing for
WCI apparently.
Let's go to Grey Oaks, which would be t2(C)8.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, do we need a vote?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you need a vote on that, Mr.
Chairman?
MR. WEIGEL: I would like a regular --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are you more comfortable with
a vote?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I would.
this board. Let's do it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
put it in a form of a motion?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I like the way Commissioner
Mac'Kie was presenting it, and if she does it again, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Go to your database.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's pretty -- it's
straightforward. Either vote it up or vote it down --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and you're either in favor of
going forward and doing it or you're not, and I would propose
denial in the case of the previous --
I would like official action of
Do you want to put it -- someone
Page 163
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny the request.
All those in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Do we have a second?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- to deny -- I'm sorry, I thought I
heard Commissioner Berry. Maybe I was mistaken.
aye.
Commissioner Berry, did you second that request?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll do whatever.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. God bless you for it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Say Barbara.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of denial, vote
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
Item #12C8
REVIEW HEARING TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY TO SUBMIT AN
ALTERNATIVE ROAD IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR TWO NINE-
HOLE GOLF COURSES AT GREY OAKS - REQUEST WITHDRAWN
BY PETITIONER
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That will take us to 12(C)8, a
review hearing to determine eligibility for Grey Oaks. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record.
Grey Oaks has withdrawn their request. The disposition of
their impact fee is now complete.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #12C9
REVIEW HEARING TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY TO SUBMIT AN
ALTERNATIVE ROAD IMPACT FEE CALUCLATION FOR THE
VALENCIA AT ORANGETREE GOLF COURSE - DENIED
That will take us to 12(C)9, Valencia at Orangetree.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record.
Again, Valencia is somewhat different from WCI in that they
did receive an official notice from the staff because they had not
paid. In that letter that we had sent previously to them we had
Page 164
September 12, 2000
informed them that they had the right to come for an alternative
hearing or they could request one.
However, they are in the same category as WCI, the three
golf courses that you just dispensed of, because we have ruled
again in accordance with Section 2.03 of the ordinance that no
alternative calculation was applied for prior to the issuance of a
building permit, and in your chart, you will see that building
permit of record is after the SDP for a metal cart barn on June
25th, 1997, and we sent letters out asking for payment. No
payments have been received to date on this.
It's a little bit different in that they did receive an official
notice because they did not pay based on the initial
correspondence from the engineering review manager who asked
for the fees. You might want to take that into account, however,
our stance is the same as WCI in this case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have they prepaid fees similar to
WCI?
MR. CAUTERO: No, there's absolutely no payment in this
case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' So, really, the similarity here is
that, even though we went through all this discussion with WCI
on mitigating factors, the similarity here is Section 2.03 prohibits
our giving a hearing unless we've made an exception to the law,
which we've decided on the last one that we're not going to,
we're going to let the courts decide if we are wrong in doing that.
So, I don't know why we even need to hear this. I make a
motion to deny.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Public speakers and the
petitioner.
Hi there, Mr. Siesky.
MR. SIESKY: Good afternoon, commissioners. Jim Siesky
representing the petitioner, Orangetree Associates.
I understand your position, but I'd like you to, at least, hear
the facts in this case. This PUD was approved in 1986. At that
time, there was road right-of-way given by Valencia or by
Orangetree for a 50 feet long two mile stretch of Immokalee
Road and a 30 foot stretch or 30 feet along Randall, 30 feet along
Oil Well, both for two miles also.
Now, I don't know whether that figures into the impact fee
Page 165
September 12, 2000
credits or not. I know that they didn't get impact fee credits at
that time because none were in place, but how this came about
was we relied upon your staff, just as you have, and you don't
want to be penalized because of your staff's mistakes, nor do we.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you made the analogy of posing
where the clerk wasn't paid for doc. stamps. That is not the
exact analogy here. The analogy here is where the buyer wasn't
-- didn't pay the seller all that was due, and if you recall, in those
types of situations, the closing is final and no more money is due
once that money -- once it's accepted. We are not asking for
that.
We made application for building permits in approximately
July of t996. We were granted them without any request for
impact fee money. We were granted COs in July of '97 without
any request for CO money or for impact fee money rather.
To my knowledge, and I grant you that I haven't been
involved intimately as long as some of the other people, our first
knowledge that the impact fees were due came about in January
of 1998 when the letter was sent out. In response, we submitted
an alternative impact fee study on March 31st of that same year,
and that alternative impact fee study stayed pending for 20
months until now.
Now, it was always -- we were always under the assumption
it was going to the board sometime soon. As a matter of fact, in
April of this year we got notice it was going to go before the
board for consideration. It didn't go. Instead, in June, we got a
notice that said that our alternative impact fee study was not
adequate. That's the first notice we ever had that it wasn't
adequate.
Before that time, staff told us it was adequate, our -- the
fees that we proposed by the alternative fee study was going to
be accepted. It was going to be recommended to the board for
approval. That never happened.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Siesky, I'm getting -- I'm
starting to see this a little more clearly, and it's, frankly, a little
more frustrating the more I understand it.
Does your client have a controller or a chief financial officer
of any kind, anybody who's responsible for the financial dealings
of the company?
MR. SIESKY: No.
Page 166
September t2, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody writes checks?
MR. SIESKY: No controller. We have the owner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody is in charge of the
company's money, and that person should have determined if
they owed money, and, likewise, the lawyer should have
determined if they complied with the law.
MR. SIESKY: Commissioner, with all due respect, I don't
think that's the way things work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, sir--
MR. SIESKY: You're dealing with the government. You have
a right to rely upon their agents. They tell you what's due. You
argue about it, and once your resolve is made, it's paid.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But then, guess what, you just
made your job obsolete, not yours in particular, but land use
lawyers, get out of here. All they need to do is come in and ask
staff what they can do.
MR. SIESKY: Commissioner, that's not the way it works.
If you look at the state administrative law, the agencies are
the ones that are the primary interpreters of the law.
In this case, your staff, if you set the law, your staff
interprets it, and if they tell us that there's no fee due, we're not
going to argue with them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, maybe you should.
MR. SIESKY: Why, why should we? They are the ones that
know the law. They deal with it every day. If they say there's no
fee due, we shouldn't have to pay it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll give you an example, and
this is a private company, not a business, but about a month ago,
my dad went to his Merrill Lynch account on the Internet and
checked and suddenly had t6 million dollars -- I assure you he is
not worth 16 million dollars -- in his account. Now, by your
argument there, he just should not argue. He shouldn't -- MR. SIESKY: Not true.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What he did was call Merrill
Lynch and said clearly there's an error here. I don't have
anywhere close to that. God bless you, take your money back,
and it's the same thing here.
If you go to a bank and the teller gives you an extra twenty,
do you keep it or do you give it back, and as --
Page 167
September 12, 2000
MR. SIESKY: Listen, that's not the situation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- and if you go to county
government and you owe them money and they slip up just like
that bank teller, do you try to get away with it?
MR. SIESKY: No, we didn't. We submitted the alternative
impact fee study when it was brought to our attention. We did
the right thing.
When the permit was issued, we said, okay, there's no
impact fee due now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough. Where is that now,
Mr. Cautero, and does that make a difference if they did it in a
timely fashion? That's my argument on the other folks, they
never did file.
MR. CAUTERO: If they had done it in a timely fashion, it
would certainly make a difference, we -- I haven't heard anything
to tell me that it had been.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And here's the thing, if you
submit a piece of paper that says, I appeal because I don't think
it's going to cost that much and turn it in, that isn't submitting an
application, which you have to --
MR. SIESKY: That's not what was done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the lawyer has to look at the
law --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and tell the client --
MR. SIESKY: I know my job.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Both of you please stop.
Mr. Cautero.
MR. CAUTERO: Sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In January or February of '98, a
letter went out to a number of folks, including these folks --
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- saying we've got a problem
here.
MR. CAUTERO: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Siesky tell us that by the
end of March, we actually had a packet back from them with an
alternative impact fee. Was it simply something saying we would
like to apply for alternative or was there some substance to what
we got back?
Page 168
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Did the substance comply with
the ordinance?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I will get there if you'll let me go
through my question.
MR. CAUTERO: What Commissioner Mac'Kie just said, there
was some substance to it. We do not believe that the
application, even to this day in looking at it and just confirming
with Mr. Tindall and Mr. Kant, that it meets the provisions of the
ordinance.
However, even if it did, that application was nine months
after the first permit, so that's why our stance is the same as
WCI, that it came in after the first permit that was pulled, which
is what the trigger of the ordinance would have been.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: You need to recognize, Mr. Cautero keeps
pointing to that first permit. The interpretation of both the
attorney's office, the clerk's office and us even administratively
is that an alternative impact fee calculation hearing request
needs to be filed prior to the issuance of the first permit.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Got you.
We had a motion and a second --
MR. OLLIFF: You have two additional --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: On this particular item we have
speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: On this particular item you have two additional
speakers, Roberto Bollt followed by Jeff Davidson.
MR. DAVIDSON: I'm Jeff Davidson, for the record,
engineering consultant here in Naples, and I just want to say for
the record that the alternative analysis we submitted, I think,
should meet the requirements of the code even though it was
denied, but that's iust my two cents.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I appreciate that. I think
what we're hearing is regardless of whether it met it or not, it's a
moot point because it was after the permit was issued, more
than -- actually more than a minute after the permit was issued.
So, thank you, I appreciate that.
We had a motion and a second to deny the request.
Further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
Page 169
September 12, 2000
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Five-oh.
Item #t2C10
REVIEW HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB -
TO COME BACK WHEN STAFF BELIEVES PETITION IS COMPLETE
t2(C)10, review hearing to consider an alternative road
impact fee calculation for Vanderbilt Country Club.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero again, for the record -- almost
done.
Vanderbilt is a little bit different. Vanderbilt Country Club
submitted -- or we assessed their impact fees for golf courses in
April of 1998 for Vanderbilt in excess of $35,000, and on August
3rd of last year, the board approved an alternative fee
calculation based on a study done by Kimley-Horn, professional
engineering consulting firm, and in that data, the petitioner
contended that the calculation for the residential development, it
wasn't done specifically for a golf course, contained information
and data for the golf course. So, in other words, a piece of that
study, if you will, pertained to the golf course.
We believe that is significant information for you to
consider, and we believe while that information may have been
lacking in some fashion, that we would like more data. We
believe that that preserves the developer's right to come back in
with a revised alternative calculation, and our recommendation
to the board is that you allow that to happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They did it within the time limit?
MR. CAUTERO: What happened in this particular case was
they applied for an alternative calculation, and we did assess the
rate. As you see on April of 1998, they applied for a permit. On
April 24th of '98, it was assessed -- this is for the clubhouse -- it
was assessed at a particular rate, and then when they paid that
rate, we went to the next step, which involved an alternative
calculation that was conducted by the board a little bit over a
year later for the entire residential development.
However, when they submitted that alternative calculation --
Mr. Yovanovich could probably tell you this better than I, but a
Page 170
September t2, 2000
piece of that calculation done by Kimley-Horn did take into
account not only the golf course but I believe the clubhouse
traffic as well as the residential development within the
subdivision, and I believe there was a good faith effort made in
that particular case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I don't understand the dates.
4/24/98, 6/8/99, that looks like 14 months after instead of 30 days
after.
MR. TINDALL: For the record, Phil Tindall, impact fee
coordinator.
The petitioner applied for a permit for the clubhouse for the
golf course, and it was issued on April 24th, 1998. Staff
incorrectly assessed an impact fee for the clubhouse based upon
a rate and fee schedule. They should have assessed an impact
fee for the golf course based upon the acreage basis for
calculation. However, the petitioner took the bill we gave them
and paid the fee. We feel that's something that should be taken
under consideration.
Now subsequent to that, last year, in t999, the petitioner
had a desire to present to you an alternative fee calculation for
the residential construction of Vanderbilt Country Club, which is
single family, multi-family homes, and that was presented in
August of 1999 and accepted by the board, and that was based
upon the study that Mr. Cautero was referring to that was done
by Kimley-Horn, and this is the report from that.
It substantially, as far as we're concerned, complies with
the requirements of the ordinance in terms of the data that's
supposed to be used for an alternative fee calculation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what's your best argument
about why it was submitted in a timely fashion?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, let me oversimplify this
again. April 24th, permit for a structure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In '98.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: After that, there's a request,
including for the golf course, apparently, so because it was after
that permit, why is it any different?
MR. CAUTERO: Because they paid something at permit,
which the other ones that you just dispensed of did not, and
secondly, we made an error. That's why, in our opinion, we
believe it's a little bit different, and you already approved an
Page 171
September 12, 2000
alternative calculation which took the golf course into account.
We'd like you to go back, and I'm assuming he's going to ask you
to be given the opportunity to go back and look at those numbers
again.
Those are the two mitigating factors that we believe make it
different from the ones you just talked about.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, again, for the record,
Rich Yovanovich. I'm hoping to do a little better this time.
In April, we pulled our building permit for the clubhouse, and
we paid approximately -- well, we paid $35,727.03 when we
pulled our clubhouse permit. There was never, again, any
question as to the payment of fee. We paid it. Your staff believe
we paid it.
Only when you started the audit, we got the first letter
saying, oh, by the way, you may not have paid it. That was after
we had submitted our alternative impact fee calculation, which,
in fact, considers 100 percent of the impacts and assigns it to
the individual dwelling units. We counted all the trips and
accounted for all of our impacts and assigned them to the
homes. Within that number is a portion that goes to the
clubhouse.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did this client get a letter in
19987
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We got a letter this year in April, I
think, or June, the June 20 letter that says thou shall pay under
protest and then submit your study. We already had a study in a
year ago. That's different.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I get it.
Any other speakers on this?
MR. OLLIFF: You have two.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They're only -- if you're going to hear the
study today, they'll speak to it. If you're not going to hear the
study today, they are not going to speak.
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the reason that we --
another reason why we are recommending this to you today is
they still owe more money. It's not like it's a done deal, and
we're asking you to reconsider and give them a credit.
We claim they owe us $106,000 more. They want to make
the argument to you that that number would be lower based upon
Page 172
September 12, 2000
an alternative calculation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have they paid under protest?
MR. CAUTERO: They paid -- they didn't pay under protest.
They paid at the rate we assessed incorrectly in 1998.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But even assuming -- is there a
balance due?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even if we go along with their
alternate calculation?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's -- no, that's not true.
MR. CAUTERO: No, I stand corrected. There may be.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There may be.
MR. CAUTERO: There may be a balance, excuse me.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There may be. That's the big issue in
this case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why didn't they pay under
protest?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't have to. We paid our fee,
commissioners. We paid our fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why is it different from WCI who
paid their fee?
MR. CAUTERO: They paid it well after we asked them to,
and they paid what they were supposed to.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We paid up front.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They paid up front.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We paid up front.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. I'm getting it.
MR. OLLIFF: And in WCI's case, payment only comes about
when you actually apply credits to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm getting it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So, we've got two steps here.
One, we say we're going to hear it. If we do say we're going to
hear it, then we go forward and deal with it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We are prepared to go forward with it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is staff prepared to hear the
evidence?
MR. CAUTERO: We believe there's more information lacking.
If you want to hear it, fine, but we would ask that you give us a
little bit more time to have them work with us and --
Page 173
September 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm willing to hear the item, but
if we don't have all the information, I'd rather do that in two
weeks rather than hear it twice. Is that -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you want to entertain a
motion to o- does somebody want to make a motion, and we'll put
it on in two weeks?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: ! move that we hear this item in
two weeks regarding to consider an alternative road impact fee
calculation for Vanderbilt Country Club. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is two weeks enough time?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't believe what your staff wants --
we have to sit down with your staff and talk about the collection
of additional information, and I don't think that can be
accomplished in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thirty days?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Give them 30 days.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. As long as you understand that
we'll be collecting some data outside of season. So, I don't want
you to say that the data is not valid data because it's not in
season.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- that's a problem
because they're going to be counting cars off season.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Not counting cars, it's a designation
study.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly we have some
statistical analysis we can plug in there from during season.
MR. CAUTERO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Otherwise -- I mean, I don't care
if you want to go to January, but we ought to be able to plug in
some real life numbers from last year, last season.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you want to wait until January?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, I just want to -- I just don't want
another -- I don't want an argument that I still haven't given you
what you wanted as far as data collection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I offer an amendment to
the motion that we will hear this when staff brings it back to us
telling us that the file is ready instead of in two weeks or in 30
Page 174
September 12, 2000
days?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And perhaps within 30 days, you
can tell us when you think that likely will be.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll amend my second if the --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will amend my motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The motion is that we will hear
the item when staff thinks that's appropriate. They'll let us know
within 30 days when they think that's going to be.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
Item #12Cll
REVIEW HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND
COUNTRY CLUB - APPROVED~ BASED ON 77.9 ACRES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Review hearing to consider an
alternative road impact fee calculation for Naples Heritage Golf
and Country Club, 12(C)11.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Geez, thanks, George, just what I
need, a little more paper up here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Ms. Filson.
MR. TINDALL: Phil Tindall, from community development.
As we have prefaced a number of these, the factual pattern
for this particular case is considerably different than some of the
others.
This has a very rather long drawn out story. Back in 1993,
the previous owners of this facility, Shamrock Golf and Country
Club, paid an alternative road impact fee based upon a
calculation that was submitted. However, it was approved by
staff and was not presented to the board. However, they did
submit something and a fee was paid and well in advance of the
issuance of the first payment.
So, that's something that should go to their benefit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, that's similar to the
Vanderbilt situation?
MR. TINDALL: Very similar.
Page t 75
September 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, if it was paid and then it
was approved, illegally I might add, but approved, not through
any fault of theirs illegally but through staff's fault illegally, I
don't need to hear a whole lot more other than, yeah, I'll go
ahead and hear it, and if they have a right to an -- they tried to do
an alternative impact fee then, through the County's errors, they
didn't get to go through the process, I don't need to hear a long
argument.
MR. OLLIFF: And that's our recommendation to you, and
there are about four that fall under that category, and we will
consistently recommend that you hear those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make the same motion on this
as with Vanderbilt, that we hear this item for an alternate
calculation when the staff says that the petition is complete and
it's ready to be heard.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Phil, the petition is not
complete and ready to be heard today in your opinion?
MR. TINDALL: I believe they may want to present a little
more information regarding that before we --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have a question for you. Is the
petition complete?
MR. TINDALL: No. The answer to your question is no.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. We don't need to hear a
whole lot more information. If we're agreeing, yes, we'll hear it,
we just need to hear it at a future date. I don't need to hear
more today if we're not going to hear the item today.
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Chairman, with all due regard to your
long agenda and where we are, there is a -- this was done, as you
heard, through a predecessor in title who got the facility, passed
it on to our clients who then, three years later, built a golf
course. Five years later they come back and say you owe us
more. They're out of that development. We really don't want to
go back and go through this alternate impact fee calculation. We
will if that's our only recourse.
We had, when this came up, submitted to staff a revision, if
you would, to the number of acres that they had calculated what
we owed on. They went to our PUD master plan, which is what I
would have done not knowing anything else, and said the golf
course was X acres, I think 103 acres.
If you remember, we went through the Naples Heritage PUD
Page 176
September 12, 2000
in '95 or revised it because of the red-cockaded woodpecker
issue. We have a lot of areas that we wanted to either
selectively clear or selectively clear with fill because we thought
we could still maintain the main trees that they used for their
purposes and yet have it as part of the golf course. That -- those
were denied when we did our Corps of Engineers' permit. We
have an affidavit from the engineer based on what the playable
acreage of the golf course is, 77.8.
We have a check which we were willing to give your staff for
some time based on that acreage. That acreage was reviewed
by Tom Kuck in your engineering department and Phil Tindall and
was approved at the staff level, but they were then advised it
had to be approved at the board level, and I'd really like to bring
this to closure today if we can, and that's where we are at.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I
understood. I asked you once before, and you said the answer is
no. Do you think you have complete information on which to do
this today?
MR. TINDALL: My mistake, and I apologize. I thought the
question that was asked was are they prepared to present an
alternative fee calculation. This is really not an alternative fee
calculation. It has more to do with the clarification of the
correct number of acreage to assess the straight fee from the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because used to, we collected
these fees based on acreage instead of holes?
MR. TINDALL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is this that challenging of a
question? Are we ready to go forward with this item today or not,
yes or no; staff, not George Varnadoe? Is staff prepared to go
forward on this item today?
MR. TINDALL: With this item as presented by Mr. Varnadoe,
yes, we are.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Varnadoe, go ahead.
MR. VARNADOE: I think you -- we don't have much else to
say, sir. We have -- you've got in front of you, we have the record
and an affidavit from Bill McAnly who did a take-off of the golf
course. We have a pictorial representation here of what the golf
Page 177
September 12, 2000
holes are, the maintenance facility, the clubhouse and cart paths
and such.
I think the question is just that the -- I think through an
interpretation of your county attorney with the clerk's office,
they felt this should come to the board rather than staff
approving the acreage, it ought to come to the board for an
approval of the acreage of the golf course, but I think you've
heard from your staff, at least from the staff level, they accept
our acreage, and we have a check for you here today if it's
acceptable.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Is that right?
MR. TINDALL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is, do we have a
survey or some other information that confirms that the golf
course acreage is 77.9 acres?
MR. CAUTERO: We have a survey in the permit file. Phil is
checking that out right now to determine if we concur with that,
but there is information in the permit file, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'm curious about this --
the difference between the yellow and the white on this map.
MR. VARNADOE: Pam Mac'Kie, if I can, this is a '97 aerial,
so this is built out now. The white areas are development tracts.
What we've done -- and it doesn't show through as good as it
would a colored aerial, but what we've done is try to -- you can
see here you've got the tee area. We've got --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, in the yellow is the golf
course area? In the white are residential tracts?
MR. VARNADOE: Those are residential tracts. You can see
where the buildings are in this one. You can see the buildings up
in this one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And none of the water retention
areas, none of anything except the actual green space itself is
considered golf course?
MR. VARNADOE: That's right. The water management -- the
lakes are not in there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No wooded area, no preserve
area, no--
Page 178
September 12, 2000
MR. VARNADOE: No preserve because the preserve was
never in the golf course because this is actual conservation area.
This may be a little different, but no, it's the tees, the greens,
the fairways, the roughs, the cart paths, the clubhouse,
clubhouse parking, maintenance facility, tee area for the driving
range.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On your PUD master plan as it
exists today, not as it was approved for Shamrock, does it have
an acreage for golf course?
MR. ¥ARNADOE: There is no PUD master plan today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the PUD document, is there?
MR. VARNADOE: The PUD document said there would be
103 acres for a golf course. That was later refined through the
$DP to about 86 acres, and then we went through our permitting
process, and it came down to the 77.9, but that's quite --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See here's --
MR. VARNADOE: Let me go ahead and finish. Now, that's
just me coming up here and getting approval for development for
a thousand units. I don't pay impacts for a thousand units
because you approve them. I pay impacts for the number of
units built.
As you know, several of our projects, we don't ever build
out. The same with the golf course, I tell you I'm going to take a
maximum acreage of X and turn it into golf course, and when I go
through the permitting process, that oftentimes shrinks, and we
have more preserve and less golf course.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, my question for staff, Mr.
Tindall, is this. Let's just for a second talk about present day.
Present day -- well, no, it's number of holes, so that won't work.
Let's talk about when we were looking at the ordinance per
acre. When they came in front of the county commission, this
hypothetical developer, they said we're going to have a hundred
acres of golf course but when -- but that isn't when they pay their
impact fee. They paid their impact fee at the PW something --
MR. TINDALL: Preliminary work authorization --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That.
MR. TINDALL: -- is what that stands for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The PWA or the SDP, would --
when calculating the impact fee at that point in time, would you
have looked at what the PUD said about a hundred acres for golf
Page 179
September t2, 2000
course or would you have looked at the SDP that had the actual
golf course development?
MR. TINDALL: We would have looked at the PUD, whatever
the applicable development order was -- but let me finish
because this is important. We would have looked at that. We
would have said, what we show is 103.5 acres.
Now, had things been done the way they were supposed to
have been at that time, I'm sure the developer would have said,
well, wait a minute, that has changed and we'll show you
documentation proving that.
Now, that is not what was done and is what should have
been done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's -- but assuming then
that they said, no, no, here's our SDP -- because they are not
going to show you an as built golf course. They're giving you an
application for a golf course. It's an SDP application.
MR. TINDALL: And I'm sure -- well, that was not, as best as I
can tell, documented in the SDP separately. Perhaps Mr.
Varnadoe knows. ! don't recall that being something that was
separately broken out in the site development plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my question is, at the time
when you were assessing the impact fee, would you have said,
you owe us based on t03 acres in the PUD, and you said yes, but
yOU'Ve also --
MR. TINDALL: But that was the only records we had, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, but you've also said that
they would have taken their SDP drawing and said yes, but here's
our engineer who says it's actually 94 acres or whatever it turns
out to be.
MR. VARNADOE: At that time, Commissioner Mac'Kie --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If in fact it was 94 acres or
whatever it showed on the survey, would you have assessed
them based on t03 or would you have assess them based on 94
in my scenario?
MR. TINDALL: I would say the 94.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then -- then he wins. Then we
assess them based on 94 or 77.9.
MR. VARNADOE: The only question on the table is, before
we would have done any work, we would have gone in with our
preliminary work authorization for the golf course, we would
Page t80
September 12, 2000
have had our permits in hand. At that time we would have
known, and that's the time when you would know what your
acreage is exactly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to approve the
impact fee payment for this golf course based on 77.9 acres.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the
motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Does that translate to $82,884?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. It translates to about 58~000 and
some odd --
MR. TINDALL: Unless I made a math error, it's $55,594.40.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I like Mr. Varnadoe's number
better. We'll take the fifty-eight.
We have a motion. Do we have a second for the motion?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- is there a controversy about
this? Where did the 82,000 come from?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It came out of my packet here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what the standard fee
would be, but now we're saying we're looking at the actual
acreage.
MR. TINDALL: Right, the standard fee less the amount that
was paid back in 1993.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Standard fee less the amount
paid, yeah, that's fair. That's what I intend.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And recognizing that a lesser
number of acreage was used than was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The actual acreage was 77.9,
and they were in the process, not like the others.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries five-oh.
MR. VARNADOE: Let the record reflect I'm tendering a
check.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Get that on camera.
Item #12C12
Page
September 12, 2000
RESOLTUION 2000-295 RE PETITION CCSL-93-3, NB HOTEL
LIMITED, REPRESENTING THE LAPLAYA RESORT BEACH
CONCESSION, REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION
SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
SHOWER/DECK, CABANA STORAGE BOXES,
WAVERUNNERS/SAILBOAT/KAYAKSCHAIRS STORAGE AREA AND
VOLLEYBALL NET POSTS AT THE LA PLAYA RESORT HOTEL AT
LOTS 25 THROUGH 30 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK A, UNIT 1, CONNORS
VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES - ADOPTED
12(C} something, 12(C}12 was 17(D), the coastal
construction setback line for La Playa. I believe these two, next
two are actually related, 12(D) -- I'm sorry, 17(D} and 17(E) are
now 12(C)t2 and 12(C}13.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In lack of patience, I'm going to
ask a question, aren't these the same petitions that came with
the conditional use petition but there was some technical reason
why they couldn't be heard at the time? MS. BURGESON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, I mean, we've already
discussed these. We've already approved them. I mean, we've
already indicated our desire to approve them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why are they off the summary
agenda? Was it your request?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, yes, it is my request.
Shall I?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Please.
Dr. Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The reason I asked that this be
pulled off the summary is because I am concerned about the
coastal construction setback line, and as I view this, there are a
number of items that are going to be encroaching out on to the
beach, and I am very concerned about the beaches in this
community.
I've -- I specifically am concerned about structures that are
going to be placed out in the beach area that will be possibly
impacted by storms and could create damage as a result of that.
I'm not sure what these do with respect to any kind of
environmental issues such as turtle nesting and issues around
Page t82
September 12, 2000
turtle nesting, and I have asked that some information be given
to me with regard to -- with regard to issues of this sort, and
there is -- there is an issue here that has to do with the high
water mark, and I'll read something from the Collier County land
development code.
It says if -- and this has to do with variances. If in the
immediate contiguous or adjacent area a number of existing
structures have established a reasonably contiguous and uniform
construction line closer to the line of mean water -- mean high
water than the line as herein established and if said existing
structures have not been duly affected by erosion -- unduly
affected by erosion, a proposed structure may be permitted
along such a line if such proposed structures are also approved
by the Board of County Commissioners.
The Board of County Commissioners may authorize the
construction of piers extending out from the shoreline unless it
determines that the construction of such projects would cause
erosion to the beach, et cetera, et cetera, but my major concern
has to do with the encroachment into the beach community and
what it does to that ambiance to the beach community and the
availability of the general public to be able to utilize that beach
in an unencumbered fashion. That's my concern.
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Chairman, I know it's not our turn --
George Varnadoe, for the record, representing La Playa. You can
talk to staff about the concern, but maybe I can clear this up.
Mr.--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need to swear everybody
who's going to participate in this hearing in. I'm sorry, my
mistake.
Anybody who intends, either from the public or
representative of the property, to speak, please stand and be
sworn,
(The speakers were sworn).
MR. VARNADOE: I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Do we have to disclose?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. VARNADOE: This isn't -- I'm not trying to go out of order
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I've not talked to anyone on this
subject.
Page 183
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have talked with the petitioner
on this subject when it was brought forward to us before.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Excuse me, I have to modify. I
did talk to the county attorney on this issue.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I spoke to the petitioner on the
original petition, not this time around.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, ! don't know that I had
specifics on the coastal construction setback line.
Mr. Varnadoe, I'm sorry for the interruption.
MR. VARNADOE: No problem, my fault.
What I want to do is try to shortcut this. I know you have a
long agenda. If we want to go into a full hearing, I'm certainly
willing to do that, but in this instance, Dr. Srandt, the facilities
that are going to be seaward of the coastal control setback line
are replacement structures. This is a refurbishing of this
development, and all of those structures will be -- are no further
seaward than the existing structures. We are replacing the pool.
We're putting a second floor balcony on one of the main
buildings on the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: George, can you use the
hand-held microphone right beside you?
MR. VARNADOE: Tom, give me a hand here, if you will?
This is the existing La Playa structures here. There's a
slight movement of the pool. We're putting a second floor deck
over the existing deck here. So, we are not going any further
seaward than what had already been approved by the state and
by this county commission back in '94 through the granting of a
variance, and this is really a very technical variance, if you
would, sir, and I hope that will alleviate your concern.
If we need to go into a hearing, I will be glad to do that, but I
thought maybe I could shortcut your concerns with that
disclosure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're saying we're not going
out any further than anything that exists right now? MR. VARNADOE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It would have been helpful if that
information had been presented in here.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, and I tried to tell you before we
started, and you didn't want to talk to me.
Page t84
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Being consistent with my
position of not talking to petitioners prior to a meeting, I said no.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, you did.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But, but, that still doesn't obviate
the possibility that it could have been put in here.
MS. BURGESON: For the record, if I might, Barbara
Burgeson with planning services.
In the executive summaries and in the resolutions for the
CCSL variances, it does explain in considerations the proposed
improvements will extend no further --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Would you speak up, please?
MS. BURGESON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm having trouble hearing you.
MS. BURGESON: It does state in the CCSL variances and
the resolutions and in the executive summaries that these
proposed improvements will extend no further out than what was
previously approved and constructed on the property, and that is
the means by which staff has the ability to even recommend
approval of CCSL variances.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. Thank you.
That does it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unless there are other
objections, we'll close the public hearing.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for acceptance.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
MR. VARNADOE: I think there are two separate items.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This would be 12(C}12.
A motion and a second to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: If it applies in the same manner,
then I would move to approve 12(C}13.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll handle them one at a time.
12(C)12, we had a motion and a second.
All those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response}.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Carries five-oh.
Item #t2C13
Page t85
September t2, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-296 RE PETITION CCSL-2000-2, BRETT D.
MOORE OF HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS REPRESENTING
THE HALSTATT PARTNERHSIP AND WESTGROUP LA PLAYA,
LLC~ REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL,
COVERED WALKWAY, FITNESS FACILITY, TIKI BAR AND GRILL,
SECOND FLOOR BALCONY AND OTHER ASSOCIATED
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LA PLAYA RESORT HOTEL AT LOTS 25
THROUGH 30 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK A, UNIT 1, CONNORS
VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES - ADOPTED
Dr. Brandt, t2(C)13.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll make a motion, as long as the
same thing applies, that 12(C}13 also is approved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a second. All those in
favor, please state aye, and please, that motion was taken after
we closed the public hearing on 12(C}t3 as well.
Item #13At
RESOLUTION 2000-297 RE PETITION V-98-1, A. KURT ARDAMAN,
REPRESENTING ABC LIQUORS, INC., REQUESTING A 15 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER
STRIP TO ZERO FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, LOT 36~ NAPLES GROVE AND
TRUCK COMPANY'S NO. 2. - ADOPTED
That takes us to advertised public hearings. Petition V-98-1,
ABC Liquors requesting a t5 foot variance.
Mr. Bellows.
Anybody who's going to participate in this hearing, if you'll
be so kind as to stand and be sworn. (The speakers were sworn}.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, planning
services staff.
The petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the
required buffer from 15 feet to zero feet. This variance request is
as a result of Florida Department of Transportation acquisition of
2,748 square feet of land area fronting along Tamiami Trail. It's
Page 186
September 12, 2000
about 20 foot along the road frontage. The FDOT has agreed to
support this variance request as part of a mediated settlement
agreement with the applicant.
As you may recall, some of the commissioners, this petition
was first presented to the Board of County Commissioners on
April 28th, 1998. Staff had made a recommendation that since
the right-of-way taking of the landscape buffer, no provisions
within the land development code which results in a
non-conforming landscape buffer would require that buffer to be
placed back unless the applicant remodeled, expanded or
intensified the use. So, therefore, staff had recommended denial
of the variance request.
The Collier County Planning Commission recommended
approval subject to the fact that if the applicant expanded or
intensified the use, then they would have to provide the
landscape buffer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Tindall, can I ask you a
question? What you're telling us is that presently they have no
obligation to correct the landscaping? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we will give them a
variance, they will correct the landscaping? They'll correct it to
the degree of the variance?
MR. BELLOWS: No. What happened was, during the board
meeting, they wanted to have that variance approved as part of
their mitigated settlement agreement and also they had
concerns that certain type of remodeling may require the
placement of the landscape buffer, and they wanted not to lose
any more parking spaces. So, that's the reason they wanted the
requirement of-- the variance.
The other issue that arose was that this subject site is
within the Bayshore redevelopment triangle area, and that the
applicant had worked with our current comprehensive planning
staff as they prepared those plans to see if anything arose in
those plans that could be incorporated in this to make the site
more pleasing.
What the applicant has done is resubmitted a landscape
plan, and I'll put it up on the visualizer, where the requirement for
the landscape buffer has been relocated to other parts of the site
along the sides, the north and a little bit more beefed up along
Page 187
September 12, 2000
the frontage. It does not meet the requirement of the t5 foot
landscape buffer, but they've relocated the trees and buffering
that would have been in that buffer along other parts of the site
to improve the aesthetics of the site as -- in an incentive to get
board's approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask you then, the net
bottom line is, we're getting the same amount of green space,
it's going to be configured differently?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, but not along the roadway.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And this only applies as long as,
(A) they own the property or they expand the property, they have
to resort back to the original plan?
MR. BELLOWS: It applies -- variances run with the land, not
with the owner, unless stipulated otherwise, and if they intensify
the site, then we are requesting that the variance not be applied
to redevelopment of sites since this is a conforming site still.
Even with the taking of right-of-way, it's still a conforming site.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Mr. Bellows, why would we
want to give them a variance and what are we getting here that
we otherwise don't get?
MR. BELLOWS: They are not required to place the
landscape buffer back in. They are not required -- unless they
expand the use of the building.
Now, if we grant the variance without any stipulation, even
if they expand the building, they do not have to place landscape
buffering.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, that's like off the table as far
as I'm concerned. I mean, if we grant it, it's with the stipulation
that upon expansion or change --
MR. BELLOWS: And during that meeting back in '98, we
suggested that the applicant prepare an alternative landscape
plan that would make -- allow the transference of some of this
landscape requirement to other parts of the site and improve the
aesthetics, that we would grant the variance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm probably just tired and,
therefore, dull, but I don't understand this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I. et's hear from the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I want to ask a question. If
they don't have any obligation to install landscaping because
they're currently in compliance, why are they here at all?
Page 188
September 12, 2000
MR. BELLOWS: That's a question best answered by the
applicant.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I have a question, if I may.
MR. ARDAMAN: If I might, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure. Let's just hold the
questions until we hear -- give them a chance and maybe they
can answer some of them before we ask them.
MR. ARDAMAN: And you're right, you're not tired, it is a little
subtle. My name is Kurt Ardaman. I'm with the Fishback law
firm, 170 East Washington Street, Orlando, Florida. I have the
privilege of representing ABC Fine Wine & Spirits today.
You may remember, we were doing this two years ago.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, in fact, one of the reasons that we came
back is at your suggestion to do this landscaping plan, and we've
spent a lot of time coming up with something. We didn't think it
was going to take this long, but it has.
Just briefly so the entire commission can understand the
factual background, as the planner has stated, the reason we're
here is part of a resolution of a condemnation case by the
Department of Transportation where they took 20 feet across the
front of the property along Tamiami Trail. What happened is we
lost a number of parking spaces.
If the landscaping buffer has to be replaced, a t5 foot wide
landscaping buffer, we will lose an additional five parking
spaces. The loss of those parking spaces causes not only a
severance damage or a damage to the remaining land and
improvements, but also a business damage, and in our
condemnation case, it was a very substantial amount. The
packet you have does not total all the numbers up, but it now is
in excess of half a million dollars.
So, for a lot less money, we found a way to get this -- solve
the problem. Part of the resolution involves coming back to you
for this variance which you say, why do we need it. The reason
is because there are some things that your code does not
address where we may not or we may actually trigger the -- or go
outside the non-conforming part of your code, and for those
matters and only those matters is why we need to make sure
that this variance is approved that would allow ABC the right to
re-roof, the right to do internal changes to their building, the right
to do things that do not increase the size of the building, that do
Page 189
September t2, 2000
not bring new uses onto the property, but basically allow the site
to remain as is.
Now, what we did and what the planning commission had
recommended to this board was that the variance be granted
with two conditions. Those two conditions would be, number
one, that the variance not apply if the building was expanded, or
number two, if the site was redeveloped with new uses, that the
variance not apply. I would suggest a third condition to comply
and meet the intent, I believe, of Commissioner Mac'Kie's
comments two years ago, and that is a condition that says to be
able to utilize this variance, that the landscape plan that's been
submitted and reviewed by staff for the entire site must, in fact,
be implemented and in place.
I think that really solves all of our legal or technical legal
concerns with the condemnation settlement. It also gives the
county commission, I believe, all of the protection that it needs
because ABC would not be able to do anything more than what it
can do now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that, and my other question
is, what are the improvements to the facade that are planned or
are there any?
MR. ARDAMAN: ABC statewide is doing a lot of upgrades to
all of its stores. The time schedule for this, Commissioner, I
don't know, but if -- I should have brought some pictures of some
of the upgrades, but it's typically a cleaner look for the stores.
They are typically much more attractive. I don't know if you've
seen any of the revitalized stores, and I'm sorry I didn't bring any,
but that's not currently on -- that's not currently a plan that they
have today or to do tomorrow.
This is to get the case resolved, and if they do come in to do
something more, they would have to, of course, meet the first
two conditions and, hopefully, with your blessing, this third
condition would keep the -- would add the landscaping provisions
that would not otherwise apply across the entire site.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we have a picture or is that
the one that's on the visualizer of his --
MR. ARDAMAN: I've got a bigger one, Commissioner. I think
it's the same thing, but mine is not in color.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a, forgive me, but a very ugly
building that we would like to see improved as a part of the
Page 190
September 12, 2000
Bayshore redevelopment. I would like to tie this variance to an
improvement in the facade.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Why not?
MR. ARDAMAN: I wish I had known that two years ago,
Commissioner.
This -- I mean, ABC is doing everything it can to upgrade its
business, and they've done a very great job.
The type of product that they sell now, it's more fine wines,
gourmet coffees and cheeses. The stores are being upgraded.
I'm sorry, I don't have the time schedule for this one. I did not
even talk to the corporate headquarters and the folks at ABC
about the time frame.
To tie though the variance approval to an upgrade of the
entire facade of the store, I mean, it may happen at the same
time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about if we made it a
condition that it happened within a year of the completion of the
landscape improvements?
MR. ARDAMAN: That the upgrade of the store occur within
one year of the landscaping occurring?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. ARDAMAN: But there would not be a required time limit
on the landscaping improvements, correct?
It would have to happen -- when they happen, they have to
happen within a year of each other?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. ARDAMAN: But we don't have to do the landscaping at
any particular time?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's, I guess, what I'm asking.
MR. ARDAMAN: I think that would be fine.
And that would incorporate our
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
new sign ordinance?
MR. ARDAMAN: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
new sign ordinance?
That would also incorporate our
MR. ARDAMAN: I think if they do an upgrade, they are going
to have to meet the requirements of the code to that extent, so
the new sign ordinance that's in effect would necessarily apply.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Olliff, you were going to give
me some advice on this.
Page 191
September 12, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: I just wanted to clarify, with the variance, it
would still be tied to the landscaping improvements. So, you're
sort of hooking all three together.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is my intention.
MR. ARDAMAN: Right. The suggested -- it would be three
conditions to the approval of the variance. One, or the first two
as recommended by the planning commission, and the third
would be -- the third condition would be to be able to utilize the
variance, that this landscape plan must be implemented, and I
guess then in addition to that, and within a year thereof, the
building facade must be upgraded.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you'll close the public hearing,
I'll make a motion to that effect.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other speakers on this?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries five-oh. Thank
you.
MR. ARDAMAN: Thank you all very much.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #13A2
PETITION V-2000-14, KIRK SANDERS REQUESTING A 2.3-FOOT
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10-FOOT
REAR YARD SETBACK ESTABLISHED FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES TO 7.7 FEET FOR A STORAGE BUILDING FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1130 SPERLING AVENUE AND IS
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, BLOCK "B", SPERLING'S
SUBDIVISION - DENIED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 13(A)2, Petition V-2000-14, Kirk
Sanders requesting a 2.3 foot after-the-fact variance.
All those who are going to participate in this, please stand
Page t92
September t2, 2000
and be sworn.
(The speakers were sworn).
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners.
Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. I believe the applicant is not here.
The applicant is requesting a 2.3 foot after-the-fact variance
from the required ten foot rear yard setback established for
accessory structures such as a storage building.
Mr. Sanders purchased this building in 1999 which contained
a house -- the site contained a house and a storage building. He
turned the storage building into a rental place, and a neighbor
complained.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I make a motion to continue
this or table it until the petitioner is present?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Actually, it's their responsibility
to be here, so let's hear the item, and if they don't care enough to
show, then we'll get one side of the story.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically, after that, what happened,
somebody complained. Our investigator noticed a setback
violation also. That's what he asking a variance, to remove that
violation.
He also has to remove all the facilities inside to make it into
a storage building, and basically, this is the storage building with
the setback problems.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Was the structure there when
he purchased the property?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The structure was there. It looks like
an older structure. We couldn't find the building permit for it, but
the building was built in the 1960s, and we didn't have good
record keeping at that time, so we don't know if a permit was
ever issued for it or not.
The planning commission -- the planning commissioners
reviewed this petition, and by a vote of four to one,
recommended approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you go, Mr. Chairman, to page --
our Page 15 and you read the last sentence, it states that the
reason he wants to maintain this is because he needs a garage
and/or a storage shed for the property. Well, if that's the case,
why did he take that and turn around and rent it out? That's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Conflicting?
Page t93
September t2, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- conflicting points here to me.
I'm not comfortable with this at all.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Sanders doesn't live here. He
owns several other rental properties.
Basically, he tried to maximize his rental income.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what I'll do. That's
very distasteful. The only part is if the structure was already
there and has been since the '60s, I hesitate then to say, okay,
we are going to yank it away if it's actually being used as a
storage shed now, and I guess that's where the rub is.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, it would probably still be
rented out unless there was a complaint, and that's what
triggered all of this, and now he's saying he'll remove some of
this, but he still wants to keep the one building because he
needs the storage shed and the garage, and I'm back to the
statement that it's in conflict with what he's asking for versus
what's in place.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No petitioner here?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No speakers?
We'll close the public hearing.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for denial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second to deny.
All those in favor of denial, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those opposed?
Aye.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 2000-298 RE PETITION V-2000-16, SUNCOAST
CUSTOM POOLS, REPRESENTING TAYLOR WOODROW
COMMUNITIES, REQUESTING A 2.2-FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK
TO 7.8 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1772 WINDING OAKS
Page 194
September t 2, 2000
WAY, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 202, STONEBRIDGE UNIT 4 -
ADOPTED W/CONDITIONS
That takes us to 13(A)3, Petition V-2000-16, Suncoast
Custom Pools.
Anybody who's going to participate in this, please stand and
be sworn.
(The speakers were sworn).
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, commissioners; Fred
Reischl, planning services.
This is a request for a 2.2 foot after-the-fact variance in the
Stonebridge PUD. As you can see on the visualizer, the location
of the PUD, southwest corner of Immokalee and Airport, and the
location of the home, which is important to the discussion, you
see the configuration of it, and on a blow-up, you see the
surrounding houses in blue, the subject house in yellow.
The encroachment is as a result of a construction error.
According to the petitioner, what happened was because the
three existing homes were there, after the subject house was
built, there would be no way to bring equipment around with the
five foot side yard of the existing homes, to bring the equipment
around to dig the pool. Therefore, the pool had to be dug prior to
the siting of the house.
The petitioner, apparently, relied on the staking by the
builder and dug the pool, and the error was discovered at the
spot survey.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the house had been properly
staked~ would the pool have encroached? I mean, if the -- MR. REISCHL: I believe that's the conjecture of the
petitioner.
I did receive a letter of objection from -- which you have in
your packet from the petitioner up here. The letter was read at
the planning commission hearing, and the planning commission
discussed it in depth and added the condition for the six foot
high landscaped buffer at the rear of the subject lot.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have some questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I hate to do this, but I'm going to
go to the TV again. I hate to keep doing this, but as I indicated,
I'm a visual person.
Page 195
September 12, 2000
Do we have a requirement on setback from the back
property line to the house, for example? MR. REISCHL: Yes~ we do.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Does this house meet that
criteria?
MR. REISCHL: For the principal structure of the house, yes.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: For the principal structure, and
so the problem then is simply that they built a pool in here
somewhere and didn't stake this out properly, and now they're
asking us for this little over two feet?
MR. REISCHL.' Two point two.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But for sure, they meet this
criteria; for sure?
MR. REISCHL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Petitioners want to make a
presentation. Maybe we can avoid some questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
MR. REISCHL: Also, just let me finish up, as the planning
commission heard and I think influenced their decision a lot was
-- on their vote in favor of this was that the petitioner has not had
any variances in their corporate history, and that was a big
factor in the planning commission vote.
MR. PISCIOTTA: Good afternoon, Bill Pisciotta, owner of
Suncoast Custom Pools.
Not much to add to that. Again, the hub and tack was set
out for us, and we didn't find out until the screen survey at the
end of the project that it was two feet into the encroachment.
No drainage problems back here, and most of the folks we
surveyed were fine with this. The one that wasn't, we were
going to add the landscaping.
So, at this point I'm not sure if there's any better reason to
ask for a variance than -- I don't know what else we could do.
There's no way to take it out and move it two feet. The pool is
actually right on the edge of the setback, unfortunately, and in
18 years, this has never happened before. So, we would say one
time, one time only.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for the petitioner?
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can I ask you a question?
Page 196
September 12, 2000
MR. PISCIOTTA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Or Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can't remember who built the
pool at our house. It's 720 Turkey Oak, did your company build
that pool?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ask him if he likes it first.
MR. PISCIOTTA: Do you like that pool?
No, I'm just being facetious.
I'm not sure. We've built thousands over the last 18 years.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, this would have been in the
last three or four months.
MR. PISCIOTTA: Well, mostly for builders, so we are building
for contractors.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You probably didn't, but I was
trying to find out for sure because I'd have to recuse myself from
this if you did.
MR. PISCIOTTA: I don't think so. I'm not familiar with the
area.
Would it have been for a contractor or personally?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It would have been personally,
and it would have been on an existing property.
MR. PISCIOTTA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MR. PISCIOTTA: I'm pretty sure we didn't.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Just a general question as it
applies to after-the-fact requests, and I've run into a lot of
after-the-fact requests over time, and I get disturbed by them
because nobody pays a penalty for it other than the people
around wherever this after-the-fact variance is given, and nobody
gets a smack on the hand, nobody gets a fine~ nobody gets
anything other than an approval of a variance 99 percent of the
time, and so I get concerned about that because --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They do have to pay double fee
on the variance, don't they?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. REISCHL.' That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How much is it?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But that's insignificant.
Page 197
September t2, 2000
MR. PISCIOTTA: We paid an $800 variance fee to come in,
and plus, there would be the landscaping, which will be
determined between us, and the in-house landscaper for the
project is going to work with the people across the way that
have an objection. Whatever they agree to, we'll put up for them.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So, in this instance, there is a
penalty to be paid?
MR. PISCIOTTA: There is a penalty, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. Well, I still have that
concern when people come in and ask for an after-the-fact
something or other because oftentimes those after-the-fact
things were really done deliberately, and I get upset about that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to understand. You added
a fact that was new to me there at the end that the pool is
physically on the edge of the enclosure? I mean, is there six
inches? Is there nothing?
MR. PISCIOTTA: No, ma'am. As it turns out, the shell of the
pool is right at the back of that two foot area. Otherwise --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can't walk around inside that
pool cage?
MR. PISCIOTTA: You can. That's the part that -- you would
have to remove that and part of the shell to alleviate the two
feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's -- you're telling me two
different things, and we've got to be real sure we're straight with
each other here, because if you're not telling the whole story -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're not pool people. What
does shell mean?
MR, PISCIOTTA: The concrete structure itself, not the pool
deck behind which is superficial, and sometimes when we're in
the setback, we can actually move the screen, cut the deck a
little bit and save ourselves. Here, you have to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can't do that here?
MR. PISCIOTTA: No, ma'am. You can't go into the actual
structure of the concrete. It just doesn't happen. You would
have to remove the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then my second question
is, have we heard from the neighbors who objected? Are they
Page t98
September 12, 2000
happy if they get their landscaping?
MR. REISCHL: I talked to her after the planning commission
meeting. I explained about the landscaping. She --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is not here?
MR. REISCHL: -- is not here, correct.
MR. PISCIOTTA: We're going to do it anyway for her. I
mean, we're going to put the landscape buffer up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'd make it a condition --
MR. PISCIOTTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to approve that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll regretfully make a motion to
approve. It's not a perfect world, and mistakes are made.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: With the conditions as
established by the planning council, is that also --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, absolutely. I'm sorry I didn't
say that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second.
All those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. PISCIOTTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Motion carries five-oh.
Hope it was worth a day.
Item #13A4
PETITION SV-2000-02, MARLO LAMENDOLA, ARCHITECT,
REPRESENTING HENRY AND MARIANNE FILKOSKI REQUESTING
A 40-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 150-FOOT ROAD
FRONTAGE FOR A POLE SIGN TO 110 FEET FOR A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1301 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 650
FEET NORTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD INTERSECTION ON THE
EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD.- DENIED
Page 199
September 12, 2000
Petition SV-2000-02, Mario Lamendola, and anybody who's
going to participate in this, once again, we need you to stand and
be sworn.
(The speakers were sworn}.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning
services staff.
Mr. Mario Lamendola representing Filkoski is requesting a
40 foot variance from the required 150 foot road frontage for a
pole sign to 110 feet. This is to place a pole sign along this
property which is located at 1301 Airport Road South, and it is
half a -- quarter mile south of -- north of Davis Boulevard
approximately, and, basically, they have 110 feet. They used to
have a pole sign, which they removed it, and the pole structure is
there, but the sign is gone. Now, the new owners, they want to
install a sign.
At the public hearing, at the planning commission public
hearing, the neighbor to the north objected to this location,
saying that people may mistake his parking for this gentleman's
parking, and they are pulling in and using his parking.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is this business right now?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right now, it's vacant. It's going to be
like a mechanic shop or something.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just trying to picture the site.
MR. LAMENDOLA: It's the old MAACO paint building.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the record, you are?
MR. LAMENDOLA: I'm Mario Lamendola.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Next to Universal Transmission.
MR. LAMENDOLA: Yes.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Staff recommended denial of this
petition for the Board of County Commissioners because we, in
the past, had several such requests for lots not meeting the
minimum frontage requirement. This time the planning
commission recommended approval. However, they
recommended an eight foot height sign with 60 square feet in
area located on the south side of the property, on this side of the
post, this side where the pole is.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I concur with the planning
commission's recommendation. The only thing I would also like
in this, if it's approved by this board, is removal of the pole on
Page 200
September 12, 2000
that property.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Either way -- sorry, Commissioner.
Either way, the pole must be removed. Our code says once you
remove the sign, you have to remove the pole.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fine. I just wanted to make sure
it comes down. There's no way that I'll approve another pole
sign in this county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But why should we approve a
variance on this at all? Why not make them comply with the sign
ordinance?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, let's go to the petitioner,
because I'll tell you what, I'm wrapping up eight years on here, I
don't know that we have ever approved a variance lessening the
150, and we've certainly had a number of them before us.
MR. LAMENDOI. A.' First of all, this building is closer than the
quarter -- I mean, quarter mile. It's about 630 feet from Davis
Boulevard, and it's set back maybe 20 feet from the buildings to
the south, and coming upon this building, and I timed it from -- if
you're going 35 miles an hour down Airport Road, it would take
you 12 seconds to get there. People who are not knowing the
location of this building, and the gentleman to the north that is
concerned, in the past has had people turning into his driveway
or slowing down and then getting hit from the back end because
the building was not seen from Airport Road coming from the
south.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One of the criteria here, just to
help you along, one of the criteria here is hardship, if there is
some sort of unusual part of the property. That does not include,
however, financial hardship. I mean, if it's (B), it's tough to have
customers see it, that doesn't meet muster.
MR. LAMENDOLA: Well, I understand that, and I also -- the
way I convinced the coastal planning commission was that this
was a life safety issue. People were getting rear-ended out in
the street, stopping suddenly to turn into this facility.
By moving it, it would no longer be a pole sign. We are not
asking for a pole sign. This would be a ground sign on the south
end of the property, which would give folks some warning that
the business they are going to is there and have time to slow
down and turn into the driveway.
I also think it would help the neighbor to the north because
Page 201
September 12, 2000
if we deny this, people are still going to come by there, see the
building sign and try to stop quickly and turn in and very possibly
get hit or they are going to turn into the neighbor to the north.
So, that was --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
MR. LAMENDOLA.' Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That was me. I'm sorry.
Speaker is behind your head.
MR. LAMENDOLA: Yeah, I do that a lot. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The staff has made a
recommendation to us that this be denied, I'd like to find out
why.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: In the past, we had several such
variances. Not long ago, maybe two or four months ago, we had
another one for a parcel in North Naples, and that lady had t20
foot of road frontage.
Basically the answer is, when you are buying a building
where you have a lot on the side, you must take into account
that you cannot have a pole sign. If we allowed pole signs for
smaller lots, then we'll have much more pole signs than we have
today. That will create sign pollution or whatever you want to
call it, and, basically, that's our criteria, that you have that t50
foot.
MR. LAMENDOLA: And I might add to that that we are -- we
no longer are asking for the pole sign. The pole sign and the pole
would go.
We are asking for the ground sign, which I guess can be 64
square feet~ on the other side of the property to alleviate the
problem of the possible accidents.
Also, at the same time, we are in the process of planning,
doing building plans to bring the building up to conform to the
new architectural ordinances and to provide the proper
landscaping in accordance with the latest ordinances.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing
unless there are any other public speakers. MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There are none. We'll close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion to
Page 202
September 12, 2000
de. ny because it's the whole basis for behind our sign code. If
this property justifies an exception, then every similarly situated
property will, and there are many, so I move to deny.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second on
denial.
All those in favor of denial, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion is denied five-oh.
Thanks, Mario.
Item #13A5
RESOLUTION 2000-299 RE PETITION CU-2000-06 DAVID W.
RYNDERS, REPRESENTING JAMES K. KEISER, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "14" OF THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT FOR A
CLOTHING OPTIONAL SOCIAL CLUB PER SECTION 2.2.2.3 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1311 PET RANCH ROAD - ADOPTED
W/CONDITIONS - 5/0
Item 13(A)5, Dave Rynders representing Jim Keiser,
conditional use, and what we're going to try to do is keep this on
-- if you remember when we closed it last time, the only question
really had been were neighbors notified of the nature of the use.
They have since been notified of the nature of the use.
Ms. Murray, have we had any objection since that time?
I'm sorry, we need to swear everybody in again even though
this is a continuation. Anybody who's going to speak on this
item, please stand to be sworn.
(The speakers were sworn).
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, current planning. To answer
your question --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Excuse me, I also have to expose
that I met with the petitioner --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have no disclosure. Oh, yes, I'm
sorry, I take that back. I met with the petitioner and his
representative. We discussed the general nature of the notice.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As did I.
Page 203
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- James Keiser from the social
club.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the petitioner is
adequate.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have not met with the
petitioners. I have received a couple of letters and an E-mail,
and that's the extent of it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have not met with the
petitioners, but I have received E-mail -- or E-mail, not me, I have
received snail mail in the form of a letter from a Norm Grash
(phonetic} and also from a John and Carol Jacobson, and I know I
have some other mail in my office and other letters that could be
made available.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As have I. I met with petitioner.
I received mail, all in favor with the exception of one E-mail from
somebody who lives in the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I should have made my
disclosure to reflect that I received those same letters that
Commissioner Berry was just referencing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have to amend mine also, the
same kind of letters, the same E-mail.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Now going back to the issue,
one of the things we did last time when we closed is we're not
going to rehash the whole thing. They went through their
screening and their setbacks and virtually every hurdle that we
put in front of them. The only issue was whether or not there
had been appropriate notification as far as the type of use and
whether or not that might not generate some concern from
neighboring properties.
Have we heard from any of those people we notified, had
any objection?
MS. MURRAY: This morning I received one telephone call
questioning the petition, and that was from Wayne Arnold, and I
see he's in the audience, so I don't know if he has an objection or
not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Another City of Naples resident.
MS. MURRAY: That's it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
Page 204
September 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Unless you rule me out of order, I
want to make a comment about the buffering and so forth
associated with this project.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As a commissioner, we can all
bring up whatever we want. I just want to try to avoid starting
from scratch, but I thought we knocked virtually every single one
of those down last time.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: We still had some issues as far
as I'm concerned, and --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I'm not going to spend a lot
of time, because you can ask anything you want, but I'm positive
that at the close of the hearing last time, I asked very
specifically are there any other issues other than this one, and
everybody said no. There was silence, because I said, let's get
everything out of the way if that's the only one.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm going to make a comment.
With regard -- with regard to the buffering issues that I
raised last time, I want to -- still have those concerns, and it has
to do with the privacy issue, not only associated with people who
are making this petition to the Board of County Commissioners
but also future users of the lake area on either side of your
property, and I am very concerned about the buffering that you
have proposed to provide the privacy that you say you want and
the buffering that I think is necessary for users of the lake, who
would be out toward the 1-75 location looking into your beach
area,
You talked about putting some buffering along either side,
and if you would do that buffering so that it is farther out so that
the sight line from the 1-75 area into your beach is to the
maximum extent shielded, then I have a different perspective of
this whole thing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Rynders.
MR. RYNDERS: I'll introduce myself; David Rynders,
representing the petitioner, and we're in agreement to plant,
correct me, Mr. Keiser, if I'm wrong, but to the extent that we
own some dry land on the 1-75 side of the lake, if there's some
plantings that we could put over there that will provide a buffer,
we're happy to do that, and we're also agreeable, Mr. Keiser
indicated to -- he has constructed -- at the north and south end of
his property, he has constructed extensions out into the lake and
Page 205
September 12, 2000
planted those so that the neighbors, although the drawing shows
a straight line, the neighbors would have to come around the end
of some stones and construction in order to see people in there,
and, also, there are trees along the shoreline. I think there's one
small area of about 40 feet wide where there is just grass and
then a little sand and then the beach, but if we could satisfy you
-- there's a photograph there of the -- one of those points, it looks
like, although my eyes aren't what they used to be.
If there's some additional buffering you would like to see
along the shoreline, please tell us what it is.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, I would like to see some
additional buffering, and could you put the other view up, the one
you had before?
I would -- I am concerned about having some kind of
buffering out into this area -- I'm concerned about some buffering
being out in this area. I think if I understood you correctly, you
have some land that extends out --
MR. RYNDERS: Extends out 20 to 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- and if you could buffer views
from this area into your beach on either side, then, to me, that
makes a heck of a big difference, and I could support something
like that.
MR. RYNDERS: Okay. We may not own land that is north
and south.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Well, you own this land.
MR. RYNDERS: Yes, yes, but on --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT-' So, you could put some kind of
buffering out in here even if it were a floating something or other
that had a wall on it or a shield on it or something like that.
MR. RYNDERS: My client is perfectly agreeable to that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So, you could have even floating
things out here that would provide that buffering. MR. RYNDERS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're willing to enclose your
property with some sort of floating walls?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No, you could still have it as an
open area and still have access out into the beach and the use of
it for your boats or whatever.
MR. RYNDERS: So we don't have a misunderstanding, you're
contemplating --
Page 206
September t2, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm not talking about a complete
enclosure.
MR. RYNDERS: No, no, but we want to satisfy your concern,
and we don't want to be hauled up and bound up in go days that
we haven't satisfied your concern, so we would just need some
description of what it is that --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think the staff can work that
out with you to provide adequate buffering so that those views -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Dr. Brandt, it's a line of sight
issue, right?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
MS. MURRAY: I'm very uncomfortable with that general
statement. If you could, Commissioner Brandt, maybe provide a -- COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It's a line of sight issue that I
have, just like --
MS. MURRAY: Is there a specific height that you would like
to see and a specific distance out into the water? Those are the
things that I will have to stipulate, and I'm happy to do that, but I
want to make sure I'm addressing your concerns.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Not being an expert in this --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll just throw a couple of things
out there. It's a line of sight issue, and you-all can go probably
25 feet out if you had to.
MR. RYNDERS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You just want to get -- you're
going to have to curve in and then do some quick geometry
there, but you are going to have to curve in six or eight feet on
either side if it's strictly a line of sight issue, and then as far as
visual, it probably doesn't need to be taller than six feet as long
as there's some sort of--
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Probably.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- opaque type planting.
MR. KEISER: Hello. I'm Jim Keiser, and I own the property.
One of the concerns we'll be taking care of, and that is on
the 1-75 right-of-way which we discussed last time, and what we
will do on that, there, again, there's a bunch of pepper hedges
and things like that on the east side of the lake between the lake
and 1-75, but what we'd like to do is whoever the eventual
developers are on that, to make ours coordinate with theirs.
So, right now, the view is blocked. I mean, the county staff
Page 207
September t2, 2000
has all testified that they've been by there hundreds of times,
you know, and did not know that there was a nudist club there,
that there was any nude activity at all.
As far as the lake area, we do have buffers going out on
either side of the property about 30 feet, and so that has got one
line coming through there that blocks it off. Now what we can
do is low shrubs in key areas along the front, because us sitting
up on top of the lake area and anybody down on the lake itself
will be looking up. So, if you had a four foot or a three foot buffer
right along the front blocking where we were laying out
sunbathing, they could not look over the top of that, and so, like I
said, we'll work with staff on anything like that.
We've already worked -- we've got a permit for the security
gate. We're doing that, and as soon as we -- if we get the
conditional use, the first thing we'll do is go to the building
department and start working on a fence and getting that up.
What I would like to do on the -- I think it was quoted as 90
days or something like that. I would like to work with staff as far
as the natural buffer, because development -- this has just been
rezoned as PUD on either side of us and around us, and now the
developer that put the package together is in the process of
renegotiating with other developers to do the final construction.
It has not been in the planning stage at all or anything like that,
so we do have time to build up the 12 foot by 20 foot barrier.
So, we would like to be able to work with staff on that. If
some developer came in, we would be willing to immediately put
a permanent growth -- a landscape buffer up.
MS. MURRAY: The concern --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm looking for a line of sight
buffer with respect to those corners of the lake.
MS. MURRAY: As I understand, perhaps a 25 foot out into
the water, six foot high visual type of --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think you'll have to do the
geometry.
MS. MURRAY: Yeah, that's no problem.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sue?
MR. RYNDERS: That's all we have. I think a number of
members came who are in support of it, all of whom stood up to
swear.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anyone here in the room
Page 208
September t2, 2000
opposed to this?
Have you signed up to speak, Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't we take that now,
and then if we need to go through other speakers, we will?
Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Wayne Arnold.
I'm not sure that I would categorize my statements as a
formal objection as much as I do have some specific concerns,
some of which have been addressed by Mr. Brandt's comments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are these on your own behalf or
do you have a --
MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, I represent Prime Residential, the
owner/developer of the Whippoorwill Woods project located just
south of the subject site. That project was approved for 462
residences. It's going to be a family neighborhood. They do have
concerns about the changing character of the area, and we've
heard that in the prior hearings, but our client wasn't concerned
until he got the recent renotice because of the issue of the
clothing optional sunbathing, and it became really an issue
whether or not you can adequately buffer ourselves from them,
because I understand they have a need for privacy and a desire
for privacy, as do we want to make sure that they are private
because we don't want a lot of onlookers and children trying to
find their way to look into the property.
So, I talked to Susan Murray this morning and related to her
some of the comments I had, and one of those was related to
fencing. Right now it says they will install a six foot high fence.
We would certainly support allowing a fence beyond six foot in
height if that's agreeable to the Southern Exposure group,
because in the agricultural zoning district, it permits fences
higher than six feet. I'm not sure six feet, when you have three
story structures on either side of it, is going to provide an
adequate buffer, although they have 12 foot trees that are
stipulated as part of the condition.
One of the other issues that we had was trying to provide
some form of restriction so that nude sunbathers didn't have full
access throughout the lake area because the other projects will
also have access to that lake. We want to make sure that
there's not commingling without the intent to do so, and I don't
Page 209
September 12, 2000
know how that actually happens. I know that a lot of areas,
boarded off areas there will be swimming, et cetera, with their --
but I also heard Mr. Keiser represent that they would prevent --
possibly plant some low shrubbery, et cetera, that would prevent
the view from at least the lake area onto the property. That
certainly helps the situation greatly from our perspective.
A couple of the other issues related to questions I had.
There's no restriction on the number of members that would be
allowed to participate here? We know that other private clubs
that have come before you have been restricted. Whether
they're on the beach or a church or a fraternal organization,
typically have some maximum number associated with them. We
don't have that here. Whether or not they're going to have -- they
have a monthly potluck dinner, I think, that was one of the
conditions, but I don't know if that becomes an administrative
decision from Mr. Mulhere's staff. If they decide to have further
activities or some sort of announced activity through whatever
organizations, they have to bring a hundred people here, I don't
know, but that was one of our concerns; how much activity there
would be there, and one of the other concerns that we had was
related really to, I think, an issue of if they don't meet the
conditions for the landscape buffering, obtaining a site plan,
obtaining building permits, there doesn't seem to be a penalty in
the conditional use for that. They've been out there operating for
several years apparently without the appropriate authorization.
That's why they are here today, but I guess my question is, if
they don't -- if they fall short on their obligation to come within
60 days, 90 days, 30 days, there are various numbers cited in the
conditions, what's the penalty? Do they continue to go through
this for several more years or is there an obligation to stop, come
back and let's redo this again? I don't know. That was a
question and a clarification I had.
MS. MURRAY: They would be in violation of the conditional
use conditions and their approval, and I assume it would become
a code enforcement case at that point, fines and --
Punishable up to how much a
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
day per violation?
MS. MURRAY: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
day per violation?
Punishable up to how much per
Page 210
September 12, 2000
MR. MURRAY: I'm not sure -- $250 a day.
MR. ARNOLD: Those are the extent of my comments.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Rynders, do you want to
address any of those?
MR. RYNDERS: Obviously, the last question has been
addressed. Anyone wandering off of this property, using another
part of the lake, is subject to being arrested for being in the nude
in public if he's doing that, because he will not be in a place --
the state law reads that it's illegal to run around in the nude
unless you're in a place set aside for that purpose, and this will
be the only property set aside for that purpose. None of our
members are going to run around anywhere else unless they
want to be arrested, and the buffering, as we indicated before,
the visual buffering is the 12 foot tree line and the 6 foot fence is
for security, to keep people from being freely able to wander in
there, and will be posted with signs too, but the real visual
buffering is with this t2 foot tree line, which the staff has
recommended as adequate, and I don't have -- I don't remember
any other issues.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm also assuming that we're including that
three foot hedge along the lake front as one of the stipulations,
and we're including the extension of, at staff's discretion,
something in the neighborhood of a visual buffer out into the
lake, probably in the neighborhood of 20 feet and 6 foot high.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Whatever.
MR. OLLIFF: Whatever is required in order to provide a
visual buffer.
MS. MURRAY: May I clarify something for the record --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
MS. MURRAY: -- because it hasn't really been discussed,
and I just want to call it to your attention, is that the 20 foot
wide type V vegetated buffer which was originally recommended
by staff to be along the northwest and south property
boundaries, at this hearing has been amended to include the
north -- I'm sorry, the east property boundary, which is a property
boundary that abuts the lake itself.
So, there is trees and shrub planting requirements at a width
of 20 feet across that entire frontage.
MR. RYNDERS: Did that mean the east boundary on 1-75 or
Page 211
September 12, 2000
the --
MS. MURRAY: Along the lake.
MR. RYNDERS: Along the lake.
MS. MURRAY: Along the lake. That's what -- that is the
impression I got from the board at the last hearing that they
wanted to see. If I'm mistaken, we can amend that condition,
but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I don't think that's
necessary if you meet the shrubbery and everything you've laid
out here today, and that wasn't my intent anyway when we had
that discussion before.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Right, right, but it's just that line
of sight issue that we talked about. Take care of that and it's
done.
MS. MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing,
and I know we have a number of public speakers, and if you -- I
think I see the board going in the right direction. If there's
nobody else opposed and you'll humor me, we'll close the public
hearing. If for some reason we fail here, I'll -- or it looks like
we're heading to failing, we'll reopen it for further comment.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No, not from here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm retiring in a few weeks, so
I'll tell you what -- its a land use item. They have met every
hurdle we put them in front of them. I'm not going to object to it.
I'll make a motion we approve the item.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then I'll second it because we
sent it back with the idea of notice, making sure our concern
was about proper notice and then additional questions today
seem to have been answered, so I'll go ahead and second the
motion.
MR. OLLIFF: And, again, for the record, that's with the
additional stipulations that were discussed today?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: On today's record.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think the question on
membership also came up, but if I look, there are facilities there
which I think would be governed by fire marshal rules. So, no
matter how many members you had, you can only allow a certain
Page 212
September t2, 2000
number of people on-site at any time. So, I don't think that would
become an issue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that, we'll call the
question. All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries five-oh, and
Brent Batten has his column for the week.
Item #13A6
RESOLUTION 2000-300 RE PETITION CU-2000-10 RICHARD
GRANT OF GRANT, FRIDKIN, PEARSON, ATHAN & CROWN, P.A.
REPRESENTING SIGNATURE COMMUNITIES, INC., REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "5" OF THE "RT" ZONING DISTRICT PER
SECTION 2.2.8.3. FOR A PRIVATE CLUB FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 9467 GULF SHORE DRIVE NORTH - ADOPTED
That takes us to the final advertised item on the agenda,
13(A)6, which was 12(B)2, known as CU-2000-10. Say that three
times fast, and anybody who's going to participate in this, if
you'd be so kind as to stand and be sworn. (The speakers were sworn}.
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, chief planner.
The main reason this is before you today is I received one
letter of objection. The stipulations in this conditional use have
been crafted mostly in part by cooperation between the
surrounding property owners and the petitioner, and this was
done generally back in 1998 when this was originally approved.
The ownership, as I understand, is changing hands, and the
new owners wish to remove one of the stipulations that relates
specifically to Twin Eagles Golf and Country Club development
for use only by members and guests of that development and
country club. Obviously, that wouldn't apply anymore in this
case.
With that, if you'd like further information --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just like Commissioner Carter
said on the last item, I've got to assume that there are fire codes
and things, so regardless if you have a million members, there's a
limit on how many can be there at any one time.
Page 213
September 12, 2000
MS. MURRAY: Actually, the surrounding property owners
wanted a limit of 112 people, and that's what it says in the
stipulation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Present at any given time?
MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I also want to disclose that I did
meet with the petitioner on this subject, and I also believe I had
a conversation with Dick Gliddon (phonetic) of Vanderbilt Beach
Properties Association.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No disclosure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I had a phone call from the
petitioner's representative.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As did I.
Do you want to make a brief presentation? I think it's fairly
cut-and-dried.
MR. GRANT: I think I'm going to be very brief. I'm Richard
Grant, the applicant's attorney, and I think the staff pretty well
presented it to you. If you have any questions, we'll be glad to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for petitioner?
If not, we'll close the public hearing.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you do have one additional
public speaker.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
speaker. I'm sorry.
MR. PICKWORTH: I'll pass.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
stipulations noted.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Anyone object to that?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
communications.
Mr. Olliff, anything for us?
MR. OLLIFF:
Oh, we do have one public
You sure?
Motion to approve subject to the
Second.
A motion and a second.
Motion carries five-oh.
That takes us to staff
I wouldn't think about it.
Page 214
September 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's very kind of you.
Mr. Weigel, anything?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing further. Thank you very much.
Item #15
BCC COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: BCC communications.
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have nothing, but I think earlier
when we talked about the deal with the ethics ordinance, did we
say two weeks or one month that they would bring that one issue
back?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think we said two weeks.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I won't be here on that meeting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would you prefer it wait a
month?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If you would.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there's no objection.
Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No problem.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just one comment, I will be
attending the governor's health conference in Miami next week
as a part of our overall forward thinking of what we're going to
do with regards to a health care plan in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one thing, just because of a
personal concern, that I understand when Ms. Bishop was here
before, the speaker who had led us to believe that she had
misled them came back after the meeting and said he was sorry,
he misstated it. In fact, Ms. Bishop did not misrepresent that
petition, and I just wanted to make that clear on the record.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's good, good, good.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have nothing else, and I'll be
reporting -- if you didn't get enough of this meeting today, I'll be
reporting its entire contents for the next two hours on 98.9 FM.
***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commissioner
Page 215
September 12, 2000
Carter and carried unanimously, that the following items under
the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD TO PLACE OZONE MONITORING EQUIPMENT AT LAUREL
OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO CONDUCT AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY MONITORING FOR THE URBAN AREA OF THE COUNTY
Item #16A2
AMENDMENT #2 FOR CONTRACT GC530 WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO
CONTINUE TO OVERSEE THE CLEAN-UP OF PETROLEUM
CONTAMINATED SITES IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A3
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.753, "OTERO COMMERCIAL
EXCAVATION NO. 4", LOCATED IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST; BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY OIL
WELL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON THE WEST BY OCCUPIED LOT,
ON THE SOUTH BY VACANT LOT, AND ON THE EAST BY VACANT
LOT - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.756, "STEVENS LAKE
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION", LOCATED IN SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST; BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH BY OCCUPIED LOT, ON THE WEST 21sT STREET S.W.
RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON THE SOUTH OCCUPIED LOT, AND ON THE
EAST BY OCCUPIED LOT - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.757, "JIM WEEKS COMMERCIAL
EXCAVATION, NW CORNER DESOTO & 29TH" LOCATED IN
Page 216
September t2, 2000
SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST; BOUNDED
ON THE NORTH BY VACANT LAND ZONED ESTATES, ON THE
EAST BY DESOTO BOULEVARD, ON THE SOUTH BY 29TH
AVENUE NW, AND ON THE WEST BY VACANT LAND ZONED
ESTATES - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
Item #t 6A6
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 SET AS PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT FOR PETITION DRI-99-3
Item #t 6A7
RFP-00-3088, TO PROVIDEINDEPENDENTLEGAL COUNSELFOR
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODEENFORCEMENT BOARD-AWARDED
TO M. JEAN RAWSON, P.A, PENDING LEGAL REVIEW FROM THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Item #t6A8
BUSINESS MANAGER POSITION IN THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Item #t 6A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR ECKERDS AT GALLERIA AND RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A10
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CARLTON LAKES, TRACT E, AND RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16At 1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PUMP STATION UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR ROOKERY BAY
Page 217
September 12, 2000
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2000-268, AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "TIMARRON UNIT
ONE"
Item #16A13
FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 2A~ UNIT ONE"
Item #16A14
FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT NINETEEN" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A15
FINAL PLAT OF "ISLA VISTA AT GREY OAKS" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT~
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #t 6A16
FINAL PLAT OF "CARLTON LAKES UNIT NO. 3A" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #t 6A17
FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT EIGHTEEN" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A18
FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT SEVENTEEN" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
Page
September 12, 2000
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A19
FINAL PLAT OF "INDIGO LAKES UNIT THREE" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A20
FINAL PLAT OF "TIBURON BOULEVARD EAST EXTENSION" -
WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A21
FINAL PLAT OF "AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB, UNIT THREE" -
WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A22
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REIMBURSE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT FUND FROM IMPACT FEE REVENUES FOR
ANNUAL COST OF IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM
Item #16A23
RESOLUTION 2000-269, CORRECTING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA DUE
TO A SCRIVENER'S ERROR
Item #16A24
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY RICHARD
TOMASELLO, P.E. IN REVIEWING THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
MAP REVISIONS (FIRMS) PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA); PRO RATA SHARE
OF THE COASTAL FLOOD ELEVATION DETERMINATION - NOT TO
EXCEED $20,000; AND THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES RIVERINE
Page 219
September 12, 2000
FLOOD STUDY - NOT TO EXCEED $50s000
Item #16A25
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN
ORDINANCE PROHIBITING COMMERCIAL "PAY" TELEPHONES ON
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
Item #16B1
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND BIG
CYPRESS BASIN/SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
Item #16B2
LAKEWOOD OUTFALL SYSTEM AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE
SYSTEM RESPONSIBILITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKEWOOD
COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC., LAKEWOOD
COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLESs INC, VAN ELWAY ENTERPRISESs
INC.s COLLIER COUNTY, AND U.S. HOME CORPORATION
Item #16B3
WORK ORDER NO. B-1 FOR BONNESS, INC. FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT DAVIS
BOULEVARD (S.R. 84) AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951} - IN
THE AMOUNT OF $142,218.34
Item #16B4
CONSUL-TECH ENGINEERINGs INC, PBS & J CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, INC., AND STANLEY CONSULTANTSs INC.s
COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
INSPECTIONS SERVICES FOR AIRPORT-PULLING ROADs
PROJECT NO. 62031s CIE NO. 55; STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS WITH CONSUL-TECH ENGINEERINGs INC.
Item #16B5
Page 220
September 12, 2000
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE DEVELOPER OF BRIDGEWATER BAY (OAK
GROVE PUD) FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS MADE FOR
LIVINGSTON ROAD AND ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE
Item #16B6
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT
TRACTOR MOWER FOR THE IMMOKALEE ROAD AND BRIDGE
SECTION - COST TO REPLACE EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$33,965 IS AVAILABLE FROM NEW HOLLAND NORTH AMERICAN,
INC.
Item #t 6B7
MEDIAN MODIFICATION ON IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) AT
VALEWOOD DRIVE AND INCORPORATE INTO THE IMMOKALEE
ROAD WIDENING PROJECT, PROJECT #69101, CIE #8 - IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $40,000
Item #t 6B8
KCCS, INC., PBS&J, INC., AND JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.
COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
INSPECTIONS SERVICES FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE II,
COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NO. 60071, CIE NO. 52 - STAFF TO
NEGOTIATE WITH KCCS, INC.
Item #16B9
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT PERTAINING TO THE EMINENT
DOMAIN LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DAVID R.
CLEMENS AND LUCILLE C. CLEMENS, ET AL - STAFF TO DEPOSIT
AN ADDITIONAL $1,064 IN THE COURT REGISTRY
Item #16B10
AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STREET
Page 221
September t 2, 2000
LIGHTING OPTION FOR THE U.S. 41 WIDENING PROJECT
BETWEEN AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD - IN
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $35,000
Item #16Bll
BID #00-3094, FOR PURCHASE OF LIMEROCK AND FILL
MATERIALS - AWARDED TO HARMON BROTHERS, APAC-FLORIDA
AND SOUTHERN SAND & STONE; FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES
AWARDED QUOTE FOR CRUSHED LIMEROCK ONLY FOR USE IN
THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AND IMMOKALEE AREA
Item #16B12
DONATION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT FROM ROBERT AND EILEEN FILMORE TO PROVIDE
FLOOD RELIEF FOR PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE
KIRKWOOD AVENUE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA
Item #16Bt3 - Deleted
Item #16B14 - Deleted
Item #16B15
RESOLUTION 2000-270, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER
TO ENTER INTO A LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND
MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF PHASE "A"
LANDSCAPING AND RELATED BEAUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATED ON A PORTION OF STATE ROAD 90 (U.S. 41, TAMIAMI
TRAIL), BETWEEN S.R. 84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) AND C.R. 31
(AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD)
Item #16B16 - Deleted
Item #16B17 - Deleted
Item #16Bt8
Page 222
September 12, 2000
2001-2005 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN
UPDATE
Item #16B19 - Deleted
Item #16B20 - Deleted
Item #16B21
RFP #96-2902, CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION AND TINDALE OLIVER,
WILSONMILLER AND DAVID PLUMMER AND ASSOCIATES, AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B22
RFP #00-3062, CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES BY WILSONMILLER, FOR SANTA BARBARA/LOGAN
SIX-LANING DESIGN FROM RADIO ROAD TO PINE RIDGE ROAD,
PROJECT NO. 62081, CIE NO. 56 - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,228,072
Item #16B23
PETITION TM-00-01, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC
CALMING DEVICES ON l0TH AVENUE SW, BETWEEN LOGAN
BOULEVARD AND NAPA BOULEVARD
Item #16C1
GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE
REPLACEMENT OF THE TELEMETRY SYSTEM AND FOR WATER
OPERATIONS
Item #16C2
ANNUAL BID #00-3105, FOR HAULING AND DISPOSAL OF LIME
SLUDGE - AWARDED TO PROLIME CORPORATION IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $t20,000
Page 223
September t 2, 2000
Item #16C3
BID #00-3130, TO FURNISH AND DELIVER BERMAD VALVES -
AWARDED TO SUNSTATE METER & SUPPLY, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $37, t80
Item #16C4
UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE RELOCATION OF A
WATER METER LOCATED AT THE DORCHESTER CONDOMINIUM
IN PELICAN BAY
Item #16C5
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE RIVIERA GOLF CLUB EFFLUENT
AGREEMENT AND TRANSFER OF SAID AGREEMENT TO FORE
GOLF SERVICES, INC.
Item #16C6
RFP #00-3066, ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO ODOR
CORROSION/CONTROL STUDY - FINAL RANKING OF
CONSULTANTS: CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, MALCOM PIRNIE,
AND MONTGOMERY WATSON; STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAMP DRESSER &
MCKEE
Item #16C7
BID #00-3117, FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT PURCHASE OF STRAINERS AND ACCESSORY KITS -
AWARDED TO BADGER METER, INC. FOR THE STRAINERS AND
HUGHES SUPPLY, INC. FOR THE ACCESSORY KITS
Item #16C8
PURCHASING POLICY WAIVED; GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR
SYSTEM FOR LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO BE
PURCHASED FROM VERMEER SOUTHEAST SALES & SERVICE
Page 224
September 12, 2000
Item #16C9
BID #00-3116 TO FURNISH AND DELIVER FIVE CHEMICAL
METERING PUMPS TO THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT - PURCHASE ORDER AWARDED TO
PULSAFEEDER, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,463
Item #16C10
WORK ORDER WD-141 TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC., FOR ACID FEED ROOM MODIFICATIONS AT THE
NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $887965
Item #16C11
AMENDMENT TO THE LIST OF CAPITAL PROJECTS IN THE
WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN TO EXTEND REGIONAL SEWER
SERVICE TO LIVINGSTON ROAD/WHIPPOORWILL LANE NEAR
PINE RIDGE ROAD
Item #16C12
ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN FY 2000 FOR A PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TAMPA BAY ENGINEERING, INC.,
FOR COUNTY UTILITY RELOCATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH
U.S. 41 ROAD WIDENING FROM MYRTLE ROAD TO OLD U.S. 41,
PROJECTS 70047, 70048 AND 73048
Item #16C13
WORK ORDER VGW-FT-00-03, TO THE AEC
NATIONAL/WILKINSON JOINT VENTURE FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES TO REPLACE WASTEWATER PUMPING
STATION LOCATED ON PORT-AU-PRINCE ROAD, CONTRACT 98-
2835, PROJECT 73060 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,100
Item #16C14
Page 225
September 12, 2000
RFP #00-3046, SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND
PROGRAM ANALYSIS STUDY - MALCOLM PIRNIE TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN THE PREPARATION AND
ADVERTISEMENT OF REQUEST FOR LETTERS OF INTEREST FOR
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE LUMP SUM
OF $14~000
Item #16D1
AMENDMENT TO THE VANDERBILT BEACH CONCESSION
AGREEMENT WITH DAY-STAR UNLIMITED, INC.
Item #16D2
AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE SERVICES WITH TECH OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK - IN
THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $33,800
Item #16D3
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES
AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE LIBRARY SERVICES AND
TECHNOLOGY ACT GRANT "SENIORS ON-LINE"
Item #16D4
LIBRARY LONG RANGE PLAN AND FY 2000-2001 STATE AID TO
LIBRARIES GRANT APPLICATION
Item #16D5
BID #00-3128 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MAX HASSE
COMMUNITY CENTER - AWARDED TO JL WALLACE, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,642,700
Item #16D6
BID #00-3126 , "BEACH CLEANING VEHICLE" TO ENABLE THE
ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL BEACH CLEANING EQUIPMENT
Page 226
September t2, 2000
FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES AND
MARCO ISLAND BEACHES - AWARDED TO P.G. GREINER, INC.
(BEACH TECH) IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,900
Item #16D7
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF EVERGLADES
CITY TO PROVIDE $30,000 IN LOCAL MATCHING FUNDS FOR
THE CITY'S STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT
APPLICATION FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE EVERGLADES
CITY HALL
Item #16D8
FLORIDA STATE CONTRACT NO. 765-900-99-1, FOR THE
PURCHASE OF TWO (2) NEW TRACTORS FOR THE BEACH
CLEANING OPERATION FROM NEW HOLLAND NORTH AMERICA,
INC. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $6t,478
Item #16D9
REQUIREMENT FOR FORMAL COMPETITION WAIVED; INCREASE
OF $7,308 TO BRADANNA, INC. (P.O. #006438) FOR THE
SITEWORK AT GOLDEN GATE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
Item #16E1
STATE CONTRACT PRICING TO BE UTILIZED FOR COMPUTERS,
SERVERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE
YEARS - AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E2
RESOLUTION 2000-271, CANCELING CURRENT TAXES UPON
CERTAIN OIL~ GAS & MINERAL RIGHTS OBTAINED BY TAX DEED
Item #16E3
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND SPRINT-
FLORIDAT INCORPORATED REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED
Page 227
September 12, 2000
NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (S.R. 31)
AND ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE, ANNUAL RENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $3,237.07
Item #16E4 - Deleted
Item #16E5
RESOLUTION 2000-272, APPROVING, AS SERVING VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE, EXPENDITURES OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR SPECIFIED
ITEMS FOR THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' ANNUAL PICNIC
Item #16E6
AMENDMENT TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION MANAGED
CARE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
AND COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS
Item #16E7
BID NO. 00-3089, FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICAL PARTS
AND SUPPLIES USED IN COUNTY REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE -
AWARDED TO GRAYBAR ELECTRIC AND C.E.D, INC., D/B/A
RAYBRO ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
Item #16E8
BID NO. 00-3101, GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AT THE COLLIER
COUNTY MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX - AWARDED TO FLORIDA
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $81,600
Item #16E9
AMENDMENT #t TO AGREEMENT 99-2999 WITH ARTHUR
ANDERSEN CONSULTING SERVICES, TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF
WORK AND OBTAIN ADDITIONAL SERVICES - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,220
Item #16E10
Page 228
September 12, 2000
ACCEPTANCE OFTHE DONATION OF A CHRISTOPHER
COLUMBUS STATUE FROM THE LOCAL CHAPTER OF THE
KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS FORTHE NEW GOLDEN GATE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER
Item #16Ell
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TOTALING $441,000 TO FUND THE COST
OF RELOCATING VARIOUS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND STAFF
AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE A LEASE FOR OFFICE SPACE ON
HORSESHOE DRIVE
Item #16E12
WORK ORDER VB-00-01 AWARDED TO VANDERBILT BAY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., FOR THE GOLDEN GATE
GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER
Item #16F1
FEDERAL HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING TO IMPROVE HURRICANE
PROTECTION AT COLLIER COUNTY SHELTERS
Item #16F2
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SEVEN ACRES (+/-) FROM THE
COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR AN EMS SUBSTATION
AND OTHER FUTURE EMERGENCY SERVICE FACILITIES,
LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2000-273, CERTIFYING THAT THE APPLICATION
FOR AND USE OF EMS COUNTY GRANT FUNDS WILL IMPROVE
AND EXPAND PRE-HOSPITAL EMS DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES
AND SERVICES AND WILL NOT SUPPLANT EXISTING COUNTY
EMS BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
Page 229
September t2, 2000
Item #16F4
RESOLUTION 2000-274, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT #01CP-04-09-2t-0t-011 BETWEEN
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND
COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT
Item #16G1
RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
CONSENT/EMERGENCY ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S ABSENCE
Item #16Gla
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS VARIOUS EXPENSES WITHIN
THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Item #16Glb
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 00-371 AND 00-374
Item #16Glc
BID NO. 00-3110- ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION AND
DELIVERY OF TITLE COMMITMENTS - REJECTED; STAFF TO RE-
BID THE ANNUAL AGREEMENT
Item #16G1d
WORK ORDER SC-00-07 TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE II(A) OF SUGDEN REGIONAL
PARK - IN THE AMOUNT OF $199,995
Item #16Gle
BUDGET AMENDMENT 00-419
Item #16Glf
Page 230
September 12, 2000
PURCHASE OF E-MAIL ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE
FOR NETWORK CONNECTIONS TO THE CLERK OF THE COURTS
AND PROPERTY APPRAISER'S NETWORK
Item #16Glg
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND DEMOLITION OF UNSAFE STEEL
BUILDING AT MARCO TRANSFER STATION
Item #16G1h
LETTER OF INTEREST NO. 00-3087 FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY
CONTRACTING SERVICES - AWARDED TO FLORIDA STATE
UNDERGROUND, INC.; KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; MITCHELL &
STARK~ INC.; AND DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS~ INC.
Item #16Gli
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS INTO SALARIES TO
COVER MERIT INCREASES AND RECLASSIFICATIONS AND
TERMINATION PAY FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES
Item #16G1j
AMENDMENT NO. I TO WORK ORDER #CDM-FT-00-03~ TO CAMP
DRESSER 8, MCKEE~ INC., TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR UPGRADING THE PELICAN BAY WELLFIELD~ PROJECT
74039 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $76~500
Item #16Glk
BID NO. 00-3123~ BAYSHORE DRIVE BEAUTIFICATION,
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION - AWARDED TO LANDSCAPE
FLORIDA~ INC. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $742~690.29
Item #16Gll
AMENDED 2000 TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
Page 231
September t2, 2000
COUNTY AND THE MARCO ISLAND FILM FESTIVAL, INC.
REGARDING ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION
Item #16G1m
ANNUAL BID #98-2821, CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND STREET LIGHTS - INCREASED IN THE AMOUNT OF
$5,000 FOR NON-BID ITEMS
Item #16Gln
RFP 00-3046, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
TASK ASSIGNMENT #2, ODOR MONITORING AND
INVESTIGATION AT NAPLES LANDFILL - AWARDED TO MALCOLM
PIRNIE IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,500
Item #16Glo
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 00-369 AND 00-425
Item #16Glp
BUDGET AMENDMENT 00-432
Item #16Glq
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.752, "TIM FLICK COMMERCIAL
EXCAVATION", BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY 33RD AVENUE NW
RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON THE WEST BY VACANT LOT, ON THE SOUTH
CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ON THE EAST BY CANAL RIGHT-OF-
WAY - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16Gtr
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 00-450 AND 00-466
Item #16Gls
REQUIREMENT FOR FORMAL COMPETITION WAIVED; PURCHASE
OF LIGHT POSTS, PLANTERS, PLANTER POSTS, DECORATIVE
Page 232
September 12, 2000
RAILING AND PLANTER EMBELLISHMENTS FOR BAYSHORE
M.S.T.U. BEAUTIFICATION FROM PENNSYLVANIA GLOBE,
SPENCER FABRICATIONS, INC., AND DURA ART STOE - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16H1
ESTABLISH THE PROJECT BUDGET TO MITIGATE FOR THE
PLANNED TAXIWAY AT MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
Item #16H2
ESTABLISH THE PROJECT BUDGET TO WIDEN ONE-HALF MILE
OF COUNTY ROAD 846, SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT
Item #1611
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONERS
MAC'KIE AND CARTER TO ATTEND THE EXCELLENCE IN
INDUSTRY AWARDS LUNCHEON
Item #16J1
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER
Item #16J2
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 233
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 12, 2000
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign Satisfaction of
Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos.: 91-1318-MMA, 92-1639-MI,
96-5048-MMA, 97-9858-MMA, 0001584MMA, 9707184MMA, 9901821CFA,
0003480MMA, 9803636MMA, 9908329MMA, 0004901MMA 9801897MMA,
9906773MMA, 9806158MMA, 0004217MMA, 0004120MMA 0003940MMA,
9905664MMA, 9703593MMA, 9908700MMA, 9804129MMA 0002513MMA,
9907210MMA, 0000719MMA, 98001710CFA, 0003727MMA 9708842MMA,
9001492CFA, 9908874MMA, 0005069MMA, 9907459MMA 0004608MMA,
9900394MMA, 9908507MMA, 0003082MMA, 0000008MMA 9903382MMA
9810034MMA, 9903308MMA, 0002784MMA, 9904067MMA, 9907720MMA
9809150MMA, 9807147MMA, 9907188MMA, 9908322MMA, 9903625MMA
0001794MMA, 9808424MMA, 0002193MMA, 9903374MMA, 0000496MMA
9910~.~. 4-MMA, 9901508MMA, 9907602MMA, 0001852MMA, 0000747MMA
0000255MMA, 9811411MMA, 9907035MMA, 9808501MMA, 9908856MMA
9703792MMA, 9909651MMA, 9908893MMA, 9800391CFA, 9908388MMA
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Clerk of Courts:
A. Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 136.06(I), the
disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period:
1. July 5 - 11, 2000
2. July 12-18, 2000
3. July 19 - 25, 2000
4. July 26, 2000 - August 1, 2000
5. August 2 - 8, 2000
6. August 9 - 15, 2000
B. August 21, 2000 letter fi'om Clerk of The Circuit Court - Proof of Publication -
"Unclaimed Funds - In accordance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 116.21 (2),
enclosed please find an Affidavit of Publication for the listing of unclaimed
moneys being held by the Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court."
Page 1 of 4
District_.:
Heritage Greens Community Development District - Minutes of June 12, 2000
meeting, Audited General Purpose Financial Statements of September 30, 1999,
Management Letter and Comments, Local Government Anmml Financial Report
for Fiscal Year '98/'99
Key Marco Community Development District - Agenda for April 19, 2000
meeting and minutes of April 19, 2000 and May 16, 2000 meetings with Proposed
Preliminary Budget for 2001 attachmere and Audited General Purpose Financial
Statements with Outstanding Bonds Description of September 30, 1999,
Management letter and comments, Local Government Annual Financial Report
for Fiscal Year 98/99
Go
Collier Soil and Water Conservation District- Notice of July 13 and August 2,
2000 meetings
D4
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Minutes of May 24, 2000
meeting, Audited General Purpose Financial Statements of September 30, 1999,
Management letter and comments, Local Government Annual Financial Report
for Fiscal Year 98/99
Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Minutes of June 12, 2000
meeting with attachments held by the Board of Supervisors
Fo
Pelican Marsh Community Development District - Audited General Purpose
Financial Statements of September 30, 1999, Management letter, and Local
Government Annual Financial Report
Lely Community Development District - Audited General Purpose Financial
Statements of September 30, 1999, Management letter, and Local Government
Annual Financial Report
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Agenda for June 12, 2000
meeting and minutes of June 12, 2000 meeting, Audited General Purpose
Financial Statements, September 30, 1999, Management Letter and Response to
Management Letter, and Local Government Annual Financial Report for fiscal
Year 98/99
Port of the Islands Community District - Agenda for April 20, 2000 and minutes
of April 20, 2000 meeting
Cow Slough Water Control District- Budget for Fiscal Year 2000/2001 and
Monthly and Annual Landowner's Meeting Schedule Dates for 2000/2001.
Page 2 of 4
Mediterra South Community Development Distdct - Minutes of May 24, 2000
meeting with the following attachments: Preliminary Operaling budget for Fiscal
Year 2001 and Coustmcfion Financial Statements, unaudited for December 31,
1999
Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District - Annual Audited
Financial Reports dated September 30, 1999, Management Letter and Rebuttal to
Management Letter
Minutes:
Ao
Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization - Agenda for June 23, 2000
and August 4, 2000 meetings
Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for July 13, 2000 meeting,
minutes of June 7, 2000 meeting
Go
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for August 17, 2000 meeting and
minutes of July 20, 2000 meeting
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Agenda or July 26, 2000
meeting and minutes of June 28, 2000 meeting
go
Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Agenda of July 12, 2000,
July 26, 2000 and August 23,200 meetings, minutes of May 31, June 21, June 28
and August 9, 2000 meetings
Collier County Airport Authority Noise Committee - Agenda for June 28, 2000
and July 18, 2000 meetings
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for July 18, 2000 "Special Meeting"
and Agenda for August 21, 2000 meeting
Rural Lands Area Assessment Oversight Committee -Agenda for July 17, 2000
meeting and minutes of May 15, 2000 and June 19, 2000 meetings
Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Minutes of June 21,
2000 meeting
Jo
Library Advisory Board - Agenda for June 28, 2000 meeting and minutes of May
27, 2000 meeting
Parks and Recreation Advisory - Agenda for June 28, 2000 and August 23, 2000
meetings and minutes of May 24, 2000 and June 28, 2000 meetings
Co
Collier Government Productivity Committee - Agenda for June 21, 2000 meeting
and draft minutes of June 21, 2000 meeting
Page 3 of 4
M. Select Committee on Community Character & Design - Agenda for July 25, 2000
meeting and minutes of May 23, 2000 meeting
N. Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for August 2, 2000 meeting
O. Code Enforcement Board of Collier County - Minutes of July 27, 2000 meeting
P. Collier County Water & Wastewater Authority - Minutes of April 24, 2000
meeting
Q. Environmental Advisory Council - Minutes of July 5, 2000 meeting
R. City/County Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee - Agenda for August 3,
2000 meeting
S. Historic & Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for July 21, 2000
meeting
Bayshore Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for July 6, 2000 meeting
and minutes of June 15, 2000 meeting
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for July 1 l, 2000
meeting and minutes of June 13, 2000 meeting
Tax Collector:
A. Errors and Insolvencies list for the tax year 1999
Page 4 of 4
September 12, 2000
Item #16K1
ENDORSEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
HIGHWAY SAFETY FUNDS GRANT APPLICATION AND BUDGET
AMENDMENTS FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IMMOKALEE D.U.I.
ENFORCEMENT PROJECT
Item #16L1
CORRECTIVE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT REGARDING THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 84-T IN COLLIER COUNTY
V. JOHN B. FASSETT, TRUSTEE (LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM
IMMOKALEE ROAD TO IMPERIAL ROAD} - STAFF TO DEPOSIT AN
ADDITIONAL $7~000 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L2
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,100 FOR THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Item #17A - Deleted
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2000-275, RE PETITION CU-2000-08, THOMAS R.
BROWN, ESQ.~ REPRESENTING FIRST HAITIAN ALLIANCE
CHURCH, INC., REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOUSE
OF WORSHIP IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COUNTY BARN
ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD, CONSISTING OF 2.3 ACRES
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2000-276, RE PETITION CU-2000-09~ JONATHAN
BURT OF J.D. BURT COMPANY, INC., REPRESENTING
CROSSROADS COMMUNITY CHURCH, REQUESTING A
CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS
PINE RIDGE SPORTS/RECREATIONAL SCHOOL, LOCATED AT
Page 234
September 12, 2000
3285 PINE RIDGE ROAD~ CONSISTING OF 5.1+/-ACRES
Item #17D - Moved to Item #12C12
Item #17E - Moved to Item #12C13
Item #17F
RESOLUTION 2000-277, RE PETITION ASW-2000-01, DAVID H.
FARMER~ P.E., OF COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.,
REPRESENTING 7-ELEVEN, INC., REQUESTING A 300 FOOT
WAIVER FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 500
FEET BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 41 AND
COLLIER BOULEVARD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS C.R. 951)
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 20000-278, RE PETITION SNR-2000-04, JOHN
TANGORRA, REPRESENTING THE NATURE POINT HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION~ REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR A
PORTION OF OUTRIGGER LANE TO GORDON RIVER LANE~
LOCATED IN NATURE POINTE SUBDIVISION
Item #17H
ORDINANCE 2000-53, AMENDING ORDINANCE 2000-37, THE
OLDE CYPRESS PUD TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR DUE
TO OMISSION OF AN INTENDED REVISION TO THE TABLE OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Item #171
RESOLUTION 2000-279, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2000-158, A
CONDITIONAL USE OF A PRIVATE CLUB AT THE LA PLAYA
RESORT TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR TO THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
Item #17J
Page 235
September t2, 2000
ORDINANCE 2000-54, AMENDING ORDINANCE 87-25, RELATING
TO THE PURCHASING POLICY BY REVISING SECTION FIVE
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTR~.-T~ UN~D~R ITS
T I THOyL~soN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
-~"'~;I;~ninutes approved by the Board on
as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING BY: Cherie R. Leone and Dawn M. Breehne
Page 236