BCC Minutes 10/24/2000 ROctober 24, 2000
REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 2000
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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:
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Barbara B. Berry
David E. Brandt
Tom Olliff, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, October 24, 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. INVOCATION - Father William Kehayes, St. Katherine's Orthodox Church
1
October 24, 2000
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA
APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
At
September 6, 2000 - Budget Public Hearings
September 26, 2000 - Regular Meeting
October 2, 2000 - Value Adjustment Board
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
l)
Proclamation proclaiming November 4, 2000 as "Paint Your Head Out"
Day. To be accepted by Mr. Bill Brigham of Busey Bank Florida, Ms.
Susan Golden of the City of Naples Planning Department, and Mr.
Cormac Giblin of the Collier County Housing and Urban Improvement
Department
2)
Proclamation proclaiming November 6-12, 2000 as "Youth Appreciation
Week In Collier County". To be accepted by Mr. Gerald Neff, Youth
Appreciation Week Chair.
B. SERVICE AWARDS
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Rhonda Tibbets, Purchasing Department - 20 Years
Teresa Beck, Code Enforcement - 15 Years
Alice Toppe, Risk Management- 15 Years
Kevin Dugan, Pollution Control- 10 Years
Joan Young, Utility Finance Operations - 10 Years
Louise Chesonis, County Attorney - 5 Years
Joseph McClamma, Wastewater Department- 5 Years
Jesse Posada, Parks and Recreation Maintenance/Immokalee - 5 Years
Domingo Almaral, Transportation/Landscape Department - 5 Years
Gary Morosso, Utility Finance Operations - 5 Years
Jean-Elie Pierre-Louis, Water Distribution - 5 Years
C. PRESENTATIONS
2
October 24, 2000
6. APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Board authorization for the County Attorney to retain outside legal counsel
to file a lawsuit in Federal Court to challenge implementation of Florida's
Communication Services Tax Simplification Act.
2)
Discussion of implementation of a Hearing Examiner Program for quasi-
judicial land use hearings.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
To obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners for the
County Manager and County Attorney to review an Ordinance prepared
under the direction of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association to
amend the Ordinance establishing the Pelican Bay MSTBU.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Presentation and Acceptance of the Final Report of the Collier County
Community Health Care Committee.
2)
Approve Construction of Parking Garage at the Vanderbilt Beach Park
Facility.
E. SUPPORT SERVlCES
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
3
October 24, 2000
10.
11.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners give direction to the
Office of the County Attorney and Risk Management Department in responding
to proposal for settlement from Jeffrey Popp in Poppv. Collier County, Case No.
99-3286-CA, pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County,
Florida.
Closed Attorney-Client session for discussion of settlement negotiations and/or
strategy related to litigation expenditures of the pending litigation case of Aria
Bernstein v. Collier County, Case No. 00-14229GG, pending in the U.S. Court
of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Persons in attendance will be the Board of County
Commissioners, County Manager Thomas W. Olliff, County Attorney David C.
Weigel, Assistant County Attorneys Ramiro Mafialich and Michael W. Pettit.
(Item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. or at the conclusion of the regular meeting
agenda, whichever occurs earlier.)
Cw
Board direction regarding settlement proposal and mediation in the case of
Bernstein v. Collier County, Appellate Case No. 00-14229GG. (Companion
item to agenda item 9(B), to be heard immediately after agenda item #9(B).
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.
Appointment of member to the City/County Beach Renourishment Advisory
Committee.
Confirmation of members to the Community Health Care Planning and Finance
Committee.
Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the Board of County
Commissioners Policy 9.3, Transportation Element of the Growth Management
Plan. (Commissioner Brandt)
E. Appointment of members to the Affordable Housing Commission.
Discussion regarding a joint meeting to be held during the first quarter of 2001
between Collier County, Lee County and the City of Bonita Springs.
(Commissioner Carter)
OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
4
October 24, 2000
C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
1)
Adoption Public Hearings of 2000 Growth Management Plan
Amendments.
2)
Petition CPSS-2000-1, Dwight Nadeau of McAnly Engineering and
Design, Inc., representing Carmen Cali, contract purchaser, requesting a
small scale map amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
Element (GGAMP) of the Growth Management Plan to designate 9.54
acres, located on the south side of Randall Boulevard and ¼ mile east of
Immokalee Road, as "Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict".
3)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt by
Ordinance an amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, a separate
element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, to delineate an
urban infill and redevelopment area.
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1)
Petition PUD-99-20, representing Brynwood Preserve, Inc., requesting a
rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be
known as Brynwood Preserve PUD allowing for 160 mixed residential
dwelling units for property located on the east side of Livingston Road
(C.R. 881) and approximately one quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road
(C.R. 896), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 29.26 acres more or less.
2)
Petition PUD-2000-12, Dwight Nadeau, McAnley Engineering and Design,
Inc., representing S.J. Benson & Associates, Inc., requesting a rezone
from "A" to "PUD" to be known as Arlington Lakes PUD, a residential
development not to exceed 590 dwelling units, located approximately ½
mile south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) on Livingston Road, in Section
18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of 98.36+/- acres.
3)
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. Petition PUD-97-
18(1), Karen K. Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples, representing Vanderbilt
Partners II, LTD., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development and "RMF-12ST (3)" and "RMF-6 ST (3)" to "PUD" Planned
5
October 24, 2000
13.
Unit development known as The Dunes PUD for the purpose of amending
Ordinance No. 98-24 and having the effect of increasing the acreage from
88.55+to 188.55+, increasing residential dwelling units from 531 to a
maximum of 754, increasing gross density from 6 dwelling units per acre
to 4 dwelling units per acre, showing a change in property ownership,
increasing building heights to 150 feet, adding restaurants, lounges and
similar uses as accessory uses, increasing open space from 53 acres to
166 acres, for property located on the northwest corner of Bluebill Avenue
(C.R. 846) and Vanderbilt Drive (C.R. 901), in Section 20, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 188.55+
acres.
OTHER
1)
To consider adoption of an ordinance amending Collier County's Noise
Control Ordinance, No. 90-17, as amended; amends provisions regarding
testing equipment and procedures; amends some Table I, A - weighted
sound levels; adds the Immokalee Area Overlay District; adds Table II -
Octave band sound levels; adds vibration standards; amends corrections
for character of sound provisions; amends provisions regarding sounds
measured within multi-family dwelling buildings; amends provisions
regarding regulated music and amplified sounds from unenclosed areas;
prohibits loud sounds to promote commercial activities; exempts
authorized activities at schools, parks and playgrounds; does not specify
sound limits applicable to future raceway facilities at the Immokalee
Regional Airport; prohibits unnecessary and unreasonable sounds that do
not require testing by equipment; provides for preservation of other
remedies; deletes provisions that require annual permits for enclosed
areas; adds compliance requirements for specified businesses that were
encroached upon by residential use or zoning prior to February 23, 1990;
adds grandfathering provisions applicable to existing utility facilities,
existing air conditioning equipment, existing heating equipment, and
similar existing items; amends community event permit provisions;
provides for conflict and severability; provides for inclusion into the code
of laws and ordinances; provides a delayed effective date until January 1,
2001.
2)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 10, 2000
MEETING. Amend the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (S.H.I.P.)
Down Payment/Closing Cost Assistance Program for First-time
Homebuyers.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
6
October 24, 2000
14.
15.
1)
Petition V-2000-17, Sharon Heimerl, representing Linda May, requesting
an after-the-fact variance of 3 feet from the required 30-foot side yard
setback to 27 feet for property located at 4130 14th Avenue N.E., further
described as Tract 37, Golden Gate Estates Unit 73, in Section 33,
Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
2)
Petition V-99-29, William L. Hoover, AICP, representing Larry J. and
Marcy A. Gode, requesting a 3.0-foot variance from the required 13-foot
east side yard setback and a 10-foot variance from the required 15-foot
west yard setback in order to develop a commercial lot for professional
offices on property located at 109th Avenue North, also known as Lot 9,
Block 2, Naples Park Unit 1, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 106, Collier
County, Florida. item (Companion to Petition OSP-99-3)
3)
Petition OSP-99-03, William L. Hoover, AICP, representing Larry J. and
Marcy A. Gode, requesting approval of off-site parking on property located
at 109th Avenue North, also known as Lot 10, Block 2, Naples Park Unit 1,
in order to serve a proposed office building to be located on 109th Avenue
North, Lot 9, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 106, Collier County,
Florida. (Companion item to Petition V-99-29)
4)
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 28, 2000
MEETING Petition A-2000-1, Edward J. Fullmer, Vice President and
Acting President, representing the Goodland Civic Association, appealing
the interpretation of the Planning Services Director that the Dolphin Cove
Site Development Plan (SDP-98-40) was consistent with the Purpose and
Intent Section (Section 2.2.9.1) of the Village Residential (VR) Zoning
District of the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordnance 91-102,
as amended), on the date of staff approval of the SDP (November 12,
1998). SDP-98-40 authorized the development of a 76-unit multi-family
project on Bock Y, Tract 1, Goodland Isle Subdivision (Plat Book 6, Page
7).
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.
7
October 24, 2000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Approve Amendment No. 1 to the 1999 Tourism Agreement between
Collier County and the City of Naples regarding the reconstruction of the
Naples Pier.
2)
Approve a 2000 Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples regarding
emergency dredging of Gordon Pass.
3)
Approve Amendment No. 1 to the 1999 Tourism Agreement with the City
of Naples regarding installation of T-Groins and modification of the Groin
Field North of Gordon Pass.
4)
Approve a 2000 Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples regarding
post dredging monitoring of Doctors Pass.
s)
Approve a 2000 Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples regarding
Maintenance Dredging of Doctors Pass.
6)
Authorize staff to approve agreement with Lewis and Associates to
provide auditing services of MediaOne and AOLFFime Warner Cable
Television Franchise fees.
7)
Petition C-2000-9, Phyllis M. Jensen, Festival Chairman of the Naples
Italian American Club, requesting a permit to conduct a carnival "Italian
Fiesta" on November 2, 3, 4 and 5, 2000, on their property located at
7035 Airport Road North.
8)
Petition C-2000-11, Ettote Rubin, C.S., of Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic
Church, requesting a permit to conduct a carnival on November
22,23,24,25 and 26, 2000, on property located at 207 South 9th Street in
Immokalee.
9)
Petition C-2000-10, Reverend Joseph Spinelli, O.S.A. Pastor of the St.
Elizabeth Seton Parish, requesting a permit to conduct a festival on
November 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, 2000, on their property located at 5325
28th Avenue S.W.
10)
Authorization to reject sole bid for proposal #00-3127 "Consultant
Services for Consolidated Plan" and to authorize staff to re-advertise
"Consultant Services for Consolidated Plan" for the coordination of
information for the compilation of a consolidated plan to be submitted to
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of
8
October 24, 2000
the application process for Urban County Status.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners execute
interlocal agreements with specified taxing districts to exempt them from
the annual requirement to appropriate increment revenues to the
Redevelopment Trust Fund.
12) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Montalvo".
13)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Cascada at Fiddler's
Creek".
14)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "daVinci Estates", 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 "Naples Gateway Phase
Two" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
16)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra Parcel 109",
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
17)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra Parcel 101-
A", and approval of the Standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
18)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra Parcel 110",
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
19)
Request from the Civil Air Patrol for payment of building permit fees and
impact fees from the General Fund for a T-Hangar to be built at the Marco
Island Executive Airport.
20)
Ernie Brentzman representing the United Way of Collier County, Inc.,
requesting a Temporary Use Permit extension from the 28 calendar days,
as allowed by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), to allow
the United Way thermometer signs to remain in place for an additional 67
days until January 15, 2001.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve the stipulated final judgment as to parcel 108 in the lawsuit
entitled Collier County V. Jose L. Rey, ET AL., Case No. 99-3683-CA
9
October 24, 2000
(Golden Gate Boulevard)
2)
Approved Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with
Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc., for the design of Livingston Road
(Golden Gate Parkway to Community School Entrance), Project #60071
and Livingston Road (Community School Entrance to Immokalee Road),
Project No. 62071.
3)
Recommendation to approve the purchase of a one (1) commercial
asphalt paver, in accordance with Bid #00-3151
4)
Recommendation to approve the purchase of a one (1) 15 cy dump truck,
in accordance with Bid #-00-3149.
5)
Recommendation to approve the purchase of a one (1) tandem axle truck-
tractor, in accordance with Bid# 00-3147
6)
Recommendation to approve the purchase of a one (1) 5 cy dump truck,
in accordance with Bid #00-3150
7)
Accept a grant of non-exclusive easement and a grant of non-exclusive
irrevocable licenses for the installation of directional and or identification
signs, landscaping, lighting and maintenance.
8)
Approve contract amendment No. 97-2715-A02 with Agnoli, Barber and
Brundage, Inc., for the Lely area stormwater improvement project - Phase
I (Project No. 31101)
9)
Approve amendment No. 1 to Livingston Road Construction Engineering
Inspection Professional Services Agreement with Kisinger Campo and
Associates Corp. (Project No. 60061) (CIE No. 53)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Approve list of qualified engineering firms for RFP 00-3119, Annual
Contract for Utility Engineering Services.\
2)
Award a Purchase Order to TRISEP Corporation, to furnish and deliver
new nanofiltration membrane elements and accessories to the North
County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Bid 00-3132, Project 70887.
3)
Award a Contract to Florida State Underground, Inc. to construct a 12"
water main on East U.S. 41 from Manatee Road to Boyne South and a 6"
force main from pump station 3.17 to Boyne South, Bid 00-3145, Projects
70862 and 73061.
10
October 24, 2000
4)
Approve Consultant Selection for engineering services for the North
County Wastewater Reclamation Facility Deep Injection Well, RFP 00-
3122, Project 73948.
5)
Amend Work Order HAA-FT-00-02 for engineering services related to
noise issues at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project
70063.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approve Grant Application for Aaron Lutz Neighborhood Park to Install a
Picnic Shelter and Landscaping.
2)
Approve Grant Application for Improvements at Airport Park in
Immokalee.
3)
Award Bid #00-3099 to T-Shirt Express of S.W. Florida Inc. for T-Shirts
Used in Athletic and Recreation Programs by the Parks and Recreation
Department.
4)
Presentation of the FY00 Annual Report of the Collier County Film
Commission.
5)
Recommendation to Endorse Efforts to Replace Local Matching Fund
Requirements for the Healthy Kids Insurance Program with State Funds.
SUPPORT SERVICES
Award Bid No. 00-3142 Grounds Maintenance for Collier County Satellite
Facilities.
2) This item has been deleted.
3)
Recommendation to approve Employee Referral Bonus Program to
reward employees for finding qualified job applicants for County positions.
4)
Award Bid #00-3143, "Paint and Related Items" to Sherwin Williams and
Scott Paint.
s)
Award RFP #00-3090 "Indoor Air Quality Services" and authorize staff to
negotiate agreements with Pure Air Control Services.
6)
Award RFP #00-3109, "Janitorial Services" to United States Services
Industries (USSI) and authorize staff to negotiate agreement with selected
vendor.
11
October 24, 2000
17.
7)
Adopt a revised method for funding the acquisition of motor pool
replacement vehicles and approve budget amendments associated with
implementing the new process.
s)
Declare six hundred and twenty-seven (627) County-owned computers as
surplus and authorize the sale of this surplus property to employees of the
Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Florida State Statute 274.06.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendments #00-515;
#01-005.
2) Approval of Contract for Financial Advisory Services.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Request the Board approve a contract with Gregory Court Reporting
Service for court reporting services for Collier County.
2)
Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue revenue bonds
to be used to finance manufacturing facilities for The Diaz Family Limited
Partnership and Gulf Coast American Blind Corp.
3)
Approval of the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement
acquisition on Parcels 240 and 240T in the lawsuit entitled Collier County
v. Robert L. Davis, et aL, (Golden Gate Boulevard Project).
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
12
October 24, 2000
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.
Petition No. PUD 2000-07, Robert Duane of Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc.,
representing North Naples - Bonita Land Trust, requesting a rezone from "A"
Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Two
Lakes Plaza for a maximum of 144,000 square feet of Commercial Retail and/or
a maximum of 288,000 square feet of professional office uses for property
located on the east side of U.S. 41 north, one mile north of the Old U.S. 41
intersection, in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 20.38+/- acres.
Bm
Petition R-2000-02, Douglas Workman requesting a rezone from "MH" Mobile
Home to "RSF-5" residential single-family for property located at the eastern
terminus of Van Buren Avenue (Kelly Plaza), in Section 13, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition R-00-5, Mr. D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates,
representing Jerry F. Nicholes, requesting a rezone from "RMF-6" and "T" to "C-
4" for property located at 1417 and 1425 Creech Road in Section 22, Township
49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition VAC 00-010 to vacate the plat of "Fishbranch Little Acres Phase One",
as recorded in Plat Book 23, pages 58 through 59, Public Records of Collier
County. Located in Section 31, Township 46 South, Range 29 East.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
13
October 24, 2000
October 24, 2000
Item #3A, B, & C
REGULAR AGENDA, CONSENT AGENDA AND SUMMARY AGENDA
- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning. Welcome to the
October 24th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.
Will you please join us in the invocation by Father William
Kehayes of Saint Katherine's Orthodox Church, followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
FATHER KEHAYES: Good morning. Let us pray. Oh, God,
our Heavenly Father of thy infinite mercy, let the Holy Spirit
guide and bless our County Commissioners. Know all of their
endeavors, that they may fulfill their commitment and trust of the
citizens of Collier County and the agenda upon which they must
labor for the well being of us all.
Give them wisdom of thy love, of thy patience to keep them
from faltering. Save us from quibbling. Direct their attention
always to the things that thy truth requires and the action thy
will commands.
Grant that we pray thee as we approach the date of
national/local elections that there may be in our nation, state,
county, and community a succession of faithful and sincere
leaders of the people. Unto all in authority grant thy special
blessing, especially unto those who have the responsibility for
making laws for the governance of their fellow men and for those
acts intended for the quality of life in the society in which we
live.
Remove from them all temptations and occasions for
stumbling in the path of justice and truth. And to the people who
chose their leaders, grant power of discretion worthy of those
who follow the master of human kind.
Grant us good health and clarity of mind in our service to our
people as stewards of all that God has granted and entrust in our
care to the praise and glory of the grace through Jesus Christ,
our Lord. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We're going to take a look at
the agenda this morning. And as we start -- before I go to Tom
and go to the County Attorney and to the other Commissioners, I
Page 2
October 24, 2000
am requesting that the noise ordinance, Number 12(C)(1), be
continued indefinitely. We have received a letter from the
State's Attorney Office challenging this. And I believe it is in the
best interest until the Board can review this with our legal
counsel to continue this item to a future session.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My thought on that is -- if I read
the letter right from the Attorney General's Office, it indicates
that if we were to adopt the ordinance as proposed we might
have a potential conflict. And, frankly, my inclination today is
not to adopt most of the ordinance. And so what I -- what I would
be voting for today would not be in contravention to the Attorney
General. It would be furthering the Attorney General's concern
that we might be creating a special class, which -- which is a bad
idea.
My other thought and respectfully because I know how
much time you have put in on this is that there has been so much
staff time, so many community meetings, I feel like the
community needs to have resolution on this issue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I appreciate your comments and
I will go to Commissioner Brandt. But let me just respond to that
for a moment. I, too, am concerned about the time and the
energy and the effort that's been put in on this ordinance. But I
also feel that we are sitting with four commissioners and this is
a community-wide situation where, I believe, five commissioners
should be making this decision.
And I would propose to this Board that we continue it until
the new Board is seated and we have a workshop in front of this
to go through all of the details in here, the concerns, all of the
things that evolve from the public hearings. Because I, frankly,
don't know the history of that myself and I would really feel more
comfortable getting all of that in a workshop and then bringing it
back to the Board; therefore, continuing it probably until the first
quarter of next year. So that when we do this, addressing the
Attorney General's concerns and my own personal concerns,
would be an area that I would, frankly, be more comfortable.
Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weigel, I have a couple of questions regarding this. And
Page 3
October 24, 2000
one of them has to do with -- depending on what we decide to do
today, for instance, if we decide not to have a special overlay on
top of other areas of the County, and if we, the Commission,
decide to go forward with something along that line today as not
having a special overlay, when would the other three
commissioners have an opportunity to get into the act and does
that obviate a possible workshop even after -- if we adopted
some modification of the noise ordinance today.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, the question has at
least two parts. The Board has the ability today to adopt any
elements of the amendment that are before you today. This is an
amendment to the ordinance that's already in place.
The Board or future Board composed of new commissioners
can have a workshop at any time that they determine, working
through the County Manager, to set up that workshop at any
point in time in the future to have a general workshop with
specific -- a workshop with specific direction ahead of time or a
workshop that provides for specific direction from that workshop
to staff to prepare something to bring back to the Board.
There is no -- obviously no requirement that the Board take
any action today. It can continue either to a date certain or it
can continue indefinitely based upon its -- the Board's thoughts
on a workshop or other intervening considerations.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: There are several items I think in
this proposed ordinance that are worthwhile pursuing. And if we
today adopt elements of it, it would still have to come back for a
second hearing; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. WEIGEL: No. That isn't correct. Municipalities use that
concept. Collier County does not.
One thing I want to add is is that the ordinance amendment
as proposed and advertised provides for an effective date of
January 1st, 2001.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: And what that means is is that even if the
Board were to adopt the ordinance in its entirety as proposed
today, nothing changes automatically and conceivably there
could be changes made in the meantime. I'm not advocating that
the Board take action today particularly, but I just want you to be
aware of the fact that it does have a delayed implementation
Page 4
October 24, 2000
date.
We received our communication from the Attorney General
very late on Friday afternoon raising a question about the overlay
concept here.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: One final question. If we adopt --
make sure I understand this. If we adopt something today, a
modification, for example, of what is being presented to us as a
total, there is still the opportunity that data can be accumulated
once the ordinance is enacted. Data can be accumulated with
regard to noise emanating from various places and the levels of
those and the Board would have an opportunity at a later time to
modify whatever is decided today, assuming we go forward; is
that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question. What -- what
spurred the Attorney General to offer an opinion?
MR. WEIGEL: We do not know for sure. We forwarded to you
the copy of the transmittal we received yesterday because --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm sorry, David. I don't have that.
So that's the reason -- I don't have it.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I may have --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was just curious as to what --
what was the inspiration behind the Attorney General's
revelation.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't have copies with me. We'll provide
them to you. But what they stated was that the proposal of an
overlay, which would, in effect, to some degree, keep static the
current standards in Immokalee as opposed to providing changed
or higher noise standards in the urban area of the County would
potentially be a discriminatory application of our law adversely
affecting the minority population.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What is the difference between an
overlay for noise and an overlay district in any other thing that
the Board has done in the past?
MR. WEIGEL: I offhand can't recite any particular reference.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't mean to put you on the
spot. That's not my intention.
MR. WEIGEL: No. The question is fine. The answer may be
Page 5
October 24, 2000
that the -- it could be minimal. We have to look further as to the
consideration that the Attorney General gives to this overlay as
opposed to other land use overlays. This is not the land use
overlay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. But it makes no difference
because you have a rural ag area that has a different type of
commercial type of activity going on that that might be different
than the coastal community which has -- doesn't have this kind
of activity?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that is correct. This ordinance, as well
as many of the County ordinances, are concerned with public
health, safety, welfare, community standards and the police
regulatory power of the Board of County Commissioners as the
unit's government.
So we would believe -- and, in fact, developing the concept
that is before you today -- that statistics, as well as reaching out
to the public, had indicated that this was a feasible, viable and
legal way to go forward. We have signed off on this for legal
sufficiency; however, obviously we will review the question very
carefully with the Attorney General.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I know you're not asking for a
vote or anything like that. But I will tell you there are parts of
this ordinance when I read it made me just mad as heck.
Because you are now impending on my life. Because if I
have to -- and people can laugh about this. But I think you open
up the door here for some real silly complaints when you get
neighbors who may not like the kids next door and when you
start talking about yelling, whistling and hollering and want to
include that in a noise ordinance.
I have some real problems with this. Because we do have
mixed neighborhoods of age groups, God bless us. I think that's
a wonderful thing to have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, God.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- in a community. But at the same
time, you may have some kids next door that are out playing in
their backyard and they may get loud at times and this may well
spur a grumpy neighbor -- and it doesn't need to be an old person.
I'm talking about it could be a young person that could get very
unhappy about this and decide to call code enforcement.
And the next thing you know, you've got the Hatfields and
Page 6
October 24, 2000
the McCoys right next door to each other in Collier County. This
is something that we have created. And I have some real
concerns over that for -- particularly for young families. That's
where I'm coming from.
The second place I'm coming from is that I have to go back
to using a broom to sweep my deck, instead of using my leaf
blower. And that kind of annoyed me because that noise might
be a little offensive to my next-door neighbor. Now, I'm not going
to use it very long, but I darn sure am going to use it because it's
a lot quicker than me standing out there trying to broom leaves
off of a river rock deck.
I just think we're asking -- I'm only using these examples --
and they're crazy and they're silly. But I will tell you this is the
kind of thing you get into and you've got to be careful about
when you start passing ordinances, I think. And these were the
things that struck me right from the get-go. MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just say -- you know, I feel the
same way about most of this ordinance. And, Commissioner
Carter, I feel like we need to close the door on a lot of this today.
There are some elements of it that are worth keeping, but I
just think that we've had the community in such an uproar for so
long and I'm not supportive of most of what has been talked
about out there and of most of what's in that ordinance. I'm just
afraid that we need to go ahead and stop this because we've
talked about it a lot.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I value all of the opinions that
are coming forward, believe me, but a lot of you are reinforcing
what I'm saying. I think this has evolved through the public
hearings. I don't believe, personally, that I have a total grasp on
that evolution and the word-smithing.
Groups have come and expressed concerns to me. And to
sit here and cobble an ordinance today without doing it in a
workshop, I personally don't like that approach. I would rather
have the Commissioners in a workshop, which is publicly
advertised, to sit down and really go through this thing and then
determine -- and I don't want it to drag on forever. But I would
say if we need time certain that it is completed by the first
Page 7
October 24, 2000
quarter of the year 2001 and we get it done, but let's tear it apart
in a workshop where we know what we can save and can't save
and have the noise experts from all of the entities present to
state their cases. That's where I'm coming from this morning.
Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Weigel, another question of
you. If we go forward and hear this today, this commission can
hear whatever the staff has to say about this particular
ordinance. If nothing else, we can help identify those things that
are good and should be kept. We want to make sure, as
Commissioner Berry and Commissioner Mac'Kie have stated, we
don't create a problem where there isn't one.
And I, too, am concerned about being inundated with
frivolous communiques back to the staff taking up a lot of staff
time needlessly. However, I still think we should go ahead and
hear this today. And this commission can still make a decision
today to put it off if we choose to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's how I feel, too.
Let's -- you may be more informed, Commissioner Carter, than
the rest of us to know just how muddled it's gotten. I've watched
a couple of the workshops that were taped and replayed on
Channel 54. And I agree it has gotten confusing.
Maybe today all we accomplish is that we give some
direction to staff about where to go, what to bring back. But I
feel like we need to have some -- are our experts here? Did they
-- do we know --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are all the experts here from the
representative parties?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have any idea if people
have not showed up today because there was some concern that
we weren't going to be hearing this today?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't know that. I know that consistently we
try to tell the public that called and was concerned -- Tom Olliff,
for the record -- was that there had been a request from a
commissioner for a continuance, but that that decision wouldn't
be made until the beginning of the Board meeting and it had to
be made by the full Board. So that was the information that was
distributed as of the last couple of days.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You know, I could look at this a
couple of ways. The easiest thing for me to do is just say, "You
Page 8
October 24, 2000
all just hear this at a workshop whenever." But that hasn't been
the charge. The charge has been to all of us that we need to get
something done on a noise ordinance.
And there are some parts of it -- and, again, when you say
when -- I made the comment about something that's frivolous and
some of these parts in here that I just thought were absolutely
insane. But I can understand why they were placed in there at
the time when -- the writing of it and so forth.
But these are the things that I think we each need to take a
look at it and throw out some of it. And it -- it doesn't make any
difference to me. If the Chairman thinks that it would be better
served at another time, I would have to defer to him. At the
same time, I'm prepared to go forward and say some things
about it today.
I will tell you right -- no. That's not fair. Because we need
to hear it, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, likewise, I'm sure not going
to -- if you feel very strongly about it, Commissioner Carter, that
we need to put this off, I will certainly defer to your judgment on
that. I feel like we might accomplish something today and give
staff some direction today.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I feel much the same way.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I hear three votes that prefer to go
forward is what I'm hearing. I still am going to -- I'll stay with my
original stand. I think it should be deferred and go through a
workshop. But if it's the pleasure of the Board to go forward and
hear this today, I am only one member of this Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We may yet have a workshop.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I think you may well have one,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Then--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that we may just knock out
some elements that we think at this time are not worthy. And
then your workshop may be even better and more efficient when
you do get to it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. It's the pleasure of the Board
that this item stay on the agenda.
The next question that I have is in regards to Goodland and
the -- this is a question to the County Attorney, just for the
record, to make sure I'm clear and understand that regardless of
Page 9
October 24, 2000
what happens with the Goodland overlay or a possibility of a
future moratorium, that this would not affect any current
contracts in that community that are now underway. That those
-- whoever is engaged in those can go forward and do whatever
they need to do within our current codes, zoning, et cetera.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. And the fact is
is that the County, yes, is working on its land development code
amendment cycle, working on an overlay. It has a consideration
of a moratorium. These have a long way to go with review before
they even get to the Board of County Commissioners.
We will not comment on any specific contractual elements
that may exist between the private parties, however. If they
have contracts that express some issues based upon even
movement of the County towards a consideration, those are
things that we are not privy to, nor can we comment on it. But
the process itself of the County staff working to come back to
the Board at a later date with both an overlay projection, as well
as potential moratorium of a very limited nature is separate and
apart from the contracts that may already be in place with any
persons in potentially affected area of Goodland.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just view -- I appreciate you
bringing that up. Because I -- we've probably all heard -- I know I
have -- that there are potential parties out there who want to
use, it sounds to me, the fact that there is discussion ongoing in
Goodland to get out of their contractual obligations. And like you
say, David, their private contracts are none of our business and
we will keep it that way.
Just for the record, this Board has only voted -- has already
voted on some of these issues. And the current position -- the
only vote that this Board has made is that the three stories over
one is to be permitted within the height limitation.
We're going to come back and look at a zoning overlay that,
hopefully, is going to talk about community character. It's going
to talk about architecture. It's going to talk about the way the
fishing village looks.
But nobody -- if staff is proposing two over one, you know,
nobody needs to think that this Board isn't able to disagree with
staff. We do often. And currently our only vote is for three over
one.
So I just want to say that because of -- I don't want the
Page 10
October 24, 2000
County to incur any liability for some contract being blown over
rumor. The Board's current vote is for three over one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that answers the question that
was raised to me and, hopefully, to the person that raised it so
that they can go forward and do whatever they decide to do. All right. Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, good morning. Still trying to set
the agenda here, I've got a couple of changes. I think I've got
some good news. I've only got a couple of additions and a
number of continuances and deletions.
And I'll just start at the top off your list. The first item is an
addition. It is Item 10(G). It is a resolution by the Board
opposing a proposed constitutional amendment on a Statewide
high-speed rail system. And that's being requested by
Commissioner Carter.
The second item is also an addition. It is Item 11(A)(1). It is
a request by the Sheriff for the Board to consider submission of a
Department of Transportation Highway Safety Fund grant.
The next four are continuances. Item 12(A)(2), Petition
CPSS 2000-1, which is a small-scale map amendment to the
Golden Gate area master plan. That has been requested by the
petitioner to be continued to 11/28 meeting. The November 28th
meeting.
Next item is a continuance of Item 12(B)(1) to the November
14th meeting. It's Petition PUD 99-20. It is the Brenwood
Preserve, Inc. requesting a rezone to a PUD known as the
Brenwood Preserve PUD. That is continued to the November 14th
meeting.
Next item is a continuation of 12(C)(1).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. OLLIFF.' No. That was a request, which we will
continue to hear that on the agenda.
Next item is 16(A)(6) to the November 14th meeting. That is
off of your consent agenda. That was auditing services for an
auditing contract for MediaOne and AOL/Time Warner Cable
television franchise. That will be brought back to you at the
November 14th meeting.
The next two are deletions. Item 16(C)(1) and Item 16(E)(6).
16(C)(1) is the annual contracts for utility engineering services.
That's being deleted at staff's request. The next is RFP 00-3109,
Page 11
October 24, 2000
janitorial services. That is also being deleted at staff's request.
There is note, a scrivener's error. Item 12(A)(1) should
appear as follows in the title. It is actually a transmittal public
hearing for the 2000 growth management plan amendments.
And I've got one last addition. Under presentations, Item
5(C)(1}, your tax collector, Guy Carlton, has a presentation that
he would like to make to the Board this morning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That is which item?
MR. OLLIFF: 5(C}(1).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 5(C)(1).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we offer our Tax Collector
to do that right away so he can go back and get to work?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would like for him to go collect
taxes. That's a good idea.
MR. OLLIFF: We probably need to set the agenda first and
then we can do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the agenda
consent --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Whoa, whoa. We have got some other
folks here yet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, Mr. Carlton. I got
you up there too fast.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. As I have chatted briefly about, I
would like to just mention at the early part of the agenda that I
will bring up under staff communication today a request for
advice from this Board that we could have a closed session
concerning the rocks on the beach case, also known as Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County versus Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Michael Steven, Michael Poff, TL James
and Highlands Insurance Company. That's case number 00-1901
in the Circuit Court here. I will bring that up more formally
pursuant to the Sunshine Law at staff communication today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have nothing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mine has been shot down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the consent,
Page 12
October 24, 2000
summary and regular agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
All right.
Page 13
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
OCTOBER 24~ 2000
ADD: ITEM 10(G) - A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
Opposing a Proposed Constitutional Amendment on a Statewide High
Speed (Rail) System. (Commissioner Carter.)
ADD: ITEM 11(A)1 - Department of Transportation Highway Safety Fund
Grant application for a Traffic Safety Grant. (Sheriff Hunter.)
CONTINUE: ITEM 12(A)2 To Date Uncertain Petition CPSS-2000-1,
Request for a Small Scale Map amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan Element for Property Located on Randall Boulevard. (Petitioner
request.)
CONTINUE: ITEM 12{B)1 To November 14 Meeting - Petition PUD-99-20,
representing Brynwood Preserve, Inc, requesting a rezone from "A"
Agricultural to "PUD" to be known as Brynwood Preserve PUD. (Petitioner
request.)
CONTINUE: ITEM 12(C)1 To Date Uncertain -Adoption of an ordinance
amending Collier County's Noise Control Ordinance. (Requested by
Commissioner Carter.)
CONTINUE: ITEM 16(A)6 To November 14 Meeting - Authorize staff to
approve agreement with Lewis and Associates to provide auditing services
of MediaOne and AOLFFime Warner Cable Television Franchise fees. (Staff
request.)
DELETE: ITEM 16(C)1 - APPROVE LIST OF QUALIFIED ENGINEERING
FIRMS FOR REP 00-3119, ANNUAL Contract for Utility Engineering
Services. (Staff request.)
DELETE: ITEM 16(E)6- Award RFP #00-3109, "Janitorial Services" to
United States Services Industries (USSl). (Staff request.)
NOTE:
Scrivener's error- Item 12(A)1 should appear as follows:
1) Transmittal Public Hearing for the 2000 Growth
Amendments.
Management Plan
October 24, 2000
Item #4A, B, & C
MINUTES OF BUDGET MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2000;
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2000; AND VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF OCTOBER 2, 2000 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Call the Tax Collector now?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, Mr. Carlton, could we have your
presence, please?
MR. CARLTON: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, I'm Guy Carlton, your friendly tax collector.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We didn't approve the minutes yet.
MR. CARLTON: On the lighter side of life --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Hold on.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Error on my part. Before you start into
that, Mr. Tax Collector, we've got to approve the minutes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to approve the minutes of
September 6th --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, you don't.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- budget public hearings;
September 26th, regular meeting; and October 2nd, value
adjustment board.
Mr. Carlton, you can stick around.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A second?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #5C1
CHECK PRESENTED TO THE BCC IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.5
MILLION BY TAX COLLECTOR, GUY CARLTON
Now, Mr. Carlton, I will get to you, I promise. Go.
MR. CARLTON: You all are hard to give money to. I'll say
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Amen.
MR. CARLTON: But on the lighter side, who wants to be a
Page 14
October 24, 2000
millionaire? Your life-line number is 774-8500, which rings right
at my desk.
It was 1986 the first time that we hit the million dollar mark.
And I've got the greatest staff in the world. This is monies
available that we chose not to spend.
Record breaking distribution this year. Total unused fees
returned back, 3.9 million. The Board's share is 3.5 million. I
heard all the problems you have coming up and all the
workshops, so hopefully this will fund some of those things.
Let me present to you a check for a little over $3.5 million.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Where is Dwight? I want him to see
me handing this off before I slip this into my checking.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that we should note to the
tax collector, that~ Mr. Carlton, you never ask Commissioners if
they want to be a millionaire.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not anymore.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not anymore.
MR. CARLTON: I apologize for those remaining.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't look good in stripes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We're very sensitive about these
things.
MR. CARLTON: I found your money man in the hall.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is Dwight.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Here, you go, Dwight. I want to hand
this off to you. Right here in the cameras, to Mr. Brock.
MR. BROCK: Thank you. We'll put it in the bank.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Thank you, Dwight.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Headlines today, "Commissioner
Carter accepts check for 3.5 million."
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Well, if you're going to go down,
you might as well go for big numbers, right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, Lordy.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'd leave the country right
quickly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Moving on.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The jet is waiting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't look good in stripes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We do have a little fun up here, folks.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's a rarity.
Page 15
October 24, 2000
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING NOVEMBER 4, 2000 AS "PAINT
YOUR HEART OUT" DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Proclamations. Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I do. I have a proclamation this
morning for Paint Your Heart Out Day. If we could have -- if Bill
Brigham is here. Oh, Bill is not here.
Okay. How about Susan Golden? Good. Susan, come on up.
How about Cormac Giblin? Wonderful.
Turn around and face the audience and people at home on
TV land. Susan is with the City of Naples Planning Department.
And Mr. Giblin is Collier County Housing and Urban Improvement
Department.
Did I get that right?
MR. GIBLIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County
supports housing assistance to very Iow, Iow and moderate
income families; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County works cooperatively with the City of Naples and area
organizations to address community-wide concerns; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County has previously participated in Paint Your Heart Out
events with local businesses, civic associations and youth
groups and supports expanding the program to provide
assistance to needy, Iow income, elderly households throughout
Collier County; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County supports joining forces with the City of Naples, the Collier
County banking partnership, juvenile court, and the Department
of Juvenile Justice, a variety of trade organizations, including
the Collier Building Industry Association, Spectrum Painting and
numerous civic and non-profit organizations to promote Paint
Your Heart Out.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that Saturday,
Page 16
October 24, 2000
November 4th, 2000, be designated as Paint Your Heart Out Day,
and urge all residents to take an active role in making Collier
County an even more attractive and special place to live by
participating in volunteer efforts.
Done and ordered this 24th day of October, 2000, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James D. Carter,
Ph.D, Chairman.
Mr. Carter, I would like to move acceptance of this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If any Commissioners are
interested, I've participated in this a couple of times. It is
extremely rewarding.
MS. GOLDEN: I even brought a photo album.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. I want to see. It's very
rewarding to show up and participate in this painting people's
houses who are physically and financially incapable of doing it.
It is just one of the nicest things I've participated in.
MS. GOLDEN: This is actually the tenth year that this
program has been in operation locally and the third year that
we've been doing an annual event. What I did bring today was a
list of the homes that we're going to be painting on Saturday,
November the 4th, in case any of the County Commissioners are
interested in coming out and seeing what is going on.
That list also includes some of the volunteer organizations,
but there is a number of local banks that are participating. We
also have some local churches. The Sheriff's Department is
involved this year. The Drill Academy, the Department of
Juvenile Justice and a number of others.
Again, Spectrum Painting and CBIA, a lot of the local
contractors and lawn maintenance folks also donated their time
to this event. So we'd like to just thank you on behalf of all of
the volunteers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then you get to look through
the book and go, "There is my house that I painted." That is
great.
Page t 7
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING NOVEMBER 6-12, 2000 AS
"YOUTH APPRECIATION WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY" - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Okay. Commissioner
Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a proclamation here today.
And I would like to ask Gerald Neff, from the Youth Appreciation
Week Chair, to come forward. And I promise to take a copy of
this proclamation home to my kids. It begins at home. This is
for Youth Appreciation Week.
Whereas, the vast majority of youth are concerned,
knowledgeable and responsible citizens; and
Whereas, the accomplishments and achievements of these
young citizens deserve the recognition and praise of their elders;
and
Whereas, Optimist International has since 1954 developed
and promoted a program entitled Youth Appreciation Week.
Whereas, the City of Naples, Florida has -- the citizens of
Naples, Florida, have indicated the desire to join the Sunset
Optimists in expressing appreciation and approval of the
contributions of our youth.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of
November 6th through 12th, 2000 be designated as Youth
Appreciation Week in Collier County.
Done and ordered this 24th day of October, Board of County
Commissioners, James D. Carter, Chairman.
And I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. It's a pair of seconds. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Page 18
October 24, 2000
(Applause.)
MR. NEFF: I brought my--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do you want to step --
MR. NEFF: -- president along this morning. This is Mr. Chris
Hill. This is the president of the Sunset Optimist Club. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
All right. Service awards. I'll do this a little bit differently
this morning. I have been told that sometimes, at least the
five-year recipients, feel a little self-conscious coming up
individually to receive this. So I'm going to let them be this class
of October 24.
And I will invite them collectively to come forward so that
we can recognize them and show them off to you in television
land. So this morning for our five-year recipients to come
forward and receive their pins.
First of all, Gary Morosso from Utility Finance Department.
We have Domingo Almaral from Transportation and Landscape.
And Joseph McClamma from Wastewater. And Louise Chesonis
from the County Attorney's Office.
If you all would come forward, we would like to congratulate
you,
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And your pins. Don't run away without
these nice --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The jewelry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The jewelry. Got to have the jewelry.
If you all would turn around so that we can get a nice group
picture for this class of October 24 of our five-year recipients.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For ten years, we have Mr. Kevin
Dugan from Pollution Control. Kevin? (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Kevin wins the tie award today.
Page 19
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, doesn't he?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: He does indeed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can usually count on Ken for
that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There you go.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's from that pollution-free
water we get.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's probably what did it.
And for fifteen years, we have Teresa Beck from Code
Enforcement.
(Applause.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Certificate and your jewelry.
And the grand winner this morning is Rhonda Tibbets from
Purchasing Department with 20 years.
(Applause.}
Item #8A1
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RETAIN OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL TO
FILE A LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT TO CHALLENGE
IMPLEMENTATION OF FLORIDA'S COMMUNICATION SERVICES
TAX SIMPLICATION ACT - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Attorney's Report, Item 9(A).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. WEIGEL: 8(A)(1).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Okay. That moves us to County
Oh, e(A)?
8(A)(1),
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 8(A)(1). I am sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the same. It's still the
County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's still the County Attorney. I've got
a nine on my page. I've had a lot of problems with this book this
week.
MR. OLLIFF: Go ahead, Bleu.
MR. WALLACE: For the record, Bleu Wallace, utility and
franchise regulations.
In June of this year the Board authorized the County
Attorney retain outside legal counsel to review the Florida
Communication Service Tax Simplification Law that was passed
Page 20
October 24, 2000
during the 2000 legislative session. Becker and Poliakoff were
retained and has provided its opinion that the new law is
unconstitutional under Federal law and Florida law and that,
among other things, it is not revenue neutral as claimed.
The next logical step is for staff to obtain Board
authorization to secure the services of an outside law firm to
challenge this law. Board authorization will allow staff to identify
other jurisdictions that are interested in joining with Collier
County in the challenge. This also would allow us to share in the
legal expense and also to broaden the scope of concerns of this
law while strengthening our position regarding certain provisions
of the law.
We will continue to monitor any proposed changes regarding
the law in the meantime. And prior to actually filing suit, staff
will return to the Board for approval of a budget amendment for
not to exceed costs for our share. There have been over ten
local jurisdictions that have contacted us that are interested in
joining us in this challenge.
If there is any question to staff, I'd be happy to answer
those. If they are legal in nature, I would defer to the County
Attorney.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions from the Board?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Wallace, is this the bill that
they passed where the State is going to collect the money and
not the counties?
MR. WALLACE: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And then they are going to divvy it
out to the counties --
MR. WALLACE: Yes. But --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- as they see fit?
MR. WALLACE: By way of a formula yet to be determined,
yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Well, this is wrong. So I
definitely think that this is something that we should pursue.
And I'd like to make a motion that we go ahead and authorize --
give the authorization for legal counsel.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand there is a couple of
speakers.
Page 2t
October 24, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you do have two speakers. First
is Matthew Lebowitz.
MR. LEBOWITZ: I will waive speaking.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay. The second speaker is Charles Dudley.
MR. DUDLEY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members, good
morning. My name is Charlie Dudley. I am an attorney in private
practice in Tallahassee. And actually it's nice for me to be back
home here. I serve as the general counsel to the Florida Cable
Telecommunication Association. I represent MediaOne and Time
Warner here in the Naples area.
I want to give you some brief background this morning and
answer any questions you have. I appreciate the work that your
staff has done. This is really a work product that began in
Florida in 1995 when the Internet was kind of just on the scene.
No one knew how to tax it or what to do with it. Obviously, it
was not real politically popular to tax the Internet.
Late Governor Lawton Chiles put a task force in place.. I
was privileged to serve on that with a number of other leg,slators
and members. And that task force came back with a
recommendation to do what the legislature did this last session.
That is, that it was silly going forward in Florida to kind of
continue trying to determine what fee and what tax is going to
be on a service based on what type of provider it was.
To give you an example, as most of you know, cable
television for years has been largely what some people refer to
as a natural monopoly. But with the advent of wireless
communications, especially satellite providers, there's just been
a lot of competition out there for video services. But as most of
you probably are aware, you don't get any revenues from satellite
providers in Collier County. They don't use your right-of-way so
they don't pay any franchise fee.
So when the legislature began looking at this in 1995 and
1996, they made a decision that it was silly to continue trying to
determine what is taxed based on what has been a historical,
categorical determination for that service. You know, you tax
Sprint telephone differently than you tax wireless services that
are provided by cellular technology. And, as you know, those are
largely becoming substitute services.
So, I guess, my point to you this morning is that I would
hope that you might want to step back a little bit. This piece of
Page 22
October 24, 2000
legislation, which was passed unanimously in the House and the
Senate, was endorsed by the Association of Counties, the Florida
League of Cities, the Telephone Association, as well as the Cable
TV Association. We have worked about two years on this
legislation.
We have a whole new set of rules to work on this next
session, as your staff has pointed out. There is, by the way,
going to be a specific tax rate for Collier County set by the
legislature that will be distinct from the tax rate for the City of
Naples, which will be distinct from the tax rate for Lee County,
Fort Myers, et cetera. Each of Florida's local governments will
have what is known as a replacement tax rate under the law. By
statute that has to be revenue neutral.
Now, I know the concern. You send money up to
Tallahassee and it never comes back.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right.
MR. DUDLEY: And what I would urge you to do, however,
though is to take the next year to monitor and study this. The
bill has to pass a second time or it automatically repeals June
30. It is not effective until October 1, 2001.
So the fact that there's still a lot of work to be done, the fact
that Collier County and many other local governments have
concerns about the overall scheme that's being put into place,
we all perfectly understand that. This was a consensus product,
however, done in con]unction with the four groups that I
mentioned earlier.
And the League of Cities, Association of Counties continue
to be at the table to work on part two of this legislation. What
the State is doing now -- and I'm sure that your staff has been
participating in this -- is all the local governments and industry
have reported their 1999 revenues on a jurisdiction specific basis
so that the State can take a look at how much money Collier
County got from cable franchise fees, any other fees that you
charge or taxes.
They're going to take a look at that data and determine what
the appropriate replacement rate would be. And that way when
you have customers that migrate from MediaOne to satellite or
from Sprint local telephone to AT&T Wireless, they will be paying
the same tax rates. They will be able to understand their phone,
cable, long distance bill, which is something they can't do now.
Page 23
October 24, 2000
And this government will not only be held financially harmless,
but it will probably see your revenues grow because you are
going to have a much better base to assess the tax on, a much
more stable base where technology is not determining what your
revenue returns are.
So, I guess, what I would urge you this morning is not to
authorize staff to go forward at this point, but to continue
monitoring, participating in the process, either on your own or
through the Association of Counties, to see what happens during
the next legislative session in April/May. Because, quite frankly,
if nothing happens in session, this bill repeals itself. If they do
not pass a replacement bill that has a tax rate that you like, you
can fight against the bill, kill the bill, and there won't be a
simplified tax scheme for Florida.
Let me just close by saying Florida's the first state to move
forward and do this. It is being looked upon as a national model
to get to the point where a customer can get voice, data and
video service from any particular company it chooses and that no
one company or one technology will be put in a different position
because of tax policy.
I think you all would want the residents of Collier County to
have the benefits of having multiple providers providing multiple
communication services to them and not having a tax burden
that's different. Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer
any questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would -- Bleu, did this come out
of your group in Tallahassee? I mean, was this -- this was
something that was discussed up in Tallahassee?
MR. WALLACE: This was -- yes, commissioner. It was
discussed in Tallahassee over the last year and a half or so.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's what I thought.
MR. WALLACE: I first made the -- this Board aware of this
last November prior to the legislative session and had you pass a
resolution opposing that legislation. That was provided to the
legislative delegation and the Florida Association of Counties to
no avail. It still -- that did pass.
I do plan to come to the Board four years in and present
another resolution opposing any further legislation having to do
with this tax. The cable franchise fees are not a tax and should
Page 24
October 24, 2000
not be thrown in the same -- same bin as taxes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I still continue my support --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- for going in this direction. And I
would like to see this representation working on this. I think
another set of eyes to create and ask any questions and to
clarify the issue, I think, is a lot better than what we have right
now. I just -- I still think that this is the way to go. So I still hold
with my motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It will help make our position
really, really clear to our legislative delegation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Absolutely. I think that they
have the option now to move forward under what we are
proposing this morning. And if this is a national model, boy, we
are in trouble.
I will tell you this. In reading through this, you see double
dipping on administrative fees. One from the Department of
Revenue, one from the franchisees. We -- you know, we're out of
the picture. We lose control. We're not allowed to audit.
Now, who in the world would ever let money go anywhere
without auditing it. They want to take that away from us. And
then, you know, what the -- you know, we just -- you know, the
potential loss of revenues to Collier County is staggering. And
there are a lot of cities and other counties who are watching this
thing very judiciously. And we're giving our staff the authority to
watch it and go toward.
And if we have to take them to court, I hope that they have a
whole room full of people that can stand there and defend what
was just tried to be defended this morning. Because it's -- it's
taking away from local government. They have no problem
mandating to us from Tallahassee or from Washington, but they
sure don't like to send the dollars.
And this is just a classic example of take-it-away revenues
and yet shoving other things down our throats and saying,
"Counties and cities, you pay for it. We don't know how you are
going to do it, but we're going to take as much money away from
you as we can."
And, I guess, you clearly understand where I am, Mr. Bleu,
that you have got my 100 percent support on this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Call the question?
Page 25
October 24, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Call the question. All in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Go for it, Bleu.
MR. WALLACE: Thank you.
Item #8A2
IMPLEMENTATION OF A HEARING EXAMINER PROGRAM FOR
QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS -APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That takes us to 8(B). I am
sorry. 8(A)(2). I will be all right. I have got my agenda out of
whack here this morning.
8(A)(2), discussion of implementing of a hearing examiner
program for quasi-judicial land use.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Board
Members. My name is Bob Mulhere, for the record, planning
services director.
This item -- I've provided you, I think, with a very detailed
backup in the executive summary package. And I do have a
power point presentation, but in deference to your very full
agenda, I certainly wouldn't object to going directly to the
direction that staff is looking for. There are some specific pieces
of direction -- of course, unless you have questions that you
would like to ask.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm dying to jump in here
because this is something that I wanted to see Collier County go
to for as long as I have been on the Board. This is a really
positive way to de-politicize the development process. And we
are clearly in need of as much of that as we possibly can.
I support this and don't need discussion on whether or not to
do it. I do, however, want to do -- unless -- I would like to hear
some discussion on varying from the Lee County model with
regard to access to public officials.
I would like not to limit access. And I realize that that
requires a more cumbersome disclosure under the quasi-judicial
regulations, but I'm willing to do that. I'd like to have the best of
both worlds, which I think would be the hearing officer with
Page 26
October 24, 2000
access to public officials via disclosure.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Along that same line, what if
Commissioners had a log of -- and just submit that every time you
had a meeting. If you have had a participation or any kind of
contact, you just merely submit your -- more or less your
calendar.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: To me that would be one of the
easiest things. Now, the only place where it probably gets a
little difficult is if you don't meet with someone, but you have a
telephone contact. So it would require the Commissioners to
make sure that if they had a telephone conversation with, you
know, an interest that that would be logged.
But that would be -- might be the easiest way and just
submit that. And I don't know if that would suffice or not or if
you have to publicly say it or -- but the main thing is that it is a
record that you submit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All we'd have to do -- and the
County Attorney's Office could come up with a form for us,
whether it's a written out log or you print out your calendar or
whatever it is.
We have to make it a part of the record available to all
sides. And they have to have it and know who we talked to and
what we talked about. And, you know, the how we do that can
be worked out in the future, but --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm supportive. When I first heard
that this is how they did this in Lee County, I thought -- I think
this makes a lot of sense. And, yet, the people still have access
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, they do.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- to the County Commissioners.
So don't -- I don't want anybody throwing up that red herring and
say, "Oh, well, we can't talk to the County Commissioners
anymore." That's not true.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. The way I understand it is that
they go to the hearing officer and we are really the appellate
court. And we have what's called the ex parte communications,
which says no further evidence can be introduced, other than
Page 27
October 24, 2000
what was discussed in that hearing. And it does, if I understand
it correctly, eliminate them coming to us outside of the public
hearing. When they come to us is in a courtroom.
If the information -- unless you establish a different direction
and have your logs and everything. I'm more inclined to not go
there. Not that I want to cut off access to me, but I think for a
cleaner, simpler operation I'm an advocate of the hearing officer
and staying within that framework where the Board can work on
long-range policy and planning and those kinds of issues and
stay out of -- out of these other arenas where there's a public
perception that we're unduly influenced by certain groups.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I thought considerably about this.
And there are some things about it that I like, some things about
it that concern me. One of the things that I like about it is that
the public perception, as Commissioner Carter just referenced, is
dealt with to a high degree and the lobbying of commissioners
tends to go away. But there's some concerns I have about the
authority that a hearing officer would have. And let me give you
a couple of instances just to try to make sure I understand what
we're talking about.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to go to the
visualizer for just a moment --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Absolutely. It's your pleasure, your
privilege.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- and see if I can draw
something.
I will need some guidance. What I want to do is draw
something like this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You need to switch to the
visualizer.
MR. MULHERE: She is on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. The reason I drew this is
because Vanderbilt Lagoon sets out in here, for example. At the
Planning Board meeting on the 19th there was a petition brought
forward by a representative of a group asking that some boat
docks be allowed to go -- asking that some boat docks be
allowed to penetrate into Vanderbilt Lagoon.
Page 28
October 24, 2000
And bear with me because my memory being what it is -- I'll
rely on it as much as I can, but we need to verify some things.
The petitioner was proposing that a dock be placed out here with
a ramp coming off of some properties -- and there were several
buildings in here -- with a privacy fence of about six feet high.
There was another portion of the dock that would be out
here that would allow two boats to be moored. This one would
be allowed -- allowed to have three. The boat docks float. So
the petitioner was making the point that by having floating docks
as compared to fixed docks you're now using concrete pilings
that allow the boat dock to rise and fall with tide and you don't
pollute the lagoon by having treated wooden pilings.
Now, I don't agree with that being a problem. And I think
there are a lot of people with the CBIA that would also contend
that that's not really a problem.
The other issue associated with it was that they wanted to
come out 60 feet compared to the 20 feet that they're allowed.
There were three people -- and I listened to this partly over the
weekend. I didn't have time to hear all of it, but I did hear a good
portion of it.
And there's a property sitting over in here. And the riparian
line comes down through the center of this 100-foot wide canal.
So the petitioner was taking advantage of the 50 feet they have
here, and rightly so. Part of the difficulty is the individual who
lives in that location there at the end of the canal -- and I don't
know whether you can see that all that well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But their concern was, "What will
this do to my view?" There's another house being built in here
and the lady indicated that it is going to be about a million
dollars. When they bought the lot, they had the view of
Vanderbilt Lagoon. They're concerned that this dock will present
a problem.
The petitioner's representative was very good. It kept
talking about the floating dock. It moves up and down with the
tide. What he didn't discuss are the boats that would be at those
docks and what those boats do about obstructing view.
And we know that in Collier County anyway and almost any
place you go, water view has value. It didn't seem to me from
Page 29
October 24, 2000
what I listened to at the Board of-- Planning Commission that
there was any sense on the part of those members, who are
volunteers, and thank goodness they are, that they had an
appreciation that it does affect values of properties if you
obstruct the view of a body of water.
The petitioner kept saying the reason they wanted to go out
60 feet total is because the water level out here at Iow tide
about 300 feet into the lagoon from the dock is about 3.4 feet at
Iow tide. Those of us who are boaters in the area know that in
some instances you have to do your boating activities based on
what the tide is doing. And, for the most part, in things like
Vanderbilt Lagoon, the deep water is around the outside
perimeter, not through the middle.
And so he did a very good job of diverting attention and I
applaud him for that. However, he also diverted the attention of
the Planning Board members, in my view. Now, this is a David
Brandt view based on what I saw on TV. And there was another
individual -- and I don't know where that individual was located,
but there were three of them that were concerned about what
would happen to view.
Over on this side -- this is the Gulf. Over on this side of the
lagoon is a large condo. One of the Board member comments
was, "Why would you want to look out across the water" -- I'm
paraphrasing not exactly. "Why would you want to look out
across the water to see a condo?"
Well, those of you who know what the value of waterfront
properties are, people pay a lot for view. And it would seem to
me that we need to do two things. We need to cause our
volunteer Planning Commission to be aware of some of these
issues that need to be dealt with in the hearings that they have
and the decision-making they do. They ultimately approved
putting these docks in and there was one dissenting vote.
So I have a real concern about a hearing officer. Now, we
have a Planning Board and we have an Environmental
Assessment Board that look at issues like this and make
judgment. It was pointed out by the Chairman of the Planning
Board that these individuals who objected to the docks that were
going to go in -- again, floating docks, Iow level, not a problem for
view, forget the boat. And, again, the petitioner's representative
did a very good job of that.
Page 30
October 24, 2000
But my concern is that if we have a hearing officer, to what
extent will the hearing officer look at issues that we, the Board
of County Commissioners, have as a responsibility to determine
what the waterfront areas of the unincorporated area of this
County are going to look like and what the value of properties
will be?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie wants to make
a comment. But I think to address that we want to hear a profile
from Bob Mulhere on the professionalism of a hearing officer and
the roles of the EAC and the Planning Council would change.
They would not hear these things. They would be in a different
responsibility area working on policy and long-range planning, as
we would be. It would be an altogether different environment.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly
the point I want to make. That in order to have a hearing officer
capable of doing what we, the Board of County Commissioners,
want done, we have to set the standards. We're the ones that
are going to determine what this County looks like, not the
Planning Board.
If the Planning Board continues to make these kinds of
decisions where I don't think the general public and the people
who are concerned about the property values -- if they're going to
continue to do this sort of thing, then maybe we should revise
the current ordinance and take that capability away from them.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Brandt, I think
we've got good news here today. Because what's in front of us
would do exactly what you just said.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's the reason I wanted to
bring it up. To help emphasize that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Okay. Because -- because
supporting the ordinance as proposed today would take from the
Planning Commission and move to a hearing officer decisions
such as the one you just described. And the good news here is
that to the extent -- it does put a real onerous burden on the
County Commission --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that we be careful that our
ordinances reflect the vision that we have for this community.
Because there won't be any wiggle room. There won't be any
Page 31
October 24, 2000
discretion.
And that's why, for example, the issue that you have on the
agenda today about interconnection. You know, we have had
interconnection as a suggestion and then when petitioners come
in front of the County Commission, we've kind of twisted them
into doing it because we wanted them to. The onus will be on
the Board to be sure that the ordinances require what we want
required because the hearing officer will have to enforce what
we want -- you know, what the ordinances say.
For this particular proposal, we are -- the staff is proposing
to start slow, give us time to do just what you are -- to be sure
that our ordinances do say just what we want them to say. But --
but your point is well taken and argues for a hearing officer, in
my judgment.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And that's the reason that I
wanted to bring it forward. Because it does place a greater
responsibility on the Commissioners. And I do believe the
Commissioners who set policy need to spend the time with staff
to help make sure that those policies are in the best interest of
the taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if you saw the -- as I have,
the schedule that the County Manager has for the new Board in
the first quarter of the next year, he's -- he has us spending our
time on those issues and particularly on workshops.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: As well you should.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As well we should.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly. You are policy-makers.
Now, there's going to be a segment of the population that doesn't
want to hear that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. But that is indeed --
statutorily that is your role. And it means what you're going to
have to do after they get you started is that you are going to
have to go through and review some of these ordinances and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- make sure that they say what
they say. But that's the job of the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Exactly.
Page 32
October 24, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I -- that's why we have a
six-month window here to begin to do that. And I totally concur
with everything that was said here this morning is that that is
our ]ob is policy-setters and to review these things to make sure
that we look like we want to look in Collier County. And,
secondly, though, remember, we then sit as an appellate court
that they can appeal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Either side.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But the restrictions there will be far
greater than they have been in the past. And you are not going
to be having -- if it goes the way that it might go, whatever is on
the record, whoever was there, can come and present their
cases to us as we sit in this quasi-judicial forum and make the
decision either to uphold the hearing officer or reverse it. That
could be done, but we won't be influenced by anyone from the
outside. We have to only go with the data on the books.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I do
believe that the approach that Lee County is taking where it
blocks out, if you will, the lobbying of the commissioners is the
right way to go. And I support that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And it works well for them. In talking
with John Manning and John Albion up there, they have found
that it has worked tremendously well for them. I don't see why it
wouldn't work here.
But for the public, I think it would be a good idea, Bob, if you
could just kind of profile quickly what are the credentials for a
hearing officer.
MR. MULHERE: Well, the hearing officer would be a
professional trier of fact. Someone who is experienced in
looking at the evidence, the expert testimony that is placed into
the record and looking at the criteria upon which an approval or
denial should be based and then crafting a recommendation that
carries in all of the information that has been put on the record
and putting that in a format that's very easy for the Board and
the public to digest as to why they arrived at a particular
decision.
I just wanted to add that the -- we have experienced -- the
staff has experienced a desire on the part of the Planning
Commission and the EAC to be more involved in policy-related
issues. To a large degree their hands are tied, as well as your
Page 33
October 24, 2000
hands are tied, by, as Commissioner Brandt indicated, the
structure that is in place today Oftentimes the public doesn't
understand that your decisions are tied to the structure that's in
place.
And until we look at those policy issues and revise those,
we have to proceed under the ordinances that are in effect
today. You know, the land development code as an example.
This would provide for significantly more time for those
committees -- not doing away with them, but still utilizing those
to look at these policy issues and bring recommendations to the
Board, perhaps in timing with your workshops and other things
like that.
I do have some decisions that I think you need to make and I
would like to go over those. Some of them you have already kind
of indicated, but I'd like to go over those one by one so that
we're clear for the record.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: The first one is, obviously, we would have to
amend the special act to redefine the roles of the Planning
Commission and also to allow it to include the hearing examiner
program. There is an opportunity, as an aside, to correct some
of the other smaller issues where we have a conflict with current
statutes. And we would, of course, do that working with the
County Attorney's Office as we went through the amendment to
the special act for the hearing examiner. We also, obviously,
need to create an ordinance -- a local ordinance for the hearing
examiner.
The question -- the first question that really is -- requires a
decision is whether we totally prohibit -- yeah. Move forward.
Sorry.
Whether we totally prohibit ex parte communication first
with the hearing examiner. And the staff certainly would
recommend that strongly. And that's consistent with the way
that other local governments would operate.
But the second decision is whether or not we would prohibit
ex parte communication with the Board. And that could even be
further broken down into, "A", on appeal, or, 'B", where the
Board has final decision. And what we're recommending is that
for major land use decisions, to include rezones -- PUD rezones
included and conditional uses, that the hearing officer make a
Page 34
October 24, 2000
recommendation to the Board and that the Board continue in its
final approval capacity.
However, for lesser land use petitions, such as boat docks
and variances and those types of things, our recommendation is
that the hearing examiner's decision be final. And then there is a
decision there as to whether you would like to have the appeal
capabilities from the final decision on the minor land use petition
by the hearing officer or whether or not, as in the case of Lee
County, such an appeal would go to the circuit court. Staff
recommendation is that the appeal go to the circuit court for
those minor things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why is that?
MR. MULHERE: Just feel like it would be less likely -- it
would be very easy for a plethora of appeals to come forward if
that process was available. It's -- people are going to weigh that
decision a little more judiciously if they have to go through the
court process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- I am sorry. I will wait.
MR. MULHERE: And that really was the rationale. We
certainly don't want to create a process that doesn't -- you know,
that doesn't -- that makes it very, I guess, open in any case to an
appeal.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that's a process that Lee uses.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Lee County uses, if I understand that.
Thank you, Bob.
MR. OLLIFF: If you don't, I think our fear is that for every
variance that's denied by a hearing officer it's simply going to be
right back here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. Right here in front of you and
you are right back on the same track.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Absolutely. Absolutely.
And you're no better off.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Now, with regard to -- we are back to ex
parte communication. With regard to ex parte communication,
you do have some decisions to make. One of the problems that
we have seen in our research is this perception by the general
public that if you totally prohibit ex parte communication they
don't have access to their elected officials to the degree that
Page 35
October 24, 2000
they would like.
I think from a purely legal perspective that makes it cleaner.
I think one of the Commissioners made reference to that. But
you do have the ability under the statutes to allow ex parte
communication, we just need to do a better job in process of
disclosure. And that would be a process that we would develop
over the next six months that would allow for very clear, very
clean and very complete disclosure of any ex parte
communication, either from a proponent of a project or an
opponent of a project.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, that would be after the hearing
officer had heard this, made a decision and they were appealing
to the Board of County Commissioners?
MR. MULHERE: Either appealing or going for final decision
in the case of a rezone. But that really wouldn't be an appeal.
You would have final decision.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Appeal or final decision then the
question is: How much communication will WE allow with
petitioners and how do we log it?
MR. MULHERE: Right. Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion that we
accept staff's recommendations to direct the County Attorney
and the planners to draft an amendment to the special act to
institute a hearing examiner; that we direct them, likewise, to
prepare an ordinance change with regard to our advisory boards
and their role; that we direct that there be no ex parte
communication with the hearing examiner; that we accept staff's
recommendations with regard to what appeals come to the
Board and what don't; and that ex parte communication with the
County Commission be allowed with a thorough disclosure
process.
And my reason for that is this. Twofold. One is we are
starting something new. I think it is better to start slow. That's
going to be a big hit for the public.
And the second is even though it's true that the public would
be able to lobby us on the issues, which would be whether -- how
high a building should be and how many trees, the reality is that
people get excited about it, become informed not when we're
doing land development codes -- they become informed when a
Page 36
October 24, 2000
project is out there that they get excited about. That's when
they want to talk us. And I think we should hear from them. So
that's my motion.
Did I leave anything out?
MR. MULHERE'. I'm not sure. You may have said this. I just
want to -- also, we need to bring forward an ordinance
implementing the hearing officer process -- program.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: Perhaps to clarify, it is actually the staff
recommendation as written in the executive summary and you
simply clarified where the actual ex parte communication for the
Board will be. And that way you are actually recommending that
we allow ex parte communication with the Board, but that we
develop a better process for recording and disclosing that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is my motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because it is difficult. There are
times when people will call in -- we'll never talk to them, but a
communication will come in to the secretary who says, "Joe
Smith called and supports whatever the issue is. Called all
Commissioners."
And we've never, ever talked to the individual. And then
somebody says, "Well, I called the Board of County
Commissioners." Indeed, they did. But we never talked to them,
but we got a message.
So the main thing is that we have a -- some kind of a process
by where that is duly recorded and at least it can be submitted
then that indeed this person did call the Board, even though we
didn't communicate directly.
MR. OLLIFF: We will develop that process.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: And work with your staff to do that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion. Do I have a
second?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any further discussion.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And, Mr. Chairman, with regard to
Page 37
October 24, 2000
the Planning Board meeting, I would be quite surprised if the
people who were opposed to those docks going in don't come in
for an appeal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
I will stop there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we'll see it. I'm sure that it will
eventually show up on our schedule.
Okay. Moving to 8 --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
They are entitled to.
They are entitled to and I would --
If it doesn't, it should.
Item #8B1
STAFF DIRECTED TO REVIEW AN ORDINANCE PREPARED UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF THE PELICAN BAY PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE
PELICAN BAY MSTBU
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 8(B)(1), transportation services.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before we start on this, it is an
item that I do feel I am able to vote on, but just in the interest of
disclosure because I think sometimes historically we haven't had
enough. I work in Lee County for the company that is the
manager of -- currently the manager of the Pelican Bay MSTBU. I
think that is a real long, long stretch, but -- and doesn't present a
conflict.
But I just didn't want to hear about it later that, "You know,
you had an opportunity to tell us that you worked for them and
you didn't." I do consulting work for them in Lee County on
non-developer projects. I just want to put that out there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weigel, do you have to give
direction to Commissioner Mac'Kie on that question?
MR. WEIGEL: She has not asked us in regard to direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you have any to offer, I'd
welcome it.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I would recommend that you not vote
on this matter in regard to your business relationship. I'm just
concerned that it does have operation specifically with this
MSTBU.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And how many votes does it --
Page 38
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am surprised, but I will do that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And how many votes do we need?
MR. OLLIFF: Three.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Three?
MR. WEIGEL: This is just a direction.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is just giving direction. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- Glad I brought it up.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just for a moment. Para, back
when I was going to propose a change this is the very thing
where I think Commissioners can run into some difficulty. Even
though you may not do work in Collier County for this company,
the bottom-line is you receive compensation from this company.
What is the difference in receiving compensation from this
company or a County Commissioner going out and having a $6.50
lunch; which is the most influential?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You still are receiving -- and they
still have a contract with Collier County that is overseen by this
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's still --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would not vote on that, Barbara.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't care about your voting. You
still are in a position of influence.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How can I help it?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You can go talk to any of the staff
in regard to this company and their relationship with Collier
County. I personally -- I think this is wrong, Pam. I really do.
I don't care whether it's you or anybody else. I mean -- But
that's a prime example of where I think that this is a problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate your opinion. I
respect your opinion. It is not in my judgment by any stretch of
the imagination wrong.
I can't imagine how I could help these people, especially if
I'm not even voting on this, which is a bit of a stretch. But now
you've made it an issue, so we'll get to talk more about it and I'll
be happy to.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, then that may be a future item
Page 39
October 24, 2000
that we have to put on the agenda. Let's move forward and deal
with the issue in front of us. You are going to abstain from this
vote.
There will be a presentation that may be made here in
regards to this by John Dunnuck. As we lead into this, let me
just say up front that there is unanimous support in the
community -- Pelican Bay community from the Property Owners
Association, from the MSTBU as currently is constructed and
also the Foundation are all in agreement on the changes that are
being proposed to us this morning. And a lot of discussion has
taken in that community through a lot of different meetings and
formats.
So there is -- this is not a secret kind of thing. This has been
going on for over two years. And that's why they are coming to
us today. And the bottom-line is they want to elect their
supervisors on the MSTBU versus having them appointed by the
Board of County Commissioners. And I think regardless of the
community that you live in, if that request is made that we ought
to honor that request.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's a good point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So, John, do you want to present or do
we need discussion on this? Because we're just giving direction
this morning that the Board of County Commissioners direct the
County Manager and County Attorney to review an ordinance
prepared under the direction of the Pelican Bay Property Owners
Association to amend the ordinance establishing the Pelican Bay
MSTBU.
MR. DUNNUCK: You made the motion -- excuse me.
For the record, John Dunnuck, interim community
development and environmental services administrator.
Yes. You summed it up quite well. This issue was brought
forward by the Pelican Bay Homeowners Association through the
Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Board. Both were in unanimous
support of it.
And right now we are looking for Board direction to go and
take a look at it, take a look at this ordinance a little bit in-depth,
bring back the pros and cons through a public hearing process
maybe as soon as November 14th, at which time we can present
all of the issues.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would like to make that motion this
Page 40
October 24, 2000
morning and the recommendation on the part of staff to proceed
with this.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And Barbara Berry seconds it. We've
got a motion and -- a first and a second. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Weigel, I have a question of
you with regard to legal issues that may evolve as a result of this
special setup that would be in Pelican Bay and the relationship
between them and the Collier County Commission. Are there any
special considerations that we need to look at? What complexities does this bring to us?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the general format of the ordinances
proposed and provided in the agenda book today shows that the
Board of County Commissioners will continue with some powers
over this district. It is a dependent district under Chapter 189.
As proposed, the Board will have fiscal responsibility, veto
power -- minimally veto power, but arguably additional power in
regard to almost all significant fiscal actions that this committee
-- or this district would have, if created. And that includes issues
concerning financing of capital projects and things of that
nature.
If I can respond further to your question, I will.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: They can determine how they
want to spend their funds to do the things within their purview
the way they want to?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. They do have to keep in mind
and, in fact, adhere to the Collier County growth management
plan, things of that nature. But part of their charge under this
proposed ordinance is to, in fact, look at and be very responsible
for capital improvements of a fairly vast array within -- within the
proposed district.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And the review that would be
done by staff, including your staff, I have -- my request would be
that you take a good, hard look at those kinds of issues as you
bring an ordinance back for review and our consideration. I'm
really concerned there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think I can assure you,
Commissioner Brandt, that that is already in process as they
evolve this. Copies went to the County Manager and they're in
the County Attorney's Office that there is a uniform approach and
Page 41
October 24, 2000
review of this. Because it really doesn't change our relationship
with the County in Pelican Bay. It just says that we are electing
these people versus this Board appointing them. But the same
rules and regulations and ordinances are pretty much in place,
as I understand it.
Am I correct on that?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any other questions?
Do we have speakers who want to speak to the issue?
MR. OLLIFF: You do not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. All in favor of the motion
please signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-0 with Commissioner
Mac'Kie abstaining.
All right. We are at that point -- how is our reporter doing?
Would you like a short break? She's looking that painful look at
me. I think we'll take ten and we'll be right back. (A short recess was held.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're back in session. Everybody
please be seated.
Item #8D1
PRESENTATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE FINAL REPORT OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE -
PRESENTED AND ACCEPTED
We're moving to the next item on the agenda, the
acceptance of the final health care report. Let's see. That will
be by Mr. Tom Schneider or -- ah, the good doctor is with us this
morning. Thank you.
DOCTOR COLFER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, I'm Doctor Joan Colfer, the
Director of the Collier County Health Department.
You will recall that approximately 18 months ago you
appointed an ad hoc committee to study the issue of unmet
health care needs in Collier County. It is my very great pleasure
to introduce the vice-chair of the health care review committee,
an extremely hardworking gentleman who has devoted hundreds
Page 42
October 24, 2000
of hours to this effort, Mr. Tom Schneider, who will provide a
summary of the final report of the committee. And he has a
power point presentation and I have handouts for you, so
whichever way you'd like to follow along.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Doctor Colfer.
Mr. Schneider?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chairman, can you hear me all right?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Commissioners, I am Tom Schneider. And
as Doctor Colfer has said, I have been the vice-chair of the health
care review committee that you appointed almost 18 months ago
now, I think. Sixteen months ago for sure.
And I just want to provide a recent history. And that is that
prior to the time that you appointed this committee, this issue
had been discussed and bandied around the community for a
number of years long before I got here. But it had never been
elevated to a serious discussion and lead to a conclusion until
your Board appointed this committee to look at this issue.
And I think we should start with a good definition, a common
definition of what we mean by access to health care. And that is
the ability to receive needed medical care when and where
needed or the timely use of personal health services to achieve
the best possible health outcomes.
Doctor Colfer already covered this. Basically you've asked
us to determine whether or not there is adequate access to
health care and whether it's available to all residents of the
County. And our voting members represented a broad
cross-section of the community stakeholders. We had
representatives from NCH Healthcare System, the Cleveland
Clinic, Collier Health Services, civic organizations, such as the
Chamber of Commerce, Greater Naples Civic Association,
League of Women Voters~ local businesses and the school
system -- the County school system all represented on this
committee. And we had advisory members who spend their
professional career working with various agencies, various
government agencies dealing with health care 100 percent of
their time.
We organized ourselves into subcommittees to try to look at
specific sections on a simultaneous basis. We looked at
children. We looked at the uninsured. We looked at elderly. And
Page 43
October 24, 2000
then we looked at dental services and mental health and drug
abuse services. And then, finally, we decided rather than
reinvent the wheel we should look at whether other communities
have developed successful programs to deal with this very issue.
And our conclusions are -- the first question is: Is there
adequate -- excuse me. I want to step back before I do that. We
did complete our assignment and we issued our report to you
about two weeks ago. And we also issued a separate executive
summary that's available to you and to the public. And we're
here today at your request to bring closure to that section.
So the question is: Is there adequate health care access?
And the answer is no. And that's despite the fact that there has
-- the community itself has -- has contributed millions of dollars
annually to this issue over many years coming from such areas
as the medical community, the hospitals, the physicians,
numerous charitable organizations that deal with one aspect or
another of caring for health care for the poor, the faith
communities, and many, many generous individuals donating a
substantial amount of money.
Our committee's report emphasizes that access to health
care in Collier County is a serious community-wide problem for
substantial segments of our local population and does require a
community-wide solution. How large is the problem?
Under the age of 65 with no health insurance, in the United
States we have 44 million. A number that we hear all the time in
the national press. In Florida we've got over two million people.
And in Collier County, based on a recent Florida study, we have
30,000 people, representing about 18 percent of our County
population. One of the highest rates of any place in the State of
Florida.
There is a little pie chart that shows this. And it shows that
we have 82 percent insured, 18 percent uninsured, 30,000
uninsured residents and at least 6,000 or more of those are
children.
Who are these uninsured? Well, the answer is they can be
anybody. They can be men, women, children, white, black,
Hispanic, other. They can be employed or unemployed men and
women. But, for the record, most of them are employed.
As you can see from this next pie chart, this is based on a
national study, but it shows that throughout the country almost
Page 44
October 24, 2000
75 percent of the people that have no insurance are part of
families where there is one or more full-time worker in that
family and another 10 percent with one part-time worker. That's
a point that I think you in the community need to keep
remembering is that, for the most part, the uninsured people are
people who are working trying to make it for their family and for
themselves.
They could be the waiter at your favorite restaurant. They
could be the lawn or pool caretaker, hotel workers, farmers and
growers, single parents, or they could be the neighbor next door
who just lost his job.
Again, who are these uninsured? National statistics would
show that 27 percent of them are children and 74 percent of
them, as we discussed, are in households with workers. Again,
generally the uninsured are people between the ages of 19 and
64 with incomes below 150 percent of the Federal poverty
guidelines, which equates today to about $25,000.
To give you an example, NCH has hired an outside firm to
review their charity care costs for each of the last several years.
And, again, those statistics show that most of the charity care
patients are adults between 19 and 64. And, in fact, 93 percent
of the cost of their charity care last year was for people 19 to 64.
And that was 93 percent of $14 million and almost 90
percent for outpatients, as well. And those statistics are similar
for each of the last several years. And, again, the NCH study
shows that 72 percent of these charity care patients were white,
17 percent were Hispanic, and then regionally 14 percent from
one zip code in Immokalee, 15 percent from one in East Naples,
and 12 percent from one in Golden Gate, where we have a large
working force.
What major gaps exist for the uninsured? Well, the answer
is that they receive little or no health care in the primary care
area, preventative care, dental, vision, or mental health. And
they often lack access to follow-up care. And they lack the
funds for prescriptions or for specialty care that has been
recommended.
What are the major -- I thought I'd just take you briefly
through each of the subcommittees that we have and start with
mental health and tell you what were the major mental health
access issues that we found. We found, for example, there was
Page 45
October 24, 2000
a significant decrease in the availability and the affordability of
those services. At the same time, there's been a dramatic rise in
the individuals in this County that are in need of those services.
Clearly, the funds are not keeping pace with the growing
demand. State funds for mental health services are now more
and more targeting those at risk of institutional care, which
leaves less and less public funding for preventative care or for
education. And the need has clearly already outstripped the
community resources, which is resulting in long waiting lists for
publicly funded care and significant delays for those seeking
care,
And the situation has now been compounded by the recent
closures and it may soon lead to a crisis. And I am speaking
about the abrupt closure of Charter Glades in June of this year
and the announced projected closure of G. Pierce Woods in April
of 2002.
Looking at children, our next group. This is a shocking
statistic to me. That 43 percent of the children in our school
system -- Collier County School District are eligible for free or
reduced lunch. That, I think just says immense things about the
character of the County versus the typical perception that there
is no significant need for this.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you know what the criteria for
that is?
MR. SCHNEIDER: I don't remember. Maybe Doctor Colfer or
somebody could remember.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because I think that's important
when you --
MR. SCHNEIDER: We can find that out for you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, yeah. I have an idea, but I
think you need to --
MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think the public needs to know
what that -- how that is figured and what is the basis for it. MR. SCHNEIDER: Very good. Thank you.
Looking at numbers, we've got 34,000 roughly school
children, 15,000 others, 49,000. Of those 18,000 are estimated
to be eligible for either Medicaid or for the Healthy Kids Program.
And about 12,000 of those are estimated to be currently
enrolled.
Page 46
October 24, 2000
Then what are the unmet needs of these uninsured children?
Again, they have limited or no access to preventative or routine
health care and there is a shortage of specialists in ENT and
dermatology, et cetera, who are available for -- to service these
Medicaid and the Healthy Kids children.
But we also have a school nursing program, which, again, is
quite new to this community. It's only been started for about
three or four years. And the question is: Well, why is that school
nursing program so important? Because it's a vehicle for the
family health education.
For many of these families, it's the only health care
professional that they see. And they're also a linkage to the
health care system to recommend and refer children who have
noted problems.
How many do we have? We have 12 student nurses. The
school nurses. Two of the schools have a full-time and all the
other schools have a nurse less than ten hours a week.
Do we have enough? And the answer is clearly no. For
example, the U.S. goal is to have one nurse for 750 students.
Florida is one for 1,500. In Collier County our actual number is
closer to 2,800 students for every nurse.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, if I could just interrupt you
for a second there. Haven't I read in the newspaper that that
program has been eliminated or--
MR. SCHNEIDER: I'm glad you brought that up. It hasn't
been eliminated, but most -- a good bit of the funding for that is
coming from NCH Healthcare Systems, as well as from the
County Health Department. But at a recent School Board
meeting in May the Chairman of the NCH did advise the Board
that -- that their contribution this year is not really coming from
the hospital, but was donated by one Board member. And he has
agreed to do that for one year. And that they should recognize in
the future because of the financial problems that they are having
that their funding is in jeopardy. So even for this limited
program, you're absolutely right, it is in jeopardy.
So then we talk about the Healthy Kids Program, which is an
insurance program for poor children that they're above the
Medicaid levels. And we say, well, why is that a good program?
Why is it an important program? The answer is because they
have good benefits and it's highly leveraged. And that is really
Page 47
October 24, 2000
the key. We get more bang for the buck in the local community.
Basically we can service -- right now we're servicing about
3,700 children at a cost -- local cost of about $370,000, which is
like $100 a year. Plus, the parents pay $15 monthly premium.
And then recently the legislature has enacted legislation last
year that froze this amount. And, basically, it has given us a new
challenge. And the biggest challenge for us now is to make sure
that we enroll as many local kids as we possibly can.
And I'm happy to announce that there is a coalition of
interested parties that is working on that right now. But we are
in a race with all of the other communities in Florida. Once the
State cap is reached, there's no more money available, then no
more kids will be allowed to be enrolled.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another just brief interruption.
Tom, maybe we could do something on Channel 54 for public
awareness, too. We ought to get as many of our kids enrolled as
we can.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Absolutely. Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a comment. I understand
that there is some concern with that from the standpoint of how
that program ends up paying physicians. Have you heard
anything in that regard?
MR. SCHNEIDER: It is my understanding that -- generally
speaking, the payment rates for Healthy Kids are better than the
Medicaid rates and that -- that -- I have not heard. And our
testimony -- all the interviews that we've had with the children's
subcommittee, I don't recall that issue having come up,
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I heard that recently and I was just
concerned.
MR. SCHNEIDER: We look at dental. Again, particularly a
dim picture here. Dental disease is rampant among these
people. We understand that there's only one private dentist in
the entire county that will accept Medicaid reimbursement.
The Marion Fether Clinic in Immokalee is really the only
dental clinic in the entire county. And the working poor from the
entire County from East Naples to Naples, from Everglades City,
all have to travel 45 minutes to an hour each way to Immokalee.
And, again, the statistic that shocked me was that -- and this is
the State of Florida statistics for Collier County. That only nine
Page 48
October 24, 2000
percent of those people have income below 200 percent of the
Federal poverty level accessed the dentist in 1998.
To us, anyway, as the committee, our editorial is that the
local dentists have not met their obligation to this community.
There's been little volunteerism in stark contrast to the attitudes
and the behavior of the physicians in this community. They have
no Medicaid patients and they have even resisted efforts to
establish free clinics in the community.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Tom, may I just interrupt a moment?
But there are some dentists who have worked with the Healthy
Kids Program. And I know a couple personally who do that
directly with the schools to get the kids there into their offices
versus going to the schools. So, I mean, overall we may not have
the support of the dental community, but there are some
individual dentists out there that I certainly wouldn't want to
include them in it. They have been very, very good in helping us.
MR. SCHNEIDER: You are absolutely right. And the Healthy
Kids has just instituted --just put in a dental coverage this
recent year. Just in the year 2000. And the other thing on my
next slide -- I was going to say we are seeing some progress
being made. And I did not mean to specify that it was all -- every
dentist.
But, in general, as a profession, they have not stepped up to
the plate. And I've had that acknowledged from leaders of that
organization, as well.
But now the public health department is actively recruiting
for dentists now so that they can start up a new clinic in the
County or to restart the health -- the dental clinic in the County
health building. And they have solicited volunteers from the
dental community and a number of them have signed up to help.
And CHSI and CMS and NCH are trying to start a new dental
clinic near the North Collier Hospital.
And we look at the elderly. I think basically find that
Medicare is working pretty much as expected with some
exceptions. As most of us know, they don't cover pharmacy
costs, preventative services, such as physicals, dental, vision
care or long-term nursing, which is primarily covered by
Medicaid.
And the key concerns for the elderly are there's a -- there's a
-- we don't know -- we don't have the actual grasp of the number,
Page 49
October 24, 2000
but there are a fair number of Iow-income elderly who aren't
eligible for Medicare and so they have the same problems that all
the other people have and don't have the umbrella coverage.
It's interesting to note that the elderly basically make up 1:3
percent of our national population, but account for 35 percent of
health care costs. And in Collier County we obviously have a
significantly higher proportion of elderly. From 55 up a couple of
years ago was 35 percent of our population.
So a few questions the people -- are in people's minds that I
think we should try to deal with. The question is: If these folks
are working, why can't they get coverage from their employers?
The answer is there's several reasons. One is that most small
businesses haven't been able to afford to offer insurance
because the insurance rates are so expensive.
And even for companies that do have health care options,
many entry-level jobs aren't offered any benefits at all. Many of
these people simply can't afford family premiums. So, for
example, what happens is is the worker gets -- he gets his
insurance or her insurance, but the spouse and the children go
without insurance because they can't afford the payments and
the deductibles and the co-pays and the family premiums.
Another question is: Why are these families uninsured?
Well, there are key reasons. But if you will look at the chart,
their cost -- three-quarters of the people who don't have it site
cost. So it's cost, cost, cost.
So then the question is: Yeah. But don't the uninsured get
treated anyway? And the answer is a lot of them don't. But
when they do, it's often too late when they're very ill. They use
the most costly care option, which is the emergency room. And,
again, they have no continuity in physicians or medical records.
And there's no preventative care or education.
Who treats these people? Well, in Collier County we do have
a great caring network of providers that have been doing this for
years. But the key word is it's fragmented. We have the
hospitals. We have physicians. We have the health department.
We have CHSI, the Collier Health Services, neighborhood clinic,
Senior Friendship Center, David Lawrence, et cetera. It goes on.
Guadalupe Center, plus numerous, numerous C-3's that
specialize in one aspect or another.
Now, the big question is: What difference does health
Page 50
October 24, 2000
insurance make? And this comes from the Keiser Foundation
Study that just came out this year. It's the best study I've ever
read on this subject of the uninsured. Basically they say that 20
percent of uninsured adults do not receive care for a serious
condition and that the uninsured forego even recommended
treatment.
For example, they -- they estimate that 30 percent of those
people did not fill out a prescription or they skipped a medical
test that had been recommended by a doctor due to the fact that
they couldn't afford the cost. And they found that the problem is
even worse for those in greatest need. For example, two-thirds
they estimate of the uninsured that are in fair or poor health have
had problems getting medical care.
And another one -- this one actually should be out to the
margin again. It's basically they found that the uninsured are
hospitalized at 50 percent more for avoidable hospital
conditions, such as pneumonia or uncontrolled diabetes or
asthma. That's really where the extra costs come from because
it's not treated early. It's treated late.
Okay. Who pays for the health care costs of the uninsured?
Well, the government. Mostly, Federal and State, some local.
Charitable contributions from individuals and, surprisingly, much
to probably their ignorance a lot of times, the insured patients
are paying for it. And they're paying for it by way of increased
hospital rates, increased physician rates, increased insurance
premiums and increased Medicare co-payments.
And we've had this spelled out very clearly to us by the NCH
Hospital. I mean, they acknowledge that this is -- this is
standard practice in the industry. That's the way they have to
deal to survive. Because I think at NCH, for example, 90 percent
of the patients that go to NCH Hospital the fee that they receive
is absolutely fixed. So they basically have to -- a lot of that is
fixed at below what their true costs are. So they basically have
to make it up.
But now the question is: Can Collier County expect the
State to help solve this problem? Well, we have good news and
bad news. The health care access and insurance is a high
priority on Governor Bush's 2001 agenda, which was spelled out
very clearly at his conference in Miami, at which you attended,
Commissioner Carter. But I think the bad news is that because
Page 51
October 24, 2000
of the severity of the problem and because of the limited
resources that the State will have, they're only going to be able
to scratch the surface. And I think we got a good sense that
perhaps a lot of that money is going to go over towards
Miami-Dade County where the problem is even much more
significant than here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're absolutely right, Tom. Because
it gets down to numbers and demographics. It was very clear to
me coming out of that conference we would get little support
from a Statewide program in total dollars coming to, what I'm
going to call, medium sized counties. It's just not going to be
there.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I came away with the same feeling.
So then the question was -- we said we started this model
subcommittee to see has anybody else dealt with this problem
and are there any successful programs. We didn't want to
re-invent the wheel if we didn't have to. We'd like to learn from
everybody else's experiences.
So, yes, we have found some win-win outcomes. And
basically they follow two different models. One is that if -- one
creates a public-private partnership and the other one energizes
the spirit of volunteerism. And looking at the public-private
partnerships, two that really stand out was the Hillsborough
County Program and the Palm Beach County Program.
From the spirit of volunteerism, the ones that stood out to
us was the Carondelet model in the Twin Cities of
Minneapolis/St. Paul. And we just recently, towards the very end,
discovered the efforts of Buncombe County, which is near
Asheville, North Carolina, which we will be investigating as part
of the -- we'll be doing more on all four of these.
But when we talked about win-win outcomes basically --
Hillsborough and Palm Beach basically created managed care
systems for the uninsured working poor with emphasis on
primary preventative care and education and using the power of
their large purchasing power to negotiate favorable and Iow
rates with the medical profession and then allocated those costs
equitably among the businesses in the individual communities.
And what results did they achieve when I say win-win? For
example, they improved -- they have statistics that show the
improved health and quality of life of the people that benefitted
Page 52
October 24, 2000
from this. They also saw improved worker productivity and
substantially reduced use of the emergency room and a
substantial reduction in the inpatient admissions.
And one thing that is not on here is that not only they
dropped the inpatient admissions, but now the reason for the
admission mirrors the entire population. So that they have
gotten away from these avoidable situations like diabetes and
asthma.
And a reduced length of stay. They are now down to
exactly, again, paralleling and mirroring the community as a
whole. And they have done this by attacking the -- they've
reduced the ultimate cost by attacking it when it's cheaper up
front, rather than expensive at the back end.
So then one of the questions is: Well, what are some of the
costs of the County not having a safety net for the working poor?
And they are really -- those costs are multi-dimensional. I'm
talking about Collier County. We have overcrowded emergency
rooms. We have been reading articles as recent as last month
and throughout last peak season articles about -- not just here in
Collier County, but the whole area about having -. EMS having to
go to not the nearest hospital, but try to find some other one.
Clearly amazing.
We have a higher absenteeism and lower productivity from
the workers. And, again, we have these higher rates for the
insured patients. They're paying higher rates for doctors and for
hospitals. I think we're clearly placing our children's future at
risk.
Bill, I think it just froze.
So what are our recommendations? What should the Board
do now? And we think that you should understand the critical
importance of a health care safety net for the working poor of
Collier County. Bear with me a second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- The power of technology, huh?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. The second recommendation that
we are making to you is that you do create a follow-up
committee to seek solutions to these problems that have been
identified and documented.
And I'm happy to say that you folks have already done that.
When we presented that request in May, you took action
immediately to create this committee that has now been formed.
Page 53
October 24, 2000
We're in our organizational stages. We have our first meeting
tomorrow.
And that committee's charge is to lead a community-wide
health planning effort to make the necessary financial and
economic analyses to be able to estimate what the costs are of
implementing one type of program versus another and then to
come back to this Board with specific recommendations, both as
to what are the best solutions do we believe for Collier County
and what the costs of those would be and then how best to
allocate the costs to all the constituency.
I think what I would like to do is just to finish with some
words out of our report here. I think it's important to know that
for many of us living here in Collier County it's a paradise here.
We enjoy most of the finer things in life, including excellent
medical care, and have the knowledge and means to live healthy
lifestyles.
We truly do live the good life. Unfortunately, there's a
significant portion of our community that does not have these
advantages. These people are often invisible to the majority of
us, but they are the people who clean our homes, do our laundry,
harvest the food for our meals, and keep our pools and yards
clean and our streets looking beautiful. Sometimes they are
women without marketable skills who are widowed or divorced
or they're skilled workers who have become disabled or owners
of unsuccessful businesses or people who have lost their ]obs.
Worse than their lack of access to the finer things of life is
their inability to provide for all their basic needs, including
necessary health care. There is no doubt the problem is real and
it is serious. And without setting and implementing the right
strategy, the cost in dollars and human suffering of indigent
health care will most likely continue to escalate.
We believe that rather than continuing to deliver fragmented
medical care that an integrated health care delivery system is
needed to successfully improve the health of the less fortunate
in Collier County. The entire community should benefit from this,
whether you're taxpayers, whether you're insured yourself,
whether you're the working poor, or whether you're a hospital or
a physician or a part of the business community. But resources
are limited, so the costs should be equitably distributed to the
entire community.
Page 54
October 24, 2000
The old Fram oil commercial -- you remember the old Fram
oil commercial. It says, "Pay me now or pay me later." It clearly
applies to health care. Funding care on the front side of the
problem will eliminate much of the cost to our current haphazard
system for treatable and even preventable disease is paid on the
back side.
The number of people in Collier County without access to
the health care is very real and should be unacceptable. The
majority of these individuals -- very important to know -- is that
the majority of these individuals are working, many at more than
one ]ob. They're trying to make it for themselves and for their
family. And they only want the access to health care that we
define at the front end, which is to get it timely and to get the
kind of care that's going to give you the best health outcome.
Other communities have proven that it is possible to create
a win-win situation. The public-private partnership to better care
at less cost.
In closing, I want to thank the Board for appointing this
committee. And I think the community owes you a debt of
thanks as well because you have now allowed for this
significant, serious problem to be elevated, to be discussed, and
to be -- hopefully, for solutions to be sought. And we are pleased
that we had the opportunity to begin this program and we
eagerly await the future findings of the new committee.
And as I say on the final slide, I think that together we can
find community-wide solutions to this community-wide problem.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Tom, on behalf of this Board, I
certainly want to thank you and your committee for the
tremendous amount of time, energy and effort that you have put
into this. You are to be commended for the thorough analysis
that you have done.
And also, personally, that now that you're stepping to the
new committee as the chairperson and that group has been put
together, we are very fortunate in this County to have such a
dedicated group of volunteers from all walks of life serving us to
get at this very critical issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I just wanted to add, too,
we're -- to have such dedicated and talented and -- people who
are willing to work on this issue. Because the Show Me state
Page 55
October 24, 2000
has got nothing on Collier County. But what you guys have done
here is show -- you have shown what the problems really are and
you have made it exactly what I hoped you would do.
That is, nobody can argue with it. These are facts. This is
reality in Collier County of 30,000 uninsured residents, citizens,
property owners and voters. And you've put it right out there just
exactly like we hoped you would. And we really sincerely thank
you for that.
MR. SCHNEIDER: You are welcome. And, again, I thank the
full committee who are a very dedicated group of people. And
we have identified the problem and now the real issue comes of
how do we find a solution. We'll be looking for you. We
encourage you to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have one other comment. Again,
very complimentary of the work that you have done. I think, too,
with Doctor Colfer's help don't sell yourself short. You may have
arrived at something that's happening in Collier County right now
with the public-private partnership with the OB/GYN physicians.
You may well have a model right here at our -- in our midst
and something that may be able to be duplicated with other
physicians, as well. I don't know all the ins and outs of it. You
all probably know that a lot better than I do, but perhaps that is
something that we can look at with other physician groups and
see if there is something else that may happen.
And we may have it right here. So I'm just very
complimentary of everything that you've done.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I would say that -- I've been led to believe
that the Foundation is probably the best public-private
partnership we've had in Collier County. We're aware of that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I wanted to do a, "Me, too." And
much of it has already been said. But I think one of the greatest
values that we have here in Collier County is dedicated people
who are willing to spend their personal time to do these
important needs of this County.
And I'm very pleased that people like yourself and others
step forward to do that. Without your help, the Commissioners
couldn't sit up here and do the things that you do. Thank you
very much.
Page 56
October 24, 2000
MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I entertain a motion that the Board of
County commissioners accept and approve the final report of the
Collier County Health Care Committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So move.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Again, Tom, thanks for a great job. I believe what we do out
of this -- because we have another issue moving right behind this
one. It's called Children and Families. That's coming down from
the State and as they dismantle that organization and move it
down to the States -- or down to the Counties. That we may
establish a model here that we can carry over and use in the -- in
that situation. So, ladies and gentlemen, we are ahead of the
curve, I believe, in this issue.
Item #8D2
CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING GARAGE AT THE VANDERBILT
BEACH PARK FACILITY - APPROVED AS AMENDED
We are going to move on to the next item, which will be
8(D)(2).
And before we do that, I would like to personally -- to say
hello to my granddaughter who is 16 months out there, Serena
Lynn, who watches the Commission meetings. She hears my
voice.
Here is a high-five from Papa. Don't drive grandma crazy
today. As you know, sweetheart, I do not live in the television
set.
She goes up and pats it and kisses it when I'm on television.
So I just wanted to welcome her to the program and let you
know that she is probably going to be the most knowledgeable
person in Collier County about what goes on.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, there will be several. I have
four granddaughters, but not all that old. But they wanted to
know how I got inside the television set.
Page 57
October 24, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, see, we have to unravel that
mystery for them.
All right. Moving on. Let us go to that --
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, before Maria gets started. Just
for the benefit of the audience that's here, you may -- if you're
going to consider taking a lunch break, there are ten registered
speakers for this particular item, which means that, I think, it
would take us clearly into what would normally be your lunch
break.
And if this is going to be the last item prior to lunch, you
may want to make that announcement to let everybody who has
got items after lunch to come back after.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much, Tom. This will,
based on what you're telling me, be our last item before lunch.
We'll take about 60 minutes for lunch and then we will resume.
So if you are here for other business, this will be the last
item for the morning. Ms. Ramsey?
MS. RAMSEY.' Good morning. For the record, I'm Maria
Ramsey, your Parks and Recreation Director.
In February of 1999 staff presented for your review a beach
access and boat ramp report. In that report staff outlined eight
traditional and non-traditional opportunities to expand beach
access facilities. Staff has spent the last 18 months addressing
various projects concerning beach access.
One of those opportunities, a parking garage at Vanderbilt
Beach access is before you today. I would like to take a minute
to share with you the other projects that staff is currently doing
regarding beach access to give you the scope of what staff is
proposing.
We are currently constructing an 80-space beach parking lot
at County Park to accommodate the overflow parking from
Delanor Wiggins State Park. This project will be completed in
December of this year.
Also, signature communities will be making sidewalk and
bike path improvements to the Blue Bill Avenue bridge to
improve the safety of walkers and bikers. The County is also in
communication with the staff of Delanor Wiggins State Park to
make turnaround improvements to the entrance of the park and
negotiating a public beach access along the park's south
Page 58
October 24, 2000
boundary line.
Staff has made an arrangement with WCI to expand the
parking lot at Seagate beach access. We are currently
researching three acres along Vanderbilt Drive across from
Cocahatchee River Park for bus shuttle or ferry service parking.
We've been working with private agencies to provide ferry
service from the Cocahatchee area to a Boardwalk/dock at
Barefoot Beach Preserve.
We are -- we know that education of the public is our main
concern and staff has developed a number of new brochures, as
you can see on the visualizer, showing where the beach
locations are. We've placed park rangers at parking lot
entrances and are researching electronic signage to be placed at
intersections like Vanderbilt Beach Road and U.S. 41 that will
indicate when the parking facilities are full.
Future opportunities include expanding Barefoot Beach
Preserve parking, making improvements to the six Gulf Shore
Drive public beach accesses and busing options. I mention the
above projects to emphasize that your staff and the parks and
recreation advisory board are actively ensuring that the public
has access to the beaches and public water bodies in Collier
County.
Vanderbilt Beach is our second most popular beach location
and provides access to 3.7 miles of beach. The beachfront at
this access is about 51,000 square feet. Using the national
recreation and park guidelines, this beach area will
accommodate 1,020 beach users, assuming everyone uses the
beach by putting down a towel or chair.
In addition, people will comfortably walk up to one-quarter
mile from the access point when coming to a beach location.
Historically, the parking lot at Vanderbilt Beach access is
full from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. daily during season. When the
parking lot fills, we get an increase in circulating traffic looking
for an available parking space in the immediate area.
Staff is recommending building a parking garage on the
existing parking lot at Vanderbilt Beach access based on
customer complaints about the lack of parking and traffic
congestion. The proposed parking garage will expand available
parking by 275 for a total of 400 spaces. The two-tiered parking
garage will be designed similar to the existing employee parking
Page 59
October 24, 2000
garage at the Ritz-Carlton down the street. The beach area can
accommodate the additional people and the traffic will
significantly improve as vehicles are able to safely and easily
enter designated parking places.
The area homeowners associations have expressed concern
over the increased traffic along Vanderbilt Beach Road
generated by the parking garage. Transportation planners and
engineers consulted by parks and recreation have advised this:
That the attraction to the Vanderbilt area is the beach, not the
parking spaces. Two, that the parking garage will capture more
cars from the roadway; thus, reducing the circulating traffic in
the area. Three, that the parking garage will accommodate more
people on the beach at peak times and shorten the period of time
that the parking facilities are full.
And, four, that visitors unfamiliar with the area will choose
the beach as a destination without the knowledge of the degree
of parking available. Although, residents with a knowledge of
the additional parking spaces may decide to visit the location in
hopes of finding a space.
Staff recommends that the Board take the following actions:
Find that pursuant to Section 125-0104, Florida Statutes, the
proposed Vanderbilt Beach parking garage is a beach park
facility. Two, finding that the primary use of the garage will be
beach parking for tourists and residents. Three, approve the
construction of the Vanderbilt beach parking garage. Four,
approve the use of the tourist development funds for the project.
And, five, authorize the chairman to sign the appropriate budget
amendment.
And now I'm open for questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to find out what was
the source of some of the information that I heard. You told us. I
just didn't catch it.
I understood you to say that some sources has indicated
that we will be improving a traffic problem. We will be lessening
a traffic problem in the area by organizing the traffic and moving
it somewhere specific during -- by construction of the parking
facility.
MS. RAMSEY: The parks and recreation staff consulted
transportation planners and engineers and asked them about the
Page 60
October 24, 2000
traffic patterns in the area and that was the results that we
received. I know if you want more information on that specific
area, I believe Chuck Perry is in the audience that could address
that in more detail than me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is he one of the ones with whom
you consulted?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll wait until he comes
up, if he does. But that's important.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I would like to ask a question
with regard to the capacity that takes you up to 400 vehicles and
how long you think that that would be adequate for the needs.
And I recognize you're talking about a little over 1,000 people
that would have access to that part of the beach or -- before it
got too crowded.
And I don't think we want it to look like some of those
beaches up north, but I don't know how the demand will
continue. And it would seem to me as Collier County continues
to grow that demand will get to be greater and greater and
greater. And in talking about putting two stories in, how long do
you think that will be adequate?
MS. RAMSEY: I don't have anything specific on that. But
from talking to the various planners, they figure that even during
-- once we've got the 400 parking spaces up there, that we
probably will still fill during peak times during season with 400
parking spaces.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That would be my guess. And the
demand will get to be greater and greater. So if you put 400
spaces in, I suspect it won't be long before you have a similar
problem with people trying to find a place to park because the
beach is an attraction and people gravitate to it, whether they're
a member of the community and a taxpayer of the community or
a tourist that comes down.
There are a lot of places during the season that rent out on
a monthly basis or a quarterly basis, whatever, and those
individuals will be wanting to get to the beach in some way if
their condo or whatever they are renting doesn't happen to be on
the beach. I -- my concern is that 400 is probably going to be a
drop in the bucket. And how do you address the problem beyond
Page 61
October 24, 2000
that?
MS. RAMSEY: Currently what we can do is we can build the
parking garage to support additional floors at a later date, if you
so wish.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, wouldn't the same problem exist
on Marco City, Commissioner; that you don't build for peak, you
build for an average in these areas? And that --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think the average will get to be
greater and greater. That's my point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: My questions are -- this went through a
number of committees. Could you fill us in on the feeling of the
beach committee, feeling of the TDC in terms of this project?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. It went through a number of -- starting in
April of 2000, we started with the TDC. It was tabled for six
months. We've gone to the parks and recreation advisory board.
We've held community meetings and we've also been to the
beach renourishment and pass maintenance.
The parks and recreation advisory board is supportive of the
parking garage and has suggested that we go after the funding,
being the TDC source. When we went to the beach committee,
they voted the first time as a 3-3 tie, the second time as a 7-0.
And that was in regards to funding source through TDC. When
we took it to TDC --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They voted against it?
MS. RAMSEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Voted against?
MS. RAMSEY: Correct. When we went to TDC, it was a 4-2
against. Again, against using TDC funds to be the funding source
for the parking garage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why; did they say why?
Are they concerned with the legalities or did they think it
was just a bad idea? Were you there?
MS. RAMSEY: My recollection of it is that it was 3.8 million
from the reserves and they thought it was a large sum and they
wanted to put more sand on the beach. That would be my
summation. But there's probably a TDC representative that
could give you a better answer on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could this -- if I may, Mr.
Chairman. Could this -- could the expenditure of this money
affect our ability to put sand on the beach or do we have
Page 62
October 24, 2000
adequate reserves even if we expend this money? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would like an answer to that.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, I will tell you from my perspective that,
no, it does not affect your ability to put sand on the beach. I
think that -- if nothing else, you can remember the original beach
project was done by borrowing against future TDC revenues.
And in a worst case, even if you had zero revenues today and you
needed to renourish the beach, you could go through the same
process that you did initially. But I also believe that you have a
fairly substantial reserve in addition to the 3.8 million that we're
talking about for this project.
MS. RAMSEY: The reserves as I have them in the executive
summary show about $5.6 million in the reserves after the 3.8 for
the parking garage.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. If we can -- one more question
and then we'll go to speakers.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Just one more question with
regard to satisfying a need. As we continue to grow and the
need for our taxpayers to have access to the beach -- I'm not
talking about people who come down here for a week or a month
and want access to the beach. But the people who are here
basically year-round or those that are here for six months, go
back up north for six months, but basically a resident of Marco --
of Marco Island and the County, how do we satisfy that need?
Don't we -- it is my view that this Commission has a
responsibility to satisfy that need. And surely that's part of the
reason you were asked to undertake the studies that were done.
But I'm more concerned about the long term. I think the average
demand will go up with time. And I'm concerned about how
we're going to satisfy that.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, in response, I think part of what Maria's
presentation was was a number of the other things that we are
working on. And I think this is going to be one of those
processes where initially the Board's efforts were at maximizing
the current beach parking spaces that we have. And we've tried
to expand the parking at Barefoot Beach as much as the State
will allow us. We are looking at all of our other facilities to try to
expand that parking.
But, obviously, we're coming to a point where you're going
to have to start looking at more creative ways to get the public
Page 63
October 24, 2000
to the beach. And I think that requires looking at opportunities
as they arise and looking at them in the community where they
exist. And some of that is going to be whether we're boating
public to some of our park locations, whether we're providing
mass transit type opportunities, where we are providing off-site
parking lots. And that's our continuing effort at this point.
And I think you will continue to see the staff look for ways
to get public access to the beach as an ongoing effort because
the Board has told us historically that is a priority for this
Commission.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. Super. I'm glad to hear
that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Isn't there something in the growth
management plan about beach access?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, there is. It is not about beach access
specifically -- well, there is. It is generic. It's Objective 1.3,
which basically states that one of the goals is to maintain and
use to the fullest the facilities for beach access and body waters
within Collier County.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And the Board of County
Commissioners has the obligation, do they not, to provide beach
access?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just jump in there,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's all right. You may know
better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of the things that I've
wanted the Board to do, but it wouldn't in the past, is to adopt a
level of service for beach access. Even if what we adopted was
our current level of service, we're not going to let it get worse
than it is.
Then as we grow, we would have to add with parking
facilities and access points as they -- as we grow. What the prior
Board said was, "We're not going to give the State a stick to beat
us with." And so they would not add that to the growth
management plan. I plan to bring it up again with the new Board
because we need to have some measurable standards.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it was my under -- it was my
understanding that we had an obligation to provide beach
Page 64
October 24, 2000
access.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Only a moral one.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that, you know, it included not
only people who live in the State of Florida, but it also -- I mean,
the beaches, it's my understanding belong to, quote, the people.
And I don't think that it's just for the State of Florida. I think it's
for -- when it says the people, it is the people. COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And so if we have an opportunity--
I looked at this as probably the first step in many that the Board
of County Commissioners is going to be taking in terms of
providing, quote, beach access. That may not be good news to a
lot of people, but I think it's a reality that this may be the first
parking garage and there well may be several more following.
And I also would like to encourage you, Maria, that
whenever you have an opportunity to grab ahold of a piece of
land -- i.e., up by Cocahatchee -- that we try to do that. Because
I think that also would be beneficial for the residents in
Vanderbilt Beach, as well as other people in Collier County and
others who want to access beaches. But I think it's -- we have
these opportunities, we need to lump on them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we go -- we've got how many
speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: You've got an hour's worth.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We've got an hour's worth of speakers
coming in. Can we go there, please? Can we get them on deck?
MR. OLLIFF: I will call them two at a time. And if the next
speaker would come up and be prepared to speak after the
speaker in front of them.
The first speaker is Dick Lydon, followed by John McGuire.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we presume that everybody
is going to take every second of their five minutes. They might,
they might not.
MR. OLLIFF: They are not obligated to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That happens.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Power of suggestion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm trying.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think Dick Lydon is going to take his.
Go ahead.
Page 65
October 24, 2000
MR. LYDON: My name is Dick Lydon. I'm here today as the
president of the Yanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association
and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Estuary
Conservancy Association to ask you to vote no on this particular
project, which has been turned down by both your beach
committee and your TDC.
I would like to take credit for the fact that there are not 50
people standing up here waiting to talk today. We have tried to
discourage that. Ten, we felt, would be in order. And we did
quell that rumor about that parking garage over on Tiger Tail, so
we don't have a whole bunch of folks from Marco here today, as
well.
This no request is consistent with the advice of the
members of your advisory boards. The City of Naples has also
been a party to those advisory boards. They have all turned it
down. Did you err in appointing those people or have they not
met their responsibility in doing the work that you've asked them
to do?
I've attended six public meetings. And as we determined a
few minutes ago, the only one that approved -- the only body that
approved this was parks and recreation. And that's a no-brainer.
They're not using their money.
But TDC turned it down 4-2. The beach committee, 3-3, tie,
and the 7-2. And that was not because of the not wanting to use
TDC money. That was because they thought it was a bad idea.
Parks and recreation has put forth a bunch of additional
beach parking proposals, but only one of them have asked for
funding. And that is Vanderbilt Beach to a tune of $:3.8 million.
That represents about half of the money that is collected each
year for Category 'A" activity.
Category "A' was originally designed for beaches and
passes. And it has now been expanded to include a multitude.
We at one point in time were referring that to the addition --
referring to that as the additional faucets on the cow.
Whatever happened to that plan that we built up and that I
worked so hard on at the beach committee to build a $10 million
reserve to cover a catastrophe of beach renourishment needs?
That has sort of gone by the board. I hear a number today I've
never heard before. 5.6 after this 3.8 is out?
Last one I heard was four before they took it out. But there
Page 66
October 24, 2000
is a little problem in the beach committee now, I understand, of
getting budgets put together. But the $10 million would only
fund about half of what it would cost to do our beaches and our
passes where we would have a catastrophe.
Half of that we're told -- the staff said, "Well, we can bond."
Why is it that government loves bonding and individual
businesses hate it? I never did quite understand that.
The 275 -- and that's up from the last time we talked, Maria
-- will greatly add to the traffic on Vanderbilt Beach and Gulf
Shore Drive. That will put another 550 cars up and down that
road every day because there is a turnover -- one turnover.
Lely Barefoot Beach has two great claims to fame. It's the
most underutilized beach in this whole County. And it has
another claim to fame. It has the only shed that's been in a legal
battle for ten years at the entrance.
We don't understand why one of the concessionaires asked
for the privilege of going there and putting up a shop and was
told, "No, no. We don't want to promote that beach." Lots of
beach, lots of parking availability. It looks like a no-brainer.
And I'm running out of time and I would not want to go over.
But I would like to leave you with these three options. Use the
$3.8 million to do a long-range study and find out what we can do
-- as Mr. Brandt has indicated, what we can really do future-wise,
instead of using these Band-Aids that we're talking about now.
Or, secondly, if you must build a garage, build it at Clam
Pass or at Lely Barefoot Beach, areas that will be far less
impacted than Vanderbilt. Or -- and spend some time telling
people that Clam Pass is not private and that there is a Lely
Barefoot. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That Clam Pass is not private?
Dick, is there some idea out there that people think that
Clam Pass is private? That's the first I've heard of that.
MR. LYDON: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Because the way you
get into it and that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, one of your
fellow Commissioners admitted to me the other day that she
thought that that was --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's me.
MR. LYDON: -- a private beach until she was over there for
the dedication. We're not doing a good job of telling people
where the beaches are.
Page 67
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- Well, we do need to do better
then if there's any question about that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, first off, I have to admit,
I'm not a beach-goer. I mean, look at it, I would fry like a
hamburger out there.
And, number two, I -- for a long time I honestly thought that
the boardwalk down by the Registry Resort belonged to the
Registry Resort. And it doesn't. And that's fine. And I'm surely
well aware of that now because I went down there for the new
dedication of the boardwalk and I'm very well aware that it is a
public beach.
But up until that time -- well, before that -- since I have been
on the Commission I have been aware that it is a public beach.
But it was a long time. What he said is true. I did think that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need to work on that.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is John McGuire. Following Mr.
McGuire will be William Boggess.
MR. MCGUIRE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John McGuire. I live in Beachwalk along
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
First of all, I would like to say that I do believe everybody
should have access to the beach. I have a daughter living in
Golden Gate. I think she should.
But I don't believe this garage should be built. And the
reason is that that beach is really crowded during season right
now. And you're talking about spaces for 1,100 people. But
recently the Regatta was built and the Regatta -- us in the
neighborhood thought it was a condominium, but we find out
they have 100 units that they are renting weekly.
And who rents condominiums along the beach, you know,
near the beach weekly? It is beach people. And so if you have
about 400 or 500 more people this year, this will be the first year
for them going to the beach. You're really, really going to have a
crowded beach.
I don't think that you can support it. I think you're going to
have more problems with the garage than without it. And I, like
Dick, feel that Barefoot Beach -- I've been out there and there is
a lot of beach -- two miles of nice beach -- and it's not utilized.
And as far as Wiggins Pass is concerned, I was at a meeting
about three years ago and the State said they had room for 500
Page 68
October 24, 2000
more walk-in people. Now, with your 65 or so parking spaces
you're probably going to put 200 people in there. You can
probably bus or tram or somewhat and get 300 more people into
Wiggins Pass.
I think there is other areas that should be looked at before
this thing is approved. So that's my speech. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. The next speaker?
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker will be Mr. Boggess.
Following Mr. Boggess is going to be Daniel Byers.
MR. BOGGESS: Good morning. For the record, Bill Boggess,
City of Naples. And I might add currently on the beach
committee -- City/County beach committee for my second stint.
I am here to speak only to the funding of the proposed
garage. The neighborhood, as you're hearing, should speak to
the acceptability.
In listening to Maria speak about the need of this, it runs to
mind that this County Commission Board and the previous ones
have continuously failed and have given away all beach access
to developers. You don't have the guts to go back and demand
and/or condemn additional right-of-way down on Marco, Pelican
Bay or other places, rather you want to build an illegal parking
garage.
It's interesting today to note that this has up until today
been called the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage, but I just
learned this morning after 9:00 that the reason why you are now
referring to it as a parking garage at the Vanderbilt Beach park
facility is to run a con game of words. That you have legal
advice that park facilities are eligible for TDC funds. Parking
garages are not eligible for TDC funds.
In addition, the statute which she referred to, 125.0104,
stipulates that it is your Collier County tourist development
council who determines the eligibility. It is not the County
Commissioners. It is the tourist development council that is to
determine that.
And if they determine -- and they have voted against this, as
you know. And if they determine that it is questionable, then it is
their obligation, as the statute says, to then refer it to the County
governing board, which is you, and the Department of Revenue.
I have been in touch with the Department of Revenue, some
four different members, and they say -- the legal counsel in
Page 69
October 24, 2000
Tallahassee says, "This law is very clear. There should be no
problems. But if there is, then send it to us. We will make a
determination."
Probably the reason the legislators made this law such that
the TDC would determine eligibility was that they knew
politicians like to gain favors by doing things such as you're
doing now and such as the passes and other items. Some $11
million you've spent that are not expressly authorized according
to the requirements of the statute.
So with that, I'll leave you be. And I know you will go ahead
and probably find the legal loophole to put this through, but we
are looking for an attorney that is willing to take you on with
regards to the tourist tax issue. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Byers, will be William Kerrigan.
MR. BYERS: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Daniel Byers. I'm the owner and operator of the concession at
Vanderbilt Beach County Park.
I have worked on that beach for about two and a half years
averaging 60 hours a week. I can assure you that the problem
with parking there is not isolated to weekends, to holidays,
whatnot. It's in the middle of September. It's in the middle of
the week. It's at 10:00, 11:00 in the morning. There are literally
people, tourists getting into fist fights at that beach for places to
park.
And as far as the obligation of the County to provide parking,
as far as traffic, people go down to Vanderbilt Beach Road to
park. If there's nowhere to park, they go down Gulf Shore. If
there's nowhere to park, they come back d~wn Gulf Shore. And
they go back and forth for the entire day.
So they did some traffic studies in the park during the last
major holiday. There were over 900 people that came through
that parking lot that could not park, that traveled around and
around. Some had their cars towed at Daruma's. Some had their
cars towed at Circle-K. Some parked at the Sea Witch and got
letters on their cars. It's truly out of control.
The perception that the tourists and the local residents are
getting is that the County will not address the issue of parking.
We encourage them to come into our town to buy homes, to bring
their families, to go to what? Not to go down to Fifth Avenue, not
to go to Third Street, but to go to our beaches. And there is no
Page 70
October 24, 2000
parking for these people.
As far as the Barefoot Beach project, Maria and Myrtle are
working on RFPs to put a concession there and try to bring more
people to that beach. But that is down the road. The issue -- this
parking garage was needed -- was needed three to five years
ago.
And, I mean, I met with people on the beach this morning
that say -- most people that promote the beach and want the
parking garage aren't going to come here and voice their opinion.
I think that's just human nature.
So I want to be able to go back to them and say, "First of all,
there is a problem. The Board's identified it. They have an
action plan. There's going to be a parking garage. And the heat
is off. And they are ready to go forward with that." And that's all
I have to say.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is yours a yes or a no?
MR. BYERS: What's that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is yours a yes or a no?
MR. BYERS: Oh, mine personally?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Uh-huh.
MR. BYERS: Well, being a concessionaire, of course, it's
going to be, yes, it should be done. But I am there 60 or so hours
a week. I get questions continuously throughout the day, "Why
are they not addressing the issue? Where do we park? What do
we do?"
What do I tell them? 125 parking spaces for that beach is
not enough. It is an access point to 3.7 miles of beach. As much
as Pelican Bay wants to believe it, that's public beach. We all
have the right to walk down that whole stretch of beach to Clam
Pass and enjoy ourselves.
That is an access point. Those people -- those 900 people in
the new parking garage are not all going to sit right in front. I
guarantee you. There are going to be residents that want to
come down at 2:00 in the afternoon, park their cars, and take a
walk and come back and get in their cars and leave. That's all I
have. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is William Kerrigan followed by
Carol Wright.
MR. KERRIGAN: Good morning. My name is William
Kerrigan. I live in Poinciana Village. And I am here to speak in
Page 71
October 24, 2000
favor of the parking garage.
I would like to make two points. It sounds to me a little bit
strange that we can spend tourist tax dollars to renourish a
beach, but we can't spend tourist tax dollars to provide parking
places so we can use the beach. I mean, we can find all of the
technicalities to argue about this, but this is there.
Point number two, I work on the beach inside the City of
Naples. And there is a body of opinion in the City of Naples that
has always said Collier County has not done enough to provide
beach access. Some of these people actually gain elected
office. They say Collier County residents are degrading and
intrusive when they come into the City of Naples. Now, with
Fred Sullivan, vice mayor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He said it.
MR. KERRIGAN: Do we want to play into these people's
hands that would like to say they're not doing enough, we're
shouldering all of the burden?
Imagine what would happen if we don't have that access
there. I mean, most of Collier County goes to -- a lot go to Marco,
but most of them go to the City of Naples to go to the beach. I
mean, they can make the same arguments that are being made
here. "Oh, the beach is too crowded," blah, blah, blah. I mean,
do we want to lose it? You know, I think we would be playing in
those hands.
So I urge you to do the right thing. Vote for more beach
access, whether it's parking garages, whether it's some kind of
condemnation, whatever. But do the right thing. Support the
garage. Bye.
MR. OI. LIFF: Carol Wright will be followed by Chuck
McMahon.
MS. WRIGHT: Good morning. My name is Carol Wright. And
I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association. I'm
also a resident. I live on Gulf Shore Drive.
Gulf Shore Drive is one mile long. And on the north end of us
is the Wiggins State Park, which generates a lot of traffic. On
the south end of us is the public beach, which generates a lot of
traffic and congestion and confusion.
There will be 80 spaces east of the State park, as Ms.
Ramsey had said. I'm all for getting people to the beach. But
with the growth in Naples, the need for beach parking is so
Page 72
October 24, 2000
essential and it's only going to become worse.
However, I do feel that our area has done and is doing their
fair share of all of this beach parking. I would like to see other
areas sharing in this. I think we really need to consider some
off-site parking where we use shuttles or trolleys. Instead of
adding to the traffic problems, let's use the trolleys and eliminate
the traffic.
A study has shown that the garage is going to fill one hour
later than what the lot fills now. In other words, 10.'00 it fills
right now at 11:00 that garage is going to fill. And you want to
spend $3.8 million for one hour of benefit? I think it is too much
money.
This issue has been before the TDC and the beach
renourishment advisory. I spoke at that beach advisory meeting.
And I do help -- I think I helped get the vote 7-2, as Mr. Lydon has
mentioned. I don't believe that the issue was where the money
was coming from. It was because they knew it shouldn't be
there.
When somebody tells me that the parking garage will not
generate traffic, I do not believe this. Once that 400 space
parking garage is made public, you're going to have 800 cars
going there. I would like to ask you to vote no today on the
parking garage. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. McMahon will be Al Newman.
MR. MCMAHON: How are you doing? My name is Chuck
McMahon. I'm an American. I live in Golden Gate and I am a
citizen of Collier County and a taxpayer.
I'm glad she mentioned shuttle. Because you know what, I
have a family. I have a two-year-old and I have a 16-year-old and
kids in between. And if I've got to take a shuttle from Sam's
parking lot down to the beach and have a lightening storm come
in and I have to take my children to safety, where do I go?
So, you know, I think a parking garage is very important.
That we be able to park somewhere within a safe distance of the
beaches.
I was on the parks and recreation advisory board at the time
that this came in and I was -- voted for it at that point in time
and also asked for studies to be done on the transportation --
from the transportation on the traffic. All that has been done and
it looks good.
Page 73
October 24, 2000
I've been to this park before and looked for a place to park.
And I have rode around in circles and left, went home
discouraged because I didn't get to go to the beach. And so I
don't understand. A parking garage -- we've already got a
parking garage there. Too bad it belongs to the Ritz. Maybe they
will let us park in their parking garage. I doubt it.
So what is one more? Is it unGodly? No, it's not. It's a very
attractive parking garage. So is the parking garage in the City of
Naples for shopping. So is the parking garage at the hospital.
Parking garages are a thing of the future. And we are looking at
growth that we need future things as parking garages.
I don't think that the Vanderbilt residents would appreciate
me parking in their driveways because that's all the other places
to park are. And if we got to -- if we're not going to put shuttles
from Sam's parking lot or somewhere else, should we put them
out in Golden Gate? Jeez, we've got lots of room out there for
parking garages.
It's a shame that everybody feels that the -- that the
beaches are up there and a lot of people have the sense that just
because they live in that area that those are their beaches. Well,
let me tell you something. They are our beaches. They belong to
the citizens of Collier County. Everybody that lives here.
And there is a lot of residents that go there and there's a lot
of tourists that go there. The tourist industry is booming and
everybody is coming here to be in Florida and to enjoy Naples'
beaches. I don't want to lose our tourists to that and to the fact
that they can't park.
The tourists are very important. It's an industry that's
growing in Collier County and we don't want to chase it away. I
vote yes and I hope that you guys vote yes for a parking garage.
And not only just a parking garage, but more -- as it was
recommended from Maria to look for more land because land is
going to go sky high. And if we don't start getting it now, we're
not going to have room later on for more. And it's just going to
be terrible.
So for the safety of us and the safety our tourists, I think
that we need a parking garage so we don't have to ride shuttles
and take the chance of -- if the shuttle doesn't come and now I've
got to hurry up and get back to my car. Jeez, am I going to cross
41, a busy traffic highway, with children, dragging chairs and
Page 74
October 24, 2000
coolers and my beach towel and my big alligator float?
No. I think -- I don't want to have to carry all of that stuff
more than a quarter of a mile. I think it's important. I think it is
important that we really talk and look at this here very strongly.
With that, thanks. And I hope you do the right thing.
MR. OLLIFF: Al Newman will be followed by Sally Masters.
MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Al Newman,
president of Naples Park Area Association speaking for the
Association.
We had a meeting the other night and we brought this
parking garage up. And, of course, being Naples Park, we are
right close by the beach. But there is many times that I have
drove down to the park at Vanderbilt Beach Drive and I couldn't
find a parking place.
Lo and behold, I live there. I live nine-tenths of a mile. So I
went back home and I walked down.
But if you put a 400 parking space up there, you're going to
have 400 more parked cars and 800 more cars looking for
another parking place. Build it and they will come. It's
happened.
We had five beach accesses on Gulf Shore Drive. What do
we do? We build condos and close those access drives off. We
don't have those access drives -- beach access anymore.
True, we have people that live ten miles away from the
beach who would love to come down and find a parking space. If
they get down there after 10:00 in the morning in the season,
they're not going to find a parking space. You come down to our
beaches in July, you will find a parking space all over the place
with just 125 spaces.
It works -- it works wonderful. You can always find a
parking space in the summertime. But those three months out of
the year, I -- don't justify spending $3.8 million. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Sally Masters will be -- your last
speaker will be B.J. Savard-Boyer.
MS. MASTERS: My name is Sally Masters. I'm a concerned
resident of the beach.
I've heard everybody agree that we need parking at the
beach. There's no question about it. But this is a funnel effect
where you're talking about here at Vanderbilt beach. It's
becoming a huge funnel not only of traffic from outside, but of
Page 75
October 24, 2000
people who live there.
The big Regatta project has gone up right there. You're
going to have all those people pouring in. What is happening at
that corner? Do we know what's happening at the Daruma?
There's a lot of vacant land there.
There's been talk about developing that whole -- it is the
northwest corner -- or northeast corner of the beach. Are we
going to put in 400, 500, 600 more units there? It could be a
hotel. We don't know what's going to happen at that corner.
So all I'm asking you today is don't do this now. I think we
need to look at that whole area. You were talking earlier about
interlocking or interfacing or interconnection or whatever the
word was that Commissioner Mac'Kie used. You've got to look
at the whole thing there.
It is a big funnel at this point. So please don't do it today.
You've got to study that whole area before you take this issue
on. I thank you.
MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good morning. My name is B.J.
Savard-Boyer.
And everyone has taken all of my notes. They've already
said what I had to say. However, there are a couple of points
that I would like to make.
Being a homeowner in the Vanderbilt area, I really believe
the beach belongs to everyone. But I also want to say that those
of us who live there are not trying to keep the beach to
ourselves. We are trying to be able to get to our homes, like
everyone is trying to be able to get to the beach.
You heard Danny talk about people driving up and down Gulf
Shore. You heard Ms. Wright talk about where she lives and the
people driving around. All of these cars and the funneling into
that area has created gridlock. You can't appreciate it, unless
you live there.
Perhaps a garage or a parking lot or something without
going all the out to Sam's, perhaps something closer to the
beach. I understand the plight of the man from Golden Gate. I
feel sorry for him. I grew up with beaches in Jersey and I know
how very important it is for families to go and enjoy the
weekends.
But our weekends are going to be full with people coming
and going in and out of the new condominium there that has not
Page 76
October 24, 2000
been opened yet. I mean, it's opened now, but it wasn't open
last season. We have no idea how many cars are going to be
going in and out of the Regatta with weekly rentals.
That added to the beach people, that added to maybe 400 to
the garage, I -- I just -- I just think I'll have to park someplace
else and live someplace else, but I don't want to.
The other thing that Maria stated was that there will be
signs at 4t and Vanderbilt Beach Road and also at 111th and 41
saying that the parking lot is full. I don't know that a lot of
beach-goers are going to believe that.
And what they're going to do is they're going to be cutting
through Naples Park. And I heard no one mention the fact that
there are going to be cars going down those funnel streets to
Vanderbilt Drive. Naples Park does not have sidewalks on the
east and west -- going east and west on the numbered streets.
There are a lot of children there. There are a lot of
bicyclists there. There are a lot of cars that are parked on the
street because there isn't enough room to park. And especially
on weekends when they have company.
I think that should be considered. It's a neighborhood. It
isn't a through-way. And I am against the garage. I think it
should be someplace else and people shuttled to the beach
either by boat or by bus or whatever.
I know it is an inconvenience, but we've gotten ourselves
into this problem. And I think rather than a Band-Aid, we need to
fix it someplace else. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all your registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Board members, comments,
questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one comment. I just want
to echo what Mr. Kerrigan said and just add to it by saying this is
one of those -- well, this is one of those votes where if we don't
do what is unpopular in this neighborhood, our grandchildren are
going to fuss about us because we should be doing this.
It's just like we are fussing, like another speaker said, that
in the past commissioners have given away public access to
developers. I don't want to -- I don't want to be subject to that
particular criticism. There will be plenty that are well-founded
criticisms, but that is one that I would like to avoid.
And based on that, I'm going to make a motion to approve
Page 77
October 24, 2000
the staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will second it with one comment.
Mr. Lydon, I know, had a question on why, I guess, Boards
like to bond projects. And I will tell you, Dick, having sat on
another big elected Board for ten years, we went through great
criticism because we didn't. That we were on a pay-as-you-go
basis. And they said, "Why don't you bond the building of some
of your schools and let future growth pay for them?"
And that was -- that was contrary, Dick, to the way I was
brought up, okay? Because I was brought up that you pay as you
go. This was a new thing. I couldn't believe it when a group
came -- a civic association group came to us and said, "You all
need to get wise and start bonding some of these projects."
And I believe it is prudent that if we need to bond -- use
some of this money and leverage in some way and do some
bonding, I think that is -- that is money well spent for public
access in this particular case.
So I have seconded this motion and let's vote on it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I just --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have some comments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: First of all, I have a question.
There is a comment that the TDC is the one who determines how
the tourist tax funds are to be used. And if I recall correctly --
and somebody please help me with this. That the TDC makes a
recommendation to the Commission and the Commission then
makes the final decision, not the TDC.
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So I wanted to get that out and
make sure I understand it and that the public understands it.
Second item I have -- and I have a third one. The second
item I have has to do with shuttles and trolleys. And I don't
know how many of you have an opportunity to go to the beach
and see how many families come to the beach with their chairs,
their -- as the gentleman back here from Golden Gate talked
about, their chairs, their coolers, their towels. And if you're
dragging three or four little kids behind you on a trolley trying to
get to a beach, that's quite a chore. And I'm not so sure that
Page 78
October 24, 2000
trolleys for that sort of use is an appropriate way to do it.
My final item is there are a lot of things that we do here in
this County to attract businesses and tourists. One of the things
we may need to do if we don't address this beach issue and
beach access issue is to say, "Come on down to Collier County,
but don't plan on going to the beach because you can't get
there." And I don't believe in that approach.
And with regard to the garage, it looks to me like you get
about 135 cars per floor in this addition that you're doing. And
not too long ago -- and maybe this is a stretch and maybe -- but I
am going to bring it out anyway.
Not too long ago we had a proposal made to us that says
you can do a four-laning of Livingston Road or you can do a
six-laning of Livingston Road. If you do a six-laning of Livingston
Road you impact the area once, you save maybe $15 million or so
over time.
What would happen if you stop at two floors, instead of four?
And, granted, if you build it, they will come. But if we want to
keep people from coming to the beach, don't even build a garage.
Or, as Commissioner Berry says, look at bonding because
you can do things now and others who come will help pay for
that in the future. So I'm supportive of the garage. I would just
like to see it perhaps with an amendment to the motion that says
take a look at not just two floors, but maybe you could add three
or four.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As I understand it, it is being -- it
is proposed to be built with such a foundation that additional
floors could be added.
Did I get that right?
MS. RAMSEY: That is correct. We can design it such to do
that, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And we should do it now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that required as an amendment to
the motion or would the motion made be sufficient to cover that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does the staff recommendation
include the design sufficient for addition of additional floors?
MS. RAMSEY: In this particular document it doesn't state
that specifically, no.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It does not --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I will amend my motion to add
Page 79
October 24, 2000
that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just one other little bit that I
wanted to mention is just -- that I personally had a conversation
with Dwight Brock to find out if he had legal questions with this
since we sometimes make decisions and then Dwight won't cut
the check.
Dwight does not have any legal problems with this and
agrees that this is a perfectly legal expenditure of tourist tax
funds.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Just to make sure I understand
the motion and the second, it says, if I understand correctly, go
ahead with the garage design, set it up so it could be multiple
floors, more than the two that you're looking at right now, but it
does not say go ahead and do the multiple floors above the two?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is my motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I guess I would reluctantly
support that. Because I think we should go whole hog and not
just part way.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner Brandt, with all due
respect, and I understand that, but I think that I'm going to let
people who are more expert in the area, other than just an
emotional -- from my standpoint, just an emotional feeling, take a
look at this.
And I would hope that if they deem necessary that they
would come back to the Board and say, "We really think that at
this time it is wise to go forward." But I think we need to let
them take a look at it and look at their numbers and what they
have before we make that decision.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I don't have a problem with that
basically, but I am not suggesting this as an emotional reaction
to anything.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, no. I understand that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think it's a practical approach
that needs to be taken. But reluctantly I will support it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I don't have --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But I would like to see it bigger.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't have a staff
recommendation coming to me saying that they want it --
Page 80
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's true.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- three or four floors. If I had that,
I would probably -- there would be no question about it. But I
think what we're doing is we're opening the door for them to take
a look. And if they come back to this Board or a future Board, it's
there and they know that they've got the support to at least take
a look.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: As long as it is there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have given, I think, a long-range
perspective to the project by what you suggested. Before I call
for the vote, I will be the lone ranger here this morning.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Our attorney has a question for
yOU,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so there won't
be a question in the future by any interested party, where the
motion looks to staff recommendation approving the use of
tourist development funds for the project, I would like to see if
the Board would clarify if we're talking about the two cents fund
and not the additional one cent. Because we've worked with
Dwight Brock in regard to that, too, and we think that it will be --
it would probably prevent issues from being raised if we're
specific to that extent also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And you would like that included in the
motion?
MR. WEIGEL: I would.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' And it is so included. And, in
addition, I specifically adopt the fundings that the staff
recommended be made in that -- that has to do with the park and
the specific findings that they outlined.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: As I said, I'm going to be the lone
ranger here this morning. And not because I'm trying to deny
people beach access. I believe everybody has a right to access.
I believe that we need to deal with this problem.
I am not convinced yet that we have seen all the
alternatives and that this is the place to build a parking garage.
Page 81
October 24, 2000
There are a number of other considerations that are under
discussion. And I'm thinking of one in mind where if this same
garage was built it would alleviate the pressure in the immediate
area of Vanderbilt; whereas, we could still get people to the
beach in a timely manner.
And that is not at the point where we can have that
discussion. So I would have preferred to see an overall master
plan of all of our options before making a singular decision on
establishing a parking garage in one area. So, therefore, I am
not going to support this motion this morning, but I think that you
know where this is going to go.
But those are my reasons. But just to clarify for the public, I
am not against the access. I want to get more access. I just
would be more comfortable with the overall master plan,
knowing all the pieces, which I think can be presented within six
months, rather than rushing this project. So that's where I stand
this morning.
Therefore, I will call for the motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: If I may, just before we do that.
One of the things that I get concerned about is long-range
planning. And I -- Commissioner Carter, I think you're right on the
mark. It needs to be a broader study.
However, you have to make a start. And I think this is the
start. And we have to put something in the ground, if you will --
no pun intended -- to get it underway. So I will support the
motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Therefore, I will call the motion.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign?
Aye.
Motion carries 3-1.
MS. RAMSEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We could run off to lunch,
however, there are some very short items under the Board of
County Commissioners which I think in just a few minutes we
can take care of.
If the Board would agree with this that we could t0(A), (B),
Page 82
October 24, 2000
(C), (E), and (F) and (G) and probably deal with those in a very
efficient manner before we go to lunch. Can I do that?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Let me take a quick look.
MR. OLLIFF: My only concern is you told everyone that that
was the last item and --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: -- if there were anyone interested.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. When we come back --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This will go quickly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This will go quickly anyhow.
All right. We stand adjourned for 60 minutes, one hour.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #9A
STAFF DIRECTED TO OFFER $5,000 SETTLEMENT REGARDING
JEFFREY POPP IN POPP V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO.
99-3286-CA
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Beginning the afternoon session of the
Board of County Commissioners, we are now to Item 9-A, County
Attorney, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. Assistant County
Attorney Mike Pettit will address this for you.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, for the
record, Mike Pettit with the County Attorney's office. We are
here today to address a settlement proposal we've received in
the case of Popp versus Collier County.
That proposal is in the amount of $11,900 to settle the
claims against the county, as well as certain individuals who
have sued who are county employees. I believe that's all
outlined in the executive summary.
At this point, there is also an unemployment compensation
dispute with Mr. Popp. That cannot be the subject of a
settlement in this case. We -- by "we," I mean, Jeff Walker, the
Risk Manager, and I, have looked at this again, and you may
recall that some months ago we came to the board and sought
authorization to make a settlement offer to Mr. Popp of $5,000.
Nothing has changed since that time that would lead us to
view the case differently, other than the fact that the claims
Page 83
October 24, 2000
against the individuals were dismissed by Mr. Popp voluntarily.
He can refile those. I'm not sure why that occurred, but he did
dismiss those individuals.
His attorney has indicated that if we can't achieve a
settlement, he will refile those claims. And the county, at this
point, is paying for civil counsel for those three individuals, and
obviously, that's a significant expense that would be attendant
to the case.
But back to the other point. Mr. Weigel and I can identify no
change and see no reason to change our original
recommendation, but we wanted to bring this offer back to the
board since the $11,900 offer and can only add that obviously, if
the case goes to trial and the three individuals are left in the
case, it will be significantly more expensive than $11,900, win,
lose or draw.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It is my understanding also that the
$5,000 we proposed for settlement, that the time period has
elapsed on that?
MR. WEIGEL: That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that Mr. Popp was disciplined
because of the acid spill, and I emphasize, disciplined, because
of his role in that.
MR. WEIGEL: No, he was not. The discipline that was
meted out to Mr. Popp related to a completely unrelated incident
from our view, which was an altercation with a co-employee.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So he had nothing to do with the acid
spill?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This goes to the heart of the
case, as I understand it. He alleges that the consequences that
he suffered were because he spoke out about the problems of
the acid spill. So, yes, he had something to do with it. But the
fact of the matter is, he was disciplined because he got in a fight
with somebody else's job.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: With a supervisor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That happened before the acid
spill and there was a coincidence in time with the acid spill, as I
understood it. But I thought in the kind of shade discussion that
we had, I was going to support the staff recommendation.
MR. PETTIT: Let me just add one point. The evidence that
we've disclosed to date shows no relationship between Mr.
Page 84
October 24, 2000
Popp's termination and the acid spill, and when you ask was he
involved in it, I hesitated because the fact is Mr. Popp's action
was what caused the acid spill. He was not disciplined for that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you for that clarification. The
real issue for his dismissal was fighting? MR. PETTIT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That needs to be clearly, I think,
established for the public record. MR. PETTIT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Therefore, I would support, myself,
going back to the original offer of $5,000 for a period of I'm going
to say 45 days. Thereafter, if they don't accept that, I would cut
it in half to $2,500 for an additional 45 days and then pull it off
the table.
MR. PETTIT: Mr. Chairman, I would have to go back and
check the statute. There's a period of time under the statute
when you make a formal proposal for settlement that it remains
open, but we could probably work something out along those
lines subject to the statutory requirements.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, whatever that is. What I think is
he ought to be given a period to accept the full amount, and then
if that's not acceptable, I recommend cutting it in half and giving
him whatever period is allowed and then pull it from the table,
from everything that we have discussed.
MR. PETTIT: One other point I want to make sure the board
understands, under Florida law, we are not in a position to settle
an unemployment compensation suit. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MR. PETTIT: I think that frustrates Mr. Popp and his
attorney as much as it does us to some degree, because we
thought we had a window of opportunity there that is not there.
So if we make the $5,000 offer, we will continue to fight on in
that unemployment suit.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I understand that and I
understand he has been denied twice in that process. MR. PETTIT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Which in itself is fairly unusual, but it's
moving forward to the next phase. But the first two have turned
his request down. Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I would support the $5,000.
Page 85
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's a motion, I'll second it,
or I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay, and I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And for under statutes will the
motioner and seconder be also agreeable that if he doesn't
accept that within the statutory period of time that we reduce it
by 50 percent?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or eliminate it altogether.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think -- Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: What would be the consequence
of just pulling the thing out altogether, rather than cut it in half?
MR. WEIGEL: It's a clear message that's the consequence --
let me -- I say it's a clear message if they have a time frame, and
it's either there or it is not there.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: Let me just interject, I believe in good faith.
I'd have to represent to the board that regardless of whether the
offer has expired at this point under the statute, I think
discussions between Mr. Popp's attorney and me would require
me to say that that offer is open as I stand here today. That's
how we've treated it in the discussions. I don't want to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So my motion would be that we
continue -- we notify the plaintiff that our $5,000 offer remains on
the table for whatever the statutory minimum time is, and
thereafter that we withdraw that offer officially.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I would agree with that as a
second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any further discussion? All in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
Item #9B
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR STRATEGY RELATED TO
LITIGATION EXPENDITURES OF THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE
Page 86
October 24, 2000
OF ARLA BERNSTEIN V. COLLIER COUTY, CAST NO. 00-14229GG
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, that moves us then to item
number 9-b.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we going to do that at the
end of the regular meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: Or at 2 o'clock, whichever occurs earlier.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Looks like it's going to be 2, isn't
it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So that will be brought back at 2 and
then correspondingly, we'll see what follows accordingly.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2000-364 APPOINTING JOHN RIBES TO THE PARKS
AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
All right, that moves us to item 10-A, appointment of a
member to the Parks and Services Advisory Committee
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Looks like we have one member,
so I would like to nominate John Rebis (phonetic}.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion? All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries, 4-0.
Item #1 OB
RESOLTUION 2000-365 APPOINTING JAMES SNEDIKER TO THE
CITY/COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
- ADOPTED
Moving then to the next item, is looking at an appointment
to the -- appoint members to the City/County Beach
Renourishment Maintenance Committee. There is one vacancy
and one recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move Mr. Schneideker?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Page 87
October 24, 2000
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries, 4-0.
Item #t 0C
RESOLUTION 2000-366 APPOINTING DR. HARRY MOON AND DR.
CHARLES EYTEL - THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE PLANNING
AND FINANCE COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
Move to the next item, confirmation of members to the
Community Health Care Planning and Finance Committee.
Motion to add Dr. Moon and Dr. Eytel.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Eytel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries, 4-0.
Item #1 OD
STAFF TO DRAFT STRONG LANGUAGE REQUIRING
INTERCONNECT ACTIVITY WHERE POSSIBLE; TO LOOK AT
NUMEROUS OTHER TRANSPORTATION ISSUES; TO ESTABLISH A
WORKSHOP; AND TO BRING BACK TO BCC REGARDING POLICY
9.3, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Now, we're to the item on our policy, 9.3.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The interconnection discussion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes. You have some backup
material, and I hope you've had an opportunity to go through that
and give it some consideration.
My concern over time has been that as I sit here in the
short-term, I hear issues associated with transportation, how are
we going to get around within this county over time, and we've
talked about interconnections.
And at a recent request we indicated at that time that a PUD
would have to accommodate some interconnections and urged
Page 88
October 24, 2000
that they go back and look at the possibility of connecting with a
commercial area that's adjacent to them on the west side of that
commercial area. We also looked at the possibility of some
interconnection.
And we've had another program come in and we've talked
about interconnections, but there seems to be a difficulty in
connecting Euclid to the Madder PUD. And there was a
recommendation from the staff at the last meeting that we were
going to discuss this, that that item factored in a 20,000 square
foot area, and utilize that as part of an interconnection.
And when I go up and down Airport Road, 41 and
Goodlette-Frank Road, as you come to --
Let's go to Goodlette-Frank Road for a moment.
At the Golden Gate Parkway area, between there and 41,
there are only a couple, maybe a third, access across that
parallel set of roads. One is at Solana, one at Creech, and
there's another one.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: One at 26th. You've got to go
meandering through Ridge and go on up to Twin Lakes and go
through Twin Lakes.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So you have access from 41 to
Goodlette-Frank and vice versa, but when you look at the other
side of Goodlette-Frank Road all the way over to Airport Road
from Golden Gate Parkway. There is no way to get through, as
best I can determine it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless you own a golf cart.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's difficult, too. It seems to
me that we have a major need here. And our staff, the county
staff has -- if you'll bear with me a minute -- has put together a
plan that happens to be hanging on the wall out in the other
room, that shows some proposed road locations called east and
west.
And for those out in the audience, if you haven't seen it,
there are a number of road projections that our county staff has
made as a long-range plan, if you will.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the 20/20 Needs
Assessment?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Maybe, Commissioner, you want to put
that up on the Board so it can be seen and go to that microphone
Page 89
October 24, 2000
so our viewing audience can be tracking with you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, you want to refer to
that while you're discussing, you might want to use that
microphone down there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You can stand down there.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. So my concern here is that
as our staff has put this long-range plan in place, we find it very
difficult to accommodate those needs because there are a
number of PUDs that stand right in the way of those roads, and
others are on the edge of those proposed roads.
If we don't do something like this and require
interconnections between the major projects and PUDs that will
be coming in the future, we will have lost an opportunity. We'll
have more of what we see between Airport Road and
Goodlette-Frank from Golden Gate all the way up to Pine Ridge,
and I don't think that's in the best interests of this community.
One of the things you might notice -- and I'll try to remember
these numbers -- from Golden Gate Parkway up to Pine Ridge is
right around three miles. And when you get over to
Goodlette-Frank, it's about a mile and a half to two miles before
you get to Solana Road, in that range. So there is a large area on
Airport Road where you have, really, no access east and west.
And when you look at 951, there are also issues associated
with getting between Airport Road and 951 east and west, as
well. Now, of course, there is 1-75 in there, and so my concern is
that if we don't start placing requirements on interconnections,
we're going to end up with more of the problems that I see, that I
know I see, between Goodlette-Frank and Airport Road.
That will happen to us as we move north and east, and those
are the directions that we're going to go. So I would urge the
County Commission to ask the County Manager and the County
Attorney to look at some options.
I know with PUDs that have been out there for years, there
is some potential legal issues that would have to be addressed
and perhaps Mr. Weigel could give us some of those thoughts or
maybe even Mr. Olliff, your staff might be able to give us some
thoughts about what can be done with regard to
interconnections and satisfying this -- I'll refer to it as a grid
work that some people have referred to it as -- and I think there's
a great need to do that. Thank you.
Page 90
October 24, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think your point's well taken,
David, and I know for the four years that I sat on the commission,
this has been talked about in various ways. I think one of the
unique situations, and again, it depends on who owns the land
and how the land is owned, but the Vineyards probably had one
of the better interconnects of a PUD, but not everybody -- there
isn't a landowner always that owns all of the land between one
major arterial roadway and the other.
You usually have various landowners who are in various
stages of development, so it all doesn't happen at the same time.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So I think that that's one of the
things that compounds the problem. Will you ever be able to fix,
say the Goodlette Road-Airport Road situation? And I would
venture to say no. I mean, it's too late, it's gone.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You would have a very expensive
situation to go through there. Hole-In-The-Wall Golf Course was
in place when I moved here in 1963. Of course, there wasn't
much either side to really talk about, so it wasn't of any great
concern.
At the same time, when you move on out further east, when
you start looking at 951 and trying to link up between that,
perhaps, and, for an example, Wilson, there's going to be some
unique challenges in there as to how you might want to do that.
You have Immokalee Road and your next shot would be
Vanderbilt Beach Road. You're going to run into a golf course if
you go too far east on that which is going -- Mr. Feder can figure
how he's going to get around that. Then you come on down and
you've got Pine Ridge Road which becomes White; you have
some challenges there.
But that is something that I believe the Estates Plan is
looking at, that whole area in there as to what can be
interconnected, if it can be interconnected at all.
And then going on down, there certainly has been discussion
for a number of years, and even Dover/Kohl has got something on
the books about trying to connect up the area out in there and
bringing it over to 95t -- I'm sorry, Collier Boulevard -- but
everyone knows where 951 is.
Page 91
October 24, 2000
So I think there are challenges out there, but I don't think
it's going to be an easy fix. And, unfortunately, to go back and
interconnect some of these communities at this point in time, I
don't think you're going to be able to do it, because I don't think
you've got a sack full of money big enough to start taking some
of these properties that would be required in all of these
situations.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree with Commissioner Berry. The
retrofitting is a challenge, but I think Commissioner Brandt is
certainly on target with this, and if we reference Bob Mulhere's
May 2 communication in regards to road interconnections, he's
done a very extensive overview of the situation, and I think what
Bob is recommending that we begin to address for the planning
of the future PUDs. But also we have a lot of old PUDs still
sitting out there.
We may be able to go back, and I've had a brief conversation
with our County Manager about this, is that those PUDs,
unfortunately, are driving our planning process for roads and
stormwater and everything else. I think we've got to reverse
that and get those into a perspective where perhaps we're
letting them sit out there for too long; five years and then you
can come back and update it and then it's there for ever and
ever. So I think we've got to get tighter on that.
Frankly what it says, let's stop the PUD speculation and get
it into a more concise planning process. If you're going to do it,
do it, but don't come to us and get it approved and then take it to
the marketplace and see what you can do with it over too long a
period of time.
So maybe that's part of what we are trying to address here.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a couple of comments. One,
just lest there be any public confusion, the document that is
useful for this discussion, it's a draft copy of something that will
be proposed to MPO in some form, maybe this form, maybe in
another in January or February. I went and checked with the
staff while you were talking.
The other thing is that I also was advised by staff that
existing PUDs don't get in the way of this ma]or grid system, but
I think you're suggesting two things, and both of them I would
like to give direction to the staff on.
Page 92
October 24, 2000
That is, that we direct staff to draft strong language
requiring interconnectivity where possible, and that we mean
that strongly. We mean where physically possible, we want to
know what the cost would be, whether it's voluntarily or
involuntarily done. Because that's the problem we ran into down
there at Carillon and those guys. We need to know what it would
cost to take it, if that's the only way we can get it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think, too, if you're going to
connect a new community to an existing community, you've got
to make sure the roadways in that existing community are going
to be able to carry that traffic because they were not designed
for that. So you may think you're doing a great thing, but you are
also putting somebody else in a bad situation with good
intentions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it requires both sides to be
looked at. The other thing that Mr. Brandt asked about that I
would love to hear if it's something we can do, we have the
sunsetting on PUDs. I think maybe what we've done wrong, in
my judgment, on those PUD sunsets, so far, is we've kind of
glamorized them, you know.
As a PUD came back in after it's five years, we would say,
"Okay, you've got to comply with landscape code, bring this and
that up to code," but we didn't really dig as hard as we could to
reduce densities where we would find that appropriate.
So I guess the other direction to staff would be to advise us
how and to what extent we can look at existing PUDs with
regard to transportation requirements and give us some advice
on what we can do there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere,
planning director. There are many facets to this discussion, and
I believe that the board will be having a transportation workshop
in the first quarter of this year. What I think we could do as staff
is put together even a more comprehensive list of
recommendations than you have in front of you.
That memorandum that planning staff prepared deals with
many of these issues. We have the new PUDs that would come
in and the degree to which we should require interconnection,
impacts of those on existing neighborhoods, retrofitting as an
issue, the degree to which the existing arterial network can be
Page 93
October 24, 2000
completed, and how much do we have the rights to already,
through the PUD process, and how much do we have to acquire.
And I think, also, the whole sunsetting process and whether
that should be shortened or whether there can be greater focus,
and we'll certainly work with the County Attorney's office as we
move forward with that examination because of the legal
constraints that we may face.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just at the risk -- I apologize --
but to interrupt to ask Tom, when we get ready to do that
transportation workshop, play that tape back because that's
exactly the list of the issues I want to hear.
MR. MULHERE: And we'll be prepared to do that
comprehensively but also with our recommendations. Now,
briefly, as far as turning those into goals, objectives, policies
and, ultimately, into Land Development Regulations, as they are
required, that process is a little bit longer.
We arguably cannot do that until this time next year,
another Growth Management Plan Amendment cycle. But there
may be an opportunity -- I say may be an opportunity -- to the
degree that these proposed amendments can also fit in with
some of the Rural Assessment amendments that we may bring
forward sometime on a shorter time frame, we may be able to
accomplish some through that venue. So we'll certainly look at
that, as well.
There is a relationship between interconnectivity and some
of the rural issues, and they are also looking at some of those
issues. So there is an opportunity, I think there, for us to move
forward maybe on a little more expeditious time frame, perhaps a
year from now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like you're getting
direction from this board to do that as soon as you can and
whatever way you can.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would think so, and what I think I'm
hearing is we have a twelve-month period in which we can do a
lot to correct the difficulties that we currently see. But that in
the next twelve months we have to live, for the most part, with
what we have, if I'm understanding this correctly.
And I emphasize again, I want to know what's out there, the
inventory, I want to know what we can do with that. I would like
the sunsetting, a lot of this, to get into a strategic long-range
Page 94
October 24, 2000
planning process that says we can address all of these ordinance
issues, code issues, and sharpen it up so that we, in effect, are
in control of our destiny versus reacting each time that one of
those situations comes forward to us.
So I think that's what I'm hearing from this board and the
direction we'd like to give you as we establish that workshop,
and probably several others, before we get back to the Growth
Management Amendments at this time a year from now.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have a quick question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Weigel, I have a quick
question. Between now and the time a year from now when we
have an opportunity to change the Growth Management Plan,
there will be a number of PUD issues that come forward.
Do we have the legal right and authority in looking at the
various PUD applications that come forward, to say here is an
area that we want you to donate, if you will, to the county as a
consideration for even thinking about approving the PUD.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't say no.
MR. WEIGEL: What I would say is with that kind of question
is, that question tracks with many similar types of questions that
would probably be had on an individual basis with those PUDs.
Whether we call it "donation," whether we call it "planning,"
whether we call it the Board of County Commissioners operating
under its police powers for the public safety and welfare as it
relates to transportation issues.
I think there are many ways to look at that. I don't want to
give you an imprecise answer, but it seems to me there are ways
to apply the core of what you're talking about on an individual
basis as we go forward with these PUDs. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think he said yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think so.
MR. OLLIFF: What I will take from this discussion is
direction. I don't need a specific vote, but I think clearly what
you're asking us to do is bring you back some specific decision
items that you can discuss when we have that transportation
workshop, so that the language will actually be drafted in a form
you can look at, and get your hands around, and then give us any
language changes that you want us to make before we actually
run it back for final adoption.
Page 95
October 24, 2000
We'll include that list that Bob just outlined for you in our
workshop.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to know where we already
have access and rights to it via PUDs and otherwise, and where
we don't, and where there are PUDs that are about to sunset that
we wish we could do something with or to.
MR. OLLIFF: We may end up with a series of workshops that
will be district by district, because that's really getting very
specific about some of our transportation network issues.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think our direction is, we've got a
twelve-month period. Whatever it takes to accomplish what we
need to do during that period, we want it to happen because
we'll have three new commissioners to bring up to speed, plus
the two that are here that can be the historians to help us
through that process.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: There are some things that can
be done between now and that time so the board can take
specific actions to accommodate the needs.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We can ask a lot of questions about
everything that comes in front of us, and perhaps get some of
this incorporated in the new ones that are requested in front of
the board. Yes.
Thank you, Commissioner Brandt, and, I think, Mr. Olliff, that
gives you significant direction where we want to go.
Item #10E
RESOLTUION 2000-367 APPOINTING MARLO VALLE AND W.
JEFFREY CECIL TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
Let us move now to the next item which would be 10-E,
Appointment of Members to the Affordable Housing Committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two qualified applicants for two
positions. I move their appointment.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Oppose by the same sign.
The motion carries.
Page 96
October 24, 2000
Item #10F
JOINT MEETING TO BE HELD THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2001
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY, LEE COUNTY, AND THE CITY OF
BONITA SPRINGS - APPROVED
10-f. This is a discussion regarding a joint meeting to be
held during the first quarter of 2001 between Collier County, Lee
County and the city of Bonita Springs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve Commissioner
Carter's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Motion carries.
This same motion was put in front of the Lee County
Commission today, so we should have a joint announcement
coming out for regional consideration.
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 2000-368 OPPOSING A PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON A STATEWIDE HIGH SPEED
(RAIL) SYSTEM - ADOPTED
yOU,
Item 10-G, High Speed Rail --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The answer is no.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The answer is, yes, I agree with
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What I'm asking for is does this board
pass a resolution we are saying no to the high speed rail?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So move.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Correct. Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Motion carries.
I believe that takes us to item 11, Other Items.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Shall we explain to them why we
are opposed to the high speed rail?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just briefly, so they don't
misunderstand that we're against this kind of thing, per se, but --
Page 97
October 24, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're not against -- I don't think
anyone's against the idea, it's the process. What they have done
is taken it to the voters as a constitutional amendment versus
going through the legislative process.
And I believe that amending the Constitution of the State of
Florida is a serious situation and not every issue that comes in
front of anyone should be running in there and trying to get it
done through a constitutional amendment, number one.
Number two, the Supreme Court just ruled on this less than
10 days ago that it could stay on the ballot. Most people are not
even aware that it's out there, and absentee voters may have
seen that and the first statement sounds grand and glorious
about having high speed rail, but it really doesn't tell you it only
serves five cities, that there is no approved financing, that it has
to start by 2003.
And that means the legislature, somewhere in their infinite
wisdom, would have to find the funding. Where are they going to
find it? The only big number that's in there is a transportation
trust fund, underline the word "trust," which says it should be
used for all types of transportation in the state of Florida.
If they raid that fund, that means all your other roads and
airport projects in this state would significantly suffer from that.
And everything we want to do in southwest Florida would
probably be deferred or off the books, including 1-75 and other
things that we desperately need here.
So that's why Southwest Regional Planning Council,
commissions, and cities are all saying "no" to the way it's being
approached, not "no" to the idea.
Item #1 tA1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY SAFETY FUND
GRANT APPLICATION FOR A TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT -
APPROVED
Okay, that takes us to 11, Other Items, other Constitutional
officers. Al, FDOT Safety Fund Grant Application.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sheriff's Department.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sheriff's Department.
LIEUTENANT SMITH: Good afternoon. For the record, my
Page 98
October 24, 2000
name is Lieutenant Tom Smith, and I'm with the Sheriff's office.
This is relatively a routine DOT grant application for the support
for $76,100. It's a three-year renewable grant, and it is
requesting data analysts for traffic and a data input operator,
along with computer equipment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Motion carries.
LIEUTENANT SMITH: Thank you very much.
Item #9B
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR STRATEGY RELATED TO
LITIGATION EXPENDITURES OF THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE
OF ARLA BERNSTEIN V. COLLIER COUTY, CAST NO. 00-14229GG
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, it is approaching 2 p.m., and we
need to go back to item 9-b, and the agenda item is that we have
a closed attorney-client session of the settlement negotiations
and/or strategy related to the litigation expenditures of the
pending litigation case of Arnold Bernstein versus Collier County,
Case Number 00-14229GG, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals,
11th Circuit.
Persons in attendance will be the Board of County
Commissioners, County Manager Thomas W. Olliff, County
Attorney David C. Weigel, Assistant County Attorneys Ramiro
Manalich and Michael W. Pettit.
This session will commence at 2 p.m., and at the
conclusion, we will then return to the dais to let you know where
we're going to go. So we will have a short recess.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask a question before you
call a recess? In deference to the public that's here, Mr.
Attorney, can we move to continue this to the end of the agenda
and it still be in order? These people have been sitting here
since morning.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you may, I think.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's on the agenda. I can move to
continue anything, and so I make a motion we continue this to
Page 99
October 24, 2000
make it the final item, second to the final item, because the one
after it will be the final item on today's agenda.
MR. WEIGEL: It's hard to judge how long these agendas will
go, so we had 2 o'clock or the end of the agenda, whichever
comes earlier. It may be that when we do these, we'll do it for a
fixed time or end of the agenda, whichever comes later.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have no problem with it and I realize
you've been here a long time, and I would prefer to do that. If we
legally can do that, I would suggest we continue that until the
proper time.
MR. WEIGEL.' That's fine.
Item #11 C
KENNETH THOMPSON REGARDING ZONING MATTERS
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, we'll go to C, Public Comments.
Do we have any speakers on public comment?
MR. OLLIFF: You have one, sir, Kenneth Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: My name's Kenneth Thompson, and I live
at 2831 Becca Avenue. I'm back here, again, and this guy's
wanting money for the Sheriff's Department again, and we
cannot get Bayshore Drive -- Scott Anderson, he has taken the
deputies off of Bayshore Drive. He'll tell you he hasn't, and I'm
telling you he has. And at night they are running, you know, in a
35 mile speed zone, they are doing t00, if they are doing a bit
when these bars let out.
I called him up and he wants to make a big joke out of it. So
he called me up the 13th, on a Friday, and he keeps telling me --
well, first, Rich Givens was out on that corner, there was a
disturbance, a fight or something, and that was 2:30.
So I went to the room over here and I checked that out. And
then at 4 o'clock, he called me again, and he said to me, "Do you
hear them damn fire trucks and ambulances and sheriffs
coming?" I said, "Yes, I'm sitting right here in the yard looking," I
was talking to him on the cordless phone.
He says, "Well, don't let that bother you, the sheriff's going
to beat the hell out of you." And one of them was Anderson
driving. So he just keeps this up and keeps it up, and says -- I'm
telling you I've had enough of him and he'll tell you the biggest lie
Page t00
October 24, 2000
of any man.
You ought to see when he comes to Naples Manor in the
morning. He'll park way down the street and ease up the road to
keep anybody from knowing he's on the job. He's got everybody
lying for him.
Scott Anderson was one of the best of my friends. I know
when he went on the Sheriff's Department at 17 years old, and
why he has to do such a thing as this. I got video tapes of that
street and no cops on it.
And then down Becca Avenue, here we're having to pay him
more money just like you just did right there, and here now, we
got to come out of taxpayers pocket to put speed bumps on the
street, and down here on Becca and Pine Street there's a stop
sign and nobody stops.
Everybody -- it's just a mess on Becca Avenue with this
traffic. So the best thing to do if he's not going to do his job, Mrs.
Mac'Kie, I wish you would do it for Becca and Bayshore. There's
one way to do it. Block that street right there where they can't
come in.
Make them turn right and go down and turn around like up at
the Sandpiper. That's the only way to stop them because he's
not going to do his job.
I don't need Anderson threatening me with no more cops,
because him and Corporal Gerstner (phonetic), in 1989, beat me
until an inch of my life, right here in this jail, for no reason at all.
It cost me approximately $190,000 to get my back put back
together, which I have a fusion. I had a blood clot this big in my
back from them two birds, and I can prove that. So Gerstner, he
keeps beating people, I guess he's out of the Sheriff's
Department.
I come here with one more thing to ask you. In July of '89,
you took eleven hundred and twenty-five dollars of our money,
and I would like to have it back. I'd like to have a check for that
money back because every time you turn around, you are having
another workshop. You're not never going to zone nothing, we've
waited patiently, we've done this. It's really getting to me. I had
the doctor all day long yesterday.
I just don't understand what the county is trying to prove.
And then we got another issue is Bill Bogart. I can't go to code
enforcement -- I can't do anything out there. You've got a sea of
Page 10t
October 24, 2000
eyeballs floating everywhere I'm going out here. And the man
has been hammering me ever since that I have moved from
Shadowlawn Drive to Becca Avenue, and it's not fair. You try to
talk to him, he'll beat on the desk like he's going crazy, and
that's the truth.
And when this thing happened, and Mrs. Sullivan got out of
office, I kept talking to Mrs. Sullivan, is there anything wrong
with my wife's beauty parlor; no, there is not. So just as soon as
the tragedy happened to her, Mrs. Arnold got in and one day I
was a-talking to her.
And I asked her, "Just how did you come, did you know my
wife had this beauty parlor there?" And she says, "No, I know
nothing about it. I said, "Well, how did you come about it?" And
she says, "1 got it from Bill Bogart.' And I did have a conference
and the county with Doug Rankin at Horseshoe Drive that this
thing was settled and taken care of and done. Then all of a
sudden here in July, it starts all over again. So I would like for
you to give my wife back her eighteen hundred and twenty-five
dollars, and I would more and appreciate if you would do that.
With the interest. With the interest.
So that's -- I wish you would get somebody back on
Bayshore Drive and Becca Avenue to patrol that street. Debrah
Preston told me that they were going to get somebody out there,
the Sheriff's Department, to patrol that street and try not to put
the speed bumps. I don't want a speed bump in front of my
house. I will go to jail, I'll take a bulldozer and push it off.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we've heard that and I
understand your concerns, and I thank you for presenting it to
the commission this afternoon.
Mr. Olliff, do you have any comments, please?
MR. OLLIFF: No. I think there are some ongoing zoning
issues that Beth Walsh in my office is working on, in terms of
trying to resolve. I think there's some outstanding
grandfathering, probably nonconforming use zoning issues there
that he's talking about. And we'll provide you a little memo and
get with him, as well.
MR. THOMPSON: My wife is grandfathered in.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, thank you for sharing that with
us and --
MR. THOMPSON: I want to tell you you're the best man I
Page 102
October 24, 2000
ever met to hold that meeting. I've been listening to you; man,
you do a perfect job.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. I want everybody out
there to hear that this afternoon when you start throwing things
at me in the future.
MR. THOMPSON: He's a good man.
Item #12A1
RESOLUTION 2000-369 TRANSMITTAL OF 2000 GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Moving to our afternoon agenda, we're
going to get there --Advertised Public Hearings, Item 12-A-1.
MR. LITSINGER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive
planning manager. This public hearing this afternoon is your
annual transmittal public hearing for your annual Growth
Management Plan Amendments that we transmit to the
Department of Community Affairs. And in approximately 60 days,
so it usually turns out around the Christmas holidays, we receive
their objections, recommendations, and comments report to
which we try to resolve any issues, and then come back to you,
usually the middle of February, end of February, for the final
adoption of your annual amendments.
I have a handout for you that corrects a trick that was
played on us by the copying machine relative to the Planning
Commission's recommendations, which will also be pointed out
by each planner as they present the individual petitions.
Procedurally, we've decided to think outside the box and do
something a little different in a couple of our usual annual
amendments. As you'll notice in your package, you do not have a
Capital Improvement Element Amendment, and you do not have a
Transportation Element Amendment update.
What we have decided to do is to not transmit an
amendment for review for either element, as opposed to using
year-old data from the last year's AUIR. You folks will be
receiving the AUIR in the next hopefully 45 days.
What we would propose to do is, instead of having a Capital
Improvement Element and in this case, because there are map
Page t03
October 24, 2000
changes and transportation element, elements that are perhaps
a year old as we will bring to you proposed amendments in
February on the Capital Improvement Element and
Transportation to adopt as unreviewed amendments, which
simply means that the DCA will either find them in compliance or
not in compliance.
We don't suspect that the issues would result in a
noncompliance. If they do, we are usually able to resolve a
settlement agreement on those types of nonregional issues very
easily. So just I wanted to point out to you why you do not see
Capital Improvement Element at this time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like a real big
improvement, instead of being a year behind in the data we use
to adopt changes. That's great.
MR. LITSINGER: With that, I will introduce David Weeks,
who will present the first public petition.
MR. WEEKS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, David Weeks of the comprehensive planning staff, and
this will be pretty brief.
This is an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan,
specifically, to the settlement area district. This district applies
to the OrangeTree development, previously known as North
Golden Gate. Essentially, it was a mirror image of Golden Gate
City, at this location, about four square miles in size, with a
variety of urban zonings.
It was originally approved for close to 12,000 dwelling units,
185 acres of commercial, industrial, community uses like schools
and churches, et cetera.
In 1982, the property was down-zoned to agricultural and
the property owner filed a lawsuit. As a result of the settlement
of that lawsuit, we created the OrangeTree PUD.
The Golden Gate Master Plan used to contain a list of the
uses permitted in this settlement area district. In 1997, when we
adopted the amendments based upon the evaluation and
appraisal report, we removed that list of specific uses and
maintained the language that had previously been in there that
referred to the settlement agreement, and the zoning document,
again, known as OrangeTree PUD.
What the petitioner is asking is to put that list of uses back
in place in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has no objection to
Page 104
October 24, 2000
that. The petitioner originally had asked to add one use, not
vested on this site, and that was the RV park use, but they have
advised they wish to withdraw that as part of their amendment.
So they are simply asking to put the list of uses back in place as
previously existed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends that you transmit this, and the Planning
Commission unanimously endorsed staff's recommendation. And
there were no speakers at the Planning Commission and no
correspondence has been received.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we taking these individually
or as a package?
MR. WEEKS: This will be as a package. There is one single
resolution transmitting these items. What we have always done
is take a straw vote, which is binding, and then you would make
a single motion at the conclusion of all these items.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would just note, then, that I
support the staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I support it with the idea of no RV.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. No RVs on that support on the
board. Are there any speakers to this issue? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's necessary to
read into the record, but the language that's in the resolution
would need to be modified, of course, to reflect the removal of
the R¥ park use that would pertain to the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan.
The Future Land Use Element also has two areas of
addition, and that second area which refers to uses not
previously approved would need to be stricken. Again, it's just
language housecleaning, but to reflect this action that we are
recommending.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: When we get ready to make that
motion we need all that incorporated, so if the attorney is
making notes of that, we can make sure we got it clean.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, while there is
no registered speakers on any of these items, there are probably
representatives of every petitioner here should the board have
questions of them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, moving to the next item, is this
2000-4, Vanderbilt Beach Road?
Page 105
October 24, 2000
MR. BLAIR: Good afternoon. Aaron Blair, planning services.
The petitioner seeks to amend the existing Future Land Use
Element and map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan
to allow for the creation of the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier
Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict for 48.54 acres, located here
on the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and Collier
Boulevard. Staff's recommendation is not to transmit this due to
the following reasons:
The magnitude and scale of this project, which is 360,000
commercial square feet, is similar to the scale of a community
shopping center. The subject property would not meet -- it would
meet the spacing criteria for activity center, but it is -- sorry, but
it is not on -- but it would not meet all the criteria to become an
activity center.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What elements --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What would it take?
MR. BLAIR: The road classification. Currently, it's on
collector road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As opposed to arterial? For my
money, if those aren't currently arterial they sure are going to be.
That looks to me -- but I didn't want to interrupt the gentleman.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. I just don't happen
to agree with that.
MR. BLAIR: Okay. The site is almost exactly two miles from
the current activity center number 3 at Immokalee Road and
Collier Boulevard, which currently activity center number 3 is yet
to be developed. However, the northeast quadrant, which is this
right here, section of the activity center, is planned for a
minimum of 150,000 commercial retail as the Heritage Bay DRI.
The subject property will allow for a three-story financial
services and offices, thus making a transition to the scale,
transition of scale to the estate zoning across the street, which
would be this area here, would give an adverse effect to the area
because of the scale of a three-story building in this area,
compared to what's allowed in this area as far as the estate
zoning.
The Planning Commission found in favor of transmittal eight
to zero.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There will be other questions that
come up, but it's my understanding, if I look at the west side of
Page 106
October 24, 2000
this, that the consideration in the future is to do a loop road in
here for the interconnectivity from the potential PUDs that will
be developed in this larger area, and I guess the people speaking
on behalf of that can address that issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I can just jump in there. We'll
see if there's an interconnectivity, we'll see if there's a frontage
road, or something similar. I hope there is when they come in
with the rezone, but what we're being asked today is whether or
not we are going to transmit this to DCA as a proposed
amendment in order to get their recommendations and
comments.
I think that this is the perfect place for some long-term
future commercial because it's near the Estates, without being in
the Estates, and that's a positive to provide some way to buy a
loaf of bread out there without driving to the coast. We know
that's a positive to the transportation system.
So unless there is something shocking that I haven't heard, I
think, this is one I definitely want to transmit.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree with you, Commissioner
Mac'Kie. Everything that I've heard, again, transmittal says, if
they approve it, then we have an opportunity to come back and
talk about it and can build in all the interconnectivity and
frontage roads, whatever we need to do to the PUD process. But
until it's transmitted and we have that right to do that, we can't
pursue it, if I'm understanding that correctly.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I bet you if you take a straw poll
vote on this particular item, you may save yourself a full
presentation on this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I support it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I support it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have a question. What was the
logic that the Planning Commission used in voting eight-zero?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably the same --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Why would they do that?
MR. BLAIR: They all felt that it was the same reason you
did.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably the same great logic I
just used.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
four.
Sounds good. I think you have
Page 107
October 24, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we have four, let's move to the
next item. Thank you.
That would take us then to Item CP-2000-5.
MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. My name is Amy Taylor, for
the record, I'm with your comprehensive planning section staff.
Before you for consideration is Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2000-5.
In this petition, the applicant seeks to amend the Future
Land Use Element and Map to allow the creation of a
Livingston-Pine Ridge commercial in-fill subdistrict.
The proposed designation will allow retail and commercial
office uses on a 17.5-acre parcel. It would allow up to 125,000
square feet of retail and office uses. The evaluation by staff
considered the surrounding land uses in evaluating this petition's
appropriateness.
To the north of the property is approved commercial. This is
across the street from Pine Ridge-Cambridge Square PUD. To
the east of the property is the North Naples fire station, and the
fire station, in its first three months of operation had over 250
calls.
The property also to the east shares a boundary with, this is
agriculturally zoned. That property is adjacent to its east with
commercial property, allowing that property to be eligible for
commercial planning criteria.
The property to the south is agricultural. The property
across Livingston Roadway is the related PUD which is a
developed apartment homes, over 250 units.
The property, subject property, abuts to what will be two
six-lane facilities so that in the staff's evaluation of this petition,
based on the surrounding characteristics, it was deemed
appropriate for this change.
We have recommended approval. Staff recommended
approval, the Planning Commission has endorsed that
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions from the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a comment, if I may. This
looks right now like a great square in the middle of nowhere, but
as soon as Livingston is there, it's going to be a major
intersection, and again, that's why this is good forward thinking.
I'm going to support it. That's one.
Page 108
October 24, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We've got enough. Thank you very
much. Move to Item CP-2000-7, number 5.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, a thought just popped
into my mind. Should we be sworn in disclosing ex-parte and all
that stuff?
MR. WEIGEL: This is not quasi-judicial, but you are welcome
to make any disclosure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have met so far with two out of
the three petitioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have done the same and may have
run into them at the EDC, Chamber of Commerce, President's
Forum, Rotary, Kiwanis, and a number of other places in this
county.
MR. WEEKS: Just for the record again, David Weeks of the
comprehensive planning staff. This petition might seem familiar
to you because you saw a similar version to it last year.
It is located at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara
Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. It's a request to amend the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan to change the designation from
residential estates to the Golden Gate commercial in-fill
subdistrict.
The subject site is about 6.8 acres. This will allow for a
variety of office uses, it will allow for a single bank or pharmacy,
and it will allow for about 8 or 10 other retail uses on the site, for
a maximum square footage of 35,000 square feet.
Staff, like last time, does not support this amendment. Our
concerns have to do with the character of the area, the impact
that this project will have. This is in Golden Gate Estates, it's
across the street, across from Santa Barbara Boulevard from
Golden Gate City, but nevertheless, it is in the Estates.
The Estates is a semi-rural character. We certainly
acknowledge that the abutting roadways carry high volumes of
traffic; anywhere between 23 and 30,000 vehicles per day.
Nevertheless, we have some concerns about the impact on the
character of the surrounding area, what will happen to the
southwest quadrant. We would assume that a similar
amendment will be proposed if this is approved.
Our recommendation is not to transmit. However, the
Planning Commission, by a vote of seven to one, recommended
to transmit this petition as submitted by petitioners. There was
Page 109
October 24, 2000
one letter--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who was the one?
MR. BLAIR: Commissioner Young. And there was one letter
of opposition. It's from the property owner to the north. You
might recall that same property owner objected last year.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have heard all that before here at a
past meeting. We will need to hear from the petitioner
depending on how the board feels. I understand, if I'm correct,
that the civic association does not object to this being
transmitted and would like to see us pursue it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's the civic association?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Richard Yovanovich, representing the
petitioner. We met with the Golden Gate City Civic Association
regarding this matter.
The issue, like last time, was really traffic issues, and they
want us to work with them and with county staff in the interim
between transmittal and adoption to, hopefully, resolve the
intersection issues with -- to resolve everybody's issues out
there.
They didn't have a problem with the use, it was a traffic
issue again, and we've committed with them to work with them
early and often to come to a resolution that would be mutually
satisfactory to the association and the property owner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to give this a chance to
stay alive and see if they can work out those transportation
issues and support its transmittal.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I, likewise, will do that because they
have done what I've always advocated, and that is meet with the
key associations and get their input into these. And if all those
issues can be resolved, I understand there is already things that
have been done to separate the distance from the property that
had the most concerns, so I would like to give them that chance
in the system.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I wouldn't have a problem.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I count three, but I don't count four,
but I think that's where they are.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's where you are.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I think I just got the school
teacher's stare, so I think I'll be all right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You didn't get smacked by the
Page 110
October 24, 2000
ruler.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, but I was ready to duck, though.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's next.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll see if I can get to item number 6,
CP-2000-11.
MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Michelle Mosca with
the planning services department. On April 11 of this year, the
Board of County Commissioners directed staff to amend the RV
park direct principal access provision of the Future Land Use
Element. This was to allow access points from intervening
properties onto local roadways or driveways.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2000-11 amends this
provision by defining direct principal access as: "A driveway or
local roadway connection to an arterial road, provided the
portion of the local roadway intended to provide access to the
RV park is not within a residential neighborhood and does not
service a predominantly residential area."
The collier County Planning Commission recommendation
was unanimous in support of transmitting this amendment, and
staff's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners is
to forward this petition to the Department of Community Affairs
for a formal review. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I support that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I support it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're all right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would move the resolution for
transmittal of these amendments, with the revised language
identified earlier, I believe by you, Mr. Litsinger, with regard to
the two uses we were talking about.
MR. LITSINGER: The RV uses in OrangeTree?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion? All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries, 4-0. Thank you.
That takes us to the Zoning Appeals. No, sorry about that, it
Page 111
October 24, 2000
takes us to C, Other Noise Ordinance.
Item #12B3
ORDINANCE 2000-66 AMENDING THE IMMOKALEE AREA
MASTER PLAN, A SEPARATE ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, TO DELINEATE AN
URBAN INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT AREA - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER BERRY: How about 12-A-37
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Immokalee. You want to do that? All
right, let's do that, item 3. My apologies. 12-A-3,
recommendations to the Board of County Commission to adopt
the ordinance to the amendment to the Immokalee Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the one that would require
very little discussion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We already did that, it was on its way.
But that's okay.
MS. PRESTON: Good afternoon, Debrah Preston from
Comprehensive Planning. This is for final adoption of an
amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan to delineate an
urban in-fill and redevelopment area for the Immokalee area,
which will qualify them for a grant under the Department of
Community Affairs. This is for final adoption.
The Planning Commission heard this item on October 19th.
They forwarded the recommendation to the board, unanimously,
to adopt this amendment, and we did receive a letter from the
Department of Community Affairs yesterday stating they have
done a preliminary review, that they have received no outside
recommendations or requests to review this, and that they are
recommending that you go ahead and adopt this amendment
today.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Motion carries. All right.
Item #12B2
Page 112
October 24, 2000
ORDINANCE 2000-67 RE PETITION PUD-2000-12, DWIGHT
NADEAU, MCANLEY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC.,
REPRESENTING S. J. BENSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS
ARLINGTON LAKES PUD, 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD
ON LIVINGSTON ROAD- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER BERRY: B-2.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Arlington Lakes?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: B-2, Zoning Amendments, we had one
continuance.
We got a lot of stuff on and off of here, this looks like a Las
Vegas scorecard.
Okay. 12 B-2, Petition PUD 2000-12. Now, we need to have
everybody sworn in.
(Speakers were sworn.}
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have to disclose that I've had
discussion with the petitioner and their representative, any of
this group that's standing over here, all except that gentleman in
the tweed jacket. I didn't talk to him. The rest of them I talked
to.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have had no discussion with the
principals.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have had discussions with I believe
all the principals except the one gentleman in the maroon tweed.
I don't recognize him, unless I say I met him at the Chamber of
Commerce, EDC or other associations in the community.
You ask why do I do that? Everybody is all over us about
this stuff. I've been here 21 years, I've seen them all
somewhere, sometime.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have discussed this PUD with
the petitioner.
MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Don
Murray, principal planner with planning services department.
This Petition, PUD 2000-12, Arlington Lakes PUD, is a
request for rezoning from agricultural to Planned Unit
Development for a property located approximately one-half mile
south of Pine Ridge Road, and it lies between the future
Page 113
October 24, 2000
Livingston Road right of way and Whippoorwill Lane.
The property's approximately 98 acres and the petitioner is
proposing approximately 590 units at a density of 6 units per
acre.
The property is bordered by single family tracts on the north
side, Kensington Park PUD and Livingston Road right of way on
the west side. To the east are previously approved Whippoorwill
Lakes, Whippoorwill Pines and Whippoorwill Woods PUD. To the
south is Balmoral PUD, and just to the south along Livingston
Road are a couple of large agricultural parcels.
Staff has reviewed this PUD for consistency with Growth
Management Plan. We believe it is consistent. We believe that
the densities are consistent with what has been approved
recently for properties that are along the Whippoorwill Lane and
in that area falling within the residential density band of the
activity center.
If approved, this PUD will provide basically two residential
development tracts: One to the east, one to the west, with a
flow-way, 19-acre flow-way, which will bisect it from north to
south. This flow-way is required by the Water Management
District.
Also, if approved it will provide recreation, gated access,
open space and some lakes and have access off of both
Whippoorwill Lane and Livingston Road.
At this time, I'd like to take questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's my understanding that this
flow-way is part of the overall system that we want to see as far
as the interconnection and restoration of the natural flow-way in
there, and is really an important piece of that, which made me
surprised that the EAC did not have an affirmative vote. I didn't
really understand what the staff said about they have to have
five positive votes for a positive recommendation, but it sounded
like they didn't give positive votes because of a process that is
yet to go forward.
MR. MURRAY: Well, it's put Iow down, too, so -- right. The
process was that the applicant needed to identify I believe it was
around 10 acres of preservation area, and they have made
agreement to do that.
Page 114
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it says in here and I know
you haven't turned to it, but it says something about you had
gotten a letter from somebody. Let me find it. Here, says they
recommend -- the motion to recommend approval failed because
there are less than five affirmative votes. No official action was
taken. The reasons for the negative vote were that there was no
review by and 30-day letter from the Water Management. And
the petitioner did not propose any additional preservation among
the minimum 15 percent.
Is this 30-day letter something that you have to get you just
haven't gotten yet, or what is that?
MR. NADEAU: For the record, Dwight Nadeau, McAnley
Engineering and Design, representing the petitioner, Mr. Sam
Benson.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The guy in the tweed jacket.
MR. NADEAU: Yes. At the EAC meeting, our first meeting,
we only had four members show up, so we didn't have a quorum.
We were continued into the next week.
At that meeting, we did have a quorum, there were six
people there. The concern of Mr. Carlson was that we had not
received a 30-day request for additional information from the
South Florida Water Management District.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is that?
MR. NADEAU: Well, it's a process to get environmental
resource permit approval, as well as water management
approval from the Water Management District, and it's not typical
for any county review entity to ask for this letter. However, this
was the primary basis for Mr. Carlson's not supporting the
petition.
Council member Santos voted against it, or did not support
the recommendation of approval, and therefore, it was no action
based on a four-two approval vote.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even though it's not normal to
ask for the 30-day letter? I don't know what that is. What is a
30-day letter?
MR. NADEAU: Well, I just happen to have an environmental
consultant nearby that might be able to respond to that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would like to know that. I would also
like to know, even if it isn't required, wouldn't it be a very logical
thing, in a sensitive environmental area, to obtain it?
Page 115
October 24, 2000
MR. BUTLER: For the record, lan Butler, Butler
Environmental.
The 30-day letter that's in question is, as Mr. Nadeau said,
part of our resource permitting process. You submit an
application, the agencies in return send you a letter requesting
additional information. The 30 days meaning they have 30 days
to review your application. At that time, if they need more
information, they send you a letter asking you a series of
questions for more information.
As a result, you respond to those concerns, it goes back to
them for 30 more days of review. If they still don't have enough
information or have additional questions, they send it back. And
it can go on and on and on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, have you submitted that
application?
MR. BUTLER: Yes. We have had two 30-day letters or
requests for additional information since then, and that letter,
that 30-day letter makes no approval or any authorization to do
anything. It's merely asking for additional information.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But no matter what the board
does today, you'll have to continue and complete that process
with the Water Management District? MR. BUTLER: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to look for
environmental issues everywhere I can find them, but when I
look for them on your property, I see that you would be giving it a
flow-way or an integral piece of a flow-way that we have to have.
MR. BUTLER: We've been working with the agencies for two
years prior to submittal on this flow-way concept in giving up 20
percent of the project in order to take the regional environmental
impact into consideration.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' You are basically the end of a
flow-way that we built up above, and now it's meaningless unless
we get this chunk.
MR. BUTLER: More or less the headwaters and central part
of this area because we are in the middle and we are designing it
to take into consideration adjacent parcels.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the 15 percent required
by a lot of section numbers in the LDC?
MR. BUTLER: It's actually 25 percent that the Land
Page 116
October 24, 2000
Development Code requires you retain. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are you retaining?
MR. BUTLER: 20 percent? Right, we are in excess of their
25 percent requirement, which includes the flow-way and
MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, for the record, we are
obligated to make 25 percent, and we will meet the 25 percent.
We haven't identified the exact 20 acres at this point, but we are
obligated to meet --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In here, it says petitioner didn't
propose any additional preservation area above the minimum 15
percent required by 3.9.5.5.4.
MR. BUTLER: I think that's a typo. It should have said 25
percent.
MR. MURRAY: What it means is that they are meeting the
minimum requirement, at least.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But is the minimum 25 or 157 If
they are giving away a quarter for preservation, that's one thing.
MR. MURRAY: It's 25 total, I believe, percent.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute. I need to know, is it
25, is it 20, is it t57 I want a specific answer to the question.
MR. NADEAU: 25 percent.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is also spelled out on page 31 of
the document that we have under item 2, under environmental, a
minimum of 25 percent, 6.3 acres.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So two people on EAC, one
wanted you to be farther along in the process with the water
management district than you were, and another wanted you to
exceed the 25 percent preservation, and that's why they voted
against it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because for my money, number
one, you are in the process and you will have to complete the
process. I don't know why that 30-day letter is meaningful at
this point.
Number two, if what you are doing for purposes of the
flow-way meets and exceeds the 25 percent for its value to us as
a part of the system.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This project is in the Whippoorwill
corridor, and there's been lengthy discussions about making sure
Page 1t 7
October 24, 2000
we coordinate the regional water management issues as well as
the traffic issues as well as the utility issues. And this PUD
implements all of the requirements that were established months
ago.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: In that agreement that we reached
with all of the PUDs in the area.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct. I don't know if I said for
the record, but my name is Rich Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The other question when I met with
you was the possibility between the two projects of having a
boardwalk which would not interfere with that flow-way, but so
that people could traverse back and forth by bicycle or walking.
It is an interconnection but not infringing upon the waterway.
Do we have any direction on that at this point?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, we do. And again, Dwight Nadeau,
McAnley Engineering, representing this petition.
It's encouraged by the permitting agencies that we have
passive recreation within conservation areas and we will
incorporate that into any plan of development that may come
forward beyond this zoning here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Are there questions of the
petitioner or assigns?
MR. OLI. IFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll move approval subject to the
stipulations in the staff report.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll second that.
MR. MURRAY: There weren't any.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm just used to saying that.
You had them all worked out ahead of time. I move approval.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have approval and we have a
second?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, we need to take 30 seconds to
Page 118
October 24, 2000
let our court reporters switch.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 2000-68 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY'S NOISE
CONTROL ORDINANCE, NO. 90-17, AS AMENDED - ADOPTED
WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. C., Other: Noise ordinance.
MS. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. For the record, Michelle
Arnold, your code enforcement director.
This item has been before you a couple of times previously.
Initially we were directed to look into the noise ordinance and
come up with recommendations as far as updating the
ordinance.
This item was back to you all earlier this year, and it was
recommended that we workshop the item to get as much public
input as we possibly can.
The proposed ordinance that's before you has information in
it that was intended to address some of the concerns that were
raised during the public workshops. There are items, however,
rather than going through the ordinance in detail, because we
have a very long ordinance in front of you, it's 14 pages, I'm
going to identify for you those items that are essential for -- from
a code enforcement standpoint.
One of them is the introduction of the octave band
measurements. Currently we have what is called an 'A'
weighted scale measurement. And what that is, is just an
averaging out of the sound levels that are registered when we
take a reading.
This octave band measurement is much more sophisticated.
It breaks the noise down and looks at it at different frequencies.
That would help my staff, when we're doing a reading, identify
exactly what the violation is, whether it's a high frequency -- or a
high pitch noise or a Iow pitch noise, and we could better advise
the violator as to how they can correct the problem. Currently
we may be missing some of the actual violations to our current
noise ordinance.
We are also introducing with this proposed ordinance the
Page 119
October 24, 2000
elimination of multiple sound levels for a single zoning district.
Currently our ordinance has two different sound levels
established for commercial and two sound levels established for
industrial. We don't see a need to have all these different levels.
We've eliminated that one which distinguishes between
commercial within 1,000 feet of residential area and industrial
within 1,000 feet of residential, and we're just limiting it to one
commercial district and one residential district.
Also, there's been some housekeeping as far as the annual
noise permit requirements that I feel that are essential to our
enforcement capabilities.
There are a myriad of other things that are included in the
ordinance that are again merely there for your information as far
as input that was received from the general public during those
workshops. And those are at your discretion whether or not
those can stay in the ordinance or be eliminated today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions--
MS. ARNOLD: We do have here today, and it's -- if you want
the consultant to give you a brief information as to what their
findings were. They did do a survey of the coastal community
and they did two surveys out in the Immokalee area. One was
just a sampling survey, another one was a three-day survey, and
both findings were -- generally our average sound levels in the
community are fairly Iow.
And the recommendation for the Immokalee area -- and
again, this was stemming from input from the workshops -- is to
keep the sound levels for that area at our current standards. The
ordinance standards for the rest of the community is lowering
the decibel levels by five.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we wanted to keep the sound
levels the same for both communities, do you still recommend
that we adopt this change in the measuring apparatus band
width or something?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we could go forward with -- I'll
tell you what I'm going to be wanting to hear, and that is what
recommendations do you have from an enforcement perspective
to allow you to enforce -- to better enforce the regulations that
Page t20
October 24, 2000
we currently have? And if it's with a different measuring device
and that is not a terrible expense, that's one thing I'm going to
want to hear about that. But basically, my assessment is that if
it ain't broke, don't fix it. And there are some places where this
is broken, but they're not worthy of a blanket change across the
county.
So I'm going to be looking for that recommendation from
you, and I guess --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you gave that to us, because
it's the list of what you just said that you would like to have --
you want, whether we agree to lower the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Decibel levels.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- decibels or not.
MS. ARNOLD: The lowering of the decibel levels, you know,
would be at your discretion. But the reason why it's in the
proposed to changed -- and it's only the residential zoning district
that's being proposed for changes -- is based on the analysis or
the results of the surveys that were done by the consultants.
And they were recommending a variation, so to speak, in the
average sound levels that were registered within the community
of approximately 10 decibels. So the sound emanating source
would have a variation of 10 decibels over our average noise
level.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't understand that.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay, let me --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: When she's finished, I have
something.
MS. ARNOLD: Let me try to depict it here for you. Right now,
what the results of the survey produced from the consultant's
point of view was an average of, say, 45 decibels for surround
sounds within the community, or ambient noise in the
community. 48 decibels. And then at nighttime it was lowered
somewhat.
And the proposed ordinance for residential is up to 55
decibels. So you would have between that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' As opposed to now where we
have 60.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. So you would have that much in that
red area to make noise and violate our ordinance. Before you
Page 121
October 24, 2000
violate the ordinance, as opposed to, as you said, the currents
ordinance is up to 60. So you have to make a decision whether
or not you want it to be a 15 decibel level or a 10 decibel level
difference.
As far as the equipment, I think we've had readings that
were pretty close when we've responded to noise complaints in
the past. And I think the octave band measurement would be a
great help to resolve some of those problems that we've had
where, you know, the readings were close but they weren't a
violation but maybe the sound was a little bit of an annoyance.
And this octave band measurement would allow us to identify
really what the annoyance is.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MS. ARNOLD: And then -- and identify how to correct that
problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So may I just stay with that, do
you mind?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry if I'm taking more than
my share of time.
But the result of the octave band is we would keep the
decibel level the same, but the measuring device would allow
you to identify particular sounds that even though we haven't
changed our DB level, we could identify that it is a violation
because of its recurring sound or because --
MS. ARNOLD: Or the frequency or the pitch of that sound.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, regardless -- if I understand it,
regardless of the decibel level, this is a more sophisticated piece
of equipment or accurate 21st Century that helps us assess the
source of noise.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which someone told me that the
City of Naples, having recently done their noise ordinance, they
adopted this octave band as a measuring tool.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So regardless of what we do, I think
that is the key here.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, yes.
MS. ARNOLD: And with that, my staff would have to, you
know, buy additional equipment and be trained on that particular
Page 122
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cost?
MS. ARNOLD: We're estimating a cost of 26,350. And that's
for three testing meters and the appropriate computer apparatus
to do the noise readings, as well as some training of my staff.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: May I?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: From your perspective with the
function you perform, and your staff, does it make any sense to
have more than one standard across the county as far as noise
level is concerned?
MS. ARNOLD: It would be a lot easier for us to have one
standard throughout the county, because then we're not having
to worry about, okay, you know, are we across that particular
boundary within an overlay district? You know, is it north of
Immokalee or a section north of Immokalee that this noise is
occurring? So it's a lot simpler to have one standard for the
entire community.
And when we're talking about noise, you know, everybody's
sensitive to noise.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Do you see a problem from the
community point of view and the workshops that you have seen
that would dictate or move us in a direction to have more than
one?
MS. ARNOLD: There was a large outcry from the Immokalee
community to have -- or at least maintain the current noise
levels. They didn't want to be restricted any further as far as
noise standards.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that's why I believe there was
suggested if we adopted a lower decibel level, that Immokalee
would have an overlay which would not affect them under the
new decibel level, if I'm understanding that correctly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that was the issue that the
Attorney General --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is now raising his hand --
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- and saying --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And as long as we don't have a
special overlay, then the Attorney General doesn't have a
Page 123
October 24, 2000
problem, right?
MR. WEIGEL: That's what we think.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I need to point --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But if I may, one more question,
Michelle. In looking at the rest of the community and in the
workshops that you've had, how did the rest of the community
react to having a lower decibel rating, compared to Immokalee?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I would have to say that Immokalee had
the largest showing in terms of representatives at the
workshops.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Maybe I haven't asked my
question right.
MS. ARNOLD: It was -- from the North Naples area, I think
there were some community members that were receptive to a
lowering of standards, but we didn't have very much comment
from the East Naples area.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think probably Immokalee and North
Naples had the greatest participation; one asking for Immokalee
to maintain an overlay to keep the existing decibel, the north
section asking for a reduction in that. MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Well, from my perspective, I
certainly want to see that the newer, more technically advanced
equipment be available for these kinds of measurements. And I
think we should definitely approve that. And I don't see a need
to have two different levels across the county.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I was just trying to point out that
you do have a dozen registered speakers, and some of these
people will probably raise some of these issues as we go along.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then I think if there's not any further
questions at this point from the board, then we ought to hear
from the people who have signed up to speak, get their input,
looking at the various aspects of this ordinance and then have a
discussion and reach a conclusion accordingly.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Sure.
MS. ARNOLD: If I may, I don't want to take much more time,
I just wanted to provide for you to let you know that the
consultants are here, they're prepared to answer any technical
questions that you might have, as well as provide you with
Page t24
October 24, 2000
demonstration, if you need -- find a need to do that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If it's okay with the board, I would
suggest we hear from the people that have signed up. The
consultants can be listening to that, because they may have
questions that they can address for us, and that should enhance
our discussion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are we going to be able to hear
what the expectation in Collier County is now going to be for
noise?
MS. ARNOLD: I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because I don't know, I may
violate it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean can we get him to play
on the speaker what is 55 DB?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I really want to know.
Because if I decide to go out and yell in the middle of the street,
you know--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're going to call code enforcement.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- am I going to be in violation of
the noise ordinance?
MR. OLLIFF: You'd be in violation of a couple of others, but
probably not the noise ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Depending on just how you were
attired and everything else. I mean, I don't know.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, there is some language currently in the
ordinance that makes reference to those things that you raised
earlier, you know, with the yelling and those type of-- but if-- it's
not in the ordinance today, if you decide do remove it, then if you
yell, there's nothing that I can do about it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless you do it in a way that
violates our noise ordinance as it's currently written. And you
can stand outside and scream long enough that you'll, you know
practical about this whole thing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Obviously.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And then go to your neighbor's yard.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But here again, I'm trying to be
And I agree, I think the
Page 125
October 24, 2000
equipment thing, Michelle, for your department I think is
probably, you know, a given. I don't know how anybody can fault
that. But I'll tell you, I do have some concerns in regard to --
because here's what I can see happening.
Everybody knows that part of this whole big issue has to do
with the concrete plant up in North Naples that was moved up
there umpteen years ago, probably back in the early Seventies, if
not the late Sixties. And the area grew up around that concrete
plant. At the time it went up there, there was nobody there.
Because I remember it.
MS. ARNOLD: Right, similar to the airport.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Similar to the airport.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Similar to the landfill.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Similar to the packing companies
out in Immokalee.
My concern is that all of a sudden -- I know you don't want to
have this. I understand not having the separate overlay.
However, if you have a certain level that you're talking about,
say like the Krehling plant or what have you, you can have a very
similar situation in Immokalee with those packing plants.
And the reason I'm saying, the next thing you know, you're
going to be imposing on them, just as you're trying to do with
Krehling, to spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to quiet
those plants down out there, and they're already suffering
economically. And about the time you tell those packing houses
you've got to quiet down those packing houses and encloses this
is area, you're going to have some real problems out there. And
rightfully so. I'll be leading the group down the road in
opposition.
MS. ARNOLD: I think in Immokalee it's not going to be the
same situation as Krehling, just because of the preliminary
results that we've received from the consultant's report. There
are some plants currently in operation, and grant it, the season is
not at its height right now, and there was no noises other than
recreational type noises other that are just, you know, your
football game going on or your volleyball game going on in the
backyard that were in excess of this -- anywhere close to what
the established noise levels are.
And when we have the height of the season, the ambient
noise is going to go up so, therefore, the rest of the noises will
Page 126
October 24, 2000
be muffled out by that surround now, so it doesn't -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, so that's going to be the
level. If the ambient noise at what, I mean, any given time?
MS. ARNOLD: At any given time.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is at a certain level, then what's
the rest of it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then the question is, do we want
to allow noises to go 10 or 15 percent?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, let me just explain -- you've received a
hand-out, and on that hand-out it gives you some information as
far as the noise levels. The green line represents Collier County.
The purple is Chicago.
And just so you understand what I'm talking about when the
ambient noise changes, the ambient noise in Chicago is
obviously a little bit louder than Collier County, but both those
lines represent a 55 decibel level. And because the ambient
noise at this frequency is higher in Chicago, you're going to get a
higher reading. And at the -- at a different frequency, lower down
on the chart, you're going to get a lower frequency, all -- what
that's saying is Collier County has some more high frequency
noises than Chicago. But those are the same measurements on
the meter.
So when you have higher background noises, you're going to
get different readings.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think I'm going to learn more
about this than I ever wanted to.
MS. ARNOLD: I know. I've learned a lot more than I ever
thought I would.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would suggest we go to the public, to
the people that would like to speak to us. The consultants can
listen to all of this, and then help us through these issues that
we need to address, because it's more than Commissioner Berry,
I think it's more than pack plants in Krehling. I've got some
other initials in the community that are coming forward.
Out of this I would hope that we could find some way to
work through this, A, to deal with the current situations, B, as we
develop areas in the future, that we certainly have intensity
dropping down in surrounding areas where we don't get in this
trap again. Because it's -- there's potentially ones out there that
are being built that in the future you could be sitting here five or
Page 127
October 24, 2000
six years from now and have this same kind of discussion. So
long-range planning and doing the right thing would probably
head that one off. So I would move to hear what the public has
to say, get the consultants' input and then we will continue and
try and figure out what we're going to do with this.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the first speaker is David
Klaiber, followed by Ken Havemeier.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And how many do we have?
MR. OLLIFF: You have 12.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have 12. That could be an hour's
worth. Maybe we want to take a quick stretch here for the
recorder and everybody else before we start in this, if you allow
us five minutes. I think we ought to all stretch and get back
here, because you're going to be here a while. (Recess.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You want to push the button over
there?
We're on. We're back in session. Thank you for allowing us
all to have a short break and now we'll get back to our public
speakers.
MR. KLAIBER: Good afternoon. My name is -- for the record
is Dave Klaiber. I'm a certified -- retired certified safety
professional. I live at 12658 Glen Hollow Drive in Bonita Springs.
I'm representing the Abbey-by-the-Lake community. And I've
been representing and been with them since we started back in
January of 1999 when we formed a task force to try to do two
things: One was to try to work with Krehling in reducing the
noise, or eliminating it in some form or fashion. The second
thing was to try to go through the process of revising the current
noise ordinance.
As far as the noise at Krehling, there has been some
progress made there. And that has helped.
The process here at hand is something that we can thank
the board for, because you all allocated the time and effort for
that to happen, and we appreciate it.
We certainly appreciate Commissioner Carter and your
involvement and help in that area, David Weigel and his staff, and
certainly Tom Palmer. And from the code enforcement people,
we certainly appreciate -- because we've attended a number of
meetings and have worked very diligently, we've done some of
Page 128
October 24, 2000
our own independent studies by renting equipment to run the
test with octave band analyzers and so forth. We've worked and
cooperated with the -- with Casey Caccavari and Howard
Schechter, who are the -- your ali's consultants in this matter.
And thankful for the work that they've done.
The focal point has been the -- as we have mentioned, has
been the addition of the octave band analysis change in the
current ordinance. And that has to happen. And I think we all
are in agreement with that. It gives the code enforcement
people now a way of addressing the Krehling noise, or Krehling
type noises which beforehand you couldn't.
In essence, the concepts of the proposed revision to the
noise ordinance, we're in agreement with for the most part. We
agree to the ordinance as long as the new standards, that is, the
decibel levels in Table 1, are 55 and 50. And we -- and for those
of you who have maybe not heard the noise level at Krehling
would not have an appreciation for the fact that there's a lot of
energy in this five decibel difference.
And for those people who live in this area, that energy is
extremely intrusive, simply because it is of Iow frequency, it's on
a repetitive cycle, it's predictable, and it has somewhat of an
impulsive characteristic to it. Although it is classified as pure
tone. And you have to -- in order to even analyze pure tone, you
have to have an octave band. And that's part of the -- and that's
part of your ordinance. And that gives a five DB corrective
factor.
So we agree with the ordinance. We strongly recommend
that you vote in favor of the reduction in the decibels for Table 1,
that's the 55 for daytime and 50 at night, and certainly with the
values that are in Table 2, which deal with octave band analysis.
As far as procedures for B-l, which deals with testing, we
feel that when a person comes out to do the test, that they
automatically do both the A scale, which deals with Table 1, and
with the octave band analyzer for dealing with Table 2, the
octave band analysis, which gives you a frequency test.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need to summarize, please.
MR. KLAIBER: So we strongly stress the training for the
people. And for the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's
Department has to be a part of that, we feel, of that training. And
certainly a workshop for the board would be mighty, mighty
Page 129
October 24, 2000
helpful.
Just to call your -- quickly, just to call your attention again,
one sentence; Whereas, it is hereby declared to be the public
policy of Collier County that every person is entitled to sound
levels that are detrimental to life, death, health and enjoyment of
his or her property. And we think that the values that are in the
current proposed standard will do that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLI. IFF: Next speaker is Ken Havemeier, followed by
Richard Nogaj.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just a reminder, all speakers, you do
have five minutes on this, so please be concise and have your
points so that we can give everybody the opportunity to be
heard. Thank you.
MR. HAVEMEIER: For the record, my name is Ken
Havemeier. I live in Abbey-on-the-Lake. And I represent the task
force that we put together about 24 months ago, and that was a
time in 1998 when the noise got to be so intrusive that it was
necessary that we took it upon ourselves to get something done,
so we did some testing.
I represent probably about 3,000 households in our
community, which is Westgate, Abbey-on-the-Lake, Waybridge
Golf Estates, Imperial Golf Estates, Imperial Gardens, Bermuda
Greens, The Island, Wedgefield Park Place, Park Place West
Manor, Manors Regal Lake, Collier's Reserve, Landmark Estates,
Caribbean Park, Land -- San Marino, and Wiggins Lake and
Preserve. Those are the communities basically that I'm
representing.
We have a noise in our area that is absolutely unacceptable.
You cannot sleep at night with your lanai doors open; you
cannot have a dinner in the evening with your friends and enjoy
your lanais because of the intrusiveness and repetitiveness of
the sound. It just gets to you. There's no way that you can
sleep.
I have slept in my walk-in closet in my bedroom. I'm the guy
that did that. It was on the radio, on TV, and I'm the person that
did that. And I'm not ashamed to say it. And I covered my ears
with towels so that I could get a decent night sleep.
Well, last night was the same thing again. I did not sleep in
the closet, I slept in my bed. However, it was -- I had to keep all
Page t30
October 24, 2000
my doors closed. So this is an ongoing thing.
When they said that Krehling did something, yes, to the
north they did. But to the south they haven't spent 10 cents to
do anything to improve the situation in our area. So we get that
sound just like we did 24 months ago.
And I would like to suggest to the board that you take it
under serious consideration and approve the amendments that
have been suggested to the present code, especially the decibel
levels and the testing for Table 2, and so that the code
enforcement people can do their job.
I have called the Sheriff's Department. I've had them there
and they come out there and they say Ken, there's nothing we
can do for you, because they are not in violation of the present
code. Which is not true, because we took tests which clearly
shows that they were in violation even of the present code the
way you now have it in Table 1.
So I would highly recommend that you accept all the
changes that have been suggested as an amendment to the
present code. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Havemeier, can I ask you a
question?
MR. HAVEMEIER: How was I --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: How were you authorized to --
MR. HAVEMEIER: Okay, we had meetings. We were -- we
probably had like 20, 25 key people together from every group. I
have -- you know, people from each community that attended our
meetings. And I have it all documented here, Mrs. Berry -- I'm
sorry, Commissioner Berry. And so they asked me to represent
them at this meeting.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. The reason I asked,
because I have spoken to -- I happen to have a family member
that lives over in Imperial and they've not ever heard anything.
I've been over at their house many, many occasions, and I have
to tell you that where they live, you don't hear a thing. MR. HAVEMEIER: Well, I have a--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In all fairness. I mean, I just -- and
they said they received nothing about authorization to you to
represent.
MR. HAVEMEIER-' Okay. I'll tell you where the
Page 131
October 24, 2000
representation came from. That -- Imperial Golf Estates came
from Beverly Davidson, who was the president of the association
for that county. And I was to their meetings and everybody at
the meeting agreed that I was supposed to represent them at
that meeting.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just think -- that's fine. I'm not
questioning that. If they told you to do that, that's fine. But I
think one has to be very careful --
MR. HAVEMEIER: Yes, I understand.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- when one represents that you
are representing an entire area. Because there wasn't an
authorization sent from all residents to authorize anybody to
speak for them.
MR. HAVEMEIER: Well, we have key people, though, from
each dis -- from each community at our meetings. I don't want to
argue that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's fine, we're not going to
argue it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, I think what happens here is that
associations, as we know, have boards, and they meet and a
certain number of people go, and that board then will duly
constitute a person to represent, quote, the association, which in
turn theoretically represents all the people within that
community.
Now, that does not mean that everyone in that community
may belong to that association. They may not have been notified
by that association. But I think that's what Mr. Havemeier is
saying here--
MR. HAVEMEIER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- and I think he has it documented,
and I think the county attorney would value having that as part of
the public record so that when we go through this process, at
least we know that there were certain duly constituted bodies
within those communities who said we want you to represent us.
And whether or not they got an all-inclusive feedback from the
membership, we'll never know.
MR. HAVEMEIER: I can make, for the record here, probably
-- thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Richard Nogaj, followed by
Page 132
October 24, 2000
Terry Lenick.
MR. NOGAJ: Good afternoon. My name is Richard Nogaj. My
wife Florence and I are non-for-profit developers in Immokalee,
with our office at 1312 West New Market Road, in Immokalee.
We represent a new 10 million dollar planned unit development
designed as a traditional neighborhood that is called Jubilation.
It is a 105-unit mixed income housing ownership development
and the first of its kind to be built in Immokalee.
I'm here today as a business and community representative
and as a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida
to express both my congratulations to the staff and their
consultants for their energy, time, commitment to drafting this
much needed new ordinance, but to also state my concerns to
you, the county board, over certain aspects of this proposed new
ordinance.
This ordinance generally succeeds from a technical
standpoint, but in my opinion fails from a constitutional
standpoint in at least two areas. First, our 14th Amendment
guarantees equal protection under the law. This ordinance, as it
is currently written, establishes an overlay district for
Immokalee; it allows for a higher level of noise in the residential
areas of Immokalee. There is not the commercial area, not the
industrial, not the agriculture, but the residential areas.
These residents, who will be affected by higher levels of
noise, are not being provided the same degree of protection as
the residents throughout the rest of the county.
On Page 5 of the proposed ordinance, near the bottom of the
page, it states, and I quote, a petition submitted to staff by those
Immokalee area residents in support of the new proposed
ordinances attached.
However, a petition was submitted to staff on August 21st
at the hearing, but it was not in favor of this ordinance. But in
fact the petition stated, and I quote, we the undersigned wish
Immokalee to be covered by the same proposed noise ordinance
as the rest of the Collier County. The petition was signed by 221
people. And I would like to pass that out to the board, if this
could be passed out, please.
It was signed by 221 people, most of whom lived in the
affected area; a version of the same type ordinance for all of
Collier County, which does call for the 55/50 decibel levels in the
Page 133
October 24, 2000
residential areas. And this version existed well into September.
This was after the three public hearings were held. But then this
version suddenly and mysteriously disappeared.
My second concern to express to the board is that -- is over
the proposed raceway provision in Paragraph H, Page 9 of the
proposed ordinance. The building of a motor sports complex in
the Immokalee area could generate economic development is a
fine idea. However, exempting this future complex, and I stress
future complex, from the same standards as everyone else in the
county that would have to adhere to, and not having it controlled
by the county board, but relegating it to the permitting process,
is a bad idea. The board would be setting a dangerous precedent
with these special conditions for the motor sports complex. It
would set the stage and be an invitation for costly delays, poor
economic development, negative environmental impacts and
class action lawsuits.
The one location in Florida, the City of Jacksonville, that
provides for a permitting process also requires that such a
process be -- proposed use meet the standards and criteria as
set forth in Section 656.131 of their ordinance -- and I would like
to pass this out to the board -- which was a correspondence
received from the legal department in Jacksonville, which reads
in part as follows: Such use will be compatible with existing
contiguous uses or zoning, and compatible with the general
character of the area, will not have an environmental impact, and
consistent with the health, safety and welfare of the community,
will not result in the creation of objectionable or obsessive noise,
lights, vibration, fumes, odors, dust or physical activities; will be
consistent with the general character of the area and the
property values nearby.
I don't know where such protection in our current ordinance
or any other county ordinance exists for the Immokalee
residents. So maybe that could be pointed out to me.
This currently written ordinance, proposed ordinance, with
its special and peculiar conditions sets no standards. In fact, on
Page 9, Paragraph H, regarding the Immokalee proposed
raceway, it states that the motor sports complex can exceed the
maximum levels specified in this ordinance. I don't understand
then what is the purpose of this ordinance.
It appears that one purpose may be to provide little
Page 134
October 24, 2000
protection, as it currently -- as this ordinance is currently
written, for the residents of Immokalee living in close proximity
to the proposed motor sports complex.
This approach most probably would result in a huge public
nuisance that would be inconsistent with the health, safety and
welfare of the community. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Terry Lenick. Mr. Lenick will
be followed by Mr. Robert F. Naples.
MR. LENICK: For the record, my name is Terry Lenick. I'm
an attorney. I represent Harvest for Humanity.
What I'd like to do is direct you toward Paragraph 6-H. In
particular, that is the paragraph regarding the raceway facilities
and activities at the Immokalee Regional Airport. I want to get
into the problems with that particular paragraph and why it
should be stricken.
Number one: This is a particular area of the ordinance
where you're treating a raceway facility or possible activity at
the Immokalee Regional Airport separate and distinct from any
other provision in this ordinance.
If you'll note, the first paragraph -- first sentence states that
the ordinance shall apply to the one eight-mile drag strip. But
then if you go to the second sentence it states, this ordinance
does not establish any sound level standards that are to apply to
any future racing facilities or activities hereafter located at the
airport. In other words, this ordinance explicitly excludes any
type of regulation of the -- of that raceway facility.
It then goes on to have -- saying that if such a facility is
proposed, then we'll catch it in the permitting process, without
setting any standards whatsoever what is to be reviewed,
without any type of a hearing process where the public and the
neighbors can come in, et cetera.
There are three problems with this paragraph. One, as
you're all aware, you set the law in this county, and the
administrator administers the law. The administrator
administers the law based upon the standards that you create.
There are no standards in which -- if this went through the
permitting process in which you are to determine what the level
should be for that racing activity.
Therefore, if I was the attorney on the other side, I would
simply say look at that second sentence, it says there is no
Page 135
October 24, 2000
standards. It doesn't apply. So I've -- through the permitting
process, I've obeyed the law. That's it.
Secondly, even if you went through the permitting process,
there is one minute standard. That standard is you can get
louder at the airport if you want. That is the fourth sentence.
Those new sounds -- let's see, those new sound levels that's
developed through permitting process can exceed but shall not
be stricter than the maximum sound levels now specified in the
ordinance.
Although the second sentence says you're not part of the
ordinance, it says if you go through the permitting process you
can be louder than the ordinance. Excuse the pun, but you can
be louder than the ordinance.
So there's three problems with it: No standards; if you --
what goes throughout permitting process gets -- you can apply --
you have to -- you can't get any stricter. You can get more
lenient. No process by which the administrator can
administrate. There's nothing in your permitting process that
permits it. It's not a variance of a zoning code. It's not a special
exception or conditional use, as it may be called down here.
And most importantly, there's no public input in the process.
In other words, let's say they wanted to -- let's say they had a
variance process. That would allow a public input to talk about
this. Right now if you adopt this 6-H, my client can't come in,
has no standing to come in the middle of the permitting process
and say hey, look, we don't think that this is appropriate more
lenient standard that you're applying.
This 6-H is a mechanism by which to avoid the laws that
you're applying to everybody else. And if the ordinance is good
enough for Krehling, why is it not good enough for the county? I
ask you to take away 6-H.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Mr. Robert Naples, followed by
Dawn Jantsch.
MR. NAPLES: Good morning, commissioners. My name is
Bob Naples. I'm a retired consultant engineer, primarily in
industrial gas turbines and power plants. I also represent the
community of Collier's Reserve. I'm on the northern end of that
property.
Commissioner Berry asked who authorized the people to be
Page 136
October 24, 2000
in charge. The board of directors from Collier's appointed me
and I appointed Mr. Havemeier.
I only really wish to reiterate the comments made by Mr.
Klaiber in essentially saying exactly how we feel. The problem is
that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that
Krehling is knocking people out of bed and it's an annoyance and
it should be stopped. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Ms. Jantsch will be David Ellis.
MS. JANTSCH: Good afternoon. Dawn Jantsch,
representing the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce.
First I want to thank the Chair for announcing that the
Chamber of Commerce is a great place for important people to
meet.
Secondly, I'd like to commend the staff on the hard work
that they did on this ordinance. I know this has been a very long
process and very involved for the staff with a lot of time, so I
want to thank them for that.
I'm actually here to commend Michelle Arnold for what she
said about the ordinance this afternoon. She needs the
equipment, from what I've understood. And from what I
understood from the board's direction when this process began
last June, I think is when it was, what you had wanted was to
get some equipment so that Michelle could go out and do the
correct enforcement that she needed to do.
The ordinance has gotten a little bit stronger than that. It
has some unusual and interesting language. I don't think that
the Chamber of Commerce can exactly go on record as endorsing
language that prevents whooping and hollering and whistling, but
I would like to go on record as being specifically against certain
sections of the ordinance, and that would specifically be Section
F-7, or the unauthorized sound promotion of commercial
activities.
I think the ordinance has gone very, very far beyond its
original intent. I do support the equipment and the purchase of
the equipment with training of the staff, but I cannot support the
rest of the ordinance because of the different language in it.
And I also would like to remind you that that language in
two sections, that and also the unnecessary sound section,
includes a section that requires no testing, or no testing
equipment, should there be noises. I'd like to bring that to your
Page 137
October 24, 2000
attention, because that eliminates the need for the equipment. It
kind of seems rather contradictive. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to get that again.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: On Page 8, Pam, go to the bottom
of the page.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: On the bottom it says --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's that last sentence.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- no testing equipment is required to
issue any citation or to prove any of these violations as
pertaining to that section. Which I think prior to that talks about
a water craft or vessel or otherwise from water. In other words,
if you're speeding in a boat out there in the Gulf, I guess --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it also talks about, Jim,
about no person shall whistle, yell, shout or operate any whistle,
rattle, bell, gong, clapper, hammer, drum, hand organ or
sound-producing instrument or device for commercial or
business et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Ellis will be Bob Mader.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon. I'm David Ellis with the Collier
Building Industry Association.
And again, I would reiterate many of the things that Ms.
Jantsch just said in concerns from the business community. I
think we certainly want a noise ordinance that takes into
account the concerns of the citizens and that we have a good,
positive living environment. But at the same time, also a good
environment for our business community and the continuing
building environment that we bring into Collier County.
I guess really in a nutshell to summarize really the thoughts
that we've had in this process, we're very complimentary
working with the staff. The staff's been very accessible, outside
of your consultant.
But the ordinance that's come around -- when we first met, I
guess the intention that we felt was going to come was that we
buy new equipment and then from there be able to see how that
kind of goes.
What I think we would recommend at this point would be the
equipment is fine. It sounds very appropriate in order to really
analyze the existing situation in the county and what's going on.
But I would urge you perhaps keep the same decibel levels we
Page 138
October 24, 2000
have today and see how that fits in going forward and perhaps,
you know, analyze it into the future.
At this point, as we lower that standard, it really raises a
number of questions between residential areas. That could be
problematic.
And I think as you read the ordinance -- I mean, today I think
one of the things that we've said is we've looked at it, in talking
with staff, we're comfortable with how your staff interprets parts
of this today when you talk about it with them. There's some
question about the hooting and hollering and those types of
things. And your staff says, oh, no, no, no, this is what we mean.
But if you took that and put it in the hands of someone who
perhaps wasn't as open or thoughtful, it could be very difficult.
And I do have concerns long-term for the business
community, what it could mean business to business, as well as
business to residential, and would maybe encourage you at this
point, the new appropriate -- the equipment sounds appropriate,
perhaps sticking with the decibel levels we have today and
seeing how that evolves. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Mader will be Bruce Anderson.
MR. MADER: For the record, my name is Bob Mader. I live at
1210 Yesica Ann Circle, in North Naples. And I also have been a
member of the Noise Abatement Task Force for the last several
years, and I just want to point out a couple of things.
Number one, we recognize the Krehling Manufacturing Plant
has been in existence long before we were there. We also
recognize, however, that up until two years ago the Krehling
Manufacturing Plant basically had their production during the
daytime hours. And although we had lots of complaints from our
residents during the daytime hours, we reluctantly went along
with that situation, I guess sort of recognizing that Krehling
maybe had been there for some period of time. And, by the way,
the ambient noise during the daytime hours was such that maybe
that noise wasn't as intrusive, although it was bad, as it became
when they began operating 24 hours a day.
And that's when the problem really began. Because we
have invited in the past commissioners to come out, code
enforcement to come out, legal to come out during the evening
hours, sit on our lanais and hear that noise and imagine they,
having a little social activity or sleeping in their bedrooms with
Page 139
October 24, 2000
their lanai doors open, and state that the quality of life of our
people hadn't been seriously affected.
So really this came to a head two years ago. That's when
we got with Commissioner Carter, legal, code enforcement, and
brought this matter to their attention. It also came to their
attention, by the way, with many letters from other residents,
letters to the editor in the paper, major news articles in the
Naples Banner, and many petitions were signed. And this all
came about in the last two years.
Now, it's my opinion, by the way, and we've had a lot of
discussion on this today, but I just want to summarize my
thoughts, the requirements in the amended ordinance that you
are being -- to be considered today in my opinion are absolutely
minimum to meet the stated purpose of this ordinance, which
David Klaiber just talked about, and that is that every person is
entitled to sound levels that are not detrimental to light, health
and enjoyment of his or her property. And this is something that
the thousands of residents surrounding the Krehling plant and, by
the way, others throughout Collier County have not been entitled
to for some time. And passing this ordinance that you have in
front of you will go a long way to make that happen. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Bruce Anderson, followed by
Tom Maher.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman -- or
afternoon, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. My name is Bruce
Anderson. I represent WCI Communities. And I would address
myself to the provisions which deal with grandfathering of utility
facilities, air conditioning and heating equipment, et cetera.
We speak in support of that particular paragraph.
Grandfathering of existing mechanical equipment such as air
conditioners, pool pumps, et cetera, is the fair thing to do, rather
than to force property owners to retrofit existing equipment
which had been in compliance under today's ordinance.
Without that language in the ordinance, every existing
condominium and indeed every existing business could
potentially be in violation of the new ordinance, even if today
they are in compliance.
One clarification question I have is if the Immokalee area
standards are dropped, where does that leave us with respect to
the grandfathered equipment? Because the language in this
Page 140
October 24, 2000
ordinance makes reference to the Immokalee area overlay
standards for what will be applied to the existing grandfathered
equipment.
So if you drop the Immokalee area overlay standards, you're
going to need to address that omission in your grandfather
language in that paragraph.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Meaning that if we drop that, we
would then have to include the grandfathering to Immokalee?
MR. ANDERSON: No, you would need to make clear that
instead of making a reference to the Immokalee area overlay
standards that make reference to the old ordinance, I suppose.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Wordsmithing. All right.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Maher will be followed by Ken Cuyler.
MR. MAHER: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Tom
Maher, president of the Claridge Condo Association.
On behalf of the owners, we approve the new ordinance with
the exception of the grandfathering clause. We're concerned
that we have a unique installation next to us. We are the
Claridge. Next to us is the Marbella, which has 120 units, and
has a chiller installation.
Chiller is very unique and maybe you're all aware of it, but it
concentrates the needs of 120 apartments in one building, which
happens to be next to our building, and it's very unique in the
Collier County high-rise community. And we'd like to have an
exemption on the grandfathering that high-rise, particularly with
chillers, be exempt for that grandfathering clause. I think there's
only two or three installations in the whole county, and it
wouldn't harm any people with that kind of a change. It's still a
very bad noise for us, and we'd recommend that the
grandfathering clause be amended to take care of high-rises,
especially with chiller installations. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Ken Cuyler, followed by the
last speaker registered, Karen Bishop.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: As Ken is coming to the platform, let
me just comment on Mr. Maher's situation.
Currently WCI and the Claridge and Marbella are working on
this, because it is a chiller situation. And WCI has committed
$50,000 to correct that problem. I think they will, with their
noise experts, work through that. And I think that's why the
request is there, is that they don't want to interrupt that
Page 141
October 24, 2000
resolution. Sorry. Ken?
MR. CUYLER: Just for clarification on that point,
Commissioner, before my time starts to run, you're indicating
that you would be in favor of that grandfathering provision
staying as is?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Staying as is, with the exception of
the stipulation Mr. Maher is referring to, because I don't want to
disrupt the process where they're going to resolve that issue.
And I don't want to -- if we remove that, it may imply that we
don't have to go forward with that. And I don't want to disrupt
that. And if there's only two or three situations that it affects, it
may be something we have to deal with separately. I don't know
MR. CUYLER: Okay. I may need to address that for another
client, but for the record, Ken Cuyler with Goodlette, Coleman
and Johnson. I represent Krehling Industries. And as
Commissioner Berry mentioned earlier, when you look at the
perspective of the owner of Krehling Industries, it's quite a bit
different than the surrounding residents. And I usually don't
bring pictures to the board meeting, but I wanted you to see -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that off the current issue of -- oh,
right, okay.
MR. CUYLER: I asked Mr. Krehling, could you give me a
picture of the residents that you affected when you built your
plant, and he gave me this. And I'd like to hand it to
Commissioner Berry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: As long as it's not a gift, you're all
right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not keeping this. I don't need
any more stuff.
MR. CUYLER: As you can see, there's virtually no one in the
area. So I think obviously the commissioners have to pay
attention to the residents to some degree, but I want you to keep
in mind where this plant was and who was around it and who
was not around it.
I would also like to thank staff briefly for their cooperation.
They've always been available to us as well for meetings.
Krehling is in compliance with the current noise provisions.
They meet the standards right now. Regardless of what you've
Page 142
October 24, 2000
heard, code enforcement has been out there and they meet the
standards right now.
Krehling has put -- I don't have an exact figure, but it's
probably over 150,000, probably approaching $200,000. And it's
not because of the new ordinance, as the gentleman indicated
earlier. It's because Commissioner Carter and some other
people asked us to take a look at it. There was not even a first
draft of that ordinance when Mr. Krehling started looking at this
and started putting some money towards it.
The biggest concern that I have is in that picture right there,
there are residential multi-family dwellings that have been built
virtually on the lot line of Krehling. And the question becomes
who is supposed to take some responsibility for this situation?
Is it only Mr. Krehling? Is it only Krehling Industries?
The county had some responsibility. It allowed zoning
adjacent to a concrete plant. The residents have to take some
responsibility. It seems to me a little absurd that you move in
next to a concrete plant and then say hey, there's a concrete
plant that's making noise next to me, Commissioner, do
something about it. So that has some -- I have some concerns
about that.
If the regulations were to stay at the level that they are
today, and frankly, a lot of the things that I heard to begin with
was we just -- from the residents is we just don't have the right
equipment and the right analysis to test Krehling, or they would
be in violation. If that's the case, I would ask the Commission to
consider leaving the standards as they are today and give the
staff the new equipment and adopt the octave band, if that's
what you wish to do. We feel that we can come close to meeting
those, and if not, then Mr. Krehling can spend some additional
money to do that.
With the lower standards, our consultant has told us it
would cost plus or minus $t00,000 per decibel, per decibel, to
lower to the new standard.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: How much, Ken?
MR. CUYLER: Plus or minus $100,000 per decibel. We're
looking at probably 4 to 600,000 to lower by five decibels.
He's willing to spend some money. He wants to be
reasonable. He's been reasonable in the past. But I'm not sure I
consider that to be reasonable. I would hope that you don't
Page 143
October 24, 2000
consider it to be reasonable, particularly under the
circumstances in looking at that picture.
And people can say well, that's not the way it is now, but
residents have a lot of rights. They also have a right to live
where they want and they have a right to evaluate the area that
they move into. So if you move right next to a concrete plant,
then you have to take that into account.
So if the board could set up some type of buffer area, 500
feet, 750 feet around Krehling Industries and maintain the same
standards, we think we could live with that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ken.
I understand that point. I would just go back to an
experience in north Chicago with a company called Abbott
Laboratories. The community grew up around that plant. I could
probably have shown you a similar picture. They had an awful
foul smelling process, and eventually they had to spend a lot of
money in cleaning up for that neighborhood.
So I think there has to be a workable solution to this, and I
do give Hank Krehling and his company a lot of credit for the
movement they have made. Their noise experts have been
working with our noise experts. I certainly wouldn't want to
disrupt that process. So I hope we don't get into an adversarial
relationship over trying to resolve this in a noise ordinance.
MR. CUYLER: And just real quickly, so I'm not
misunderstood, when I mean a buffer area, I mean some area
next to the plant within which someone who moved cannot make
a complaint. If you're 50 feet from the plant, then the county's
not going to say fine, you're on the same level as everybody else,
you can come in and complain about the noise next door that you
moved next to. Thank you.
MS. BISHOP: Good afternoon. Karen Bishop. I work for Mr.
Krehling.
I wanted to clarify a couple of things I had heard from a few
speakers and speak to you about Mr. Krehling's -- his
commitment in general to his business, to people that work
there, and to the neighborhood.
When he spent the money over a year ago to cover the paver
block plant, it was a complete enclosure. It wasn't on one side
so another side would be slighted, it was a complete enclosure.
That enclosure cost over $100,000.
Page 144
October 24, 2000
Prior to that enclosure, we hired noise experts to come in.
We searched the state, found someone who could measure
noise, got measurements, went to manufacturers, came up with
the idea that this needed done, and then Hank flew across the
United States looking at different places where this had been
done, and then hired these people to come down, custom build
this facility.
We have looked at a lot of other options on the other parts
of the plant. Unfortunately this equipment is something that has
to be workable. You have to be able to move in and out of it.
There's safety issues, a lot of things that go along with the
concrete plant than the simple answer of covering the facilities.
We are still looking at other options. Concrete block walls
help to some degree, but on our south property line there is a
two-story, multi-family building whose entry is over the top of the
10-foot berm/vegetation wall we have on that south line. Unless
I build 10 more feet above this guy's facility, now I'm looking at
something like a 30-foot wall. I don't know how we can affect
everybody with any kind of remediation.
The other situation that kind of boggles my mind is that why
is it that Hank is the only one that has to make a financial
contribution? Why not some of the people that live in those
areas? Maybe windows that could be soundproofed, additional
insulation. There are building standards that can be met to help
with remediation also. And if we're going to allow people to
move next to these kind of facilities, then perhaps we should
have some building standards that go in both directions.
Now, right now Hank has new plants that we are planning,
and I can assure you that we have those extra steps already for
our future planning to make sure that we are looking for noise
issues with surrounding neighborhoods by making our facilities.
But retrofitting facilities that have been in place since 1972 is a
little on the difficult side.
Now, as equipment wears out and we replace things like
fans and pulleys and things like that, then those will be upgraded
to more quieter standards and would be obviously equipment
that we can control. But at this point, we see a lot of money
going out and we're not seeing that much decibel changes in
what we're going to get in return.
So we're at a loss here. We would like to know when would
Page 145
October 24, 2000
be enough. And the truth of the matter is, no company can take
a half a million dollar hit and not feel that for years and years.
The money in concrete is in the production of it, the mass
production of it, not -- so a half a million dollars out of a
production in a year could probably put him out of business. So
we're looking for something that would be reasonable for us to
try to accomplish. We don't want to seem like we're not trying to
work with the neighborhood, because we already have spent our
money, we're already doing the things that we need to be doing.
We want to continue doing those. But we feel concern that it's
never going to be enough. And we don't know when we are going
to be able to get to the point where everyone's going to be
happy.
I believe that Hank has tried his best and is going to
continue to try his best, and it would be nice if there were some
concessions, and the things that we can live with now is there,
and continue to do more things for the future building. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Karen, can I ask a question? Now,
Krehling Industries is currently owned by another company?
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know whether this is a
conglomerate or--
MS, BISHOP: Correct, one in England.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One in England.
And I can understand that. And it's a privately held
corporation, so there's no -- to my knowledge, it's privately held
and not a publicly held corporation. So we don't have any way to
assess their economic or financial stability or -- in that case.
I guess -- and I understand where you're going with that
question. But if you have benefitted a long time from whatever
you produce and you're now owned by a conglomerate that
wants to stay in that business, there may be opportunities that
we can work through some scenario with that. But I would
question, are we really financially impairing a conglomerate
because we are making a request for improvements in one of
their subsidiaries.
MS, BISHOP: Well, I guess they're -- you know, it depends. I
don't really know enough about the conglomerate in general, but
I would think that when you look at a bottom line that there is --
Page 146
October 24, 2000
as it stands now, the money we've spent to date has been --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's not for you, I interrupted you.
MS. BISHOP: That's okay.
The money we've spent to date has been not in the budget;
has been something that we've had to go back and not been able
to tell them how much we need, but literally have had to go back
and back and back and back and say here's money for this
consultant, we've had to fly -- our other consultant is from Texas
that we are using now. And then of course the manufacturing
people that come and the other things that are going through. I
mean, all of this is on and beyond the working operating budget
for Krehling Industries.
Now, the good thing that's come out of this is that our future
planning now has budget items for noise abatement so that we
don't get ourselves in a situation in the future, that we're doing
the things we can do to try to bring that back. But, you know, I'd
like to know that the buildings that go up next to me, knowing
that they're there has the same thought process, that they're
going to be upping their standards, soundproof windows,
insulation, the things that they can do to be responsible for
making the choice to move next to a concrete plant. Or to an
airport, or a raceway, you know.
I mean, I grew up on military air stations. So right at the
front gate said pardon our noise, sound of freedom. So I'm used
to it. We chose -- my father chose to live there. He chose to be
in the Marines. So that's kind of the way I feel. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLI. IFF: That's all your speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Close the public hearing.
Now we can discuss this. Board members, would you like to
hear from the technical experts --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I want to hear some sounds.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let us hear from them, as they
have listened to all the concerns of the speakers who have been
in front of us.
MR. SCHECHTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. For the record, my name is Howard Schechter, director of
Midwest Environmental, with our main office in Chicago, Illinois
Page 147
October 24, 2000
and our South Florida office in Cape Coral.
I'd first like to thank, as many of the residents have thanked
and many of the industrial people have thanked, this board and
Michelle Arnold and Dave Weigel and Tom Palmer for this long
process that you've put up with us and funded us and had
concern enough for noise here in Collier County to bear through
all of these hearings and the workshops of course that Casey
Caccavari, our South Florida office manager, gave with Michelle
throughout the county.
I'd like to preface this by saying that having been also a
noise control consultant for 30 years, I can completely
commiserate with Krehling's situation in regard to trying to
reduce a very large noise source. It is a tremendous economic
burden in many ways to do this.
I've worked in companies like LaCleed (phonetic} Steel, in
Alton, Illinois, who had an electric arc furnace with a very similar
massive sound energy that's attendant to that, and it cost them a
lot of dollars to try to come into compliance with the State of
Illinois regulation.
I think $100,000 per decibel seems an awful pricy amount.
And hopefully if we have some input to their report and we can
talk to their consultant sometime in the future, we'd like to
perhaps pow wow and see if we can get that number down a
little. It seems like an awful lot of money per decibel reduction.
I've never heard of such a high number, except maybe for large
aircraft.
I have completed a survey in Immokalee, and we finally did
get a chance to go there and do two surveys, one Mr. Caccavari
completed on his own, earlier in the year, meaning in August.
And I completed a survey when there was some packing going on
in late September. The results are sitting over here on this
chart, and are also being displayed currently up on the monitor.
The thing we discovered, and I didn't know what to expect
going out there, is that the general noise levels in Immokalee are
more or less the same as they are daytime and nighttime here in
the rest of Collier County, and that those numbers are actually
somewhat lower than I anticipated. And that that was a bit of a
surprise.
Now, understand that even though this was done in late
September, perhaps by January and February, some of the truck
Page 148
October 24, 2000
traffic and other sources would go up to some degree, as one
would expect. There's more activity in packing. However, the
theoretical increase, given the data that I've been taken here,
wouldn't be more than about three to four decibels above the
normal levels that you see displayed here. And those normal
levels, if I may just go over to the chart --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if you would take the microphone
to your left, sir.
MR. SCHECHTER: And I will -- first of all, if I may address
the issue on air conditioners. Very fortunately the place where
we took our readings was in the backyard of the nearest
single-family unit dwelling, or residential family unit dwelling in
the Immokalee area, which was on Adams Street, with line of
sight to New Market Road. So the truck traffic on New Market
Road, which we were able to see, line of sight, with our
microphone, which New Market Road would be in that direction
from where this microphone is. We had line of sight. So we were
getting approximately oh, one to two trucks per minute during
the daytime over here.
Now, we would expect that possibly that could increase in
the December and January conditions to maybe double that. The
theoretical increase in the noise from truck traffic then at that
time in December would be another three decibels above these
levels. So the current levels we're looking at in the daytime in
Immokalee range from 50 to 53 DBA during the day and from 47
to 48 DBA at night.
Now, you might be looking at these large excursions here on
this chart. And what that was is we happened to pick the one
residential area that was a focus point for volleyball games in
the backyard on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. And of
course we did our readings between Thursday, Friday and
Saturday.
Yes, this is the whooping and hollering and yelling and
background sounds in the backyards, which hopefully clearer
heads will prevail on this and this will still be allowed and be
exempted from regulation, because I think people should have a
right for some kind of recreational activity, as long as it doesn't
go on too late at night.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But this is an octave band which you
were able to pinpoint the exact source of the noise.
Page t49
October 24, 2000
MR. SCHECHTER: Well, actually, these levels that you see
here, each of these dots represents one hour of a DBA reading,
okay, not the octave band level.
But regardless of that, as you can see, there are certain
things like volleyball games at the stadium that you simply have
to exempt as far as their noise levels are concerned. I mean,
people have a right to have a little fun once in a while. I mean,
somehow that has to be massaged into this regulation. And
hopefully it, you know, will be, whenever it is that you adopt it.
I think that Commissioner Berry should have a right to go
out in her backyard and whoop and holler and do whatever she
wants to do. It is her private property.
Okay, given this, I'd like to bring Casey up here so he could
describe what --just go on? Okay.
I have decided to make up a tape of an acoustic soup of
Collier County. We did a number of digital recordings here in
Collier County. And yesterday afternoon when this boardroom
was free, we spent about two and a half hours setting levels
where you're sitting right now so that you could get an idea of all
the frequencies. These aren't just DBA numbers, though I'm
going to explain it in terms of DBA. But you're going to get all
the levels of this green line that you see here adjusted for both
50 DBA, 55 DBA, 60 DBA and 65 DBA.
Now one quick caveat. The tape will only take one minute,
because I only have about 10 or 15 seconds at each of those
levels. One caveat. You have to understand, we're not outside
here, we're inside a boardroom. It's difficult to present the
authentic outdoor levels, but we've done the best we could do
under the circumstances. I did have an analyzer exactly where
you're sitting, Commissioner Carter, and within a couple of
decibels of 50, 55, 60 and 65.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One question before you do that.
Commissioner Brandt.
MR. SCHECHTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: One question, please.
The energy level of going from one decibel level to another
is not linear; is that correct?
MR. SCHECHTER: No, that is correct. And you will actually
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Can you help us understand that?
Page 150
October 24, 2000
MR. SCHECHTER: You're actually going to be able to hear
that, because Tom Palmer was sitting in your seat yesterday
afternoon, and when we got to 55, 60 and 65, he said wow, it
really isn't linear, it's logarithmic. And indeed, the ear does
perceive sound in terms of the logarithmic change, rather than
the linear change.
For example, if you go from 50 to 56 DBA -- I want to be
exact here -- you've changed the sound pressure level two times,
twofold. It's twice the sound pressure level.
Now, you'll read in the literature that if you go from 50 DBA
to 60 DBA, humans perceive that as twice the loudness. But
there's a caveat on that. If there's prominent tones, pure tones,
involved in the sound source, and here in Collier County these
are the main things that people complain about are sound or
noises with discreet tones. Tones total values.
Going from 50 DB to 60 DB is much more than two times the
loudness. It's like three times the loudness. But you have to
understand that. When the scientists start talking in
generalities, that's when we have to be very careful about the
reality on the streets.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT.' Thank you.
MR. SCHECHTER: I'm going to move these speakers into
position, as they were yesterday.
MR. OLLIFF.' You know this is going to become known as
the Commissioner Berry anti-whooping ordinance here before
we're over with.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll put you out there in the
whooping land.
MR. SCHECHTER: You may want to hear this more than
once. As I say, it only lasts about a minute.
The first thing you're going to hear is the Collier County
regulation. This line, which currently you see here is actually 55
DBA equivalent, you're going to hear at a level 5 DB less. And
then we'll go to 55, 60 and 65 so you get an idea. Hope this
works.
50.
I believe that's still 50. No, that's 55.
60.
65.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I definitely want the
Page 151
October 24, 2000
lawnmowers removed.
MR. SCHECHTER: You heard that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The what?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Lawnmower in the back.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Lawnmower background noise.
We have more lawnmowers in Collier County.
MR. SCHECHTER: Now, you do -- I hope you -- you didn't
need to hear that one more time, did you? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
MR. SCHECHTER: I hope you did get the idea that the
concept of the levels at 50 and 55, which represent your current
conditions here, in --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that would be what, about a
60?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What is that? I mean, I know what
it is, but what would that tone be?
MR. SCHECHTER: Up close, that's about 60. At this
distance, about 50, 55.
But the thing about the way we went about measuring these
sounds was in a very rigorous and scientific manner. And the
reason why we came up with the numbers that we came up with,
which you've heard both sides of the story here, keep 55 and 60
or go to 50 and 55.
The reason we came up with the 50 and 55 in the first place
was that that represented the high end average levels of
background in the existing community. If you go to 55 and 60,
which you have right now, you would be allowing that increase of
5 DB, which you heard so prominently there at the end, slowly
encroach. And if this represents sound, just take a look what
happens in Immokalee. This would be allowing at night sound
energy to go to 50 DBA. As you could see, not much of an
impact. Because the already existing levels are well above that.
If you allow to it go to 55, this -- all of this sound is eclipsed.
And if you allow it to go to 60 during the day, well, the only thing
that was above 60 during the day was the volleyball at night. I
mean -- or in the evening hours. So I --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So if I'm understanding you correctly,
at 55 we have encompassed just about everything that
transpires, other than if the one with the --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Other than the volleyball game.
Page 152
October 24, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The volleyball kind of thing. And if you
got that thing out of there, then you really would be within an
acceptable level to work with.
MR. SCHECHTER: At 55 DBA, if you allow that during the
day, it protects the environment. Not only in Immokalee, but in
the other areas around Collier County. And 50 DBA simply at
night allows you to have a little bit more quiet and peace when
you're trying to sleep.
But regardless of this, I must tell you -- and, you know, my
colleague, Mr. Caccavari, might disagree -- even if you leave the
levels as they are right now, the equivalent octave bands at 55
and 60, as long as you have the proper equipment, the majority of
complaints will probably be taken care of, because we're
considering frequency as well as level with the new regulation.
And that's something --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'm going to be
supportive of.
MR. SCHECHTER: And that's something -- if in the future it
seems like there's a problem --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then they come back.
MR. SCHECHTER: -- and there's something that can be done
at a later date, if we still find that there's an enforcement issue.
But as long as you promulgate a regulation that includes this
frequency characterization, my belief is that you're going to
protect a number of people. I would prefer to see the levels drop
to what we measured throughout the county, because that
represents your existing acoustic climate and it preserves and
protects that pristine acoustic climate in most of the areas of
Collier County, 90 percent of the county. And now I can now it
also includes Immokalee, since we made measurements there.
But that's up to the board. And I'm just happy that you were
kind enough to allow us all this time to present our information.
And I'll be more than happy to accept questions from the board,
from the attorney's office or I don't know what the procedures
are but if any of the residents --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Either from the board or the attorney's
office --
MR. SCHECHTER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- or staff, because we closed the
public hearing.
Page 153
October 24, 2000
MR. SCHECHTER: Understood.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Just a quick question to you.
If I understood you correctly, we could stay at the currents
levels, use the octave band method of determining the
frequencies that are creating the difficulties, and if we did that
for a period of time, reassess and then move to something
different, if dictated that we do that.
MR. SCHECHTER: With one caveat. There's a section in
subsection M, I believe part three, that gives a 7 DBA increase
allowable, if you reduce the levels to 50 and 55. If you keep
them at 55 to 60, I would strongly urge you to take that 7 DBA
and move it down to 2 DBA.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. SCHECHTER: Because if not, what you've essentially
done is allowed the entire county to increase by five decibels. I
mean, you don't want to do that.
MS. ARNOLD: And I think that there may be some other
changes that we may want to look at to make sure that we're
consistent with the 60 DB, 55 DB, if that's the way we go.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So we're looking at 55 and 60, but
our -- and our big concern is if there's a problem, it's going --
we're going to consider frequency, meaning recurring kind of-- is
that what you're thinking about, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In other words, if this is something
that just goes on and on and on and on kind of thing, this is the
kind of thing that you're looking at.
MR. SCHECHTER: Okay. And one last thing. Collier
County's octave band frequencies, the green line, not somebody
else's. This is not the State of Illinois, this is not the City of
Chicago, this is Collier, where you notice we allow much more
noise energy on the high end basically than we do in Chicago,
basically because you have more insect sounds here seven, eight
months out of the year than we do.
If I were to promulgate Chicago's noise ordinance --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You think we could write code
enforcement against those?
MR. SCHECHTER: -- seven or eight months out of the year, it
Page 154
October 24, 2000
would be unenforceable. That would be silly. COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mosquitoes are outlawed.
MR. SCHECHTER: Also, we discovered since there isn't a lot
of heavy industry here in Collier County that the lower
frequencies require a little bit more restriction. And that's -- so
it's the green line which is given, your Table 2 of your proposed
regulation that's in front of you. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion that
we leave the decibel levels where they currently are, but that we
authorize staff to purchase the octave band equipment, and that
we reassess this in six or nine or 12 months to see if we have
addressed the problems with particular attention to the Krehling
Plant and the area there.
I acknowledge that they were there first. I appreciate their
willingness to work with the community and want to encourage
them to continue to do that. Hopefully we will have a bigger
stick by virtue of this new equipment. But I would of course
want this sub M Part 3 changed to read 2 instead of 7. But also
just to direct staff to make whatever modifications are
necessary to affect those changes. Are there other items?
MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to add that the ordinance is
slated to take effect in January of 2001 because of training
purposes and those types of things. So the six-month or
whatever timeframe that you come up with would be added on
after that effective date.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my intention.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can you get your training done in
that period of time, Michelle? Can you get the training done? I
mean, when could you start training and when do you think you
could get it completed?
MS. ARNOLD: The biggest problem that I'm thinking we're
going to have is just the equipment, getting it here on time, and
that's why the allowance for that time period. We can get the
training done as soon as that equipment's here, and we don't
want to necessarily train them out the actual things -- the ability
to use what they're going to be out in the field using.
MR. SCHECHTER: Actually, if I may, even if they--
MR. OI.I. IFF: You have to be on the record.
MR. SCHECHTER: Even if they can't get that equipment in
Page 155
October 24, 2000
here on time, we have parallel equipment very similar, if not
identical, to the equipment that they would have to be using.
And we could certainly train the inspectors until such time as
they get their own equipment. And we could introduce them to
any difference or saliencies in its operation.
I think the important thing is to try to get across to code
enforcement, using a new octave band regulation, the nuances
that are inherent to doing the assessment and what they should
look out for on the streets when they're making their
assessments.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Would you then lease that equipment
to us or let us use it until -- would you work an arrangement with
the county so we could have that equipment, in the interim
period have our people trained until ours arrive?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd suggest we let the county
manager work that out.
MR. SCHECHTER: I think that that could be worked out with
the county authorities here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me ask another question. Now,
Michelle, you wanted some other things in here in terms of
cleanup work, not establishing some dual standards. If I'm
understanding Commissioner Mac'Kie's motion, are we taking
this proposed ordinance and just changing the decibels, and are
we going to eliminate some of those things like I from it and
incorporate what you want? What are we going to do with this
document?
MS. ARNOLD: If we leave the decibel levels the same, some
of the grandfathering clause would not be applicable any more,
so then we would remove those.
What I'd like to have in there is the deletion of that
commercial district that was above and beyond what we needed,
as well as the manufacturing industrial district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- I intended to include that
in my motion.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And there's some other language in
there that pertains to the annual noise permit that I'd like to
maintain as well.
But with respect to some of the comments that
Commissioner Berry made with item -- and I believe Ms. Jantsch
also brought up the unauthorized sound promotion of commercial
Page 156
October 24, 2000
activities, and Item I, unnecessary, unreasonable sounds. I don't
know whether or not your motion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It does not anticipate including
those.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then --
MS. ARNOLD: And there is also -- there was also a comment
with respect to Item H, with the raceway. I don't know, there
wasn't a lot of discussion on the board side as to whether or not
you want to maintain that. The comments that were mentioned
from the public was that it was treating the airport racetrack
differently from any other activity, if I've summarized correctly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If I understand Commissioner
Mac'Kie's motion, that would say that we would not separate
that, it would fall within -- MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- this; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's my intention. But,
you know, that one scares me a little bit. Let me be sure I
understand. That -- the result of that would do what to the
existing racetrack operation? It currently --
MS. ARNOLD: The current racetrack operation would have
to meet the existing standard of 60 decibels in the daytime and
55 at nighttime.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which it does.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
The language, though, goes further to talk about future
expansion to the racetrack that says it's exempted from this
ordinance. And at the time of review, for whatever development
is going to occur out there, then a standard would be
established.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know what to do about
the racetrack.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let me -- before the question, let
me ask our consultant to comment, please.
MR. SCHECHTER: In addition to analyzing the background
sound in Immokalee, we also went around to four different areas,
in addition to the 210 Adam Street measurement site. One of
those was directly behind a fire house, which is at the fence line
of the airport, and approximately 4,000 feet -- about 4,000 feet
Page157
October 24, 2000
from the drag strip itself, the existing drag strip.
Now, the closest -- despite some controversy about where
the closest residentially -- potential residential areas were, we
viewed the closest residential areas is where we made our
background measurements on Adams Street. There are some
trailers that exist right next to one of the packing plants, but
except for a few regulations in the United States, the majority of
states consider that to be commercial property. That's why we
made our measurements on Adam Street, which is about 8,000
feet back from the drag strip.
So the levels that I took and measured and I have tape
recordings of at the property, at the Airport Road, we have to
subtract 6 DB off from those numbers to account for the doubling
of distance.
Given that, the majority of races that we found currently,
with the current operations -- and this is albeit only one night
sampling, so it's not a great sampling. And I understand that the
drag strip has hired its own consultant to do a much more
thorough study of the situation in Immokalee, and that's going to
be forthcoming in the next couple of months.
But we found that the majority of the races would be in the
55 to 60 DBA range. Maybe exceeding by a couple of decibels,
62 to 63, if measured on Adam Street. So there's another thing
that we would have to instruct code enforcement when it comes
to octave band measurements.
There's the law and then there's enforcement levels. Just
like a police officer will usually give you three to four miles per
hour on 1-75 -- well, I hope you didn't get a ticket at 77.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I didn't know they did that.
MR. SCHECHTER: Pardon me, but in dealing with the -- at
least the Illinois State Police, as I have in the past --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, they might do that, but not
here.
MR. SCHECHTER: Oh, they give you more? I see. Well, I
can't address that issue, but similarly in terms of decibels, you
don't nail an industry or a commercial place for two to three
decibels. I mean, it's just -- it's unheard of to do that.
So there's the understanding of that that has to be gotten
across when you're dealing with an octave band regulation. With
a DBA regulation, that's a different story. Really, you're stuck
Page 158
October 24, 2000
with nailing at that level, because you're adding up all those
frequency bands. With the octave band regulation, you have to
really train the people to say look, he's gotten rid of seven out of
the nine octave bands, how about giving this guy a break.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So here's -- my question for you,
is -- sir?
MR. SCHECHTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. My question for you is if I want to
permit the existing racetrack operation and whatever reasonable
expansions they have, what do I need to do with this section of
the ordinance in my motion?
MR. SCHECHTER: I have to defer to Tom Palmer on that,
because that's really a legal question. And I think he does have
some ideas on it.
But just one last thing. The expansion of the track I can't
really address at this point, other than to say in my experience of
quieting oval tracks throughout the United States and evaluating
drag strips, which use the Formula One type, much louder
vehicles than what I measured during my measurements out at
the existing drag strip, some kind of noise mitigation probably is
going to have to be put in by the drag strip in order to contain the
sound to that area.
Because we're talking about an increase of 10, 15 decibels
at various frequencies, when you run the bigger Formula One
type units --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: When is --
MR. SCHECHTER: -- at higher frequencies.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: When is the expansion scheduled
and what would happen if we just left out the expansion portion?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, there's a noise study that's planned for
December, I believe, with the Airport Authority to take into
consideration future expansions at the airport. And I believe that
any agreement that's made for future leases at the airport is a
public process, and, you know--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You talk about those noise levels
at that point.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, then my motion's going to
be to leave out the section regarding expansion of the airport.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, what if you left it in? Just what
Page 159
October 24, 2000
if you left it in and we incorporate in your motion a 12-month
review to deal with all of these issues? In the interim we would
give them enough flexibility to do what they needed to do or
pinpoint the areas that could cause us future concerns when we
have to come back and address this. Otherwise, give us a lot of
leeway to work with in this. Mr. Palmer?
MR. PALMER: Maybe I can bring some clarification to this.
It was pointed out when there was discussion about this
matter about these other generalized standards about not having
nuisances, being compatible in the neighborhood. Those are all
in our Land Development Code and our building regulations.
Those are generalized standards that apply everywhere, and they
cannot be exceeded; although, they do not have decibel level
criteria.
So the City of Jacksonville ordinance exempts racetracks
from its noise ordinance, period. And these other generalized
standards come in to play.
It is very doubtful that if the existing standards of 60 and 55
decibels are applied strictly, that there'll be any allowable future
expansion of Immokalee Raceway beyond the existing eight-mile
drag strip. It's very improbable. There is no such thing as a
quiet oval racetrack. Therefore, the idea here is to do an
analysis, have this analyzed in detail, and come up with
standards.
Now, there will be many hearings, there will be plenty of
opportunity for input. This will also be controlled by activities by
clauses in a lease and hours of operation. So it isn't like this is
going to be a blank check. The Airport Authority takes this very
seriously.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why isn't it appropriate? I
mean, do you disagree then that it's best just to leave out the
expansion issue for now until the actual expansion comes before
us and then we look at it as it comes?
MR. PALMER: Well, I'm saying that if the presently existing
standards of 60 and 55 are going to be the standards for the
racetrack.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. PALMER: It's probably -- there is not going to be
anything beyond what is presently there, because it's improbable
Page 160
October 24, 2000
that additional activities at the racetrack in an oval racetrack
are not going to be able to meet these standards.
MR. OLLIFF: Tom, let me help you a little bit. I think what
that means is that if you don't provide some sort of an exception
today, then when you do review whatever racetrack proposal you
see, then you're going to also have to have a corresponding
ordinance amendment that's probably going to have to address
that as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I could live with that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So it's -- yes.
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah, it's fine, as long as you recognize that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT.' Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But doesn't what we have in there
today just automatically give us that opportunity?
MR. OLLIFF: It does. And it's sort of whether you want to
exempt it now or exempt it once you have some more noise
based information.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, personally I would rather leave it
in there and wait till this other comes forwards and then deal
with it, because we may or may not have to, depending on what
MR. OLLIFF: Well, I think if you leave it in there today, it at
least provides the community some indication of where the
board is probably going to want to be on that particular issue, as
opposed to having to fight --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter, you --
MR. OLLIFF: -- that fight fresh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you think that it's best to leave
it in there at this point?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Leave it in at this point, and as our
administrator or manager is telling us, that it puts the community
on notice what our expectation is and let them begin to
negotiate those standards and see if they can't achieve the goal.
MR. OLLIFF: And either way, you're going to have to amend
the ordinance, in my opinion. And in this way, at least you're sort
of putting the community on notice, and then we may put some
specific standards in when you actually review the racetrack
proposal.
The other way you're basically saying there is no exemption
for any type of activity there at the airport beyond what's there,
Page 161
October 24, 2000
and then you have to sort of back up when you see the proposal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me be clear. If I do what
Commissioner Carter is suggesting with my motion, then the
notice that I'm giving to the community is we intend to be
somewhat flexible --
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- with the racetrack when it
comes back. That's the message I'd like to send, so I will agree
to put that in.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Brandt, I'll come to you and then
Mr. Weigel.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you. Go, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I sure can't make everyone happy,
but it seems to me that in regard to the racetrack issue, it's a
little bit parallel to the same issue of Immokalee overlay that
we're being questioned about at the State Attorney General
level, and that is that we're providing a different standard for one
area, as opposed to another area. So my suggestion would be --
and of course we'll live and work with whatever the board
determines. This thing isn't implemented until January 1st.
But my suggestion would be that we don't in fact make that
change at this time, but that we work out the questions and
issues with the Attorney General's Office, bringing to their
attention the fact that Jacksonville in fact does have what would
appear to be disparate standards on particular activities within
their county, and see how they sort that out --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the Attorney General's --
MR. WEIGEL: -- and then revisit it here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- there's -- it had to do with ban
overlay for Immokalee generally-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- not for a specific use. And I'm
going to leave my-- I'm going to leave it in.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think I have to -- I want to go with
her, I want to leave it in.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're going to leave H in?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I need to understand what you've
left in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what I've left in is the
language that sends a message to the community that we intend
Page 162
October 24, 2000
to be flexible with the racetrack, as it seeks its expansion.
And the problem that that raises is that it may make the
Attorney General's Office say oh, dear, you're treating Immokalee
differently because they're poor and they are racially different
from the coast.
My response to that is no, we're not, we're giving -- like
other municipalities have, we're giving an exception for a
particular use, so we're indicating that we will give an exception
in the future for a particular use.
MR. LENICK: May I address the board?
MR. OLLIFF: Your public hearing has been closed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry, sir, public hearing's been
closed.
MR. LENICK: Well, I'd like to address it on the process,
because the public will never be able to speak to you on this
process again. And I can tell you why.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'd have to reopen the public
hearing in order for you to address the board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then we're going to have to let
everybody --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then I'd have to let everybody in the
room speak.
MR. LENICK: Mr. Palmer said something that is incorrect,
and I wanted to counter it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, talk to him.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think that's an issue you can
address with Mr. Palmer or legal staff.
MR. LENICK: All right, simply put, there's no process, if you
adopt --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sir, sir, the public hearing has been
closed. I mean, I don't know what part of that you don't
understand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had one other question, and
God, I'm scared to bring it up, because this is too complicated for
me and my feeble mind already.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can we just throw this whole thing
out -- I'm talking about H -- and not have anything in there until
such time as they get done with their study out at the airport --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could do that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and all that kind of thing?
Page 163
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the message that that sends
to the community--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, what's it send?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is that we don't want you
expanding your racetrack, we're going to be strict on your
racetracks. I don't want to send that message.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's not the message I
would intend to send, but is that -- that's the message that I'm
sending?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think so. Because it says no
exception.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I was just saying take the pen
and strike out H and it wouldn't even be in here until such time,
or put some language in that says we will address this issue
when the studies are completed in this area. But we can't do it?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think we have to leave it in. I
don't see how we can take it out.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think it has to be -- I would agree, I
think we need to leave it there. I would like to leave it as is and
then when this evolves we can come back and make a decision
on that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, is there any kind of a
statement that should be added to this? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know.
MR. PALMER: Commissioner Berry, it can be specified in the
ordinance that final approval of anything suggested by the
Airport Authority must be made by the Board of County
Commissioners after public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
MR. PALMER: That means the final decision would
ultimately be up to you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And would still allow the public
input into this at this level?
MR. PALMER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a fact, so good.
So I'd incorporate that into my motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then my other just fearful
trepidation question was that --
Page 164
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Do you want to do that yet, or
just get a vote on your motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is part of what I'm thinking
of putting in the motion is the concept of buffers, that if you
move in next door to an existing use, you need to acknowledge --
I mean, I don't know what's an appropriate buffer, but it seems to
me -- I wonder if our expert or Mr. Palmer has some advice on
that.
MR. PALMER: Yes, ma'am. Provision M-5 on Page 12 has
that effect. What it essentially says is if Krehling can meet the
standards --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or anybody.
MR. PALMER: -- or Krehling -- or anybody that was
grandfathered prior to 1990, this is limited to people who met a
certain criteria when this thing first came into effect. Because it
was backward looking.
If we bring it up to this present time, there's a 10-year
window of people who may be able to slide under this. So right
now it's 1990, looking backward. And anybody who can fit into
that criteria, if they can meet the criteria based on the existing
residential property and it's signed off on, then paragraph five
says if anybody moves in closer, Krehling will not have to modify
their activities to meet the fact that people have moved in closer
to them. It effectively grandfathers them, where they meet the
standards based on the existing surrounding residential property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does that mean, if they
meet the standards based on --
MR. PALMER: What it says is that they essentially have to
do the best they can. But if they get to a point where they are
spending an extraordinary amount of money for very incremental
increases, they don't have to do it. But with the bottom line that
they can't -- under the ordinance as it presently reads, but it will
have to be amended because you go to 60 and 55 -- it said under
no circumstances could you exceed this by seven decibels. And
that really means like at 3:00 a.m. Which means if they can't
meet that criteria with anything else, they would have to close
down the plant. And that's essentially what it means.
So in other words it says if they get this standard, it's signed
off and it's like a variance, it runs with the land. And if somebody
moves in closer in two years, they're not going to have to meet
Page 165
October 24, 2000
the standards to that site. In other words, they'd be set for the
future.
They're concerned about somebody moving in closer and
saying well, get the standard applied to me. Well, people can
keep moving in and moving in and they'd have a moving target.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So that sounds like that
would work for some future, if there's a noisy use right now in an
isolated area and they went through that process. But my
question was, Krehling, if we're just going to use them as the
example, where -- you know, there's already -- you can't get any
closer unless you buy property from Krehling.
MR. PALMER: Well, that -- if there's possible, then this buffer
question is not an issue. It's only an issue if in fact somebody
could move in closer to somebody similarly situated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question that I'm raising is
not that one. The buffer question that I'm raising is the one that
Mr. Cuyler brought up.
MR. OLLIFF: And my suggestion on that is I've seen
ordinances that we draft on the floor that don't work very well.
That was a clause that's just simply not in this ordinance that's
proposed for you. But if you want to direct us to go back and
look at and bring back some ordinance amendment language
that would provide some buffers, I think it's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that's--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think there ought to be another
side to this. We're talking about, quote, the offender here. What
about the development that comes in, and what kind of a burden
should they carry as well? If you're going -- obviously, I hate to
say this, but the property values are reflected in the close
proximity to this type of facility.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have to be.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay? So what kind of a burden is
the developer going -- that if he's going to develop these and
have it in this close proximity, why should the person that has
already been there for a number of years carry all of that burden?
Why shouldn't the developer in this case carry some of this
burden and do something additional to protect the people who
are buying those units.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So I think --
Page 166
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'm going to --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- add to my motion --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but I'd like to add to my
motion --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We're talking about buffering.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is direction to staff to come
back with something similar to the overlay zone that we have for
the airport for existing noise industries. I don't know how to
describe it, but--
MS. ARNOLD: I think-- if I could clarify, I think what Mr.
Cuyler was making reference to is if you want to establish a
distance criteria from industrial uses, that if anybody decides to
build within that distance, they would have to understand that
they're going to be impacted --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right.
MS. ARNOLD: -- by that noise level. So what you'd be doing
is saying if that distance is 500 feet -- I don't know what you
want to set it at, but maybe we ought to look at that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, but the--
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: We could probably set it today.
MR. OLLIFF: No. And it's probably--
MS. ARNOLD: And maybe we --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I'm hearing five people
talking at once.
MS. ARNOLD: -- ought to look at that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sorry.
MR. OLLIFF: And that is probably a Land Development Code
issue, more than it is a specific noise ordinance issue. But I think
you need just to direct us to come back with whatever --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have them to direct that to come
back and not for us -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
to bring back to us --
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
a continuance.
So that issue, we would ask staff
-- for consideration in the future.
Okay, as I feared this morning, ask for
Page 167
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm scared you're going to ask
me to repeat my motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, not at this point.
Have we incorporated, Michelle, all of the key issues that
you raised to us this morning in this motion?
MS. ARNOLD: I believe so. I believe that you have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Now, the other issue, and
just with everything that I've heard, I would -- I still would feel
more comfortable with the 50 to 55, because I understand with
the octave band we've got a lot of lead room, which might take
us right up to our base level where we are in terms of
interpretation.
And based on everything I've seen up here on this chart, it
would go for the future. I'm not trying to penalize any existing
industry, but I'm saying for future, it does give us a more
clear-cut standard of an expectation of what we're looking for.
know that's not part of your motion, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I
wished it was, and then I could support this.
is,
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
I can support it the way it is.
How many votes do we need?
Probably three.
Three?
I'm going to support it the way it
MR. OLLIFF: Just for clarification, because this has been a
long and drawn-out motion, what we're --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: You'll be able to repeat it.
MR. OLLIFF: I doubt that. I'm not sure that anyone could
repeat it.
What we're going to propose to do, though, is I think we
have the general direction from the board, and we will prepare
something in writing that will be generally the motion and what
we are going to amend the ordinance to reflect, and we are going
to provide that to the board and to those members of the public
that were here.
But should the board have any questions about anything that
we're providing, this is the way the ordinance is going to look,
then you have the opportunity to bring that back up at some
future meeting. But I just want to be very, very clear on what it
is that we're going to amend this ordinance to look like.
Page 168
October 24, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Tom, can we do that by the 14th so we
can bring back everything that was incorporated?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't intend to bring it back. I'm just going to
tell you, this is what was approved on the floor today, and unless
there's some member that voted in the affirmative that feels
differently, that's what the ordinance will look like.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. As long as everybody's clear as
to where we're going with that.
MR. SCHECHTER: Just so the board understands what is
going on, the -- once again, Howard Schechter, Midwest
Environmental.
The green line that you see up there on that graph, each of
these numbers, the way -- if you're going to leave the numbers
the levels the way they are, 55 to 60, the daytime levels are all
going to go up five DB on this green line. And this will now
become the nighttime levels, okay? Just so you understand
completely, and it's for the record, that's the situation.
So this graph now would no longer represent the Collier
County regulation for each of those nine octaves. It's going to be
five decibels higher, meaning that you're going to be higher than
the State of Illinois, at the high end, and somewhat close to what
the City of Chicago is at the Iow end. You have to understand
that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand that. That--
MR. SCHECHTER: For the record, I wanted that to be put in.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, any other questions from the
board?
That is your motion. We have a second to that.
(Commissioner Brandt indicates.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that really what you're looking for or
just staff direction to prepare this?
MR. OLLIFF: No, this is adoption of an ordinance.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You've got to vote on it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, so -- I know, but are we clear
on what we're voting on, I guess, and that is the issue.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'm sorry, Ken, I can't --
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, could I get one thing on the
record? I'm not asking a question or arguing or anything. I just
Page 169
October 24, 2000
want to let you know that I was authorized to agree to the
current standard, if there was a buffer around the property. If
there's not going to be and you in fact are adopting the ordinance
and not just having staff bring it back, then I just want on the
record that that was part of what I could agree to. Just when my
client says, you know, what happened to the buffer, the guy next
door is going to file a complaint against me, I want it on the
record.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
All right.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Call the question. All in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. Aye.
Motion carries 3-1.
Our recorder would like just to have a stretch, so we need to
take five.
(Recess.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, we're back in session. We need
to get a -- we're live and well.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 2000-69 AMENDING THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (S.H.I.P.} DOWN PAYMENT/CLOSING
COST ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS -
ADOPTED
We are on Item (C)(2), 9(C)(2), I believe.
MR. MIHALIC: 12(C)(2).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 12(C)(2).
MR. MIHALIC: Good afternoon, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Greg.
MR. MIHALIC: For the record, I'm Greg Mihalic from housing
and urban improvement, and we're before you this afternoon to
amend the Collier County Ordinance 94-59, which controls our
SHIP downpayment and closing cost assistance program. It's
Page 170
October 24, 2000
basically a housekeeping effort. Essentially this program has
gone up about tenfold in the amount of clients that we handle
over the last six years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys are doing a wonderful
job with this. This is a clean-up measure.
MR. KLAIBER: It's a clean-up, bringing it in line with the way
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
MR. MIHALIC: -- we operate now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not only that, it says they're going
to decrease staff administration costs by an estimated 30
percent.
MR. MIHALIC: We believe the administration will be a lot
easier under this amendment.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion to approve. Do I
have a second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You do.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please note Commissioner Brandt is
absent.
MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 2000-370 RE PETITION V-2000-17, SHARON
HEIMERL, REPRESENTING LINDA MAY, REQUESTING AN AFTER-
THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 3 FEET FORM THE RQUIRED 30-FEET
SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 27 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
4130 14TM AVENUE N.E. - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, that takes us to Board of
Zoning Appeals. Item 13(A)(1}.
All people that are going to participate in that need to stand
and be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.}
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've had contact by Ms. Heimerl.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Anyone else have a disclosure?
Page 171
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have none.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have none. Please proceed.
MR. REISCHI.: Good afternoon, commissioners. Fred
Reischl, planning services.
This is a request for a three-foot after-the-fact variance in
Golden Gate Estates. The location is off DeSoto Boulevard, the
eastern portion of Golden Gate Estates.
The side yard setback in the Estates zoning district is 30
feet, and the property owner, as owner/builder, was constructing
a garage/shed. She measured 30.5 feet from existing survey
markers.
When the spot survey was ordered, it was discovered that
the existing markers were incorrect and, therefore, the garage
encroaches by three feet.
There are some existing oak trees, which tend to ameliorate
the encroachment, and the Planning Commission took that into
consideration, along with the fact that it was an owner/builder
and appeared to be a mistake in measurement by an
owner/builder and they voted 7-0 to approve the variance -- to
recommend approval of the variance. And there were no
objections, phone calls or letters.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But they continued to work while -- the
spot survey was taken, but they still continued to work until they
will got the results?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
MR. REISCHL: I'll let the petitioner address that. It's more
complete than just the slab.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Commissioner Carter, that's the
way I read it.
MR. OLLIFF: Petitioner is here, and the only registered
speaker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, we need to hear from the
petitioner.
MS. HEIMERI.: Good afternoon. I'm Sharon Heimerl, and I'm
here for my sister, I. inda May.
When we found -- well, what we did is we ordered the spot
survey. My sister was in the process of heading down about six
months earlier in her move than we expected. We had had no
problems building the house with any of our measurements, or
our permitting or anything.
Page 172
October 24, 2000
So after we poured the slab, needing the storage area, we
just put the plywood up and put the plywood on the roof. And
then because my son and her son and -- was building it, and then
we got the spot survey back and found out that we were the
three feet off, and it has sat at that stage since then.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So it's not complete, though.
MS. HEIMERL: The roof is on.
MR. OLLIFF: It's dried in.
MS. HEIMERL: It's dried in. Yeah, there are no shin -- we
stopped as soon as we got the spot survey and realized that we
had measured off of an incorrect survey.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think this is exactly --
MS. HEIMERL: It had been staked.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the kind of, you know, mistake
and they've acted in good faith afterwards. I'm going to make a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Motion --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Opposed. Opposed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have an -- Commissioner Brandt
opposes.
What do you need, do -- they need three votes, right?
MR. WEIGEL: Just three.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I've got to ask a question. What does
it cost to correct the situation?
MS. HEIMERL: Well, I guess we would have to move the
whole building. And there's all oak behind it, and there is a lot of
trees, pine, cabbage palm. There are no neighbors on either
side. There's nothing around it. But we'd have to move the
building, it's 25 by 30 and it has six and a half inches of concrete
base on it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So if you move it, you have to destroy
oak trees?
MS. HEIMERL: Yes. There's a large, large oak grove there's
there. It's right on the edge. It has some cypress back in there.
Most of the back of the property is all wooded.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oak and cypress heads, right?
Page 173
October 24, 2000
MS. HEIMERL: Well, there's oak and cypress mixed in. It has
a great big oak area that's, you know, like a water oak or a river
oak, whatever they are.
To move it, my sister -- I mean, it would be devastating
financially.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I can understand that. I'm
inclined to agree with Commissioner Brandt, but since we would
have to destroy oak trees, I'm going to rule in favor of the
variance, but that will be my trade-off. But I'm trying to send a
message to this community. I don't care if you measure it, if a
professional measures it, please get it right.
Because we are getting into a pattern here of doing a lot of
variances. And each case can tug at your heart strings and say
yeah, gee, that's really a sad thing that happened.
Because you are an owner/builder that did this, that would
also influence my decision on this. If you had a contractor and
they made that mistake I wouldn't be with you this afternoon.
MS. HEIMERL: Yeah, we should have checked this survey
better. I agree.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I agree, that goes 3-1. Motion
carries for the variance. You're off the hook.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Commissioner Carter --
MS. HEIMERL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- if I may?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: After the fact, I don't think
owner/builders should be treated any differently than any other
contractor. And so there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I want to add my two cents worth.
Mrs. Heimerl and I had this conversation the other day on the
phone and what did I tell you?
MS. HEIMERL: Exactly the same thing. The bottom line is,
you know, we measured from an incorrect -- we did it wrong,
there's no doubt about it. And there shouldn't be any difference,
really. We should have known better. We were wrong.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'll save the oak trees and the
squirrels that live in there. Take good care of them.
MS. HEIMERL: Thank you. And you people work very hard in
here. I did not realize. I've sat here since 9:00 and, you know, I
Page 174
October 24, 2000
really commend you on what everyone does.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, just tell them how much fun we
have.
Item #13A2&3
PETITION V-99-29 AND OSP-99-03, WILLIAM HOOVER,
REPRESENTING LARRY J. AND MARCH A. GODE, REQUESTING A
3 FOOT EAST SIDE YARD VARIANCE AND A 10 FOOT WEST SIDE
YARD VARIANCE ON LOT 9, AND OFF-SITE PARKING FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT 10, RESPECTIVELY, ON 109TM
AVENUE NORTH, BLOCK 2, NAPLES PARK, UNIT I - CONTINUED
INDEFINITELY
Okay, moving to Item (A)(2).
MR. MURRAY: I'd also like to request that you consider
(A)(3), which is a companion petition with this, the off-site
parking position.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: (A)(2) and (3) we can take together.
And we need to have -- anybody that's going to participate needs
to be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I've had no contract.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The only thing I've had is I believe
a letter which we received from the Collier County -- well, it's
this individual is not supporting this particular petition, but that
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: This thing.
MR. MURRAY: Mrs. Handshaw submitted that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, this is communications, so
I'm just disclosing the fact that we received that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's all I have.
MR. MURRAY: I just wanted to state for the record, I'm Don
Murray, principal planner with the planning services department.
I'll keep this brief.
The applicant owns two lots on 109th Avenue North, in
Naples Park. He's seeking variances in an off-site parking permit
in order to construct a 2,700 square foot office building on Lot 9,
Page175
October 24, 2000
which is a commercially zoned lot. And he's seeking a reduction
of the 13-foot east side yard setback to 10 feet, and a reduction
of the 15-foot west side yard to five feet, which is -- would allow
him to provide perimeter landscaping and buffering between the
parking lot, which is on the -- will be on the lot and is the subject
of the off-site parking permit.
Staff has reviewed this for the criterion for off-site parking
and also believe that it meets that criteria, and also that it meets
the minimal requirements for a variance. So therefore, we are
recommending approval of it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For clarification, Lot 10 is a residential
lot?
MR. MURRAY: Yes, it is. Lot 10 is residential, Lot 9 is
commercial.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where's 41 on this whole --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I need an area map.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not oriented here. I need --
MR. MURRAY: I'm sorry, I guess I was trying to keep it too
brief for you. Let me give this to you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: See, what happens in Naples Park,
there's a dividing line. You have your, as you all know, your
commercial along 41 and in 'X' number of lots and then you
come to residential. And what this suggests to me is an
encroachment into residential by approving an off-site parking
lot, even though the owner owns both, one is commercial and
one is residential.
MR. MURRAY: This aerial shows the U.S. 41, it shows the
two lots, and it shows the commercial lot line, or district line.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you may want to hear from the
petitioner now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, I want to hear from the
petitioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a little problem going into
that residential area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So do I.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know where I'm going on this one,
Commissioner, but I need to hear from the petitioner.
MR. HOOVER: Good afternoon -- or good evening,
commissioners. Bill Hoover, representing Larry and Marcy Gode,
Page 176
October 24, 2000
the petitioner.
When we filed this thing, I actually pulled some of the
variance files. And there's been a precedent where they have --
these are 50-foot wide C-3 lots. And I know the commissioners'
been on the board here for awhile, they've seen at least one of
these before.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we approve it, Bill?
MR. HOOVER: Correct. One was Kepple Engineering,
variance 98.6 for a John Magos (phonetic), who lives on 96th
Avenue North. And they reduced the one side yard from 25 feet
to 10 feet, the other yard from 15 feet to 10 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about an off-site parking
into residential?
MR. HOOVER: Well, I think the -- I did one for Craig Timmons
and Todd Gates. It was called Shores Avenue Commercial
Building. I think Gates McVey is putting it up right now. It's very
similar to this project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. HOOVER: No, it's up --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Naples Park?
Near Tall Pines? Isn't it that
one?
MR. HOOVER: No, it's in -- on 41, right there south of the
bridge, where you go -- do you know where the --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: By Pewter Mug?
MR. HOOVER: Yes, right in there. And you've got that -- it's
on the southwest corner of Shores Avenue there. So you're south
of Wiggins Pass Road a half a mile or somewhere in there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not in a residential area.
MR. HOOVER: Oh, yes. Same thing. The commercial -- with
C-4, the commercial on the front, they .purchased a residential lot
to the east in that case, so we had res,dential north of that on
the east of that, and there was a golf course south of that that
was north -- that would probably be part of Pelican Bay up --
anyway, it was the golf course north of River Chase shopping
center.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: May I just add -- Bob Mulhere, planning
direct.o._r -- just to give you an -- we've probably appr.oved in th.e 11
years I ye been with the county at least a dozen off site park, rig
petitions for parking to support an adjacent commercial use on
Page 177
October 24, 2000
residential property. We've never rezoned that property, we'.v.e
only allowed the parking in support of the commerc,al use .w,th
more substantial buffers between that lot and the resident,al lot
adjacent to it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many in Naples Park?
MR. MULHERE: How many in Naples Park? I think one.
There is one, I believe. And I can't attest to that, I'd have to do
the research on it, but I believe there was one that was approved
up there in Naples Park.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the staff recommendation
for the -- what -- or somebody needs to for me describe the
buffering that's proposed in the parking lot to buffer from the
residential area. I'm more interested in that, frankly, than the
variance, because the variance goes away if we don't do the
parking, I assume, so let's talk.about the hard one first..
MR. OLLIFF: And Bob, I th,nk there was also a question
about whether or not any of these lots that cross that residential
line had been approved for any type of either commercial or
supporting commercial uses like this, if you're aware of any.
MR. MULHERE: I'm not aware of. There is some
development on the commercial tracts. I believe there is. one
commercial building up there that has parking .on the res,dential
lot adjacent to it. I believe that has been in. ex,stence for a long
time, so that's why I hesitated when Comm,ssioner Carter asked
the question. I don't think that happened in the last 10 years. I
think it's been there for quite some time.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm concerned about it
encroaching into the residential area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. Right. And I only see a 10-foot
buffer on the Lot 10 side with a six-foot high fence or hedge.
10-foot buffer is what you've got to buffer Lot 9 from Lot 8, which
is the commercial from commercial.
So, I mean, if we were talking about some gorgeous amenity
to the community that, you know, resulted from the parking lot --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can we stipulate more at this point
in time, or does that have to wait until the plan comes back?
MR. MURRAY: The off-site parking buffering of 10 feet, I just
wanted to say, this is a resi -- still zoned a residential lot.
Although we do require a 10-foot residential buffer along that
property line. The other buffers between the residential
Page 178
October 24, 2000
properties up here are 15 feet in depth, and it's 10 feet along the
street here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess what I'm saying is
the 10 feet doesn't seem sufficient for buffering a commercial
use from a residential property.
MR. MURRAY: Okay, the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I lived on Lot 11, I'd --
MR. HOOVER: We have a letter supporting the --
MR. OLLIFF: To answer Commissioner Berry's question first,
though, I think now is the time to put stipulations in, if you're
going to. Because site development plan don't come back to this
board, they get approved administratively, based on whatever
stipulations you put in the a~provals at this level.
COMMISSIONER BERRY. So now is the time, if we want
more --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now is the time.
MR, OLLIFF: Absolutely correct.
MR. MULHERE: May I offer as a suggestion, looking at the
site plan, you've got 10 foot -- I think you're absolutely correct,'
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you've got 10 foot between the
commercial and commercial. If you take five foot of that, put it
on the other side, you'd have 15 foot of landscaping buffer all the
way around where it buffers residential. And you'll have at least
10 foot between the two commercials because you have the
adjacent property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that's what I was going to
oUsgeg==tis if you shift everything five feet to the east, then you
~ ~oot 0~ your buffer on lot--on the east boundary of Lot 9,
but you've -- who cares, because you've got a commercial lot on
Lot 8, right?
MR. HOOVER: Well, that's the lady -- she has a single-family
residential house for some reason on --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On Lot 8?
MR. HOOVER: -- a commercial lot. Yes.
MR. MURRAY: On Lot 8.
MR. HOOVER: She's the one that's objecting.
We have a letter of support from the owner of Lot No. 11. He
owns a triplex there. And he's supporting the petition.
Also, I took a picture over of what the -- Mr. Gode is a .
general contractor. He's going to have his office in here. There s
Page 179
October 24, 2000
what he's willing to put up, which is a building about a block
away. So he's willing to attest that what he puts up will look
very similar, to this.
So I th,nk -- if the project was turned down, I think one thing
YaOU need to consider is now we're sitting here with Lot No. 9. If
variance is not approved on Lot 9, now we're -- he could go in
and apply for a site development plan for a 20-foot wide building
and put the parking in the front, which I don't think is going to
look real attractive, no matter how hard he tries to do it,
compared to what he's proposing here.
So I think we can -- if we can work with him, if we need to
add some stipulations or do some modifications, I think what
we'd end up with is an asset for the community; where if the
project's turned down, I'm not sure where the petitioner can go.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: When we're looking at this buffer, I
might be inclined to support this, but I'm not going to g.o for a
hedge or a fence. But what if we.do something a comb,nation
thereof, but also add some trees ;n there to give them something
along that -- I think what was there, a duplex or triplex --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Triplex.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- on the other side?
MR. HOOVER: Right now we've got trees. I think one every
20 feet we have a tree.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got two trees.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can we do a little better than that,
Bill?
trees. Yet because I'm the one that wants them like this, and
they grow up and I'd have just a wall, you know, so -- but
something that is --
MR. HOOVER: We can go 15, but I think if you get closer
than 15, I don't know if you're doing too much good, because
we're planting oak trees and --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I want them to be able to
spread out. So if it's 15 feet, if that's --
MR. HOOVER: Sure, tell me what you'd like to do.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- I'm a poor judge on the size of
Page 180
October 24, 2000
MR. HOOVER: 15 feet would be --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- about the minimum that we
could --
MR. HOOVER: -- we could probably stagger those a little bit.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I've reviewed several of these, and
they've really worked out actually very well for providing a buffer
for the adjacent residential. In fact, I've got a couple that, you
know, there was concern --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, let's do it.
MR. MULHERE: -- from the neighbors. 15 feet --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If we're going to do this, let's make
it look nice for the neighborhood.
MR. MULHERE: -- 15 feet with the wall and the landscaping
on the outside of the wall to benefit the residential property
owners and a hedge makes for a very nice landscape buffer on
the outside.
MR. HOOVER: The owner of Lot 11 has provided a letter to
staff, asking that a wall not be provided. They would prefer a six
to eight-foot high hedge with trees -- and a tree on opposite --
staggered on opposite sides with a hedge in the middle ought to
look very nice.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I can live with that, because I
think that will be an enhancement to the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question. Have you had any
objections from other commercial interests?
MR. HOOVER: No. Just -- there's just been one person
objected.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are what are you going to -- can
o the same thing; on the other side of -- on the east side of
you d _ .
Lot 9, since -- even though Lot 8 is commerc,ally zoned, there is
currently a residential home, we ought to buffer it at least to the
same standard --
MR. HOOVER: We could do that same buffer on that side, as
well as on the back side, if you'd like, so that way it looks
uniform around the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can tell you what I wish you
would do, and Bob, tell me how to say this. I wish that you would
have only the minimum amount of parking and sidewalk and
asphalt as the code requires, and every other inch of space
Page 181
October 24, 2000
would be green.
How do you put that into a regulation? I'm asking Mr.
Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: We can -- we can, during the site
development process, only allow the maximum number of
parking spaces, if you make that a stipulation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The minimum. No more --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, the minimum that they need to meet
the code, correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it.
MR. MULHERE: And we can work with our landscape
architect with them to maximize the landscaping on the side. I
mean, we do that normally during the site development review
process anyway, as long as you .put th..e .parameters on it, which
if the 10 foot, which I think that ~s sufficient for the trees spaced
15 foot and a hedge, keeping in mind it does take a little time for
those things to grow, but we can require larger plantings. Yeah,
that's not a problem. I think if we just stipulate that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, I have another comment on
this.
Dover/Kohl is studying this community, and I'm feeling very
reluctant to do any of these things until Dover/Kohl comes back
with their report on what is going to be recommended for Naples
Park. And I feel that I am again encroaching on a process that's
in play, and I have great concerns about that. So I am not willing
at this point to give -- to approve any variances on either one of
these until that Dover/Kohl study is complete.
I don't know how the board members feel, which may give
the petitioner an opportunity to withdraw, but I am not going to
support either one of these requests. Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And Commissioner Carter, I can't
support it on the basis that it's encroaching into a residential
area, and I just have a b~sic resistance to that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER. Well, that is also where I am on that
issue, too. So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- as you know, in Bayshore
and that area of Gateway Triangle, we're similarly trying to do
Page t82
October 24, 2000
redevelopment. I have found over there that I come to the board
saying please grant these variances, because if you will, they
wil! help support a project that would in the future be something
we d like to -- you know, and so my question here is is this that
kind of project that would be an enhancement that we are likely
to see encouraged by the Dover/Kohl study, or is this something
that we're likely to see discouraged?
MR. MULHERE: I think my inclination is that it would be
supported by Dover/Kohl, but I can't make that statement until
we really see what they finally come up with as a definitive
statement.
When I say supported, the support that I'm talking about is
new development. Is redevelopment. That's the kind of support
I'm talking about that they would I'm sure encourage.
I think it's very legitimate to have a concern about the
encroachment of commercial parking in this case into
residential.
Another aspect of Dover/Kohl I'm sure we'll be looking at in
terms of character is the degree to which those lots that are
immediately adjacent to the commercial are viable for
residential, or the degree to which a small size of the
commercial lots makes them not viable for decent commercial
development.
So, you know, those issue aren't -- and those are the -- that's
why we're here today, that that lot by and of itself isn't really
viable without the extra lot for the parking.
MR. OLLIFF: I also want to caution you, I think you don't
have anything in the way of any sort of land development code or
· ' n
any sort of master plan for th,s area t. hats bee presented to you
yet. And I think you need to make th~s decision based on the
land development codes that you have in place today.
MR. HOOVER: Could I add one thing that hasn't been
brought up that may -- the commercial lot is zoned C-3 that
allows for fairly intensive uses, even though we may have trouble
fitting some of those on there. However, the petitioner has
agreed to limit this to professional office uses only. And that --
forever, if this is granted.
So I think you're going to find if I'm living across the street
or next door, and my office is up in the Everglades Professional
Center and we've got Hawksridge right behind us, but we're
Page183
October 24, 2000
actually a pretty good neighbor there because before 8:00 I'm
usually the only one there at the building. And I think we've got
a CPA that works maybe till 9:00 at night. But generally it's a
pretty qu!et neighborhood here. So with the professional office
here, I th,nk this is -- with the building that the petitioner's
agreeing to put up, I think we're offering quite a bit.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And you're stating you would be in
perpetuity and that's an interesting statement. And I would like
to see that -- you mean in any contract if they sell it 100 years
from now, it's got to stay the same thing?
MR. HOOVER: I think we could say that the building -- any
building put up here -- well, the off-site parking, the limitation
could get put on that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but now you're talking
about a rezone. Now you're talking about down-zoning the
property.
MR. HOOVER: No, I'm not. Because part it, Pam, is -- the
parking is one per 300 for professional office. Any retail use we
wouldn't have enough parking. See, because parking for retail is
I per 250.
MR. OLLIFF.' Mr. Chairman, you've also got two registered
speakers that you may ow.ant to hear from.
CHAIRMAN CARTER. Okay, I think we need to hear -- unless
there's other questions of these gentlemen, we need to go to the
registered speakers, please.
MR. OLLIFF: The first I'm not sure if he's still here. It's Al
Newman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' He's left.
MR. OLI. IFF: The second speaker is Joan Handshaw.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just while she's coming up, does
anyone know if the Naples Park area association officially took a
position on this petition -- on these petitions? Did they
communicate it with us?
MS. HANDSHAW: They've been working on this. I've been
speaking with them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. HANDSHAW'. Okay, first of all, I think you've done a
magnificent ]ob to just stay this long, okay, and hear all you
people. And I want to compliment Brock's staff for helping me
get all the information, and Abe Skinner's staff, to a very nice
Page 184
October 24, 2000
group of people. . .
Okay, now, thws is what I've got to say. Fwrst off, before the
vote there was no signs on the lot. They were on the lot, but
they __w. ere laying down. Organizations that should be contacted
weren t contacted before the vote. You see, the initial vote,
nobody knew about it, okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She means the Planning
Commission.
MS. HANDSHAW: This happens to be --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The Planning Commission.
MS. HANDSHAW: This happens to be a buffered lot in
Naples Park that when you vote on it, you're voting the whole
Naples Park down the line that you are changing all the rules.
Okay, it also is a green space lot. And actually about in
January they tried to pass something and we had the Naples
Park property owners, Vera FitzGerald that worked on this. And
actually nothing came of it, okay.
So now because there's only 45 foot of commercial in this
property -- it's 55 residential and 45 -- it must -- and they said in
order to build it, they have to change the allocation to C-3's, two
lots that are C-3. That's a commercial allocation change in
Naples Park from 300 to 400.
Before this is okayed, Naples Park must have the right to
vote on something so important the commercial allocation of
300, which has been there from the beginning of time and all of a
sudden to 400. I mean, this is a momentous thing to Naples Park
to have all of a sudden your allocation changed to allow a
two-story building, which is what they told me, 2,700 square foot
on a 25-foot commercial buffer in a green space that is a
designated parking lot since 1988.
Now, this is the information I went to gather from all the
different -- it had a utility easement. I called the Florida Power
and Light Company, and I have Ramona Beech (phonetic}
working on it, but so far we haven't gotten enough information,
but it was as utility easement.
It is something unheard of to all those that have abided in
the green space buffer lot. This is definitely putting the cart
before the horse. No plans were seen by anybody.
My mother had a buffer lot next to her on 101. She didn't
own it. But you couldn't build on it. I mean, they wanted her to
Page 185
October 24, 2000
buy it but when she found out you couldn't build on it -- after my
mother passed away, I spoke with a very nice impressive
gentleman from the county and asked, because I was thinking of
mortgaging to buy the buffer lot. And he said very little leeway
has been granted to the people that own the buffer lot. For me it
would only be that I could build up to the line. That would have
to remain a parking lot. It was a parking lot since t988 when Mr.
Keller needed the parking lot.
I mean, actually, they had to put marl -- I mean, it's not -- you
can tar -- please vote no to the variance, five-foot variance.
Please vote no to changing the allocation of 300 to 400 without a
vote of Naples Park. Please do not allow someone that has had
two inexpensive lots change variances and zoning to. profit so
much. This will be changing 40 to 50,000 to someth,ng around
300,000, with no effort other than you wrote. That's it. Thank you, kids.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. HOOVER: Mr. Chairman, we feel confident enough that
with the Dover/Kohl study coming out, since they're planners just
like I am, I think we feel comfortable enough to continue the
petitions until their study has come out in the community. MR. MULHERE: Hopefully in December.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, fine. So you're withdrawing
and continuing? You're not withdrawing, you want to continue to
MR. HOOVER: Just continue the petitions until --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, continue indefinitely.
MR. HOOVER: If they want to comment specifically on this
petition, we welcome that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Request granted?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second. All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0.
MR. OLLIFF: And that covered both petitions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: (2) and (3).
Page 186
October 24, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: (2) and (3).
Item #14
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
I think we have completed our official business on that
subject. Now we are down to staff communications.
MR. OLLIFF: Against my better judgment, I actually asked
Norman to stick around, and painfully so he has. But I asked him
to stay so that he could give you some good news.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good news.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: We could use some.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Collier
transportation administrat, or.
I will be extremely br, ef, given the marathon session, and I
promise to keep it under 50 decibels. .
I'm very, very pleased to be presenting to you the fact that
we have now received in writing confirmation from the Florida
Department of Transportation receipt of $.9,550,000 in the county
incentive grant program funds; 3,640,000 ,n the current fiscal
y.ear, and 5,915,000 next fis.c, al year for Phases II and III of
L,vingston six-laning, essent,ally from Golden Gate up to
Immokalee.
The other thing I'll note is that Lee County was successful
also on Livingston Imperial, north of the county line. In
discussions with Mayor Pass and with Lee County, I understand
they're looking at a four-lane cross-section f.r.o...m.t.h.e .c.ount.y Ii. ne,
hopefully all the way to at least West Terry. with tnat ,n m~n-,
we're going to.look at our six-laning, probably up to the
east-west corr,dor, and then four-laning north of there to go with
their project that we discussed previously.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Hallelujah.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Fantastic.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fantastic. A high five for Norman.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, that calculation, and you
saved us five million by going to six. I guess we've saved around
14--
Page 187
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Congratulations to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, 14 million dollars --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- our county manager.
MR. OLLIFF: I'll tell you, that was worth sticking around for,
Norman. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, that's great.
MR. OLLIFF: The only other thing I had is that I had received
an E-mail from the Florida Association of Counties, and
apparently the Department of Children and Families has been
working on plans for the closure of the G. Pierce Wood Hospital
in Arcadia. And they've been doing these plans without
consultation or input from any of the counties that are involved
or are in this what we call catchment area.
They are now, I think at. Florida Association of Counties'
assistance, providing some ~nput opportunities. And unless the
board thinks that we ought to open the process up, I would just
simply propose that we probably appoint David Schimmel, who's
the local mental health provider, who has generally represented
Collier County well, to serve on that Florida Association of
Counties committee. And unless there's an objection, I would go
ahead and just submit his name.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do you need a motion for that?
MR. OLLIFF: Probably so, simply because there -- the reason
I brought this up in our communications is the time fram~
requires me to get back to the FAC before the next meet ng.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you. That's all I have. . _
MR. INEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two things. Clerk of
Courts, Dwight Brock came to me this morning and asked that I
bring to your attention at. this point of the agenda that he
requests the board appo;nt one of !ts mem.bers to what is called
the external audit selection comm;ttee. It s required per Chapter
11 of the Florida Statutes. And he makes it sound more
interesting by saying that each constitutional officer and one
member of the board sits on this committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds right up Commissioner
Page 188
October 24, 2000
Carter's alley.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I thought that was the vice-chair's
assignment.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that goes with the
chairmanship.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: When do they meet, David?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't know when they meet. I think it's not
immediately, for sure, but --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Glad to hear that.
MR. WEIGEL: -- but he did need an appointment today, if at
all possible. Just one member of this board.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've done it. This is for selection of
the auditors, right?
MR. WEIGEL: The external audit selection.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will tell you, it's not a painful
situation at all, but -- and it only takes -- I think maybe there were
two meetings at the most.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, put me in that slot. If the
board wishes, desires, I am sure -- two of them are leaving and
one's -- when we get some others in here, I'm going to go like
this.
To get us through that period, fine.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Keep me advised.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. I'll communicate that
to the clerk.
And second and last is, as I had indicated this morning, I
wanted just to bring up my request to the board for your legal
advice regarding the Board of County Commissioners versus
Coastal Engineering, T.L. James, Mike Stephens, Mike Poff,
Highlands Insurance case, of which we are an ag.gressive
plaintiff. But we are at a point in time where I th,nk we would
need to talk in closed session.
My recommendation would be for the next meeting of the
board, N.o. vember 1.4th. And seeing how this next meeting may
be long, I,ke today s, I would sugge, st that it be at 2:00 p.m. or at
the end of the regular meeting, wh,chever occurs later, for that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
MR. WEIGEL: -- particular session.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Agreed.
Page 189
October 24, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Sounds good.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
Page 190
OFF/CE OF THE COUNTY A TTORNEY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Maureen Kenyon, Supervisory of Minute and Records
Michael W. Pettit, Assistant County Attorney ~x~
March 9, 2001
Filing of the Transcript of the Closed Board of County Commissioners
Meeting Concerning Settlement and Strategy Related to Litigation Expenses
On October 24, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners held a closed meeting
related to settlement negotiations and strategy concerning litigation expenditures in the
case of Bernstein v. Co//ier County, Case No. 99-184-CIV-FTM-24D, that was then pending
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. This meeting was held
pursuant to Section 286.011(8), £/a. Stat. That Statute provides that the transcript of any
such closed Board meeting shall be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the
litigation. On November 24,2000, the Board voted to settle the case of Bernstein v. Collier
County. Thereafter, it took approximately a month and a half for the parties to prepare
settlement documents and take steps to have the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit dismiss Ms. Bernstein's appeal. Thus, at this time, the transcript of the
closed Board meeting should be made part of the public record. Please feel free to give me
a call if you have any questions or other concerns about this procedure.
MWP:dja
cc: David C. Weigel, County Attorney
October 24, 2000
Item #9B
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR STRATEGY RELATED TO
LITIGATION EXPENDITURES OF THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE
OF ARLA BERNSTEIN V. COLLIER COUTY, CAST NO. 00-14229GG
At this point then, Mr. Carter may lead u.s in..to cl_os..ed~...
session with Items 9-B, followed by compan,on item ~-s,. u D is
the closed session item on today's agenda. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right.
MR. WEIGEL: I gave you that sheet to read. I can provide
another one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They probably stole my sheet. I read
the first part of it this morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Checking in my files --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ah, here, it is. Here it is.
Now, I do this again, right?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Regards to agenda Item 9-B, closed
attorney/client session, settlement negotiations and/or strategy
related to the litigation expenditures of the pending litigation
case of Aria Bernstein versus Collier County, Case No.
00-142229GG, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh
Circuit.
Persons in attendance will be the Board of County
Commissioners, County Manager Thomas W. Olliff, County
Attorney David C. Weigel, Assistant County Attorneys Ramiro
Manalich and Michael W. Pettit.
This session will now commence as we leave here and go to
the board room for executive session.
(Whereupon, there was an attorney/client closed session.)
(The following proceedings were in executive closed
session.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're now in executive session to
discuss the case of Bernstein versus Collier County, and get
direction from our legal counsel of possible strategies that the
Board of County Commissioners might apply in this case.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, Mike Pettit from the County
Attorney's Office.
Page 191
October 24, 2000
We sought this session for two reasons. One is we received
what has been described by Ms. Bernstein's attorney as a
minimal demand in the case; and second, the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals has ordered us to arbitrate. .
Very quickly, since I know some of you are famil,ar with the
background, we've won three significant.hearings at the trial
court level which led that court to enter judgment in our favor
and then uphold that judgment against a further motion practice.
The -- Ms. Bernstein has appealed. The Court of Appeals has
ordered us to mediate.
During the course of that process, I spoke with her attorney
and asked him to provide me with analysis of her cost to date.
And what he sent me was a letter that had attorneys fees and
costs totaling $83,309.11. And I was surprised by that, because
my initial, thought was that what.I was looking for was simply
costs wh,ch were more in the ne,ghborhood of actually $12,000
that she's paid out of her own pocket.
I called him and I said, "Is this a demand?" And his quote to
me was, "A minimal demand."
And so in light of that, I think we do have a demand on the
table. A little bit different than the offer -- or comp -- offer of
compromise or offer to settle on Popp. There's no particular
penalties attached to this proposal at thi.s point.
Briefly, why would we consider settl,ng a case that we've
won? I think the reasons are practical more than anything else.
At this point, with maybe one exception, the key witnesses in the
case are no longer in the employment of the county. Some of
them have been out of the employment of the county for four
years. Some of them have left the county under less than happy
circumstances.
And I'm not -- I think Mr. Manalich and I both have a level of
concern that if we would get reversed on appeal -- and that is an
event, and I thin. k time pla. ys into this as well -- briefs ar.e due on
the appeal. I th,nk our br,efs are going to be due sometime in
Mid December.
I think it's fair to say it would be nine months to a year
before we would get a decision, which means then we're looking
-- if the win and they send it back for trial, which is the only
result ifYthey win, we are looking at a trial in 2002. So now we're
looking at a trial seven years after the event that created the
Page 192
October 24, 2000
lawsuit in the first place.
And obviously again there's a lot of -- a lot of water's gone
over the dam since then.. And so I have some conc.e, rn abo.ut how
motivated some of our w~tnesses will be to work w~th Ram~ro and
me and to prepare for the case, if there's a reversal.
What's the estimate of reversal? I'll go out on a limb and
say that I think we've got a 610 to 40 chance to prevail. And I'll
base that on the fact that although
tell you what I base that on.
the appellate court will review the judgment de nova, which
means they'll look at it with fresh eyes, they won't give any
deference to what the judge did below.
By the same token, t.he same law that we cited in our briefs
below in the same analys,s will continue to hold. And at least
two judges have felt that that analysis was valid and right.
On the other side of the coin, the EEOC, when they first
looked at this, found reasonable cause to believe that there had
been discrimination in the failure to hire Ms. Bernstein.
Subsequent to that, the Justice Department investigated the
county .and made a decision, not as to whether there ha.d be.en
discrim,nation, but decided that there was not such a s,tuat,on
here that they felt the United States should weigh in on her side.
Two different things.
So we've had three decision-makers, one with a mission to
eradicate discrimination, has found reasonable suspicion -- or
reasonable cause I think is the exact phrase; not probable cause,
reasonable cause. Two -- two judges have said under the law
you can't prove your case, Ms. Bernstein, based on the facts and
the record we have.
Last week, or within the last 10 days, the Eleventh Circuit
Judge of Appeals issued a very interesting opinion on these
kinds of cases and gave strong support to the right of an
employer to base a hiring decision on subjective measures; i.e., I
did not like the way this person interviewed.
And if you look back at the transcript that was made at the
time of the decision on Ms. Bernstein, you will see that one
reason, among several, was we didn't like the way she
interviewed.
I will caution you, that same -- I got very excited about that
case, because the case went on and on. It was 20 pages long. I
got pretty excited, I ran into Ramiro's office, I said I think -- you
Page 193
October 24, 2000
know, look at this.
At the end the Court made the point that in that case the
person who had sought the job had. not really denied or refuted
the description of the interviews g,ven by the employer. That is
not the case with Ms. Bernstein. She claims -- she tells a
different story about what happened in those interviews. So
there is a dispute there. And I don't know how significant that
will be to the Court of Appeals.
We had other reasons we did not hire her. One is
information obtained by then Commissioner Constantine. And
also Commissioner Norris's I think very legitimate concern at the
time was that she had not held a ]ob for a year, and she had been
essentially reorganized out of the same position in Marion
County. You know, he raised the rhetorical question, do you
reorganize out a high performer? .
All of those are legitimate, nond,scriminatory reasons for
the decisions that were made. Does she have evidence of
discrimination is really the only question left for the Court of
Appeals. And it has to be substantial. And so far we've
convinced two judges she doesn't have that.
What else is important now besides the fact we don't have
control over these witnesses now, and I think it's damages. If
the case is reversed and we don't have motivated witnesses, we
do have significant exposure. At the outside I think we're
looking at 800 to $900,000.
And there is another scenario, which is different than zero,
and which this is an argument, I don't know that -- I've described
to you before I think in other communications, but not recently,
and that's that Ms. Bernstein's back pay damages should be cut
off, because instead of looking for a job when she didn't get this
· very shortly thereafter she. went back t.o finish her Ph.D. And
Jo°ubr' economist, as well as Ram,ro, and I bel,eve based on case
law we can argue at that point your back pay damages are gone
because you made a decision to take yourself out of the ]ob
market.
If the court bought that argument -- the court never
adjudicated that argument, but if the court bought that
argument, it would probably turn this from a potential, if you
were to lose the case, from 800 to 900,000, maybe more, to
something below 400,000. So that's a pretty significant
Page194
October 24, 2000
difference. So there is that lurking issue out there.
We simply wanted to bring this back to the board to get
some direction about the mediation. I think our recommendation
is that we be charged to go to the mediation and negotiate the
best deal we can and to bring that back for you to look at. And
when we bring it back, we will either say we think you should
take it or we don't think you should take it. Because the deal
might be $50,000. And at this. point in time, I'm not su. re I would
recommend that you settle th;s case for $50,000. I th,nk it's too
much.
On the other hand, you do need to be aware, there's a big
downside if we lose the appeal and we go to trial. I think there's
a pretty--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So if we honor the wishes of the court
to go to mediation, then we would have taken a step to go
through that part of the process and then make a determination
later.
MR. PETTIT: Yes, my -- I think the way this will work is if
the board chooses to reject the current demands and -- but, you
know, listen to anything we bring back from mediation at this
point, we w_o. uld have the board look at that on November 14th.
Because we re going to know what the result of mediation is
then. And the board can then -- and that doesn't -- I don't think
that's going to require another closed session. I mean, I think
we'll bring it back and say we mediated, they agreed to settle for
"X". We either agreed with them and recommend you accept
hu;tor we didn't a-ree with them and there was an impasse.
~ou're certainlY'free to accept that offer ,f you want to, or to
make a counter offer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question, and that is I
understand that the transcript of this will be available for the
public after everything's finished on this case. MR. PETTIT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is there any possibility that
anything I say right now could be used against the county in this
case or some other case? She might file another case against
us? I'd like to give my opinion about the -- because I was on the
board at the time -- about what I think our downside possibility
would be if we were to go to trial, but I don't want to do that if it
might harm the county.
Page 195
October 24, 2000
MR. PETTIT: Well, my view, and I'll -- I think David and
Ramiro can offer their perspective as well. My view, as I
understand this, is that this record remains a closed record until
this litigation is absolutely over, which would mean a judgment
where all appeals had been exhausted or a settlement.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And at this point Commissioner
Mac'Kie --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Does it go back to her question?
More --
MR. PETTIT: Is there anything that can be used later?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- long-term.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: Okay. Well, I don't think so.
MR. WEIGEL: Probably not. These sessions of course have
narrow parameters to discuss strategy or expenditures related to
the litigation. So extraneous comments are to be avoided
because they will be available later. But if the comment or
discussion is in regard to the legitimacy of the case, one
person's thought, things of that nature, tha.t, will not be -- it will
not become a public record until this litigat;on is over. And if
there's a question about some other litigation that could spawn
from that, I expect that's just the risk that we have. But it may
be that this litigation is the litigation, as far as this particular --
MR. PETTIT: Let me just -- I think it would be far-fetched,
and I was just sitting here, what scenario? If there was -- if you
could come up with some scenario where we somehow were
going to get together and perpetrate a fraud on the court,
I don't -- so I think that that's my
obviously that's not occurring.
view. I can't think of any other view -- any other situation that
would be.
MR. WEIGEL: And what was sued upon was a collective
board action --
MR. PETTIT: Correct.
MR. WEIGEL: -- and not an individual commissioner's
statement or perception that's being discussed later on either.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And Commissioner Mac'Kie at this
point is historian for this board to let us know what took place.
MR. PETTIT: The only thing I would say is that your
comment you addressed -- you .qualified it as .you wanted to
address the downside, and I th,nk that's with,n the parameters of
Page196
October 24, 2000
what we're here for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, so here's -- just briefly.
First I'm going to tell you what I think we ought to do. I think we
ought to send them to the mediation wi.th instructions to have no
offer on the table and come back to us ,f one -- you know, not to
accept even a small a. mount of mone..y. Because we can always,
like you said, strateg,cally after med,ation, before we even have
to spend more money and file briefs or we go through any kind of
argument or w. hatever, so we'll still have time.
But the p,ece that I feel obligated to tell the rest of the
board is my deposition in this case went a lot better than I ever
thought it mi,ht. I really dreaded being deposed in this case.
because I ha~ some seri-ous concerns about the county's action.
And I think that if we went to trial, I might not be so lucky with
the questions that I was asked to be able to not testify against
the financial interest of the county. And I'm afraid that the
pattern of behavior that's gone on thereafter would only enhance
the plaintiff's case. I don't want to have to testify in this case,
because I don't think I'm going to have anything really positive to
say.
So I want to put that out on the table in case we don't come
back for a closed session in the future, but have some number
for consideration when we come back -- when you come back
from mediation.
MR. MANALICH: The only thing I would add to Mike's
comments, the way I see it in the present scenario, what the
board needs to decide is you have a situation here where through
the court or mediation, prior to briefs being filed, before this case
is decided in terms of either coming back for trial or going to be
affirmed in our favor on appeal is this is the cheapest point of
exit for the board in this case. If -- or even a win. Or it's going to
come back and then it's going to become a much bigger risk for
the board.
And I think if there is at mediation the possibility of some
minimal settlement, which we'll define later on when we get to
that point, where there's no admission of liability, which I think .
would be another consideration for the board, then maybe at that
point business prudence would indicate that that should be
considered by the board.
The other thing is, as Mike pointed out, we have our issues.
Page 197
October 24, 2000
If we were to go back to trial about the witnesses, their
availability, their motivation, their present standing, given some
problems that have been hi.ghly publicized, and. related to that
are some evidentiary quest;ons about what ev;dence if any will
be admissible in relation to some of those issues, and those will
have to be fought at that time.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question regarding --
Ramiro, do you think it would be prudent of this board to set a
financial number at this time? In other words, you have the
privilege to go ahead and say, I mean, in your conversations and
if it comes to a point you know that you have 'X" number of
dollars, a limit that you can go to that you wouldn't have to come
back to this board until -- unless that was an amount of money
that they would agree upon. I mean, I don't know how you do
this, but--
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, let me respond, if I may, and
that is since this board can take no action in this closed session,
you would have to do that in our open meeting afterwards.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I see.
MR. WEIGEL: And I don't think it's to our advantage to do it
prior to the mediation in the first place.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We can give direction in the open
session that we are giving direction to go to mediation, period.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: Nor do I think can they make a good decision
about what is something they would recommend or not
recommend, unless they have to sit down and hear what the
other side is saying in terms of the mediation.
MR. MANALICH: And one of the things a mediator does in
his process is they are people that are lawyers and have some
familiarity with the issues and can point out to each side
strengths and weaknesses, and then each side can make its own
evaluation based on that process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This mediation process -- and I
understand that the Marion County commissioner of which we
obtained information in terms of Ms. Bernstein's performance --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That Commissioner Constantine
supposedly talked to.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Supposedly talked to, and related to
Page 198
October 24, 2000
the board here, it's my understanding that that commissioner
encountered some difficulties and would now be -- he would be --
as a witness we would have the same kind of difficulties
because his credibility may be challenged?
MR. PETTIT: I think that that to some degree is contingent
on how would that be admissible in this case. I think what I've
said before is there are a number of evidentiary flashpoints in
this case that I have identified and was going to go to the district
judge and say the jury shouldn't hear this. But the very fact that
I said there are a number is troublesome.
And they include such things as I would argue that there
should be no testimony on how many women we had in upper
level management at that time because that's statistics and
there's cases that say without a statistical expert, she can't put
on that evidence. I think there's a good chance I lose that
argument and they're going to be able to say you had three or
four out of 36 departments and six or seven division
administrators. That's not a good fact.
I think there are some other similar kinds of problems
related to Mr. Clark. And then of course other problems we
haven't even talked about that could -- I think in each case I'll
look at it and say I'll win that one, I'll lose this one. But some
things will get in front of that ju.r~, that we don't want them to
hear, and they'll get to take that ,nto account in considering her
claim. So I mean, that's just a reality.
I want to make one more point real quickly. I know it's been
a long day for you. Jeff Walker by law can't be here,, but/think
it's important to, know that we work carefully with h,m. Every
ti.m.e we go -- he s very interested in all these cases and we work
w,th him. And he may have already spoken with some of you; I
believe he has. His view is generally that he's very reluctant to
spend any money on this case at this point. But he also
simultaneously will acknowledge that it will get more expensive
if we lose the appeal.
And I think I heard him say very grudgingly that if in the
mediation he becomes convinced that there's a settlement out
there in that 15 to 25 range, that he would have to consider it.
But he hasn't bought into that yet.
From our point of view, I will say that I think Ramiro and I
have looked at the 18 to 20 range. I begin to have heartburn
Page 199
October 24, 2000
above that, because we've won. I mean, at so.me point yo.u~ve__
got to value your victory, too. I can't -- I have to say sometimes
I just think the board, because of -- my
you take that risk. .
biggest concern in th;s case really, it'.s not an embarrassment or
newspapers or anything, my concern ~s this is a big dollar case.
And I don't usually bring big -- we don't have that many of these
where there's potential for a substantial judgment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one other question before
we go, and that is I need to understand the timi.ng. Because as
you said, the settlement costs get more expens,ve as time goes
on,
What would happen -- if we were to give you direction to
mediate, what would happen is that you would come -- how much
time is there between the mediation and the next action,
whatever that is, brief filing or whatever?
MR. PETTIT: Their brief is due on the 23rd of November.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mediation is when?
MR. PETTIT: Is on the 9th. And the board meeting is on the
14th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they're not going to want to
have their attorney spend more time preparing an appellate brief
that he's probably not going to get paid for. So between the 9th
and the 23rd, is there an opportunity for you to ask us again?
MR. PETTIT: The 14th.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, the 14th.
MR. PETTIT: That's why the timing fell out well, because I
want to use -- we want to bring this back to the board that's
acquainted with it.
MR. OLLIFF: But I think it's a good point that as part of
mediation, they clearly need to know that the only opportunity --
MR. PETTIT: Is now.
MR. OLLIFF: -- is probably the 14th to put as much pressure
as possible on them.
MR. PETTIT: That's a good point. Because I think it really is
! '
the only opportunity. Because I m not sure .-.I wouldn, t oppose
it, but I'm not sure the -- he's had two extens,ons on h;s brief, and
I'm not sure they're going to give him any more.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So when we return to the boardroom,
we give direction to the County Attorney's Office to whatever the
strategy is that's proposed by one of the commissioners.
Page 200
October 24, 2000
MR. PETTIT: Well, I think that one of the things is to keep in
mind, when the court orders the meeting, we have .to go there
with a good faith. So it's not so much that you're d,recting us to
mediate, but what you are doing I .think is you are rejecting an
$83,309.11 demand, but encouraging us to go to mediate and
negotiate. And I think -- I don't know that you need to go say --
MR. WEIGEL: And report back to you.
MR. PETTIT: -- and report back to you on the 14th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that would be one of the
things we can consider, because we can't make that decision in
this room.
MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right.
MR. PETTIT: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So strategy is rejection. Okay, ready
to go back in?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, sounds good to me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, meeting concluded at whatever
time, 6:01 p.m.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record, we are back in session.
Continuing our session, the discussion of the case of Collier
County -- Aria Bernstein versus Collier County.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Mr. Chairman, number four would
indicate that you make a statement announcing the termination
of the closed session, and then you're off to the races.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have terminated the closed
section on Aria Bernstein versus Collier County, Case No.
00.14229GG, and we are now back in general session to give
staff direction, correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. And we're at Item 9(C) of the
agenda.
Item #9C
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL IN THE CASE OF BERNSTEIN V.
COLLIER COUNTY CASE NO. 00-14229GG - REJECTED AND
STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK IN GOOD FAITH IN MEDIATION
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we're on Item 9(C) of the agenda.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, Mike Pettit from the county
attorney's office. We're here, along with Mr. Manalich, to get
Page 20t
October 24, 2000
d;.~..,;~. ,~n, d~mand we've received in the BernsteJn versus
"~"'"' ........ - ....... -- .-,-'-- -'~-- here
Collier County case. The demand ,s ~u~,~uu.~-,. w~ ,~ a,=..
to get direction regarding a mediation that has been ordered by
the court for November 9, 2000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move that we reject the offer of
settlement or the demand, and that we instruct you to work in
good faith in the mediation session and report back to us.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion?
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you, commissioners.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
Item #15
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, now we are to board
communications.
Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have no communication.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have none.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me either.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have none. Therefore, we stand
adjourned.
***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by
Commissioner Brandt and carried 4/0, that the following
items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved
and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
AMENDMENT NO. I TO THE 1999 TOURISM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES
REGARDING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE NAPLES PIER
Item #16A2
Page 202
October 24, 2000
2000 TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
REGARDING EMERGENCY DREDGING OF GORDON PASS
Item #16A3
AMENDMENT NO. I TO THE 1999 TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITY OF NAPLES REGARDING INSTALLATION OF T-GROINS
AND MODIFICATION OF THE GROIN FIELD NORTH OF GORDON
PASS
Item #16A4
2000 TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
REGARDING POST DREDGING MONITORING OF DOCTORS PASS
Item #16A5
2000 TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
REGARDING MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF DOCTORS PASS
Item #16A6 - Continued to November 14, 2000
Item #16A7
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2000-10 RE PETITION C-2000-9, PHYLLIS M.
JENSEN, FESTIVAL CHAIRMAN OF THE NAPLES ITALIAN
AMERICAN CLUB, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A
CARNIVAL ,'ITALIAN FIESTA" ON NOVEMBER 2, 3, 4 AND 5, 2000,
ON THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7035 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH
Item #16A8
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2000-11 RE PETITION C.2000-11, ETTOTE
RUBIN, C.S., OF OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CATHOLIC CHURCH,
REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL ON
NOVEMBER 22,2T3~24,25 AND 26, 2000, ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 207 SOUTH 9 STREET IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16A9
Page 203
October 24, 2000
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2000-12 RE PETITION C-2000-10, REVEREND
JOSEPH SPINELLI, O.S.A. PASTOR OF THE ST. ELIZABETH
SETON PARISH, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A
FESTIVAL ON NOVEMBER 8, 9, 10~,11 AND 12, 2000, ON THEIR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5325 28 AVENUE S.W.
Item #16A10
SOLE BID REJECTED FOR PROPOSAL #00-3127 "CONSULTANT
SERVICES FOR CONSOLIDATED PLAN" AND STAFF AUTHORIZED
TO RE-ADVERTISE "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR
CONSOLIDATED PLAN" FOR THE COORDINATION OF
INFORMATION FOR THE COMPILATION OF A CONSOLIDATED
PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) AS PART OF THE
APPLICATION PROCESS FOR URBAN COUNTY STATUS
Item #16A11
EXECUTION OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH BIG
CORKSCREW FIRE DISTRICT, EAST NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT,
IMMOKALEE FIRE DISTRICT, AND COLLIER MOSQUITO CONTROL
DISTRICT TO EXEMPT THEM FROM THE ANNUAL REQUIREMENT
TO APPROPRIATE INCREMENT REVENUES TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND
Item #16A12
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MONTALVO"
Item #16A13
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF
FIDDLER'S CREEK"
"CASCADA AT
Item #16A14
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ,'DAVINCI
ESTATES", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
Page 204
October 24, 2000
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A15
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES
GATEWAY PHASE TWO" AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A16
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA
PARCEL 109", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A17
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA
PARCEL 101-A", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A18
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA
PARCEL 110", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A19
REQUEST FROM THE CIVIL AIR PATROL FOR PAYMENT OF
BUILDING PERMIT FEES AND IMPACT FEES FROM THE GENERAL
FUND FOR A T-HANGAR TO BE BUILT AT THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
Item #16A20
Page 205
October 24, 2000
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 550 RE ERNIE BRENTZMAN
REPRESENTING THE UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.,
REQUESTING A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT EXTENSION FROM
THE 28 CALENDAR DAYS, AS ALLOWED BY THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC), TO ALLOW THE
UNITED WAY THERMOMETER SIGNS TO REMAIN IN PLACE FOR
AN ADDITIONAL 67 DAYS UNTIL JANUARY 15, 2001
Item #16B1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCEL 108 IN THE
LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSE L. REY, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 99-3683-CA (GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD) STAFF TO
DEPOSIT AN ADDITIONAL $400 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE
CO U RT
Item #16B2
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC., FOR
THE DESIGN OF LIVINGSTON ROAD (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
TO COMMUNITY SCHOOL ENTRANCE), PROJECT #60071 AND
LIVINGSTON ROAD (COMMUNITY SCHOOL ENTRANCE TO
IMMOKALEE ROAD), PROJECT NO. 62071 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$~.?0,950
Item #16B3
PURCHASE OF A ONE (1) COMMERCIAL ASPHALT PAVER, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH BID #00-3151 AWARDED TO LINDER
INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$58,810
Item #16B4
PURCHASE OF A ONE (1) 15 CY DUMP TRUCK, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH BID #-00-3149, AWARDED TO WALLACE INTERNATIONAL
TRUCKS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,550
Item #16B5
Page 206
October 24, 2000
PURCHASE OF A ONE (1) TANDEM AXLE TRUCK-TRACTOR, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH BID# 00-3147, AWARDED TO WALLACE
INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS~ INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $66~920
Item #16B6
PURCHASE OF A ONE (1) 5 CY DUMP TRUCK~ IN ACCORDANCE
WITH BID #00-3150~ AWARDED TO WALLACE INTERNATIONAL
TRUCKS~ INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $41~400
Item #16B7
ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT OF NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND
A GRANT OF NON-EXCLUSIVE IRREVOCABLE LICENSES FROM
PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
DIRECTIONAL AND OR IDENTIFICATION SIGNS, LANDSCAPING,
LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE
Item #16B8
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 97-2715-A02 WITH AGNOLI,
BARBER AND BRUNDAGE~ INC.~ FOR THE LELY AREA
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT- PHASE I (PROJECT
NO. 31101)
Item #16B9
AMENDMENT NO. I TO LIVINGSTON ROAD CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING INSPECTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH KISINGER CAMPO AND ASSOCIATES CORP.
(PROJECT NO. 60061) {CIE NO. 53) IN THE AMOUNT OF $236~966
Item #16C1 - Deleted
Item #16C2
PURCHASE ORDER AWARDED TO TRISEP CORPORATION, TO
FURNISH AND DELIVER NEW NANOFILTRATION MEMBRANE
ELEMENTS AND ACCESSORIES TO THE NORTH COUNTY
Page 207
October 24, 2000
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, BID 00-3132, PROJECT
70887 IN THE AMOUNT OF $955,500
Item #16C3
CONTRACT AWARDED TO FLORIDA STATE UNDERGROUND, INC.
TO CONSTRUCT A 12" WATER MAIN ON EAST U.S. 41 FROM
MANATEE ROAD TO BOYNE SOUTH AND A 6" FORCE MAIN FROM
PUMP STATION 3.17 TO BOYNE SOUTH, BID 00-3145, PROJECTS
70862 AND 73061, IN THE AMOUNT OF $771,280.81
Item #16C4
CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
THE NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
DEEP INJECTION WELL, RFP 00-3122, PROJECT 73948 WITH
WATER RESOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Item #16C5
WORK ORDER HAA-FT-00-02 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO NOISE ISSUES AT THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT 70063 WITH HARTMAN &
ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,860
Item #16D1
GRANT APPLICATION FOR AARON LUTZ NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
TO INSTALL A PICNIC SHELTER AND LANDSCAPING IN THE
AMOUNT OF $56,250 WITH MATCHING FUNDS UP TO $18,750
Item #16D2
GRANT APPLICATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT AIRPORT PARK
IN IMMOKALEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,000 WITH MATCHING
FUNDS UP TO $125,000
Item #16D3
BID #00-3099 TO T-SHIRT EXPRESS OF S.W. FLORIDA INC. FOR T-
Page 208
October 24, 2000
SHIRTS USED IN ATHLETIC AND RECREATION PROGRAMS BY
THE PARKS AND RECR;~,TION DEPARTMENT
Item #16D4
PRESENTATION OF THE FY00 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY FILM COMMISSION - REPORT ACCEPTED
Item #16D5
ENDORSEMENTS OF EFFORTS TO REPLACE LOCAL MATCHING
FUND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HEALTHY KIDS INSURANCE
PROGRAM WITH STATE FUNDS
Item #16E1
BID NO. 00-3142 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FOR COLLIER
COUNTY SATELLITE FACILITIES AWARDED TO FLORIDA
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
Item #16E2 - Deleted
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 2000-371 EMPLOYEE REFERRAL BONUS PROGRAM
TO REWARD EMPLOYEES FOR FINDING QUALIFIED JOB
APPLICANTS FOR COUNTY POSITIONS
Item #16E4
BID #00-3143, "PAINT AND RELATED ITEMS" AWARDED TO
SHERWIN WILLIAMS AND SCOTT PAINT
Item #16E5
RFP #00-3090 "INDOOR AIR QUALITY SERVICES" - AWARDED TO
PURE AIR CONTROL SERVICES
Item #16E6 - Deleted
Page 209
October 24, 2000
Item #16E7
REVISED METHOD FOR FUNDING THE ACQUISITION OF MOTOR
POOL REPLACEMENT VEHICLES AND BUDGET AMENDMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTING THE NEW PROCESS
Item #16E8
SIX HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN (627) COUNTY-OWNED
COMPUTERS DECLARED AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR
SALE OF THIS SURPLUS PROPERTY TO EMPLOYEES OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA
STATE STATUTE 274.06
Item #16G1
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS #00-515 AND #01-005
Item #16G2
CONTRACT FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES . FORMAL
COMPETITION REQUIREMENT WAIVED AND CONTRACT
AWARDED TO WILLIAM R. HOUGH & CO.
Item #16J1
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 210
October 24, 2000
Item #16L1
CONTRACT WITH GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE FOR
COURT REPORTING SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16L2
RESOLUTION 2000-362 AUTHORIZING COLLIER COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE
BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES
FOR THE DIAZ FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND GULF COAST
AMERICAN BLIND CORP
Item #16L3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCELS 240 AND 240T IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ROBERT L. DAVIS, ET AL.,
(GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT
$400.00 IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2000-63 RE PETITION NO. PUD 2000-07, ROBERT
DUANE OF HOLE, MONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING
NORTH NAPLES - BONITA LAND TRUST, REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS TWO LAKES PLAZA FOR A
MAXIMUM OF 144,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL
AND/OR A MAXIMUM OF 288,000 SQUARE FEET OF
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF U.S. 4t NORTH, ONE MILE NORTH OF THE OLD
U.S. 4t INTERSECTION
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2000-64 RE PETITION R-2000-02, DOUGLAS
WORKMAN REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "MH" MOBILE HOME
TO "RSF-5" RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF VAN BUREN AVENUE
Page 211
~KELLY PLAZA_)_
October 24, 2000
Item #1 ?C
ORDINANCE 2000.65 REPETITION R-00-5, MR. D. WAYNE ARNOLD
OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING JER .
NICHOLES, REQUESTING A REZONE F~,~-- ,,-~--- -,, ---- RY F
~Co'AA"i~FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 141'~'A'"N~4r~ ~i~)E'~' TO
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2000-363 RE PETITION VAC 00-010 TO V
THE PLAT OF "FISHm-A-,--. -,-- ....... ACATE
~ --,~,~,-~,n L~W/I.~ AC;RES PHASE ,,.
· ~ECORDED IN PL ONE , AS
AT BOOK 23, PAGES 58 TH
RECORDS OF COLLIE" ",~,,-,-~- ....... ROUGH 59, PUBLIC
· - --~,~,--~T. t.U~ATED IN
TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH_LRANGE 29 EAST SECTION 31,
The.re being no.further business for the go.od of the County,
the meeting was adJourned by order of the Chair at 6:15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
JAMES ~.D, CHAI~I~AN
_or as corrected
,as
October 24, 2000
TRANSCRIPT
PREPARED
ON
BEHALF OF GREGORY COUR
REPORTING SERVICE, INC,, BY KELLEY ,-, ,--- ....... T
,,,. raLr:~rlA, RPR, KAYE
GRAY, RPR, AND CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 213