BCC Minutes 04/24/2001 R April 24, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, April 24, 2001
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 9:06 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN: James D. Carter, Ph.D.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie
James Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Manager
Mike McNees, Assistant County Manager
Beth Walsh, Assistant to County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page I
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
April 24, 2001
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 -- Reverend Bruce Ingles, Moorings Presbyterian Church
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVALOFAGENDAS
A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 27, 2001 Regular BCC Meeting
B. March 30, 2001 Emergency BCC Meeting
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation proclaiming April 28th as Collier County CPR Day 2001. To
be accepted by Diane Flagg, Director of Administration for Emergency
Medical Services.
2) Proclamation proclaiming that on the behalf of the citizens of Collier
County, The Board of County Commissioners wish to extend their
appreciation and congratulations to Wendy Malik and Maria Jones on
being selected as recipients of VFW National Citizenship Education
Teacher Award for 2000-2001.
3) Proclamation proclaiming April 2001 as Child Abuse and Neglect
Prevention Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Hallie Devlin,
Program Administrator, Collier County Department of Children and
Families.
B. SERVICE AWARDS
Five Year Attendees:
1) Andrea Brown, Public Utilities
2) Christopher Farris, Wastewater
3) Sandra Ramos, Parks and Recreation
4) Sharon Keshock, Library
Fifteen Year Attendees:
1) Dennis Bamard, Wastewater
2) Walter Kopka II, EMS
Twenty Year Attendees:
1) David Kitchen, EMS
2) Theresa Ortengren, EMS
3) Paul Wilson, Ochopee Fire District
4) Mark Willis, EMS
C, PRESENTATIONS
1) Recommendation to recognize Cheryl Soter, Planner I, Planning Services,
as Employee of the Month for April 2001.
6, APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A, ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
7. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Request for public petition by the residents of the Orchards to have the BCC
consider the safety conditions on Vanderbilt Beach Road.
8. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
B, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Approve Change Order No. 6 with APAC-Florida, Inc. for additional
construction services for the widening of Immokalee Road from 1-75 to
Collier Boulevard (CR 951 ), Project No. 69101.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Progress report on request for information (RFI) for long-term and
complementary solid waste assessment for Collier County.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) This item has been deleted,
2) Status report regarding acquisition options for property located in the
Barefoot Beach Park Preserve.
3) STAFF REQUESTS THAT THIS ITEM BE HEARD AS THE LAST ITEM
OF THE AGENDA. Presentation of the Collier County Health Care
Planning and Finance Advisory Committee interim report.
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Requesting direction to the County Attorney's Office concerning a response to a
settlement offer in Kimberly D. Dalton v. Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue District, a
division of Collier County, a local government, Case No. 99-534-CIV-FTM-
29DNF, pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Direction to staff to look at the required space for dwelling units and recommend
changes. ( Commissioner Henning)
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority.
C. Appointment Of members to the Bayshore Avalon Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Rural Lands Oversight Committee.
E. Discussion regarding the realignment of Santa Barbara Boulevard.
(Commissioner Fiala)
11. OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
4
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1) PUD-99-10, Karin K. Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing T.O.S.
Development, LLC, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural with
"ST" overlays to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Mirasol
PUD for a mixed residential development consisting of not more than 799
dwelling units and two golf courses with related facilities on property lying
north of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and west of a northerly extension of
C.R. 951 in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1558 +/- acres.
C. OTHER
1) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 10, 2001 MEETING.
Amend Weed, Litter and Exotics Ordinance.
13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND
EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION
MEMBERS. Petition PE-99-3, William L. Hoover, AICP, representing
Larry J. and Marcy A. Gode, requesting a parking exemption for an off-site
parking on Lot 10, Block 2, Naples Park Unit 1, to serve a commercial
development to be located on an adjacent lot (Lot 9) on 109th Avenue
North in Naples Park.
2) THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND
EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION
MEMBERS. Petition V-99-29, William L. Hoover, AICP representing Larry
J. and Marcy A. Gode requesting a 3-foot variance from the required 13-
foot east side yard setback to 10 feet and a 10-foot variance from the
required 15-foot west side yard setback to 5 feet in order to develop a
commercial property located on 109th Avenue North further described as
Lot 9, Block 2, Naples Park Unit 1.
5
B. OTHER
14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Approve the Local Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) for Fiscal Years 2001-
2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004 as required by the State Housing
Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program.
2) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Ivy Pointe".
3) Final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Autumn Woods
effluent main.
4) Funding of legal challenge to Florida Communications Services Tax
Simplification Act.
5) Adopt Resolutions enforcing liens on properties for code violations.
6) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit Five".
7) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit Six".
8) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit Seven".
9) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit Nine".
10) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra Parcel 106"
and approval of the standard form construction and maintenance
6
agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
11) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Santa Barbara Estates".
'12) Request to acknowledge the current lot configuration in Trail Acres Unit
Three for those lots formerly known as Lots 17 through 36, Block 1; Lots
$3 through 81, Block 2; and Lots 17 through 45, Block 3; and
acknowledge these parcels as lots of record.
'13) Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Cypress Woods fire hydrant.
'14) Final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for cypress Woods
maintenance center.
'15) Final acceptance of sewer utility facilities for Terra Verde at Grey Oaks.
'16) Final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Cypress Woods
clubhouse.
'17) Recommendation to approve commercial excavation Permit No. 59.784,
"B.R.B. Lake Commercial Excavation", located in Section 30, Township
47, South, Range 28 East; bounded on the north and east by vacant land
zoned Estates, on the South by 66th Avenue, N.E., and on the west by the
main Golden Gate Canal and Longan Lakes excavation on agricultural
land.
'18) Recommendation to approve commercial excavation Permit No. 59.764
"Jesse Hardy Commercial Excavation and Aquaculture", located in
Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 28 East; bounded on the north,
east and south by vacant land zoned Agriculture, and on the west by
vacant land zoned Estates.
'19) Approve commercial excavation Permit No. EXP-2001-AR-660, "Yarberry
Lane Wet Detention Pond" located in Section 2, Township 49, South,
Range 25 East: Bounded on the north by vacant land zoned RSF-1, on
the east by the Carlisle @ Naples and vacant land zoned agricultural, on
the south by occupied land zoned RSF-1, and on the west by Yarberry
Lane and occupied land zoned RSF-1.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Adopt the resolution designating CR 951 (Collier Boulevard), both existing
and future roadway, as a controlled access facility from US 41 to
Immokalee Road and a limited access facility from Immokalee Road to the
Lee County Line.
7
2) Approve contracts for professional landscape architecture service firms
(RFP #00-3131)to provide professional landscaping beautification,
construction documentation, project management, specification and
services relative to architectural landscaping.
3) Approve sole source purchase of "Continuous Deflection System (CDS)"
unit for storm water pipe on Bayshore Drive and Weeks Avenue
intersection, Project No. 31110.
4) Approve budget amendments to facilitate timely resolution of utility conflict
for Airport-Pulling Road construction. Collier County Project No. 62301,
CIE No. 55.
$) Authorize the County Attorney's office to prepare a Developer Contribution
Agreement between Collier County and Brentwood LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, for the improvements of Tarpon Bay Boulevard
and 20th Avenue NW.
6) This item has been deleted.
7') Adopt the resolution encouraging the Florida Department of
Transportation to consider additional alternatives for the interim
improvements for the 1-75 corridor in Collier and Lee Counties.
8) Approve Amendment No. 2 to Livingston Road Construction Engineering
Inspection Professional Services Agreement with Kisinger Campo and
Associates Corp (KCA). Project No. 60061) (CIE No. 53).
9) Accept a utility easement from Long Bay Partners, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, required in the construction of Livingston Road from
Station 373+75 to the Lee/Collier County Line, CIE Project No. 21
(Ultimate six-lane roadway).
10) Board direction regarding Transportation Services for the disabled.
11) A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
authorizing the filing of a Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment
Support Grant application with the Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD).
12) Request that the Board direct staff to form a Municipal Services Taxing
Unit (MSTU) for the purpose of providing maintenance and operational
funding for the existing landscaping improvements along the west side of
Vanderbilt Drive from Vanderbilt Beach Road to 111th Avenue and for
future area wide improvement projects.
8
13) Recommendation to extend the terms of the four advisory board members
of the Pelican Bay Services Division which expired.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Approve environmental assessment and remediation tasks with
expenditure in excess of $25,000 on State negotiated agreement price
schedule (SNAPS).
2) This item has been deleted.
3) Amend professional services agreement with Hole Montes for engineering
services to expand the South County Water Reclamation Facility, RFP 93-
2121, Project 73949.
4) Recommendation to extend the Lake Trafford restoration ad hoc task
force through May 7, 2002 and re-appoint/appoint members.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Approve Summer Food Service Program Grant for Immokalee and Naples
Summer Recreation participants.
2) Presentation of the mid-fiscal year 2001 report of the Collier County Film
Commission.
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1) Approve Isles of Capri Fire Control District matching grant request to
purchase personal firefighting protection equipment.
2) Fund transfer from Reserves for Contingencies for payment for services
provided at the Merritt Boulevard fire for the period of April 8 through April
10, 2000.
3) Approval of Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistance to
Firefighters 90/10% grant application to purchase an additional fire engine
and personal firefighting protection equipment.
4) Approve Ochopee Fire Control District matching grant request to purchase
an 18 h.p. portable pump.
5) Recognize carry-forward and appropriate monies in the Emergency
Management grant fund.
6) Approval of Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistance to
Firefighters 90/10% grant application to purchase additional fire engine
and personal firefighting protection equipment.
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #01-265;
#01-267.
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
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$100,000 for outside counsel and professional services including expert
services for pursuit of County's litigation relating to the 1995-96 beach
restoration project in the lawsuit styled Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County v. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., et al., Case No.
00-1901 -CA.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR
APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR
ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD,
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS
ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.
A. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
PUD-96-1(2), Mr. William Hoover and Andrew I. Soils, representing the Centre at
Veterans Park, LLC, requesting an amendment to the Veterans Park Medical
10
PUD having the effect of changing the PUD name to Veterans Park Commons
PUD, increasing the project acreage to 5.02 acres, and eliminating the limits on
the amount of general office uses for property located on the southwest corner of
Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Veterans Community Park Drive in Section 26,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion Item:
PUD-97-13(1)).
B. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
PUD 97-13(1), Mr. William Hoover and Andrew I. Soils, representing the Centre
at Veterans Park, LLC requesting an amendment to the Veterans Park Center
PUD having the effect of removing Tract "A" and reducing the project acreage
from 8.76 acres to 6.94 acres for property located on the south side of
Immokalee Road (CR 846) and approximately 258 feet west of Veterans
Community Park Drive in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida (Companion Item: PUD 96-1 (2)).
C. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS.
PetitionV-2000-37, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates,
P.A., representing John R. Wood, requesting a variance of 9.8 feet from the
required 15 foot setback from an off-site parking lot to 5.2 feet for property
located at 1115 Airport Road, further described as Lots 4-7, Block D, Naples
Villas, in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
VAC 00-020 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the public's
interest in a portion of the 15' wide drainage easement and portions of the 15'
wide County utility easement in Tract M-2R, as shown on the plat of "Crystal
Lake Terraces at Eagle Creek Replat" as recorded in Plat Book 28, Pages 72
through 74, public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 3,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East.
E. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
V-2000-40, On The Level Builders representing John M. and Genevieve A.
Lentovich requesting a 5.5-foot variance from the required 30-foot setback from
the property boundary lines to 24.5 feet for a property located at 5278 Treetops
Drive and is further described as Unit 101, Building I, Woodgate at Naples within
the Treetops PUD. Treetops PUD is located approximately 3 miles south of
Rattlesnake Hammock Road on the east side of Tamiami Trail East, in Section
32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. EX THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
11
CU-2000-19, Gerald L. Knight, ESQ. Holland & Knight, LLP representing Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) requesting a conditional use for
communications tower on a parcel of land zoned "E" Estates for a property
located at the northeast corner of Everglades Boulevard and 1-75, approximately
8 miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) within the Interstate 1-75 R.O.W. in
Section 31, Township 49 South and Range 28 East. The site consists of 36,000
square feet.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
12
April 24, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
If you'd be kind enough to take your seats, welcome to the April
24 Board of County Commissioners meeting. If you would all
stand with me for the invocation led this morning by the
Reverend Bruce Ingles, Moorings Presbyterian Church, followed
by the pledge of allegiance.
REVEREND INGLES: Let us pray. Gracious God, for some of
us this is lust another day, one more day of appointments and
disappointments. And yet for some of us, this is a great day in
which to be living in Collier County. We thank you for
commissioners and staff who work so diligently to make it better.
May today and its accomplishments reflect a common vision, and
may we remember that what each of us does is all about people
with dreams as well as schemes, with earth movers as well as
people movers, with winners as well as losers, though somehow
may we all be winners in this exquisitely beautiful county we call
home. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: First of all, Mr. Henning, Commissioner
Henning, happy birthday to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, tomorrow I'll be 39.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thirty-nine tomorrow. Very good, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Again? Again and again?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Again and again and again. I've been
there so many times I don't want to count.
Item #3A, B, & C
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Page 2
April 24, 2001
All right. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. I've got a brief list of changes
that I'd like to walk you through this morning, and I'll just start
right at the top. And the first one is a continuance continuing
Item 8-D, as in David, 2. We're requesting at staff's request that
that item be continued to your meeting of May 8th, and that's the
item regarding the status report on the property acquisition
options for the Barefoot Beach Park Preserve. And, frankly, the
only reason it was on this agenda, Mr. Chairman, was simply
because the board had asked to have something back in about
60 days. But, frankly, if you give us a couple more weeks, we
can have a little better information, we believe, to give you a
decent report.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. OLLIFF: Next item is an addition. It's Item 8-G-1, and
it's a resolution regarding Collier County's support for the
G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, and that's at staff's request.
And that is -- while you've done something similar to this in the
past, this has a little more to do with some legislative actions
occurring currently in Tallahassee and supporting some
additional funding to keep that operation alive at G. Pierce Wood.
The next item is a deletion off of your consent agenda. It's
16-A-13, final acceptance of water utility facilities, Cypress
Woods fire hydrant. That's at staff's request.
The next item we are moving from your consent to your
regular agenda. It's 16-A-17. It will become 8-A-1.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which item is that?
MR. OLLIFF: That is a commercial excavation permit,
No. 59.784. It's the B.R.B. Lake Commercial Excavation, and
that's at Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next two items are continuances as well. They are off
Page 3
April 24, 2001
of your summary agenda. Item 17-A and 17-B have both been
requested by the petitioner to be continued to your May 8th
meeting.
Mr. Chairman, with the exception of just under
communications we'll provide for you and have provided in your
backup information this morning as part of your change package
a proposed resolution from the City of Marco regarding the Marco
-- the manatee protection plan, I have no other changes or
additions to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: No changes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to discuss the
Airport Authority, and I could either do that just under
commissioner communication or commissioner agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions for John Drury or just
general discussion about the Airport Authority?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's nothing to do with the day-
to-day operation. It's about expanding the -- the Airport
Authority's members to include accounting, CPA, or-- instead of
what it is. And we -- I can just discuss that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Board communications? Would that
be appropriate, Mr. Olliff, or--
MR. OLLIFF: Well, I think it sounds like there may be some
suggestion for staff to do some work on that and bring something
back, so we'd probably make that Item 10-F under the Board of
County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let's do that. Is that
satisfactory to you, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Anything else, sir?
Page 4
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All set. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have none.
Motion to approve the agenda?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved, agenda, consent, and
summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Do we have any public
speakers on the consent or summary agenda? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
April 24, 2001
CONTINUE: ITEM 8(D)2 TO MAY 8, 2001 MEETING: Status report
regarding acquisition options for property located in the Barefoot Beach
Park Preserve. (Staff request.)
ADD: Item 8(G)1. A Resolution regarding Collier County's support for G.
Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital. (Staff request.)
DELETE: Item 16(A)13: Final Acceptance of water utility facilities for
Cypress Woods fire hydrant. (Staff request.)
MOVE: ITEM 16(A)17 to 8(A)1: Recommendation to approve commercial
excavation Permit No. 59.784, "B.R.B. Lake Commercial Excavation",
located in Section 30, Township 47, South, Range 28 East; bounded on the
north and east by vacant land zoned Estates, on the South by 66th Avenue,
N.E., and on the west by the main Golden Gate Canal and Longan Lakes
excavation on agricultural land. (Commissioner Coletta request.)
CONTINUE: ITEM 17(A) TO MAY 8, 2001 MEETING: Petition PUD-96-1(2),
Mr. William Hoover and Andrew I. Solis, representing the Centre at
Veterans Park, LLC, requesting an amendment to the Veterans Park
Medical PUD having the effect of changing the PUD name to Veterans Park
Commons PUD, increasing the project acreage to 5.02 acres, and
eliminating the limits on the amount of general office uses for property
located on the southwest corner of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and
Veterans Community Park Drive in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion Item: PUD-97-13(1).
(Petitioner request.)
CONTINUE: ITEM 17(B) TO MAY 8, 2001 MEETING: Petition PUD 97-13(1),
Mr. William Hoover and Andrew I. Solis, representing the Centre at Veterans
Park, LLC requesting an amendment to the Veterans Park Center PUD
having the effect of removing Tract "A" and reducing the project acreage
from 8.76 acres to 6.94 acres for property located on the south side of
Immokalee Road (CR 846) and approximately 258 feet west of Veterans
Community Park Drive in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida (Companion Item: PUD 96-1(2). (Petitioner request.)
April 24, 2001
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 27, 2001 REGULAR MEETING AND
MARCH 30, 2001 EMERGENCY MEETING
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move to approve the minutes of
March 27th and March 30th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second for-- a motion by
Commissioner Mac'Kie, a second by Commissioner Henning to
approve the minutes of March 27th and March 30th. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 28TM AS COLLIER COUNTY
CPR DAY 2001 -ADOPTED
That moves us to agenda 5-A, proclamations. The first one
is April 28th as Collier County CPR Day 2001. Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner
Carter. Would George Agliera (phonetic) please come forward.
Thank you, George.
Whereas, nearly 700 Americans die each day of sudden
cardiac arrest and 250,000 die each year; and,
Whereas, nationally 95 percent of those who suffer cardiac
arrest die before they reach the hospital; and, Whereas, the four
Page 6
April 24, 2001
links in the cardiac arrest chain of survival are early 911 access
to the EMS System, early Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR),
early defibrillation and early advanced EMS care; and,
Whereas the American Heart Association and the Collier
County Emergency Medical Services Department emphasizes
that each link in the chain of survival is critical and can increase
the potential for survival; and, Whereas, the American Heart
Association and the Florida College of Emergency Physicians
have launched CPR Day 2001; a day where CPR training will be
provided to approximately 1,000 community members at no cost.
And now fore -- therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Collier County Commissioners, Florida -- Collier County, Florida,
that the 28th day of April 2001 be designated as Collier County
CPR Day 2001.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING WENDY MALIK AND MARIA
JONES AS RECIPIENTS OF VFW NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP
EDUCATION TEACHER AWARD FOR 2000-2001 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. That takes us to our second
proclamation of the morning by Commissioner Fiala. And it's in
regards to VFW National Citizens (sic) Education Teacher Award
for Wendy Malik and Maria Jones. I'm sure they are here this
morning. If they would please step forward, face the cameras for
Page 7
April 24, 2001
TV Land. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
Whereas, the Board of Collier County Commissioners takes
pleasure in recognizing the accomplishments of its citizens who
have made outstanding contributions to our community; and,
Whereas, Maria Jones, eighth grade history teacher -- Maria,
hold your hand up -- Maria Jones, history teacher at Oakridge
Middle School and Wendy Malik, first grade teacher at Vineyards
Elementary School, have been recognized by being selected as
"Citizens of the Year" for the State of Florida by the VFW National
Citizenship Education Teacher Award for the years 2000-2001;
and, Whereas, these two educators have sought to bring to their
students, through innovative and diverse programs, a sense of
patriotism, cultural diversity, a love of learning, and the
responsibilities of citizenship; and, Whereas, their dedication to
the profession of teaching, and their dedication to their students
have been recognized by their peers, who nominated them, and
by the Veterans of Foreign Wars who selected them for this
honor.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that on behalf of the
citizens of Collier County, we wish to extend our appreciation
and our congratulations to Wendy Malik and Maria Jones for their
being selected as recipients of the VFW National Citizenship
Education Teacher Award 2000-2001.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make the motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. A motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
(Applause.)
Page 8
April 24, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you have some words for us this
morning, please.
MS. MALIK: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Commission. Thank you very much. I humbly accept this
proclamation on behalf of all veterans who have answered the
call to serve our nation. The sacrifices they have made can
never be repaid, but we can remember what they've done for our
country. By working closely with Collier County veterans, our
students have gained an understanding of their efforts.
I would personally like to thank Peter Kraley (phonetic),
director of Veteran Services; Ron Scott, the president of the
Collier County Veterans Association; and Anna Marie and Bill
Perrell of the Golden Gate VFW for their efforts in helping
Vineyards Elementary recognize veterans. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. JONES: Good morning, the Board of Commission and to
the audience. I would like to thank Post 7721 of Golden Gate,
Florida, Mr. And Mrs. Perrell, and all the ladies and gentlemen of
the Veterans of Foreign War for this award of citizenship teacher
award.
Citizenship and patriotism have always been an important
part of my life. I remember all the stories my father shared with
me, his World War II stories. And he taught the lesson
democracy cannot be taken for granted. My husband served in
the Army, and I had the opportunity to visit South Korea. And as
I walked the streets of Seoul, I realized and felt a freedom of
spirit of the people, and it's because of veterans of America.
Today our son is stationed in Yakota (phonetic) Air Force Base,
Tokyo, and it gives me great pride to know that our -- that our
appreciation of this country has been passed on to our child.
In my classroom each day, I work to instill and appreciate a
Page 9
April 24, 2001
love for this country and to teach about the men and the women
who came to the call of their nation at a time when it was
needed. God bless all our veterans, and God bless America.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just say one remark about
that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- while these two ladies are in
the room? I just think you're doing the most important work in
this county without question. And I had the opportunity to speak
a couple of weeks ago to the Retired Officers Association, and
that is a resource that I would really recommend to you. There
are men there who have served in incredible -- brigadier generals
who would love -- I asked them in my talk would they come to
classrooms and share their stories, and they said, "Would they
want us to?" So let's talk about how we might connect them.
Without grandparents, which so many kids in this town don't
have, you guys have to connect them to those World War II
stories, or they're going to be lost. And I just, from my heart, so
sincerely thank you. It's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting a gentleman who is now
president of the Pelican Marsh Homeowners' Association who --
outstanding record, 5 1/2 years in what we jokingly call today the
Hanoi Hilton. That's Vietnam. Terrible time. But a man who is
vigorous and energetic and, too, would welcome the opportunity
to come and talk with students about a very traumatic era in our
American history.
So, again, we can do a lot of outreach with our people who
have served to the young people growing up so we can preserve
Page 10
April 24, 2001
this beautiful heritage called America and let everybody
understand the sacrifices that have been made. So thank you,
and God bless you for all the work that you've done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Amen.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 2001 AS CHILD ABUSE AND
NEGLECT PREVENTION MONTH, BEING ACCEPTED BY HALLIE
DEVLIN, PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, COLLIER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's -- Commissioner Mac'Kie, another
equally important proclamation that you have this morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not nearly as happy a topic but
equally as important. Is Hallie Devlin here from -- she's the
program administrator from the Collier County Department of
Children and Families. This is a -- something that came to me
that wasn't requested for a proclamation but I thought was so
important and, frankly, just broke my heart, and I thought it had
to be made as public as I could help make it.
So this proclamation reads, Whereas, 85,644 children in
Florida were verified as having been abused or neglected last
year-- 85,644.
Whereas, child abuse and neglect causes significant trauma
to the abused child and society, inflicting upon children serious
illness and injury resulting in physical, intellectual and emotional
impairment, or death; and,
Whereas, prevention services can reduce the costs society
must bear in dealing with the results of child abuse and neglect
and can help children and families avoid the overburdened and
expensive social welfare and criminal systems; and,
Page 11
April 24, 2001
Whereas, children deserve the opportunity to grow and
thrive in healthful environments, free from threats of violence
and harm; and, Whereas, during the month of April, public and
private-sector agencies, child-care professionals, child
advocates, and residents will be increasing the public's
awareness of child abuse and neglect prevention.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that April 2001 be
designated as Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Month in
Collier County and call upon all citizens, community agencies,
religious organizations, medical facilities, and businesses to
increase their participation in an effort to prevent child abuse
and neglect, thereby strengthening the community in which we
live.
Done and ordered this 24th day of April, 2001, Board of
County Commissioners, James Carter, Chairman.
I'd like to move acceptance of the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That was seconded by Commissioner
Fiala. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by same --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 85,644 last year in Florida,
abused and neglected children. I can't get that number out of my
head.
MS. DEVLIN: For Collier County it's approximately 120 new
reports a month.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A month?
MS. DEVLIN: A month. Not all substantiated; probably about
half of them. But, yes, it's definitely a problem. And I appreciate
the board issuing this proclamation, not only on behalf of the
Page 12
April 24, 2001
folks that work for our agency, but on behalf of all of the
individuals and organizations in Collier that are addressing child
abuse prevention plus the aftermath of child abuse. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. I think what's tragic in this
is that we know there are children who are abused and -- I mean,
we don't always know, but when it happens, it breaks our hearts
because we really don't want to see that happen. But what is
even more tragic is those who use this arena to say they were
and weren't, and then drag down the whole effort and cause
people to question, well, does it really exist? Is it as severe as it
is supposed to be? And that is even more tragic than the actual
abuse itself.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, you
brought up a good point, and later today we're going to be
covering the healthcare issue. And I want to remind everyone
out there that the school nursing program may cease to function
if we don't go forward with this today, and one of the first
avenues to be able to head off child abuse is the school nurse.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Moving to service awards, Commissioner Henning. I think
we get out in front and center. We've got the big table, and let us
do the great things.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, this morning we're going to
Page 13
April 24, 2001
recognize nine of your county employees with service
attendance awards. And as you're making your way down from
the dais, I'll go ahead and call the three five-year attendees this
morning. The first is Andrea Brown from public utilities. The
second is Sandra Ramos from parks and recreation. And third is
Sharon Keshock from the library. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: We have two 15-year attendees this morning.
The first is Dennis Barnard from the wastewater treatment
plant in the north -- north county wastewater treatment plant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's been busy lately.
MR. OLLIFF: Dennis has been very busy lately.
The second 15-year attendee this morning is Walter Kopka
from EMS.
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: This morning we've got the privilege also of
recognizing four 20-year attendees, and I'd start with David
Kitchen from EMS. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: The next is Theresa Ortengren from EMS.
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Paul Wilson, your Ochopee Fire District fire
chief.
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: And lastly this morning with 20 years is Mark
Willis, also from your EMS department. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Commissioners, that's all our attendance
awards this morning. We thank you for recognizing those
employees.
Item #5C1
Page 14
April 24, 2001
PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING CHERYL SOTER, PLANNER I,
PLANNING SERVICES, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL
2001 - RECOGNIZED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's my privilege that once a And if you
would step up here this morning, we would like to recognize you
for your outstanding effort. She's on the firing line. She's on the
front desk. She gets all the happy/unhappy people that come in.
But she is a person that tries to not only help them, but get them
to the right source.
And so, Cheryl, it's a pleasure this morning to thank you for
your time, your efforts, your energy, your services to making
Collier County a better place to be. And we truly value you and
appreciate what you're doing for us. So thank you. We have a
nice plaque that will recognize that she is the employee of the
month. It will be proudly displayed. And also a check which I'm
sure, Cheryl, that you will find some way to spend that or use for
some great purpose, which is just a small token of our
appreciation. So congratulations, and thank you for being here.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: TV Land, this is what it looks like.
Item #7A
PUBLIC PETITION BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE ORCHARDS
REGARDING THE SAFETY CONDITIONS ON VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD
MR. OLLIFF: Chairman, as the commissioners are making
their way to the dais, the next item is the public petition portion
of our agenda. And if I could, I'd like to ask Mr. Gentile if he'd go
ahead and make his way towards the podium. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, sir.
MR. GENTILE: Good morning. Good morning,
Page 15
April 24, 2001
Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. I've given a copy
of our petition and over 400 signatures of the residents of our
community over to Tom there to disseminate to you. If I may, I'd
like to read the petition. It is relatively short.
Petition to the county commissioners. Dear Commissioner
Henning, the undersigned resident of The Orchards community
located at 7857 Gardner Drive adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Road
petition you along with all the county commissioners to address
the extremely serious vehicular access problems to and from our
community during substantial periods of the day. The lack of
highway capacity and substantial growth along Vanderbilt Beach
Road adjacent to The Orchards has resulted in a serious adverse
impact on expeditious county public services response time. In
addition, this traffic situation has also seriously impacted the
residents' safety while entering and exiting our community.
You are surely well aware that the corridor -- the Vanderbilt
Beach corridor from Airport Road east to Collier Boulevard,
formerly County Road 951, has undergone quite an explosion of
growth.
I have a side note here that isn't in this petition. I make
reference to the current -- the most current census that was
taken. And in the past decade, they published in the Naples
Daily News that we had over 13,000-some-odd more residents
that have come to live just within that -- that area of that
corridor. Most of that building has not been built out yet.
However, back to the -- the petition. We have been advised
periodically by the transportation department that our
entranceway as well as the entranceways for the Naples Walk
Shopping Center and the Tiburon/Ritz-Carlton Resort do not
warrant signal devices. Our community is united in the position
that this is unacceptable. Regardless of whether the exact
numbers of vehicles or statistics utilized for these warrants
Page 16
April 24, 2001
actually meet the criteria, we feel there comes a time when good
old common sense should come into play. We implore you to
help us, and by so doing we may avoid the loss of life either by
vehicular accidents or emergency services being unable to
respond as quickly as necessary.
We urge you and your fellow commissioners to view the
traffic patterns during the morning and evening rush hours, as it
is our contention that any reasonable persons would agree with
our assessment of the situation. This is not a matter of
convenience as much as a concern for the diminished capability
of our emergency services people to adequately respond to our
calls for service as well as the ever-present game of tag
associated with entering and exiting our community. If, in fact,
the future road construction will alleviate this condition, that
remains to be seen. However, we find it inconceivable that the
transportation department in the interim can find no way
whatsoever to help us. Therefore, we implore you to come to our
assistance as soon as possible.
Your attention to this matter is anxiously awaited, and I
thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Questions by the
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have a staff question. Is
there any -- you've measured this, and it doesn't meet the
warrants for a light?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation operations director.
The entrance to The Orchards does not warrant a traffic signal.
However, with the addition of the second -- it's either the second
or third phase to the Naples Walk Shopping Center and with the
added traffic from the Tiburon development, we are going to -- we
are scheduling a temporary signal in at that location, temporary
only in the nature of the construction that will be put on straining
Page 17
April 24, 2001
poles, because when the Vanderbilt Beach project is six-laned,
there will be a permanent mast arm signal in place there. The
addition of--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where will that be, the mast
arm?
MR. KANT: At the Tiburon/Naples Walk. It's about a quarter
mile to the east of Airport Road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, therefore preceding --
MR. KANT: What I was getting to, Commissioner, was that
by include -- by adding that signal, that will create additional and,
we believe, sufficient gaps to assist the folks that are in The
Orchards. There is already a traffic signal at the Wilshire Village
Walk. And when Livingston Road is built through, which will be
next year and the year after, there will be a signal at Vanderbilt
and Livingston Road also. So there will be several -- at least two
new signals in that area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those create the traffic gaps
that -- I mean, it sounds like the good news is the answer's
already on its way for you guys.
MR. GENTILE: That is just great news and would have saved
me a lot of work with this petition. The impetus for the petition --
I've been in touch with Mr. Kant and his people for over a year
now, and they're just -- they're just terrific. They get back to us
all the time.
MR. KANT: Thank you.
MR. GENTILE: And they answer all our questions. And it's
just waiting for something to happen, like most of the county is
waiting, that gets us a little worried and concerned. But what's
got us to this point is an e-mail that I had received at the
beginning of January that kind of backed away from the
Tiburon/Naples Walk light.
MR. KANT: From--
Page 18
April 24, 2001
MR. GENTILE: From your -- Dale Bathon had returned some --
answered some of my questions that I had written to you. And
that was, like, the last hope we had. You know, over the last
year, it was always holding that out that that may happen for us.
So that's just terrific.
MR. KANT: Our current schedule calls for that light to be in
this fiscal year, which would get it in before the end of -- by the
end of the summer. But at this point I can't give a more precise
schedule because we're still in design.
MR. GENTILE: I understand. Can I just ask one question?
And then I'm finished. I don't want to go over any time. My
question is this: We have no stopgap with easterly bound traffic.
This would be the only one we would have. Bear in mind,
Wilshire Lakes and these other signals that were mentioned by
Mr. Kant are absolutely correct; however, there is only this
coming light that would be the stopgap eastbound, and that is
before us, of course. If that light is placed without something
that will also curtail a right-on-red function for the exiting of the
Naples Walk Shopping Center, it will not help us to any great
degree because they will continually make their right on red, and
other folks will take the shortcut. So if there's one of those red
signals that at least gives us a couple of minutes for someone to
wait by that Mobil station to make that right, then this is, in fact,
just a fabulous answer to what we've been looking for.
MR. KANT: That's one of those issues that I can't answer
without looking at what we're going to do for timing on that
signal, but I can tell you we will look at that as part of the
design.
MR. GENTILE: Yeah. Otherwise it's a waste of time. They'll
just make a right on red, and the flow of traffic eastbound will
not be curtailed at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, I want to just say that
Page 19
April 24, 2001
because of your efforts, your hard work of writing this petition
and getting people to sign the petition, you're the one that made
this happen. And I think that we all know here sitting what a
challenge that people utilizing Vanderbilt Beach Extension or
living off of Vanderbilt Beach Extension -- the frustration in that
area. And I'm sure you're aware of last month that we took
action to hire a consultant to expand that from a two-lane design
to a three-lane design.
MR. GENTILE: Yes. I am aware of that, and thank you very
much. However, all the -- all the credit is due to all the people in
the community coming forward and being willing to sign. And I
thank you very much for the good news, and we anxiously await
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We got to have somebody happy
today.
MR. GENTILE: Yes. I'm glad it was me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I thank you, sir, and thank you for
being a gentleman. Thank you for coming in the way you
presented yourself. It is always refreshing to the Board of
County Commissioners if you come in and you ask and you
present your information in the way that you did. It's very helpful
for us to try to get where we need to be. It makes the job a
hundred times easier than some other more unpleasant
situations that we've been through. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, I would
like to echo the petitioner's appreciation of Ed Kant. He's been
very helpful. All throughout the community I've heard nothing but
good reports from one end to the other. Every time I've gone to
Ed, he helped bring resolution to the problem. And too often we
Page 20
April 24, 2001
have a tendency to forget and thank staff for the efforts that
they've put into it. He is -- he's been responsive way past
reasonable hours. He's been with me up to nine o'clock at night
at different functions throughout the community, answering
questions, and then typing up the notes and presenting them
afterwards so that we can bring resolution to it.
Item #8A1
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.784, "B.R.B. LAKE
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION", BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND
EAST BY VACANT LAND ZONED ESTATES, ON THE SOUTH BY
66TM AVENUE, N.E., AND ON THE WEST BY THE MAIN GOLDEN
GATE CANAL AND LONGAN LAKES - APPROVED W/
STIPULATIONS AS AMENDED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, Commissioner. We're going
to take you right to 8-A-1, which is 16-A-17, Community
Development Environmental Services, commercial ag evacuation
(sic).
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski with Development Services department. This is the
last of the Golden Gate Estates excavations that was in the
system before you decided to ask for a rural change to the Land
Development Code. It's a 22,000-cubic-yard excavation right
across the canal from Longan Lakes, which is millions of cubic
yards. The petitioner, Darrell Taylor, has -- and his engineers
have talked to Commissioner Coletta. They've talked to the
neighbors. I'm told there are no problems. I can make a long
presentation if you want.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'm looking for is -- I just
wanted to go through it one more time and reconfirm the fact
that we have the letters on file.
Page 21
April 24, 2001
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I want to mention the fact
that he has been very helpful in the end, the petitioner, in trying
to bring resolution to this. While we can't give everybody 100
percent satisfaction on this, he's gone way out of his way to be
able to make this work. There's just a couple of small little
points I wanted to ask about. It is ten hours a day operational
time; is that correct?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's usual. I think our normal hours
of operation is 6:30 to 7:00, and we -- I guess we allow an hour
for lunch, something like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Six thirty --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we keep it -- anybody that's
talking, please lis -- you know, Commissioner Coletta has the
dais. He's dialoguing with staff. If you have a conversation,
please take it in the hall.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think in the estates excavations
we've put a different limit on hours of operation, seven to five.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seven to five. Yes. That sounds
about correct, an hour for lunch. The other one was, this is
supposed to run for how long again? One year?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if he hauls at the rate of a truck
an hour, it should only last six months. If he hauls faster than
that, it'll be done sooner. If he hauls slower than that, it'll take
longer. But I can't see it taking --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we just -- one little
stipulation to this. Can we put down that if it's still going in one
year, that we have the right for review?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With that added stipulation, I'd
Page 22
April 24, 2001
like to make a motion that we pass this. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it. I have a question,
though. Stan--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Stan, somebody
said to me yesterday these lots in Golden Gate Estates that are
used for excavating, once it's done there's no possibility of
putting a house on these lots; is that true?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Last week I drove the -- two people
from the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, Karen Accuard
and, I think, her predecessor, around to maybe a dozen of these
excavations. And I showed them that in every case there was a
buildable house lot left. When you look at them from the street,
they look close to the street. It looks like a very big lake. But
when you actually get on the lot and drive, a lot of them already
have houses with them; the others are buildable house lots, the
ones that I've seen. I even gave her copies of the aerial
photographs of the area from last year to show her that in all
these cases the lakes don't take up the entire lot. There is a
buildable house lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: On May 16th I'm talking in front of the
Golden Gate Estates Civic Association meeting about
excavations in the estates at which time I'll have photos and
maps and dog and pony and everything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll put that on my calendar.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That'll be interesting. Do you think
we could be invited?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's an open meeting. There's no
reason why you can't go. I would recommend it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I need a reminder.
Page 23
April 24, 2001
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Should I have Karen Accuard send you-
all an invitation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Please. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have a motion. We have a
second. Any further discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries.
Item #8B1
CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 WITH APAC-FLORIDA, INC., FOR
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE WIDENING OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM 1-75 TO COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR951),
PROJECT NO. 69101 - APPROVED W/CONDITIONS AND STAFF TO
WORK WITH BIG CYPRESS BASIN BOARD TO DETERMINE FAIR
SHARE AGREEMENT REGARDING COSTS
That takes us to Item 8-B-1. I apologize to the audience.
You weren't the disruptive force. There was a guy talking on his
cell phone who doesn't need a phone. He should have just stuck
his head out the window. And the other people were having a
battle out in the hall. I told them to take their fight downstairs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Take it outside.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It didn't involve us.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Steve Miller. I'm the director of
transportation engineering. And what I have before you today is
a change order associated with our Immokalee Road project
which is currently under construction. We're four-laning from 1-
75 to Collier Boulevard.
Page 24
April 24, 2001
The situation we have on the project is we've been currently
constructing the new eastbound lanes, which is Phase I of the
project. The contractor's getting ready to change, switch traffic,
and start working on the north side, which will be the new
westbound lanes. And we've got some substantial erosion of the
Cocohatchee Canal on the south slope for the -- almost the entire
length of the project. It's spotty, but it runs almost the entire
3 1/2 miles of the project.
The concern that we have is that this is our window to try to
do something to repair this now while the contractor's over there
working. The cost associated -- this is very expensive now, but it
would be worse if we had to come back and remobilize, if we had
to bring a contractor back, plus there's no way to really do this
work from the canal. So this is our only window of opportunity.
And what our plans are is to stabilize the slope so that it'll
protect our new roadway plus the future six-lane that'll be
coming shortly, we hope, as well as some major utilities on that
site.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' May I comment on this,
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is an item that I -- I can't
help but bring to the attention of this board because the prior
board wouldn't pay any attention to me when I brought it to
them. I've got the minutes here of September 28th, 1999. It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to go to -- drive down that road
and see that the bank is falling off into the ditch. It isn't working.
And I begged the board to look at that in September of 1999, and
they quite rudely, frankly, just blew me off and wouldn't consider
it. It's too bad that that's the way the old board did business. It
would have saved us some money if we had done it then.
So I just had to say that, because it's very frustrating when we
Page 25
April 24, 2001
look back at all the things that have gone wrong, and so many of
them we were unaware of as a board. And now here's one that
was clear as day, and even it the old board wouldn't pay any
attention to. It just infuriates me. But we have to do this today.
The question becomes -- there are two points: One, do we do it?
And the answer to that has to be yes.
And the second one is, who pays for it? And it's my opinion
that -- if you look back at the history of how we decide which
agency is in charge of which ditches in this county, it's that
simple. There's a primary, a secondary, and a tertiary system.
And it should be as simple as there is a map with yellow and blue
lines on it, and the blue ones we're in charge of, and the yellow
ones the Big Cypress Basin is in charge of. However, we have a
not-so-great agreement with the Big Cypress Basin right now that
isn't as simple as that, and it should be, and it could be revised
to be.
But in my opinion, this -- well, not in my opinion. In fact, this
is a Big Cypress Basin canal. Even the poorly drafted agreement
that we have calls this the Cocohatchee Canal, and it has three
weirs on it, and it's clearly identified as a basin canal. It's not
one that is the county's responsibility. Nevertheless, I say we go
forth and fix this as fast as possible but that we maybe even ask
our chairman to go to a Big Cypress Basin board meeting and
express our concerns about this should have been -- the design
was wrong. The design was faulty, but it should have been
addressed early on. And then -- so that's the who-pays-for-it
question.
The other one that I just have to say, as a lesson for this
Board of County Commissioners to learn among the many others
we are learning, how this got to be in the shape it's in is that
when Immokalee Road became a headline because it became the
dangerous road, this -- the former county commission got all
Page 26
April 24, 2001
excited and told the staff, "Go build a new -- widen it fast and do
it now." And with those instructions what staff was left with was
some plans -- the design plans for that road were drawn in 1991.
And we told staff, "Take those plans and get us some
construction plans and build that 1991 design." And that is
where we made a giant mistake. And I wish that we had had a
staff with the guts to tell us we were making a giant mistake, but
we didn't at the time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you're
absolutely right. And I haven't read those minutes, and if I did
not support you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You did.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I thought I did. Take that arrow
out of my chest and put it down here on the bench.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're -- Commissioner Mac'Kie is
absolutely right. It was crisis management, and what happened
in the past is the plans were drawn, as I understand it -- another
crisis pops up over here, put these on the shelf, run over here
and fix that. Then Immokalee Road becomes a crisis. Go pull
these off the shelf and do it. But we never stopped to say are
these plans the right plans for this road, number one.
Number two, I don't know when this agreement was drawn
between the agencies. This is a lesson again; due diligence on
agreements between agencies. And I don't know who initiates
this, Mr. Olliff, whether it's you, through the county attorney. I
want and would request of this board to make sure we look at all
of these agreements in review and make sure that these are up
to date and satisfactory for both agencies.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The bad news on this one,
Commissioner, is that this is dated October 13th, 2000. And, you
know, without overcriticizing, it's a sad day when the lawyer --
Page 27
April 24, 2001
when the law office who drafted the contract, our county
attorney's office, then has a memo two years later saying, "The
agreement is ambiguous at best." So this is -- this is something
that our county attorney's office should have done a better job on
in drafting that agreement.
So maybe this'Il be an opportunity for us to improve it now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We're both on the same page. I
need to take Commissioner Coletta. I'm not looking for fault
here. Let me just tag one thing before I go to Commissioner
Coletta. Yes, I would go to the Big Cypress board. Yes, we need
to hear from Clarence Tears this morning. Thirdly, I saw that half
million dollars because that's what they have this year. I will say
publicly -- and I will go to Clarence's board -- that I'm going to ask
for more in the additional years. This has to be a cooperative
thing. If we do some shared expense here or maybe we pay it up
front and they help us with reimbursement process. It is
interagency. It is for the good of the county government -- I
mean, Collier County. And let's not have government agencies
fighting among each other when we got to get out the overall
objective, and that's doing the good of the community, to take
care of the water and to take care of the road, and let's not let it
happen again.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to comment on a
couple of things. I do agree with both of you and what you said,
but I did not have the attached agreement that so states in here.
Did the rest of the board receive the attached agreement?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' I asked for it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I saw it somewhere, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just based on that, I'd like to
see a continuance. And I'd like to also direct staff to go back
Page 28
April 24, 2001
and talk to Big Cypress Basin to see if we might be able to be
more realistic in who the shared responsibility is. I think there's
more than one party involved, being the county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No doubt about that. But you
know what my fear is if we continue it, is they are actually out
there constructing the road, almost finished with one side. If we
delay them two weeks, then we lose the economy of scale of
having them do this work. They've got it just laid out for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. But we're talking
$3 million here. That's a big hunk of money to be passing
without even being able to see the attachments, which isn't here,
and without giving a chance for a recourse, again, with the big
basin board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand your concerns,
Commissioner Coletta, but Commissioner Mac'Kie made a great
point. We need to move forward with this road project. It is
under construction. There are delays on the roadways
frustrating people. I think that working -- Commissioner Carter,
our chairman, working with the Big Cypress and the staff to
make things happen, I'm sure we'll come to some resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, could we -- could we
do this with some kind of a condition? You know, can we
approve it -- because, boy, Commissioner Coletta's right about $3
million being a lot of money. The way I look at this is it's sort of
like the rocks on the beach. We have to clean them up and then
find out whose responsibility it is to -- to pay us.
I'll tell you, even -- even the engineer on the job who
-- when we told them stupidly, "Take these 1991 plans and give
us construction drawings," they should have surveyed that slope
before they did it because basically we had a construction plan
for a slope that was no longer there. And if they had surveyed it,
they would have known that, and we could have gotten some
Page 29
April 24, 2001
better advice. So I even think we might need to look to them,
unless they told us and we ignored their advice.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly Mr. Feder can give us
another view on this.
MR. FEDER: Yes. For the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. I think you folks have covered the
issue extremely well up there. I appreciate that. What I would
tell you is, as was noted by Steve, the contractor's getting ready
to move on the north side. If we don't give them the go-ahead,
they're going to start the road work, which will then create the
problem of trying to get to this improvement in the future. And
so I think we do need to go ahead.
I think the Big Cypress Basin has already expressed their
interest in trying to be of assist (sic). What they were able to
offer and we discussed with them was at least bringing to their
board that -- I don't believe Clarence can tell you he even has
approval of that right now, for that half a million. And I would
ask Clarence to maybe to speak to you to that issue. But I can
speak to the urgency that unfortunately we face and that I need
to bring to you today, and that is that we need to go do this work
while we have the contractor out there. Otherwise, they'll
continue with their contract and the road work which will make it
very hard in the future. It'll end up disrupting both traffic and the
pavement out there trying to get at that canal, because the fact
of the matter is you can't do it from the canal itself.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Feder, what would be an estimated
cost if we didn't do it now, if we delayed it?
MR. FEDER: The only thing I can tell is you'd have a number
of factors in that cost. First of all, the 3 million, which is
-- about 2 million of that is materials or more than that. You'd
have new mobilization costs for another contractor; so therefore,
your costs for the labor part would be even higher. That million
Page 30
April 24, 2001
would increase. So essentially, you'd have both the delay in
traffic; someone would have to work from -- from that area; the
prospects of utilities which are starting right now, water mains
and the like, to get exposed. So you may even have more severe
work that you'd have to do.
What I can tell you, this is the time we need to do it. We've
got a contractor out there mobilized. And the other issues I think
are very valid, but nonetheless, the work itself needs to be
authorized and needs to proceed now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What it could cost is maybe twice as
much at the end of the day.
MR. FEDER: I wouldn't venture to say exactly. Steve's
saying yes. So I'll tell you that you're in that ballpark anyway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so, Commissioner Coletta,
what you have to do is call your predecessor and thank him for
what they -- for putting us in this box, because we're now here
where we have to do this. We should have done it in '99.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're probably right. I'm sorry,
Donna. I'll just be one second. But I -- I do have a question. Why
is it we're finding out about this on the 11th hour when we don't
have the chance to be able to review it with a little more depth?
Why do we have to act on it today rather than two weeks? Why
didn't we have this a month before?
MR. FEDER: We had this probably a few weeks ago when it
was raised to us by the CEI out there. As they started getting
ready on the north side, they started doing some of the
measurements and realizing they didn't have the amount of right-
of-way because the slope had already degenerated some. We
started the process of exploring what our options were. We met
with the water management district in West Palm to see if they
would give us some relief from the dual swale and the water-
quality issues to see if we could do some other techniques to try
Page 31
April 24, 2001
and minimize the nature of the cost of this item before we
brought it to you.
We then met with Clarence and discussed with him roles
and responsibilities and issues, and that's why we asked for the
legal opinion as well in the process. And we're bringing to you
the issue because we -- we got the acceleration of the
construction by the contractor, which we've been asking for on
the south side, and they have been waiting on the north side for
this issue to be addressed. And they're ready to go on that north
side now, so the urgency is to bring it to you now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there some mechanism we
can put into place to avoid this 11 th-hour situation in the future?
MR. FEDER: Very definitely. In the plans we are doing a
number of things very different than you find here. First of all, we
hope to have a program that's a little more stable rather than
here, there, and everywhere and reacting to the crisis, as -- as
the chairman noted. Secondly, we're bringing in our engineering
inspection consultant along with the design process, and they're
doing what's called constructability reviews. We're doing more
in the way of looking at our underground-utility issues before we
start a job. There's lot of things we're doing a bit differently.
Unfortunately, this is one we inherited.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. A question. You said
you negotiated with the water management in West Palm Beach
as well as the basin regarding some type of help in the payment
of this. But I didn't hear whether they were responsive to that.
MR. FEDER: Okay. First of all, let me clarify if I wasn't
clear. Relative to West Palm Beach, we were talking about
possibly some modifications to the design that would pull us
more on the south side so that we didn't have to create as big an
Page 32
April 24, 2001
issue of slope protection or even a more gradual slope treatment
that would have been less expensive, if you will. Because of
water quality, they couldn't work with us. That's what we dealt
with West Palm on.
As far as the cost and sharing the cost issues, we dealt with
Clarence at the Big Cypress. And as I noted, Clarence agreed to
bring to his board a request at the half million in support of the
project. And I'll defer to Clarence on that. But he is -- he is
trying to be responsive, acknowledging the fact that this is an
important thing to be done now, and I think he agrees with that
assessment as well.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, this might be a good time to
segue to Mr. Tears, who is here representing Big Cypress and has
requested to speak.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. And while he's coming up,
Commissioner Coletta, to address part of your question, I have
been working with our county manager, Tom Olliff, and we're
preparing what we're going to call briefing -- a briefing book. And
as these things develop, commissioners are going to have a
briefing book so that a lot of these things you're going to get
briefed on. So it's just like if you're going to a conference.
You're going to have a page or two that's going to continually
update you on these so that when we get to the dais, you will
already have that information.
Now, it's evolving, and I know Tom is working very hard to
get this together for us. And, of course, Norm has taken -- as --
as Jim Mudd did, they've inherited some things, and they're
trying to sort through it. And I guess they're like we are. They're
on the Discovery Channel every day saying, "Hey, wait a minute.
I thought I had this under control." But every time they turn to
something in the past they find that there may be good news, but
Page 33
April 24, 2001
there's a lot of bad news. So I think it's one of these things that
we're going to go through a transition period, and we're in it, and
we've got the privilege of dealing with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I just hope that when we leave
this, we leave our successors with a better condition than we're
finding.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If we don't, we better move out of the
county.
Mr. Tears.
MR. TEARS: Clarence Tears, director of the Big Cypress
Basin, South Florida Water Management District. You made a
couple comments about the cooperative agreement. The -- the
original cooperative agreement originally stated that the county
would do the channel maintenance, and the basin would be
involved in the capital construction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The county would do the what
maintenance?
MR. TEARS: They would do the excavation of the channels,
and the basin would do the capital construction, which was
structure improve -- structural improvements, anything related to
water supply. Then that agreement -- John Boldt and I
discussed, well, the county at that time wasn't funding John's
budget.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. TEARS: So the basin was making the channel
improvements anyways through our capital program and through
our budget. So then in this latest agreement, John Boldt and I
discussed, well, seeing that you're unable to do that through your
funding mechanism, we'll do the maintenance of the channel.
And that's where we started doing the excavation, the
Immokalee Road, Cocohatchee Canal. We made a 25-year storm-
event system. We spent over $10 million on that channel.
Page 34
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just tremendous improvement
and the most -- really, one of the most important things --
changes that's happened in this county is when you took that
over because we desperately needed it done.
MR. TEARS: Now, in this project I brought it up to the
county. I think I even wrote you a letter probably a couple years
ago.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You did.
MR. TEARS: And it was based on the cross sections
because I had cross sections of this whole channel. And we
actually shifted the prism to the north because we didn't have
enough right-of-way on the south side, which is right adjacent to
your road. So we shifted the whole canal prism to the north
because that's the only way we could get the 25-year storm-
event system. So basically when we're talking about this right-
of-way, we have about a third of the channel is missing, and then
there's some erosion into the county's right-of-way.
You know, I'm under the understanding this is a road-
improvement project, and you have water-quality issues. You
know, I tried to talk with the county in the past of trying to push
everything on the south side, have all your water quality there,
and then pipe it into the canal from that point. But the cost and
the timing -- you know, you're always pushing to get these
projects done a little quickly, so there's a timing issue. And so
the only opportunity that you have to provide your water quality
is on the north side of the roadway, and you have to stabilize the
bank to provide that. If you don't, what happens is you'll have all
this erosion, and then all the improvements that we've made to
provide the 20-year storm-event protection will be lost. And
that's where we get into the stabilization of the canal bank.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then why isn't that, Clarence, a
maintenance obligation? Why isn't that maintaining what you
Page 35
April 24, 200t
have constructed there, which -- which under the new agreement
is basically the basin's job?
MR. TEARS: Well, right now we don't have a problem with
the channel. We did -- we did our whole cross-sectional
improvements to the north.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's falling off. I mean, it's
eroding. It's filling itself in as it crumbles, tumbles down the
sides.
MR. TEARS: A lot of the erosion is currently some of your
road -- road segments don't have on-site retention. So when it
rains you get the sheet flow that flows to the canal, and it finds a
weak spot, and you start to have the bank eroding. The county's
been out there many times repairing the bank, and that's why I
raised the issue. I said, you know, "This current system that you
have isn't working." And so they went back -- and, you know,
your staff has been extremely cooperative. They went back to
the engineers and said, "We need to design something that will
last" because your operational side is always going out there
repairing the bank.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, I believe this is classic
Project Management 101 between agencies to work this out.
And we had outside consultants. We also -- I know Karen Bishop,
you know, tried to get --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who worked for free for years.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- tried to work with us. What I would
think that the board might be able to do here, with your
permission, is to -- let's establish some sort of a project
management team here, some relationship where Mr. Feder and
Mr. Tears -- they're separate agencies, but can we -- this is
probably only one instance along these networks that we need to
be addressing. I rather get us out here in the future and
anticipate instead of being reactive, and we're not -- at this point
Page 36
April 24, 2001
we're trying to move from reacting to anticipating, and we just
have to do a much better job of anticipating as we move through
these expanded road systems, because you can't do it
independently is what I hear both of you gentlemen telling us this
morning.
And whether someone has the channel or somebody has the
banks, at the end of the day is now it's going to cost us 3 million
more dollars, taxpayer dollars, to fix the situation which if we'd
all had our lights on back in the past -- and it's not these people
that are here this morning, ladies and gentlemen. It has been
past people, for whatever reasons, did not do what needed to be
done, and those people are no longer here. And I just leave it at
that.
MR. TEARS: What you find is you -- you just have limitations
on right-of-way, and everywhere you're looking to widen the
roads there's limitations. You have a channel or you have some
other obstructions or limitations.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that's a big message to us for
the future. We can't limit ourselves. We have to anticipate if you
have all this in there, what is the future going to demand for
right-of-ways? We need to get those now as we go through
whatever we're doing instead of playing "Oh, my gosh, we missed
that."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we had --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we're going to be out here doing
that in the future.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we had surveyed the bank
before we used the 1991 plans to construct a road, we would
have found out that the dirt was no longer there, and we would
have moved this drainage to the south side where it belongs.
And we would have culverted it, and then we would have had a
beautiful little linear part going along Immokalee Road. This is --
Page 37
April 24, 2001
that horse has long left this barn, and we can't solve that now. I
trust the Big Cypress Basin Board to be fair and honest with us
and to -- to work out a deal that is fair. I hope it's more than a
half a million dollars. The $3 million we have to acknowledge --
you know, this isn't -- this isn't new money. This is coming from
the Livingston Road project, which is only a year and a half or so
out. So we're going to have to find this $3 million somewhere
else in about a year. So, you know, it's tough.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me go to Mr. Olliff, and we'll move
forward.
MR. OLI. IFF: Just trying to wrap this item up a little bit, I
think you heard from your staff that this is a critical project that
needs to be done. There's no avoiding the fact that it needs to
be done. That -- the bank stabilization and some other work
along that canal just -- it just simply has to be done today.
But in addition to the staff's recommendation here, I would
suggest that you direct us to go work with Clarence and the Big
Cypress to try and clarify the agreement and the maintenance
responsibilities on some of those canal systems, because it
should be a lot simpler than, frankly, it is; but that we also
negotiate what should be a fair share because, in essence, some
of that responsibility is ongoing maintenance. Some of it is the
responsibility of us adding more asphalt and simply putting more
water into that canal, and that should be our responsibility. But
trying to determine what is the fair share for that, I just think we
ought to go ahead and direct Norman and Clarence to get
together, and let's work out a separate funding agreement for
that.
But like Commissioner Mac'Kie says, this is one of those
that because of construction schedules we need to go ahead and
do it now and then work out what is the fair-share funding
agreement between these agencies afterwards and direct us to
Page 38
April 24, 200t
bring back the funding agreement as a separate item for you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve the
staff request with the additional condition that we revise and
clarify our agreement with the Big Cypress Basin Board --
cooperative agreement between South Florida Water
Management District on behalf of the Big Cypress Basin and
Collier County, that we clarify that agreement, and that we
instruct staff to work with the basin staff to work out a fair-share
agreement on the cost of this, but that there be no delay. We
start the work now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: May I add to that and we would
expand into the project management framework between the
agencies to anticipate future situations before they happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm counting on it. Tom's already
doing that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Make sure it's there.
everybody understands.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Agreed.
Make sure
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Do I have a second to that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. A second by Commissioner
Fiala. Questions by the board members?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have any speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But Clarence wants to say
something.
MR. TEARS: Just one last statement is just realize that the
basin budget is only $7.8 million, and we're maintaining 164
linear miles of canal and 40 water control structures and trying
to do a lot of capital projects within that 20-year time frame, and
it's challenging. So just realize I have a very limited budget, and
Page 39
April 24, 2001
I have a lot of goals that are already on the plate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Clarence, we all may be
raising taxes this year, so line up.
MR. TEARS: Well, the governor is requesting us to cut back
5 percent. So I may have -- based on the current growth, may
lose about 10 percent of my projected millage, just to let you
know. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to -- you know, I'm going to
support this because the benefits are there. L. et's do it now
versus paying more later. That, to me, is the big issue here,
along with the other things that are in the motion. So I call the
motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #8C1
REPORT ON REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FOR LONG-TERM
AND COMPLEMENTARY SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT FOR
COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED AS OUTLINED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY W/AMENDMENT
That moves us to public utilities, progress report for
information, RFI, for long-term and complementary solid waste
assessment for Collier County. Mr. Mudd, good morning.
MR. MUDD: Good morning. Commissioners, I'm Jim Mudd
for the record, public utilities administrator. What we're here
today to -- and we're right on schedule. We promised you in
December and then in January and then in March that we'd come
to on the -- on the 24th of April and give you an update on the
request for information for high-tech solutions to the solid-waste
Page 40
April 24, 2001
issues in Collier County. That's what we intend to do today.
We have sent out a request for information, and -- and we've
got that information here. That information has come to us as a
response to ads. It's come to us in letters to commissioners that
have been forwarded to us with additional information. It's come
to us on telephone calls and contacts to the staff. And it's come
to us by us writing letters to certain firms asking them if they're
interested, if they hadn't replied and they do have a technology
that's proven. We want to share that with you today.
And some it isn't technology, okay, because we -- we've
asked the Camp Dresser McKee Group to go with us to Glades
County and analyze their landfill operation at the request of their
landfill operator, their public utilities director. And we've done
that, and we'd like to give you a briefing today.
And so we have two consultants here with us. We have
Malcolm Pirnie represented by Robert French, and he'll lead it off.
And then we have Robert Hauser from Camp Dresser McKee here
to talk to us about the Glades process, and he'll blend right in
after-- after Robert French is done. And then I'll finish it off with
where we go from here. Without further ado, if you -- if you hold
your questions, we'll start this presentation.
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chairman, Honorable Commissioners,
good morning. For the record, my name is Robert French. I'm a
senior engineer with Malcolm Pirnie, Incorporated. I'm very
pleased to be here this morning to walk you through this -- this
very important first-use steps in evaluating long-term
technologies for the solution to -- to Collier County's long-term
solid waste management program.
To remind you of a few current facts regarding the solid
waste program in Collier County, during Fiscal Year 2000, Collier
County generated more than 541,000 tons of municipal solid
waste. The United States census bureaus reported that during
Page 41
April 24, 200t
the years between 1990 and 2000, Collier County has grown at a
rate of about 65 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't have to remind us of
that.
MR. FRENCH: I'm sure that I don't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can appreciate you not
reminding us.
MR. FRENCH: I suppose I'm reminding myself as much
because, for an engineer, this is a phenomenal growth rate. This
is -- you face it every day. It's more unusual for me, and it is
certainly a phenomenal rate of growth.
Collier County has not yet achieved the -- the goals
established by the State of Florida in, I believe, 1994/1995 to
recycle approximately 30 percent of the municipal solid waste.
Also, waste reduction and waste recycling improvements have
already -- are already in the process. Some of this you heard
about a few weeks ago as a result of the negotiations with Waste
Management and programs that are being implemented within
their -- within their collection contract to improve recycling and
improve waste reduction.
There are -- there are a finite number of long-term -- potential
long-term disposal options available to Collier County: Certainly a
new landfill outside -- outside of Collier County is one option; out-
of-county hauling, we received proposals looking at hauling as
far away as Georgia and the Carolinas; waste-to-energy, we'll
talk about several different types of waste-to-energy processes,
including mass burn, circulated -- circulating fluidized bed, and
other waste-to-energy processes today as we go through this
process; and ancillary technologies, including waste reduction
and recycling.
What should the county do for long-term disposal? Well, the
decision-making process is fairly straightforward. First of all, we
Page 42
April 24, 200t
have to find out what technologies and management practices
are available in the waste management industry. We have to get
that information from the waste management companies as to
how their products and/or services could benefit Collier County,
and we have to analyze these results and find out what solid
waste options would be best suited for the county.
And that leads us into this RFEI process, requests for
expression of interest from the industry. As Jim Mudd said
earlier, Collier County over the past few years has received
numerous solicitations from waste management technology
vendors interested in providing all sorts of -- of solid waste
management ideas and technologies to the county. Additionally-
- and as a result of that in part, Malcolm Pirnie was asked to
prepare the advertising, evaluate responses from nonbinding
requests for expression of interest, to organize these
technologies, and be able to evaluate them and present them to
you for evaluation.
Now, the RFEI process, requests for expressions of interest,
is a very preliminary investigative step. It's less formal than
more conventional requests for proposals as it leaves -- it leaves
as much flexibility as possible to the vendors of solid waste
management technologies. The goals for the RFEI process
include certainly informing -- informing all interested parties of
the county's desire to receive information regarding long-term
solid waste management options, to determine the viability of
the various solid waste options or evaluation of it, and to identify
those parties that possess the interest, the experience, very
importantly the financial capability, and also very importantly the
proven technology for the efficient long-term management of
Collier County solid waste.
We created a number of mechanisms to get the word out:
Certainly we -- we sent information to technology representatives
Page 43
April 24, 2001
that previously submitted information to the county; we used
companies that were known to Malcolm Pirnie that we've done
business with in the past in other communities throughout the
country; and finally, we placed an advertisement in Waste Age
magazine. It appeared in the December 2000 issue. It's a
magazine of general circulation throughout the solid waste
management industry.
As a result of these invitations, we received a total of 21
responses. The responses were varied and ranged from
multibillion-dollar corporations to single-item equipment
suppliers. Each RFEI response was evaluated and categorized on
the type of technology and the technology's targeted waste
stream and processing capacity.
Under technologies we broke it into two areas: Proven
technology or technologies that are commercially available and
operating on a large-scale basis and development. These are
technologies that are available but with either few or no facilities
currently in operation around the United States or throughout the
world.
But under the capacity categories, we also broke that into
two areas as well: One is the core -- the core capacity. This is a
technology capable of managing the majority of the waste
stream without any additional processing. So, for example, a
landfill would take the bulk of the solid waste from Collier County
and process that material. A waste-to-energy plant would be
considered core. It would take the majority of the waste stream.
A MRF facility, clean MRF or dirty MRF facility where it would
only take a portion of the waste stream would still have to rely
on a core disposal technology to handle the -- the final bulk of it.
So we broke it into two areas: Core and ancillary, ancillary being
these technologies that are applicable to a portion -- certain
portions of that waste stream and rely on other processes, for
Page 44
April 24, 2001
example landfills, to manage the remaining waste.
Now, I want to make some special notes on ancillary
technologies. Any long-term solid waste plan for Collier County
that is to be successful will rely on -- will rely on at least one
core technology but also on one or more, and perhaps several,
ancillary technologies. I don't think there's any question in
anyone's mind that -- the importance of recycling and other
ancillary technologies to the long-term -- to the long-term,
integrated, solid waste program for Collier County. However, the
design and role of the ancillary technologies cannot be
completely determined until the core method of the waste
management is selected, and ancillary technologies will play an
important role in the county's long-term solid waste plan, but will
be addressed at a later date.
What we're trying to do here is select the core technology
first. I want to assure you that we have not forgotten nor will we
be ignoring the ancillary technologies in the future. These
ancillary technologies will, in fact, be a major part of the
county's overall program. It is -- for purposes of our discussion
today, however, we want to -- we want to focus on the core
technologies first and then bring the ancillary technologies in.
So this is -- this slide represents a list of ancillary
technologies and recycling technologies and developmental
technologies that were submitted by several of the vendors, and
this shows the range from -- from thermal separation systems to
landfill gas utilization to glass recycling to container recycling, a
whole variety. Once again, these are ancillary or recycling or
developmental technologies.
Now, landfill gas recovery, we wanted to bring special
attention to this. The benefits of landfill gas recovery deserves
some special considerations for the following reasons: There is
some uncertainty about the future of landfill gas tax credits,
Page 45
April 24, 200t
therefore some uncertainty as to the long-term viability of landfill
gas options that we might be considering. Additionally, there are
potential conflicts between the odor-control measure that we're
implementing at the landfill now and long-term landfill gas
recovery.
The agenda of these two technologies is a little bit different.
Our focus right now is on eliminating the odors.
Certainly we're going to be looking in the future towards landfill
gas utilization but not at the expense of creating odors. And the
potential -- the potential impacts of landfill gas recovery on other
core technologies -- depending on what we select as a core
technology, we may find that we can utilize the landfill gases
currently generated there in one of these core technologies. If
we've already given it away or the given the rights away or sold
those franchise rights for the landfill gas to some other vendor,
we may be in a position in the future to have to buy them back.
The proven core technologies represented by the response
to the RFEI are represented by these six companies: American
REF-FUEL; Browning-Ferris in conjunction with Seminole Gulf
Railroad (sic); Covanta, which is formerly Ogden Martin; Foster
Wheeler Power Systems; Superior Waste and their parent
organization, Onyx; and Waste Management and their subsidiary,
Wheelabrator Technologies. Excuse me.
American REF-FUEL has proposed to develop, own, and
operate an appropriately sized waste-to-energy facility to
manage the county's waste. They currently have six waste-to-
energy facilities in operation in the United States and have
stated in their response that it would take four to five years to
construct and begin operation of a waste-to-energy facility.
Because there are a couple of waste-to-energy facilities that
have been proposed, we wanted to show you a cross-sectional
view of a typical waste-to-energy facility, mass-burn facility. But
Page 46
April 24, 2001
since I think most of you have already had an opportunity to tour
the Lee County waste-to-energy facility, which is a mass burn
plant, I won't spend a lot of time right now going through this.
BFI and Seminole Gulf Railroad proposed to haul Collier
County's waste to a landfill in Harris County, Georgia. The waste
would be loaded at a -- at a local transfer station on to 62-cubic-
yard containers. That would be trucked to a rail transfer facility
located somewhere in the Naples area -- and I believe it's the
North Naples area -- where the containers would be loaded on to
flat cars, rail flat cars, for transport up to Georgia. The setup for
this would take 6 to 12 months. Total cost would ultimately be
50 to $60 per ton as proposed by BFI/Gulf Railroad.
Covanta, formerly Ogden Martin, has expressed interest in
Collier County. They have proposed to construct and operate an
appropriately sized waste-to-energy facility to manage the
county's waste. Covanta currently operates 28 waste-to-energy
facilities worldwide, most of which are in the United States, but
worldwide operation. Their response indicated it would take four
to five years to construct at a total capital cost of 150 to 200
million dollars. This amount is in the range of other proposals for
the mass burn waste-to-energy technologies.
Foster Wheeler Power Systems responded stating that they
would propose to construct a waste-to-energy facility as well.
It's a little bit different than the mass burn-type facility in that
they would use refuse derived fuel. They would take the solid
waste that's collected as it's collected, bring it into what we
refer to as a dirty MRF, materials recovery facility. In the dirty
MRF, ferrous materials would be separated out. Nonferrous
metals would be separated, and other recyclable or
noncombustible materials would be separated. The remaining
material would be shredded into a form that we refer to as RDF
or refuse derived fuel. This fuel would then be shot into a -- into
Page 47
April 24, 2001
a circulating bed -- fluidized bed incinerator with a boiler
generating electricity and presumably, because the material
would have been processed up front, produce emissions that are
substantially improved over a mass-burn facility.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I promise I won't interrupt again.
But they will take the recycled stuff out, and then that's shipped
off, and so you've got a recycling effort plus a waste-to-energy
effort.
MR. FRENCH: Well, that's true. The front end of this it what
we call dirty MRF. It pulls off recyclable materials. However, in a
mass-burn facility, that same activity frequently occurs at the
back end of the plant. The ash coming off a mass-burn facility
will go through recycling components as well. In Lee County, for
example, pulling off the ferrous metal first and then the
nonferrous metals and -- and potentially screening it for other
residues in the future that might be -- that might also be
recycled.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But you have more up-the-stack stuff
to deal with.
MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to call it up-the-stack stuff,
stuff to burn. You've got more to deal with than the one you've
just described.
MR. FRENCH: That is the claim by Foster Wheeler, that their
process, the circulating fluidized bed, is a cleaner burning
process than the mass-burn facility and consequently produces
less emissions. Now, we have not verified that yet, and certainly
in our recommendation we're going to want to verify that before -
- before the county should consider it or make a decision on it.
Superior Waste and their parent organization, Onyx, have
proposed -- actually, they made a dual proposal. They proposed
that they would haul Collier County's waste to a landfill in
Page 48
April 24, 200t
Valdosta, Georgia. They also proposed that they have the ability
to construct a waste-to-energy facility to manage the county's
waste. The rail-haul setup would take 6 to 12 months and would
have a total cost of about 42 to $55 per ton. Construction of the
waste-to-energy facility would take four to five years and cost
195 to 205 million dollars, roughly.
Waste Management and their subsidiary, Wheelabrator, also
made a dual-type proposal. Certainly they made their proposal
prior to the negotiations that we recently went through with
them, but basically they were saying that we would propose to
expand the landfill to capture the remaining capacity within the
existing footprint, but through Wheelabrator they would propose
to construct a waste-to-energy facility, once again a mass-burn
facility. It would take about four to five years, and it would be
150 to 200 million dollars. Wheelabrator is incidentally the
contractor for the McKay Bay waste-to-energy facility in Tampa.
It's a renovation of the older -- the older facility there, so
certainly they are capable of doing
waste-to-energy plants as well.
Now, in addition to those six technologies or six vendors
that we just went through, which are -- which are proven core
technologies, we would propose that there may be two others
that we would want to keep active. One is Brightstar
Environmental. They are -- they are actually a developmental
technology, but they offer Iow cost and have expressed an
interest in the county.
The other is Bedminster Bioconversion. They did not
respond, but we are aware that they are doing a number of
composting facilities with municipal solid waste and wastewater
sludge throughout the United States. The Bedminster
Bioconversion, as I said, is -- combines municipal solid waste and
biosolids, biosolids being primarily wastewater sludge. The
Page 49
April 24, 2001
company does have extensive experience, with 14 facilities in
operation in 4 different countries. The entire process is
contained within preengineered metal buildings or metal
digesters primarily to contain -- to control the environment, to
completely control the environment.
I won't take up your time now to walk through the entire
process, but basically both the municipal solid waste and
wastewater sludge is mixed in a digester. It's screened, then
composted. It's screened again. The -- the ferrous -- ferrous and
nonferrous metals are removed with magnetic separators and
eddy current separators producing a compost product. The
compost product is either sold then or given away as the final
disposal. This is a fact sheet on -- on one particular Bedminster
system. This one is in Tennessee, processes some 220 tons a
day of municipal solid waste and a 110 tons per day of -- of
wastewater sludge.
The other -- the other one, Brightstar Environmental
that we've referred to earlier that we think we should maintain
active -- or continue to consider, Brightstar is an Australian
company. They've proposed to develop, own, and operate a solid
waste-to-energy and recycling facility for Collier County.
Their facility is comprised of three processing stages.
The first stage is basically an autoclave where the solid waste
stream is fed into the autoclave under high pressure and high
temperature. Steam is used to -- to rip open the bags, to shrivel
plastic bags, thin-film plastic bags, also to stabilize any organic
material that has already started to decompose. And high-
pressure, high-temperature steam, rather than being wet as a --
as a tea kettle would be or a pot on the stove, high-pressure,
high-temperature steam actually has a drying effect, so it would
tend to evaporate some of the moisture in the solid waste.
From there, the -- the material goes into a dirty MRF.
Page 50
April 24, 2001
Recyclables are separated out, and remaining organic waste and
remaining waste goes into a -- a gasifier. Actually, it goes
through a pelletizer first. They process the waste more. It goes
into a gasifier there -- then where it is heated. Elemental gases
coming off it are drawn off that. It goes into a gas turbine
generator set where these elemental gases are burned as the
fuel to generate electricity and generate the heat to keep the
process going.
It is a Iow cost. As -- as was proposed, it's a fairly
Iow-cost option. And while we classified it as developmental,
there is a facility that has been constructed in a town called
Woolongong, Australia. It's about 70 miles south of Sidney,
Australia. It is less than 200 tons per day but certainly is a full-
scale plant. It only started in operation on February 7th of -- of
this year, so we don't have a lot of current data, but we feel it
represents technology. It has promise of perhaps being
considered for Collier County in the future, certainly being
considered and evaluated with some of these others. This is a
flow schematic of the Brightstar process. This is the facility in
Woolongong.
So in summary, there were a total of 21 responses to the
RFEI process. Of those 21, 11 were proven technologies
currently in operation, primarily in the United States, but around
the world as well. Six were found to be proven core
technologies. Core being handling the majority of the waste
stream; proven that we -- that they are up and operating in other
parts of the country.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask you a question since
you're on your summary page? What is the difference between
11 proven technologies and 6 proven core technologies?
MR. FRENCH: The 11 proven technologies included some
ancillary technologies that are also proven.
Page 51
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like?
MR. FRENCH: Such as recycling, MRF facilities, that were
not -- they are not core technologies but are very important to
the future of solid waste management -- integrated solid waste
management in the county but are not core.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So in other words, 6 would -- 6
are significant enough to handle the majority of the waste, but 11
have alternatives that could handle part of our waste stream.
MR. FRENCH: Right. For example -- for example, the landfill
gas utilization. Companies -- in fact, companies that have
expressed interest have operating facilities as close as Orlando
currently generating electricity being sold into the grid. Those
are proven technologies, but once again, that's ancillary
technologies.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what we're going to get from
you, though, will be a menu, I hope, of, you know, take -- here's
your core technology, but it'll only have to deal with 60 percent
of your waste stream because we're going to do these four other
ancillary technologies. Is that where we're going?
MR. FRENCH: That is exactly right. That -- that is the
direction that we are going right now. We're narrowing it down.
What we want to identify first and continue to present to you
until -- until we can present you with enough information for you
to make a decision is the decision regarding the core
technologies. Then we can add -- and that will -- I mean, you may
have hit the nail on the head. That may represent 60 percent of
the -- of the waste stream, but the other 40 percent of the waste
stream very likely will be handled with -- with C and D
processing, recycling facilities, with -- with container and fiber
recycling facilities that are -- or a recycling facility that will
process the fiber, paper, and the containers, aluminum, glass,
and plastic containers in the county.
Page 52
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But why do we have to make
those decisions separately instead of at one time?
MR. FRENCH: Well, for example, some of the technologies
involving waste-to-energy provide up front a dirty MRF. The dirty
MRF itself is a recycling program. You pull out as much of the
recyclable materials there as you possibly can. That certainly
could affect the type of clean MRF that you would want to
consider or if you would even want to consider a clean MRF in
conjunction with a dirty MRF --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my--
MR. FRENCH: -- because you're basically pulling the same
materials.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My evaluation of a waste-to-
energy facility that comes with a dirty MRF might be affected by
whether or not a clean MRF could work with it or would work
better with a landfill. I mean, I need to see cores and ancillaries
together to make --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think that's what he's saying,
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I think he's saying the
opposite. I think he's saying he wants us to make a core
decision first, and then he'll tell us what menu of ancillaries is
available with that core.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what we're going to do -- you got
to get -- no matter if you're going to do recycling -- for instance, if
you're going -- I'm Jim Mudd, public utilities administrator. If
you're going to do -- if you're going to do recycling, for instance,
you're going to reduce, okay, you're going to recycle, and then
you're going to reuse. Okay. Part of that process is there's a lot
of public participation in that, okay, as we heard from the joint
venue that we had up with Lee County. And whatever they come
-- people come here for sunshine, surf, and sand. Okay.
Page 53
April 24, 200t
I'm not -- those are the three S's. I'm not too sure they come
down here for the three R's, but by God, we're going to try to
teach them to do that. So we'll provide you with that -- that
process on core, but you have to make a decision on core
because no matter if you go into a -- completely composting and
other things, you still have residue at the end that you have to do
something with.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But is there -- is there -- is there
one core technology that's better served by certain ancillaries
and vice versa?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So won't --
MR. MUDD: And when --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I need to know that?
MR. MUDD: And when we give you the cores, we'll also lay
on the ancillaries and give you a -- give you a generic list of those
ancillaries in the front that you're going to have to have in order
to get to that core. And we'll try to put a price tag on that for you
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent.
MR. MUDD: -- so that you've got that process. But I will tell
you that will lead you in lots of different directions, okay, as you
start to see that. So what we're going to try to do is lay the
cores on and then lay down a reduction regime in the front of
that so that we can reduce the cost of that core at the end, may
it be a landfill, may it be a waste-to-energy plant, may it be a
composting facility, may it be a fluidized bed process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But basically what you're telling
us today is we have -- we have a lot of choices -- or we have a
variety of choices, anyway, on ancillary. But basically on core
we burn it or bury it or haul it away.
MR. MUDD: Or you could compost it.
Page 54
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Compost all of it?
MR. MUDD: You could compost a great portion of it, and that
was one of the technologies that we showed you there in the
process. Now, with composting you have to deal with -- you have
to deal with the odor issue, and you have to deal with a facility
that totally contains it. So -- and that's one of the things we'll
talk about. Let -- can we -- can we -- we'll let Bob get to it, and
then I'm going to end up, and then I'll take all your questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to have him finish. We need
to go to break.
MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to have you finish, sir, and
then we'll take a break before we go to the second part because
it's now 20 till, and I'm looking at my court recorder, and she's
giving me that look like, "Hurry up, guys."
MR. FRENCH: We'll wrap it up. To continue as a summary,
there are several ancillary technologies that will be of interest to
the county to address specific components of the waste stream,
and we'll see to it that those are brought more to the forefront as
we continue with the -- with the process. And there may be
additional companies. In fact, we're reasonably sure that not
every company that has technology available has submitted a
response to Collier County or to us, and certainly we'll keep that
door open up until the -- the final hour, until we finally have to
close the door.
Malcolm Pirnie's recommendations to the county are to
request additional information from those six vendors that -- that
we went through plus the two additional vendors representing
two additional technologies that -- to keep -- to gather more
information to allow better evaluation on the part of the board.
We would propose that we do this rather quickly. And, in fact, I
think -- I think Mr. Mudd is going to tell you that we're going to be
Page 55
April 24, 2001
back before this board in June with this additional information if
you approve of this plan.
Additionally -- and the purpose of this is to better
define the business plan and assess the level of interest of these
vendors and also to better define the proposed costs and
revenues associated with these -- with these processes. And we
would propose that this will be certainly coming back to the
board, presumably for a final determination, at the end of June of
this year.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's time for your break.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: And then we'll get into the Glades County.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. And when we come back,
if you have other questions for this gentleman, then we'll get to
the second part. Thank you very much. We're in recess for ten
minutes.
(A break was held.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We're live, ladies and
gentlemen. We're back continuing our presentation by Mr. Mudd
in regards to our options on waste-to-energy. Good morning.
MR. HAUSER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait a minute. Our options on
solid waste disposal, not necessarily waste-to-energy --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we -- can we back up to the
previous --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in my humble opinion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- previous presentation so we
can maybe narrow the list down for our consultant to look at?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not ready to take anything
off.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't think that's where we're
supposed to be today, but go ahead, Commissioner. I think this
Page 56
April 24, 2001
was a presentation letting you know what the options are, and
they're going to come back with spreadsheets to tie this
together. But I may be wrong. Mr. Mudd.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. Then I just have a
question about one of the ancillaries. MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question is the biodiesel or
landfill gas-to-energy, is that at the present site, at the Naples
Landfill using that technology?
MR. MUDD: That's what they -- that's what the
recommendation would be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So --
MR. MUDD: You'd have to be -- you'd have to be near the
facility in order to get the gas off.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then my question -- the second
question would be, who is responsible for the odor if we bring on
this kind of technology at the Naples Landfill?
MR. MUDD: Sir, we're ultimately responsible for the odor
issue, but I will tell you there will be -- there will be some
stringent requirements on the firms. If that becomes an ancillary
technology that -- that this board decides on in June that they
want to get in combination with others, the odor issue -- you're
going to see one of the grading requirements is social. And
under social you'll see it has everything to do with noise, odor,
and issues like that that these different technologies will be
graded on. And if they're -- odor is an issue in any of them, okay,
because it is such a highlighted situation here in Collier County
because of the past, that that's going to be a very, very big thing
that we look at as far as control of that to make sure that it --
that we don't have a problem in --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just tell you my concern.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 57
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you bring somebody on line to
-- alternative technologies to -- for the gas, which I think is a
great idea, you've got Company A doing that, and then you have
Waste Management out here dealing with the day-to-day
operations and the odor. Then you have finger pointing. Then
you have the residents pointing the finger at the county. So
that's what I want to try to avoid. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other questions by
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have one comment that I
talked about on the break a little bit with their consultant, and
that is in Lee County they are recycling about 40 percent of their
waste, and we could beat that, and then recycling could be our
core technology. I mean, I want recycling to be on the table as
something more than ancillary. If Lee County can do 40 percent,
we can do that. Why does 40 percent not qualify as a core
technology, recycling?
MR. MUDD: Because you still -- it's doing 40 percent. You
still have 60 percent on the other end. And no matter what we
do, no matter what the requirement is in this process, we are
going to have a hefty recycling process in the front of it to
reduce the volume that we ultimately have to do something with
at the end, may it be landfill, waste-to-energy, composting,
whatever it is. You're trying to reduce -- reduce it before you
have to treat it or bury it or whatever, and you want to pull it off
the front.
Ma'am, we're doing -- we're in the middle of drafting a
-- a commercial ordinance, mandatory recycling. We're in the
process
of -- of finishing the contract with our two haulers to increase the
Page 58
April 24, 2001
amount of recycling that they take on the curb side. And I will
tell you there isn't one thing that was laid on you today as far as -
- as far as core technologies is concerned that isn't going to have
some kind of a MRF facility, dirty or clean, or whatever you want
to call it, that pulls off that stuff before you finally get down to it.
If it's railing it out of county and taking it to Georgia, then we
want to reduce the amount that goes out to reduce the cost of it.
If it's using our landfill or another landfill in Glades County, you
want to reduce the amount that you have to landfill and to -- and
to reduce, to recycle, and then reuse what we have in this
stream is the first part of any strategy that we put together in
that process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Jim, I'd just like to ask
one quick question, and that is although the recycling has been
approved and you're going to try and get them to begin taking in
a greater number of items for recycling, cardboard, styrofoam,
magazines, when is that program going to begin, being that you
know you're already going to do it?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, we're trying to get the contracts
finished. Okay. We've -- I've seen one draft. We're on the second
draft right now. Then I've got to send it over to the -- the two
contractors to make -- because we -- you asked us to put stiff
penalties in there, too, by the way, and there's some stiff
penalties for -- for not doing what they're supposed to be doing.
And so we've got to hammer that through. We're hoping that by 1
June we're rearing to go with that process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. If we may, let's
continue. Good morning.
MR. HAUSER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Page 59
April 24, 200t
Bob Hauser with Camp Dresser & McKee. The solid waste
department asked us and requested Camp Dresser & McKee to
look at the potential of a landfill in Glades County, and for that
purpose we looked at two options: One was a short-term option
utilizing the existing landfill that Glades County has, as well as a
long-term option of a new landfill site in Glades County.
In terms of the short-term option, we were looking at
the existing Glades County landfill, which is -- consists of about
40 acres and receives about 20 to 25 tons a day, which is a
couple of orders of magnitude below what -- what you have. In
looking at that landfill, we looked at how we could maximize the
capacity at the existing landfill by filling it as high and taking as
much of the footprint of the site as we could. We were looking
for the short-term option of handling about 250,000 tons per year
or about half of the Collier County waste stream, and we assume
that the solid waste from Collier County would be transfer --
hauled to a transfer station up to Glades County.
In looking at the -- on the short-term option in looking
at the existing site, if that site were to be receiving solid waste
from Collier County at the rate of 250,000 tons per year, it would
have a life of about 3 1/2 to 4 years. For Glades County it has
about 80 years, but for that amount of waste going in there, it
would be 3 1/2 to 4 years.
We're looking at one transfer station that would be
located somewhere in Collier County. And we're looking at the
total annual landfill cost, which includes the capitalization of the
-- of all the equipment, the construction work that would have to
be done, setting up the closure funds, the long-term-care funds
that are all required, and all them costs. On an annual basis, it
would cost about 6.8 to $7.4 million a year at the landfill. The
transportation cost to get the waste up to Glades County would
be about 5.3 to $5.6 million per year, for a total on the short-term
Page 60
April 24, 200t
option of about 12 to $13 million or about 48 to $52 per ton on
the short-term option to go up to Glades County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just ask you, when you're
talking about how many tons, is that -- is that with the amount of
tonnage that we have today, or would the new, more ambitious
recycling program --
MR. HAUSER: Right now, as I understand it, Collier County
has about 500,000 tons per day -- excuse me -- tons per year that
are generated in the county. For the purposes of this analysis for
the short term, we assumed that half -- about half of the county's
tonnage would go up to -- to Glades County.
On the long-term option, we were looking at a new
landfill site in Glades County. This is completely conceptual. We
didn't -- we didn't look at the first -- first inch of space, just made
an assumption that a landfill site could be found in Glades
County. And we were looking at a site that would handle 500,000
tons per year, just as a number that we used, and again, transfer
hauling the waste from Collier County to Glades County. We
looked at approximately about a 500-acre site, just as a number,
and it would have a site life, if it were handling about 500,000
tons per year, of over 50 years. So it would be a very long-term
site at that rate of fill-in.
We also looked at two transfer stations that would be
located somewhere in Collier County. As opposed to one big one,
you'd have two good-sized ones. Under this option the total
annual landfill cost is about 7 to 7.8 million. You notice it's not
that much higher than the smaller landfill, mainly because under
the small landfill -- the smaller, short-term landfill, all of the
capital costs, the closure funds, everything had to be capitalized
over a very, very short period of time; whereas this is a larger
landfill with a long life, and they could be capitalized over a much
longer period of time. We estimated transportation costs at
Page 61
April 24, 2001
about 11.4 to $12.2 million per year, for a total under the long-
term option of about 18 to $20 million per year or a cost per ton
of about 37 to $40 per ton. And that's -- that was the end. Mr.
Mudd.
MR. MUDD: The staff recommendation that we've got here is
to flush out some following long-term options, and you've seen --
I'm Jim Mudd, public utilities administrator again, the change of
voice. And there's -- there's the eight that are at the top, and
that's what Robert French had talked about in his presentation of
the 21 that he's got it down to. And then the last one is
Glades/Collier County landfill. I want to make sure that we bring
the Glades/Collier County landfill to the top, on the dais, to your
attention instead of talking to you out in the hall or whatever
because it's another county, and we need to make sure that
we're up front and everything's on the table so that they see it.
We've talked to the staff. We've gone up and we've done
a visit. But there's a political solution that needs to transpire,
and we would like to -- we would like to initiate that formally with
their commission so they're fully aware of what we would like to
do in the future, and I'm going to need your help in order to do
that. But we want to make sure it's up front, it's on top. They've
got a -- a short-term landfill problem. They want to fill their
landfill up and they would like to figure out a different alternative
to get rid of their waste because their land -- because they're so
small, they got a lot of overhead, and their tipping fees are quite
high, because it's a small population, about 10,000 residents.
And we've heard that there are a couple landowners that
would be -- would entertain the idea of selling land to us for that
process, but then, you know, I heard conversations like, "Well,
we'll have to get it rezoned. We'll rezone it with the commission,
and then we'll bring it" -- I said, "No, no, no, no. Let's do this up
front," because that -- that just gets you in a bad term of things
Page 62
April 24, 2001
and makes enemies of two counties that need to work together
for the better part of Florida. So that's why we lay it up here.
What we've done is we've talked with the staff. We have
made no formal agreements with them. We want to make sure
that if we go into any kind of long-term arrangement, that you're
fully cognizant of that and their county commission is fully
cognizant of that and their taxpayers are -- are willing to
entertain that idea. So that's there.
Now, as I mentioned to Commissioner Mac'Kie before as we
looked at these options, you know, there's some things we need
to take a look at the criteria. And there's no one thing by it itself,
okay, that does it all. You've got to recycle, okay. Even if you
landfill, you've got to recycle to minimize the volume that you
landfill. If you recycle and you decide to do waste-to-energy or
one of those technologies, you still have to bury the ash
someplace, so you still need a landfill. Okay.
So there's no one thing by it -- I guess maybe the
landfill by itself can do it. If you've got an infinite amount of land
that you can keep using and you control the odors and things and
you get away from the populous, you could do that all by itself,
but that's not necessarily the best thing that we can do with our
natural resources. So recycling is a big part of that, and
educational process with the populous is a big part. And then it -
- then there's a series of things that run through that.
But no matter what we do, we got to evaluate it on
economics. We got to evaluate it on environmental impacts. We
got to -- we got to analyze whatever recourse we do in June on a
social aspect to make sure we've got the odor and the noise and
that isn't a problem for the future and we don't get ourselves
where we are today or where we've been in the past. We need to
take a look at efficiencies in productivity. Yeah, you might have
an option, but you got to do one place here, and then you got to
Page 63
April 24, 2001
move it down the road to the next place, and that might cost you
a lot of money with the -- with the efficiencies. You need to take
a look at that.
And then we got to talk about a siting issue. That gets
into Glades County or Valdosta, Georgia, or wherever, you know,
one of those options are. So you've got to -- you've got to think
about that, and you also have to think about the ramifications
from the folks that are finally going to receive it at the end. And
those are the things that we'd be analyzing as we look at that
process and we present to you at the last meetings in June.
What -- what we would like to do and what the staff
recommends -- and I think there are speakers -- Mr. Olliff, I think
there are speakers on this. But the staff recommendations are to
initiate additional information and go out there and look at those
parties so that we get it -- those pieces of information on
environmental and we know what their emissions are if it's a -- if
it's a fluidized bed from Foster Wheeler or a mass -- a mass burn
from Wheelabrator. We take a look at that pro -- we get that kind
of information. We get their economics to get a little tighter than
a hundred and fifty to two ten, and we can -- we can narrow that
down a little bit so we can figure out exactly what the impact is
on an economic scale.
We want to request cooperation for a potential
partnership with Glades County. We need to put that up on top of
the table and inform them we would like to talk to them about a
long-term landfill option in their county.
We would like to get the staff to be authorized to
prepare an expert panel discussion in early June for you, prior to
the 26 June, so that we can talk about composting and waste-to-
energy and talk about different ways of doing that. We could
bring those experts here to you in a panel discussion and let
them -- let them do their opening remarks and go through that
Page 64
April 24, 200t
panel. And then you can go at them with questions, or they can
go back with rebuttals between each other, and we can get a
better idea of the pros and cons with this process so we put it all
out on the table for you.
We need to have authorization to bring those experts
here and to pay their expenses so that they can participate in
that process. And we're looking at a couple of days now: 5
June, 11 June, and 12 June. It looks like 11 June is starting to
ferret its way out, so -- as the prime date, but we're going to firm
that up in order to do that.
And then the other thing that I need to do, because it
represents 70 percent of the stuff that comes into our landfill
right now, is we need to initiate a request for information to take
a look at long-term C and D yard waste and recycling stream
management. And the C and D and the yard waste are 71
percent of what we bring in. We have to figure out a better way
of doing that, and I need to focus into that a little bit more as we
go through this process so I can -- I can broaden that and give
you all the different answers for our June meeting.
And those are our recommendations and subject to your
vote, but we've got --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sure the commissioners may have
some questions. In regards to -- to Glades, I understand if -- I
don't want to raise false expectations in Glades County, but I
think what you're saying is we just want to enter into a
discussion.
They're fully aware we're looking at a lot of other options, and
this may be just one. So that's -- I don't have a problem with
that. That's a 50-year life, potentially, on the landfill. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would ask in that discussion with
them, would we have a hold-harmless clause of what goes into
Page 65
April 24, 2001
the landfill? Would we -- would this be a sole dedication to
Collier County and Glades? I'm sure Glades wants to put theirs in
there, but would we be competing with other counties to fill this
up in a 50-year cycle? I have understood from past presentations
we haven't sited a new landfill in the State of Florida since 1991.
That may be not true, or there may be some questions around
that, but that would be a big issue. And also, what road system
would be used to truck or transfer -- let's say truck, because I
guess that's how it would go -- up to Glades, and would that road
system be able to accommodate what we have to do? Those
would be my concerns in that discussion.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And those are all the things that we'd
have to discuss in order -- before we ever came to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let me go to Commissioner
Coletta and then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. A side question,
as we're talking about the Glades being that I don't have a map
in front of me, I was wondering if it just happens that the Glade
(sic) is in the path of the -- of the sheet flow-way that we're trying
to repair and -- and improve. And in any way will this -- will these
big mounds interrupt this flow-way, or is that being taken into
consideration, or is that in another--
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that would all be part of the siting
process as we deal with them to make sure that you put it in the
right place. You don't put the -- you don't put it -- the landfill in
the middle of a swamp. We hope not. So it's one of those things
that we're going to have to take a look at with them. And then
you have to do willing sellers and that process. In no way,
shape, or form would this be an eminent domain kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
Page 66
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. In the summary of
the short-term option, that says the estimated per -- cost per ton
is 36 to $40 per ton. Is this taking into consideration present fuel
cost? How would that escalate? Suppose our -- they're talking
about fuel going to possibly $3 a gallon for gasoline this summer,
and I would assume that diesel fuel would also go up. Would this
-- how would this dramatically increase the cost of what we're
dealing with if we have to have it hauled over this long distance?
MR. HAUSER: The costs that you're looking at were done on
present-day -- present-day fuel costs. And, yes, if fuel costs were
to double, it would probably add another couple bucks a ton to
that. You know, the fuel is part of the cost, but it's a big part of
it. It's probably -- if the fuel costs were to double, it would add
cost -- I haven't got the exact numbers right here, but you're
looking at another couple dollars a ton. Overall the fuel cost
probably -- of that option probably only represents, you know, 10
percent of the total cost at the most, I'm guessing. I mean, that
would be high. Everything else is capital, equipment, men, labor,
everything else that goes into that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I kind of hope when we get
down to the -- the end and we're looking at the last scenario of
possible events that could take place, that we take into
consideration the Iow and the highs on all cases so we can make
a judgment decision based upon what it may be -- if fuel goes up,
it's going to affect everything across the board, all these
different possible choices -- and who it's going to impact the
most. Other than that, I don't have any other questions right
now.
MR. HAUSER: We'll get that in there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, I -- I
appreciate your concern about liability, and that's being very
Page 67
April 24, 2001
responsive being a board member, but I -- I must remind
everybody here that we have a liability right here in Collier
County at the Naples Landfill. It's how we process it to reduce
that liability. And also, if the board decides to haul out of county
into Glades or Georgia or Alaska or whatever, is -- is we can
reduce that liability and tag that on to the hauler instead of the
county, have the hauler hold that liability. I just wanted to throw
that out there.
This morning I had an interesting conversation with one
of the members of the Landfill Operations Committee. George
Yilmaz, our solid waste director, asked the committee members
if they were interested in looking at the long-term options. Am I
correct, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I thought that was a great
avenue to bring the public into the -- this process, and I think it's
very important. So possibly if we could give staff direction into
looking at that option of having that committee look at our long-
term options.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We've already -- we've taken this to the
productivity committee. Another committee ideas -- the more
ideas, the better off we are.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other questions or comments by
commissioners?
MR. OLLIFF.' Mr. Chairman, you've got two public speakers.
The first is Bob Krasowski followed by Gary Burris.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, Commissioners. My name is Bob
Krasowski for the record. It's nice to see you today. There's so
much involved in the issues before you on -- today in regards to
solid waste management. It'll -- it's difficult for me to touch on
everything, but I'll just touch on a couple of main things.
Today I speak to you as an independent citizen speaking
Page 68
April 24, 2001
singularly in my own position. But as was announced on Earth
Day, we're in the process of forming Zero Waste Collier, which is
an organization that will be working along with national and
global organizations in the effort to reduce waste to nothing. Of
course, that's quite a goal, but in the attempt to reduce waste
through various methods, a lot can be achieved. This
organization will look to -- in the future to work with our solid
waste department and the Department of Environmental
Regulations, State of Florida, and other national organizations as
I have been doing in the past couple of months with pretty much
all your encouragement, especially the encouragement of Mr.
Coletta, Commissioner Coletta.
There's some main -- main things -- five minutes I have,
so I can't get too carried away. First, I'd like to say, as I'd
mentioned to Commissioner Mac'Kie at the break, I have some
diagrams here from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection that shows Lee County's pie diagram on Lee County
solid waste flow: 38 percent is recycled, 37 is combusted, and
then another 25 percent winds up in the landfill not being looked
at for either method. This makes combustion smaller than
recyclables.
So what Commissioner Mac'Kie said -- according to the
definition of Malcolm Pirnie, core technologies are those
technologies capable of managing the majority of the waste
stream for a given community without any addition processing;
examples, landfill and waste-to-energy facilities. Well, landfill
might qualify, but in this case recycling is above waste-to-energy.
And even when you burn stuff you generate ash that has to go to
a landfill.
So this beating down of recycling at the -- at the
expense of promoting waste-to-energy is something that people
should not tolerate. We have people sitting in the audience
Page 69
April 24, 2001
listening to this said over and over again, and it's just not
accurate. We've got the press sitting in the back, and they're
writing down and reporting this to the community, and it just
doesn't -- the facts don't support it.
Also, I'll make the comment if you do agree to do this
workshop that I've been begging you for for months and have
Dr. Connett come and participate, I request that you do not take
any conclusive action, including the recycling collection
finalization, signing of that contract, until that issue as well as
others is discussed.
The reason Collier County has an embarrassing, dismal 20
percent recycling rate is partially because previous
commissioners -- not you, previous commissioners -- have opted
for the method of recycling collection that we have today. Waste
Management will do what you ask them to do. They're under
contract. I believe they honor their contract requirements. Now,
if we have to redesign the collection of recyclables and want to
put into a clean MRF, you have to adjust your method of the
collecting recyclables. So, please, let's wait until we have all the
information in.
As part of the effort of Zero Waste Collier, we'll be
making presentations similar to this very fine presentation that
Mr. French made today, but we will have placards and boards
describing the options starting with reducing waste and
recycling and composting. There's no need for an incinerator.
Two hundred million dollars for what? I hope everybody that
supports an incinerator after all is said and done is going to
explain what you're getting for 200 million -- I won't even go that
far -- for $150 million. I hope you're ready to explain that
because the taxpayers are paying for it. It's a tax. It might be in
a different form, but it's a tax to handle the solid waste
materials.
Page 70
April 24, 2001
Zero Waste Collier will be going to every district in
this county, and we will be making these presentations. We'll
compare it to the high-tech solution, the incinerator, and we'll
compare it, as well, to what's going on right now in Collier
County. And we'll invite each -- each commissioner in his district
as we go there to come along and listen to this and give it as
much time as you've given to this very nice, high-tech Malcolm
Pirnie report. Also, I'd like to request that I be notified when the
people in the landfill committee that Mr. Henning was talking to
get together with the solid waste department because I'd like to
know what they're being told as far as what their options are.
I hope you have read or at some time in the near future
will read the two papers that I've provided for you and the staff
from Dr. Connett -- authored by Dr. Connett who will be
participating in the June workshop if that's what you decide to
do. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bob, before you go away.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Bob, you made one
comment that I wanted to go over a little bit. I appreciate very
much all the time that you're putting into this. MR. KRASOWSKI: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're becoming quite an
authority on this.
MR. KRASOWSKI: It takes practice. But I have been putting
time into this, and I'd like to thank my wife who allows it to go
on,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll personally thank your wife
right now.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bob, listen, you made a
comment about recycling that made me a little bit nervous, the
Page 71
April 24, 2001
fact you want us to hold off on moving forward with it. I'm at a
loss with that. Can't we go forward? We've got a very aggressive
recycling program on the -- ready to move forward. If we hold it
off, that's that much less time we're going to have to start trying
to recover what the mistakes are in this system. If we went
forward with it, can't we add to it and build on it later rather than
hold it off till June? I'm really not too excited about that part of
it.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I would suppose if within the contract
document -- and I hope the citizens get to see that thing before
it's signed. You've all discussed it. It's had the public airing.
But up on the board, the last thing that was on the board, that it
isn't -- it isn't in existence unless it's signed or whatever the
wording was on that. If there's flexibility in there to do that -- but
we might want to go to the most effective way of recycled
collection which is single stream, where everybody puts
whatever can be recycled in one trash can, dry, clean stuff; and
then put all the smelly stuff in the other one. And that changes
your proportions enormously.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that, Bob, but
we're talking about an interim there that could run into six
months, a year, or longer while we get something together like
that.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, but you're talking -- you know, and I
just came to the realization not too long ago that I'm not going to
live forever. And the last time I was up here talking about this
kind of stuff was 15 years ago.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We definitely got a time line here.
MR. KRASOWSKI: We got a time line. Exactly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I appreciate, Commissioner,
your -- I'm going to support going forward and not delaying. But --
but one of the things that I've seen happen to -- to me in the past
Page 72
April 24, 2001
on this board is that you can get boxed in so that you don't have
any flexibility when a better idea comes up. We've got this 20-
year contract, and we'll have to -- as soon as it's over, though,
we'll look at this great idea. And that's what I think Bob's
warning us about.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You're looking at--you have, like, three
years left with your Waste Management contract as well now.
I'm sure they're flexible. If you decide you want to change it,
they'll negotiate. But you're going to put another two years on
the end of that, so then you're five years out. To function
properly in a zero waste type of program, you want to attack
immediately your recycling, and then you want to reduce waste.
Reduce waste is first. You go around and talk to
everybody. "What's this you're wasting? Why are you doing
this?" There's a whole -- I can't go into that now. I will at a later
date; before June I'll come in front of you. But to -- to lock us in --
you know, if it can be flexible and open, say, "Well, continue
what you're doing; add these other things." And then we want to
talk about --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In addition.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. But, see, every -- every ton you
take out of the landfill, you're taking away from Waste
Management because you're paying them to put the -- you know,
and by extending the life of the landfill, we're lowering their
annual profit. What if we reduced -- cut our waste in half? Like,
more than half is C and D stuff. You know, I mean, once we see
the numbers -- if we cut our waste stream going to the landfill in
half, then, you know, it's not to their benefit to participate in that.
They're losing money. You can't ask business guys to lose
money. So we have to be kind of open and flexible. And then
after June we'll have a better idea of what we can do. And I'm
sure whatever you do, Mr. Olliff can implement it because he can
Page 73
April 24, 2001
do just about anything.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, thank you, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Mudd and then our next speaker.
MR. MUDD: Bob, just hang on for a second to clarify one
thing real fast. Don't mix the contracts up. Bob mixed them up
just a little bit because they're easy to mix up. One's the
collection contract. Okay. And collections will -- if you go to
single stream and you decide to get the organic stuff in one and
then everything that's separable in other different places -- glass,
bottles -- and you start separating that at your back door prior to
getting it out to the curb, yes, there will have to be a change to
the collection contract.
The landfill contract is for 21 years. Okay. It was
signed in 1995. Okay. You are not extending that contract. You
are amending that contract, okay, to do cover and some things
for odor control. It's the collection contract that we're talking
about extending an additional three years to give them a total of
five years from I October of this year.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, it's the collection contract
that I'm primarily -- as far as our success in recycling.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When will we see the -- will the
actual contract itself with the collection contract's extension
come back to the board?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we'll have the opportunity
then to make sure that it gives us the flexibility to get more
creative in our recycling efforts? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Mudd, our time frame for that contract.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: We'd like to get it -- we'd like to get it to the
Page 74
April 24, 2001
board here sometime around the middle of May and get a -- a 1
June start, so it'll be the last meeting in May that we'll come
back to you with -- with the time to approve or disapprove that --
those contracts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And perhaps as we go would be
useful.
MR. OLLIFF: Chairman, your next speaker is Gary
Burris. Mr. Burris will be your last registered speaker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Mr. Burris.
MR. BURRIS: How you doing? A couple issues. On -- on the
odor problem, I've been to a number of the biodiesel refineries,
and the only odor issue that ever came up was from the
production of glycerin, which is not proposed here. That's when
you take the leftover waste material and make four or five
thousand different products from it. That's not proposed here.
And the other thing is that -- that the BTA process --
one of the Canadian companies that I've brought this proposal,
fully funded, the $26 million -- seems to have fallen through the
cracks. It's not in this proposal. What we had proposed is
coupling this system, biodiesel, in a -- in basically an airtight
building which will eliminate the odor. It's successfully done in
Canada.
I was a little late, but I was told that the -- that
grease trap waste couldn't be dealt with, which is incorrect.
There are five facilities in the Pacific basin. The largest one in
Maui went on-line about five months ago, and they power the
entire facilities from grease trap waste. They take the cleaner,
yellow grease and make the fuel out of it. With $3-a-gallon fuel
prices projected, probably 2 or better for diesel, just from what --
the cost of making biodiesel from this process here, you could
save millions of dollars over the next few years, I mean, because
the price of fuel is going up. No doubt about it.
Page 75
April 24, 2001
And that's -- that's -- the main thing that I'm trying
to -- to get across is that if we combine certain technologies,
then -- and I see there's been a great deal of progress here with
considering such as composting. But one thing that I have heard
is that there's a worry about the compost, not being able to use
it. I met with three farm groups over the last three days
representing tens of thousands of acres, and every one of them
was very willing to use this stuff to rebuild soil. You put it -- mix
it with your sandy soil, you cut down on your water usage, and
then it becomes a benefit.
The other thing that disturbs me a little bit, that --
for how many years has a billion cubic feet of gas been released
into an atmosphere, and now I'm hearing that -- that we're not --
we're not sure if we're going to go forward with the proposal,
fully funded again, from Detroit Edison because you don't want to
give those gas rights away. But why all of a sudden when there's
somebody here ready to not cost the taxpayers a penny to do the
work to have that gas captured and the stink basically be
eliminated and do it within six to eight months, why is that now
sort of a back-burner thing? It's spend money, spend money, and
not solve the problems.
I'm against incinerators because I did some television
work years ago on what incinerators do with the feurons and the
di -- the chemicals that are released in the process that it cannot
eliminate. And with the drought that's under way, incineration
uses a great amount of water. And, you know, there goes your
golf course water if you go this route, which is not needed, and
that scares folks in this county, I think, if you take their water for
their greens away from them. I'm glad that there are some
things -- more meetings, and I would like the opportunity for the
people from Hawaii and Canada to come and, face to face, show
you what they're ready to propose.
Page 76
April 24, 2001
In my career as an activist, I've also produced
documentaries for years. I'm working on one right now, make a
living sometimes. I'm a volunteer, as you know. I would like to
propose a documentary on some of the technologies that are out
there that you don't really know what they are. You want to have
people come and talk. In a few weeks, we could have a
documentary go to these different locations and pop it in there,
and you can see what we're talking about or what's good or
what's bad.
You know, I've got credentials. I've worked for CNN,
been funded by the EPA a number of times for films. I think that
would make everybody a little bit more comfortable if that's
something that we could put on the table. It's not a great deal of
funding to do it. We have our own equipment. You know, my
frustration is people don't really understand. I mean, I -- it took
me a while to understand how these processes work. Now I
think that one of the problems is the misunderstanding.
And I really -- you know, I'm -- I agree with this man.
We're to the point that we can't -- we can't keep spending
people's money to burn a resource. We are talking about a
resource out there. Just from what -- your system, we can
produce 66,000 tons a year of -- and here's a quote: European
compost meets the tough requirements for unrestricted compost
use. The CCF process that we're proposing is even more
stringent, one step below organic, meaning it can be used on any
food crops. And at 66,000 tons a year, that's a lot that can
rebuilt into the soil because we are working in drought
conditions.
In meeting with these farmers today, they told me
clearly, "You bet. This'Il trap water. We put plastic over it. We
can cut our water uses down 20 or 30 more percent." So those
are some of the things that I'm continuing to do. But as I say,
Page 77
April 24, 2001
this process fell through the cracks. It's not here even though I
submitted it, and I would like to resubmit this process and invite
these people down.
And I would also consider -- and I'll be speaking with
you guys in the future -- to do a documentary. We could get
something done by the middle of June if we started fairly quickly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your
comments.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
MR. BURRIS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- your biodiesel proposal is
the one that City of Naples is --
MR. BURRIS: Yes. They're ready to use biodiesel on all their
vehicles.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I don't understand what
happened to that one. I really had hoped to see that one on the
list.
MR. BURRIS: It was sort of on the list, but it's still
-- I'm hearing that -- that why -- why let Detroit Edison come in,
invest the money, and pay you for the rights to that gas because
they may want to use it for some other purpose after all these
years at the landfill when we've already put how many billions of
cubic feet in the air. I mean, that can be solved in a very quick
period of time with the biodiesel and -- and the money that you
can save because, believe me, I follow what's going on with the
oil industry and this $3-a-gallon thing. One of these days it's
going to come and it's going to stay. Twenty years ago in Europe
it was the same way. We were paying $4 a gallon over there
then. So we are very lucky because our fuel is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe that we -- part of the
proposal is biodiesel. Mr. Mudd, is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Biodiesel is part of that ancillary stuff that we
Page 78
April 24, 2001
wanted to talk about as far as what we're going to do with
grease. We went to the Lakeland plant. Commissioner Coletta
went. Ray Smith represented my department when they went up
and did that, and they also went to Orlando to take a look at
what they're doing with the gas retrieval system. For instance, if
you decide you want to do waste-to-energy, again, I've told this
commission before and I've told everybody else, I have -- I have
no iron in this fire at all. I just want to come up with a good
solution for this county, okay, and I think that's what you want to
do, too, as we do this.
If you do waste-to-energy, one of the initiations you're
going to need is a fuel to get it cranked up and to keep it burning.
That's gas in that hill. And that's why we've basically said as you
decide what you want to do, you don't want to get yourself
locked into something that you're going to regret. It would be --
it would be a shame if you decided -- if you wanted to go to
something that needed an energy source, to have already given
that energy source up, to have to go find a fossil fuel someplace
or a natural gas thing, and pay money for -- at twice the rate that
you're basically using on the other thing.
And Captain Burris has got some good ideas and we've
investigated it. We haven't thrown them out. The Canadian
composting thing I've talked to our folks and said we've got to
figure out where that went and how it fell through the cracks.
We'll get that back up on the -- in the process again in order to
take a look at it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So both of these are going
to stay alive in the review process. That's what matters the
most to me.
MR. BURRIS: I'm not critical of Mr. Mudd. I told him earlier I
think you ought to give him a raise and give him a bigger stick,
because he's getting stuff done and is not afraid of the
Page 79
April 24, 2001
developers and people who would like to keep doing status quo.
We can't do that.
And the one thing that troubles me is that with the --
Toyota Accords have now been killed, which if you look at all --
the Nobel laureates are saying that's going to escalate what's
happening to this planet from -- you can go to NOAH's Web site.
In 50 years this county will be under water at the present rate of
meltdown of the poles. I mean -- and I say that, and I talk to
scientists, and they tell me that, and I see the data. Why is it
continually ignored?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, can we move
forward, please?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Just waiting for the man to
finish.
MR. BURRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. BURRIS: And I will submit more data.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Mudd, do you have any closing
comments for us?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I've got the four staff recommendations, and
I -- I'm going to have to get some kind of movement from the -- it
doesn't have to be voted on. I just need to get your direction to
make sure we're going in the right direction on this thing, if
there's any add-ons that we need to have as we go forward over
the next two months in order to bring people on. I guess I am
going to get -- I'm going to have to get you to give me authority to
bring the expert panel on and pay their way.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would move staff recommendations
and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- including everything that's there,
because I think in aggregate everything is being very well
Page 80
April 24, 2001
covered to take us forward to deal with all these critical issues.
I move the motion. I have a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Any discussion by the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one thing. We will be
addressing saving this grease, this restaurant grease, that Mr.
Burris has been talking about within this plan?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And Commissioner Coletta has told
us if we do an ordinance, he's -- he made pretty stringent ideas
that he would like to see in an ordinance that has to do with
grease, and no doubt we'll get at this grease issue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Grease king. All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we amend that to have the
Landfill Operations Committee and other interesting (sic) citizens
to work on the long-term -- look at the long-term solutions, Mr.
Mudd, and solid waste on this?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I accept your-- I accept your addition.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' And I assumed that was already
happening, but yes, I'll agree.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All in favor of the motion signify
by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you,
Mr. Mudd. Thank you, Malcolm Pirnie. Thank you -- well, you
know who you are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CDM.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: CDM for all of your input and for the
participation by the registered speakers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Camp Dresser Mac'Kie
(phonetic), now that I'm a partner, I'll expect my check.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just one little note on that item
Page 81
April 24, 2001
before we leave it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a joke.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm not going there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a joke.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because of the name Mac'Kie
instead of McKee.
MR. OLLIFF: I believe we've gotten a single date in the
month of June when Dr. Connett is available, and our office is
going to be working with your staff. But if -- perhaps, before you
leave today, if you could maybe just touch base with your
assistants and see if you are available for that date so that we
could try and nail down that panel discussion date, it would be
helpful.
MR. MUDD: That's 11 June.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 11 June. Miss Filson, will you check
everybody's calendar? Before the end of the day we'll get you
that answer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See what we can move if
necessary because that -- we need to hear from him.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Is that going to be a workshop?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that going to be a workshop?
Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. That's the proposed panel discussion
workshop day.
Item #8G1
RESOLUTION 2001-167 REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY'S
SUPPORT FOR G. PIERCE WOOD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. That will take us to legal
counsel, I believe, because we're going to take the health -- wait
Page 82
April 24, 200t
a second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That Pierce Wood thing.
MR. OLLIFF: We have the resolution under 8-G-1,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Pierce Wood. Do we have a
resolution on that? Is that in front of us? Can we just move that,
or do we need discussion? Are there public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't think you need any discussion on it.
Primarily it's a request to fund the full cost of the transition plan
should they proceed with a closing of the G. Pierce Woods
Memorial Hospital. There was an original budget submitted to
the legislature on what it would cost to transition that same
amount of healthcare out into different, what they call,
catchment areas. For us that is the David Lawrence Mental
Health Center primarily who would be the provider. But that
request was cut in half as it moved along through the legislature,
and this is simply a resolution asking that they reconsider the full
funding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Mac'Kie, a couple of seconds on that. I will give it
to Commissioner Fiala. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
That takes us to the county attorney's report, 9-A.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, our attorney is not here at the
moment. Do you want to move past that and --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I will go to -- Commissioner
Page 83
April 24, 2001
Henning, how long do you think your item will take this morning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten minutes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Perfect. Because I'm trying to get to
lunch between 12 and 12:30, and I would like to see if I can get
us down through to the point where we can come back to -- we
can open to public comments in the afternoon and then go right
to our public hearings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to move down to the
overhead.
Item #10A
STAFF DIRECTED TO COME BACK W/AMENDMENTS FOR
REQUIRED ORDINANCES FOR SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR
DWELLING UNITS ON A COUNTY WIDE BASIS
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. We are at 10-A for those of
you who are following in the audience. This is a request by
Commissioner Henning. Do we have any public speakers on this,
Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I know there's one
because I spoke to him ahead of time. The man with -- he's
raising his hand.
MR. OLLIFF: On 10-A?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on up and tell him.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you haven't signed up, you need to
do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Commissioners, my name is
Tom Henning for the record, member of the board, and also been
Page 84
April 24, 2001
accused of being a civic activist. As you can see in your packet,
there was a survey done in Golden Gate of code enforcement
needs. The top priority is housing occupancy. And so I went and
took a look out in the community -- not just in Golden Gate, but
other areas in Collier County -- and in seeing is it an isolated area
just in Golden Gate, or is it all around the county?
This picture is, I believe, in East Naples. And as you
can see, there are -- well, you cannot see, but there are -- I wrote
down here there are seven vehicles in one occupancy, one home
in that one.
And I will move on. This also is in East Naples. I
couldn't get all the vehicles in -- in the picture, but there are --
there are six vehicles in that one. And --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And this is not a spring break group,
either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. These -- I worked with code
enforcement to identify some complaints from our constituents
in neighborhoods. Again, this is off of Bayshore Drive.
This is -- this next picture is the only one that was
taken in the Golden Gate area, and those are seven vehicles at
that one residence.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
MAC'KIE: Is that a single-family home?
HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's odd that they would have a
parking lot along the side like that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the side there -- it's grass
area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
right there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HENNING-'
Oh, they're parked on the grass
Yes.
It looks like pavement.
And that's another thing that I
Page 85
April 24, 2001
would like -- that hopefully we're going to address is parking on
improved areas. Here's an example of parking in -- in the grass
area and also in the easement.
And here is a picture of a responsible resident
improving this property and providing parking for his family.
There's four vehicles at that one residence.
And then one more is -- I believe that is in -- on
Bayshore. So what I'm asking the board to do today is give staff
direction to take a look at the ordinance and correct it. Also,
take a look at creating an ordinance to parking on improved area
in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It that a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do I agree with you. We -- we had a
cleanup in Naples Manor this weekend. And while I'm at it, I just
want to say many kudos to you, Michelle Arnold, and to Jason
who was there at seven in the morning and was still there at five
in the night collecting this stuff. He worked oh, geez, above and
beyond the call of duty.
Anyway, back to -- while we were riding around, we saw
many of these houses. We saw more. And I thought, boy, that's -
- and by the way, Michelle, I love the way you've been giving
these citations with regard to code enforcement and then
enforcing it and fining them. Good for you.
Anyway, back to this thing again, I would love to work
with you on this in any way that I can. I fully support it. And I'll
make a motion to support whatever you are doing here in this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Hold it. I don't know. We need staff
direction here; right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're directing staff to do this
at this time.
MR. OLLIFF: I need to make sure I understand what the
Page 86
April 24, 2001
direction is, and I think--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What do we need to do here,
Commissioner? I think it's great. I want to know what you would
like us to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I would ask my colleagues
to do is give staff direction to take a looking -- look at amending
the housing occupancy ordinance to curtail it to what it should
be instead of what is written, which -- how it's written today is, is
the first occupancy is 150 square foot. Thereafter, the second
occupancy is a hundred square foot. So actually, in reality on
these what we see out there in these existing neighborhoods is a
house that's 1200 square foot -- that's a affordable house.
Theoretically, you can have 11 people living in that house, and
what we're having is shared spaces by roommates. That's what
a lot of this -- by the way, that is North Naples.
So that's -- I guess I should cut it short. To direct
staff to take a look at the ordinance to see it can be changed or
should be changed. Also, to take a look at if we create a
ordinance to park on improved area instead of grasses and in
swales.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I appreciate that this is an
issue we need to do something about. But what I'd hope we'd do
is give direction to staff to come back with their professional
advise on how to solve the problem, because two thoughts come
to mind: One is, when we, in the unincorporated parts of the
county, passed an ordinance that said you can't park your work
truck in front of your house, people in Golden Gate, in particular,
went crazy, I mean, were very angry with us. And we barely
passed that anyway because of the importance to the property
values. I'm concerned that we may have a similar reaction from
people in Golden Gate and other areas where they want to be
Page 87
April 24, 2001
able to park their cars at their houses. And then -- but I'm willing
to listen to staff on whatever recommendation they have for us.
But the second thought is, you know, we don't have any
affordable housing in this county to speak of, and I'm not ready
to tell people that they can't share a house, that two families,
you know, roommates can't live together or something to try to
be able to afford to live in this county. So I'm not ready to
change, you know, what the square footage requirements are.
I'm not sure that's the way to address the problem. I'm willing to
look at it, and I may be in the minority, so it may not matter.
But I want to look at a solution to the neighborhood
degradation that results from cars parking haphazardly all over
the area, and I'm willing to look at what is a safe amount of
people to live in one home. But I'm not really willing to -- if what
we're worried about is what it looks like from the street -- I don't
think we have a health/safety concern about whether or not it's
safe for -- a hundred square feet is enough for a person in a
house. I think we're more worried about what it looks like from
the street. And I'd like to give staff direction to solve that
problem -- tell us how to solve that problem, with the caveat that
scares me because, good Lord, when we said don't park -- park
your box trucks and that kind of stuff in the driveways, they
turned out in force. So I wonder what the reaction will be when
we say don't park the four cars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me address some of your
concerns. This picture, this is Naples Park. There are six
vehicles there. Let's just suppose that there are (sic} one person
just driving that vehicle. Living at that restaurant -- that
residence, you have -- no, I'm sorry. That's five. So you've got
five living there, working people, let's assume. And the rent is,
say, on the high side, a thousand dollars a month. That's $200
per person. I think that's pretty cheap living.
Page 88
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do too. But I don't want to -- I
don't want to make them not have that option. I think that's --
they ought to be able to live there for 200 bucks a months if they
could not degrade the neighborhood by making it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the backs of our existing
neighborhood, and that's what's happening.
MR. OLLIFF: One the issues that has always come up
perennially in code-enforcement issues is not so much when
you've got four or five people as much as when you end up with
what, in essence, is dormitory-style housing in single-family
residential neighborhoods and the impact of just that number of
people in a single-family neighborhood. And I think we're trying
to address that issue on some of the amendments that we bring
back, because I don't think that's what your single-family
neighborhoods were intended to be.
But I think the direction that we're being given is to
come back with some proposed ordinance amendments for you
to consider, and this is certainly nothing that's going to become
law today. But you will have some items to consider later on in
the way of some actual language amendments, and then we will
then be able to look at the pluses and minuses of those when
they're on the floor.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: And I would add, in working with staff on the
ordinance aspect, that we recognize that, as I call it, the legal
laws of physics apply, and usually there's actions and reactions
when things are changed. And we would look to bring back a
picture of what the proposals -- the whole picture proposals are
for law change, how we think they would affect the communities
throughout the county, not just in one particular sector.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And on the issue of parking on
Page 89
April 24, 2001
improved areas, I'm sure this is something that you are
anticipating anyway. You're not necessarily talking asphalt. It
might be crushed shell. It might be something else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, rock and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something pervious would be
better than impervious.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We have one public speaker?
MR. OLLIFF: You do. Mr. Robert Jenkins.
MR. JENKINS: Thank you very much. For the record, Robert
Jenkins. This -- what Mr. Henning is bringing out is very, very
important, and it shows the dramatic need we have in Collier
County for affordable housing. We have none. I do an internship
with a real estate company. I tried to pull up houses for under
$80,000, and there's nothing there; under 90,000, there's nothing
there. It started about $110,000, and that's where you -- that's
where affordable housing is. According to the county's plan
about the affordable housing and the SHIP program and the HAP
program that we have in place, a family of four living in Collier
County is considered Iow income at 52,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Guess what? We qualify.
MR. JENKINS: You guys are darn near there. So like I said,
something really significantly needs to be done. As far as
changing regulations, I think the existing regulations speaking to
family and the definition of family can be used. They really don't
need to do anything. Family is related by blood, law, adoption, or
marriage. So we already have things in place to counteract this.
But work hand in hand with the people of need. Being a
compassionate conservative, being that I am my brother's
keeper, we need to work with people to give them a hand up, not
a handout, saying we need to have affordable housing. We want
you to work here in Collier County. We also want you to live here
Page 90
April 24, 2001
in Collier County. We want to make that possible for you. And at
$7 an hour 40 hours a week that's, $280. And at $200 a month,
that's quite a chunk of money. So that's all I need to say. We
need to work with each other, and we need to help each other,
and we need to work together as a county, as a community, as a
family, extended family, to help each other. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to add, going right along
with that, I think this problem -- I'm glad you brought it up, Tom --
extends so much further. The reason we've got six and seven
cars in front of a place is because a slumlord will have bought
this place or built it 25 years ago for $12,000. He's now charging
each person in there $175 a week to live there, just making
money hand over fist, cares nothing about the conditions of the
place that they're living in. And in order for them to live there --
and many of them have to because either -- for some reason or
another, they cannot buy their own home, and -- and they're
forced to live in that type of condition and park that way. And I
don't know what can be done about that, but that's why I elected
to take this affordable-housing challenge from the county
commission side and work with that. And I'll be working with
you, too, Michelle. Thank you for letting me say that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta. Then I'll come
back to you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Donna, of course I'll support you
in that. You know my interest in affordable housing. A couple of
comments. And this may come as a little bit of a surprise, but I
don't want Immokalee left out of this. I want Immokalee to have
these rules apply there, too, and I think you'll find you'll have the
support of the civic association there. As bad as it may seem in
Golden Gate and East Naples and Immokalee, it's a travesty
Page 91
April 24, 2001
what's happening. And in order to be able to get affordable
housing, we've got to start moving forward. Hopefully we can
come up with an impact fee that will be enough that we can buy
land, make it affordable for affordable housing in all parts of our
county. As we go forward into this, let's keep Immokalee, too, on
the forefront, but let's -- let's schedule this to come together
maybe in several stages so we don't interrupt the living
arrangements overnight with the population that's using these
facilities.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Comments well taken. Yes, sir. I'll
give you one more --
MR. JENKINS: One more thing -. or a couple more
things. I will do the legwork if you ask me to. I'll volunteer my
time to help with this affordable-housing program. And also
about parking, I entertain quite a bit at my house, and I
sometimes have 22 to 23 people. They bring five to ten cars,
whatever the case. Would I be in violation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We're not talking about --
we're talking about residents.
MR. JENKINS: I mean, I entertain at my residence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're not really talking
about family type of residence. The conditions that we have out
there is roommates.
MR. JENKINS: I agree. Like I said, and that is a problem
that needs to be addressed, but it can't be a punitive type of
thing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think there's sufficient direction here
from the board. Commissioner Henning, thank you for bringing
that to us. And maybe this is something that we can incorporate
into our affordable-housing workshop as a piece of dealing with
all of these issues cumulative and manage it better. So thank
you,
Page 92
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just use this as a chance to
ask Commissioner Coletta sometime -- when Vince Cautero was
here, he had a great program for solving the housing problems in
Immokalee. Is some -- in his absence is somebody else taking
that on? Probably you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's a number of people
that are very active in this particular venture. Fred Thomas, to
mention one; Barbara Sharone (phonetic) is very much involved.
Paterno (phonetic) is also active with it. And I think we're going
to start to see some things taking place. We got some grants
recently to buy some land to be able to do this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd love to see, you know, sort of
an interim report on how that -- the time line for what we hope to
have accomplished when or start with mobile homes, etc.
MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. For the record, John Dunnuck,
community development/environmental services administrator.
Yes. We recently, a couple months ago, hired our Immokalee
coordinator who's working with our code enforcement, planning
services, and building review department. The program's going
pretty well. We're just now getting it off the ground. But, you
know, additionally, we're working with Jim Mudd and his group
as far as, you know, garbage collection and some of those issues
we're addressing out there. And it's a grass-roots campaign, and
it's under way, and we'll be happy to provide you an interim
report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the whole board would be
interested, it would be a good thing to put on our agenda, to give
us a report on that plan of adoption, because it was aggressive
and good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we having some kind of a
workshop on affordable housing?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, ma'am.
Page 93
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Soon?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I can't tell you the date, but they
know, and they will --
MR. OLLIFF: I don't have the date --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -. red light that on your screen.
MR. OLLIFF: I don't have the date off the top of my head, but
I think this was sort of a separate, stand-alone, Immokalee.
specific program because they had some very specific issues
that dealt more with mobile home parks and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Changing the codes.
MR. OLLIFF: -- code issues that affected that. And we'll
bring back a specific report on that, but we'll at least touch on it
as part of the affordable-housing workshop as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's good. Because even the
trailer -- we have some mobile homes in East Naples off Bayshore
where they're subdividing them into four different pieces and
renting each piece of that mobile home out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's third world.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The creativity of the entrepreneur. It's
not always good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Greed is what it's called.
Item #1 OB
RESOLUTION 2001-168 APPOINTING ROGER P. KASTEL TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's -- let's move to
Item 10-B, something we can do. That's in regards to appointing
a member to the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' We have two applicants for one
Page 94
April 24, 2001
position. They're both from District 1, so I didn't know if the
District I commissioner had an opinion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I -- I read them both, and I've
never met either one. The gentleman Roger Kastel seemed to be
very experienced, but the other man seemed to -- had worked on
it and would want to continue to work on it. I -- I didn't know if
anybody else had any information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Roger Kastel, I know him
personally, and he used to work for -- used to be Florida Cities
Water, very knowledgeable. I make a motion that we accept
Roger Kastel for the committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries, Mr. Kastel.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2001-169 RE-APPOINTING THOMAS BRISCOE AND
JEAN CARPENTER TO THE BAYSHORE AVALON
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Moving to the next item, which is appoint member to the
Bayshore Avalon Beautification Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In this case we have two
applicants for two positions, and I gratefully acknowledge the
conditions under which Mr. Briscoe continues to be willing to
serve and move both of their appointment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our sympathies to Mr. Briscoe on
Page 95
April 24, 200t
the death of his son.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Maybe we can put that in the letter
when we reappoint him and send our condolences also.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good idea.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2001-170 APPOINTING JAMES T. HORNER TO THE
RURAL LANDS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE -ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next one, appointment of member to
the Rural Lands Oversight Committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is one that's just near and
dear to my heart. I really tried to analyze what was -- what gap
there is, you know. And you could categorize the committee
members several ways. I kind of said there's four Immokalee
residents. There's one or -- one or two who are representatives of
the ag industry. There's four who you can broadly say are kind of
in the real estate business; banking, Realtor, planner. There's
two environmentalists. Then there's one who's a chamber
representative. And it led me -- and I don't know any of those
people, but it led me to this Leon Hesser because of his
background in agribusiness and economics. His resume was
very impressive. That's not a nomination yet in case somebody
else has other opinions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ty Agoston is just an ordinary
citizen, active in the -- in the community. I think that would be
great just to have a citizen on it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He's already on one, I think. I don't
know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, he is, and he's
doing a wonderful job on there. And I really don't want to stretch
him too thin. I appreciate what he's doing there. But this -- when
Page 96
April 24, 2001
I was going through the applications, I was very impressed with
James Horner in the fact that he is a professor that's specialized
in agriculture. He owns a farm.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He has economic background.
He knows about codes. He knows about zoning. He's a very
knowledgeable person. And if there's a committee that could
use someone with a strong background, it's this committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a little weak at the
moment. And that's why I would like to place Mr. Horner's name
in consideration.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's a nomination --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I would agree with that
because he was one of my -- I rated them all, and he was one of
my two number one's, so I would second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Looks like we've got someone here. I
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And interestingly, Commissioner
Mac'Kie, you and I had both picked Mr. Hesser because of a
resume. I know none of these people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me neither.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But I'd defer -- I'd like to defer to
Commissioner Coletta.
a motion for Mr. Horner.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any further discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
It is your district, and we have -- we have
We have a second, I believe, by
Page 97
April 24, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Item #9A
Opposed by the same motion (sic).
Mr. Horner's the new appointee.
KIMBERLY D. DALTON V. ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE AND RESCUE
DISTRICT, CASE NO. 99-534-CIV-FTM-29DNF - SETTLEMENT OF
$7,801 TO BE OFFERED
A?
All right. Let's see. Do we have the attorney back to do 9-
MR. WEIGEL: We do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm looking at him.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Could we go back to that point,
please, on the agenda?
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Pettit,
assistant county attorney. I brought back to you -- as you recall,
I think on March 27th, we had before us the case of Dalton
versus Collier County. Just a little bit of history. At one point in
time, the plaintiff in that case was demanding $125,000 from the
county.
She had dropped her demand to $30,000, and the board
authorized a counter of $7,801.
I think the board has now got the case in a position
where I'm relatively confident it can be settled for less than the
official offer that's before you today of $15,440. As you recall, I
think the last time we were here I made a recommendation that I
be authorized to settle at $12,900, and the board rejected that.
I'm here today simply looking to see if the board is interested in
making a counteroffer to the $15,440.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Didn't I see one in here somewhere
$9800 recommended by-- in a letter somewhere, or am I losing
Page 98
April 24, 2001
my mind this morning?
MR. PETTIT: The risk management department has
indicated no objection to a $9800 counteroffer.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm going to tell you, that's so
close to what I was going to recommend. I'll listen to the rest of
the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not excited about going
above the original recommendation. I think this is a frivolous
lawsuit, and we're setting a precedence by doing anything more.
In fact -- and I'm not going to make this a motion. But I would
like you to consider the fact that maybe we ought to offer the
same amount we offered with a ten-day contingency, and that'll
be withdrawn, and it'll be over with, and we'll be willing to go to
court.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to tell you, I'd support that
motion if it were one because, you know, the only reason we said
7801 is because we didn't want to say zero the last time. This is
a frivolous lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll make it a
motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. And what we're saying is that
we'll give them -- go back to the 7801, and they got ten days --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten days. Take it or leave it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: .- or we'll see you in another arena.
MR. PETTIT: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Should we vote?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We better vote on that. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
Page 99
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Item #10E
April 24, 2001
Motion carries 5-0.
ACCEPTANCE OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR
FEDER'S PROPOSAL REGARDING THE REALIGNMENT OF SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD
All right. That takes us back to Board of County
Commissioners, IO-F. Could we have that discussion prior to
lunch, and then we would be down to -- do we have a I O-F on
here this morning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. We're just at IO-E.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have a IO-F.
MR. OLLIFF: You have a IO-E and a lO-F, and you are to IO-E
now if you want to keep going down the agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. Can we -- I'm sorry. Refresh me
on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was Commissioner Henning on
the Airport Authority.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Can we do both of these before
lunch is what I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not starving.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many people do we have here on
I O-E for public speakers?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Santa Barbara.
MR. OLLIFF: Two registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Two or three? If you're not signed up,
you need to be signed up, ladies and gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if you want to make your
lunch plans, it looks like we're going to do the Santa Barbara
discussion, the Airport Authority discussion, and then go to
lunch.
Page 100
April 24, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For an hour, and then we will come
back, and we will be at the rest of the agenda. So if anybody's
around for the other, it's a good time for you to catch -- start for
lunch. All right. Let's go to 10-F, discussion regarding the
realignment of Santa Barbara Boulevard. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. I brought
this back up because we had discussed it previously, and -- and
Norm Feder has sent us a letter -- I hope all of you have received
it -- with a new presentation. I'd like to accept --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you're leaving the room, please be
quiet. Thank you. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Sometimes
they forget we're still in session.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to accept it as
presented and -- and give Norm orders to proceed with further
study, negotiate it, maybe adjust it a little bit, until it comes out
to be an acceptable roadway. There are some things, I'm sure,
that we still need to negotiate on it, but I'm -- I'm very happy that
we're moving forward on this. And I know that you -- especially
the two of you, have heard so much about it you'd just prefer to
just get it out of the way. And I think we're moving in that
direction now that we have Norm Feder working for us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Well, I agree with you,
Commissioner Fiala, and I'd really like to see us bring it to
closure so we can definitely deal with the situation and no one is
in limbo anymore.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' But the one thing we've got to be
careful of is, you don't quit one job until you have another job. So
we cannot give up -- you know, we're kind of-- no. I won't say
that. We cannot give up A and C until we know that we can fulfill
the contingencies that are in bold and underlined in Norm's
memo to us.
So I'm anxious to give him marching orders to go forth and
Page 101
April 24, 2001
cut that deal if possible. But I think because, number one, it's
reality and, number two, it's just good business, is we don't give
up what we have on the books until we know that we can meet
the second -- the contingencies to the second plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And there are some new
things that I would even -- as we're looking at these things, I'd --
I'd like to see Polly Avenue not extended to a six-lane but only a
four-lane but that'll be something we talk about. There's even a
new route that we could have that would continue all the way
down to U.S. 41 if we can solve some wetlands problems, and it
would be between the two Lely communities. And so it wouldn't
impact anybody's community at all, and it would take us right
down to 41. Norm and I were in a helicopter one day and flew
over the area, and it looked like the answer to the solution (sic}.
But that's something that we have to move on. But until Norm
has marching orders to move ahead to see what we can do -- and
that's what I'm asking of you-all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's realistic. What's
the time frame on this? Will we cut bait or --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I agree with you, Commissioner
Coletta. I'd like a time line where we finally say, "We've done the
negotiations, here we are, this is it." Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. First of all, a point of clarification. You asked me
to look at a recommendation. My recommendation, as I've heard
here today, is to stay with A and C unless we're able to make
some modifications to the Lely Resorts development provisions.
And I guess what I'm trying to understand in the way of direction
-- I appreciate Commissioner Fiala's observations on four-lane.
I'm not sure that I can stand here and support that from a traffic
demand because we're backing off of some of that even with the
proposal that I've given you.
Page 102
April 24, 2001
Also, on the other alignment, again, I'd obviously
entertain, at any point, modification. But we have some very
severe wetland issues in there. That's why I didn't come back
with that as a recommendation to the board. So I guess what I
need to know now is, do you want me to start discussions with
the developer to see if there are some options to respond to
some of the things that I raised, understanding that we still stand
at A and C as the recommendation until such time as -- as I'm
able to present to you something that you then decide if that's
something you want to do alternatively?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'd support.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. With flexibility in mind.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, flexibility, let's correct
what flexibility is. We pay Mr. Feder's here good money to be
able to come up with road plans for us. We have before us your
original letter as is. If you can get approval for that, I think we're
giving you direction on it. We're not --- I'm not giving you
directions to be flexible with that plan there, to be able to take
and say, "Okay, now we're going to change this road, we're going
to change this road, we're going to give up the expanding 951.'
It's got to be either/or. We've got to be pretty exact on this. Let's
not be misleading on this and say, "This is open for negotiation
till the year 2006, 2010." Give us a time line. Give us a date
when you can bring finality to this so there's no one left waiting;
we know which way we're going to go with this.
MR. FEDER-' What I would say to you is -- is based on what
I've recommended here and if you give me direction now, we
would start trying to meet with the developer, meet with the
Regional Planning Council and others involved, come back to you
by June at least to report as to where we are, if not then to
report for your action.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because what I'd like to hear
Page 103
April 24, 2001
from -- I appreciate so much what you're saying, Commissioner
Coletta, because we've got to fish or cut bait on this thing. And
what -- what you -- I know that you know, but we need to be clear
that we're supportive of, is we do have some sticks in this
debate with this developer, who I'm sure is going to do the right
thing, and we won't need our sticks, but we have them. And they
have to do with the substantial deviation from a -- from a
development of regional impact. And if we have to go there, we'll
go there. But hopefully they'll be cooperative, and we can --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pam, I have to assert right now that
I think when the DRI -- not the original DRI, because we didn't say
anything at all about that. It's been modified. But I think at the
time no one, before Norm Feder came to town a few months ago,
ever, ever considered taking a six-lane highway -- six lane, he's
just increased it to six-lane highway -- and moved it from the
north end of town clear on through an existing neighborhood.
We've never done that in Collier County. Have we ever in any
community ever moved a six-lane horde of traffic into
somebody's neighborhood?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Donna --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, Pam, I just cannot go along
with that. I feel that there has to be some modification. I'm glad
we've started, but I cannot see moving six lanes of highway into
anybody's neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't either, but I'm not going to
let this developer off the hook. He committed to build six lanes
of traffic. If he would like now, as a concession to his neighbors,
to his owners, not to build it through their neighborhood, God
bless him. We're offering him an alternative for where he can
build those six lanes. And if he's willing to do that, then so be it.
If he's not, then we're going to have to fight with him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But wonder if there is an option.
Page t04
April 24, 200t
Wonder if there is just -- Norm was talking about serious
wetlands. I don't know how serious they are because I haven't
tramped through them. Somehow I don't think Norm has either.
would. I would tramp through them myself to see how serious
they are, and I would check with the -- The Conservancy to have
them work with me on it because there just might be another
option. You know, they're not talking about building this thing in
the next 25 years for goodness sake.
They don't even have it on the plans. So let's at least give it
an option.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you know what? And this
thing is going to be hit on in another 25 years too. It's going to
constantly change.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Possibly so because --
COMMISSIONER HENNING-' And I don't want to waste too
much --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -. Tom, in -- in the roads that we
have -- we have Livingston, we have Santa Barbara, but they're
on all available land. You are now talking about coming across
those roads and into a completely developed area. We're talking
about another -- another road problem here, something we
haven't dealt we. You're talking about knocking down people's
homes and forcing traffic into people's neighborhoods. That's
why I want to give it every option -- every -- every close scrutiny
that we can.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Donna, we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're doing that. I'm
sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, all I was going to say is that
what you have to -- with all due respect, what you have to be
careful about, speaking from this dais, is that you don't give
away -- you know, we have to give Norm -- Norm has to have
Page 105
April 24, 2001
some negotiating power with this developer. And if we have too
many alternatives that we're willing to consider, then this
developer is going to use them against us.
Our instructions today to Norm need to be, "Go and see
if you can make the deal work that's in your memo. If you can't,
because the developer won't cooperate or for some other reason,
report back to us." And then we can say, "Okay. Under those
circumstances here's our next step." But today's step --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. In other words -- in other
words, if the negotiations beg -- I just want to be sure what we're
putting on the record here. Okay. So you're saying the letter
that he's written so far, as he negotiates with the developer, if
somehow those negotiations do not come about or are
incomplete or insatisfactory (sic}, then he can come back, and
we can further--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See what our options are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: But until the board changes its direction, if we
can't make that work out, then the commitments within that DRI
will stand, and that will be the staff's direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they have to. They have to
stand.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's what I'm hearing, is you don't
change the board's direction. You work with Lely, but will stay
the course if -. if we can't reach an agreement, because they are
a DRI just as this government center's a DRI. We have to live by
the rules of a DRI. Everyone that's a DRI has to do that. So
that's what I think I'm hearing.
But we've got two public speakers, and we need to bring
that into--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last comment if I may.
Wouldn't it be -- at this point in time, the residents of Lely should
Page106
April 24, 2001
be bringing pressure against the developer there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You bet they should.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Big-time pressure against him.
We're offering him a way to be able to correct this problem, and
I'm sure that his profit line is going to be changed along the line.
But, hey, it's going to impact everyone. Someone has to give on
this, and we've got to do the right thing for the county. So I
suggest the people of Lely start talking to the developer big time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I want to make sure that there's
an out after we -- after we finish talking about this. I cannot put
six lanes of traffic --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, Donna, there's going to
be finality to this at one point or time. I don't want anyone out
there trying to say, "Well, here goes another year, another year,
another year." At some point we've got to reach finality. If
there's any options that have never been explored, let's find
them. But I think that it's been -- this thing has been reworked
and reworked and reworked a thousand times. Every possible
scenario of events has come up that could possibly come up. If
there's something new, let's find it. Maybe we can enter it in
there. But meanwhile, we can't tell Norm there, "Well, if this
don't work, we want to negotiate again. We want to negotiate
again. We want to negotiate again." It sounds like we're
recounting the ballots over and over again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Amen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come up to a finality at some
point in time, and we can move forward. I wouldn't want to be
one of the people in Lely not knowing what's going to happen. I'd
want to know where in the devil it's going to be and what's going
to happen. So let's get on top of this developer and see if we can
get him to conform to what needs to be done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the people who can help us --
Page 107
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I certainly would --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the people who can help us
do that are the people you're trying to protect, those thousand
homes in that existing community. They need to know that their
developer made commitments to build a six-lane road through
their community. Whether we like that or not, he made that
commitment. And they need to see the county as the white
knight coming in here saying, "Instead of building this six lanes
through your community -- we think that's an awful idea -- we'll
let him provide the same traffic relief by building six lanes
somewhere else. You help us put the pressure on him to make
him do the right thing."
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're talking about two Lely
developments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, we're not only talking about
Lely Resort here as the six-lane highway. We're also talking
about Old Lely or Lely Golf Community where they have also
traffic that's going to be trained into their community. This is --
this is a -- this is something I don't think we've ever dealt with
before.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we haven't. That's all the
more reason for the developer to give in and do what has to be
done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I agree. But I want to tell you
right here for the record, I'm going to passionately, passionately -
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I would hope that you
would, Donna. There's room for--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's talk one at a time so the recorder
can capture all this. Can we go to public speakers, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. The first speaker is Reverend H. Peter
Page 108
April 24, 2001
Lyberg, and the second and final speaker would be Ken Drum.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you know he's serious when
he wears his collar.
REVEREND LYBERG: Thank you, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
We've got to quit meeting like this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. We've done this a few
times.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, where is Polly Avenue?
REVEREND LYBERG: I'm Iow tech. I don't do PowerPoint,
but I do other things and have. Reverend H. Peter Lyberg, retired
from Shepherd of the Glades Lutheran Church. And the first time
I spoke to a board of commissioners was way back in October
1994. That's how long this has been going. If-- Commissioner
Mac'Kie, you're talking about happy news. Mr. Feder's
recommendation is happy news to me. The first I've heard since
1994. The only happier news would have been when Santa
Barbara was built they had kept the bulldozer going straight
down to Rattlesnake. I mean -- and I never got an explanation of
why they stopped. They could have been there, and it would
have been all taken care of and not -- not the issue that it
continues to be today. Special thanks to Mr. Feder and to
Commissioner Fiala and to this board because this board has --
has a special opportunity to build a much needed piece of road
without taking a single home, by using a -- an alignment long
planned and long preserved from intrusion. And so as clergy, for
Mr. Feder I would say "Amen, hallelujah." It's been a long time
coming to even see a little light at the end of the tunnel without
being sure that it was a train coming at us instead.
Several years late, obviously, and after four or five, at least,
expensive studies of various alignments, this missing segment
right down the Polly Avenue alignment now has an opportunity to
be there. When that traffic gets to that point, that's halfway
Page 109
April 24, 2001
between 41 and 951. People can choose either way. It doesn't
go across wetlands. There's a couple little spots up here but
very minimal. The county owns a chunk of that. I've said that a
number of times over. But the recommendation is good news for
those in Parker's Hammock whose homes might have been
demolished -- or may still be, apparently -- by Route C and whose
neighborhoods around there, Lely Resort and so on, would be just
dreadfully disrupted by a road alignment that goes through there.
The thing I would really urge the board is to remember
what has trapped us since 1994. Further delay is to defeat a
good action. Delay is defeat. It simply kind of salves everybody
and -- and calms them down, and then it goes off on a different
direction. And that's why my suggestion, my urging to you, is to
move County Barn Expansion, which is the road right here, little
road that goes nowhere in any reality, to take that money, move
it over, and use it to put the four lanes here.
Now, the reason I would suggest that and urge it, if
County Barn is expanded into four lanes, what's going to happen
is that's going to be torn up. It's going to be a dreadful access.
And -- and there's no good connection between Davis and
Rattlesnake Hammock then. If you put the four lanes over here,
then you come out ahead on the game because you now have
two roads connecting Davis and Rattlesnake, and you have six
lanes, six lanes total, in that connection. And so I -- I really urge
that. I think that's something that -- that in the interim, with the
negotiations and all, some looking at County Barn and the better
use of those funds for the -- for the Route A. We talk about
closure, peace of mind and that. Well, an immediate -- and, you
know, for a county action, immediate is -- is not on a calendar. It
takes longer than that. But an immediate Route A would bring
closure. The only thing that's going to bring an end to it is when
Route A has some pavement on it. Then everybody will know
Page 110
April 24, 2001
this is it. This is it. And they have peace of mind.
In addition, construction of -- of Route A would bring
closure to that. It would keep County Barn, postpone that, put --
make that 10, 15 years away. You can always add some more
lanes to that one. It's a tight fit anyway. But get this one in. Get
this one in the soonest and get it taken care of so that they have
the access. Also it adds -- it fits in with Dover Kohl study for
Collier County being a four-lane road.
So I, again and again, firmly believe that Route A is
best in all ways. It's long overdue and it's needed. It's needed
now to connect that traffic. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Ken Drum.
MR. DRUM: Thank you. My name is Ken Drum. I'm the
chairperson of the Lely Resort Task Force. And I've always been
told that -- try to be brief if you follow a good speaker, especially
someone who has an inspiration. So I will. I actually rise to
support, in principle, Mr. Feder's recommendation. And as a
representative of the residents of Lely Resort, I think that you did
a very wise thing by seeking closure and putting a time limit. No
negotiations really ever succeed unless there's a time frame, and
I applaud that, even though we do not support -- while we support
it in principle, we do not support all of the outcomes, obviously,
because to a large extent, the residents are hostages. And my
job as the leader is to see that the hostages aren't taken out and
shot. So -- but that might be something that you could defer
down the road, at least that consideration.
I think what Mr. Feder's proposal does, it puts the
responsibility where it belongs, with the developer and also to
some extent with the county. I was present when those horses
were dedicated in 1992 out in front of Lely Resort, and I can tell
you there were two speakers from the county who spoke at the
dedication. Now, if they knew that there was a six-lane road
Page 111
April 24, 2001
there -- obviously they -- they should have -- how did those horses
get built there in the first place?
So while there have been some wrongs in the past,
hopefully Mr. Feder's proposal will serve as a vehicle to finally
come to some reasonable conclusion on this entire matter. And I
can assure you that the residents are not going to stand by and
watch the negotiations just go along. If you're worried about if
we're going to put pressure on either side, we will. We're not just
going to hold the coats while people go at it.
I'd leave you with one final thing, and that's this:
Mentioning the horses, Lely Resort has the horses at the front
entrance, and we're not a gated community. And it's one of the
things in East Naples that people can be proud of. I don't know if
you realize this or not, but those horses are the second most
photographed attraction in the county. And I see people with
wedding pictures, tourists. We have a parking lot there, and the
entire cost of the maintenance of that is paid by the property
owners. The county does not pay anything. But yet we don't put
it behind a gated community. We have it so that everybody can
enjoy it. So I would encourage you, especially during
negotiations, to keep in mind that the property owners do make a
considerable effort and are concerned about something that we
in the community can all be proud of. So thank you for your
support of this. I hope that as we go into these negotiations that
we're going to come out with the result that -- that we all can
agree with and be proud of.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Sir, before you go, do you think
you might be able to schedule a property owners' meeting with
the developers that we might get an invitation to?
MR. DRUM: Yes. I can schedule one at his front entrance
with about a hundred people.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. Whatever you think
Page 112
April 24, 2001
would be appropriate. But I'd like to see the developers at a
meeting, and I'd love to be there and listen.
MR. DRUM: Yeah. We intend on talking to the developer if
this motion would pass. We're going to talk to the developer, and
maybe we can have a -- I think that would be worth while.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we so hope that we can
work together to solve the problem, that -- that the developer
owes us some traffic relief in this county, and we would very
much like for it not to be through the middle of your beautiful
community. So help us put the pressure on him -- MR. DRUM: We will.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to build it where it belongs.
MR. DRUM: Our feeling is that -- and we're aware that there
is a contradiction -- that, I mean, if the developer made a mess,
he should clean it up. That's basically the way we feel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's work together.
MR. DRUM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion that we
accept Norm's proposal and -- and encourage him to start
processing through that proposal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With the understanding that the
-- the current policy of the board has to remain in place until a
replacement policy is negotiated, I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll agree.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a first. I have a second. Any
comments from the board?
Hearing none, I call the motion. All in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
Page 113
April 24, 2001
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Now we're to Item 10-F.
Item #10F
Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you.
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE TO REVIEW BUDGET AND
OPERATIONS REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY AND REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that was an addition to your
agenda from Commissioner Henning, and it was a request just to
talk about the Airport Authority and some issues there that I
think he had some recommended improvement ideas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's -- what I'm recommending is
to -- we have a position on the Airport Authority that's probably
going to come up next month; is that right, Sue?
MS. FILSON: I have ten applicants for that -- I'm sorry. Sue
Filson for the record -- and I forwarded them to John Drury this
week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten applicants for one opening.
MS. FILSON: For one opening.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow.
MS. FILSON: The ordinance, however, says that someone
from Everglades City should be considered if they apply, and I
had two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I have a lot of concerns of
what's going on in the airport. I know that we have a lot of
things on our plate, and what I would like to do is get somebody
with a number -- accountant, CPA, or bean counter, whatever you
want to call it, as an applicant for consideration so we can
hopefully have the citizens run that. And I think we got some
great people on it, but I just -- there are concerns, and I'm sure
Page 114
April 24, 2001
everybody else has heard that. What I'm asking is to extend the
application time frame and include a accounting experience.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I hear the request, Commissioner
Henning, and I -- I certainly don't fault your request. I think it's
an excellent idea. But I also heard from Ms. Filson that in the
ordinance or whatever -- what drives this process that somebody
from Everglades City needs to have first priority. Now, ideally we
would accomplish both if one of the candidates from Everglades
City fits your -- fits the criteria you would like, and I don't know
that. I haven't seen any of the apps.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wonder if -- well, let me just
say, I don't have concerns about the fiscal operations of the
Airport Authority, and I don't -- I haven't felt a great need to have
some auditing or accounting or some kind of review because I'm
-- I think John Drury's just about, you know, one of the best
people we have working at this county, and I know he's doing an
excellent job. I -- my concern, frankly, on the Airport Authority
has more to do with whether or not we have put the appropriate
pressure on the Airport Authority to require them to repay the
investment that the county's made in their -- in their operations
and if that isn't leading them down, you know, maybe the wrong
path for what's happening in Immokalee. I would rather-- I would
rather look at the big picture about whether or not economic
development in Immokalee is an appropriate repayment of the
investment instead of dollars. So, I mean, you know, if what
you're talking about is you're worried about how are they ever
going to pay back the loans, I -- I'm not sure that -- you know, I
was hoping that--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know if that was part of it,
Commissioner Ma¢'Kie, but I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it? What are you worried
about?
Page 115
April 24, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: Well, when we talked previously, one of the
concerns that came up was that is a -- a dependent board. But,
frankly, they do run fairly independently with the exception of
budget approval annually. And they are dealing with a fairly
significant budget in terms of it is a stand-alone enterprise
function, if you will, that does revenue-and-expense-accounting-
type things. And having somebody on your board that -- having a
board that provides the full mix of expertise that you need to be
able to run a business like that -- right now the ordinance does
not include anybody that has any financial type background, and
that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe that's the approach. We
need to amend the ordinance to add some particular expertise to
the board members or something.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we might want to rethink our
approach to the Airport Authority by having Mr. Olliff incorporate
them more into the budgetary process. Where is the objective to
get them -- and I've always been in that path, not in the way of it,
but I always thought that was a part of it, that we were looking
to them for repayment. But you raised, I think, really, the right
issue, Commissioner Mac'Kie. What are they doing for economic
development, and is this a part of what we want to accomplish
as a company -- a county objective. And we need to maybe
rethink our relationship in that respect.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we do.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Number two, I am going suggest to the
board that we have John Drury come and do a quarterly report to
the board. I mean, after all, he's one of three people that we
hire, and most people don't realize that he's a direct report to us.
And I would like to see that involved. And I have put on my
calendar to meet with him quarterly because I want to be more
updated on what it's about.
Page 116
April 24, 200t
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do appreciate Commissioner
Henning bringing this up because there should be concerns when
we have a -- an autonomy out there that's acting independent of
everything else. And they're directly responsible to us, which is
a unique situation. There's nothing else like that. But they were
originally set up so they could act like a business and be
responsible like a business. I might suggest to you that as far as
us doing a complete review of them as individuals, I don't know if
we're really the right people. I would suggest a productivity
committee --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's an idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- takes this particular thing, and
they take a look at it, and they report back to us. And at that
point we carry it forward with a more in-depth study in front of
the board to maybe how they should be restructured.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's -- a great idea is to
have the productivity board really take a good look at the Airport
Authority and make recommendations to the board. I want to
thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let's -- that's great. Let's make
that a -- if that's the direction of the board, let them be the
catalyst to review it, come back to us, recognizing -- I think
everybody's in agreement. They're a business enterprise --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we don't want to interfere with
that, but we do want to be in the loop with them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And by the way, they just -- I
think they're just about done -- the Airport Authority's done with
their budget and -- and to send that to the productivity committee
to tear it apart and ask for more information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have a person on the
productivity committee that if there's anything wrong, she'll find
Page117
April 24, 2001
it, and you know who that is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great idea. I make a motion
that we have the productivity committee review the Airport
Authority budget for the next budget cycle --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And operations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and operations and report to
the board of commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And would that include this -- you
know, the -- I assume it includes everything. I am interested in
investigating this idea about whether or not economic
redevelopment is the right way for them to pay back their loan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's going to be a board
huge decision because that wasn't the original intent of the
Airport Authority. It was hard dollars back to the board of
commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But can that be on the agenda for
the productivity committee, just for their recommendations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tom, that's yours.
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. We can include that as part of the
productivity report, but I think it's really more of philosophy
that's been agreed to between this board and the Airport
Authority and the director. I think what we would like to do is
probably have the productivity committee look at it in time for
you to make some decisions as you go through budget workshop
reviews on airport-related issues. So we'll pass that along to the
productivity committee with that time frame in mind and
hopefully get some recommendations out of them within -- within
that June-ish time frame when you're going to be looking at their
budget.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Does that satisfy everyone's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one other question, if I
Page 118
April 24, 2001
may.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie and then
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When -- when -- I guess, Mr. Olliff,
the question is for you. When do we expect to see the question
about the racetrack in Immokalee before this board?
MR. OLLIFF: That I don't know. And one of the things that
you may want to consider -- I know that one of the board
members was here earlier today and offered, if you are interested
-- it's sort of outside the budget process -- but to have a separate,
but he said a short -- it probably wouldn't take more than two
hours -- workshop regarding the airport and the Airport Authority,
their master plan, their business plan, to be able to explain --
especially because you've got three new commissioners who
may not have a lot of history with the airport and the Airport
Authority. And they were offering that as maybe an opportunity
over the next six-month period of Fiscal Year '01 to provide that
information. Maybe that would be a good lead-in, after we get
the productivity committee recommendations, to just step right
into a workshop to discuss the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe. Because the reason I'm
asking about the racetrack is I assume that a big motivation
behind wanting that racetrack in Immokalee is to be able to pay
back those loans. And if -- and I don't know yet because we just
got a book this thick yesterday on, you know, the analysis of the
racetrack. If, though, a racetrack would be detrimental to
economic development in Immokalee and it's there -- its sole
purpose, its primary purpose is to repay the loans, then I don't
want us to work at cross-purposes. And in my priorities the
economic development in Immokalee is a higher one. I would
defer, at least, repayment of those loans in favor of economic
development in Immokalee. So if the racetrack works at cross-
Page 119
April 24, 200t
purposes to economic development ...
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good point, Pam. And you just
did something that was very interesting. Would you ask the
county manager questions about the county attorney's office?
You wouldn't. Same thing with the authority we set up for the
racetrack.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very good point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's completely separate. You're
not getting the feedback. And the county manager, we're asking
him questions that he's not responsible for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood. That is odd.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One of the things I would like to
make clear is this is not a vote of no confidence. I think that
what they're working with, they're doing a good job. But we are
the responsible people. We're the bottom line. We have to be
accountable for every dollar that's spent and everything that's
coming in, and this is what we're asking for, is accountability.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I support that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We all right? Everybody feeling like
we've covered all the bases here? And you're right. It's in no
way a reflection on John Drury. John Drury is excellent. We're
fortunate to have him. We want to be better in terms of getting
done with him what needs to be done and support him in every
way. And I think your idea is right. Is this an economic
development thing of repayment, or are the two lock-stepped to
meet a bigger picture? I don't know, but we'll find that out. All in favor of the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you get a second?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second it just in case.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have a motion. We have a
Page 120
April 24, 2001
second. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
I believe that takes us to lunch. All right. We will
be in recess. It is now about 10 minutes to the hour. We will be
back here at two o'clock.
(A lunch break was held from 12:52 p.m. To 2:11 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Welcome back. We're in the afternoon
session, Board of County Commissioners this date of April 24. It
is 2:10 p.m. The first thing we have on the agenda is public
comment. Do we have anyone signed up, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 2001-20 REGARDING PUD-99-10, KARIN K. BISHOP
OF PMS, INC. OF NAPLES, REPRESENTING T.O.S. DEVELOPMENT,
LLC, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL
WITH "ST" OVERLAYS TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
TO BE KNOWN AS MIRASOL PUD, LOCATED NORTH OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR846} AND WEST OF A NORTHERLY
EXTENSION OF C.R. 951 - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Seeing none, we will move on to public
hearings, and this will require that all people participating in
zoning amendments under the advertised public hearings be
sworn in. I believe I'm correct on that. And it'll require
disclosures on the part of the Board of County Commissioners.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Disclosures by commissioners.
Commissioner Coletta.
Page 121
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I talked to the petitioner and
representatives of the petitioner a number of times. I've talked
to The Conservancy, the wildlife federation, numerous
individuals. And my file's available if anyone ever wants to see
if.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. My file is also available
for anybody that wants to check any of my e-mails. I also have
spoken to Karen Bishop and to Rick Barber -- I think that's -- Rick
Barber and to a member of the EAC, and I think that's everybody.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have talked with the petitioner
-- Karen Bishop representing the petitioner. I've talked to Rick
Barber, the engineer. I have participated in a public hearing held
at Gulf Coast High School, which I moderated for the community.
And I have -- any of the other people -- The Conservancy I've
spoken to about this. And anyone else that may have bumped
into me and asked a question, I will disclose, yes, I have. I have
a file available. E-mails, anything you want to look at, phone
calls, it would be my pleasure to share it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I met with the petitioner's
representatives, all of them. There are many disciplines --
multidisciplined team there, and I've met all of them, I believe.
I've met with a couple of members of the EAC. I have received
many, many e-mails on this topic, and they're available. And I'm
trying to think if there's anything -- oh, and I actually had a phone
call from a Lee County commissioner on the topic, which I'll talk
to you about in a minute.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I also talked to the petitioner
and the petitioner's representative and Mr. Barber and received
one e-mail from Nelson (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Proceed.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, one thing before the staff
Page 122
April 24, 2001
begins. There are two gentlemen that have expressed an urgent
need to attend to business elsewhere. If-- at whatever point the
staff is complete with their presentation, I think they had some
input on this item. One of them is the gentleman from the water
management district, and I guessed that you might want to try to
indulge him and get him to speak as quickly as possible once
staff has completed their presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I very much want to hear from
him, so I hope we can.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Let's proceed and keep in
mind his schedule so that we can address that issue. Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray, interim
current planning manager. You all know the location of the
Mirasol PUD; therefore, I won't take up any time explaining
where it is. But I would repeat that -- what staff advised in its
report to the planning commission, and that is that the site is in
an area that is undergoing extensive urban development and has
experienced major additions in terms of community services
such as represented by K through 12 school additions in the
immediate area of Mirasol. Mirasol is in a transitional area
inasmuch as it lies both within the urban boundary and in the
rural agriculturally designated area. We are able to deal with the
petition for development in the rural agricultural area at this time
because its submission predates the governor and cabinet's
temporary moratorium which limits certain forms of development
and activity within the rural agricultural area.
Therefore, in summary, this petition seeks your approval
to permit development of up to 799 residential housing units and
two 18-hole golf courses with related facilities. One of the golf
courses is a singular use of the property which is located in the
northern portion of the property separated by a wide expanse of
preserve land which divides the property into two separate
Page 123
April 24, 2001
development areas. And I'll put the plan up on the screen for
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ms. Murray, I'm going to be a little
confused here and the audience may get a little confused
because I understand that golf course has already been moved
by the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it hasn't, actually. I was
going to ask them to, but that's where it is as of today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I stand corrected. I heard
yesterday it had been moved, so this makes for a more
interesting discussion.
MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry to interrupt the presentation, but
whoever's computer this is, it's making a really funny noise, and
it's very distracting. Thank you. I'm sorry.
An analysis of the consistency with elements of the
Growth Management Plan is as follows: At the time of its
submission, the petition was deemed consistent with the future
land use element because residential and golf course
development were authorized land uses in both of the urban
residential and rural agriculturally designated areas, although I
will remind you that residential development in the rural
agricultural area is limited in density as compared to residential
development in the urban area.
Density distinctions are as follows: Some 320.7 acres of
land in the urban area qualifies for up to 1283 dwelling units;
therefore, given the fact that this petition seeks 799 dwelling
units, any discussion is somewhat academic in terms of a
consistency finding except that this petition seeks to spread
some of its units into the rural area and to that extent are limited
to placing no more than 242 of the 799 units in this area because
of the requirement in the agricultural district that density not
exceed one dwelling unit per 5 acres. As you may recall,
Page 124
April 24, 2001
cjustering of these 242 dwelling units is permitted under current
rules. The PUD has been structured to abide by these density
regulations and is therefore deemed consistent with the density
rating system to the future land use element. Transportation
requirements have been carefully reviewed by our transportation
staff, and our indication is that technically this petition is
consistent with the transportation element because it is not
inconsistent with the thresholds of impact tolerated by
provisions of the transportation element. As you know, by the
time this project impacts Immokalee Road, it will have been
widened to a four-lane facility at which time the road will
function at an acceptable level of service. Collier-- Collier
Boulevard is estimated that it will also operate at an acceptable
level of service while this project is under construction.
Mirasol will make substantial contributions relative to
the reservation of right-of-way for the northerly extension of
County Road 951, slash, Collier Boulevard from Immokalee Road
to the Lee -- to the Collier County/Lee County line. Essentially,
development commitments in the PUD provide reservation for
two different alignments of 951. One is due north and an
alternate route that would cut through Mirasol in a northwest
direction, and that would -- I'm sorry. Excuse me. I just lost my
place. Okay -- a northwest direction and then due north along
the common boundary with the Parkland PUD. And that
reservation was also made for a north-south route in that
location.
The Mirasol PUD has an internal road system that
introduces an access point on Immokalee Road and one on the
951 extension optimally to align with the internal road system
that will serve the proposed Heritage Bay project, which is to the
east of the proposed 951 extension. Interconnectivity within the
project is considered in the executive summary, and the
Page 125
April 24, 2001
provision is made for internal connection to the future activity
center on the northwest corner of 951 and Immokalee Road,
which would be right here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't see that on the -- thanks.
MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. Right here, this point. Properties
lying adjacent to Mirasol on both the east and west -- that would
be in these locations here -- will not be encumbered in terms of
their development by the plan proposed for Mirasol. In the very
north part of the project, there is a parcel of land with no
apparent legal access, and that would be this parcel right here.
A provision has been made in the Mirasol PUD to provide a
temporary access easement to this parcel until such time that
the northern portion of the PUD has access to a public road
whereby a permanent easement will be granted to the owner at
no cost to him.
Staff review for consistency with the coastal and
conservation element advises that this petition is basically
consistent with provisions of this element of the Growth
Management Plan. You have received copies of all relevant
material including the report of the environmental staff to the
EAC and verbatim minutes of the EAC meeting. It is important
that you appreciate that the EAC did not take official action on
this petition. The vote on two motions for denial was 4 to 3, and
5 votes are required for the board to take official action.
However, the PUD document you have does include all but one of
the recommendations of the environmental staff.
Environmental staff recommends that Section 6.9(A) be
revised to read as follows: Environmental permitting shall be in
accordance with the State of Florida environmental resource
permit rules and Collier County wetland rules in effect at the time
of any final development order approval. At a minimum the
mitigation or proposed impacts to 582 acres of wetlands shall
Page 126
April 24, 2001
meet the no-net-loss standard of Collier County's GMP.
In respect to that last sentence, the petitioner argues
that this is not a county requirement and will testify to that
during their presentation. The fact of the matter is that both
federal and state wetland rules allow for the use of wetlands
with mitigation requirements. So, too, does Collier County
Growth Management Plan policies. For your information
approximately 582 acres of wetlands will be impacted and 729
acres or 56 percent of the wetlands will be enhanced and
preserved.
A full and complete discussion of this condition and the
proposal to establish a regional drainage flow-way through
Mirasol is important to your understanding of the environmental
conditions of this property. Staff advises you that you delay any
questions about this until you have heard from the testimony of
the petitioner's consulting team and also, if you wish, from the
South Florida Water Management District.
Additionally, you should appreciate that the authority
to deal with wetlands lies primarily with the South Florida Water
Management District. They in the final analysis will determine
the amount of land in Mirasol PUD that can be developed.
Previous administrations have determined that Collier County will
not hold zoning decisions hostage to state permitting agencies;
however, staff has taken the position that it will not participate
in a process that will allow master plans to come to you that
have little credibility. Consequently, we attempt to bring the plan
to you after the petitioner has spent considerable time into the
water management district permitting process so that the plan,
for the most part, that we present to you today is credible.
We further understand that staff representing the water
management district are here to give you testimony regarding
the status of permitting, the cooperative efforts under way
Page 127
April 24, 2001
regarding the flow-way, and issues with respect to the
identification and mitigation associated with wetland impacts.
As far as the open space element goes, this petition
exceeds the amount of land that is to be held in some form of
open space as nearly 90 percent of the land will qualify as open
space. In terms of the water and sewer element, this petition
as currently structured is consistent with the sewer and water
element. The county's sewer and water system will not be
extended into the rural agricultural area as required by current
policies. The land in the rural agricultural area will be served
with private, on-site systems unless prior to that time these
elements of the Growth Management Plan are amended to allow
extensions of county utilities into the rural ag area.
The Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition
on April 5th and voted by a vote of 5 to 2 for recommending
approval of this petition. It has been established that this
petition, if approved as the PUD is structured, is consistent with
applicable elements of the GMP, one of the most important
requirements upon which your approval should be based.
Additionally, the GMP requires that you find the land
uses to be compatible with its surrounding environment. Staff
advises you that the petition represents a development strategy
that is compatible with the surrounding area. We would remind
the board that opposite Mirasol lies the residential communities
of Pebblebrooke, Laurel Lakes, and Ibis Cove, all actively under
development with mixed housing projects. To the west lies the
Olde Cypress Woods residential golf course community, and
some scattered residential homes lie adjacent to the property on
the east and the west sides along Nursery Lane, Rose Road, and
Broken Back Road. Clearly, the land is urban impacted with a
residential environment and is therefore to present a
complementary and compatible development.
Page 128
April 24, 2001
Another measurement in support of zoning decisions is
the availability of public infrastructure and community services.
This condition is present in support of development by Mirasol by
virtue of its immediate access to three levels of schools,
emergency services such as a fire station and shopping facilities
-- I'm sorry. I don't think that's an emergency, but fire station.
Sometimes it might be. Clearly the rezoning of this land is not
premature.
In conclusion, staff is confident that you have all the
facts upon which to base your decision, and it recommends your
approval of Petition PUD-99-10 subject to your understanding
that certain revisions are needed to take care of certain
grammatical errors and rewording to clarify certain stipulations
from both the transportation department and the county
attorney; however, I believe that they're satisfied at this point.
None of these are substantive issues, and consequently we are
recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Ms. Murray. Now,
Southwest Florida Management District -- Water Management
District, what is their time line now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's Chip in the back. Maybe
we could just hear from him next if the petitioner doesn't object.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If the petitioner doesn't object, may I
call him to the podium and let him explain where they are as it
applies to this project, surrounding projects, and also as it
affects Lee County. And then we can ask questions and go to
the petitioner.
MR. MERRIAM: Sure. And my role here today is to be of
assistance to you in your decision process, if I can. We clearly
don't favor one project or any project. We're an advocate of our
rules and the responsibilities and authorities that we have. With
that said, I'll stick around as long as -- as I can for this because
Page 129
April 24, 2001
there may be some other questions that come up.
But we have an interesting role in this. Following some
of the flooding in 1995 and in subsequent years, we were
watching as development was creeping in both the Bonita
Springs area and in northern Collier County. What was almost 5
miles in width as far as a flow-way area has been progressively
getting smaller and smaller. What we were looking for in the
process was is there a way to put a project together that would
create a hydraulic connection that could be managed, if you will,
so we can chop the tops off the peaks so when those big rains
come and those big pools of water sit out there, here's the way
we can connect all the systems and get all the opportunities for
water to flow in the direction it did naturally.
How do we put those pieces together? We started that
goal long before we had an application for this -- for this project.
And it's -- nothing's done without something else coming in
behind it. This is some of the evolution. Where we are today is
we're -- we have two requests for additional information out,
what we term RAIs. When we get a project application in, we
typically have no more than 30 days to review it, and then we
have additional completeness items, items out there that we
believe have not quite met criteria or flat do not meet criteria
that have to be responded to. And we also have to make sure it
fits into the big regional picture.
In this particular case, the applicant has concentrated
with our agency primarily on the flow-way, how do we put this
package together. It's a unique concept. And one of the other
things that's also unique about it is there's several landowners
that are coming together reportedly to pull this thing together.
And I understand they have an agreement that they've executed
at this point to indicate that that's going to happen.
Our agency still is not in agreement to issue a permit
Page 130
April 24, 2001
yet. The request for additional information for the consumptive
use and for the ERP, the environmental resource permit, are
currently in their court for continued question answering. The
technical side of the flow-way, however, the actual hydrology,
we're getting very close on. We met yesterday and there were
some -- some issues that we had outstanding that they provided
backup for that gave us a little more comfort that we're moving
in the right direction as far as the flow-way is concerned.
We also have asked questions that we have concerns
about, the mitigation and the ratios, and have also asked for
them to look at cjustering. Again, we have not received a
submittal -- an official submittal back. But as Commissioner
Carter indicated, there was discussion that there was a change
in that that we will see at the time the applicant wants to submit
that to us. So, again, I'm a resource for you here today if there's
anything I can do to answer --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner, I have a couple
questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just a couple of process
questions, Chip, about -- this board is much more attendant, I
think, to the repercussions of its zoning decisions than maybe in
the past and certainly than our way predecessors who just
approved zoning and then talked about permitting later. I think
what you'll find is that this board is much more concerned about
what are the repercussions of the zoning decisions that are being
made and -- instead of just saying, "Well, zoning is something
that happens really early in the process, and the permitting will
come later, and so we don't have to worry too much about it."
The process question that I have is, can a landowner apply for
this permit before they have this zoning
approved?
Page 131
April 24, 2001
MR. MERRIAM: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. MERRIAM: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
They can?
How can they come in and ask
for an approval for so many units if they haven't yet gotten the
zoning approved?
MR. MERRIAM: That jurisdictional authority-- that
legislative authority is solely within the five board members in
front of me today, and that's where the rubber meets the road in
that discussion and that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if they have a piece of land
that's agriculturally zoned and they want to develop it as golf
course residential community and the board wanted to in the
future adopt a policy that you'd have to get your water
management permits first, we could do that?
MR. MERRIAM: There is a real chicken-and-egg discussion
here. And what Commissioner Carter and I have had discussions
and even with the Regional Planning Council is, is there a tool
that can better relate these two together? We find ourselves
typically, as you described, on the other side of that. "The
county said we can do it. Why aren't you letting us do the things
that" --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't want to be there. I
want to be there with you saying --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute, Commissioner. Let him
finish his thoughts and then --just let him --just hear it through
because this is where the Regional Planning Council has been
taking the water-management issue.
MR. MERRIAM: Thank you. Where we're at at this particular
point is, how do we best do this together? And in our particular
situation, we have a very good relationship with the local
counties in this region. I don't think there's any problem where
Page 132
April 24, 200t
we can -- and that's what -- the principal of why I'm here today is
that, you know, can I give you the information that we have in
our position so that you can ask those questions as you move
forward. There's no reason why you can't do that on a relatively
regular basis.The troubling part for you is that that pressure and
that decision is all on your shoulders. From my perspective I can
only respond to the authority and jurisdiction within Chapter 373
that our agency has, and I won't venture beyond that. So with
that said, yes, it is -- it can be a conflict. I would -- hopefully we
can end some of those conflicts by doing things a little closer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I was going to say is that
the goal that I have is to -- I'd like to have of a rezone petition in
front of me that has a realistic water management plan that tells
me how much property is reasonably available for residential and
golf course development, and I don't get to do that. What I --
what -- the position that the process puts the Board of County
Commissioners in is we're in the position of having to say, "Okay.
We'll approve 799 units if the water management district says
that you can fit them on there after you do all of the -- all of the
permitting to protect the wetlands and the flow-ways." And 799, I
don't know if that's the right number. I don't know because I
don't know how much land -- right now we know that this -- as
Commissioner Carter was saying, that this plan that's in front of
us that has the golf course on the north end is probably going to
get the golf course pushed down to connect to the existing
development, probably that the water management district will
encourage and the CREW Trust Board will encourage them, and
I'm certainly going to join in encouraging them to move that
north golf course down to make it contiguous so that we can
restore and preserve the entirety of Section 10. But we don't
know as we're rezoning what the water management district is
going to require.
Page133
April 24, 2001
And I'm just saying for process purposes, having you
here today was a perfect time to get to say we've got to get a
better process so that we know what we're -- we're not willing
anymore to just willy-nilly approve numbers of units without
knowing how realistic it is on the ground, and we need to get a
better mechanism for working together. I wish I could make you
go first. And then -- you know, then we could come in and say,
"Well, they only left you with 200 acres, so obviously you can't
put more than whatever number of units."
MR. MERRIAM: I think from -- if I was to speak on behalf of a
landowner, I might suggest that our process might be a lot more
expensive --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is.
MR. MERRIAM: -- to go through first not knowing what the
zoning decision will be on either side.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what we hear from
them.
MR. MERRIAM: And that's -- that is part of the risk.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I guess, Chip, where I think we're
trying to go with Southwest Florida Planning Council is to work
with you to get this to be a management-driven process versus a
permit-driven process -- that has been the big discussion there --
so that commissioners wherever they are can make a better
decision because if we had your conclusions on this, then that's
a permit. But that permit in itself may not meet all the
specification that we're looking for in terms of whether we say
up or down. So it is a chicken and an egg, and I don't know what
the answer is this afternoon.
But I appreciate you sharing with us. And also there
may be questions -- at least I have questions about the impact of
the other projects around it and Lee County. And I know we're
going to get that presentation, but what is your take on where
Page 134
April 24, 2001
both counties are going as it affects all of this, at least so that
we might have the benefit of your thinking at this point?
MR. MERRIAM: Well, I think -- now if I step completely
outside of the box in this discussion, what we -- we're taking a
look at is not just this project, but also the federal projects we're
involved in in acquisition in the northern region of Bonita Beach
Road. There's additional discussions of other opportunities for
development that will be impacting in that particular region.
What we're looking at in our speak outside -- in our
speak-out-loud type of conversations are, how do we reconnect
these old historical flow-ways at best? It's -- we should have
learned lessons from the past of digging a ditch or making a
canal to connect two points. Is there a way to recreate some of
these flow-ways so that you have a better concentration of effort
up front in the design so that the system does provide flood
protection, lessens the impacts on natural resources, and
doesn't have a typical drainage project that we're somewhat
feeling the pains of right now in this current drought situation?
So it's how do you take that entire process and feed it into a
package?
The conflict in this discussion is, how do you do that
one permit at a time? Because when we talk about working
together, I can tell you from our agency's perspective and from
the way the basis of rules is written that challenges us to review
a project is from the time it comes in and sits on our desk and
gets clocked in, we have 30 days to review the project. You
know, Norm Feder can tell you in his DOT days and now in his
Collier County days, a lot of their applications are submitted to
us in the back of a pickup truck, and they're hand-trucked into
our office. When you start talking about reviewing those type of
projects in a 30-day time period and then look around you at the
development that sits out there, to sit down and say, "All right.
Page 135
April 24, 2001
We're going to put the stops on, and we're going to go through
every page of this with planning staff and put those pieces
together," it sounds real good. The reality is going to be, how do
we implement that to get this more practical? And I think that's
where some of the discussion in the Regional Planning Council is
going. But I do not as an agency representative have the luxury
of saying that we're just going to ignore the clock because the
alternative of that is the permit defaults to the development. So -
- and the only authority we have in that discussion process is
whether the application is complete. Once it is deemed
complete by the district staff, the applicant is entitled to that
permit for his construction.
Now, it also says you still have to get all your
federal, local, you know, city, county permits with that. But not
only is our process going on while you're trying to make your
decision, the federal process is going on in its own time clock.
So the developer's trying to figure out from his perspective, "How
do I make sure I have all these things lined up" so at the end he
gets a product that he can move forward successfully with. And
then each one of us have our own myopic responsibilities or
authorities. And it's, again, how do we together put these things
in a -- in a means that makes sense and that we can stand back
and we say, "We did the best job that could be done."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just further on the question,
Commissioner Carter, about Lee County, I should share with the
board that I got a phone call at home last night from
Commissioner Ray Judah, and I've never had a call either way on
a project by -- by another elected official of any jurisdiction. But
what I -- the phone call from Ray last night was to report that --
Ray and I had served together on the CREW Trust Board, and
Commissioner Carter's serving there now, and I'm so grateful for
that. It's so important. But the -- there was a presentation made
Page 136
April 24, 2001
to the CREW Trust Board about this project, and subject to
moving that northern golf course down -- and there is a plan that
shows that. Subject to that the CREW executive committee
came as close as they could come to endorsing the project.
They don't endorse projects, but there's a letter, and we'll see it
today. And Commissioner Judah said to me, "This is a good
project. We need this flow-way. This needs to happen." I mean,
I've never had that happen in my 6 1/2 years. So that was very
noteworthy to me to hear that from a Lee County commissioner --
not from the commission, but from a Lee County commissioner.
And my question for him was, you know, part of this
property was on -- is on lands targeted for acquisition by CREW,
and the reason CREW wanted them was to restore some natural
flow-ways. And my question for Ray was, just between us -- you
know, just us nonprofessionals but with some experience in the
area, looking at this plan, if it could work, if, in fact, all three of
these property owners can do this deal so that this flow-way
exists across three pieces of property, would that accomplish
what was CREW's goal, you know, why we wanted to buy that
property in the first place? And he said he thought so. He said
yes. And I wonder if you have an opinion about that, Chip.
MR. MERRIAM: I think the difference in the two discussions
would be if we looked at this by an individual landowner, permit-
by-permit application, and all we have in that perspective is the
four corners of each application. It would be very difficult to
assemble something where you had several landowners coming
together and putting a flow-way perspective and all of them
contributing in some manner to make this thing happen.
As far as is it the same, it's going to allow a little
more control in the system. One of the things that we saw in '95
and that we also saw somewhat of a repeat of in '99 -- and a lot
of things work well on paper. When we actually got into some of
Page 137
April 24, 2001
the designs, we saw stages start to increase where we thought
they would work fine from the knowledge and the engineering we
had prior to that. This will allow a couple of things. One of the
things they've been concerning to us with the flow-way is we
didn't just go out and say, "All right. We're going to put a ditch
here to move water." It's "Can we put a conveyance opportunity
in there but at the same time create other habitats?"
An example is one of the things we've lost is a lot of
the shallow marshes that are -- used to dry out at the very tail
end of the season. One of the proposals we've offered to the
consultant team was maybe instead of just a typical ditch, why
don't we look at a 200-foot-wide cross section that has a lower
area no deeper than 4 feet in the center so that as the system
starts to dry out, the food source starts to concentrate. So we
do start considering a little bit more of a balance, if you will, in
this type of process. It's a little different way of looking at
things, but it also takes a lot more land to accomplish this kind
of a process. And I think that's -- that that's part of the
complication in this. We are talking about a flow-way, and that's
what's leading the -- the fight in this whole discussion or what's
leading the discussion. But there's still no guarantees any
permits are going to be issued. There's no guarantees your
zoning's been -- being approved either. So that's on the table.
Now, what is that equal to the entire process? And
that's the -- that's part of what's on your shoulders today. Ours is
a little more myopic, a little more shallow as far as the decision
process. But we have considered, as best we can so far, what
are the overall impacts? What is the final product going to look
like? The density's a tough issue for us because what the
footprint is and what -- the impervious areas is what we look at,
somewhat where the homes are, but you can cjuster them. You
can spread them out. There's a lot of other options in there. So
Page 138
April 24, 200t
it gets to be a little bit different -- a little disconnect, if you will,
between us and you when you start looking at some of those
density questions. You can put all the density in a high-rise. You
know, there's a lot of options in there. But more to the point, in
this particular project, I got to say that the -- the consultant has
come back many times with, you know, more shifting, more
changing. And we're -- it appears we're going in the right
direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One other question for him, and
then I have questions for our staff when the others are done.
How does the district deal with -- when you have a petition
presented to you where a piece of the flow-way is in this property
and then you've got two other properties that also have to be
brought into the mix in order for the piece you're looking at to
work, how do you -- how do you make -- you can't permit Section
C without Sections A and B. How do you do that?
MR. MERRIAM: Typically, we start from the downhill and
work our way up. And secondly, we modify the permits to the
landholders that are there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What if they don't ask for you to
modify them?
MR. MERRIAM: There could be an independent landowner's
agreement that would come to us that one landowner could be
representing, as an agent, the other landowner to -- to construct
that project. There's -- there's several mechanisms that can be
used in order to make that happen. In this particular case, I
believe the tool that they're going to present to you will set some
of that mechanism in place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that unique for you? Have you
seen that before?
MR. MERRIAM: It's not necessarily unique because part of
the principle in some of the old 298 drainage districts that were
Page 139
April 24, 2001
created in the early history of Florida and as late as the 1960s, a
lot of those had upstream landowners that wanted
improvements, and they actually entered into a taxing benefit or
became part of other 298 drainage districts. We have several
connected to an ultimate one canal that may end up in the
Caloosahatchee, for example. There's other projects that an
upstream or downstream developer may have needed some other
changes to occur, and they've modified a control structure on
another landowner. A way to accomplish that is either by
coapplication: Development A that may be constructed is -- as
Development B as applicant together, or an agent that -- they --
Applicant B acts as an agent for Applicant A with a signed
agreement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's basically what I think
we have presented to us today. I hope our attorneys will get a
chance to tell us if they're comfortable with that. I doubt you've
had a chance to look at it. Its signature date was day before
yesterday, so I don't know if it's something you've seen already.
MR. MERRIAM: We -- we're skimming it in the back room as
you were talking earlier today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all my questions for Chip.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Other commissioners,
questions at this point?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one. Where is the
interconnect? Where would that be going to the south from
there?
MR. MERRIAM: The interconnect would be with this lake
system coming through Olde Cypress at this point. So this would
be an interconnect. And then there's another project, Wildwood
or Terafina at this point. There's another interconnect to this
project at this point here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: South of Immokalee Road where
Page 140
April 24, 2001
would there be an interconnect?
MR. MERRIAM: South of Immokalee Road there is no
interconnect. This goes into the northern side Immokalee ditch.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Cocohatchee.
MR. MERRIAM: Cocohatchee. It's going to be upstream of
the Co¢ohatchee 3 control structure also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before you leave, Chip, let me -- and
this is -- and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm just
looking for some focus. If the flow-way becomes a focus in
everything that you said, restoring and connecting the old flow-
ways to get back to where we need to be, and if you had three
major property owners interacting and agreeing and saying we
will do this to establish this, but you have another one outside of
the box yet that I'm going to call Parklands because I understand
they are not really unified or together on this, as I understand it --
no matter where they are, though, would that be the driving
factor, whether it's north of us in Lee County, whether it's still
operating within Collier, that if we've established the system,
they have to play ball with the system, or would it be a ma]or part
of your decision-making as to whether or not you would allow
them to go forward and be permitted?
MR. MERRIAM: I think the real tough part of that,
Commissioner, is we don't have an application to do that yet. So
it's real hard to -- for me to throw that many cards on the table
before they file their application. I think if you're asking the
question, if Parklands doesn't participate, does the flow-way not
work? The flow-way itself, in the modeling that we've seen as of
yesterday, works very well without Parklands. Does Parklands
work without the flow-way is probably the more appropriate
question, and that I need the application for in order to see what
the discharge and what those numbers look like in order to
answer your question. We can assume --
Page 141
April 24, 200t
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. But let's say that we'll work
without them. What I'm asking is the day they come to you will
this -- what's already established be the driving factor? In other
words, if they want to get permitted, they have to operate within
what's established there. They can't come in with some other
design which would interfere with what I'm going to call the
reconnect.
MR. MERRIAM: They can come in with another design. We
have to consider anything and everything that is put in front of
us. We have to look at what other options they're proposing and
what impacts are associated with that. At this -- in all the
discussions we've had so far, it's been our assumption at this
point that they will eventually be using a portion of this flow-way
for their discharge.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they couldn't take an action -
- you would not permit them to take an action that would reduce
the effectiveness of this flow-way once it's established; true?
MR. MERRIAM: I don't think in the scenarios that I'm
thinking through in my mind right now -- what we want to be
careful of is that in no place do we increase any -- any additional
inundation for flooding. We don't decrease any storage
opportunities looking for that balance activity. So are we going
to permit something that would im -- adversely impact the flow-
way? The answer would be no. Everything we would do would
actually either compliment or be incorporated into that vision.
But, again, I'm speculating, not knowing what all those parts are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it works without them, and
that's --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It works without them, and since a lot
of that is in Lee County, it would be a cooperative situation, I
think, between Commissioner Judah, if that would be that person
at the time, and our board to jointly monitor this. And probably
Page 142
April 24, 2001
one of the biggest vehicles to do that and best is CREW who
would continue looking at this. So there are some watchdogs
and safeguards if I'm understanding this correctly.
MR. MERRIAM: Well, I think one of the things we did that
was very unique in this particular case, because of the nature of
the project, was we calibrated what they had on paper against
1995. And that was for a couple reasons: One was, as I said
earlier, lots of things work on paper. In this particular case, we
also saw in 1995 the difference in elevations between the
Immokalee Road Canal and the Kiehl Canal in the couple of times
we have measurements were only a 10th difference. The system
is already connected. It's how can we make sure, again, that
connection that's several miles apart from each other has every
opportunity to put water where it should in a manner that --
twofold: One, are we delivering the right amount of water into
Estero Bay at the right time because there's -- in some of the
studies that we looked at when you go further to the north, we
had some real problems with water ponding on the east side of I-
75, and we had several of the tributaries that were contributing
their historical share of that basin flow. Part of the study that we
completed was reconnecting those and providing as much of that
historical flow as we could. And in many cases the options have
been sealed off because of developments or other roads,
highways, things that are in the way that make it very tough to
recreate some of those flows.
And at the same time, are we looking at everything, not
drawing a jurisdictional boundary across the county and saying,
"This is my water. This is your water." It's how do we put the
entire package in there so we know that. At one point there may
be storm events, and you may remember some where water
staged up on the north side of Immokalee Road more than it did
in the Kiehl Canal area, and we also have experienced the other
Page 143
April 24, 2001
way. It is possible through these connections, since the land is
relatively flat, that the system itself reacts to where the pool
wants to go.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's a question that I have. How do
you define wetlands because I know what original wetlands
might be, what I would call true wetlands, and wetlands created
from ditching and damming the flooded upland areas. So do you-
all have a definition that we uniformly can apply by planning
councils, by commissioners, by counties so that we're not at
cross-purposes? Because I think there's different definitions
even within our own groups who review this before it ultimately
comes to the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. MERRIAM: Ours are the ones that count.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know. But what is your definition?
MR. MERRIAM'. What we -- I'd have to submit that to you in
writing. It's pretty thick. It's -- there's a whole appendix that
does that. It's -- it requires, you know, vegetation, hydrology, and
soils to be in combination to demonstrate that. We also provide -
- in our service to some of those who become our clients or
customers that are trying to get development, we also go out and
in a preapplication form will work with them, work on flagging
some of those wetlands so they can get an idea. Typically we
like them to give their best shot at it first, and we'll agree or
disagree with it and go out there and move their flags and -- and
agree with what they believe the wetland systems may look like.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, I just have to say for
my two bits' worth, I don't care if they were formerly uplands 50
years ago that have been -- that are now wet. I mean, there's
probably some. If it's palmettos sitting in a puddle of water, I
guess I'd care, you know, because that would tell me it's a
recently flooded situation. But if you look at the soils analysis in
this petition, it's almost completely hydric soils, and what that
Page 144
April 24, 2001
means is that it is historic wetlands. It may have had a period of
time where it was up and then a period of time when it was
under. But the soils, for my money, is the best test because
vegetation comes and goes and water comes and goes, but the
soils tell you something more permanent.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm yes and no on that, Commissioner,
because I know that if I take uplands that had pine flatwoods and
-- and palmento (sic), that the habitat that will forage in there or
the bird life that will go there is far different than that stuff rots
and floats away and gets infested with melaleuca and that type
of stuff. And I have a real problem with that. So I'm always
looking for some better definitions. So let's -- the jury's out for
me on that. Commissioner Fiala and then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if you're the right
person to ask this question, so I'll try it, and you can just tell me
if you're -- if I should ask somebody else later on. I've -- I've been
very concerned with protecting the urban boundary until we
recreate this flow-way, and so this is very interesting to me.
Being that we're going across the urban boundary and now we're
talking about putting in septic tanks and so forth, is that going to
in any way interrupt the -- the process?
MR. MERRIAM: It becomes a question that we ask in our
response to the developer. We do ask, "How are you going to
handle your waste treatment?" And what we call that -- it falls
under what we call secondary and cumulative impacts of this
project. What we will ask if -- of them is, "What are the
associated impacts?" And, you know, it's -- it's one of those
things that -- you asked two questions. The urban boundary is
not our issue. I can't go anywhere near that. But as far as the
septic tanks, it is a question that we ask, and we look for what
are the impacts associated with that. And, again, we also -- we
even ask for health department concerns, does the soil work for
Page 145
April 24, 2001
those type of uses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have several urban boundary
questions, but I was holding those for our staff. Would that be --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That would be appropriate.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Basically I think what
we're looking at, what is the public good? We're looking at -- if
we left everything the way it is now and walked away from it,
would we be better off than if we go ahead and we alter it and try
to restore it back to where it's more in the natural condition?
Are we going to benefit greatly by this enhancement of the land?
MR. MERRIAM: I guess the -- I'm going to have to ask a
question back to you, Commissioner. Is the latter an option? Is
the county in a position that they would identify this as a project
they would want to restore and create a flow-way system
through there? If you -- with the density you have out there right
now, we have tail water effects or water ponding that is -- is
relatively noticeable, especially to some of those who during
summer inundations are, you know, having trouble getting out of
their driveways or moving in that area. A couple of them call us
every afternoon it rains in the summer and, you know, the
water's still real deep. I think, again, the question is if Collier
County wanted to take a position of looking at this, purchasing
this, and creating a natural flow-way and providing that and
accommodating, again, that large, wide flow-way that has a
narrow space in there. That would require some form of removal
of debris and some earth in there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At great expense plus the taking
of the land also.
MR. MERRIAM: But that's the hypothetical question you
offered me was --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I'm just trying to come up
Page 146
April 24, 2001
with a balance between all the different options that are out
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, of course, another one is to
leave it like it is and let it develop into the grid system of
basically the northern estates, which is the option that I guess
would be there on a case-by-case basis.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to be very interested
to hear from several other parties that have a stakeholding in
this.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have another question of
Mr. Merriam? Because I know he has to exit.
MR. MERRIAM.' I'll hang around in the back for a few more
minutes if you have any more questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you so much for being here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask our staff questions
before we go --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Just a couple, urban boundary
line questions, most of them. Are golf courses an approved use
outside the urban boundary? MS. MURRAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are golf courses with adjacent
residential -- I mean, I know there are some stand-alone golf
courses outside the urban boundary, but I think Twin Eagles was
the first time we had a golf course and residential together
outside the urban boundary. And I know there was litigation on
that. I believe it was settled. But did the litigation settle the
question of whether or not that use is permitted, or did it just
settle it as to that particular case? I mean, maybe that's a
question for David or one of the Davids. Either David will do.
MR. WEEKS: Excuse me. David Weeks of your
comprehensive planning staff, and I definitely have a cold.
Page 147
April 24, 2001
Excuse me. The comprehensive plan does allow for golf courses.
It allows for golf courses with residential development at the
density of one unit per 5 acres in the ag rural area except during
the present time because we're under the final order from the
governor and cabinet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except -- except this one is an
exception to that because they got in ahead of the deadline.
MR. WEEKS: Correct. So in this particular instance, you can
-- I mean, our Growth Management Plan would allow you to
approve a golf course development with residential dwellings at
one unit per 5 acres in the ag rural area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then my other urban
boundary question -- two more -- is I had heard from the
developer's rep that there is no blending of densities. In other
words, outside of the urban boundary is going to have density of
one unit to 5 acres. Is that -- can you confirm that for me?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct. They have specifically stated
in the PUD that they'll limit the ag rural area to the density
allowed based on that acreage. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so no density increase even
moving of density, blending of density. Nothing's going to
happen outside of the urban boundary that isn't currently
permitted to happen outside the urban boundary. We're not
stretching anything.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that's critical to me.
And then the last -- the hardest question is the sewer-septic
issue. I understand that, you know, we're in this rural fringe
discussion and that people -- some people say we're going to
allow sewer extensions outside the urban boundary in the fringe
and some -- you know, who knows what we're going to allow
because we haven't been -- had any of it presented to us. So
Page 148
April 24, 2001
based on today's rules in the section of land -- is it just one
section that's outside the boundary? Two sections. Which ones,
10 and --10 and117 No, 10and15. MS. MURRAY: Ten and fifteen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten and fifteen are outside the
urban boundary. If I get what I want, 10's going to be restored
and a hundred percent preserved and not have any development
on it. But assume that for a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that on this map?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. That's -- the top golf course
is in Section 10. And if I get what I want and you do, this will
move down, and that whole section will be preserved, will be
restored, all the melaleuca taken out and restored to pristine -- a
whole section of land. That would be a good thing to me.
But my question is, assuming under current regs you
can't have sewer outside the urban boundary line, is septic the
only other option, and is package plant an option, and is there
any -- I mean, I don't want septic out there, and I don't want to
prejudge that we might or might not ever allow sewer lines to
extend out there. So if -- if septic is just not an option for me,
what does that do? I mean, what -- what am I left with? Can we
turn it down later if we find out that septic is not -- is their only
alternative?
MR. WEEKS: At present only well and septic is allowed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Package plants, no?
MR. WEEKS: No package plants. The only other option that
I'm aware of is that a private -- an existing private provider of
services --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: OrangeTree.
MR. WEEKS: -- such as OrangeTree is allowed to extend its
lines into the rural area. The county is prohibited from extending
its own lines out into the rural area.
Page 149
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What -- what's -- what is required
of OrangeTree? Can they just do that unilaterally? Do they have
to come to the board?
MR. WEEKS: I believe they'll need to expand their service
boundary. The Collier County Utility Regulatory Authority -- I
think is that correct name; I'm not sure -- would have to get that
approval. And, of course, they'd have to demonstrate the
capacity to serve additional areas.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you give me two questions to
the lawyers, then I promise I'm done. One is -- MR. WEIGEL: That's two, now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One is, as to the density, the
number of units being approved, does that give any vested rights
under Burt Harris or otherwise? When we zone a piece of
property, if we say 799 units are approved for this, up to 799 as
requested, and then we find out that we don't have sewer
capacity, we don't have water capacity, or we don't have road
capacity or schools or whatever else becomes a Category A
infrastructure element, have they got any rights to those seven --
to one of those units, or can we turn them down based on the
availability of infrastructure at the time they ask for permits?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll try to give the simple answer, and then
Mar]orie can give a more complicated answer, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll listen to yours then.
MR. WEIGEL: And that is, in regard to Burt Harris, obviously
we are always talking about reasonable based investment
expectations based upon the rights that they have at a particular
point in time and the development that they wish to do at some
future point in time which may be curtailed, may be limited by an
act of the government at some future point in time. So the
answer is -- the simple answer is no, I don't think that the mere
rezone does anything problematical to the Burt Harris Act at this
Page 150
April 24, 2001
point in time, but they would have investment-based
expectations on the element of zoning, but there may be several
other expectations or criteria that they must meet, both with this
government and other governmental entities, which bring their --
their investment expectations into reality.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' In other words, they -- we need to
maybe make a record.
MR. WEIGEL: This is just a piece of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe our -- maybe our zoning
code -- something needs to state in the record that zoning is not
a vested right as to density. I mean, zoning is an up to. You can
have zoning of up to 799 based on what the infrastruct -- what
infrastructure is available as the permits are applied for.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that that's already implicit within
zoning. Zoning provides maximums within a unit area. So in this
case we're talking 799 within a large unit area of two or three
sections. The fact is is they can't exceed that. They certainly
have no expectations to exceed that based upon the mere zoning
that may be improved (sic) for them today or at some future
point. But the fact is is it's if the county government who
provides the additional zoning ability to them does some other
act itself which prevents them from achieving the zoning we've
given them that we run into the Burt Harris issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. That would be
separate from --
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I'm sorry. I didn't mean to go --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Miss Student, is she going to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless he covered it thoroughly.
MS. STUDENT: I think he did cover it. And the last time I
read Burt Harris I recall there is an exception there for
moratorium-type issue, which I think is what you're looking for in
Page 151
April 24, 2001
terms of deficiencies with, you know, utilities.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would it be at all possible to
have something written into this particular approval, if we did
give approval, that would limit the rights if there was reason to
do it? In other words, if the infrastructure wasn't there at any
point in the future, that we'd be able to act upon that without
endangering ourselves to a lawsuit? Is that what you were trying
to--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's basically what I'm
asking. But the flip side of that is if it is -- where I want it is in
the Collier County law generally so that it applies across the
board, because if we put it in this one and it's not in another one,
then another one's going to argue that it doesn't apply to them.
So my question for the lawyers was, is that, in fact, the law in
Collier County today? And I'm hearing that it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Isn't this, like, a contractual
arrangement we're coming to where certain things have to be
done and not done to be able to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're looking for conditional
agreements or conditional approvals, I think, Commissioner, and
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I was trying --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- what we might be building here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to see if it was possible, in
other words, to be able to move forward on this.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I may be misunderstanding the
issue, but let me just bring forward to you, you also have to
consider that you have the concurrency requirements, and those
requirements also require that infrastructure be in place at a
certain time or certain designated part in time before the
impacts of the actual development get there. So the developer
Page 152
April 24, 2001
still has to meet those requirements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And all zoning is subject to that.
MS. MURRAY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, now, that brings up -- when
you talk about concurrency, in here I read a number of times
where the level of service -- once the roads are widened, the
level of service that is acceptable -- you didn't say, but I read -- D.
Now, they don't even take into consideration the other three
surrounding developments. What happens to those roads if each
one of those developments go in, and they -- and we judge each
one by bringing it down to a level of service D. What really
happens to the level of service when all four developments are
in?
MS. MURRAY: A couple of things. First is the concurrency --
or the level of service standards are measured by project -- on a
project-by-project basis. But let me point out in this PUD in
particular I believe there is a provision that requires the
applicant to submit a detailed traffic analysis further on down at
a certain point in time relative to their impacts and based on the
conditions of the -- relative to the conditions of the road at the
time of their impacts. But Dawn's here and she can --
MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning director.
Yes, we did in this case specifically add because of the level of
detail of the transportation evaluation that at a point specific
that a certain area of primary impact would be relooked at in
very specific detail as far as what their impacts would be.
Current statute provides for the allowance of
considering projects which are committed or under construction
within a three-year time period to be considered current and in
place capacity improvements, and that's why the language that
you read gave an allowance for these -- this road being under
construction, that if you looked at it only in its two-lane
Page 153
April 24, 2001
configuration, we have a deficiency problem. But it is under
construction; therefore, we accept that as being a given capacity
and take our measurements from that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. Commissioner, help me. Is that
answering your question? I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not at all because you're only
talking about this one, and I understand that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's saying --
MS. WOLFE: This is for this case specific. Now, as we get
in the case of the condition here where we say we want a more
detailed analysis, they'll be required to come in, establish a
methodology by which we will require them to look at the
impacts, including those other approved projects which will be
coming on in line in the same time period. This is something that
we will also be introducing to the board later this year in regards
to changes to a real-time concurrency management system
which will look at the process in a cumulative versus a project-
by-project impact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think what Commissioner
Fiala is doing is catching this project before, because we don't
currently have a cumulative, real-time concurrency checkbook.
But what I hear Dawn answering the question is saying that they
have imposed a condition on this PUD as if that policy were
already in place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But she also used some very -- if we
listened real carefully, some of her words were that were going
on-line or approved at the same time. Maybe a month after they
had this study, then they would be approved. So Io and behold,
this wouldn't be. I'm talking -- being that we know that all four
are going to be there, rather than the ones that are just approved
or permitted at the time, are we going to take a comprehensive
study of all of them at the same time before we ever give
Page 154
April 24, 2001
approval to any of them? Right now we're studying from the
errors of our predecessors because we didn't do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think that goes to the
question that I was asking Susan. And that is if we approve 799
units today and then we approve a thousand units on Project B
and a thousand on C and a thousand on D all right there in the
same area, when do the traffic impacts cumulatively get
measured? And what she's telling us is that concurrency comes
after zoning and that we zone today and we have that one
threshold that we measure by. But the one where the rubber
meets the road or doesn't is the concurrency review that comes
at permitting where no matter how many units we've said they
can have up to, they're not going to give them building permits
unless they meet the concurrency requirements considering the
whole real-world situation at the time the building permit's
applied for. Am I right on that? I mean --
MS. MURRAY: At that time you're getting closer to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I see nodding by Susan. I see nodding
by the county attorney. I think that's absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ask a question? This is great
dialogue that we're having.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't this good?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How long have you been
measuring it this way as a cumulative on the traffic?
MS. WOLFE: Cumulative is not the standard process. That's
why we've interjected a specific condition which is going to
require the detailed analysis prior to the first preliminary
approval. Otherwise, the process as it exists today would not be
looking at it until we were issuing building permits. That's
another reason why, as I'm saying, we are gearing towards a
cumulative concurrency management tracking system which is
different than what we have in place today. It takes a while to
Page 155
April 24, 2001
get the process established. But until that occurs, we are taking
it on a case by case, dealing with the process we have in place,
but trying to ensure our ability to apply the direction we're
moving in which was provided to the board earlier this year, and
we were given board direction to proceed in that fashion. And so
we're doing as the PUD allows us to either deviate or be more
restrictive from our current policies and procedures as well as
Land Development Code criteria. We're taking this opportunity to
make sure that we're going to catch them at the early stages
versus waiting till the building permits are issued.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Must be -- I'm sorry. And I'm
sorry I didn't comprehend that late -- earlier. It must have been
my ADD or something. Anyways --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But that's -- that came out of both our
transportation and review -- transportation workshop and also
our growth management review workshops that we were asking
for a cumulative concurrency to measure impacts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the checkbook analogy.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, yeah. And what our staff is doing
is telling us that they're working us towards that. In the interim
they're building this in its conditional -- in these projects that
we're working on, at least I think that's what I'm hearing.
MS. MURRAY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Dawn, please.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING'.
Just one other question for
Go right ahead.
The 951 I'm very concerned
about since this is at the end of it, and from what I read here,
there is not going to be a deficiency. Are we going to look at
that during the process of the traffic impact study?
MS. WOLFE: Yes. It is basically the end point at that
location there, but also through our corridor and PD&E process,
Page 156
April 24, 2001
we'll also be investigating what needs to occur and happen
there. We put specific language that either will limit the amount
of development which may occur here, or they will be required to
put in improvements to mitigate for those impacts. And that's
where we're saying that's getting towards that real -- real-time
concurrency management, cumulative impacts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' And I didn't get to -- I had two
questions for the lawyers, so when you get back to me, ask --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. You've got one more.
Mr. McNees, and then I'm going to go here because we really
need to get the presentation by the -- by the petitioner. Mr.
McNees.
MR. McNEES.' Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's just one
other thing I wanted to call to your attention because it's along
the line of things you've asked us to bring to your attention when
they come up that are policy issues. I had a -- sort of a flash of
bureaucratic deja vu a few a minutes ago when we talked about
the utility issue because on a very similar project a number of
years ago we were having a discussion over what was the most
environmentally friendly method to deal with wastewater
treatment for a very similar development in the rural area.
That discussion turned from that discussion into one
regarding the provision of what was being labeled as an urban
service within the rural area. You ended up approving only
septic tanks for that development, and we know what happened.
Eventually that development was connected to the OrangeTree
plant which is an urban level provider of that service. So we
ended up with what it was being painted as an -- an -- a wrong
thing to do which was provide a pseudo urban service but was
actually the most environmentally friendly thing to do which was
to treat the wastewater centrally anyway. And we talked in -- on
that subject just a minute ago about how your rules don't allow
Page 157
April 24, 2001
you to do that. I'm only going to remind you that those are your
rules. Those are no one else's. And you have the ability to
adjust appropriately if you believe that that's something that
should be reconsidered. You are not locked into septic tanks in
this situation except by your own rules.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My other lawyer question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I finish asking --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm so sorry, Donna.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: --just one road thing? I read
through here that there -- there really wasn't -- thank you for
being here -- interconnectivity between these. And knowing how
you've stressed interconnectivity -- and I want to tell you that I'm
going to back you all the way on that. And I read there's none
other than right inside their own little development. Is there a
provision for providing interconnectivity to maybe take some of
the stress off of those streets that I'm worried about dropping
below level of service D?
MS. WOLFE: They've identified the ability for their
development to access the -- the Commercial Activity Center A
without having to go out on the primary system. The other issue
that we've put in place is by action earlier today, by resolution,
the identification of this section is limited access. We have had
discussion with the representative as well as the developer in
regards to that. And we have indicated to them that inasmuch as
we want limited access, that we still have the need and mandate
to provide access to property. However, in a hierarchy of looking
at accessibility, providing a public access connection to or
through their property to adjacent properties will promote their
greatest likelihood of any level of access to the future 951, but
that will not be defined until we do a specific corridor evaluation.
So we are looking at them to be partners, looking at them to look
towards the future for interconnection that provides them with
Page 158
April 24, 2001
the best accessibility while also providing for a -- potentially a
collector-distributor system coming off of their development and
to that activity center with residential being on the northern
corner of that area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did I just understand you to say --
MS. WOLFE: The opportunity is there. We've discussed it
with them, especially in terms of the fact that, quote, they are a
gated community. And we informed them that that puts them
basically at the lowest food chain as to accessibility to a limited
access facility on 951. But if they provide an opportunity via a
public access point and then take their private access off of a
public accessway and then that private one can be the beginning
point of a collector system that provides interconnectivity to the
yet-to-be-developed corner parcel that is outside their property,
that is getting to what we're trying to promote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just try and put this in
simple words. Did I just hear you say that it's -- although it's a
gated community and it's coming off of a main -- main -- main
artery --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Immokalee Road and 951 --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we don't know yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that you're going to encourage but
you don't have any approval to connect it to the other three
surrounding communities. But at this point in time, there is no
established interconnectivity because they are still gated. And,
of course, let me add that gated communities between main
arteries are not impressive to me at all.
MS. WOLFE: Exactly. And what we were trying to get at is --
to a great degree, yes, that's what I was saying. But in terms of
specifically, for example, the 951 -- the connection that they are
showing there, our recommended condition as is included
Page 159
April 24, 2001
specifically says connection, if any, shall be consistent whatever
our access management plan is for that specific roadway. If we
come through after the state's project development/environment
study and have an access management plan there that says the
only way that there's a connection on there at all at a specific
location, it -- the priority will be given as a public roadway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I'm just going to try to chime
in here again, Donna, and see if I can --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because one of the most
important things we did today was on our consent agenda, and
that was 16-B-1. That was where we designated Collier
Boulevard as -- the existing is a controlled access facility; in the
future is a limited access facility. And what I hear Dawn telling
you is if they ever want a bite at that limited access, the only
way they're going to get it is if it makes some kind of an
interconnection. But your question that I didn't think of and is a
good one is, are we requiring -- forget 951 and if they ever want
any access off of 951. Off of Immokalee Road, is there any
connection between their development and the adjacent
developments to allow access to the commercial activity center
there at the corner of 951 existing and Immokalee Road existing?
Aren't you trying to say can they get there from Olde Cypress?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can they get to the Publix
without going out on Immokalee?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, that -- that's our goal.
MS. WOLFE: The -- the existing Olde Cypress development
the way it is developed --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too late?
MS. WOLFE: -- does not -- it's too late. Unfortunately they
Page 160
April 24, 2001
are a closed, private, gated community. There is no accessibility
over to that side.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there -- is that -- what about
Terafina, which is farther north, the next one up. Show us on the
section maps where --
MS. WOLFE: I'm going to let -- go ahead and let Karen
answer that one because she's very familiar with the area in
question.
MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, agent for the
petitioner. One of the things you might want to notice about the
connections to the west is that there's a big preserve and flow-
way in between.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
MS. BISHOP: So interconnecting a roadway between there
would be at this point not a good idea because we're --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But there might be other areas. I
mean, it doesn't have to be through the flow-way.
MS. BISHOP: Well, I would like to show you what your
options are. Then you'll see there really isn't -- we had looked in
that -- and I need to move over there to do that. Okay. What we
have here is existing development right here, so these are all
single-family homes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is that one?
MS. BISHOP: This is Rose Avenue~ and I'm not sure of the
other ones. But there's Rose Avenue, and they've been here
quite a long time. So this is all existing single-family
developments as it stands now. And there's a commercial
development right here on our corner that sits there now. This
also right here is a part of the Olde Cypress, and then there's an
outparcel. This is also an outparcel of several different owners
also. At this point the only interconnection that we have the
ability to provide for is the one for the future activity center
Page 161
April 24, 2001
through our project. But what we are going to do is we're
providing a pedestrian accessway from one of our corners to the
others so that we have an opportunity to continue what's being
done or what we've talked about in the past with Piper Road on
the west side of 1-75 to allow a pedestrian path through here on
the north side of the canal so they're not up against the roadway
so that there does have -- these guys will be able to walk across
to this activity center since there is no way to bring them across
without buying some people's homes and that commercial guy on
the corner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In Terafina is there anyplace that
they could connect absent the flow-way in Terafina?
MS. BISHOP: Absolutely not. They have Logan Boulevard on
here, so their only opportunity, because of the flow-way to their
east and because of -- well, actually, I'm not sure what's going to
happen to the north of Parklands. Their -- I -- they may have
commercial facilities there. Then they would be on Logan and go
perhaps up through that roadway. Otherwise, they're going to
have to go down to the intersection and then either proceed to
the commercial activities to the west or to the east.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is that -- I mean, because
that's a really important issue that I hadn't thought of,
Commissioner, that I wish Dawn would get out her pencil and
look at it while we're talking about everything else and see if
there's anything we could do to allow for some connection up
there. If Olde Cypress -- if it's too late for them, maybe there's
something to do at Terafina or maybe -- you know, just tell us. Is
there nothing we can do, or should we require some stub-out
somewhere?
MS. WOLFE: You're landlocked because of environmental
issues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
Page 162
April 24, 2001
MS. WOLFE: That's your flow-way right through that area
other than the existing development.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Your pencil's already been
sharpened, huh?
MS. WOLFE: That's -- and that's why, like I said, I was trying
to push towards that corner parcel right there, quote, removing
any need for individual driveways to come off of a public
roadway. And, like I said, we are in discussions with them that
will continue on as we develop an access management plan for
that area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
until after--
And I'll hold my other questions
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I think we -- perhaps we need to
quickly wrap up with staff. We need to get to your presentation.
Your presentation, Karen, is how long? Because I'm going to
have to keep an eye on my recorder here.
MS. BISHOP: I believe our presentation is probably about 30
minutes. I'd like to hopefully be a little faster since most of you
have seen it already. But -- and we can speed Rick up. You guys
can just--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The public needs to see it. And how
many public speakers do we have, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: You have about eight.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wish we'd do the petitioner's
presentation if the court reporter's not dying.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can you hang in there for 30 minutes?
Okay. Thank you. We will do that, and we'll take a break after
your presentation and answer questions.
MS. BISHOP: We're going to start with Rick Barber with the
water management end of this. We also have our biologist Tim
Hall and Todd Turrell here to discuss wildlife and vegetation
Page 163
April 24, 2001
issues and give their part of the presentation after Rick is
completed.
MR. BARBER: I know you've seen this before, and the last
thing I want to do is irritate you at 2:30 -- 3:30.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're not going to irritate us,
Rick. I would really like you to move and highlight so that our
listening audience can see all of this, and we'll just take it right
along because it's valuable. This is one of the greatest parts, no
matter what this board decides, of a presentation that does you
two things. It gives you a historical perspective and where
they're trying to go and what they have.
MR. BARBER: Thank you, Commissioner. What I'd like to do
is just through the -- sort of a regional perspective, give you the
background information and then go specifically to this
Cocohatchee flow-way.
In 1995, as Chip pointed out, we had a storm that --
really, we had 65 inches of rain between July 15th and October
15th. And it's hard to think in terms of floods when we're in the
middle of a drought, but I have to remind myself of that all the
time. What we found was that the watershed was much, much
bigger than we thought it was for the Imperial River. It's really
315 square miles. It starts up in Estero, goes all the way out to
State Road 82 up into Hendry County, east past Lake Trafford
into Immokalee, and then the south end of our study really ended
at the county line because that's -- that's what the folks thought
at -- during that time, that there really wasn't much of -- in the
way of outfalls out of Collier -- out of the Corkscrew Swamp into
Collier County. But, of course, there's Camp Keais Strand and
the flow-way that we're going to talk about today. What we found
at -- at the beginning of that study is that there was a lot more
water coming through Bonita Springs than -- than we originally
conceived could come that way. We found that the reason for
Page 164
April 24, 2001
that was that some of the northern outfalls, the north branch of
the Estero River, Halfway Creek, the south branch of the Estero
River, those have been sort of cut off by 1-75. The proper size
conveyances were there. But when DOT built the road, they
failed to take into account the -- hooking up the upstream
portions to the downstream portions. So we had the right size
conveyances, but those connections were omitted. So most of
the water that fell in the northern parts of -- of the watershed
flowed down into Bonita Springs. Some of it came out through
the Cocohatchee, but not the historical proportion that we should
have had. And that -- that storm in '95 displaced 1700 people for
eight weeks. There was about 10 to $12 million worth of
damage, and 390 homes and trailers were destroyed. More
trailers than homes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sometimes trailers are homes.
MR. BARBER: Yes, ma'am. Current adverse conditions, this
is just -- I'll go through these quickly. This is a shot of
Worthington. We have somebody here today from Worthington
that'll speak to you. This is the main evacuation route, Bonita
Beach Road. You can see 1-75 in the background.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean the flooded evacuation
route?
MR. BARBER: The flooded evacuation route. That road was
closed for about three weeks, I believe. This is a road that went
from Bonita Beach Road out to the river, just to show you the
depth of flooding. Here's Imperial Bonita Estates. That bridge
was replaced on a slide I'll show you later. One of the things that
we developed during the flood study was a 1-foot contour map
that let us further define the watershed and actually understand
how it worked. This was an example of the computer model that
we used to model the watershed using the '95 data when we
were done. And the recent area improvements -- I'll go through
Page 165
April 24, 2001
these quickly. We cleaned and snagged the Estero River. We
increased the size of the culverts for the south branch of the
Estero River underneath Corkscrew Road. And a lot of these
projects were done with both South Florida money and Lee
County money and FEMA money.
We had an opportunity in The Brooks project to extend
Halfway Creek, reconnect it from 1-75 to U.S. 41. DOT records
show that that thing should flow at about a thousand CFS a
thousand cubic feet per second, and we only had 40 CFS come
out of there in 1995.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But now what do you have?
MR. BARBER: Now we're -- we're restored to almost full
capacity. But keep in mind these improvements that I'm showing
you here today are mostly east -- west of 1-75. We really haven't
done much east of 1-75. This was a bridge that's been replaced
on Halfway Creek. This was the crossing in -- in -- in The Brooks
for underneath the railroad tracks. That's how it looks today,
and that was done with South Florida funds. This was the Big
Cypress Basin's machine, the Aquamog. They loaned it to the
water management district to be able to clean and snag the
Imperial River, so Collier County has participated in some of the
improvements. This is the new bridge that I told you about that
FEMA money provided. This is a house that's been moved --
removed from the flood plain. Our friendly goat here standing in
the window is showing you how high the water got in 1995. But
they've been buying up houses that are in the flood plain and
removing them.
This is one improvement that's been done east of 1-75.
This is a new weir on the Kiehl Canal, which is the headwaters of
the Imperial River. It's been installed with three operable gates,
so we're able to draw down the watershed ahead of the storm
now,
Page 166
April 24, 2001
This is a project that Ed Carlson from the Corkscrew
Sanctuary participated in. This is an old tram road up here
where the blue arrows are pointing. There were four 36-inch
pipes up there. Water flows over the tram road in -- in high flows,
but in Iow flows it had to flow through these culverts. And Ed
increased those to 72-inch pipes.
This is Camp Keais Strand, one of the outfalls into
Collier County. This is Lake Trafford up here in the -- in the top of
the picture. We found an old road -- an old farm road that, of
course, the ag people knew about but we really didn't that
connects big -- Corkscrew Island to Immokalee. And it was the
old farm road, the original connection. The road's really no
longer in service, but it does block going south into Camp Keais
Strand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's happening about that?
MR. BARBER: We -- we believe that there's going to be a
mitigation project done with the landowner, and parts of that
road will be removed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On this big map right here, could
you show me where Mirasol is located?
MR. BARBER: Mirasol is down here next to the Mule Pen
Quarry. You can see the two lakes that I'm pointing at down at
the bottom. And this is a Cocohatchee flow-way connection that
runs around that. Mirasol is right next to that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. And this top here, this is the
one that you were talking about, Pam, that you wanted to -- this
top of this Mirasol thing here is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- where you wanted to eliminate
the golf course and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
Page 167
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- move it because it looks like it's
right in the flow-way. Is that it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA-' Okay. Thank you.
MR. BARBER: The next improvement that we're seeing out
there is satellite monitoring stations that are both rainfall and
water. And, of course, this is a CREW project where preservation
land is being purchased so water can be stored without harm to
private property owners. The Mirasol project includes Section 10
and 15 which were on the CREW acquisition list.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just say right there if 10
were a preserve and 15 were the area through which the flow-
way runs and restores the historical flows, I think we may -- I
mean if, if, if all of that can work with three property owners
together, then I think we may have accomplished what CREW
wanted to accomplish by acquiring those lands without spending
a nickel, which is kind of nice.
MR. BARBER: This is a restoration project we did at The
Brooks. This was an old -- what we call ephemeral pond, an area
that would fill up in the summertime to maybe 6, 7 inches of
depth. It was filled in to make pasture, and that's how it looks
today with the -- with the flow-way.
This was a recent restoration success at Cocohatchee
Strand and Pelican Marsh. We didn't participate in this, but that's
an example what a restored wetlands could look like.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pause there for a second, too --
MR. BARBER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because if you had this flow-
way with the interconnected lakes, the -- I forget what you call
them, but anyway you know what I'm talking about. If this
restoration flow-way is installed, is it going to look like that when
it's completed? Is it going to provide that kind of wading bird
Page 168
April 24, 2001
habitat and some -- some feeding opportunities for birds? I mean
-- or is it going to be a 6-foot deep canal that doesn't provide
anything for anybody? Is it going to look like that?
MR. BARBER: Yes, ma'am. The -- the objective is, of course,
to create something as natural as possible and still have
conveyance. So we have to have the channel to make up for the
portion of the sheet flow area that we've lost. That has to be
replaced as far as a cross section's concerned. But the
restoration part of the -- of the project, the removal of the exotics
and the replanting of natural vegetation --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the depth of the water is
basically up to Chip. I guess he's gone now. You know, it's up to
the South Florida Water Management District. And the issue that
he was discussing about he would like it to be wider and
shallower, but obviously that takes away more of your private
property. So that would be, what, sort of finalized through the
permitting process, how wide, how deep, how shallow.
MR. BARBER: And we think we're there. We -- through the --
the Mirasol project itself, we think it's 250 feet wide.
That's what we've modeled, especially if we go down to a single
channel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which means getting rid of that
golf course.
MR. BARBER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or moving it.
MR. BARBER: And then the rest of it'll be about 200 feet
wide and 4 feet deep. This was a request by some of the wildlife
people at the water management district. We've been able to
make the hydraulics work okay with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. BARBER: Now to talk specifically about the
Cocohatchee, it's -- the project, of course, as you know, is near
Page 169
April 24, 2001
what's called Broken Back Road. The flow-way itself consists of
1100 acres, and it's a flow-way between the Imperial Basin of
Corkscrew Swamp and the Cocohatchee River.
Here's where the -- the project is. It consists of 10,
15, and 22, right next to the Mule Pen Quarry at the intersection
of 951 and Immokalee Road.
Part of the modeling that we did for the water
management district consisted of a habitat evaluation and the
biologist, Rayanne Boylin (phonetic), put together a biological
component of our model, if you will, so that as we analyze
alternatives, whether we increase the flow-ways or held water up
higher, we could see what the reaction was of the wildlife and
the habitat within the -- within the whole 315 square mile
watershed. That's just an example of the type of -- of level of
detail that she went to in her -- in her identification of the habitat
types.
We think that the sheet flow that entered Collier County
or began out here at Lake Trafford and came south into Collier
County was maybe 15 or 20 miles across originally back in 1940.
It looked something like that.
In 1995 we were limited to about 2 miles of sheet flow
area, and with what's happened out there today, we're really in
the worst condition. We're down to about 270 feet as far as the
width of the existing flow-way that's left because of the different
things that have happened. So we're -- we're now trying to
compress 2 miles of sheet flow into 270 feet, and that's really the
reason for the conveyance.
Now, the conveyance has control structures on it that
hold the groundwater table up as high as possible to ground
elevation, and what we've found because of the funneling effect
is that the character of the land's really changed over the last 15
years. It's really gotten much wetter and much deeper out there.
Page 170
April 24, 2001
So we now have melaleuca where we had palmetto and pine
forest before. And this is a map that -- that shows the level of
melaleuca infestation. The darker color is over 75 percent
melaleuca.
There have been some improvements by Big Cypress Basin
Board to the Cocohatchee Canal. That is one of -- one of the
good things that's happened out there. They put in a new control
structure, the coco tree structure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- that's the project we
were talking about this morning that we're going to spend $3
million on. You know, there's an example of some of that failure
we were talking about.
MR. BARBER: And that -- what happened here is about a 6-
inch rainstorm, and this is before Big Cypress armored the -- the
edge of the canal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's better now. Those are some
of the improvements they've done -- the basin's done; right?
MR. BARBER: Right. These are 24-inch pipes, sort of
equalizer pipes that run through behind the berm that they've got
up on the north side of the canal.This is a 30-foot weir up at the
east end of the improvements, and this is the armored section
that -- that was put in. Am I wearing you out? That's -- it's about a
thousand-foot weir that Clarence and -- from the Big Cypress
Basin Board and his folks put in. That's just upstream of the
control structure. To give an idea of what's out there today as far
as what's left of the flow-way, this is the -- that apartment site
that you see being constructed on Immokalee Road now, and this
is the -- a golf hole at Olde Cypress. There's about 270 feet left
of that flow-way between these -- these two improvements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, you know --
MR. BARBER: That's where we have to put the conveyance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I got to just do a little
Page 171
April 24, 2001
preaching here about if anybody wondered why we need an ElS,
why we need the federal -- the Army Corps to do a study of
cumulative and secondary impacts, it's because -- can you go
back to that one? -- it's because we've thought that the other
agencies were taking care of these flow-way questions, and so
the county has stayed out of that business. Well, meanwhile,
Olde Cypress got its permit for that golf hole and for the rest of
its development, and I'm sure it met every single regulation that
it was required to meet. And what was a huge flow-way is now
this 270 feet because people looked on site at the project but not
at the cumulative effects. And now this is our last shot at
solving the problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think that's what we've been
talking about all along here, to look at all four projects, not this
particular one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We must.
MR. BARBER: And in defense of what's out here, this really
happened because of lack of knowledge. There wasn't this
regional perspective. People didn't understand how the different
watersheds were interconnected until that south Lee study was
done and that 1-foot contour map was put together. So there
was modeling done. There was proposed to be a road here that
connected Olde Cypress to Immokalee Road that had a control
structure in it. And that was modeled, but only from the
perspective of limiting the flow into the canal, not looking at
what was happening in the backwaters. So we -- we've gotten a
little smarter in the last five years. This is the -- the conveyance
way as it's been presented, as we did have a golf course on the --
on the north side or -- or showing that, and then the Mirasol
development takes place south of that. All the land in between
the two flow-ways are restored. And then it's thought the best
thing to do is to deed it over to CREW if they'll accept it, you
Page 172
April 24, 2001
know, if we restore it to their specifications.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Rick, if you were to move
your northern golf course south, it would eliminate the need for
that northern branch of the flow-way. But would it require a
widening or some change, I mean, concomitantly offsetting in the
southern branch of the flow-way?
MR. BARBER: I'm not sure I understand the question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If -- in the plan that I saw that
eliminated -- that moved the northern golf course south so that
we could restore and retain all of Section 10, this little river
you're creating up there in Section 10 was gone away. MR. BARBER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So would there be an offsetting
increase in the size of the lower -- the southern canal if you
eliminate the northern canal?
MR. BARBER: It's not proportional. It's -- we -- we run the
modeling and found we only have to increase it 50 feet from the --
from the 200 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. BARBER: We're also offering control structures that
hold the groundwater table up to at least land elevation -- you
know, existing ground elevation so we don't lose any of the
water to tide when we don't need to. But the control structures
are there to limit how much water can come off in the peaks and
also hold the groundwater table up. We show them in three
locations: One down on the canal itself and then on the two
branches.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will you have as good of a flow if
you eliminate that top flow-way?
MR. BARBER: Yes, ma'am. We -- we've looked at that and
designed it so it will operate --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what Chip will
Page 173
April 24, 2001
confirm. I mean, he won't give them a permit at South Florida
unless they get as good or better flows out of the changed -- and
this is what we have to recognize that I was talking to Chip
about at the beginning. What's so frustrating is it may change
again. You know, they may find that they've got to move it a
little more north or a little more across here, you know, because
that's what the water management district permits. We don't
permit that canal. And it will change, and then they'll have to
bring back their PUD master plan, if it changes the PUD master
plan, and amend it. And we'll get to see it then, but it'll already
be sort of determined by then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have a question, sir. Is there
any possibility-- I mean, we're talking about public good, and it
sounds like you've got a lot of positive things going for this
particular project. How about public access? I mean, if we're
going to have a beautiful naturally restored wetlands, is there
some way we might be able to have something for public access,
maybe a park or something that might be able to have walkways
going out into it?
MR. BARBER: Well, if CREW is the ultimate owner of the
land, I think it'll be up to them. But they created trails on other
parts of their holdings, and I think that would be a possibility.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you be receptive to doing
something, too, to maybe help this happen?
MR. BARBER: It would depend on where the access could
come from but --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Miss Bishop, I think, can better answer
that one at this point.
MS. BISHOP: Obviously at this point, until we have our
permitting done, I can't offer too much more than saying that our
conservation easement will allow for passive recreation in this
so that -- you know, obviously we have 951 issues on where it's
Page 174
April 24, 2001
going to go and how the public's going to access. So we don't
know yet, and we don't even know whether we have public
access on 951 yet. So we're not sure what the ultimate is, but I
did structure the conservation easement to allow for passive
recreation in it which would allow boardwalks and observation
areas. So that could be -- that could happen. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. BARBER: Just a last slide here to show you what the --
the true section of the -- you know, engineering drawings tend to
look like this when they exaggerate scales and that sort of thing,
so we did one at true scale. And that's really what we're looking
at, is a very shallow conveyance way that would draw down in
the wintertime and concentrate food sources for the -- the birds
that would utilize this, hopefully wood storks, that sort of thing.
We've got Todd Turrell here if you'd like to hear more about
the environmental part of this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We all want to hear about that, but I
want to check on my recorder. Are you okay? Okay. She's okay.
Don (sic) Turrell.
MR. BARBER: Just a last couple words here, that this is a
regional benefit. You know, I'm proud of where we've gotten to
with this working with the water management district. It's one of
the few times I've seen three or four private property owners
come together and create something that's this beneficial. And I
respect all the time that the commission's given me to talk to
you about this, and I -- I feel strongly that this is a -- a regional
benefit that we need to -- we need to really consider.
And the -- the flow-way itself is not necessary to the
Mirasol project. We've got the Immokalee Road Canal down
below us, so this isn't being done as a drainage project. This is --
this is a flow-way to restore the historic quantities to benefit the
Page 175
April 24, 2001
whole watershed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's a real important --
could I ask you a question about that? MR. BARBER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has anybody done an analysis? I
understand that if you weren't trying to have this regional
benefit, you could do the usual connected golf course, ponds,
and a pipe underneath into Immokalee Road. Has anybody
compared the cost of that and -- the cost of that to the cost of
what you're proposing to do, for one? And this will serve some -- MR. BARBER: I really didn't want the client to know those
numbers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. A lot. A big number. And
the other one is, what portion of -- now, let me get this straight.
I've got to ask this right. You're not doing the traditional water
management system. This is serving as your water management
system; true?
MR. BARBER: Not really. We outfall into it because the
water management district desires us to. It'll be just as easy for
us to run the water down to the canal. But the reason why the
improvement's there and the flow-way's being preserved is
obviously mitigation. I mean, it's a valuable thing to the water
management district, and it helps us go through the mitigation
process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so some percentage of this
flow-way is there to provide water management for your project,
some percentage of it you get mitigation credit for it, and then
some percentage of it is just community benefit.
MR. BARBER: Well, it really doesn't provide water
management storage or any -- any vestige of storage for our
project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, where's your water going to
Page 176
April 24, 2001
go? Where are you going to --
MR. BARBER: It'll -- it'll stay in our lake system and then --
but all the water management requirements are being met on the
project itself including water quality.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Separate from this flow-way?
MR. BARBER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That's a big deal. I mean,
that's a lot different from what I thought.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, before you go, what
about a colossal event where we have a tremendous amount of
rain? We had the problem before where -- remember Quail Creek
did the pumping off their property? Are you familiar with that
problem that existed?
MR. BARBER: I am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how do we know this
wouldn't happen with this particular piece of property?
MR. BARBER: Well, we -- like I say, we've got the regional
perspective now. We have the records and the ability to predict
how high the water can get out there. The floor slabs on this
project and the road system will be designed to reflect those --
that knowledge, and the project will be high enough.
One of the things that the water management district
wanted us to do is have our water management system open to
provide storage for the whole basin. So we have large weirs on
this project, but water can flow into us in times when the water
in the flow-way is that high. That's one of the requirements that
they asked us to provide.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. TURRELL: My name's Todd Turrell. I will be brief, but I
want to talk a little bit about the wetlands that are out there
since there are a good many impacts that I know everybody's
concerned about, and I think you need to understand what we're
Page 177
April 24, 2001
actually talking about.
As Rick pointed out, everything in between the two blue
lines that you see here would be preserved if you did move out of
this area, Section 10, that would, of course, be preserved as well.
The -- the wetlands that are out there right now are probably,
after 20 years in this business, some of the most degraded
wetlands that we've ever worked with. My firm's been involved
with this property for a better part of ten years, and the wetlands
out there are so bad. And that's bad in the case of having heavy,
heavy infestation of melaleuca, in most cases beyond 75 percent.
And as Tim Hall, our chief biologist, can get into if you're
interested in the wildlife issues, the wildlife kind of loses the
ability to use those wetlands when it's like that.
Our plan is to, of course, clean all the melaleuca out
at millions of dollars of expense to the developer and leave these
areas in a -- in a pristine area so they -- they can function. And
the area in between the flow-ways that you see once you add the
off site comes out, like, 1100 acres that would be essentially an
extension of the CREW lands to the east.
Now, I also want to point out that a lot of these lands
that are called wetlands today I believe were not historically. If
you look at the map that's over on the wall there, you'll see on
the one to the left the brown would represent the uplands.
That's 1985. And on the one to the right, the -- of course the
brown is the uplands.
I believe that a change has occurred like that just from
-- with my experience, regardless of hydric soils or anything else.
I'm talking about just vegetation. I -- I believe that to be true.
And the best example, I guess, I can give of that is to go into
pictures like this. What you see is a -- what used to be a
palmetto prairie. The palmettos have all drowned. There's
melaleuca and saw grass coming up there, and that saw grass
Page 178
April 24, 2001
has no business being there. And those -- those -- they were
large areas of saw palmetto, and saw palmetto and uplands, and
they're gone. So I'm happy to take anybody into the field that
wants to go to show them that because that's very, very real, and
there's very large areas of it.
Once again, this is the same thing as on the wall. I
believe, in my professional judgment, that this is a true picture.
You know, these guys, because of the watershed changes around
that Rick has described to you, have really been affected by this.
But the rule is, at least as the corps of engineers says it, unless
somebody's actively pumping on your land -- regardless of all the
other changes that affected you, unless somebody's pumping
there today, that's the deal. It doesn't matter that it used to be
palmettos. It doesn't matter how degraded it is. You're
wetlands.
So when you hear 500 or whatever it is acres of
wetlands, realize what we're talking about here. We're talking
about melaleuca infested, 75 percent or greater, in many areas
that I believe were historically -- historically uplands.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. From -- back from that
picture that you just had --
MR. TURRELL: Here's another one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, I wanted to see the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The map.
MR. TURRELL: Oh, the map.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, the map, the one that you just
had there. That shows the green all now wetlands; right? MR. TURRELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's a great deal of homes and
two golf courses being built. How are they going to build it in all
of those wetlands?
Page 179
April 24, 2001
MR. TURRELL: Well, the wetlands that we're talking about,
once again, are pine flatwoods. They're pine trees. It's the same
kind of land that most of the developments arOund -- around
Collier County were built. The canopy that's out there in these
wetlands are -- is a pine canopy, so it's not like we're going into
cypress head, deep wetland cypress areas or even areas that
have the predominance of ferns or anything. We're going into a --
you know, into a pine flatwoods. And, you know, pine flatwoods
can be hydric or they can be uplands. And, you know, if you start
sheet flowing a bunch of additional water onto the pine flatwood,
you can drive it into a hydric condition. But I don't think it's an
appropriate land to -- to turn into -- to development, and it's
actually very similar to a lot of land that's been turned into --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And aren't the rules -- this is
confusing to me, too, but I think the rules in this county are no
net loss to wetlands, but it's no net loss to viable functioning
wetlands. And what that means is -- frankly, even I'm not going
to say these are viable functioning wetlands because they're not.
It's melaleuca and it's nasty, and we'll be much better off if
they'll rip out what's there.
So, I mean, the initial question is, what? These are
wetlands. How could they possibly be talking about building
houses there? Well, the answer is they're sort of kind of
wetlands because they're so infested and because they're not
historically wetlands.
MR. TURRELL: Yeah. There are two areas of good, true
-- at least, you know, depending on how you want to define it --
true wetlands on site, big -- two big cypress domes. Those are
both in the flow-way. They're being completely preserved. And
strangely enough, those are the only places where the melaleuca
haven't taken over is in the truly nice, deep, natural wetlands.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Surprise.
Page 180
April 24, 2001
MR. TURRELL: The pine flatwoods are obliterated with
melaleuca. So that's --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Back to your definition of pumping off
the land. Now, I know it may not be happening today, but if I go
north and I look at all of the fallow farmlands up there, that's
where the pumping took place because they pumped the water
off, and it went south so that they could have farmlands which
were acceptable at that particular period of time. So if I even go
back to the corps's definition and really literally applied that,
yeah, it was affected because these guys pumped their lands to
raise crops. And I'm not blaming them because we allowed it at
that time. But the end result was -- is what you're looking at
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you know what -- I have to
share the frustration of Ed Carlson. You guys, I'm sure, read the
minutes of the EAC meeting. And by the way, staff, thank you so
much for giving us those full minutes of the EAC meeting
because that was very useful, even though I try to watch the --
watch the tape. What Ed said is, you know, we keep talking
about wetlands, but we're going to nuke them because they're
not wet. And now we've got some actually truly wet wetlands,
and we're going to nuke them because they used to be dry. You
know, and that's a little frustrating.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You just brought up a very
interesting point, and I'd like to give this to you back -- back to
you on that. We have very much concerns over the wood stork,
and the wood stork population's been going down every year. I
understand in Carolina -- I believe it's South Carolina -- there's a
program under way, and they have a wood stork population that
is growing tremendously by managing their wetlands in such a
way that it's advantageous to feed the birds at the time of the
year that they're nesting. Is there something we could do with
Page 181
April 24, 200t
this land to be able to do this for the population of wood storks.
MR. TURRELL: We have tried to design the flow-way so
there's elevations that kind of dry out gradually, and that
provides feeding habitat for the wood storks. So I would say that
in a postdevelopment scenario with that flow-way in place,
there'll be significant additional opportunities for wood storks to
feed other than they are right now. Right now the only place we
see wood storks on the property are down near 951 along the
canal. So I think we're creating habitat for wood storks. And we
have in our plans wood stork management plans along with all
the other endangered species. And if you want to hear more on
critter issues, Tim Hall, our chief biologist is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be very interested to talk to
him about it.
MR. TURRELL: Anyways, that's pretty much all I have to say
about the wetlands, not to knock them too much, but I wanted to
know what you -- you guys to know what we're really talking
about here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Hi, Tim.
MR. HALL: Hi. Tim Hall with Turrell & Associates. Specific
to the wood storks, as you know, most of the -- you've heard
everybody talk about how bad the melaleuca is and all out there.
Regardless of whether they're uplands, used to be uplands,
wetlands, used to be wetlands, it's a forested community. Wood
storks normally prefer to feed in marsh communities where
there's little to no canopy overhead and relatively shallow
waters.
What this conveyance is going to do -- you saw the large
cross section. Being as wide as it is, not having a uniform
bottom -- it's not going to be like a straight bottom, straight slope
ditch. It's going to be wavy and undulated so that as it starts -- as
the rainy season ends and it starts drying out, you're going to
Page182
April 24, 2001
have different areas of that flow-way pooling at different times.
And what that does is then concentrates the food source for the
wood storks into those pools where it becomes more available
for them in the way that they feed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But then, again, too, Tim, we're
kind of victims of the elements that are out there. And if we
have too much rain come in, it dilutes the food source over a
larger area, and the wood stork once again has an unsuccessful
nesting season. Is there some way that we can manipulate the
water flow at a critical time that would be advantageous to the
wood stork so we might be able to restore the population?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you use those weirs for that
purpose?
MR. HALL: Yeah. Well, the only way to do that would --
would probably be to hook up some sort of pump system to the --
the canal along Immokalee Road to where if that became an
issue, you could actually pump water back -- from the canal back
up into the system.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If this wouldn't be contrary to
water management, I think this would be a wonderful program to
try to put in place. We're always talking about the wood stork
and how we're ruining the environment for them. The only place
they got to feed, I guess, is the canals along the edges of the
roads. Why don't we try to do something with what we're going
to have with this resource to restore the population?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not a bad marketing ploy for your
project developer too.
MR. HALL: It's an option, but there are some negatives
associated with that at as well. The only really source that
would probably be a -- a viable option to pump out of is the canal,
and you have all of the road-pollution issues in the water
associated, you know, with the road in the canal that you would
Page 183
April 24, 2001
be pumping up into the system. I mean --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we could be the --
MR. HALL: As far as water quality goes, it could be
beneficial in that you're giving that water additional time to be
filtered and the vegetation, but you have the metals or -- and the
oils and greases, whatever else is associated. You could end up
with bioaccumulation effects through the food chain into the
wood storks. So the water quality and all that have to be looked
at real quickly before I'd want to endorse that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know you're telling me reasons
why it probably can't be done. I want you to tell me reasons how
it can be done.
MR. HALL: Well, if the water-quality issues are okay, or if
the water management district would allow the water to come
out of the lakes associated with the surrounding projects where
water-quality issues are already taking place, then -- then that
would be an option.
One of the things that we have also proposed is a couple
of areas that are slightly deeper that will have water year-round.
That would offer a -- a permanent refuge or place for the food
sources of the wood storks to be year-round so that when the
water levels did raise incrementally, that stuff could spread out.
And then as it decreased again, you'd have other pools. It would
just give it a -- more of a head start on repopulating the area
once the water does become available.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How do we get this written into
the PUD so that this does happen rather than just all theory at
this point in time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I interject here for a minute
with what my observation over -- with the wood stork this year is
in this dry season? The canals, 951 canal, it didn't have water in
it, and historically that's where the wood stork was and Big
Page 184
April 24, 2001
Cypress and that. And what I seen and had experienced with
conversations with people is the lakes that some of these
developments has dug out has provided an area for the wood
stork to feed. I seen that in the Naples Daily News.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's not quite correct.
They need to have something that has fluctuating water levels to
be able to pool the food. They don't feed by sight. They feed by
touch. And they have to have a heavy concentration to be able
to grab their food. They move their beaks back and forth. They
feel fish and they grab it. In a general lake that you have open
with various depths, it's not going to help. If it's got a continuous
water level, they'll never be able to get close enough to the fish
like an egret would where they do it by sight.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how sad is that if the only
habitat left for wood storks is golf course ponds? What does that
say? My God.
MR. HALL: Well, the other problem that you have is that
most development lakes, the slopes of the lakes are relatively
steep. And what we're proposing in the flow-way is much gentler
slopes which gives a wider area for the wood storks to be able to
feed in that has the adequate depth for them. And that, you
know, 6-inches-to-l-foot range would be spanning 4 or 5 feet
rather than concentrated in just a 1-foot band around the lakes.
MR. BARBER: Tim -- Commissioner, Tim can't see what's on
the screen right now, but one of the things that -- we talked to Ed
Carlson out at the sanctuary and said, "What can we do to make
this more attractive to wood storks?" And one of the -- one idea
was to add a berm, if you can see it in this cross section, right
next to the shoreline so as the water level drops in the dry
season, it concentrates flow before even this 4-foot-deep flow-
way goes dry. So he said concentrate the food source next to
the bank, and that would go a long way. And we're going to have
Page 185
April 24, 2001
almost 3 miles of flow-way with this berm on both sides, so we
think we are --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And forgive me if I seem to be
dragging this process out, but I think this is the last chance to
save the wood stork in South Florida. I really do. And I think
right here is the answer that we might be searching for. We've
already developed everything past the point -- we can't go back
and change it.
This thing here, by altering this we might be able to
provide a habitat. And just think how much it would mean to
Mirasol if all of a sudden it became a sanctuary for wood storks.
I mean, people would come from all over the world to be able to
see it. It would be on everybody's tongue. I can guarantee you it
probably would be a sellout, and the property would take on even
higher values.
Is there any way -- I know that we're at the 11th hour
now and everybody wants to see this move forward. I want to
make an issue on this. And forgive me if I do, but I don't see
where we're going to get another chance to be able to come
back. I'm looking at an area that's 5 percent of probably the
total water area with that little bump in there, and once that's
gone we're back to nothing but the ditches along 951.
MR. BARBER: Well, one of the things that happens here is
since it is a 4-foot-deep flow-way, the water table gets down to
probably 6 feet below land, so the entire conveyance will draw
out and concentrate food source through the dry season with the
exception of a few deep spots up towards Mirasol itself. But this
is what the fish and wildlife people suggested to us would be the
most beneficial to the wood stork.
MR. HALL: The other thing is -- to keep in mind is that the
flow-way isn't -- the 4-foot depth is based on the adjacent land.
So when it's excavated, it's not going to be the same elevation
Page 186
April 24, 2001
all the way through. The elevation of the flow-way's going to be
different, but it's going to be 4 feet deeper than what the land is
right next to it. So as the water table drops, different areas of
that flow-way are going to be drying out over the whole course of
the dry season. The entire thing isn't going to dry out at once.
I do understand what you're saying, but I think the only
way to be assured that the wood storks would have a -- a source
that's not dependent upon acts of God would be to have a man-
made system in place where you can artificially alter it either by
pumping out or pumping into an area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now we're talking.
MR. HALL: And the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you very much, Tim.
You're heading in the right direction. And I can see that Mrs.
Bishop's even very excited about the thoughts of this too.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, maybe we better let her step up
here and find out how we can have the Jim Coletta Wood Stork
Sanctuary established in here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't have to name it after
me, but since you insist.
MS. BISHOP: The Jim Coletta Memorial Wood Stork Park.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're going to tell me I'm for
the birds; right?
MS. BISHOP: No. Actually, you know, the bizarre part about
the permitting which you discussed earlier with Chip is that all
these agencies -- which is one of the -- one of the big problems I
think the developers have -- they don't have what we call the
unified plan, a thought process on each property, and that this
agency's concerns are these things and this agency's concerns
are these things, and they're not necessarily the same thing.
It was our first plan to have a series of what we called
a string of lakes, and in between was the shallow areas. So you
Page 187
April 24, 2001
would have water most of the time in a lot of it and in the
shallow areas, and so there would still be a lot of shoreline
available all year-round. But then the district said that those
were impacts to the wetlands and that those impacts had to be
minimalized (sic) and that to -- I mean, keep in mind we have to
mitigate for building this flow-way. And so what we have to do is
minimize our impacts.
Meanwhile, when we brought the wildlife people and EPA on
the site, they requested that we try to create more shoreline,
which is what we were trying to do to begin with. That's in direct
opposition of what the district wants us to do. So this arduous
process is extremely complicated trying to make everyone
happy, but that is what our goal is. Our intent was why waste 3
miles of shoreline if we can't do something for the birds, which
they don't have here now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you. And I -- I bet
you 2 to I the only thing we have to do is minor modifications to
make this thing work so it's more effective. In South Carolina
what they do is they actually draw the lakes down to be able to
provide food for the -- the storks, and that helps to keep the
population there and meets their criteria that they need when
they're -- they're breeding and nesting. Maybe we --
MS. BISHOP: Well, you don't really have to worry about that
here. The water drops in these areas quite --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not always. And that's what
you call an unsuccessful year. And right now we're almost to a
level at zero, and if we have another bad year or two, it's going to
be nothing. There won't be any wood storks. We'll just have
pictures of them.
MS. BISHOP: And I'm not -- and, believe me, I'm not
suggesting I'm an expert on the wood storks, but I do have some
knowledge about the water levels in this area because I live right
Page 188
April 24, 200t
across the street and have watched the water levels and where
they sit. And the majority of the time to the south of this project
the water levels are at least 6 feet under existing ground, so that
makes it difficult when you hold -- when you're dropping -- your
cross section's at 4 foot and the water level's dropped below
that. So that's why we created these other areas where we have
deeper areas that we know will then -- when those dry out, then
they have these that concentrates that area.
So that is what the intent is for this, was to try to
create the 3 miles worth of some type of bird-wading habitat,
specifically geared towards wood storks. So that is what we're
doing. That is what we've had in mind. And that's what these
cross sections are doing. But at the same time, we have another
agency saying the more impacts you create, the more you have
to mitigate it. So us creating this habitat, of course, causes us to
pay to mitigate to create. So it's a very complicated process that
-- that's why zoning is important to have first.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So in other words, for you to
build -- you have to impact wetlands to build this flow-way. MS. BISHOP: And I have to mitigate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And even though the reason
you're taking out wetlands is to build this flow-way, you have to
mitigate for that reduction of wetlands?
MS. BISHOP: Yeah. That's exactly how it works.
Impacts must be mitigated. There will be no net loss of
wetlands. That is -- that is the cry from all the federal and state
agencies, not just Collier County. But that is a no net loss, which
means mitigation must occur.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even if what you're doing would
qualify as mitigation?
MS. BISHOP: What happens is you still have the original im -
- the initial impact. So, yeah, you may get some mitigation
Page189
April 24, 2001
credits for what you're doing, but it still gets applied to the
impacts. It's a very complicated process --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds complicated.
MS. BISHOP: .- that unfortunately isn't done by the simple
math: This much wetlands, this much impacts, equals this
much. That's just not how it works. There's a scoring that
occurs on the land, and that scoring is -- goes up or down based
on what your uses are going to be at the end. And so maybe the
score today is I for this property, and when we're finished it's
going to be a 4. Well, that's to our advantage, but we still have to
take the fact that we're impacting that even 1. So it is very
complicated.
Now, I -- our attorney is a lot more familiar with the why
these processes are in the -- in the order that they are. And so I
would like for him to discuss with you because he's a past legal
counselor for the district, and so he has an idea of why zoning
comes first and why we have all of these agencies and what their
focuses are and why they have you do what they do.
But I can tell you that the process now -- we've been in
this permitting process putting together a package and in the
permitting for almost two years now. And I can tell you that it's --
that's what it takes when you deal with all these agencies, and
they all have different criteria, and they all want some -- at some
point they want things that are totally different than the other
agencies want.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That sounds like the
commissioners here; right?
MS. BISHOP: Well, actually, you know, I wouldn't mind just
having five people sitting in the same spot that I have to go over,
but that's not how this works. You have to move back and forth
and back and forth and back and forth. This person wants this.
Then when you go and say, "Oh, that sounds great. I'll do that,"
Page 190
April 24, 2001
then you put that in there, and they go, "Well, wait a minute. We
don't want that" or "If you want to do this, then you have to do
that." So it's just constant Roog Goldberg (phonetic). This
triggers this which triggers this, and it is not as simple as we
would really like to see it.
But as of now -- and that's just the process that you
have to go through, and that's what we all live with. And it could
be, on some projects like this one, you know, a couple years. On
some of my other projects -- the Cocohatchee project that you're
aware of-- I've actually got a problem where they're actually
wanting me to get rid of the turtle habitat to lessen my impacts
to wetlands, and I want to save my turtles so you have -- you're
arguing over--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand, Mrs. Bishop.
MS. BISHOP: You know, so it's tough.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just think about it. Lely's got
their horses out in the front. You could have the wood storks.
MS. BISHOP: The bronze wood storks. I don't think that's
what you have in mind. I think you really want the real wood
storks, and that's -- we do too. But, you know, I do have to say
that I never saw a wood stork before until those ditches, so I was
really pleased that at least I get to see them at this point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me -- let me suggest this to the
board: I think what we would like to do is to be able to establish
some framework here this afternoon to work through this. I think
that's what the petitioner wants. I think that's what everybody in
the room is searching for. Will your attorney help give me the
framework now, or do I need to give the magic fingers over here
ten minutes so that we then can bring this around to some frame
work and so we can take a course of action?
MS. BISHOP: Well, the process that he's going to discuss is
the general permitting process which Chip only talked about one
Page 191
April 24, 2001
little aspect of it, so I thought you might want to hear the rest
but -- you know, because the wood-stork issue for us I think is
important, just like any bird-wading habitat in general. And we
want to provide that, but there is a cost for everyone to provide
that, which is impacts and that we will have to mitigate those
impacts.
So obviously, we're willing to do that because we agree
with you. We think that this is a good thing to be a part of. And
why waste this opportunity when having all this shoreline
without being able to do something with it? So we're with you on
that. But keep in mind that there are other aspects of the people
who want to control the drainage end of this who just want to
use this as a conveyance and want to see it as a conveyance
because that's what their thought process is, not so much as a
wildlife restoration project.
But Steve, I think, can give you some idea of why you do
things the way you do and why zoning is important first and why
the district and the other agencies don't give permission to do
things until those other things are in place, because that gives
the local people opportunity to see it first, is what I believe.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, Karen. My name is Walker. I'm a
lawyer from West Palm Beach, and I started working at the South
Florida Water Management District in their legal office in 1975,
which was the year after they began regulating these sorts of
projects. And, actually, that's before Collier County was even a
part of the South Florida Water Management District. And one of
the very first issues we had to struggle with was, what is the
relationship between the district's permitting process and local
land use decisions made by cities and local government? And,
unlike today, at that point in time it was a lot cheaper to go
through the water management district than it was to go through
the local government, through the zoning process, the comp plan
Page 192
April 24, 2001
amendment process. And what we were finding and we heard
very quickly from local governments was they did not appreciate
the water management district approving projects that -- for a
particular land use, which they have to do because of the factors
involving impervious area and so forth which go into calculating
water quality requirements and so forth, that the local
governments were then getting beat over the head with the
district permits saying, "Well, the district says we can build a
golf course residential community here and it all works, so what
other issues are there to address besides these water-
management issues?" And, of course, as local officials you know
there are a lot more issues to address than simply what you can
get through the permitting process and from the water
management district.
The district then adopted a rule that required that you
have your local zoning and land use approvals done before you
could get a water management permit, and that rule was in place
for many years. Unfortunately, that rule was ultimately struck
down by the -- an entity called the Joint Administrative
Procedures Committee, which you're blessed as a local
government not to have to deal with. It's an arm of the
legislature that basically evaluates whether or not an agency
such as the district has the authority to go adopt the rules that
they're proposing. And what that agency ruled was the district
did not have the authority to require another governmental entity
to act before they acted on a permanent application.
What the district then did to attempt to continue to
coordinate with water management -- with the local governments
was establish a rezoning review process whereby you could get
advisory comments from the water management district in the
process of your rezoning and get feedback -- not a permit-level
decision from the district, as they didn't necessarily have
Page 193
April 24, 2001
progressed that far, but to get some feedback from them
regarding where the project was, what were the critical issues
from a resource point of view that they saw coming on the
horizon. It was not a guarantee for the water -- for the applicant
that they were going to get a permit from the district, and it
certainly was no guarantee they were going to get their rezoning
from the local government. But it provided a coordination
process whereby local government could get the general issues
they needed to get out in the rezoning process on the table.
Unfortunately, due to staffing constraints and budgetary
crunches, it's my understanding that largely that rezoning
coordination process has sort of gone by the wayside. I don't
know that the district provides -- other than the informal contacts
that you may have with -- your staff may have with them on an
individual basis to -- to get that kind of coordination on --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's a funding issue?
MR. WALKER: You'd have to talk to the district folks about
that, but I believe it was a funding issue for them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that's what
Commissioner Carter and I were talking about this morning, that
we wish so badly that we could have is some kind of
communication with the district during the rezone process and --
and maybe there's a way we could, you know, reinvent that
wheel.
MR. WALKER: It -- when it was in place, it worked well from
my perspective, both when I was with the agency and in private
practice. I mean, the trick for a developer is to get all these
people and agencies with different missions aligned and moving
in the same direction so that we can be all things to all people in
the process. And the more that each of these agencies are
talking back and forth to each other and coordinating their
efforts in advance, that the easier it actually makes it for us to
Page 194
April 24, 2001
get through the process. So ultimately, I think that that's
something that you might find very useful to try and reestablish
with the district.
I would say that in this particular case, your staff,
from the EAC on down, has been in communication with the
district on many of the environmental issues associated with this
project. So you may have had more coordination on this
particular project already than you would have had just as a
matter of course because of its significance and because,
frankly, we -- we've tried real hard to get all the players involved
to understand the relative importance of -- of this project for the
region as well as for this particular developer.
I did want to comment one moment on Commissioner
Coletta's issue with respect to the wood storks. Often things
that are -- this kind of falls in the category of no good deed goes
unpunished. And there are things that you can do to actually
enhance endangered-species issues that are objectionable to the
agencies that regulate endangered species.
Just as a simple example, the water management district
used to have a problem with the manatees getting crushed in
their -- in their gates, their water control gates. The manatees
would swim upstream of the gate, and then when the gate
opened, it would get them stuck in it, and it wouldn't -- the gate
didn't open fast enough to allow them to swim through it and
they drowned.
There were a variety of solutions proposed for that,
including warning systems to warn the manatee that this gate
was going to be opened and so on, all of which were found
objectionable by the fish and wildlife service because we were
now harassing an endangered species. The ultimate solution --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The depth of their thinking is amazing.
MR. WALKER: Yeah. The ultimate solution actually was to
Page 195
April 24, 2001
program the structures so that they opened more quickly, so
essentially this -- now this poor sleeping manatee gets
essentially flushed downstream, like instantaneously, and then
the gate closes back down. So I would just caution -- I mean,
while we're committed to doing the best we can for the wood
stork, I'd be concerned about committing to some specific
strategy that may be objectionable to the wildlife agencies for
reasons that neither you nor I could fathom at this point in time.
That's my only caveat on that point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I appreciate that. Perhaps you'll make
this note for me, Mike, to take to Tom. Southwest Regional
Planning Council administrators now meet on a regular basis. It
may also be an issue we take to that council to look for
reinstatement of that and working with Chip Merriam to see if we
can't make those things happen, not only for Collier but for the
other counties in the district. More paper.
I'm going to suggest -- and we're going to have to -- we
need to take ten. We'll come back, and we will look and see if
we can't frame a conclusion to this discussion this afternoon. So
we're going to take ten. We'll be back at 4:30. (A break was held.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We are going to public
comment on this item.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would like to -- if Mr. McNees would
take us to that, we would like public comment. As you know, it's
each person five minutes to address the commission on this
subject. So call them up, and if we can get the first speaker and
then go to the on-deck cycle -- circle we'd certainly appreciate it.
MR. McNEES: Your first speaker is David Graham, and then
on deck would be Richard Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems like David's gone.
Page 196
April 24, 2001
MR. McNEES: Following Mr. Yovanovich, if they could be
prepared, please, would be Erica Lynne.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich, and I
-- I represent the property owner that -- the hole in the doughnut,
and I just wanted to say that I wanted to thank the petitioner.
They have worked with us to both provide us with a temporary
access point down to Immokalee Road and hopefully a more
permanent access point at the time that the alignment of 951 is,
in fact, completed. So their PUD has been amended to reflect
access to our client, and our client is in support of the project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does he have a house on there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Not yet, but hopefully some day if
Commissioner Mac'Kie doesn't get her way and it doesn't
become a preserve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if I get my way ...
MR. McNEES: Erica Lynne.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Will be followed by--
MR. McNEES: The next speaker would be Frank Vullo.
MS. LYNNE: Erica Lynne. I am -- I serve on the
Environmental Advisory Council, but I'm here today speaking for
myself. I came -- I also -- I have a Ph.D. In biology. I have
experience in environmental assessments, and so I speak with
some authority on this issue. And I'd just like to present a few
facts for the commissioners today.
This is the soils information that came with the EAC
packet prepared by Turrell & Associates. It comes from the
government. Can I stick this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you help her?
MS. LYNNE: Okay. In the soils packet, all of the soils, every
single one of them, are hydric wetland soils, okay, every single
one of them. Actually, the one exception that I'm going to tell
you about now is the one outlined in red that's labeled 25. For
Page t97
April 24, 2001
every single one of these soils, the quote is, "This soil has severe
limitations for most urban uses because of the high water table.
To overcome this limitation, building sites and septic tank
absorption fields should be mounded." The only exception is that
sometimes it says "due to wetness" rather than "due to high
water table."
So all those soils are wetland soils that regardless of
-- I mean, I'm glad Commissioner Carter brought up the bit about
the flooded pine lands and flooded palmettos because that's a
really common misunderstanding. If you're walking out in the
swamp, which I do do a lot of, and you see cabbage palms, you
see palmettos or pines, you know that ground is higher, but that
doesn't mean it's still not part of the wetlands. Okay?
These also -- from here, the list, the vegetation for
all the soil types. It includes South Florida's slash pine in all of
those vegetation types, also cabbage palm and sawed palmetto.
Okay? These are all wetland soils historically. They have been
wetlands. There are cycles in -- not just annual cycles, but there
are decades-long cycles that sometimes allow other vegetation
types to be established. I -- and what you do with this
information is obviously your responsibility. I just thought that
that should be cleared up.
Now, on No. 25, which is these two red areas, which is
the area that the -- that they're planning to build on, for this soil it
says (as read): "In most years under natural conditions, these
soils are ponded for six to nine months of the year. This area of
the building site is the most wet of the entire -- of the entire area.
These soils are used as natural wetlands. Again, the soils have
severe limitations for all urban and recreational uses because of
ponding. An effective drainage system that keeps the water
table at a given depth is expensive and difficult to establish and
maintain. Also, these soils act as a collecting basin for the area.
Page 198
April 24, 200t
Even when good drainage systems is installed" -- it should have
been are -- "and the proper amount of fill material is added,
keeping the area dry is a continuing problem." Okay? I just
wanted you to understand that part of it.
Right now this is not a useless wetland. Right now this
whole wetland, even though it's covered with melaleuca, still
provides filtration of the water, which is a very important
function, and it also holds water like any other wet area. So it's
not completely useless. Would everybody prefer to see it
restored? Absolutely. And -- but I just want you to know it's not
worthless the way it is.
The total impact on the wetlands is 693 acres, 112 more
acres than the 581 measured in the report. That's because the
area of the flow-way, which is 112 acres, is also being essentially
taken out of the wetlands.
Mr. Carlson told me that he did not feel this plan
adequately took care of the wood storks. The main concern that
the Environmental Advisory Council had, those members who
voted against this, was because of the developers have not made
the maximum effort to preserve wetlands. They are going to
impact 50 percent. A better ratio, per Mr. Carlson, would be if
they saved 85 percent of the wetlands. This can be done by
cjustering homes, making more units multifamily, and eliminating
a golf course.
Mr. Carlson and I believe that because of the amount of
water that has to flow through this area and the information
that's in the soils report, these developers cannot develop this
property without an extensive drain -- drainage system such as
the flow-way. They're going to have to spend a lot of money on
this anyway.
Does anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I have one. And I thank
Page 199
April 24, 200t
you SO much for coming over here. I never realized that -- what
you're saying is that all of Collier County was hydric -- has
hydrant soils on it?
MS. LYNNE: Does all of Collier County?
this.
I've only looked at
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Only looked at that one piece,
but saying that if it had pines and palmettos, it still has hydric
soils on it.
MS. LYNNE: I don't know. There are certainly high areas in
Collier County, significantly high areas in Collier County. Okay? I
can't tell you for sure what those are. But I can tell you in this
particular situation is that they're hydric soils and have tradition -
- and historically have been wetlands. I'll also say that I asked
three times for a site visit so that I could see this for myself, and
I didn't get it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I misunderstood you. I
thought you said that historically lands that have pines on it and
palmetto are hydric soil land.
MS. LYNNE: No. No, no. Not necessarily. But they can be
hydric soils. There are wet pine lands. There are wet -- wetter --
yes, they are higher. If you're walking around in the swamp,
there's no question that where the cabbage palms and the slash
pines are are going to be higher. But that doesn't necessarily
mean it's high buildable ground, which is the implication here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you said Mr. Carlson would like
to save 85 percent of the -- of this property versus the 56
percent? Is that what I heard you say?
MS. LYNNE: He suggested in the EAC meeting that he would
prefer to see -- that he didn't think that the maximum effort had
been made to preserve wetlands in this project. And he cited a --
another project whose name escapes me right now where 85
Page 200
April 24, 200t
percent of the wetlands were preserved, and he thought -- and
they did it by cjustering and that he thought that that was a -- a
much better example. He's concerned about the -- and I am as
well. He's concerned about setting the precedent that it's okay
to develop 50 percent of-- of jurisdictional wetlands.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess my only question is, does
Mr. Carlson know that you're -- I mean, are you here today telling
us what he said at the EAC meeting or --
MS. LYNNE: Exactly. All I am telling you -- I am not
representing Mr. Carlson. I am not representing the EAC. All I
know is that these are the things that were discussed either at
the EAC meeting or after the vote was taken.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because, see, I've heard also,
you know, reports of Mr. Carlson's opinion, which matters a great
deal to me. But I think he saw the plan that the CREW board saw
and maybe had a different opinion. You know, but I wouldn't
begin to say what his opinion was, but you know --
MS. LYNNE: Exactly. No. This is -- this is just based on
what's actually on the record.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you very much. Next
speaker, please.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Vullo will be followed by Mel George.
MR. VULLO: Thank you. Actually, Mr. Mel George was here
until just a little while ago. He had to go away for a previous
appointment. For the record -- first of all, thank you for allowing
me to make these comments this afternoon, this late afternoon.
For the record, I'm Frank Vullo, and I am a Lee County resident. I
live in Bonita Springs. Mr. Mel George, who was supposed to
speak, is the president of our master board, and he was going to
speak on behalf of 1600 residents. I will do that for him as well.
I'm here in support of the Mirasol project. I have been
Page 201
April 24, 200t
actively supporting restoration of flow-ways ever since the 1992
and the 1995 floods in southern Lee County. I should tell you
that we feel that South Florida Water Management District has
provided us, our community, with significant leadership in flow-
way restoration. And I think Lee County, the commissioners in
Lee County, have done a very good job in helping with flow-way
restoration. I think today you've heard some of the good work
that's been going on in Lee County, and I certainly can clearly
attest to that. The Brooks projects is a wonderful example of
what can be done when we all work together.
But I now am here to urge you to do the same thing.
This shoe has to drop as well. That's the reason why we're here.
There is just one more flow-way restoration that really needs to
take place. So let me be very clear that that's the main reason
why we're here. We think it is important, and I urge you to
approve the project because of the regional impact that this
project is going to have. It's not going to just have an impact on
Collier, but it's going to have an impact on some of us who live in
Lee County. These were the comments, I believe, that Mr.
George was going to make to you.
Let me conclude with a personal comment as well. Before I
retired I worked for a major industry in the United States, and my
job was to form successful partnerships between government,
industries, and academe. I can smell a successful project when I
see one. This is one, and I urge you to approve it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. McNEES: Your next speaker would be Bill Besuder
(phonetic) followed by Nancy Payton, Miss Payton. And while
she's coming to the microphone, you had one other speaker
registered, George Hermanson representing the property owners
at Olde Cypress and Terafina if you had any questions with
regard to those properties.
Page 202
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say that again. I'm sorry.
MR. McNEES: George Hermanson is registered. He
indicated he's representing Olde Cypress and Terafina.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I have questions. That's
wonderful.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Payton
representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. Back in January, I
believe it is, we spent almost an entire day with representatives
from Mirasol going over the various project, talking a lot about
wood storks and -- and other wildlife impacts. These -- the two
sections of land, 10 and 15, I've been involved in almost my
entire time here in Collier County. You can remember back in
1996, those were the two sections that were the urban boundary
battle. It was those two sections that there was an effort to pull
them into the urban boundary so that the developer could do
cjustering, take advantage of 951, and get central water and
sewer. We're kind of still there five years later.
In 1997 there were amendments to the Growth Management
Plan as part of the evaluation and appraisal process. In April of
that year -- for central water and sewer outside the urban
boundary, package plants outside the urban boundary, and
cjustering outside the urban boundary. In April of that year,
central water and sewer and cjustering were put into a study. In
the fall of that year, the package plant, because there was so
much comment back from DCA and DEP, was also put into that
study. That study rolled into the density study. That study rolled
into the settlement that was proposed in March of 1999 that
rolled into the final order and the assessment that's ongoing
now,
Parallel to this was the issue of Twin Eagles where the
then-commission said, '~Nell, we're not getting it through the
comprehensive plan. We'll just go ahead and approve central
Page 203
April 24, 2001
water and sewer out there and cjustering and those types of
approvals" that were, we felt, in violation of the comprehensive
plan. Kind of back there as well with the commission, as Mr.
McNees was suggesting, adopt your own policy. It may not be
consistent with the comp plan, but adopt your own policy, and
let's move forward because we think it's better to have central
water and sewer on those environmentally sensitive lands than
well and septic. Well, that's a bad way to approach it because
our comprehensive plan is what's supposed to guide us. And if
there's a problem with the comprehensive plan, then we change
it, and that's what the assessment process is.
Florida Wildlife has a number of issues with the Mirasol
project. Sections 10 and 15 are outside the urban boundary.
Sections 10 and 15 are inside the CREW acquisition area.
Sections 10 and 15 are strategic habitat conservation areas as
identified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission. Section 10 is Priority I panther habitat and, in fact,
Panther 92 is roaming around in that area this spring.
If the golf course would -- was deleted from Section 10,
our comfort level would go up very high for this project because
it does attempt to address some of the issues that CREW
acquisition would address because it is environmentally
sensitive land. This project does discharge into the Cocohatchee
Canal, which is an impaired water body, which dumps into the
Wiggins Pass outstanding Florida water.
There are issues of a 951 easement, and we've got two
different easements, I understand, by reading the backup
material, depending on what Lee County decides to do, and that's
up in the air. Forty-four percent wetland impacts, that was
addressed.
One side issue that's not environmental, but one I
wanted to bring to your attention after discussion earlier today,
Page 204
April 24, 2001
is that Section 22 is within a density band for an activity area
which is supposed to have affordable work-force housing, yet
we're not getting that. We are getting more upscale, gated golf
course communities.
And that's a concern that we got to go out to Immokalee and
buy land with federal funds while we give away where we're
supposed to have work-force housing in the urban area. A side
issue, but one I wanted to bring to your attention.
This project pushes the limit on PUD. Remember Twin
Eagles initially was a PUD? We challenged that, they withdrew,
and did it under a different -- under their ag zoning.
There was a concern I had in the staff report. You
remember you received a letter from Nancy Lenanne saying,
"Don't get ahead of the process. Don't make assumptions about
what the assessment process is going to produce." But yet here
in the staff report we have assumptions, anticipatory
amendments that talk about greater density on ag rural land, and
that's on page 2 of the staff report. And on page 3 it's the
extension of central water and sewer and making those
assumptions and writing them into the PUD. We think that's
totally inappropriate, and there should be no references to what
might happen down the line. And if those things do happen, then
they can come back and amend their PUD.
I also have a copy of part of the submission to the
water management district which was done on May 18th of 2000.
You can see that was almost a year ago. But there was a little
playing around with central water and sewer in that application.
And initially they submitted a letter dated July 1st, 1999, from an
engineering technician that central water and sewer was
available throughout the whole project. They had in their hands
a letter from -- a memorandum from staff that said, "No, it
wasn't." But they played games with it. I caught it, and then
Page 205
April 24, 2001
there was an e-mail issued by Karen Bishop that sort of
corrected that and then gave the impression that there wasn't
going to be central water and sewer on Sections 15 or 10. And I
have copies that I'll pass out to you. I have five, and I have one
for the -- the record.
In conclusion -- actually, I had a lot more to say about
this project because there's an awful lot that I can comment on.
There are a lot of good things too. I wanted to remind you that
you do have an obligation under the comprehensive plan to
protect wetlands and to divert incompatible growth away from
wetlands. And you have to ask yourself if golf courses are a
necessary wetland-dependent activity, and I think they're not.
There are some unresolved issues in this project, and we
ask that those be resolved before it is approved. The water and
septic outside the urban boundary. Is it going to be well and
septic? Is it going to be central water and sewer? We'd like to
have that pinned down.
The wood-stork issue, there seems to be some conflicting
information about whether it's good or bad. We did very similar
things in Twin Eagles, and we haven't encountered a problem
with any of the permitting agencies to date. And, in fact, it's Mr.
Walker's law firm that helped negotiate that settlement and is
still involved, and we haven't been notified, and the settlement
requires that. So I think it's doable. And our discussions with
Mirasol is they were doing a lot of good things for wood storks,
but we need to get this resolved from the wood stork man, Ed
Carlson.
And lastly, we'd like to confirm that there is not going
to be a golf course in Section 10. Four hours ago there wasn't,
and then when this process started, there was. And that's --
again, I don't appreciate getting jerked around on that the way
we've been jerked around on central water and sewer.
Page 206
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I say -- about that, you know,
there may end up not being a golf course at all in this project if
the South Florida Water Management District says no. I mean,
you know enough about the process to know that that's going to
change and, you know, things -- I don't think that's --
MS. PAYTON: Well, I don't think we should leave it to the
water management district. I think that we should do some -- we
have the option here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I absolutely agree.
MS. PAYTON: It's an activity in a -- in an environmentally
sensitive land. It's not a necessary activity; therefore, it's our
opinion it shouldn't be there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have a question, too, if I
may. On the water and sewer -- and I probably should know the
answer -- what would you rather see? Would you rather see that
they go in there with the sewer and water, or would you rather
see septic tanks if you had a choice?
MS. PAYTON: That's not the issue, not what's best there.
It's what the comprehensive plan allows.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we can change the comp
plan.
MS. PAYTON: But you can't change it today. It's a process
that you have to go through.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood.
MS. PAYTON: And central water and sewer outside the
urban boundary is one of those issues that's tied up in the rural
assessment. And, yes, there are some areas that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is it worth changing, Nancy?
That's the question. Is it -- is that a plus or a minus? That's what
I'm trying to find out.
MS. PAYTON: In some areas, yes, indeed it is a plus to have
Page 207
April 24, 2001
them on central --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In Mirasol --
MS. PAYTON: -- water and sewer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- would that be a plus there?
MS. PAYTON: But we don't have that option today, and we
don't know if the assessment is going to allow central water and
sewer outside the urban boundary. So the question really is, is
well and septic okay, or should there not be any houses there at
all because they have negative impacts on the wetlands? That's
the issue that you are confronted with today, not choosing
between central water and sewer and well and septic. Your
choice is well and septic or no houses because you cannot have
a healthy system there -- I mean a sanitary system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but, you know, as much as
I understand what you're saying, in reality if we -- if this PUD gets
turned down -- and, you know, I'm not persuaded by these -- these
threats of what could happen if we don't have a PUD. But in
answer to Commissioner Coletta's question, if this goes back to
being individually owned parcels like Mr. Yovanovich's client, can
we -- I guess Mr. Weigel. Can we say no to a single-family home
because it would require septic tank?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that would be very difficult based upon
your comprehensive plan. And also, let's not forget that the
timing of the application here is prior to the order that issued
from the state in regard to this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- you know, but the question
-- I think the question before us is -- I mean, if the question is do I
want septic tanks there, the answer is no. But I don't think I
have that option. I think right now there are going to be septic
tanks there. Whether they are arranged in an orderly fashion and
congregated away from wetlands via some sort of cjustering
versus being on individual lots in a grid is what I think is on the
Page 208
April 24, 2001
table for me today.
MS. PAYTON: That's not on the table. And I think you're
being a bit dramatic when you say it's only a choice, and we
heard that at Twin Eagles too. "If you don't let us do this, then
we're going to put mobile homes out there on a grid," and I think
that that's not what's going to happen, and I don't think that's
what you should be thinking, that it's either/or.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I should be thinking --
MS. PAYTON: And they're not going to do that because,
look, there already are all those grid homes out in the estates.
There's not really that kind of market.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they might be gonna develop
parcels the size of maybe, you know, Mr. Yovanovich's client
with one house on it with one septic tank, and that might not be
the end of the world if there were just so few of them and if they
came in on a slow basis like they typically do.
MS. PAYTON: Commissioner Mac'Kie, they probably
wouldn't get their approval from DEP to put -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. PAYTON: -- a well and septic out there if there were so
many environmental concerns because they have to go through
DEP for that sort of issue, as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So that -- that -- so maybe
my question to Mr. Weigel, I wasn't asking the right person. It's
DEP who would say no.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think it is DEP that has the ability to
say no. And besides which, I want to also remind us that with
Twin Eagles, and Mike McNees mentioned earlier, the fact is is
so they went forward, and ultimately they are, in fact, hooked up
to centralized water and sewer.
Part of the question that has been raised and continues
to be a question is urban sprawl extending out from the urban
Page 209
April 24, 2001
area. And the -- and my understanding of this project is that if
there ever were to be -- and it's not particularly on the table
today -- a hookup to centralized water and sewer, it's not
extending out from the urban area, but it's from the currently
existing OrangeTree facility.
Now, is that urban sprawl or not? I don't think we have
to get into -- to try to answer that question. But Ms. Student and
I have looked repeatedly, of course, at the order that came down
June 22nd, 1999, and we looked at it again today, and it says no
package plants. But at this point golf courses are -- based on the
timing of this application is allowable. It's not prohibited.
MS. PAYTON: I agree. Golf courses -- because of the timing,
it -- they can put a golf course there. The question is, is that an
appropriate place to put a golf course? And isn't this an ST
overlay, and so aren't there those ST considerations that you
have to look at? And aren't there some things in those points in
ST that could bring you very easily to a no golf course in Section
107
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm there.
MS. PAYTON: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Hermanson and then Clarence Tears. And
while George is coming forward, I will clarify I did not mean to
imply I was suggesting you ignore your comprehensive plan, but
rather was agreeing completely with Ms. Payton this it is, after
all, your comprehensive plan, and there is a process to amend it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. McNees. That's how I
understood it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks, Mr. Hermanson, for being
here because it's -- among the many giant questions associated
with this difficult, important project is the question of
cooperation among several developers. And if I heard right from
Mr. McNees, you represent the other two, and that's Terafina,
Page 210
April 24, 2001
whoever they are officially. But the Terafina development, which
is on Section 147
MR. HERMANSON: Sixteen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sixteen. I forget which way they
go. And then also Olde Cypress, which is -- we know where that
is. It's off of Immokalee Road and currently under construction.
Can you -- do you have authority on behalf of your clients to
commit to their -- their cooperation, their participation fully in
this flow-way agreement?
MR. HERMANSON: Yes. Both of them do. They've, in fact,
signed an agreement. They're -- all three permits are in process
with South Florida Water Management District. Those have been,
in fact, in process before we applied for zoning at Terafina. But
certainly there is a commitment, verbal and in writing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it -- and I think probably Mr.
Weigel or Ms. Student should guide me, but I think probably the
most important thing that I could get you to say on the record is
that it's your clients' intention -- by virtue of this flow-way
agreement dated the 22nd and the 23rd -- so dated as recently as
yesterday -- that it's their intention by way of this flow-way
agreement to commit themselves to participate in the
construction of the canal as shown on the plans in the Mirasol
project.
MR. HERMANSON: Yes. Terafina will still have to come
before you, of course, for approval. That will be the final piece in
place. Olde Cypress, of course, is in place, but they do have to
get a modification approved by the South Florida Water
Management District.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Olde Cypress currently has a
permit pending with the water management district?
MR. HERMANSON: They have a permit, and they have built
out. They are -- they are in for permitting to dig the channels or
Page 211
April 24, 2001
lakes through their property, through their -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For this flow-way.
MR. HERMANSON: So it's a technicality, but they have to do
it in order to make those changes in that area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. But what you're
telling me is that Olde Cypress is currently seeking permits from
the district to construct its portion of this flow-way. MR. HERMANSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And likewise for Terafina.
MR. HERMANSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Currently seeking permission.
MR. HERMANSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So that gives me a great
deal of comfort about probably the biggest question here, which
is, this is a great idea, but how do we know if it's going to work if
everybody doesn't participate? So that's -- that's huge.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Other questions by board members?
MR. McNEES: Your final speaker is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, is that adequate for
-- for -- I mean, have I made enough of a record here that we can
sue them if they don't?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, in fact, it's not that you made enough of
a record, but Mr. Hermanson was drawn out to make the record
on behalf of his two clients. Now, we may want to look for the
same thing on behalf of the petitioner, which Mr. Hermanson's
not representing the petitioner here.
And, again, to paraphrase briefly, what he has indicated
is that Terafina, as well as Mirasol before you today, needs a --
certain zoning approvals before the agreement becomes binding
upon them. And he also mentioned -- I hope I'm restating
correctly -- that Terafina will also need -- I call it a final approval
from the South Florida Water Management District to be bound by
Page 212
April 24, 2001
the agreement that you're referencing here called the flow-way
agreement of the dates you mentioned. I would like for Ms.
Bishop to be able to make those same statements, that they're --
it's their intent that the agreement be binding upon them.
And the fact is, though, that you may as a board want to
include in your proviso -- if there is some sort of approval here,
with the proviso that, in fact, this agreement comes into play.
And at the same time I'm not telling you -- certainly not for an
instant to tell you that you're binding yourself to approve
Terafina.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly not. We can't do
that. But we can take his commitment today on their behalf that
if they get to build a project, if we approve one, they will
cooperate in accordance with the terms of the flow-way
agreement.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. And in regard to legalities in the future
if issues should arise, the fact is that it's not -- this is not an
agreement that's been proffered by the Board of County
Commissioners. It's been placed into record, albeit it at this late
date, by the petitioner itself. And so from that standpoint I think
we're in good stead to make that part and parcel of the approval
process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. At this point, then, I'd like
Ms. Bishop to step up, and just for the record, while I got it in my
head, would you confirm that point? And then I'll go to the last
speaker.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. It is our intent to -- with this
agreement through our zoning and our final permits at the district
to be a part of this flow-way and bind ourselves with that
agreement.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am. We'll go to the
next speaker.
Page 213
April 24, 2001
MR. McNEES: Clarence Tears.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good evening.
MR. TEARS: Good evening. Clarence Tears, director of the
Big Cypress Basin. I just want to talk to you on surface water
management. We looked at the issues in the south Lee County
watershed study, the improvements to the Cocohatchee Canal,
and we only have two outlets left. And we consider this the west
branch of the Cocohatchee flow-way, and also we're trying to
work with developers to the east to create an east branch flow-
way. And we're giving them limitations on how much water they
can pass through there. But it's based on surface area and
based on engineering and modeling, and we think that is the best
alternative that we have so far to allow the movement of some of
this water through the system.
There's still on the district side, surface water
permitting side, there's some issues that still need to be
resolved. And you heard from Chip earlier. I think they can be
worked out, and they will be or they won't be issued a permit.
But from the flow-way concept and the amount of water going to
the Cocohatchee Canal, through our modeling efforts, we believe
it can handle that -- those flows, and it's the only alternative we
really have with all the current development in the area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Clarence, you think this is -- I
mean, if you were voting, how would you vote on the flow-way
project? I'm not asking you for the zoning and all those things,
just the water issues.
MR. TEARS: Well, I'm going to leave that up to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Chicken.
MR. TEARS: But from a surface water standpoint and from
water management, from my point of view, the flow-way
concept's a good idea. In the original concept, they had two
wide channels. Now they're down to one. There's control
Page 214
April 24, 2001
structures which I like because that gives me flexibility and
control over that system.
standpoint.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me ask the question another way.
How much more difficult will your ]ob be to meet the goals of the
Big Cypress Basin if you didn't have this a part of your plan?
MR. TEARS: Regionally it would be a lot more difficult
because I don't know what the long-term impacts will be of
stacking up more and more water to the north. What this gives
me is a flexibility to reduce some of those peaks and allow water
to move through the system like it did one time through sheet
flow. Now that we don't have that large area, all we have is
these narrow corridors to allow water to move through, and this
gives me an opportunity to move that water through the system.
And by manipulating other portions of the system, I may be able
to redirect that water to some of our -- our recharge areas for the
well fields. So it gives us an opportunity to use that water and
hopefully not lose it to the Gulf, but maybe redirect it somewhere
else in the county. And that's our long-term goal.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Recharge?
MR. TEARS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Redirect it for recharge.
MR. TEARS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Clarence, I have a question, if
you don't mind.
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stepping out from your water
management role and taking the part of an environmentalist,
which you've shown a very active role in this community for a
long time, are we missing anything here, or should we be looking
for something else?
So the safeguards are in place from my
Page 215
April 24, 2001
MR. TEARS: We agreed on the flow-way concept. I think the
district's going to look a little bit at some of the depths of some
of their interior lakes, and that's an issue they'll have to resolve
through the permitting process. But the shell system doesn't
impact the Coral Reef Aquifer. It's still above the Coral Reef
Aquifer, so it's extremely shallow. Ed Carlson gave them some
ideas, and they incorporated those into the design. So I think we
got the best of both.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much, Clarence.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question for you right off
the bat.
MS. BISHOP: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you show the board the
plan that you showed to the CREW Trust that moves the golf
course?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, I can do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that with the exception of
Mr. Yovanovich's client, all of Section 10 could be restored and
preserved.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, I can do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. See, word gets
around. And if it's a prettier plan and it's better for preservation,
then that's the one I want us to get to buy into.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: While she's putting up that, will
somebody help me? Section 26 is referred to as an affordable-
housing area, and I'm a little perplexed how you could have
affordable housing in the middle of a wetlands area.
MS. BISHOP: No. It's -- she said Section 22, which is our
bottom section.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is the future activity
center at the corner of 951 and Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I stand corrected then.
Page 216
April 24, 200t
MS. BISHOP: The activity center -- the commercial end of
that in the high-density band, there are several parcels left over
for that to the -- to the east of us, and there's also already
housing on the -- to the east of us also, single-family houses back
in that area.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. I stand corrected.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is something -- I'm glad you
brought that up, because this is something that I'd spoken to
Karen about when she stepped into my office. Something Jim
Coletta mentioned a few meetings back was from here on in, any
new project that we were looking at we would want to make sure
that they include work-force housing. So I mentioned that to
Karen and said, "We need to do that." And so that -- and so you
say that you -- you have some in here.
MS. BISHOP: No, I'm not saying I have any in here. I'm
saying that there's -- that there's areas to the west of us -- or to
the east of us that are where you put the higher densities, in
these areas adjacent to the activity center directly.
The issues with that one thought process being the only
way to handle affordable housing I think's going to be difficult for
a lot of projects. I think that there needs to be -- which I had
spoke to Mr. Coletta, that most people are more than willing to
be a part of an affordable-housing process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Work-force housing.
MS. BISHOP: I'm sorry. I lived in Golden Gate for so long I
count it affordable because I actually could afford to live there.
Work-force housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm talking about the people that
are working in your community.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Work force -- it doesn't make any
difference on the term.
MS. BISHOP: Work-force community, however you want to
Page 217
April 24, 2001
call it, that there has to be a system that gives people choices
that -- one of the problems is that you're still going to get -- in
trying to incorporate these into areas, you may still get a
separation of sorts and a -- a -- the inability to sell the project. I
mean, ultimately, in this case one of the things, like the fact that
the golf courses -- that's a part of the revenue that helps pay for
the improvements for this flow-way and the restoration of this
area which you as a board don't have, which isn't going to
happen, which Clarence doesn't have the money without us
coming up with those funds. If I can't sell this project, that's a
problem because then I can't afford to pay for these
improvements.
So we have to find a way. And I don't know a person in
this county who doesn't want to see work-force housing and
people be able to afford to live here. But right now the
opportunities are very limited for us to do, keeping in mind that
we're not just shipping people off to Immokalee for this, that, you
know, we have projects in and out of the urban -- projects in both
urban and rural. Inside the rural area, you allow-- I believe it's
six units to the acre for work-force housing which is just to the
east of us and keeps on going east and south and a bunch of
other areas.
But the issue still is that the land costs right now on
some of this is such a level that you can't -- it's an oxymoron.
You can't create affordable housing or work-force housing
because you literally can't afford it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have an activity center in
there?
MS. BISHOP: No, ma'am. It's to the -- it's directly to the
east of us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That gray piece there at the
bottom.
Page 218
April 24, 200t
MS. BISHOP: It's currently undeveloped at this point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me back up here just a moment.
We're on a mud slope, Commissioner-- I mean -- Fiala, because
Mr. Weigel needs to comment on this. I don't think I can go to
any developer today and say, "You must put a work-force housing
in as a part of this project" any more than I can say to you, "Give
me road right-of-ways." I don't have the authority under the way
we operate today to do that. I can request of you some
assistance, and if you agree to that, that's different. But I got to
be very careful here. So we need that clarification from legal
counsel because we were here once before, and I felt like I was
going in a sinkhole.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can help you out with this too.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let them comment first, and then I'll
take the other--
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
And Marjorie's just reminded me that what we have in our Growth
Management Plan, Land Development Code, are incentives
through density bonuses that come up, and there are trade-offs
that occur, so that's how we provide incentives to get that
additional type of development within projects of any significant
standing is they get some -- they get some positive trade-offs.
They do the hard thing of -- the economic hard thing of building
work-force housing, affordable housing, but they get some
additional density to do so. That's how it is in our plan. And it
does take an agreement.
process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Typically that's brought through the
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We know for a fact that the
density bonuses haven't worked. They haven't been enough of
an incentive. The only thing I can see is an answer -- and we're
going to be approaching this very soon, I hope -- will be an
Page 219
April 24, 2001
impact fee for affordable housing in relation to a project like this
that will help to be able to offset the high cost of land so it can
be put in the appropriate places to make the difference.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you have my support,
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll tell you, you know, the
thing that -- that -- the question that I had on that issue is, if this -
- if this request had one more house, it would be a DRI. And if it
were a DRI -- well, okay. Maybe that's not exactly right, but it's
close to being a DRI. And if it were a DRI, you'd have to address
work-force-housing issues, and probably what most people do is
write a check.
MS. BISHOP: They do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would the check amount be
if you were a DRI? Do you have any idea?
MS. BISHOP: I really don't have any idea. I believe -- what
did Parklands do? Do you remember?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have to get you on the mike for the
record, please.
MS. BISHOP: If we were.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if you were a DRI.
MS. BISHOP: Right. And she would know that more than I
do. She's an expert with the DRIs and the X'd rations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell us who you are, please.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Hi. For the record, my name is Nell
(phonetic) Montgomery. What I was going to say is under the DRI
rules, they don't really extract for affordable housing unless you
have a regionally significant unmet demand, which means you
have to have a hundred units or more of demand. And typically,
unless you're a commercial project of, you know, significance --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't trigger that.
MS. MONTGOMERY: -- you don't hit that level. So this
Page 220
April 24, 2001
project, even if it were a DRI, you know, it wouldn't hit that level
of unmet demands.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it's usually -- the unmet
demand trigger is based on demand triggered by this developer.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Project. Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if you had commercial in
here, then you'd be creating jobs, and therefore you'd need to
create a place for them to live?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
project at all?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you think maybe they'll need
anybody to run their golf courses or their clubhouse or mow the
lawns or clean the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who's going to build the houses
for them and the insurance salesman and the person that pumps
the gas and the guy that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. But I -- and believe me --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One at a time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our roads, we're bringing them
down to a Level B --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One at a time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and then we're going to have that
work force coming out of East Naples and Golden Gate to serve
that community and then -- and put more of -- of a level of service
on those roads and then drive back again. And what I'm saying
is, if we can allow people to live closer to their jobs, to their
place of employment, and if we get the help from the developers
to allow that to happen, I think we're going to have -- it's going to
be a lot easier for those employees.
And there's no commercial in this
Page 221
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can help you out with this. I
think we can bring some finality to this. Mrs. Bishop, when this
thing reaches the permitting stage and everything, would your
client have any objection if there was a impact fee for affordable
housing?
MS. BISHOP: I don't believe my client would have any -- any
or most of the developers, they would find that to be probably an
easier way to answer it.
What I wanted to tell you guys before was that, you
know, work-force housing is a specialized building, also, that I
know -- within my clients I only have one that does -- that has
this background, that has this ability that has been successful
and has done it in the City of Fort Myers, which I told you that I
would be glad to bring him here to help you with that.
Also, I believe there will be -- many people would be
happy and I also suggested I be a part of any group that you
wanted any input --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was what I was going to --
MS. BISHOP: -- and I would give my time to do that. We all
want answers for this. This is something that's been going on a
long time. But, unfortunately, trying to piecemeal it and -- and
trying to pick into places, that's not the way to do this. It's not
going to work that way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At least it's an effort --
that.
have to stay with this and frame where we're going to go this
afternoon. These issues are on the table. We will discuss them,
and we will get there. I value what you have to say, but we're
not going to resolve that here today this afternoon. There are
MS. BISHOP: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- instead of just writing --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, please. I understand
I believe in it as much as anybody else here, but please, we
Page 222
April 24, 2001
some options, but there's also some legal aspects here that if we
don't watch what we're doing and address it at the proper time,
we're going to get ourselves into a position where we don't want
to be. I respect you all, but please, let's stay to the topic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one question for
Mrs. Bishop. Do you have a panther in --
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. I have Tim to discuss that. Apparently,
they're three miles away--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want one?
MS. BISHOP: -- north of -- no, I don't want one
either. Thank you. But I can assure when our habitat's restored
if he wants to come and play, he'll be welcome to come and play.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm glad you don't
exclude panthers, just, you know, affordable --
MS. BISHOP: Apparently they don't read signs. The other
thing that I did want to mention that I don't know that you're -- or
a couple things I wanted to mention. One is that this client has
put together what exists now today in these three sections as
approximately a hundred separate parcels of property today, 100
separate parcels. And we're bringing them together under one
ownership to give you a lot of opportunities that would not be
available.
I think right off the bat, just the roadway alignment.
Santa Barbara comes to mind immediately with how tough this is
when you have people that own land, a hundred owners who
don't know where a road is going to go, and are concerned about
that impact. We have given total reign over our property as far
as the allowing them to study the corridor and decide where they
want it to go, and we are willing to give them what they want
ahead of time. Now, that in itself-- considering what everyone's
been through and how long this Santa Barbara Extension has
been going on, this has got to be something that we just got to
Page 223
April 24, 2001
go, "Thank goodness we have this."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, you know, you used a really
important word there. You said "willing to give them."
MS. BISHOP: No, no. Set aside. I did not say "give." I meant
set aside the right-of-way. I did not say "give the right-of-way."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I was getting real excited
about, you know, the significant public --
MS. BISHOP: Well, and we don't even -- well, the significant
public benefit of not having to argue with a hundred separate
landowners I think is probably a good one considering what we
already know to be some of the roadway problems we have
alignments. So giving you free reign over 2 1/2 miles of roadway I
think is a huge public benefit in itself.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not quite as big as free land.
MS. BISHOP: And I appreciate all those things. The other
thing I wanted to mention that -- that these people in themselves
have -- the hundred parcels would have in themselves some
expectation of access, some expectation of utilization of their
land, even if it was just one house. And, yes, DEP does regulate
those, but I can assure you, that's a permitting process which
means that it's a regulatory process, not a prohibition process.
So you can build septic facilities that will work around wetlands.
So you see the -- I think Big Cypress has one of those living
septics. You know, so there are technologies available for those
kinds of things.
Also in these areas you allow what's called a rural
subdivision, rural subdivision being the kind of grid that you were
discussing earlier with the 5-acre tract, grid system, again would
not give you the ability to create a flow-way to create the large --
a section of land -- a little section of land for preserve and habitat
and certainly not the flexibility of the future roadway alignment.
So those are the kind of things that having a piece like this gives
Page 224
April 24, 2001
you without having to go through what apparently has been hell
on other roadway acquisitions.
Now, those are the kind of things that we look at being
part of the solution and the kind of things that we are happy to
be a part of. I think the impact fee for affordable housing is a
great idea because that -- but that's not enough -- there's still --
the land is a problem and where you want to put it and all those
other things. And apparently if they're in the rural area, it'll be
well and septic. So, you know, those become issues too. So
those are the kind of things.
If there are any more questions, I do have my biologist
here to discuss any other issues you guys may have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If-- since we can't exact things
from your client, my question is if we were considering --
because I know he's going to close the public hearing and I won't
get a chance to ask you this. If the board were considering a
motion to approve the petition subject to the revised master plan
that preserves Section 10, would your client be willing to make
that amendment?
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that one more time. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pardon me? Give me the new
plan instead of the old plan, no golf course on the -- in Section 10.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The second question I have, would you
consider on the 951/Collier Boulevard areas of dedicating those
right-of-ways to us?
MS. BISHOP: Well, we will be dedicating them to the -- are
you asking if I'm going to, for free, let you have those lands?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MS. BISHOP: I'm not going to suggest to you that I can
make that decision because, for one I don't know how much this
Page 225
April 24, 2001
entails. I mean, our land -- the last piece we acquired in there
was $42,000 an acre. And so at this point that impact financially
we haven't addressed. I'm not going to suggest to you that there
isn't -- you know, obviously we also are offering these to you at
predevelopment prices versus postdevelopment prices, so there
is that. But at this point I don't think I can commit to giving you
the land, but I can suggest to you that, you know, just being able
to put it where you want certainly has an incredible value to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would the price be frozen in
time then?
MS. BISHOP: Yes. It's predevelopment prices, not
postdevelopment prices. So you would not be made to buy my
land at the cost of the golf course land now. It would be based
on what the value of it is prior to the golf course zoning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Prior to the --
MS. BISHOP: Prior to the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Prior to today.
MR. BISHOP: -- zoning. Right. Today's price is what you pay
for it no matter when you buy it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. And I like that wordsmith in
there, but the intent is there that we could get it at the
predevelopment price or -- maybe with some further discussion
on that or a number, meaning that I wouldn't want it to be any
higher than but maybe it could be less than, in the total. And I
see somebody back there --
MR. WEIGEL: I think, Commissioner, when you're saying a
number, the number could be zero even.
MS. BISHOP: What he said was we are certainly willing to
negotiate with you. You know, we're not intending to make this
a difficult thing for Collier County. And -- and truly we understand
the importance of this roadway, so there is plenty of room for
negotiation.
Page 226
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A number not to exceed --
MS. BISHOP: To exceed today's -- exactly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A not number (sic) to exceed
predevelopment price.
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. That's--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pretty good deal.
MS. BISHOP: Anyone else?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'm going to close the public
hearings. Now, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion to
approve subject to the revised site plan that eliminates -- or
moves the golf course, subject to that site plan right there. I
don't know how to reference it, Mr. Weigel, to the one on the
bulletin board behind Mr. Weigel. So for legal sufficiency, that
one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And all the stipulations that .-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And all of the stipulations that
were presented today. And I even would like to add in what -- no,
maybe not. Let me think about this. What Mr. Weigel -- the
advice that Mr. Weigel gave us at the beginning of the meeting
that the approval of this zoning does not vest any rights with
regard to infrastructure availability.
MR. WEIGEL: That is what I said, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would that be appropriate to
include as a condition, or would you advise we leave that out?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think I'm just stating to you what the
facts and law are in any particular case, as far as that goes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe it's better to not put it
in because it's already reality. Okay. So that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have a second. Ms. Murray--
Page 227
April 24, 2001
Murphy.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Murray.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Murray.
MS. MURRAY: I just have a couple of housekeeping issues,
and I need some clarification. The first is I just received during
the hearing a letter with respect to the Parklands PUD DRI, and I
was asked to enter this as part of the record. The Parklands PUD
DRI has a reservation requirement for 75 feet of right-of-way for
the future 951 extension. The requirement for the right-of-way is
200 feet. We're asking for a hundred feet from these folks. I just
wanted to make that part clear, that the intention is not, as part
of this approval process, that the property owner would be also
required to dedicate 25 feet as part of this process. I hope I'm --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't understand that at all.
MS. MURRAY: Could you clarify that for me? I want to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't want to lose any footage, but I
didn't understand it.
MS. WOLFE: The Parklands DRI represent -- Dawn Wolfe for
the record. The Parklands DRI wanted to let it be known for the
record that there is a commitment of a reservation of 75 feet on
the Parklands DRI development property, which lies just to the
west of Section 10, I believe it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MS. WOLFE: And what we have requested of the Mirasol is
100 feet, half of a 200-foot right-of-way, the difference between
the two being the type of road facility and right-of-way
requirements for those. Today, at the action of the board, we are
proceeding with, quote, a limited-access facility, which requires
a wider right-of-way. If we need to -- and policy has been to, if it
comes on a section line or is shared, we do 50/50, either side. So
that's why we're only saying a hundred from them, not a hundred
and twenty-five from Mirasol to make that a full two hundred.
Page 228
April 24, 2001
We'll have to go back and deal -- if that happens to
become the alignment for the extension of 951, we'll either work
within the right-of-way reservations that we have in that area or
seek the additional 25, or if it happens to come back in for
modifications, it opens up an opportunity. However, at this time
we don't feel that it's fair to throw an undue burden upon the
requirements here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what was Parklands' purpose
for showing up with that letter? Were they just saying, "Hey, you
might want to get another 25 feet out of these guys?" I mean,
why would they show up today?
MS. WOLFE: I don't want to presume to know what they
were trying to insinuate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That's what it sounds like
to me. Why else would they show up?
MS. BISHOP: And I know you've closed the public hearing,
but I'm going to suggest to you that if I'm moving my golf course
out of Section 10 and you want 25 more feet, I'm not going to
have a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So either way we're covered?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's all I need to know.
MR. MURRAY: There are some --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that's up to the developers.
MS. MURRAY: The second thing I need to clarify from Karen
is that -- was your stipulation, Commissioner, to remove the golf
course or to relocate it? And if --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want it -- I want that plan to be
the plan.
MS. MURRAY: Is that -- does that show --
MS. BISHOP: It's a relocation.
Page 229
April 24, 200t
MS. MURRAY: Relocation?
MS. BISHOP: It's a relocation.
MS. MURRAY: Two golf courses?
MS. BISHOP: Still two golf courses.
MS. MURRAY: Okay. And there'll be some acreage
adjustments that you'll need to do to the --
MS. BISHOP: Minimal. Actually, the acreage pretty much
stays the same. It's a plus or minus on the master plan anyway.
MS. MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So the one at the north comes to the
south -- so we're all clear on that -- and the one at the north goes
away.
MS. BISHOP: Correct. Well, it's moving it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we're moving it, but it comes
down there, and it's all in one area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we solve the CREW problem.
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
MS. MURRAY: The second stipulation -- or the third
stipulation -- second, really, is the flow-way agreement shall
come into play? You mentioned that you wanted to make that as
part of your stip, so I assume that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want the flow-way agreement
that was submitted to us today to be a part of the approval. MS. MURRAY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that adequate, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think it is. I want to make sure the
understanding on behalf of the board's approval is is that the
flow-way agreement must come into being in its entirety --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. WEIGEL: -- with all the parties there for this particular
petition before you today to have the -- call it the full approval to
-- to achieve what they're attempting to do today.
Page 230
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, what we -- what
my motion for approval contemplates is full --
MR. WEIGEL: With the proviso that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry?
MR. WEIGEL-- Is an approval with the proviso that the flow-
way agreement is implemented in toto, at the same time not
binding you with any particular opinion or determination in
Terafina.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as a practical matter what
I'm saying is my motion for approval and my vote is based on
construction of that flow-way in -- in full and as eventually
permitted by the water management district. And if that can't
happen, then my rezoning vote is null.
MS. BISHOP: Well, I'm going to suggest to you that the
worst case that happens is that these two projects for some, you
know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't even suggest it.
MS. BISHOP: -- reason can't do it, we then would build the
flow-way entirely on our property because we have access to
Immokalee Road and that canal. But we would have to come
back to you on a new plan because this plan would then be a
substantial deviation from the approved master plan, so you then
would have that opportunity to see that again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then we'll jointly sue the
guys who said they would do it today on the record.
MS. BISHOP: I'm not going there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'm going there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion. We have a second.
Further discussion by board members?
MS. MURRAY: The value of the land that -- I'm sorry -- to be
acquired for the right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The value of the land for future
Page 231
April 24, 2001
951, the evaluation not to exceed the current land values as of
today's date prior to the rezone. MS. MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Not to exceed and -- yeah, not to
exceed. I'll leave it there.
MS. MURRAY: Got that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And hopefully much, much less
than.
MS. MURRAY: That's all I had. Thank you for the
clarification.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other comments by the
commissioners? Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to mention that you --
you started your comments from the county by saying extensive
urban development over the urban boundary is taking place, and
so -- more or less like that's a plus. I don't think that's a plus at
all. I just wanted to say that. I'm hoping to protect that urban
boundary as much as I can.
Having said that, I'm still concerned with the
work-force housing because we have a problem to solve here.
And, yes, the land is expensive, but I think there are always ways
to work this out, and I think we should be addressing that more
clearly. I -- I just don't think -- I think we can't just shove that
under a table. And paying an impact fee so somebody else can
put that urban work-force housing back in another area where
they can't live closer to home (sic) still bothers me. So I must
say that up front.
MS. MURRAY: A couple things. I'm sorry. Maybe you
misunderstood. What I was describing in the beginning was that
this development was surrounded by other active developments
that were within the urban boundary. And so to imply that this
might be a leapfrog development where you're not surrounded --
Page 232
April 24, 2001
is -- is incorrect, and that's -- that was the statement I made.
I also, for your information, wanted to share with you
that there was an affordable-housing project approved just south
of here off 951, and the name escapes all of us. But there is one,
just for your information, in the vicinity. And, as well, Mr.
Dunnuck wanted me to remind you that you'll have a workshop in
a couple of weeks -- few weeks that you could deal with some of
the affordable-housing issues that you've raised today in a
workshop setting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Commissioner Fiala raises a
question that I think I know the answer to, but I want to be
absolutely sure since it's been raised again. Is there anything
proposed in this PUD outside the urban boundary that
contravenes in any way our policy for maintaining the urban
boundary?
MS. MURRAY: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'm with you. I'm going
to fight to the death for the urban boundary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we aren't doing a very good
job because we're letting this happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, Commissioner, because
everything outside -- I mean, the urban boundary doesn't mean no
development outside of it. It means Iow-density development,
one unit per 5 acres. And that's what they're doing. They're not
even spreading out and averaging or doing something clever like
that. Anything outside the urban boundary is going to be built at
a density of rural density, which is I to 5, and that's critical to
me. If they were trying to average them, I couldn't go there.
MS. MURRAY: That's correct. If that was the case, it would
be deemed inconsistent by staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will say that I'm glad we're
working with the Fort Myers people. I'm glad they called Pam
Page 233
April 24, 2001
and that somebody came here today to say that they were
encouraging us to do that. I'm glad to hear that we are going to
improve the flow-way, and that is an important thing for me too.
It's caused me a lot of -- a lot of mixed-up emotions because I
have strong feelings on one side, and yet I want to make sure
that flow-way is in place. So I'm just going to say that for the
record.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I'm going to support this
because I've been making a list of pluses versus minuses, and for
me it got down to really saying that I have opportunities for
traffic alignment in terms of flexibility. We have controlled
access, which is not only our policy but a regional policy. We do
have a whole subject on wetlands and how they were defined,
and it seems to me at least we've got some understanding what
all that means.
We're reconnecting old flow-ways. We're preventing
local flooding. We're not stretching the density in or out of the
urban boundary area. We're dealing with concurrency
requirements. We're dealing with cumulative impacts. I see
habitat protection. I see, in particular, some wood stork work in
there that, you know, I think is really a great idea.
And last but not least, I think the clincher for me is
Clarence Tears and the impact with the Big Cypress Basin, which
we might have a redirection for recharge of waters into other
areas, and that was very critical to me. Plus, as Commissioner
Mac'Kie and I both have had the opportunity to sit on the CREW
board, they are in favor of this, and they're looking for these
interconnectivities.
And so that, to me, were the pluses that outweighed any
Fine. It's not a problem, Commissioner
Page 234
April 24, 2001
of the minuses, and that's why I'll support the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask you a question? Does this
come before us again to -- like, to discuss the roads or anything
or the level of service once this zoning is approved and after it
goes through South Florida Water Management? I mean, do we
have another shot at this yet?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If their -- if their -- if that map
over there changes when they go through their permitting, they'll
have to bring that back to us. And then your --
MS. BISHOP: Also with the plats.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- plats.
MS. BISHOP: You also review plats. Plats come
through. And obviously if there's a problem, you will be a part of
that also. So, you know, as long as things run smoothly and
within the criteria that you have set and your staff has set, then
in theory you shouldn't have to see it again except for the
platting process which you will, in fact, be a part of.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' And if it doesn't meet the
cumulative traffic circulation, then it's not going to be approved
by staff.
MS. BISHOP: Then we have a problem.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think in the essence of public
interest and -- and everything that's been taking place in
discussion this afternoon, it would be a good idea if we had a
update progress report on this so that everyone -- not that you
can change things, but at least you understand where everything
is, that there has not been any shifting from what you thought
you approved here this afternoon so that we're updated.
And, secondly, I would request as we move through this
that we make a concerted effort to do a nice program for
Channel 54 that takes the best of the best of all of this, and we
keep communicating to the community what this means, not only
Page 235
April 24, 2001
for Collier County, but as -- in a regional, as it affects the CREW,
as it affects Big Cypress, because we need to do that so folks
clearly understand we are not compromising our values. We are
trying to find workable solutions to complex problems.
So I'm going to call the motion. All in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Opposed by the same sign.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
session, Commissioners.
Thank you very much. Very productive
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Long but productive.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 2001-21 AMENDING ARTICLE VI OF THE CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES WHICH REGULATES AND CONTROLS
LITTER, WEEDS AND EXOTICS W/IN THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY AS PROMULGATED BY ORDINANCE
NO. 99-51 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Can we move to the next item
on the agenda, please, that is the -- to amend the weed, litter,
and exotics control ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. And I want to
thank --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion?
Any public speakers?
Any questions? Commissioner Coletta.
Page 236
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wood Stork King, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. On that particular
ordinance, I don't see where it excludes any area of the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shhh. People, the court reporter
can't hear.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When I was reading through
that, I didn't see where there was any exclusion for Golden Gate
Estates, which is quite a rural area. And I don't think we could
ever expect them to keep the weeds cut at 18 inches throughout
that whole area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That hasn't changed.
MS. ARNOLD: No. For the record, Michelle Arnold. The
estates and the agricultural-zoned areas in the county are
exempt from this ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And will continue to be with the
amendments proposed today?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for your time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Michelle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Michelle.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thanks for being here, and thanks for -
- okay.
Item #13A1 & #13A2
PETITION PE-99-3 AND V-99-29, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP,
Page 237
April 24, 2001
REPRESENTING LARRY J. AND MARCY A. GODE, REQUESTING A
PARKING EXEMPTION FOR OFF-SITE PARKING ON LOT 10 AND A
3-FOOT VARIANCE ON LOT 9 LOCATED ON ON 109TM AVENUE
NORTH IN NAPLES PARK - CONTINUED INDEFINITELY W/
STIPULATIONS RE: ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS
We now move to zoning approvals.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I need to just say right up
front about these two basic variances that unless they are
variances that are here to promote the goals of the community
character redevelopment of Naples Park, I have absolutely no
interest in considering them. It's bad enough if we have to have
development that is permitted under our regulations but
contravenes our goals under community character, but we're
required legally to do that. But certainly I don't want to grant
any variances at all that might contravene our goals of
community character's redevelopment in Naples Park. So,
Chahram, do these -- are these here for the purpose of sort of
getting a jump-start on the community character plan?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have to swear here and
disclose? Do we have to swear in anybody? Do we have to
disclose? Okay. Will you swear in everybody. (The speakers were sworn.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So now could you tell me?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. It is not going to lump-start the
community character. However, this is a 50-foot-wide
commercial lot, and it's not really feasible to build a building with
associated parking and landscape on a 50-foot lot adjacent to
residential which would require a 25-foot setback on one side
and 13 on the other because that wouldn't leave any room to
build on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, you know, as pretty as this
Page 238
April 24, 2001
is and as nice an idea as it might be, unless it is something that
promotes the community character plan for redevelopment of
Naples Park, I don't want to grant a variance to allow it. If he
can build it -- whatever people can build on their property under
the current regs, I can't do a thing about and hope that they will
wait for the community character plan. But certainly I'll just tell
you that I'm not going to support a variance that obviates any of
the goals of the community character plan, and I hope the rest of
the board will feel the same way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING-- Well, we haven't adopted the
community character plan, and we still happen to have a
workshop, and we have some citizens from the Select Committee
that -- that worked on it, and we haven't heard their opinion on it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But as for the Naples Park
redevelopment portion, I don't think there's any great
controversy there. I think the whole community -- I haven't heard
any complaints about that portion of it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, the community's still trying to
figure out what they're going to do with community development
as a model. And they're working on, as I understand it, you
know, putting together some aspects of that.
MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. If I can shed a little light on the
subject of community character. For the record, John Dunnuck,
community development environmental services administrator.
Where we are currently with the direction -- and we're going to
bring back for your workshop -- what the plan is proposing
community character was that you dedicate approximately
$250,000 a year to actually creating these neighborhood plans.
There is no plan for Naples Park. That was strictly conceptual at
that time for part of the community character study.
So what we'd have to do is go back -- and we're going to
be addressing in that workshop in June is should the board wish
Page 239
April 24, 2001
to dedicate that amount of money toward these type of issues,
we would go back and then create a plan and dedicate staff to
work with the community so that we could adopt a community
character plan for a neighborhood such as Naples Park. Right
now you don't have that, and you'd probably be approximately a
year away from having anything even close to resembling an
official conceptual plan for Naples Park.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask a question, though,
because I need a professional planner's advice on this. And that
is, assume for a moment -- yeah. Assume for a moment that I like
what I saw. For my vote -- I'm just asking for my -- for your
advice on my vote, I liked what I saw in the community character
program for Naples Park. I don't want to vote for anything that
would not be a positive support for the future of what I saw in the
community character plan. Would this support those efforts?
MR. DUNNUCK: There are some elements of this project
that would, but as the overall centralized feature of what they
were looking for in community character, they were centralizing
these type of business uses, and this is not centralized.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's -- that's why I'm not
going to support it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We need to hear from the
petitioner. Oh, we have to disclose. I have to disclose that I
have met with the petitioner. I've also met with Vera Fitz-Gerald,
property owners, and I believe that's -- and Mr. Mike Davis.
Those are all the people I have met with.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't met with anybody on
this. I saw Vera in the hallway for a moment, but that was all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I met with Mike Davis, who was
on the Select Committee for the community character plan, in
support of this project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I've met with a lot of
Page 240
April 24, 2001
people of community character.
meet on this project?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Did you -- did Mr. Davis and you
Yes.
Oh~ and he's in support of it?
Uh-huh.
Well, that's news to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I haven't met with anybody, but
Vera Fitz-Gerald walked by the front here as we were taking a
break, so I'll disclose that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've met with no one.
MR. HOOVER: Good evening, Commissioners. Bill Hoover of
Hoover Planning representing the petitioner. This petition's
come in some time ago. I think it's got a 1999 date. It's
requesting a variance, and there's been a lot of variances
previously approved in Naples Park for these C-3-zoned parcels
that are -- don't lend themselves to quality development. And Mr.
Gode was able to obtain the residential parcel to the west of
this, and when he was in the process of doing that, he also
talked to the neighboring property owner to the west that
supports this petition all the way through, and he has done that
in writing.
The Planning Commission reviewed both of these projects,
unanimously supported them both. We came to the county
commission, I believe it was in about October. Commissioner
Carter had a little concern on -- what you're doing here is this
sort of going with the community character thing, the Dover Kohl
study, things like that.
Mike Davis has helped me work on this a little bit. We
changed the site plan significantly on the residential lot. We
talked to Commissioner Carter on this a couple times. What we
did was we moved almost all the blacktop, the parking
accessway, off of 109th Avenue. We moved it to the commercial
Page 241
April 24, 200t
portion. What we've got is five parking spots, a sidewalk, and
bicycle rack on the residential lot, and the rest of it's basically
going to be a park. So if a house was put on there, you're going
to have more of an impact than what we're doing here.
Additionally, right now on Lot No. 9, that property's
zoned C-3, so that allows a wide variety of land uses, including
retail. So you -- if the project is approved as we've proposed and
we've advised the Planning Commission and the board
previously, that the uses on Lot No. 9, the C-3 parcel, would be
limited to professional offices only, so we're basically
downzoning the property. And the other thing we've done was
we've agreed that the property would be built as shown on the
attached color exhibit. And as a planner, I think I can say for the
record that what we're trying to do here, this lends itself to
quality development, whether you want to call it redevelopment,
in a neighborhood that's a mixed variety of uses. So this lends
itself for people that maybe live in Naples Park to have an office
in there that they can go to their office building without driving
out onto U.S. 41. So that's one of the things in the Dover Kohl
study they suggested was to have offices and some lower
intensity retail uses that you can get to from the residential
neighborhood without going onto the main road. So I believe
we're doing that.
Now, what -- let's say -- everybody can say, '~Nell, hey,
just build on there what you got with your zoning." Okay. Well,
you know, that could be done, but what kind of residential home
are you going to get next to a C-3-zoned parcel? The C-3-zoned
parcel, what you may get is one of these cash checking (sic}
facilities. Now -- and gas station are allowed and stuff like that
in C-3. Obviously, you're not going to get a gas station here. But
what you may get for the community is a structure there that has
a land use that's not real compatible with the neighboring uses.
Page 242
April 24, 2001
So what we're doing is -- I think we're giving a lot
more than we're asking for, so we're giving you a quality building
that fits in the neighborhood. We're providing much more
landscaping than any project that I can remember working on.
So basically we're creating -- we're transitioning down from a
office building to almost a park-like setting, and to the west of us
the -- there's actually a triplex there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hoover, the bicycle rack, is
that for somebody riding in the office space, or is that for the
people in the area to utilize the facilities that are going to be
proposed here?
MR. HOOVER: It actually has to be for both now. The
county -- and I agree with this. They did change -- I think about
18 months ago they put in there that every project now has to
have bicycle parking for both employees and visitors.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you be willing to provide
bicycle path work with staff? Because I think what we're going
to be doing in the future possibly in the Naples Park area is to
have foot-and-bike traffic and that stuff. Right on 109th?
MR. HOOVER: Well, are -- are you asking us to build a
sidewalk out front there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. HOOVER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
petitioner?
We don't have a problem doing that.
Any other questions of the
Do we have public speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: You do. And I'm assuming that we're hearing
these two items together. You have two speakers combined for
the two items. That would be Erica Lynne and Vera Fitz-Gerald.
MS. LYNNE: Hi. Erica Lynne. I'm a Naples Park resident. I
try to keep a really close eye on what's going on in Naples Park,
and it wasn't until I was looking at the agenda last night that I
Page 243
April 24, 2001
saw these -- this petition. So in Naples Park -- Naples Park as a
whole has not had a chance to look at this. I -- I agree that there
-- it does look like there are some real positives here.
And I guess I'd like to say that, you know, in the
development process workshop that we had the other day where
they talked about making sure that neighborhood organizations
were informed, you know, as -- I remember there being some
discussion about commercial property on 109th last year, and I
remember that the neighbors were not in favor of it. This may
not be the same -- this may not be the same project.
I'm also concerned that Commissioner Henning said that
he spoke to somebody on the Select Committee but not
necessarily -- I mean, I don't know who that was, but not
necessarily Sally Barker or somebody that knows --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mike Davis.
MS. LYNNE: Who is he?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, he's not well known. He's
only been --
MS. LYNNE: Where does he live?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Golden Gate.
MS. LYNNE: Okay. So probably not real in touch with what
Naples Park wants.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MS. LYNNE: I'm just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
assumption.
Well --
-- I'm not going to make that
MS. LYNNE: Right. You can't. And I'm not -- I'm not saying
that this isn't good. I just -- I just haven't had time to look at it,
and nobody in the Naples Park community has had the
opportunity to look at it because we haven't -- we weren't
informed. And as -- as close as I keep track of what's going on,
this one slipped by.
Page 244
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that concerns me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please. Thank you,
Erica.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald, and I live in Naples
Park. And I'm just astonished that everybody's been discussing
this, but nobody bothered inviting anybody from Naples Park. We
have had no input on it. We haven't been told what's going on.
We used to get a copy of the Planning Commission agenda. We
don't even get that anymore. It's like everybody wants to do
things but make sure the community doesn't know.
We're quite upset that someone who lives in Golden Gate is
trying to make plans for Naples Park. I don't think that they
would be very happy if Naples Park was making plans for Golden
Gate.
As for the person who lives on the west -- who doesn't
live on the west, excuse me, who owns the triplex to the west,
he owns an awful lot of rental properties in Naples Park. He lives
in a fairly wealthy area of Bonita Beach. And I'm happy to hear
he's -- he's agreeing to this, but nobody in Naples Park was
asked.
I wrote out something here which I would like to read.
Now, the county commission, they said -- the -- the petitioner said
that a lot of these variances have been passed. None have been
passed in I don't know how many years. There was another one
that wanted to build a great big thing on a 50-foot lot and wanted
no setbacks and all this sort of thing -- the same thing as this
petitioner -- and they were turned down. So they ended up
building a building on a hundred-foot lot. So it's not true to say
that they have been given variances. They were not granted.
And God knows I know every variance that's come down.
It -- I wrote -- now, what I object to is that a
residential lot is being turned into a parking lot so someone can
Page 245
April 24, 2001
overbuild on a 50-foot lot, setbacks drastically reduced. We have
fought and we have fought to keep our setbacks, and we have
fought creeping commercialism. We're very disappointed that
the Planning Commission did not advise us on this one.
And traffic, nobody's discussed the traffic. Who's to
say people in Naples Park are going to rent this office space? If
you want to come to 109th, you've got one way. You've got to go
south on -- on U.S. 41 because there's going to be no median cut
at 109th. In order to get out of there -- say you came from the
north, you came from the east -- there's only one way to go back:
Zip down 109th past all the residential units, out 8th Street, and
then back up 111th to Immokalee Road or U.S. 41.
So 109th is going to be negatively impacted by any traffic
that's going to be generated by this building, and I can guarantee
you there'll be traffic generated. And when you don't live in that
community, they really don't care. They just go 50 miles an hour
because they've got a quarter of a mile to get that steam up. So
it's going to have a traffic problem because when you leave
109th, there's only one way to go. You've got to go south. So if
you don't want to go south, you go down 109th to -- through our
residential area.
A 50-foot lot is quite suitable for a dentist's office,
a doctor's office, an accountant, a lawyer, etc., to build their
office. It's not suitable for a 2700-square-foot building. And I'd
like to know who lives across the street from this. Did they
agree to it? Is the west building -- west triplex saying, "Oh, my, if
he gets commercial on that lot, then maybe we can creep the
commercialism further down the street"? Maybe the people
across the street are thinking, "1 can get commercial." We got to
stop it somewhere, and there's a boundary. And there's homes
on that street. There was a little old lady next door to that, and I
don't know what happened to her because she didn't want to sell
Page 246
April 24, 2001
before.
I feel that the quality of life for the residents on that street
will be demeaned with a great big office building, and 2700
square feet is a big office building. Somebody's going out to
make a lot more money on a lot that they couldn't make if they
had to build on a 50-foot lot, and I want to know why the people
on 109th should suffer all those vehicles driving down their
street. It's simply not fair.
If you only have a 50-foot lot, then plan a nice
residential-style office, something that fits on 50 feet. Naples
Park is in the middle of a major neighborhood planning for their
future.
We had hoped we could spend our time on planning our
future and not fighting off another greedy scheme. This is not a
transition, as the words have been used, a nice transition into
the residential area. It's creeping commercialism.
I -- I have a few more --just a couple more comments.
We don't want -- we don't want this. If we had known this was
back, believe me, we would also have made the rounds to the
commissioners and lobbied. We want -- we want a chance to
review the Dover Kohl study and complete our neighborhood plan
before considering any more variances, so please turn this down.
You will note that there was an editorial in the Naples Daily
News this morning, and they said -- they wound it up by saying,
"It'll be interesting to see if the commission has the will to tell
the petitioner now's not a good time." And it isn't a good time,
and we would ask you to please say no and let us get on with
planning a community by the residents of that community and
not from other people, since not one Naples Park person has had
any input. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. A couple questions that I
would have. Did you contact the associations prior to bringing
Page 247
April 24, 2001
this to the board?
MR. HOOVER: Yes, we did. This was faxed to Dwight
Richardson, who was -- he wasn't on the Planning Commission
when it came through, but then he was appointed to the Planning
Commission in the meantime. And when we -- we came to see
you I think early December 2000, and you requested that we fax
it to somebody over there, and one of the people you suggested
was Dwight Richardson.
And I think she -- the last lady that spoke may have been
looking at the previous site plan that's significantly different than
this one. And the new one has about 30 percent -- only 30
percent of the paved area on the residential lot as the previous,
plus the building size has been reduced. And I wanted to clear
up one other thing and Dwight Richardson did -- did indicate that
he supported the petition, did not have a problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is he an officer of a property
owners' association or something in Naples Park? I don't know
that.
I mean, how does he become the person designated to
receive information on Naples Park?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know he sits on the board -- well, he
sits on the second district board or did.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does he live in Naples Park?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He lives in Naples Park, and I believe
he is on the board for a -- and I'm not going to say he's the
president. There's two associations there, and I don't know
which -- he's not in the one, I believe, that Vera -- are you still
president, Vera?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just for the record, what Vera
said from the back of the room -- which we should not allow -- is
that he is not on the board of either organization.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm not -- he was at one time, I believe,
Page 248
April 24, 2001
but I could be -- I could be incorrect. I know he's been an activist
in Naples Park, and he's participated in the meetings.
That's all I know. But my question is, did you contact both
of the associations? Because I do believe at the time that I met
with you, that I did ask not only that you meet with him, but you
should keep the associations informed. And if this hasn't
happened, you know, here we are. And I had not one
conversation with anyone that objected until Ms. Fitz-Gerald met
with me after lunch and said she didn't know anything about it.
She was opposed to it. And that was the first indication that I
knew that we had some difficulties.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can keep people from
opposing it if you stay under the radar.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, my question would be how -- you
know, planning council, this is advertised; right, Dr.
Badamtchian?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Yes, it was advertised. The problem, I
believe, is this one went through the Planning Commission in
1999, and Ms. Fitz-Gerald may not recall that we advertised and
we let them know at that time. So it wasn't my project to begin
with. It was somebody else who is no longer with the county, so
I took over.
That's beside the point just --
MR. HOOVER: I think Chahram means September 2000, not
1999. It went to the Planning Commission last fall.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' The application, from what I can
gather, was received in 1999 and went to the Planning
Commission -- I can give you the exact date.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nevertheless, I mean, the point is
notice was sent out a year ago.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 9/11/2000 it went to the Planning
Commission, and they were not --
Page 249
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KI E.'
Commission since that time?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No.
back to Planning Commission.
So has it been back to Planning
It does not -- it did not have to go
It was approved by unanimous
vote. And the Planning Commission's recommendation for
approval does not expire saying that the recommendation
expires.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: May I suggest this? It seems --
petitioner, you can do what you want. I'm going to suggest that
you withdraw until you have met with the associations and had a
thorough understanding because nobody keeps these
announcements. And I really believe if you don't go back there, I
would sense that you may not have the support here on the
board. I don't know that, but you may want to consider that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I would think that would be a
great idea and not -- maybe not pull it, but can we just continue
it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you continue it. Maybe that's a
better way. Maybe you ought to continue it.
MR. HOOVER: To withdraw it, yeah, you'd -- I'd have to re --
resubmit under a new application fee. We don't have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could -- if the board --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can you continue it until you meet
with those people and not have to go through a fee process?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could the board -- would our
motion for -- I make a motion for continuance conditioned on that
-- petitioner bearing the expense of advertising as if this were a
new petition going to Planning Commission. Even though it's not
going to go back to Planning Commission, they would actually
have to put the sign up on the property and send out the notices
that would be appropriate if it were going to Planning
Commission.
Page 250
April 24, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And you need to contact the president
of the homeowners' associations, and they need to have a review
of it, at least at their board level. It's better if you review it at
their association meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fair. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Hoover?
MR. HOOVER: That's fine if I can get address and phone
number of whomever we need to contact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, you understand I'm saying
advertise, that the county will advertise it as it usually does for
Planning Commission. It will send out the notices as it usually
would for Planning Commission, and your client would bear the
expense of that.
MR. HOOVER: Yeah. I don't think that's an overly undue
cost. I mean, we might be looking at --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And, secondly, you want the names
and addresses. One of persons is here in the room, and the other
one -- I don't know if Marie Sowerbear (phonetic) is still -- Erica,
you have to help us out with that. If you could meet with the
petitioner after this, give him names, numbers. And as long as
you get to those boards -- and I really prefer that you get to the
general membership meeting because sometimes -- and I'm not
distrusting boards. I'm just saying boards sometimes make
decisions, and then later we hear from the membership, and I
don't want to go through that. My checklist says boards,
membership, thorough review, then it comes back here. So you
make --
MR. HOOVER: That's fine with us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So it doesn't take a motion.
We just say we continue it indefinitely, I believe. Or maybe it
needs a motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I -- I'm not going to
Page 251
April 24, 2001
support its continuance unless it has that condition about the
advertising. I'd rather vote it down.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we can make a motion to
continue with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I -- can you clarify why you
want to advertise it? I mean, the advertising would be the same
process, same area --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That we did a year ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- same amount of fee, and you
know --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, Commissioner Mac'Kie I think
really is -- Commissioner Mac'Kie is really saying in case they're
not members of the associations, it's posted on the property,
they've got an opportunity to speak to the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's been absurdly too long of a
gap of time between when we advertised it and when it's getting
to the county commission so --
MR. HOOVER: But that's not the petitioner's fault --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't care.
MR. HOOVER: -- as much as it is some of the county staff
dropped the ball on this. And I'm not talking about people
working there right now. I'm talking about previous county
planners, paid a very high salary, that we've -- one of the
requirements, for instance, is we apply for a site development
plan, paid for the check. The check -- the checks are still in the
file stapled to the side of the file folder, have never been cashed
since 1999.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Hoover, I guess we got a choice
here. We can vote this thing down and you can go back through
the process, or you can accept a continuance and go through
that other -- the other parts of the motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know what? I'm going to
Page 252
April 24, 2001
withdraw my motion because if this file has been that
mishandled by our staff, it needs to go back through the whole
process. So I'm withdrawing my motion. If somebody else wants
to make it, that's their business. But this sounds like it's just a
comedy of errors, and I -- I think it needs to start over from
scratch.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and whose responsibility
is this of, you know, playing -- paying -- is it our responsibility for
the cost incurred?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it could be, and that's why -- if
you want to withdraw the motion, I'll make the motion that it be
continued, that they go to the homeowners' boards, to the
association meetings, that they publicly advertise it as it would
be going to the Planning Commission before it comes back to
this Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have a first, and you have a
second. Any further discussion?
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, this
motion and second relates only to Item 13-A-17 Because there
was discussion, I think, about both.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think it ties them both together.
We got to -- MR. MANALICH: Okay. Well, then we'll clarify this is to both
items then.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Both items, yes. I have a first. I have
a second. Any further discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 253
April 24, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, can I
clarify? It was stated that somebody in Golden Gate is making
decisions in Naples Park, and I think where we're all going with
that is somebody from the -- a citizen from the big community
was on the Select Committee and -- and did make some
comments about this particular project. And -- and I assume that
the petitioner did talk to the different civic associations, so I'm
glad that was clarified so we could correct this process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, would, like, a five-
minute stretch be appropriate because we're about to have such
an important issue?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, ma'am. We're going to do that.
And, yes, Mike Davis is well known in this community from the
chamber of commerce, EEC, and the community character
committee. And he is in no way trying to tell any other
community what to do. He was just offering his assistance to Mr.
Hoover.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We love Mike.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mike's a good guy. Okay. Stand
adjourned for five minutes, and we'll come back for a
presentation by the healthcare committee.
(A break was held.}
Item #8D3
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH CARE
PLANNING AND FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE INTERIM
REPORT- APPROVED INCLUDING 1/10 MILL PROPERTY TAX W/
CONDITION THAT ALL QUESTIONS ARE ADDRESSED
Page 254
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We will call the meeting back to
order, the Board of County Commissioners, and go to an agenda
item I do not know the number of, but that is our report from the
healthcare committee. And I assume that Mr. Schneider is going
to get us started there. And he'll be right with us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's Item 8-D-3.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 8-B-3.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: D, as in David.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 8-D, as in David, 3.
Should we perhaps go to some county commissioner and
staff communication items maybe?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I apologize, Tom, and I
apologize to you and your committee for the lateness, but you
certainly have our undivided attention, and please proceed.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Can everybody hear me? My
name for the record is Tom Schneider, and I am the chairman of
the Collier County Health Care Planning and Finance Committee,
and we are delighted to be here with you what turns out to be
this evening. And our purpose is to -- is to provide an interim
report to you. And two days ago -- we have it here in my hand,
and we trust that all of you have had a chance to look at it and
read it, and we based our presentation on that. We will -- I'll go
through here with you -- the agenda very quickly. And, basically,
if-- unless there's a clarification, a question, we'd prefer, if you
would, to save your questions until we're finished, if that's
possible.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Tom. Yes. I think that
would be wise for us to make notes and ask you questions at the
end. Thank you.
MR. SCHNEIDER: What we're going to cover this evening is
the community healthcare committees -- there are two of them.
Page 255
April 24, 2001
And then we're going to talk about the scope of the local
problem, and then we're going to talk about lessons learned from
other communities. And then we're going to present to you our
plan for Collier County, which will include our contingent
recommendations and the financial impact and next steps before
that contingency would be removed and then open it up for any
speakers and questions and answers.
You know, it's interesting that a month or two ago your
group, committee, met with your senior management and
identified various major issues facing the county and, in effect,
allocated responsibility among yourselves for those with the
expectation of creating citizens advisory committees to work
with you on these issues. And as it stands we are sort of like an
advanced prototype of that commission -- of one of those citizens
committees. Our committee is made up of about 11 voting
members; our senior execs, financial people, community leaders,
and people who have dedicated an enormous amount of time to
the subject.
And I feel safe to say that I think as a body we probably
know as much or more about this particular subject as anybody
in Collier County, and we do represent a -- a good number of
significant civic and community organizations as well. And, in
addition, we also have ex officio or advisory members who are --
who actively work in the healthcare community, and their help in
our deliberations was very, very important, but they did not have
a vote.
I'm going to talk about the community healthcare
committees, the first one being the Health Care Review
Committee. It's almost two years ago now that your predecessor
-- predecessors on the county commission agreed to form this
committee, and it's hard to believe that we've been -- some of us
have been at this almost now for two years.
Page 256
April 24, 2001
Very briefly, we did issue a final report to the previous
commission in October or November of last year, and I'm not
going to go into that in any great detail here, but we will cover--
a little bit later we'll cover some of the -- but basically I want to
cover with you our charge to that committee and the findings and
the recommendations. The charge was to identify whether or not
there was a problem for a significant number of people and
access to healthcare. The findings were, yes, absolutely there
was a community-wide problem affecting large segments of the
population, and it was a very, very serious issue, and we
concluded that it required a community-wide solution.
And the recommendations we gave you were very -- two
simple recommendations: One was that you should begin to
identify ways to create a publicly funded safety net. And the
second one was that you should appoint the second committee,
which we are representing here today, because the first
committee was primarily made up of healthcare providers; and
they were the perfect group of people to identify the problem.
They worked with it every day. And there was also a good
representation from the business and the civic communities and
organizations. And we felt that we needed the analytics and the
economic analysis and that type of thing on the second
committee to be able to find a solution.
So now the Health Care Planning and Finance Committee,
its charge was fourfold: Number one, lead a community-wide
planning effort. Involve the community. Take the findings of the
first committee and try to reach out to the community. The --
secondly, to identify a solution and come back to you with a
solution and estimate the cost of that solution and then
recommend to you how we believe that cost should be allocated
among the various constituencies within the county.
So now I want to talk about our approach, what we as a
Page 257
April 24, 2001
committee -- how we approached our efforts. The first thing we
did is we did reach out to the community. We had a town-hall
meeting about a month ago and -- in Golden Gate, and we've had
numerous presentations to civic and community organizations
from -- from the chamber of commerce to the president's council
of all the major property owners and the Community Foundation,
the League of Women Voters. And in many of those -- I'm
delighted to say that on many of those presentations one of the
five of you joined me on those panels and had an opportunity to
voice your concerns and your opinions, as well as to listen to the
kind of feedback that we got.
And I would say that generally what happened here was
that when we elevated the awareness level of people in this
community to the extent of the problem and the nature of the
problem, I would say there was almost overwhelming positive
reaction. "Let's do something. Something's got to be done."
And there was no unified, negative comment that we identified or
saw in any of those meetings. And basically what we were
looking for was to raise awareness and to solicit opinions as to
our concerns and to seek to build coalitions with various groups.
We also studied other programs. Some you have may
recall that in the first committee we did have a -- what we called
the Successful Models Committee, and we looked at two or three
successful models. Our intention was not to reinvent the wheel.
We want to learn from what other people have already done and
to bring that -- not adopt something specifically, a mirror image,
but to take best practices that we could learn from other Florida
and other U.S. Cities and communities who have done this and to
bring that back. So what we did as this new committee is we
expanded the analysis and review of these other committees,
both in the -- the breadth, in terms of looking at other models that
we uncovered, and also in the depth of the details that we
Page 258
April 24, 2001
pursued.
We also attended at least three regional or national
conferences, including the Governor's Conference on the
Uninsured in Miami last fall, as well as others in Tampa and in
Buncombe County, Asheville, North Carolina. And throughout
those conferences we learned an awful lot from speakers
representing other groups as well as contacts and resources that
are supporting communities like ours that are actively looking to
find solutions to this work-force uninsurance issue.
And the other thing we did is we engaged a very
knowledgeable consultant -- in fact, he's here tonight if you have
any questions for him -- Dave Rogoff. And Dave was one of the
persons that was instrumental in forming the Hillsborough model
10 or 12 years ago. He's spent his whole career in the
healthcare field. He's also actively worked with other
communities who are going through the same process from
Galveston, Texas, to rural Mississippi and will be starting in
Washington, D.C., in the next week or so. So very
knowledgeable.
And with respect to the Hillsborough, he was also -- has
been on their advisory board, part of their government instructor
for a number of years, and he also ran part of -- one quadrant of
the Hillsborough County's coordinated care system, so he's seen
it from pretty much every angle. And I'm happy to tell you that
he came at no cost to the county. We were able to obtain federal
and state funds to -- to support his efforts. So we appreciate it,
and he's available here tonight to -- if you have any questions of
him.
Let's focus now on the local situation here in Collier
County. What about the uninsured? And this is somewhat
repetitive of what our first committee found, and it's been
reinforced from everything we've seen. And that is basically
Page 259
April 24, 200t
what we're talking about is -- generally are adults 19 to 64
because there is no safety net. And I'll show you a slide in a
minute that depicts that in very graphic form.
Mostly the working poor. These are people who are
trying to make it. These are people who can't afford the health
insurance. These are people that you would see every day, and
unless you focus on them, they would tend to be invisible to you
and I. But we're talking about people who work in restaurants.
We're talking about people who take care of your lawn and your
pools; people who work in the hotels; the growers; and single
parents who have, perhaps, had health insurance before divorce
or widowed; and also some neighbor of yours, perhaps, who lost
his job. And with some of the other significant priority items
facing the county -- I mean, don't lose sight of the fact that
probably most of the people who are out paving your roads are
people who are uninsured who are working.
The question is, well, why are they uninsured? And the
answer is overwhelmingly -- 75 percent of the time it's because
of cost. They just can't afford it. And that could be they couldn't
afford their employer's coverage; or they didn't have employer
coverage and they couldn't afford it -- which is even more
expensive -- on an individual -- to buy it on an individual basis.
And what we've seen is that 80 percent of the uninsured
in Florida, based on their most recent -- which is one of the most
extensive studies of this subject done in any state in the United
States -- 80 percent of the uninsured in Florida either work for a
company who do not offer any insurance, or if they do work for a
company that offers insurance, their level within that company
doesn't allow them to qualify for that benefit package. So 80
percent of the uninsured are working for companies who -- who
don't give them this insurance.
So this is the graph that I was going to talk to you
Page 260
April 24, 2001
about, and I won't spend a lot of time on it. But if you look on the
left in the yellow and the orange, this is intended to depict what
is intended to be a seamless system of care for children from
birth through the age of 19. This -- these are government
programs. This is Medicaid. This is Healthy Kids. This is
Medikids, CMS. And it varies depending on age and income level.
But basically it's intended to offer protection, the safety net, of
federally funded or a state funded safety net for children.
Go to the far right, and you'll see Medicare in blue and
Medicaid. For people over 65 -- up through 200 percent and
beyond, most individuals are covered by Medicare that are over
65. And there are some -- in fact, a large portion of the state
Medicaid dollars are spent for people over 65 who are in nursing
homes who have no other sources of payment and have spent
down their assets. And so the big gap in the middle is the lack of
a safety net. This is anybody from 19 to 64 years old, with rare
exceptions, has any -- any safety net. And that's why we see
these people who are the prime target, the working force.
Another part of the local problem is that we heard from
Dr. Tober, who heads up the NCH emergency room and --
departments and also heads up the EMS for the county. And he
spoke at our public forum, and he included a five-page letter that
summarized what he had to say, which is included in this report
that we gave you last week. And he describes that the
emergency rooms were designed for emergency healthcare.
They, in effect, are a safety net for all of us when we have an
emergency.
But the problem is that the safety net is unraveling. It's -- I
mean, this was a year -- he referred to the winter of 2001 as a
disaster parameter. It came very, very close. He talked about
times where people came in on an ambulance and had to wait 45
minutes before they could be taken off the ambulance to even be
Page 261
April 24, 2001
seen by anybody because they had no place to put them. He
talked about numerous days where up to 70 people were boarded
in the hallways of the emergency rooms waiting to get a room in
a hospital bed because there weren't any rooms.
He talks about the typical average of six- to ten-hour waiting
time for anybody to go into the emergency room, and the causes
for that are the inefficient use of the emergency room by the
uninsured and by the visitors to our fair city and county and also
that the hospitals are operating at capacity. There is no excess
capacity at the moment. And he also referred to numerous state
and federal mandates for care and for taking care of all these
people who present themselves with no financial remuneration to
meet the mandates. So this is a ma]or situation here in Collier
County, one of the biggest issues that we as a committee are
focusing on and urge you to do as well.
And the key point that he was trying to make here is that
anyone--you, me, rich, poor, insured, uninsured, it doesn't
matter, any of one of us could fall through the safety -- through
the cracks of the safety net because of the overcrowded
conditions in the emergency room and that it is not able to
continue to function effectively as the safety net for which it was
intended.
Now I'm going to show you some interesting slides of
information that we got from the county that I think will help to
explain very clearly in your minds why we have such a problem
here in Collier County. If you take a look at this slide here, this is
information that we received from the own -- from county's own
database. And they gave us the number of companies who have
applied to do business and filled out the forms to do business in
Collier County by industry and by size of employee base.
And what you can see here is for the three that they have --
they have contractors, the services industries, and
Page 262
April 24, 2001
manufacturers. And you can see the tremendous -- in every one
of these cases, either very close to 90 percent or as high as 98 or
99 percent of the companies doing business in Collier County in
these three industries have less than ten employees. And the
other thing that's important to see here is that the number of
contractors and the number of services companies is almost ten
times what it is for manufacturing.
And the other thing that's missing -- and we tried to get it,
but unfortunately their database does not include employee size
by retail. That's another major segment. The retail/wholesale
industry includes the restaurants and the stores and the Subway
shops and everything else. That's not in either of these -- in any
of these numbers but, again, a huge number of companies that do
business in Collier County and, again, most of them at the very
Iow end of the scale.
Now, the important thing to -- let me go back to that. I had
some other slides, but I thought in the interest of time I would
just try to summarize them. When you line this up with national
statistics, which we have, that show the rate of uninsured
nationally by size of employee-based company, you'll see that the
people who are at the one to ten -- the companies that are at the
one to ten have a much, much higher right of uninsurance than
the larger companies.
And, in fact -- this is an amazing statistic -- for every
company in the United States that has more than 200 employees,
99 percent of their employees are covered by insurance. And
based on -- you don't see it here, but of that 51-plus, there's only
one company that -- in these industries that was identified as
having more than 200 employees in Collier County. And what we
found is that -- that you had almost twice as much a chance of
being uninsured if you were in a -- in a one to ten -- and, in fact,
even from I to 199 the average was about 60 percent instead of
Page 263
April 24, 2001
99 percent.
So -- and the other thing that came through that is that
-- two other statistics. One is that for small companies, those
who had -- they looked at it from a -- the few employees that it
had, what percentage of them were in the Iow income -- defined
as Iow-income wage earners. And for any company that had 35
percent of their employees in a Iow-income bracket, they had
about twice as much chance of being uninsured as a small
company that had either less than 10 percent or between 10 and
35 percent.
And then the third national statistic is that -- by type of
industry. And manufacturing across the United States, 12
percent of the people that are employed by manufacturers are
uninsured, and you can see how we have so few manufacturers.
And it was twice as likely to be uninsured if you were in the
construction business -- which I equate to contractors -- or in the
services business. And the service business was almost three
times, and in the retail it was twice as much.
So if you put all of that together and you see the fabric of
our economic diversity -- and we're heavy into the services
industries and we're heavy into small businesses and Iow-
income, Iow-wage earners -- that all of that would put you all
down -- come together and put you in a -- you know, a quadrant
where you're going to have nothing but extremely high
uninsurance rates.
This next slide what we did is just to try to quantify, and we
actually picked up -- the year 2000 statistics had been released
from the census. And we used the -- we extrapolated from the
percentages that were in the '98 statistics that came to us from
the State of Minnesota -- or the State of Florida study, as I said
before, was one of the most extensive studies done by any state
in the nation.
Page 264
April 24, 2001
Basically what we're saying is that we think there are
26,000 citizens -- residents in Collier County who make less than
a hundred percent of federal poverty guidelines, and there's
another 40,000 who are between a hundred percent and two
hundred percent. The total of 65,000 represents about 25
percent of our citizenry are at what is commonly referred to as
below the poverty when you look at 200 percent or below.
And then the other thing that the State of Florida study
gave us is they said that everybody in our three-county area,
which is Collier, Lee, and Charlotte, there was about a 20
percent uninsurance rate for that three-county district. But if you
were below a hundred percent federal poverty, it's 41 percent,
double the average. And it's 36 percent if you were anywhere
between a hundred and two hundred percent. So when we apply
that, and then we take the people, extrapolate to get the
numbers of 19 to 64, we come up with about 20,000 people. And
that is basically the target that we are looking to find a solution
for.
The other thin9 I wanted to share with you is some -- and it
has some -- I apologize that the ranges are so great and the
numbers, but I think it'll -- it'll 9et the image across that I'm
looking for. Basically Collier County provides between 3 and $3
1/2 million of funds for healthcare for the poor and the
underserved, and that's about a million and a half dollars of
discretionary funds that goes to significant medical expenses.
It's not advertised, and it runs out of money halfway through the
year every year. And it includes 900,000 for the David Lawrence
Center and 900,000 for the public health department.
Contrast that to the private sector. The not-for-profit
providers, which include NCH, CHSI, David Lawrence, the
neighborhood clinic, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Senior
Friendship, together somewhere between 20 and $40 million that
Page 265
April 24, 2001
they're absorbing as a part of this cost. And we've estimated
that physicians are another 10 million. In our first report that we
gave you last year, we'd included 14,000 for physicians but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fourteen million.
MR. SCHNEIDER: -- a mere extrapolation of the survey that
was attempted by the medical society and the public health
department a couple years ago, but the response rate wasn't
great enough for a scientific -- so we pared it down to try to be
conservative in terms of where we are.
And then the other big percentage of people that are
paying are the people that are indirectly being charged it
because they're the patients of the doctors and hospitals that
are getting a higher bill or higher insurance rate; or they're
customers of the employers who are funding insurance for their
people, and they have to pass on those costs to their customers.
So what lessons did we learn from other communities?
Well, the first thing we learned is that there are numerous
examples out there that show that in a very short period of time
we're able to create a win-win situation. And by win-win I mean
improve the quality of care of these people, improve the quality
of their life, and do it efficiently and relatively inexpensively.
And, in fact, as we'll see later, have actually -- at least two of the
communities we've looked at have quantified that they're able to
deliver better care for almost half the cost of the fragmented,
delayed, episodic, emergency-driven type of care.
The other thing we've found is that we're seeing more and
more of the realization that it is a local situation, and it does
require local solutions, and there are local solutions. The other
thing is that we are really -- find ourselves in the midst of a
fabulously growing movement nationally of local communities
who are trying to do exactly what you're trying to do and what
you're asking us to help you do. And that is right now -- I think
Page 266
April 24, 2001
maybe two years ago they said that there were probably 50
communities that had something like this or were in the works,
and that's now up to 500. And there are now organizations that
are exclusively dedicated to helping and assisting and providing
research and -- and other forms of help to communities like ours
that are trying to solve this problem.
And the other key that we learned from them is that it's
important to allocate the burden fairly among the various parties.
And then common thread. I wanted to share with you the
common threads that have been identified. And in your book that
we gave you -- and I think it's in the third -- Section C, Appendix
C, there's a -- an executive summary and a chapter of the latest
book that really deals with this issue on a national basis. And
here's what's come out of that, is that basically successful local
programs result from corroboration between the public and the
private sectors. And what we're talking about here is we're using
public funds, taxpayer funds, and then reimbursing existing
private enterprise -- these are not-for-profit organizations or
existing physicians -- to take care of these people and take care
of them in the right way.
And the other thing is -- they're doing is this is a very
effective way to targeting the underserved. Most generally they
tell us that 200 percent or below the federal poverty, but they're -
- some of them only do a hundred percent, some do a hundred
and fifty. They're clearly targeting the working poor. And what
we're talking about here is a tax subsidy with cost sharing.
So what they show is that the most -- the most typical
forms of funding from taxpayers is either the sales tax or an ad
valorem tax. And most programs believe very strongly that we
shouldn't be giving this away, that we should actually seek some
sort of copayments from the patients themselves because they
value the services more when they're paying for part of it. And
Page 267
April 24, 200t
it's really no different than the model that the slides came up
with at the neighborhood clinic, and they coordinate with other
programs and -- and with insurers. And basically here we're
saying that -- let's use the existing programs that we have, and
let's coordinate with them and get away from the fragmentation
of care and have everybody do what they do best and do a fair
share of volunteerism to the extent possible.
The other key thing is sustainability. I mean -- and they
emphasize this over and over, is that no community should start
this unless they have the mental toughness and the commitment
to make sure it's going to be sustainable going forward.
And all of the successful programs have defined benefit
packages of clearly defining what are the benefits in terms of
defining primary care, and -- and they put tight controls on them
to control the cost.
And we see always a strong management of costs with
accountability, both from a program outcome standpoint, as well
as making sure that the government is not being taken
advantage of by unnecessary treatments and that type of thing.
And the other one is that each of these has addressed
the uniqueness of their local community, but yet have been able
to use other existing models and to get the concept so that
there's not as much reinventing of the wheel.
So what's our plan? Our plan for you -- and this is
probably the most important part of the presentation. And this
graph is intended to cover a couple of things. Number one, our
goal as a committee is better healthcare for more people at less
cost, and we believe that the models that we have studied
clearly demonstrate that that win-win can happen.
And to graphically show it to you, what we're showing
you is a big box on the left which is the aggregate cost in this
community of ad hoc, uncoordinated, fragmented, emergency-
Page 268
April 24, 2001
driven, episodic care, delivered late, in most expensive
emergency rooms, and often requiring avoidable -- hospitalization
for avoidable conditions that people, if they had been seen early
on and been given the treatment in a less costly environment,
would have been able to avoid significant cost.
And what we're talking about here is that that pot of
money is the amount that the patients cannot pay, and that goes
back to the 20 to 40 million that I was talking about and the 10
million. And what we're saying is that what -- to bring that pot
down, that community cost -- we're talking about making a
community investment to drive down the cost, and we're talking
about this would be the return on that investment, and that is the
cost of a coordinated healthcare service organization for the
underinsured patients and, again, the amount of money that the
patients couldn't pay.
So what we're saying is that if -- if you would accept
this and fund this coordinated primary care system, that you can
drive down the cost -- the annual cost of treating patients and
thereby bring down the total cost to the community. Somebody's
paying for that today, and somebody's going to pay for it
tomorrow. And what we're trying to do is to use coordination and
-- in planning it and emphasis on primary and preventative care.
This next slide which shows you that there's really
three constituencies within the community that could or would
pay for part of this. We have the taxpayers through a public
subsidy; we've got the providers through their uncompensated
care; and then we have all the other people. These are
customers of the employers, and these are patients of-- of the
providers who are incurring this cost and who are passing it on.
And when you really think about it, the taxpayer -- the
individual taxpayer in Collier County is really in all three of these
boxes. He is either directly or indirectly paying for all of this cost
Page 269
April 24, 200t
of the uncoordinated, fragmented system, and we are saying that
they would also then be paying the cost of the coordinated
system.
And so what we say to you is that you can either have one of
these three groups pay for everything and then filter it down
through a hidden sick tax, as is being done now; or if you could
find some way to insist that the employers in town either pay a
fee or mandate healthcare insurance, the extra cost is going to
be passed on to the customers.
And for you businesspeople on this commission, I don't
think I have to remind you that if you didn't insist that it be
mandated across the community, then you're providing an unfair
competitive advantage to those organizations who choose not to
do the right thing and to do the good thing, and you're penalizing
the people -- the companies who would provide the insurance.
And what I'm saying, though, is that no matter which one
you do, it's all going to end up where the taxpayers are going to
pay the large majority of that total cost anyway. And so what
we're trying to bring to you today is a plan that would ask for a
direct tax of the taxpayers, funnel that money into a coordinated
system of care, and reduce the total community cost of providing
care to the uninsured.
And then here's a -- it's a graphic, again. It's the
work of a lot of -- and I won't spend a whole lot of time on it, but
what it's intended is to graphically depict for you what we mean
by a comprehensive primary care and prevention system. And
the most important part that we're talking about today with you
is the red, and this is the primary care.
And this is what we mean by primary care. We mean --
you know, we mean any time a patient would be seen by a
primary care physician: An internist, a family practitioner, that
type of thing. It could be an urgent-care issue like an earache or
Page 270
April 24, 2001
sore throat. It could be a chronic illness like diabetes or asthma.
It could be an annual physical. It could be a mammogram. It
could be a PSA test.
It could be anything that you and I would go to our primary
care physician for. And we would enroll these people. We would
outreach. We would have access that we would provide health
education.
But then the key is is that for this group of people,
for the most part, we need to have a case management system
and an integrative referral system. And what this means is that
when we only want the people -- we only want the medical
providers to do what they do best. And that is a general
practitioner shouldn't function as a specialist, and a specialist
shouldn't have to function as a general practitioner.
And what you have then is that if it -- we have a gatekeeper
concept here. We would have some of the concepts of a
managed care system. We would have the primary care
physician be a gatekeeper, and he would refer his patients that
need hospital treatment or that need specialty care. And by the
way, based on the statistics that have come from two years of
the neighborhood clinic, that probably amounts to somewhere
between 10 and 15 percent of the patients need to be referred
out to a specialist or to the hospitals. And then we also would
have dental, mental, substance abuse.
But what we're talking about today with you -- and when
you read the report, you would have seen the request for some
millage of tax. It's intended to fund what's in the red, the types
of services that are in the red. And what's really key is that we
then have to go out, and we have to negotiate with the medical
community because if we can't get specialists and the hospitals
to continue on a pro bono basis to pay for those services, then
we would be in a position where we'd have to send these primary
Page 271
April 24, 2001
care -- that need treatment, we'd have to send them to the
emergency room, and they'd go through the same process that
they did before.
Here's the other thing. Here's our -- basically is our
incremental action plan that we're proposing for you, and we
start off with that we believe that it's very important for Collier
County to maximize -- to continue to maximize the state and
federal monies that come to this program and to build on the
existing programs that are already taking care of these people,
rather than to go out and start from scratch.
And the other thing that we're talking about, what would
come out of this money that -- the tax money in the first year
would be to begin -- and I used the word "begin" -- a coordinated
primary care system that we think would take care of a -- a
significant portion of our target population.
And then after that we're saying that the job still may
not be done because there probably needs to expand -- like, for
example, when I said we'd build on the existing programs, the
school nursing program is one, and it's in serious threat of losing
its financial sponsorship for a large portion of it. And a very
valuable program that everybody in the community agrees is
valuable could go out of business if -- if we don't have the county
tax dollars to support a portion of that, perhaps share it with the
school board.
And then we're talking about this coordinated care system
that we think that we could get maybe a third of the people, and
we'll get into the specifics of that.
And then what we're talking about is dental. We believe, for
example, that dental probably is best solved, at least in the near
term, in a clinic environment. And Dr. Gopher's (phonetic) group
has -- has reactivated the dental program, and it's working very
fine. And there are plans to try to also create a second dental
Page 272
April 24, 200'1
clinic for these folks up in the North Collier area. And we think
both are needed and both will go a long way. And, again, that
would be at minimal cost to the county and to the taxpayers.
So our specific recommendations. The first one is is
that contingent on a detailed analysis that we will share with you
-- I'll call it my punch list in terms of things that we have yet to do
before we would ask you to spend a penny or a nickel of this
money. But we ask that you adopt an incremental -- our
incremental action plan and provide a 10th of a mil this fiscal
budget season. And that would be used to begin this coordinated
primary care system, and we believe that we can see about
7,000 people at an estimated average cost of about $300 a year.
And we've -- we've -- we've come at that $300 in several different
ways, and we have people here that would be happy to expand
on it if you'd like. But basically we've seen it in other models,
and we've seen if from an insurance perspective as well.
And we also then would use part of this money to support
the existing valuable programs like the school nursing program,
for example, and to leverage the state and federal support, such
as to begin treating adults for dental care, which would allow the
public health department to significantly leverage additional
federal funds that could then be used to see more and more
nonpaying adults. And possibly we may need it for additional
outreach for the Healthy Kids and for the Medicaid programs,
which are extremely valuable and provide a significant -- maybe 7
to I or 10 to I leverage of state and federal monies for every
dollar that comes out of the county.
The next thing on our recommendations is that you need
to recognize that there will be a need for future additional funds
for two things. Number one, to expand the primary care that we
talked about in the red of that slide to the entire target
population, which we believe -- as I showed you on an earlier
Page 273
April 24, 2001
slide -- there's about 20,000 people that are under 200 percent of
federal poverty. And if we went to 150 percent, it would probably
be about 15,000 of those people.
So it's a good time for me to remind you that even
though there are 30,000 or more uninsured people in Collier
County, we're not trying to address all of that because there's a
lot of people -- we're only talking about the people who are
uninsured and can't afford the insurance. And by definition we're
-- we're using the federal poverty guideline levels.
And the other thing is the -- is then to expand the benefits
package. One of the big concerns with specialists is the high
cost of specialist's medications, for example, and that they get
frustrated if they're seeing a patient that needs specialty care,
but then they can't get any better if they don't get the
medications, and they can't afford it. And we've seen other
models, for example, that do, in fact, use county tax dollars to
fund some of those special medications.
And to the extent that down the road -- and this is down
the road aways, and there'll be plenty of opportunity to -- to
investigate this and try to maintain for a long time the pro bono
of the specialty and the hospitals, but it may be that at some
point in time the county needs to use tax dollars to do that as
well. But if that happens, that's the expensive part of the
equation. That's when we believe that you would agree that at
that point in time there's a need for some sort of a voter
referendum and a dedicated stream of taxes. But we're not
proposing any of that today. That's just part of our long-term
vision of the future. And if we're able, as a community, to
convince the specialists and the hospitals to continue to fund
that, then we wouldn't have to reach in so deeply.
Let me just dollarize this for you. We got this from Abe
Skinner, the Collier County appraisal department. And he says
Page 274
April 24, 200t
the average assessed value for a single-family home in Collier
County is a hundred and ninety-three thousand dollars; condos,
one thirty nine; weighted average, one sixty-two. So what we're
asking you for in this tenth of a mil is -- on average is for $16 per
homeowner family unit.
And what -- why we think -- this slide here is intended
to show you why we believe that our recommendation achieves
our goal, which is to provide better healthcare for more people at
less cost. Right now we have this uncoordinated, fragmented
system, and our recommendation would be to improve the quality
of the care, develop a coordinated care system, and then we
could additionally -- we think that we can reach out to about
7,000 people with that money. And other counties -- other
successful models have clearly demonstrated that if they do
that, they can reduce the average annual per cost by about 45
percent, almost in half.
Now, here what I'm going to share with you are the
contingencies, that we're saying that we want you to accept our
recommendation and begin now because we're only here today--
I mean, we're here today because we wanted to give you an
interim report. We've done a lot of work. We've got a lot of
findings. And we were hoping to be able to do this before a large
part of the population went back up north for the summer. We
wanted to be able to share this with them.
But, secondly, what became more important is the annual
budget cycle, and when we focused on trying to do an
incremental, phased-in approach, it became obvious that if we
came back to you in three or four months with all of these things
that I'm going to talk to you about as being finished, we'd have to
wait another year to 15 months or so before any tax dollars
would be ever set aside and assessed in order to fund the
program. And we think that the needs are just too great, and I'll
Page 275
April 24, 2001
go through that in a minute.
So eligibility criteria, who ought to be eligible for this
program? We -- by the way, we have spent a lot of time on every
one of these issues. They haven't been resolved yet. We have
discussions to go, but it's something that can be done in the
reasonable, foreseeable future. But who should be eligible?
Should it be 150 percent? Should it be 200 residents, etc.?
Enrollment strategies, are we going to actively seek to
bring these people in, or are we going to wait until they present
themselves as they normally do within the fragmented
environment and then we bring them in? And by the way, what
we've seen is that -- under common threads is that most
communities take the latter strategy; they wait. And I think that
part of that is an education process that would come through
this whole primary care/preventative care is that a lot of these
people don't appreciate the value, and they don't want to see a
doctor until they're sick. And what that does is that allows the
ramp-up to go slower and it allows for the whole system to learn
and to crawl before we walk and to slow down the need for the
taxpayers' dollars. So that's one possibility.
The benefits package, we need to exactly identify and
conclude on what services we would include under the umbrella
of primary services, and we've seen that, and I can just give you
a quick example. There seems to be some confusion as to what
that means, but it could be physical exams, screening activities,
health promotion and disease prevention activities,
immunization. Or it could be diagnosis and treatment of
individuals with acute illnesses such as colds and flu or medical
management of patients with chronic diseases such as
hypertension or diabetes. And it would also include referrals to
physician specialists as appropriate.
And what we're talking here, by the way, is that we --
Page 276
April 24, 2001
we have had at least three meetings with groups of-- small
groups of doctors, one if which -- or one with -- I spoke to the
medical society at a dinner last week. And after that dinner
there was a proposal made to say that, you know, what -- show of
hands as to what kind of support we would get from the medical
community for what we're coming to you with today, and we got
unanimous support from the medical society at their dinner.
Now, obviously, I don't mean to tell you that that's a hundred
percent of the doctors; it's not. But they all understood -- and I
had specifically described that we were going to be asking them
to continue as specialists on a pro bono basis.
So we have a benefit package we need to finish with. We
have lab tests. We have pharmacy services. So those are the
kinds of things -- and we're not far from completing that. But,
again, we would be coming back to you to get your concurrence
with these concepts before we asked you to spend a nickel of
that tax money.
Patient cost sharing, what kind of -- what fee should we
set? And our thought is that the more you make within that
parameter of the target population, the more you should be
asked to pay as a copayment.
And, again, one of the biggest issues we have is we have
to develop this coordinated network of providers, and that is one
of the ma]or reasons why -- I'll come to that in a minute -- but why
we need your strong showing of support and your commitment to
fund this because that's -- we have to now go out, and we have to
negotiate bill consensus and compromise with the doctors, both
in terms of how we're going to pay them, how much we're going
to pay them, and what they're going to be asked to do.
And then the patient referral system I talk about. Now,
we're very fortunate here that on our committee is -- one of our
ex officio members is Wendy Wilderman, who works for the state.
Page 277
April 24, 2001
She's headquartered out of Fort Myers. And one of her primary
responsibilities is to -- is responsible for a volunteer within the
medical community.
And she's already -- there's a program in Florida called
We Care, which is intended to recruit and retain physicians to -- a
large percentage of them, you know, 80 percent plus of the
specialist physicians in a community -- to agree to pro bono their
work if a referral comes from a primary care physician who's part
of this coordinated care network. And -- and so that's her job,
and she's already -- has that -- she's responsible for developing
and running that program in Lee County and in Charlotte County.
And so I think we have an excellent opportunity to -- to do that
here in short fashion in Collier County.
And then governance and program responsibility is the
other issue. I mean, what we're suggesting is that -- that the
Collier County assess the tax and use that money to contract out
-- enter into contractual relationships with the private sector and
where the county then would pay the private physicians or the
existing organizations, possibly the neighborhood clinics,
possibly CHSI or others. And that needs somebody to be
responsible for that, and that requires, we believe, some form of
governance, some board of advisors that has oversight
responsibility for that and reports back to your commission on a
periodic basis. And that's fairly standard in every community
program that we've seen that's funded by tax dollars.
And then budgets, we would come back to you with
detailed budgets on your forms that are required for you. So, I
mean, all of this is -- these are what we've been working on. We
haven't started with the budget yet, but we've identified a lot of
the types of skills and the -- and the people -- the employees that
would need to be hired in order to administer this program.
But now the question is why should we change now? Well, I
Page 278
April 24, 2001
mean, the first and the most -- this, by the way, started out for
most of us on these committees -- both the first committee and
the second committee -- as probably -- once we understood the
issue, I think the scream at us was one of social justice. Here
we have these people, and the community isn't taking care of
them, and we need to take care of these people.
But what we found as we got into it is that it not only
serves that purpose, but it also has tremendous economic
benefits, as we talked about with the pots of the uninsured
monies. And we know that these people need a lot of help. I
mean, 90 percent of the $20 million that's spent by NCH is going
for people that are 19 to 64 years of age for inpatient care. And,
you know, the statistics are that -- that over 50 percent of these
hospitalizations are due to avoidable conditions and -- but the
people need the help.
And the second one is the emergency room, as we've
talked about, I mean, is just -- we don't get any comfort from
Dr. Tober that the system will be able to stand the growth from
the visitors and from the uninsured on top of it this year, even
with the Cleveland Clinic. But in any event, even if it doesn't get
any worse, it should be unacceptable to all of us that we are
losing the -- the safety net that it was intended for.
And the third one is that we believe very strongly that
getting a commitment from you tonight is a -- is a prerequisite for
us reaching out to the provider community and to begin the
negotiations and the compromise and the consensus building
that's required. And it's a major effort on their part as well as our
part, and I think they need to see this.
And I think the other thing I don't have on the slide is
that this would reenergize our committee. I think it's absolutely -
- we have been spending countless hours. And, again, you have
asked us for our opinion. You asked us to do the research. We're
Page 279
April 24, 2001
now coming back to you with it. I'd be happy to answer all of
your questions. But I think the key is, again, as I say, we're an
advanced prototype of what you're trying to do with all of your
major issues.
And, as I said before, I think our committee as a whole
probably has the best. knowledge level of this entire subject of
anybody in Collier County, and this is what we think is absolutely
required. And we don't think it's asking too much to cause us to
crawl before we walk. And we can get all the bugs out, and we
can get the system working. And, again, if we can't come back
to you with the details, we're not asking you -- what we're asking
you to do is to make the assessment so that you have it set
aside. And if we can't satisfy you that it ought to be -- that it's
going to be wisely spent, then you don't spend it. You either use
it for next year, or you have us come back and -- or whatever.
So conclusions are we think it is a community-wide -- we
repeat what our previous committee said. It requires a
community-wide solution. The need for change is great. It'll
benefit everybody in the community, even those who don't see
that benefit today and who would be against any sort of a tax.
We think that the increased awareness that we have done --
and, again, I think the proof of the pudding is that -- the
tremendous amount of visibility that we've -- we've gotten both in
the media coverage and in the press coverage indicates that we
have taken your charge very seriously to get out in the
community and to begin to raise the awareness level, and we
think we have. Have we done it completely? Absolutely not. I
don't know that we could have done much more at this point.
And it has generated the support, as I told you before.
And the better healthcare for more people for less money is
the right thing to do, and we strongly believe that now is the right
time to do it. It's time to join the growing list of communities
Page 280
April 24, 2001
who are trying to create win-win situations and take care of the
less fortunate, underserved people in their community. End of
the presentation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Tom. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. First of all, excellent
presentation. I think you've identified many of the problems, and
I know how hard you and your group have worked. I want to say -
- I have a question to ask, but I'm going to work into that
question first by saying I love the idea that you're going to
continue to sponsor the school nurses. I think that's great. And
Healthy Kids is just so important to our community, and we need
to expand. We just haven't had the money to do that. I think
that's something that will benefit everything those children are --
our children who are going to grow up to be taking care of our
community.
Now I'm getting down to my question, and that is with
the Neighborhood Health Clinic. I think one of the reasons that
they're so -- they're so popular and probably need to be open
many more days is because of their flexible hours. And you were
saying in here that you were going to be reaching consensus
through negotiation and compromise. I think one of the reasons
our ERs are so overutilized is because when the doctors' offices
close at five and the employee in the hotel or on the field or
wherever that employee is working punches out, that's when
they need the doctor, and they have no place to go but
Neighborhood Health Clinic if they qualify or ER. Now, I don't say
that that's all cases, but I guess that's a great majority of them
because there is no place.
So during your negotiations do you think there would be
a way for you to work out a program with local physicians -- and I
don't mean cardiologists and arthritis doctors and oncologists
who would just cater to a segment of the population which --
Page 281
April 24, 2001
whose hours would be flexible. But for those people who cannot
punch out -- it would cost them more to leave work to go see
about their sore throat than it would be to get into the doctor's
office, and it might even cost them their ]ob. So I was hoping
that it -- a part of this program will be negotiating better hours.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Commissioner, it absolutely is. That is -- I
mean, if I could find in my papers here, I've got what we used
as part of our -- when we studied the models, one of the
questions that we asked people was, you know, what is in your
program? And hours of operation and 24-hour on call for
specialists and all that's very, very important to us. And you can
rest assured that that will be part of -- of our negotiations and
part of what we will -- probably be in a bid situation, and we will --
that would be one of the things that would be a requirement,
would be some sort of staggered hours or maybe two nights a
week or Saturday or something like that. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you. Well, another
thing I'd like to ask while -- the chairman's left the floor, so I'll
lump on to this thing. One of the -- one of the comments that I've
heard continuously, you know, as people write us and call us in
their concern with this is they're afraid that this is the first step
towards socialized medicine. So, Tom, can you do something
about allaying those fears?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, I can. I mean, you know, any
socialized medicine is when the federal government says we're
going to put in a universal healthcare system for everybody in the
United States, and we're not -- it's going to be a cookie cutter,
and it's going to apply to everybody, and it's going to force
rationalization of care.
And I'm glad you brought it up because, I mean, I think
that this is a local issue. I mean, included in your report was a
letter from Senator Burt Saunders that said that -- basically
Page 282
April 24, 2001
applaud what you're doing. And I can tell you you're not going to
get a lot of cooperation and additional financial resources from
the state, and then the federal government is pretty much the
same thing. However, if for some reason that changes, it's very
simple for you to modify your program to fit in with that program.
But I think the key is is that, you know, we're seeing
large tax reductions at the federal level that are proposed and
are likely to come through. We've seen significant tax reductions
at the state level in the last two years, over a billion dollars I
think.
And we're seeing them arguing now as to whether they're
going to do it. And, in fact, the argument that you see throughout
the press and media today is, are we going to cut taxes while
that means that we have to reduce programs such as
healthcare? And, in fact, that's what's happening.
And so from my view as a taxpayer -- and the view of all
of the members of our committee feel the same way -- is that,
you know, it's very easy to look at this $16 or $20 -- I mean, if you
have a million-dollar assessed house, we're asking for a hundred
bucks. Okay. And what I said to you was that we think we can
cover a third.
So I think that in three years we can be close to a
hundred percent of the target population we wanted. And that
would mean 3/10 of a mil, you know, in the aggregate every year
to take care of the entire primary care, something in the 3- to 4-
mil range. And so we're talking -- you know, somebody with a
million-dollar assessed value we'd be asking them for three or
four hundred dollars a year.
If somebody had a hundred thousand dollars, we're asking
them for 10 bucks, maybe 30 or 40 a year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- I probably didn't ask my question
properly then.
Page 283
April 24, 2001
MR. SCHNEIDER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think the rates are great. I think
we all can put our 15, $20 a year for the Healthy Kids,
Neighborhood Health Clinic, or whatever. What I'm asking is, will
this program lead us to a point where employers will feel that
maybe they don't need to cover their employees' health
insurance because there are other tax -- tax-funded healthcare
provisions out there?
And I hear a lot of these, and I'm presenting that to you for --
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah. And that is an issue to be
concerned about and -- but what we have seen, we have seen no
evidence of that. I mean, Hillsborough County's been in
operation for 10 or 11 years, and Dave can speak to that
personally because he, as I said earlier, was heavily involved and
still is. Palm Beach County, the same thing, been in it 11 years,
and that's never been a problem in all of our discussions that
we've had with these people that have been at it for a long time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I say something about that?
Because that's one of the things that is sort of what the rumor
mongers like to say, to be anti -- to oppose this without
foundation, because the facts show that where there are
programs, the existing programs have not produced that result.
They have not produced the result that employers reduce the
amount of insurance provided to their employees; just hasn't
happened. So it's one of those what-ifs to scare people that in
reality has not happened in the models after which we are
patterning this proposal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Need to bring up because we
needed that answered.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' But then we also need to make sure
that we monitor that to -- and see those figures to make sure that
Page 284
April 24, 200t
we are like other counties and that doesn't happen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we stop here and talk about
this? Because I feel just the opposite, and it's only because
common sense -- where I'm going with it is, we're showing -- Tom
showed us where in the construction trade that a lot of small
businesses don't have insurance. Well, I know two very
responsible small businesspeople in the construction field that
do have insurance. So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I don't know a whole
bunch of people in the construction business.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he showed you numbers.
MR. SCHNEIDER: And I didn't intend to say that none of
them have--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we're saying to them is --
you know, they're trying to be responsible employers, and it's
okay not to be responsible because the government will take
care of you. That's what I'm -- I'm seeing, but that's my opinion.
So I guess I agree with the naysayers in -- in that aspect of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I can see, you know, that a
person might worry that that would happen until they look at the
research that our committee did, and the research shows -- the
facts are that that is an unfounded fear. I mean, I have the same
concern. It's one of those that I was, like, "Oh, my goodness, how
am I going to respond to that issue?" Because that could
happen. But the response is look at the existing programs. And
it is a rational, reasonable fear and something that should be
monitored. But the proof is in the pudding, and it hasn't
happened. It hasn't come through. So look at the research, and
you'll be more comfortable with that.
MR. ROGOFF: I'm Dave Rogoff. I'm the consultant that's
been working with Tom and his group. My observation of other
Page 285
April 24, 2001
communities is that particularly when you're starting off small
the way you're proposing on the primary care, down the road if
you're looking at expanding, some of these issues may become
bigger issues.
In fact, when you expand there are communities that set
up arrangements. I draw to your attention, there's a couple of
examples in the book that was sent out, in the State of Michigan,
Wayne County and Muskegon County, where they actually had a
program where it's addressing employers who have 80 percent or
more of their employees are -- make $10 or below per hour. And,
in fact, the employer pays a third of the program. The
government pays a third of the program, in those cases, and --
and the actual employee pays part.
So the issue is that if you get to the point that you
are raising the amount, one of the considerations is some sort of
sharing arrangement so you're not letting the employees --
employers off the hook. And so that model has been rather
successful. And, in fact, in the Wayne County model, I was just
reading the other day that the -- the largest user in terms of an
employee group of that program is the restaurant business. So
they are hitting the target, and it is a way of doing that.
And, in fact, in Hillsborough County now they are
looking at expanding the program to a higher level, but part of
what's being looked at is some sort of model that allows sharing
-- that requires some sort of sharing on the part of the employer
so you don't have employers who are getting rid of the coverage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Rogoff, thank you for being
here. And Tom didn't -- you said you were a consultant for the
committee. We didn't pay for it. Who paid for it?
MR. ROGOFF: I have contract with the federal government,
the Bureau of Primary Health. And what they do is they ask me
to go into certain communities, different communities, to help
Page 286
April 24, 2001
out on the front end of planning. And it happened to be by the
luck of timing that I found out there was actually some monies
available through the State of Florida to continue it. And they
were coming towards the end of their fiscal year, and there was
available funds. So I talked to people in the Department of
Health, the State of Florida. So my work has been paid through
the federal government and through the state government and its
funds. And most of my work when I go into the communities is
paid by the government.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioners, I think-- and please
correct me if I'm wrong -- that what we're being asked to do
tonight is not -- I don't believe to approve anything. What I'm
going to say -- use the words "conditional acceptance" of what
the committee has done at this point and to put this into our
budgetary process which begins very soon, May and June, to
address these issues.
And I have some real concerns. And I will say up front
that Tom Schneider is probably one of the finest gentlemen I've
ever met in my life. He is one of the people who I would count as
a true friend in this community, and I have the utmost respect for
him and his committee. And I have traveled to the governor's
health conference, and I have, you know, been through this.
But I'm going to wear my due diligence hat this evening,
and I'm going to ask some questions that have been raised. I'm
not going to take all the credit for this, but I think there's some
categories. But I think where we're going is if it's a conditional
acceptance and then to be -- have these things answered and
brought forward in the budgetary process, how do we address
some of these very early concerns? And if I take Healthy Kids,
we may not need to do anything because we don't know where
that state legislature is going to be at. We may have that
Page 287
April 24, 2001
funding, may or may not. Last year I came to this board, and we
had about a $50,000 number. I said if the board gives twenty-
five, I could raise twenty-five in the private sector. I would go
back to those same organizations and say, "Could we cover that
base this year?" That may be a piece.
I have some real -- I want school nursing programs, yes,
nurses in the schools. But I am deeply disturbed by two things:
Number one, State of Florida Department of Education, that's
their ball. That's the one they should be dealing with with the
school districts and the counties and not forcing it down on the
local government. They want $250,000. We sat here and
approved a variance for a million and a half dollars for the school
district that if I knew that was going on, I would have said, "You
put your two fifty towards this, and then I'll waive the variance
for the other." But I didn't know that. So I feel like the jilted
bride at the altar in terms of that situation.
I know there is tremendous problems here in the
community that we need to address, but let me just share some
things that I'm going to put on the public record, turn it back to
the commissioners, we can go wherever you want to go for it.
First of all, I have great concerns about fraud and
abuse in any system.
I have great concerns about cost estimates until I know
what are the dollars. And I hear where we're trying to go with it,
but I think you really need to take a hard look when I know most
HMOs are losing money. I know many of these organizations are
in tremendous loss situations. We were at the governor's health
conference. When the Soloman (phonetic) brothers got up there
and started talking numbers about what's happened to the
hospitals and everything, all the healthcare providers' eyes
glazed over like they don't want to listen to this. It's the reality
of hard-line, bottom dollars. I want to know how those cost
Page 288
April 24, 2001
estimates are. How are we going to pay for it?
Tax increases, if you look at that first category as a
taxpayer, whether you're working, working poor, provider,
whatever you are, when you start taxing, you're going to get hit
across the board. I don't care whether you're making $10,000 a
year or $100,000 a year, you're going to pay for it. I also can look
at the other side and say, "1 know you're going to pay for it one
way or another. You're going to pay it through healthcare
premiums. You're going to pay it through -- you're going to pay it
through fees." And you're right on target, John. You got to pay
the piper somewhere. How do you want to do it?
But I really want to know what we mean by tax increase
and how that's going to work out. And, you know, and taxing --
taxes could be a lot of things. It could come everywhere from
tourist development dollars to -- to your property taxes. It could -
- or sales tax. I mean, there's all kinds of tax, tax, taxes. Which
one are we going to hit and how does it best go across the board
so we don't isolate one group and say, "You're the ones that are
going to carry the ball in the community"?
And I think you're absolutely right on. If this thing
gets to -- through our discussions and budgets and everything, at
what point do you go to the voters and you say to the voters,
"Here's the situation. This is what we have to deal with, and we
want you to tell us as a community what are our options"? And I
don't want to start crowding agendas. I don't want to start
confusing taxes that go for specific things, whether it's roads or
green space or healthcare. Because you put too many items out
there, the voters' eyes are going to glaze over, and they're going
to say, '1 don't like any of it," and they're going to tube it all. And
then the pressure comes back on the government elected
officials to make even tougher decisions. So I would raise those
to enter into as we go through this in terms of how we're going to
Page 289
April 24, 2001
deal with this.
A couple quick points, I'm through. My airtime will be
over. I'm concerned about funding. I would like to take a hard
look at all that. I've got some real tough questions on eligibility
in terms of what proof documents are nec -- a necessity to
determine eligibility. Who reviews and investigates an
application for eligibility? Who is eligible and is granted? And
how do you prevent card swapping? You know, how do you get --
you know, people can do some funny things in this. Back to
fraud, I guess. And how is dependent status verified? You know,
what are we -- what are we going to have as criteria here?
And those, to me, are really due diligence, hard
questions. And, Tom, you began to address those tonight. I
value that. But I really want to have a lot of data and a lot of
assurances, I guess, so that I can begin to answer questions to
this community about we're not going to do something that we
can't take through to fruition. I think the worst thing we could do
is to start and, as you said, not make the commitment. And I
don't want to start until I know what some of these answers are.
And that's why I would say, for myself, conditional acceptance
with these questions being addressed throughout the budgetary
process, I could accept that. But when you start asking me to
approve something and set a hard number up front, I have a little
difficulty with that because I don't know where it's going to take
me. I will turn it back to the board and let the board make
-- have the discussion and make a motion or whatever you'd like
to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
see what the public has to say.
I'd like to go to public speakers,
MS. WALSH: We have nine registered speakers. The first is
Mike Davis followed by Carl Bontemps.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And for those of you earlier who didn't
Page 290
April 24, 2001
know who Mike Davis is, here he is, alive and well on Channel 54.
Good evening, Mike.
MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mike Davis for the
record, and I stand here before you tonight, I guess, with a dual
hat on, representing the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce, and
I've been that representative on both the first healthcare
committee, as you know, and now serve in that same capacity
representing the chamber of commerce on the second one,
which is what we're about here tonight. And I know brevity at
this -- at this late hour and by this board is always rewarded.
So with that thought in mind, I'll simply say to you I
applaud the fiscal concerns you-all have already stated, because
that's important with a program such as this. But from a
chamber's perspective, I want you to know that we're supportive
of proceeding forward with the process to try to solve this very
serious problem in our community given the fact that it is with
that fiscal restraint and control that you-all will hold, as Tom
pointed out earlier, until all those 'i"s are dotted and all those
"t"s are crossed for you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mike.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mike, I have a question for you.
Do you think the chamber would support the responsibility of
employees -- employers to provide health insurance for their
employees?
MR. DAVIS: Certainly so. I think the business community
has to because that maintains that level playing field of
competition that no one's getting a free ride and -- and being
responsible. You bet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
MS. WALSH: Carl Bontemps.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And then could we have the next
person in the on-deck circle, please.
Page 291
April 24, 2001
MS. WALSH: That would be Robert Jenkins.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is Mr. Jenkins here this evening?
Okay. Could we move to the next person, please.
MS. WALSH: William Lascheid.
MR. BONTEMPS: My name is Carl Bontemps. I live in
Pelican Bay. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I've known Tom for a
long time. And, in fact, several years ago we were in the
leadership master's program. And I saw Tom get started on the
healthcare project, and over these years that has developed and
grown into what you've heard tonight.
I went to the medical session out at the Community
Foundation in Golden Gate when I heard Tom was speaking. I
knew he was going to speak. But I went out, and I got to tell
you, I was -- I was so impressed with the presentation, and I was
quite surprised at some of the reactions from those in the
audience. And -- and there were a lot of back-and-forth things,
like, well, is this the thing to do or not?
And I was listening to all this, and then this speaker
asked if anybody wanted to say anything, and I had to say
something. And what I said was, "We are a pristine, beautiful,
one of the finest communities in the whole United States, and
we're sitting here arguing about the beginning of a failure of our
healthcare system of those who are supporting all of us who live
down here. We're going to live on the top. We're going to eat
steaks. We're going to drive big cars. And we're going to let all
the people at the bottom suffer? I don't buy that." And that's
what I said. And I said, "Furthermore," I said, "this community
should stand up to the plate and -- and hit the ball and" -- and
let's make this thing happen. I mean, we are too good down here
to let this thing go down the drain. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Carl.
DR. LASCHEID: I'm Dr. Bill Lascheid, and I've been a Collier
Page 292
April 24, 2001
County resident for 18 years. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Board and Staff, thank you for allowing me to express my views
with regard to healthcare for Iow-income, uninsured people of
Collier County. By way of introduction, I've been actually
practicing -- an actively practicing physician for 51 years; 18 of
these I've practiced in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dr. Lascheid's the only doctor
who ever started when he was 12.
MR. LASCHEID: How did you know, Pam? You weren't
there. I'm a past president of the Collier County Medical Society,
former chief of department of medicine at the NCH Healthcare
System. I've served on 22 healthcare committees and
organizations in a local, state, and national level within the past
10 years; some with Donna Fiala, by the way. I'm cofounder of
the Neighborhood Health Clinic, which is a health clinic providing
healthcare for Iow-income working adults using all volunteer
professional staff. And by the way, the Neighborhood Health
Clinic is here to stay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hallelujah.
DR. LASCHEID: I was a member of the Collier County Health
Care Review Committee in 1999 and 2000, and I've attended
several meetings of the Collier County Health Care Planning and
Finance Committee. I heartily endorse the interim report of the
Collier County Health Care Planning and Finance Committee and
am asking you to do the same.
Commissioners, Collier County has a significant problem,
which has already been outlined to you, with access to quality
healthcare for Iow-income, uninsured people. These people,
most of whom are working, are in Iow-paying jobs such as lawn
maintenance, restaurant workers, cleaning help, and the like.
They make 6 to $8 an hour, have no health insurance, and have
no medical home. They cannot just pick up the telephone and
Page 293
April 24, 2001
call their local physician as you and I can do.
These -- these patients ignore their medical problems,
then seek help in the emergency room when they are in crisis
stage. That, ladies and gentlemen, is really expensive medicine,
as has already been pointed out. These costs are then shifted to
others so that you and I pay more for the doctor visits and
hospital stays as a result.
The program outlined in this report has a proven history
in other communities of being able to provide better healthcare
to more people for less money. It has the endorsement of the
Collier County Medical Society. This is a win-win situation for
Collier County. Do you realize, Commissioners, that Collier
County is one of two or three counties in the State of Florida that
does not provide funding for indigent care at this time?
Please vote yes for this initiative. It's the right
thing to do. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much, sir. Next
speaker, please.
MS. WALSH: Next is Nancy Lascheid followed by Steve
Rasnick.
MS. LASCHEID: Good evening.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good evening.
MS. LASCHEID: First of all, Commissioner Fiala, let me tell
you that we've added four new clinic sessions to the
Neighborhood Health Clinic, and we're having specialty clinics.
So I thought that that would please you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It sure would.
MS. LASCHEID: Thank you for your interest and your
concerns on the healthcare crisis that we're facing. As a result
of my volunteer position as the executive director and cofounder
of the Neighborhood Health Clinic, I believe that I can provide an
additional view for you this evening. My husband and I have
Page 294
April 24, 2001
spent 2 1/2 years working 12 to 14 hours a day, 6 days a week on
this incentive, and I know from whence I speak. Today's report
by Tom Schneider and his comments have provided valuable
information for you, but I want to add another piece to your
assessments. You hear the statistics, but I see the faces. I
know their names. I remember their diagnoses. I agonize over
their opportunity for healthcare and its outcome.
Let me pose a question to you. The individuals who we
refer to by numbers here today, why are they poor? Some of
them are poor because they've made bad choices in their lives.
Some of them are poor because of circumstances beyond their
control. But mark by words, the majority of our patients, it's their
intellectual level of achievement. For them it doesn't get any
better. It's hard to believe that people who wash dishes, bus
tables, and clean bathrooms sought a career goal in that area.
We are, indeed, fortunate to have these people in our
community meeting the needs that we all have in this room.
These individuals pay taxes. They attend the churches and
synagogues, and they contribute to our society. Their health
issues are the same as yours and as mine, except seeking help is
more of a challenge. Their choices generally are neglect or
crisis.
I read carefully Tom Schneider's committee report. In
fact, I have used some of the information in the management of
the Neighborhood Health Clinic. I strongly endorse this interim,
and I request that you vote yes and support this cause. Thank
you,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. WALSH: Following Mr. Rasnick we have James Tindall.
MR. RASNICK: Good evening. My name is Steve Rasnick,
and I've been a part of this committee from the very beginning. I
had a head of hair when I started. If you believe that, this'Il be
Page 295
April 24, 2001
an easy presentation. I also run a employee benefit firm within
town. We pay approximately $4 million per month to local
providers in the area. We represent about 80 employers that
include about 25,000 members, mostly located within this area.
I'm the past president of the Health Underwriters Association,
and I think I'm prepared to offer some of the following comments.
First off -- and in no particular order. First off,
with respect to the possibility of socialized medicine -- God bless
you. With respect to it, I would remind the board that the
expansion of this program is at the direct pleasure of the board.
If, in fact, we are to ever have a socialized program, a broadly
expanded program, it will be because the board of
commissioners has approved it, has directed it. It will not
happen without your approval.
Secondly, with respect to the concerns that were
mentioned by the chairman, I'd like to deal with a few of those
based upon my experience, because they're not much different
than the insurance business and the concerns that I have as
running an insurance company. Fraud and abuse are prevalent
today in all aspects of insurance, both on the providers' side and
the members' side. It costs us all a lot of money.
I -- it would be naive to tell you that any program that
we would create would not include some element of fraud and
abuse. However, there are programs, there are methodologies
that minimize the extent of the fraud and the abuse as potential,
and we would make certain that we incorporated those
methodologies and systems in any program that we would submit
to you. For example, how do you ident -- how do you prevent
people from swapping cards? Picture cards. It's not perfect, but
certainly it's going to limit some of the -- the swapping.
In terms of cost estimates, actuaries can tell you just
about anything you would like to hear at any given time, but our
Page 296
April 24, 200'1
reliance on the existing programs that we've been able to
examine is the basis for our cost estimates. Our cost estimates
are quite conservative. We've looked at statistics that
demonstrate that amongst all of the programs that we looked at,
between 2.7 and 2.9 visits per member per year were, in fact,
common -- a common thread and under $300 per patient, per
belly button, per year was the cost of the program including
drugs. We can rely on that number if we are to believe these
other models which have been working very, very well.
Tax increases, again, that's really at -- at the
pleasure of the -- of the county commission. If you desire that
this program be expanded because of its unique success, great.
We increase taxes, we take it to a referendum, and if the public
agrees, we go ahead and do it. But, again, it's within your
control.
Eligibility is problematic, and it is a detail and a
very important detail. And let me just offer some suggestions to
you. First off, in terms of demonstrating a financial capacity,
especially if an eligibility criteria is a percentage of the federal
poverty guidelines pay, we would require pay stubs, income tax
papers, proof of employment, and financial statements. Those
would all be required. And if you didn't have them, you would not
be able to participate. Are we being particularly restrictive? No.
We're being very practical. And this is something that all of the
other plans did.
The eligibility work is done by administrative clerks
that have been hired and have been incorporated in our cost
estimate. We will give you some ratios based upon the number of
clerks that we would require to handle this -- this position at
some time in the future, but there is a logical ratio of the number
of participants per clerk that is out there. We will revisit -- I
would suggest that we revisit eligibility issues once every three
Page 297
April 24, 2001
months. Things change, okay, and you cannot assume that once
a year is adequate.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go ahead, please.
MR. RASNICK: Thank you. And dependent status verified
the same we -- we verify it today within the insurance
environment.
We look at adoption certificates, guardianship certificates.
We take a look at marriage certificates. Those are all valid
documents that we can request. They are commonly requested
in an insured environment, and we should be no less vigilant in
this program. So we would go ahead and do that.
My conclusion is -- I always look for the close. I
think semantics are extremely important in this issue. I know
how difficult it will be for the committee to negotiate viable
arrangements with providers and vendors. If we do not have an
unequivocal commitment from the board to support the
organization's efforts, subject to us satisfying all of the
contingencies that -- that have laid out -- clearly we have a lot of
work to do, and we can do it within four or five months, but we
can't do it if you waffle.
We need your unequivocal commitment. It is the right thing
to do. Moreover, it's just good business for Collier County. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before you leave, sir -- and thank you.
You really helped me a great deal, and I appreciate that. In cost
estimates do you have a way to deal with the catastrophic
healthcare cases? If we take a population of 30,000 people, you
know and I know if we get a few of those, that can really do a big
MR. RASNICK: That's a great -- that's a great question, Mr.
Chairman, but I think we're overlooking one important thing. It's
a primary care program. By definition you cannot have
Page 298
April 24, 200t
catastrophic cases occur in a primary care program. You can
have catastrophic frequency of cases.
So we have to build into our pricing mechanism and have
controls regarding utilization. And that comes through medical
management and a medical management process. But you can't
have the things that I worry about every day -- transplants and all
of that -- because we're offering -- on the front end we're offering
a primary care program. So it's a great question, but I don't think
we have to worry about that. But I am worried about
catastrophic frequency, and there are controls. These are the --
the reimbursement mechanism that we use with the providers to
control that as well as medical management.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I really -- I really appreciate that. You
helped me a lot. And I understand -- I think I understand what
you're asking me. And I said conditional acceptance, and let me
explain that a little bit where I'm trying to go with this. We're
saying up to, I believe, 1/10 of a mil, and -- up to. See, I don't
know what we need for you to go forward, really. And I don't
know what the state can provide us. I don't know what other
funding sources might provide us. But I would like to have some
flexibility in here in the budgetary process that says, you know, if
it's up to 1/10 or -- I hate to get tied down to something, but I
want to support what you want to do. I want to get to where we
need to be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'd want that as a ceiling.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you're looking for-- if you're looking
for a ceiling --
MR. RASNICK: "Not to exceed," that's great language. But
I'm selfish, frankly, Mr. Chairman. I know that I need the
unequivocal support of the chairman of the county board as well
as the rest of the commissioners in order to achieve the level of
success that we need to and you want us to in negotiating with
Page 299
April 24, 2001
the providers. So selfishly I like unequivocal support. You can
put whatever contingencies you want in there, not to exceed
1/10 of a mil. But if we can say that Commissioner Carter and
the rest of the commissioners, hopefully unanimously, support
this effort, you make our job of fulfilling the balance of this
program so much easier.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before we go can we talk about,
you know, what -- if we were to give -- to give approval to this
concept of a tenth of a mil tonight, think about where our
committee -- with our deepest gratitude -- continues to go in their
free work. What they would go to do is meet with physicians or
meet with providers and say, "What kind of a deal are you willing
to make us? We -- we're going to have 300 bucks a patient if
we're going to try to serve 7,000 this year" -- is that the right
number? I'm sorry. I'm getting tired.
"But we're going to have three hundred bucks a patient.
How can we spend that money?" But if they don't know what
they've got to bring to the table -- these people, our negotiators
with the private sector, they have to know what they've got to
put on the table to cut a deal for a good rate, for a good deal with
the providers. We've got to tell them that we will give you a
tenth of a mil.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Pam, you're -- you're exactly
right. I've already met with the Naples Hospital, Cleveland Clinic,
and the school system. And we sat down, and the talks were
less than productive. But then I came to realize I had nothing to
bring to the table.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I would make it a condition
on this that we have everybody come to the table with
something, and that includes possibly the chamber of commerce
getting involved. It includes the Community Foundation. It
Page 300
April 24, 2001
includes every entity out there to come forward with something
to show that there's a community need, that there's a community
involvement, that they're all together to make this happen. And
that's one of the conditions I think we can do with this as we're
going forward towards the budget process. I'm not for giving
away anything in this world. But I'll tell you, there's some things
we have to take care of, and we need to have other people
involved with it to make it work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just for a little comfort for
the board members -- I don't know if -- Commissioner Carter, were
you on the board -- yes. You were on the board from the
beginning of the first committee. And if you look at the work
product of this committee so far, you can have confidence that
not only have they identified the issues that required further
clarification and they put it on a slide and told us we know there
are details yet to be worked out, but look at their work product
and see that we can be comfortable that they are going to
provide us with every dot for every "i" and every cross for every
't," because they have so far.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I still feel like I'm in a chicken-
and-egg situation, and I feel like the chicken. If you hesitate in
the middle of the road, you are in the Road Kill Cafe. So I, you
know -- I -- you know, I do have a sense of humor, folks. So I'm
trying to find the best way so that we can get what you need.
And I know what you need. You've got to get to the table.
But I'm with Commissioner Coletta. I want CBIA there.
I want the chamber there. I want the restaurant association
there, the lawn maintenance association. I want the groups that
hire the highest number in that category who today do not have
care -- have healthcare coverage. I want them there. I want to
tell me (sic), "What are you going to do?" Nobody gets a free ride
here. Everybody needs to pay and participate because those
Page 301
April 24, 200t
who have really struggled to provide healthcare coverage for
their families at huge sacrifices are watching this very closely.
And I just want to make sure that we don't -- to the
best of our ability, I want to -- I want this to happen, and I want
to work with you. And I'm looking for all the ways that we can
push this to the table so we can give you what you want and still
not put ourselves in a -- in a situation where we can't deliver. So,
Leo, I know you had a conversation with him. Maybe there's
something I missed.
MR. RASNICK: Well, Leo reminded me of the fact that if we
get less than a tenth, we -- the price per unit doesn't change. We
serve a smaller percentage of the population. And rather than
completing that process in three years to four years, it extends
out a little bit further than that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And even I, who am, you know, a
cheerleader for this program, am not ready to buy the second-
year program or the third-year program, even though I understand
that 3/10 of a mil might, you know, solve the problem. I'm not
even sure if that's our job to solve the whole problem. I'm not
even close to going there. But I am sure that we're going to get
exactly what we've got today, which is nothing, until this county
commission gives something to put on the table. Because
otherwise, what, have we got a right to demand CBIA to come to
the table and the restaurant association? Why the heck would
they come to the table?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Right. We need to be there first.
We need --
MR. RASNICK: You need to lead the way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need to be there first.
That's what we were elected to do is lead.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If we can say -- and I just had a
thought about the 1/10. You know, up to 1/10 is, you know,
Page 302
April 24, 2001
something we can work with, you know, in that framework. I
don't care what the language is, but it -- I want to send the signal
to the people we're negotiating with "We're tough, we've got
some money, we'll work with you, but I expect full participation
on your part and a commitment of dollars on your part, provider,
supplier, employer, to get this resolved as a community issue."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I be clear about something
just for a second on that, Commissioner Carter? Because I want
to be sure we're giving the right message. I understand that sort
of a demanding, tough stance with employers whose employees
will benefit. The place where I'd like us to be careful is the
providers don't owe this to anybody. We're going to physicians
and saying, "1 know you could make 200 bucks with this hour or --
to see this patient, but would you, because it's the right thing to
do, take this 30 bucks we're willing to give you to see this
patient?"
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
know, demanding of providers.
Bringing it to the table.
But we -- so we can't be, you
We go with our hat in hand
saying, '~/e've got $30. Would you please see this patient if we
can guarantee you 20 patients over the year at 30 bucks?" I
don't know how it would work.
MR. RASNICK: Providers are terrific.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
MR. RASNICK: They're doing many of the things right now.
This is a better way of doing it. It's a more organized approach.
I have one final thought. Birth is so much easier than
resurrection. We have a crisis now. We have an opportunity to
give birth to a new delivery system, and my fear is that if we wait
a year or two or if we equivocate, we're going to be involved in
trying to resurrect a broken system and spend much, much more
money than we'll spend right now.
Page 303
April 24, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I would like to incentivise
providers. And I don't know how to do that, but I'd like to take it
to the table with your collective thinking. How do you incentivise
providers? I'd like to see a doctor get a break who participates
in the program. I don't know how to give him that break.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he's not going to get a break.
The doctor's not --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, maybe he can. I don't know if we
have that -- any resource we have, I'd like to see that
incentivised any way that I can, and I don't know how to do that.
MR. RASNICK: There are lots of different ways to do that.
We would lay that out for you. We shouldn't do that in a vacuum,
though. We want to meet with the providers, sit down and have
them develop the model -- help develop the model, help develop
the governance, help develop the medical management criteria.
Insurers are failing, and HMOs, in particular, are failing because
they have an adversarial relationship with the providers with
whom they purport to partner. What I am suggesting to you is
they become part of the solution, and with their help we'll have a
good program. Again, thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Don't leave yet.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a couple questions here, and
then I've got to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many providers do we have
for Collier County in Collier County with the small employer that
we're discussing, one to ten employees?
MR. RASNICK: How many employers do we have?
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' No. How many providers do we
have, health insurance providers, for these small companies?
MR. RASNICK: Well, Commissioner Henning, off the top of
my head, I don't know. But the PHO has roughly 250. George? Is
Page 304
April 24, 200t
George gone? George, am I correct? And Cleveland Clinic,
because we have relationships with them as well, they're
building, and they have roughly 60.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I'm not talking about
doctors. I'm talking about insurance companies.
MR. RASNICK: Oh, insurance companies. I'm sorry.
Okay. You have three health insurers in this community. You
have Aetna, The Principal, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield out of 1800
insurers in North America. You have some that offer alternate-
funded approaches, but if you're looking for fully insured
programs, you only have three.
We have an insurance crisis in the State of Florida, but
it is really an acute crisis within this area. Many of those people
that -- that we're accusing of not providing health insurance
coverage for their employees simply can't afford it. I mean, we
ask the employee to afford it. They can't afford it. Is it -- is it
better not to provide the insurance coverage and stay in
business and provide a living and a ]ob for those individuals, or
do you provide the insurance or attempt to provide the insurance
and in doing so, perhaps, force yourself out of business? A lot of
these two- and three- and four-life employers are faced with that
dilemma. And although I think it's an employer's obligation to
provide the coverage, I certainly understand that -- that I'm an
employer -- that sometimes you can't do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But how about paying
incrementally? I mean, being that we're talking about an 1/10 of
a mil, how about when that employer, the little guy, the lawn
maintenance guy, goes up to get his occupational license each
year, he has to pay an extra $15 or extra $10 per employee to get
his occupational license to go strictly to this program? That
way, then, we'd have the buy-in of employers as well.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Commissioner Fiala, maybe I can deal
Page 305
April 24, 2001
with that. I had raised that issue with -- with our iljustrious
member of the legal department -- and it's not David Weigel,
Mr. Ramiro (sic). And we had a conference call yesterday on that
issue, and basically the answer is Collier County is precluded by
federal and state law from doing that. And I'm going to ask --
MR. MANALICH: Our initial research on that was that there
was federal and state preemption on that. The only alternative
that we found -- and the authority was in Hawaii. There was a
state-mandated, healthcare-type benefits required of employers.
And they went and as a state got an exemption from the federal
ERISA laws and as a state were able to do that. But we know of
no authority to do that on a county level.
Now, obviously we can continue to endeavor. I mean,
that's a complex area of regulation. We didn't just rely on our
office. We also used or retained counsel, Nabors Giblon, on that
that has, you know, statewide expertise. But we certainly aren't
willing -- if the board is interested, we'll continue to look at that
issue and see if there's some room for some type of Collier
County requirement there. But initially, no.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I -- we're not -- you have
answered -- more than answered my questions, sir. I appreciate
that. At least I'm looking for some framework here. You've given
that to me, and I appreciate it. I didn't mean to delay this
gentleman's --
MR. TINDALL: My name is Jim Tindall. I'm a taxpayer and a
resident of Mr. Coletta's district. I serve with Tom Schneider on
the healthcare committee, and I'm a volunteer at the
Neighborhood Health Clinic. No one has said thank you yet. And
on behalf of both our committee -- although we've lost some hair
over this -- but certainly on behalf of the underserved and
uninsured, I want to thank you for bringing this issue into the
public eye.
Page 306
April 24, 2001
This has been in some sense -- we've been coming to
Collier County since 1974, and to some extent this has been sort
of the dirty little secret, that this has been going on. And it
hasn't -- it hasn't surfaced with this visibility and with this
amount of community emphasis and participation until now, and I
think you're to be commended for that. It is not everyone's most
popular issue.
But you also know from your earlier -- from the earlier
discussions today with developers and so on the importance of
public/private partnerships, finding ways to work together to do
the best we can under the circumstances we have. And while
you may not have known before today that the burden of this is
being borne by the private sector 90/10, you might have
intuitively felt it was -- it was at least -- the preponderance was
there.
But we have gotten to where we are at saving people's
lives and preserving their ability to work on the backs of the
doctors and hospitals in this community who have gone and -- as
far as individuals and individual institutions who have gone way
beyond what -- what they should have done from a standpoint of
good business because they care about this community.
But it has gotten way overbalanced. It is 90/10. And
I'm not suggesting that this be a 50/50 partnership and the
county sign a check today for $25 million, but when it is 90/10 on
a 40- to $50-million problem, I think you would see -- you would
see from your other examples where there have been -- there
have been healthier partnerships at slightly different ratios than
that. The -- our recommendation to you is not up to a mil. Our
recommendation is a mil.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A tenth.
MR. TINDALL: You can choose to -- you can -- a tenth of a
mil. I'm sorry. I'm getting drunk with power. I apologize. You
Page 307
April 24, 2001
can -- obviously you will phrase whatever motion or any motion
as you choose. But the specificity, Commissioner Carter, I do
believe is important because there are people in this community
who don't believe, in spite of the effort that's gone into this from
our committee and the support that we've gotten from the board,
that the county is serious about taking this on. And I think you
get us a half-full, half-empty scenario when words like "up to" get
into the public parliaments.
You have -- one of the things you've been concerned
about all day are, "Do we get another shot at this? Will we get to
see this again in its final form?" And the answer is absolutely.
And you will set for us, if you want to proceed in this regard, you
know, whatever set of contingencies you want satisfied. As long
as we have a clear understanding of what those are, we will
absolutely knock ourselves out to get back to you and to satisfy
you. And no dollar gets spent until you -- until you authorize it.
But if -- if 1/10 of a mil could be zero -- up to 1/10
of a mil could be zero in the eyes of some, you know, or .5 or .3 or
whatever, I think you are not helping us accomplish to get the --
accomplish the task of getting the detail and getting the best
possible product and bringing all of the interested parties to the
table in a way that could result in a community-wide solution.
I would -- I applaud the effort to broaden the base of
this as wide as we possibly can, to make the circle as big as we
can and to have dialogue and -- and find ways where everybody
can participate in the commun -- in the problem. But I will tell
you the private practitioners and -- and the hospitals in this
community have been doing way more than their share on this
issue, and they're starting to put some of that burden down.
They're saying, "We can't do this anymore and be financially
responsible either to our families or to our -- to our board of
trustees."
Page 308
April 24, 2001
And you have an opportunity today, unique opportunity, I
think, to be a catalyst. You may remember in chemistry class in
high school that you put four or five different clear liquids
together in a beaker, and then you added one drop of something
else that was also clear, and the entire beaker turned bright blue
or something like that. And that, the chemistry teacher
explained, was the catalyst.
You have an opportunity to be a catalyst on this issue.
And be not -- we're not asking you to spend the dollar, but by
authorizing a specific amount so that we can go forward in the
community and work out the details, you have the opportunity to
be a catalyst. And so then you can see with us what that end
product is and whether -- when you see that end product,
whether it's a product you like, a product that you don't like, a
product you want sent back for revisions.
But without that drop -- without that little drop of
catalyst, I really don't believe that we're going to get there, and I
believe that the hundreds and hundreds of hours that a lot of us
have put in to get to this point will be for naught because the
naysayers and the boo birds and the antitax and antiprogress
people are going to be coming out of the woodwork and -- and
say, "They're not serious. They're not -- this is -- this is half
empty, gang. It's another half-empty promise," and I don't think
you want that. Give us a chance by being the catalyst. Thank
you.
MS. WALSH: Next we have Dottie Gerrity followed by Susan
Luenberger.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: While she's coming up, could I just
-- Nancy Lascheid mentioned why people are poor in this town.
But three things that she didn't mention that I'd like to add for
the record; unreasonably high rents, very high child-care costs,
and Iow wages. I think those are things that attribute to the
Page 309
April 24, 2001
economic base of our people who have to go to the Neighborhood
Health Clinic because they can't afford to go anyplace else.
Thank you.
MS. GERRITY: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Dottie
Gerrity. I live in the Moorings, and I'm here wearing a couple of
hats tonight: First of all as a taxpayer and, secondly, I am a
board member on the Community Foundation, and I also serve on
the Grant Committee. First of all, I wanted to commend the
commissioners for the support you've given this healthcare
committee. I really commend you. It's been a wonderful service
to the community.
And then I want to speak for a moment as a person on the
Grant Committee who has, over the last few years, seen the
requests for grants grow to the point where we can't meet them
anymore. The same thing I know is happening to United Way.
There are way more applications than we can fill. And what
we've also discovered is we're putting Band-Aids on problems.
They're temporary problems (sic), and they continually come
back every year to us again. The problem is getting worse. It's
growing. It's accelerating.
And as has been mentioned many times tonight, the costs
truly are being passed on to the citizens. One way or another,
we as taxpayers are paying for these healthcare costs. It's
become a community problem, and it is at a community level. I
think -- I am convinced there's not going to be any federal
support. There's not going to be any state support. I'm even
reading that the tobacco funds are going to go for a tax refund
instead of to helping healthcare. There's ma]or cutbacks. No
one's getting any more money.
But as a taxpayer what I really like about this program
is that it's no risk. There is no risk. First of all, they've used
models that have already worked. They're only asking for a
Page 310
April 24, 2001
continuation. If it doesn't work, you don't need to approve it.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you --
MS. GERRITY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'm so grateful that
you're here. I'm sorry that I don't know you since I'm your
commissioner, but you live in the Moorings. MS. GERRITY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Anybody who knows knows if you
live in the Moorings, you have a house that's nice and valuable,
and so this tax as a property tax will hit you more than it will hit
perhaps the people -- well, clearly it will hit you. You will pay
more than the people who are served by it. MS. GERRITY: Clearly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you feel about that?
MS. GERRITY: I feel it is the absolute right thing to do. I
live here. I enjoy this place so much and all the gifts that it gives
me that I have no problem whatsoever contributing to
healthcare.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think that that's how the
majority of the people in -- along the coast, frankly, who are
going to be paying a lot of this, I trust that's how they're all going
to respond.
MS. GERRITY: Certainly among my neighbors and
contemporaries, that's the way they feel.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much. Next speaker,
please.
MS. WALSH: Our last speaker is Susan Luenberger.
MS. LUENBERGER: Thank you. I'm Susan Luenberger,
president of the Community Foundation of Collier County. And
that's exciting. I get to have the last word. I'll make it a very
brief statement.
Page 311
April 24, 200t
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make it good.
MS. LUENBERGER: I wanted to thank you also for your
support of -- in bringing to light this healthcare issue and to thank
the healthcare committee for their incredible work. And the
Community Foundation Board of Directors, our volunteers, and
our various committees have all been extremely excited to know
that this type of very diligent research has been going on into
this very important problem because we really see, as Dottie
outlined, that the way to really effect change in our community is
not to apply temporary solutions and Band-Aids, but to delve into
the facts behind the issue, look into the root cause, and find a
long-term solution. Those are many of the criteria that we look
at in our own grant making, and we see that that is the way to
bring about positive community change in our area.
This healthcare issue is not simply an issue for the
several thousand people who will be served by this proposed new
system. As has been said before, this affects all of us who live in
Collier County or who visit Collier County. It's an issue for quality
of life. It affects us in so many different ways. And to prevent
the type of overflow that is happening in the ER, it's such -- it's
just so obvious. When you have the old saying that comes from
the medical terminology, "An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure," that is certainly the case with this situation.
My donors are always looking for a return on their
charitable investment. I know that's what you are looking for as
good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. And I, as a taxpayer,
hope that you will support this as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just say a couple of things
that -- that came to mind as a result of the discussion? One is -- I
did not hear this with my own ears, so I'm repeating hearsay.
But on the question of expecting that the state's going to come
Page 312
April 24, 2001
down, this is really the state's problem or the federal
government's problem, hearsay that I heard is that a prominent
member of the state legislature said in regard to requests for
funding from Collier County, "Why should the state come down
here and solve your healthcare problems when poorer counties
than yours are taxing themselves to try to address the problem?
Why does Collier County, such a rich county, think that the state
and the federal government should solve this problem when they
are doing nothing for themselves?"
We are doing nothing, and that is not the right thing to
do. We as conservatives -- and I know that everybody on this
commission is a Republican and proud to be, that we think that
local government serves best. We know that we will do a better
job with every nickel that's collected here than if we did wait for
some big pot of money to arrive from the federal government. We
know we will do better serving our -- our constituency.
And as a -- as a fiscally responsible board, we -- we
were willing to look at whether or not this was a problem in our
community, even though our guts of feeling people knew that it
was. And -- and we did exactly what we should do in this
community, and that is tap the talent that we have because that
is our greatest resource in this community. We have an
incredible amount of talent in this community, as you-all already
know.
So what did we do? We asked them if they would help us
figure out a solution to this problem, and they have worked for
two years, and their work product is excellent. They have done
all of the research. They have provided models. They have
showed us what's worked in other areas after they quantified the
problem. And now they're telling us that to start to do a -- a
minimal beginning but something meaningful, to begin to solve
this problem, we need to have a tenth of a mil of taxes in
Page 313
April 24, 2001
property taxes this year.
This is not politically popular for anybody. Nobody
wants to say, "Let's raise property taxes." And I've got -- I've got
nothing to gain as far as votes in this. In my district are people
who are going to be payers into this system. But I know that
they want to do the right thing and that they're tired of having
the dirty little secret, and they're ready to do the right thing. And
they've been telling me that as I've gone around to their
associations.
So I'm going to move approval of the recommendation from
the committee as it was presented to us, that we give them
authorization for a tenth of a mil of property tax conditioned on
addressing all of the questions that were raised in Mr.
Schneider's proposal and including every question raised by
Commissioner Carter here tonight. And -- and I have every
confidence that they will be able to do that. That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be an honor to second
it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a first, and I have a second.
Discussion by board members? Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Where I'd like to see
us go is -- as Steve Rasnick stated is, we only have three health
insurance companies for the small businesspeople. And, you
know, just like the doctors; we don't have enough doctors here in
Collier County. So the less product that is offered, the higher the
cost it is. Being that -- is it too expensive for the small business
to afford? And, you know, Steve did cover that.
And that is where the State of Florida does need to come
in. They've pushed this mandate down to us, but yet they don't
give us enough product out there to -- for businesses to be more
responsible. And that's what we're seeing from the state and
federal, is pushing down and letting local government make
Page 3t4
April 24, 2001
these decisions. But also with these decisions they have a ton of
mandates to make it very difficult sitting up here and with -- I
would like to see us push some stuff back to see if we could get
relief from the State of Florida, the federal government of saying
can we mandate employers -- give us the relief to mandate
employers to be responsible and provide for their employees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I've just got to say, as a -- you
know, a small business owner-- I used to have a law firm. Now
I've got a desk at my house. But when I did employ, you know,
nine people, that was my -- that was a bigger expense -- next to
payroll that was my biggest expense. If I had been in a business
that was less profitable than practicing law, I'm not -- you would
shut me down if you mandated that I provide insurance. You'd
shut me down. I don't see how -- I'm not interested in -- I mean,
that's anti-Republican, anticonservative telling small businesses,
"Thou shalt do that," you know, provide insurance. They can't
afford it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't believe that's un-
Republican. It's putting the responsibility where it belongs, and
that is being a responsible person; that's all. Some employers --
most employers do, the responsible ones.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We're going to do a roll call.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You want comments from us?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you want to make them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think --just, Commissioners, I
think it's going to be our responsibility to carefully hover over
this subject --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You bet it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and if we even begin to see any
employers dropping their health insurance for their work force,
we need to put the brakes on and fix the problem before we go
any further.
Page 315
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. And there are successful models
for doing that, as the -- as the consultant said. You know, they're
-- we don't have to reinvent that wheel either. All we have to do
is watch for it and then go to Phase 2 when that -- if it should
start happening.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd just like to say that if we get
the commitment from the commission here today to go forward
with this, I will commit myself to work with this committee, from
now until whatever point in time that they ask me to leave, to try
to make a difference and try to keep the cost on this thing down
and to try to bring more players into it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will say once more, Tom Schneider,
you are a gentleman. You have done an outstanding ]ob, and I
can't think of anybody else or any other group that would have
been as thorough --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Amen.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- as you have been. And I know all my
questions are part of public record, and I know that you will
provide the due diligence. And for those of you who think that I
am Darth Vader, I am not. I am a conservative. I am a
compassionate conservative, if I can use a worn-out term. But I
will tell you right now, the federal government isn't going to help
you very much. State government at a healthcare conference
which has been surpassed by chads and dimples and voting
machines -- and I'm not going to comment any more on that, but
I'd like to have the money it's been spending on that area
delivered into the healthcare system. And I think we can get a
hell of a lot better results than dealing with folks to -- well, I'm
going to be careful.
But I know if the governor -- if the State of Florida
Page 316
April 24, 2001
does do anything, it can do exactly where the money's going to
go, and we're going to be on the short end of the stick, as Tom
and I know. You're not going to get much here. It's going to go to
Okeechobee. It's going to go to Jacksonville. It's going to go to
Orlando. These -- and whoever -- I don't know whoever made the
-- you know, we -- we don't take care down here. First of all,
there's a lot of confusion. We have earned income and passive
income, number one.
Number two, a lot of those people say, "Well, we help
our situation." Well, you should because you've got a hell of a lot
more people to deal with this issue than we do. And maybe if
you were a little more due diligent in what you were doing, you
wouldn't have so much to deal with on your plate. But I'm not
going to go there and say too much about that -- any more of
that.
I support the motion made by Commissioner Mac'Kie and
Commissioner Coletta. That's where my vote will be this
evening. So I'll call the motion, and we'll go down the line.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commission Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Carter. Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ask me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING'. Nay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion passes 4-1. Thank you, and it
will be in the budgetary process.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think you can see why we're so proud of
our committee, I mean, such very talented people --
Page 317
April 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. SCHNEIDER: -- that are bearing the brunt of all this. We
really appreciate it. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before we're out of here, I just -- I
cannot miss the opportunity to say thank you to this committee.
Really, when history is written about Collier County, it's going to
be this committee that's going to have played a really significant
role. You've really done something to change the face of Collier
County in a very positive way. And nobody could have done it but
you, because you did it in such a responsible way and in such a
thorough way. And it wouldn't have happened but for your work,
and we'll be forever grateful.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much. And you folks also
have a chance to really develop the legacy for yourselves as
being the board to make it happen.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item #14
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Now, we are just about finished here, ladies and
gentlemen, I think. Anything else on the agenda? No. Oh, staff
communications.
MS. WALSH: We have two items under staff back at our next
public hearing so we can -- we'll go down on -- to bring that back
for putting it on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I believe Commissioner Henning is
asking that that be brought to the commission in the next
meeting.
MS. WALSH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there -- are you asking if there
are three people who are -- I mean, I'm not supportive of that.
Page 318
April 24, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm just asking -- that's what he's
asking. I guess I'm losing it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're not supportive of what?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: She's not supporting bringing it
back. She wants to act on it tonight. Any other -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no, I don't want to act on it. I
want to vote against it. I do not agree with the position taken.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Excuse me. Commissioner Mac'Kie
wants to can it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bring it back at the next
meeting. I think it needs --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bring it back.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have three. Three says it comes
back. We'll see it at the next meeting. Next item, please.
MS. WALSH: Leo Ochs would like to discuss a TDC item.
MR. OCHS: For the record, Leo Ochs, public services
administrator.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The answer's no.
MR. OCHS: This will only take a couple of hours, and then
we'll be out of here. I need -- I need you-all to, if you would, give
your county attorney authorization to work on an amendment to
your TDC ordinance along the lines that we discussed at your
recent TDC workshop.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. Yes.
MR. OCHS: Staff has already begun the work, but the county
attorney needs formal approval from the board to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need a motion on that? I'll make
the motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion?
Page 319
April 24, 2001
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Motion carries 5-0. You got it. Go for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't vote. I didn't know what
we were voting on. The -- what -- what are you -- what -- what
kind of changes do we want to make?
MR. OCHS: We're -- we talked at the TDC workshop with the
board about amending the allocations that are currently in place
for the various pennies of the tax --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- and also giving the board broader discretion
over the entire three cents than they have now. So we want to
bring that back to the board, but before we can the county
attorney's office needs some formal direction to do so.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'm sorry. I went so fast.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was it 5-0?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was a 5-0.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It was a 5-0.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other staff communications?
MR. MANALICH: I wouldn't dare prolong this any further.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No one else here on the board?
Good enough. Commissioner Coletta and I are off to
Tallahassee to visit the sausage factory. We'll give you a report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While you're at the sausage
factory, please, please push for the funding for our juvenile
assessment center. I just wrote a letter today and faxed it out to
everybody I could think of.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For what?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The juvenile assessment center
operation's money. We're going to build a building that has no
money for its operations, and the senate budget has removed
that. And please, please do what you can on that subject.
Page 320
April 24, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We will push it. I understand it'll
probably pass the house. I think it'll get in the joint conference.
It might survive that. Even if it survives it, I'm told the governor
will veto it. But at any rate, I will carry the message.
Okay. We stand adjourned.
***** COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE MOVED, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER HENNING AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THAT
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS UNDER THE CONSENT AND SUMMARY
AGENDAS BE APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2001-130 APPROVING THE COLLIER COUNTY
LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-
2002, 2002-2003, AND 2003-2004, AND TO RE-ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES TO
RECEIVE AND ADMINISTER FUNDS UNDER THE SHIP PROGRAM
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2001-131 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF "IVY POINTE" WITH RELEASE OF
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #1 6A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF EFFLUENT UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
AUTUMN WOODS EFFLUENT MAIN AND RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Page 321
April 24, 2001
Item #16A4
APPROVE FUNDING OF LEGAL CHALLENGE TO FLORIDA
COMMUNICATION SERVICES TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT
Item #16A5
CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN RESOLUTIONS 2001-132 THROUGH
2001-153 FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCES RE HERB A. SCHNITZLER & MICHAEL BELYEA;
KELLY ANN & JAMES O. MOHN, II; PHLEANY M. DANIELS &
JENNIFER L. BROWN; MIMON BARON; PHILIP CARLTON, JR.;
LLOYD G. SHEEHAN (2}; BRUCE T. & ELSYE K. WHITMER; NAMCY
E. MILLS; HNH VENTURES, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP;
ROBERTO C. ONOFRE; GLORIA C. MORALES; SUE ANN
MAYHOOD; JESUS GOMEZ; QUAIL HOLLOW PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.; REALTY HOLDINGS, L.P., A PENNSYLVANIA
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; MARVIC L. & ELSIE A. KOEHLER; ELBA
& NOE HERNANDEZ; RAMON MESA (3); AND GERALD D. &
DOROTHY S. JOLLY
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2001-154 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT FIVE" WITH RELEASE OF
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2001-155 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR
Page 322
April 24, 2001
THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT SIX" WITH RELEASE OF
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2001-156 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT SEVEN" WITH RELEASE
OF MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2001-157 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT NINE" WITH RELEASE OF
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A10
FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL 106" WITH
CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE
SECURITY & STIPULATIONS
Item #16A11
REQUEST TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF
"SANTA BARBARA ESTATES"
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2001-158 ACKNOWLEDGING THE CURRENT LOT
CONFIGURATION IN TRAIL ACRES UNIT 3 FOR THOSE LOTS
Page 323
April 24, 2001
FORMERLY KNOWN AS LOTS 17 THROUGH 36, BLOCK 1; LOTS
33 THROUGH 81, BLOCK 2; AND LOTS 17 THROUGH 45, BLOCK
3; AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3~ PAGE 94~ PUBLIC RECORDS
Item #16A13 - Deleted
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CYPRESS WOODS FIRE HYDRANT
Item #16A14
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR CYPRESS WOODS MAINTENANCE CENTER AND RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A15
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR TERRA
VERDE AT GREY OAKS AND RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A16
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR CYPRESS WOODS CLUBHOUSE AND RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A17 - Moved to Item #8A1
Item #16A18
Page 324
April 24, 2001
PERMIT NO. 59.764, "JESSE HARDY COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION
AND AQUACULTURE" TO JESSE HARDY BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH, EAST, AND SOUTH BY VACANT LAND ZONED
AGRICULTURE, AND ON THE WEST BY VACANT LAND ZONED
ESTATES - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A19
PERMIT NO. EXP.2001-AR-660, "YARBERRY LANE WET
DETENTION POND" TO COLLIER COUNTY DOT BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH BY VACANT LAND ZONED RSF-1, ON THE EAST BY THE
CARLISLE @ NAPLES AND VACANT LAND ZONED
AGRIGULTURAL, ON THE SOUTH BY OCCUPIED LAND ZONED
RSF-1, AND ON THE WEST BY YARBERRY LANE AND OCCUPIED
LAND ZONED RSF-1 - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
RESOLUTION 2001-159 DESIGNATING CR 951 (COLLIER
BOULEVARD) AS A CONTROLLED ACCESS FACILITY FROM US 41
TO IMMOKALEE ROAD AND AS A LIMITED ACCESS FACILITY
FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD TO THE LEE COUNTY LINE
Item #16B2
ANNUAL CONTRACTS UNDER RFP #00-3131 FOR THE
FOLLOWING PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
SERVICE FIRMS: (1) A. GAlL BOORMAN 8, ASSOCIATES; (2) IBIS;
(3) J. ROLAND LIEBER, PA, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS; (4) MCGEE
& ASSOCIATES, INC.; (5) OUTSIDE PRODUCTIONS, INC.; (6)
WILSON MILLER, INC.
Page 325
April 24, 2001
Item #16B3
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF "CONTINUOUS DEFLECTION
SYSTEM (CDS}" UNIT FROM CDS TECHNOLOGIES FOR
STORMWATER PIPE ON BYSHORE DRIVE AND WEEKS AVENUE
INTERSECTION (PROJECT NO. 31110)
Item #16B4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE ADDITIONAL WORK AND
COST FOR AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD CONSTRUCTION, PROJECT
NO. 62031, CIE NO. 55
Item #16B5
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE A DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (DCA) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND BRENTWOOD LAND PARTNERS, LLC, A DELWARE LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY FOR IMPROVEMENTS OF TARPON BAY
BOULEVARD AND 20TM AVENUE N.W.
Item #16B6- Deleted
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2001-160 REGARDING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE 1-75
CORRIDOR IN COLLIER AND LEE COUNTIES
Item #16B8
Page 326
April 24, 200t
AMENDMENT NO.2 TO LIVINGSTON ROAD CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING INSPECTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH KISINGER CAMPO & ASSOCIATES CORP
(KCA), PROJECT NO. 60061, CIE NO. 53 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$125,247
Item #16B9
UTILITY EASEMENT FROM LONG BAY PARTNERS LLC, A
FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, REQUIRED IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM STATION 373+75
TO THE LEE/COLLIER COUNTY LINE~ CIE PROJECT NO. 21
Item #16B10
BOARD DIRECTION REGARDING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
FOR THE DISABLED (PARATRANSIT} IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $51,091 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR (MAY-
SEPTEMBER
Item #16B11
RESOLUTION 2001-161 AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A SHIRLEY
CONROY RURAL AREA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT
APPLICATION WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED (CTD)
Item #16B12
STAFF TO FORM A MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT (MSTU)
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATIONAL FUNDING FOR THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING
Page 327
April 24, 200t
IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE
FROM VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TO 111TM AVENUE AND FOR
FUTURE AREAWIDE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Item #16B13
EXTEND THE TERMS OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ADVISORY
BOARD MEMBERS OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION: (1)
HERBERT HASSON; (2) EDWARD GRIFFITH; (3) DR. ALAN
VARLEY; AND (4) GEORGE WERNER
Item #16C1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION TASKS
WITH EXPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF $25,000 ON STATE
NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT PRICE SCHEDULE (SNAPS)
Item #16C2 - Deleted
Item #16C3
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOLE MONTES
FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO EXPAND THE SOUTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, RFP 93-2121, PROJECT 73949
IN THE AMOUNT OF $640,000
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2001-162 EXTENDING LAKE TRAFFORD
RESTORATION AD HOC TASK FORCE THROUGH MAY 7, 2002,
AND RE-APPOINT/APPOINT THE FOLLOWING: (1) JIM COLETTA;
(2) ED CARLSON; (3) DR. ERIC FLAIG; (4) GENE HEARN; (5) JON
Page 328
April 24, 2001
M. IGLEHART; (6) FRANK MORELLO; (7) EDWARD "SKI" OLESKY;
(8) MILES "ROCKY" SCOFIELD; (9) NICOLE RYAN; (10) JACKIE
SMITH; (11) CLARENCE N. TEARS, JR.; (12) FRED N. THOMAS,
JR.; (13) PAM BROWN
Item #16D1
SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM GRANT FOR IMMOKALEE
AND NAPLES
Item #16D2
PRESENTATION OF THE MID FISCAL YEAR 2001 REPORT OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY FILM COMMISSION
Item #16F1
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT MATCHING GRANT
REQUEST
Item #16F2
FUND TRANSFER FROM RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES FOR
PAYMENT FOR SERVICES PROVIDED AT THE MERRITT
BOULEVARD FIRE FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 8TM THROUGH
APRIL 10TM, 2000
Item #16F3
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ASSISTANCE TO
FIREFIGHTERS 90/10% GRANT APPLICATION TO PURCHASE A
Page 329
April 24, 2001
NEW FIRE TRUCK AND FIREFIGHTER PROTECTIVE GEAR FOR
THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
Item #16F4
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT MATCHING GRANT
REQUEST TO PURCHASE AN 18 H.P. PORTABLE PUMP
Item #16F5
BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WILL RECOGNIZE CARRY-FORWARD
AND APPROPRIATE MONIES IN THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
GRANT FUND
Item #16F6
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ASSISTANCE TO
THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS 90/10%
GRANT APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL FIRE
TRUCK AND PERSONAL FIREFIGHTING PROTECTION
EQUIPMENT
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS #01-265 AND #01-267
Item #16J1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE -FILED AND/OR REFERRED
Page 330
April 24, 2001
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 331
FOR BOARD ACTION:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
April 24, 2001
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION P~S DIRECTED:
Bo
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1) March 14, 2001 through March 20, 2001
2) March 21, 2001 through March 27, 2001
Districts:
1)
Big Cypress Basin Board of South Florida Water Management District -
Agenda for April 6, 2001
2)
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes for January 8,
2001
3)
Immokalee Water & Sewer District - Public Facilities Report, Annual
Financial Report, Financial Statements - Audit, Management Letter
4)
South Florida Water Management District - Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report year ended Sept. 30, 2000, District's Scheduled Board
Meetings, Map of county boundaries within the District and Management
Letter
5)
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Public Facilities Report,
Annual Financial Report-Audit, Management Letter
6)
Key Marco community Development District - Financial Statements
September 30, 2000, Annual Financial Report, Management Letter
Minutes:
1)
F(~rest Lakes Roadwa~ and Drainage, M.S.T.U. - Minutes of February 16,
2001 meeting - Notice of April 12, 2001 meeting
2)
Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for March 28, 2001 and
Minutes of February 28, 2001 meeting
H:Data/Format
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
Beach Renourishment/Maintenance Committee - Notice of December 19,
2000 meeting and Agenda for April 5, 2001 meeting
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for April
12, 2001 meeting and Minutes of March 9, 2001 meeting
Lely Golf Estates MSTU Advisory Committee -Notice of April 12, 2001
meeting
Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Minutes of
November 8, November 29, December 13, 2000 meetings, January 17,
February 28, and March 7, 2001 meetings and Notice of December 13, 2000
and March 21, 2001 meetings and Agenda of December 13, 2000 and
March 21,2001 meetings
Citizens Advisory Task Force Committee - Minutes of September 7,
October 18, December 14, 2000 and March 8, 2001 meetings and Agenda
for March 8, 2001 meeting
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Minutes of February 28,
2001 meeting and Agenda for March 28, 2001 meeting
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Minutes of February 21,2001
meeting and Agenda for March 21,2001 meeting
Rural Lands Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Minutes of February
26, 2001 and Notice of March 26, 2001 and Agenda for March 26, 2001
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for December
12, 2000 meeting and Minutes of November 14, 2000 meeting
Bayshore Beautification Advisory Committee - Minutes of November 8,
2000 meeting and Agenda for December 6, 2000 meeting
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for December 11, 2000 meeting
Ochopee fire Control District Advisory Board - Minutes of October 2, 2000
meeting and Minutes of November 6, 2000 meeting
Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee Agenda
for March 21,2001 meeting and Minutes of April 18, 2001 meeting
Immokalee MSTU Advisory Committee - Notice for April 11, 2001
meeting
H:Data/Format
D. Other
1. ' Board of County Commissioners of Collier County - Notice of March 30,
2000 emergency meeting
H:Data/Format
April 24, 2001
Item #16L1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING EXPERT SERVICES FOR
PURSUIT OF COUNTY'S LITIGATION RELATING TO THE 1995-96
BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT IN THE LAWSUIT SYLES BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY V. COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 00-1901-
CA
Item #17A- Continued to May 8, 2001 Meeting
PETITION PUD-96-1 (2), MR. WILLIAM HOOVER AND ANDREW I.
SOLIS, REPRESENTING THE CENTRE AT VETERAN'S PARK, LLC,
REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE VETERAN'S PARK
MEDICAL PUD LOCATED ON SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD AND VETERANS COMMUNITY PARK DRIVE
(COMPANION TO PUD-97-13 (1))
Item #17B - Continued to May 8, 2001 Meeting
PETITION PUD-97-13 (1), MR. WILLIAM HOOVER AND ANDREW I.
SOLIS, REPRESENTING THE CENTRE AT VETERAN'S PARK, LLC,
REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE VETERAN'S PARK
CENTER PUD LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
AND APPROX. 258 FEET WEST OF VETERANS COMMUNITY PARK
DRIVE (COMPANION TO PUD-96-1 (2))
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2001-163 RE V-2000-37, D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP,
OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING JOHN
Page 332
April 24, 2001
R. WOOD, REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 9.8 FEET FROM THE
REQUIRED 15 FOOT SETBACK FROM AN OFF-SITE PARKING LOT
TO 5.2 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1115 AIRPORT ROAD
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2001-164 RE PETITION VAC 00-020 TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE 15 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT AND PORTIONS OF THE 15 FOOT WIDE COUNTY
UTILITY EASEMENT IN TRACT M-2R, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT
OF "CRYSTAL LAKE TERRACES AT EAGLE CREEK REPLAT"
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2001-165 RE PETITION V-2000-40, ON THE LEVEL
BUILDERS REPRESENTING JOHN M. AND GENEVIEVE A.
LENTOVICH REQUESTING A 5.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 30 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
LINES TO 24.5 FEET FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5278
TREETOPS DRIVE (UNIT 101, BUILDING 1, WOODGATE @ NAPLES
WITHIN THE TREETOPS PUD LOCATED APPROX. 3 MILES SOUTH
OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD ON THE EAST SIDE OF
TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST)
Item #17F
RESOLUTION 2001-166 RE PETITION CU-2000-19, GERALD L.
KNIGHT, ESQ. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP REPRESENTING
FLORIDA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) REQUESTING A
CONDITIONAL USE FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON A
PARCEL OF LAND ZONED "E" ESTATES FOR A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EVERGLADES
Page 333
April 24, 200t
BOULEVARD AND 1-75, APPROX. 8 MILES EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR-951} WITHIN THE INTERSTATE 1-75 R.O.W.
(SITE CONSISTS OF 36~000 SQ.FT.)
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:41 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
JAME~CHAIRMAN
A~TEST:.~ ~
~ DW~IGHT E./B~OCK,. CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on ~1--/'~-/~/
as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 334
RECEIVED
H~Y I ~ 2001
8oard of Count~ Coemfssfo~e~