BCC Minutes 05/22/2001 RMay 22, 2001
REGULAR MEETING OF May 22, 2001
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting
as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of
such special districts as have been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
JAMES D. CARTER, PH.D
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE
JIM COLETTA
DONNA FIALA
TOM HENNING
ALSO PRESENT:
TOM OLLIFF, County Manager
DAVID WEIGEL, County Attorney
Page I
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
May 22, 2001
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
May 22, 2001
INVOCATION -- Reverend Jay Kowalski, First United Methodist Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OFAGENDAS
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA
APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 24, 2001 - Regular Meeting
May 1,2001 -Workshop Meeting
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1)
Proclamation proclaiming May 22, 2001 as Collier County Wastewater
Operations Challenge Day. To be accepted by David Fitts, Joseph
Bianchi, William Combs, Dale Waller and Jon Pratt.
2)
Proclamation proclaiming June as Civility Month. To be accepted by
David Weigel, County Attorney.
3)
Proclamation proclaiming May 20-26, 2001 as Emergency Medical
Services Week. To be accepted by Lt. Marty Ginter, Paramedic of the
Year.
4)
Proclamation recognizing the Pine Ridge Middle School Odyssey of the
Mind - State of Florida Division Champions. To be accepted by Coach
Marilyn Wolpert.
B. SERVICE AWARDS
Five Year Attendees:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Luis L. Trujillo, Transportation
Mark Rothenberger, Road and Bridge
Marcy Krumbine, University Extension Services
Shirley Kenney, Domestic Animal Services
2
May 22, 2001
5)
6)
Karen Arnold, Public Information
Dewey Wallace, Utility and Franchise Regulation
Ten Year Attendees:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Laurie Behrens, EMS
Mary Cornelisse, Pollution Control
Richard Schmidt, Planning Services
Ramon Chao, EMS
Patricia Supplitt, Facilities Management
Fifteen Year Attendees:
1) Ed Perico, Building Review and Permitting
C. PRESENTATIONS
1)
Recommendation to recognize Guy Hall, Cruelty Investigator, Domestic
Animal Services, as Employee of the Month for May 2001.
APPROVAL OFCLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Mr. Bob Krasowski regarding the Solid Waste Management Issue.
Mr. Anthony P. Pires, Jr. regarding Mini Triangle Area/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Tony Acri to have Board consider landscape enhancements at Vanderbilt
Beach Road and Airport Road.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Presentation of the Environmental Advisory Council's Annual Report.
2)
Consider Resolution urging the reevaluation of the endangerment of the
Manatee.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
3
May 22, 2001
PUBLIC UTILITIES
PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Time Certain Item - To Be Heard at 10:00 A.M. This item continued
from the May 8, 2001 Meeting. Status report regarding acquisition
options for property located in the Barefoot Beach Park Preserve.
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Authorize staff to proceed with negotiations to purchase improved property
at 2373 Horseshoe Drive (Lots 14 and 15, East Naples Industrial Park).
F. EMERGENCY SERVlCES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Consider the creation of a series of "Horizon Committees" and
appointments of commissioners to existing committees to develop county
policy recommendations for a number of community issues.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept a settlement
offer of $9,800.00 in the case of Kimberly D. Dalton v. Isles 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.
Approval of Legal Counsel in the case of Thomas Wajerski v. Collier County, et
al.
Report on Mediation and request for Board direction in the lawsuit entitled Board
of County Commissioners of Collier County, a duly constituted political
subdivision organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida v.
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Michael F.
Stephen, Ph.D., an individual, Michael T. Poff, P.E., an individual, Continental
Casualty Company, an Illinois corporation authorized to do business in the State
of Florida, T. L. James and Company, a Louisiana corporation authorized to do
business in the State of Florida, Highlands Insurance Company, a Texas
corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Case No. 00-1901-
CA-TB, now pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Court in and for
Collier County, Florida.
4
May 22, 2001
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
B. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
E, Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
Appointment of members to the 1-75 & Golden Gate Parkway Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee.
Appointment of member to the Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight
Committee.
I. Appointment of members to the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee.
Jg
This item continued from the May 8, 200'1 Meetinq. Request for Board
direction regarding Section 163.3215, Fla. Stat., verified complaint from
Vanderbilt Shores Condominium Association, Inc., Vanderbilt Club Condominium
Association, Inc., the Mansions Condominium Association, Inc., Gulf Cove
Condominium Association, Inc., and Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association, Inc.,
challenging the County's approval of SDP-2000-108 for the Vanderbilt
Beachcomber Resort as inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
(Commissioner Carter) It is requested that this item be heard at a time
certain: 2:30 P.M.
11. OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
5
May 22, 2001
12.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
C. OTHER
1) Approve an Amendment to Ordinance 74-50, as amended by Ordinance
90-10, to add Maximum Off-Site Discharge Rates to the Wiggins Bay
Basin and the Harvey Basin, and to authorize correction of problematic
surface water run-off from single family residential lots caused by
elevating the lot subsequent to initial construction of the residence.
13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
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) Authorization for an EAC member to be reimbursed for expenses not to
exceed $125.00 to attend the 2001 Florida Land Trust Conference.
2) Adopt Resolution supporting Area Code Nine-Four-One (941) Relief
Alternative Number Four, provided for consideration by the Florida Public
Service Commission.
3) Approve the Special Events Application.
4) Pursuant to Section 2.7.3.4, time limits for approved PUD Master Plans,
the Collier County Board of Commissioners is requested to direct Planning
6
May 22, 2001
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lO)
13)
Services Staff to advertise a Public Hearing for the purposes of rezoning
the property known as the Neapolitan Park PUD from "PUD" to "A" Rural
Agricultural.
Staff review and recommendations relative to Ordinance No. 95-68, as
amended, also known as Airport Plaza PUD, which, according to the
required PUD Status Report submitted by the Property Owner/Agent, has
not commenced construction, as defined in Section 2.7.3.4 of the Collier
County Land Development Code, resulting in several possible courses of
action for the Board of County Commissioners to consider.
Staff review and recommendations relative to Ordinance No. 94-43, as
amended, also known as Lands End Preserve PUD, which, according to
the required PUD Status Report submitted by the Property Owner/Agent,
has not commenced construction, as defined in Section 2.7.3.4 of the
Collier County Land Development Code, resulting in several possible
courses of action for the Board of County Commissioners to consider.
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Encore Senior Living
Facilities.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra Parcel 111"
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Golf Villas at Tiburon"
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Banyan Woods" and
approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement
and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Pelican Marsh Unit
Twenty Six" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance
Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra Unit Two" and
approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement
and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Brynwood Preserve"
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
7
May 22, 2001
14}
2001 Tourism Agreement between Collier County and the Marco Island
Film Festival regarding the October 2001 Event.
15)
Request for a recalculation of the maximum home sales price for Collier
County for all Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) Programs.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
4)
Approve a Budget Amendment to provide funds to the Golden Gate
Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) Beautification Fund.
5)
Approve amended No. 1 to Annual Contract for Roadway Contractors, 98-
2905, to allow additional one year renewal.
6)
Approve Work Order No. WD-075 with D. N. Higgins, Inc., to install a
Storm Water Treatment Device on Bayshore Drive, Project No. 31110.
Approve Committee ranking of firms for contract negotiations for
Professional Consulting Services for the North-South and Vanderbilt Area
Planning Corridor Studies (RFP #01-3227).
Approval of Collier Area Transit (CAT) Route Changes to the Red and
Blue Routes.
Approve request to enter into Joint Project Agreement and Memorandum
of Understanding with the Florida Department of Transportation for Phase
II of the design of the computerized traffic control system.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
2)
3)
4)
S)
This item continued from the May 8, 2001 Meeting. Authorize the
Chairman to sign the agreement to update the maps of the well field
protection zones of the County's Ground Water Protection Ordinance.
Award Bid No. 01-3208 "Purchase of One (1) Vacuum Excavation System.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive formal
competition and approve funding for a Preliminary System Design (PSD)
for a new Operations and Capital Special Assessment Software System.
Recommendation to award Surplus Sealed Bid #SO1-3225, Surplus Bid
for Economy Baler, to Solid Waste and Recovery Systems, Inc.
Award Contract to construct 20-inch Radio Road Reclaimed Water Main
Extension to Sun Coast Underground Utility Construction Corporation, BID
8
May 22, 2001
6)
7)
8)
9)
01-3224, Project 74036.
Approve payment to Gulf Bay Inc., for $7,945 for landscaping costs to
Collier County Sewer District Pump Station #316.00 at Fiddler's Creek,
Project No. 73051.
Recommendation to award Bid #01-3233 for the purchase of trees to
satisfy in-kind requirement of a Florida Department of Environmental
Protection Consent Order.
Funding, Waiver of Formal Competition, and Authority to Execute
Contracts for Capacity Improvements at the North County Water
Reclamation Facility, Project 73077.
Funding, Waiver of Formal Competition, and Authority to Execute
Purchase Contracts for Capacity Improvements at the South County
Water Reclamation Facility, Project 73128.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
6)
7)
8)
Approve a Budget Amendment for Max Hasse Community Center Project
to re-budget funds that were not carried forward into the 00/01 Budget.
Approve an Application to the Florida Department of State requesting a
Historic Preservation Grant of $153,000 to assist with the Restoration of
Roberts Ranch Pioneer Museum in Immokalee.
Approve the Medicaid Waiver revised continuation contract and authorize
the Chairman to sign the contract between Collier County Board of County
Commissioners and the Area Agency of Aging for Southwest Florida Inc.,
D/B/A Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida.
Award of Bid 01-3231 for the construction of Sugden Regional Park
Pathway.
Approval of a Resolution providing for an increase in the fee charged by
the Collier County Health Department for issuance of Death Certificates,
Approve a Resolution appointing officers to the Collier County Agriculture
Fair and Exposition Inc. Board of Directors.
Award of Bid 01-3230 to U.S. Tennis and Fitness Inc., in the amount of
$68,935.00 for resurface of Tennis and Basketball Courts.
Authorization to approve an Extension of an Agreement with the
Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET) and permission for Chairman to
9
May 22, 2001
sign agreement.
9)
Authorize the Collier County School Board to prepare the food for the
Summer Food Service Grant Program.
10)
Approve an application for a grant to Coastal Impact Assistance Program
to clean-up the gas spill at Caxambas and also an application to the
boater improvement program to refurbish the dock, benches and picnic
shelters at Bayview.
11)
Approve a Budget Amendment for the Installation of Additional Gates at
Sugden Regional Park, Project No. 80081.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Approve and Execute an Agreement with the Golden Gate Fire Control
and Rescue District, which provides for a maximum expenditure of
$12,500 from the GAC Land Trust.
2)
Approve and Execute an Amendment to Agreement to provide for a
maximum expenditure of $50,000 from the GAC Land Trust to initiate the
design of a Fire Control and Rescue Station to be located within Golden
Gate Estates.
3)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Terminate
Contract #99-2937 with Unifirst Corp. and Award Contract to G & K
Services.
4) This item deleted
s)
Approve a Budget Amendment for emergency repairs to the Marco Island
Tax Collector Building.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Approval of a Lease Agreement between Collier County and Omnipoint
Holdings, Inc., for placement of a Communications Tower upon County-
Owned Property.
COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #01-296;
#01-311.
10
May 22, 2001
17.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1)
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign
Satisfaction of Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos 93-
442-CFA; 95-5828-MMA; 98-664-CFA RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
2) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Extension of KPMG Contract for External Audit Services.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve the Settlement Agreement providing for payment by Elhanon and
Sandra Combs (Property Owners) to Collier County in a Code
Enforcement Appeal Case entitled Elhanon and Sandra Combs v. Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Case No. 00-3497-CA.
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.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. Petition VA-2001-AR-400, Don Kirby
representing Handy Food Stores, Inc., requesting a 45-foot variance from the
required 50-foot front yard setback for structures in an Automobile Service
Station to 5 feet along New Market Road and a 25-foot variance from the
required 50-foot front yard setback to 25 feet along Glades Street to allow
construction of a canopy over an existing fuel pump for a property located at the
Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Lake Trafford Road and North 19th Street,
in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 29 East.
11
May 22, 2001
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. Petition VA-2001-AR-398, Don Kirby
representing Handy Food Stores, Inc., requesting a 45-foot variance from the
required 50-foot front yard setback for structures in an Automobile Service
Station to 5 feet along Lake Trafford Road and a 23-foot variance from the
required 50-foot front yard setback to 27 feet along North 19th Street to allow
construction of a canopy over an existing fuel pump for a property located at the
Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Lake Trafford Road and North 19th Street,
in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure.
be provided by Commission members. Petition V-2000-39, Miles L. Scofield,
requesting a 5-foot variance from the required 15-foot East Side Yard setback for
dock facilities to 10 feet for property located at 11 Pelican Street East, further
described as Lot 39, Isles of Capri Unit 1, in Section 32, Township 51 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGESTOTHEBOARD'SAGENDASHOULDBE MADF
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
12
May 22, 2001
May 22, 2001
Item #3A, B,&C
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of May
22. If you would please rise and stand for -- the invocation will
be led by the Reverend Jay Kowalski and the Pledge of
Allegiance. But as we do this this morning, we would like you to
pause for a moment of -- of silence. We lost Gary Arnold from our
emergency services division this weekend. He passed away
from a heart attack after 15 hours on the job. We extend our
prayers and thoughts to his family, Katy Arnold, many of you
know, and to his daughter Katlin, who -- Gary is going to be solely
-- sorely missed in this community. And if you would join me in a
moment of silence of prayer to remember them and to keep them
always in your thoughts in the coming days. (Moment of silence.)
REVEREND KOWALSKI: Gracious and loving Creator, on this
day, obviously as we start this meeting, we pause to remember
this family and pray your blessings, your peace, and your comfort
might be with them during this terrible time of grief. But we also
invite your spirit to be here with us as we give you thanks for the
honor and privilege and responsibility of living in this beautiful
community. You, better than we, know that while there are many
things this community needs right now, we could sure use some
rain. Really, we could use a lot of rain. But today especially we
ask that your presence might be here that your wisdom might fill
each of those who make decisions today, that they'll make the
best decision for the community and for we that fill that
community. We also pray that your spirit would be here that all
Page 2
May 22, 2001
that might be done and accomplished today might be filled with
justice and compassion. So we invite you here to rest in the
hearts and the minds and the souls of those who decide today.
And we give you thanks for all of your blessings and your
presence today. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, Commissioners. You
look like you're all ready to go to work. We have a busy agenda
today. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners. We have a brief change list for you this morning.
I'll walk you through it. First item on your change list is a
continuance. It is Item 16(A)5 off of your consent agenda. It is a
reconsideration of an -- an older uprooted PUD where at staff's
request we're asking that item be continued to your June 12th
meeting.
This one moved from the consent agenda to the regular
agenda. Item 16(A)14 will become 8(A)3. That is the 2001
tourism agreement between Collier County and the Marco Island
Film Festival regarding their October 2001 event. Again, that's at
staff's request.
The third and last change is simply a no change. A revised
resolution was provided to you this morning in conjunction with
Item 16(A)15 on your consent agenda. It was -- frankly, it's some
ministerial cleanup language of the resolution that was provided
by the county attorney's office. No change in the intent or the --
the actual item was made by any of the changes in the
resolution, but we just needed to change the backup for that
single item. That's also done at staff's request. And, Mr.
Chairman, that's all the changes I have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Mr. Weigel.
Page 3
May 22, 2001
MR. WEIGEL.' Thank you. No changes. But just a point of
information that Agenda Item 9(C), which is the discussion of the
rocks-on-the-beach case, our outside counsel will be here. We
have told them that we would probably not need them prior to
10:30 just to let you know.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Thank you. Changes by
commissioners: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: None.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' None.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. Go for four.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Go for five. I have none.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the consent
summary and regular agenda as noted. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second -- first by Commissioner
Mac'Kie, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Page 4
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
May 22, 2001
CONTINUE: Item 16(A)5 to June 12 BCC Meetin.q: Staff review and
recommendations relative to Ordinance No. 95-68, as amended, also known
as Airport Plaza PUD, which, according to the required PUD Status Report
submitted by the Property Owner/Agent, has not commenced construction,
as defined in Section 2.7.3.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code,
resulting in several possible courses of action for the Board of County
Commissioners to consider. (Staff request.)
MOVE: Item 16(A)14 to 8(A)3:2001 Tourism Agreement between Collier
County and the Marco Island Film Festival regarding the October 2001
event. (Staff request.)
CHANGE: Item 16(A)15: (Change only in language; no change of intent
within the Resolution.) Request for approval of recalculation of the
maximum home sales price for Collier County for all Florida Housing
Finance Corporation (FHFC) programs. (Staff request.)
May 22, 2001
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 24, 2001 REGULAR MEETING AND MAY
1, 2001 WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the minutes of
April 24th and May 1st, 2001.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Mac'Kie, second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MAY 22, 2001 AS COLLIER
COUNTY WASTEWATER OPERATIONS CHALLENGE DAY -
ADOPTED
Proclamations and services awards. First one will be for
May 22nd is Collier County Wastewater Operations Day.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Would the people
from wastewater please come forward, stand up in front of the
dais.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The red-shirt guys. All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Red-shirt days. Welcome,
gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Face the cameras. Let everybody out
there see you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Whereas, the citizens of
Page 5
May 22, 2001
Collier County operate a community-owned utility; and,
Whereas, the effectiveness and skill of the Collier County
wastewater personnel help to provide reliable service to our
homes and business at the lowest possible costs; and,
Whereas, on April 17th, 2001, a team of Collier County
wastewater department employees completed and finished as
co-champions overall in the Florida Water Environmental
Association Wastewater Operation Challenge Competition,
competing with teams across the State of Florida; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Wastewater Operations
Challenge Team won the right to compete in the National Water
Environmental Federally Operational Challenge Competition
against 40 teams from across North America to be held in
Atlanta, Georgia, in October 2001; and,
Whereas, our 2001 Collier County team of Dave Fitts, Joseph
Bianchi, William Combs, Dale Wall -- Waller, John -- John Pratt
have made a positive contribution to our county.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that May 22nd,
2001, be designated as Collier County Wastewater Operations
Challenge Day in Collier County and invite all citizens to loin
together in honoring these employees of Collier County public
utilities and the citizens of Collier County.
Thank you. I so move.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, while you're handing out
certificates, I have to point out these guys are good. I mean,
they will end up competing with communities in the likes of Los
Angeles County when they go to the national competition. They
Page 6
May 22, 2001
work on their own time at their events. And I'll tell you there's a
guy on our team that can cut a pipe faster than anybody that
you'll ever see.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We are sure lucky and proud to
have you.
MR. CHEATHAM: For the record, Joe Cheatham, wastewater
director. It's always good to have positive news about
wastewater. We've had our shares of ups and downs this past
season. But just, again, thanks for the support from the board
and from public utilities for supporting this team.
This team finished first place in the pump maintenance
event, first place in the collections event, second place in the
lavatory event, which shows that these guys aren't lavatory and
other kinds of skills. This competition helps to promote
teamwork, promotes cross-training and really benefits the --
Collier County as a whole for recognizing the county public
utilities. And, again, thank you for your support.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's have -- we've got a number of
proclamations this morning, and I hope the newspaper might
reserve the front page and put all of those there because we've
had some great things happen in this community which is
exemplified by our first proclamation.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING JUNE AS CIVILITY MONTH -
ADOPTED
The second one this morning is proclaiming June as Civility
Month to be accepted by David Weigel, county attorney. And
Commissioner Fiala will read the proclamation.
Page 7
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, David.
Whereas, the open exchange of public discourse is essential
to the democratic system of government; and,
Whereas, as a cornerstone of democracy Americans have
observed certain rules of behavior generally known as civility;
and,
Whereas, civility derived from the Latin words civitas,
meaning city, and civis, meaning citizen, is behavior worthy of
citizens living in the community or in common with others; and,
Whereas, displays of anger, rudeness, ridicule, impatience,
and a lack of respect and personal attacks detract from the open
exchange of ideas, prevent fair discussion of the issues, and can
discourage individuals from participation in government; and,
Whereas, civility can assist in reaching consensus on
diversus -- diverse issues and allow for mutually respectful
ongoing relationships; and,
Whereas, civility can uplift our daily lives and make it more
pleasant to live in an organized society; and,
Whereas, the city, county, and local government law section
of the Florida Bar urges the adoption of a pledge of civility by all
citizens of the State of Florida.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of June
be designated as Civility Month and calls upon all citizens to
exercise civility toward each other.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of May. What a great idea,
isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion to -- by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Page 8
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How can we check everybody out to
make sure they do this? Good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, please do, Counselor.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
It's a pleasure to be before you standing rather than sitting
during what will be a long day, I expect. But on behalf of the
local government bar section of the Florida Bar, it's my privilege
to represent and be recipient of the proclamation concerning
civility.
As you heard, the proclamation is rather general. It talks
about civility to all. The county attorney's office likes to think
that in its deliberations, in its work with its client, with the
public, with the interested en -- entrepreneurs that come for
government business, we can give as well as take. We hope to
do it and hope that you follow us and note that we do it in a civil
way.
I had my chief assistant county attorney with me to receive
the proclamation for two reasons: one, he's a trusted assistant;
but, two, if you ever saw the face of civility, I think you've seen it
with Ramiro, who also serves as the current president of the
local bar association. So we believe we're long in service. We
hope that -- that you respect us as we go forward to show you
civility from our office. We'll try to set the example for the rest of
you. We know you'll be right there with us too. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, David.
(Applause.)
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MAY 20-26, 2001, AS
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK - ADOPTED
Page 9
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. The next proclamation is May
26 will be known as Emergency Medical Services Week. It will
be accepted by Lieutenant Marty Glintner, paramedic of the year.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I call Jorge Aguilera up to
the dias, please. George, thanks for being here to accept this
proclamation.
Whereas, Collier County EMS department paramedics and
paramedic/firefighters care for the victims of sudden life-
threatening injuries and illnesses of understanding stressful
conditions in high-risk situations to save the lives of others; and,
Whereas, EMS paramedics and paramedic/firefighters must
rapidly assess, manage, and effectively provide care in
unpredictable situations requiring life-and-death judgments; and,
Whereas, EMS paramedics and paramedic/firefighters are
often -- first contact many residents and visitors of Florida and
with healthcare system, and these personal providing --
personnel providing education and assessments, prevention, and
referral services, in addition to their own emergency activities;
and,
Whereas, the residents and visitors of the State of Florida
benefit daily from the efforts; and,
Whereas, it is critical that the general public be made aware
of, understanding, and support and effectively using its local
emergency medical service system; and,
Whereas, recognizing it's due to all emergency medical
professionals serving in very -- a variety of roles for the unselfish
dedication to Florida's residents and visitors.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May
20th through the 26th be designated as Emergency Medical
Service Week.
Page 10
May 22, 2001
Done on this order, 22nd day of May, 2001.
Motion to approve, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
(Applause.)
MR. AGUILERA: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I just
want to take this opportunity on behalf of the Collier County EMS
department to thank you for this proclamation, as well as for all
your support in the past, in the present, and hopefully also in the
future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE PINE RIDGE MIDDLE
SCHOOL ODYSSEY OF THE MIND - STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION
CHAMPIONS - ADOPTED
I have the privilege of reading the next proclamation. And
I'm going to tell you this is one of the -- I think one of the most
outstanding group of young people we could recognize in this
community. And I am so very, very proud of them. And it just
came to my attention about 2 1/2 weeks ago, their achievement.
This -- this proclamation is recognizing the Pine Ridge Middle
School Odyssey of the Mind State of Florida champions. We sent
three teams up there. This is the state champion, and they're
going to the international competition at the University of
Page 11
May 22, 2001
Maryland in June to represent -- to represent us, and I think this
is just fantastic. So I want to call up here Coach Marilyn Wolpert
and the team, and I want them to come up here, and I want
everybody to see what a fine group of young people are doing in
this community and how very, very proud we need to be of these
people and just send them with Godspeed to where they're going
to go and represent us so very, very well. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Whereas, Odyssey of the Mind is a
nationally recognized extracurricular school-annexed program in
which elementary through college-age students may as a team
compete in solving specified and complicated problems; and,
Whereas, Pine Ridge Middle School has a team doing the
Achilles heel problem in Division 2 which consists of building an
8-inch-high balsa-wood structure weighing no more than 15
grams, together with devising and designing a skit and set
relating to the weight problem; and,
Whereas~ team members Brad Bailey, Erica Bass, James
Campbell, Marissa Coffers, Alex DiNardo, Kevin Wolpert and --
and Kyle Zumstein coached by Greg and Marilyn Wolpert were
awarded first place in the Florida State Regional competition,
later winning the State of Florida division championship in the
final competition; and,
Whereas, as a result the team will be competing in the
worldwide final competition June 2 to 5 at the University of
Maryland in College Park; and,
Whereas, the achievement deserves public recognition as a
fine example of the positive things young citizens can
accomplish through hard work, ingenuity, and teamwork.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the team members
and coaches are recognized for their extraordinary
Page12
May 22, 2001
accomplishment. For and on behalf of the citizens of Collier
County, we heartily congratulate the team members and their
coaches and wish them good luck in the upcoming Odyssey of
the Mind worldwide competition.
Furthermore, we declare by this proclamation that the team
members and coaches are ambassadors of goodwill for Collier
County, Florida, in their travel to and competition at College
Park, Maryland.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of May 21 -- 2001, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James D. Carter,
Ph.D., chairman. I move for acceptance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Moved and accepted. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Very, very proud of you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations.
MS. WOLPERT: I'll tell a little bit about the program.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You take this proclamation over there
for your team.
MS. WOLPERT: First of all, I want to thank you all, thank the
board for having us here today. I want to thank Mr. Brenco, Mr.
DeNiro (phonetic) at Pine Ridge for their support of Odyssey of
the Mind. I want to thank the many local businesses who've
stepped up and offered their generous assistance as we prepare
for this trip.
And I'd like to tell you a little bit about Odyssey of the Mind
so you know what it is. In Odyssey of the Mind students learn to
Page 13
May 22, 2001
work together. They build team -- team-building skills. Each year
five new competitive problems are solved -- assigned for the
teams to solve. The long-term problems are solved over a period
of several months. They're working weekends, after school.
Some of the problems are technical in nature while others
are artistic or performance based. As the students work in
teams, they learn to respect each other's individual strengths
and talents, and they use them to provide their solutions with
artistry, technological skill, humor. Whatever their talents are,
they use them. They build their own scenery. They design and
create their own costumes. They write their own scripts. They
compose and perform songs, whatever they choose to enhance
the presentation of their solution, as they will be judged not only
on the quality of their solution but on the style of their
presentation.
Throughout the year they are also learning and practicing
creative problem-solving skills and divergent thinking. When
presented with problems, they learn how to identify challenges
and to think creatively to solve those problems. They are free to
express their ideas and suggestions without fear of criticism and
are rewarded at competition for their ability to think outside the
box.
My husband and I have been coaching Odyssey of the Mind
for about five years now. We've been proud of each and every
team that we've worked with. They are amazing kids; they can
do amazing things. This team is spectacular. They've worked
hard; they've got wonderful creativity and talents. They've won
two consecutive state championships, and we are thrilled that
they will be representing Florida at the world champ -- world
finals coming up.
A couple of them -- Alex and Marissa have just a couple of
things to say real quickly.
Page 14
May 22, 2001
MS. COFFERS: Hi. My name is Marissa Coffers, and this is
my seventh year in the Odyssey of the Mind program. In my
opinion, Odyssey of the Mind is a beneficial program that helps
teach students people skills and teamwork, along with thinking
divergently.
Our problem this year, known as Achille's heel, was to
design a balsa-wood structure weighing no more than 15 grams
to hold as much weight as possible while being rammed
repeatedly by a team-designed 1-pound vehicle. If you can
imagine, 15 grams is about the weight of 2 pencils.
MR. DINARDO: At the state competition, our structure held
705 pounds, the highest weight held in the State of Florida.
I am Alex DiNardo, and this is my fifth year in the Odyssey of
the Mind program. The Odyssey program is an opportunity for
adolescents like myself to express our creativity and develop our
work ethic. I feel I am speaking for everyone who ever
participated in the program when I say that Odyssey of the Mind
is a fun, beneficial experience to all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I can't say enough. I am really
touched by what this group does, and I want to compliment the
business community, Economic Development Council, who in
less than about 2 1/2 weeks, along with the parents, we need to
reach $7,000. I understand we're pretty close to that goal. I
think we've got 6,000 right now. They are to be complimented
where your business community, your school system, parents,
everybody work together to create and build and help young
people. This -- this is our future, 25 percent of our population,
100 percent of our future. If this is our future, we are in great
shape.
Page 15
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
(Applause.)
Item #5B1
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We now move to service
awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Are we going to go down
and do those?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're going to do whatever you want
to do. It's your show.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let's go do it then.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as the board is working their
way down to the floor, I'll go ahead and take the opportunity to
call your five-year attendees.
The first is Luis Trujillo -- Luis is with your transportation
department -- followed by Mark Rothenberger from your road and
bridge department, followed by Marcy Krumbine from the
university extension services and followed by Dewey Wallace or
Bleu Wallace in utility and regulation franchise.
Mr. Chairman, this morning we also have -- we also have
three ten-year attendees: Mary Cornelis (phonetic) -- Mary
Cornelisse. My fault, Mary. Ramon Chao from EMS, and Pat
Supplitt from facilities management.
Mr. Chairman, this morning we have one familiar face who
is our 15-year attendees, Ed Perico from your building review and
permitting department.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
He gets combat pay.
Bless you for hanging in there
with us.
Paget6
May 22, 2001
Item #5C1
GUY HALL, CRUELTY INVESTIGATOR, OF THE DOMESTIC
ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE
OF THE MONTH FOR MAY, 2001
And if I could just move on to the employee of the month, I'd
like to ask Guy Hall to come forward. Guy is the cruelty
investigator with domestic animal services, and he has been
elected employee of the month for May 2001. Guy has been
employed with the county in domestic animal services since
1996. He obtained certifications at the top of his class and is
admired by his colleagues and his director. He's state certified
as an animal control officer, and Guy also completed training and
national certification in animal cruelty investigation through the
University of Missouri Institute of Law. Part of Guy's
accomplishments included a scholarship to the equine
investigation academy -- did I say that right? MR. HALL: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Guy's knowledge of his job and
ability to diffuse the situation allow him to provide excellent
service and perform a difficult job in a professional manner,
probably one of the most difficult jobs in this county and
certainly so important to all of us.
Guy, thank you for your work, and we'd like to give you this
$50 check, a letter for your personnel file, and a plaque for
employee of the month 2001, Guy Hall. Thank you. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's all our service awards
this morning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Item #7A
Page17
May 22, 2001
MR. BOB KRASOWSKI REGARDING THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT ISSUE - NO ACTION
MR. OLLIFF: And while the board's making their way back
up to the dais, the public petition is the next portion of our
agenda, so I would go ahead and call Mr. Bob Krasowski, if he's
here to go ahead and make his way toward the podium.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He is.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, we don't -- we don't clock you
until you start, Bob. We don't charge you for setup time.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I better wait then.
Well, good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good morning.
MR. KRASOWSKI: So nice to see you, again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning, Bob.
MS. FILSON: He's setting his own clock.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I have my own stopwatch. For the benefit
of efficiency and time, if -- if you folks could -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There it is.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- hold any questions until I'm done
talking, it will probably work best.
My name for the record is Bob Krasowski. This morning I'd
like to take this opportunity to formally visit with you regarding
the solid waste issue. I speak as a private citizen representing
only myself and those who agree with me. I'm also involved in --
with other members of the community in the discussion to
formalize my efforts under a Collier County zero waste, zero
waste Collier organization. I'm still working on that, but that's
just in formative stages.
Commissioner Carter, some of the issues and points that I'm
going to make this morning are ones I've recently spoken with
Page 18
May 22, 2001
you about on various radio shows, and I don't want you to think
that I'm oblivious to your comments that you made at that time,
but I wanted to raise these points again in the presence of the
other commissioners and in the interest of public. I raise these
issues in anticipation of the July -- ahh, June, the June 11th
workshop.
Okay. So, first, I'd like to start off with what I see as
misconceptions that -- that continue to exist regarding the solid
waste issue. The -- in -- in various reports you've received over --
over the past, I've noticed that the landfill, one report regarding
landfill, I identified many sources of odor problems but did not
include the fact that the daily -- the daily deposits are not at -- at
least haven't been covered by a daily cover of the earth or
compost. So I just draw your attention to that.
In our negotiations with Waste Management, as far as their
extension for the collection contract, Waste Management has
agreed to provide a daily cover from now on.
One of your documents state that the last landfill sited was
in 1991 in Florida. I -- I was wondering if this was to -- to back
up, the assertion that no new landfills were even possible in -- in
Collier County. I know it's not an idea that you're embracing, but
to just say it's not possible, I don't think, is accurate. I've talked
to the Florida DEP. It's certainly possible; if you want to site
another landfill location, you could. The last landfill sited in
Florida was in 1994. That's the Lee-Hendry facility that will be
accepting the ash from the Lee-Hendry incinerator. But it's a
Class I landfill like ours. I don't propose siting another landfill,
but if we have a requirement in our growth management plan to
have ten years in reserve, I think that if we were to site a landfill
site for the potential or to cover our responsibilities in that
regard, it might serve us well. So as we proceed in reducing our
waste stream and never need it, we have it to cover what is
Page 19
May 22, 2001
required in growth management plan.
In one of the documents provided by a consultant, the -- the
statement is made that incineration is environmentally sound.
Now, the proponents of incineration and some in the community
might find that to be accurate as far as incineration operating
within the acceptable limits of emissions and pollutants in -- in
the State of Florida, but these are all site specific. And if we
were to place an incinerator in Collier County, certainly we'd be
more sensitive than many other locations where incinerators are
placed. And this is a debate -- debatable issue. The emissions
from incinerations have impacts on especially children. There is
medical documentation that shows children, due to their
increased metabolism and their -- their small size and, you know,
size/weight ratio, are more sensitive to exposures to toxins. And
incinerations do produce dioxins, and feurons (phonetic) and -- so
it's an issue, and it's something that we should all be aware of in
our discussion on various options. And so I suggest this
environmentally sound is a very grandiose and general -- general
statement.
Incineration is a core technology. That's something you've
heard recently. And I don't know how this will show up for your
reading benefit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stan, could you help maybe tune
in on that?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Is it--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think it's --
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- not in focus? It's probably too small.
But let me -- let me direct your attention to this page out of the
Malcolm Pirnie report. And it -- as you know, Malcolm Pirnie has
identified the high-tech aspect of your inquiry as -- as to this
present date and came up with a way to categories -- categorize
the different proposals and to proven and developmental
Page 20
May 22, 2001
technologies. Developmental you wanted to shy away from for
the most part, so proven technologies that are -- that have been --
but gone on to categories as core and ancillary.
Well, in the definition of core, it reads that its core are those
technologies capable of managing the majority of the waste
stream for a given community without any additional processing.
Examples include landfill and waste-to-energy facilities.
Under ancillary, it states that ancillary technologies are only
applicable -- applicable to a specific portion of the waste stream
and rely on other processes such as landfills to manage the
remaining waste volume.
Examples include recycling, equipment landfill, gas, energy,
and alternative fuels production. Well -- here I'll show a page
from the nine -- the 2000 waste energy -- not waste energy, to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection annual report.
That's available to you and anyone else on the web. And it
shows here that in Lee County -- and I have pages which I won't
show you, but I have -- it's available to you -- of other locations
where incineration is used as well as recycling, and they bear
out this -- this -- the point I'm going to make, is that here you'll
see that in Lee County, at least in the '98 annual period,
combustion was responsible for 37 percent of the -- of handling of
waste and recycling 38 percent. So neither one of those is a
majority of the waste stream.
And we'll go back to the definition of core technologies. And
certainly in this case and other cases that I can present, if you
want, afterwards, that incineration does not handle a majority of
the -- of the waste stream, and also, even when you consider the
metals recovered after-- out of the ash after it's burned, it use --
you don't have to burn it to do that process.
So -- so, once again, incineration does not qualify as a core
technology by the definition of Malcolm Pirnie. And, as a matter
Page 21
May 22, 2001
of fact, the ancillary technologies, recycling in this case, are
more suitable for that regard -- that categorization, but they don't
meet the majority of the waste, at least not at this point. So
neither do. And what we -- I think everyone understands is we're
going to have to put together a patchwork of -- of applications of
systems and technologies to address an effective solid -- solid
waste program.
If you'll excuse the pause for a minute, I'm -- I'm just going
to go to other pages.
MR. MIHALIC: Can I help you?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah, sure. I appreciate it.
There's one other thing under the -- it would go up to the top.
I just missed this one. Okay. Incineration reduces the waste
stream by 90 percent volume. Incineration might do that to that
portion of the waste stream that it handles. In Lee County 37
percent of the waste stream is reduced by 90 percent because
that's all that they -- they -- they're burning. Now, in that stuff
that they burn, it's all organic material. So what they're burning
might well be used in -- in composting, which our proposals
you're -- you're looking at of various kinds. And then also there's
paper product in there that could be recycled, so we can attack
that component in -- in other ways.
There is a crisis in regards to available -- available space in
the landfill. After speaking to various people in the county, there
was additional space out in Immokalee we chose to close that,
but there were options there. Our back was not up against the
wall, and it was pretty easily done by -- by yourselves expanding
our capacities at the Naples landfill. Reclaiming sites I and 2,
and if -- if you speak to even people on your own staff that have
some experience in the management of the landfill prior to Waste
Management and that know a lot about this issue, this Jerry -- I
don't know his last name, but he's employed by the county. He's
Page 22
May 22, 2001
been with the county for a long time. He's out at the recycling
transfer station facility -- a great source of information. You
might want to touch base with him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bob, I hope you recognize that
the landfill, when Collier County ran it, we had an odor problem
at that time.
MR. KRASOWSKI: We sure did. We sure did, yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Public petition allows a certain
amount of time, Bob. If you could please wrap up, we'd
appreciate it.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah, sure. I wonder, I have a question.
Do other public petitioners get 10-minute limit, or is it 15, or is it
arbitrary?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ten minutes, sir.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I'll wrap up. I appreciate it. Here I'll -- I'll
show, if you want to review this at some other time, other issues,
cost comparisons, effectiveness, environmental impact
comparison. These are all things we'll have to do to evaluate
one proposal over another. June 26th deadline, I think you
should just forget about that. Children's health issues I
mentioned. 400,000 gallons of water a day is required by the Lee
County incinerator facility. Fifty-year plan, you just had these
children up here, young people from Odyssey of the Mind.
They're the same age as my son, 14 -- 13, 14, basically eighth
graders. If you were to lock us into a 50-year plan, they would be
64 before they could untie themselves from the proposals that
you're imply -- suggesting. I can certainly see maybe preparing
the way or leaving options open over that time setting aside land
or -- or whatever. But, you know, don't lock them into it. They
seem very capable of coming up with solutions to problems on
their own. So let's stay real flexible when we decide what we're
going to do.
Page 23
May 22, 2001
So what my suggestions are, we need another consultant
other than Malcolm Pirnie to handle -- and I've got about three or
four minutes, Dr. Carter, if I may--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you know, in all due respect, if I
give you 15 minutes, everybody coming up here gets 15 minutes,
Bob. The rules are ten minutes. You knew it when you came
here.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Okay. If it's the pleasure of the
rest of the commissioners --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'd appreciate it if -- wait a minute,
Bob. Please, Bob, listen to me. You can share it in workshops. I
believe Jim Mudd can comment on this.
for a moment is discounting your ideas.
you. Everyone is incorporating --
I don't think anyone is --
Everyone has listened to
MR. KRASOWSKI: If I could use the time you're taking up,
Commissioner, with all due respect, I could finish up --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you've already used your time,
but you may wrap up, sir. I'm going to give you two minutes to
do that.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. I appreciate--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not in favor of
-- of deferring any direction that we're going into this. Our solid
waste issue has been going on for years and years as
Commissioner Mac'Kie can attest to. And I think we're on the
right track to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I concur.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you know, solving our long-
term needs for solid waste of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that the workshop
that we're going to have is because of Bob, and I want to thank
you for that. We're going to have a meeting of the minds to give
Page 24
May 22, 2001
us good input so we can have -- make the right decisions to lead
Collier County in the next hundred years.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. Well, I hope not in the next
hundred years. But I hope that the workshop isn't watered down
by putting too many people -- too many people and commercial
interests as well as the academic interests that we originally
wanted here. But I'll just save that for public --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Bob, I appreciate your effort. And if
you'll continue to share that information with Jim Mudd, he'll
willingly accept that as going into the mix. We have not made a
decision yet on what we're going to do. I keep saying that over
and over to everyone.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I appreciate that comment because I
keep being -- I keep hearing people on the phone telling me that
everything is all done, that the solid waste -- the public utilities
tells them that it's all going to come out of what you've -- you've
accumulated and information from the Malcolm Pirnie report.
You know, so that -- that kind of bothers me, and that's why I
made an effort to come up here today to address this, bring this
to the public and to yourselves. I respect the time limit. You're
in charge here, and I'll just try to get the message out in other
methods and other moments.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I may, I just want to be sure
that I understood the points that you did have the time to make.
Most important of what I heard was that we need to consider
recycling as a core technology, and we need to acknowledge
that incineration doesn't rise to the level of a core technology
because it doesn't address the majority of the waste stream or
actually core technology says all of the waste stream without
other --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, majority. You're right. You were
Page 25
May 22, 2001
right the first time. And then also incineration requires a landfill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Part of that definition, not a landfill. I
wouldn't want to elevate recycling to core because it doesn't at
this time handle the majority of the waste stream. But in some
places it does.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's -- I had noted the same
thing in looking at the Malcolm Pirnie report that I don't
understand how waste energy, incineration, can be considered a
core technology if you look at the real numbers. And I think
that's what Bob is pointing out to us today, among other
important things.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, I understand that. But,
believe me, we're looking at what Lee County did. That is not the
state-of-the-art incineration. There are other processes where
you can run dirty murfs in front of this thing and get all the
recyclables out up front. I haven't made a decision yet. I'm
waiting for the broad-based approach. I am not going to hang my
hat on one consultant. I'm going to listen to everything, Bob, and
I -- and I truly appreciate what you're doing. But let's have a little
patience and keep working with -- with Jim Mudd in that division
because he is a man that is not going to come back to this board
with some singular narrow-minded approach to anything. I will
give him credit for a man that's going to say we need to look at
everything, and he's using a consultant, yes. But there's other
factors that get -- that come into that.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I appreciate your position and your --
what -- what you've expressed right now. And it's -- it's my
interest to be up here to see if the other commissioners do
compare with you and agree with you. You're one commissioner
of five. And they need to know what you know to -- to proceed
here, and, you know, I stand behind what I've said.
Page 26
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And I'll see you a little while under public
opinion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you would -- if you would be sure and
share that information with Jim Mudd, it would be appreciated by
all the commissioners.
Item #7B
ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR., REGARDING MINI TRIANGLE
AREA/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - STAFF
TO BRING BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
Going to the next public petition, I believe we have Mr.
Pires, Counselor Pires.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Chairman Carter, members of the
commission. My name is Tony Pires with the law firm of
Woodward, Pires & Lombardo. And I'm here representing various
property owners in the area commonly referred to as the mini
triangle area bounded on the north by Davis Boulevard, the south
by U. S. 41, the east by Commercial Drive. Well, we represent,
and along with Ed Williams, who is a planner -- we represent
approximately 50 percent of the property owners in this area.
And we have a number of concerns with regards to the path in
which the -- the concepts towards redevelopment are
proceeding.
The property owners have retained the services of Ed
Williams and determined to expend the resources necessary to --
to work towards planning and redevelopment of this property
with private market forces and incentives. We've met with staff.
Ed Williams has met with staff individually. My -- without myself
being present.
Page 27
May 22, 2001
And most recently Ed and I met with Stan Litsinger and
Marlene Ford last Thursday, May 17th, one day after the May 16th
memo that is in your agenda packet that I received yesterday at
10 a.m. Some problems and issues were identified or discussed
during the course of these meetings, and the usual sort of
discussion and debate that you can have among professionals
and consultants and at times quite interesting, and once again,
some good discussions.
However, a ma]or problem and the reason for the request in
the public petition request and the reason why we're taking up
your time today -- and we thank you for that and that we're
addressing the board -- is that the attachment and the retention
of the concept of aggregate unified development of the mini
triangle by one developer with the use or threat of eminent
domain is a serious and major problem. Maintaining that
approach will not, will not and does not, result in the appropriate
marketplace incentives to redevelop this area from our client's
perspective.
We're not asking, we haven't been asking, we're not
suggesting and haven't been suggesting that the board waive its
police power. If anyone wishes to say that, that is absolutely
wrong. I recognize the role that government has to play in the
exercise of its fundamental police power. I represent
governmental bodies myself, and so I -- I recognize that
particular aspect and that you cannot waive that.
We're not asking that there will never be the need to utilize
the awesome and powerful instrument of eminent domain, that
is, taking someone's property against their will for compensation.
But the use of eminent domain should be the instrument of last
resort. It should be the instrument, not as a primary component
of a one-developer development concept but, once again, an
instrument of last resort, for any recalcitrant property owners at
Page 28
May 22, 2001
the end that would oppose an impediment to the redevelopment,
whether it be through a unified plan or through individual
property owners developing and their need for some aspect of
the infrastructure not being able to be obtained in a voluntary
manner.
There's no reason today for my clients, the property owners,
to enhance their property with the concept of eminent domain
and one-developer concept hanging over their heads. It's also
frustrating that one of my clients, Mr. Taylor, has articulated
many times -- we've mentioned it to staff. We've mentioned it to
others -- he is willing -- he has got a very vibrant business that
some may not want in that area. Some may think that they know
best what is usable for that property and say his views do not
belong in that area. It's a viable, vibrant, ongoing business. He's
willing to re -- to invest in the area, willing to invest dollars to
enhance this property, willing to enhance the landscaping,
enhance the architectural features of his body shop and collision
shop if this cloud is removed. There is no other incentive for him
to do that. Yet, he's not willing to do so with the problem that
exists coupled with the stated desire to see his business
removed from the mini triangle.
Eminent domain as a primary tool with one-developer
concept in this context is not a panacea. It may be perceived by
some as a wonder drug or a cure. It's not a magic wand that
turns a pumpkin into a carriage. In this instance, it's a cloud, a
very dark and hovering cloud, over our clients. It's a very heavy
hammer that is, in fact, chilling, redevelopment to the private
incentive of this area.
We've asked the board to place on a future agenda for
consideration direction to staff that as to the mini triangle area
the concept of aggregate unified development by one developer
with eminent domain power as a primary tool be set aside, not
Page 29
May 22, 2001
utilized in consideration of redevelopment concepts and also get
away from the concept that certain existing viable uses need to
go away.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I'd like to speak to that since this
is something so near and dear to my heart. I listened very
carefully to every word Tony said to see if there were any words
he spoke with which I disagreed. I can clearly say I agree with
every single word he said. I absolutely -- here's the bottom line:
The good news is, in our community we don't need a magic wand
even if eminent domain were one instead of a heaven -- heavy
cloud. We don't need a magic wand because the market is
growing. We're the fastest-growing, most wonderful community
in the whole country. We don't need it.
What we need is and how this all started was for
government to find how we were in the way of redevelopment.
What are we doing that's prohibiting or -- or stagnating the
redevelopment of this portion of East Naples? The great news
here is that the -- the property owners now among themselves
are talking about the way to redevelop that property. I don't
have in mind the uses that are appropriate for that property
because I know the market will define the uses. Frankly, our
plan that we had done by consultants is a little out of date. It
suggests a hotel is a great use for that triangle when the market
was ahead of government again and has already built more hotel
rooms in that area that makes me think a hotel is probably not
appropriate for that area now.
The bottom line for me is, get out of the way. Government
get out of the way and allow the market to redevelop this area.
We still have things to do to get out of way. We still need a
zoning overlay. If the property owners are willing, I think an
MSTU, because there are two elements that I see that -- that
can't -- that this area can't redevelopment -- can't redevelop
Page 30
May 22, 2001
without, and that would be some sort of centralized parking and
some sort of centralized storm water system, because the
individual properties can't solve that problem by themselves.
And that's a place where government can get out of the way.
But if these property owners are willing to form an MSTU --
and we will ask them, because that's how we do it, 50 percent
plus I -- if they are, then let's quickly move to form an MSTU for
those purposes. Then they are paying for -- the property owners
are paying for -- for the improvements to the area.
The bottom line is, I don't know if it's even necessary, if it is,
if we have adopted some -- some rules somewhere that says we
have to look at a single-developer concept, then let's put it on an
agenda to say that we're open to every concept. But I'm
surprised if that's necessary. If it is, I will certainly want to
correct it because the -- the deal should be, we don't need a
magic wand if, as you say, a recalcitrant property owner cannot
be made to come to the table and participate with the other
property owners. That's -- that's what eminent domain is for. If
one developer can come to the property owners and get you-all
together to work together for one redevelopment, God bless him,
and Godspeed. If you choose to redevelop your properties more
along the lines of how it happened on Fifth Avenue piecemeal but
under a unified plan, God bless you, Godspeed, how can we get
out of your way.
So I agree with every word you said. If staff says that that
requires some -- something to be put on the agenda for future
modification, then I'll certainly support that, and I'll even put it
on myself if that's what needs to be done, but I want to let today
be as clear a message as it possibly can. I hope the whole board
will support this, that we want to get out of your way. We don't
need a magic wand or a hammer. We know that the market will
do what it needs to do if we can work with you, not against you.
Page 31
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I agree totally
with what you said. That may be a Public Record No. 1. And I -- I
believe there's been some confusion. I read your memorandum.
I read staff's memorandum. I could not put the two together.
They did not make sense to me. They were contradictory
statements. You clarified that for me this morning in that you did
not have the memorandum prior to what you sent and there had
then initiated a staff meeting.
But I'm with Commissioner Mac'Kie. Let's clear the air here.
I'm with you. I want staff to go forward and do what we need to
do with government staying out of the way and still reserving our
right, at some point, as you said, Counselor, if eminent domain is
necessary, we need to preserve that right as a government.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Guess what. We can't waive our
police power anyway.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's right. We need to be there with
that. But the other part of it, go do it, get it done and come back,
and let the private sector drive this process for the
redevelopment in that area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as we continue to
encourage you to keep moving forward -- MR. PIRES: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and give you every incentive we
can, because I think we in East Naples are all kind of tired of
looking at it the way it is.
MR. PIRES: We're looking forward to redevelopment. And,
once again, we're looking forward to a positive statement from
this board that I'm hearing, which is --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you got three that are there so...
MR. PIRES: -- not only a positive message but to everybody
in the area. We think it's a very positive message to everybody in
the redevelopment area.
Page 32
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I got three nods. I have --
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pires, can you identify the --
your clients in the mini triangle?
MR. PIRES: Yes, I will. Bob Taylor, Jack Conroy, Danny
Schyrver, Duke Turner, and the Thalheimers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I concur. I think we can head in
the right direction without putting hammers --
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Once more --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just make it happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make it unanimous?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's five. Okay. You got it. Let's
go,
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, generally you do not take public
speakers under the public petition portion of the agendas, but
you did have someone registered to speak. I'll leave it to your
discretion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Surely we've accomplished the
goal here, I mean, and -- CHAIRMAN CARTER:
the point?
Who is the public speaker, and what is
MR. OLLIFF.' I don't know the point. The speaker is Dan
Pioli.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is Mr. Pioli in the room this morning?
MR. PIOLI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The board has given direction, Mr.
Pioli. Is there difficulty with that? MR. PIOLI: Well, I'll--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have to -- to be on the record, you
have to come to the microphone. So -- yes, it's out of -- it's out of
context with what we normally do, but I've been hammered
Page 33
May 22, 2001
enough on this stuff. Step to the podium, please, identify
yourself. Please make your comment quickly. You know what
the board's direction is.
MR. PIOLI: For the record, Dan Pioli of FP Real Estate
Investments. I'm not sure I'm entirely clear on what the direction
is. But if you're sending this group out of here today with the
direction to come up with a concept that gets all of that property
within the mini triangle redeveloped under a unified plan, even if
it's individual rehabilitation -- ·
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I don't care if it's a
unified plan. I don't care if it's individual property redevelopment
one by one. What I'm saying is, we -- the mistake that we made, I
think --
MR. PIOLI.' Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is that we used a couple of
words we that shouldn't have, and those were "unified plan" --
MR. PIOLI: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because I -- I intend that to
mean something so that the area looks right, works well
together, is coordinated. But never did I intend that to mean that
it has to be developed as a part of one plan, except to the extent
that our whole county is developed pursuant to a unified plan
which is the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning code, etc.
MR. PIOLI: All right. Well, then let me just conclude quickly
by saying, as you can imagine, I've been working very hard in the
community, and there is tremendous support --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know there is.
MR. PIOLI: -- throughout the community for a unified
redevelopment plan. And I know that you have all been spoken
to by the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce, the Urban Land
Institute, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,
among many, many other groups and organizations. I know that
Page 34
May 22, 2001
the Citizens for Reformed Government also have individuals who
are very supportive of this concept. We need to step back long
enough to look at the puzzle on the cover of the box and see first
how the pieces need to go together before you put the pieces in
place first because they may not fit once you do. And I think
-- part of the process that we
that's a very important private
need to undertake now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
zoning overlay process.
I agree. I think that's part of the
MR. PIOLI: Absolutely. Because if you don't get Fifth
Avenue, 41, 10, and the Gateway triangle to create some sort of
a synergy for a greater downtown area and if we don't begin to
work, as Commissioner Fiala so well said during your affordable
housing workshop, to urbanize our population as it continues to
expand, you're going to have greater problems. And these are all
issues that we need to look at. There needs to be a synergy
between all of these things.
Now, I can't tell you I'm going to continue to work with staff
to try and come up with a proposal for the unified redevelopment
and the acquisition of those properties through market forces.
I've sent all 14 of them contracts, many of them at full price, full
asking price, that were not accepted. So there's a message in
there for you, okay. And I can tell you that I will be -- will
continue to work with staff to try and come up with a proposal
that makes sense given the costs of acquiring and preparing that
site for redevelopment. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. I hope that gives
everybody an opportunity to understand that it's pretty -- a pretty
big blanket to operate under, a lot of possibilities. Okay. Thank
you very much.
Next public speaker, please.
Page 35
May 22, 2001
Item #7C
MR. TONY ACRI REGARDING LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS AT
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND AIRPORT ROAD -
TRANSPORTATION STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH WCI
AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
MR. OLLIFF.' Tony Acri.
MR. ACRI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Tony
Acri. I'm with WCI Communities. Thank you for the opportunity
to come and talk to you about our landscape beautification
program that's proposed for Airport Road. With me is Christian
Andrea. He's with Architectural Land Design, and he's been
retained by WCI to produce the plans and specifications for this
project.
I'd first like to give you an overview of the project. We had
originally proposed landscape in the medians at Vanderbilt
Beach Road and Airport Road. After talking with Mr. Feder, I
understand that Vanderbilt Beach Road will soon be six laned
probably within a couple of years. It wouldn't make sense to
landscape the medians since the road is going to move to the
center, not to the outside. Therefore, we would withdraw that
from this plan.
I also understand that north on Airport Road there is a
section that will be impacted. But we would like to go through
and propose the improvements within the Airport median north of
the intersection, approximately 2500 feet to the north. And if -- if
I can, I'd like to have Christian give you a little more detail as to
what we're proposing within these medians.
MR. ANDREA: Good morning. The plan we've prepared tries
to enhance the existing landscape both from the medians to the
south of us and the landscape at the entryways to Tiburon.
Page 36
May 22, 2001
We've utilized royal palms at each end of the medians to add a
very formal and elegant look. In between that we've used live
oak trees and then to break up the massing of live oaks we've
used some clumps of cabbage palms. Trees for the most part are
all lined up pretty much on center with the medians. This
anticipates any future widening of the roadway so we don't have
any problems down the road. We've also incorporated a variety
of shrubs, both flowering and nonflowering, to break up the
massing of the palms and the entry nodes as well, and we're
currently working with staff to make certain the plan meets
code, both from a DOT standpoint, site-line aspects, and from a
plant pallet standpoint. And we still have a couple minor
adjustments to make. But in general we're -- we're pretty close
to having that completed.
MR. ACRI: We'd like to request that the board, first of all,
allow staff to continue to work with us to come up with a
suitable plan and specifications for the -- the beautification
program here. Also, we'd like to request that the board allow
staff to work with us on a maintenance program. What we'd like
to do is install and maintain these areas for one year and at that
time turn it over to the county for maintenance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's the only issue I have is
this is -- is a portion of this -- it appears to me that all of this will
be beneficial to the real estate development that's to the east --
east of it, and I wonder if-- I mean, the installation and design of
it is wonderful. I like it. I'd like to support it. I'd like to see it
there. I'm glad that WCI sees it as part of its civic responsibility
to install it and maintain it for a year. I think, though, that its
maintenance is something that at least ought to be shared by
WCI on an ongoing basis. I mean, maybe you maintain it for the
first three or five, and then we share it thereafter 50 percent or --
I don't know what that is, but the maintenance is the big expense
Page 37
May 22, 2001
here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Exactly right, Commissioner. I would -
- you know, when we're through here -- and I spoke to Norman
Feder prior to this presentation that I would like transportation to
work with WCI on this issue, not only for the landscaping
maintenance aspect, but you've got some overall traffic issues to
deal with at that intersection, and I want that big picture
addressed. And whatever WCI's role is, fine, and you come back
to us with some formula on maintenance.
But maintenance is the big number. Capital expense up
front is the easy part. And we don't want to be in a position
where if it's benefiting both the public and private sector that
we, the public, end up paying private sector's part. I'm not going
to support that, and I will wait for staff to come back with a
recommendation that would be equitable in this situation, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd support what you just said in
there, Commissioner Carter, as a direction to staff. We certainly
want them to continue to work with you on this. And we
certainly want to hear recommendations on long-term
maintenance and traffic issues. I'll use this as a chance to tell
you guys as a heads-up that I've been working with the private
sector on a sort of blanket county-wide kind of Naplescape issue
that I hope we'll be ready to bring to you soon. And -- and it will
address some long-term maintenance and installation issues, so
I'll be back on that. But in the meantime, I hope that board will
give staff the direction to work on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING= Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER= Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this -- the plant material
fitting to the median landscaping master plan?
MR. ANDREA: Yes. Yes. We've met with staff, and the plant
pallet is acceptable.
Page 38
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is a ma]or arterial road, and
I think the whole community benefits from it. I don't know what -
- Mr. Kant, if you help me out, what the -- the history is of
maintenance of our arterial roads.
MR. KANT: Spotty. Edward Kant, transportation operations
director. We've had some successes, and we've had some
situations which were not quite as successful. And we're trying
to turn that around. I think that the -- I'm getting the sense of the
board's direction to work with this developer to come back not
only with a landscape plan but with a maintenance and operation
plan and a mechanism which will allow ongoing maintenance in
an equitable fashion. I believe that's what I'm hearing the board
say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My question is, we have other
arterial roadways with median landscaping in it, and who is
responsible for the maintenance of it?
MR. KANT: In some cases, we have agreements with
developers. For example, in front of The Vineyards, that was an
agreement with the development entity. There was an
agreement on 951 with the Fiddler's Creek development entity
which we then took over after the first two years. And over time
these have become learning experiences. And what we're
learning is that, while the chairman has pointed out, the capital
investment while it may be significant is nowhere near
significant as the long-term maintenance cost. We're trying to
structure these agreements to make sure that we have a more
equitable distribution of cost between the private sector and the
public sector.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Commissioner Henning, this
is perfect as a segue for the plan that I'm going to be bringing
back because we haven't really had a policy. We've kind of done
them on an ad hoc basis. And I hope to be bringing something to
Page 39
May 22, 2001
the board that will give us a county-wide policy and way to
approach this in a more --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And maybe you can bring this up
at the community character workshop because that is part of
community character.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're all absolutely right. It's an
integration of the pieces, and so I'm pleased to hear that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to ask, though -- years
ago on the board of the Collier Naplescape, we adopt -- we -- we
prepared -- spent a lot of money preparing a streetscape master
plan which was then accepted by the council -- county
commissioners. Are you redoing that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm working with Naplescape,
Donna.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. Oh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. So don't worry about that.
Yeah. This is just a maintenance program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Okay. Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I didn't mean to take your time, sir, but
have we answered your questions?
MR. ACRI: You have, yes. Thank you.
Item #8D1
STATUS REPORT REGARDING ACQUISITION OPTIONS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE BAREFOOT BEACH PARK
PRESERVE - STAFF TO CONTINUE TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY
THROUGH A NEGOTIATED PURCHASE
Page 40
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. All right. We need
to move to the next agenda item. It's time certain, and that
would be to go to D, public services, Item 8 D8(D)?. And this is in
regards to the Barefoot Beach Preserve. Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. Staff is here this morning to present a brief update on
efforts undertaken to date to acquire the last privately held
parcel of property in Barefoot Beach State Preserve. As outlined
in your executive summary, several initiatives and activities have
been undertaken over the last several weeks, including the
review of a title commitment report to clarify ownership interests
and also to evaluate some of the issues surrounding legal access
in and out and through that property. Staff has also obtained two
estimates from prequalified appraisers that will be used to
ultimately determine the fair market value of that parcel.
Your county attorney, based on board approval at their last
meeting, has solicited an opinion from the Florida attorney
general regarding the legality of the use of tourist development
taxes as a potential local source of funding for the acquisition of
this property, and we're awaiting that opinion from the Florida
attorney general.
Staff, in con]unction with your county attorney's office, has
also been working on a continuous basis with the Tallahassee
office of your outside legal counsel law firm, Carlton, Fields,
discussing a number of acquisition strategies and also, very
importantly, working with them and directly with state officials
and various agencies that may be able to provide reimbursement
to the board for acquisition costs that they may incur in
acquiring this property through a willing sale and a willing sale
only, I should emphasize. That option for reimbursement is not
available to you if you pursue an eminent domain action.
And, finally, the staff has been monitoring the recent efforts
Page 41
May 22, 2001
of the trust for public land. It's a private nonprofit land
conservation organization, in its recent efforts to acquire that
property from the property owners. Both the board and the staff
has been copied on recent correspondence from Mr. Thomas
Bolf, who is the attorney representing the owners of this
property, back to the trust indicating, among other things, that
apparently the owners are unwilling to -- to sell the property at
this particular point in time.
Based on those activities and that information that we have
available to us at this, it appears that the board has essentially
three primary alternatives available. The first is to continue to
attempt to pursue a -- a voluntary, willing sale between the
parties on this -- on this property. The second option would be to
initiate an eminent domain action to -- to take the property. And
the third option would be simply to stand back and discontinue
efforts at acquiring the property at this time.
Staff recommends that the board continue to pursue the
voluntary acquisition of this property through any and all
appropriate mechanisms available to the parties; secondly, that
the board approve the budget amendments that would be
necessary to obtain the market appraisals on the property and
that, finally, in the event of a willing sale or a willing sale could
be consummated, that board would authorize staff to proceed to
make application to the appropriate state agencies for
reimbursement of the board's acquisition costs. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I'll conclude my remarks and answer any questions
you may have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Ochs, I appreciate your comments
this morning. And, members of the board, I have worked very
closely with staff and the community on this issue. Our goal, as
always, has never changed. That is to acquire the property. We
want to do it to staff's recommendation, No. 1. That's where we
Page 42
May 22, 2001
want to be. That's what we want on the public record, and that's
the position we would like to take.
COMMISSIONER HENNING'- And I totally agree with you,
Commissioner Carter, is let's go ahead and get the appraisal, find
out what the property is worth, and try to work with the property
owner for acquisition of that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala, and then I need to
-- before I do that, Mr. Olliff, do we have any public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: You do. You have two.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I'll take your comments,
Commissioner Fiala. And then I'll go to public speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' I'll make them quick. I -- I, too,
agree that we need to move forward. And I'm glad you're
negotiating with them, and I'm glad that eminent domain is the
last way we'll look at it. These state funds are waiting there to
help us, and I think we need to move forward in that direction,
and we can't get those state funds with eminent domain so --
MR. OCHS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: The first speaker is Thomas Bolf representing
Ricky Stouffer and Paul Harvey, and the second speaker would
be Brad Cornell.
MR. BOLF: Good morning. My name is Tom Boll. I'm here
on behalf of Ricky Stouffer and Paul Harvey. Thank you for
having me here today. Thank you for having this meeting
continued because last time I was here I didn't get to speak. We
got this continued from April 24.
Unfortunately, in my review of the backup materials for April
24, they seem to be almost identical with the backup materials
for today, which in my mind means that we haven't made much
progress in the last 30 days, and I want to express the frustration
Page 43
May 22, 2001
that my clients are feeling at this point in time with the slowness
of the process.
Miss Stouffer is in her late 70s. She is very emotionally
attached to this property. I think it's important that you
understand this. She lived there for decades. She lived there
with her husband who is now deceased. It has wonderful
memories for her. She does not want to give this property up.
Beachfront properties, this is 2 acres running from the gulf to the
beach she bought in the '60s. Everybody in this room wish we
had that foresight and had done the same thing. Okay? Those
properties are extremely valuable. And she has had the
opportunity over the years to sell this for a lot of money. She has
not done that. Sale is something that she does not want to do.
She loves the property.
Mr. Harvey has a very long-term lease, one of the reasons
for which is because she didn't want to sell the property. She
wants it used as it has been used, and that is for public access
for people to come there. We thought we had a very good idea.
It was approved unanimously in November, and that is to have
public restrooms and public concession stands and other similar
items that we would provide almost free of cost to the -- to the
public. And in exchange, we would be allowed to have a club
there for people who like a club atmosphere to visit the beach.
This property is worth many millions of dollars. It seems to
us --just trying to -- to be a disinterested third party -- that it
makes more sense for the county to not to spend millions of
dollars to acquire this property and instead get the use of the
property by allowing us to move forward with the facilities which
had been approved in November.
Notwithstanding that, it's apparent that the commission has
moved in a different direction. Obviously, we're very
disappointed in that. We expended a significant amount of
Page 44
May 22, 2001
monies trying to move forward with this development. Mr.
Harvey has expended well into the six figures. This property
conservatively is worth at least $5 million. I mean, there are ads
every day in the paper for beachfront properties of that price, and
they're nowhere near as secluded or as nice as this piece. And
that's for residential, not even a club.
Any real estate appraiser is going to tell you that a
reasonable rental value is 10 percent of the value of that land per
year. It's been a hundred days since the plug was pulled on us.
It was in February when you-all decided you were going to move
forward with some sort of acquisition. I mean, that's -- that's
over a third of a year, almost a third of a year. I mean, putting in
mind the value of this property, that's hundreds of thousands of
dollars in lost value to our client.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have to interrupt you at
that point. I've been trying to -- to wait until you were finished,
but on that point specifically, since you're talking about the
public purse here, your client is in exactly the same position as
they were before the county considered going into joint venturing
with them on an undertaking. No -- no property rights have been
taken from your client. And if they want to go forward with
development, they are in absolutely the same place as they
always were and should be pursuing their individual private
property rights as they are, I have no doubt.
But I have to also comment back on another thing that you
said. And if this is true, this is the very best possible news. I
believe that your client has a great -- the property owner has a
wonderful history with this property and a great attachment to it.
And we want to respect that, and we want to work with her to
accomplish exactly what you said she wants, and that is, to have
this property used as it historically has been, and that is for
access to the -- by the public to the beach.
Page 45
May 22, 2001
The piece that we had trouble with was the part that you
added about "and also for people who would like a club
atmosphere." you know, that's the part that we reject.
MR. BOLF: In November it was wonderful.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. BOLF: 4-0 vote.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
you know.
at a
And -- and then we got smarter.
And -- and then we were smarter,
MR. BOLF:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait.
time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
I -- I -- I just don't see that at all, Commissioner.
NO,
Please, please. It has to be one
And I have the floor.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And -- and this --
MR. BOLF: Actually, it's my time. But I guess I'll be able to
add on to it after.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You will be.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll let you add on to it. And I'm
going to let this commissioner finish. I'm going to let you finish,
and then we're going to bring it to closure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we're not going to
reevaluate -- you know, there's no point in this forum for us to be
talking about whether or not the board in November was smart or
not smart when it agreed to partner with Mr. Harvey. But if you
want to put the emphasis on the part that -- of your statement, if
we want to talk about Mrs. Stouffer and her interest in having
this property continue to be used as it historically has been, that
is exactly what this county commission wants to see. The part
that we have a problem with is for those who prefer a club
atmosphere. We would like to support her wishes to have this
property used as it historically has been. And you are such an
important player in that process. If you could communicate to
Page 46
May 22, 2001
her that sincere desire on behalf of this board instead of, you
know, jenning up the -- the excitement over, you know, you may
be able to sue the county, and you may be able to get money.
That's not what she wants. She wants this property to be used
for the benefit of the public, and so do we. We just don't want
the club atmosphere part.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You may continue, sir.
MR. BOLF: Thank you. In the last hundred days, as I
understand it, from reviewing the backup materials -- and the
direction was quite clear -- in February was, come back to us,
staff, and tell us how we can acquire this property. I'm reading
the backup materials here, and we called two appraisers that the
county has probably worked with regularly. Okay. You got a title
insurance report done. You contacted the attorney general's
office regarding a tourist development tax. Okay.
Now with all due respect, if you were a private entity
seeking to buy this property and your broker came back to you in
a hundred days and told you he had called two appraisers, he had
found -- found out some information but not the absolute
information about financing and it got in a title report, you would
fire that broker. Okay? That is, I think, embarrassing to suggest
that in a hundred days that's the most progress that can be
made.
Now, I think it's important, and I copied you on the letter to
the trust that I sent out earlier this month.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You identified three of five items.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please, please. Wait. Let him finish.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, he's not telling the whole
story.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I know he's not. But let him
finish. He's confused this with a court of law.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
Page 47
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let him finish.
MR. BOLF: I think it's important to -- to realize that -- and as
I copied you on that letter, Miss Stouffer is not interested in
selling the property. Okay? So I think further direction to staff to
further pursue that, that -- that has been a very constant
statement that we have been making for the last three months. I
don't think that's going to change. You may not think that's
reasonable, but it's her property, and she can decide what she
wants to do with it. So that I don't think is going to get us
anywhere.
I think -- and -- and I did volunteer when I did show up the
last time the meeting was canceled, I met with the county
attorney's office and suggested to them that we would waive the
statutory preconditions to filing condemnation suit and to move
forward with that alternative. I think that's the -- if you-all want
to use the property, then you-all are going to have to acquire it. I
think the only way to acquire it is through the condemnation.
We, again, would ask you to reconsider and allow us to move
forward with the facilities which we previously have suggested
to you. But if that is not an available option, then the only other
option that's available at this time is condemnation. We -- I don't
know how more clearly to say no to the idea of a voluntary
transaction. If you wish to make that proposal, we -- I can't stop
the U.S. Mail from delivering it to my office, and I am duty bound
to send it on to my client.
But the bottom line is, is that we will work with you in
getting this turned over and put into the public's hands. We will
assist you in -- in the process of doing that expeditiously, but the
procedure is not going to be efficient for you or your staff to try
to do it on a voluntary basis. I'm just trying to be as clear as I
can with you on that.
I appreciate your time, and we'll see how we -- we come out
Page 48
May 22, 2001
with this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA-' A question, if I may, sir? Is it
true that you as an attorney will benefit better by condemnation
orders than if we went through a voluntarily -- voluntary --
voluntarily sell the property?
MR. BOLF: It's impossible to say at this point in time. It
depends on -- on what your initial offer is. It depends on what my
contract is with my client. This is a unique situation, to be sure
on -- on all fronts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But what I said wasn't true
then?
MR. BOLF: No. It -- the -- the statutory formula depends
upon what your initial offer is, what is ultimately received for the
client, what my agreement --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'- There's no advantage to you as
an attorney to go through condemnation?
MR. BOLF: If -- if it -- if it was -- this decision is not mine.
It's my client's decision, okay. She doesn't want to sell the land.
All right. I've represented lots of folks all over the state. I'm
never against listening, okay. But I'm just communicating to you
her information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MR. BOLF: Because she is not interested in selling.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. I understand. I'm
hearing a midst -- mixed message from you telling us that if we
want to do it we have to consider condemnation.
MR. BOLF: I -- I'm sorry. Then that is a mixed message. It is
not that you need to consider it. That is, in my view based on my
discussions with my client, the only alternative here, because
you-all are not going to permit us to develop the property. I don't
think there is any alternative but condemnation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have development rights, sir.
Page 49
May 22, 2001
We can't possibly prohibit your ability to develop the property.
And what I've said earlier and what you need to hear clearly from
this board is, go forward with whatever development rights your
client has. We aren't in your way. We just aren't your partner.
MR. BOLF: I respectfully disagree with -- with that
statement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How could we possibly get in
your way?
MR. BOLF: I -- I think you've done quite a bit of things to do
that to this stage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like what?
MR. BOLF: Including the passage of a -- a management plan
which restricts any development of the property. I think that's a
fairly big hurdle for us to overcome.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing new.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think, Counselor, in all due
respect, we have heard your part of it. I don't think we
collectively as a board would concur. We could keep drilling this
issue, but I really, with the proposal by staff, is to go with
Recommendation No. 1. Our own legal counsel, I would like his --
his comments to yours, and then I have one other public speaker
to take, and then the board needs to make a decision.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And can I --just my last
comment, I promise, is -- is that there's just no -- there's no
meshing the two statements that you're making that are
contradictory. You're saying that your client wants to see the
property used as it historically has been for public access to the
beach because she loves it. And you're saying that the client --
your client is unwilling to deliver title to the property for that
purpose. Those two things don't make sense. If she would
rather give us a conservation easement, if title is what's
important, you're a lawyer. And if you'll focus on something
Page 50
May 22, 2001
other than eminent domain, you could suggest alternatives that
would allow her to retain ownership of the property but allow it
to be used for access by the public as it historically has been and
for which we are grateful and in perhaps some way, you know, in
a manner that would honor her husband's memory. Perhaps
there is some way that we could name the property in his honor.
Perhaps there is something we could do to honor his memory
that I think you would find this board very open minded to.
But we do need -- we need -- respectfully, we need for her to
be getting advice on issues other than eminent domain, on other
ways to accomplish her goal other than the one in which you
specialize which is eminent domain.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's clearly understood, I think, on
everyone's part. We may have a willing seller. Maybe we don't
have willing attorneys. I don't know.
MR. BOLF: I beg your pardon, sir. That is not correct. This
information is not coming from me, and you'll be noticed that
there are other attorneys involved in this, including Don
Pickworth and John Farquhar from -- of my office. And this is not
a decision that the attorneys are making. This is a decision that
the client --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Attorneys can play an instrumental
role in bringing the sides together, or they can take diametrically
opposed positions. That is your right as a counselor to any
client. I'm not going to debate that with you this morning, sir.
MR. BOLF: I appreciate that. But what is it that you base
your statement on that you think that the lawyers are the
problem here?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, be--
MR. BOLF: I think -- I think that's a fair question. You have --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can talk in private with me on
that. But I have been around lawyers a long time, and I know
Page 51
May 22, 2001
some lawyers cooperatively work through issues. Others take
very hard positions on issues. I think that's your decision, sir,
and how you want to work with your client. I'm not going to go
there. But it is my observation, I have seen more lawyers in my
lifetime break deals than I have seen them make deals. And
that's my personal observation.
MR. BOLF: Well, if the deal here hadn't been broken --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sir, I'm not going to debate you
anymore. I'm -- I'm going to withdraw my comment because I
seemed to have upset you unduly. MR. BOLF: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to go to our own attorney for
comment, and then I'm going to the other public speakers.
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant
county attorney. Just as a brief response to Mr. Bolf's
comments, I'd like to yield the floor to Mike Olenick, who is our
retained counsel with Carlton, Fields. He can describe a little bit
-- some of the responses, some of efforts that staff has done just
to bring you up to date.
MR. OLENICK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, member
of the board. My name is Mike Olenick with the law firm of
Carlton, Fields. And, again, I -- I don't want to get in a legal
debating situation here either, but I think it's important -- and
your staff counsel can -- can also make this point. There was
never a formal approval of any project by this board at any time
on that piece of land, and that's important, No. 1.
Number 2 is -- and this is important -- the amount of time and
effort that this commission through staff has worked on this over
the last few months, personally I've put time in. I've worked with
staff. One of the problems you've had is the budget. For the last
Page 52
May 22, 2001
2 1/2 or 3 months there was unknown how much money would
be in the coffers of the state because there were raids on the
funds that would affect the purchase of this land. Until such
time as the state knew where that money was, you were unable
to do anything, No. 1.
Number 2 is, it wasn't until recently that we had
determinations from both the Department of Community Affairs
and Department of Environmental Protection that eminent
domain is absolutely not an alternative for getting
reimbursement of any kind of state funds, which was the
prerequisite established by staff early on.
Number 3 -- and -- and actually is also very important -- we
have worked with staff, and I have worked with the trust for
public lands, as has staff to some degree. And in letters of Mr.
Chilius to the -- to the applicant or to the -- I'm sorry -- to the
landowner, they made it clear they could close in 45 days with
their money. They have a huge letter of credit, a huge ability to
have money that -- that we don't -- we being Collier County, we
being the state, doesn't have. So if the issue is closing quickly, it
can be done.
And all I wanted to clarify for the record was the intent of
the staff and the willingness of this board. I have personally
dealt with you, Mr. Chairman, on more than one occasion to try
to effectuate the closing of this deal. It can happen with a
willing seller. And that's all I wanted to say and to clarify for the
record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much, sir.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, I want to
compliment Commissioner Mac'Kie for her offer. It was very
sincere. And I think it really summed up where we're coming
from,
Page 53
May 22, 2001
I don't think anybody can miss the point here of how we feel
about this. We're -- we're not out there to take something from
somebody without recourse. I challenge the attorney that was
just up here a minute ago to take the videotape of the little clip
of this little presentation and give it to his client and let her view
it and let her make her own decisions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dr. Carter, thank you. I--the
attorney representing the -- his client, I -- I must disagree, is -- a
club out there is for the public, but so is any other business in
Collier County, whether it be a bar or a restaurant. There's no
difference. The acquisition is -- will he want -- they want to make
available to the public is no different than those two examples.
And besides, the state of the property right now and the
condition that it is, nobody can use it, not even the owners. So if
-- if we was to own it, I would -- I know that it would be cleaned
up for the use of the public.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Comments appreciated.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion that
staff move forward -- am I allowed to do this?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Not yet. We have one more public
speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I am sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then you -- then I will entertain your
motion. Brad? Brad Cornell waived.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Cornell waived, and you will --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then I will entertain your motion.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I did overlook one additional
speaker slip, Nicole Ryan.
MS. RYAN: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning.
Page 54
May 22, 2001
MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan representing The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And, just quickly, The
Conservancy fully supports staff's recommendation to move
ahead with negotiating on this property for a willing seller
acquisition. We also urge the county to utilize the expertise of
land trusts such as the trust for public land. And, of course, we'd
like to remind you that The Conservancy is also a land trust and
though we don't have the money to outright buy this property, we
certainly would help if it's needed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. We appreciate your offer.
I think it's a wonderful suggestion. We've got all kinds of options
here. I entertain your motion, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion that
staff move forward -- continue to move forward in negotiating a
willing sale with a -- the owner who would like to have this land
cared for in a sentimental and historical way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Staff's recommendation --
MR. OCHS: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I presume that includes
also authorization to move forward with the necessary budget
amendments to obtain the appraisals and also the authorization -
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Whatever Recommendation No. I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- Commissioner Fiala, would you
incorporate all of that within it -- with the second incorporation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I certainly will.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a -- I have a motion by
Commissioner Mac'Kie -- or by Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Mac'Kie. Comments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just in case our attorney --
Page 55
May 22, 2001
and this isn't personal to you, sir. And so I apologize to the
extent I might have been personal about it because this is just
something that I feel strongly about. And I do have some
emotion in it which I know that Mrs. Stouffer does too. But just
in case she actually is watching this or does get to see this tape,
I wanted to take the chance to tell her that we want to use this
property as she wants it used, and that is to allow the public
access to the beach, that we would love to find some way to
work with her to memorialize this in honor of her deceased
husband.
If there is anything we could do to -- to work with her, if the
end result is that the county or the state or this land trust will
own the property as a result of eminent domain, I just beg her to
consider to working directly with the county through her
attorney, of course, but working as a willing seller, if not with the
county, to The Conservancy, to this lands trust -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Public lands trust.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to whomever she might trust
ownership of this land or even a conservation easement or some
other method by which we could allow the property to be used
for the purpose she wishes. And -- and whatever we could do to
help with that, I just wanted to take the opportunity to make that
sincere offer that I'd personally love to meet with her, I'd work
with her, whatever I could do to help move this along. There are
creative ways we could do this that would honor the sentiment
that she has for the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. If I were Mrs. Stouffer, I
know I would not want my property be taken. I would want to
offer it in memory of my husband and -- and work on an
agreement whereby it's something that's held very special for
eternity.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any other comments on the
Page 56
May 22, 2001
board? Therefore, 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. Thank you.
We are at a point where our magic fingers needs a break, as
well as the board. We'll take ten. We'll be back here at about
five till the hour. Thank you.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8A1
PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL'S
ANNUAL REPORT - PRESENTED; STAFF TO WORK WITH THE EAC
WITH REGARD TO ITEMS A, B, C AND D IN THE REPORT AND
RETURN TO THE BOARD
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's five after the hour now.
All right. Welcome -- welcome back. We're going to
continue with the regular agenda, and that will take us to Item
No. 8-A, which would be community development and
environmental services, 1, presentation of the Environmental
Advisory Council's annual report.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural
resources director.
The purpose of this agenda item is to hear and accept the
Environmental Advisory Council's annual report to the board. We
have the -- Tom Sansbury, the chairman, and Michael Coe, the
vice-chairman, here to present the report to the board. And
without any further ado, Mr. Sansbury.
MR. SANSBURY: Thank you, Bill.
Page 57
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
MR. SANSBURY: Good morning, sir. Good morning to you,
and good morning to all the commission members.
First, I'd just like to thank for myself and for Mr. Coe and the
other seven members of the Environmental Advisory Council you
allowing us to serve the county for the past year. We've
hopefully accomplished some things. I'd like to thank staff, Bill
Lorenz, Barbara Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Patrick White from
the county attorney's office, and the many other staff members
who have been working with us over this last-year period. We
feel we've accomplished some things. We feel there are a lot of
things we still can assist the county commission on.
I'd like to thank especially Bill Hill, who is our past chairman
and councilmember who worked closely in preparing the report
you have in your package today. But over the last year we've
reviewed 20 land use petitions. We've been working with staff
through our growth -- growth management subcommittee on a
rural lands over -- monitoring rural lands oversight and eastern
lands oversight. We reviewed the -- many of the growth
management plan amendments. In the Land Development Code --
we've looked at various things in the land development code
such as wetland impacts, wetland mitigation procedures, and
beach production -- protection.
And, finally, we've been working -- spending a lot of time on
working on a draft for a -- an improved wetlands ordinance. And
we hope during the year that we'll be back before you with that.
I'd like to now introduce Mr. Vice-chairman Coe who is
going to talk to you about our future plans. Thank you.
MR. COE: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
MR. COE: I want to cover some of our -- our concerns and
Page 58
May 22, 2001
future plans that we're looking at currently. We're very
concerned of the loss, the size of the loss of wetlands, viable
wetlands, within our community. And to give you a good
example, a recently approved plan took out almost as much
wetlands in one plan as all of Lee and Collier County lost last
year. And we're seeing more and more plans like this. Yes,
there's mitigation that's involved, but somehow or another there
has to be a mitigation on behalf of the county also. Somehow
there has to be a better balance between the owner of the
property that also -- that has a right to develop it and also
maintain the wetlands, because they're used by the people
filtering the water, etc.
We'd like to also have the opportunity to address wider
areas of concern with each environmental impact statement
that's done. All of them don't come before us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I -- may I interrupt you --.
MR. COE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Mr. Coe, on that point? How
could that possibly be the case with staff because this council
should be reviewing everything of an environmental nature, and
then -- I mean, I apologize for the interruption, but that one just
flopped my top when I read it in -- in your report. They have to be
reviewing everything environmental certainly that requires an
ElS. I wonder if that scope is broad enough and more important
than that, frankly, for my money, is going to be your policy
recommendations that I hope you'll get direction today to be
giving us. But could you give me some idea what you're talking
about? How could we not see it?
MR. COE: I don't know exactly specific ones that I could tell
you off the top of my head. We review all the projects, the
developmental projects, that have an environmental impact
statement. We do review those. There may be -- there may be
Page 59
May 22, 2001
other things in the county that an impact statement isn't
prepared for a development that comes before us, I guess, maybe
for a road, for example. And that might not come before us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think the excavation
permits probably weren't coming to you, and there's hardly a
greater environmental impact in this county than those before
Commissioner Coletta got ahold of them. But I'm sorry for the
interruption, but that just was shocking.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala, I'll take your
comment, and I then I think we need to let him finish.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Okay. I'll be real quick. I was just
wondering if that environmental impact was like -- for instance,
when we were discussing Mirasol and I read all of the EAC
minutes and in it it said that there were four properties, I brought
that up. At the time we were told that -- by the code that we're
following right now, we could only consider one at a time. And
yet if we were allowed to consider all four, we would have seen
the tremendous environmental impact and loss of wetlands we
would have had had we been able to address it properly. Is that
what you're referring to?
MR. COE: Somewhat. When you mentioned all four projects
together and someone had advised you that you had to look at
each project individually, I'm not real cognizant of that.
My understanding is that you as a board of commissioners
can, in fact, make a decision that you want to have all of them
viewed at the same time. And, therefore, there could have been,
I assume, at least a staff presentation of all four of those
projects and their impact on the environment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to let him finish because I
think there is probably a legal and a staff interpretation of that.
And when we -- I looked at it, in all due respect, I thought we
Page 60
May 22, 2001
were talking a big picture not only involving Collier but Lee
County. So I'll defer that and let you finish, sir.
MR. COE: We'd also like to be included in the -- in the new
hearing officer discussion. We also as a board felt that it -- and I
don't want to speak too narrowly here, but we felt that it may
release the Environmental Advisory Council to more effectively
get down to the business of writing the policy recommendations
to the Board of County Commissioners and get away from the
decision-making process. Therefore, the hearing officer might
not be a bad idea. However, we'd like to reserve the right to take
a -- to look at it which, of course, we're going to have the
opportunity to. That's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I thank you for your last comments,
sir. And you said it beautifully, because it's redefining roles and
responsibilities and will not only be with the Environmental
Advisory Council, but the planning council will be, if approved, if
it -- if, if, if, because we don't have all of it yet, but the -- the
framework is policy making versus making day-to-day decision --
decisions. If we establish the right policies, then that enables
you to get to where we want to be. So I think that's the
framework we're talking about.
Staff, do you have -- I'll take your comment. Staff, I know,
has some comments on the other. So let -- let's hear from staff,
and then I'll go to you, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, John Dunnuck, community
development environmental services administrator. We'll be
happy to follow up on those items. I think it's probably
inappropriate to bring it up today for discussion, but we will look
into all those issues because I think we are on the same page on
most of them, and -- and we'll follow up with the board and bring
it to a more policy-level discussion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Page 61
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a couple things: One, this is
exactly how this process is supposed to work, for you to be
bringing us these items telling us what you've done and what you
see as a role that could be more effective for your volunteer
service. And I can't miss the opportunity to thank you and hope
that you'll pass on to the rest of the council this commission's
thanks for the volunteer work that you do.
As far as, I think, if you survey people in this county, they
would tell you that the environment is the highest thing on all of
our radar, so you have the most important job. I mean, you are
protecting and we are looking to you to give us advice on how to
protect the most important assets we have in this county.
And in that regard, I'm going to make a motion that we
direct staff so that it's official, although, John, I appreciate that
you would do that already, that we direct staff to work with your
council to adopt all of the four areas that you've identified as
part of your future plans or your concerns. Specifically I'd like to
mention -- I have already mentioned the ElS area, but also the
hearing examiner, I've got to take this opportunity to say publicly
something that I've said privately already to our county manager.
And that is I don't know where staff got the direction they got for
the hearing examiner ordinance that's presently being drafted
because the way I heard it and the way certainly was my
intention when I voted on it was let's walk before we run, take
baby steps here.
Two things: I mean, I want to see the hearing examiner
start with small items like pool screen enclosure variances
where the rules are clear and no discretion is necessary and no
interpretation is necessary. And that is, frankly, not a useful way
to -- to employ this board's time. But on the larger issues of
rezones and those items, I am nowhere close to willing or ready
to give those to a hearing examiner for the simple reason that I
Page 62
May 22, 2001
need a lot of advice from your council on whether our codes are
adequate to protect our assets. And I'm willing to bet you that
they're not. If they were, then every time a -- an applicant was in
front of this board, we wouldn't be dickering over could you give
us a few more feet on the setback or could you give us a little bit
more on the berm or the landscaping or whatever it is.
The bottom line is, this board has the responsibility to adopt
a code that we absolutely want enforced to the letter. That will
be great for the development community because they'll know
what they're entitled to. Then they'll go to the hearing examiner,
and the hearing examiner will say, "Yes, you comply with the
code," or "No, you don't." but our code is not in a condition at
this moment to be ready to be turned over for that kind of a
black-and-white examination. I've said that to Mr. Olliff. I hope
that a majority of the board agrees with that when we get down
to decision-making time, but I think the current draft has gone
too far.
Bottom line is I want to make a motion to ask staff to work
with the Environmental Advisory Council on A, B, C, and D on
page 3 of our -- of our staff report, which are the council
concerns and future plans and that we -- we ask them to
particularly work on giving us some policy direction. And
hopefully we can take some of the day to day off of your plate as
we move forward with the hearing examiner and be able to get
some good advice from you. And, again, thank you, thank you,
thank you for the work that you --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have a motion from
Commissioner Mac'Kie. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion? Public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
Page 63
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(All commissioners excepting Commissioner Henning
responded.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Again, thank you
very much on behalf of the board for your work.
And in regards to the hearing officer, Commissioner Mac'Kie,
I think there will be another forum where that will be thoroughly
examined so that everyone will have an idea what it is and what
it isn't and how far we need to go or not go. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that I
abstained from that vote. I didn't -- we didn't have enough
discussion from that, so I'm abstaining from it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are you abstaining, affirming, or going
negative? Did you say nay? Did you say nay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
discussion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, okay.
discussion did you need, sir?
I'm abstaining.
Is that an option, Mr. Weigel?
We did not have enough
Let me back up. What
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I wanted to see that
-- the hearing examiner to be included in the valuation of a
proposed hearing examiner. I think that we need as much input
as we can. Now, I -- the first motion that you made is to adopt
the EAC's recommendations on Item A, B, and C --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And D.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And D.
Page 64
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think the process is that
they would recommend -- make recommendations to the board of
commissioners for consideration of adoption.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's exactly what it says, that
they be included in evaluation of the hearing examiner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING'- Well, what I hear -- heard from
your motion was to adopt, bring back for adoption.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to -- I want -- let me be
clear because my -- my motion is that we direct staff to work
with the EAC to agree with, to adopt, to allow them to do the
items they've identified as A, B, C, and D on that page.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Which comes back to the Board of
County Commissioners for final approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's what the
clarification that I needed. Thank you. So it is 5-0.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Fine. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dunnuck.
Item #8A2
RESOLUTION 2001-104 URGING THE REEVALUATION OF THE
ENDANGERMENT OF THE MANATEE - ADOPTED
MR. DUNNUCK'- The next item on the agenda has to do with
a resolution that was presented by the -- the City of Naples to the
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: City of Marco Island.
MR. DUNNUCK: I mean -- excuse me. I'm sorry. The City of
Marco Island.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is 8(A)2. This is the manatee
resolution; right?
Page 65
May 22, 2001
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. Yes. -- requesting that we adopt a
companion resolution basically supporting -- supporting the
notion that it would be more of a public process.
Through the -- through the settlement agreement between
the Florida Fish and Wildlife and the Save the Manatee
organization, it was a close process where intervenors from the
community, some of the 40,000 voters, weren't allowed to
participate and express their concerns with how the process was
working. This resolution is requesting that -- that they reevaluate
the settlement agreement and they come back and allow that
participation. Staff is in support.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by members of the board?
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would be good if -- I mean,
anybody would support a resolution that said allow more public
participation before you settle an issue. But this is a resolution
that has to do with the settlement of a lawsuit that's only
referenced to Collier County, because I looked it up on the web.
It's available. I hope everybody did. There's one reference to
Collier County. This doesn't have anything to do with us. It says
that there's a recommendation that by 2004 there will be some
evaluation of the acceptability of our Ten Thousand Islands
manatee plan. But we are just feeding the hysteria and getting
into some business that is not ours if -- by -- we're picking a fight
that's not our fight. I can't imagine why we would butt into this.
It's not our fight.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' If it even --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner-- Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. If it even mentions
Collier County, I have to support Marco Island and say it does not
hurt to go back and discuss it more thoroughly and make sure
that everything in there is -- is a proposal with which we agree.
Page 66
May 22, 2001
And I support our Collier County staff's resolution. I like the fact
that they changed sitings -- I think that was a good one -- and
added county. And I would like to go forward with that. Do we
have any speakers ?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just make one other
comment? It's my last one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Got to take comments from the board
first. Then we go to speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my last comment is, I think
we look a little silly asking somebody not to settle a lawsuit
that's already been settled. This is -- they've already signed the
document that we're asking them to reconsider.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- in the settlement agreement
I see no basis for the fish and wildlife to settle on it. And we will
be affected by possibly a -- a no-voting area in Collier County so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It doesn't say that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree that we need to move
this resolution.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Let's go to -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner
Carter.
Yeah. The people in Everglades City have -- have great
concerns over this whole issue. Now, possibly there might not
be anything to it, as Commissioner Mac'Kie said. But I think I'd
rather err on the side of caution and keep this in front of them.
Generally when people are going to be making a decision they're
going to be wanting to listen to opinions out there. But
Everglades City and the manatee -- Manatee Road area, we have
quite a concern in there. Rookery Bay even has a concern how it
Page 67
May 22, 2001
would affect them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm counting four votes in
support of the motion just by listening, but let us go to public
speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you've got about a dozen
registered speakers, so I'm going to ask that the next speaker
just start making their way to the podium so you can be ready to
make your way up and move this along as quickly as we can.
The first speaker is Cynthia Frisch followed by Laura Combs.
MS. FRISCH: Good morning and thank you for the
opportunity to speak. My name is Cynthia Frisch, and I'm a
Naples resident. I'm also a boater, and I'm also the Florida
representative of the Pegasus Foundation. This is a foundation
involving the environmental and animal protection, and we are
also plaintiffs in the manatee lawsuit.
And for today I urge the commission to reject this resolution,
and I'll explain why. First of all, what's happened today is very
surprising to me. The plaintiffs' groups didn't want to have a
lawsuit. I really to want make that clear. But after years of
trying to get stronger enforcement, more education, and selected
critical places where manatees could mate and nurse and
continue long-term survival, we really had no choice. The
agencies were not waking up to what was needed, and they
really weren't doing the job at the level that they needed to do it
at.
What was unfortunate was that last fall the fish and wildlife
service came around the state and did presentations where they
put up maps with many little red dots that showed potential
places where there might be refuge sites. They gave no
scientific explanation. They gave no information, and they didn't
reveal the fact that only a small number of those places would
actually be the actual final sites and that all public input would
Page 68
May 22, 2001
be involved in determining those sites. And so the anger that's
expressed now that comes through this resolution is in part a
result of that public relations element that really was not
addressed properly.
Now, also, it's important to know that the state is working
closely with the fish and wildlife service so that the full picture is
being taken into account all over Florida. And also, as was said,
Collier County even -- even isn't part of the state case, not even
included as one of the hot spots. So you have to understand that
this is the truth, and those that receive this resolution will know
this to be true. And, therefore, it doesn't reflect an accurate
picture, and it really doesn't reflect well on the Naples
community.
Now, I also want to address that this truth is important, and
it's important that you have all of the facts. Now, unfortunately
the fact that 47 percent increase in the manatee population, this
is not accurate as well. What happened was, is that the survey
this year had perfect weather conditions. The scientists have
always anticipated that this was the number out there. And it's
also important that you get information from people like Dr.
James Powell. He was the one that oversaw this study. He was
with the Florida Marine Research Institute, and he tries to
explain that isolated numbers like this do not give accurate
information about the population's long-term survival. You have
to know how many adults are there, how many reproductive
females, what is the ratio of the boats' increasing relationship to
this.
There are so many elements that are being analyzed by the
leading manatee scientists to give us this accurate picture, this
accurate information, and that a snapshot figure isn't accurate
because next year if they only count 2200 or 2500, will we have
to say then that 47 percent in -- decrease happened this year.
Page 69
May 22, 2001
We can't react and respond to these figures. We must follow the
wisdom of the scientists who have been working on this for
years.
Now, I realize at the heart of this is property rights, and the
issue of property rights is a very important one. But the
settlement in the end is about balance. And it's also important to
recognize that in a recent poll done by this -- a company called
Beldon, Bushonello, and Stewart Research Communications
(phonetic), that 64 percent of Floridians strongly favor reducing
the speed limit for boats on waterways while only 6 percent
strongly opposed. Sixty-four percent support it. So in supporting
a resolution like this, you're supporting only 6 percent of the
Florida citizens. As part of this 64 percent this really concerns
me. And as part of boating public referred to in the resolution, I
don't feel represented.
I realize that some people in this community felt left out of
the process of the state case. But for the federal case, others
intervened and were included. The lawsuit was in the papers
from the very beginning. They could have inter -- intervened as
the Marine Industries Association of Florida intervened, the
Marine Operator's Association of America intervened, the
National Marine Manufacturer's Association intervened, and the
Association of Florida Community Developers intervened.
For whatever reason, those in this county in opposition
didn't intervene at the time when they could have. It doesn't
mean that the settlement is bad or is not inclusive. In its very
design it is inclusive. It's a process that includes public input,
and this has been happening and will continue to happen all
along the way.
So, again, it's very important. And if the manatees -- you
know, it -- I'm rushing to finish. I realize my time is running out.
But we must find a balance. We must work together. Pegasus is
Page 70
May 22, 2001
beginning to work with educational issues and how can we bring
this anger and this opposition to a more peaceful place where we
can be productive together.
Saving the manatees is also about saving ourselves. The
manatees' future is just a glimpse of our own future unless we
make some changes. If we can't save the manatee in our
community, what does that say about us as a community? If we
can't save the manatee, what can we save? For the manatee
and for ourselves, please do not support this resolution. Please
research into this issue further so that the Naples public is
reflected accurately.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you for your input. Next
speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF'. The next speaker is Laura Combs followed by
Bobbie Lee Hasty.
MS. COMBS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Laura Ruhannah (phonetic) Combs, and I am the Southwest
Florida representative for Save the Manatee Club. And thank you
for giving me a couple minutes to speak this morning.
I strongly agree with what Cynthia Frisch has presented to
you and have a couple other points I'd want to make, particularly
about this resolution. First and foremost, this resolution asks
that you urge the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to
reconsider the endangerment of the manatee before signing or
settling the lawsuit with Save the Manatee Club and the other
plaintiffs.
And as has been -- as has been pointed out, that settlement
has occurred. On April 19th Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission did do that. So what this proposed resolution is
urging is a moot point.
Second of all, the resolution alleges that the rights of voters,
shoreline property owners, and the impacts to Florida's economy
Page 71
May 22, 2001
were not considered. And there's a few points there that need to
be addressed.
First of all, regarding the effects on Florida's economy, other
than some proposals in Brevard County, there have not been any
specific proposals made as far as how to proceed with manatee
protection. And, as a result, there's no way to measure any
economic impacts.
Regarding the rights of shoreline property owners,
depending on the types of protection passed, shoreline property
owners will always have access to their property. And it's
important to note that the one scientific study completed by Dr.
Fred Bell on the effects of manatee protection on shoreline
property shows an increase of between 0 and 20 percent in
property values.
Regarding the rights of boaters, as I said right now, other
than in Brevard County, there are not specific propose --
proposals made. Boaters, even with whatever proposals come
up in the future, will still be able to boat in the waters of the
state of Florida. They may have to change their behaviors and
slow down in a few areas. They might have to use a different
way of accessing an area in some very small areas. But right
now we can't even tell because those proposals have not been
made. And Collier County is not on the list of counties being
considered for refuges or hot spots.
We're looking at, in 2004, conduct -- conducting a review of
the available data to see if more manatee protection is need in
the Ten Thousand Islands area. And by the time that rolls
around, there will be new information available because of the
federal studies that are being conducted from aerial surveys and
telemetry data. So the latest information will be available to all
of us to determine if anything else is needed in the Ten Thousand
Islands area.
Page 72
May 22, 2001
I only -- the resolution, the supporting documents talk to the
fact that when Ten Thousand Islands is reviewed that the
manatee protection plan for Collier County must also be
reviewed for the settlement. And that's simply not true.
Manatee protection plans aren't included in the settlement at all.
And for these reasons and the others that have already been
addressed, we're urging you to not adopt this resolution. And if
the commission feels that it needs to make a statement to the
resolution, we would be more than happy to provide you with any
factual information and data that we can to convey that
message. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Bobbie Lee Hasty followed by Jim Kalvin.
MS. HASTY: For the record, my name is Bobbie Lee Hasty.
I'm the chair for the Calusa Group Sierra Club. And I'm here
today representing the Sierra Club. I'd like to let you know, first
of all, that I got quite a few e-mails when the manatee suits
came about, and some of them were from people in Rookery Bay
who had the misconception that they could not get to their
homes any longer by their boats, which is crazy. I also heard
from people on North Captiva that live up by Safety Harbor who
said, "We're not going to be able to go home. And the only way
we can get home is to put our boat at the boat dock that we
purchased when we bought our property. It has just been mass
hysteria. It is ridiculous.
I am here today to oppose the adoption of the resolution
concerning the manatee settlement. The settlement is done; it's
over with. It's been settled on both the federal and the state
levels. I know there are people who are upset about this, but
they will have a chance to comment in public forums coming up.
And we as human beings have a responsibility to protect other
living species on this planet. It is not our right to go into their
Page 73
May 22, 2001
habitat and mow them down with our motorboats maiming them
and killing them.
And recently I had some children from a Fort Myers school e-
mail wanting to know what was Sierra Club doing to help protect
the manatee. And it was amazing to go out there and talk to
these kids because they were so gung ho. They had seen the
stuff in the papers. They had heard all the stuff about everyone
and the boating industry being unhappy with the manatee
settlement agreement. And if you could have seen the reaction
from these children and how gung ho they were to help and know
what to do, that was something. And we ask that you will not
approve this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Jim Kalvin followed by Nicole
Ryan.
MR. KALVIN: Good morning. My name is Jim Kalvin. I'm the
founder and president of a group called Standing Watch, which is
a nonprofit boaters' property owners' rights group. I'm also
speaking as an individual. Having lived in Collier County since
1965, I remember when there was a column in the paper every
Friday called "Manatee Alert." the animals were so rare back
then that you called the newspaper when you saw one.
Back in 1974 when they first started keeping track of
population statistics, since 1974 the animals have increased
tremendously locally, in Lee County, and in all other areas where
these restrictions are proposed. Standing Watch asked for and
received permission to use county property through the
Department of Natural Resources with Bill Lorenz's help, and
back in November 13th Chairman Carter was good enough to
come attend. We discussed, along with the environmental
coalition members, exactly why we thought we needed this
additional protection, why we needed this lawsuit settlement
Page 74
May 22, 2001
agreement in the State of Florida. We had people from both sides
of the aisle there. We had some active debate. And we are firm
believers in communication. We will not have a public forum
without inviting all sides present.
Standing Watch recently had to spend $8,000 to file a
motion to be in the same room to discuss the settlement of the
state lawsuit. The people of the State of Florida were denied
access in the settlement talks. The Marine Industries
Association of Florida filed a motion to intervene January 2000.
Six months later they were denied by the Northern District Court
of Florida. They appealed.
The 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta overturned the Florida
Court's ruling saying that the people most certainly did have a
right to be in that meeting room, most certainly did have a right
to be heard. It was on the heels of that ruling that Standing
Watch filed on behalf of its 6,000 statewide members, more than
half of which are from Collier County, to be heard as well. We --
Commissioner Mac'Kie, I have to take exception that it's not our
fight. It is our fight, and we don't have to wait until 2004 to be
involved in it. It's affecting us right now.
I'm a marine contractor. I'm not a developer, as has been
alluded in papers throughout the State of Florida. I build single-
family docks behind people's homes. I don't build marinas. All
we do is come to your house and give you a place to put your
boat.
Well, now, that dock is called an access point. And in the
county waters it's going to fall under the DEP and the corps of
engineer criteria. They're going to charge you an additional $526
per-boat access point before you can even get your permit
considered. In other words, if your dock is large enough to have
two boats tied to it, you're going to pay over a thousand dollars
in addition to your permit whether or not you get your permit.
Page 75
May 22, 2001
That's a pretty drastic impact right now.
Less than five days after the signing of the state settlement
agreement, the coalition was in Hillsborough County at their
county commission meeting urging them to take stronger action
on their own county manatee protection plan. This is not waiting
for the state FWC plan to come to county to county to implement
the plan and work with the public as called for in the settlement
agreement. They're taking it right now. The public is being
circumvented. We have to file countersuits to be heard. That's
not the way that our government was set up to run.
The population by the Florida Marine Research Institute has
increased by an average net -- that's a very important word now --
average net of 5 1/2 percent per year. We're not saying that the
manatee population -- and I have never published that the
manatee population increased about 57 per -- 47 percent since
last year.
We understand that the minimum observed population
samples are just that; they're a sample. It does show a trend
over the 24-year period, 26-year period of over 5 1/2 percent per
year. We want that to be recognized. And the conditions in
Collier County were not ideal for counting. I flew in the airplane
with Tom Pitchford from the Florida Marine Research Institute
during that official count. And anytime we have cold weather, as
everybody here who is a boater knows, when it's cold in Collier
County, it's a northwest wind and our water looks like coffee.
Tom Pitchford was stunned when he saw how murky, how black,
how muddy, how stirred up our water was. We still had a record
count.
And we need some common sense brought back into this.
We want the public to have participation, and we certainly
appreciate Collier County's help, and this most definitely does
affect us right now, and it's going to continue to affect us greater
Page 76
May 22, 2001
as we move down the pike.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question, Mr.
Chairman, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The $500 for a new access point
or a dock, what -- where is that money going to?
MR. KALVIN: You've got a couple coalition members in the
audience that I'm sure could probably answer that who are
plaintiffs in the lawsuit. I'm told it's a conservation contribution
fee. And there is a federal organization set up to see that that
goes towards manatee protection, which I guess is law
enforcement. I asked a question at a federal meeting about two
weeks ago where that money went and who was going to spend
it, and they would not or could not answer that question for me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One more question: And I know
you've been around speaking to groups and that. How many
people have you spoken to City of Naples that have water
access?
MR. KALVIN: The City of Naples -- Dr. John Staiger is
probably the person I've talked to most. Maybe I don't
understand the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, residents that own
property in the City of Naples.
MR. KALVIN: Well, we have a very large membership from
the City of Naples, so they're very concerned about preserving
their access. And one important thing to look at, yeah, you can
have a waterfront home, and you're going to have access to your
property. How are you going to get it serviced? What's going to -
- how are you going to get your boat serviced? We're losing
commercial space.
Collier County has always been a vibrant waterfront
community. As you've seen in the paper over the last month,
Page 77
May 22, 2001
we've lost all our marinas now, our public marinas. We've lost
our ability to service the seawalls or riprap, any of the other
things that we have to deal with here in Collier County. So
having waterfront property and being able to come and go
because you have a sticker that says you are a resident is only
part of the picture.
Number one, that incites class warfare. You know, you go --
come in and out of your canal, but we're not going to let anybody
else come in. I'm that other person. And on the off Friday that I
want to go fishing, you're denying me that right, number one.
Number two, how are you going to service those -- those
waterfront areas? They're very concerned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Nicole Ryan followed by Fran
Stallings.
MS. RYAN: Good morning again. For the record, Nicole
Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy urges
the board to vote against this resolution. Now, let me say The
Conservancy is in favor of both manatee protection and the
rights of boaters. We stated publicly that we support appropriate
sanctuaries and refuges in areas that have been based upon this
science. We support more education, better enforcement, and
new and innovative technologies that will design boats that are
safer for manatees. We believe that all of these components are
going to be necessary in order to take the manatee off of the
endangered species list. And to that end, Conservancy
president, Kathy Prosser, along with several Conservancy staff
members met with Jackie Barr, who will probably be speaking
later, and several other marine industry representatives in order
to look towards collaborative efforts for communications
between environmental and boaters' interests. Now, we hope
Page 78
May 22, 2001
these dialogues continue because we found them very positive in
our meetings.
Though The Conservancy was not part of the lawsuit, we
were not a participant, we do believe that the manatee is
endangered. We are glad that county staff took Marco Island's
phrase of alleged endangerment off the resolution because we
believe the manatee is endangered, as does the state and federal
governments. The Conservancy also believes in periodic
reevaluation of manatee populations, populations of all listed
species, in order to establish accurate counts and to determine
what a sustainable population really would be. We're confident
that when the manatee populations are reevaluated, they will
unfortunately still remain endangered. However, our goal is the
recovery of all listed species.
The irony is that if you do list the manatee too quickly and
proper and adequate manatee protections are in place, they're
going to end up right back on the endangered species list.
That being said, The Conservancy is concerned about the
resolution before you today, and we urge you to vote against this
resolution as written due to its overall negative tone. This
resolution may be seen as an anti-manatee statement in the
community and in the state. We hope that the resolution could
be reworded to include more supportive language for manatee
recovery. This would be a positive step towards manatee
protection. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIAI. A.' Can I ask a question?
MS. RYAN: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA-' Do you feel the adoption of this
resolution will any way detract from -- from protecting the
manatee and saving the manatee? And I'm especially concerned
because the -- the public -- I don't think The Conservancy was
Page 79
May 22, 200t
aware of this, but the public wasn't invited to be a part of the
negotiations until they sued to do that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. But when there's a
lawsuit being settled, the only people who get to be involved in
the settlement are the parties to the lawsuit, even if it affects
the whole wide world. So that's just perfectly normal that if you
want to be involved in the settlement of a lawsuit, you have to
sue,
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Okay. And then the second
thing, do you feel the adoption of this resolution would stop us
from protecting the manatees?
MS. RYAN: I don't believe so because it's asking that the
state not sign a settlement that has already been signed. So I
think that probably the biggest thing that this will do, is to some
people, it will show that Collier County is negative towards the
manatee. Other people might interpret that differently. But it's
just -- the way that it's written, it has a negative tone.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If-- if I may personally
speak for myself -- and I'm sure the other commissioners will
agree -- my supporting of this particular proclamation is not in
any way against the manatee. The areas that I represent,
Everglades City, the Manatee Road area, also The Conservancy
down at the end of it with the Rookery Bay, they're very
protective of this resource. They see it as a tremendous tourist
attraction. These people aren't negative against the manatee.
They're very careful, and the -- they respect it at all times and go
way out of their way to avoid any kind of contact with it. But
they do feel threatened by this. And if we neglect to do this,
they're going to feel even more threatened as time goes along.
This isn't a slap to The Conservancy or the Manatee Foundation
or any of the environmental groups out there. This is a way to try
Page 80
May 22, 2001
to bring a little bit of a balance back and reassure the public out
there that we are interested in their rights too.
MS. RYAN: And we believe that could be done with different
language in a resolution, and that's our concern. If you want to
adopt a resolution, that's fine, but this just has an overall
negative tone that we're concerned about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you about the
negative content, but I -- I think this is a reaction on the part of
the public we're trying to answer.
MS. RYAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Mr. Stallings.
MR. OLLIFF: Fran Stallings to be followed Lee Lyon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fran, welcome back. You don't
have to worry about getting smacked around, treated rudely by
this county commission. I'm glad you're here.
MR. STALLINGS: Well, I appreciate the opportunity. I'm
testifying today from a perspective from one of the plaintiffs in
the suit. There was several individuals that were plaintiffs, and I
was one of them. Also, I represent the Responsible Growth
Management Coalition, the Environmental Confederation of
Southwest Florida, and the National Wildlife Coalition.
Just so I don't run out of time here before I do this, I want to
read the last paragraph of a resolution adopted by the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission which was added on after they
had signed or as a part of the signing of the settlement.
It reads as follows: In developing rules contemplated by the
settlement agreement, the FWCC staff shall insure that the rule-
making process shall include a broad and balanced range of
statewide and local interests, including, but not limited to,
plaintiffs' environmental interests and commercial and
recreational user interests. The FWCC staff shall consult these
Page 81
May 22, 2001
interests prior to each initial rule proposal and during each rule-
making process. However, these consultations shall not delay
rule making under the settlement agreement.
So the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission recognize
the need to have all parties involved and as a result passed this
particular resolution.
Now, on the state suit on October -- excuse me, on October
the 19th, 2000, Governor Bush called what we refer to as a
summit conference on the manatee suit, and that was open to a
broad range of participants. And sitting at the head table as a
panelist in it was Ted Fossgrin (phonetic), the executive director
of the Coastal Conservation Association of Florida; Jim Kalvin,
whom you know; Bill Hunter, president, Association of Florida
Community Developers; John Sprague, the president of the
Marine Industries Association of Florida; Pat Riley, president of
Southwest Florida Marine Industries Association; Jerry Sansum
(phonetic), executive director, Organized Fishermen of Florida;
and Mick Blackstone, vice president of government affairs,
National Marine Manufacturers' Association. So back last
October these people were all sitting there at the head table
having input on the state suit. And before the Wildlife and
Conservation Commission settled the suit, they had two hearings
where that settlement was the specific topic of discussion.
So even though the intervenors was not allowed to do so
until basically the thing was settled, there have been
opportunities for input along the way, and there will continue to
be opportunities for input along the way. So it has been a closed
thing.
And one of the other individuals who testified, I gave a list of
the intervenors in the federal suit, which were the Association of
Florida Community Developers, National Marine Manufacturers'
Association, Marine Operators' Association of America, the
Page 82
May 22, 2001
Marine Industries Association of Florida. And they were
represented by Huntoon and Williams of Washington, D.C., with
the attorney, Virginia Albright, there who is supposed to be one
of the fiercest attorneys around for attacking green groups
sitting at the table with us in the negotiations. So it's not been a
closed shop, and it's not going to continue. So it's not -- it's
going to be an open forum as we move along. So I just wanted to
make those things clear so I didn't run out of time.
Also, the whole situation has been blown way out of
proportion in a sense that the manatee suddenly has become a
great white shark that's out there gobbling hapless boaters. And
that just isn't the way it's happening. And part of that, I think, is -
- well, I'll try not to hit on attorneys too much here, but I read a
letter that was sent out by the law firm in Tallahassee that
Wayde Hopping heads up saying that those dastardly devils who
are the plaintiffs in this suit are wanting to declare every square
foot of water in the State of Florida either an idle or slow-speed
zone, plus 3 miles out in the open gulf and the open Atlantic.
That just wasn't true.
And a lot of that kind of hysteria went about or was present.
I would simply say if that attorney was out fishing that day
trolling for clients and the product is called, you know,
maximizing billable hours.
One of the things I think helped with the settlement is once
a lot of that speculation and misinformation was put aside and
we got down to the nitty gritty of it, the suit did get settled. And
I just would say that Governor Bush was very much in favor of
the settlement. When we had the final negotiations there, he
sent his cabinet aide, Colleen Castille (phonetic), over to lobby
the Fish and Wildlife Conservation, and they approved the
settlement with only one negative vote.
So I would, again, hope if you do approve some kind of
Page 83
May 22, 2001
resolution, that you would make it into something that's positive
because the Marco thing started out as a resolution to President
Bush to put the suit or the implementation of it on hold which is
counter to the U.S. Constitution even under the separation of
powers, between the executive, the judicial, and the legislative.
So it had a negative thing about it by starting out to ask the
President to do something illegal. So if you do go forward with it,
I would hope you would make something positive and
constructive that helps the situation. And I do appreciate your
concern, and I appreciate the privilege of addressing you about it
and be happy to take any questions you may have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Stalling, if you don't mind,
tell us about this $500 fee for --
MR. STALLINGS: My understanding of that is that it's under
consideration. At one time the Fish and Wildlife -- U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service had a program whereby they put monies into it
that were used, as Jim was indicating, for enforcement,
restoration measures, and things of that sort. And they were
looking some way or another to create a kitty to -- to put more
money into preserving the species. And one of the things under
consideration is a fee per boat slip and whether or not that's
going to become reality and approved. I don't know, but it
definitely is under consideration. And it's important to note that
that money would not go to any of the plaintiffs. In other words,
it would be administered by the federal government.
MR. HENNING.' Thank you.
MR. STALLINGS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions? Thank you. Have a
pleasant, safe journey and move to Jacksonville.
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Lee Lyon and followed by
Phil Osborne.
MR. LYON: Yes, I'm Lee Lyon. I appreciate having the
Page 84
May 22, 2001
opportunity to come before you to speak. As a representative of
the Marine Industries Association of Collier County and also a
member of the ad hoc committee that worked with Dr. Stallings
and was commissioned by you people to put the original manatee
protection plan into effect, we are supporting the staff in this
resolution. Originally when we put the manatee protection plan
into effect, it was agreed upon that we would at some point in
time come back and revisit it. But until we have more factual
information as to how our plan is processed at this point in time
and until the state and the federal government have finished up
with their hearings that they're still having and revisiting all of
the different sites, I think we need to support the staff with
what's being said in here today. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. Thank you, sir. Next speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Phil Osborne followed by Scott
Dunnuck.
MR. OSBORNE: It's still a good morning, Commissioners. I
appreciate the opportunity to come before you again. I'm Phil
Osborne, president of the Marine Industries Association of Collier
County. I want to thank you again for this opportunity and your
support for this resolution. We feel that everybody's rights and
opinions in matters that affect them as this plan calls for
mandates that -- that they be given that opportunity in an open
forum. There are so many areas of this lawsuit that remain in
question as far as the settlement. And although Commissioner
Mac'Kie indicates that Collier County is not a target until 2004,
that isn't necessarily true. And as things progress forward and
plans are -- are laid out, Collier County certainly could become a
bigger target than is currently being discussed.
And so, consequently, we do support this resolution and
protecting the rights of boaters and -- and marine industry impact
in Collier County. Thank you. Do you have any other questions?
Page 85
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions? Next speaker, please.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Scott Dunnuck followed by
Brad Cornell.
MR. DUNNUCK: Scott Dunnuck. First, I'd like to thank you
for adding this to the Collier County agenda. It's the first time in
the last six months we were able to speak on a local opinion
about this manatee issue. As you can tell from the opinions in
the papers, that a lot of the residents are very upset about both
the state and the federal lawsuit. I've been -- I'm a resident of
Marco Island. I've enjoyed fishing and boating in Collier County
for many years. The waters in Collier are a natural resource. It
brings a tremendous amount of people to our area.
Unfortunately our fate -- state and federal governments have
recently agreed to settle both lawsuits as it relates to the Save
the Manatee Club. These environmentalists don't use legislation
-- legislation and voting referendums to change law; they file
lawsuits, as have previously been described.
As you probably know and have read about in the papers,
the manatees have risen in population over the last 26 years by
400 percent. Our current form of measuring success is all based
on the mortality rate instead of the growth rate. So as more
manatees inhibit our area, i.e., greater population, the more
deaths we will have which will trigger the more regulation -- the
more need for more regulations, once again. This is a never-
ending cycle of proposed regulations.
I use a simple analogy to describe our current situation. In
1900 there were very few human deaths on the roads in the State
of Florida. As compared in 1900, our current deaths -- death rate
on the state of Florida has risen dramatically. Why? Because
more people live in Florida now than did in 1900. So if we apply
the Manatee Club's logic to our road systems, we should shut
Page 86
May 22, 2001
them down as soon as possible.
Lastly, I want to put a little perspective on Collier County's
situation. Collier County's backwaters are already about 90
percent manatee-restricted zones. This is hundreds of thousands
of acres. Last year I was fortunate enough to buy a house on a
canal so I could be closer to some of the areas and the best
fishing grounds. Three months after moved in, I found out my
whole backyard, Addison Bay, and the whole east side of Marco
River there, has been shut down to a manatee slow speed, no --
no idle speed zone area. I've personally kept track of the last six
months, as I am -- as I am idling through miles and miles of
manatee restriction areas how many manatees I have seen. I
tried to put together a nice presentational graph. And I thought
you guys could understand this maybe (indicating). Okay?
That's our current manatee protection plan on how many I've
seen so --
Let me share with you -- all I'm asking for is scientific data
to show me why these areas are -- areas are manatee zones. But
I can never get an answer from anybody at the state, federal, or
local level.
In conclusion, I want you to think about how these
regulations have affected the county. As the state and federal
governments pass more and more regulations, they leave it up
more to the local counties to enforce. We as Collier County
citizens have been paying to enforce these arbitrary and
capricious regulations. This time is -- you, the Board of County
Commissioners, to take the control on the local level to change
this tide of never-ending sea of regulations.
And I just want to make a point that I disagree with Mr.
Stallings' report on the manatee summit because I attended it
with the governor back in October, and there was zero public
input as that relates to the current manatee protection plan or
Page 87
May 22, 2001
the current lawsuit that was settled at the State of Florida this
last April. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF.' Fred Cornell is your last speaker who will be
followed by your last registered speaker, Bob Krasowski.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning. I'm Brad Cornell. I'm here on
behalf of the Collier County Audubon Society. I just have one
point to make, and that is that this resolution, as I read it,
discusses reconsidering whether the manatee is actually
endangered or not. But your voiced intentions here all have to do
with public input. So it seems to me that the whole resolution is
not -- is off target. So if I were you, I would -- I would scrap this
resolution.
And, besides, the manatee has been verified as an
endangered species. The resolution also implies incorrectly that
the 47 percent increase in the count means that it should no
longer be endangered, and that's a false implication. So we
would respectly ask for you not to approve this resolution.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Any questions, comments
by members of the board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was going to ask how he
would reword it? How would you reword it, Brad? You said that
there were just a couple words that should be changed, or at
least that's what I derived --
MR. CORNELL: No, no. I -- I didn't say that. I -- I -- I said this
-- the entire resolution is off the mark. Your professed in --
concern is with public input. The intentions of the resolution are
to reconsider the -- the status of the species as an endangered
species. I don't quite understand why this resolution
accomplishes what your intention is. That is better public input.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would support a resolution that
Page 88
May 22, 2001
encouraged more public participation in these issues, as I think,
based on what Mr. Stallings read, the Florida Wildlife Commission
or whatever it's called this week, has also done. If what we want
is public participation, then that would be a very positive, good
message to send. But if what we want to say is we're not
worried about the manatees, then we need to send this
resolution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't take that at all. I thought
that what we wanted was public participation in reevaluating.
You know, I feel that maybe -- maybe there's a little play on
words here, but that's what they -- what's -- that's what the
Marco Islanders want to do. They -- they don't in any way want
to tell you how to count the manatees. What they want is
participation in this evaluation.
MR. CORNELL: I don't think the entire lawsuit had to do with
the status of the manatee. I think it had to do with protect the
manatee given its status. This reevaluation push is, I think, part
of the hysteria that has been whipped up in response to the
settlement of the lawsuit of which we were not a part but we do
support protection of and recovery of all endangered species.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hysteria always starts with lack of
communication, doesn't it? And this would probably be the way
to address that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And here's an opportunity for us
to be leaders because we have a message to send. It's just not
this one. Listen to what it says in the, "Now, therefore, be it
resolved," the Board of County Commissioners fully supports
urging the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to
reevaluate the endangerment of the manatee. Is that what we
want to say, or do we want to say, "We urge the commission to
work closely with the public to balance the rights of private
property owners and the boating public with the needs for
Page 89
May 22, 2001
manatee protection as science supports them"? That -- I'd be all
over supporting that but not reevaluating the endangerment of
the manatee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Well, I might -- must say the
evidence that -- that was submitted clearly states that the
manatee population is growing. And being on the water for the
last almost 30 years, I can attest to that; it has been growing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's why we don't need to
worry about the evaluation of our manatee protection plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' We need to worry about access
to public lands, the enjoyment of all people in Collier County to
enjoy the water.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. And I'll support a
proclamation that says we want to do that. I won't support a
proclamation that urges reconsideration of whether or not the
manatee is endangered. I would support a resolution that said
we urge the appropriate agencies to -- to get all the science
that's available and to do all the research possible to determine
if in Collier County, for example, our plan is so good that the
manatee is thriving in Collier County and that we don't need to do
more by way of protection in Collier County. Science may show
that. I'd be willing to support that but not the anti-manatee
resolution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' It's not anti-manatee.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute. Hold it. Hold it. Let's
not put the kitties in the sack here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I've been listening
very carefully. And this last statement, anti-manatee, I don't
think anyone on this particular dais is anti-manatee. We're
asking for reconsideration. If it has to do with mass hysteria,
mass hysteria comes from certain elements that are out there.
These people have seen rights taken away time after time. We
Page 90
May 22, 2001
represent the public, and that's what we're doing here today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
The last speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Once
again, I -- I come up here at this time to agree with Mr. Cornell
and the other environmentalists. Of course, many of these
boaters are environmentalists as well. But -- and also with
Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'm looking at the -- this resolution that
you're considering -- and it starts off, the first paragraph, it says:
Whereas, the Save the Manatee Club, et al., filed a suit
against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for allegedly failing to protect the manatee."
the suit was settled in negotiation January 4th, 2001, by
adopting agreements that ignore the rights of waterfront property
owners, the boating public, and the economic impact on the
State of Florida.
I think the previous speakers addressed those issues, and
that's not just the way it was. I agree, of course -- as you can
well understand, I'm very much in support of public participation
and input on every aspect of community government. What my --
my sole comment in regard to this, as -- beyond supporting the
previous speakers, is something I saw on the TV the other day.
And it says we, which means you and me, everyone, but in
particular it applies to you right now -- you have not inherited the
earth from your parents. You are the stewards of the earth for
your -- for our children -- for your children. And I think it's time
that we start buying into that concept and behaving as if we
understand it and agree to it. And it's real important that you,
our county represented government officials, think along those
lines.
Page 91
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Bob.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all your speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That concludes our public speakers.
Comments from the board? Questions from the board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' I'll go ahead and make a motion,
Mr. Chairman, that we go -- move this resolution.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have a motion to move the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I have a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Any discussion? Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one thing. Commissioner
Mac'Kie, if I overreacted, I apologize.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no. And, actually, I was
going to use the opportunity at the end of the vote to say I didn't
mean anti-manatee. That was wrong because I know none of you
are that. I don't even think anybody in the room or the county is
anti-manatee. I meant anti-isting as an endangered species, and
that -- that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's good. I'm glad you're all making
nice up here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Especially after our proclamation
this morning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Civility.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
(Those in favor responded.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign ?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-1.
Page 92
May 22, 2001
Item #8A3
2001 TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE MARCO ISLAND FILM FESTIVAL REGARDING THE OCTOBER,
2001 EVENT - APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000
That moves us to the next item. For all of those that are
wondering where we are going, we will be breaking at 12:30
approximately for lunch.
So this takes us to Marco Island Film Festival, which is 8(A)3
which was priorly-- prior 16(A)14, tourism agreement between
Collier County and the Marco Island Film Festival. Whoever
pulled it may want to take the opening -- make the opening
comments.
MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioner. For the record
I'm Greg Mihalic from the housing and urban improvement
department and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I just ask, Greg, who pulled
this ?
MR. MIHALIC: I think the staff -- the staff pulled it off
because there was some public comment that wanted to be
made on this item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the normal process?
MR. OLLIFF: The petit -- on a consent agenda item if we are
aware that there is going to be a public comment or a request
from a member of the public to speak on an item, we'll usually
put it on the regular agenda. In this particular case, petitioner
has requested to be able to present to the board. So I think we
could probably just cut to the chase -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: -- and -- and have the petitioner come forward
and make his presentation to the board.
Page 93
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
MR. MIHALIC: Makes it easy for me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We read your side of the story in
the staff report.
MR. DAILEY: Yes. I'll be doing that from this side.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please get on the microphone and
identify yourself.
MR. DAILEY: Yes. I'm Maury Dailey for the record from
Marco Island and involved with the film festival as an officer.
There was some confusion about how this process would work
this morning, so -- but we do have an abbreviated presentation to
make and to answer any questions that you might have about the
film festival, if that's appropriate, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
MR. DAILEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Go right ahead.
Five minutes. No, go ahead.
MR. DAILEY.' Thank you. First of all, we'd like to thank --
thank the county commissioners and the county staff for the
support over the years. The festival itself is built on hundreds of
volunteers, as I know that you-all are aware of, and has grown
now into becoming -- this year would be the fourth annual film
festival, a signature event for Collier County.
The festival, as you know, starts with the beach opening
night, then follows with movies for the five-day event. The total
budget for the year 2001 is $600,000 or approaching that. Last
year's event we brought in the following celebrities, some of the
celebrities you saw there, which is Celeste Holme, Sean Young,
Ben Gazzara, Mario Lopez, and Jason Priestly.
We also have a student filmmaker program that's very
popular. It gets international visibility for Collier County and the
festival. The finalists are represented on that -- on the screen
included some from Fort Myers, from a school in Brussels, Boston
Page 94
May 22, 2001
University, Brigham Young, so a wide variety of -- of schools
represented.
In addition to that is -- and within the student film program is
Kid Fest Film Essay Contest which serves to be allowing the
opportunity for 33,000 county students to participate in the film
festival.
We expanded beyond Marco with a relationship with Regal
Theaters up into Naples, also activities at Waterside Shop,
Fiddler's Creek, Eagle Creek. And we're looking forward to this
year and the possibility of expanding some activity into
Immokalee, so we're looking forward to that opportunity.
As we've said before, from the day -- from the first time we
did this event we used a little ballot or mini survey. People that
go in to watch the movie, they fill out a little survey. That's how
we rate how good a film is, and our whole awards program is
based on these little ballots. On the reverse side is a survey, and
based on the information we get from that, we come up with
certain conclusions, not the least of which is that we had about
8500 in attendance last year. Thirty-seven percent of those
attendees were from outside of Collier County. And based on
those little surveys, we found that 14 percent of the people from
out of county commuted to the county. Forty-seven percent
stayed in private condo or home rentals, eleven percent from the
hotels, and then the -- six percent stayed with friends. And,
again, based on these little ballots or surveys, 22 percent came
from unknown sources.
Based on that, we've extrapolated numbers, as we've done
before, returning something over a million dollars in between
room nights, ancillary spending. We then had national exposure,
which is something -- some of it we paid for, which is called ad
placement, but a lot of this is something that people do
voluntarily in press coverage. State exposure is the same. Local
Page 95
May 22, 2001
exposure, likewise, bringing us quite a bit of -- of spin-off from
the event, $2 1/2 million worth of media impact. We take that
and add the lodging and ancillary extrapolated figures, we're
coming up somewhere in the 3.6 million in the return from last
year's event of eighty-seven five.
This year we're looking at it for the future. We showed this
to the TDC that the beach and cultural events or festivals tie for
popularity in visitors to vacation areas. We also -- since the TDC
went and talked to Palm Beach, Delray Beach Arts Council and
Broward County regarding their events, Palm Beach said they
like the idea of reinforcing the national image, attracting visitors
to business. Delray Beach liked the idea of -- of backing proven
events. They're less chancier for the good of the community.
And Broward County said that the Lauderdale film festival knows
and makes a visitor's vacation more fulfilling and that they stay
longer.
The budget shown before you is for the total budget we
originally applied for for $150,000. I also would like to mention,
which I'm going real fast here just to make certain we get out for
lunch, but we just had an event not too long ago as a fund raiser,
and this event was a big success for the film festival. This is an
advanced copy of what's called Soap Opera Weekly. There are
three other of this type of item that's going to be out that hits the
newsstand today. On the back page of this is all about the golf
tournament that we had with the celebrities and starts out by
just saying, very quickly, "Guiding Liglht stars turned out in full
force to support the Marco Island Film Festival student program
in Naples, Florida, April 28th to 29th." we couldn't afford to pay
for that kind of advertisement. We have three other items
coming out today that will be showing the same thing.
So these are some of the spin-offs that we see by your
investments of the past years are finally beginning to take hold
Page 96
May 22, 2001
and benefit the county overall. And we're thankful for your
previous and past support and look forward to any questions and
the future support you can give us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board?
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not a question but a comment. I
want to thank you and Pat Barry for coming forward with the idea
of taking this thing on the road to Immokalee. If there is ever a
place that will appreciate it -- and what we were talking about
was films would have -- either be Spanish films with English
subtitles or English films with Spanish subtitles. We were talking
about it, the possibility of premiering some of the major releases
that will take place for the actual film festival in Immokalee. I'm
sure they'll appreciate this very much when the time comes.
MR. DAILEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any comments, questions on behalf of
the board?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you do have one registered
speaker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right.
MR. OLLIFF: Pamela -- I believe it's Nesheim.
MS. NESHEIM: Good -- good afternoon, actually, now. My
name is Pamela Nesheim, and I am the executive director of
Naples Winter Wine Festival. I appreciate the opportunity to
address the commissioners and for their time.
Just to explain a little bit why I'm here to support the
festival, let me introduce exactly who we are. Fifteen months
ago 18 families in Naples came together with $170,000 of their
own seed money to form the Naples Children and Education
Foundation. This foundation was based on a vision that an
annual event provides over 80 percent of that money to charity.
This event is called the Naples Winter Wine Festival. This three-
Page 97
May 22, 2001
day annual event benefits charity but specifically local charities.
The Boys and Girls Club of Collier County and Youth Haven
received a $1.1 million check each on April 24th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who was the second one? Boys
and Girls -- oh, Youth Haven.
MS. NESHEIM.' We have now set our sights for the 2002
event. In order to meet or exceed the money raised for 2001, the
Naples Winter Wine Festival, once again, needs the community's
support. The tourism alliance has proposed another similar
event. This event mimics many aspects of the Naples Winter
Wine Festival. This -- over the next decade we anticipate to raise
close to $15 million. We ask the officials governments -- excuse
me, government organizations of Collier County to please not
take that chance with the children's money. The founders of the
Naples Children and Education Foundation have offered their
assistance and support to an event that happens weeks from this
one proposed. This is the Marco Island Film Festival. We asked
the government officials to please support this festival. It is a
very worthy event, and we feel that the founders and the
community should really make their efforts towards marketing
this. Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are -- I've heard this rumor.
I've gotten a lot of calls about there being some potential
competing wine festival. And I checked with staff, and as of last
week late there was no such application filed. And I -- I'll go on
record as saying I'm not going to do anything that would compete
with this very successful event. That's the last thing that the
government needs to be doing is getting in the way of something
that you've already done that is so wonderful and providing so
many benefits for the county citizens for our children. But I --
Page 98
May 22, 2001
unless there's something new, there's not an application on file
that my staff could find.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Mac'Kie, put me
right below your name for being on record too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That saves the taxpayers a lot of
money.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We're getting off track
here. Could we stay on the subject, please?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'd like to stay on the subject.
What was the purpose for pulling this to -- MS. NESHEIM: I -- I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What was the purpose for pulling this
item?
MR. MIHALIC: Because the applicants wanted to talk to you
about asking for additional money above the $50,000
recommended by the tourists council.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I will share with you the feeling
of-- the Tourist Development Council of which I have the
privilege of chairing has felt that this project has been funded by
public dollars. It is always seed monies to start projects. They
are doing very well. As a mart -- part of public record, they said
that if they didn't have any money from this, they would be able
to go forward and do it on their own. The Tourist Development
Council recommended $50,000 for this year as the final year
because it felt that this project and what it's doing could stand
on its own two legs. And it's my recollection that the TDC money
is set aside for in these areas. I supported that motion on the
part of the council. I will continue to support it. I think $50,000
was a reasonable amount of money to devote to this particular
project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I agree.
Page 99
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I have questions about that. I
mean, I think we need to won -- and I wonder whether or not the
concept of seed money is the right way to go for these events or
if we want to fund successful events to allow them to grow to
develop a real market for off-season tourism or shoulder season,
whatever we call it now.
So I wondered now -- I would be willing to support something
more than $50,000 because as I read it, it looked like,
Commissioner Carter, that the TDC was only interested in
supporting the advertising and promotion budget associated with
this event, and that's not a limitation that I think exists anymore
that's particularly important to me. But I'm one vote. I would -- I
-- I would like -- before I would support a specific dollar amount, I
would like to see what it does to the budget overall, how much
money there is, those kinds of questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, there's limited amount of dollars,
I will tell you right now, to support any of and all of these efforts.
And if we've taken your time, I apologize. Okay. If you can just
hold the microphone.
There's a limited amount of monies thoroughly discussed.
It's a question of how you're going to help a number of groups
that come. And the purpose, again, was to get them started and
up and rolling.
This organization -- there's a question in terms of measuring,
if you're trying to say does it stimulate people to come here for
rooms and beds -- for rooms and eats, that's a whole gray area in
terms of how you measure that. No one could come up with a
definition and defined way of doing this. It does not detract from
the fact that it's an important event in the community. But I
think we could find a lot of events in this community that are
important, they accomplish a lot of goals. And I am going to stay
with my position that I think we've got them off the ground.
Page 100
May 22, 2001
They're running well. They're well organized. Godspeed. Let
them go do it, but I think it's time to pull the dollar plug.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- I'd like to comment also. First of
all, I'm very impressed with how many magazines and news
articles are distributed throughout the United States. That's --
that's, of course, the prime motivation behind this, is giving us
exposure here.
Second of all, I've been there. What an -- what an
outstanding experience. I hope everybody in the audience gets
to sit on the beach on a lawn chair as the sun sets and watch a
movie with the waves crashing in. It -- there's nothing like it in
the whole world.
But, thirdly, I have to say that I think it's important that we
finance this because it takes at least three years for any good
project to get off the ground and continue to grow and have a
positive footing so...
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's why the council continued to
support for this year, figured that we're going to accomplish that
goal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was wondering if Jeff -- I'm sorry --
Greg had any particular dollar in mind.
MR. MIHALIC: Well, I was just going to talk to Commissioner
Mac'Kie about the dollars she mentioned they were all
recommended for advertising. In your package you do have the
amended Exhibit A. $20,000 of TDC money went to public
relations; 7500 will go to paid advertising; 20,000 will go to film
industry special guests; 1500 for office equipment; and 15 -- a
thousand for film equipment rentals. That's where the 50,000 is
projected to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And do you have a suggestion as to
what you need -- I saw the 150,000 budget and the 50,000
budget. Where do you think you're lacking to a point where it
Page 101
May 22, 2001
would be a detractor in making this an outstanding benefit or an
outstanding event?
MR. MIHALIC: I think I would really like to take the
opportunity here to say that we're not -- we brought this forward
to the TDC and we bring it forward to you not in the sense of
taking away anything of what you've done but bringing forward
an opportunity for the county to consider the possibility that they
could use the film festival differently than how and roll-wise that
we've been used to get it going. Now we're up and we're going.
Can the county capitalize on the film festival for its benefit?
And that's partly why we brought this up to the TDC meeting
and again today. We certainly don't want to go against any
recommendations from the TDC, and certainly Mr. Carter was
there. We're fully in agreement with the TDC, and we appreciate
the support. We bring it up only as something for you-all to
consider that this is an event you've invested in. You've brought
it along to this point. It's your opportunity now. If you want to
fund more money, to get more exposure for Collier County, we
certainly are a vehicle ready for that opportunity.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' And I appreciate you saying that
you support the first development council in their decision. And,
therefore, I make a motion that we support the decision of the
TDC to fund this for $50,000.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(Those in favor responded.)
Opposed by the same sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
I'll second that motion.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Page 102
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-2.
Thank you.
MR. DAILEY: Thank you very much.
Item #8E1
AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATIONS
TO PURCHASE IMPROVED PROPERTY AT 2373 HORSESHOE
DRIVE (LOTS 14 AND 15, EAST NAPLES INDUSTRIAL PARK) -
STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That takes us to the next item. If we
can do this before lunch, Commissioners, that would take us to
E-I, authorize staff to proceed with negotiations to purchase
improved property on Horseshoe Drive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'll make a motion to
approve that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's easy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion and a second. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0 and --
MR. OLLIFF: I'll take -- I'll take the opportunity just at least
to introduce Chuck Carrington. He's your new real properties
director. And he's the person that you heard good things about
from Lee County counterpart when we were at our joint meeting.
Chuck, great presentation. I'll get you to do the next one that we
have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thanks for the presentation.
Page 103
May 22, 2001
Item #8G1
CONSIDERATION OF THE CREATION OF A SERIES OF "HORIZON
COMMITTEES" AND APPOINTMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS TO
EXISTING COMMITTEES TO DEVELOP COUNTY POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY ISSUES -
STAFF TO BRING BACK FINAL RESOLUTIONS
What about G-l, Commissioners? Is there any need for a big
discussion on this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd make a motion to approve
that item.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Mac'Kie --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner--second by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor? Questions? Discussion? County manager.
MR. OLLIFF: I got to jump in quick. The only -- the only
comment that I would make is we did find that there is an
affordable housing commission that already exists that very
much reflects the -- the resolution that was created for this work-
force housing commission, and it has four appointees from the
City of Naples, five from Collier County. Frankly, it is -- it is a
committee that I was not familiar with, but it represents both
development, affordable housing developers, banking and
finance, the City of Naples, and Collier County representation.
And so there is also another opportunity perhaps simply to assign
a liaison to an existing committee as opposed to creating
something new again.
And I will tell you, David Ellis, for example, is one of the
members. And most of the people that you would look for to -- to
Page 104
May 22, 2001
serve on a new committee are already serving on this one. Greg
tells me from the affordable housing perspective you would
probably be hard pressed to get ten additional people other than
the ones that are already serving on this committee. My
suggestion would be that you -- we look at that.
The other thing that I wanted to point out is that I'm not
looking for final approval today because I need to bring these
back under an umbrella ordinance, and I was just looking
conceptually, is this something you-all are comfortable with, this
direction. And if so, I would bring back something that mimics
this, a final-approval item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to amend my motion to
-- to change the direction on the affordable housing to -- to utilize
the existing committee much in the same way that we offer
green space, and -- and I'll tell you that one of the things that I'm
going to be doing as soon as I start with this green space
committee is asking them if it might need to be broadened, if the
membership of it might not be completely -- might not be
thorough, because I think there are -- there are interests in the
community like, for -- for example, the ag industry that's not, I
don't think, adequately represented on the green space
committee. I'm going to ask the existing committee if they
would be willing to consider expanding that membership. But I
don't want to lose the work that's already been done, and I don't
want to duplicate it. And so I think that same theory could work
on affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I discuss that for just a
moment and say that I agree that I would never to want duplicate
the others' efforts, and I do want to gain by the experience that
they have. I was hoping to think out of the box and -- and get
some fresh ideas. Sometimes after a while a team that's working
together becomes stale, and they need some new thinking. And I
Page 105
May 22, 2001
-- I would like to add some components that aren't there right
now, and yet I would like to be a part of the other one. We can
work that out.
MR. OLLIFF.' So perhaps I could just give direction to bring
back a final resolution for all of the existing committees as
recommended but then work with Commissioner Fiala and see
about an expanded role, perhaps, on the existing affordable
housing commission, and we'll bring that back as a final item if
that's okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll make that a form of a
motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can second mine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. And I'm--we're staying, I'm
sure, within your framework that we have discussed this, as the
EDC has, that we are ready to recommend that the economic
development be a part of our growth management plan. So I'd
like to see that incorporated in the final presentation back to us.
Just a comment, that that be a part of the motion.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
Motion carries 5-0. I assume we had no public speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We stand adjourned until
1:30. (A.
(A lunch break was held from 12:30 p.m. To 1:36 p.m.)
(The proceedings recommenced with Commissioner Mac'Kie
not present.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Board of County Commissioners is now
in session again, and it is about 1:35.
Item #9A
Page 106
May 22, 2001
SETTLEMENT OFFER OF $9,800 IN THE CASE OF KIMBERLY D.
DALTON V. ISLES 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 -
OFFER ACCEPTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,800
We're now moving on the agenda to Item H-9, county
attorney's report, A.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Pettit,
assistant county attorney here on Item 9-A, which has been
before you several times before as we've had ongoing settlement
negotiations with plaintiff in the case of Dalton versus Collier
County. At this time the plaintiff has agreed to settle this case
for $9800. I recommend that settlement to you. Previously, as
you'll recall, we had been at $7,801.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we settle for $9800.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I hear a second from Commissioner
Fiala. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.}
(Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4 --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Five.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 5-0. Thank you.
Item #9B
APPROVAL OF LEGAL COUNSEL IN THE CASE OF THOMAS
Page 107
May 22, 2001
WAJERSKI V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL- DAVID E. BRYANT,
ESQUIRE APPROVED
That takes us to Item 9-B, approval of legal counsel in the
case of Thomas Wajerski versus Collier County, et al.
MR. PETTIT: This is a case that actually began in 1995, and
it's undergone several transmutations, I guess, is the word. The
case as originally filed was tried and the county won. And the
lawyer that handled that was David Bryant. He took the case
when he was here as an assistant county attorney, and he
handled it for about a year. He left the county attorney's office.
The county attorney's office and Mr. Walker in risk management
felt he was best suited to continue on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved 5-0.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work.
Item #9C
REPORT ON MEDIATION AND REQUEST FOR BOARD DIRECTION
IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY V. COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
MICHAEL F. STEPHEN, PH.D., AN INDIVIDUAL, MICHAEL T. POFF,
P.E., AN INDIVIDUAL, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, AN
ILLINOIS CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA, T.L. JAMES AND COMPANY, A LOUISIANA
Page 108
May 22, 2001
CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, A TEXAS
CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, CASE NO. 00-1901-CA-TB, NOW PENDING IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL COURT IN AND
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That moves us to Item 9-C, report on
the mediation and request for board direction in the lawsuit
entitled Board of County Commissioners of Collier County --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't see our lawyer.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- etc., etc.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is our lawyer here?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I think they're
in the elevator en route. So I can start it, and they can come in;
or you can go, perhaps, to 10-A or B if you wish to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a process question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm uncertain about -- this is the
first time I've ever in my six years participated in a mediated
settlement agreement at the county commission. And as I
understand mediation, whatever we discuss today -- should we
not settle the case, it would -- both it -- both our discussions and
our attorney's opinion is written to us, and he's met with each of
us individually. And that would be admissible, if I understand
that correctly.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the communications you have from your
client are privileged and confidential at this point in time. The
statements that you may make on the record today are, of
course, in the public context and may potentially be used in
litigation should settlement not be achieved in the course of the
Page 109
May 22, 2001
board's discussion and decision-making today. So Mr. Steve
Siegfried will be speaking to you in a little more detail about that.
But, yes, in fact, to some degree we're going to talk to you in a
bit circumscribed fashion concerning the case. The mediation
proceedings that were held just under two weeks ago that lasted
for the better part of two very long days are privileged and
confidential in the particular aspects, and discussions that were
had therein are not going to be discussed with any specificity, I
can assure you.
I'd also like you to know that in the audience today is
Michael Poff, one of the named defendants in the case. Also,
seated a few rows back from us right here, is Mr. Ted Tripp,
representing T. L. James, the contracting -- contractor dredging
company. And with us today are Mr. Steve Siegfried, our outside
counsel, whom you have met; and also Doug Mann from Coastal
Planning Consultants, Inc., our engineering expert and consultant
that we've used. As you know also, Bill Mountford has assisted
us in this process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weigel, we do have a question
from Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are there any speakers today?
MR. WEIGEL: There are no signed up speakers, the county
manager tells us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have to stand and come to the
microphone and identify yourself.
MR. MOUNTFORD: I just got an e-mail --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Identify yourself.
MR. MOUNTFORD: My name is William Mountford, assistant
county attorney, and Mr. Boggess advised me in his e-mail two
minutes ago that he will be unable to attend today. So I just
wanted to make --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to make a motion
Page110
May 22, 2001
that we approve the settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion by members of the
board?
MR. WEIGEL.' I'll tell you what. I know you know, based on
our individual discussions, a little bit about the settlement
agreement. But I do think we need to create a little record here
so we may go forward so that there's some specificity to your
settlement. With that I'd like Mr. Steve Siegfried, our outside
counsel, to provide some discussion.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Steve Siegfried of Coral Gables, and I've been what's known as
outside counsel in this matter. I've had meetings with each of
you individually and discussed with you the outcome of the
mediation. I provided you with a package of an offer or offers
that were provided to the county to settle the matter of Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County versus Coastal
Engineering and T. L. James Company, what has been commonly
known as the rock case or the rock problem case in Naples
beach.
For the record, David, do we submit the -- did you submit the
proposals or the offers? Do we have to do that, or can I just tell
them what the offers were?
MR. WEIGEL: I think you can just tell them what the offers
are,
MR. SIEGFRIED: The offers came from Coastal Engineering.
The offer from Coastal Engineering to settle in exchange for a
complete release -- and I'll explain what they mean by that in a
second -- a complete release of all responsibility. The offer from
Coastal is $800,000. The offer from T. L. James Company, the
contractor for the ]ob, was $500,000, for a collective offer of $1.3
million to settle the claim.
Page 111
May 22, 200'1
In exchange for the money, if we decided to accept it,
payment would be made within 30 days of acceptance. The
commissioners would be asked to sign a complete release, a
general release, which means that latent defects are waived. In
-- let's say -- let's -- as an analogy, let's say that this was the
construction of a building, this building, and you had a claim for
all the defects in the buildings that you knew about, but you
didn't know about a problem with the concrete, and you maybe
didn't know about that for 12 years. That's known as a latent
defect. And normally, as your counsel, I would advise you not to
waive latent defects.
This is a -- this was a beach nourishment project. And in
speaking to our experts, we probably would have seen
indications of additional rock problems in other parts of the
beach. So the -- the issue of whether or not we should waive,
quote, latent defects is not as important an issue as it would be
in a building. However, you need to understand that if a year
from now we find rock buried 6 feet below the sand at another
location at the beach, we can't make a claim any longer against
Coastal Engineering or T. L. James. Those claims would be
waived. It's a complete release.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask a question on that
point? To what extent -- to what extent have we done the
research to determine whether or not we have discovered all of
the rock on the beach?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, again, as I said before the
meeting, if I ask a question that's inappropriate, please just tell
me so I don't ask about --
MR. SIEGFRIED: Let me just show you something that --
Humiston & Moore was retained by the commissioners. I don't
know if you can see this. It's called a post-rock removal volume
Page 112
May 22, 2001
computation. And they did a study which I could provide you
with, and this is one of the pages in the study. But they took
samples of three sections of the beaches that were nourished:
The Vanderbilt Beach, the area north of Third Avenue, and the
area south of Third Avenue.
The area south of Third Avenue was screened, thoroughly
screened, and the major rock removal project occurred in that
area. The area north of Third Avenue was not screened, and that
was primarily because there was not an indication -- FDEP did
not indicate that they thought that they had a ma]or rock
problem there. The -- the samples taken from that portion
indicated that there is a greater percentage of rock than you
would see in a native beach or -- and a greater percentage of
rock than is in the nourished beach which was screened -- which,
incidentally, is less than what you'd expect in a native beach.
And Vanderbilt Beach is someplace in that -- in the range of a
little bit in excess of native beaches from the Humiston Moore
reports. So you paid somebody to do that.
Now, in order to do an accurate study, you'd have to
probably spend, I don't know, thousands and thousands of dollars
to go and actually take a backhoe and tear up the beach to
determine whether there's anything there. But your expert Doug
Mann is here, and he could probably comment on that. He
indicated to me before coming here today that because of the
weather and a natural erosion of the beach, we probably would
have seen signs that rock was buried below the sand in those
locations if it, in fact, was.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A related question is if, in fact,
that sometime, ten years from now, we find out that there are
flaws in the Humiston & Moore study, we're not waiving any
cause of action that we might have against them?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Yeah. But I don't think that you'd have a
Page 113
May 22, 2001
claim against Humiston & Moore because it's like I explained to
you, when the CEC did their testing, they test, you know, at a
specific location. It's not a representation by Humiston & Moore
that the entire beach didn't have rock. I don't think there's any
real way to demonstrate that.
However, from the records that we've seen -- and I think the
expert could tell you better than I. From the records we've seen,
we don't see an indication that there's a rock problem in those
areas.
But if you did find it later on, this is over. I mean, everybody
wants an end to it, and the defendants want an end to it if we
agree to settle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does the DEP -- has -- their
consent order, does it give us any indication as to whether or not
they think we have discovered all of the rock?
MR. SIEGFRIED: I -- maybe Bill could answer that better
than I can.
MR. MOUNTFORD: Bill Mountford again. And I've been
dealing with DEP on an ongoing basis, and to answer your
question, Commissioner, in their proposed consent order in
paragraph 9(A)(3), they wanted to know about the sampling
procedures. In the original corrective protocol, for lack of a
better term, the sampling procedures were set up, and they've
been used all along. And since those sampling procedures have
been implemented, there's never been anything untoward or
leading anybody to believe that there were any additional rocks
or any other form of nonspecification material on any of our
beaches. And that is not one of the issues that we have with the
DEP at the present time, and that's as of last week when I spoke
with the general counsel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I know, as you do, I get a lot
of e-mails from people who are -- well, Mr. Boggess and Mr.
Page 114
May 22, 2001
Hermes and some of those people who -- frankly, they get so
complicated and so vociferous that it's difficult to follow all of
them. But I think that in some of those there are allegations that
there is another layer of rock waterward of the beach. Is that
something that has been investigated?
MR. MOUNTFORD: To my knowledge, I am not aware of that.
They may make those allegations, but it's nothing more than
what came to the forefront all along in this litigation with regards
to the issue of that one section of dual layering on the Naples
beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We probably should hear from our
engineering expert on that. I hadn't -- I apologize for springing
these questions on you. I hadn't thought about the waiver of
latent -- I have another issue with regard to the width of the
beach that I'll be wanting to hear questions (sic) on, but I hadn't
thought about this waiver of latent defects until today. I
apologize I didn't ask you these ahead of time.
MR. MANN: Douglas Mann, Coastal Planning and
Engineering, Boca Raton, Florida. There were allegations made
that there were rocks further offshore in the surf zone. Some of
those result from the findings that occurred during the mediation
process within the area between 3rd Avenue South and 15th
Avenue South. Those areas were investigated and were directed
to be cleaned up in that particular area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say that again. Those were
investigated and were cleaned up?
MR. MANN: Yes. Between 3rd Avenue and 15th Avenue
South.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm having trouble hearing you.
My problem. So to your -- to the best of your knowledge, we've
identified all of the rock?
MR. MANN: I'm not sure you have identified all the rock.
Page 115
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell me what statement you can
make.
MR. MANN: There are -- Humiston & Moore made
investigations into certain sites with specific locations outside
the areas that had been remediated. They did find the presence
of some rock, though it -- albeit at Iow levels. Whether that is
continuous throughout the entire rest of the beach is unknown.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as to that waterward
identified rock, state again what you said. I didn't understand
that. You said there was some indication that there was rock in
the surf.
MR. MANN: Between 3rd Avenue South and 15th Avenue
South. That's the area that has been cleaned up, and that rock
was, according to records, cleaned up in that area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, maybe I can help you a bit.
What we want to do here is add together the statements that are
being made in this subject matter. Bill Mountford has indicated
to you the DEP has told us that they are not aware of rock or
significant rock problems, significantly different than a native
beach, in other areas of the county.
Mr. Mann is telling you that the rock that was even in the
surf area was extensively cleaned up by the Caddonhead
operation between 3rd Avenue South and 15th Avenue South,
that area of the city north of and just south of the pier. Part of
our discussion today as a -- in talking about settlement of the
case has to do with what we know and what we may have to
expend to know more.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I understand.
MR. WEIGEL.' And we look at risks and certainty. We have a
-- a settlement amount before you which is a certain amount that
would be paid in -- within approximately 30 days of an approval
Page 116
May 22, 2001
by the board, money that gets back working for us as opposed to
preparing for litigation. We know that both sides have spent
significant amounts with the preparation to this amount -- to this
extent, with probably an equal amount to be spent to go to and
through trial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Again, David, if I ask questions I
shouldn't ask, tell me. But how much money have we spent so
far?.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, as of April 30th, we had spent 181,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they had spent about that,
each, probably.
MR. WEIGEL: We have -- we have information from them in
that regard. Unless Mr. Siegfried indicates, I won't comment.
But I will say we know of significant expense on their part. I
don't want to provide a laundry list of expenses, but we've been
privy to and learned quite a bit.
MR. SIEGFRIED: At least with respect to one of the
defendants, Coastal Engineering, we know, because they have a
policy that has a maximum amount to it, which is a million
dollars. But that policy gets reduced by legal expenses or expert
fees. Right now we have a representation -- and that's part of the
-- the materials that I've given you. We have a representation
from counsel for Coastal that they've already spent over
$200,000 in the defense of the claim, thereby reducing the
amount of available insurance proceeds should we go forward.
And as we go forward, that amount gets reduced.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, of course, that includes
your fee, too, sir.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, no. My fee doesn't get reduced from
their policy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. But I mean, we have to -
Page 117
May 22, 2001
MR. SIEGFRIED: Right. You have to still pay me.
MR. WEIGEL-- What I wanted to mention, though, is the fact
that as we go forward to either prepare for further prosecution of
this case with a jury trial and some of the uncertainty that we
know comes from that, also requires us to go forward and -- and
check out the beach further to see -- and further try to verify the
extent of damages that we've already claimed in the complaint.
As you know, it requires not county staff. It requires experts like
the Humiston Moores or others to come and do that, and the
costs are significant as we go forward, and we don't know if we'll
get money back. We may not increase the claim -- or I should say
the settlement amount that we have right now.
So we have looked at the idea of assurance and certainty as
opposed to the risks of litigation, and we know the significant
costs we have to go forward. And it's not that we don't think we
have good-faith claims, good-faith case, but there is certainly in
litigation one thing we are certain, that there is uncertainty in
the result when we're talking about sophisticated comprehensive
litigation well prepared by counsel on both sides.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's go to Commissioner Mac'Kie's
other question if we might.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The width issue. May I just say
just to sort of frame the question, as I looked at -- and please
stop me -- because, again, I haven't done this before with a
mediated settlement, so stop if me if I start saying something I
shouldn't say. As we -- as I evaluated this case, I saw that our
damages are somewhere in the amount of -- is it okay to say
that?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A million five. It looks to me like
we've spent about a million five to solve the problems of the
rocks on the beach. And so if we get a million three and don't go
Page 118
May 22, 2001
to trial, that seems to be a pretty good result.
The other question, though, for me becomes the value of
what we contracted for by -- in the area of hurricane protection
by the width of the beach. And we got about 20 percent, if my
recollection is right, less beach than we contracted for in Naples.
In some places we got more, but we got about 20 percent less
sand than we expected to get. Now, I understand the following:
I understand that we paid by the yard. I don't think for a
moment, Commissioner Carter, that we paid for a grain of sand
that we did not get. You know, we paid for the sand that we got;
we didn't pay for sand that we didn't get. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there is something in the
diminution of the value of the asset we purchased with regard to
the width of the beach. Part of the asset that we purchased was
shore protection, storm surge protection. And my question on
the width of the beach is, should we have gotten more sand if
they had worked harder or faster or more efficiently, or what
testimony do we have to that question?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, I'll tell you what the testimony would
be from the defendants, whether I agree with it or not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. SIEGFRIED: The defendants will demonstrate -- and I
showed you all photographs -- except for Commissioner Henning
which I spoke to on the phone; I wasn't able to show you the
photographs -- of the beach before and the beach now. And you
could see there's a considerable difference. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
MR. SIEGFRIED: The beach that we had before really, in
some locations, was nonexistent in certain areas, especially
around the Naples Beach Club. The beach that we have now is a
much larger and better beach. What the defendants will say is
Page 119
May 22, 2001
that they made best efforts. They worked 24 hours a day every
day from the start date, the date they could start, to the date
that they were prohibited from proceeding further by the permit,
and that was turtle nesting season.
In fact, your department -- one of the departments, I guess
the department of public works, got an extension to work beyond
the 1st of May to the 15th of May. And they will tell you -- the
defendants will tell you that they were out there every day. They
had crews being paid every day, and we didn't pay for downtime.
And they probably could have -- they may have made a claim for
downtime that I don't know whether we acknowledged or not,
but we didn't pay them. But there was 30 days, they will tell you,
that they couldn't work because of the weather.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And 30 days is what percentage
of the total amount of time?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Twenty percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The total amount of time that
was available to them to work, the amount of time that they
could not work due to weather was 20 percent?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Thirty days was approximately -- 150 days -
- did I get it right -- from November, I think -- I gave you the
chronology. From about November 17th or so to May 15th was
150 days.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'- Would you put those pictures on
the visualizer for the television audience out there?
MR. SIEGFRIED: This picture?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
beach pictures.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
somebody else maybe -- I'm sorry.
again?
MR. MANN: Douglas Mann.
No. The one there -- the actual
And while he's doing that, could
Would you tell me your name
Page 120
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I call you Doug?
MR. MANN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' If they lost 20 percent of time
available due to weather, how much less sand did we get than
what we had hoped to get, that we expected to get?
MR. MANN: You lost -- you did not receive 20 percent of the
volume you originally contracted for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that matches up pretty darn
well, the time lost for -- because the question that I have is, did
we -- did we lose time, that could otherwise have been spent
putting sand on the beach, fiddling around with rocks?
MR. MANN: No, you did not. The contractor would most
likely testify that his construction operation, that is the
placement of sand onto the beach, was -- went on at a speed and
a process that was independent of whether there was any rock
on the beach, whether he was cleaning up any rock at the Ritz-
Carlton, you know, the same process --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' So he sent extra people to do
that work.
MR. MANN: I don't -- I don't know that for a fact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because otherwise the people
who were working on the rocks could have been working on the
sand.
MR. MANN: You have to understand that the dredging
industry is a very capital-intensive process. And in order for
those types of companies to make money, they have to keep the
capital equipment operating as efficiently as possible. And they
can't -- if they have to pull someone off the beach to go do a
separate job, that doesn't mean the dredge won't operate.
They'll just make due without one guy on the beach.
MR. SIEGFRIED: These photographs were provided to us by
Coastal Engineering. During the mediation process, they were --
Page 121
May 22, 2001
you know, mediation is a time where everybody can say in a
privileged environment what their case will be, and we get a
chance to respond without a jury or a judge deciding the case.
So Coastal Engineering provided us with this photograph taken --
there's no date on it, but it's prenourishment of Lowdermilk Park,
Naples beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You need to back it out.
MR. SIEGFRIED: And this was the condition of the natural
beach that we had, and you could see there's not -- not that
attractive of a beach. But in any event, they gave us that
photograph.
This one was Second Avenue South prenourishment, and
there's quite a bit of rocks there, as well.
And then we had Second Avenue South again, a little -- I
guess a close-up of the same photograph.
This was -- this one was Park Shore taken on 12/29/96 before
the nourishment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But --
MR. SIEGFRIED: This was all before. And then they've got
some other photographs.
And then the next one was also Second Avenue South taken
before the nourishment.
And on 12 -- let me go -- now they have another series of
photographs, which is the same location before and after. This is
the view from Casa Grande towards La Playa Hotel. The one
above is before --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't see.
MR. SIEGFRIED: That's the before, and then the one below
is after.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, I don't have any question
about whether or not we got a benefit. My question is, did we
get the benefit for which we bargained? But please go ahead
Page 122
May 22, 2001
with those pictures and then we'll --
MR. SIEGFRIED: I was just asked to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was doing this for the benefit
of our viewers out there so they have a little better perspective
of what we're working with. We had the advantage of a 2 1/2-
hour session with these attorneys in private individually, so we're
way ahead of the curve on that. So we need to share this with
the rest of the public.
MR. SIEGFRIED: This is the view north from Lowdermilk
Park before and after. I've got only three more.
And then this is north from the Beach Club before and after.
And then Vanderbilt Beach Hotel, before and after.
And then this was another photograph of south of the Beach
Club, Naples beach, where you could see we had -- we really
didn't have much of a beach at all. So those were the
photographs that were given to us during the mediation process.
I know that this was not in response to your --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand.
MR. SIEGFRIED: -- your question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But on the issue of my question,
do you have the diagram -- and is it possible to put it on the
visualizer -- that shows what the profile of the beach would have
been had we gotten what we expected to get versus what we
ended up getting?
MR. SIEGFRIED: I gave -- I gave everybody this document,
and this document was generated purely as a guide. It's not
entirely accurate. It's close to accurate, but it's not exactly to
scale, and some of the -- some of the markings on here are off a
little bit. But it was for iljustrative purposes only at the
mediation. But what this -- what this shows is the Naples beach
portion of the entire project. It doesn't show Vanderbilt Beach
because Vanderbilt Beach, in fact, turned out to be as --
Page 123
May 22, 2001
basically, I think, as large as we had expected.
Here we have in green -- the outermost perimeter, which is
in green, is the -- is what is indicated on here as the beach that
we could have gotten if all of the sand from the borrow areas
was dredged. If we maximized the approximately 1.4 million
cubic yards of rocks that were contemplated -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sand.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Of sand. I got rocks in my mind -- of sand,
we could have had a beach this size. However, there's some
indication in the records that we may not have had that same
width of the beach because we could have deposited sand at
greater depths and still not had a beach as wide; right, Doug?
We could have had sand that's deeper in certain spots but not
necessarily as wide, with the same amount of cubic yards of
sand.
MR. MANN: I'm not sure I'm following your comment.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, if you put sand to a level of 7 feet, you
make it higher, the piles higher, and you don't spread it out as
wide, you'll have a narrower beach but a deeper beach. MR. MANN: Yes. You could do that.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Right. And there was some indication in
some locations on the beach that the sand was deeper, yet not
as wide as it could have been.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the yellow area, there --
although I know that's not, as you say, exactly to scale, but
that's generally the area where -- I think it was IIA, the troubling
borrow pit?
MR. SIEGFRIED: The yellow area was the area that really
disturbed everybody. This was what caused us all the problems.
There were rocks in that yellow area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the sand in that yellow area
came from which borrow pit?
Page 124
May 22, 2001
MR. SIEGFRIED: IIA. There were four borrow pits that were
being utilized. There was two, but one was broken down into
three. There was 6, NBIIA, -B, and -C. And it appears from the
records that the rocks, the majority of the rocks came from
NBIIA. And we call that dual layering area because, as you well
know, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you were on the commission at
the time, when they came before the commission and talked
about putting rocks as a bottom base layer and then putting sand
on top of it, which was -- that approach was discarded about ten
days later.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm not even going to get
into that piece of it right this second. But just back to the
numbers for analysis here, we have a out-of-pocket claim of
about a million five that has some weaknesses in it that I'm
certainly not going to state for the record, but it's not a hundred
percent. And out of that, without going to court, we get a million
three of that million five if we settle.
And we also settle on the question of whether or not we got
the benefit of our bargain and the width of the beach because we
accept the argument that we only paid for sand that we got, and
they could not reasonably have been expected to put more sand
on the beach because of the weather. And that's what I would
like to hear Doug say is true or not true. MR. MANN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then there's the latent
defect question that we have to analyze. Are there other pieces
of this puzzle?
MR. SIEGFRIED: I think you've -- I think you've got it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On that -- the picture of the
beach that you have there, where -- could someone just tell me
where the samples were taken by Humiston & Moore?
MR. SIEGFRIED: We have the Humiston 8, Moore report, but
Page 125
May 22, 2001
we'd have to sit and read it, I think.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the question I have, you
know, going back -- I'm pretty satisfied now on everything except
for maybe the latent defects and just worried a little about that.
But I remember what you were saying, Mr. Weigel, about, you
know, cumulatively looking at all the information.
So, okay, then my last question is, is there some element of
a penalty here to someone, whether it be our consultant or our
staff or whomever? And, you know, I'm sorry, but I'm the only
one who was sitting here when people smiled and nodded as
they looked at me with a straight face and told me dual layering
of rocks under sand was an acceptable method for renourishing a
beach. And, in fact, it's an absolute violation of the permit. Is
there some -- I mean, I guess there's not punitive damages
associated with this.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, in fact, you know, as part of the DEP
investigation, while we haven't seen final -- final reports, both the
county and CEC are subject to fines. I don't believe that we've
been fined yet, David. I think we're entering into a consent order,
but there is some action being considered.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Separate from this lawsuit?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Separate from this. And the investigation
commenced by some of the citizens is still ongoing. And whether
or not the state will take action, that's going to be for the state
to decide. This is -- what we're asking you to do is settle or
consider settling the civil aspect of this. Whether there'll be
other types of penalties resulting from this from any of the
parties involved will be decided by FDEP or the Army Corps of
Engineers. Those are the two governing bodies.
MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, public utilities, for the record. The
draft consent order, right now the penalty there is about $5,000,
and it's up for negotiation right now if that should be assessed
Page 126
May 22, 2001
against Coastal Engineering or against the county in that
process. I've looked through the draft consent order from FDEP.
The vast majority of the things that are on there have already
been done as far as remediation of the rocks on the beach from
that incident.
And the one perpetuating thing that we're going to have to do
is to go out there and rake it with our three rakes and three folks
that are out there and maintain it. And the county signed up to
have a quality beach, so that was a no-brainer on our part. And
whenever there is a rock that shows up, we get a call either from
the City of Naples through -- from Jon Staiger to our folks, we
have our folks dispatch out there, and pick them up whenever we
see them. So as far as the latent defects are concerned, if
something's showing up, may it be washed on shore from off
shore or it just shows up on the beach, we get it, and we're able
to pick it up.
And I talked to Harry at great length as we were coming
over. I said, "Okay, Harry, talk to me. There was one area that
was permitted for dual layering, and then there was the area that
wasn't permitted for dual layering. The area that wasn't
permitted, has it been completely cleaned up?"
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the dual layering that was
permitted was up by the Ritz, and it was for shell, not for burying
rock. Are we talking about the same thing?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: So the area that wasn't permitted has been
cleaned up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And were you on our staff, Mr.
Mudd, when we got our report from Humiston & Moore? Was it
something that you saw?
Page 127
May 22, 2001
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just looking for more people to
reassure me that we've adequately tested for latent defects.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Commissioner, I'll just restate. We had
Humiston Moore do the independent review over the project as a
whole. As Mr. Siegfried indicated, just like finding sand way out --
miles out, you make many representational test places and then
do draw some assumptions based upon, you know, geology and a
common knowledge standard in the industry, and I expect that's
what Humiston & Moore did.
At the same time we have -- DEP came along, particularly in
1998 and thereafter, and they themselves have not taken us to
any further task than where we are right now with the consent
order proposal that Mr. Mudd has indicated. And by the way,
DEP, as you know, with not only the intercommunication from the
county, from Coastal, from
Mr. Boggess, and any other interested citizen or counsel,
what have you, has had significant opportunity to review the
procedures that Coastal Engineering implemented during the
course of our project, which was an approximate six-month
project, finished in May of 1996, five years ago.
And so there's been, I think, at least three -- what I'm talking
about, three reviews of -- of the -- of the problem areas or of our
project as a whole that takes us to this point right now where,
yes, we could hire another Humiston & Moore or someone else in
their stead to do additional research, check different spots, apply
different assumptions. Will that be diminishing returns? I can't
tell you for sure. If they hit the jackpot and find some more
rocks, they may say, "Yes, we found some more rocks." Will we
win in court? I can't say for sure, but we've spent more money to
get to that point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Other questions, board
Page 128
May 22, 2001
members?
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Yeah. How can you tell if they're
rocks from this project or if they're something that washed up
naturally?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be a big issue for
litigation if we were to continue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other questions?
I have a motion. I have a second. I'm going to call the
motion unless you have another comment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- I actually had one other question
for our lawyer with regard to DEP. The consent order that's
currently in draft form -- is that what it is, or maybe it's --
MR. WEIGEL.' It's under review. And, in fact, Mr. Mountford
has provided a fairly comprehensive response in the last week,
I'd say --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've seen it.
MR. WEIGEL: -- to them. And so even the $5,000 as a -- as a
potential imposition on the county we question, I think,
significantly and appropriately. We do -- we will be discussing a
little further a potential mitigation project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's -- let me ask you my
question, because it really -- it is, when DEP does consent orders,
is it their practice to try to cover everything in one consent order
related to this permit, or will they come back over time and
continue to dog us?
I mean, we don't get a general release from the DEP, but is it
their practice to -- is it reasonable for me to assume from this
consent order that they are satisfied that these are all of the
issues, or does DEP only respond -- I'm thinking of the
commission on ethics where you have to put it in front of them
and do all the work and tell them what's gone wrong before they
will investigate it. Is DEP like that, or does DEP get a red flag
Page129
May 22, 2001
and follow it?
MR. WEIGEL.' Well, as you know, they have been looking at
us in regard to permit compliance. We have a permit, it has
standards, and we must comply with that permit. So at this point
in time with the post-project permit compliance review that they
are doing, this is where they are. And the fact is that I can't say
that this precludes them from finding more post-project
noncompliance in the future. But I would state -- and it looks like
Mr. Mudd's ready to say something, and I look forward to it -- is
that -- is that I think we're doing the right thing on the beach
right now. I think we're working in concert with DEP.
Back to a remark you made earlier about being punitive, DEP
knows all the parties here, and we -- we haven't seen extreme
punitive motions from them on any party that was involved in the
project. But they are looking for permit compliance and
remediation. Jim.
MR. MUDD: The consent order -- draft consent order has a
maintenance clause in it that goes for the life -- from now till
whenever. And so we're going to have to show them that we're
doing that process and have to do a report, and I can't tell you if
it's quarterly, semiannual, or annually because we haven't really
agreed to that process. We're going to have to report to them
about dollars that were spent, things that were done in order to
do that. So that's going to be there for a while. I don't see that
going away with this consent order.
But I don't think FDEP will come back to you and cite you
again for an incident in 1996. I think this consent order is
basically to bring it to some kind of conclusion because it's been
ongoing for a good five years. I think it's, "Okay, here's what was
done. The county spent $1.5 million remediating the rocks on
the beach. They've got a good maintenance program in that
process. They've gone the extra mile and in good faith want to
Page 130
May 22, 2001
have a quality beach." And I think that's what you have to show.
And I think FDEP is just trying to bring some conclusion to it,
some closure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- that's the issue you've
answered for me, that it's not their practice to cite us in 2205 for
something that happened in 1996 if they've already cited us for
what happened in --
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. Once this consent order is agreed
to by both parties, it brings closure to the rocks on the beach
incident that happened in the mid-'90s.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all my questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Thank you, the Board of County Commissioners. I know you were
brief. I think I spent about 30 hours in mediation on this. You
wonder why I'm strangely silent. I took to heart very much what
the mediator said. I would not want to be in court and work on
the other side of him. He was excellent. He worked diligently.
He took people -- everybody that comes to mediation has -- has
expectations. And when you leave is everyone totally happy?
No. But the fact that we worked for two days, we came back
with a proposal of the Board of County Commissioner -- and it's
before you now to see if it's acceptable -- I think speaks well of
the legal teams, it speaks well of the mediator, and everyone
that was involved.
If there's no further comment by legal counsels, I will call
the question. All in favor signify -- the motion, say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. And I thank you again,
Page 131
May 22, 2001
David. Your legal time -- or your team worked very hard on this,
and no one will probably appreciate what went into this.
I read thoroughly, Commissioner Mac'Kie, those documents
in which Commissioner Mac'Kie asked the right questions. And I
compliment you, Commissioner, in what you did and how you
tried to get things resolved many years ago.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2001-195 APPOINTING ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR.,
DAVID ROELLIG, JOHN P. STRAPPONI, JAMES L. SNEDIKER,
ASHLEY D. LUPO, ROBERT B. STAKICH, WILLIAM KROESCHELL,
ROBERT GRAY AND COUNCILMAN GARY GALLENBERG TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
All right. Let us move forward, if we might, to the next
item. I have about five or six minutes on the clock before our
2:30 time certain program, and I would like to deal with some of
the Board of County Commissioner appointments. If we could go
there and accomplish that in the time that we have, I would
appreciate it, board. Let's go to 10-A, appointment of members
to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make a motion we approve Mr.
Pires, Mr. Roellig, Mr. Strapponi, Mr. Snediker, Mr. Lupo, Stakich,
Kroeschell, Gray, and Galleberg.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a pair of seconds. Motion by
Commissioner Mac'Kie. Second, I think I heard first out by
Commissioner Coletta. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 132
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Can I make a comment quickly
for Mr. Oliff? I don't think it's appropriate for a category to say
"Does not possess qualifications." I just don't think that's
appropriate. You know, there'd be other ways of giving us
information than that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner.
Item #1 OB
RESOLUTION 2001-196, DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
Move to Item 10-B, recommendation to declare a vacancy on
the Hispanic--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie;
second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2001-197, APPOINTING SUSAN CALKINS AND
YOLANDA CISNEROS TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY
BOARD - ADOPTED
Takes us to the appointment of members to the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I make a motion that we appoint
the two people that are so listed here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Page 133
May 22, 2001
Coletta; a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie to appoint the
members of the Hispanic Advisory Board as was recommended.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2001-198, APPOINTING KATE GODFREY-LINT AS A
REGULAR MEMBER AND KATHLEEN CURATOLO AS AN
ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Item 10-E, appointment of a member to
the Collier County Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We skipped code enforcement.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sorry about that. 10-D, appointment of
a member to the Collier County Code Enforcement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to appoint Kate Godfrey-
Lint.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion to -- for Kate Godfrey-
Lint. I have a second by -- a motion by Commissioner Henning; a
second by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That means, then, that we should
also make an appointment for the alternate seat that this person
would be vacating.
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Should we do that in one motion,
or do you have a recommendation on that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have -- I'll amend it if you
want to make a recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would recommend Kathleen Curatolo.
Page 134
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
state that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
And I'll amend my motion to
I'll amend my second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2001-199, APPOINTING DAVID WOLFLEY TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - ADOPTED
Now, appointment of members to the Collier County Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve David
Wolfley.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that. Hello, board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sorry. A little slow there. I was
just trying to get to the page. Good choice.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #1 OF
RESOLUTION 2001-200, APPOINTING DEBORAH L. RUSSELL,
ALICIA POOLE, SHARON D. KING, BILL L. NEAL, AND MIKE HOY
TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED;
APPOINTMENTS FOR TAMIAMI TRAIL AND DAVIS BOULEVARD
BUSINESS OWNERS TO BE READVERTISED
Page 135
May 22, 2001
That takes us to 10-F, appointment of members to the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion, and
then I'd be open, you know, for filling this in. But we have seven
members to appoint. There's six applicants who live in the
district, in the Fourth District. I'd like to nominate all six of
those. And my suggestion for the seventh would be Laura
Holland, who lives in District No. 5, but does have a business and
some rental property in the area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we discuss that for just a
minute? As I was looking -- boy, this took me hours to go
through.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I notice that no one actually fit
into Category D and E, business owner in the Tamiami Trail (U.S.
41) corridor or the Davis Boulevard corridor. They had a question
mark by someone who said that they were born there, but she
doesn't live there anymore. They said someone was -- owned
some property, but they said in East Naples; they didn't say
where. And so I thought those two vacancies didn't really seem
to fit any of the people that we -- we had heard from.
The Bayshore resident, Deborah Russell, would have fit. The
Gateway Triangle resident would have been Alicia Poole. We -- in
fact, we had -- we had a letter encouraging us to vote for her.
Bill Neal would be the only one there from the MSTU as a
representative. And then we had a representative at large, but it
said who resides or engages in business, and that would have
been Mike Hoy. I didn't know -- it said Sharon King here as a -- I
have a question mark there -- as a Bayshore business owner. I
didn't know if she would be considered a Bayshore business
owner or not. But then the other two, I couldn't find a name to fit
Page136
May 22, 2001
into those categories.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's why my
recommendation was for the people who live in the district,
because we can't chose from people we don't have. You know, I
mean --
COMMISSIONER FIALA-' We don't advertise again for those
business positions, or do you just take -- whether they fill those --
I'm new at this stuff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no. It hasn't been our
practice but there's nothing to say that we couldn't do it. I don't
know -- I'd want to hear from Marlene about what that might do
to the schedule and the quorum and that kind of stuff. That's
why I basically wanted to choose from those applicants that we
have available.
MS. FOORD: For the record, Marlene Foord, planning
services.
Your minimum number of advisory board members must be
five. So as soon as you have five members appointed, we can go
ahead and get started with the meetings. I think the quorum is
probably three of those five members, or it may be four of the
seven members that would be appointed. So we can go ahead
and move forward even if you only have five or six members.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we could appoint five and
readvertise two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just strictly for businesses along
the Tamiami Trail and Davis Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to withdraw my motion,
and let's rethink it. Are you showing that there's a speaker on
this item?
MR. OLLIFF: I am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd love to hear from whoever
that is.
Page 137
May 22, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'll go ahead and call the public
speakers. Chuck Gunther.
MR. GUNTHER: Chuck Gunther with the triangle community
association. What -- one thing we'd like you to know is -- what
you're saying I think is great. I think you should readvertise for
those businesses. I'm glad to see you're picking just people from
the area. There was a couple people that applied that I think
were outside the area. We wanted to make sure you took it from
the area. So thank you very much. That's all I have to say.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And thank you, and make a little
plug for the association you've just formed.
MR. GUNTHER: We just formed the Freedom Triangle
Association in the triangle. Our people didn't like the name
Gateway. We went to Freedom. We feel that's what we're
fighting for, as many other people in the county, we think. And
we're glad to see the county working together with us. We're
working right now with the neighborhood cleanup.
We've had many people show up at our meetings, from 78 --
our lowest meeting was the one that one of your staff people
showed up at; we only had 31 people which really made me feel
bad. After 78 and 65, it was kind of discouraging. Our next
meetings we expect more. And the commissioners are always
welcome at our meetings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I've gotten wind of them now
and have them on my calendar and just commend you so much
for the work you're doing. An association in that area is what
has been so desperately needed, and I just wanted to give you
the chance to plug it and tell people to call you and join up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would love to be invited, and I
promise I won't say a word, ask a question, anything.
MR. GUNTHER: Just don't discuss between each other.
That's all. Thank you.
Page 138
May 22, 2001
(Several speakers at once.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Donna, Commissioner Fiala,
you had -- if I may, you had reviewed these for compliance with
the categories.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you go through that again?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. What I came up with was
Bayshore resident, Deborah Russell.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gateway Triangle resident, Alicia
Poole. Bayshore business owner, I had a question mark there,
Sharon King, because I believe -- if I -- if memory holds right, she
was on Dominion, and I figured that might have been in the
Bayshore category, but I was groping for that one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it is; is that right? Yes. I
think she satisfies that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Okay. And then the Bayshore
MSTU, the only one applied there was Bill Neal, and obviously he
would be a great choice anyway. And then the Bayshore Triangle
component -- or rather the at large representative, Mike Hoy, who
lived on Poplar, I think it was, or something like that. So those
were the five that I had put in there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you'll nominate those, I'll
second them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd like to make a motion to
nominate the five people that I just mentioned.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' And I guess we would ask Ms.
Filson to readvertise specifically for a Tamiami Trail business
owner and a Davis Boulevard business owner to loin us. But we
would have our five, so we could get started.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll amend it to say that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have a first by
Page139
May 22, 2001
Commissioner Fiala.
We have a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
All in favor
Opposed by the same sign.
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 2001-201, APPOINTING PAMELA LULICH, NANCY
SIEMION AND BRIAN DENNIS AS NON-VOTING MEMBERS; AND
GLENN E. WILT, MARK B. MORTON, THOMAS A. COLLINS, II, AL
MOORE, WILLIAM H. POTEET, JR., GARY GALLEBERG AND
BONNIE R. MACKENZIE TO THE 1-75 & GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Moves to Item 10 -- yeah, 10-H, appointment of a member to
the Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 10-G, I think, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 10-E, you said?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 10-G, appointment of members to the
1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you would indulge me, Mr.
Chairman, I'll go through there. What we have is three nonvoting
members, and I would like those nonvoting members to be
Dennis -- Brian Dennis, Nancy Siemion, and Paula (sic) Lulich. We
also have two from the City of Naples, naturally Mayor
MacKenzie and Councilman Galleberg. And then the rest of them
would be five voting members, along with the two voting
members from the City of Naples, naturally.
Al Moore has been very active in the interchange issue; Tom
Page 140
May 22, 2001
Collins, who lives in that area; Mark Morton is -- brings
tremendous --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- things to the table; and we
have two from the civic association, William Poteet and Glenn
Wilt. And that is a motion. And I would just like to state we have
two people that received the Citizen of the Year for Golden Gate
on this application, and that's Cheryle Newman and Glenn Wilt.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has the winner of that been
announced yet?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, it has.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And both of them won?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow. Congratulations.
second your nominations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
you just mentioned, please?
I'll
Could you repeat the people that
I remember a few of them: Al
Moore, Bill Poteet, Glenn Wilt, Mark Morton.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom Collins.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tom Collins, Gary Galleberg.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've got the other five down here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
and Wilt.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have a motion, and I have a
second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Poteet, Moore, Collins, Morton,
Item #10H
Page 141
May 22, 2001
RESOLUTION 2001-202, APPOINTING DAVID E. BRYANT TO THE
RURAL FRINGE AREA ASSESSMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
AND CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF KATHY PROSSER -
ADOPTED
Now I move to the appointment of a member to the --
MS. FILSON: Four members.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Rural Fringe.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- Rural Fringe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to recommend David
Brandt (phonetic}.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bryant. I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And would you please include
confirming Kathy Prosser as The Conservancy representative, Mr.
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you include confirming
Kathy Prosser as The Conservancy representative?
Yes. That's fine too. I'll include
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
that as part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
I will too.
We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta; a second by Commissioner Henning to
confirm the appointment representing The Conservancy of Kathy
Prosser and the representative to be Mr. David Bryant. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #101
Page142
May 22, 2001
RESOLUTION 2001-203, APPOINTING M. JAMES BURKE, JOHN
DOMENIE, CHRISTOPHER F. SUTPHIN AND GEORGE WERNER TO
THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Takes us to the last appointment item, which is 10-1,
appointment of members to the Pelican Bay MSTU.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I need to make a
record of my abstention on this for the same reasons as I've
stated on the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. I was going to ask you
what your position was. I appreciate that.
Let me, before I make the recommendation, say a couple
words. I believe that the community is to be proud that -- the
number of candidates that stepped forward for this. Some 16
volunteered to step forward to fill four positions. This speaks
very highly of the Pelican Bay community and their desire to be
active in this taxing authority. And this was not an easy decision
for me because there were a lot of people who always want,
quote, my person on the Pelican Bay MSTBU.
To the board, I took into consideration the area where
representatives were represented; when we had Ordinance 2000-
82 in place, that the people might have stepped up to run for
supervisor, and I think that always speaks well for people who
are willing to be elected by their constituency; community
experience, whether or not I got phone calls or interviews. I
looked at the MSTU's recommendations; and also what was
mentioned earlier today, could we add some new blood, some
new thinking, to that process to augment the fine people that are
there.
So my recommendations to the board will be as follows:
George Werner, who would have to be -- who would have to waive
the section allowing him an opportunity to serve a third term, but
Page 143
May 22, 2001
Mr. Werner has been a very stable force on that MSTBU. He was
desirous of doing it but would have stepped aside. But there was
an overall support in the community to invite George to continue
because of his balance that he has brought to the MSTBU
through the years.
Mr. Christopher Sutphin, who represents the Bay Colony
area and would be replacing Dr. Varley. That is the highest taxed
area in Pelican Bay, and I thought it was important that they
have a representation. The final two were gentlemen who -- and
also --
Mr. Sutphin also, I believe, volunteered to run as a
supervisor when that was a subject.
The third one is Mr. James Burke, who would be new. He
represents an important area in the community, and he is one
who has volunteered to step forward because of his concerns
and willingness to provide good, solid participation on that board.
And the fourth one is John Domenie, who has appeared
before this commission. And John has said if he was appointed,
he would resign from the property owners' association board of
directors. He would not put himself in a position of a conflict of
interest. But since he does represent a geographical area and a
sizable group, the property owners' association in Pelican Bay -- I
mean, he, as a part of that, understands their needs and wishes
and desires. To me that gives it balance.
So I'm recommending those four gentlemen to the Board of
County Commissioners. And I say there are a lot of fine people in
there, but in my judgment this morning as commissioners are
making the decisions and if it's my call, those are the four that I
recommend.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second from Commissioner
Henning. Any discussion?
Page 144
May 22, 2001
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
much.
Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries 4-0. Thank you very
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 2001-27, AMENDING ORDINANCE 74-50, AS
AMENDED BY 90-10, TO ADD MAXIMUM OFF-SITE DISCHARGE
RATES TO THE WIGGINS BAY BASIN AND THE HARVEY BASIN
AND TO CORRECT PROBLEMATIC SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF
FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS CAUSED BY
ELEVATING THE LOT SUBSEQUENT TO INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
OF THE RESIDENCE - ADOPTED
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you have one item left on your
agenda, and I could get three staff people out of here before your
next item if you could --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: With the indulgence of the community
from Vanderbilt Beach, I would like to do that item so that we
would not tie up staff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that 12-C-17
MR. OLLIFF: 12-C-1 is -- frankly, the only reason it's on the
consent -- on the regular agenda, because it is an ordinance that
requires adver --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Mac'Kie; a second by Commissioner Coletta. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
Page 145
May 22, 200t
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get a hair cut, Chrzanowski.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Zoom the camera on that man.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't he used to have real curly
hair?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Real curly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Didn't even recognize him. He must
have hit the same barber I did.
Item #10J
REQUEST FOR BOARD DIRECTION REGARDING SECTION
163.3215 F.S., VERIFIED COMPLAINT FROM VANDERBILT
SHORES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., VANDERBILT CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., THE MANSIONS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., GULF COVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., AND VANDERBILT BEACH AND BAY
ASSOCIATION, INC., CHALLENGING THE COUNTY'S APPROVAL
OF SDP-2000-108 FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACHCOMBER
RESORT AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESCINDED
AND BUILDING PERMIT REVOKED
Okay. It is now 20 minutes to three. This will not be a
short discussion, as I understand it. So is there -- Commissioner
(sic) Weigel, is there a break point in there, or do you want to go
forward? I'm -- whatever is the pleasure of the board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Let's go. And then if we
reach a point where we need to break a few minutes, we can.
Page 146
May 22, 2001
As you know, I had asked the board to reconsider the
reconsideration and are gracious enough to give us time to do
that. I have met with all parties in the community over the last
several weeks. We are at the point today where it's time to bring
it back to the board, and it will become a board decision in terms
of the information that's presented to you this afternoon. I wish I
could come here today and tell you that we have found an
amenable resolution to this. We haven't. All parties have pretty
strong positions in terms of how they feel about the issue.
I will compliment all the legal counsels that have been
present on all sides who have met as late as yesterday to see
where we might be in this situation. They have all worked hard.
They are truly representing the clients and -- as Mr. Weigel is
representing us, to try to see what we might do with this
situation. Therefore, I'm going to ask Mr. Weigel to present to
you where we are and what we've done. We'll take public input
on this, and then the board will need to make a decision. Mr.
Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to bring this issue back before the board. And, as
Dr. Carter indicated, county attorney office, John Dunnuck from
development services, Commissioner Carter himself have met
several times with the -- both the attorneys that have become
involved in the project -- and for purposes of the project, I'll
identify the attorneys with whom we have spoken. One is David
Rynders, who has been representing the neighborhood
associations and -- neighbors, as I will call them from time to
time in my discussion today -- the neighbors in Vanderbilt Beach
area, as well as Mr. Michael Volpe.
And we've also, of course, been working with Mr. Bruce
Anderson and George Varnadoe on behalf of Mr. Burke of
Aquaport, who is the owner and developer of the.92 acre lot for
Page 147
May 22, 2001
the project known as the Beachcomber Resort Hotel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, who is Mr. Volpe's
client?
MR. WEIGEL: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. Who is Mr. Volpe's client?
MR. WEIGEL: The same neighborhood associations that
David Rynders is representing. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry.
MR. WEIGEL.' And I see Mr. Anderson. I do not know if Mr.
Volpe is here. Fine. Great.
In any event, in our discussions our charge was several
things, and that was we -- we had before the board an agenda
item that had come to the board based upon a statutory review
requirement posed by the neighbors, the residents in the area of
the proposed project, and the board's standard of review for the
approval of a site development plan for the proposed 68-unit
hotel on the site, a.92-acre site.
The board was asked to review and approve, and the backup
materials showed the standard and the recommendation of
county attorney office at that time. The standard was, was the
staff approval of the Beachcomber Resort Hotel Site
Development Plan consistent with the county Growth
Management Plan? At the first hearing -- it was rather lengthy --
Mr. Rynders spoke at some length about what he considered to
be inconsistencies with the Growth Management Plan and the
Land Development Code.
Coming from that meeting and in the following
reconsideration approval of this board, we looked at what was
approved by -- had been approved by the county in its
administrative development review process. We also spoke and
listened to, very carefully, the residents in the area, the
neighbors as they call them. And we came to two or three pretty
Page 148
May 22, 2001
concrete conclusions: One was, the neighbors absolutely did not
want a 68-unit hotel there, and they felt that it was inappropriate.
And, in fact, they wouldn't have filed their official court
proceeding requiring the hearing that we had if they didn't have
that feeling.
We also learned from the developer and developer's counsel
that they felt absolutely entitled, under the rules of Collier
County, to build a 68-unit hotel on the site and that that was in
conformance with the size of the site and, in fact, all other Land
Development Code regulations and the Growth Management
Plan. And they vehemently denied that the approval by the staff
in its review of the proposed project and the site development
plan approval in the hands of the developer was, in fact,
inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan.
So starting with that, we looked to see what can we achieve
that might work in the area, something in the area -- in the term
of compromise, something in the term of bringing a project
together so that it might work with the citizens. Perhaps, as Mr.
Carter indicated in the mediation of this comprehensive
construction -- rocks on the beach litigation, when you mediate
or look for compromise, perhaps no one will be totally happy, but
they may be happier than they otherwise are or will be.
So here's what we looked at. Fewer hotel units; the
developer said, "No." What would the residents accept? The
residents would accept 15 condominium units on the site. The
zoning, parenthetically, allows 16 condominium or residential
units, multifamily units, on an acre of land. This being under 1
acre of land, it could purportedly sustain 15 condominium units.
Would the developer accept that? "No. Not fiscally viable." So
we come back again. What will the developer accept if it doesn't
build a hotel, and it does build residential units? "Twenty-four."
Well, will the residents accept 24? "No."
Page 149
May 22, 2001
But looking further than that, the Collier County Land
Development Code in conjunction with the Growth Management
Plan only allows, in any event, 16 residential units per acre.
Could the Board of County Commissioners legally or with the
advice of counsel agree to 24 units on an acre -- on a plot of
ground that could only -- is zoned for 16 units? No, we can't do
that, nor could we advise the board to do that.
Alter proposal, well in the idea of settling a lawsuit, since
we now have a lawsuit filed, why couldn't the board, in fact,
accept 24 units in this particular specific case to settle a
lawsuit? The answer from county attorney office is, "No, we
can't do that. We will not jeopardize a development inconsistent
with our Growth Management Plan." We have enough problems
with DOAH and DCA and Steve Seibert and the group. We cannot
go there.
Okay. We come back again. Commissioner Carter reminds
me to think outside the box. Okay. Outside the box we say,
"What could we do here that works for all the parties?" Here
comes the mixed-use concept. Commissioner Carter says, 'Let's
go with it." The mixed-use concept is, "Hey, if they can build up
to 15 units on the site, 15 residential units, condominium units,
how about the developer build up to, maybe less than, 15
residential units, but they could also put some commercial in
there also, such as some hotel units. Maybe they come out with
a figure, like, 30, 34, 38, anything below 68 units, hotel units."
Well, the answer from the developer is, "No, don't like it."
The answer from the residents is, "No, don't like it. Would rather
have a 68-unit hotel than a mixed use of 15-or-less-condominium-
unit arrangement with hotel units on top of there even if the total
complex is far less than the 68 hotel units as already approved
by the staff." Not getting too far, but we're certainly checking out
the possibilities.
Page 150
May 22, 2001
Okay. Other idea. What can we do to bring partnering to
this concept, this project. We asked the developer, "Can you
provide some amenities to the neighborhood? Can you provide
something that would make whatever you build, even if it's a 68-
unit hotel, work with the neighbors? What can you do for them?
Sidewalks? Lighting? Something that would kind of help the
area so that whatever you build works better and engenders
friendship with the people that otherwise would not rather see
you there?"
The answer is, '~Nell, yes." And, in fact, Mr. Anderson and
Mr. Varnadoe did put together a proposal. And the proposal was
that they would, in fact, enhance the beach access area. And
they showed us a -- a picture of the way it looks now, and they
showed us a concept picture of what it would look like
enhanced. And I can tell you, those of you who haven't seen it,
that it's significantly enhanced, and what they proposed was
very, very nice. Well, the idea of that with the 68-unit hotel didn't
buy any -- any further "yes" from anybody, as far as that goes.
What else could there be for partnering? Well, I don't know.
Nothing further came forward from the hotel developer side of
things. We didn't really get any suggestions from the neighbors
either because they didn't really cotton to the idea of partnering
or, you know, cozying up to the 68-unit hotel.
All right. We go to probably Plan F. We start looking real
hard at -- in fact, at the same time looked very hard at the legal
aspects or legal questions that may affect this development.
We'd heard questions about deed restrictions. In fact, that had
been brought up at the -- at the initial board meeting, and David
Rynders had spoken about that. But we looked at the deed
restrictions very closely. And I want to tell the public that the
fact is, is deed restrictions in private title matters are not
matters that are subject to the review of the development
Page 151
May 22, 2001
services department or the county generally. The county does
not enforce private deed restrictions, if they exist.
But in this particular case, since they were raised, we rolled
up our sleeves, and we looked at them. And what we saw, and I
can tell you, is that sure enough, there were deed restrictions
created in 1953 in this subdivision. But also sure enough, the
particular parcels, Lot 51 and 52 (sic) to which this project
pertains, were not part of the original plat that the deed
restrictions were -- I can't think of the word -- that they applied
to.
So, in fact, this particular little finger of lots, including Lots
50 and 5t, came in line a little bit later, and they were not
included in the deed restriction document. And I think a very
good legal argument would be made by those who have standing
to argue it, the deed restrictions have nothing to do whatsoever
with Parcels 50 and 51, notwithstanding that that has nothing to
do with the Growth Management Plan, which is a limited
standard of review that the Board of County Commissioners has.
Okay. Trudging ahead and looking at further legal aspects
of this, Mr. Anderson has provided me -- incidentally, I have
provided the board some copies of a few relevant sections of the
Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code, and
correspondence from outside counsel Nancy Linnan, who is
expert in land use matters, with Carlton Fields, who we've used
in this project also. I'll get to those references in just a moment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Love getting a couple inches of
paper.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Anderson has provided this submittal for
today, and I'm sure he'll address it when he has his opportunity.
I'm just holding it up because, as you can see -- and perhaps you
want to put it on a visualizer. John, could you help us with that?
You can take mine and put it on the visualizer.
Page 152
May 22, 2001
It's going to take us into the area of architectural design and
setbacks. Now-- got it on there? Great. Thanks, John.
What we're seeing here is that on this parcel the 68-unit
hotel will have the first few floors of -- of construction will be
parking followed by the hotel aspects, the rooms of the hotel.
Also, remember -- we heard it confused in the past, and I don't
want it confused any further -- that when we talk about density,
we're talking about residential units, like condo units or
multifamily. But when we talk about commercial uses like a
hotel, we're talking about intensity of use. Intensity of use.
Now, based upon the floor average ratios that was adopted
in last year's June, July Land Development Code cycle, from that
-- from that approval of that standard came the ability for --
arguably the ability for a project like this to be built on a site of
this size. Now, the parking is below, and the parking does not
factor into floor area ratio. The building, as you can see, has
been called wedding cake or tiered. It's been called many things
beyond that; I can assure you.
But the fact is that another aspect that we're looking at very
closely is in regard to the setbacks. Now, the setbacks are
something which comes up under the Land Development Code,
and specifically I would ask the board members -- and I've got a
few extra copies here -- to look at Section 2.2.8, residential
tourist district. I even took the liberty of highlighting a couple
places.
And you can see that the purpose and intent of the
residential tourist district is to provide lands for tourist
accommodations and support facilities and multiple-family uses.
For permitted uses it says, "The following uses are permitted as
of right or as uses accessory to permitted uses in the residential
tourist district." And the permitted uses, right off the bat, No. 1,
hotels and motels; No. 2, multiple-family dwellings.
Page 153
May 22, 2001
Looking at the next page, though, toward the bottom,
Section 2.2.8.4.3, you see minimum yard requirements, and it
starts with front yard and goes to side yard, back yard. And
you'll note that the standard there is one-half the building height
as measured from each exterior wall or wing of a structure with
a minimum of 30 feet. Well, again, looking at the picture of the
building you have before you, they, in fact, are 30 feet in -- have
setbacks of 30 feet in because the initial exterior wall is 60 feet
high. And then it goes on and gets higher. But, as you can see,
as it moves in, the setback -- arguably the setback -- thank you,
John -- from the interior -- exterior walls further up, the setback is
arguably further in.
Now, I'm going to give you a concept to work with or, should
I say, wrestle with here, and it's fraught with difficulty, but you'll
have it here. It's laid out before everyone. You'll certainly hear
speakers talking about it too. And that is that the -- the setback,
the standard I just showed you, read to you -- I've just misplaced
it already. Thank you -- is one where, as you can see, you
achieve what we have right here. You could probably achieve no
more than what we have right here, but this is to the max.
Typically our Land Development Code is a minimum code,
meaning you could never build less well than what the code says.
But what frequently happens is people develop to the maximum
that the code allows. We're approaching that here. I'm not an
engineer. I didn't, you know, draw this thing up, but I think we're
pretty much there. And the setbacks are approximately 30 feet
based upon 60-feet exterior-- initial exterior walls. And then as
the walls -- other higher exterior walls go up and in, then, in fact,
arguably, the setback is still achieved under the -- under the
language of the -- of the minimum yard requirements that I'm
having you look at right now in 2.2.8.4.3.
But I -- I charge you -- I challenge you, the board, the public,
Page 154
May 22, 2001
others, what are we achieving with setbacks being applied this
way and with the language that we have? Because whether this
building was a Washington Monument type building, a hundred
feet tall; or maybe call it a UN building where it's tall and flat on
its sides; or whether it has appendages or wings that come out
at the side, I would submit that you still have, one man's view,
the blockage of light and space perception changes that come
whether the building has -- is straight up and a hundred feet tall
or if it's a hundred feet tall but it's got all these things on the
side. A hundred foot building requires 50-foot setbacks. This is a
hundred-foot building, but you'll notice -- and there's no denying
that. But you'll notice that the setbacks start at 30 feet because
the initial exterior walls are 60 feet tall.
Now, this is a -- this has been a consistent application by
staff of -- of this particular standard. It's been done that way for
nine or ten years at least. In fact, it was drafted, crafted to be
that way, is what our staff will tell us if they're on the witness
stand talking about this heighth and setback standard. That's
what they'll tell us. Those are the facts. Is it the standard that
achieves what you, as a board, would want to be achieved? I
don't know. You'll have to answer that question.
But if, in your -- if, in your thinking, you think that this is a
perverse or a strained application as you see manifested in this
picture and that, in fact, it has been perverse and strained for Io
these many years with other projects long ago approved and
built, current projects with building permits being built right now,
if you think that that is perverse, I would tell you that you, in fact,
are ultimately the interpreters of the legislation that you pass.
And you can tell staff that that is wrong, and you can tell staff
that it's wrong even right now. But if you tell them that, you have
to know the risks, both with this project and other projects
already approved.
Page 155
May 22, 200t
Part of the discussion we've had with the counsel involved
in this has -- and I heard Mr. Anderson before the Planning
Commission last week when FARs were being discussed saying,
"Are you talking about creating nonconformities for what are
currently conforming uses if they reduce or eliminate the FAR
standard?" Well, yes, I think we're certainly talking that here if
you come away off the standard. But if you believe that the
standard as applied is perverse and is incorrect and, therefore, is
a standard that does not achieve what the Growth Management
Plan is attempting to achieve, you may have something to utilize
in your decision that you have today. Yes, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: David, at what point -- are you
planning to tell us about the nature of litigation that would be
forthcoming pursuant to this suit?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm pretty close.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are the risks?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm pretty close. I just wanted you to know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd appreciate it if you --
MR. WEIGEL: I want you to know some of the bases of the
decision you have. The underlying concept is inconsistent with
the Growth Management Plan. Now, how are you going to show
yourselves it's inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan?
If after hearing everything today you come to that conclusion --
because I'm not asking you to come to that conclusion. I'm just
telling you some of the things you have to consider. And I
certainly want you to make an informed decision, and you'll hear
statements from other people, both in addition to and against
what I've been telling you.
So under the Land Development Code -- and, again, talking
with our outside counsel, we have thoughts like if the Land
Development Code is applied incorrectly, you're not achieving
Page 156
May 22, 2001
compatibility with the Growth Management Plan. Do we end up
with an intensity of commercial use here which is not
appropriate for the Growth Management Plan because, in fact,
we have a building that comes out -- based on the, call it, exact-
word application of our standard, is our standard a problem with
the Growth Management Plan creating, therefore, an
inconsistency with the Growth Management Plan? It's not
exactly a question did the staff not apply the standard. The
question is, does the standard itself create an inconsistency with
the Growth Management Plan?
If this board today -- I could use this, really, as probably a
rebuttal after everything is said, but I'll tell you now, and you'll
hear it again from others. If the board today makes a
determination that the site development plan approved by staff
pursuant to the Land Development Code and the Growth
Management Plan as we have it is incorrect and overturns it,
well, I certainly expect we'll have a lawsuit. We already have
two suits going right now with the neighbors. Then those are
suits that we have to defend to the extent that we can defend
them. If we adopt, to some degree, positions that the neighbors
are asserting in their lawsuit, we will reckon with that, obviously
working with you, our client, if we get that direction.
But I will say that if the board makes a determination to
overturn the staff approval, it's high-risk litigation that we go
into. Don't ask me for specific dollars, please. But I can tell you
that we take our cases as we find them, and to achieve a result,
there may be significant costs. And we also want to see that if
we take on the risks, we achieve the result that we're looking to
achieve.
Again, if there are vested property rights or other property
rights which a court of law determines that we have trammeled,
then we will pay. By the same token, maybe that's appropriate,
Page 157
May 22, 2001
too, but that's part of the judgment call that comes later on as
the case may develop, if there is a case.
A couple other things that I wanted to mention, then I'll be
done for questions, or you can always interrupt me, of course.
But other things in the pike. Commissioner Carter certainly
didn't want us to look purely at this one parcel,.92 acre, but what
can we do in the district? What can we do big picture? Let's get
a little vision on this thing. So, as you, I think, are aware, in the
current Land Development Code process, we not only have a
redefinition of residential tourist hotel -- destination resort hotel
which would provide for additional amenities, common areas,
and things of that nature and reduce the number of units that
could be had whether it's a 1-acre lot or bigger, that's a
significant conceptual change which is before the Planning
Commission. It will be before you soon.
Additionally, we wanted to offer the Planning Commission,
the public, this board, the opportunity to explore whether they
wanted to confirm the floor area ratio concepts which was
brought into play last year in this RT district or if they want to
amend it or if they want to eliminate it all together. Elimination
all together would ostensibly take us back to a maximum of 26
hotel units per acre or, in this case, 24 units on this parcel. But
we can't go back in time, can we?
At any rate that's the overview, and I'll be ready for
questions at any point in the -- in the session here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have one quick question. Suppose
you did happen to have a 50-foot setback. What happens to the
intensity of the use on this project?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the planner may want to jump in, but it
seems to me intensity of use goes down because you're
eliminating the ability of useful space, which is the number of
units that can be built in per-unit volume.
Page 158
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Could you still go a hundred feet in the
air?
MR. WEIGEL'. You can always go a hundred feet in the air
because our land code provides 10 stories or a hundred feet, and
that's not at issue here today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Do you have any comment on
that?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. But, Mr. Chairman, this may be a good
time to take a break for your minute-taker. You've been at it
about an hour and a half. We can come back to public speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And then we'll come back, and then
we'll hear counsel's reports, and then we have a number of
registered speakers, I understand. Anybody that generates a
question in between, they can come back and ask our counsel.
Okay. We'll take ten.
(A break was held.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We
will proceed. Commissioner Henning has a question of our
counsel, and then we'll go to public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, you mentioned two
different things, density and intensity; density meaning dwelling
units, and intensity would be commercial. And intensity applies
to this particular item; am I correct? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I guess the question is,
before the Land Development Code amendment to go to floor
area ratio, is that a intensity or -- intensities in this area?
MR. WEIGEL.' Okay. Before the floor area ratio standard
was adopted, 26 hotel units was the most number of units or
most intensity of that kind of unit that could be brought to this
acreage; 26 per acre, 24 on this site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
Page 159
May 22, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, we've got 17 registered
speakers. So, again, like the item before, I'll call two at a time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Put the next person on deck, and let's
do it.
MR. OLLIFF: The first speaker is Frank Halas followed by
Charles Metz.
MR. HALAS: Good afternoon. I'm Frank Halas. I live at 405
Flamingo Avenue. I'd like to know if I could reserve my time until
after the opposition speaks?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, sir. We're taking registered
speakers in order, and they will be down at the end -- MR. HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- I believe.
MR. HALAS: Thank you very much then. I'm here in regards
to -- I live at 405 Flamingo Avenue. And I purchased the property
about three years ago, and one of the reasons was that we liked
the area so well, the serenity of it. Now, with this proposal for
building a 68-story (sic) hotel and upon looking at the way that it
was presented leaves a lot to be desired as far as the amenities
of the area.
The other thing that concerns us is -- or concerns me is the
watercraft concession that they want. I don't have -- the only
picture I have here is a local picture that was given recently by a
real estate person. And you can see that here's the waterways
that are located in the Vanderbilt area, which we're all very
proud of.
All this whole area back here is a no-wake zone. I can't
comprehend what type of a problem we're going to encounter
with watercraft back here, not only the 68-story hotel and being
a no-wake zone. And people back here love the quietness and
the serenity.
That's one of the reasons that they buy property there and it
Page 160
May 22, 2001
costs so much. And I would hope that the commissioners would
also look at that as one of the things that we're concerned about.
Secondly, that I'd like to bring up is the fact that this
developer or the land purchaser of this property -- let me start
over here a little bit. First of all, what was located on this piece
of property originally was a home, single-family home, along with
a one-story condominium complex. And I believe it had, like,
maybe six or eight units there.
Then the person that purchased this property, in the paper
this morning, says that he purchased this about one month
before the Land Development Codes were changed which we, the
neighborhood, didn't know anything about. So obviously the
person that purchased this had inside information that those
codes were going to be changed, and therefore, that's why he
spent the large sum of money to build this hotel. And here we
are in this demise (sic). And since someone in the staff or the
Planning Commission changed these unstbeknowing (phonetic)
to us until this matter came in front of everybody as we are here
today, I'm very concerned about what's happening.
And we'd really like to keep Vanderbilt Beach the way it is
at this point in time. And I think that you -- if you lived there
personally yourself, that you would take a great interest in trying
to keep your neighborhood the way it is. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker is Charles --
MR. OLLIFF:
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF:
Boyer.
Next speaker is Charles Metz followed by B. J.
MR. METZ: For the record, my name is Charles Metz. I'm
vice president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners'
Association. We represent approximately 600 property owners in
Vanderbilt. We are not currently a member of the petitioners, nor
Page 161
May 22, 2001
are we a member of the lawsuits involved.
It's been our position that this particular building would be
much better used and utilized for the community if it was a
residential use rather than a commercial use of any kind and that
this particular commercial use with its existing density is an
unconscionable use that sets a dangerous precedent and a
difficult precedent for our neighborhood.
We'd like to thank the board for having postponed this for
reconsideration, giving the individuals involved time to try to
come to an agreement. To that effect, after that was announced,
the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association offered to
underwrite the expenses of professional arbitration of this issue
if the participants carried forward the idea of participating in it.
We're very disappointed that they elected not to do so, and we're
also very disappointed that neither side seems to have come up
with a compromise position that can be negotiated to this point.
We also requested at that time of this board, and I'd like to
reiterate that request, that this area, this region, be given some
special consideration for an overlay planning. We're in a
situation where this is an issue, very difficult issue, but it's only 1
of probably 30 we've faced in the last year. We're at the very
beginning stage of redevelopment of this area, and it's only going
to get more difficult. It's our position that we cannot afford to
address these issues and the redevelopment of this community
one lawsuit at a time. We hope you'll give consideration of that
request, hope we'll find some funds for that, and will assign some
staff to that purpose.
We commend and appreciate the fact that we're now looking
at the Land Development Code again as a possibility that comes
up next month, as I understand it, that this was possibly not the
best interpretation or the best development of the Land
Development Code, and maybe we'll make an amendment. But
Page 162
May 22, 2001
that doesn't resolve this issue. What we're faced with at this
time is a very difficult decision on behalf of the board, and I
would like to suggest, as we look at this, that it looks like the
county's going to be sued if they proceed, by the residents, with
the permit that's on the table; and they're going to be sued by the
developer if they don't. An unenviable position.
What I would like to suggest and hope that -- as you address
this in that circumstance, that we try to take the high road and
try to do what is in the best interest of the general community
and let the chips fall where they may. This is a very painful
approach.
It reminds me very much of a situation a couple of years ago
when I served as a volunteer for nearly two years with a
committee to redevelop the city's so-called, at that time, mega
house committee and establishing exact same kind of
qualification, trying to deal with these issues. We brought that
forward, after a great deal of hard work by some very talented
people, before the general public at the city commission,
presented it, and about 24 lawyer stood up in the back of the
room with Port Royal residents in hand and said they were going
to sue everybody in sight if this was elected. And it was
promptly thrown in the trash can.
As I can see it, there's no easy way to admit that we need
some improvements in our planning, and there's no easy way to
make these changes. It's going to be difficult. But this
commission has, in the recent past, looked at some difficult
issues and has reversed some decisions and has done a very
conscionable ]ob of doing so. I hope we'll take that same high
road in this issue.
All I can add is that if this goes forward, this development is
simply too intense, and this neighborhood simply cannot stand it.
We have too many other things that we're facing and have
Page 163
May 22, 2001
already had to deal with. I'd say there's a good likelihood that
there will be other organizations or individuals joining either this
particular group of lawsuits, or there will be additional lawsuits
filed. We have to come to a better conclusion than what we've
got on the table. Thank you for letting me address you today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just need to ask a comment --
ask a question of Mr. Weigel about that comment because it's
really -- puts on the table the question that I came to the board
with today, and that is I know no matter which way I vote on this
I'm going to go to court. The county's going to be in -- be sued
over this. So my predisposition is -- sort of like it was on the
Goodland situation, is I'd rather be sued and, you know, be on the
side I believe in than on the side that I don't believe in.
But there's -- I'm afraid there's a distinction here, and that is
I think if I'm sued by the property owners -- I, the county, am
sued by the property owners -- then I have injunctive relief like in
Goodland where, you know, the -- in other words, they tell you
they sue you to make -- have the court make us do one thing or
the other. I think a distinction here is that if we are sued by the
developer, we write a check out of the county checkbook, out of
the public checkbook. And I don't think we've had that question
put to us before. Is this one different? Is that accurate what I
said?
MR. WEIGEL: I think it's interesting what you said. It's
different in degree, different in degree. There are risks in the
Goodland lawsuit and, yes, there's a potentiality for injunctive
relief there. But in this particular case, we have a claim for
injunctive relief against us, in fact, in the lawsuit that's already
been filed by the neighborhood associations. That's injunctive
Page 164
May 22, 2001
relief, you might say, to achieve the status quo of preapproval of
the site development plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To make us do something.
MR. WEIGEL: To make you do something or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Undo something.
MR. WEIGEL: -- have the court tell us that something should
be stopped, at least until the ultimate issue is determined. And
that's often what an in]unction in court is, is a stop to hold things
in place until the ultimate issues are determined. And usually an
in]unction isn't granted unless there appears, based upon the
initial facts and law available, that there is a fairly high
probability of success on the party asking for the in]unction.
Now, you're not asking me yet about my opinions of the
lawsuit that's filed or the lawsuit that we may defend that hasn't
been filed yet. I'll wait for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question that I have, though,
is I think that if we get sued by the developer, we're not going to
get sued just for injunctive relief. We're not going to get sued
just to undo something. This'Il be the first, that I know of,
lawsuit where we might have to write a check, because this is a
business. I mean, is this a potential -- am I right, that they could
sue us and say "Here's our lost profits," and we have to actually
pay millions of dollars? It reminds me of some things going on in
the City of Naples.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, believe me, this isn't a forecast, but we
might have to write a check on the Goodland matter, quite
frankly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand.
MR. WEIGEL.' But so this is no different, only potentially in
degree and possibly in, call it, rapidity of resolving the lawsuit.
Now, what we may have here is a purely legal, a law-based, a
law-issue-based lawsuit in which we don't run into questions of
Page 165
May 22, 2001
experts and fact finding and things of that nature, and so the
answers in court may come quicker rather than more slowly.
And so to the extent that a developer, speaking
hypothetically, believes that they have been damaged by delays
that occur and then ultimately their status quo is returned by the
court -- that is a valid site development permit and a valid
building permit -- well, the damages will be based on time and
questions of how far they were mobilized and if they scrambled
to mobilize to, you know, make the damages spector a little
bigger or not. And we look at these things very carefully.
But I don't see great distinction between the two. I'll say
that I think there's more risk in this lawsuit if the board makes a
determination that there are reasons to deny the site
development plan because of Growth Management Plan conflict.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Could we just go to the next speaker?
I've got questions too. I'll just make some notes as I go.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is B. J. Boyer followed by Diane
Ketcham.
MS. BOYER: Good afternoon. First, I have -- agree with
Charlie, everything that he said. I thank you for all of the time
that you've put into this. And I know that there are going to be
lawsuits either one way or the other, but I really feel that in your
best interest it would be to vote in the best interest of the
Vanderbilt homeowners.
We're trying to preserve our quality of life and our property
values. Allowing a building of this magnitude on a small lot is
definitely a threat to both of these. And you talk about intensity
and density, let's talk about practicality. It is practical? And you
have to vote with your conscience. I don't want to hear about
lawsuits. Everybody walks around thinking they're going to get
sued. We all have debts, but we have to go with what we feel
inside, and I hope you will today. Thank you.
Page166
May 22, 2001
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Diane Ketcham will be followed by Carol
Wright.
MS. KETCHAM: Hello again, Commissioners. My name is
Diane Ketcham. I live on Vanderbilt Beach. I am a board
member of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay, but today I'd like to
speak to you as head of the Save Vanderbilt Beach Association,
a group representing hundreds of homeowners on the Vanderbilt
Beach area. Our group was formed because of the changes the
county made last year in the Land Development Code affecting
our area. Increasing density on Gulfshore Drive was a big
mistake, and we're hopeful that you will correct this in June
during the LDC hearings.
But we are here today because of a disastrous result of
these changes, the 68-unit, ten-story Beachcomber Hotel, a huge
hotel approved to be constructed on a parcel of land that is less
than an acre. In fact, it's even less of an acre than we originally
thought. We have recently found out that the site plan your
planning staff approved includes 5,000 square feet under water.
Another reason why -- one of the numerous reasons why we
believe this site plan should never have been approved.
I'd like to remind you that on this land before was a seven-
unit, one-story condominium complex. Now the developer wants
to increase the density on this property by nine times. I've said
this before, but it needs to be said again. By increasing density --
and attorneys may call it intensity, but we feel strongly it is
density. By increasing density in a coastal high hazard area, you
are endangering the lives of those who live on the beach. We
have only one evacuation route: The narrow, two-lane Gulfshore
Drive.
You've already approved the expansion of La Playa and a
Page 167
May 22, 2001
new club there that would bring additional traffic. You've
approved a beach club owned by Signature that will also
increase traffic, and now this hotel. By increasing density on the
Beachcomber property you are threatening our safety. We will
do whatever it takes to protect our family and our community. If
that means suing the government, then so be it. But this is the
government that's here to protect us. And we hope you will
listen to us today.
You can vote to rescind the site plan approval. We have
brought numerous objections to this plan to the attention of the
county attorney's office. We've had several lawyers and
independent planners look at it. We believe there are many
inconsistencies in the Comprehensive Plan. The county attorney
today has told you what could be interpreted as another.
Approving a 30-foot setback when it should be 50 feet is
inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. There are
environmental issues and density issues, any one of which could
stop this project.
It's time for you to take a stand and say, "We believe there
were mistakes made in accepting this plan. There are too many
questions.
We want it to go back to the drawing board." You can vote
for what is right for the people. Yes, the developer will probably
threaten to sue you. It's a sad commentary that the staff and
perhaps some commissioners seem more concerned about
developers suing than the public suing.
But we've had lawyers look at this, and they believe the
developer has no vested right to sue regarding the 68-unit hotel
because he bought the property before the land code amendment
was changed which allowed the density increase. And also,
there was a seven-unit condo on the property. We keep
forgetting that. That's a nonconforming structure.
Page 168
May 22, 2001
Recently the developer's attorney has said that they're
willing to compromise by building a 24-unit condo and that the
neighbors have not been willing to negotiate. This is simply not
true, and we hope that you realize that 24 units is not a
compromise. This is what the developer started with ten months
ago. He always wanted to build a condominium building on this
land, but with a greater density than the law allows. The code
says 16 units an acre. This is less than an acre. Probably it
should only have 13 or 14 units.
But the developer keeps saying he's going to -- wants to
build 24. Why should we accept something illegal like this? If
you allow this property to increase density illegally, someone
else can come along and buy another half acre on Gulfshore
Drive and say I'm going to put 22 units on it. Where does it stop?
It's a dangerous precedent. Whether it's condos or hotels, we
cannot accept increasing density on Gulfshore Drive.
Before you today is the Beachcomber Hotel. Please,
Commissioners, the people of Vanderbilt Beach, the people of
Collier County ask you to do what is right. Rescind the site plan
approval. Take a stand that you cannot allow this kind of density
on a fragile barrier beach. Everyone is watching what you do
today. Please show them that our government can work. Thank
yOU,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next --
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to -- if you'll hold your
applause, we can actually get down to the point where they're
making decisions a little quicker for you.
Carol Wright is your next speaker followed by Joe Connolly.
MS. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Carol Wright, and I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay
Page 169
May 22, 2001
Association representing some 700 members.
Yes, you are between a rock and a hard place today. You're
probably going to get sued either way you go. Last June the
previous board of commissioners voted to change the LDCs
which allowed this hotel. That was wrong. Today you have the
opportunity to correct this. You know it goes against the Growth
Management Plan and the comp plan. A mistake was made, and
it's time to correct it. It's time to bite the bullet and get things in
order. Isn't it better to be sued for something you know is right?
You know in your heart you need to rescind your vote for
approval of this hotel. Please do that today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Joe Connolly followed by John
Hickey.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, can I concur that
if we hold the applause down, that we could get through this a
lot faster and everybody can get home on time? Thank you.
MR. CONNOLLY: Good afternoon. We've got to stop meeting
this way. Thank you, David, for giving me a new word: "Perverse
use." If there's ever been a perverse use of a piece of property,
you saw it today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I thought you'd like it, Joe.
MR. CONNOLLY: We're here again, and we're here not
because you intentionally did something wrong, but we're here
because -- if you'll excuse my Georgia French -- your planning
department totally screwed up in June for recommending a floor
area ratio to a tourist residential district. They did so, I think,
because it was orchestrated by some land development
attorneys who had a client building a hotel in the middle of
Gulfshore Drive.
And coincidental with that, they had another attorney that
Page 170
May 22, 2001
wanted to build 24 condos, still wants to build 24 condos. My
answer to that is if he wanted to build 24 condos, why didn't he
buy a piece of land that would let him build 24 condos? The
water situation, I guess they're going to put an aquatic school
there now, about 8/10 of an acre,.84 acres that they're trying to
put this thing on.
On the compromise thing, we can make no compromise.
The law says 16 units per acre. So they sold condos to people
and took their homes telling them they were going to build 15-
unit condos. You know, and now they say they're going to build a
hotel. Some people would say that was illegal, and they're going
to have more of those lawsuits because those people are going
to sue them as soon as they break ground for a hotel rather than
a condo.
So we've been through all the points before, and I'm not
going to belabor them. And in the essence of time, I'm just
asking you to consider one other thing, that Vanderbilt --
Gulfshore Drive is a real, real traffic hazard, particularly during
the season. And this is on a very dangerous curve. The road is
narrow, even narrower by the bike paths that you've had to put
in.
And we would like to see Gulfshore Drive incorporated in the
Vanderbilt corridor study and a moratorium on any building on
Gulfshore Drive be delayed until that study is complete. I say
anything; any building, anything other than residential homes.
But anything else should be delayed. No more site plans should
be approved by the planning department. And if you go along
with that, send it registered mail to make sure they get the
message this time because they seem to be missing it.
So in closing, I ask you to do what you were elected to do:
Protect the people of this county, not the developer. It's so
obvious this thing is totally wrong that, you know, we just ask
Page 171
May 22, 2001
you to do the right thing. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is John Hickey followed by Ray
Howard.
MR. HICKEY: My name is John Hickey. I am chairperson of
the Community Relations Committee of Beachwalk Residents
Association on Vanderbilt Beach Road. I represent 365 owners
of condos, villas, and homes in our community.
We are extremely upset and concerned over actions taken
by county staff and by you, the Board of County Commissioners,
which changed the Land Development Code and directly
permitted a developer to propose building a structure which was
not permitted by the previous code. I am referring to the
proposed Beachcomber Hotel.
Our concerns are, one, no planning consideration has been
given to the traffic increase which would result on Gulfshore
Drive, Vanderbilt Beach Road, Vanderbilt Drive, 111th Street, and
Bluebill Avenue if the proposed hotel is built. Each of these
thoroughfares is in extremis with traffic now. We strongly urge
the board to think about such negative impact before approving
any changes to any existing code or regulation.
As a measure of occupancy for areas such as a coastal high
hazard area where this hotel is proposed, density has been
ignored or circumvented. This is wrong. Ignoring density is a
disservice to all owners and residents, not only in the area of the
proposed hotel, but to owners and residents in all of Collier
County. Density rules must be preserved.
Specifically permitting a business to operate Jet Skis on the
Vanderbilt Lagoon is absolute insanity. This body of water is so
heavily polluted now that fish cannot live in it. Jet Skiing will
considerably worsen this current condition. As a board you
should be seeking and promoting measures to clean up the
lagoon instead of the opposite.
Page 172
May 22, 2001
Four, there was no notice sufficiently in advance of this
hotel proposal to provide affected owners to review and respond.
There is a process for public input when changes such as this
are proposed. Most citizens are not aware of such changes or
their implications. Many times these changes are quite technical
and easily misunderstood. The county is responsible for taking
actions to notify affected owners and neighborhoods of such
proposed changes well in advance so those affected can voice
their opinions. Neither staff or the board have taken any action
to meet this serious need.
We would like to see the board review staff
recommendations which resulted in the altering of the RT code.
The following questions should be answered: A, why were these
recommendations made at the time they were made? B, why
were these specific sections of the code changed? C, who made
these specific change recommendations and why?
Beachwalk owners support the agenda and position of the
Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association. We feel strongly the LDC
changes should be reversed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Ray Howard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And while he's coming up here, I need
to comment on one thing. It's been mentioned twice. First of all,
I'm not for Jet Skis or any of these things in that bay. But that's
a separate ordinance, ladies and gentlemen. Anyone that owns a
piece of property in the Vanderbilt area along one of those
fingers could own and operate a Jet Ski and idle it out to the Gulf
of Mexico, fire it up, and go.
In this particular project there has never -- well, it may --
someone may have thought it would be there, but no matter what
happens to it, the developer has said he would not have a
concession for that type of water vehicle. So let's -- in this issue,
Page 173
May 22, 2001
please, let's keep that separate. And remember, it's a separate
ordinance that governs watercraft, of which that's a
classification. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I may say something, too,
Commissioner Carter, I don't remember when myself,
Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala heard the LDC
amendment last year. We wasn't in -- we were, at best,
candidates for county commissioner and not commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wasn't it in December? I thought
you were here by then.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. The one in June is the one where
the changes were made. And these three new commissioners
were candidates at that time, probably candidates at that time,
may not have been aware of the process, of which there are four
meetings: Two by the planning council, two by the Board of
County Commissioners. All of these, I believe, are in the evening
and are publicly noted. Whether people pay attention to them,
that's an issue that probably -- okay.
MR. OLLIFF'. Following Mr. Howard will be Felix Jarczyk.
MR. HOWARD: Good afternoon. My name is Ray Howard.
I'm president of Howard International Business Consulting Firm,
and I live at Vanderbilt, gulf side.
We know that nature works best when it's in balance, as
does an athletic team, as does government such as our federal
separation of powers principle. Stimulated by the Vanderbilt
Beach controversy, we examined Collier County's board
according to its performance in finding balance between the
public interest on one side and special interests on the other:
Developers, bankers, contractors, etc.
We examined three major issues facing Collier County,
sewage, transportation, and water because our view is that the
Page 174
May 22, 2001
Vanderbilt issue is only one small part of a huge issue facing
Collier County governance. We looked at the principle of
concurrency. Now, concurrency provides balance between
private and public interests by mandating that new construction
not take place until the supporting infrastructure of roads, water,
and sewage is in the ground. But this board and its predecessors
has allowed construction to occur while the required
infrastructure exists only on paper.
Compounding this unbalanced approach to governance is a
tendency to delay needed construction projects in road and
sewage projects. In order to avoid obvious violation of the
county's Growth Management Plan, county staffers in 1997
changed the method for computing sewage system need from
population to sewer hookups. This underestimated needs to the
point that according to the current approach, we have not had
any sewage spills, and we're good until the year 2010.
If you look at the plan that you adopted, we couldn't have
had any sewage spills, that all this stuff has probably been made
up by some nasty reporters in the Naples Daily News. The
population approach would have shown major sewage problems
coming as early as 1999. So when people are asking you to
change something you did wrong about Vanderbilt, there are lots
of things you're going to have to change that you've done wrong
in the past, going back several boards.
Now, the most biased and most bizarre county behavior
came in using average sewage needs instead of peak needs,
which virtually guaranteed sewage spills during the peak season.
Now, it's hard to conclude that commissioners are ignorant of
simple concepts like peak load and population impact. It's
equally hard to believe that commissioners are not familiar with
the arithmetic that says you cannot stuff 25 million gallons of
sewage into a 9.5-million-gallon system. In the old days, we used
Page 175
May 22, 2001
to a call that a blivet (phonetic), I believe. It is more logical to
assume that these poor judgments came from a strong bias in
favor of development and against the public interest.
Now, the proposed ten-story Vanderbilt project played a part
in the sewage discussion. Collier County had to go to the Naples
City Council to ask for a hookup to relieve its sewage pressure.
Within eight days of the hookup approval, commissioners
approved the Vanderbilt Beach hotel project. One Naples
councilmember reacted so strongly at this, in her view, apparent
duplicity saying, quote, unquote, Carter came down here begging
for sewer help, and eight days later he approves that hotel on
Vanderbilt Beach. If I had known this, I would have voted
against his request, unquote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, that's not true. That Land
Development Code --
MR. HOWARD: Just let me finish. I've only got five minutes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Don't interrupt him. Let him go on,
please.
MR. HOWARD: Naples' vice-mayor called the project's land
code changes a scam, especially the part allowing four floors of
parking that don't count. Now, Dr. Carter has said repeatedly
he's opposed to the Vanderbilt Beach hotel, yet he was chairman
last June when county staffers changed the Land Development
Code to allow something which was up to that time wholly
illegal.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have to interrupt you at that point,
sir. I was not chairman, and you're making a lot of accusations
here. And I'm a pretty patient individual. I'm going to let you
finish, but if you can't get your information straight, I just have to
discount it. I'm going to tell you that right now.
MR. HOWARD: Well, much of this information has been
printed in the Naples Daily News, and so far as I know --
Page 176
May 22, 2001
(Several speakers at once.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' And we have to believe
everything we read in the Naples Daily News.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will not say anything. Please
continue, sir. Please take your time. I interrupted you.
MR. HOWARD: There's a quote from the Naples Daily News
says something is fundamentally wrong with a government that
lets something so flawed progress so far, this project.
Now, water itself becomes a critical issue. Each year the
season seems to save us, but experts warn that each year the
aquifers fill up less than -- and less and less. The six-county
aquifer stretching from Sarasota has fallen so Iow it needs over 4
1/2 feet to reach the lowest acceptable level according to the
Southwest Florida management district. As freshwater pressure
declines in the aquifer, saltwater intrudes, contaminating water
quality. This has already happened to at least one private well at
Vanderbilt Beach. It's difficult to understand how increasing
density will help our increasingly dangerous water situation. I want to make one other point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I took a minute of your time, sir. You
may continue.
MR. HOWARD: During the May 15th workshop on affordable
housing, a discussion about density occurred, and
commissioners eulogized density as a good thing which prevents
urban sprawl and allows cheaper water and sewer hookups, yet
not once did a commissioner mention the overriding principle
governing population density. When a county's density clearly
exceeds the capacities and compatibilities of its infrastructure,
any increase in density for whatever reason is
counterproductive. The county is five years behind schedule on
roads and sewers. We may never reach -- catch up in water.
How can any commissioner with a straight face support
Page177
May 22, 2001
increased density, at the same time claim to act in the public
interest?
We're asking you to reverse your position on Beachcomber
because it would be a place to draw a line in the sand and
correct many of the past errors made by this board and previous
boards. Otherwise, the future is Collier County will run out of
water. Increasingly severe sewage overflows will be publicized.
Traffic will cease to move. Property values will plummet. And
during his future reelection campaign, Dr. Carter will say, "1
saved the county tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees by
giving developers everything they wanted." Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Diane Halas followed by --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have no comment.
MR. OLLIFF: Armand Pirro.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Can I have the next speaker,
please.
MR. OLLIFF: Diane Halas followed by Armand Pirro.
MS. HALAS: Hello. My name's Diane Halas. I live at 405
Flamingo, right next to the very nice park that was just put in
that we watched be developed, and we like that very much. I
wish we could say we were as happy about the Beachcomber.
You can obviously tell that we're not.
You're talking about global issues today, and one of the
things that I wanted to bring up was kind of the perspective of
the individual homeowner that lives in that area. We sit in an
area where we've watched The Dunes development and have had
multiple discussions with staff as it developed. We're only -- the
end of our street is only two blocks from where this proposed
hotel is going to go in, and so both of these projects affect us
very much.
The thing that probably has troubled us as individual
homeowners the most is what appears to be an incredible double
Page 178
May 22, 2001
standard that's applied to homeowners who are doing residential
building in the area and commercial developers that are doing
large projects. And if I could be specific about that for a minute,
just drawing on our own experience, I think maybe it will give
you a little bit additional insight about why the individual
homeowners are so distressed and why some of the kind of
charges that have been made today have been made and why
they're floating around.
We built our house two years ago in that area on a standard
lot that we bought. When our house was surveyed, a very
fundamental mistake was made by the surveyor. Most of the
lots, apparently, that they've built before have 25-foot-from-the-
street offset. This particular neighborhood requires a 30-foot one
because there's no sidewalk. Our house was the house that got
built 5 feet too close to the road at which point it needed to be
torn down. It was up to the stem walls and it needed to be torn
down and moved back 5 additional feet.
In the process we also found out that because we were
building our house a foot taller than the 11-foot requirement, that
we needed to have an additional 5 feet in the back of offset.
Now, we also have 10 feet of space, of lot size, that goes out
beyond our sea wall, but we weren't allowed to count that in our
offset. That submerged piece of water (sic} didn't count on a
residential dwelling.
Our house is also a story and a half high. The second story
is half the size of the top story. We were not allowed to average
our top and bottom stories in order to get our offset requirements
from the size land that we had.
When we built our dock, we complied and we built a 20-foot
dock, 20 feet out, just like we're supposed to. And you know that
there has been some dock litigation in our neighborhood lately
also. When our dock was finished, it was an inch and a half too
Page179
May 22, 2001
big. That inch and a half was caused by a 3-foot-long fish station
that was cantilevered out over one edge. The staff did not have
permission to give us a variance for that inch and a half. We
were told if we took the fish station down, it would take another
six weeks to get our property resurveyed. Now, we already had a
six-month delay because we had to tear our house down. So we
asked for a variance, and we were given a variance for an inch
and a half.
This was a lot of frustration in the building of one home.
Were we angry about it? Absolutely not. Because what that
gave us was a strong sense of reassurance, really, about the way
that building codes were applied, that they were applied fairly,
that things were looked at, that there was due process for things
to go through, and that our neighbors were being protected, and
that we would be protected in terms of future development.
We finished our house, we moved in, we love the
neighborhood, we use the canals, we use the streets when it's
not in season and we can get out on our front -- out of our front
gate. And we watched, during this period of time, The Dunes be
developed in that area, and we had multiple conversations with
staff of the county at that period. And those conversations
revealed something that was extremely disturbing to us, and that
was that the staff seemed to have a lot of ability to negotiate
beyond the PUD about little things that were kind of give and
take. "Oh, well, you don't want to do this? We'll let you not do
that if you trade it for that." And if you look at The Dunes~ what
was built there, where it's positioned on the property, how it
looks, how it uses space, it's very different from the PUD that
was originally approved.
We're -- looked at the Beachcomber as it came in and as it
was proposed, and this, also, is very distressing. Apparently in
their case submerged land does count. They do get to average
Page180
May 22, 2001
their stories. And part of the reason that people are as distressed
as they are and feel like they do is that it feels like the interest of
the developers and the people who want to build commercial
properties are paid attention to and addressed far in excess, with
much more latitude by staff, than individual residential ones are.
We would like a strict standard to be applied to those and not --
that latitude not to exist. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Armand Pirro followed by
Chuck Brooke.
MR. PIRRO: Good afternoon, County Commissioners. My
name is Armand Pirro, and I'm a full-time resident living on
Gulfshore Drive near the proposed hotel and its Jet Ski rental
concession. I have to apologize to the president (sic) that I
didn't realize that the Jet Ski was a separate issue. However,
since my paper is on that, please let me go on with it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: My pleasure, sir. Go ahead.
MR. PIRRO: I'd like to inform the county commissioners of
the distance along the waterway from the proposed hotel and Jet
Ski concession to the outlet at Wiggins Pass. This distance is
about I mile and a quarter. Generally it takes me 20 minutes to
go I mile by my boat to reach the pass with the total distance
being posted as a manatee and no-wake zone. Jet Ski renters
will use approximately 50 minutes to go from the rental to the
gulf and return to the rental if they obey -- if they obey the signs,
obey the law.
Knowing that Jet Ski rental -- Jet Skis are designed for
speed and quick turns, I doubt that many renters will be patient
enough to wait until they reach the gulf before high speed. May I
suggest that the county be very reluctant in granting a Jet Ski
rental permit for the sensitive waterway.
As a matter of fact, there were four manatee feeding in the
waterway just south of Bluebill bridge Saturday afternoon, and
Page 181
May 22, 2001
that was the afternoon where the local scouting had their little
cot races on the bridge. Their parents had another dimension
that day. They were able to go up on the bridge and look at the
manatee feeding below them. Quite often the boaters who do
not observe the no-wake sign along the waterway are boaters
that rent pontoon boats and Jet Ski users. Generally these
boaters tend to speed and create heavy wake.
We can as res -- what can we as residents say to our elected
officials to impress upon them, please do not jeopardize our
waterway as is our hopeless uncurable traffic situation that
constantly crams our neighborhood from November to May?
Many of our neighbors expressed a disagreement with some of
the commissioners' positioning stating that in the future we will
look closer into projects of this nature; however, for now we will
follow the staff's recommendation. I believe that the county staff
may have been in error to recommend a change of the code
allowing hotel projects to be developed in an area of less than 1
acre of land.
I know in the recent past this board has reversed itself on a
few occasions to rectify a decision made on incomplete or faulty
information. I ask the board to please serve the people with
courage and wisdom in disapproving this project and return to
the original use of code which served this area well. Even if it
leads into possible litigation, the county commissioners will have
the people's support in this matter, whatever the cost. I believe
it's worth a fight to maintain the quality of Vanderbilt Beach and
its environment.
I thank you for listening to me this afternoon, and I hope my
words will inspire the board to favor the people in this cause in
this matter. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Chuck Brooke followed by
Page 182
May 22, 2001
Ben Smith.
MR. BROOKE: Hello. My name is Chuck Brooke. I'm a short-
time resident of Vanderbilt Beach. I'm also the treasurer of the
Save Vanderbilt Beach Association. I urge you, amazingly
enough, to rescind the approval that was given to construct the
10-story, 68-unit hotel, and I'd like to give you my reasons why. I
think the first one is that there was a mistake made when the
LDC was changed in June 16th of the year 2000, and I think the
mistake was that the consequences of that change were never
looked at.
I attended the planning commissioners meeting a couple
weeks ago, and in that meeting a further change to the LDC was
proposed, and it was called a change to the resort tourist
district. Well, I'd like to tell the county staff there's more than
resorts on Vanderbilt Beach; there's residences. It's a resident
tourist beach.
But aside from that little tidbit, the most frightening aspect
to me was that there was no clear evidence of where they were
going with this change. Now, this was a change that was
supposed to take back the LDC -- I forget -- from 6 to 8 to down to
5.5 and 7.5. But those -- that's arithmetic. I mean, there was no
depiction of what it would look like. Are we going to have ten
stories, ten hotels, a whole string of hotels on Vanderbilt Beach
that look just like the one that's being proposed right now? Are
we going to have one? What's the impact on traffic? What's the
impact on sewers? What's the impact on water usage? None --
nothing of that.
So, to me, it was -- the proposal didn't make sense. And,
quite frankly, although none of you were there, just looking at the
commissioners' faces and judging from some of the questions,
they were equally perplexed. I assume that it was the same
county staff that presented this I. DC in June of the year 2000. If
Page183
May 22, 2001
it was and if it followed the same process that I saw at the
Planning Commission, let me tell you, it was a big screw-up
because nobody -- or at least I can't tell that anybody looked at
the consequences of what the change in the LDC was going to
be.
If at this point a mistake was made, why should the
residents of Vanderbilt Beach pay the price for that? Go back to
square one, and please, please get it right this time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker please.
MR. OLLIFF: Ben Smith followed by Clay Brooker.
MR. SMITH: My name is Ben Smith. I live at 9517 Gulfshore
Drive. I've been a resident there for 22 years. I first off want to
thank you for allowing me the privilege of speaking to you.
Ladies and gentlemen of the council, you are well aware of,
quote, the problem. I cannot really add any new pertinent
information or facts. However, the system of which you are a
vital part, you really are the Harry Truman, if you will. If you
can't stand the heat, don't come in the kitchen. And the best of
all, the buck stops here. I and all residents here today
respectfully request that you right this wrong.
Finally, for all of Collier County, until the density problems --
problem is faced and the roads, the water, and the sewer
problems are solved and in place, our permitting -- all permitting
should be stopped immediately. The cart has been before the
horse. Enough is enough. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF'. Chairman, the next speaker was Clay Brooker,
but apparently there's some order that they've requested, and
that's up to you. The next speaker was Clay Brooker.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the
record my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the property
owner of the Beachcomber property. We have three speakers,
Page 184
May 22, 2001
including myself, to address you today. We would request at
least half the time that the opponents have had and the
opportunity to respond to any new issues that plaintiffs' counsel
might raise. I'd like to first have Former Commissioner Tim
Hancock address you on some planning issues, and then my
associate Clay Brooker will briefly address you with regard to
some procedural matters, and then I will come up here to
address you on substantive matters.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just a moment. Mr. Weigel, you heard
the request. Where am I here? It's been a five-minute limitation
on everybody.
MR. WEIGEL.' That's right. This is not a quasi-judicial
hearing and things of that nature, but it's your prerogative.
Bruce Anderson, his expert, Mr. Brooker, represent, obviously, a
party of interest here. And so to the extent they each would
have five minutes to speak on behalf of whatever expression
they wish to make, just as every other speaker has had five
minutes to make any kind of discussion, I see at least 15
minutes. And anything further you wish to do is your prerogative.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. And how many speakers do I
have after this, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: After those three you have two speakers left.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I'll grant you 15 minutes.
Let's do a good job, gentlemen.
MR. HANCOCK: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
the county commission. My name is Tim Hancock. I'm the
director of Collier County services for Vanasse & Daylor. I come
here today with over 11 years' planning experience in Collier
County. I've been a registered AICP since 1994, qualified as a
planning expert in city, county, and federal venues, and I'm
appearing here today as an expert for the property owner.
One issue that was raised here today for the first time is the
Page185
May 22, 2001
application of development standards in relation to the approved
Beachcomber Hotel project, specifically the language pertaining
to setbacks. The Collier County Land Development Code deals
with setbacks in several ways. The most direct is found
predominantly in single-family residential zoning districts and
simply states a minimum distance from the property line. This
form of measuring setbacks appears in some fashion in almost
every zoning district.
In the industrial district, the setbacks are measured as a
function of the lot width. The zoning categories for permitted
building heights are up to 100 feet. There are different standards
of measurement. In RMF-12, RMF-16, and RT zoning districts, the
following language is used for both side- and front-yard setbacks,
and I quote: One-half of the building height, as measured from
each exterior wall or wing of a structure with a minimum -- and
this says of 15 feet. That was taken from the RMF-12. It's 30
feet in the RMF-16 and in the RT zoning districts.
These three zoning districts permit building heights ranging
from 50 to 100 feet and are the only districts in which this
language is used. The key to the interpretation of this language
is the use of the word "each" in modifying the phrase "exterior
wall," as you can see from the exhibit that is on the visualizer.
This language was written specifically to contemplate multiple
exterior walls or at least a possibility of multiple exterior walls in
a tiered fashion. As such, the language equally contemplates
differing measurements from each of those exterior walls.
The exhibit on the visualizer shows, for example, at a height
of 60 feet, a setback to that portion of the exterior wall would be
30.
At a height of 100 feet, that measurement moves in to 50. If
the intent were different, the word "each" would not have been
used in the language, and it simply would have read "One-half of
Page 186
May 22, 2001
the building height as measured from the nearest exterior wall."
It clearly does not read that way.
Of particular relevance today is the purpose for that
language even being included in the Land Development Code in
the first place. The language appears only in the more intense
residential and hotel districts that are predominantly located in
the immediate coastal areas. The majority of the properties that
have RMF-16 or RT zoning are relatively narrow when compared
to the depth of the lots. As such, an overly restrictive setback
such as one-half of the total building height could render the
parcel undevelopable. For example, many of the parcels in
Vanderbilt Beach zoned RT are only 100 feet in width. That
would mean that the resulting building on that lot would
maximize at 60 feet with a base width of 40 feet if you were to
use one-half the building height by itself.
A second consideration regarding why this language is in
the Land Development Code in its current form is from an
architecturally aesthetic standpoint. A nonvarying setback, such
as one-half of the building height, that does not grant increased
setbacks for tiered portions of a building would result in -- Mr.
Weigel used the correct term -- a monument effect, giving
buildings in the zoning district the appearance of pillars with
little or no relation to each other or to the pedestrian element.
And this is something that I think is very, very important. By
tiering buildings, allowing lesser setbacks at the lower levels,
and requiring greater setbacks at the higher levels, the building
relates to the buildings in its surroundings by stepping down, if
the buildings are smaller, and to the pedestrian element on the
street by stepping down toward where folks are walking, cycling,
and whatnot.
Mr. Weigel's purported theory that there's no difference
between a monument or pillar-type of building and one that is
Page187
May 22, 2001
tiered is in direct conflict with the county's architectural design
guidelines. The point is further strengthened and, in fact, is a
requirement by law in Section 2.8.4.4.3 of the Land Development
Code which contains the architectural requirements for
commercial buildings such as a hotel.
This LDC section requires that new buildings that are more
than twice the height of another existing building within 300 feet
must provide what the code calls transitional massing elements
to provide a transition between the existing building of lower
height and the proposed taller building. There's even an
iljustration in the Land Development Code to show exactly what
is meant by traditional massing. This is from your Land
Development Code.
When you read the commercial architectural requirements
for transitional massing elements in a tall building in conjunction
with the language regarding side-yard setbacks being measured
from each exterior wall, point and see that the LDC clearly
contemplates and provides for the base structure wall and a
transitional massing element wall to be separately measured in
determining building setbacks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Mr. Hancock?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you design this building?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, I did not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING'- Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon again, Commissioners. For
the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. Since we have such a
scant amount of time, I'm going to take up most of my
associate's time as well as my own.
From time to time, I appear before you on behalf of a
property owner applying for a change in zoning, but that is not
the case today. This hotel is not an upzoning, as has been
Page 188
May 22, 2001
erroneously stated in the newspaper on more than one occasion.
The zoning does not need to be changed. The property has been
zoned for commercial uses for more than 40 years. I would
venture a guess that the right to build a hotel on this property
predates the arrival on Vanderbilt Beach of those who now
complain about it.
The zoning on this Beachcomber property permits as a
matter of right under the county's own laws the right to build on
this property a hotel up to 100 feet in height with 68 rooms. And
that is what the Beachcomber property owner has, a site
development plan approval, or SDP, and a building permit from
the county to construct on this property. The sole question
before you today is whether there is a legal basis in the
Comprehensive Plan for you to revoke both of these approvals.
The answer is a resounding no.
I'd like to direct my comments for a moment to some of the
items that David raised, Mr. Weigel, when he was talking about
this side-yard setback measurement. I would point out to you
that the same measurement of side-yard setbacks was used for
redevelopment of a tiered bayside building for the La Playa Hotel
that was reviewed and approved by the county commission less
than a year ago. So it is already a well-established precedent
accepted by the Board of County Commissioners in the
residential tourist zoning district along Gulfshore Drive that this
is the way that side-yard setbacks are measured for tiered
buildings.
There are other precedents as well, such as the Ramada Inn
on Pine Ridge Road and the Sun Harbor and Vista del Sol
condominiums. This same method of measurement for side-yard
setbacks has been used by the county for many years in Pelican
Bay and in other multifamily and commercial structures
throughout the county. The county would be in violation of its
Page 189
May 22, 2001
own laws if it measured setbacks in any other manner than it has
consistently measured and approved in the past.
I would also point out to you that Section 2.6.4.4 of your
Land Development Code allows this building to be constructed
out to the water's edge. And the same size building that we have
a building permit for now could still be built on this property if
you apply the tortured and new setback interpretation that some
would have you apply. We could build the same size building by
going out to the water's edge, but then that wouldn't be very
neighborly because we would destroy the neighbors' water view.
And as far as -- let me -- I want to separate my presentation
into three parts. And from time to time, I will refer to this exhibit
booklet that I provided to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson, did you expect us
to know everything that's in here?
MR. ANDERSON: No. I'm going to explain it to you. And if
you have a question, you can refer to it specifically.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this is not an exhibit; it's just
a reference book for us?
MR. ANDERSON: It is an exhibit in the event that we wind
up in court. It is also to aid you in your decision-making.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Well, I cannot -- I don't have
enough time to review it in order to aid me in -- in the decision,
so I see it more as something that you want to make reference
to,
MR. ANDERSON: I do want to make reference to it as well.
It's just that if you want more detail than I am giving you in my
presentation --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe Mr. Weigel can help me.
MR. WEIGEL: This happens from time to time where there's
a voluminous submittal to the Board of County Commissioners at
the hearing, and the record can reflect that this -- that this
Page190
May 22, 2001
volume -- these volumes were supplied to commissioners, that
they have had no ability to review it or read it, have not seen it
prior to the meeting -- commissioners will so state on the record -
- and that any references to it made during the course of the
meeting will be that which appears in the record. So you
commissioners may wish to state on the record whether you've
not seen the document before.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll state at this time that it's my first
exposure to it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me three.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the first time I've seen it,
and I don't have time to review it. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: I just note also for the record that all of the
items contained in this exhibit booklet, with the exception of 5,
6, and 7, are public records of the county.
Now, I'd like to separate my presentation into three parts:
The past, the present, and the future. Let's go back in time to
February 1953 when the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County approved the plat that includes this property
which consists of two separate platted lots. These lots are 50
and 51 of Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, recorded at Plat
Book 3, page 18. It's included as Exhibit I in your booklet.
Under the county's regulations then and today, a building could
be built on each of these two separately platted lots.
Now let's move from 1953 to July 2nd, 1957. It was on that
day almost 44 years ago that the rezoning of this property
occurred, changing the zoning from residential to commercial. A
copy of those minutes are included in the booklet as Exhibit 2.
Over the years as Collier County zoning regulations have
become more sophisticated, there have been various
Page 191
May 22, 2001
permutations of commercial zoning on this property. And for at
least the last 20 years, the property has been zoned residential
tourist, or RT, and has continued to allow 100-foot-high hotels
and condominiums to be built on the property as a matter of right
under the zoning regulations. Since that time there have been 6-
story to 13-story to 15-story condominium buildings constructed
in the area surrounding the Beachcomber property. A map
identifying those building heights on the surrounding properties
and photos of those buildings are included in your exhibit booklet
as Exhibits 6 and 7.
Some of the same folks who live in these high-rise buildings
don't want our client to build a ten-story structure on his
property. Some of these same neighbors don't want a hotel in
there either, although they are very happy to walk on the beach
that was renourished from tourist taxes generated and collected
by the hotels along Vanderbilt Beach.
Now let's forward to November 1997 --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Everybody gets a chance to present
their case. Please.
MR. ANDERSON: Now let's fast forward to November 1997
when the county commission adopted a new Comprehensive Plan
that changed the way hotels and motels were to be regulated by
the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. The
1997 comp plan, which became effective in June 1999,
eliminated the old references to measuring hotels based on the
number of units per acre. And, instead, it identified hotels and
motels as nonresidential uses, which according to the terms of
that Comprehensive Plan, are not subject to the residential
density rating system which uses as a measurement the number
of unit -- dwelling units per acre. A copy of the relevant pages of
the Comprehensive Plan are included in your booklet as Exhibit
Page 192
May 22, 2001
In April and May of 2000, in order to eliminate this
inconsistency which now existed with the new Comprehensive
Plan in its classification of hotels as a nonresidential use, the
county's planning staff came forward with a proposal to amend
the LDC references to the limitations of 26 units per acre for
hotels and to instead use a measurement of intensity based upon
the building size of the hotel, rather than trying to equate a one-
bedroom hotel unit to a three-bedroom condominium.
To the best of my knowledge, no member of the business or
development community played any role whatsoever in
originating the proposal to use floor area ratios as a basis to
measure the construction of new hotels. And I can assure you
most certainly that the owner of the Beachcomber property had
nothing to do with those amendments. This same change in the
method of measure was also made to the C-4 commercial zoning
district, which also allows hotels as a matter of right. A copy of
the staff report concerning the changes to the FARs is included
in your booklets as Exhibit 3.
At the same time these LDC amendments were proposed by
staff, a redevelopment proposal for the La Playa Hotel was going
forward to a public hearing before the county commission to
allow a private beach club in con]unction with a hotel. The La
Playa proposal was in compliance with the old 26-unit-per-acre
limitation on hotels. But the staff had done no analysis of what
kind of floor area ratio had been constructed at other existing
resort hotels such as the Ritz-Carlton or The Registry, among
others.
After they examined the real-life facts on floor area ratios of
other resort hotels, staff proposed a different and higher floor
area ratio to be applied to resort hotels as contrasted with the
more conventional business-traveler-type hotels that are
normally built near the interstate, farther away from the coast.
Page 193
May 22, 2001
In June 2000, the Land Development Code was amended to
read as it does today, which now brings us from the past to the
present. A copy of the applicable provisions of the LDC as they
were amended almost a year ago are included in your booklet as
Exhibit 9. At present the Beachcomber fully complies with all of
your ordinances. It doesn't need approval because it already
meets your zoning requirements.
Copies of the county documents which evidence the
approval of the SDP and the building permit are included in your
booklet as Exhibit 4.
The only question for you today is whether the normally
routine administrative approval of a site development plan and a
building permit for this property owner's hotel violated or was
inconsistent with your Comprehensive Plan. There's been no
demonstration that that's the case.
Now let's turn to the future. If the county commission is not
happy with the way the law reads today, you can amend the Land
Development Code to do so. And, in fact, there's a proposal to do
just that. But such a change in the regulations can only apply to
future projects. It cannot be applied to retroactively take away
the vested rights that the Beachcomber property owner has
acquired.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can you wrap that up, please?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: My client is wondering how he got to be
the bad guy in this little drama. All he did was follow the very
rules that the county had adopted. At least twice attempts were
made by our client to reach out to the neighbors to try to work
out a compromise. Each time my client's attempts were rebuffed
and rejected. Last November and December our client tried to
work with the neighboring residents to amend the Land
Page 194
May 22, 2001
Development Code to allow a different floor area ratio or a
different type of hotel. And during that time both the county
commission and the attorney for the neighboring residents were
informed that a 70- to 80-room hotel could be built, under the
existing rules, on approximately a I acre lot.
We even notified the neighbors' attorneys in writing that if
we could not reach a compromise on the Land Development Code
amendment, that our client would have no choice but to go
forward with a 70- to 80-room hotel on his property. Nobody
should have been surprised. Our client did exactly as he said he
was going to do in order to protect his investment.
Back on April 10th when Commissioner Carter brought this
matter up and requested the rest of you to vote to reconsider
this, he stated the purpose was to provide an opportunity to sit
down with both sides, and Commissioner Carter has worked
diligently. And once again our client offered a compromise, and
once again that compromise was rejected, and they offered no
compromise in return. There's just no pleasing some people.
In the near future, you're going to be considering that new
requirement. You're going to be considering a requirement to
require developers to meet with neighborhood groups, but you
didn't have to force the Beachcomber property owner to do that.
He tried to do that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Bruce, I got to have you wrap up. I
said 15; you're pretty close. Let's do it.
MR. ANDERSON: We're here today to ask you not to do
anything. Don't reconsider. Don't revoke a validly issued building
permit.
Don't reward a stubborn refusal to try to compromise. Don't
interfere with what would have been a routine administrative
approval. Don't issue or revoke building permits based upon the
sound registered on an applause meter. Don't throw out the rule
Page 195
May 22, 2001
book and substitute mob rule in its place. You must encourage
respect for the county's laws by respecting them yourself. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Two last speakers are Michael J. Volpe
followed by William, I believe it's, Eliway (phonetic). Eline.
MR. VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name
is Michael Volpe. I appear before you this afternoon as the
attorney of record for a group of associations along Gulfshore
Drive and its immediate environs who have come together in
protest to the situation where we are today.
The last time that I was here was in December of 2000, and
we were debating at that time an amendment to the Land
Development Code as it related to residential resort hotels. Mr.
Varnadoe and Mr. Varnadoe's client, Mr. Anderson, were here on
behalf of their client because what they sought was a 24-unit
residential resort hotel. At the time there was concern
expressed by the Board of County Commissioners as it relates to
a potential for an abuse as to how we regulate residential resort
hotels, and there was also some concern that was expressed as
it relates to density or intensity of use, 24 units in what would
otherwise be 16 units per acre for condominiums, 26 units for
hotels.
At the time the board gave direction to your staff to return
with some recommendations during the next amendment cycle,
which was and is June of this year. In this intervening period of
time, what has developed is, among other things, I've had a
chance to review the minutes of the meeting of the CCPC back in
May of 2000 which was when the debate took place about
changing from units per acre to a floor area ratio formula for
hotels. At that CCPC meeting, Mr. Varnadoe and his client, Mr.
Anderson, were there. And the debate ensued about the change
Page 196
May 22, 2001
to floor area ratios.
Your staff, at that particular time, cautioned the members of
the Planning Commission that the commission itself may be
reluctant to go from 26 units an acre, which is what it had been
for a very long period of time and the way that this community
had developed, to a floor area ratio that would result in a greater
intensity or density of use. And at that time the staff suggested
that maybe we need to come up with a ratio that would more
closely relate to what we have had in the past. And that was the
concern that was expressed by your staff.
During the debate my esteemed colleagues, Mr. Varnadoe,
Mr. Anderson, appeared before the CCPC and suggested that
there's a distinction between the type of hotels -- like a Hampton
Inn, a Marriott Residence Inn, which are more transient hotels;
and the residential resort hotels -- and attempted to discuss what
would be a more appropriate floor area ratio for a residential
resort hotel.
I need to give you this by way of background because,
really, what's happened -- at that time the comment was that by
the amendment that was ultimately adopted by the CCPC and
recommended to the board, Mr. Varnadoe's concern at that time
was that we could arrive at what would be an unintended result.
And what we have now is an unintended result, where we have a
situation where we have, we believe, a property owner who from
day one has wanted 24 units of either a residential resort hotel or
a 24-unit condominium complex.
I don't think anyone has ever wanted in this particular
residential tourist district -- and certainly the board didn't intend
it or comprehend that this could result in a residential tourist
district, that you could end up with a condominium with a
residential -- or a hotel, I'm sorry, that would result in an increase
of tenfold of what was previously permitted. I think that's the
Page197
May 22, 2001
context which brings us here today.
You're on the horns of a dilemma. A decision needs to be
made. We have, in fact, filed two separate proceedings
challenging the actions of the board, both as it relates to the site
development plan which was approved, as you all know, and also
the Land Development Code that, in fact, changed the formula for
determining the intensity or density as relates to residential
resort hotels. The challenge is based upon a violation of the
Growth Management Act and the county's own Comprehensive
Plan.
There are a couple of high hazard situations here. One -- I'll
be very brief-- in a coastal high hazard area, which is where this
is located, your goals, objectives, and your policies tend to limit
and restrict the number of units that can be developed in the
coastal high hazard area. This amendment that we're
discussing, which is the June 2000 amendment, resulted in a
tenfold increase in the number of units. In another context and in
another forum, we've asked you to look at that Land
Development Code. That petition has been filed. We believe it is
inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and with the
Comprehensive Plan of the county.
The other is a challenge to the site development plan.
We've raised a legal challenge. In fact, there are legal
arguments which I don't intend -- this is not a quasi-judicial
proceeding. I don't want to get into the legal issues, but there
are some issues that we've raised with your county attorney
which we have not received yet a firm -- a response. One of them
has to do with lot area. How do you measure lot area when a
portion of the lot is, in fact, submerged land? It's a question of
interpretation under the Land Development Code.
Mr. Weigel can correct me, but I'm not sure that we have yet
had an appropriate interpretation either from Mr. Weigel or from
Page198
May 22, 200t
staff as it relates to what is meant by lot, and do you include the
submerged lands? If you don't include the submerged lands,
you've got a parcel of land that is.8 of an acre as opposed to.92.
We believe that there will be an opportunity in June to readdress
the issue.
But in the meantime, in terms of high-risk litigation, I guess
Mr. Weigel has addressed that issue and the question of whether
there are vested rights. We know that if a person has been
issued a building permit and that building permit was issued in
error, that that does not result in any monetary liability on the
part of the municipality or the issuing authority. I'm not sure that
it's any different here.
We would ask that the board rescind the action that it had
previously taken in approving the site development plan for this
particular project, being in violation of the county's own Growth
Management Plan and the Florida law. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And Mr. Weigel needs to comment.
And then we'll go to your question, Commissioner.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Fine. Thank you. In regard to Mr. Volpe
mentioning the question they had about part of the parcel,
this.92 acre as it purports to be, being under water and how that
affects the county, what I can tell you at this point, working
rather quickly in communication with the state, is, again, part of
the -- part of this land borders Vanderbilt Lagoon. And to the
extent that there is -- but also we know that this is platted land,
and there is a plat. The plat shows the land. We have the plat
before us for our review as part of the site development plan
approval.
And a question of whether it's in water or not really comes
down to, again, call it a private issue, for the most part. And that
is the developer, the petitioner, purports that the land is okay
Page 199
May 22, 2001
and doesn't have a problem that way. If there is a problem of
land ownership, it's potentially between the state claiming part
of that land if it is, in fact, under water.
And what further complicates this is that if part of the rear
of this parcel is in the lagoon, the lagoon is in the -- generally in
the ownership and control of the state. But it depends on
whether it's an unimproved or improved part of the land adjoining
or making up this property. If it's been improved with a sea wall
or dock that's been put on there, required some dredging so
you'd have an adequate dock to this parcel, that would probably
enter into a material determination as to whether -- who owns
the lands as opposed to there being a miscalculation of what
purports to be.92 acres per the plat description which is of
record in the official records of the county.
I can't answer the questions when we get down to private
and potential state ownership, but I will say that if the state
makes a claim and that comes to the attention of the county, the
county may have an opportunity at that point to put a halt until it
knows that the -- that the application that's previously been
approved before it is okay. Secondarily, the developer always
perceives, at their own risk, that their title affairs are in order.
They claim they are.
MR. VOLPE: May I, Mr. Chairman, just briefly? There are
actually two issues. The issue that Mr. Weigel has addressed
has to do with who actually owns the submerged land. And what
I've heard him say is that's a private matter that involves title to
real property, and that's not something that he, as your counsel,
is advising you that you should be involved in.
The issue that I raise is whether in determining a lot for
purposes of applying your floor area ratio -- let's assume for the
moment that they own it. Just assume for the moment that they
own it. Is it like gross acreage? When you're determining density
Page 200
May 22, 2001
of the golf course, do you include the golf course? Do you
include the preserve? Do you include all of that when you
calculate your density or intensity? We're unclear as to whether
the definition or interpretation of lot where a portion of the lot is
submerged is going to be included in the calculation.
If it is not included -- assuming that they own it, if it is not
included, then rather than having.92 acres, you would have a.8
acre, plus or minus, which would result in something less than
68. Would it be more than 24? Yes. But would it be an improper
application of the floor area ratio under the existing Land
Development Code? The answer, in my opinion, is yes. But,
again, that's the issue, Mr. Weigel, that -- that we had discussed.
And I'm not sure that that was the issue that you provided the
board the answer to.
MR. WEIGEL: Not yet. I'm prepared to now. My assistant
reminds me that we have -- the staff has had a consistent
application in the past that -- notwithstanding that there may be
water on the property, that there is still a lot line. And so for
even purposes of floor area ratio, we don't think that an assertion
that part of the property may be under water would appear to be
problematical.
Again, I didn't mention at the beginning of this item, but
remember the discussion we had a few weeks ago about
nonconforming legal lots of record? I mean, we've got that
whether it's.9,.88, .84, etc., and that's going to be pretty
important in the big picture as far as building. If you get to floor
area ratio, what I just said was it appears to me that that is not --
is not, I'm told -- a problem if, in fact, the ownership of the lot is
the ownership -- is the ownership in the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is not the question that I
wanted to pose, but on that particular question, we had a lady
come and testify to us that the -- there must be a different rule
Page 201
May 22, 2001
for private -- for single-family homes as opposed to commercial
properties or RT properties because it didn't work that way for
her and her boat dock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It sounds like she didn't have a -
MR. WEIGEL: I can't respond to -- I can't respond to those --
MR. VOLPE: I guess, if I may, Mr. Chairman, simply what I'm
suggesting to you, that we -- we've raised some -- some, what we
believe, legitimate concerns, not only as relates to the overall
issue concerning the approval of the site development plan, but
in terms of an interpretation. And in terms of getting a final
decision from your counsel's office, I mean, we've asked for that.
I'm hearing it for the first time. I'm sure Mr. Weigel has been
under some, you know, stress to get answers to the questions
that are being asked by -- by all of the people.
But there are a couple of issues that have been raised
having to do with your side-yard setbacks. It's been consistently
applied, according to Mr. Anderson, and I guess probably I --we
have requested if there was a -- an interpretation by staff, and
the answer to that question -- Mr. Weigel, correct me if I'm wrong
-- no, there is no written interpretation from staff. It's the way
it's been applied, also, on the question of lot area and the use of
submerged lands in calculating the floor area ratios. I'm not sure
that that's an issue.
So I'm simply suggesting that there's a basis for the board to
take a step back from where we are, and let's make sure that the
decision that was made was, in fact, the right decision. And,
again, Ms. Mac'Kie has raised the question. I counsel my clients
to try to stay out of litigation if it's at all possible, but sometimes
it's not. And I think the board's acknowledged that you may or
may not -- you are already involved in litigation with your property
owners, with your constituents, and you may very well be
involved -- if you should, in your wisdom, decide to change the
Page 202
May 22, 2001
action that was previously taken, you may find yourself as a
defendant in a lawsuit brought by the developer.
In terms of high risk, you've got the opinion of your counsel.
And in terms of a damage claim, Ms. Mac'Kie, I think what Mr.
Weigel said was if, in fact, you're proved to be wrong, if you were
to change your decision and the court were to rule in favor of Mr.
Anderson's clients and Mr. Varnadoe's clients, you're going to
have an expenditure of your staff's time. You're going to have an
expenditure of outside counsel. But I didn't hear him say that
you're going to end up taking away, if you should be wrong in the
court of law, whatever vested rights claim these people may
have. So--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a second. I got to get Mr.
Coletta's question. I've got one more speaker, and then you can -
No. Don't leave, please.
My question is for you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. VOLPE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
it's appropriate.
Whenever the chairman tells me
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may go first, I appreciate it.
Mr. Volpe, I'm going to quote Donna Fiala and step outside of the
box for just a moment. And I know this is probably totally
inappropriate, and I'm going to probably get yelled at for it
afterwards, but I'm going to do it anyway.
MR. VOLPE: The Jesse Ventura approach to government.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
objects on that stand?
MR. VOLPE: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Fine. I can remember
something back some years ago in Naples where they had a real
You don't have any sharp
Page 203
May 22, 2001
problem with Hamilton Harbor or something like that, and the
citizen was pretty well divided along -- against a big developer,
the biggest one, probably, in the whole area. There was funds
that were committed on the part of the citizenry. Now, I know
your citizens here -- your clients have committed funds to you to
be able to stand up against the county. Is there any possibility
that they might be able to redirect those funds, if we were to find
favorably for them, to assist us in this case?
Hey, I'm going to ask. What's wrong with it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know what, Commissioner?.
That's exactly where I was going to go. So, I mean, the exact --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You would have probably said it
a lot better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the way I would say the
same thing is this: You know, we need to understand your last
comment about that we're not at risk here on a damages suit,
because my question for your clients is bottom line here. If we
are at risk of paying damages for this developer's lost profits or
whatever, Burt Harris, whatever other bundle of rights we may be
taking some of their rights away -- if we're at risk of paying
damages, then I -- I have to consider -- your -- your people said,
"Stand on the side of the people, and do what the people want."
Well, the people in this room, it's very clear what they want.
The people in the neighborhood, it's very clear what they want.
But we represent the whole county, and we're most attentive to
that when we're talking about their purse, as you will recollect
when you sat in this seat. So I want to do what the people want.
I've never seen a case that was better for being decided by
a judge because this is too complicated. There are too many
shades of gray. But if your clients believe in their case, then I
would ask them to hold the county harmless for those damages
because the people, the whole community, is not going to benefit
Page 204
May 22, 2001
by our standing up to this developer. Your clients are, but -- but
the rest of my clients, which include people in the room and
everybody else in the county, are going to be at risk for a big
dollar amount.
I really think that it is appropriate for the neighborhood to
take on the damage claim, if there is one, as something that they
will pay. I really sincerely mean that. I don't understand why
that's viewed as an odd question. Because why should the whole
rest of the county pay that damages claim?
MR. VOLPE: Let me just try to answer that. First, I think --
let's put it into context. As Mr. Anderson said, we're not talking
about rezoning property. We're not talking what we went through
in zoning reevaluations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they --
MR. VOLPE: We're talking -- we're talking about the approval
of a site development plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have a building permit.
MR. VOLPE: And that's correct. They do. And what I'm
suggesting to you is that only -- and these are not the way, you
know, decisions should be made. But since the issue was raised
about, well, this could be a big ticket item -- I think someone
used those words -- I respectfully disagree at this particular
stage in the proceedings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, help me --
MR. VOLPE: This is not an overlay zoning district.
the approval or disapproval of a site development plan.
This is
I believe
Mr. Weigel said that this is the type of issue that relates to
interpretation of provisions of your Land Development Code, and
that should be something that won't require a lot of depositions,
etc., etc., etc. So to the extent that we -- if we end up in a
litigation posture, this is not litigation which is going to take, or
shouldn't take, three years, four years, five years, because the
Page 205
May 22, 200t
wheels of justice sometimes do move very slowly.
What I did hear your counsel say was that this is probably a
lawsuit that we could get a result in a fairly short period of time.
And depending upon, you know, what financing they've got in
place, what they can do to drive up their damages -- I mean, if I
were in that situation, I mean, proceed at your own risk. We
know if they get the building permit and they build the building
and it's determined that the building permit was invalidly issued,
they're out of -- there's nothing they're going to get. So, I mean,
if they were my clients, I'd say, '~Nhy don't you just wait and see
here. Let's not rush to judgment."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would too, Michael. But here's
the thing that I'm -- this is -- and I'm so interested in your point,
and I honestly am not debating you on this. I'm really trying to
get to the nut -- bottom line here. If-- my concern is if we --
because I like your side of this case better. I want to be on your
side in this case, believe me. If I get to choose where my heart
is, that's where I feel. But now I'm worried about the public
purse.
So if we -- if we join your side, if we went with your side,
then we certainly are going to delay this by a month or two.
They won't be able to start construction, or if they did -- and so
then they'll be losing next season, and we'll end up paying them
whatever they're going to make in a season. And that's in the
millions of dollars, don't you think?
MR. VOLPE: No. But, again, that's speculative on my part.
That's just my opinion. But let me suggest to you that sometimes
we have to be practical. And everything I have seen so far -- and
I've been wrong too many times before -- is that nobody wants a
68-unit Holiday Inn on Gulfshore Drive. Not even -- that's not
where Mr. Varnadoe's client started out. Mr. Varnadoe's client
started out with an upscale, Registry, Ritz, all of our other fine
Page 206
May 22, 2001
destination hotels. So I guess the judgment that needs to be
made, do they really want a 68-unit Hampton Inn on Gulfshore
Drive? And that's -- and that's the only question that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How is that relevant to this
damage question?
MR. VOLPE: Because I think there's a certain risk that --
that everyone runs. So, you know, it may not be. I just put that
out. Start out with the basic premise. Nobody -- in my opinion,
nobody wants a 68-unit, including Mr. Varnadoe's client. That's
contrary to what they've done. I understand that.
In terms of the damage claim, what I'm suggesting to you is
that, in my opinion -- and millions of dollars in terms of a delay
claim, that, in fact, they've been delayed by these proceedings, I
think your counsel will have to answer, you know, what would be
the measure of damages as a result of the action of the Board of
County Commissioners.
Mr. Anderson's tried to develop a record, which we've not
tried to do here. We figured that this is not the proper venue to
try to do that. But I guess Mr. Weigel would have to assess what
would be the damage claim. Based upon delay, what would be
the measure of damages.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then, I guess, let's turn to him
for that information, because then -- if it's zero, then we don't
have anything to worry about.
MR. VOLPE: I don't think it's zero, but I also don't think it's
$2 million.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
number-
And then if there is a real
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We've got one more public
speaker here. Could I get that in so then we can go? Because
you're going to where you want to get to resolution, and I've got
one more public speaker. And I can't go to a motion until I have
Page 207
May 22, 2001
that on the record.
MR. VOLPE: May I just respond? And I'll be very quick, and
then I will sit down. I promise you. I do believe, Ms. Mac'Kie,
that this is really not necessarily a parochial issue. I don't really
think, in my heart of hearts, that it's an issue that has to do with
the person that just lives next door, not-in-my-back-yard
approach. I mean, I don't think it's exactly that, so I don't think
this is just benefiting a certain select group of your constituents.
And the other, in terms of indemnification and holding the
government harmless, I guess my answer to that is, "That's why
we pay taxes, and it's the cost of doing business." And if you
feel you're right in your decisions -- which we would hope that
you would be -- then we've underwritten the cost of government
based upon what we do, you know, in terms of paying our ad
valorem taxes. And so you've heard from the citizenry. You're
not going to be criticized, I don't believe, for expending tax
dollars in defense of what a majority of the people seem to think,
in the court of public opinion, is right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't have a problem going
there, but I have to worry about the damages questions, and I
hope we can stay -- I hope that we'll be able to call Mr. Volpe
back, if that's appropriate, to talk about that if it becomes
necessary.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Could I have the last speaker, please.
MR. ELINE: My name is William Eline. I live on Gulfshore
Drive at the Vanderbilt Yacht and Racquet Club, and I'm a
member of the board of directors there.
I concur with what our lawyer of our association has put
forward, to ask you to reconsider where you are. However, our
condominium association and myself personally would like to
add one more question that has not been answered. We are in a
high-risk area. Our condominium association is required to have
Page 208
May 22, 2001
insurance that covers that risk in that area, and I can assure you
it's quite high. Each of us as owners who have mortgages must
obtain high-risk water insurance for each of our units.
Now, as you know, FEMA is already threatening to withdraw
insurance from high-risk areas due to density and intensity. And
we must tell you that we're deeply concerned that if that would
happen, all of us would forfeit our units. We'd be unable to have
our mortgages and probably would have to file bankruptcy.
In light of everything I've heard here for the last two
sessions, I ask you to find a way to get some knowledgeable
people to gather all this information together for you in a very
clear way so that when you make your final decision, it isn't what
one lawyer said, what another lawyer said. It should be what the
state says, what the federal government says, and what your
own laws say. And I thank you for the time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
Do you have questions for counsel?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just the damages question, and
I'm just going to try to say this briefly. I wish that there were no
question. I wish that there -- that this hotel were clearly not
appropriate and not permitted. If I get to choose -- if it's my
pocketbook I'm risking, I will gamble to fight for preventing the
construction of this hotel. It is not, however, my pocketbook; it's
the public's pocketbook.
And so I'm interested in knowing -- you are absolutely a part
of the public and an important part and a valuable part and you
pay a lot of taxes. But what I'm looking at is to balance the
property in -- your pocketbook with the Golden Gate, Immokalee,
City of Naples, Marco Island. I mean, I have to look -- I can't look
just at the interest of the people in Vanderbilt. I have to look at
the countywide interest and balance them. I'm not saying that
yours won't win, but it is an appropriate point for evaluation. I'm
Page 209
May 22, 2001
asking for some advice on what elements would be included in
the potential damages.
MR. WEIGEL: Fine. Thank you. I think you know and can
see from the presentations by the developer's attorneys and Mr.
Volpe that the issues are formidable. The facts can seem
significant on either side, who's attempting to posture and make
a point.
In regard to damages, I told you at the beginning, don't ask
me for dollars, but I'm going to come as close as I can. And if a
lawsuit's filed by the developer -- incidentally, Bruce indicates
that they do have some numbers and figures that they would
indicate to you that they may think are significant to tell you
about, and you may wish to go back to them too.
If a lawsuit were filed -- what you have to look at is what are
we attempting to achieve, if the lawsuit is filed against us, or
what is attempted to be achieved by the person filing a lawsuit
against us.
The lawsuit already filed against us by the neighborhood
associations is attempting to maintain the status quo claiming
that the staff and, therefore, the board has made mistakes in the
application of the Growth Management Plan and its Land
Development Code. They're looking to achieve that status quo of
something less than a 68-unit hotel intensity of use. That's what
they're attempting to achieve. Will they get there? I don't know.
Of the two lawsuits, that is defending that one -- and I've
seen those lawsuits -- as opposed to the one that may be filed
against us, I frankly have more comfort in successfully defending
what I've already seen than defending what I've not seen based
upon what I've told you: We have issues of vested rights here.
And in the handouts I've provided you, it specifically talks in the
RT district of, as a matter of right, the ability to build hotels.
So get back to damages. If the developer sues us, what are
Page 210
May 22, 2001
they trying to do? Well, they may not sue us directly for damages
to begin with. They'll have damages, yes, some delay and other
things like that. But they may be suing us so that they can build
that 68-unit hotel. And if--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: David, I'm sorry because I
haven't asked my question clearly.
MR. WEIGEL: No, you have. I'm going to take you where you
want to be in about 2 seconds -- well, 30. They're going to sue us
to build what they want to build, and we may lose. And,
therefore, the court will say that they can build what they want
to build and, "County, you pay them for the harassment and
damages and loss of time that you incorrectly imposed upon
them." But they can go build that hotel. And where will we be?
We will not have achieved what we wanted to achieve, which
was not let them build that 68-unit hotel.
That puts us in the next phase, then, as we look at damages.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my question.
MR. WEIGEL: The next phase -- but we've already potentially
had significant damages and significant resources expended,
maybe, to lose. The next phase is then, we don't give them
permits, even though the court has said they have the right to
have the permits. And part of the damages that they will have is
what the law says they can build and -- differentiated from what
we say we'll let you build. And that is a taking, and that's what
we'll pay for.
Now, Bruce may want to flush some numbers on those
bones I've just rattled, but that's what we run into: Two phases
of potential risk here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- I understand the second one. I
understand that -- and I've just got to -- because I don't do
litigation, so I don't really -- I need your help with this. If we -- if
we side with the Vanderbilt property owners, we will get sued by
Page 211
May 22, 2001
the developer. The developer will sue us for several things,
because lawsuits always have a zillion counts. But one of them
will be for the right to build this hotel, and another one will be for
damages resulting from delay in building this hotel -- MR. WEIGEL.' I expect so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- should they survive -- should
they win on their first claim.
MR. WEIGEL: They won't be charitable in their complaint,
I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So in trying to measure what's at
risk here, if they win on that lawsuit, then they would, A, get the
permit to build the hotel, as you say --
MR. WEIGEL: They'll have a court order telling them they
can.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and then, B, they would have to
prove up what their damages were as a result of the delay, if it
cost us six months or a year, whatever it cost us to get there.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. Yes. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my question is, included in
that damage claim, I assume, would be -- because, I mean, just
going back to law school, bundle of sticks, property rights, take
some out -- you know, we are going to have taken from them a
period of time in which they could have built a hotel. That's a
temporary taking for which we will have to pay them. And we'll
have to pay them for lost profits. We'll have to pay them for the
interest that will accrue.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Some of those are obviously very
conjectural. They'll be based upon a shootout of experts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what I'm asking you for is,
are there other things? I mean, those are the things that I think
would be included in the damages at risk. It would be their
interest clock that's going to run. It would be their lost profits.
Page 212
May 22, 2001
It would be a temporary taking. Are there other issues at risk in
a lawsuit?
MR. WEIGEL: I expect Clay Brooker or Bruce are dying to
tell you what they think are additional. But beyond that, then we
have the second phase. We have the second phase of --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If they want to give us a number -- and
they may want to. On the other hand, they may not want to
because that would put it in public records. And I'm not sure I
would take that position if I was in their shoes, but I will invite
them to give the number.
The other question I have, would this be a jury trial, or would
this be in front of a judge?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, when we talked about -- initially of the
legal issues, we may not have any facts at issue, and so that
potentially would be a bench trial, a judge without a jury. But
when you get into a discussion of damages, we may -- that may,
in fact, be a jury trial. But the first claim -- the first lawsuit may
not be the same as -- will not be the same as a second lawsuit.
If they prevail in the first one, then they go after us for the
amount of a hotel or whatever we'll let them build. Because if
this board's made a determination that they can't build what they
think they can and the court says our rules allow them to build
what they wish to build, then we have to pay for those property
rights that they don't get to exercise because we don't want
them to.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Being very new and not
understanding all these zoning laws very well, I ask you this
question: The court said they're allowed to build because they
have the rights. But doesn't level of service on the road have
something to do with whether somebody is allowed to build or
not? I don't know what the level of service is on that road. I can
Page 213
May 22, 2001
say to you that when I've driven it, it felt like I was driving on
Fort Myers Beach. I understand that the road can't be widened.
I would think with the 68-room hotel, especially during
season, and 68 rooms not only being occupied and each having a
car, but also the employees going in and out, should drop that
level of service on that road to somewhere around G or H. And I
wondered if that is a legal point that we should be considering.
We haven't been talking about that. MR. WEIGEL: No, we haven't.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. And there are a couple aspects to the question
that you posed, concurrency management system. Number one,
we have a process where if there's a problem with levels of
service, we just don't go outside of our process and disallow this
development here or that one there.
We have a process that's established in our adequate public
facilities ordinance called the annual inventory and update report
that staff brings to the board as to the condition of our facilities,
including the transportation facilities. And in that, if there is a
problem, ASIs, or areas of significant influence, which are
envelopes around certain roadways, would be drawn. At that
time the board would have the ability to declare a moratorium, if
you will, because of an inadequacy in the level of service.
The other issue here is at rezoning time we look at impacts
to our roadway system. There's what we call a 5 percent rule.
When the zoning maps were drawn and certain uses were
permitted, theoretically what was supposed to happen was those
impacts were supposed to have been considered already
because it's already allowed in your zoning code, and they're
supposed to be allowed for already in what the county's doing in
terms of roadway improvements. But if -- and the way that's
caught is if there is a problem, it'll come up in the annual
Page 214
May 22, 2001
inventory and update report in the establishment of the ASIs.
And that is the legal mechanism to catch it, not an ad hoc basis.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Counsel. Let me just
comment on roads. There is a corridor study that's initiated in
that area. That road system's a part of that envelope. That will
take place in the next 12 months. So that process is already
under way, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it won't be something that we
can use in helping to defend this particular issue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know when it's coming to trial,
if it goes to trial. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I can't answer your question.
Commissioner Mac'Kie. And I know that Commissioner
Henning has a question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just going to say, and I
guess the issue of traffic -- I mean, aren't these roads operating
at Level of Service C? Who knows that? I mean, whatever -- I'm
thinking back to the La Playa.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I'm talking about in season.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When we did -- when we got the
La Playa -- remember that -- we were all on the board together
then, weren't we? That was before you guys?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You and I were here. We went through
that issue when La Playa was already a hotel. La Playa was just
a rework of a facility.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. We did have a traffic
study that came with it. And what I remembered was Level of
Service C, and that even the La Playa changes weren't going to
kick it anywhere close to Level of Service D. It was -- I mean, so
I don't think we're going to -- we ain't got no stick with traffic.
That's my Mississippi way of saying.
Page 215
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is one of the things we've
got to be changing the next time around. May I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I've got to go to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to jump
in front of you, Mr. Henning. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
first. I'll follow you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Age before beauty.
I think you were recognized
I have some site plan questions.
I don't know who's here to answer those. I'm talking about
landscaping and water retention and the ability to get a fire truck
behind this building, since it is a commercial building.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I see John is here. I see Susan's
here.
MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, John Dunnuck community
development environmental services administrator. I'd probably
have to defer to Susan because I don't know the technical details
on the landscaping proposal. But probably between us and the
developer, we can answer those questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I have a commercial
building that I built about seven years ago, and I have a little bit
over a half an acre, and I had to put 19 trees on it. And my
question is, is there enough green space there to have the native
trees that are required in a commercial building? And the
parking area's supposed to have a double-wide landscape buffer,
and is there enough water or green area for water retention?
And I had to put a fire lane in to get into the back of the building
because it is a commercial building.
MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray, interim current
planning manager. I personally did not review and approve the
SDP, but I'm going to assume that the SDP was approved
Page 216
May 22, 2001
according to the landscape code, to the fire code, to the
engineering water management requirements since it has been
approved and has gone through all of those review levels.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' And no offense, Ms. Murray, but
I hope that we're not assuming, because looking at this building,
I have a real -- a lot of doubt that the heighth of the building fits
the setback, as was stated before. And I think that was
assuming. I just want to throw all that stuff out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this -- who would know?
Would this be --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, the developer has some plans
out there. I've seen the plans. I'm not an expert either.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was, is this under
residential or commercial standards in the review since it's RT?
MS. MURRAY: I believe it would be under commercial
standards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, then you've got some
important questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: I have a letter from the North Naples Fire
Control District that they've reviewed this SDP and that it meets
their standards, and it has their approval. I'd like to enter it into
the record for Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll frame it, Bruce. Bring it up
here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If it goes to the record, you need to
give that to the court reporter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, in the -- I know the
standards for that is -- can be under interpretation, too, the fire
code. So -- and it depends on who you talk to. So I'm just
throwing that one out there too.
Page 217
May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As a previous fire commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It depends on who you talk to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm
going to -- I'm going to -- I'm going to make a motion here that we
-- based on everything I've heard here this afternoon --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we get the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we get the damages
information first? Is it going to affect your decision? I --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm going to -- okay. If they want
to give me some numbers, fine. I'm still going to make the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'. I still have some questions to
ask.
You ask the questions;
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, okay.
then I'll make the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Mr. Anderson, would you come
up, please?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's try one more time with this
exercise. We've gotten nowhere with anyone here today. I
mean, I've never seen anything that was such a mess as far as
anyone making a concession anywheres along the way. It
wouldn't take an awful lot to break this one way or the other, as
far as I'm concerned. What's the very least that you can accept,
one more time? Did they give you any ace up your sleeve that
you can play now at the last minute? I'm serious. I'm not
kidding. What's the very least that you could accept?
MR. ANDERSON: It would only be if the neighbors would
accept it and not prolong the litigation; let me give you that
Page 218
May 22, 2001
caveat. But we would -- we would stand by the proposal that we
made last November and December with regard to residential
tourist hotels. But it would only be if that brought an end to the
litigation and that you subsequently amended the Land
Development Code to reflect what was discussed last November
and December. We would not, and I could not counsel my client
to, relinquish his building permit until after the appropriate time
period had expired after your action was taken. But you hold my
feet to the fire, that's my answer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before we go any farther, I'm
not through yet.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. But that's an assumption, to
clarify that point, that the Land Development Code would be
changed favorably to where you could build 24 units. I think
that's where we are, aren't we?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nothing's really changed on
that.
MR. ANDERSON: Residential tourist --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there -- I don't know, can you
take the windsock off the roof or something? I'm just trying to
find something here we can do. Possibly can you just take a
minute and step out in the hall with their attorney and then come
back in here and tell us that you've come to some sort of
understanding? Could you do that one more time.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll be happy to. I would have loved to have
been able to do that today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will the other side's attorney be
willing to do that?
MR. VOLPE: Sure. But may I comment? Nobody wants a 68-
unit hotel. In terms of what is permissible under existing law,
the developer had actually proposed now in -- I think
Commissioner Carter was present at that time -- at one of our
Page 219
May 22, 2001
meetings a 24-unit condominium.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- Which is what they wanted all
along. We know that.
MR. VOLPE: That's different now, Ms. Mac'Kie. He actually-
- what the -- when they said that we were so deeply entrenched
and immovable, the alternative was a 68-unit hotel or a 24-unit
condominium. A 24-unit condominium is not permissible under
the existing zoning, 16 units an acre for condominiums. This is
less than an acre. Even under the best case, it would allow for
15 units. So I couldn't -- I couldn't agree to violate your existing
ordinances. That was where we were in terms of compromise.
As it relates to the issue where we were back in November --
I'm sorry, December, this was the issue that we were debating,
and Mr. Anderson was absolutely correct, holding the gun to our
head and threatening, as he's done, that it's either a 24-unit
residential hotel or a 68-unit Holiday Inn.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You see no reason to go out in
the hall and have a talk?
MR. VOLPE: Well, what I'm saying, Commissioner Coletta, is
simply there is a proper forum for that debate to take place.
That debate isn't a compromise between myself and Mr.
Anderson. The proper area will be for you during the next cycle
of the Land Development Code -- which is where you directed
your staff to be -- to have that debate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what Mr. Anderson just said
was that if-- you know, subject to -- he'd hold on to his building
permit until it were a done deal. But subject to our -- if we today
direct staff to draft an emergency amendment, if that's going to
make your clients happy, then I'm going to go there. And, you
know, I understand that you don't have the power to agree to
that.
MR. VOLPE: That's correct.
Page 220
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I respect that and appreciate
that you didn't agree to it. But today what I'm hearing is that
they will -- I'm assuming that they would toll their damage claim
pending the adoption of such a Land Development Code. If we
were to instruct our staff to immediately begin doing it and your
clients would be happy with that, then we've won.
MR. VOLPE'. And I wish -- I mean, I'm more than willing to try
to reach compromise. I feel that there is always that
opportunity. As I said before, we want to counsel our clients to
remain out of the courtroom. But, Commissioner Coletta, the
problem that I have is what you're asking me to do with Mr.
Anderson. And maybe I misunderstood what he said. He said our
position would be if you would agree today that you would adopt
an amendment to your Land Development Code that would allow
a 24-unit residential hotel --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think he said condominium
building.
MR. VOLPE: I think he said res -- Mr. Anderson, did you say
residential hotel or condominium?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He said residential hotel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on back up here, Bruce.
MR. VOLPE: I thought he did say residential hotel.
(Several speakers at once.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One at a time. One at a time for the
recorder, please.
Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: I was just trying to be accommodating, and
I mentioned both.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Bruce, stay at the podium.
Would your client -- if we instructed our-- I apologize. I didn't
mean to give you an order. I request you to please stay at the
podium.
Page 221
May 22, 2001
MR. ANDERSON: I'm happy to be here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Civility month and all. If we were
to instruct our staff to draft an LDC amendment to permit a 24-
unit condominium on this property -- not a residential hotel, but a
24-unit condo -- they're shaking their head no. MR. WEIGEL: Not a condo.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA-' Stay right there. Don't go away.
Let's play this game out all the way, and see where we're going
to go, and we can always -- I'm sorry. Am I doing something
wrong?
MR. WEIGEL: I said you're on a roll. We're prepared to enter
in any time you want.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's go -- let's go all the
way. If we went with a 16-unit condominium, took the windsock
off the roof -- which is a joke -- and you did the path going to the
beach, would you be amenable to all those different things? I'm
just trying to feel this out to where we are, the bottom line on
this whole thing, before we make a final decision.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I said I would at 24. We can't
financially do the 16, sir. But we did offer either a 24-unit
residential hotel or a 24-unit condominium.
MR. WEIGEL: Remember, residential and commercial. We
cannot legally advise you that they can do a 24-unit
condominium. That's residential, can't be done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we could amend the codes to
permit it. We could amend the comp plan.
MR. ANDERSON: There's a way to get there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course there's a way to get
there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Not here on this dais.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not here today, but we can --
MR. VOLPE: That's my point, Commissioner Coletta.
Page 222
May 22, 2001
MR. WEIGEL: Residential hotel is far easier. And as
Marjorie's about to tell you, we assured Mr. Carter that when we
went forward in this Land Development Code cycle, we would
make it advertised broad enough that we could bring the kitchen
sink, if we needed to, in there. Now, it's broad enough under 2.2
that we could even entertain -- even though the Planning
Commission's had one hearing so far -- the residential -- what's
that called, that hotel? What's the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Manatee.
MR. WEIGEL: No, not The Manatee. What's the --
MS. STUDENT: Destination.
MR. WEIGEL: -- the destination resort hotel, 24-unit-type
thing. We could even do that in this Land Development Code
cycle going right now. But we can't do condo, and I'm not sure
we can ever do condo. It would be very hard to get there.
MS. STUDENT: The condo's a problem because it is a
residential unit. That density in our comp plan is limited. It's in a
coastal area to four residential dwelling units an acre. The hotel
is commercial. We don't get to density with the hotel. We have
an intensity standard. If we -- and the only reason it's got 16
units in RT is because it went through zoning reevaluation, and
that's how it -- the 16 units were grandfathered. If we go to the
Department of Community Affairs and say we're upping that by
50 percent, I think we'll probably be before the governor and
cabinet again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' The short answer is the state
won't let us because of the hurricane evacuation issues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As far as condominiums.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Condos. So the only thing we
have on the table as a possibility to discuss is if they -- what
number of hotel units in a residential tourist would your client be
willing to accept? They said they'll take -- they'd do it for 24. If
Page 223
May 22, 2001
they did 24 and that beach walk access?
MR. VOLPE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, obviously I represent
only a particular group of people. This is deja vu. This is the
debate that took place in December, and you directed your staff
to bring this matter back before the board at the June cycle.
You're going -- you've already, I believe, had one public hearing,
at least, before the CCPC on that issue. So it's -- I think it's --
there's another forum to have that debate.
I think this discussion is an acknowledgment that there's a
problem here that we need to address, not only on the short
term, but on the long term. Because as I said to you, looking at
the CCPC minutes, Mr. Varnadoe's clients never intended -- in the
amendment that took place when you went from 26 units an acre
to a floor area ratio that you would end up with a hotel in this
area at 68 units. At the time, if you look at the minutes -- Mr.
Anderson's given them to you. And tonight after supper take a
look, and he discusses the fact that we don't want to jump you
from 26 units an acre to 48. That's not what we want to do
because you're probably not going to be comfortable with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I understand that this
may well -- I'm sorry, to the attorneys I'm about to comment on.
But accepting for a moment that this may well be a shell game
and that they did this all as a game to get us to the point of doing
24 residential tourist units, you know, even if that's the case, if
that satisfies people and we don't put the county at risk for a big
damage number, why don't we go there?
MR. VOLPE: I guess, Ms. Mac'Kie, my answer to that is --
and maybe I've missed something -- you will have the opportunity
during the June cycle to address this issue. My clients and
others throughout the community will have an opportunity to
provide you with their input as to whether, in this instance, it is
or is not appropriate to have residential resort hotels in RT
Page 224
May 22, 2001
zoning districts with a floor area ratio that would allow for 24 or
more units. I don't think we ought to try to decide that today.
I know you're not suggesting that, Commissioner Coletta.
I'd love to see the compromise. The issue is, this is an approval
or disapproval of a site development plan. And any time you go
into litigation there are risks that you run, but I think -- my sense
is that nobody wants a 68-unit residential resort hotel. So this
litigation may never get on anyone's docket because we may
actually have this debate again. And I look forward to seeing you
in June when we go through the amendment cycle. And maybe if
Mr. Anderson gets what he wants at that time -- and we can't
prejudge that -- maybe you won't have your damage claim, Ms.
Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the only -- the only issue,
then -- the only thing that I have on the bargaining -- on the table
today to bargain with is if your guys would hold off on the lawsuit
while we -- pending this June LDC cycle and if Mr. Anderson's
client would hold off on a lawsuit pending the June -- or at least
toll their damages pending the June LDC cycle, then we can
safely have that discussion at the proper time without risking the
damages that might otherwise be accruing. That's the gamble
I'm making if I don't at least try to get everybody to freeze where
they are, freeze your positions today, pending LDC, the June
cycle. Would your guys be willing to do that if the other side is?
MR. VOLPE: We're in the cycle already so -- I think today is
May 22nd. So, I mean, it's -- I mean, even if we were to proceed
full tilt, I think the earliest I'd be able to get a hearing with one of
our circuit court judges would be three months.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. So I'm not really asking
anything from you, and I know that. Who I'm really asking
something from is --
MR. VOLPE: I wanted to be polite to let people know that I
Page 225
May 22, 2001
wasn't giving up anything.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. I just -- so, Bruce --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come on, Bruce, make us proud.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- toll your damages pending the
LDC cycle.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't have authorization to do that. They
may be willing to. But you must know, since our interest costs
alone are a thousand dollars a day, this last delay we had cost
$30,000 trying to be a good neighbor and work with people.
Commissioner Coletta, I think you've seen -- I think you have
seen today that we have tried to reach out and work with people,
and this is typical of the reaction we've always gotten.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you're all on an equal
footing, to be honest with you.
MR. ANDERSON: And this was not, Commissioner Mac'Kie, a
shell game by any stretch. They wouldn't have spent $400,000
on architect's fees and another $200,000 on the impact fees.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Another way I would phrase the
commission to you, Mr. Anderson -- and you might want to talk to
your client -- is if we did freeze this until the cycle is complete,
would you halt construction at this point -- continue to hold on
construction until that is decided, if the LDC works to everyone's
satisfaction, that you will make a judgment shot accordingly and
so will the Board of County Commissioners? Do you want to talk
to your client, or do you want me to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think he heard you, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. ANDERSON: I did. I don't know what to say. I feel like
I'm the only one up here offering anything. I mean, the neighbors
get to stand there and shake their heads, no, no, no, no.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm just asking the question. I've
heard the hand -- I've heard (sic) the head shakes up here, and I --
Page 226
May 22, 2001
and I appreciate what Commissioner Coletta tried do, and I've
been going through this for several weeks. I'm saying before I'm
going to force this to a decision on this board, I'm asking one
more time if people would freeze and not build until the June
cycle is complete, and that's what I need an answer to.
MR. ANDERSON: Can you give me a five-minute break?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. We'll take five.
MR. VOLPE: Commissioner Carter, may I -- Commissioner
Coletta -- excuse me just one second. Commissioner Coletta,
you asked a question, and I don't think I answered the question
because maybe I didn't understand it. I don't believe my clients
would agree to indemnify the county, which is what
Commissioner Mac'Kie -- but if what you're asking is for yours
truly and Counsel Rynders to join in the litigation should it be
brought, I will represent to you that we will appear and ask to
intervene in the action and shoulder the lion's share of the
defense of that lawsuit, which is exactly what happened, as I
recall, in Sabal Bay where it actually became a litigation. And
that was also involved in the Key Island litigation. So, I mean, if
what you're asking -- we can offer our services --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But not your money.
MR. VOLPE: -- but not indem -- well, no. I mean, someone's
going to pay for our services, so it would be less time and effort
on your --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I was saying earlier was
that money has been committed to this, and I just wanted it to be
redirected. I think I got an honest answer on that before. I
appreciate very much your efforts.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
have their conversation.
(A break was held.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Okay. Let's take five and let counsel
We're back in session. You're live. If
Page 227
May 22, 2001
everybody would sit down, please. Legal counsel and client went
to the hall to have discussions.
MR. ANDERSON: For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson
on behalf of the oppressed private property owner. And, once
again, my client has negotiated with himself, and we have the
following offer to make to our good neighbors: One -- first of all, I
would like to ask, are they willing to compromise and accept a
24-unit, extended-stay, high-end, boutique hotel on this property?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you are, please raise your
hand.
If you are not, please raise your hand.
(People speaking from the audience.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a hotel.
thought they were going to do in December.
It's the thing that we
It's the condo hotel.
It's the big-room hotel, and it'll be ten stories high; true or false?
MR. ANDERSON: Probably, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I think you've got your
answer, from the people in the room anyway. They're not willing.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I don't know if I should go any farther
with our offer of compromise, then, if out of the opening box,
once again, it was --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I suppose -- and with all due
respect of the board, I think the Board of County Commissioners
would like to hear everything that you have to say.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It doesn't commit you to
anything at a point in time you say it does. MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It wouldn't commit you, Bruce,
you know, until you reach that point in time you've agreed to
actually do it. But what was the rest of the compromise?
MR. ANDERSON: To reach an agreement with them, you
mean?
Page 228
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suppose they did. Suppose they
agreed with you. What was the rest of the compromise? Let's
hear it.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Number one, you would need to
understand that we would have to start over with our design.
And we would want to have -- if you amended the Land
Development Code to accommodate the extended-stay, boutique
hotel, we would need to have -- in order to keep our damages and
everything minimized here, we would want to have a 30-day
review period by the county staff for issuance of the SDP and the
building permit for the new hotel. We have already paid site
development plan and building permit review fees for the one
hotel, and we would want to have them waived for the
resubmittal.
There would be -- we would agree not to commence any
vertical, meaning upward, construction until after the Land
Development Code hearings were completed at the end of June.
We would retain the right to go forward with infrastructure and
pilings, things that are flat on the ground.
The Land Development Code amendment for the high-end,
boutique hotel, we estimate that we would need a floor area ratio
of 1.68.
We would also stipulate, as I have repeatedly stated, there
will not be any Jet Ski rentals.
We would want to keep our current SDP and building permit
intact as an insurance policy in case the other things fall through
or in case the neighbors filed another suit.
MR. WEIGEL: Bruce, would you repeat that last one? Keep
what intact?
MR. ANDERSON: Keep our current SDP and building permit
approval in place so that in the event either the Land
Development Code wasn't amended to allow the boutique hotel
Page 229
May 22, 2001
or if the neighbors, you know, filed a suit challenging the
boutique hotel, too, that we might just go forward -- I don't know
what the decision might be. We'll cross that bridge at the time.
But I wouldn't want to waive the right to go forward with what
we had originally got approved, if we were just embroiling in
another lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me ask you this, Bruce: If
we went along with something like you proposed, then the
neighbors would be coming out and taking you on, rather than
the county, is that correct, or no? They'd still be taking the
county on?
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Okay. Now, what was the
condition for them, they would have to fulfill before you'd be able
to go on? You said something about they had to agree. Do they
have to agree to drop their lawsuit? Is that what it was?
MR. ANDERSON: No. If -- if we got this Land Development
Code amendment approved at the end of June that would allow
us to do a 24-unit, extended-stay, boutique hotel and they didn't
sue over that too, then we would go forward with that, and we
could leave alone and not act upon the SDP and the building
permit that we have in hand today. I just don't know how it could
be any more reasonable.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Would you also include, as you had in
the past, the improvement of the beach access? MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If I may, I'd like to have
Mike Volpe come up here for just a moment. Mike, where are we going with this?
MR. VOLPE: I've heard Mr. Anderson's proposal. My
response -- I'll try to be as succinct as possible -- your own
counsel told you that if this were an amendment to your zoning
Page 230
May 22, 2001
ordinance to increase the number of dwelling units from 16 to 24
in the coastal high hazard area, that would be prohibited, and you
would find yourself--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' He's shaking his head no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' But this is --
MR. WEIGEL: We're not talking condominium; we're still
talking hotel, intensity not density.
MR. VOLPE: And I do understand that. But I'm saying to you
if this were a condominium, if this were a true -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's not.
MR. VOLPE: Okay. If this were -- bear with me just a
moment. If it were, it would be prohibited under your zoning
ordinances. Now we're talking about an extended-stay, high-end,
boutique hotel of 24 units where the period of occupancy would
be extended stay, not when you and your family comes for two or
three days. The concept that's being proposed is people would
come with their families, flying in on their Gulfstream jets, and
staying for two or three or four months. This would be their home
away from home. And I guess the concerns that we have in the
coastal high hazard area are the same when you're talking about
that type of use.
Mr. Anderson had proposed, as well, that this whole area be
-- come under a redevelopment. Mr. Weigel had the discussion
that under a redevelopment concept, that you could try to get 24
condominiums; didn't think that that could be done. I cannot,
since I represent only a select group -- Mr. Anderson is asking us.
The direct answer is -- he's saying waive your rights to
participate in the public forum that will take place in June and
not -- agree in advance that we will not speak in opposition to the
deliberations of the -- of the commission as it relates to an
amendment to the Land Development Code, which was the
debate that took place last November. I just can't do that. I
Page 231
May 22, 2001
don't have the legal authority. I don't have the authority from my
clients to do that. You have an issue today which is, do we
approve or disapprove a site development plan for the 68-unit
hotel?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
MR. VOLPE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'-
We could continue it too.
We could also continue it.
MR. VOLPE: Certainly that's an option. But I guess my point
simply is that we're debating something which, in my opinion, is
not -- it's inappropriate for me, in my legal capacity, to try to help
you prejudge whether you will in June, going through the
amendment cycle, approve a floor area ratio of 1.68 when you
don't have the input from your staff, you don't have the input from
the public to make that type of a decision. So I can't be a part,
even if I had the legal authority to do that, of a compromise. I
think we want to see, you know, a compromise here, but I can't
prejudge it at this particular point in time.
So I guess the simple answer to your question is, what we
offer is that we'll go through the process with you, and we'll give
you our opinion in June, as we did in November -- or December.
And you, then, in your wisdom, will weigh those decisions and
decide whether you're going to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me ask you, while we're
going through that process, will you hold off on spending your
clients' money to continue the lawsuit until that point in time we
reach that end?
MR. VOLPE: I think we could at this particular point in time.
I mean, what we're talking about is 30 days. But that doesn't
answer the question of, are you going to approve or disapprove
the site development plan? I'm concerned -- and Mr. Weigel will
advise you -- I mean, if we were to agree to what Mr. Anderson is
saying, I'd be really concerned about any claim of vested rights
Page 232
May 22, 2001
when they start doing some contract zoning here of some kind. I
mean, I just don't know.
But, in any case, the answer is -- if you're asking would we
defer from actually doing anything further if you're going to get --
make a decision today on the site development plan, the answer
is yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Volpe, do you recognize the
fact that we're going from a 68-unit to a 24-unit hotel, one being
a longer stay and the other one would be -- you know, whether a
week or whatever, is going to be less impact on the
infrastructure, less impact on the beaches, so on and so forth?
MR. VOLPE: Yes, I do. And, Commissioner Henning, the
comment is your code enforcement unit is now pursuing a
violation against The Manatee, which is a residential resort hotel,
which has been improperly operated because it's being used as a
condominium. So the concerns that were expressed in
December were, how do we enforce -- Mr. Varnadoe will tell you
all of those safeguards are in place, so this will be used -- and
I've been corrected on several occasions. This is a
hotel.
We will know that the county will be assured of the fact that
it is going to be a hotel and not a condominium, because as soon
as you start talking about, you know, it's -- I think, you know, if it
walks like a duck, quacks like a duck -- I think that's one of Mr.
Varnadoe's expressions -- I mean, it is. So, I mean, is this a
condominium, or is it an extended residential resort? So you
need to -- in that process you need to make sure those
safeguards -- if that's where the wisdom is to approve extended,
long term, you need to get that safeguard in place, which we
haven't done yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You already answered that
question. You said code enforcement is acting on this, so there's
Page 233
May 22, 2001
the safeguard.
MR. VOLPE'- That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. David Weigel, any
comments to us before I make the motion?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I do. And that is that understanding both
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Volpe, I think everything Mr. Anderson said
appears doable. For clarification I want to make sure that as the
board considers the reconsideration issue before them today --
and I'll talk about a continuance in a second -- what we're
looking at here, I think Bruce has told us, is that they will hold off
on vertical construction until June 20th, the end of our Land
Development Code process, and that -- that -- but if things go
afoul or a lawsuit is filed, they reserve the ability to build a 68-
unit, ten-story hotel. Now, it's going to be ten story whatever,
because that just isn't part of the equation before us.
But in any event, the question that you have today is if you
leave in place -- that is don't reconsider the staff approval of the
SDP -- then Bruce is telling you, "We won't use that if we get to
where we want to go with the 24-unit, extended-stay hotel."
They'll have the ability to use that, but they won't use it -- he's
promising you -- if they get the ability to build the alternative
structure.
Again, I ask you to weigh the risks of litigation in your
potential overturning of the prior staff approval of using a
standard that the code had, as well as the fact that the lawsuits
filed by the neighborhood associations, if successful, would also
achieve the prohibition of the construction of the 68-unit hotel.
So if they're confident enough of their own litigation -- not that
we want to be a party to it, but we are. But if they're confident
enough of that, then I think they will win on that anyway, I guess,
if -- you know, they felt strong enough to file it, anyway.
But if you continue further, Mr. Anderson has indicated that
Page 234
May 22, 2001
you've got interest damages of a thousand dollars a day. But if
he's promised to hold the site development plan in abeyance
anyhow, we increase our risk of damages by denying him or
continuing, even at this point too. Just another thought.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to make a motion. The board
can make a decision on this motion, and we can go forward with
whatever the board's -- will of the board, as it always is. I'm
going to make a motion, because of what I've listened to today --
and even though there's been a lot of other discussion that takes
it out in the probability or possibility for the future Land
Development Code revisions, I don't know what those will end up
and look like.
I'm going to move that, because I think this may be a
strained or perverse application, that we deny and -- the building
permit as currently issued on that property and go at risk to
defend that decision. And as Land Development Code goes
through its system, if something works out differently and all
parties get an agreement, fine. But I'm going to make that
motion today to stop this, to withdraw that building permit,
because I -- and I also, within that, recognize there's some
existing properties that are -- that would need to be
grandfathered. I can't change that.
But I can make a statement that I'm willing to challenge
what's gone on in the past, to set up a new direction, to look at
these in a different perspective in the future. And that will be my
motion, that we -- we're going to make a decision one way or
another, board, to change the direction, or we're going to go
forward as we've done in the past.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Page 235
May 22, 2001
MR. WEIGEL: And, Mr. Chairman, I would say for the record,
I believe you are stating that your motion is to rescind the site
development plan and revoke the building permit. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a comment on the motion -
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, yes, please do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that, again, this is one of those
times where I wish I had the Ross Perot -- where everybody has a
computer at home, and they, you know, call in and say what they
think because it's their money we're deciding to put at risk. And
I don't want to say anything on the record that might hurt the
county in any lawsuit that will likely be filed by the property
owners, so I won't.
But the question here is, are we willing to spend -- are we
willing to risk spending a couple million dollars, maybe more, in
order to undo a decision that we don't like? And there may well
be legal grounds for undoing it, and that'll be up for the lawyers.
But the risk is, are we willing to pay to prevent the construction
of something that we don't want to see there? And so far, of the
people whom I have been able to ask who live not in the
neighborhood, they have said yes. They're willing to pay. So I'm
going to support the motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta? Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to piggyback on
Commissioner Mac'Kie's comments, I have been out in the
community in my district and other districts. And I think that
you're correct, Commissioner Mac'Kie, that the citizens in the --
Collier County don't want to see this type of density or intensity
in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bad enough to get out their
checkbooks, if that's the way it ends up.
Page 236
May 22, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will also support the motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we exhausted about
every possibility we could ever come up with on this.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Therefore, I'm going to call
the question. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Opposed by the same sign.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(Applause.)
Motion carries 5-0.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
Item #1 lCl
ALEX BROWN REGARDING CAT TRANSIT SYSTEM SHELTERS
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sshh. We have one agenda item
left? Is that all?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have to go to public comment.
Please, ladies and gentlemen, I do have a board meeting to
complete, please. Board of County Commissioners is still in
session. Please exit quietly and go celebrate in the parking lot.
We need to go to public comment. That's 11-C.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you have two people registered.
The first is Alex Brown followed by Bob Krasowski.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Mr. Manager, is that our
final item for the day or are there -- besides communications?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. BROWN: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good afternoon.
Page 237
May 22, 2001
MR. BROWN: I'm sorry about the comment I made when I
was here about two weeks ago. I commented about the --
supposedly, the shelters offered by Lee County when they
canceled the 2,000 stops. I heard that Monday afternoon before
the meeting when I came, and consequently, I assumed it was
correct. And it's true what they say when one assumes. I was
caught on that. It was definitely wrong. I assumed it to be true,
and it was not.
But also on that same note, the -- on the other hand, your
transit representative also assumed it to be true and was quick
to say that it was a -- the glare was a hazard and everything else
-- was quick to write it off by saying there was a traffic hazard
because of the glare, and it was a magnet for graffiti and so forth
on that.
But there's still the problem -- there's so many people out
here. There's no bench or anything for the stops. I see you have,
like, downstairs when you walk outside, you go to the right and
you walk out the front door, there's a bench right there, at least
something for somebody and -- to sit down on anyway. But there
is nothing along anywhere, even the main hub or any stops or
anywhere. There's no seating or anything for the elderly or
disabled or anybody to sit down. No shelter or anything from the
rain. I don't assume anything -- that's coming up.
But I did find out from dealing with Lee County to track this
down about that, that there is -- Lamar Advertising does help with
their shelters up there with -- they combined the schools' bus
shelters and the Lee Tran. They use the same shelters, and
they're provided by Lamar Advertising. And they just use a
portion of that wherever the county -- they do it throughout
Florida from Tallahassee to Jacksonville, Miami. And they
provide the shelters for free just for whatever the zoning will
allow, the advertisement, minimal advertising.
Page 238
May 22, 2001
So I implore you to get some kind of negotiations with Lamar
and see what would be acceptable, where they could use them.
And if not, maybe since they do so many with the manufacturer --
because they do so many all over the state of Florida plus the
other states, that maybe being involved with them, that maybe
the manufacturer would be able to possibly get the discount on it
instead of going with this bureaucratic and aristocratic style that
they want to have custom design and custom built and
everything in one solid thing for the entire CAT system, the
Collier Area Transit.
I'm sure that maybe Marco Island might want to have a coral
rock with some kind of, you know, palm frond design. And maybe
Naples might want to have a terrazzo floor with -- maybe a fisher
might want to have some kind of -- as an artist, maybe design
something for maybe tile and palm fronds. And maybe Pelican
Bay might want to have pilings with ceramic pelicans on theirs.
And maybe Immokalee maybe want to have a design with, I don't
know, sombreros or something, you know, where each individual
neighborhood may want to have their own different design for it.
Maybe Lely High School maybe want to have a Trojan design for
their -- or horses or something out in their neighborhood. And,
you know, each neighborhood may want to have their own
individual design. Maybe they ought to be consulted, or maybe it
ought to be made as a drive so they can have their own design if
it need be.
But, in general, along 41 or where the main traffic use is,
that maybe this -- maybe taken seriously -- that this ad
advertising agency ought to be taken serious that they install
this at no cost to the taxpayer or the county, because in '99
when the county did install these -- I'm sure that you guys may
not know this -- but for the plain blanks they used out in Golden
Gate, they paid $3,600 for each one. Now, what's going to be the
Page 239
May 22, 2001
cost to the taxpayer for these designs that are going to be
dreamed up by these designers that are going to be custom built
by these custom -- you know, and then built, what is going to be
the cost for each one of these if just the plain blanks were going
to be $3,600 each?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We appreciate your comments, and we
thank you for that.
MR. BROWN: And the other thing, I'm sorry, was the
schedule. The schedule here -- I've got to take a bus. The bus
stops running at six. As you can see, it's now well after quarter
after six, and there's no bus running.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that's --
MR. BROWN: And the stores are open till nine o'clock. The
hospital doesn't close until nine o'clock. And there's no buses
running on Sunday. And also a lot of bus drivers are still making
less than the school bus drivers are, and they would like at least
equal pay as that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where do you live, sir?
MR. BROWN: I live on Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give you a ride home.
Item #1 lC2
BOB KRASOWSKI REGARDING UPCOMING SOLID WASTE
WORKSHOP
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: What a day. I was here earlier. I went
out and did errands. I took care of some business. I come back
and sat around for a while, and you guys are still here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You want a ride home, too, Bob?
MR. KRASOWSKI: No. I got a car. Thanks, though. I'll
remember that the next time. I feel like taking you guys out for
Page 240
May 22, 2001
dinner and a drink.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can't do it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Against policy, but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not only that, but we sure
couldn't go together.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Go over to Schlotzsky's and have a
sandwich, like the school board. Just kidding.
The one thing I'd like to -- I'm not going to try to finish up
what I didn't complete earlier. I'll have an opportunity at some
time to do that. But the one thing I did want to touch base with
you on is the upcoming workshop. This is the last meeting
before the wonderful workshop we're going to have. Okay. And
what I initially envisioned was sort of like an academic exercise
where Dr. Connett, who has no commercial interest, would come
and speak with you but not to have an unbalanced presentation;
also representatives from Malcolm Pirnie, chemists that they felt
good about would be here; and then the solid waste department.
Well, this whole operation seems to have grown somewhat,
and under the auspices of having additional interests, like land
filling and incineration and paralysis and other components of
the waste stream, other people are being arranged to be seated
at the table during the workshop. And I'd just like to call to your
attention that some of these people will be academians (sic),
free of commercial interest, while others will be people who have
special specific commercial interests in the process they might
be representing.
And although you won't get a sales pitch, their presentation
of information might have that commercial bias as opposed to
that academic bias, and we all know the difference between the
two. So I wanted a heads up for that. And other than that, you
know, have a nice evening.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Bob. I've always found
Page 241
May 22, 2001
that academics could hold their own in those kind of debates.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, I did request of Mr. Olliff that Dr.
Connett be allowed to make his presentation first so that maybe
all of that will kind of fall into -- under the umbrella as he
demonstrates it. But, of course, that's Mr. Olliff's call.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you trying to lead us, Bob?
MR. KRASOWSKI: No, never. I'm trying to follow with some
suggestions. I mean, you guys are in charge; right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sometimes we wonder.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, you know, good seeing you again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bob's spent so much time here,
a lot of people think he's employed by the county.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You wish. Then you could control my
presentations, and I'd lose my job if I got up here and talked like
this. Mr. Olliff would be telling me what to do. Okay. Well, good
night.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thanks, Bob.
Item #14A
COUNTY MANAGER RE INDEX TO AGENDA APPEARING IN THE
NAPLES DAILY NEWS EFFECTIVE SUNDAY, MAY 20, 2001; NEW
AGENDA FORMAT TO BE IN PLACE FOR NEXT BCC MEETING
Staff communications.
MR. OLLIFF: Two very brief things. Just a copy of the
agenda index that did appear in the paper. Just wanted the
board to know that we followed up on that. The agenda indexes
are now showing up in the paper. This was run on -- two days
ago, so it's prior to the agenda. It's run on the weekend.
The second issue is just a reminder that next board meeting
when we get together we will be using the new agenda format
that was presented last week, so people like Alex, who has
Page 242
May 22, 2001
waited all day long to be able to speak to the commission, will
actually be first thing up after your proclamations, presentations,
and service awards. Just so when you get your new agenda,
you'll see the new format. Don't be surprised. It's the one that
we've tried to tell you was coming. And hopefully this'Il work a
little better for us.
Item #14B
COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING CLARIFICATION OF AGENDA
ITEM #10J
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Very good. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. The first thing I just want to say, I
sure appreciate working with all the commissioners on difficult
issues, not just today's, but the many difficult issues. But lately,
particularly, Commissioner Carter in mediation, working with and
talking with Mr. Coletta at the conference we went to and talking
to the other commissioners. I appreciate you calling me and
working on these things, and we're happy to -- to follow up on
these -- on the aftereffects from the decisions -- the difficult
decisions that are made.
And, secondly, in regard to the last item we just heard, 10-J,
the reconsideration, is there any interest for the board following
this discussion for staff, Tom's and mine, to continue forwards
with that 24-unit, extended hotel -- extended-term hotel in this
Land Development Code cycle? Because if you do wish for us to
do that, we will have to work very quickly to bring it in. That's
notwithstanding that we didn't reach an agreement tonight, as
far as that goes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, what happens if we don't have
that in there? I mean, is there a way not to -- I guess we can't
Page 243
May 22, 2001
allow -- disallow anything like that totally.
MR. WEIGEL: No, we can't. But I guess if it's in there -- if it's
not in there, it can't be done. But if it's in there, goes forward,
then if Mr. Anderson and his clients decide that, "Well, although
we don't have something to fall back on," meaning the 68-unit
hotel -- they could still go forward on that if they wanted to. So if
you'd like, we'll keep that in the mix.
MR. OLLIFF.' I think if nothing else, I think the board has
clearly indicated that they want to have a discussion regarding a
change from the floor area ratio, and that will lead us into that
whole discussion about units as well.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know this is a moving process. I
have not even seen the revised wording. I know where we
started, but it's certainly different. So let's take it forward. We'll
have those discussions, two meetings: One has been done with
the planning council, and we're just holding a space on the
agenda. The next one we'll have some wordsmithing and a
statement there for people to look at. And then the two sessions
that we have, we have a chance to revisit it and make a final
decision.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
Item #15A
COMMISSIONER COLETTA REGARDING TRULY NOLEN
SITUATION
COMMISSIONER COLETTA-' Thank you. On a lighter note,
the next meeting we have I'd like to bring up the Truly Nolen
situation to see if maybe we might be able to reach some
resolution. There's quite a few people out in the community that
are totally unhappy with the direction that's taking place with
Page 244
May 22, 200'!
that situation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Board's request. Give it to Mr. Olliff.
It'll be under Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
Item #15B
COMMISSIONER HENNING REGARDING EXTENDED STAY
HOTELS
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the extended-stay hotel, I
know they have that in Orlando, so I'm not sure how that county -
- is that Orange County?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- how they deal with that as far
as in the ordinance, so I just thought I'd throw that out.
Also last night, after filling up my gas tank and driving
almost to Immokalee to Big Cypress Middle School -- no, it's
Corkscrew Middle School.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Right.
The Rural Lands Committee had
their meeting last night. And I think this board is going to be
very proud of the work that they're doing on their committee, and
I believe it's going to be well accepted through the community of
the big picture of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's great. And I'm glad you were
there, and I thank you for that comment. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just because it's my mission in
life to embarrass my 13-year-old daughter who was just in the
room, I would like to announce to you-all that she has been
Page 245
May 22~ 2001
accepted as a member of the Inaugural Philharmonic Youth
Orchestra. She plays the violin. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're very proud.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: My only closing comment is my under-
two-year-old granddaughter was watching the proceedings and
having her dinner. And she turned to mama and daddy and said,
"Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." And with that, I will adjourn.
***** COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE MOVED, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER FIALA AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THAT THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS UNDER THE CONSENT AND SUMMARY
AGENDA BE APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED: *****
Item #16A1
EAC MEMBER ALEXANDRA SANTORO TO BE REIMBURSED FOR
EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $125.00 TO ATTEND THE 2001
FLORIDA LAND TRUST CONFERENCE
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2001-184 SUPPORTING AREA CODE NINE-FOUR.
ONE (941) RELIEF ALTERNATIVE NUMBER FOUR, PROVIDED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION
Item #16A3
COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SPECIAL
EVENTS APPLICATION
Page 246
May 22, 2001
Item #16A4
STAFF TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSES
OF REZONING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE NEAPOLITAN
PARK PUD FROM "PUD" TO "A' RURAL AGRICULTURAL
Item #16A5 - Continued to June 12, 2001
RECONSIDERATION OF THE AIRPORT PLAZA PUD WITHIN SIX
MONTHS
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2001-185 REQUIRING RECONSIDERATION OF THE
LANDS END PRESERVE PUD WITHIN SIX MONTHS
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ENCORE SENIOR LIVING AND RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S AGENT
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL 111" AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY
AMOUNT WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
Page 247
May 22, 2001
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "GOLF VILLAS AT TIBURON"
AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE
SECURITY AMOUNT WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A10
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BANYAN WOODS" AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY
AMOUNT WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A11
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN MARSH UNIT
TWENTY SIX" WITH ACCEPTANCE OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AMOUNT
Item #16A12
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA UNIT TWO" AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY
AMOUNT WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A13
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRYNWOOD PRESERVE" AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY
AMOUNT WITH STIPULATIONS
Page 248
May 22, 2001
Item #16A14- Moved to Item #8A3
Item #16A15
RESOLUTION 2001-186 FOR A RECALCULATION OF THE
MAXIMUM HOME SALES PRICE FOR COLLIER COUNTY FOR ALL
FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (FHFC) PROGRAMS
Item #16B1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO THE GOLDEN
GATE MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT (MSTU)
BEAUTIFICATION FUND
Item #16B2
AMENDMENT NO. I TO ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ROADWAY
CONTRACTORS, 98-2905, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR
RENEWAL
Item #16B3
WORK ORDER NO. WD-075 WITH D. N. HIGGINS, INC., TO
INSTALL A STORM WATER TREATMENT DEVICE ON BAYSHORE
DRIVE, PROJECT NO. 31110 IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,723
Item #16B4
COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
FOR THE NORTH-SOUTH AND VANDERBILT AREA PLANNING
Page 249
May 22, 2001
CORRIDOR STUDIES (RFP #01-3227) AS CONTAINED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B5
COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) ROUTE CHANGES TO THE RED
AND BLUE ROUTES EFFECTIVE JUNE 1~ 2001
Item #16B6
RESOLUTION 2001-187 TO ENTER INTO JOINT PROJECT
AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR PHASE II
OF THE DESIGN OF THE COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC CONTROL
SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $750~000
Item #16C1
AGREEMENT TO UPDATE THE MAPS OF THE WELL FIELD
PROTECTION ZONES OF THE COUNTY'S GROUND WATER
PROTECTION ORDINANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $70~000
Item #16C2
AWARD BID NO. 01-3208 "PURCHASE OF ONE (1) VACUUM
EXCAVATION SYSTEM" TO VACMASTERS, DIVISION OF BARONE,
INC.~ IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,742
Item #16C3
FORMAL COMPETITION WAIVED FOR FUNDING REGARDING A
PRELIMINARY SYSTEM DESIGN (PSD) FOR A NEW OPERATIONS
Page 250
May 22, 2001
AND CAPITAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM TO BE
NEGOTIATED WITH PERCONTI DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
Item #16C4
SURPLUS SEALED BID #SO1-3225, FOR ECONOMY BALER,
AWARDED TO SOLID WASTE AND RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC IN
THE AMOUNT OF $355
Item #16C5
CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT 20-INCH RADIO ROAD RECLAIMED
WATER MAIN EXTENSION TO SUN COAST UNDERGROUND
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, BID 01-3224, PROJECT
74036 IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,823.15
Item #16C6
PAYMENT TO GULF BAY INC., FOR $7,945 FOR LANDSCAPING
COSTS TO COLLIER COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT PUMP STATION
#316.00 AT FIDDLER'S CREEK~ PROJECT NO. 73051
Item #16C7
AWARD BID #01-3233 FOR THE PURCHASE OF TREES TO
SATISFY IN-KIND REQUIREMENT OF A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONSENT ORDER TO
SYLVAN NURSERY FARMS, INC IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,500
Item #16C8
Page 251
May 22, 2001
FUNDING, WAIVER OF FORMAL COMPETITION, AND AUTHORITY
TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS FOR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS AT
THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, PROJECT
73077
Item #16C9
FUNDING, WAIVER OF FORMAL COMPETITION, AND AUTHORITY
TO EXECUTE PURCHASE CONTRACTS FOR CAPACITY
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY, PROJECT 73128 AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR MAX HASSE COMMUNITY CENTER
PROJECT TO RE-BUDGET FUNDS THAT WERE NOT CARRIED
FORWARD INTO THE 00/01 BUDGET
Item #16D2
APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
REQUESTING A HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT OF $153,000
TO ASSIST WITH THE RESTORATION OF ROBERTS RANCH
PIONEER MUSEUM IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16D3
MEDICAID WAIVER REVISED CONTINUATION CONTRACT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY OF AGING FOR
Page 252
May 22, 2001
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INC., D/B/A SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
Item #16D4
BID 01-3231 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUGDEN REGIONAL
PARK PATHWAY TO BONNESS, INC IN THE AMOUNT OF
$112,737.11
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 2001-188 PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE
FEE CHARGED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FOR ISSUANCE OF DEATH CERTIFICATES
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 2001-189 APPOINTING RAYMOND HOLLAND, BILL
HARTTER, PAT COOKSON, JOHN YONKOSKY, MARY LOU WEISS,
JIM MANSBERGER, DUANE WHEELER, TONI HORNE AND JO
SELVIA AS OFFICERS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURE
FAIR AND EXPOSITION INC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Item #16D7
BID 01-3230 TO U.S. TENNIS AND FITNESS INC., IN THE AMOUNT
OF $68,935.00 FOR RESURFACE OF TENNIS AND BASKETBALL
COURTS AT MAX HASSE COMMUNITY PARK, EAST NAPLES
COMMUNITY PARK, PELICAN BAY AND AARON LUTZ PARKS
Item #16D8
Page 253
May 22, 2001
EXTENSION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTHEASTERN
LIBRARY NETWORK (SOLINET)
Item #16D9
AUTHORIZE THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO
PREPARE THE FOOD FOR THE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE GRANT
PROGRAM WITH 100% REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE STATE
Item #16D10
APPLICATION FOR A GRANT TO COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM TO CLEAN-UP THE GAS SPILL AT CAXAMBAS AND
ALSO AN APPLICATION TO THE BOATER IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM TO REFURBISH THE DOCK, BENCHES AND PICNIC
SHELTERS AT BAYVIEW PARK
Item #16D11
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL
GATES AT SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK~ PROJECT NO. 80081
Item #16E1
AGREEMENT WITH THE GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND
RESCUE DISTRICT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A MAXIMUM
EXPENDITURE OF $12,500 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST FOR
THE PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS C.E.R.T. PROGRAM
EQUIPMENT
Item #16E2
Page 254
May 22, 2001
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR A MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE OF
$50,000 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST TO INITIATE THE DESIGN
OF A FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE STATION TO BE LOCATED
WITHIN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16E3
TERMINATE CONTRACT #99-2937 FOR UNIFORM SERVICES WITH
UNIFIRST CORP. AND AWARD CONTRACT TO G 8, K SERVICES
Item #16E4 - DELETED
Item #16E5
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS TO THE
MARCO ISLAND TAX COLLECTOR BUILDING
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2001-190 FOR A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND OMNIPOINT HOLDINGS, INC., FOR
PLACEMENT OF A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER UPON COUNTY-
OWNED PROPERTY
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENT #01-296; #01-311
Item #16J1
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR CASE NOS 93-442-CFA; 95-5828-MMA AND 98-
Page 255
664-CFA
May 22, 2001
Item #16J2
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 256
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
May 22, 2001
FOR BOARD ACTION:
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign Satisfaction of
Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos 93-442-CFA; 95-5828-MMA; 98-
664- CFA RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIREcTv:rJ:
Ao
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) April 11, 2001 through April 17, 2001
2) April 18, 2001 through April 24, 2001
Bo
3) April 25, 2001 through May 01, 2001
Districts:
1)
Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Financial
Statement and Report 09-30-00 and Annual Financial Report and
Management Letter
2)
Minutes:
South Florida Water Management District - Minutes of Big Cypress
Basin Board February 28, 2001 and April 6, 2001,
1) Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for April 4, 2001 and
Minutes of March 7, 2001
2) Developmental Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for April 4,
2001 and Minutes of March 7, 2001
3) Beach Advisory Committee - Notice for February 6, 2001
4) Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization= Minutea of May
9, 2000 and Agenda for April 18, 2001
H:Data/Format
5)
Collier County Hispanic Afros Advisory Board - Agenda for April
26,2001 -- r, , NDA' " "
AGE ..._,I'r£~,
No._: lt,,~., i ' z~
I AY 2 2
pg. I ~
6) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M. S. T. U. Advisory Committee
-Minutes of March 16, 2001
7) Collier County Productivity Committee - Notice of April 18, 2001
and Minutes of March 21, 2001 and Agenda for April 18, 2001
8) Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board - Agenda for April 18,
2001
9) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for April 18, 2001and
Minutes of March 21, 2001
10) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Agenda for April
25, 2001 and Minutes of March 28, 2001
11) Bayshore MSTU Advisory Committee -Notice of May 1,2001 and
May 2, 2001
12) Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council -
Minutes of April 26, 2001
13) Rural Lands Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Notice of April
23, 2001, April 25, 2001, May 9, 2001 and Agenda for April 23, 2001,
April 25, 2001 and May 21, 2001 and Minutes of March 26, 2001
14) Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization Pathway
Advisory Committee- Notice of April 20, 2001
H:Data/Format
HAY 2 2 2001
May 22, 2001
Item #16K1
EXTENSION OF KPMG CONTRACT FOR EXTERNAL AUDIT
SERVICES WITH CHANGE ORDER (ADD) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$20,000
Item #16L1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT BY
ELHANON AND SANDRA COMBS (PROPERTY OWNERS) TO
COLLIER COUNTY IN A CODE ENFORCEMENT APPEAL CASE
ENTITLED ELHANON AND SANDRA COMBS V. BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE
NO. 00-3497-CA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,500 TO BE DEPOSITED
INTO THE "CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FINES" REVENUE
ACCOUNT MSTD GENERAL FUND 111
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2001-191 REGARDING PETITION VA-2001-AR-400,
DON KIRBY REPRESENTING HANDY FOOD STORES, INC.,
REQUESTING A 45-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 50-
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR STRUCTURES IN AN
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION TO 5 FEET ALONG NEW
MARKET ROAD AND A 25-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
50-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 25 FEET ALONG GLADES
STREET TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CANOPY OVER AN
EXISTING FUEL PUMP FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKE
TRAFFORD ROAD AND NORTH 19TM STREET
Page 257
May 22, 2001
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2001-192 REGARDING PETITION VA-2001-AR-398,
DON KIRBY REPRESENTING HANDY FOOD STORES, INC.,
REQUESTING A 45-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 50-
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR STRUCTURES IN AN
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION TO 5 FEET ALONG LAKE
TRAFFORD ROAD AND A 23-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 50-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 27 FEET ALONG
NORTH 19TM STREET TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CANOPY
OVER AN EXISTING FUEL PUMP FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKE
TRAFFORD ROAD AND NORTH 19TM STREET
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2001-193 REGARDING PETITION V-2000-39, MILES
L. SCOFIELD, REQUESTING A 5-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 15-FOOT EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR DOCK
FACILITIES TO 10 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11
PELICAN STREET EAST, ISLES OF CAPRI UNIT I
Page 258
May 22, 2001
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:26 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DIS~R ITS CONTROL
J-~~~ Ph.D., ~-H~M--~
ATTEST: ~'...$tgnature 0nly.
/DWIGHTiE. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented ~// or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR; AND
BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 259