BCC Minutes 11/14/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, 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 9:03 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
ALSO PRESENT:
present:
CHAIRPERSON:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant
Lieutenant Paul Canady
Item #3A
AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County
Commission meeting for November the 14th, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would
you lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks and praise
to you this morning for the wonderful existence that you are and the
grace that you bestow on -- on us through labors. Father, we give
thanks for the wonderful life that we have in Collier County.
Father, our hearts are heavy this morning for two
families. We pray and lift up to you the family of Carl Loveday in
the passing of his wife, Harcie, yesterday morning unexpectedly. We
lift him up as you support Carl during this time, our good colleague,
and also the family of Gail Borman, well-known community involved
leader who lost a small child, and we lift both of these up, as well
as other sadness that may exist in our community this morning. We ask
that you bless these two families.
As always, we ask that you guide and direct the business
deliberations of our elected leaders who are so important to this
community. We'd also pray in support of the staff and the many
citizens who choose to participate in government in Collier County and
that you would bless them. And we ask, finally, that you bless our
time here together today, and we pray these things in Jesus' name.
Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was over there in the far
corner. Mr. Dotrill, we have a -- looks like a relatively short add
-- add-on agenda.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. I have two add-on items, both pertaining to agreements
and budget amendments. The first is item 8(C)(2) which is a
recommendation to recognize additional funding under the Older
Americans Act. That's under public services, 8(C)(2).
8(E)(3), which will be under the county manager's
report, is a request as a result of at least two of you asking me to
check into the reimbursement for the Save Our Bays organization, and
we've done that, and if you authorize a budget amendment today, then
we, working with Mr. Mitchell, will hand-cut that check and get it to
them just as quickly as possible. 8(E)(3) under the executive office
report.
The remainder of the items are continuances. I have a
request to continue for one week item ll(A) at the request of Mr.
Constantine as it pertains to the board's approval of the revised
position classification and pay plan for the sheriff's department.
I have an additional request for item 12(C)(6) under
public hearings to continue for two weeks until your meeting of
November the 28 the item pertaining to a proposed rate increase for
county wholesale water -- wastewater customers on Marco Island.
That's 12(C)(6).
And then a final request to continue also for two weeks
item 12(C)(7) under public hearings which was petition AV-95-17,
vacation of a portion of the plat for Sterling Oaks.
I have one agenda note this morning for purposes of our
recording secretary. It's that item 16(C)(3) on the consent agenda as
it pertains to waivers of certain park fees, we need to reserve a
resolution number. It can remain on your consent agenda for approval.
And that's all that I have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Weigel, is there
anything?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Just one. We would request that
16(B)(1) concerning professional architectural service agreements be
continued for one week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 16(B) (1)?
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris,
are there any additional changes?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll have one communication item
concerning the boat ramp on 951 under item 14.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would just like some discussion
on the continuance of the sheriff's office request.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. There are a number of
questions that were raised, not the least of which we have yet to
receive from the sheriff's department. The comparison, I'd like to
have a little advance ability on that. But there are a number of
questions that have been raised on that; nearly a dozen, as a matter
of fact. It requires some specific research, and I let the sheriff's
department know yesterday, and I'd like to sit down with the sheriff
this week and go through some of those, and the manager's getting some
of that. If we're going to make a $2 million decision from reserves,
we better have all our ducks in a row. So we -- It's just a matter of
getting all the information, and we'll pick that back up next week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm -- I'm anxious to get some
information. I mean, I share your concern with making a decision
today when there's nothing of any value in our agenda packet. So I
guess that makes sense. What -- What I would ask the sheriff's office
staff to do in case anybody is communicating with them is to please
get us information ahead of time so that we can make a decision based
on some review. So in addition to meeting with you or when you meet
with him, I hope you'll communicate. We would all like some
information.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please share, Commissioner
Constantine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to -- I was going to
ask Commissioner Constantine if he would mind sharing his list of
questions --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- with the other board members
because some of your concerns may cause us to think additionally about
it and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't I prepare a memo
tomorrow and distribute it to the board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine. If you would do
that, I'd appreciate it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to ask as an
addition -- and you may have already done this. There are some
positions in the sheriff's office that by definition appear clerical
but may not be in nature. I asked the sheriff last week to, you know,
let us know which of those positions require additional training. Is
that one of your -- your question list items?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. There are a number of
things that I think need clarification from the sheriff's department.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My last question is, does the
sheriff's office agree that today was not the right day? I mean, they
don't expect to show up? Is this a surprise to them that we're going
to continue this item?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. They had this memo at
3:30, 3:00, 4:00. It was at the end of the day, toward the end of the
day yesterday.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Having gotten the memo, did they
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They've responded by
telephone. Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're well aware the item
is --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I mean, I just out of
courtesy to a constitutional officer -- I don't want to be jerking an
agenda item without prior discussion. So I appreciate you doing that
ahead of time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is there anything
else, Commissioner Hac'Kie, on the agenda? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I look at today's agenda,
we have a long afternoon agenda, and we may be a little weary, so I
will have some good news under communications for the board, something
to end the day on a good note with.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're buying?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not quite that good.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Always great to finish the day
with good news. I'd like to make a note for the agenda that item
12(B)(1) has two companion items, 12(C)(8) and 13(A)(3), which I would
expect that we would hear all at one time. And equally so, 12(B)(3)
has companion items also, 12(C)(5), and we would hear all of these
companion items on the -- on the same -- at the same time. Mr.
Weigel, would we need separate votes for those, separate motions?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you will.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll do that. If there's
nothing else, may I have a motion for the agenda?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'll move
approval of the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. All those in
favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 12-18, 1995, AS YOUTH
APPRECIATION WEEK - ADOPTED
Next item is proclamations. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I have the
good fortune of reading our proclamation on Youth Appreciation Week.
Bud Wilhelm -- there he is -- is with us this morning. I know each of
us at times takes our editorial page out of our Jeff Lytle detach in
the local paper, but this past weekend he had an issue on youth and --
and how too often you hear people say, gosh, you only hear the bad
things, and -- and there are a number of good things going on, and we
shouldn't preface everything by saying that. And I had the good
fortune last week to teach -- help teach a class in the public school
system. It was an experimental thing where they had two classes
together. So it was 58 kids in one classroom, and it was great. I
mean, virtually -- Like any class, you had one or two kids that were
talking or acting out a little bit, but it was -- it was very well
behaved, very well motivated, and great kids. So I think we do need
to focus on the positive. We have the following proclamation.
Whereas, the vast majority of youth are concerned,
knowledgeable, and responsible citizens; and
Whereas, the accomplishments and achievements of these
young citizens deserve the recognition and praise of their elders; and
Whereas, Optimists International has since 1954
developed and promoted a program entitled Youth Appreciation Week; and
Whereas, the citizens of Naples, Florida, have indicated
a desire to join the Sunset Optimists in expressing appreciation and
approval of the contributions of youth.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 12
through 18, 1995, be designated as Youth Appreciation Week.
Done and ordered this 14th day of November 1995. Bettye
J. Matthews, Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I will make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the proclamation for Youth Appreciation Week. With pleasure
I'll call the vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- Tonight the group will
be presenting awards to 100 -- how many -- is it 1407 MR. WILHELM: 104.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 140 -- 104 -- I'm sorry--
youths. So if -- if you -- You don't have to look too far to find the
good kids. As I said, it's too bad people often preface things with,
"There are good kids too," because I think the vast majority of them
are.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just the vast majority?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Vast majority.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think they're all basically
good kids.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Next item on the agenda are service awards. Commissioner
Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have a 15-year service award
today for Gregorio Soto, if he'd come forward, 15 years of service to
Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How are you doing? Miss Hac'Kie
has your service pin.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Otherwise known as the badge of
courage.
Item #5Cl
SHIRLEY RICHHOND, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EHPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER, 1995
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda are
presentations, and, as always, it gives this board pleasure to
recognize our employee of the month, Shirley Raymond. Is she here?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Richmond.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Richmond. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry, Shirley. We've
revoked it, and we're giving it to a different --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not only getting a reward,
we've changed your name today, Shirley.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm very sorry for not saying
your name properly, but that doesn't inhibit our recognizing you as
our employee of the month.
Shirley has been with the county since December of 1989,
originally as a utility billing clerk. She was promoted through
successive promotions to a customer service representative by 1992,
and she's now a senior fiscal clerk in our department of revenue, EHS
billing. She's -- During the period of time that we were changing our
EHS billing system, she worked 70 to 80 hours a week seven days a week
-- a very dedicated employee -- to complete seven months worth of
back billing, and she accomplished this in about three months. She's
always willing to help her co-workers and to take on any work that
needs to be done. She's extremely well thought of and works well with
her co-workers. She contributes to the morale of her department and
remains a loyal county employee. And it was without -- without any
reservation that she was nominated and selected as employee of the
month for November of 1995.
Shirley, if you'll turn around, I have -- I have for you
a letter of -- of commendation for employee of the month. It says
it's indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection as Collier
County's employee of the month for November of 1995 and the fact that
you work in the revenue department and that you have been such a good
employee over the time.
We also have for you the $50 check and a very
nice-looking plaque that says, Collier County Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, employee of the month.
Official recognition and appreciation is tendered to Shirley Richmond
for exceptional performance in November of 1995. And I really want to
thank you, and we have all of these for you, a plaque, the letter, and
Item #882
REJECTION OF QUOTES AND ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULING OF MARCO ISLAND
ROUNDABOUT CONSTRUCTION - STAFF RECOHMENDATION OF OPTION 2 APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is -- as we move to the county
manager's report under public works, it's 8(B)(2), recommended
rejection of quotes and alternative scheduling for the MArco Island
roundabout. Mr. Archibald.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board and members. Agenda
item 8(B)(2) involves the roundabout that's been designed and
permitted for MArco Island. Following the design and permitting and
to maintain the plan schedule in November of this year, staff
proceeded through a quotation process. Unfortunately only one proposal
was submitted under that quotation process. That proposal was
approximately $220,000. Because of the staff's estimate of the
roundabout within the neighborhood of $100,000, the single quote gave
us quite some concern. Accordingly, we came up with a series of
different options that are outlined in your agenda item, and we also
reviewed with the MArco Island vision planning advisory committee the
options, and the vision planning advisory committee came forth with a
recommendation that we're presenting to the board today, and that is,
in fact, to recognize that we can probably save a great deal of money
by going through the formal bid process rather than the quotation
process. The formal bid process will take some time, and as a result,
the advisory committee has recommended that you not only take that
step, but recognize that it may delay the project into the season, but
to go ahead with that process with the idea of bidding it out to
contractors that, in fact, specialize in this kind of work, to be able
to open the bids on a unit-price basis, and to be able to schedule
that work immediately after the Easter season and be able to have it
constructed in the off season before summer and the rainy season. So
the vision planning advisory committee recommendation is highly
recommended by your staff in that it should save a great deal of
money, and we're recommending that today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, when we last
looked at this, if I -- if my memory serves me, one of the main
reasons that the board supported this decision was that a traffic
light would some day be installed there, and the rough cost of the
roundabout and the rough cost of the traffic light were approximately
the same; is that correct? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And so as we, you know, proceed
ahead, I want to make sure we don't stray from that -- that cost
comparison because that was one of the main reasons that we decided to
move ahead with the roundabout. So I -- I, you know, support your
recommendation, but I just want to make sure my memory was correct on
that point.
MR. ARCHIBALD: It is, and, again, we're looking at a
little over $100,000 for the turn lanes and the signal system. So
we're still using that as a benchmark to judge how well to consider
bids as we go through a formal bidding process.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Archibald, I -- I think I hear
you saying that these turn lanes would be constructed whether we put
in a roundabout or -- or a traffic signal; is that correct?
MR. ARCHIBALD: One thing we didn't want to -- want to
do is change the scope of the project, and the design of the
roundabout includes a lot of pavement widening, and that pavement
widening can, in fact, function for turn lanes in the future. So to
answer your question, yes, the work under the roundabout could, in
fact, serve in the future for added turn lanes if there's a
reconfiguration of the intersection.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the Vision 2000 committee is
recommending that you do go -- continue to go forward with the
roundabout?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, they are.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move staff approval or staff
recommendation. Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For option two?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, as cited by Mr. Archibald.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
adopt the recommendation of option two. Is there any further
discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #884
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR THE WASTEWATER AND WATER
DEPARTMENTS - APPROVED
Next item is item 8(B)(4), approval of preventive
maintenance funding for the wastewater and water departments. I -- I
just have a real simple question. I thought we did this at budget
time.
MR. CLEHONS: We did almost all of it. We never did
finally complete it. You asked us to go back and look and -- and
refine some more, and we have -- The number's actually less today than
it was at that point. So the item is just back before you to get the
formal approval and the permission to do a budget amendment to put the
money into the accounts and get going on them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I've got one question.
You say it's less now than it was this summer when we were going
through budget hearings. I want to make sure that whatever was
dropped out is -- is not in the eyes of the utility department to --
MR. CLEHONS: No, ma'am. Actually --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to be needed.
MR. CLEHONS: No. What we did was we took a more phased
approach, and we looked at what we could honestly do in the first
year, and we'll come back to you then each successive budget year with
a -- an additional phasing of this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When a county department comes
back with a lower price, I look upon that favorably generally.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I know, but sometimes it
depends on why they lowered it.
MR. CLEHONS: We're comfortable with it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. We have a motion and a
second then to adopt the maintenance funding as recommended. Is there
any further discussion?
There being none, all in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. CLEHONS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. CLEHONS: Tim Clemons, wastewater director.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The quiet guy behind him was Mike
Newman.
Item #8C1
LEASE AGREEHENT WITH COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES (CHSI FOR USE OF OFFICE
AND CLINICAL SPACE WITHIN THE HEALTH AND COHMUNITY SERVICE BUILDING -
APPROVED WITH STIPULATION
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is
8(C)(1) under public services, a recommendation the Board of County
Commissioners authorize a lease agreement with Collier Health
Services. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. For the record, Tom Olliff,
your public services administrator. This item was continued from last
week. There were a couple of questions that the board wanted to have
resolved. And, in fact, I've just left the attorney's office, and I
believe -- I'm glad we didn't continue to the end of the day last
Tuesday. We -- The questions the way I -- I heard them from the board
were, one, does the county have the statutory obligation to provide
rent-free space to CHSI who in this case will be a subcontractor for
the public health unit. I believe the attorney's office opinion is
that, yes, we do, as long as the subcontractor is providing public
health unit-related type services, and they've requested that we
include a paragraph in the lease that actually will indicate that they
need to continue to provide those same type of public health services
as long as they are in the building in return for which they will
receive that space free of rent.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then if -- if -- if that was the
issue -- and I think it was -- with apologies for the delay, I'd like
to move approval of the request.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe Commissioner Norris may
-- may have something else he wants to add. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: You have speakers as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have speakers?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I -- I'd like to hear Mr.
Olliff continue with the answers to the questions that we asked last
week.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought that was it.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, I -- I think there was an additional
question as to the -- the actual -- There are two leases, so the
board's aware. There is the lease with HRS, and then we were talking
a separate lease with the subcontractor, CHSI. You will see the lease
for HRS on December 5.
And I think the other issue that you had was, if there
is a statutory obligation, then how much of that space and are we
required for how long to provide rent-free space. And there's a --
there's a two-pronged interpretation there. One is -- You can look at
it as -- in terms of the state's original cash contribution as a
percentage of the total building's value as to what square footage
would be required. In that case, HRS is actually using more square
footage than what their cash contribution was. They have made an
interpretation that the board could decide to charge rent for anything
above that square footage minimum. The other interpretation is that
HRS has actually used and has dedicated a certain portion of that
building, and that should be considered what is provided as rent-free
space. And anything above that which has historically been used, the
board could make a decision to charge rent.
What I'm trying to indicate to the board -- and perhaps
that's a discussion better left for the December 5 HRS total lease. I
think the questions regarding the CHSI lease was more in regard to
that first question that we answered, whether or not a subcontractor
should, and I think the answer to that is yes.
So with that in mind, staff's here to make a
recommendation that you do approve that CHSI lease with the one change
that we add a paragraph that indicates as long as they are in that
building, in that space, they would be providing public health
unit-related services.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My motion includes the inclusion
of that paragraph.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
We have a motion on the floor and not yet a second. We
have public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Keller. Ms. Fitch, if
you'll stand by, please, ma'am.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, representing the Golden Gate
Estates Civic Association. I asked a question, why did the state cut
back the $360,000? Is this part of the program that the federal
government permitted certain states, including Florida, to -- to
control their own welfare? There must have been a reason why the
state cut back the $360,000. Now, federally we are -- In fact, most of
the people in the country or a good percentage of them are -- figure
that we have become a socialistic country and that the people that
work can't afford to go and handle the -- the burdens for the people
that -- that aren't working or don't want to work. So if -- if-- if
we -- if we do this, are we going to be counteracting the general
philosophy that this government has got too involved in the lives of
people to the point where they expect to go and support a good
percentage of the people and the people that are working hard have to
pay the shot. Now, that's one of the questions I had to ask.
There's another question. I had a number of questions,
and I spoke to the doctor and she -- she went and solved -- gave me
the answers to those which I took them out. But there's another
question. I understand that this particular service is mostly for
women and children and that -- that the county will continue serving
indigents in that unit over there. Now, that -- that really worries
me. Why -- Why would the state just single out those particular
people? There must have been a reason. Secondly, how many of these
people, these 4,000 patients, are illegal aliens? You know, we're
going to have to make up our minds sooner or later. We're either
going to be a socialist country, and we're going to have -- penalize
everybody that wants to work to support the people that don't want to
work, or we're going to have to straighten ourselves out. The federal
government owes -- owes $5 trillion, and it's going up. The federal
government's balancing budget thing only is taking care of the
increases and doing nothing about the present cost. The federal
government has -- is going to reverse a lot of this stuff back to the
state, and I can tell you right now -- and you know it -- the state's
going to throw it back on the counties because the state don't have
any money either. And when it throws it back to the county, it's
throwing it right back on the working people. So let's -- let's not
do anything that's going to interfere with the general process of
reducing welfare and reducing people that don't want to go and -- and
-- and take care of themselves properly, whether it's health or
otherwise, and make hard-working people pay a tremendous amount --
Forty percent of their income basically goes to one form of tax or the
other. Sooner or later we might as well all get on the dough. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitch and then Mr. Erlichman.
MS. FITCH: Good morning. Dorothy Fitch representing
the League of Women Voters of Collier County. I could stand here and
argue with Mr. -- What's his name?
UNKNOWN VOICE: Keller.
MS. FITCH: -- Keller about several of his points which
I'm sure all of you are aware the reasons behind some of them. But to
get down to today's issue, you have our letter which spells out very
clearly our position on this whole matter. We feel that this is a -- a
-- a non-issue issue that this is something that should have been
resolved without a lot of controversy, and we hope that you will go
ahead and approve this and then take into consideration the very
valuable service that the public health unit does provide to the
people of the community and not just the indigents. We also have
others who do take advantage of that service. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman is your final speaker.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Gilbert Erlichman of East Naples
speaking for myself. Regarding the previous speaker, Hiss Fitch, she
-- in her remarks about Mr. Keller, I -- I deem that as an attack on
Mr. Keller, and I do not think that this is the proper place to do
something like that.
I'd like the commissioners to look at the executive
summary, page one, and it's the -- under the considerations, the third
paragraph. It says the CPHU has in the past brought -- bought clinic
equipment with a mix of funds from the county and the state. This
equipment, as indicated by the contract, becomes an asset that belongs
to the county. As part of this lease, CPHU is proposing that CHSI be
allowed access and use of this county equipment. Under the agreement,
CH -- CHSI would be responsible for the maintenance and replacement of
all of the county equipment. Now, here's -- here's the catch.
However, anything replaced at the end of -- of its useful life by CHSI
would be the property of CHSI. I think this is absolutely the most
ridiculous thing I've ever read in -- in any kind of a contract
insofar as using equipment that belongs to the county. So I think
that the commissioners should consider this before acting on the
motion to approve this -- to approve the motion that was made by -- by
Commissioner Mac'Kie. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman. That
was our last speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Polkowski.
DR. POLKOWSKI: I need to address some -- some of these
comments that were brought out.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought you might want to.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Thank you. The equipment that was
referred to as being replaced by CHSI would be purchased by their own
money which is the reason why it was written that way in the contract.
Whatever they purchase with their own money would be kept by them;
however, anything else that they're using would remain as county --
UNKNOWN VOICE: It's replacement, not purchase.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Well, it is -- it is a purchase,
actually.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Replacement --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Erlichman, we do not accept
comments from the audience while -- MR. ERLICHHAN: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we have someone speaking.
MR. ERLICHHAN: I apologize.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. But that was purchase with their
own funds. That was clear. The other as -- you know, as brought out,
CHSI will be providing primary care services to the same pregnant
women and children that we have been. It's the same medically
indigent people that we have been serving. About a third have no
payment source. There are multiple studies reported in medical
journals about the adverse effects on the health of people. In fact,
in -- The November 8 issue of JAMA, which is the Journal of American
Medical Association, just came out which had a very significant
article on the effects -- adverse effects on children, and we're
talking about working poor and -- and people who are on Hedicaid.
Hedicaid doesn't cover everybody who is poor. The -- These services
provide the cost-effective basic preventive and primary care which
then reduces the costs to our community, to our society that result if
the people don't get these health -- this health care because they
wind up in the emergency rooms, they wind up in the hospital with
complications, and the children wind up with long-lasting chronic
illness that is extremely expensive, and they wind up as
non-productive adults. So it's the cost-effective primary care
preventive services which are essential to provide to your
constituents, and the health department is in this as a partner with
CHSI. We would be providing the ancillary services such as the
pharmacy, social worker, nutrition counseling, health education, and
field outreach. This effort is a broad health community network
partnership, and the health department will continue to address adult
primary care and needs in addition to the broad population-based
services to protect and improve the -- Collier County's health.
The effect would be -- and the reason for this is to
impact this escalating medical care costs through preventive and
primary care activities. The public health unit --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Doctor.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no one in here that is in
any way suggesting that we not do this medical care. The issue was
about who would be the most appropriate person to pay the lease
payment. There was never any thought of not performing these
services. I mean, you're getting sort of far afield here. This is
not the question, whether or not we're going to provide these services
and what these services do. That was never the question.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Well, in terms of the lease agreement,
it is important that it be resolved today because if it's not, those
services won't be provided at the health unit beginning tomorrow. I
mean, it can't, because we -- you know, we're not able to do that
anymore. The other is if rent were charged, then CHSI would have to
reduce the services.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is the total value expected
to CHSI in this contract arrangement, the gross income value?
DR. POLKOWSKI: It will -- I -- I don't have the figure
on that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How many millions would you guess?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Hillions? I don't know that it would
amount to millions. It will be lucky if they break even.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. I'm talking about the total
__
DR. POLKOWSKI: -- because we're talking about the third
non --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- total gross income.
DR. POLKOWSKI: I don't know if there's someone from
CHSI that can answer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: While -- While she's coming up,
Dr. Polkowski, let me ask you this question. Mr. Erlichman raised the
question of CHSI using public health unit equipment and when it is
worn out or no longer useful, that the lease allows them to purchase
replacement equipment, and at the expiration of the lease, to carry
that equipment with them. The -- The -- The value of the payment that
the public health unit is going to make to CHSI, has it taken into
consideration the fact that the equipment they will initially be using
belongs to the citizens of the state and the county?
DR. POLKOWSKI: In this partnership there is no money
being given to CHSI. They're going to use their own funding. What we
will be doing is -- with our money is providing the ancillary services
to the patients that I have described.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So -- So --
DR. POLKOWSKI: So it will be purchased with their own
money. There is no dollars that's being given to CHSI. Instead, we
are using our dollars, our -- to provide the ancillary services.
These will be our staff providing the ancillary services.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
had a question?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Commissioner Norrisws --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
way.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Okay. Commissioner Hancock, you
Why don't we get back to
Let me ask my question a different
Oh, I'm sorry.
Let me ask my question a different
way. What is the value, then, of the services that you will no longer
be providing through your unit, Doctor?
DR. POLKOWSKI: It will be several hundred thousand
dollars. And if Roger is here -- Yeah. It will be several hundred
thousand dollars because we will no longer be collecting the Medicaid
that was associated with those who are on Medicaid in these two
programs, and they will need that to fund the services, but I just
want to remind you about a third of the patients do not have Medicaid
are non-paying.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what I'm trying to -- to get
answered here is, what reduction in your budget is going to be made
because of this partnership. I mean, if -- if the value of the
services that you no longer provide are so many hundreds of thousand
dollars, which you don't seem to have an answer for this morning, is
that going to be --
DR. POLKOWSKI: Yeah. Roger can provide the exact--
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is that going to be for this
budget year left in reserves, or what do you intend to do with that
money, and what will we do about it next year?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Okay. We've had a reduction from the
state of about $350,000. That equated to, of course, reduction in --
on numbers of staff. We've had in this arrangement to provide the
ancillary services and to provide, as I described, the pharmacy, the
health education, nutrition, social worker, the field outreach in the
partnership relationship. In terms of the total budget, we've had --
total budget now, we've had a reduction, but we've also had increases
from the state in some other programatic areas; for example, WIC. So
our overall reduction isn't as great as it would appear initially.
Roger, do you have the dollar amounts?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Board members, from my
perspective, the original question that I asked last week has been
answered to my satisfaction. It appears that the budgetary questions
that I've been asking this morning are not going to be answered today,
but it will probably make for a fairly interesting budget discussion
in our spring workshops.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can agree with that. I -- I
don't -- I don't see any reason to hold up continuing with where we
are. To me, the public health unit has found a way to remedy what
looks to be a budgetary shortfall that the state has -- has foisted
upon them and -- and a good use of the funds, but I -- I agree that
this discussion needs to continue with the budget workshops for next
fiscal year.
We have a motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve --
MR. DORRILL: One point of information before you call
the question. Since Mr. Erlichman has raised the question about major
operating capital, I know that we -- we purchased some very expensive
X-ray machines and dental operatory suites and chairs and things.
Does the exact language give the county the ability to approve the
replacement of those items? The only reason I ask the question is,
while an item -- a major capital item may have been fully depreciated,
it has a salvage value at the time that they may trade it in. Knowing
the way medical equipment is, I would like for us to be entitled to
whatever salvage value of that equipment is available at the time that
it's replaced.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Those two specific expensive items will
not be with CHSI. They're going to be used by the health department.
MR. DORRILL: Have we then defined operating capital
equipment that may be replaced as a part of the contract?
MR. OLLIFF: We did. There's an asset list that's
actually attached to the contract agreement, and I think if we need to
go back and look at that language specifically to make sure that we
have access to the salvage value, we can do that. I think generally
for the board to be -- ever call any of its capital assets as surplus,
there has to be a declaration made that it is surplus, and there are
certain specific required steps that we have to go through in order to
-- to get rid of that, whether it's through sale or --
MR. DORRILL: I'm satisfied. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Fine. We have a
motion and a second to approve the lease with CHSI. Commissioner
Mac'Kie, there was a stipulation that was included in that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to include that language
that the county attorney's office requested.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. If there's no further
discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you, Dr. Polkowski.
Item #8C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING ADDITIONALLY RECEIVED OLDER AMERICANS ACT
GRANT FUDNING - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is item 8(C)(2). This is a
recommendation to authorize a budget amendment. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. I apologize for having to add
this item on, but this is an item where we just received some
additional grant monies for Older Americans Act program. Their fiscal
year runs by calendar year, and that current budget is running low.
We're here requesting that you approve a budget amendment. The only
reason it needs to be board-approved is because it actually increases
the bottom line of that particular funds --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the recommendation to authorize a budget amendment for the
Older American -- Americans Act grant funding. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Item #SD1
ACQUISITION OF SIX MEDIUM DUTY ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCES THROUGH
A COOPERATIVE PURCHASE - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is 8(D)(1), a recommendation to
approve the acquisition of six medium-duty advanced life-support
units.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, didn't we already
-- We already approved this in the budget process so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought we had too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I don't need a presentation.
I just move approval.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make sure that the
fiscal impact is in line with what was approved during the budget
process.
MS. FLAGG: Actually, it's less than what was approved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good answer, Miss Flagg.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a
second?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the recommendation to acquire the six medium-duty EMS units.
All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank you.
Item #BE1
COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN'S PRODUCTIVITY RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM
THE "MINI-GRACE COMMITTEE" REPORT - APPROVED AND STAFF TO AMEND
ORDINANCE AND CONSIDER COMBINING COMMITTEESS
Next item is 8(E)(1) under the county manager, Collier
County citizens productivity committee recommendations regarding the
mini-grace committee report.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question on the
executive summary before we start. I remember Commissioner Hancock
bringing the item up, but I don't know -- Did -- Did we give formal
direction on this second paragraph here, that we would go ahead and
put a -- I -- I don't care either way. I'm just trying to recall
correctly. Did we go ahead and say we would put a board member on the
productivity committee?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I remember that as the one solid
direction we had. The rest was to ask the productivity committee to
come back with other recommendations contained in the mini-grace
commission report that Mr. Craig --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- put together --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and if there were other things
that he felt were pertinent, to present them at this time, and we
would make further direction here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I remember the discussion as
well, and our -- our discussion centered around which county
commissioner would do that, should it vary and rotate each year with a
specific position, be it the vice chairman, the chairman, or maybe the
past chairman, what -- whatever, but so that we don't have to
reallocate each year, it just falls to a particular person.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the for-what-it's-worth
category, I like the idea of vice chair mainly because the chair
usually has his or her hands full as it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, they do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that we can have a steady
role.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I don't have any problem
with that whatsoever. Mr. McKenna, you want to tell us a little more
about it?
MR. MCKENNA: Yes. For the record, my name is Jack
McKenna. I'm here representing the productivity committee. Following
the workshop on the 30th, the productivity committee -- we met several
times to try to come up with a list of recommendations for your
request. Let me ask first, if I could -- I sent out a report Friday.
Did y'all get that? I didn't know if --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Getting it and reading it with
this -- this size agenda are two different things, Mr. McKenna. MR. MCKENNA: Point well taken.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I did receive it, yes.
MR. MCKENNA: Okay. I'll briefly go over some of the
recommendations we had here, and Mr. Craig is with us also. If there's
specific questions, he may be able to answer them.
The first general recommendation we had was to --
perhaps the board may wish to redirect the productivity's primary
concentration from one of the process examination to one of cost
savings and cost control. Another recommendation that we had was
perhaps when advisory boards are created here in Collier County, there
may be a desire to include a Sunset provision. Specific
recommendation listed are the -- recommending that the productivity
committee and perhaps other advisory boards, a tracking log be
maintained by the budget office so that we can check -- have a summary
of the recommendation, the action taken, if it was proved by the BCC,
estimated cost savings, and the cumulative cost savings for each of
those recommendations.
Other specific recommendations are -- and this -- As
you're aware, the mini-grace committee, there's -- they have a
high-level recruitment program, and we feel like this may be
worthwhile here in Collier County. We didn't feel that there was a
need to amend the ordinance for that but just to keep it in our minds
as a priority perhaps to -- to work on that recruitment program.
One other thing we felt may help is through appropriate
publicity, to talk about the successful actions of the various
advisory boards, including the productivity committee. And as the
paper sometimes doesn't cherish the thought of good news, we thought
perhaps the World Wide Web where the county government has a home
page, there might be a place to start with that.
Some changes that we saw appropriate to the ordinance
were, one, as was discussed earlier, that a representative of the
county commission be a voting member of the committee. We -- We had
quite a bit of discussion on this the couple of meetings we had since
the workshop, and the conclusion was that we felt that if the
commissioner's on the board, they should be a voting member and be
active, and that's our thought, our recommendation.
Also we'd like to see the productivity committee
membership open to governmental employees. We feel like that perhaps
should be limited, and we arrived at a number of four somewhat
arbitrary but feeling that there should be a limit to the number of
county government employees that are on that board; otherwise, it may
lose the effectiveness of the board. And on --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Jack. On that last
point, the mini-grace commission actually has -- It's almost a 50/50
mix, is it?
MR. HCKENNA: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's almost like a -- a -- a -- a
two-part concerted effort on the part of both staff and private
industry, and it forces them to work together. So I -- I -- I believe
that's the nexus for that particular change?
MR. HCKENNA: Yes. That's correct. And, again, the
number four is, you know, something that we discussed and kicked
around, and we've talked about three or four or five, but that's what
we ended up with.
The last item -- recommendation that we had relative to
the Ordinance 90- -- 91-10 -- and I'll read this. Without limiting the
general of the foregoing, the committee may analyze and review the
existing structure, organization, staffing, management functions, and
business practices, and recommendations for increased efficiency and
cost-effectiveness and assist in implementation of those
recommendations. All -- We felt like that would be appropriate to add
to the ordinance and perhaps -- The ordinance right now allows that
flexibility, but it is not that specific, and this is language that's
directly out of West Palm's mini-grace ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What was the body of that again,
Jack, the main portion of that?
MR. HCKENNA: It's in your report but -- Review the
existing structure, organization, staffing, management functions,
business practices, and procedures of any and all parts of the county
government, and make recommendations for the increased efficiency.
In addition, we've said that if so requested by a
constitutional officer, the committee may perform a similar function
for that officer. Again, that -- that is something that the
mini-grace committee has done in West Palm.
That -- That -- That's a brief overview of the -- our
recommendations. If there's any specific questions I can answer, I'd
be happy to try or to get Mr. Craig up here to help me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to just quickly kind of
run down your list and just give you a quick window on what I think is
-- is positive and what may need more work.
First of all, redirecting to concentrate on cost savings
and cost control I think is -- is necessary. Commissioner
Constantine, you and I both at one time served on this committee, and
-- and you found yourself bound to looking at just procedure at
times, and it wasn't as effective as you could have been, and I think
we have a better use for the time and efforts of people on the
committee to look at cost savings and cost control and net the
greatest result for the taxpayers. So I -- I like that.
The Sunset provision for all boards is something we have
for most boards now, and unfortunately their rolling over is almost a
token -- a token action, and what I hear and -- and we've said time
and time again is -- is we just need to concentrate on -- on closing
up boards that -- whose job has been completed more or less or that
are not effective, and I think that is -- is borne on the shoulders of
this -- this commission.
Tracking log, maintain an O and B, again, I think that's
terrific. It's a way of measuring the progress and process of the
board. So I'd approve that.
The ordinance amendments, we discussed previously, I
think, putting a member of this board on the productivity committee
and that your recommendation as a voting member -- We had some
discussion about that. Commissioner Mac'Kie felt that it shouldn't be
a voting member. When we have the productivity committee recommending
that they be a voting member, I -- I would support that, and I think
the vice chairman of this board would be the appropriate person as we
have discussed in the past.
Open to four government employees, again, I think it
opens up a joint-effort approach. I like that also.
I like the language regarding structure, organization,
and management. The only one I have a little problem with is the last
one, as far as use by other constitutional officers. I'm not sure how
that plays out. I want them to be available to other constitutional
officers, but because you're created by the BCC, I'm not sure how that
works, and maybe I can get a little help with that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think they would work the same
way the privatization task force works where our time and effort is
also available to the constitutional officers should they ask us to
look at specific items, and -- and I think that's what Mr. McKenna is
talking about, that we won't go delving into their -- MR. MCKENNA: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- offices without -- without
being asked to do so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I wasn't sure if we had
that arrangement in other areas, and since we do, I'm -- I'm
comfortable with that.
MR. MCKENNA: Really what we have here -- we say, may
perform. So it's not even mandated by -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HCKENNA: -- this change to the ordinance. It
simply allows that flexibility, I believe.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So with the exception of making
your second recommendation a part of the motion, which is Sunsetting,
which is something that is handled in other means, I'm -- I'm very
comfortable with all the recommendations made by your committee with
the one change of placing the vice chair as a member of the
productivity committee.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like the vice chair idea.
I like the idea of having whomever represents the board have a vote,
and I'll tell you why. I -- I've -- As a member of this board, I have
served in a capacity both ex officio and having a vote on advisory
boards or on the airport, special management committee or other
things, and while you genuinely take an interest regardless, there is
a different level just naturally achieve -- not only as an individual,
but from the group dynamic if you are casting a vote as well. So I
think it's just a logical step in doing that. And I think
particularly in this case, historically the people we have had on the
productivity committee are pretty strong-willed, have a pretty strong
thought of their own. So it's not as though they're going to be
bowled over by the vote of a commissioner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Very true.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've had very aggressive
people, and I think we will in the future.
A quick question. Your recommendation on Sunsetting,
and then I need to hear what your alteration is, but I missed, I
guess, what recommendation number two was.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was just to Sunset.
MR. HCKENNA: Simply -- At this point there are so many
advisory boards in Collier County, we just recommend that they -- the
county commission provide a Sunset provision or -- for each board for
a finite period of time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Filson, how many boards do
we have that do not have a Sunset? I was under the impression that
most do.
MS. FILSON: We have three ad hoc committees.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The rest all have a -- Was
it a six-year -- Is there '-
MS. FILSON: No. There is no --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is no --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The rest have a -- have a --
have a review. What? Every third year I think we're supposed to do
some sort of review of what they -- their purpose is, but there's no
formal Sunset.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. They each have a review every four
years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. In that case, I -- I would
agree that a -- in essence, a -- a -- a formal Sunset pending review
would be appropriate for -- for all committees.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That way they get a limited
amount of time to get something accomplished and people get a little
more motivated. So --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I'm for that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So I would leave that in then.
In that case --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you want to put that all
in the form of a motion, I'll be happy to second it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got one more comment before
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- you do that if you don't mind.
In the mini-grace commission which is what this has been modeled
after from Palm Beach, the privatization portion that currently we
have a separate task force doing that is incorporated in -- into the
mini-grace. Now, our -- our privatization task force commitment, you
might say, expires -- what is it -- this May? It's a two-year
program?
MS. FILSON: Yes. It's a two-year with an automatic
renewal with approval by the board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is -- Is it the purpose of the
productivity committee to -- to incorporate the privatization task
force into your effort as either a subcommittee or -- or something
like that? Because I -- I agree. The two should work together, and
-- and -- and I'd like-- I'd like to see some formal commitment
between the two of them.
MR. MCKENNA: To be honest with you, we really didn't
discuss that. You know, it's something that we'd certainly be happy
to consider and get back to you on how that would best work together.
I'm not prepared to answer that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's got the potential
for -- with some structuring, to -- to work well because some of the
cost savings and cost-control measures we're looking at will very well
involve --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- privatization in areas.
MR. MCKENNA: I agree with you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe we can set a time-line, and
before that renewal comes up, we look at the combination of the two
and how to either amend one ordinance and eliminate the other would
achieve that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine. That's fine. I -- I
-- Just based on -- on what he's saying that the productivity
committee wants to expand their purpose from simply looking at process
to the --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to the whole picture, that
part of that picture is definitely a privatization and -- and -- MR. MCKENNA: Absolutely agree.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- doesn't make any sense to have
two separate groups doing -- doing the same thing.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, now that Mr. Craig has so
much time on his hands, maybe that's his next task. Just kidding,
Dave.
Okay. I would like to go ahead and make a motion that
we adopt the recommendations forwarded here today by the productivity
committee and direct our staff to make the appropriate changes to
Ordinance 91-10 for inclusion of the vice chairman as a member of the
productivity committee and inclusion of the language proposed by the
productivity committee which is recommendation three under ordinance
amendments.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Will the motionmaker mind amending his motion to include direction to
investigate the combining of the privatization task force and the
productivity committee either into a mini-grace commission or some
larger group?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'll amend the motion to
include asking the productivity committee to look at the proper
structuring of the combining of those two to achieve the same end
result for the taxpayer.
MR. HCKENNA: Happy to do that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second amends.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second amends. We have a motion
and a second. Is there further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
MR. HCKENNA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. HcKenna.
Item #8E2
DISCUSSION OF THE ASSUHPTION OF UTILITY RATE REGULATION AUTHORITY BY
THE BCC - STAFF DIRECTED TO CREATE AND ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE; CREATING
AN INDEPENDENT BOARD APPROVED BY THE BCC; CREATING QUALIFICATIONS;
MINIMUM STAFF; POTENTIAL TO LOWER FRANCHISE FEES; AND RATE CASE EXPENSE
FOR PREFERRED METHOD FOR INCREASES
Next item on the agenda is item 8(E)(2). It's a
discussion of the assumption of the utility rate regulation authority.
MR. HCNEES: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. Mike HcNees from the county manager's office. This is
essentially a discussion item today, and I think probably, as you've
discussed previously, the end result will be either some direction to
the attorney's office to draft an ordinance to take us in the
direction of the assumption of the water and sewer utility rate
regulation or -- or call a halt to the process, one or the other,
depending on -- on what you want today.
Mr. Weigel has already provided you, as you know, a
report detailing the legal procedures for the implementation if you
were to choose to reassume regulation for private water and sewer
utility rates. What I'm bringing to you today is a staff report that
you requested regarding essentially what would this look like if you
were to bring it on administratively to the county government and
hopefully raising what are the major issues regarding the decision so
that you can have some discussion and then provide appropriate
direction.
I provided for your information as part of the executive
summary a list of the utilities that are currently regulated by the
Public Service Commission and operating in Collier County. I believe
there are eight plus one that is regulated only in terms of wastewater
effluent only. So there are essentially eight utilities that are
regulated for water and/or wastewater, and I've provided a list of
those for you. As we all know, there are two major utilities, what I
would call larger utilities. That would be Southern States Utilities
operating on Marco Island and the Florida Cities Water Company
operating in Golden Gate City area. As you know, there's a
complicated legal issue involving the Southern States Utilities system
as to whether or not even if the county takes jurisdiction, whether
you would get jurisdiction and -- and you had that discussion. I just
point that out as we go into this.
Administratively, the first decision that you would have
to make if you chose to assume rate regulation would be whether you
wanted to bring on board full-time county staff to handle the analysis
of what would be preprepared rate cases by the different utilities or
whether you wanted to have a minimal county staff who would handle
franchise regulation -- franchise administration I should say, and
then deal with the individual rate cases on a contract basis and I --
I don't think it's a huge leap to make the assumption that you would
probably not want huge county staff sitting idle while there were no
rate cases. So I went ahead and developed the costs for minimal
staff. I think the least you could expect to hire would be some sort
of a rate analyst or a coordinator to handle the franchise paperwork
and the franchise administration. Some minimal clerical staff I'm
talking about, two employees total. Total cost for that, not counting
-- I didn't count capital. I figured we would scrounge up some desks
and a place for them to work -- a neighborhood of $129,000.
As a reality check, I checked with a couple of other
counties who do rate regulation in a similar way. Those were Saint
Johns County and Charlotte County, and their costs that they budget
are right in that ballpark. So it gives me a comfort that that's
about all it takes to do the franchise administration, and we'll talk
a little bit more about Charlotte County in just a minute because I
should say they're a county who did rate regulation until recently.
The actual expenses for the individual rate cases vary.
Of course, you can see that the -- from the list of utilities, some of
them are very small, and the cost to do the analysis of a rate case
for a small utility might only be a few thousand dollars. The
counties I talked to gave me a range of 5,000 to 15,000 for hiring a
consultant who would represent the county and do the actual numerical
analysis of the individual rate cases. So that would be the range.
Now, I have to point out here that five to $15,000 range is for the
typical rate case. I mentioned Charlotte County who recently got out
of the rate regulation business and passed jurisdiction back to the
Public Service Commission because of one individual rate case on which
they spent more than a million dollars because it -- it became a legal
battle, and in defending themselves, they ended up spending more than
a million dollars, and that was enough of a motivation to get them out
of the rate regulation business, and I throw that out just has a --
There is -- Most cases will be typical, but there is always the
possibility that some case will not --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I interrupt? Who did they do
legal battle with?
MR. MCNEES: I don't know. I don't have the details of
that case. I'll be happy to try to get what I can for you on that.
MR. DORRILL: I believe it was General Development
Corporation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: GDC.
MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am. I believe that's correct, but
I'll be happy to see what I can get on that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're out of business now,
aren't they, Mr. Dotrill, GDC?
MR. DORRILL: They were ultimately condemned and
acquired through an eminent domain proceeding, and I think the county
purchased the utilities for 40 or $50 million.
MR. HCNEES: One of the other administrative decisions
that you will make if you choose to -- to head in this direction is
whether you as the Board of County Commissioners prefer to sit as the
rate-making body or whether you prefer to appoint a separate dependent
body, or I suppose it could be an independent body, depending on how
you chose to structure it. When Collier County last did regulation, it
impaneled something called the Collier County Utility Rate Regulation
Board. We called it the CCURRB Board then, and that was the board
that actually heard the rate cases and made the rulings, and that
would be a decision you as the county commission would make whether
you wanted to hear those cases or whether you wanted to appoint a
board and then what -- what form that would take, would it be
dependent or independent, and that those would be among the
administrative decisions you would make for direction to Mr. Weigel on
how you would set up this -- this process.
Three more issues I'll point out, and then I'll just
open the floor to your discussion. The issue of franchise fees
previously under the CCURRB Board you charged a 2 percent franchise
fee. I applied that fee to the estimated gross revenues of SSU and
Florida Cities. Again, as a reality check on what franchise fee would
generate the -- the money needed to operate this -- this regulation
process and that a 2 percent franchise fee on their estimated revenues
generates about $272,000 which is obviously more than the 129,000 that
I indicated to -- to operate a franchise -- minimal franchise
operation.
In addition, then if you had a minimal franchise fee,
you would probably also have a filing fee, and the utility itself
would then pay the county to hire the expert to do the analysis. If
you had a franchise fee somewhat higher, you could consider -- and
we're getting into a little detail you may not want to get quite into
now. But you -- you would consider whether you wanted the franchise
fees to cover the rate case expenses and not have an additional filing
fee. That's probably a decision for down the road.
But the bottom line is a 2 percent franchise fee would
be adequate and -- and would cover the expenses that we would
anticipate. I point out that currently utilities pay a 4 percent
franchise fee to the Public Service Commission. Both are passed on to
the customer. I assume there would then be some savings to the
customer immediately from the decrease in the franchise fee.
Two other issues that I raise, one is very hard to
quantify, but I think it's something that's important to raise here.
It's recognized that a large impetus here for the interest in the
assumption of utility rate regulation by the county commission is what
people perceive as out of control or perhaps unwarranted rate
increases on the part of certain utilities, and I understand that --
that impetus and that feeling, but the commission needs to recognize,
I think, that even if you choose to bring the regulation of private
water and wastewater utilities under your control, that your ability
to actually control utility rates is going to be pretty narrow. You
will be -- or your rate regulation board will be legally obligated to
provide an acceptable return on equity to a private utility just like
the Public Service Commission is, and so I think the -- the question
of how much control can the county actually have is certainly worthy
of discussion, and I'm not attempting to quantify that for you here.
I -- I just understand that there is a large contingent or
constituency for county control, and I think you -- you need to
consider that, quote, "control issue," advisedly, and you need to make
sure that you're making an informed decision on just exactly how much
control can you have. And, again, I can't really quantify that for
you today, but I think it's an important area for discussion.
The last issue I've identified in your executive summary
is the issue of acquisition of private utilities. It has been the
county's policy -- in fact, a strategic policy of county government
for the better part of 15 years to develop a regional water and
wastewater utility system. And, in fact, the last rate case that the
old CCURRB Board heard was the East Naples Water Systems,
Incorporated, case that got very complicated eventually because the
county was attempting to acquire that utility at the same time it was
regulating that utility's rates. The -- The land purchase that you
approved a couple of weeks ago with the Hubschman family was the last
vestige of the untangling of the complications from that rate case
that began in 1984. So the commingling of -- of acquisition and
regulation can be dangerous and can be complicated. Now, Sarasota
County does both. They acquire utilities, and they regulate. I'm not
saying it can't be done. I'm just saying that it's something for you
to be aware of, that your strategic policy has been that you prefer
county-owned regional utility systems. You are perfectly free to
change that strategic decision or to continue to try to do both. I
just throw that out again as an area of discussion so you understand
some of the complexities of this issue.
With that, that completes my staff report. I -- I
haven't really attempted to give you a definitive report on all the
issues but to try to raise the major ones. I'll be happy to answer
any questions for discussion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, before
you get started -- Mr. Dotrill, how many speakers are there? MR. DORRILL: There are none.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: None? Good. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We -- I -- I brought this
forward, and I know Commissioner Norris has similar concerns because
of the frequency with which Florida Cities and Southern States have
requested increases over the past several years, and also, frankly,
the amount of requests that have eventually been approved have been
fairly high too. If you live in Golden Gate, you are paying roughly
double for water what you were paying five years ago, and that
probably doesn't equate to general inflation and -- and -- As you
pointed out, Mr. HcNees, your point is well taken that local control
doesn't mean there will be no increases. Utilities still have a right
to make a profit by the utilities too. But I think the thought is
that the Public Service Commission is located in Tallahassee, and
while there is a public hearing located wherever the utility is, in
Golden Gate or in Marco Island, there may or may not be anyone who
serves on the Public Service Commission at that public hearing. They
usually have their staff there and perhaps one commissioner. And
unless you want to go to Tallahassee and -- and spend the day and --
and take the time and expense it takes to travel there and stay there,
you may not have an opportunity to share your thoughts, your concerns,
your specifics with the Public Service Commission. The Public Service
Commission is charged with virtually every water and sewer rate case
around the State of Florida as well as telephone and electric and
other utilities around the state. So the likelihood that they are
going to focus in -- God bless them. I'm sure they try. But the
likelihood that they are going to focus in and -- and be able to see
all the details on Marco Island or in Golden Gate when they look at
those cases is much smaller than if we have a local board whose sole
focus is to deal with those and nothing else.
The -- You mentioned rate case expense, and I know in
the three increases we've experienced in the Golden Gate area with
Florida Cities Water, the rate case expense has averaged somewhere in
the neighborhood of $50,000. So it can go much higher than that five
to 15.
I do have a couple questions for you, Mr. McNees, on
staffing. You mentioned a minimal level of staffing, and the expense
you've estimated here is surely a lot less than Tallahassee costs to
run the PSC; however, I'm curious or I'm wondering what it is that 40
hours a week, 52 weeks a year a rate analyst or coordinator would do,
and would it be possible to overlap that with other utility duties,
keeping in mind that in the case of both Marco and Golden Gate, those
utilities usually have only requested at the most often every couple
of years, and so I'm wondering -- Obviously there's a several-month
process to review, but in the off year, is there something else we can
make this person be doing.
MR. MCNEES: First of all, as far as specifically what
these people would do, in addition to the analysis and the
administration of the individual rate cases, they would deal with the
franchise administration; in other words, the boundary determinations
and the franchise filings, the administration of the fee itself and
the -- the collection of that fee which, for example, with the cable
television franchise is a -- is a pretty big job in monitoring and
making sure that those fees are properly paid. I'm going to say it's
probably nearly a 40-hour-a-week job. The last utility rate analyst
that we had was me in 1984, and that was just as it was dying. So I
can't really give you an exact representation of what it was like when
it was alive but --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you were busy.
MR. MCNEES: Right. What I can say is if there are
extra resources -- in other words, if it's not a 40-hour-a-week job,
there will certainly be work for that person to do. The other thing
that we would probably merge in there is the issue of cable
regulation, and I can't see two separate departments but, rather, one
department where those could assist each other, and maybe we would
need three people total to do cable and utility franchise, and then
those could overlap somewhat.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two important points. One is
you have outlined the minimal level necessary. That will be paid for
100 percent from franchise fees. There's no taxpayer dollars going
toward that.
MR. MCNEES: Yes, sir. That would certainly be our
intent.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second point is, this is
-- I'll guarantee -- If you've been to Tallahassee and seen the
Public Service Commission and their staff and their building, I'll
guarantee this is a lot less than they spend in Tallahassee doing this
sort of thing.
On a couple other items, you mentioned we'd have to
decide whether we wanted individual rate case charges to be made when
application was made for an increase or whether we'd want to just take
that out of franchise fees. I'd like to see us kind of play with
that. Mr. Weigel, maybe you can help us as we look at it. But I know
there was a law passed for one year. I think it was 1992 and then
rescinded again the following year at the state level which allowed
rate case expenses. If -- if a company asked for a 100 percent
increase and they only got a 50 percent increase, that only 50 percent
of their rate case charges were turned over and, in turn, charged to
the customer and -- otherwise, the company had to eat chose charges,
and that was rescinded, but I know there has been an effort to get
that back in place. If that was back in place, it would make a big
difference whether we did rate case expense or franchise fees because
franchise fees they'll be paying anyway, and that ultimately is paid
by the customer. If that law changes with rate case charges, the
company has to be a little more careful and actually be able to back
up what they're asking for. And if they spend too much and don't get
it, they -- they eat that.
I like the idea. The franchise fees could be lower
probably than what they are spending now to go to Tallahassee with
what you've outlined, and that is a charge that, in turn, goes to the
customer. So that's the potential for a lower cost to the utility
customers.
A couple of other thoughts. I'd like to see a panel
created by this board rather than have us because these cases can be
fairly complex. Hearings can go for three or four days and really
require some level of expertise in this area, and I think we could
assemble that from within our population, but I'm not sure the Board
of Commissioners is necessarily the body to do that. So my opinion,
I'd like to see us appoint someone, perhaps at some point have an
appeal mechanism so that if there was something that needed to come to
us -- I'm not clear really in my mind what to do there but at least
have some appeal process as part of that, but I'd be much more
comfortable with an appointed panel of local experts rather than this
board trying to sit through four days of hearings and comprehend all
that. Just kind of my thoughts on it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- I have to agree with
Commissioner Constantine on having an independent panel because that
will defuse the -- the perception and -- and possible claims of having
politics be involved in the process from -- from either side. I mean,
I can just see right now if the Board of Commissioners were the final
authority on this, that -- depending on which way the rate case was
going, it would be parochial or -- or siding with the utilities or
something like that. So certainly the way to go to eliminate all that
is to go to an independent rate board like the CCURRB Board was
before. I appreciate the work that Mr. HcNees has done here for us
today on this -- this item because there -- there are a number of
issues out there. It's not as simple as just taking back the rate
authority and -- and certainly it's very -- it's appropriate to -- to
point out strongly that just because we have an independent rate board
doesn't mean that we're going to be able to stop utilities from
raising their rates. There are -- The thing that we're hoping to
accomplish with this at -- at the best is at least to make them
justify that to a greater degree than they have to now, and I think by
having our independent rate board be local, certainly the ratepayers
are going to have a better voice and someone who is more apt to look
out after their interests than a group of folks that are appointed by
the governor and that works statewide. So I think it -- even though
there are a number of drawbacks to this and it could be at times
cumbersome to -- to operate, I think it's still in the best interests
of our ratepayers who are served by private utilities.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, do you know the
status of the court case regarding the ability to cross county
boundary lines that services are allowed to do now? What's the status
of that case, and what's -- obviously if -- if we can get it so that
MArco Island pays the rate for keeping the MArco Island plant
operating as opposed to having to pay for, you know, Safety Harbor's
plant, we're going to be able to control rates better here. What's
the status of that court case right now?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the appeal is still ongoing, and no
decision is made in that yet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The initial decision was good
news for us, but there's an appeal; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the -- the initial -- the initial
decision was that the interim rate that had been applied for was
ultimately rejected, but the issue concerning the -- the SSU utility
being recognized as a uniform utility in -- in many counties continues
just as a regular appeal item.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I -- I -- I've got one
question. I've heard a couple of commissioners here refer to an
independent regulatory board, and the executive summary talks about an
independent or dependent board and -- and I guess I'm asking, are we
talking about a board that is within the purview of the Board of
County Commissioners, or are we talking about a board that's
completely independent of the local government?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My personal preference would be to
make it an independent regulatory board so that you remove all
possibility of -- of -- of either percepted or real political
influence.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're -- you're suggesting,
then, that if this board disagrees with the utility seeking a rate
hike, that their -- their first appeal would be into the court system?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. That's what I would
prefer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I just want to clarify
what -- what we're talking about doing because I had heard previous to
this that -- that this board had considered the first appeal would be
to this board and so -- I mean, we need to talk about dependent versus
independent.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, if we advertise
one particular way, during the discussion, decided to alter that, if
we advertise an independent board, between now and then we have
discussions with you, with other counties that are doing this sort of
thing, for whatever reason that day decide our preference would be
dependent, we have the ability to do that?
MR. WEIGEL: We do. There's some flexibility along that
line. We can draft an ordinance -- We can draft two ordinances and
advertise them simultaneously for hearing at the same time, have one
hearing about both ordinances and allowing all public speakers and
everyone has been to see the formats of both ordinances, and then you
can pick and choose and do what you want to do, and that's just one
variation of an ability to do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I think from the
standpoint of both perceived and reality, I think Commissioner Norris
has a good point, that perhaps you keep politics out of it that way,
but I'd like to at least explore and look at the others. I think my
preference is going to be that way but at least keep the door open for
discussion on that.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion if you --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, this is merely a discussion
so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Direct staff motion.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm satisfied with the direction,
the way we're going. I'm -- I'm going to -- My predisposition is
toward an independent board, but I certainly want to be educated on
the subject, so information is welcome.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine,
you want to give direction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a motion to give
staff direction to create and advertise an ordinance with the
following parts. An independent board appointed by Board of County
Commissioners, creating some sort of minimal level of understanding.
I'm not sure what our qualifications would be there. But, Mr. Weigel,
perhaps as the process unfolds, you can help us with that. Including
the minimal level of staffing as outlined by Mr. HcNees. Looking as
part of that, how that can potentially lower franchise fees, and we
want to be careful not to get overzealous there and end up the short
end of the stick. But if we can, that ends up being a direct pass on
to customers in -- in lower fees essentially. So as -- as part of
that, if we can make lower franchise fees as well. And I'd like to
see, I guess, the rate case expense be the preferred method for
requested rate increases rather than simply taking that from franchise
fees.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion? Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Just to add that in the -- in the
drafting and the public hearing consideration of such ordinance or
ordinance variations that we'll bring back, that our experience and
review of the other counties that are doing this, they have, just as
PSC has, extensive regulations, and so we will attempt to advise the
board -- when we come back with the advertised ordinances, advise the
board of regulations, what would appear to be appropriate regulations
that mix and work with the ordinances, and ultimately the ultimate
determination of the board to retake jurisdiction from PSC and -- and
undertake all of the obligations locally that are currently with the
PSC, that with that -- with that determination which is by resolution,
that would be the ordinance and an effective time period for the
regulations to either be reviewed by the board or an effective date of
implementation that allows the -- the -- the actual takeover of
jurisdiction to be implementable by virtue of regulations being in
place. If we -- If we just take back jurisdiction, which is a rather
simple act, and we don't have all of the mechanisms in place --
meaning, the ordinance as well as the regulations behind the ordinance
-- then we'd have an inability for the newly appointed -- appointed
board to start with the procedures even though jurisdiction is upon
them upon-- upon the immediate act of the board. So we will
coordinate all those items, is what I'm trying to say in a difficult
fashion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. Is there further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #8E3
AGREEHENT WITH SAVE THE BAYS ASSOCIATION, INC. TO FUND THE DESIGN OF
THE DOCTORS PASS JETTY EXTENSION - APPROVED
We have what I think is one quick item, the Doctor's
Pass, item 8(E)(3). I think this is not much more than direction to
refund the money.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That we had already given
direction. It's just approving the agreements, and I move approval.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agreements and move forward with the refunds. All those
in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's obvious that we have, by
virtue of people standing in the back of the room, one or two sizable
groups here on different items today. Before getting bogged down in
the county attorney's report, we may -- No offense, Mr. Weigel.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nicely put.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask a question? How many
are here for the Clam Bay discussion?
That's the majority. And the rest, there's a public
hearing item I believe a lot of people are here for also, a fezone or
something. Okay.
MR. DORRILL: How many of you want to hear the county
attorney's report?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I noticed nobody on the board
raised their hand.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll tell you, we're going to
take a break before we go any further.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that, but I might
ask that immediately following the break, because we have people
standing in the room, maybe we should hear the earlier of those two
items before the county attorney's report so that we can at least have
a place for everyone to sit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No objection to that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
to take a 15-minute break.
then we will move to the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
issue.
I think it's a great idea.
Okay.
Okay. We'll do that. We're going
We'll be back at ten minutes of 11:00, and
I think it's 10(F).
The earlier one is the Clam Bay
(A short break was held.)
Item #9B
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEE COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE USE
OF COLLIER COUNTY CATEGORY B TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $57,000 FOR A FILM COHMISSION OFFICE - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll reconvene the Board of
County Commission meeting for November the 14, 1995. If I could ask
you all to have a seat and to keep your conversations very quiet. I
was reminded during our break that we do have an item that we are
going to have to hear prior to the Clam Bay, and the reason for that
is we have a person who's here from Lee County who cannot remain a
whole lot longer than what she's already scheduled to be here. It
should be a relatively quick item. It is item 9(B) dealing with the
film commission. Who -- Who on our staff is -- is presenting that
item? Anybody?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, it's
your baby. You want to do it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Basically to ratify the
decision we made before. I understand it's actually a couple of
thousand dollars extra. I think it was 53 we had looked at before,
and it's 57 now but --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Beverly Fox from our -- from
the Lee office is here, and she will be doing the joint effort with
us. So she may have a few words with us but I think --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My support will dwindle as you
speak.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The longer you speak.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The longer you speak, the less
support I'll --
MR. DORRILL: You do have five votes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a gator outfit or what?
MS. FOX: Well, good. I always believe in brevity
anyway, so we should be in complete agreement on that. The copy that
you have of the proposed interlocal agreement here, the Collier
County's Attorney's Office made a couple of changes to, which I got
copies of just late last week. One thing in there, if you have a copy
before you, under the second recital where it says, "Whereas, the film
commissioner of Southwest Florida will be an employee of Collier
County," obviously I'm an existing employee of Lee County and would
like to strike that language. Our county attorney has spoken with the
Collier County's Attorney's Office, and I believe that that was
acceptable.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
MS. FOX: Then the only other comments that I had on
this were some -- following some comments from Ross Ogly from the
Collier County EDC. He had wanted to see more language in the
agreement incorporating the Lee County Horizon Council, which I guess
since we work with them so closely anyway, we really had not put them
in here. We had included the Collier County, the board, the Collier
TDC, and the EDC here. So those really aren't substantive changes to
the agreement. We would like to just incorporate those in addition to
this, and then otherwise the agreement is fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to make a
comment. The Horizon Council has been very good trying to push the
regional perspective and getting through on work together. So I'd have
no objection to that. I'd make a motion we approve the item and
direct Mr. Weigel to add that item, that one item in.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a matter of procedure, there
was a motion on the floor.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I would be happy to amend it
to include that change.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was it recognized by the
chair?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
second it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
amendment?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
And hopefully then you would
I didn't hear a motion. I'm
Okay.
The motionmaker accepts the
Yes, ma'am.
Do we have a second?
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll -- I'll --
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I won't.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, you won't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the item with a stipulated change as recommended.
no further discussion, all in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Fox.
MS. FOX: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A smattering of applause.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Progress.
If there's
Item #10F
FURTHER CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF FUNDS FOR THE WATER
QUALITY MONITORING OF CLAM PASS NRPA - LEGAL OPINION TO BE BROUGHT BACK
ON 11/21/95 AND REASSESSMENT OF FUNDS AND EXPERTS OPINIONS TO BE
BROUGHT BACK ON 11/28/95
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- going to move forward on the
agenda to item 10(F), which is further consideration regarding this
suspension of funds for water quality monitoring at Clam Pass.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we start, I want to
apologize. I had a phone call from some folks who invited me to come
up this weekend and take a look, and my dad came in town this weekend.
So I was busy with him, and I apologize for not getting to the roof
to get the bird's eye view.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you've never met his dad,
Earl's a neat guy. So I understand that excuse.
Madam Chair, if I may kind of kick this off, I placed
this or asked this to be put on the agenda, and if you'll bear with me
for two or three minutes, I think we can answer a lot of questions
that may be out there today, and those that aren't answered and those
that aren't satisfied are more than welcome to address the board.
Because of the original die-off that occurred in'91, it
-- our environmental staff began preparing and looking at how to
address the Clam Bay system in a more appropriate manner through
what's called an NRPA, a natural resource protection area. We are
required by our growth management plan to establish NRPAs, and the
Clam Bay system is the first and so far only NRPA, and that was
established simply as a result of the original die-off. I've had a
lot of comments that no one has done anything, that no one cares, and
that simply isn't the case.
In addition to establishing the NRPA, the board also
appropriated just under $100,000 in funding. That money was intended
to do one of several things -- or many things. Excuse me. The first
was water quality monitoring throughout the Clam Bay system. That
would indicate if there were problems or spikes in certain areas that
needed to be addressed. The second was the removal of exotics.
Things such as Brazilian pepper tend to infest and overtake some
systems, and if you can remove them and clear them out, you give the
estuary a better chance to succeed for a longer period of time. And
there were other areas that included staff time. I think our staff
has been knee deep in Clam Bay for several months now. So just as a
background to let you know what has gone on, what the nexus of that
was I think is important.
The reason I've placed this on the agenda today is many
folks who live in Pelican Bay have seen over the last -- and it
varies. Some say weeks. Some say two months. There's been an
increased die-off, a very significant sizable area. I was lucky
enough -- Mr. And Mrs. Bell invited me up, and I got on the roof of
the Contessa, and it became very apparent to me, as it did to several
of our local environmental folks, as well as one -- at least one
expert that was up there, that there's a significant problem there,
and there's an expansive problem there. As a result of that, where we
originally were trying to put together a task force and set a certain
schedule to proceed, that was accelerated. I have been working with
Jim Ward at the Pelican Bay services division who is -- is doing most
of the orchestration on this. I have been going out and trying to get
and secure additional people to sit in on a task force per se so the
communication is up front and complete to the residents of Pelican Bay
as well as among the experts. As a result of that, we have secured so
far two mangrove experts, Mr. Robin Louis and -- who is -- has his own
firm and -- and works in restoration. The second is Mr. Mike Shirley
who works with Rookery Bay. He actually works for the state, and he's
down in the Rookery Bay area. We are in the process of gaining other
folks as they can come on board. And, of course, you know, the more
attractive the price, the more welcome they are. We are concerned
about what funding levels are available.
The goal now is simply to bring the experts on board, to
get them out in the field in Clam Bay, to -- to let them take a look
at it, to survey, to see what's there, and then to bring the experts
together and make specific recommendations on what is going to serve
for the greatest short-term improvement for the immediate die-off, and
the second step is to work on long-term solutions.
The only reason that I have an item on the agenda today
is that because of the establishment of the NRPA and the associated
funding with it, I feel that if we have an immediate problem in Clam
Bay that is jeopardizing the health of the overall system, the money
may be better spent if the experts indicate so on -- on creating an
immediate solution to -- to stop or reduce that die-off. So instead
of continuing to work on the exotic removal contract that we are --
are proceeding on and some other water quality areas which -- which
are hard dollars, I'm asking the board to direct our environmental
staff to step back and hold that money for a little while until -- and
the next two weeks we can get all the experts in to take a look at the
Clam Bay system. On the 27th we are setting up a conference call that
will hopefully be what I call a decision stage, that by that time, the
experts have all gotten together, have talked among themselves and
have decided a single or -- or two directions that need to be taken so
that we can address the problem. That is the simple goal of today.
It's not to choose a direction, to propose a solution, or fund
anything specifically, but merely I think an act of prudence that says
we don't know what the problem is exactly. We certainly don't know at
this point what the solution is. There's a very short time frame in
which we need to comply with to achieve that solution, and I think
these funds may be better spent addressing that than doing exotic
removal or water quality monitoring at this point. That's the simple
reason this is on the agenda and the sole reason I'm asking my
colleagues to help me direct staff to work with these experts in the
next two weeks and help come up with a -- a good short-term solution
and then obviously a long-term solution for Clam Bay.
The committee that we're talking about will also have
representatives; Dr. Stallings of the Florida Wildlife Federation;
John Fitch, Dr. Fitch, of the Conservancy. We have -- I am still
waiting on the names, but residents from Bay Colony, residents from
the Claridge. We also are going to have Mac Hatchet of our staff
serving on that committee. I will be sitting on it; Jim Ward with
Pelican Bay; A1 Varley with the MSTU in Pelican Bay. We're trying to
get as many people that are involved in this as possible so that we
have a constant line of communication, and all of these people will be
involved in all meetings and all decisions made and -- and -- and I
say"decisions," but recommendations made to proceed forward. It will
be coordinated through the Pelican Bay service division, and Mr. Ward
has been -- been terrific in handling that and will continue to do so.
I'm just, in essence, a member of the committee and, I guess, a
representative of the board.
In as quick a nutshell as possible and trying to be
comprehensive in what we're doing, that's the game plan. We have a
two-week window to get the experts out there, to get them together,
and to find out what recommendations need to be made and what work
needs to be done. And, again, I only ask the board's assistance today
in directing staff to withhold expenses on the NRPA until we get these
recommendations back from the mangrove experts and determine whether
or not those funds can be better spent for the system than what was
originally proposed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Dotrill, how many
speakers are there on this item?
MR. DORRILL: 16.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 16.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If you agree with me, just say
okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I'm going to -- I'm
going to ask as many people who agree with the direction that we're
taking to -- to pass and merely say you agree.
I -- I do need to make a comment, though, and -- and Dr.
-- Dr. Stallings and I spent about an hour and a half yesterday
afternoon, along with Jim Gore from the Conservancy and Glenn Simpson,
looking at some maps of the Clam Bay, Vanderbilt Lagoon and the Naples
Park area, and we were all a little bit of amazed when we looked at
1952 aerial photographs, and guess what we saw? A mangrove die-off.
So it appears that the 1991 die-off was not the original die-off.
It's something that's been going on systemically, and it's a very
dynamic situation going on there. We don't know why it's particularly
under stress to the point that it's growing, but we do know or it does
appear that this may be a natural cycle. It may have gotten larger
and occurring more often because of stress from construction,
nutrients, and the lack of flushing, but I -- I certainly agree that
we need to get some experts in to take a look at what is causing the
problem and see if we can find some solutions that are -- rather than
putting out a brush fire that seems to continue to rekindle, do
something about it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may -- I'm sorry. May I
respond? I -- I just -- Growing up in Florida -- and most of the
folks in Pelican Bay have heard me say this -- you know, I've watched
mangroves die and come back. You know, I grew up mostly in the Tampa
Bay region, did a lot of boating and fishing in that area, and, yes,
there is a natural cycle. You know, mangroves will choke themselves
out and kill themselves at times, only to die and reoccur in the same
area.
My goal here is not to get a quick fix that doesn't have
a positive impact nor is it to spend money. My goal is to get true
experts in the field, in the area, and if it is a natural phenomena
that will occur and reoccur but has the opportunity to grow back, then
great. I hope that's the recommendation. So I -- Again, I -- I just
want to characterize it as -- I don't think anyone on this board is in
a position to determine what the fate of the Clam Bay system is, and I
hope that the folks that come in and help us out here will -- will be
able to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, in -- in addition to that,
some of the things that were offered yesterday for discussion that --
that I had wanted to talk further with Mr. Boldt and Mr. Dorrill about
were -- were the availability of some -- some people out in Vicksburg,
Mississippi, with the Army Corps. It's called the Coastal
Environmental Research Center and their water experiment station out
there where these are scientists that have the ability to do some
computer modeling and -- and -- you know, we may want to engage them
in some what-if possibilities with this. I don't know. I -- I -- I
just was hearing all this yesterday. So I -- I don't know where it's
going to go, but I'm hoping to meet with some representatives of the
Corps in the next week or ten days but -- Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As you all know, I opposed
funding the NRPA to begin with. One of the reasons was it seemed to
me that very well-intentioned folks -- I look back at Dr. Stallings.
He and I had a lot of debate on this. Very well-intentioned folks --
we're looking for a way to spend money on the environment, and whether
it was Clam Bay or other, we had several NRPAs laid out, NRPAs laid
out for us, and we were asked to spend money on one of these, and this
was one we came up with. And what I don't like is saying, okay, we're
going to spend money somewhere. Now, where are we going to spend it.
I like to determine where there's a problem. I think your idea of
stopping and looking at this is a good one. It may be a very real
problem that we need to address, and I feel much more comfortable with
that than I do with the general NRPA process. The one thing -- and I
am by no means an expert in the field, and I'll -- I'll be anxious to
hear from our experts when the time comes, but I've read in the
newspaper several times that the mangroves are, in effect, drowning.
They're in too much water and dying off. And you mentioned not enough
flushing, but we also had 95 inches of rain this summer which is about
-- almost double what we usually get. You combine that with limited
flushing, and I assume then you are going to have some die-off. So I
am, like you, very anxious to hear what they tell us. If it is a
natural phenomena, then -- then great. We'll know that. If we're in
there doing damage and we don't realize it, we need to know that as
well. But I think a good idea, and I'm much more comfortable looking
at this than I am just at a general NRPA, let's pick one at random.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think the original NRPA for
Clam Bay was as a result of the 1991 die-off.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, did you
have anything? Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, while we're calling the
public speakers, maybe someone from our staff can answer the question
of whether -- or what is the status of this mangrove area? Is it a
conservation easement technically?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I had asked that question,
Commissioner Norris, in a second, and it was probably one you'd follow
up with too, is assuming there is a conservation easement so that the
county has access to the property, does -- did the county in accepting
the conservation easement also accept the maintenance obligation and
-- and that I think is a threshold question for me about whether or
not it's the county's obligation to correct as a part of the
conservation easement.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My question is a little bit
different than that. Is -- Is it a conservation easement?
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural
Resources director. The majority of the original 13-acre die-off is
within the conservation easement. There is a portion of the die-off
that is not within the easement. Making sure my staff says yes.
there is -- There is a portion. The newer -- The newer die-off which
is at least equal to the older die-off is all within the conservation
easement.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the purpose of a conservation
easement is to ensure that the natural environment is preserved and
unaltered, yet we're probably going to be asked soon to -- MR. LORENZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- spend money to alter that
natural environment within that conservation easement.
MR. LORENZ: There -- There is -- and I don't have the
-- the answer to Commissioner Mac'Kie's question exactly, but there
-- there is language within the conservation easement that does
prohibit dredging within the system. This may have to be looked at in
terms of -- if we get to some point of potential solutions, as to look
at what kind of constraints there may be within the conservation
easement and opportunities to change those constraints, but -- but
that will have to be looked at.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If -- If you don't mind, maybe
the county attorney's office could answer my half of the question.
MR. WEIGEL: Margie, we've discussed this. I can start,
but you may want to finish. But the question -- the question, again,
was concerning a conservation easement that does exist and the
responsibilities of the holder of the easement within that
conservation area. Another -- Another subelement you want -- might
want to address is, we use the term "conservation easement" which is
-- is based upon a document of grant, a conveyance document providing
a right or interest to the grantee. And -- And, Margie, please
identify and for the board, for the record, the -- the fact to whom
the conservation easement was granted, who holds that right, who has
the underlying property interest because an easement is not a complete
property interest, and then discuss any potential rights or
obligations of the holders of those interests.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. Again, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I have not
had an opportunity to really -- I was looking more broadly at the PUD
document, but as a matter of general law, the easement holder
generally has the right and the obligation to maintain the easement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The right and the obligation?
MS. STUDENT: Or the obligation. Excuse me. The
obligation to maintain the easement. That's a matter of general law.
Now, as to -- I -- I've been handed these documents just as I was
walking up to the podium. So if you would bear with me, I'd be happy,
as the public comes up to speak, to have a look at them and, you know,
offer a response.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- My fundamental question is
going to be whose job is it. If the county accepted a conservation
easement, did we legally bind ourselves to maintain that property, or
does that remain the responsibility of the owner of the fee simple
interest?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who is the owner?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And the follow-up, I
think, goes back to Commissioner Norris's point, what is maintain. Is
that allow nature to take its course, or does that mean --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- try to keep it in one
constant state?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if I can get back into the response
mode here, Hargie -- and the fact is -- and -- and Bill Lorenz maybe
can tell us. This area may or may not be shown and/or dedicated as a
conservation area irrespective of an easement right granted to Collier
County. Is there a distinction between those two elements? It is
depicted on a plat or in a land development plan as a conservation
area conceivably apart from the fact that the county may have received
a grant of easement for conservation purposes. Is there a distinction
there? Can you -- Can you tell me what exists there?
MS. STUDENT: Well, again, I've been handed these
documents, and I was looking at this in terms of the PUD and some of
the rights and obligation therein. So I'm going to need to look at
these documents and, you know, respond maybe in ten, 15 minutes. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Again, back to -- back to discuss as they
look to come back maybe after the speakers have spoken, there are some
distinctions -- I'll speak generally -- to easements where -- and the
county has many types of easements, often in utility areas, where we
have the right to go in but not the responsibility to maintain, and
that's what we're looking to determine here with a little more
certainty.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who is the fee simple owner on
this property?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: She's going to look that up as
well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, that -- Okay. Commissioner
MR. WARD: Let me help you a little bit. Jim -- For
your record, Jim Ward, Pelican Bay services. About 1982 a majority of
the conservation area, about 560 acres of it, was actually deeded --
fee simple title was deeded to Collier County. A portion of it in the
very northern area was not deeded to the county at that time.
Westinghouse was still in the development phase of what was then
called the northwest fill area, and so some of that area had been
retained in ownership of the county. I don't recall specifically
since it was so many years ago exactly what part of that area was
retained by Westinghouse and what part is still owned by the county.
There were in addition to that fee simple deed easements put over top
of the property conservation easements which restricted its use by the
county once the deed was given to the county, but I think we'd have to
sort of get you a map of exactly where all of those areas are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Why don't we move on. I'm
sorry. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the main reasons -- This
is one thing that -- that I think is sometimes being lost in this
area. I think if Dr. Stallings were to list his friends of the
environment, you probably wouldn't find me near the top. I haven't
been known for being in that capacity, shall we say. But the main
reason I supported the Clam Bay NRPA was two reasons. It's a unique
system in the urban area. And I don't know how many of you know this,
but there is -- On top of having a beach access through the Clam Bay
system, there's a canoe launch and a parking area that offers some
really neat recreational opportunities for everyone in the entire
county within the Clam Bay system. And if you've never been back
there canoeing, it's probably one of the most peaceful areas you can
find. It's right here in the urban area. And when I -- When I was
growing up in Tampa, we had something called Cockroach Bay which is a
lot -- sounds a lot worse than Clam Bay, but it became, like, a
learning center for the local schools to learn about ecosystems and
mangroves, and it was accessible and that kind of thing, and I just
saw Clam Bay as becoming that kind of importance within the community.
So the recreational opportunities and so forth I think --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We want Cockroach Bay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't want to name it
Cockroach Bay though.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a Snail Bay or Cricket
Bay?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But, anyway, that -- that whole
ball of wax is why I supported this as an NRPA when, in fact, we
prioritized a list that took other areas out of NRPA status that were
under other levels of protection. So that being said, Commissioner
MAtthews, you mentioned meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers on
this item.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the main reasons --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Possibility.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the main reasons I got
involved with this was because I saw a fragmented effort. I saw
groups of citizens that were getting together and going in one
direction. Then we saw other groups going in -- in similar parallel
directions, and I thought there was an economy of -- of assembling all
those people and efforts in one single solid direction, and that's
what I will continue to try and do and work with Jim Ward and -- and
-- and pursue that so we can get all of the talent in one group and
discuss it openly. So I -- I certainly welcome my colleagues' efforts
and so forth, but if -- if we could have the benefit of that -- that
assistance, it would be greatly appreciated.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I think what I had in
mind with this -- and I needed first to find out if it was even
available, but to find out from our experts what their recommendations
are that we do and then ask a group called West (phonetic) that's part
of the Coastal Environmental Research Center of the Corps to do the
modeling to tell us if it will work and -- and -- or what we could
expect to gain from it. But that's good to know what we can expect to
gain and what won't happen, or should nature just take its course as
it's done for the last several thousands of years.
Mr. Dotrill, why don't we move on with the public
speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Our first speaker is Claire DeSilver. And
then, Dr. Gore, if I could have you stand by, please. Ms. DeSilver.
For the benefit of the audience, we'll call two names. If the second
person called could -- could move to the front, that will help us move
through these a little quicker. Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I also want to set the ground
rules before -- Miss DeSilver, before you get started. We do limit our
speakers to five minutes, and when the buzzer goes off, I will ask you
to please wrap it up as quickly as you can. Again, those who are in
agreement with the direction you're hearing from us, if you would
merely say that you agree with what we're talking about doing, we
would much appreciate it. You want to go ahead, Miss DeSilver.
MS. DESILVER: Yes. I'm Claire DeSilver. I'm chair of
the MAngrove Action Group which represents most organizations and
people in Pelican Bay; that is, the foundation, the homeowners
association, women's league, the president's council, and many
individual members, and I'd just like to make a few points. But
before I do that, I want to say that it's been very heartening to sit
back there and hear the comments of the con -- the commissioners
because I -- I think we are in much accord with the fact that we need
to find out -- we need these experts, and we need to make a game plan.
From our point of view, the day-to-day visible spread of
the mangrove die-off in the Clam Bay conservation area warns us that
unless action is promptly taken, there will soon be a 535-acre dead
mangrove forest. We're told it's not merely the black mangroves that
are dying but the red as well. The black just die first, being more
vulnerable to high water.
And as far as nature taking its course, I just want to
point out that nature originally had a channel at the north end which
was filled in at some stage when Vanderbilt Beach Road was being
widened. So you really can't talk about nature when you've cut off
one side of the circulation, and a lot of us feel that much of this
problem would be resolved if we could do something like a flow pipe,
and that's for the engineers and the experts and so on, but basically
it doesn't circulate and there's no outlet.
I don't want you to think this is just a matter of some
wealthy residents having a problem with their view. Perhaps if this
remarkable conservation area were not adjacent to an upscale
neighborhood, the county and the community at large would be more
concerned about it. The fact is that this dying mangrove preserve is
really important in this area's appeal to hotel guests, real estate
sales and resales, commercial and business interests, and in a domino
effect, values and the tax base can be affected. The entire area will
diminish. You may well be dealing with the possibility of an economic
as well as an ecologic tragedy.
We -- I was planning to urge Commissioner Hancock to
advance his date. I'm still urging it. I -- I hear rumors, but no
official information has been passed to any of our proposed task force
members that I know of, but we were hoping it would be around the
20th, and then we hear rumors the 27th. I hope you can do it sooner.
And we want those mangrove experts to be asked to reach a consensus on
a general plan of action.
Lastly, we remind the commissioners and this is apropos
of some discussion that you just now had, that Harjorie Student,
assistant -- assistant county attorney, stated in a letter dated
September 22 that she is still in the process of resolving an urgent
matter raised by Attorney David Rynders in an opinion letter dated
April 18, '95. Rynders states that despite Westinghouse's transfer to
Collier County of all right, title, interest, claim, and demand in the
535-acre conservation area, there is no record of Westinghouse
transferring to the county its duties for the planning, control,
supervision, and maintenance described in the PUD for the 535-acre
area. The county attorney must resolve this matter. If Westinghouse
is still in any way financially liable, then county expenditures for
the mangroves may be recoverable obviously, and the commissioners
certainly should pursue this.
The Hangrove Action Group is proud to have spurred the
community focus on this crisis. We will continue relentlessly to do
so until effective solutions are implemented. And thank you very much
for your time. Oh, one thing. Will everybody supporting the mangrove
action just stand for a half a second?
Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And the other four people can
stay seated.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss DeSilver.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Gore.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Gore.
MR. DORRILL: And then, Mr. Hamilton, if I could have
you stand by.
DR. GORE: For the record, Jim Gore of the Conservancy.
I just want to echo my support of Commissioner Hancock's task force.
I think that's -- that's the right direction to go. We need to avoid
any kind of rapid responses that might exacerbate the situation
further, and there are enough experts out in this world that they can
figure out what the problem is, and I -- I do have a letter for each
one of you sort of outlining a suggested proposal or suggested action
to take, and you can read that at your leisure.
There are a couple of things I'd like to say about the
mangrove die-off, and that is that the Bay Colony residents funded my
division, the environmental protection division, of the Conservancy to
undertake a study to look at the historical aspects of the development
and ecosystem status of the Clam Bay over the last 40 years or so plus
take some of our own samples out there, and we have been doing that.
Our report will be out in about the second week of December, and, of
course, we will make that available to you, and it will be a
component, I'm sure, of what is offered through the Conservancy's
participation in the task force.
What we're seeing is something which I don't think is
due exclusively to that rainfall event. There's no doubt that that
rainfall event really caused the majority of those deaths, but I think
what happened is you had a system which was stressed already, and all
that happened was that high rainfall event pushed it over the edge.
There's no doubt that we need to go through there and examine ways to
improve circulation, either north/south or by opening up some more
connections back into the Gulf. That's something that needs to be
done.
But before the mangrove die-off -- the large mangrove
die-off occurred, we were already up there taking water quality
samples Inner Clam Bay up at the very north end, and mangroves were
dying off then, not in the large numbers. MAngroves die off all the
time, but these were isolated patches, and our water quality samples
there suggest that there's some other things going on. We found, for
example, sulfate levels which is an indication of decomposition and
some unusual chemical things going on in the sediment of about 24 --
as high as -- I shouldn't say all of the measurements were -- but as
high as 24,000 milligrams per liter where you would expect to see
something less than 200. So that's something on the order of as much
as 100 times higher than they should be. That's startling.
There are a lot of other things that are occurring there
that need to be examined. I've just been reading some documentation
done by mangrove researchers in Australia who suggest that
accumulations of sulfates and nutrients -- and we have evidence of
nutrient accumulations -- cause changes in the chemical composition of
the substrate that may stress the mangroves to the point where other
environmental perturbations cause them to die very rapidly. In
essence, they're suppressing their immune systems -- their systems,
their inability to respond to environmental change. So that's
something which may be occurring as well.
I suggest then that we really need two parallel courses,
one which examines ways to increase circulation throughout the entire
system. And, in fact, it was a connected system from Wiggins Pass all
the way down to Doctor's Pass at one time. So we need to examine some
ways to increase circulation, but I think we also need to examine the
biological, physical, and chemical status of that system so that we
know what else might be stressing these things so that these mangroves
aren't as stressed and aren't as susceptible to these temporary
environmental changes which lead to these massive die-offs. Those are
suggestions which I think the task force will probably address anyway,
but I want to reiterate them now as -- as a way for that task force to
go. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Gore.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dr. Gore, could I ask a question?
If I understand Commissioner Hancock's proposal, it's to take the
existing NRPA money -- money and spend it on the experts.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not to -- It's not to spend
it on what we planned for the NRPA at this point until we get a -- a
-- a conglomeration of experts to determine the nature. So I'm just
going to hold at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And those environmental experts
that we are talking about, are they doing this gratis, or is somebody
paying them to do this?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are -- Dr. Mike Shirley
from Rookery Bay is -- is on the state payroll, so he's not costing us
anything. Robin Louis, I think, is -- the Pelican Bay services
division recommended him. I'm not sure how he's -- Put it this way,
he hasn't requested a check from me yet so -- So he can do as much as
he wants. The idea is to bring in experts in different areas, and we
have a gentleman from the University of Miami that's been recommended
by our staff that said if someone will pay his -- his hotel night,
he'll come in. I imagine we can find --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is that name?
DR. GORE: His name is Sam Snetiker.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just collecting anyone and
everyone that will come in, and the free people come first.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That's -- That's -- I just
-- Because I wanted to -- I think that the money that we have
allocated in the NRPA was for a valid purpose, so I don't want to just
quickly spend that on a lot of experts.
DR. GORE: No. We -- We -- I agree with the suspension
of this. We -- We just as soon have as much funds available to
implement a solution as to continue with things which are going on now
which may not be -- which are certainly necessary to do but may not
address the -- the short-term -- the short-term rehabilitation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you would not leave while --
Mr. Ward, is this paying for the one you recommended?
MR. WARD: Dr. Louis has done some gratis work for us
for the last few weeks. I suspect that -- I've asked him for a
proposal to continue doing the work on behalf of Pelican Bay services
division through the end of this year, and once I get that approval
from the services division advisory committee, you'll see a budget
amendment coming before you to retain Dr. Louis and pay for his
services.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Out of the -- Out of the Pelican
Bay --
MR. WARD: Pelican Bay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- MSTU funds?
MR. WARD: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Shoot. I forgot my other
question. Oh, my other question is, is there just not a clear-cut
answer to this? I mean, is it really that complicated a question?
Isn't there just an answer? Do we have to spend six months --
DR. GORE: I wish there was. If there was, I would be
here to tell you what the answer is immediately. Mangrove -- Mangrove
biology unfortunately --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But isn't the answer just that --
that --
DR. GORE: -- is -- is poorly well known.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you -- you said it. You said
that the system needs to be interconnected the way it was before.
DR. GORE: It does indeed. It does indeed, but I'm not
-- I'm not convinced that that is the only solution. If somebody
said, well, how much of the solution it is, I'd probably say about 80
to -- 80 percent of the solution, but that doesn't cause -- If you
imagine a diseased person, fixing the symptoms doesn't necessarily
cure the disease.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just don't want to spend a lot
of time studying something that I -- that there is an answer to and at
least 80 percent of the problem could be solved.
DR. GORE: This task force may decide that very quickly.
I think the report that we're going to produce may -- may go a long
way to answering that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to put you on the
spot with what's the answer.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To me -- To me --
DR. GORE: Not a chance.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there's great irony in an
attorney asking for a black-and-white, simple answer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Well --
DR. GORE: By the way, Commissioner Matthews, I went
home last night and talked to people down at Waterways Experiment
Station. The proper title of this thing is the Coastal Engineering
Research Center rather than Coastal Environment Research Center.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're not engineers.
DR. GORE: Well, they're -- they're good guys sometimes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
DR. GORE: I -- I had -- I was on sabbatical there for
about a year and a half, not at -- not in the Coastal Engineering
Research lab. There are about 20 labs at Waterways Experiment
Station. Coastal Engineering Research lab is an outstanding group of
people who know the stuff about coastal engineering processes and
coastal processes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank --
DR. GORE: So --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Gore.
DR. GORE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hamilton has graciously passed on his
opportunity to speak. Ms. Dykman, you would be next and then followed
by Mr. Froemming. I'll have you stand by, please. Ms. Dykman, good
morning.
MS. DYKHAN: I'm Hartha Dykman. I'm president of
Seagate Property Owners Association. I don't want this to be just a
Pelican Bay problem. We've been in this area for 40 years. Seagate
has been a property that used the Clam Bay system, and nobody's
mentioned that. Nobody's asked us to be on a committee. And Mrs.
Hac'Kie, when she ran, she -- we -- we had a meeting in our
neighborhood and told her this was our main concern, is the Clam Pass
system and the deterioration of it. We want -- We want the study done.
We support that. We've been watching for a long time, no wildlife
coming in, no sea life coming in. It's not just a mangrove problem.
It's a big problem, and nothing could be more important in this county
than getting this changed. And -- And we can solve it before it gets
to be a complete ruin, and I think nothing could be more valuable than
that. It's not a Pelican Bay problem. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Froemming and then Mr. Erlichman.
MR. FROEHMING: I want to thank you for the opportunity
to come before you. I live in the Contessa which is the building
closest to this problem. We moved in in January of 1991. We have
watched this problem grow, its magnitude. We have personally, along
with other people in our building and Bay Colony, funded some of the
efforts made by the Conservancy to study this problem. I have heard
the word "study" so much. I hope that we can get past this. I
understand your concern with the legal standing and what your
obligations and your rights are, but I urge with all the livered haste
that you can muster. This is not a typical problem that you can put
off to another meeting and get some more consensus. Action is needed.
The only thing that I've heard from all the people that have looked
at this thing is what Dr. Louis said. We have a small window, a small
opportunity to do some good there and please -- I don't -- I ask you,
don't let this go just because of -- we want to get three more experts
in on it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman and then Mr. Neal.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Gilbert Erlichman from East Naples. I'd
like -- At this time I'd like to reserve the right to address the
commissioners pending the -- the study that the county attorney is
making as to the responsibilities and for Pelican Bay and the area
that's under question. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Neal.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Erlichman, you always have
the right to address this board. MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we expect you to.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Neal.
MR. NEAL: I'm Jerry Neal with Terrell Associates. I
came before this board about a year ago. I came before this board
again about two years ago concerning this item. There's a couple of
things I need to expand on on your question about the conservation
easement and the ownership and also the county obligation. The
mitigation for Vanderbilt Beach Road improvements is within and
includes the original five acres of the mangrove die-off area; so,
therefore, at this time the county is involved in the original five
acres for doing monitoring. We had started monitoring reports back in
November of '94 to the state concerning the mangrove die-off area. We
did another report in July of '95 and our report that is due this
coming month, that we did the field work in October, and we're
finishing the book now, the mitigation part.
The area originally was owned by the Westinghouse
Development for the Bay Colony area of the five acres. At that time
it was surveyed by Wilson, Miller, and it was deeded over to the
county. So that area is now also owned by Collier County and is a
mitigation site. So now we own all that area.
The other item that I would like to bring up is the fact
that in Hay of '94 the Board of County Commissioners reviewed a
contract by Terrell and Associates which included AB and B as
engineer, Humiston and Moore as the coastal engineer, ourselves as
being the environmentalists, and some laboratories that are well known
for doing these sort of studies. To -- Today we have performed a
couple of tasks of the five-task project. One is a re-opening of the
Clam Bay after it closed. Two is the inlet management plan which was
submitted to the county, and it's in review right now. The other
items which is the review of the hydraulics for the Upper Clam Bay
system, and the last one is the review of the hydraulics connecting up
Doctor's with Clam Pass. Those are under contract at this time with
the county. We have a contract. I delivered to your office a copy of
the contract that was signed by this board for Terrell and Associates
to do the study. Also Terrell is doing the mitigation for the county
in this area. So right now there is a question of, should Terrell be
on this special committee since we are already on contract to do
implementation of a solution, or should Terrell be on this committee
as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure. I -- I -- You know, this
is -- this is not some, you know, real formal process. I mean, if you
feel that -- that Terrell and Associates has something to bring to the
picture, then I -- I welcome you. So, you know, that's -- I don't
have a -- I'm not excluding anyone. As a matter of fact, I'm including
anyone that wants to be there so -- particularly if you have a level
of expertise you can bring to the -- the question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the point, though, that the
previous speaker made about the interrelationship of the several
systems, what the -- what the county contracted with Terrell and
Associates to do would have -- Let me understand. Did you say it would
have been to open the systems or to study the need to reconnect?
MR. NEAL: The -- It's a very extensive contract in
which we would do modeling for dual inlets to study what would happen
if you opened up a closed area which would be Seagate Drive, or even
if you consider opening up Vanderbilt Road, to see what effect it
would have hydraulically-wise on the whole system. Also as part of
that is we're working with Robin Louis already. He's been with us for
over a year now on this particular item. Also it would include doing
extensive water quality sampling to be able to do a model to find out
what difference it would make in each watershed area as exists today.
If it is opened up and now you have a mixing of waters, what can you
expect by knowing what the exact water quality is on one side versus
the other.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So my -- my question was, had the
county at some point already decided, dear Terrell and Associates, we
hereby contract with you to go and reconnect these three systems. We
didn't do that. We asked you -- We never gave you the money to -- to
perform the duties that we asked you to perform, but we asked you to
study what would happen if Vanderbilt and Clam and Doctor's were
reconnected. Yes?
MR. NEAL: There is a supplemental contractual agreement
to do that, but since it was never funded, then, of course, that has
not been performed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That funding amount was $400,000.
Okay. We're not talking $50,000. We're not talking a small amount.
We're talking $400,000. And during the budget discussions, that
money simply was not available. So it's not -- You know, there are a
lot of things we want to do, but we have to place the question of --
of what is an appropriate level of funding. And, you know, if it
takes $400,000 for someone to say, "Yes, if you reconnect it all, it
works better," so be it, but I could probably do it for a buck and a
quarter.
MR. NEAL: All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it is -- That's the point,
though, is we need to acknowledge as a board that at least since --
what's the date of this contract? '94? May sometime -- yeah, May of
'94, we have acknowledged that this very question has to be studied.
The -- The signifi -- What is the -- What's the significance of the
closing of the systems no longer that they're connected? What's the
significance of that? We have one example of -- of what anybody -- I
mean, at least Dr. Gore was able to say that probably 80 percent of
the problem results from the lack of the connection and the lack of
the flushing. I don't want to study that forever, but I do want us to
recognize that -- We've acknowledged that that's the problem for at
least a year now, and we won't spend any money to fix it. I don't want
to talk about it if we're not going to spend the money.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm anticipating that there are
two things, two stages. The first is the immediate stage of the
mangrove die-off. The second is what long-term solutions need to be
implemented for a healthy system, and I think that's going to be a
part of this process. So I don't think we're excluding that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If -- If I could ask the board
members -- I -- I know Mr. Neal has made some pertinent points, but if
we could limit discussion to when we've heard all of the speakers and
then move forward on the item.
MR. NEAL: Could I make one correction to the comment?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Neal.
MR. NEAL: I'm looking at the contract now on page 53.
For the Upper Clam Bay system, it's 75,000. And for the Lower Clam
Bay system, it is 57,000. It's not a $400,000 contract.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- apologize for dragging it out,
but I think that that is the issue, that -- that there are two steps
to this process. Yes, we should freeze. Yes, we should do what
Commissioner Hancock has described, but that should lead to -- I hope
that this serves as the impetus to this board to fund those two
portions of this contract that we -- that Mr. Ter -- Mr. Neal just
discussed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we're going to see what
the experts have to say first.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Mr. Bell.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I'm not
an expert in anything. But I would like to know how much of the
$100,000 you supposedly funded for this NRPA is still available.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In cash dollar amount, it's
around $50,000. It's $45,000 set aside for exotic removal, and that
contract is in the process of being worked out now. Yes, $45,000 for
exotics removal. I think an additional portion of $12,000 for water
quality monitoring. Beyond that, most of the expenses were, in fact,
staff time and working on interim dredge pass -- or pass dredging
permits and so forth. So of the amount, we're looking at
approximately $50,000.
MR. KELLER: Left? You've got $50,000 left --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we -- we never --
MR. KELLER: -- or do you have -- or do you have nothing
left?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We haven't spent $50,000, if
that's what you're asking.
HR. KELLER: What about -- What about the contract with
this gentleman here? Has that -- Has that been funded?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He just said no.
HR. KELLER: It hasn't been funded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No.
MR. KELLER: In other words, we've been studying this
thing for at least ten or 12 years. Clam Pass closed up at least
probably three times in the last 20 years, and we haven't made a
solution.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, you know, Hr. Keller, what I
think we've been doing is talking about studying it. MR. KELLER: I know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We haven't funded a study.
MR. KELLER: And we haven't -- we haven't determined
basically what the cause is and no matter -- When you have an
ecological system that's -- that's threatened and you build all around
it, you're bound to change it. There's no -- no question about it.
And, you know, Collier County is -- about two-thirds of it should be
under some kind of ecological restraint, and we're going to build it
all up anyway. So why don't we just do what -- what Mussolini did in
Italy. He said he needed the property, so he filled in all the
swamps, and he put houses on them. And if that's what -- If Collier
County -- if our growth rate is going to keep on going the way it is,
we're going to need all the property that's available, and there's
plenty of people coming in here with money that are willing to develop
it irregardless of what happens to it in the end. So we -- we better
get our house in order and decide how -- how much growth we want and
whether we're going to restrict growth.
And all this business of making exchanges, when you're
going to destroy this piece of property, you have to go and build a
few -- put a few more mangroves on another piece of property isn't
going to solve the problem. Let's be honest about it. If -- If we
find out that the -- and I -- I'm in favor of what you're doing, but
let's find out why is -- why is this, what's the cause. And if the
cause is because we built all around it, then let the people who did
the building pay the money to correct it, period.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Keller, that's -- that's what
we're looking to do.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. And Ms. Bell. Thank you. And then
Mr. Tensfeldt.
MR. BELL: I'm Hark Bell from the Contessa in Pelican
Bay, and there are a lot of experts that have been either talking or
looking at this, and I'm not one of them. I do thank Commissioner
Hancock for coming up and taking his time to do that. And one thing
we've noticed is that in a matter of a week, you could see a lot of
this so-called new die-off happening in a very short period of time,
presumably from the heavy rains and so on. It's still happening every
day. We're kind of monitoring this visually, and there's no question,
we're seeing changes every day out there. So there is a serious
problem. And with all of the people that have come up from the
scientific community -- and there's been quite a few -- I have noted
two things. One, amazement at the scope of this thing, and the other
is a sense of urgency. So I think it's a sense of urgency that most
of us are feeling strongly and frustrated about in view of all the
talk about studies in the past and so on, not to criticize them at
all, but at this point in time some kind of action which I believe is
being proposed here by Commissioner Hancock is what we need. So we
need to press forward with this diligently, and the sense of urgency
cannot be lost, or we may continue to -- to lose the system we're
trying to preserve here.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Tensfeldt and then Mr. Bontemps.
MR. TENSFELDT: I'm Bob Tensfeldt. I live in the
Contessa on the 15th floor and look at the problem area daily, and
about everything I wanted to say has been expressed, but there is a
sense of urgency here, and I hope that this project doesn't get bogged
down because this thing is really growing almost by the day. Thank
you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bontemps and then Dr. Stallings.
MR. BONTEHPS: Commissioners, thank you very much for
having all this -- allowing everybody to come up here and talk. I
know you say it's our right, but we still appreciate those rights.
It's better than Russia. I just have one comment that I would like to
add. I like the programs. I like what I'm hearing, and I'm
concerned, as the others are, with the time schedule, moving up that
time schedule because this is urgent. I've lived outdoors all my life,
and I know when you don't do something, things happen, and they get
out of control, and you can't do anything about them.
My whole background has been in science and technology
and engineering, and I know that Pelican Bay was built -- started
building about 15 years ago. It was designed about 18 years ago.
We've put plants, we've put trees, we've cemented it over, we've
washed the chemicals down for 15 years into -- into Pelican Bay and
the Vanderbilt Beach and down to Seagate, and nobody has any
calculations. I attended the recent HSTBU meeting where Wilson,
Miller, Barton, and Peek gave presentations, and the only studies made
were how they were going to collect the water but nothing about where
the water was going to run to. I heard nothing about the chemical
buildup. I heard nothing about water samples taken that went down
into the mud at different heights and depths of the water to determine
how much chemicals are down there. It certainly hasn't been able to
flush out because, as somebody pointed out earlier, all the way from
Wiggins Pass down to Doctor's Pass used to be a beautiful open
estuary, free-flowing tidal system. It's not anymore. It's a sump
that's been blocked off by roads at Seagate, by Vanderbilt Beach, and
all the other things that have been built there. There is no
flushing. It can't move. We've got a dead sump full of chemicals and
dead plants. And I urge that we move now. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pistner will follow Dr. Stallings.
DR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings with the Florida Wildlife
Federation. First, in terms of the legal responsibility, we had hired
Mr. Dave Rynders who is the former city attorney for the City of
Naples to explore who is legally responsible for fixing the situation,
and his finding was if there were reasonable assurances given by WCI,
that this sort of problem would not occur, and there were legal
covenants signed that if they did occur, they would be responsible to
fix it, and he did not find any evidence that that responsibility had
been transferred away from WCI. We wrote a series of letters to the
various state regulatory agencies, to the county, and whomever, and at
this point in time no one has elected to press the issue, although
maybe that's about to change.
The second point I want to address involves the bringing
in of several experts, and I'd just like to read a couple of quick
quotations from a report here. The first says the hypersaline soil
conditions that are hypothesized to have caused the original mangrove
die-off were the result of a unique combination of natural
circumstances combined with a history of man-induced reductions in the
natural freshwater drainage into Clam Bay. The conclusion being,
there's too little water going in there.
And the final conclusion, we, therefore, do not believe
that the current restoration effort -- and this was written about six
or eight months ago -- will be impacted by the very same unique
circumstances unless another drought coincides with the next period of
abnormal high tides in the winter of the year 2003 or 2004. So here
the conclusion was that it was not enough water which was a unique
combination of natural events. This -- These were the conclusions
drawn by Mr. Louis whom you're considering hiring to justify why WCI
should not move forward and start fixing the situation.
So I do think it's very, very important to have several
experts take a look at it. Mr. Snetiker who I understand -- or Dr.
Snetiker who is coming over is probably one of the top five or eight
mangrove experts in the world, and I think the advice that he would
give along with Dr. Shirley, and perhaps others, would be advice well
taken. So I would hope that we would have a -- a group here who could
really look at the problem and -- collectively and hopefully with full
agreement come about with a short-term series of recommendations as
well as a long-term series of recommendations. And I think one of the
points that's been made here is that, yes, we do have a brush fire,
let's say, in Clam Bay, but we've also got problems in Venetian Bay
and Vanderbilt Lagoon. These problems are all interrelated, and what
we really need to do is look at a coastal solution, obviously focusing
upon the crisis of the moment but also looking down the road to how we
potentially could reintroduce the circulation into these systems that
we basically have cut off.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dr. Stallings, do you -- From
what -- From what you're saying, it sounds to me like you agree with
-- with what Dr. Gore said maybe, that the problem here doesn't
require a great deal of study. It is probably primarily the lack of
connection among the systems.
DR. STALLINGS: I believe --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't we know the solution, at
least a great part of it already?
DR. STALLINGS: I think we do, and I think his statement
to the effect that the impairment of circulation is the foundation
problem is correct, and we can sort of back into a solution in a sense
of defining -- and I heard another speaker say something along these
lines -- defining what the system was once before, recognizing we'll
never be able to get all of the way back to that point, but we can at
least move significantly back towards that point to stabilize it and
then to restore what we see happening. And I -- I do tend to believe,
though, that what's happening now is a situation whereby we've got a
great amount of stress on this system. It's stress the system would
ordinarily be able to handle, but because -- Well, let me back up a
little bit.
The system would ordinarily be able to handle a rainfall
event like the one we had or a low-water event, but because of the
high stress on the system, it was not able to handle it. This stress
is going to increase. We have a great deal of building that's going
on and building that's planned in the watersheds of these areas.
the stress levels are going to tend to increase unless we do
something. So I would hope that we can move forward expeditiously to
start addressing the Clam Bay problem and the coastal problem in
general, try to come up with a plan of action that will protect these
very, very valuable resources.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Stallings.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pistner and then Ms. Straton.
MR. PISTNER: My name is Steve Pistner. I'm vice
chairman of Naples Cay. I represent the 230 owners of Naples Cay, and
our property, as you know, is adjacent to the Seagate community. When
we were last before you, we were in that very serious and critical
emergency to attempt to open Clam Pass. Now, there's no way to say how
grateful we are that you acted immediately to resolve the problem
because if you hadn't done then some of the things that need to be
done now, Clam Bay would be a swamp. By this time the death rate
among the plants, the fish, all of it would be so extensive, that we'd
be in a very serious emergency.
Even though I started only three years ago on these
problems and became deeply involved, I was told by so many in the
community, Fran Stallings and all the other environmentalists and the
interested people, we're up against a tough problem. We've gone over
seven or eight years attempting to get the permanent opening of Clam
Pass, and we're still waiting. We need the studies, Commissioners.
We need it bad. If we don't, you're going to hear that same argument
again from the state, that Clam Pass can't be opened or kept open.
Now we face the second major emergency. I'm so glad to see all these
folks here today. Maybe this number of people showing you that the
problem is not limited, that what Fran Stallings and the others are
saying, it's all interconnected.
When the studies are done, the bottom line will be that
we must reconnect to the Gulf. Without the flow, there is no other
cure that can be made. When the rest of the studies are completed,
you will find, as we already know, that the chemicals and the runoff
are also significant and that the long-term solution will elude us.
We will solve part of the problem. We need to act quickly to do that.
I just wish it was as simple as taking the sand out of Clam Pass,
but it's going to be a solution that will cost a couple of million
dollars. Westinghouse created the problem. When that land was sold
and Vanderbilt was closed off, there is no question why we are getting
what we're getting. It's true that the high waters now are the final
element that is contributing to the die-off, but that would not have
happened had we had the areas interconnected and the flow of the water
to increase the salinity. It would not have been the way it is today.
I urge you not only to get the study to satisfy the state but to
move as quickly as you can to attempt to find the solution, and
unfortunately we all have to pay the price for the funding to
reconnect the Upper Clam area and, if possible, beyond it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Straton and then Mr. Spina.
MS. STRATON: For the record, my name is Chris Straton,
and I'm here representing the Second District Association which is a
group of over 20 property owners located -- property owner groups
located in the north end of the county. The reason why we're here is
we wanted to let you know that this is not a neighborhood problem,
this is not a Pelican Bay problem. Obviously this is a county park,
and it's also of great concern to the residents throughout the second
district.
We had a meeting recently and ranked all of the projects
that we could focus in on during 1996. Transportation was the most
critical, and the second thing was issues of water quality. As I
listened to the other speakers, we've -- we've heard about high levels
of chemicals, very little water monitoring, water quality, very little
work done in that area. What we have monitored, we found that the
water quality is poor. We have concerns about flushing. We're
concerned about the runoff that's going into the area. If Vanderbilt
Lagoon had any mangroves to die off, we might have been talking about
the Vanderbilt Lagoon situation and -- and -- So the point of -- of
that, as other people have said, this is Pelican Bay, but it's also
the Vanderbilt Lagoon problem. There may be similar problems showing
up in -- in other areas and that we urge you to move forward, not do a
knee-jerk reaction on the short-term but the long-term solution.
Please have it address the long-term needs of an entire system. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Spina.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is the name?
MR. DORRILL: It's Daniel Spina.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Pay attention, Dan. And he'll be your --
He'll be your final speaker.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that shirt, you were
blending into the background, Dan.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We know when Dan's here.
MR. SPINA: I have a little vertigo, so I'm not sure
whether I'm walking straight. I'm Dan Spina, president of Save the
Bays Association, and I can't match what has been said. I agree with
your plan, and I encourage you, but I'd like to tell you something
interesting, sort of an anecdote. We started in 1981 measuring water
quality in Save the Bays Association. We are concerned about the
waters from Banyan Boulevard all the way up into Seagate and Clam Bay.
We have people that go out monthly checking the water. One time we
discovered back in '82,'83 that it would be wise to open the conduits
between Seagate side and Clam Bay. There are conduits on that road --
under that road.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You mean culverts?
MR. SPINA: We said, let's open those up and increase
the circulation. Well, thank God, we had Dr. Benedict at the county
in charge of Natural Resources. Dr. Benedict moved on to be the
Natural Resources director for the Conservancy, and I think now he's
up in Tallahassee. Dr. Benedict said to us, you dare not touch those
conduits. If you move the level of that water one inch in Clam Bay,
you could hurt those mangroves. You don't do anything like that.
It's dangerous. I said, well, what do we do. He said, you've got the
burden to prove that they will not get hurt. You go to professors,
universities, get students coming down here to study this problem, and
if you can get them to write that it will not hurt, then you can do
it. We backed off. We tried to get some university professors to
come down. They looked at it. They wanted students to come and write
a thesis on the problem, but it -- it -- it sort of fizzled.
So I urge you now to do the studying, the studying that
really is done by objective people like universities or whatever and
to see what effect it will have. One inch is what he was saying would
hurt the mangroves, and that was a good healthy attitude on the part
of the county. Don't tamper. Now -- Now we know what might have been
done, what could have been done, and I just say, please get some
people that know how to solve problems. Problem-solving is a skill.
What is the problem, when it is not a problem, where is the problem,
where it is not -- these are techniques of problem-solving that could
be used with a good leader in your group, a problem-solving leader.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. He's our final
speaker?
MR. DORRILL: He's your final speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Miss Student,
have you been able to read through the documents and fill us in on
some information?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. What I'd like to do -- I can give
you some general answers right now, but what I'd like to do in a memo
to the board and perhaps even as a continuation of this item on your
next Tuesday agenda is come to you with maps and more detail. But --
And I do want to say too that the situation I addressed with Mr.
Stallings was more from the standpoint of enforcement of the PUD and
the DRI, and I had consulted with staff to determine where the problem
was coming from because, in my mind, the origination of the problem or
the origin of the problem has a lot to do with who has the ultimate
responsibility and was advised that Westinghouse was, indeed,
operating within their permits and that, in fact, it may be a larger
issue which it seems as though today some of the comment that you have
received may so indicate.
But, in any event, I have looked at the conservation
easement which is a 1989 document, and I've been told by staff that
this area -- I believe the die-off is included in this area. And the
county under that conservation easement has the right to protect that
area but not necessarily the obligation. Just the right to protect.
Prior to that, there is also a deed to -- from
Westinghouse's predecessor. I believe it's Coral Woods Properties
(phonetic) to -- I think it was -- just a moment -- to the county, and
there's a conservation area that is the subject of this deed. Again,
a property owner doesn't necessarily have the right or the obligation
-- You know, they can let the property sit in its natural state if
they so desire, and they don't necessarily have to do anything other
than that. So it would be our position at this juncture that it's not
necessarily the county's responsibility, but we do want to look at
that in more detail, but I've given you, you know, some basic outlines
as I have deduced it from these documents.
Furthermore, if the problem originates and is broader in
scope and originates from other areas of the county, then as a result
of what these studies may show, that property owner or property owners
may, in fact, have some responsibility. So -- And that's what I was
looking for when going over this with staff, was to determine the
origin of the problem so we would know where to point the finger.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner --
MS. STUDENT: And, again, I'll be happy to provide maps
and more detail at the -- under the BCC item in one week if -- if
that's agreeable to the commission.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, you
had some questions?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just at the same time, would we
be able to get the county's response to Attorney Rynders' position
about it being Westinghouse's responsibility --
MS. STUDENT: Yes, it will. Again, that was -- in the
letter that I received from Dr. Stallings, it was more of an
enforcement type of question, and that was kind of an aside to it, but
I will be more than happy to include that in it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's important to get the
answers to the -- the legal questions and responsibility questions.
In the -- the same breath, I think we need to continue moving ahead
with members of the expert community in the form of a task force that
will be set up through the Pelican Bay services division. That task
force will include many of the folks I've said today and anyone else
that -- that wishes to attend.
What I would like to do today is to make a motion that
this item be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding NRPA, the future funding of the NRPA, that we currently
freeze expenses, and that we put this item on for discussion in two
weeks from today to determine if the county needs to reassess the
expenditure of those funds to provide the greatest benefit to the Clam
Bay NRPA. That's the extent of the motion.
The purpose for that motion is to give us that two-week
period to assemble many of the experts that have been discussed today,
to give them the opportunity to do the field work they need to do and
the opportunity to talk and discuss among themselves what the best
solution both short-term and then potentially long-term may be. I
think in the immediate two weeks we're dealing with, is there
something that needs to be done to stop the immediate die-off or can
be done to stop the immediate die-off. If there is, let's address it.
The second step is what Commissioner Hac'Kie had alluded
to earlier and what we've talked about for a couple of years, I
understand on this board, is what type of reconnection may be -- may
provide the best benefit to all parties involved, and is that
necessary for the health of the Clam Bay system.
So that's the reason for my motion. I want to take this
one step at a time but not lose track of where we are trying to go.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just one -- One piece of further
discussion is --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I -- I think included in that
motion ought to be the direction to determine whose financial
obligation this is. I mean, we don't --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, believe me, I'm not -- I'm
not opening our wallet and not looking for anyone else to do the same.
There are three different funding sources that have been identified.
One is the money available in the NRPA. The second is the Pelican
Bay services division allocated last year monies for exotic removal,
just as the NRPA did. The PBSD has agreed to -- How much was it --
30,000 according to Jim Ward. That money is -- in essence, is being
held to wait for what results come from this -- this initial step.
And the third is WCI has indicated that they are -- are willing to
participate also. So there is more than one funding source here. The
county is not the first and only payer of any solution.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Norris,
though, is looking to see if there is some responsibility, not only
just voluntarily sharing, but if there's some responsibility somewhere
along the line; is that correct, Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I believe that was
Commissioner Mac'Kie's question to Ms. Student that we'll be hearing
about next week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- That's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's part of the motion
then?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I will -- I will agree to
make that part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then call the question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- My question was, if we're
going to -- if we're going to get the answer next week to whether or
not it's Westinghouse's job, if they're financially responsible and
it's going to take two weeks, do you think we have to wait two weeks
to discuss the other issues again?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, my concern is that there
have been two or three people touted today to be a part of this that I
have not discussed it with and don't know their schedule. Believe me,
if it can be done in a week, I will ask to push it up but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I -- I need to verify and give
those people time to get in the field, make their observations, and
make their determinations, and I think in this kind of issue, to rush
it might jeopardize any successful solution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we're still going to hold Ms.
Student's feet to the fire on next week.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, of course.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So we have a motion.
Essentially I'm hearing a two-part motion. One is that Miss Student
deliver to us next week her opinion regarding the legal issues and
that by November the 28th we have information from the experts who can
give us their opinion on what's going on. Other than that, we freeze
all further expenditures on the NRPA until we get these answers.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: ANd I will work on a community
informational meeting next week. So we can at least be advised of
what the progress is, and that will be held somewhere in and around
Pelican Bay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have one more comment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, ma'am.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Hancock, will you please
include in your group representatives from Seagate and Clam Pass and
probably also Vanderbilt Lagoon?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: At this point, because it's
getting so broad, I would encourage everyone to -- to look for -- for
Emma's article. We will set up a community informational meeting at
some point next week to discuss the progress on where we are, and that
will be open to anyone and everyone interested in the matter.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. No further discussion?
I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Let's break for
lunch. Excuse me. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: If you'd like, we can have the county
attorney items moved to the end of the agenda if you want to go
forward with the public hearing agenda or -- or the rest of the
commission agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Either way it's going to be long.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure it matters.
MR. WEIGEL: Fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll come back at -- why don't
we say 1:30 and just be even on it.
(A lunch break was held.)
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 95-631/CWS 95-9 APPROVING A SPECIAL ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 5
AND 16 OF CHAPTER 88-499, LAWS OF FLORIDA, TO REQUIRE THE AWARD,
LETTING OR ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS BY THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY PURCHASING ORDINANCE,
THE COLLIER COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF GENERAL
LAW - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county
commission meeting for November the 14th, 1995.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, a couple of
quick suggestions. One is might be a good day to meet outside for
this. Boy, went outside at lunch. What a day.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was going to say we could
continue all the items until the next rainy day. It might be a good
idea.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On a serious note, the -- I
realize we need to have all five people here for a public hearing on a
land use. But when Commissioner Matthews gets here, perhaps we can
skip up to the Vineyards, Piper's Grove item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that what our people are here
to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right. We -- we could
do that as soon as we get a full board. Right now we're ready to go
on the county attorney's report. Don't seem to have a county attorney
present.
MS. STUDENT: You do, but I'm not familiar with that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you handle that for us?
MR. PETTIT: Yes, I can.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Please go ahead then. This
will be item 9(A).
MR. PETTIT: For the record, I'm Mike Pettit from the
county attorney's office.
Item 9(A) is a request to the commission to approve a
resolution for an amendment of the special act -- excuse me --
establishing a water and sewer district, and it's directed at the
bidding requirements. Under the special act that we now have, it's --
it's somewhat inconsistent. In fact, it's quite inconsistent with our
county purchasing policy and our county purchasing ordinance and
reduces the flexibility that the public's work division has to -- to
contract for public works for the water and sewer districts. Some of
the -- some of the conflicts are the ten versus fifteen thousand
dollar --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What you're saying is that this
modification brings it in line with our normal county purchasing
policy?
MR. PETTIT: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: And it -- and the whole purpose would be to
-- to try to have everything as consistent and uniform as possible.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Filson is going to check and
see if we have any speakers on this item, and she will be taking part
of Mr. Dorrill's salary while she does this.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is 9(A).
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No speakers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I'll make a -- a motion to
approve staff recommendation on this item. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
Without further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
That passes four to zero.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 95-632 SETTING FORTH A POLICY REGARDING THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATION AND PAYMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS,
COUNTY STAFF AND COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And, Mr. Pettit, would you also
handle 9(C)?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Manalich.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Manalich.
MR. MANALICH: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the
record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county attorney. You have a
rather extensive executive summary before you outlining the parameters
of this particular item. Essentially it's an attempt to improve and
clarify the current resolutions of which there are two having to do
with when the county will provide legal representation and pay fees
and costs of board members, county employees, and advisory board
members essentially beginning at page 6 of your agenda package where
the resolution begins, and it essentially combines into one document
the policy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, where this
improves or clarifies the board's policy, I'll make a motion we
approve the item.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Do
we have public speakers, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. If there's no further
discussion then, I'll call it. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Those opposed?
That as well passed unanimously, as has everything else
that we've discussed today. MR. MANALICH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the kind of board we are.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-633 APPOINTING KELLY MORRIS TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY
BOARD AND DECLARING A VACANT SEAT - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No controversy here.
I think our chairman's on the way in, but we have --
moving on to item 10(A) --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there's one
seat vacant and one applicant. I'd make a motion that we approve --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Kelleny -- Kelly --
MS. FILSON: And we --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Anthony Morris.
MS. FILSON: We also need to declare a seat vacant on
this one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's only one vacancy
right now; right?
MS. FILSON: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only one applicant for that
position.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We need to declare a vacancy.
MS. FILSON: We also need to declare an additional
vacancy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Plus over and above the one
that's vacant.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve Kelly
Anthony Morris for the vacancy and that we declare one other vacancy
and advertise appropriately for that vacancy on the BAAB.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 95-634 APPOINTING EVA DELASHHET TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS
ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
And 10(B) is appointment of a member --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hr. Chairman --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- to the Hispanic affairs.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there's one opening and
one applicant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
Eva Delashmet for the opening on the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
Another unanimous vote.
(Chairperson Matthews entered the proceedings.)
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 95-635 REAPPOINTING GIL MUELLERAND MAX HASSE, JR. TO THE
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: And 10(C) is parks and rec.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there are two
vacancies. Both of them currently serve on the board. Both of them
do an excellent job. And with that in mind, I'd make a motion that we
fill the two vacancies on the park and rec. advisory board with Gil
Hueller and Max A. Hasse Junior.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
Another unanimous.
Item #1283
ORDINANCE 95-62 RE PETITION PUD-84-30(5) HICHEL SAADEH, PRESIDENT AND
CEO OF VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE VINEYARDS PUD MASTER PLAN WEST OF INTERSTATE 1-75 - ADOPTED
Madam Chairman, there was a request to skip forward as
soon as we had a full board and hear item -- I believe it's 12(B)(3).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 12 (B) (3) ?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Because that's what our -- these
members of the public have been waiting all morning for.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Why don't we do that and
move forward, and we'll hear petition PUD 84-30, amendment 5.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bryan Milk. I'd like to bring to your attention --
this is -- there's three petitions here we need to hear and vote on
this afternoon: Petitions PUD 84-30, DOA 95-3, and then this board
needs to make a determination that this petition is a insubstantial
deviation to the development order currently in place.
Good afternoon. My name is Bryan Milk. I'd like to
move over to the map at this time. The petitioner is proposing a
master plan change to the Vineyards PUD for that portion lying west of
1-75. There's approximately 550 acres in this segment of the
Vineyards PUD.
Specifically the petitioner is requesting to relocate 24
acres of existing commercial zoning from the southeast intersection of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and future Livingston Road to the southeast
intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
In exchange there's 24 acres of existing residential
that abuts Airport and Vanderbilt, and they wish to relocate that to
where the commercial exists.
This partic -- particular intersection already has
approximately 6 acres of commercial zoning at the intersection and
would have, therefore, 30 acres of commercial zoning at the
intersection.
This is a future activity center which means that in
this particular area there is 160 acres of activity center designation
for that purpose of mixed use, commercial, residential, multi-family.
This exchange of zoning would make this compliant with the future land
use element and map of the Growth Management Plan. This particular
area where the commercial exists today is an urban designated area.
The commercial during the zoning teevaluation process
was exempt as was this commercial over here. This change in
relocation would also make the map comply with the Golden Gate mast --
or the comprehensive master plan.
Staff has received letters from the Southwest Florida
Planning Commission and the Department of Community Affairs stating
they had no objection, that they did not intend to appear before this
board to object to the proposed map change.
The Collier County Planning Commission heard this
petition on October the 19th and by a vote of seven to zero
recommended approval. There was, however, many residents of the
Piper's Grove residential community located to the south and east of
the project that had concerns with the proposed commercial abutting
their neighborhood. Those concerns addressed intensity of traffic,
pollution, noise, crime.
At that point they had asked the developer to provide
additional buffering and a fence around the perimeter that would abut
their property. At that particular time the planning commission
rejected that idea and approved it with no conditions.
If I can answer any other questions, I'd be happy to do
so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did I hear you say we're swapping
24 acres at one location for 24 acres at another one? MR. MILK: That -- that's correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no -- no change in
acreage.
MR. MILK: There's no change in acreage, density, or
intensity of commercial area.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, you also, I think,
said that that's an activity center, future activity center, at
Airport and Vanderbilt Drive, Vanderbilt -- MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Beach Road I guess it is, isn't
it?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: If -- what would norm -- how many
acres of commercial would normally be the maximum allowed in that
southeast corner? Is that -- MR. MILK: Forty acres.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Forty acres. And this is 24;
right? Plus the 6 that's already there is 30. MR. MILK: It'd be a maximum of 30.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So it's actually ten less
than what's allowed by our current regulations?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions?
Commissioner Hancock.
MR. LONG: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, sir, not now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not yet, sir. We've not opened
it to the public yet.
MR. LONG: Pardon?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've not opened discussion to
the public yet.
MR. LONG: All right.
MR. MILK: I think ultimately if -- if you want to look
at the whole picture is commercial zoning existing at future
Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road could be developed as is, as
could be the six acres existing at the intersection of Airport and
Vanderbilt. And the petitioner could come back in and ask for another
amendment to the master plan for some more commercial. So there is a
potential for additional commercial if, in fact, things were left the
same in the future.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
Com -- Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mentioned some discussion of
a wall and buffering. What buffering currently exists between the
proposed commercial area and the existing residential?
MR. MILK: There's currently a berm there that would
probably above the street grade be 6 to -- 5 to 6 feet in heighth with
some various bushes that -- really opacity is 100 percent at street
level, looking level. Once you are on top of that particular berm, it
-- it probably drops 10 to 12 feet because that area has not been
filled yet. So it's a fairly substantial, what I would call opaque
buffer at max probably six feet above the existing driveway access
road there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it generally exceeds what a
typical wall around a community does?
MR. MILK: For -- for the Piper's Grove --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It looks like it does.
MR. MILK: -- project I'd say that particular buffer
adjacent to, quote, the residential parcel that is there today exceeds
the Land Development Code standards for buffering on their property
only.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's all I have for
now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of things. First, I
received two, three letters from individuals living near the area, and
I told them I would include that as part of the record today. So my
administrative aide will put those on, and that expressed some of the
concerns that were outlined by Mr. Milk.
If this were -- Commissioner Norris asked about the
future activity center. With that in consideration, this then, if the
change takes place, becomes consistent. They were exempt when -- when
this -- when -- when the county initially created this.
MR. MILK: That's correct. Back in about 1991 they were
-- they were found exempt from the zoning teevaluation process
because, in fact, they were a DRI and consistent with policy 5.1 of
the future land use element. So they maintained their commercial
zoning through that process.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This -- so if -- if the
switch were not made, if the 24 acres were kept as residential, are
there any limitations on what can go in there? What's allowed in that
24 acres?
MR. MILK: At the corner of Airport and Vanderbilt Beach
Road, that is a residentially designated land use parcel. It could be
a combination of single-family and multi-family dwelling units.
Multi-family could, in fact, be 100 feet in heighth; single-family, 35
feet. It depends if it was aggregated amongst multi-family and
single-family. But today it's -- it's residentially zoned.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So depending on the scenario,
that 24 acres could have a sprinkling of single-family homes which
probably wouldn't be offensive, or it -- at the other extreme -- not
likely but at the other extreme you could have hundred-foot high
multi-family?
MR. MILK: Could have a --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which obviously --
MR. MILK: -- multi-family unit at 100 feet, correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And somewhere in between
something.
MR. MILK: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm sorry. What was the
height for commercial? If this is to be granted, what is the maximum
height of commercial on the property?
MR. MILK: The commercial heighth varies depending on
the use. If the use is an office use, the building heighth is a
hundred feet. If it's a commercial-related use such as a shopping
center, there's a maximum height of 45 feet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to have a couple
more questions, but I'll wait until we've heard -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- from the petitioner and
the public.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are we finished asking Mr.
Milk questions for this time?
Mr. Saadeh, petitioner?
MR. SAADEH: Good afternoon, commissioners and MAdam
Chairman. For the record, my name's Michael Saadeh. I'm representing
the Vineyards Development Corporation.
I'd just like to touch very briefly on a couple of
points, and then I would like permission to come back in rebuttal on
some of the points that the adjoin -- that the adjoining homeowners
would bring up.
The biggest thing just from a county perspective not
just on a -- on a small scale but from a county perspective, we have
vested zoning on a 25 -- on a 24-acre piece of property on the corner
of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. That's already vested,
so there's no quarrel on that property, what can and cannot be done to
it.
Pri -- prior to the county adopting a Land Development
Code ordinance and prior to the county adopting an activity center
ordinance, the Vineyards PUD was formed, and that was -- that dates
back to -- the development order dates back to 1985.
Subsequent to that the development order -- the LDC came
up, and they identified some corners of activity centers. And to my
knowledge it have not been contested in any location where they had an
activity center that the zoning was not granted for commercial use.
So technically what we're saying is the corner of
Airport Road and -- and Vanderbilt Beach Road which is the property in
question today under your current zoning and ordinance is not -- not
just that are limited to Collier County but that are endorsed by the
region, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and also that are
endorsed by the department -- Department of Community Affairs. This
property can be -- up to 40 acres of that corner can be zoned
commercial with multitude of uses and be consistent with every
ordinance you have today.
So basically just from a global perspective what we're
doing right now is giving up -- technically giving up 24 acres of
vested use to shift it to a location where we could have 24 more acres
of vested use.
So swapping 24 acres, what -- physically what we're
doing is giving up 24 acres, I mean, of commercial property. We're
not getting any densities for it. We're not getting any more units
for it, residential or otherwise. There is no add benefit
whatsoever. And the only reason we're doing it because of -- staff
had asked the last time we amended the PUD that this be done. At the
time we didn't feel the timing was right. Now we're looking at it
from a business standpoint. One is to satisfy the agency, but two,
also we don't have to speculate on, you know, what the activity would
bring in three, four, five years from now on that commercial
property.
So we felt we'll be consistent and will comply with your
regulations. And as Bryan mentioned, the DCA endorses the project and
-- and actually supports it. South Florida Regional Planning Council
supported the project. Your own planning commission unanimously voted
for the project.
And that's basically what -- you know, in a nutshell
what we're trying to do. The property was never ever in a deception
form to where we hid from any adjacent -- adjacent homeowners our
intentions. From the inception we had notified the developer of
Piper's Grove that this property will be commercial at a later date.
We didn't tell him we're going to swap commercial for it. We said
this will be commercial. We carved out that much property and took it
off the market because we knew we were going to develop it as
commercial in the future.
The exhibits I passed out to you is exhibits that I have
on the wall for whoever want to see them from the general public show
that the brochures that the homeowners bought under -- these brochures
reflect that that property will be commercial property.
To go further, to have access --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: These -- these brochures were
distributed by you?
MR. SAADEH: No, no. These brochures were distributed
by the people who developed Piper's Grove. As a matter of fact, I
picked them up from their sales center.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is what you're talking
about?
MR. SAADEH: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it --
MR. SAADEH: This and the other piece.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it says future shopping
center on it.
MR. SAADEH: Yes, ma'am. And it doesn't just reflect
corner six acres that's already been there and vested there. It
reflects the entire parcel. Otherwise it wouldn't have said future
shopping center on the whole parcel.
So, I mean, the developer was in a planning commission,
and he -- he -- he could be here today. I haven't seen him. But
they're not -- he's not in -- he's not arguing or -- or dis --
disagreeing with the fact that the property from the inception was
intended to be commercial property because we sold him the land in 19
-- in '91, '92 is when we were negotiating on the property. And at
that point we knew that eventually we're going to do a commercial
shopping center there.
Further, one access of the property that's along Airport
Road is the main entrance, the -- the existing main entrance today for
the community Piper's Grove. That property is Old Grove's Road. We
-- the Vineyards Development Corporation have constructed that
entrance to the point of the entrance to the shopping center, pays
still today from -- since 1992 till now every quarter we pay our pro
rata share like I don't remember the exact percentage, either one half
or one-third, up to the maintenance for that boulevard. And the only
reason we've been maintaining it for two or three or four years,
because we knew one day we want to go ahead and use it for access to
our shopping center.
The main inception from -- from the inception the
Piper's Grove entrance, they have a gatehouse. The gatehouse was
purposely located beyond the -- the turn to the shopping center
because we wanted to keep that piece of that road public versus
vacated private.
Now, from their gatehouse into the community this --
these roadways that they have are all private roadways. But we went
through a tremendous expense, several hundred thousand dollars, to
build that roadway to standards and -- and keep it open and landscape
it and also contribute to the maintenance of it again to give us an
extra access to our shopping center.
So the intent from the inception was not that, you know,
nobody knew that was going to be a shopping center and -- and now all
of a sudden somebody knows. That was not the intent.
Just secondly from a privacy standpoint, there is an
existing buffer right now. I passed some pictures so you can see what
the buffer is. And from the buffer then there is the roadway, and
then from the roadway there is parking spaces and then the buildings.
And if you look at the orientation of the buildings on the -- on the
map I showed you, specifically buildings A, B, C, and D which are the
ones that will more or less be affected the most, the orientation as
far as the views and the amenities and the balconies or any certain
areas and whatever are facing the other direction.
The minimum distance from the property line to the edge
of those buildings is -- as we measured was 110 feet. And on the
south side of the property, the minimum distance from that to the
closest building is 140 feet.
On top of that, as -- as in the PUD, it's engraved in
the PUD that if you have different uses, adjacent uses, there's a
minimum of 50-foot setback between the property line and the nearest
structure we can build. So you take the 110 or 140 consecutively and
you take a minimum of another 50 feet for separation between
buildings, so now you're talking close to 160 to 200 feet apart, not
to mention also there's another provision that even over and above the
existing berm that's out there, there's a requirement in the PUD that
if the adjacent -- if the adjoining properties are of -- of different
use, then the existing buffer cannot be utilized by both sides.
What I mean by that is the existing buffer today cannot
be claimed by our future activities. They are to say that this is a
buffer existing so therefore we don't have to do another buffer. By
ordinance by what's written in the PUD, we're obliged to another
25-foot-wide landscape buffer. And that might comprise of a fence at
the time. That might comprise of a wall, pure landscaping, whatever
it deems appropriate at the time.
The reason we don't want to pin it down today, because
we are horizontal developers. We develop real estate, and we don't do
vertical construction. And the more stipulations we put on this piece
of property, the harder it becomes to sell it. We have no intentions
of developing it ourselves. We're not in that business.
And one day that property's going to sell. Could be
next week. Could be next year. Could be in ten years, I mean,
depending on the market. And then the new -- whoever is going to do
the vertical developer (sic), he is going to do the 25-foot buffers,
he's going to do the 50-foot setbacks. Water retention, he might
decide to put the water retention against that property. I mean, it's
very hard to speculate and get into further conceptual plans on this
subject or the other.
So basically --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But no matter what, there's going
to be 25 feet of additional buffer.
MR. SAADEH: Additional buffer over and above what's --
what's there today. So technically, you know, from a -- from our
standpoint we feel we've complied with everything the agencies
wanted. We've given up vested zoning that we can never, ever come
back and get for any reason. We're not gaining one inch of square
feet more, and we're not gaining one inch of one more unit, you know.
And that's basically what -- what the case is, and I'd like to answer
any questions you may have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had a -- excuse me. I had
a conversation in this room, as a matter of fact, a short time ago
with one of the residents of Piper's Grove who indicated they had
spoken with you and you had indicated the -- if this were approved
that they could expect the shopping center development to be
consistent with the quality of development at Crossroads where Publix
and the Vineyards -- the other entrance to Vineyards.
MR. SAADEH: The property -- any property that Vineyards
Development sold under the Vineyards PUD is subject to architecture
review board and review. So the same premise that the Crossroads
market was subjected to architecture review board from the standpoint
of color, materials, roof pitch, roof design, roof materials, and so
forth, the same requirements will apply on this property whether it's
inside the Vineyards as we know it or whether it's on Airport Road.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that --
MR. SAADEH: So that's a commitment, and -- and we will
have deed restrictions that go with the property that -- we will
review all that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that architectural
review include landscaping, et cetera? MR. SAADEH: Absolutely, yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if -- if someone is
standing on Vineyards Boulevard looking across the little lake there
at the back side of Publix, the Crossroads market, and sees the trees,
the shrubbery as well as the physical building architectural
requirements, they can expect that to be consistent with what they
would find if this were approved.
MR. SAADEH: Yeah. I mean, I don't -- I don't exactly
follow your question. I would say that it is subject to architecture
review board, and we've -- we've been in this county for over 35
years. We have not done anything shabby as far as our interest in
development or our forming interest. So, I mean, we have no intention
of just selling the property to someone and just letting it go. Every
-- every intention we have is to do a quality property. And along
that street, every community we sold along that street I think speaks
for itself. Now, if you ask me to put a monetary value of what the
landscaping will be and so the forth, I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm just asking that
there's a commitment that it will be --
MR. SAADEH: It will be a quality shopping center, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Architecturally --
architectural speaking it will be consistent with the Crossroads
and --
MR. SAADEH: Host likely, to be honest with you -- and
again, I'm not in the business. I'm strictly speculating. Host
likely it will end up being -- the uses there, I mean, lend themselves
to identical what we have at Crossroads, Publix, Walgreen's, and so
forth. So these guys, I mean, they have their own standards of
things, and it's an upscale area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I just need you to say on
the record that they will be subject to the same architectural review
that the Crossroads people underwent. MR. SAADEH: Yes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions?
MR. DORRILL: You -- you do have one speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I wanted to ask about two
specific things. And Commissioner Constantine already hit on one.
Obviously when you're put -- when you have residential behind a
shopping center, if you go to the city of Naples and you see what they
didn't do -- they didn't do the architectural finishing on the rear of
it -- you can create something very ugly. So what I believe I heard
is that architectural controls include rear finishing of -- of the
building and --
MR. SAADEH: He's asking if it's consistent with
Crossroads market. And if you look there, you know, technically, I
mean, let's be realistic about it, folks. The back of any building is
never going to look as appealing --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SAADEH: -- as the front. That's why they call it
front elevation. It looks nice. On the back it always doesn't have
the same touch. So, you know, people don't seem to spend the same
kind of money on the back, but it will be consistent with what was
done in the Vineyards, and, I mean, I don't have any problem
committing to that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The second thing is that I was in
Berkshire at one point, and after they built the Publix, the air
conditioning noise was -- was running right into a -- a -- a
residential area. And they did not buffer it and attenuate it, you
know, from the handlers on the top of the -- the building.
I guess I -- I would just like to ask that for the
record that that will be addressed by the -- the developer, that they
will at least shield and attenuate the sound from -- from the roof to
move it forward, to keep it from going back, you know, as best as is
practical.
MR. SAADEH: You're asking me to speculate. I -- I
don't -- I'm not really a vertical developer. I don't know the
mechanics or the logistics of how the air conditioning gets placed and
how --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But can I say we have a noise
ordinance and if --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we have that mechanism in
place that if they violate the noise ordinance, whoever eventually
develops this site, then, you know, we can send somebody out there to
force them to stop.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true.
MR. SAADEH: I'm sure that the quality people we -- we
deal with in our business -- and -- and believe me, we don't sell to
everybody who just walks in the door. We try to weed out the people
we do business with. I'm sure that whoever's going to develop this
property at a later date, it's going to be very advisable on their
part -- I mean, I would recommend it. I can't force them to do it,
but I can recommend very heavily to meet with the homeowners and have
some feel of what they are looking for and try to fit it in their
design.
A lot of times the issues that come up can really truly
be addressed in the design. It's difficult in my stand -- from my
standpoint to address them today because I'm strictly speculating.
I'm not going to develop the site. If I was to develop the site and
I'm telling you here today that I will do that, then I would have my
planner here, my architect here and tell you, okay, tell them what you
like, and then work through these parameters. But I don't get into
that side of the business.
So we want to try to get a quality developer. We
definitely want to make them subject to architecture review board
requirements. They have ordinances built in in our part and in the
overall ordinance about setback requirements, buffering requirements,
and so forth. So I have no doubt something good's gonna come out of
it. It's just I'm not gonna be the guy doing it, and anything I would
tell you about specifics how it's going to come out, I'm strictly
speculating, and that's what I want to try to avoid to do today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Milk, in any case when this
property is ultimately built whether it's next year, ten years from
now, does it have to come back before the board? Will there be some
board approval at that time?
MR. MILK: It would depend on what would ultimately
happen at that particular site.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Most likely the answer is it would
probably be some --
MR. MILK: It would have to be platted. That 24 acres
right now --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. MILK: -- is unplatted. It would have to be
platted. That would come before the board.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm just getting to the
point that it seems to me that a lot of these little questions like
that are impossible to answer right now -- MR. MILK: It is.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- and that they would be more --
more appropriately addressed to whoever ends up developing the
property at some time in the future. If we want to talk to them at
that point about -- say, you know, we have some concerns about air
conditioning noise; why don't you -- you know, would you agree to do
some shielding or something of that, I mean, wouldn't that be the
better time?
MR. MILK: What's likely to happen is the developer will
go through a preliminary subdivision plat which will go to the
planning commission which at that point they'll have to have
infrastructure easements, road rights of ways, out parcels, buffering,
water management.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've -- you've answered my
question. If it's gonna -- if the plat's gonna have to come before
the board, I can address it at that point and make sure it's not
missed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. That's --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think it comes back to
us.
MR. DORRILL: And then there are two additional levels
they're gonna have, as Commissioner Hancock realizes: Both a
preliminary and a final site development plan that have to be approved
before they can ever even file for a building permit.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that approved by us or
approved by the planning commission?
MR. DORRILL: Those -- those are administrative issues,
but the staff is going to apply whatever your adopted Land Development
Code and subdivision regulation criteria are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At that time.
MR. DORRILL: As we would any vertical developer
contractor in the county.
MR. MILK: In other words, in that 25-foot buffer, there
would be landscaping. There would be trees placed every 25 linear
feet. There would be a six-foot opaque buffer, whether it was
landscape berm, combination of a fence, berm. That would all be in
place at the time --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. MILK: -- of the site development plan review.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But that's -- that's according to
our regulations today.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And they may be more stringent or
less stringent whenever the site development plan --
MR. MILK: That could be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- is done.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have some public
speakers.
MR. DORRILL: We have one. Gervase Audette. Mr. or
Miss Audette.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Saadeh, you reserved the
right to speak when the public speakers are -- are finished? MR. SAADEH: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if I could ask Mr. Weigel,
this -- this gentleman who wanted to talk before, would you be sure
that he knows what the process is? MR. WEIGEL: Sure will.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Audette, go ahead.
MR. AUDETTE: Commissioners, my name is Gervase
Audette. I'm a full-time resident, North Groves, Piper's Groves. I'm
a director there trying to represent the owners. But Clam Pass took
the whole audience up this morning, and I don't know where they're at
at this time. We had a full house when we went before the grand jury
on the 19th of October. I'm saying the grand jury because they
listened to us and felt that they should send it on to the jury. I'm
going to call you the jury because whatever decision you make today --
and Commissioner Tim, he's going to be the foreman of the jury -- is
going to affect us for the rest of our lives as long as we're living
there.
And Mr. Saadeh, the -- I believe that he's a -- he's a
man of his word. We had quite a discussion. I also looked at all the
planning that -- what they can build in there. I called the county
twice from out of state, what was -- and I was never told two years
ago that was still residential. I was told when I made the two long
distance phone calls that was commercial.
So I'm -- I mean, I'm not going to fight that. But what
I'm fighting, I'm 107 feet and so is the other residents A, B, C, D
buildings from the property line. It states in there that they can
build ten feet from the property line. Someone here's saying 25-foot
berm. But it also states that they can build up to ten feet from that
property line.
Now, there was a retention pond there. A retention pond
disappeared within the past year. Now, that retention pond pushed the
distance further away. Now, there are people on the second floor that
looks out at that property. We got windows that look out -- we look
both ways out of our units. Granted, we got a garage door. But I got
windows. The second story got windows. We look right out on that
property.
And what I would like to do if we can't win this one is
a good setback, a good berm. I'm not looking at a chainlink fence. I
want beauty because we got beauty there right now, and I want to
retain that beauty and so do the other owners. So if we can get a
good setback with a nice big berm, I can look out my -- my door on my
-- look right out, and I see right of a building if there's a
building right there.
If we can get a good setback, a good berm, and a good --
lot of trees -- and the gentleman here said that he'd do it like the
Crossroads. Well, I went over and looked at the Crossroads. They did
a beautiful job. But let me tell you, I'm 107 feet from the property
line. The Crossroads gotta be more than 500 feet. The first building
behind the Crossroads is five -- exceeds 500 feet. You can't see the
buildings behind it, and you can't see the Crossroads from the
buildings. They did a beautiful job.
So I can see where there would be no complaints coming
from the Crossroads. I wouldn't even have any complaints if ours --
if we could end up like that.
But what I like to see is a rider, an amendment to this,
whoever buys it because I -- I sat in the planning commission here the
other day when somebody wasn't supposed to build less than 15 feet but
they did. Oh, it's too late, but you're within seven feet. We're
going to approve it.
So this is what we don't want to run into down the
line. We want to make sure that whoever buys this has all the rules,
regulations in front of them because this is our domain. This is our
happiness. And whatever you, the jury, decide today is going to have
an impact on our lives.
And I -- I would like to see an amendment to that that
said yes, you're going to have a 200-foot easement here, setback, put
the pond back in there and a good berm and a lot of trees. But I'd
like to be involved in -- in your future decisions on this so we know
what's going on.
And I -- and I think this gentleman right here, Mr.
Saadeh, is -- he's concerned about us. He -- when he made this -- he
said, we'll make it look like the Crossroads, fine. But I would like
to see that as amendment in there. Whoever buys it, it's, well, I
didn't buy it with those intentions. I -- I'm going to live with this
ten-foot setback. I got a loading dock behind my house, you know.
These are my concerns. This is everybody else that's in
that -- that condominium association up there. We're all concerned
about what we got for the rest of our lives, noise. Crime, I can
settle that with my .38 if they come on my property but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The petitioner has said that
whoever buys this property to develop it will be subject to the same
architectural review that everyone in the -- in the Vineyards DRI is.
MR. AUDETTE: But that's -- but that's not in your
documents. If you read them 14 pages of documents, what can be built
there and what the setbacks -- if you build a hundred-foot high hotel
or office building, I think you gotta be seventy-five feet from the
property line. It depends what you build there what distance you
gotta be from the set -- from the property line. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. AUDETTE: So these -- they can say, well, you said I
can build ten feet from in there, and you can based on that planning
commission document.
MR. MILK: The setback ultimately is 50 feet.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fifty feet?
MR. MILK: For hundred-foot buildings, forty-foot
buildings, two-story buildings. It's a minimum of 50 on the entire
parcel.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: From the property line or from
this road?
MR. MILK: From the property line of Piper's Grove,
that's correct.
MR. AUDETTE: See, that still isn't very much, but, like
I said, I rest my case. I hope you make a good sound decision that's
going to affect us, and I think the gentleman here we can work with,
but I'd like to see amendment in there that there's no surprises down
the road. And like he said, if he sells it, you know, he walks away,
and it's our problem yet. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That gentleman was your only registered
speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We may have another one
registering.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, the last
point you said there, if they sell it they're out -- or you walk
away. Mr. Saadeh, if you sell that to a developer, if you sell that
property to a developer, again to reiterate, they are still required
to follow the architectural standards of the Vineyards -- MR. SAADEH: Yes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- development PUD. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That -- that's not -- the
gentleman said that's not in today's documents, but I assume that the
reason that that's not in today's documents are that it will be in the
sales contract.
MR. SAADEH: I think the gentleman is mistaken. It is
in today's document. The PUD specifically states -- I don't remember
what page, but Bryan can help me out here. The PUD specifically
states different uses on adjacent properties have to have a minimum
setback of 50 feet. That's set in stone. I can't change it any more
than you people can today.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. I was referring to the
architectural review.
MR. SAADEH: Oh, the architecture review board is
something that cannot be in this document. This is a zoning
document. And what -- what that is is a restriction, a stipulation,
that we give up as deed restriction with the property. You can't
incorporate deed restrictions on -- on zoning documents. I mean, it's
two different issues.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And that's what I said.
MR. SAADEH: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not in today's documents that
Mr. Milk has here because it will be in the future sales document when
that happens; is --
MR. SAADEH: Just a --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that correct? Am I correct?
MR. MILK: That's correct. And -- and what further
strengthens that is this is a development order DRI, and that parcel
will always be part of the Vineyards. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. MILK: Whether Mr. Vicagi (phonetic) owns it per se
or not, it's still a Vineyards development order.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. SAADEH: The -- the point I want to just hammer on
that real quick is 50 feet stays as a minimum setback. That's the
bare minimum. It doesn't mean that you can't go more, but that's the
least you have to go. And the 25-foot landscape buffer, those are
part of the document today. That's as far as the extent of what the
zoning document can carry this. Anything beyond that can be in -- in
the form of a deed restriction, and we did mention that the
architecture review board will apply on this property. That's
basically what I have.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask Mr. Milk one
other question that I think might be somewhat pertinent to this
discussion. If this is developed in the future as a little shopping
area, would you say it would be more common, more appropriate to have
the water management system in the rear of the buildings rather than
in the front where the parking is?
MR. MILK: Typically historically that's where it used
to be. And -- and depending on the thrust of out parcels and who the
developer may be, what's -- historically it's always been in the rear
of the building.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILK: Because of the loading zone and --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And -- and that would work to the
benefit of these residents if -- if that -- MR. MILK: It very well could be, yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- were the case in this one.
Okay. But we'll never -- I mean, we're not going to know that today.
We're going to know that at some point in the future when this -- MR. MILK: And that would be at the time of the
preliminary subdivision plat and the plat process.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once McDonald's stops paying for
out parcels, you can bet on the water management being in the back.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have another speaker, Mr.
Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: We -- we do. In fact, Mr. Long, your
turn, sir. Good afternoon.
MR. LONG: Good afternoon. I would like to speak with
regarding to the rezoning at Vanderbilt -- not at Van -- at Vanderbilt
Beach Extension and Livingston Road. Now, that is now residential,
and it's residential from down at Piper's Grove all the way up almost
to the Vineyards. Now, I'd like to know the reasoning on wanting to
have that rezoned to commercial.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we talking about the same
piece of property?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, that's not all residential.
MR. LONG: Tell me where there's commercial.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Sir, if you'd look at this map
over here, to your left, sir -- MR. LONG: Well, my --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: See this map?
MR. LONG: My eyes aren't too good.
MR. DORRILL: Which one of the two projects do you live
in?
HR. LONG: Village Walk.
HR. SAADEH: This is Village Walk.
MR. LONG: And it would make this commercial.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just the opposite, sir.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just the opposite.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is planned for commercial.
The request today makes that residential.
MR. DORRILL: This would become residential. He's
moving his commercial down to Airport Road.
MR. LONG: Oh, all right. Then I -- I misunder --
understood what's going on. So that's going to be residential.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. LONG: Okay. Fine. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we approve this change.
MR. LONG: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If it gets approved.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two sides to every coin I'm
afraid.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions?
Do we have other speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will close the public hearing.
Do we have further questions for Mr. Milk or Mr. Saadeh? If not, is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'm -- I'm fairly
satisfied with the fact that the -- the constraints within the
Vineyards PUD, very similar to what we have in other PUDs such as
Pelican Bay and so forth that provide for a very consistent level of
architectural review and what has been in the past a good end product
with the deed restrictions resulting from that, the minimum 50-foot
setback we're talking about here, I'm comfortable recommending
approval of petition PUD 84-30(5).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Subject to whatever stipulations
may -- may be included in it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct, as -- as recommended.
MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, I just want to remind the
board there need to be three motions, and you should probably vote on
the substantial, insubstantial first -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: First?
MS. STUDENT: -- and then the PUD and DRI. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, let's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll withdraw my motion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Table it.
Item #12C4
RESOLUTION 95-636 DETERMINING THAT REVISIONS TO THE VINEYARDS
DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REQUIRING
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's move over to item
12(C)(4) which is a resolution that the Vineyards development order
does or does not constitute a substantial deviation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
that it does not --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
deviation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
This is what, what item?
12(C)(4).
12(C)(4).
Hove that we adopt a resolution
Constitute a --
-- constitute a substantial
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #12C5
DEVELOPMENT ORDER 95-6 AND RESOLUTION 95-637 RE PETITION DOA-95-3,
MICHEL SAADEH, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE VINEYARDS DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO
ACCOUNT FOR A HAP CHANGE FOR THE AREA COVERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER
LYING WEST OF INTERESTATE 75 - ADOPTED
Next in line would be petition number DOA 95-3.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a -- a development order
to account for a map change.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'll move item
DOA 95-3.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second?
We have a motion and a second to approve petition DOA
95-3. Is there further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Motion passes five to zero.
Now petition PUD 84-30, amendment 5.
Item #1283
ORDINANCE 95-62 RE PETITION PUD-94-30(5) HICHEL SAADEH, PRESIDENT AND
CEO OF VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
VINEYARDS PUD MASTER PLAN WEST OF INTEREST 1-75 - ADOPTED
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'll restate my
preliminary motion which was that the assurances we've been given
today including setbacks and deed restrictions that will be subject to
the property, I move approval of PUD 84-30(5).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve petition PUD 84-30, amendment 5. All in favor please say
aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make the point my
support was based on Mr. Saadeh's commitment on architectural review
and also on the -- as Commissioner Norris pointed out, that we do have
another crack at the specifics of it when it comes back --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, we do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as far as the actual site
development plan.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, on the PSP will
property owners be notified when that comes to hearing also? MR. MILK: Within the project, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. So those of you
that live within 300 feet of the property line will receive a notice
when the preliminary subdivision plat comes back before this board so
just to know that -- that you will be made aware of -- of the -- the
process.
MR. AUDETTE: Sir, providing they use this year's tax
rolls.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sir, sir, we don't take comment
from the audience.
MR. AUDETTE: Well, he's talking to me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it's a point of
information, and we'll use the tax rolls that are updated each year.
And so, you know, that's -- that's a matter of practice.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. At the request of
Commissioner Constantine, we're going to take a five-minute break.
We'll be back at 25 after.
(A short break was held.)
Item #10D
GRANT APPLICATION FROH THE TASK FORCE FOR THE HOHELESS D/B/A ST.
MATTHEW'S HOUSE - DECLINED. GRANT APPLICATION TO BE RETURNED TO ST.
MATTHEWS FOR CORRECTIONS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene -- let's
reconvene the board of county commission meeting for November the
14th, 1995.
We are at -- since we've skipped around today, we are at
item 10(D), a consideration of approval of a grant application from
the task force for the homeless, d/b/a St. Matthew's House. I put
this on the agenda, and the reason for that is that it is asking the
local government to approve this grant application. And I think we
have all -- if you've read through this or seen some things in this
application that we may not specifically agree with. We're going to
have to rely on our attorney to tell us if by signing this grant
application we are approving such things as soup kitchens, food
pantries, thrift shops, so forth.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if I -- if I may
interject just quickly from my -- my personal perspective, there are
things included in here that are -- are from my understanding not
permitted on site. They're -- they're just not part of what has been
the discussion and ongoing communication between St. Hatthew's House
and this board. And until those things are remedied, I -- I -- I have
no desire to -- to participate or sign on this at all.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there someone here from St.
Matthew's? Do we have a representative?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did they know this was on the
agenda?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had directed Miss Filson to
give them a call last week when I put it on the agenda to tell them
that we were gonna have -- have difficulties with it.
MR. DORRILL: I have a host of speakers, none of whom
appear to be St. Hatthew's or agents. These are all East Naples
people or civic association people.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further comment from the
-- from the board?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, just -- as I look at
the -- I went through here, and I circled different things as I went
through.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I almost ran out of ink.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Several things, a lot of it
having to do with soup kitchen and all. And I -- what was confusing
for me, there were some places where it clearly stated the existing
site, not the new site, would be used for a soup kitchen. So I was
comfortable with that. But then there were other places where it did
not make that reference and almost inferred that that was part of the
new building. So it was just wording -- I support their effort to get
money wholeheartedly, but I need the wording to be clear. And, again,
maybe Mr. Weigel can help us with that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, they also referenced
work release restitution programs, an on-site thrift store.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, that -- these are
things that -- that are a first for me to see.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A labor pool.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- let me see if I can kind
of summarize what I -- I think our -- our concerns are the same, but
I'm looking through here, and we're being asked as a -- as a
government agency to put our stamp of approval on this document that
was apparently -- that's -- I wanted to ask the question if it was
prepared by John Lindell or by whom. It appears to be prepared by
John Lindell. His signature appears on there more than anyone
else's.
But as -- on page 2, as Commissioner Hancock just
mentioned, work release restitution, it's my understanding that you
can't operate a jail facility in C4 zoning. So that's just totally
incorrect. Page 3, St. Hatthew's House will be establishing its own
labor pool. Doesn't say whether that's going to be just for the --
the -- the people within St. Hatthew's or commercial labor pool which
is not going to be allowed. The same on page 4, an on-site thrift
store it says will be available to the public for sale. We have a --
a legal memo that says that is not the case, that it's not going to
happen. And my concern is very simple. This document is not only to
the point of being deceitful and misleading, it's -- it -- it may be
outright fraudulent. If they're going to apply for federal money on
these criteria that are not -- just absolutely not true and not legal
and -- and ask us to put our stamp of approval on it, I'm sorry, I
just can't do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I -- may I -- is someone
else ahead of me?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, no, you're next.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I'd -- what I'd like to do,
Mr. Weigel, if it's possible is to -- to not interfere with their
ability to apply -- to apply for the grant but not to bless a lot of
uses that obviously aren't permitted there.
So I'm wondering if we couldn't somehow modify this
little form they gave us that says we approve of a homeless shelter in
accordance with SDP whatever it is, period. And -- and then they have
a letter that they can send in, but we haven't done anything insofar
as saying that they can have anything other than what's previously
been approved. I -- I figured it was pretty easy. When I -- it's
just a little form here that -- it would say, I, Bettye J. Matthews,
chairman, duly authorized to act on behalf of Collier County hereby
approve the following projects, insert, as described in Collier County
SDP number so and so.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have in the past not made it a
habit to revise, you know, things that are sent to us requesting our
just signature and support either on the face. They are what we -- we
want to support or they're not. The problem I have with that is you
throw that piece of paper in with an entire application that makes
these kinds of references, and it -- it could easily imply that we do
support in total what they are asking for. And I -- with no one here
from St. Matthew's, you know, apparently the -- the interest is not
that strong.
And in addition, I just -- I think it's incumbent upon
them to present to us, if they're asking for our approval, an accurate
and complete package. And if they're not willing to do that, for us
to go out of our way and reword and wordsmith their proposal is
probably not something we want to get in the habit of doing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I don't have a problem with
that, and you make a good point about that nobody's here. So, you
know, I shouldn't be trying to get their problem solved harder than
they are so --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let -- let me go --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me go if I can one step
farther. I think we may have an actual duty to perhaps send a -- a
letter to this agency stating that we feel that this -- this -- this
application is being presented with some false, misleading, and
perhaps fraudulent terms contained within it. I mean, they're asking
for federal tax money under terms and conditions that are just not
legal or correct. Do we have a duty to point that out, or are we just
going to sit by and let somebody do that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, let's ask our attorney
whether -- whether we have that -- that duty or not.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I -- I believe that we are a totally
separate entity from -- the private enterprise requesting these funds
has a duty to -- if it's -- if it's making an endorsement, it could
make a qualified endorsement. It has that choice. If it wishes not
to endorse, it may do that.
In regard to -- in regard to what may be submitted by
the St. Hatthew's entity, we have before us what they are purporting
to submit. We do not know if that is being submitted yet. I would
suggest that in part timimg might be important and the development of
facts in regard to this -- to this application. It may be untimely to
direct staff to prepare a letter or for the commission to send a
letter advising of a potentially or allegedly misleading application
if it is not, in fact, sent in at all. We don't know that it will be
or not. But, you know, we -- all we know is that it's been presented
to the board as an action item for this board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I guess my concern when I --
as I read through the application, sometimes I sign these because
they're rather benign. And other times they only want my support and
not the board's support. But this obviously was a local government
approval. And I had concern about some of the contents within the
application itself. And whether by signing this application and
moving it on for federal approval and possible granting of this
hundred and eighty thousand dollars that we would by doing that
approve the contents of the grant itself and what they said they were
going to be doing --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- which is a thrift shop, a
labor pool, a soup kitchen.
MR. WEIGEL: As -- as I have discussed and advised, my
concern and advice to the county is more particularly in regard to the
-- the welfare and legal aspects of the county's relationship to this
project. And the county -- this facility through site development
plan approval, building permit approval, CO does not have the --
currently the potential for some of the operations or uses that the
application purports that they would perform at the new site.
So from that standpoint I would suggest that a board's
approval of this application, were it to do so, would have to --
should -- is it should advisedly stipulate those aspects of this
application which do not comport with what is permitted or approved by
the board for uses and operations on this site.
I -- I would agree that an argument might be made -- by
the board's outright approval of this application, an argument might
be made, not necessarily a winning argument, that the board has
expressed a desire for these types of operations to be on these
premises, although the St. Hatthew's House has not obtained the
permissions and permits and approvals as necessary at this point.
So again, I agree with your -- with the tenor of your
question that it is not advised -- I am not advising you to approve
this without -- at best without some stipulation or limitation of the
approval based on what's permitted on the premises currently.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With the -- with the board's --
board's permission, I -- I would like to send this application back to
St. Hatthew's House and ask them to make appropriate changes and
stipulations in their application to identify the specific sites upon
which they choose to have these different facilities and operations.
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we may need to take it
just a little bit further in that, you know, letting them know that
there are elements of their application that are simply not possible
under current zoning regulations and that submittal of that
application might cause us to respond to -- to the federal agency with
-- with the appropriate information. I think they need to know that
it's not just that we don't support everything in there but that some
of it currently under existing zoning isn't a possibility. And they
need to understand that before they submit this application.
Otherwise, the scenario Commissioner Norris has presented could easily
be the case, and I don't think we want any of the people that have
signed on to this to be associated with -- with that situation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And along the lines of who
signed on, I have a concern. There's one photocopy in there with
Collier County letterhead, Collier County title throughout. And that
raises concern for me if we have things that don't meet our own zoning
requirements requested in there or referred to in there and then have
a letter from a Collier County official --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- may put us in an awkward
spot.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It -- it could do that, but --
but I -- I think it's easy to explain how such a letter would get
there. All of us are asked often to support grant applications, and
we say, well, yeah, what's it for, and -- and they tell us, and we
direct our aides to draft a letter in support of such and so grant
application without ever having read the grant. And -- and that could
easily be --
MR. DORRILL: I have a note to verify that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- be what has -- what's happened
here.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Norris already talked to me about
that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think anyone's being
critical of -- of that person but just that if they were unaware, that
that letter needs to be withdrawn.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So can I ask that that is the
direction then of -- of this board at this time to send this
application back for -- for further --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that's probably what we
should do, point out to St. MAtthew's where we feel that they have
committed errors in their application. And also I think it would be
prudent for us since we are doing this to copy -- with a copy of this
same letter to St. MAtthew's send to the other signatories that
have --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That have signed others here?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, there's -- there's a number
of them included in our packet of people that have also --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congress people --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- recommended the -- the grant
application.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think they should be notified as
well that -- that -- that some of these items in this application are
just not legal because I'm sure that these people wouldn't want their
name put on something that ended up being a fraudulent federal
application.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Miss Filson, do -- can you
draft those letters for me to sign? And we'll return this grant
application to St. MAtthew's for appropriate corrections and whatever
else they can do to make it more in tune with what their actual zoning
is.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There were some public speakers.
I don't know if they want to speak anymore but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have public speakers on
this?
MR. DORRILL: We did. I don't know whether they still
wish to speak. Mr. Carpenter.
MR. CARPENTER: Yeah, I would just for a second.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. MArlin.
MR. MARLIN: Yeah, little bit.
MR. CARPENTER: In all honesty since this -- by the way,
Dave Carpenter, East Naples Civic Association. I think rather than
suggesting changes to them, I think you should have taken the course
of simply rejecting it. This is not a county agency proposing
something to the board. This is a -- basically a private agency
looking for your backing to get money.
Now, as you read through that, that application was
substantially untrue based upon the zoning on it. I think really the
-- the thing should have been simply, hey, the -- the application
should have been rejected and left it up to St. MAtthew's to do with
as they will.
But here -- the last time St. MAtthew's came before this
board, five to zero you said, hey, build somewhere other than over at
the Glades. And about three weeks later they gave you their answer
which was a hidy, hidy to you.
I don't think the spirit of cooperation to help them
somehow change their application so that they can now belly up to the
federal trough because they bought a -- a lot that was too expensive,
because they built a building that was too expensive. Now they're
short of cash, and I keep hearing this willingness, well, let's work
with them. MAybe they can change their grant application so they can
get to the federal trough to bale themselves out. And I think that's
the wrong attitude for this board to take. Thanks. MR. DORRILL: Mr. MArlin.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we have pretty much given
direction that we're not going to sign the grant application without
substantial changes. Now they can change it or they cannot change
it.
MR. MARLIN: I'm Earl MArlin. I would not like to have
any money, either local, state, or federal, used for this project.
It's a blight on our community. And I do not want it supported with
taxpayers' money at whatever level it comes about.
On these endorsements, there were two or three
endorsements there that sort of startled me. I have not talked to
those people. That will not be true next week. I would -- I would
recommend that you simply refuse to endorse it. That's -- MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barsh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. MArlin.
MR. DORRILL: And she will be your final speaker.
MS. BARSH: Frances Barsh. I'm a resident and taxpayer
of Collier County and also a voter. And I am speaking for TAG.
Although this request by St. Hatthew's House for a
federal granting is often touted as not costing Collier County
anything, it is still a granting of taxpayers' monies and costs
Collier County taxpayers something.
I would refer you to page 2 of this agenda item which
cites the number of homeless in Collier County as being 2,000. There
are questions on this. How is this number arrived at? Who arrived at
this number? What is the hard data supporting this number?
Further on page 2 of this agenda item, the application
states in number 5 that -- under the paragraph number 6 which says
justify -- justify the need for a federal emergency shelter grant, it
says that the area's boom-bust employment cycle is predicated by the
seasonal businesses of construction, tourism, and agriculture. Well,
if it's seasonal, it's not boom or bust. Think about it.
Also it continues in this paragraph. Exacerbating that
there is no public transportation, the wages and high rent, affordable
housing rents have been set at $575 per month by HUD, yet 31 percent
of the population earns less than $15,000 per year. Many landlords
will not give tenters yearly leases as the potential rent earnings
also increase during the season.
In Sunday's paper dated November 12 which is a date in
season, Jasmine Cay advertised housing, two bedroom, two bath, three
bedroom, two bath in rental ranges from $339 to $601, three -- $339
being far below the $575 of affordable housing. This was geared to
income of $12,060 to $31,000, well below the $15,000. So there is
housing, and it's available, and it's available in season. All you
have to do is read the newspaper.
Further in this application on page 9 in the agenda item
which says number 10, paragraph 10, it says, describe the proposed
emergency shelter program that will be offered by the applicant with
the assistance of the federal grant.
And then it continues on page 10, and there's a
paragraph soup kitchen. Meals are available three times a day to
anyone who -- who comes to the center no questions asked. That soup
kitchen is not included in the new building. That it appears in here
implies that this will be contained in the new building as a thrift
shop, as the labor pool, as everything else.
By endorsing this application, then you, in fact, are
saying that these things will be there. So we ask you not, not to
endorse this application. It will put you in a very, very
questionable position. And it's important that this point be
specifically recognized and specifically addressed. And you are doing
it today.
And I think it is wonderful that you have the courage to
stand up for truth and for the proper use, the wise use of tax money.
We ask that you not endorse this application. And we ask that you
make it clear to whatever authorities this information is going to
that there is misrepresentation and that you do not endorse any
misrepresentations. That is, you do not say that there is a soup
kitchen that will be in -- in this new St. Hatthew's House or a thrift
shop or a labor pool or anything like that. You do not authorize it.
Do not put yourself in that position.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Barsh, I think we've
already indicated that's what we're going to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've said all that.
MS. BARSH: Yes, and I want to thank you for your action
today. Please carry it through and have the courage to say no. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was the last speaker?
MR. DORRILL: That's all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I presume then the direction
of the board is that we will send this application back. They can
make whatever changes they choose if they choose to and send it back
to us, and we'll review it at that time.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that we'll alert the --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We can't tell them not to change
it. We can't tell them not to do anything.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, maybe we should formalize
our direction. I'll make a motion that we decline to endorse this
application and that we give direction to staff to draft a letter to
St. MAtthew's enumerating the reasons why we are rejecting this
application and that we deliver that message, that letter, not only to
St. MAtthew's but to all the other endorsers of this application that
are listed in our agenda packet.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a -- and a
second. I'd -- I'd like to ask the motion maker if he would just
change one small phrase in what he's spelled out, and that is that
this application has not come to us for the grant money. They've come
to us for our endorsement, and our rejection is an endorsement of the
application. It's a -- it's a fine -- it's a fine tune but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I
followed you. Say that again, please.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What they have asked us to do is
to endorse this application as the other endorsers have done. This is
not a grant application to us asking for $180,000, and the way I heard
your motion, it indicates that the -- that we are rejecting the
application.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We are rejecting the endorsement
of this application.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The endorsement of -- that's --
okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That -- that satisfies me. We
have a second. Does the second accept the insertion of the word
endorsement?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, second amends.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there -- one last question.
Is there a way for us to monitor -- I don't know anything about grant
application processes, and I have a concern that this application
could go into the federal agency without our endorsement. I don't
know if we're an essential element or not. And -- and I'd like to
monitor somehow what they do because if they send it in like this,
then I do think we have an obligation to tell the federal government
no, that it's not correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Be -- because there's a full page
here that says attachment A-i, certification of local approval for
non-profit organizations, I'm presuming there is a requirement that we
endorse it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I'm asking the county
attorney to confirm that and if it's not the case to -- to give us
another mechanism. Let's monitor it so that we don't lose -- we don't
let this just go into the federal government without our review.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we do that?
MR. WEIGEL: I can -- I can determine the appropriate
federal agency that it's going to and let them know that we're
interested when an application -- when and if an application comes
in.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect.
MR. WEIGEL: And incidently, in regard to your motion
for a letter, is that letter then to be sent under the chairman's
signature?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I would like to make sure --
and I believe it's part of the motion -- that we get the proper info
from development services to make sure that the -- because I -- some
things are conditional uses that would have to be -- and some things
are not allowed because the site plan doesn't provide for them. MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are several different areas
that -- that are not wholly true in this application, and I would like
development services' input to make sure that that accurately reflects
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
that stuff, and we --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
possession at this point.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Okay. We have a --
Hr. Weigel's memo of October 27 --
Right.
-- pretty well outlines most of
Yeah.
I happen to have that in my
Maybe we could forward that.
Perfect.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call the question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call the question?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: (Commissioner nodded head.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 95-638 REGARDING FEDERAL GAS TAX RETURN INEQUALITIES -
ADOPTED
Okay. Next item on the agenda is consideration of a
resolution regarding federal gas tax return and equities. This is
another item that I put on the agenda based on last week's
communications. It comes from the south -- Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds good to me. Any further
discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #10G
CONSIDERATION OF GIVING DIRECTION TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITIZENS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN REGARDS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH RATE AND DENSITY
ISSUES - CAC TO REVIEW DENSITY ISSUES
Next item on the agenda is item 10(G), consideration of
giving direction to community development CAC regarding growth rate
and density issues.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. This kind of came
about several weeks ago, maybe a couple of months ago. I was talking
with Michael Fernandez on the CAC's progress as they reviewed the
camp. plan and got my little wheels turning in my head here about some
things. And -- and as I said in the memo -- and I'm sure all of you
have heard this over and over and over. Everyone says, gosh, we don't
want to be like another Miami, we don't want to be like another Fort
Lauderdale.
And I think the one area -- there are several ways that
we don't want to be like the east coast. But one area is we don't
necessarily want the congestion that they have. And in many ways we
have planned so that that will not happen anyway.
What I'd like to do, though, is give some specific
direction. I know the CAC is looking at some portions of density
issues and how we may be able to change that. But I'd like to give
some specific direction from this board and ask them to dig in a
little deeper and look at density issues and some of the -- both --
there -- there are obvious benefits if you limit the number of people
who can come here to a smaller number. That has a domino effect on
many of our planning mechanisms, whether that's transportation or
parks and rec. or any number of things that the taxpayer pays for.
At the same time there are the cons. If you have fewer
homes per acre that can be built, the cost of those homes is likely to
go up. And -- and we don't want the results to be that our
entry-level home becomes $125,000.
My intent, though, is not that anything we do today is
binding but rather that we give some direction to our CAC to begin an
educated dialogue on this. They're due to come back to us in February
with some recommendations on the Growth Management Plan, the camp.
plan overall. And I think by directing them to delve into this and
look deep, we can start kind of a formal process of reviewing this
specific thing and -- and maybe take any action that's appropriate or
not --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in February.
MR. DORRILL: You have one speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One speaker? Just a moment.
Commissioner Mac'Kie has --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I don't have any
problem with -- with asking staff to look at this. And frankly I know
that --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not asking staff. I'm
asking the Citizens' Advisory Committee who is reviewing the
comprehensive plan.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pardon me. I misspoke -- with
asking the Citizens' Advisory Committee to review this because, as we
know, they already are. What I would like to be certain that we don't
do today is make a decision or in any way direct staff we've decided
that three is better than four or this board is leaning toward three.
I'd like for their study to include a couple of other factors, and
that is perhaps going back to a point system like we used to have
where the closer a property is to existing services, the higher the
density, that there may be places where six is appropriate and places
where two are appropriate but that -- then look at all of those
questions and not just should it go from four to three.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And let me correct
that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, let me just finish.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because you're right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. And -- and the second
thing is that they carefully work -- I'm concerned that there aren't
-- okay. All -- all comments ready to be received, but I'm concerned
that there aren't any lawyers on the future land use committee of the
CAC.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a concern?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. Okay. I just wanted to
give you the argument because --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I knew it was coming.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the legislature did take some
really significant action this year in the private property rights
act. And so we've got to carefully look at existing zoning rights
that we take away and what the dollar value associated with those
are. So I'd ask them to include that as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You expressed concern that we
not take binding action today, and that's specifically what I said.
My intent is not to take any binding action today but rather to begin
an educated dialogue which I see going over a three- or four-month
period before it actually makes its way back to the board.
And the example in here -- I think I even used the words
for example three -- four to three because it's -- by no mean am I
offering a specific -- I think you're right. They need to look at
some alternatives under density issues, and that was just one example
and the impact that could potentially have. And by no mean do I mean
that's the answer.
But I think we need to look at density issues in
general. And there are some specific things in that, impacts on
housing, benefits on the taxpayer, et cetera. And I would like,
rather than just have that lumped in as one tiny element of their
review of the comprehensive plan, to have that be a fairly serious
portion of it. And that -- that was the only intent.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the for-what-it's-worth
category, your recommendation I don't have a problem with because your
recommendation isn't look at three units an acre. Your recommendation
is to review, you know, reduction in density and the -- the all -- all
the associated impacts with it.
As a -- a word of, I guess, caution, when we look at
four units per acre, if you look at the vast majority of communities,
that is a low density already. Host communities would love to have
four units an acre in the urban area as a standard but can't go back
and recreate that. They're dealing with six, seven, and ten as an
average in urban areas in some times.
So I guess I want to ask the question first why four,
and then --
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- what follows is why three.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, the intent wasn't
those -- that was just a for example, and that's why it's not in the
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- the reason I wanted to
raise the question is that one reason we offer increased density in
the urban area over the non-urban area is to try and avoid urban
sprawl. If we make it more expensive to develop fewer units in the
urban area, we're encouraging fringe development which is exactly what
we're trying to avoid.
So I -- I -- I'm not arguing with you. I'm just issuing
that as a caution that we look at reducing that density. I think
that's great. I think it's a prudent step to take. But we do need to
be careful that we don't advocate the sprawl on the fringes where the
services are not provided as well as they are closer to the central
urban area so issue that as a caution. I will support the motion.
But I just wanted to get that on the record.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have a second?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have a second?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I have one --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I seconded it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question for the motion
maker. My other concern about this is as important as this issue is,
I have one that -- that I think we talked about in the workshop that
we all felt was also important, and that had to do with the activity
center concept and whether or not our comprehensive plan allows for
neighborhood commercial uses to the extent that we would like them.
So I'd like to add that -- that issue to the please review list so
that this doesn't become, you know, the issue for this year's review.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me -- let me just
backtrack. The -- I -- I think they are reviewing that among many
other things. And -- and what I -- the whole point of me bringing the
specific issue I did was so that it wasn't simply are these densities
acceptable or what are alternatives. It was more I wanted to look at
economic impacts of changing. I wanted to look at infrastructure
impacts changing. I wanted us to look at a number of things.
Now, I know they are looking at any number of other
things, and I don't want us to micromanage the Citizens' Advisory
Committee. But I know that is one specific issue which we hear over
and over and over. All -- all I'm asking is we give them some
direction to review that and bring it back. I feel like we're getting
a little off track here trying to get into the specifics.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to hear what Mr. Ward has
to say.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Ward.
MR. WARD: Thank you, commissioners. My name is Whit
Ward. I represent the Collier Building Industry Association.
I am concerned about a request of the citizens' advise
-- advisory commission that they look at or consider a reduction of
density. It seems to me that we -- in doing that, in making that
request, we are giving the answer before we give the problem.
If the Citizens' Advisory Committee as an example would
look at density in general and ways to deal with density because I
have -- I've been to many of the FOCUS groups. I have been to -- I '-
I'm out in the community, and I hear the same complaints or concerns
that you all hear about density. And frankly, most of the concerns --
the people when you talk to them, their concern is they don't want any
more high rises on the beach. They don't want us to look like Fort
Lauderdale. They don't want us to look like Hiami. They don't want
us to look like Palm Beach and those other areas.
Some of the things that a reduction of -- of density
could affect -- and it's very, very broad reaching -- it -- it could
affect our ad valorem tax base. It could significantly affect it. It
would -- it could affect our capital improvements budget.
The -- the -- the less density you have, assuming you
have the same growth rate -- if I come and I take a quarter of an acre
and you're going to have 4 percent per year increase in population,
you're obviously going to use up more land with three units per acre
than you're going to with two -- with four units per acre. And so
then our capital improvements -- our roads have to be longer and our
-- our water and sewer lines have to extend farther. And -- and we
generally use up more land and don't always make good use of that
land; that is, saving a significant area of workable environmental
preserve.
Our entire growth management is based on a density. And
to change that one, it's like trying to change one leg of a
three-legged stool. The whole thing gets out of balance. And so it's
-- it -- while it seems like a -- an -- an easy statement and one
that would please a lot of people, it -- it has some far-reaching
effects or could have some far-reaching effects.
Our Citizens' Advisory Committee has just begun to
work. Again, I think we shouldn't give them the answer that we want
them to come up with. Some of the things that we might come up with
as an example, rather than limiting our options, maybe we ought to
allow them to come up with some creative options such as -- as
exchange of density credits and things of that nature.
We -- in addition to that, we have our FOCUS group that
is working. Those -- that group is -- is very active. There are a
lot of great people that are having input that are -- want to give us
the direction they would like our county to go.
And before -- again, before we come down on one side or
another, they may come up with the idea of an -- as an example of
cjustering growth and leaving more open space, things like that.
Rather than -- than directing our Citizens' Advisory
Committee to study a reduced density, maybe if we would ask them to
look at density in general or ways to deal with density and -- and
maybe even go out into the community and talk to some of the people
and find out what the real concerns are because I think that from my
perspective the real concerns may not be four units per acre or three
units per acre. It may be the traffic congestion at the corner of
Airport Road and -- and Golden Gate Parkway, or it may be the high
rise that's being built in front of them on -- on the beach and
blocking their view and things like that.
So I would encourage you not to tie the Citizens'
Advisory Committee's hands by asking them to come back with a specific
study or recommend -- recommendation on reduced density. Maybe they
look at -- at what they're really charged with looking at, and that is
our growth management as a whole. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- and we seem to get a
little hung up on the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- four-three thing. And I
-- I need to say one more time that was strictly for example's sake
and -- and the formula that that could theoretically bring down.
But the recommendation on here does not deal with any
specific formula because you're right. The -- there is not an easy
answer here. There's not an easy statement here. And that's why I
think it will take a number of months to come back.
And -- but what I had outlined is some of the things you
had mentioned, and that is the planning impact, transportation
network, solid waste. Those are the things I think -- I think you're
right on the button when you say that's when people get worried.
Especially this time of year when the traffic starts filling up again
on the roads, they're not so worried about whether their neighbor is
on a third of an acre or a quarter of an acre, but what's the impact
of that?
And -- and I also have on here real estate value impact,
ad valorem tax dollar impact, and so on. So all -- obviously we've
succeeded in starting a dialogue, and that is the intent to try to see
what are the alternatives. And no specific formula is intended as
part of that. So I -- I agree wholeheartedly with you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my last comment is just
forgetting -- forgetting what I said about the commercial, I think we
gave direction already when we talked about it at the workshop, so I
won't try to complicate Commissioner Constantine's issue because I
think it's a good one.
I would just ask, Commissioner Constantine, in your
recommendation could we change the im -- asking them to review the
impact of lowering allowable densities to review the impact of
changing allowable densities?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I was -- I was just
scratching through. I'll say impact of adjusting. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that may be mixing and
matching what the formulas are. That's -- that's acceptable.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion maker will accept that
modification.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I presume the second will
accept it? This is the second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'll accept that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think you would since --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He proposed it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further discussion?
If there's no further discussion, all in favor please
say aye.
Opposed?
Hotion passes five to two (sic).
And if you don't think every member of the CAC isn't
going to be aware of this discussion today, come back and tell me
about it again.
Item #11A
JOB CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTHENT - CONTINUED TO 11/21/95
We are at the public comment portion. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we continued ll(A).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, you're right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're at the public comment for
general topics. Is there anyone?
MR. DORRILL: For which the sheriff's representative has
-- has asked to make a brief statement and provide you with a letter
of his understanding of the ll(A) item today. Hiss Kinzel.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Kinzel.
MS. KINZEL: Thank you, commissioners. For the record,
Crystal Kinzel, the finance director for the sheriff's office.
The sheriff has asked me just to submit to -- for the
record a letter that he has submitted for the board. We were prepared
today to make a presentation. And I believe in response to the items
that the board was concerned about last Tuesday in our presentation,
we've subsequently found out about Commissioner Constantine's
additional concerns and would request -- we'll be glad to answer those
and clean those up for next week's presentation.
We would also request that if there are any other
questions or comments or information that you would require, the
sooner we can get that, we'd be more prepared even next Tuesday to
respond to all of those items.
And because we had the consultant over here -- we found
out late hour yesterday; we were unable to stop her or contact her
because she drove very early across the Alley -- we would like to
request a time specific for next week of about one o'clock so that we
could have the presentation here and save as much of the consultant's
time as possible if -- if we could do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I ask you to do this? Would
you like to have our questions and answer addressed in a memo form
before next Tuesday? And that will shortcut the time, and -- MR. KINZEL: We'll be glad to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we'll be able to study it.
MS. KINZEL: And I believe we'd also like to set up a
meeting with each commissioner and go over that information and --
because it may well prompt additional questions that we would like to
have prepared for the public forum next Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had mentioned this morning
that I intended to get together with the sheriff later in the week,
and we've scheduled that for tomorrow afternoon. And Hiss Kinzel will
be with him as well. So I'll make sure each of you get a copy of the
memo that we have for him tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does anyone on the board have --
have any difficulty with a time certain of 1 p.m.?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No -- no problem with that. I
just have one question perhaps for Mr. Dotrill, maybe for Hiss
Kinzel. That is, when -- it was disheartening to find nothing in our
packet this week that we get late Thursday, early Friday. And next
week we will have something in our packet because it's hard --
MR. KINZEL: I -- I apologize for that. We were
prepared at the full presentation to go over in detail those elements
of the -- of the presentation. We felt confident that we could answer
your questions in full and that you would be able to make a decision
based on that presentation.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: But next time will you give us in
writing ahead of time '-
MS. KINZEL: We'll be glad to do that. Any -- and we
would appreciate a meeting with each of you. I think that that will
clarify because it may well prompt additional infor -- questions once
you receive that information. So we'd like to meet with you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But it -- it seems to me,
Crystal, even if you'd gotten that information to us on Monday we
could have read it last night.
MS. KINZEL: We were -- I apologize. We were prepared
to present it in full in a presentation, consultants, hands-outs
today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MS. KINZEL: That was our direction from you last
Tuesday we thought. We did scramble. We were working Friday. We did
work over the weekend. We felt prepared to answer those publicly
today. But if you'd like them in advance of the public forum, we'll
be glad to do that for next Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, do --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I'd like --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you need a motion on that
one o'clock time, or are we okay?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, I think we're okay. Mr.
Dotrill, you'll make note that it's a one o'clock time certain for the
sheriff's item?
MR. DORRILL: And we will endeavor with their assistance
to hopefully put something in your hand as part of the agenda package
on Friday. I know all of you take your agendas home over the weekend,
and that's what I hear you saying.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Apparently there is some prolific
letter writers in your victim advocate -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- department. I would like to
tell you and you can pass on to them that this board does not set the
salaries of other constitutional officers' departments and that their
frustration really should be vented through their chain of command. I
don't mind getting copies of their letters. But, you know, we're not
in the practice of telling the sheriff how much he starts his people
at, nor are we in the practice of doing that for the clerk, nor are we
for the property appraiser. That's their decision. So their past
anger about what they're being paid needs to be taken up with their
sheriff.
MS. KINZEL: I believe it has been, Commissioner Const
-- Hancock, I'm sorry. We have addressed those issues with the
victim advocates. That's why we prepared a pay plan study and went
forward to try to address their concerns from a professional
consultant to ensure that they were paid properly or that they were
underpaid. Unfortunately, we also need funding for those pay
adjustments, and that comes back to the board issue in a request for
the budget amendment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm very aware '-
MS. KINZEL: But --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of the process, Miss Kinzel.
MS. KINZEL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm telling you is that I'm
informing those people of their chain of command, and I appreciate
their correspondence. But their venom should not be directed at this
board. I didn't hire them.
MS. KINZEL: I -- I'll be glad to relay that but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I gotta make a comment about that
too. I got -- I got some of the same letters, and I -- it's
interesting how people can have different reactions to the same
information. What I -- the letters that I'm writing to those people
in response to their letters are apologies if I misunderstood the
nature of their jobs when I placed so much emphasis on whether or not
someone's a certified law enforcement officer. And I explained to
them that we talked about three tiers of employees: Some purely
clerical, some non-certified law enforcement, and some certified law
enforcement and that no insult was intended and that we appreciate
their work. And I found them quite --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- heart-wrenching letters.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I've responded in like
manner. There's obviously a misunderstanding of what we asked for.
But I assume people do their job because they enjoy it, because
they're dedicated to it. And I appreciate that as I expressed to
them. But, again, if there are folks that are really, really unhappy
with their job, I would like to see them take it up within the agency
also, not just with this board.
MS. KINZEL: I can tell you, Commissioner, they have,
and that's why we've tried to address their concerns with this pay
plan.
We also in -- in our presentation were prepared to break
down the tiers as the board had defined them. So we do have the
actual dollars associated with those items per the board's definition
of the technical and professional versus the certified versus the
actual secretarial staffing. So we used your definition, and we'll be
prepared with that information and presentation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 95-63 RE PETITION PUD-95-1, BILL HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING
SHOPPE, REPRESENTING DR. WILLIHAV. AND SHEILA H. COPPOLA, JOHN T.
MAGOCS AND ANN LONG, AND JOSEPH AND CATHERINE TRUPIANO, REQUESTING A
REZONING OF CERTAIN DEFINED PROPERTY AS HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM RHF-12 TO
PUD (PARKWAY PROMENADE PUD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (C.R. 886) APROXIMATELY 550 FEET EAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND 53RD STREET S.W. IN GOLDEN GATE
CITY - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is item 12(B)(1), petition PUD
95-1.
Mr. Milk, you're back.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the
record, Bryan Milk.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment, Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This -- this has two companion
items.
HR. HILK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 12(C) (8) and 13(A)(3).
MR. MILK: The petitions I -- I will be presenting is
petition PUD 95-1, V 95-2, and transportation AV 95-8.
The subject property is located in Golden Gate City,
more specifically within the Golden Gate Parkway professional office
commercial district. It consists of three platted lots owned by three
separate individuals. It is 1.12 acres in size. It sits between a --
an existing child care center and the proposed Founders Plaza PUD. It
proposes one access point on to Golden Gate Parkway at the existing
median opening.
The subject property is only 1.12 acres in size. The
Golden Gate master plan requires all PUD rezonings to be a minimum of
two acres unless there's a finding from staff that it consists of an
isolated lot.
In this case the petitioner had asked the west property
owner with the child care center to join in the subject rezoning.
They declined, as did Avatar Properties to the east. With those
findings, again, staff found this an isolated lot.
This is a third and -- and actually fourth of four PUD
rezonings in this particular area. We have the Parkway Center PUD.
We have the Parkway Place PUD, Parkway Promenade currently proposed
today, and then the Founders Plaza that's currently consisting of 22
lots that Avatar Properties has.
We -- we ask that you bring all these together because
there's certain easements, that of alleyways, that of particular
utility easements, that must be vacated in order to provide cross
access easements, shared ingress and egress, shared parking, a
consistent architectural theme, consistent buffering theme, and -- and
landscaping theme.
This particular document is almost exactly what's
entailed in the two prior documents provided and approved by the board
such as the architectural styles, development parameters, and uses
provided in the PUD.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, let me
interrupt --
MR. MILK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- interrupt you for a
moment. This is along the Parkway. It is consistent with what the
various groups in Golden Gate as well as the Golden Gate master plan
asks for, and that is to try to phase out the multi-family along
Golden Gate Parkway which is a community entryway and phase in
commercial; is that correct?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is consistent with the
other two that we've already approved; is that correct?
MR. MILK: It is consistent, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hold your motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I know. There is only
two cons I see on here. One is kind of the generic existing residents
often perceive intensification from a residential use to a commercial
use.
MR. MILK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Contributing factor, noise
pollution, crime, so on. Other than a couple of pretty beat-up rental
properties on Golden Gate Parkway, that is not exactly a residential
haven. And -- and again, the Golden Gate community has made the
effort to alter the Parkway from multi-family to commercial. So I
think it takes away that one con.
And the second con you have listed there is the subject
site is 1.12, and you've already answered that saying you rec --
recognize that as an isolated site? MR. MILK: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it seems to me keeping in
mind the efforts of the Golden Gate master plan this fits like a
glove.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Petitioner -- does the petitioner
have anything to add?
MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover
Planning. No. We're just hear to answer questions. We weren't
anticipating really any problems on this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hoover.
Are there speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are no speakers. I'll
close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
motion to approve 12(B)(1) -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have to take three separate
motions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I don't know if this
is the right order here.
MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, there's an order. You
need to approve the variance first, the variance --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: V 95-2.
MS. STUDENT: -- and then the vacation and then the
PUD.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me withdraw that motion.
MS. STUDENT: I'm sorry. He tells me the vacation -- I
wasn't involved that much with it. Vacation should go first, then the
variance, and then the PUD. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The vacation is which?
Thirteen --
Item #12C8
RESOLUTION 95-639 RE PETITION AV-95-008 VACATING A 20 FOOT ALLEYWAY AND
PORTION OF 8 PERIMETER DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE
PLAT OF GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 6 - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: AV 95-008.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 12 (C) (8) .
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me withdraw the prior
motion I made, and I'll make a motion we approve AV 95-008.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a
second?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
approve petition AV 95-008.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Second.
We have a motion and a second to
All in favor please say aye.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 95-640 RE PETITION V-95-2, BILL HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING
SHOPPE, REPRESENTING DR. WILLIAM V. AND SHEILA H. COPPOLA, JOHN T.
HAGOCS AND ANN LONG, AND JOSEPH AND CATHERINE TRUPIANO, REQUESTING A
.88 ACRE VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 2.0 ACRE REQUIREMENT TO 1.12 ACRES
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND 53RD
STREET S.W. IN GOLDEN GATE CITY, LOTS 19-21, BLOCK 219, GOLDEN GATE
UNIT 6 - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a motion to
approve V 95-2, the second one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve petition V 95-2. All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 95-63 RE PETITION PUD-95-1, PARKWAY PROMENADE PUD - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'll make a motion we
approve petition PUD 95-1.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve PUD 95-1. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Milk.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 95-64 RE PETITION PUD-95-8, HR. BLAIR A. FOLEY OF COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING GULFSHORE LAKE VILLAS,
INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS NORTHSHORE
LAKE VILLAS PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF VANDERBILT
ROAD AND NORTH OF BLUEBILL AVENUE - ADOPTED
We'll move on to petition PUD 95-8. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Ray Bellows of current planning
staff presenting petition PUD 95-8, Blair Foley of Coastal Engineering
representing Gulfshore Lake Villas. They're requesting to fezone the
subject 18-acre site from agriculture to planned unit development.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can -- can I interrupt you, Mr.
Bellows --
MR. BELLOWS: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- before we get too far down the
road because we had a discussion similar, I think, unless I've misread
this a couple weeks ago on another fezone. Who's the owner of this
property?
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Brown is the trustee.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Trustee. Who's the owner?
MR. BELLOWS: Thrushman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who?
MR. BELLOWS: Thrushman.
MR. FOLEY: For the record, Blair Foley of Coastal
Engineering representing the petitioner. It's -- Eugene Thrushman is
the property owner. He has a -- he has a contract of sale with Mr.
Brown contingent upon the zoning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was that disclosed in the
application?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, it was. There's a copy of the
agreement as well, the purchase agreement.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, page 23 has an affidavit on
it. And I just wanted to clarify that he was indeed the owner or
contracted owner. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
MR. BELLOWS: The subject site is located on the east
side of Vanderbilt Drive about a quarter mile north of Bluebill. The
adjacent land uses include the Vanderbilt Villas to the north at six
dwelling units per acre. To the west is RHF 12 zoning with a cap of 6
units per acre. To the south is a -- the Naples Memorial Gardens
cemetery, density unknown. And to the south is St. John Evangelist
Catholic Church.
MR. DORRILL: Pretty good, Ray.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, Ray.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Very good. I like that.
MR. BELLOWS: The subject property's designated urban
mixed use on the future land use map which has a base density of four
units per acre. However, the property is within the traffic
congestion zone, so one dwelling unit per acre is subtracted for a
base -- or total of three dwelling units per acre.
The traffic impact review indicates the project will
generate approximately 525 trips per day which will not exceed the
significance test of Vanderbilt Drive.
The environmental impact statement indicates that the
project won't have any adverse impact.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this
petition on October 19, 1995, and they recommended approval by a
seven-to-zero vote. Staff hasn't received any letters for or against
this item. Therefore, we're recommending approval.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions from staff?
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ray, an appropriate question
after the last couple of months, did we take a look at what the -- and
this may be appropriate for Mr. Foley. Did we take a look at what the
water management outfall is and the capacity downstream after this
project's built? I know you have to obtain a South Florida Water
Management permit. But based on the recent flooding we had, I feel
the need to ask the question.
MR. FOLEY: Very good. For the record again, Blair
Foley. Excellent question. We, in fact, have designed this project
-- excuse me -- to incorporate a larger water management lake than
would ordinarily be -- be permitted. If you look at the site plan,
it's -- it's approximately 4.7 acres, and the total -- total site is
about 18.3 acres.
There's an adjacent project to the north, Vanderbilt
Villas, and their water management stage storage and their elevations
of their roads are consistent with this design. So we're comfortable
with the outfall into the swale. It has the capacity to handle it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FOLEY: And just for -- for the issue with the water
management district permit, this being less than the 40 acres, county
staff will be issuing approval on this.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even more important to then ask
the question. Okay. Thank you.
MR. FOLEY: You -- you get a better opportunity because
I think they're more concerned with local flooding criteria than the
district has been in the past.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So as we go through the platting
process and so forth, all the proper drainage easements will been
secured and checked and then everything will -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
Is your presentation complete?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the petitioner have anything
to add?
MR. FOLEY: Not at this time. Any questions I'll be
happy to answer, though.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, did you say there
are no speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve PUD 95-8. Further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #1284
ORDINANCE 95-65 RE PETITION PUD-95-9, ROBERT L. DUANE OF HOLE, HONTES &
ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING GARRETT F. X. BEYRENT, REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE "PUD" FOR A
PROJECT TITLED "COLLEGEWOOD PUD" CONSISTING OF 106 MULTIPLE FAMILY
HOUSING UNITS INCLUSIVE OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS OF 35
DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY FRONTING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK ROAD, ONE MILE WEST OF C.R. 951, ISLE OF CAPRI ROAD - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda, next page, petition PUD 95-9.
Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Yes. Ronald Nino for the record, current
planning staff, presenting petition PUD 95-9.
Let me show you where this project is. The subject
property's located on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock. It's
five acres removed -- ten acres removed from the Sierra Meadows PUD.
This is the section lines we're dealing with, at this point a mile.
On either side of the property -- the subject property's
vacant on either side. The partic -- and -- and zoned agricultural.
The current property is vacant and agricultural. The Sierra Meadows,
as I said, is ten acres removed from it.
To the east of the subject property, again by another
ten-acre parcel of E estate zoning, we're dealing with the Lely Resort
community development. And immediately to the west of Lely Resort
community, we have the Lely Palms development which is a multi-family,
ACLF-type facility of nearly 13 units per acre. I believe it's 12.6
units per acre.
Let me go back and remind you that when we dealt with
the Sierra Meadows PUD, that was a project of 650 dwelling units. And
because of the tremendous amount of conservation preservation lands on
that project, any attempt to achieve that level of housing units would
virtually have to be multi-family in structure type. And -- and, in
fact, some of those tracts would have multi-family densities of 15 to
17 dwelling units per acre.
And the concern was represented that the most western
tract, developable tract, in Sierra Meadows would step down to some
other lower density than could physically happen on the more eastern
tracts.
And that PUD was approved with a condition that the most
western tract would be limited to 12 dwelling units per acre. So we
have 12 dwelling units per acre 10 acres removed from the subject
site, and within a mile you have the Lely Palms at about 12.6.
Now, immediately north of this project the land is
vacant, all zoned agricultural. However, to the northwest we have the
Shadowwood PUD and is often more popularly referred to as Wing South
Air Park. The front part of Shadowwoods is a multi-family type
development, and it's at 6.4 dwelling units per acre based on the site
development plan for the approved condominium portion. And further
west you then get into a single-family type of development.
To the south -- to the south of the subject property, I
think it's important to appreciate that you have what's referred to as
the Lely Resort Cultural Center Complex. You have a elementary school
here, and at this point you have the Edison Community College, and you
have so-called alleged plans for other cultural facilities including
another philharmonic.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Competing phils.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get the prices down.
MR. NINO: The future land use element advises us that
land in this location qualifies for up to ten dwelling units per acre,
four attributable to the base density, three attributable to the fact
that it's within a one-mile band of an activity center, and three
because it qualifies as the -- as infill. It's less than ten acres,
has utilities available. It's within the urbanized area, and as we
will subsequently point out that it is compatible.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Ron, just on that
point --
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on the infill point, how many
other properties near or around this would qualify for that infill
bonus also?
MR. NINO: Any property that's less than ten acres in
size.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I'm asking in the immediate
area, do we '-
MR. NINO: I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- have very many properties that
are -- that would qualify for that?
MR. NINO: You have one, two, three obviously, and I
don't know that these are -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: These are obviously less than ten-acre
parcels. And, you know, I don't know how -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: -- many owners are in there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But immediately around the
proposed project we're not talking about a -- a -- an obvious
proliferation of the same thing.
MR. NINO: No, correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: Now, this petitioner has asked for a total
density of 12 dwelling units per acre, 4 based on an affordable
housing density bonus agreement. So they're saying we would like to
have 8 of the 10 dwelling units that we're entitled to under the
density bonus rating system and 4 of 8 that we could structure a
program for for the affordable housing density bonus for a total of
12.
Let me point out to you that -- that when we compared
that request with approved and developed or underdeveloped -- or -- or
developing affordable housing density projects, we have April Circle,
now known as Wing Song, at 12.84 dwelling units per acre -- per acre.
We have Bear -- Bear Creek at 14 dwelling units per acre. And we have
Osprey Landings at 8.86 dwelling units per acre.
We also have -- utilizing the -- the affordable housing
density bonus agreement -- I only looked at those rather than some
historical ones that predate our current affordable housing density
bonus. We have undeveloped but approved projects in the form of
Saddlebrook at 13 dwelling units per acre and Saxon Manor at 12
dwelling units an acre.
Jurisdictional reviews by staff with respect to other
elements of the Growth Management Plan including the traffic policies
at 5-1 and 5-2 and 7-3 and all of the policies that are relevant to
this project in -- in addition to the utility considerations, the
natural space and open space, coastal conservation -- coastal --
conservation and coastal management elements all indicate that the
project is consistent with all elements, applicable elements, of the
GMP.
As you know, staff is obliged to -- to make a --
findings on behalf of the planning commission with respect to straight
fezones and PUDs. And we suggest to you that the preponderance of
those findings support a decision for rezoning. And your executive
summary includes the pro, cons, a synopsis of the pro, cons within
your executive summary.
The planning commission reviewed this petition and by a
vote of seven to zero unanimously recommended its approval to you.
If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, you said that we're --
we're using 12 units an acre overall?
MR. NINO: The -- the -- this request includes eight
dwelling units a -- attributable to the density rating system and four
dwelling units attributable to what would -- what would be
attributable to your approval of an affordable housing density bonus
agreement which has been reviewed by staff and -- by legal staff --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. NINO: -- incidently, and Mr. Mihalic is here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So that's a total of 12 on --
MR. NINO: Twelve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- on each and every acre.
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So we're using four units
of affordable housing bonus on each and every acre, but we're not
putting in the corresponding affordable housing units on each and
every acre.
MR. NINO: That -- that is correct. However, if I
may --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
MR. NINO: -- that's --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- my question always comes back
to why are we giving density bonus for affordable housing on acreage
that's being put into market rate apartments?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to ask the question
because I -- I was doing some math on this. And it's -- what is it?
8.7 acres, Mr. Nino? Is that the total?
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8.77.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 8.77.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we take 8.77, and we
multiply by 4 for 4 units per acre, and we come up with 35.08 units.
MR. NINO: That's the number of units they're asking, 35
density bonus units.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- and will all 35 of those be
affordable housing?
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So then the number of units does
equal -- I mean, the bonus is all affordable.
MR. NINO: No. I think -- I think what Commissioner
Norris is referring to is if you're going to build the 35 units on 3
acres of the 9 acres, Commissioner Norris I think is making the point
that -- that he should only get the density bonus on the net area of
the project that's going to be used for affordable housing. Am I
correct, sir?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the point is if that's the
way we want it, we should change our ordinance.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's what I'm getting
around to.
MR. NINO: My answer --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Very perceptive.
MR. NINO: My answer to Commissioner --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God, I'm quick. But for right
now under this application, they've applied under the laws that exist
until the moment when it's changed, and I don't think we have the
right to impose anything other than existing law.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm sure that -- that since
we've found a little quirk here in our land development codes that
they would be more than willing to withhold or continue their
application until we have had a chance to modify our -- MR. NINO: I --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Land Development Code.
MR. NINO: I --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it would result in a
reduction of density, and they would just gladly go ahead and say
sure.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sure that Mr. Duane would
never ask for something he's not entitled to.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He -- but he is entitled to it
under the ordinance as it exists.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Duane?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's hear from Mr. Duane.
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane from Hole,
Hontes, and Associates. Ron made a very fine presentation, so I'll --
I'll just summarize. We're a project that I'm not aware we have any
opposition to. There is virtually nothing around the property. We
back up to institutional land uses. You approved my petition, Sierra
Meadows, this year with 12 units per acre, and we have the support of
your planning commission and staff.
Let's talk about densities for a minute, and I'll try to
answer -- respond to your comments, Mr. Norris. At the behest of the
staff, I reduced -- I could have come in and requested ten units per
acre as my base density and a bonus for two units per acre. The staff
wanted to increase the percentage of affordable units in this
project. I had no objection from lowering the base density request
from ten units per acre to eight units per acre.
So while I'm requesting a four-unit-per-acre bonus, I
would like the board to understand that I was entitled to come up and
request up to ten. By my way of thinking, there's only 18 additional
units in this project above the base density. The quid pro qua I see
for that is I'm putting 35 units or twice the percentage of the number
of units that I would have otherwise been entitled to with a bonus of
2 units per acre. So, you know, I believe that's the quid pro qua.
Mr. Norris, if I was to do what you suggest and take the
12 units or the 4-unit-per-acre bonus which I think is somewhat -- is
a misnomer as I just explained, all this project would be entitled to
would be 12-unit bonus because we would be taking 3 acres times 4
units per acre. That's only one unit an acre over the base density.
Why I believe the ordinance is structured the way it is
today is to create an incentive for affordable housing. I would
suggest to you -- and -- and no disrespect is -- is intended -- 1 unit
per acre is not a substantial enough incentive for most projects to
either put 33 percent or 50 or even 100 below the market rate.
And, in fact, our affordable housing ordinance, we've --
we've appraved half a dozen projects since we adopted the ordinance in
1989 or '90. But in my opinion it's not been a sufficient enough
incentive to get the amount of affordable housing that we need.
The formula you're suggesting in -- in my professional
opinion would make it harder for these kinds of projects to move
forward. It's, of course, your prerogative to pass judgment on my
project.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that -- you know, you're --
you're entitled to your opinion, but what I see happening -- and not
particular in this -- in this -- I don't mean to be picking on your
project because this one is -- is -- as you say, it's only a unit or
so above what you would be entitled to anyway.
But what I see happening is if we have a base density of
4 and an affordable housing density bonus of 8 for a 12-unit-per-acre
project somewhere else, if -- if we give those units for the entire 10
acres or 40 acres of a project, then it should all be affordable
housing because they based their bonus -- density bonus on affordable
housing.
So this comes from a project that we saw not long ago
which originally was going to -- applied for so many units under
affordable housing and then later changed their request back to have a
lot of market rate in there and only about one-third affordable
housing, but -- so why are they -- why should they have the bonus on
market rate apartments? That's the quirk that I don't like. If -- if
you're going to get the bonus for affordable housing reasons, then put
affordable housing on it. If not, you don't deserve the bonus.
MR. DUANE: Can I respond once more, Commissioner? The
35 percent is a minimum amount of affordable housing that we're going
to have in this project. Now, I can't stand up here and tell you that
conventional housing might not be used. I suspect that that would --
would not happen for this property at this point in time which then
gets us back to using tax credits and using the bonds,
government-backed bonds. And my understanding is -- from my other
clients is, you know, once you get into that kind of a financing
scenario, 100 percent of the units have to be affordable.
I think they're going to end up 100 percent affordable
anyway notwithstanding, you know, what else I said and what your
concern is, how we deal with the density bonus. But I just wanted to
get that on the record.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so I understand -- and
again, I -- I understand that this particular project, you know, may
not be the impetus for it. But what you're asking for is a potential
change in policy that says if you're going to take the bonus over the
entire property, then everything has to be affordable. If you're
going to take it over a portion of the property, that portion has to
be affordable. Is that a fair summary of -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And where -- as Mr. Duane
said, at ten units per acre for this property, you know, if he were to
restructure his request, he'd probably end up with the same thing even
under that scenario.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Once again, I'm not -- I don't
mean to be picking on Mr. Duane's project here because his is a little
unusual because he's got a infill bonus and so forth and so on that
brings it up anyway.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But I'm thinking more of a broad
policy decision that -- that we should consider for our next --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- LDC cycle.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we schedule that discussion
at some time because I -- I think it does -- you know, Mr. Hihalic,
you --
MR. HIHALIC: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- understand how things work and
-- and --
MR. HIHALIC: -- I understand how they work,
Commissioner, but I think that the idea of allowing a development that
would have part market rate and part affordable units within it is to
integrate people who are low and very low income into market rate
apartment buildings without them being stigmatized by saying this is
the 30 percent that's affordable, this is the market rate units.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're affordable. You live over
there.
MR. HIHALIC: Right. That's not allowed in our
ordinance. They must be intermixed in.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's why they integrate it.
MR. HIHALIC: And -- and the -- and the financing that
does come with this normally does push the affordable -- affordable
units to at least 50 percent just by the nature of the low income
housing tax credits as well as our impact fee deferral ordinances.
But our ordinances do allow for mixed -- mixed rate
developments where, again, we have market rate that's mixed in with
affordable units where -- where those affordable tenters are indeed
saving 200, $250 a month off their rent. And -- and that's similar to
some of the bond -- multi-family bond developments that were done in
Collier County prior to 1986.
So I think that is what we have been striving for as a
community, although it does give the developer the option about
whether to have 100 percent affordable or whether to have 50 or even
35 or 33 percent as this particular developer has set a minimum of 35
percent to allow him to decide what the best developmental standards
are when he goes to build this -- this project.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nevertheless, Mr. Mihalic, if a
developer wants to have 100 percent affordable housing on his project,
thatws, of course, fine. If he wants to have 50 -- 50 percent
affordable and 50 percent market rate, my contention is he does not
deserve any density bonus on the 50 percent market rate apartments.
Thatls all Iim saying.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Duane, I assume as part
of this you have projected -- I -- I may have missed it in here, but
you have projected some sort of market rate that youill be charging on
these. Can you tell me two things? What is the anticipated size of
the units, and what is the anticipated cost per month of the units?
MR. DUANE: My understanding is that these will rent
between approximately 510 to $540 a month for a 2-bedroom apartment
which is based on a percentage of the median income level -- level. I
think for this project median income is defined as between nineteen
and about twenty-six thousand dollars a year. Those are the kinds of
individuals that would be living in the project.
And Iill -- Iill answer your -- we have for 2 bedroom
and 1 bath, 840 square feet. For the 3 bedroom and 2 bath, it would
be 1,083 square feet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DUANE: Youlre welcome.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
Mr. Duane, do you have more that you want to add?
MR. DUANE: No, I have no other comments to make.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, are there speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, malam.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Iill close the public hearing.
Mr. Nino, is there more you need to --
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- say?
MR. NINO: For the -- for the record, we had -- we had a
-- your copy doesnlt have a couple of typo errors and -- and
provision for -- for indicating the timing of the construction of
turning lanes under a transportation stipulation. We will -- weill
have those corrections, and you ought to acknowledge that there are
two corrections to be made.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there are no further
questions, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Iill make a motion to approve PUD
95-9 with -- according to staff recommendation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve petition PUD 95-9 with staff recommendations that are
included. If therels no further discussion, all in favor please say
aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes four to one, Commissioner Norris being in
the opposition.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, as part of this
discussion before we leave this item, I would like to also make a
motion that we direct staff to bring this discussion that we were
having about the bonus system forward to us for a determination of
policy.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I was going to second the
motion and ask that -- that Mr. Mihalic work with Commissioner Norris
in the interim. It appears on the surface to me that there is some
merit that the more bonus -- the higher bonus you get, the more should
be affordable, almost like a sliding scale bonus, an encouragement, an
enticement to have more affordable. And I think you know that, you
know, that may be a part of the discussion. I don't know. But, you
know, it's --
MR. MIHALIC: Commissioners, that's -- that's the way it
is. In -- in -- in appendix A, Exhibit B, I think it's page 3, but
let me get to the right page. Yes. I don't have what marked page it
is in your copy, but in appendix A, Exhibit B, you can see that there
is that type of rating system. And -- and it does characterize
whether the units are low income or very low income and the size of
the units by the type of bedrooms. And that tells you what density
bonus you can qualify for. So we do have that sort of staggered
rating system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Mr. Mihalic, we -- we have
talked in a couple of workshops about trying to do something to give a
greater incentive for very low -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- income housing.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where are we on that process?
MR. MIHALIC: Well, we do have that incentive within the
density bonus system where a lesser percentage -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we've asked for there to be a
greater incentive.
MR. MIHALIC: Well, you can only give so much density
and -- and it's no longer an incentive. The problem is that a
developer loses approximately $18,000 in rent for every very low
income unit or every low income unit. I've talked to a number of you
about possibly having an incentive to waive impact fees for very low
income units. But unfortunately, we couldn't find enough revenue
sources to make that feasible.
I mean, you can't start a program where you can only
offer 20 or 30 units and -- and open that up to the development
community because you'll be shut down before you start. I think that
that is the most reasonable way for us to encourage very low income
multi-family units is to waive the impact fees on those units. But
that requires a funding source and a fairly substantial funding source
of at least probably a half a million dollars. To waive 80 units
would cost that much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask a question.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What on -- on these -- gosh, and
maybe this really is something that should be discussed another day.
But let me -- let me plant the idea.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These very low and low income
apartment projects, right now we defer and/or waive -- we don't
waive. We defer on rental for up to 15 years.
MR. MIHALIC: Only six.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Only six.
MR. MIHALIC: Only six years except in unusual
circumstances because a six-year deferral does not cost the county any
cash. And so we defer low or very low income units for six years.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Therein may be the
problem.
MR. HIHALIC: Once we go past seven years, according to
our attorney's office rulings, we're going to have to come with the
cash to pay for those deferrals that extend past that period.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. This -- this prob --
probably should be something for another day -- day's discussion. But
my thought -- where I was headed for is that if we were deferring for
15 years, what normally happens at the end of 15 years? That's when
the low income tax credits expire. That's when the sale loan normally
has to be paid.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes, uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And if we were to encourage the
project owner to do a condo conversion and sell those units to their
dwellers, then we can go into homeownership programs and truly waive
the fees.
MR. HIHALIC: Well, that's really what is planned for
the Timber Ridge PUD in Immokalee for the rental units that are in
that development. That's what they plan to do at the end of 15
years. Host multi-family buildings don't work well to condominium-ize
them after 15 years.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They do not.
MR. HIHALIC: They do not work well for that, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, it was an
interesting idea.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris has made a
motion to bring this up for discussion at another meeting, and I
seconded it for the simple reason that if we have a difference in --
in policy statement, I think it's well worth the discussion to at
least put it all in the same plane. I'm just curious if the board has
a consensus that that's a good idea.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I think it's a good
idea to -- pardon?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Call the question, and we'll find
out.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I think it's a good idea to
continually look for better ways to -- to do our affordable housing.
There's a motion and a second. Is there further
discussion?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the motion just to look again
at our affordable housing ordinance?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to set a time
frame on that, when -- when we'll do that?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was not my intent was to look
at our entire affordable housing ordinance. We did extensive work on
that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- before you came on the board.
That was really not my intent. I just have this one policy matter
that I would like discussed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Density.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It has to do with density
bonuses. It would -- I don't know that we're under any critical time
here. If we could bring that back in three or four weeks, it's fine
with me.
MR. HIHALIC: Any time, commissioners. The issues are
there, and it's in the Land Development Code, whatever your pleasure
is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three weeks?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Three weeks is fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amends.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three weeks. It would be
December the 5th. We have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Hihalic.
MR. HIHALIC: Thank you.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 95-66 ENACTING A NEW PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE -
ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next -- next item on the agenda
is item -- is it 12 or 137 12(C)(1), request for Public Vehicle
Advisory Committee, that we enact a new ordinance. Do you want to take a break after this?
Is there anybody here to make a presentation on --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Prepared by Scott HcGaughey and
Linda Sullivan and Maria Cruz.
MR. HCGAUGHEY: Good afternoon. My name is Scott
HcGaughey. I am presently the chairman of the Public Vehicle Advisory
Committee. I'm here to represent the committee, and we're asking the
board to approve a new ordinance that corrects some of the problems
that have risen since the last ordinance was approved. I'd gladly
answer any questions that you may have on it. Do you have the
executive summary?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence, this was brought
about, I believe, because of complaints that certain charter companies
were operating as taxi services. And there was kind of a -- it was a
little gray as to whether you're a taxi, whether you're a charter, and
what applies.
MR. HCGAUGHEY: That was one point, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the intent here is to
clarify that so that charters are charters, taxis are taxis, and none
the two shall meet?
MR. HCGAUGHEY: We had some companies that say taxi on
the side, and they're not taxies. And that's -- some of these
companies are going to happen to be -- will be grandfathered in
unfortunately, but we want to stop it from happening any further.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it's important that we stop
this widespread problem in our community.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have something you want to
add?
MS. CRUZ: For the record, my name is Maria Cruz.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MS. CRUZ: I represent code enforcement department.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Do you have information
that you want to add to this?
MS. CRUZ: No, ma'am. I'm just here for any questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there further
questions?
MR. DORRILL: And no one's registered.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No one is registered?
I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
motion to approve changes to the Collier County vehicle for hire
ordinance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Actually this is a new
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually this is --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we repealing the old one, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you. I'm wanting to -- to make
a -- the record clear in the sense that we are actually repealing five
ordinances that exist. This has come into existence and been amended,
the -- the current ordinances that -- that -- that exist as one
composite ordinance for the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
And what you have before you is -- is actually a new
ordinance. Rather than us going in and making amendments to each of
the previous four amendments, your action today, if you approve what's
requested, will repeal all five previous ordinances and adopt this new
ordinance in the format that exists here.
And incidently, if it looks different to you, the reason
is because this is a format that follows our code book and not the --
the typical ordinance format that we use. And -- and I wanted to make
the record clear that we're not merely amending, although an amendment
to what existed is -- has what -- is what was the essence of what has
been done here.
But for -- to make things easier both for the county and
for the code book publishing company, we have utilized their form as
they have all five of the ordinances compiled in one integral
document. And that's how it appears here with the underlines and
strike-throughs showing changes from the previous five ordinances that
are all codified in one general ordinance.
And -- and I would like your motion to reflect a couple
-- a couple small changes that I'd like to have the record and this
ordinance reflect. And -- and that is, one, that we are, in fact,
creating a new ordinance. And I will make sure that the language in
section 1 on page 4 of your agenda reflect that to make it
exceptionally clear. And also on page 39 of this lengthy new
ordinance is the provision entitled judicial penalties. And I would
add that we will add the words -- like to add the words a violation of
this ordinance into the general language of judicial penalty so that
it is clearly recognized that a violation of this ordinance shall be
subject to the penalties that are referenced in section 1 through 6 of
the code book.
And I think I've made myself clear if you wish to -- to
tag on with that. This is a -- a different kind of format, and it's
maybe a little puzzling at first glance to look at it that way.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before restating my motion, I
have two questions. The first is of Miss Cruz. From the code
enforcement side, are we creating an ordinance that is enforceable or
is '-
MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So you don't have any
concerns regarding our ability to enforce this code? MS. CRUZ: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second question is,
we're adopting 39 pages. How many pages are we repealing? We had
four ordinances prior. I have this -- this constant fear. I wake up
in the middle of the night screaming about papers being dumped on me,
and they're all new codes that we're adopting. I mean, it's -- it's
-- we keep adopting new codes, and I'm concerned that we're not
making things --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you -- you can --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- more and more complicated.
MR. WEIGEL: From -- from this packet that's before you,
the new words are those that are underlined, and the strike-throughs
show that's which been removed. So all that's there that's not
underlined or stricken -- stricken through is already there in the
previous five ordinances that -- that existed through the last nine
years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I wanted to make sure we
weren't repealing 10 pages and replacing them with 40. MR. WEIGEL: No, no.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would imply a problem for
me.
MR. WEIGEL: That's true.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Other way around.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that being the case, I'm
going to move approval of creation of the new ordinance as presented
to us here today under item 12(C)(1), and I'll incorporate the county
attorney's comments into my motion.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the ordinance as presented to us and to include the county
attorney's comments. Any further discussion?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
MS. CRUZ: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 95-641 RE PETITION SNR-95-3, KAREN ALEXANDER OF WCI
COHMUNITIES, REQUESTING A RENAMING OF COCCOLOBA CHASE TO "PERSIHMON
DRIVE" WHICH STREET IS LOCATED IN PELICAN MARSH PUD - ADOPTED
Next item is petition SNR 95-3.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why do we have to approve this?
MR. HULHERE: Once these --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Private road.
MR. HULHERE: Once these are -- they're platted. Once
they're platted, they're required to go through this process. It's a
standard street name change.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. It's a public
hearing. We can't. Mr. Hulhere, do you have anything specific --
MR. HULHERE: I really don't have any comments. It's a
standard street name change. If you have any questions, I'll be happy
to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have a
petitioner that has -- MR. DORRILL: You do not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
HR. DORRILL: Do not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
approve petition SNR 95-3.
Do we have any speakers?
I'll close the public hearing.
Hotion to approve SNR 95-3.
Second.
We have a motion and a second to
Any discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Hotion passes five to zero.
Yeah. Let's take a break -- it's five after four --
till twenty after. And we'll come back and run through it.
(A short break was held.)
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 95-642 ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPHENT RELATED REVIEW
AND PROCESSING FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to reconvene the board
of county commission meeting for November 14, 1995. We are at item
12(C)(3), a resolution establishing a schedule of fees for development
services.
MR. CAUTERO: Madam Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cautero.
MR. CAUTERO: -- for the record, Vince Cautero,
community development and environmental services administrator.
The executive summary before you is a product of the
Development Services Advisory Committee. Back in fiscal year '94,
'95, as you may recall, that committee as well as the county manager
asked that staff review revenues as well as expenditures in the
development services -- community development services division to
determine if revenues were exceeding operating costs. That analysis
revealed that the revenue was exceeding those costs by approximately
15 percent.
In addition, the reserves in the 113 account which are
the development and building permit fees -- that's the account where
those monies are located -- was nearing the cap as allowed by state
law.
The Development Services Advisory Committee recommended
and the staff proceeded to work on a reduction of the fees of 15
percent. And your executive summary shows a joint resolution, if you
will, of all the fee schedules. Not every fee was recommended to be
reduced. The Development Services Advisory Committee went through all
of them. And some of them were recommended to be left alone. Some of
those are contained in other ordinances.
There was no mention, for example, of a water and sewer
facilities which is on page 11 of your document, construction document
review, resubmission, modifications and inspections, for example.
Those percentages were left alone. You'll notice some other fees were
left alone.
But the land development regulation fees, for example,
zone changes, conditional uses, street vacations, those types of
things you have public hearings for as well as your building permit
fees, are joined in one resolution. And the recommendation stands
before you as it was recommended unanimously by the Development
Services Advisory Committee.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously, Mr. Cautero, we don't
want to expand departments beyond the minimum personnel necessary to
get the job done. But before we go reducing fees, I want to ask are
there any areas in which you feel your review capabilities need to be
supplemented? In other words, you know, are the -- are the funds
matching the necessary response to handle things in what you projected
as your required review time?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CAUTERO: And I believe that is the case, especially
in light of areas where we did not recommend that the fee be reduced.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just don't want you to
cut yourself down so low that you create a crisis, but I -- I do
appreciate the -- the specific -- I guess the level of detail in
this. It's commendable.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions?
Mr. Dorrill, are there speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve resolution set -- establishing a schedule of fees for
development services. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes four to zero, Commissioner Constantine
being absent.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think we should also give Mr.
Cautero and his group a -- a round of thanks for operating such an
efficient operation that we can actually reduce fees to our citizens.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. Thank you.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a great idea. Thank you,
Mr. Cautero.
MR. CAUTERO: You're welcome.
Item #12C9
RESOLUTION 95-643 RE PETITION AV-95-018, JAMES H. ROSWELL, II, OWNER,
REQUESTING VACATION OF TWO FIVE FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED ON A
PORTION OF LOT 16, BLOCK F, AND A PORTION OF LOT 11, BLOCK H, ON THE
PLAT OF REPLAT OF UNIT NO. 3, LITTLE HICKORY SHORES - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item
-- we're down to 12(C)(9), petition AV 95-018.
MR. HULLER: Good afternoon --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Mullet.
MR. HULLER: -- commissioners. Russ Mullet,
transportation. Item 12(C)(9) is a public hearing to consider
petition AV 95-018 for the vacation of a 10-foot drainage easement on
a portion of lot 16, block F, and lot 11, block H, on the plat of --
replat of unit number 3, Little Hickory Shores, plat book 6, page 2.
The reason for the vacation is the petitioner wants to
build in the easement area. I've got letters of no objection from
Collier County engineering review and storm water management. And a
resolution was prepared and approved by the county attorney's office
in according with Florida Statutes 177101. And based on the letters
of no objection, staff recommends approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is an item we saw before
where he's going to actually aggregate two lots, and you need to
vacate this to build a home in a proper setback and so forth; is that
correct?
MR. HULLER: Yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: You do have a speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a speaker on this one?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, I believe so.
Ms. Hicks?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the petitioner, Mr. Roswell
(sic), owner, does he have anything to add?
MR. DORRILL: Hang on one second, Miss Hicks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MS. HICKS: I will.
MR. BOSWELL: If she'd like to speak first, she's
welcome to.
MS. HICKS: Go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you're the petitioner. We
normally hear from the petitioner before the -- there's a handheld
mike over there.
MR. BOSWELL: This loud enough?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yup.
MR. BOSWELL: Great. Good afternoon. I'm Jim Boswell.
I am the petitioner. On September 12 you did grant me a variance to
build on this property. Because of the unusual configuration of the
home that I plan to build there, it would infringe on the easement
area. That -- this is the reason why I'd like to vacate the
easement.
I do have two letters of non-objection from the
necessary authorities, storm water management and John Houldsworth.
I'm not sure which department he's involved with. They don't have a
problem with vacating this particular -- particular drainage
easement. And I'm just asking that you please give me a positive on
this. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just while we're changing
speakers, I'd note that in Mr. Boldt's letter he says that this
property's never been used for drainage anyway. I mean, I think
that's very relevant.
MR. BOSWELL: Oh, no, it has not been used.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just, again, to -- to check my
recall, Mr. Boswell, part of this was so that you could build a home
that is compatible with the homes surrounding you as opposed to if you
were restricted by what was previously there, the home's square
footage would have been significantly lower than the rest.
MR. BOSWELL: Lower than the rest.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BOSWELL: Exactly. Square footage is the -- square
footage is the issue here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And you would have been
much smaller than everything else around you. MR. BOSWELL: Much smaller, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm just checking my
recall. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, our speaker's name
again?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Hicks, if you would,
please.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Hicks.
MS. HICKS: My name is -- my name is Barbara Hicks, and
I live across the street from the areas that have been subdivided.
Lot 11, according to my plat drawing, is a boat lot. And I did not
think that a boat lot could be incorporated into a home lot to be
built upon. A few years ago we had some boat lots that are large. I
have a large one myself. And they wanted to build a home there. And
they were turned down.
I have nothing against Mr. Boswell or what he wants to
build. I do have an objection to setting a precedent in using a boat
lot as part of a home lot to build a home on. That's all I -- I don't
have -- I mean, I don't have any objections to the gentleman
building. But I do object to using the boat lot as part of his home
lot.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We had a very similar discussion
when we looked at the variance here, and that was one of the questions
I raised. And what I was told and I see it on here is that no part of
the boat lot will be used for a structure but that the setback line is
moved, is that correct, Mr. Boswell, or is the structure physically
going to sit on the prior boat lot?
MR. BOSWELL: It may sit on the --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. -- Mr. Boswell, you're going
to have to put that on the record.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The reason -- when we
looked at this last, I -- I asked a question about the platting. If
it was platted as a boat lot, can it be used for a residential
structure? And there was a question of appropriateness there.
MR. HULHERE: To my knowledge it can be, not --
certainly not by itself.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. HULHERE: However, if you have four, five, six,
eight, or ten of these boat lots and you aggregated them to make a
conforming lot, then I believe you could put a single-family structure
on that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we aware of any deed
restriction? I know we donlt enforce deed restrictions.
MR. MULHERE: No, Iim not aware of any deed
restrictions.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: And Iid like to point out we
really have already made that decision --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When we gave the variance.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: -- in the prior vote, that the
decision today was just on the drainage easement vacation.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to point out that -- that my
recollection was that this boat lot was added to the property to
increase the overall size of the parcel so that he could -- and it was
represented so that it could assist in meeting setbacks. I do recall
that as being the response.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boswell, I have an exhibit
here that shows a proposed 20-foot setback line comparing to an
existing 25-foot setback line. And that line doesnlt appear to go
over past the drainage easement. Is that -- this is -- MR. MULLER: Page 7 in your agenda.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a site plan as prepared
by Portella-Rowe Associates. It is page 7 in the agenda.
MR. BOSWELL: Mine does show an infringement.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Into the drainage easement
but not beyond it.
MR. MULLER: Right, thatls correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So --
MR. BOSWELL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the physical structure
itself would not extend over and in -- beyond the drainage easement
based on the information I have on this site plan.
MR. MULLER: (Mr. Mullet nodded head.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BOSWELL: It may. That may be an error on the part
of Portella-Rowe by not intersecting those two lines, an oversight on
my part obviously. But the fact is the easement is 5 foot on lot 11
as it is. If you vacated it, I would be on lot 11.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Iim just -- Iim just
concerned about the spirit of what Miss Hicks has -- has brought up
regarding boat lots versus building lots. When you buy a house across
from something and you say that a home is never going to be on that
piece of property but will be on that one, you know, we had this same
discussion. And -- and my understanding then, as it is now, is that
welre not going to have a boat structure sitting on that boat lot.
Now, I understand that -- the five-foot drainage
easement. I donlt -- I donlt think thatls as much at issue. I just
want to make sure what Iim being shown is what is -- you know, what
can be built there. And if I connect those two lines, welre still
only going about a foot or a foot and a half beyond the drainage
easement.
MR. BOSWELL: That would be my guess, best guestimation
also.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The vast bulk of that boat lot
will not have a structure on it.
MR. BOSWELL: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions?
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you understand, Miss Hicks,
that the setbacks really prevent him even through this action of
having any significant structure on the bulk of that boat lot? It
will remain as a landscaped or open lot. Do you -- do you
understand?
MS. HICKS: I understand it. I just don't want a
precedent set with -- because there are several boat lots --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MS. HICKS: -- up above us that are large lots like my
-- my boat lot is even bigger than his. And we were told eight years
ago when we built that we could not have a structure on the boat lot.
And believe me, they watched us which I do not object to.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Once again, Miss Hicks,
that decision has already been made -- over here. MS. HICKS: Oh.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That decision's already been
made. We granted a variance to build on this boat lot. And as you
can see from the drawing, it can go maybe a foot into it or whatever
that was.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I understand --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But that -- that decision's been
made. It's too late for you to come up here and try not to do that.
MS. HICKS: Well, we didn't -- we didn't even know he
was going for a variance. We didn't --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
MS. HICKS: We never got a letter. We were never
notified.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Be that as it may, that decision's
been made.
MS. HICKS:
MR. BOSWELL:
MS. HICKS:
MR. BOSWELL:
MS. HICKS:
subdivide --
Oh, no, no.
I have a letter of objection --
From -- when --
-- from you based on the variance.
For the -- for the variance but not when you
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm gonna inter -- I'm --
excuse me. I'm going to interrupt your -- your discussion. Your --
your concern is registered, and I think should this board see -- you
know, a -- a boat lot coming in trying to put a house on it would be a
very different situation than what we're dealing with here
specifically. I think that -- that difference is significant --
significant enough that -- that this would not set a precedent that
people can start building structures on boat lots that stand alone.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there other
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Hicks.
MS. HICKS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve AV 95-008.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 018.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. Zero -- where are
we?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 95-018. You're right. If
there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #12C12
ORDINANCE 95-67 ENACTING A NEW AIRPORT AUTHORITY ORDINANCE - ADOPTED
WITH CHANGES
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, next item I
don't think we need to spend a whole lot of time on, but I just wanted
to comment. That's the airport authority item. When we had started
out with our airport authority, we said we wanted to take it a step at
a time and see how it went and gradually get closer to an independent
authority. And this -- when I talk about step at a time, this is the
next logical step. And I'm kind of excited that we are where -- we're
-- we're at where we are, an old Ken Cuyler-ism. But I think this
will assure our continuing success of the airport authority.
MR. DORRILL: There -- there are no speakers. I -- I
have -- we weren't responsible for construction of this. I have just
two word changes that I would propose to the board. The first one is
on page 7 of the ordinance which is page 8, your agenda item. On line
2 I would suggest that the word would -- should be may as opposed to
shall because otherwise that puts me in conflict with -- with the
Florida Statutes. And if -- if we're trying to get them somewhat more
independent, you need to remember I work for you. I don't work for
the airport authority. I had a concern about as they direct me to do
things I don't have any obligation. I'm sure we will be cooperative,
but if we can just change that one word to may --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection to
that.
MR. DORRILL: The other proposal that I would recommend
to you is on page 10 of the ordinance, 11 of your agenda item, line
28. I'd suggest to you that at the time that their budget is
complete, it needs to be submitted to the county manager who's the
budget officer so that it can be properly reviewed by the budget staff
and me in order to make a recommendation to you. Otherwise what
you're doing here is you're giving them the ability to exempt
themselves from your budget and fiscal policy and create almost a
constitutional officer status. And I'd just suggest that while they
may make their own presentation, I don't think you want to exempt them
from the review from the budget office if for no other reason than to
better prepare you to ask questions based on what their operating
capital budget submittal might be.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, does the budget
office currently review -- you mentioned constitutional officers.
When they have requests for capital projects or other things, doesn't
-- don't you usually take a look at that?
MR. DORRILL: We -- we do for capital projects. We do
not for operating budgets, and I'm just suggesting that we -- we may
want to provide my office and the budget office the ability to review
and be prepared to comment. Otherwise the way this is written they
only transmit their budget to you, and then only in the event that you
want it reviewed line item by line item would that occur at the budget
workshop between yourself and -- and the airport authority.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there's a bridge that
accomplishes both by changing the wording to transmitted to the county
manager for board review and adoption. That way it enters the process
at the appropriate place, but it's still clear that the board reviews
and adopts, not the county manager.
MR. DORRILL: I -- I don't have any problem with that.
I just -- I just think it's good if -- if your budget staff reviews it
before you see it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's -- that's a good idea.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So on number 28 I'll ask
that as a part of the motion it read transmitted to the county manager
for board review and adoption on or before Hay. That would be the
entirety of line 28, page 11 of staff agenda item.
MR. DORRILL: Those are my only comments of substance.
I just -- I want to remind all of us that the airport authority's been
in existence for about 2 years now during which time you have provided
them with a general fund subsidy of almost $1,600,000. And to my
knowledge we have not seen the first new revenue or lease in almost
two years. And I'm continually and increasingly concerned by that.
And I think at some point you may want to at least
either directly or indirectly have some sunset or further review of
this because I .... A", I think you're entitled to your investment
back; and "B", if the airport authority is not going to be successful
perhaps at the end of another two years, then I think you need to
reconsider the whole process because your -- your operating subsidy
for the airport authority will probably meet or exceed a half a
million dollars next year. And as you're increasingly under the gun
for general fund revenues or transfers, I -- I think you always need
to keep that in the back of your mind. I'm just saying some point two
years from now if they're not able to do what -- what they said they
want to do, I think you ought to reserve the right to review the whole
thing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have a timeline for
repayment? I thought Mr. Drury had a -- a -- a set schedule, a
specific schedule that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think there's a note
drafted yet.
MR. DORRILL: We talk about it a lot, but it's been two
years, and I'm just -- I continue to watch the ledger here. And we're
up over a million and a half dollars in general fund subsidy, and I '-
I'm just always --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well --
MR. DORRILL: -- concerned about that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And realistically, though, I
don't think we anticipated turning that around in two years. I think
obviously we're still in the construction phase. And Mr. Drury did
lay out a timeline for us in which he anticipated revenues to -- to
grow.
MR. DORRILL: And my suggestion is that it should be
perhaps two years from today, and I'm giving them the benefit of the
doubt that once all their assets are in it's -- it's sort of
get-after-it time. And if they can't do what they promised to do then
at the end of four years, then I think we need to seriously consider
whether this was a good decision or not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it seems to me that would
be the appropriate time to review that rather than just say right now,
gosh, either you're going to have X or we're pulling the rug out from
under you. I think they have been very -- very successful in their
endeavors up to this point.
MR. DORRILL: And I'm not suggesting a date or time or
dollar certain. I'm just saying we need to always keep that in mind
because otherwise the general fund is increasingly under the gun
here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can note that as a
prudent step to be taken.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got -- I've got one comment
I want to make on the changes Commissioner Hancock suggested. On line
28 he's used the word county manager. And while we refer to Mr.
Dotrill as our manager, I think the --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Administrator.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- it's administrator in the
ordinance that's been adopted so probably change that word.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I will -- I will change
line 28 to read transmitted to the county administrator for board
review and adoption on or before May.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Are there any other
speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
motion we approve the item -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with the two changes as
noted.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the item with the changes as noted. All in favor please say
aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, I'm probably
confused. But did we skip 12(C)(8)?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
that's a companion item --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
12(B)(1).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
12(C)(8). Wait a minute. No,
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yeah, that was a companion to
12(B)(1).
Okay. I'm sorry.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 95-644 RE PETITION V-95-20, JACOB AND BRIGITTE HOFSTETTER
REQUESTING A 12.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT TRACT BOUNDARY SETBACK
AS REQUIRED BY THE PUD DOCUMENT TO 7.5 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE
CROWN POINT PUD OFF DAVIS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is
13(A)(1), petition V 95-20.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners.
Chahran Badamtchian from planning staff. This is an after-the-fact
side yard variance. Normally the side yard setback is seven and a
half feet in this development. However, the PUD language says all
setbacks from tract boundary shall be 20 feet.
The building permit was issued with wrong set of
setbacks and half foot set -- side setback. And later on one of the
neighbors complained, and the mistake was discovered.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I -- may I just interrupt to
ask a question? In this case it differs from some that we've seen
before in that our staff made a mistake. We -- we issued a permit
that we -- it isn't like -- like we issued a correct permit and then
the contractor came in and did something different. We issued a
permit that violates the setback, so I think that distinguishes this
case.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Notable difference.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Architectural review board of the
Crown Point reviewed this building, and they have no opposition to the
granting of this variance. Planning commission reviewed this and by a
vote of five to two recommended approval.
There were several let -- staff received several letters
in opposition to this from the neighboring multi-family condominium
building. This building is twelve and a half feet too close to their
parking lot.
However, since then I believe the developer -- the
contractor neg -- talked to the neighboring property owners. And they
are going to install landscape buffer which is included in the
resolution here. They're going to install a type B landscape buffer
and that -- neighbors have no problem with that. Staff recommends
approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is when the -- the
need for a variance was realized, the home was still under
construction; is that correct?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It was under construction, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Did they -- did they stop
at that point?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We stopped construction, correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Are they waiting on this
variance to restart construction?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
seen in the past.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Big difference between what we've
Yes.
Finish it --
Very nice.
-- and ask later.
Yeah, finish it and let's --
let's get our after-the-fact. Is there anything else you need to get
on the record?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. Mr. Pearson is here if -- who is
the contractor for the project.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pearson, do you need to put
anything on the record?
MR. ROGERS: I'm not Mr. Pearson. My name's Robert
Rogers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't think you were Mr.
Pearson.
MR. ROGERS: This is Mr. Pearson here. I don't know if
you understood everything he said. But if you did, great. If you
have any questions, either myself or Mr. Pearson will be happy to
answer them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions?
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems that the only really
affected party here is not so much Crown Point as it is the King's
Wood Garden condominiums. With the discussions regarding buffers and
-- and setbacks and so forth, are we comfortable that we have a level
of comfort in -- in -- sorry, redundancy -- in moving ahead granting
this variance?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The neighborhood was objecting to
this, Mr. Hanson I believe his name was. After talking to the develop
-- to the contractor, he called me and told me he has no longer
problem with the approval of this variance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the objections have
been resolved.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All objections we're aware of
have been resolved?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, I believe so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. HcNees, are there speakers?
MR. HCNEES: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second that, but I'm
going to ask before continuing if I may, there is one more lot in
Crown Point that has the same situation as this one.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This one has a correct setback. We
issued a permit with a 20-foot side setback.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're not going to deal
with this problem again --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- within Crown Point.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, that's the only one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion,
I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes four to zero, Mr. -- Commissioner
Constantine being absent.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 95-645 RE PETITION CU-95-5, COHMUNITY DEVELOPHENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION
95-528 TO CORRECT A SCRIVENERS ERROR IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
VERSIE SPOONER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF AND CONTINGUOUS TO
FIFTEENTH STREET NORTH, NORTH OF IHMOKALEE DRIVE AND SOTUH OF LAKE
TRAFFORD ROAD - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 13(2), petition CU 95-5,
community development. Mr. Hulhere.
MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry. I believe I'm at the wrong
agenda. I was looking for a scrivener's error.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's it.
MR. HULHERE: Oh, okay. I've got the right one. Good.
This is a -- unfortunately there was an error made when
you approved the conditional use for the post office out in
Immokalee. The original legal description lessed out a hundred and --
100 feet of 110 feet of the residential portion of the tract.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, really.
MR. HULHERE: And we've corrected that, and that's why
this is before you today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HCNEES: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to -- motion and
a second to approve resolution number 95-528. Further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes four to zero.
Item #13A4
PETITION SV-95-5, WEST CENTRAL SIGNS REPRESENTING BARNETT BANK,
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF ONE WALL SIGN PER
BUSINESS TO TWO WALL SIGNS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RIDGEPORT
SHOPPING CENTER AT THE CORNER OF AIRPORT ROAD AND PINE RIDGE ROAD -
DENIED
Next item on the agenda is 13(A)(4), petition SV 95-5,
West Central Signs.
Chahran.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon. Chahran Badamtchian
from planning staff. Okay. This is a sign variance for Barnett Bank
located in Ridgeport Plaza, corner of Pine Ridge and Airport Road.
They have a wall sign facing the shopping center. They are requesting
this variance for a sign on the canopy over the drive-through facing
the -- facing Airport Road.
There is no land-related hardship, and staff has no
other choice but to recommend denial. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They also have a wall sign, pole
sign.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A pole sign as well.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The pole sign, is it located on
the inner side towards Ridgeport Plaza, or is it located --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, it is on the outer side.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is on the roadway side.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I have --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Badamtchian, if we -- if they
remove the existing sign, would then they be allowed to use the
proposed sign?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are allowed to have one wall
sign.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Take your choice, one or the
other?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. We've seen this issue with
several people including Barnes and Noble most recently, I think. And
we have been fairly consistent.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fairly consistent.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So I'd like to hear from the
petitioner, but we've been fairly consistent on this issue.
MR. TORRO: Good afternoon, commissioners, Chairwoman.
My name is Hario Torro (phonetic). I'm with Barnett Bank. I'm the
property manager.
The reason why we stand before you, although we -- we
strongly believe in the sign ordinance, is that we have a very
particular situation at the Ridgeport Plaza right now. As you well
know, we built that facility in 1989 when that was the frontier. We
find ourselves now surrounded by mega shopping centers with many
banking institutions. And we also find ourselves in a shopping center
that has lost its anchor and has increasing vacancies.
In an effort to -- in an effort to make the shopping
center viable and survivable, Barnett Bank and -- as well as -- as
well as HcDonald's has donated land to the county to produce a
right-turn lane directly in front of our facility. This will mean
that the -- the pylon sign will have to move to the south, to the
southeast of the -- of our -- of our parcel.
We need another sign there, and we respectfully ask that
you level the playing field by giving us at least some of the things
that the other -- our other competitors have. For example,
NationsBank across the street has two -- two wall signs and two
pylons. First Union has two wall signs and a pylon. Payless Shoes
has two wall signs and a pylon and so on and so on. And all we ask at
this time is that we are able to project our image there because we
are hurting there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How'd they get two wall signs?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. The shopping center, corner
units, they are entitled to two wall signs. That's how Payless Shoe
Source -- Shoe Source got the two wall signs. NationsBank has, I
believe, double frontage. The new shopping center -- Naples Falls I
believe it's called -- they platted the driveway they have as a road
right-of-way, so the NationsBank has two -- is facing two roads.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because it's considered a corner
lot.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is considered as corner lot. They
got two signs. And they are not two pylon signs. They are two ground
signs. There's a difference between a pole sign and ground sign.
Pole signs -- ground signs are less than eight feet in height, and you
can have either two ground signs or one pole sign.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So one thing that Barnett could
do -- and I'm not suggesting that they do. I'm just trying to see if
I understand this. At the bank across the street, the developer was
smart enough to plat the driveway as a road. That caused it to be a
corner. And, therefore, they can have two signs.
If Barnett in this turn lane wanted to go through the
platting process and plat that turn lane as a road, then they would be
similarly situated and, you know, so we -- we can get them there
either by -- you know, they're -- they can get there by platting that
driveway like NationsBank across the street, or they could get there
through a variance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except that Barnett doesn't own
that entry. That's owned by Ridgeport Plaza.
MR. TORRO: You gotta remember that we're talking about
1989 versus 1996. And really we respectfully ask for this variance
because we need this. We're -- we're a believer of the sign
ordinance, and we're a believer in the need of -- of controlling
signs. But we need to project our presence there. We need to have a
little bit more presence because we're lost in a crowd right now.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this -- this intersection,
frankly, being developed with a bunch of power centers as it is
distinguishes it, for example, from the Barnes and Noble situation for
me. I mean, that's a very intense commercial development there, and
that to me justifies an additional sign.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one other thing --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, gosh, I've got to really
take objection to that because our Land Development Code is not based
on private sector economic factors whatsoever. I mean, we -- you
know, just because some business is having a boom time or a bust time
is not any reason to go around amending or varying our Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question, Barnes and Noble
when they came in was looking for two signs each one equaling roughly
250 square feet.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Our sign ordinance says you can
have one sign of 250 square feet; is that correct?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are also corner lot. They are on
a corner lot property.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And they wanted, I believe, three
signs.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They wanted a third signs.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They wanted three signs.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They wanted three signs.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. How big -- how many square
feet is the Barnett Bank sign? Do we know? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Small.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's a small sign, but the code says 1
sign not to exceed 250 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is one of those -- those
kind of tough ones because, as Commissioner Norris has stated, we are
very, very picky about our sign ordinance. I mean, you don't need to
drive too far to see why, and I'm a -- an avid supporter of that. In
looking at the sign variances we have turned down, they were always
asking for more either in square footage than what was permitted or
more -- equal in square footage but more in number. And I think, you
know, they were going well, well outside of what is -- is reasonable
in those cases.
The pole sign that you currently have, where is it
located right now, Mr. Torro?
MR. TORRO: Right -- right now it's -- it's directly in
front -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Torro, Mr. Torro, you have --
there's a handheld mike behind you.
MR. TORRO: Oh, I'm sorry. Right now -- right now it's
directly in front of -- of where we would like to put the Barnett
sign. Now, when -- when the -- when the county takes the land that
we've donated to them, this sign will move to this corner right here
of the property and -- woop. And the reason it's easy -- it's easy to
say, well, why don't you --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Torro, you have to use the
microphone.
MR. TORRO: I'm sorry. It's easy to say, well,
sacrifice one of your signs, but we have very little to sacrifice.
You know, the green lighted pop sign to us is -- is like HcDonald's
arches to them, and the only other little sign that we have is facing
the shopping center right now which is facing a bunch of vacant
stores.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't you move it?
MR. TORRO: Hove in?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't you move the sign
that's facing a lot of vacant stores?
MR. TORRO: We'd like to do that. But by the same
token, you know, we're -- we're handicapping one side of the building
to enhance the other.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess what you just said sort
of flipped my thinking on this. You have a sign. It's facing -- it's
not very useful where it is because of --
MR. TORRO: Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that shopping center having
gotten empty. And you could, however, move that to the street side,
and that seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do.
MR. TORRO: Well, then we end up with a -- with a square
building in the back of the shopping center and my hope is to revive
the shopping center. Right now if you folks have taken a tour of that
shopping center, it is a sad state of affairs. And -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. TORRO: -- indeed it should be -- it should be our
intent to make this whole as part of our town.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And you're -- and you're
suggesting to this board that by adding an additional sign you're
going to revitalize the shopping center.
MR. TORRO: Indeed everything helps. It will revitalize
us and in the process revitalize the shopping center.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I might suggest, as
Commissioner Mac'Kie has just stated, that it might be a big step in
the right direction for you to just switch faces on the sign and go to
-- to the proposed location with your existing sign since there's no
one -- according to your testimony here there's no one in the shopping
center to see that sign at the moment.
MR. TORRO: It's true, Commissioner, but the -- the --
the true fact is that there's not a level playing field. Through
technicalities we have a bank across the street from us that has four
signs --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me.
MR. TORRO: -- which are bigger than ours.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. I have to take umbrage
to that. It is a level playing field, and -- and we're asking you to
abide by the rules of that level playing field. That's what we're
trying to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because you could have bought
that property, too, just like the other bank across the street. I
mean, you know '-
MR. TORRO: We bought in -- we bought in our parcel.
That's what was for sale then, nothing else.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'd like to make the
comment that we've been through lots of discussions about what
constitutes a sign and what doesn't, and -- and we've had discussions
about architecture and color and so forth indicating a sign. And I
think I want to say that about every Barnett Bank that I've seen in
the state of Florida has green tile around the top of it. And it's
easy to recognize that's a bank, and that green tile tells me it's
Barnett Bank. I don't need a sign to tell me that.
So I'm -- you know, the architecture itself and the
coloring of it tells me who you are. You've done a fine job of that.
MR. TORRO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're not suggesting that they
remove their green tile, are you?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not at all. That's -- that's
accent decoration.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even though some might interpret
that color as a sign in the city perhaps.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have no speakers?
MR. HCNEES: No, ma'am, no speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
else to get on the record?
MR. TORRO: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
had --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Mr. Torro, do you have anything
I'm going to close the public
Motion to deny.
Commissioner Hancock I think
I just --
-- another question.
You know, in a way I -- I guess I
-- I use this branch all the time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the signs that they have are
-- are very small already and -- as far as square footage. And I
guess I'm -- the -- the -- we're caught between -- I'm looking for a
way for it to make sense without it being applied to someone else
somewhere that is unfair. And in order to do that, I have to either
find a hardship or find some limits, and I -- I just can't put a hand
on those right now. So I --
MR. HULHERE: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. HULHERE: Hay I just offer just for your
consideration as directed by this board, we are currently in the
process of reviewing the sign ordinance, of -- of completing a
comprehensive review which will be brought back to you during the next
Land Development Code amendment. In fact, this month we're going to
meet with the sign contractors, and then we're going to meet with
other interested parties as we go along, both Chahran and myself.
And one of the issues that we agreed to look at when I
believe it was K-Hart in Freedom Square came in and they wanted two
signs, and the code only allowed them to have one and a variance was
granted because they were remaining under 250 square feet for 2 signs
within one store, one location.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. HULHERE: We said that we would look at that, and we
are intending to look at that. We're still constrained -- it's our
belief we're still constrained to recommend denial based on what the
code currently says, but we are going to look at those issues. I
can't tell you what we're going to come forward with. But, I mean,
that does at least allow some -- some possibility for us to review
creating some flexibility under certain circumstances.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I was looking for
because I thought I remember in the case of Freedom Square the fact
that the two signs made sense and that their total aggregate was less
than 250 square feet, although there we're dealing with a pharmacy.
MR. HULHERE: That's right. The reason there was we
were dealing with a pharmacy and then the general store and -- and
some other aspect of it. And there was three different aspects in
three different lo -- garden center was the other -- was the other
aspect.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But at the -- at the same time
when Target came to us and wanted a garden center sign we --
MR. HULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we said no.
MR. HULHERE: I think one was before the other, but then
we were directed to look at that. And that's what we are doing, and
we expect to come back to you shortly with that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you get denied today, you
may find that the law is going to change soon and you could --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reapply.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: See, it would make sense for
Barnett to be allowed a ground level sign interior, if not a building
sign, a ground level --
MR. HULHERE: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- sign interior to the shopping
center.
MR. HULHERE: Well, that's one of the things we were
going to look at was signs that don't face a public right-of-way but
face the interior of a shopping center, whether or not they should be
permissible and not count toward the 250 square feet. That's one of
the issues we're looking at. And there's a lot. It's a -- it's a
difficult -- the sign code is fairly complex, but we're going to come
back to you at the next LDC amendment. I just wanted to let you know
that for your consideration.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And unfortunately, in an attempt
to be consistent, I can't find -- can't find the way around it so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- we have a motion. Is there
a second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there a second?
MR. TORRO: You'll know why if your ATH doesn't work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You guys aren't going to suffer.
I'm in trouble.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You. Me too.
We have a motion and a second to deny SV 95-5. Any
other discussion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let -- let me -- I think I should
put on the record that I -- that I make that motion with the findings
that there's no land-related hardship. MR. TORRO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I -- I would urge the
petitioner if the ordinance changes to reapply.
If there's no further discussion, all in favor please
say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes four to zero.
Item #13A5
RESOLUTION 95-646 RE PETITION CU-95-13, FLORIDA HOHES OF COLLIER
COUNTY, INC., REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN
EXISTING MODEL HOME LOCATED AT 1870 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD IN THE GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is item 13(A)(5), petition CU-95-13,
Florida Homes of Collier County.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. Florida Homes of Collier
County, they have a model center -- model sales center on Golden Gate
-- in Golden Gate Estates on Golden Gate Boulevard, 1870 Golden Gate
Boulevard. And the model -- model homes are allowed for two years.
After that they have to go to the planning commission to get another
three-year extension.
They have already done that. And now they are here
request this board to approve a five-year extension. This is the
first one, first of a kind. So the five-year extension to a model
home so they can keep that model up and running for another five
years.
The Land Development Code says after five years when we
bring it to the planning commission -- to the Board of County
Commissioners, we have to bring it in the form of a conditional use --
use.
However, this -- this petition does not fully comply
with the growth management section of the -- growth management section
of our code for the simple reason that in the Golden Gate Estates,
conditional uses are limited to either neighborhood centers, or they
-- or they have to be located adjacent to -- to two other conditional
uses. This one is not.
However, staff believes this is a different kind of
conditional use. And the code's saying we have to bring it for a
conditional use, by that it meant we have to use this as a vehicle to
bring it here and we do not have to comply with all the criterias.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If this conditional use is denied
today, the petitioner may buy the lot next door and build another
model home tomorrow which is not gonna change anything for traffic or
for safety or noise, any concern we may have. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of this conditional use for five years.
They originally asked for seven years. However,
planning commission reduced that to five years, and the applicant
agreed to that. Planning commission by unanimous vote recommended
approval.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add for clarification,
I'll be the guilty party that I believe made this amendment to the
Land Development Code where we require that after the five-year period
that a condition -- that the conditional use process be utilized to
bring a model home to the board.
We, I guess, at that point really weren't aware that
that would not comply solely in the case of the Golden Gate area
master plan with those locational restrictions. But our intent was
that we use the process set forth for a conditional use in terms of
property notification, in terms of advertising, and in terms of being
able to place time limits and conditions on it. That -- and they
followed that process.
So what we would suggest is that, you know, if we need
to clarify that, we go into the Land Development Code, and we indicate
that they are not subject necessarily for model homes to the
locational restrictions but yet that -- that they still use the
process set forth for a conditional use.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there questions?
Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have some concern that the
concept of model homes obviously is that they're used for a period of
time and when they're relatively new they're turned over to an owner.
Typically in a model home a lot of the -- the -- the structure inside
the house is not used on a daily basis as much as it would be if it
were being lived in. If you allow model homes to continue for 10 or
15 years in the same location, they become less and less desirable for
ownership.
I just -- to me the spirit was always that it was a
temporary use not to be seen as a -- a permanent showroom. And I'm a
little concerned because we haven't dealt with this problem much. I
mean, we don't have a lot of model homes that have been out there for
extensive periods of time, that as they get older and less attractive
that they continue in that same use in perpetuity. You know, I just
-- to me the spirit of it is that they roll over, that they become --
you know, that you don't build a model home for the purpose of leaving
it as a model home forever. You build it as a purpose of a
single-family home that provides an interim use for your business.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's why they are asking only for a
five-year extension after which time they have to convert into a
single-family house and sell it as such.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if the board were to issue
this conditional use, five years from now there is no outlet at that
point. It has to be converted?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Has to be converted.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How -- how -- how long has it been
a model home now? Five years?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Five years.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And they're asking for another
five years?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For another five years, correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems to me like it's more an
office than it is a model home.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that would be ten years
total. I -- you know, that -- as Commissioner Hancock says, that's an
awful long time for a model home.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. That's why -- that's why
I'm --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe we should hear from the
petitioner here and see why we have to have such an extended period of
time on a model home.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just like the idea that when
you build a model home you build it with -- knowing that someone --
it's going to be attractive enough for someone to buy it in five
years, not ten years, because things change dramatically in ten years
in this community. And I'm -- I'm -- I'm just concerned about the
application not just in this location but in others that may be even
worse off.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Usually after two or three years they
sell the model home. They don't keep it as model home forever.
However, this model home is kind of successful and people like it, so
they want to keep it a while longer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This one's a landmark if I'm not
mistaken. Everyone knows where it is and what it is so --
MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, commissioners. For the record, my
name's Mike Schmaeling. I'm representing Florida Homes.
And I guess to start off, this particular home for this
conditional use permit, it used to be owned by Heartland Homes. And
they had desire to get out of the building business in Collier County,
and we took over that home.
And we've since made the improvements on it, carpet,
paint. We've had a real tremendous response to it. At the time that
we got it, we were not aware that the temporary use permit was about
to expire. I guess that whenever that -- the notice was sent out, we
did not receive it. Heartland Homes received it, and they just filed
it in their circular file, you know. Therefore, we were unaware of
it.
And then we received a notice directly to us that the
permit -- the temporary use permit was to expire. We had only
recently assumed that home, maybe eight months prior to this notice.
We had since made the improvements. We'd had a lot, a lot of interest
in it. We've sold that home quite a few times. And that's the reason
for going for the conditional -- well, it's not conditional use by
such because a conditional use is supposed to be good forever;
correct?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Except for model homes.
MR. SCHMAELING: So this is really not a true
conditional use permit because we're only asking for the five years.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So Florida Homes -- you didn't
originally build this house.
MR. SCHMAELING: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But when you took it over from
Rutland, whoever it is --
MR. SCHMAELING: Heartland.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Heartland.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Heartland, I'm sorry.
MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- do you now build the exact
same house?
MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, sir, yes. We bought the
copyright, the laws for the copyright for it, the plans for it, and
everything.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SCHMAELING: So we do have a -- a sig -- significant
investment there, you know, seeing as we just recently acquired it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Schmaeling, would -- would
three years be satisfactory to you, or are you stuck on five years
particularly?
MR. SCHMAELING: We sure -- we've got a lot invested
there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yes. But isn't -- the idea
of a model home is to sell it to someone? MR. SCHMAELING: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Don't you -- don't you plan on
selling that to someone at some point in time?
MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, sir. We were -- hopefully within
five years, of course, that we would -- we would definitely turn it
over. But, like I say, we have made improvements on it, you know,
landscaping, interior improvements, lots of little refinements. Like
you say, you get wear and tear, painting and such. And, you know, we
have dressed it up a lot more.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't really have a problem
with this. I think Commissioner Hancock made the point that it's
important that we have some end to this, that it just isn't in
perpetuity a model home. But, I mean, whether that's three years or
five years I don't think's going to make a great deal of difference.
We don't want to make a habit out of having these things go on
forever. But this certainly seems to have some unique circumstance,
and I'm pretty comfortable with a five-year time frame.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, that five year actually
extends to ten year, and here -- here's my -- I'll put my concern in a
nutshell.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ten-year-old model home.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I'm going to build a model
home and I know that there's the opportunity to extend the life of
that home through ten years and I use that predominantly as an office
space, at the end of that ten years I easily could have written off
what I would have paid in rent somewhere. And I -- I'm wondering if
by virtue of this we are encouraging -- and this is a little more
unique situation because they came in halfway through. But are we
encouraging someone to build a model home, use it as an office, and
write it off over a ten-year period without really having the intent
of turning that over as a single-family home?
And I'm -- I'm a little concerned about, you know, the
-- you keep the appearance up on the outside, but you don't keep it
up on the inside because you have -- really don't have a strong
intention of turning it over. And, you know, I -- I -- with as many
model homes that are out there, not all companies are reputable,
honest, and, you know, concerned about -- you know, about the
neighbors that -- that move in next to them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, but we're not dealing
with all model homes that are out there. We're dealing with one
specific. We have someone with a very good reputation. We have
someone with a unique circumstance and someone, most importantly, that
is not strictly using it just as an office. They are actively
marketing the product and active -- actively using it as a model
home. I understand your concern.
But, Mr. Weigel, we don't set any legal precedent here
by doing this, do we? We have this discussion about every three
weeks.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right, and we always tell you the
same thing. There's no precedent. Everything is unique as it comes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- may I?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I absolutely agree with your
concern about the ten years and the -- and the rent question. The
good news, though, is that that can't happen automatically. We get to
approve them on a case by case. This case sounds like one that should
be approved. Next one you've raised -- you know, every time that
question should be asked. But in this case I don't think it applies.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to ask that whoever
makes the motion include, you know, specific statements as to the
uniqueness of this, and I will be glad to support the motion. But I
just wanted to throw the caution flag that I don't want to send the
message that you can build a home, use it for ten years, and then, you
know, that's just -- you know, in gratis go ahead, plan on doing it
because that's not the case. I'd like to see these things turned
over. This is a unique circumstance, so I'm not going to object to
it, but I -- I do have some concerns, and I'll -- I'll issue them
every time we see an application like this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have -- Mr. Schmaeling, do
you have more to get on the record?
MR. SCHHAELING: No, ma'am. I just appreciate your time
and thoughts.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. HcNees, are there speakers?
MR. HCNEES: Only Mr. Schmaeling.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to close the public
hearing. Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
motion we approve CU 95-13 recognizing the unique nature of the
request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve CU 95-13 recognizing the unique nature of it. If there's no
further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. SCHMAELING: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Schmaeling.
Item #13A6
RESOLUTION 95-647 RE PETITION CU-95-14, BLAIR A. FOLEY OF COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTAiNTS, INC., REPRESENTING KRISTAL FERGUSON REQUESTING
A CONDITIONAL USE "17" OF THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A GOLF
DRIVING RANGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD,
EAST OF C.R. 951 - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 13(A)(6), petition CU 95-14.
This is --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Should we delay this for a couple
of weeks?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think anybody's really
been waiting all day, have they?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A golf driving range?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows,
planning services staff.
The applicant is proposing to construct a golf driving
range in the agricultural district. It's conditional use 17 of the
ag. The project consists of 40 tee areas, stations, putting greens,
storage building, pro shop. The surrounding land uses include an
earth mining operation to the north of Immokalee Road. To the east
and south is undeveloped agricultural zoned land. To the west is a
plant nursery.
The traffic impact review indicates that the project
will generate about 256 trips a day which will not exceed the level of
service C of Immokalee Road.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So basically, Mr. Bellows, there's
no residential area impacts involved with this?
MR. BELLOWS: No residential.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: There may be some residential property in
the ag. district, one per five acres. Single-family is allowed there,
and I think there are some to the south.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But that would be across the
road.
MR. BELLOWS: South of this project behind the -- if you
look on the site plan, it shows the -- it's buffered with a
conservation area.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can't find the location map.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'm looking for too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was doing the same thing. I
don't think it's in our packet. I'm trying to locate where this is on
Immokalee Road.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Site plan's there but not a
location map.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is east of 951 I believe,
isn't it?
MR. FOLEY: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: East of 951 north of Immokalee
Road? But that's still another 20 miles.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Lots of space there.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. As you can see, there's the plant
nursery, the earth mining operation, vacant ag. land, and there's the
Crystal Lake RV station --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: -- to the south.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now I know where it is.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions?
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, have we addressed --
because the potential for someone to plop a residence down next to
this place even though it's already been built, have we addressed
shielding of lights and hours of operation as we do on most of the
driving ranges?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe we have anything about
hours of operation, but shielding is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask Mr. Foley to address
those two areas if you've thought about them at all?
MR. FOLEY: Certainly. This -- this particular project
is going to be an upscale driving range. For the record, Blair Foley,
Coastal Engineering.
Certainly we will shield the lighting for any
surrounding properties. There is currently an adjacent use that is
agricultural, and, in fact, they sell plants. It's a nursery. In
case there is any impacts or any other neighbors near by, we certainly
will follow any rules and regulations associated with it. We really
haven't worked with staff to -- to outline any specifics on it at this
time, but we certainly will. Or if you -- you think it's prudent at
this time to identify those, I have the petitioner here if he may be
able to comment on that specifically.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask if there are
regulations in place, Mr. Bellows, that address those issues when they
come in for an SDP.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we can --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, can -- can you impose on
them hours of operation if we don't talk about it today? That's what
I was afraid of so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When we deal with -- when we've
dealt with driving ranges in the past, we have generally made hours of
operation a part of -- you know, yeah, a part of the -- the fezone.
And what I'm trying to do is head off potential problems of having
somebody move in next door and talk about the lights keeping them up
all night and that kind of thing.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I just spoke to the petitioner. Mr.
Tom Ferguson's here. He will go ahead and agree to a nine or ten
o'clock in the evening maximum. He really hadn't set that yet either,
but we certainly can do that at this time if ten o'clock is --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I --
MR. FOLEY: -- acceptable to the board.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It seems to me my recollection is
we've done a couple of others at ten o'clock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I believe we have.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it was ten o'clock. Is
that acceptable?
MR. FOLEY: That's acceptable.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In -- in addition, I would just
ask the petitioner -- petitioner to make a commitment to hood or
shield the lights, you know, to -- to try and diffuse the off-site
impacts to -- to a reasonable extent, rather than just putting up the
-- the open bulbs, using the hooding or shielding that is available
now to try and direct the light and keep it -- the spillage from
adjacent properties to what extent practical.
MR. FOLEY: That can be drafted into the resolution.
That would be fine.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let -- let me ask, what -- what is
the maximum distance of the driving range?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we have some -- currently we're in for
permitting with the district and also some other environmental
agencies. The property itself, I believe, is around 300 yards. But
the actual driving range itself will be about 270.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Won't be able to hit driver then,
huh?
MR. FOLEY: No, you'll have to club down.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, it says 330
yards here which is going to take you down to about a five iron I
think.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You won't be able to get Big
Bertha out, will you?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With -- with the two stipulations
of, you know, working on hooding or shielding of lights and limiting
hours of operation to no later than 10 p.m., I don't have any other
questions or concerns.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Foley -- is that his name?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Foley, is there anything more
you need to get on the record?
MR. FOLEY: No, ma'am, just to answer any questions if
you have any.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. HcNees, are there speakers?
MR. HCNEES: You have none.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are none.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. He said motion to
approve. I said second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, is that what that was?
Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve. Does that include
the stipulations that Commissioner Hancock has noted? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hours till 10 p.m. and shielded
lights.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, it most certainly does.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the second certainly
anticipated that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine. If there's no
further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say
aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS - 951 BOAT RAMP
That concludes our agenda for today. We're at
communications.
Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I'd like to chat just for a
second about our boat ramp down on 951.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
board.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
About our what?
Boat ramp.
A second.
Well -- Time.
That's okay.
Nothing's a second with this
Second -- second's already
expired. I guess I'll take a little longer than that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But we are facing probably a real
little problem down there at that particular boat ramp because as they
four lane 951 down there, we're going to end up with a couple of
situations that are not going to be good. One of them is where are we
going to park the boat trailers; and the second thing is what are we
going to do about people turning right and left out of that thing and
crossing 55-mile-an-hour, four-lane traffic? I mean, it's not going
to be a good situation.
We need to -- what I'm after today is to give staff
direction to start making some plans of what are we going to do with
these boat ramps, and what are we going to do? Are we going to move
it, do something different? But we gotta do something. That's a very
popular boat ramp down there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it is. I -- I -- I can't
agree more that we need to take a look what -- what's going to
happen.
MR. HCNEES: Madam Chairman, Commissioner, I have some
preliminary information regarding planning and conversation that's
already been had both with the Coast Guard who has a neighboring site
and what our plan is to get some additional spaces down there. And
I'll be happy to provide that to you, give each of you a copy first
thing in the morning, and --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HCNEES: -- we'll answer some of your questions. We
have not yet addressed the signalization issue or -- and we can begin
to look into that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. One other thing while
you're at my station here, Mr. Weigel, do you have anything that you
can share with us today about the nuisance abatement, the local
nuisance abatement ordinance?
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing particular. We have some
concerns about -- about the private property constitutional rights
aspects of -- of what has been provided us so far. And -- and the
sheriff's office, the sheriff's attorney, is aware of that also.
We're in the drafting stage and we'll -- as Mr. HcNees
said, we'll provide something to you written to each of you
information -- information-wise as a memo as quickly as we can in that
regard.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Didn't we talk about a --
MR. WEIGEL: We have not been directed to advertise yet,
and -- Commissioner, and I think maybe you were -- had some
consideration about that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought that last week we said
that within two weeks you would have a draft ordinance for us on the
nuisance abate -- abatement.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. And not to advertise but to bring it
-- bring something for you to see.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then, you know, I wasn't clear
then in what I was asking for because I was asking for the ordinance
to be drafted and advertised and brought forward. And, frankly,
Commissioner Norris, that was my communication item today, too, same
question. What's the status of that nuisance abatement? I know we
both are concerned about that.
So -- so I intended for my communication last week --
and I thought it was -- to be that within two weeks we would be
advertising and adopting, if at all possible, a nuisance abatement
ordinance.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, we certainly cannot draft and
advertise and have something in two weeks from the -- the date that
it's, you know, suggested or directed that we do that. We can report
back to you next week formally as an agenda item showing what we have
and -- and what's in the works taking your direction and discussion
today that we will be advertising what we put together.
There may be, you know, some controversial aspects of
the -- of the ordinance, however, because it would appear to be an
attempt to effectuate penalties on private property owners who may
have no connection, direct connection, whatsoever with the activities
that are occurring on their premises.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And despite the -- this is --
this is -- this is a -- statutorily enabled? It still doesn't -- you
still have those concerns? I mean, there's a statute that says county
commissions, you can adopt these ordinances. Obviously this
legislature did some kind of a property rights constitutional
research. I just don't want to redo what they did if that's
possible.
MR. WEIGEL: No, no. That's correct.
Secondly, I had wanted to bring to your attention that
in 1987 when we had a somewhat similar discussion with the then board
concerning homeless proliferation, particularly around in the East
Naples area and around the courthouse, Airport Road, and East Trail,
the county attorney office in conjunction with the sheriff's office
identified about, oh, 25 different properties where homeless
activities were occurring.
Much of these were not subject to enforcement by virtue
of the fact that the state statute for trespassing requires that the
property either be posted no trespassing, be developed, or be under
cultivation or fenced. And when none of those situations occurs, then
it is not subject to enforcement for trespassing upon mere observation
by the sheriff's agency.
And so the county attorney office prepared letters
having learned from the property appraiser's office all of the owners,
both local and foreign or outside of the state, and wrote them letters
indicating the kinds of or, in fact, the specific problems that were
occurring on their premises and asked them if they would fence or post
their properties.
And the response was -- was manifold. They either
cleared their properties which significantly assisted the -- the
homeless camping in the shrubs type of situation, or they did post the
properties so that the sheriff can provide enforcement.
And I would suggest the county attorney office available
to do a rather similar activity again identifying properties in the
Bayshore and off Bayshore area and at board's direction sending
letters to the property owners so that the properties could be
posted. And in the interim, even before we have an ordinance on the
books and subject to enforcement affecting private property owners,
the sheriff's agency would be able to observe the private properties
and make arrests for trespassing without ever having to look for
criminal intent of any other kind, but the mere presence would be --
would be a very low threshold for enforcement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, if I can because
that's a perfect example of -- and -- and I know we're tired and we
want to go home, but I've got to say this -- of a philosophical
difference you and I have about the role of the attorney. In my
judgment, the role of the attorney is to bring forward that
information and say to its client, if you choose, however, to adopt an
ordinance in spite of the fact that I'm telling you that you may have
some private property rights issues that -- that that's what should
happen instead of the county attorney's office saying, this looks like
it has too many problems and we're not going to bring it up.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I certainly didn't say we're not
going to bring it up. But in the -- in the week since we discussed it
formally, we really haven't come to a conclusion of drafting it.
We're still looking at some of the issues.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a chance you two could
have this discussion tomorrow?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just say thanks for your patience
and your assistance on Clam Bay today. I appreciate it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That'll do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I gotta bite my tongue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two items. One, I promised
good news at the beginning of the day.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It didn't go away, did it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Indeed we have some. On the
regional front, yesterday the Lee County commission acting as Lee Port
Authority passed the foreign trade zone agreement. So we'll run that
by our airport authority as a courtesy to them this month and have it
to us as quickly as we possibly can. As soon as the airport authority
has seen it, it'll come to us, and I think you'll be very happy with
that. So that's good news.
The other item is also on the regional front. Next
week, as you all know, I have the Florida Gulf Coast University issue
on the agenda. I know at least two of you have been asked on the
radio live and in person something about Commissioner Constantine
wants to give three million dollars --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You know, it'd be nice to have
more information on that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and I apologize because
anticipating that it wasn't on till next week agenda, I haven't given
it to you in advance of the radio journal. I assure you I am not
suggesting that we give three million dollars to that. It's something
much smaller. It's something that I think will -- once the
explanation is out will clearly benefit --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. The press got it wrong?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- will clearly benefit
Collier County. And I'm -- I'm going to make an effort to get a memo
to each of you prior to Tuesday so that everybody can know what we're
looking at and have the appropriate questions lined up for that time.
What I would ask is Commissioner St. Cerny from Lee
County has offered to come down and wondered -- doesn't matter when.
But if we could have a time certain or a rough time frame so he can
plan accordingly, we'd like to do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's just a commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you know, I don't think
that issue will take near as long as the sheriff's issue, and we gave
him a one o'clock.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think this will take
ten minutes tops.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we -- if we want to
give him a time certain, why don't we give him a time certain of like
11:30 and then some people can go to lunch --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds great.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- with him. Okay. We'll give
Commissioner St. Cerny --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is he buying?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- an 11:30 time certain on the
Florida Gulf Coast University.
I don't have anything more to talk about.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That does it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion to adjourn? Miss Filson,
we're done?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 95-626 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "THE GROVES ROAD".
See Pages
Item #16A2
WATER FACILITIES ACCEEPTANCE FOR FALLING WATERS MODEL CENTER, WITH
STIPULATIONS AND CASH BOND
Item #16A3
AGREEMENT RENEWAL WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR PETROLEUM CONTAMINATIONN SITE CLEAN UP ACTIVITIES
See Pages
Item #16A4
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRIARWOOD UNIT THREE", LETTER OF CREDIT
AND CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16B1 - Continued to 11/21/95 at request of County Attorney
Item #1682
FUNDING AND CARRY FORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT DEEP INJECTION
WELLS
Item #1683
BUDGET AMENDMENT COMBINING THE APPROVED OPERATING BUDGETS OF NORTH AND
SOUTH COLLECTIONS
Item #1684
AWARD BID NO. 95-2445, RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS, TRUTWIN CONCRETE INC
Item #1685
RESOLUTION 95-627 APPROVING A REVOCABLE TEMPORARY LICENSE TO LEE COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
See Pages
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 95-628 APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR USE OF A VACANT BUILDING LOCATED
WITHIN THE IHMOKALEE RECREATIONAL AQUATIC COMPLEX, AND EXECUTE A
RESOLUTION REGARDING SAME
See Pages
Item #16C2
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING USE OF SCHOOL BUSES TO TRANSPORT PARKS AND
RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS FROM AUGUST 4 1995 UNTIL AUGUST 31 1996
See Pages
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 95-629 AMENDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION FEE POLICY ADOPTED
BY RESOLUTION 95-548 TO GRANT TOTAL FEE EXEMPTIONS TO A WIDER VARIETY
OF LOCAL NOT-FOR-PROFIT GROUPS
See Pages
Item #16C4
AN INCREASE IN THE STATE FUNDED ALZHEIHER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE GRANT
AND SIGN RELATED CONTRACT AMENDMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D1
A SITE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN STERLING COHMUNICATINS CORPORATION AND
COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF RADIO TOWER SPACE
See Pages
Item #16D2
PURCHASE OF ELECTROCARDIOGRAM (ECG) EQUIPMENT FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES (EHS) DEPARTMENT, FROM ZOLL MEDICAL, INC.
Item #16D3 - Deleted
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 95-630 APPROVING AND CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
FOR MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL FEES FOR THE 1996
SERVICE YEAR
See Pages
Item #16El
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDHENTS BA 95-605; 95-607/609; & 96-82
Item #16E2
INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL BUILDING AT
EVERGLADES AIRPART (PROJECT E-94-4), ACCEPT A $23,769.00 GRANT, AND
APPROVE A BALD EAGLE AVOIDANCE PROGRAM IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
$26,410.00 AT EVERGLADES AIRPARK
See Pages
Item #16E3
SALE OF SURPLUS FUEL TRUCKS (BID #95-2439) AT THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER(S) AND APPROVE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
Item #16E4
AWARD BID #95-2444 THE EVERGLADES AIRPORT SHERIFFS DWELLING IN THE
AMOUNT OF $35,923 TO HIGHPOINT GENERAL CONTRACTORS
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1995 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
NO. DATE
27 - 32 11/3/95
36 11/3/95
Item #1662
HISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following Miscellaneous Correspondence as presented by the
Boad of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Item #16H2
USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Item #16H3
USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Item #16H4
ACCEPT THE COPS (MAKING OFFICER DEPLOYMENT EFFECTIVE) MORE GRANT AWARD
AND APPROVE THE RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT
See Pages
Item #16H5
PRINTRAK INTERNATIONAL AS THE SOLE SOURCE VENDOR FOR THE LIVE SCAN
FINGERPRINT STATON PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONERS ON AUGUST 15, 1995, ITEM 16(K)2
Item #16H6
ENDORSEMENT FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION
FOR FUNDING FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COHMUNITY
POLICING TO COMBAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAM
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Christine Whitfield and Shelly Semmler