BCC Minutes 04/23/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 23, 1996,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Bettye J. Matthews
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock (Absent)
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting to
order. This morning we have a special treat. We have the honor guard
from the VFW here to post the colors for us. Gentlemen, if you would,
please.
(Honor guard posted colors)
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks today. We
thank you especially for the honor and privilege of having these
veterans post the colors of our -- of our country and the pride that
they have and that all of us have as Americans to live in the greatest
country in the world. Father, we thank you especially today, and it's
our prayer today that you would be with Tim and Val as they celebrate
the first birth of their child this morning, that all would go well
with that. Our prayers and desires and joy are with them this
morning. Father, it's our prayer that you would bless our time here
together this morning, that you would bless the business deliberations
of this community and its people and that you would guide the
direction of the county commission as they make these important
decisions, and we pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, the colors have been posted.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, I see we have a few
changes to our agenda this morning, but before we start that, I'd like
to make a couple of announcements. Mr. Hancock is not with us today
because he and his wife, as you mentioned, are at the hospital getting
ready to have their first child. We wish them well on that, but it
leaves us with four people on a public hearing day, and if any of the
petitioners would rather wait for a full board to hear your item, now
would be a good time to continue your item. If you would just come up
and see the county manager, we will certainly be able to accommodate
you with that.
In the meantime, Mr. Dotrill, if you would go through
the changes with us.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners.
We have three add-on items and several other changes this morning.
First add-on item will be under public petitions, and this was an item
that was received in time to be added this morning.
It's item 7(A). It's Ms. Lisa Hawk who is representing
Sam's Club on Immokalee Road for a temporary use permit in order to
sponsor a special benefit project. That will be 7(A).
Item 8(A)(2) is a routine item that will be under
community development this morning. It's a recommendation to approve
an excavation permit 59.541 for Sapphire Lakes, Unit II.
I have an item that will be added under the Board of
County Commissioners. It will be item 10(D), a request by Stacie
Ruskin to serve alcohol at the Golden Gate Community Center for a
benefit event.
I have a request to continue item 16(B)(5) for two weeks
until your meeting -- first meeting in May on May the 7th. That's to
award a construction contract to APAC for the construction of the
roundabout on Marco Island on Bald Eagle Drive and Elkcam Circle.
I'd like to withdraw two items. They will be
rescheduled if necessary. The first item under public hearings is
12(C)(2). That's petition AV 92-002, Coastal Engineering requesting a
vacation of a certain portion of Tara Court.
And also to withdraw item 16(B)(8), a recommendation to
utilize a combination of county funds from various sources for the
Immokalee beautification MSTU.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that a permanent withdrawal?
MR. DORRILL: No. I had some questions on the executive
summary. It should be back on within two weeks. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: And, Mr. Chairman, that's all that I
have. I have one item to remind me under communications that I'll
bring up at the appropriate time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, do you have
anything for us this morning?
MR. WEIGEL: No, no changes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one item on the consent
agenda that I would either like to move to the regular agenda or
continue it a week or two. But at a meeting last night there was a
definite suggestion that some citizens would like to consider this
10-acre parcel of land be used as a park as opposed to selling it, and
I'd like to give them the opportunity --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What 10-acre --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Animal control.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the consent agenda there's an
item to spend $5,000 to get it appraised, and I just figured for two
weeks to let them develop a program before we spend any money at all.
It might not be a bad idea.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're going to need an
appraisal regardless of what we decide to do, are we not?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not if we decide to keep it and
use it for a park.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that will tell you if we
decide it's appropriate to use it for a park. I mean, my -- my -- I
certainly want to consider the discussion of it being a park. But if
it's a million dollar piece of property and we could sell it and get
five parks for our million bucks --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We just paid a million dollars
for a park.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, yeah, but I'd like to
know. I'd like to have the value of the land -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to move it to the
regular agenda then. It's item 16(C)(2).
MR. DORRILL: 16(C)(2) will become 8(C)(3).
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That is the right one, isn't
it?
MR. DORRILL: I believe it is, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I wondered if we can
pull two items from the consent agenda, continue them to the next
meeting, and put them on the regular agenda at that time. I need to
talk with the county manager about them in more detail, 16(E)(2) and
16(E)(3).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You want -- you want to continue
those?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I do.
MR. DORRILL: That will be fine.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would be in favor of that,
yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to talk with Neil. I
don't -- I don't think I'm going to have any problem here. I just
need to get a couple questions answered.
MR. DORRILL: That will be fine.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One week or two?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Until the next meeting.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that would be two weeks
now.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We need a motion on the agenda
then.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve
the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second on the
agenda. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We have minutes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
we approve the minutes of April 2, 1996, regular meeting of the Board
of County Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 23 - MAY 1, 1996 AS TEEN
PREGNANCY PREVENTION AWARENESS WEEK - ADOPTED
We have proclamations, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. I'm -- I'm happy to get to
read a proclamation for Teen Pregnancy Prevention Awareness Week. I
want to emphasize on the prevention there and to ask Stephanie Vick,
who is the nursing director for teen pregnancy's prevention, if she'd
care to come forward to receive the proclamation. If you would just
come stand here and face the audience while I read it, I would
appreciate that.
Whereas, we, the citizens of the State of Florida,
believe that the children of this state should be born healthy, grow
up in a safe and nurturing environment, have the full support of their
mother and father, experience educational success, achieve economic
independence, and reach their fullest potential in life; and
Whereas, teen pregnancy and parenting increases the
likelihood of low birth weight, developmental delays and disabilities
and child abuse and neglect for the infant and disruption of
education, decreased income potential, economic dependence on welfare
and subsequent pregnancies in the teenage years for the mother; and
Whereas, the burden associated with teen pregnancy and
parenting is also borne by the taxpayers of Florida through increased
costs in the areas of health care, education, welfare, and juvenile
crime; and
Whereas, in each of the last seven years more than
17,000 of Florida's children from age 10 through 18 years have given
birth to children; and
Whereas, a summit on the prevention of teen pregnancy
which included private and public representations from around the
state identified public awareness as an important strategy for
addressing this problem; and
Whereas, the prevention of teen pregnancy should be a
priority for the State of Florida; and
Whereas, the State of Florida should further focus its
attention on the prevention of teen pregnancy by building awareness of
the causes, extent, and consequences of the problem, building linkages
between local, state, and national resources and calling its citizens
to action in their communities to address this critical issue.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 23rd
through May 1st, 1996, be designated as Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Awareness Week.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of April, 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
chairman.
I'd like to move we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
accept this proclamation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There being none, that is accepted.
(Applause)
Item #5A2
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 21 - APRIL 27, 1996 AS
PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next one, Commissioner Matthews. You
have one.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Annually we grant
this -- or we have put this proclamation into force, and I believe
Barbara Pedone is here again to receive it this year. If she would
please come forward while I read it.
A proclamation: Whereas, secretaries and office
professionals represent one of the largest segments of the labor
force; and
Whereas, secretaries and office professionals have
increased their contributions in recent years by mastering computer
software and taking on management duties; and
Whereas, a well-trained and fairly compensated
secretarial work force is essential to our economic success both
locally and nationally.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 21st
to April 27th, 1996, be designated as Professional Secretary's Week
and call on management everywhere to join in recognizing these
outstanding professionals and promoting their professional growth.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of April, 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we accept this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
Well, it was a tough battle, but we got that one
passed.
(Applause)
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING HAY 1, 1996 AS LOYALTY DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, you have one
as well.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think Hiss Pedone --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me.
MS. PEDONE: Just a brief thank you on the occasion of
Secretary's Week and on behalf of Professional Secretaries
International and all the secretaries in Collier County. I wish to
again thank you for your continued support and the special
recognition. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We do have the color guard
with us this morning. We have commander Robert Hurray and his wife
Barbara Hurray from our local VFW, and if you'd come on up, we want to
have a proclamation for Loyalty Day. These folks put on -- the VFW
and the lady's auxiliary put on the voice of democracy and the
creative artists, and I don't have the name right on the artwork but
MS. HURRAY: Patriotic artists.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Patriotic artists for the
young kids. At the winners' banquet this weekend it was great because
you had literally dozens of kids from high school all the way down
through kindergarten that had done the different patriotic work --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: About face.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The camera.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whereas, the citizens of this
county are extremely proud of this nation's more than 200-year
heritage of freedom and are loyal to the ideals, traditions, and
institutions which have made our nation so great; and
Whereas, their obvious dedication to our way of life is
indicative of a strong, continued desire to preserve the priceless
American heritage; and
Whereas, they'll be proud to stand up and publicly
declare their determination toward actively and positively
safeguarding our freedoms against any foreign or domestic enemies.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that this 1st day of Hay,
1996, be designated as Loyalty Day and hereby call upon all fellow
citizens to take full advantage of the special occasion known as
Loyalty Day celebrated annually throughout the nation on the 1st day
of Hay as an incentive for every true American to reaffirm his and her
love of flag and country. And I urge that all individuals, schools,
churches, organizations, business establishments, and homes within my
official jurisdiction display proudly the flag of the United States of
America and participate in public patriotic Loyalty Day activities
which are to be cosponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States and others on Loyalty Day, Hay 1, 1996.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of April, 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, John C. Norris, chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
There are none.
(Applause)
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 27, 1996, AS 53RD WEATHER RECONNAISSANCE
SQUADRON APPRECIATION DAY - ADOPTED
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine is back
to using his right hand for shaking hands?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, gingerly.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The effect is over.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have one proclamation as well. Is
Mr. Pineau with us this morning? There he is. Mr. Pineau is our
emergency management director, and I have a proclamation here that's
right down his alley.
It says: Whereas, the residents and guests of Collier
County are becoming more vulnerable to the hurricane threat; and
Whereas, the majority of residents of Collier County
have never experienced the wrath of a hurricane;
and
Whereas, the 1996 hurricane season is expected to be
more active than normal; and
Whereas, public education and awareness is a vital
cornerstone of a community's capability to face this threat; and
Whereas the Air Force Reserve's 53rd Weather
Reconnaissance Squadron, also known as the Hurricane Hunters, has the
unique responsibility of penetrating these storms to measure
intensity; and
Whereas, the weather information provided by the
Hurricane Hunters to the National Hurricane Center is absolutely
essential in developing accurate forecasts of the storms' movement and
intensity; and
Whereas, the 53rd weather reconnaissance squadron will
assist Collier County in its hurricane awareness efforts by staging a
weather reconnaissance WC-130 at Naples airport on Saturday --
Saturday, April 27th, 1996.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Saturday, April 27th,
1996, be designated as 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron
Appreciation Day.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of April, 1996, by the
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
I would like to move that we accept this proclamation as
well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(Applause)
MR. PINEAU: If I may, I would like to thank the board
for -- on behalf of the ladies and gentlemen of the 53rd Weather
Reconnaissance Squadron Air Force Reserve for making this event
possible and for acknowledging the vital role that they do play in the
defense of our nation for these tropical storm threats.
I'd also like to acknowledge Mr. Jack Beckett, a local
resident, who is also a former member of the 53rd Weather
Reconnaissance Squadron and the staffs of WZVN and WBBH-TV who have
put this all together to make this possible. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a few service awards today as
well. We have a couple of people with five-year pins today, Ava
Arnold from the water department.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We also have Tom Stiers from
wastewater for five years as well.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We also have for ten years Richard
D'Orazio from EHS.
(Applause)
Item #7A
LISA HAWK REPRESENTING SAM'S CLUB REQUESTING A WAIVER OF THE TEMPORARY
USE PERMIT FEE FOR CHILDREN'S HIRACLE NETWORK BENEFIT - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our -- our next item is a public
petition from Sam's Club concerning the children's miracle event.
MS. HAWK: We would like to request that the temporary
use permanent fee be waived for a barbecue and flea market that we'd
like to have in the parking lot. This is a nonprofit fund raiser that
we do every year to raise money for the Children's Hiracle Network for
All Children's Hospital in St. Pete, and whatever money we raise
Wal-Hart will match.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, that's good. Does any board
member have any problem with this? This appears to be one of those
regular fee waiver requests.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any problem, but
typically under public petition we don't take action, so I guess we
would have to have it on the agenda retroactively.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On rare circumstances that
are overly simple, we have taken action before I remember two or three
times particularly when Butt was chair. I'd be willing to make an
exemption today and let them get on with their plans.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If Mr. Weigel will let us.
MR. DORRILL: If you tell us your intent, we will
process it subject to the budget amendment to make the necessary
transfer so you will be able to take action on it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that will come back on the consent
agenda next week or so?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine with me. Not next week
because we don't have a meeting next week.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That will be especially fine
next week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When is the event?
MS. HAWK: Saturday, the 7th.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Saturday the 7th.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As I said, retroactively we'll
have to --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perhaps a postdated check.
MS. HAWK: Thank you very much.
Item #8A1
RESOLUTION 96-207 OPPOSING THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY MODIFICATION TO THE
KEEWAYDIN ISLAND UNIT OF THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM HAP NEAR
THE MOUNT OF THE BIG MARCO PASS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is 8(A)(1), a resolution
relating to a proposed boundary modification to Keewaydin Island
unit.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Wayne Arnold of your planning services staff. For the last
few months staff has been reviewing a proposal by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to include additional areas into the map series.
They've identified a sand shoal that has developed off of the coast of
Marco Island, essentially in the mouth of the Big Marco Pass, as
having some benefit to their map system and meeting the criteria under
their identified criterion under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.
We reviewed the proposals, and we have problems with the
methodology that they used in identifying the sand shoal area, and we
believe that they also have some operational impacts to the county in
the future beach renourishment efforts that we may have. Essentially
the act is set out so that there are no federal monies that go into
the area that's identified within the system. We believe that -- we
currently have not used federal monies in any of our beach
renourishment efforts. However, that doesn't mean that in the future
we might not try to proceed to obtain state or federal grant monies to
try to do that. That would prohibit us from doing so.
Additionally, the line was drawn so that you can't
really determine exactly where the boundary will be. We don't know
that it affects developed beachfront property or not. If it does
affect beachfront property that is developed, those folks who reside
in that area would not be able to get federal flood insurance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Mr. Arnold, on page -- excuse
me, at page 6 of our agenda packet the -- the line takes a jog around
the new line. The proposed line, I guess, goes right up and down the
beach on Marco, and all of that is populated, plus isn't that also
Tiger Tail Beach?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. The drawing that they
submitted to us does -- is adjacent to the coast line. They provided
us with an aerial photograph with a hand-drawn line that runs down the
middle of the channel offshore. They have not provided any
justification as to a legal description or any -- I guess any boundary
description from any fixed point at which there are numerous fixed
points and survey boundaries out there. They couldn't provide us with
that information. They solely determined the need of this based on
aerial photographs from our determination.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, yeah. They may determine the
need based on aerial photographs, but those aerial photographs ought
to show them as well that this is a fully developed area. I mean,
it's not a field in this area anymore. They can't come in here and
start taking it away from people. It's already developed.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. We concur. And the aerial
photographs that they used are three and four years old. Substantial
changes have occurred along the beachfront there based on the beach
renourishment and the erosion that's occurred as well. I might also
point out that back in 1987 they even, against the objections of
several local residents and some of the county commissioners,
including some of the state legislative individuals, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service also included an area that included developed
properties on Hideaway Beach on the northern end. Those residents are
now no longer able to get federal flood insurance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to
make a motion we follow staff's recommendation to pass a resolution
objecting to the inclusion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I -- I -- I would think
this thing flies in the face of the recent property rights bills and
so forth. I mean, I don't see how we -- we could support a change
like this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask the motion maker to include
in the motion that we -- we draft a letter as recommended to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service but also send it to both of our Florida senators
and every Florida congressman.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the motion to
include that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Third.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Are
there any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, you have one, and following that
I'd like to advise you of a somewhat related letter we've received
from the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Mr. Blanchard.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He is declining.
MR. BLANCHARD: As long as you've got your motion.
MR. DORRILL: Just as it relates to that, the chairman
and I have both received a letter that was dated April the 17th from
the game and fish commission sort of requesting and/or asking us to
acknowledge some minor modifications to their advisory posting for
lease tern nesting that will commence in May of 1995. I and the staff
have had a chance to look at the letter. I will tell you I think it
is in a far more cooperative spirit than the position they have taken
in the past on this. They indicate that it's advisory. They do take
the occasion to remind us that if terns nest southward in an area
that's recently been raked, that the birds are apt to want to nest in
that area as well and asking us to use caution with our contractor as
we rake the beach.
And I'd be happy to provide other commissioners with a
copy of the letter, but it would be my intent to thank him for his
cooperation and tell him that we don't have any concerns with his
modification of the advisory postings that are on the spit of land and
westward but to keep the same general area just to the southeast of
Tiger Tail Beach Park.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If you would draft that letter
and make it -- make us -- a special point to thank them for their
cooperative spirit, I'd be glad to use -- to put it on my letterhead
and sign it and send it to them.
MR. DORRILL: All right. That was all, Mr. Chairman.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, before you call
the question, could I ask one last question so that we know what lies
ahead? It's -- it's apparent since we not only have a second, but we
have a third on this motion that it's going to pass, and I've got no
problem with it passing, but could you give me some idea of the next
step that we will be looking at in this process?
MR. ARNOLD: From my understanding in speaking with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, because they were on an extended
furlough, they are still having open comment period on this issue. I
checked about two weeks ago. They had received no other comments from
any state or federal agencies on this issue, so I believe they've
received some letters from local residents, and this would formalize
it. But we don't have a definite time frame for their action on this
issue, but they will notify us as to their action or inaction on our
response.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And if they proceed to put this
into place, what will we have to do at that point since it's obvious
that we would rather that not happen?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think there's anything that we have
to do to acknowledge that it has occurred other than it will be
reflected in the Federal Register and some other coastal barrier maps
that are produced by the federal government. If we choose to somehow
object, I'm not quite sure -- if we choose to object to their
placement of this, I'll probably have to defer to Mr. Weigel to
determine what our next step would be.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And you'll keep the board
advised as to what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife does so that we'll know
what to do?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I will. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
That passes.
Item #8A2
COHMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.541 - SAPPHIRE LAKES UNIT II -
APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS
Our next item is the Sapphire Lakes add-on.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #SB1
BID NO. 96-2509, CONTRACT NO. 1, TO CONSTRUCT SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - AWARDED TO CARDINAL
CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,851,000
Next is 8(B)(1), a contract for the south county
regional wastewater treatment facility.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners, Adolfo
Gonzalez with your office of capital projects management. This item
is the first contract out of two contracts we had your approval back
in December to proceed with. It is to implement some regulatory
compliance issues and modify some of the system components at the
south county plant. The first item is the reclaimed water pumping
station. We need that in order to commission the deep injection well
by the end of this summer. The second item is to modify the chlorine
content tanks to comply with county regulations. I'll be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, this is the
ongoing --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- remedies to the problems that
we've been trying to deal with. This existing chlorine tank, aren't
we changing from chlorine to hypochlorite now?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, we're changing the actual method of
injecting chlorine into the system. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that on line now?
MR. GONZALEZ: We're just starting it now, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move
approval.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
That passes four to nothing.
Item #882
BID NO. 96-2505 TO CONSTRUCT MASTER PUMP STATION 1.01 BYPASS - AWARDED
TO STRICKLER BROTHERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $344,809
Next item, 8(B)(2), contract for a master pump station.
MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, this item is to construct
-- reconstruct a pump station at the northwest corner of Bluebill
Avenue and Vanderbilt Drive. This is to replace an old deteriorating
pump station that is aboveground. The contract is to replace it with
an underground system. The only thing you will see aboveground is the
control panel. We should have that done within 90 days.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
That passes as well.
Item #883
FUNDING FOR BID #96-2477 TO CONSTRUCT DISINFECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
FOR HANATEE AND GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT FACILITIES - APPROVED
8(B)(3) is funding for the disinfectant system for
Hanatee and Goodland water district.
MR. GONZALEZ: Back in March of this year you approved
the construction contract to actually do the system improvements on
Hanatee Road and the Goodland location. What we're doing now is -- we
should have taken the funds out of the Goodland water district fund
for the Goodland improvements instead of the Collier County sewer
water district funds. This item just recognizes that -- a county
transfer from one fund to the other.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's all this is?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why isn't it on the consent
agenda?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The question is --
MR. DORRILL: That was my fault. I pulled a number of
utility items because of the size of them, and I thought you were
entitled to a presentation for the money that you were spending. This
one just inadvertently got tagged along with some of the other ones.
The other ones were pulled and put on the regular agenda.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll -- I'll move approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion for approval.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Item #884
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND LEE
COUNTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE BONITA BEACH ROAD PROJECT -
APPROVED
8(B)(4), it is a joint supplemental interlocal agreement
between Collier and Lee for the construction phase of Bonita Beach
Road. Mr. Archibald, good morning.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. Agenda
item 8(B)(4) is, in fact, the final supplemental interlocal agreement
that involves the Bonita Beach Road construction phase. And the
agreement that's part of your package does include the elements that
have been previously discussed to include the allocation of costs as
approved by the board on January the 9th.
There's three items that we do need to put on the record
very quickly. One is that in regards to the agreement and the
authorization being given to Lee County to effectuate change orders up
to the amount of $50,000, which is their authorization limit, it
requires the board to recognize and waive our purchasing policy in
approving the agreement.
Two, there is some minor, very minor changes to some of
the charts, and we would request that although the county attorney's
office has approved the document, that the county attorney's office be
authorized to make minor revisions to the agreement, coordinate those
with Lee County and, in fact, author -- we recommend that you consider
approving the authorization of two original agreements. With those
three stipulations your staff highly recommends that this agreement be
approved.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So move.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. No
speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're going to make a lot of
happy people today.
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
There is none.
Item #8C1
REQUEST FOR AN INTERNATIONAL FIREWORKS COMPETITION AT SUGDEN REGIONAL
PARK - APPROVED
Next item is 8(C)(1), recommendation that we consider a
request for international fireworks competition at Sugden Regional
Park. Mr. Olliff, good morning.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff,
your public services administrator, and this is an item that you've
heard twice before. It is a request by International Fireworks
Management or IFH to hold an international fireworks competition at
your Sugden Regional Park. At the last hearing on this item the board
had some concerns and wanted your staff to go back and work with the
event proposers on some logistical considerations. Attached to the
executive summary is a logistical outline prepared by IFH which
addresses all of those issues including some of those primary issues
that we discussed the last time this was heard, which were parking and
site improvements.
The parking facilities are shown on the last page of
that particular plan. It was presented and includes parking at the --
the airport, also includes parking at the -- what's called the Naples
Players' complex, Florida Sports Park, and here at the Collier County
Government Center.
In addition, we were able to work out some of the
particular concerns that we had which had to deal with traffic impacts
to the neighborhood. IFH has agreed to physically post personnel at
each of the residential streets that leads to the park to prohibit
either roadside and illegal parking or simply just excess traffic
through that neighborhood that surrounds Sugden Regional Park.
And in addition there were some site improvements that
would be necessary for the event that were not in the county's
proposed construction plan, either the phase one or phase two
construction plan. And we tried to provide you with a site plan that
showed which improvements would be the responsibility of IFH and which
would be the responsibility of the county. IFH has agreed to fund the
cost of all of the improvements that are necessary outside of the
county's construction plan in order to do that.
I'll tell you that the event is still a large event, and
-- but it's one that I think that this particular group has
experience in -- in managing an event of this size. And should the
board desire for this particular event in November to occur at Sugden
Regional Park, I think that they have made all of the logistical plans
that they can at this point to assure us that the event can be run
adequately well.
There are representatives here from IFH who are able to
answer any specific questions that you have, or I can answer any from
the staff perspective.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions from the board?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, could -- could I
have you detail some of the more expensive items that IFH has agreed
to fund as opposed to the county's construction plans?
MR. OLLIFF: The items are probably not as expensive as
they -- they are just simply ones that we had no budget for. If
you'll look at that site plan, the items that are not crosshatched but
are simply lined on that plan, they're shown as IFH responsibilities
on that site plan. It is page 4 of that item. That is primarily
clearing outside of the area where the current Gulf Coast Skimmers' --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. OLLIFF: -- location is. It is clearing of the
roadway that loops the property, and it is clearing of that point that
you'll see at the very southern end of the property there which is the
actual launch site for the -- the fireworks, and that is a lime
rock-based area that needs to be completely cleared so that they can
actually have the fireworks launched from that particular location.
None of those improvements were included in the county's plan, as the
county's plan primarily included everything from the Gulf Coast
Skimmers' point to north of the site where you see that swimming beach
on that site plan. So they have agreed to take care of all of the
clearing and the clearing of that launch site.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Am I correct in assuming
that whatever we vote today has no bearing on any future requests for
TDC funds?
MR. OLLIFF: They still have an application at the next
TDC meeting.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just want that on the record.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No matter what we do today it
has no bearing on it.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes. That is a separate decision that will
come to you again as a separate item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Just that I support this and
think that we ought to -- it's a little scary because of the size. I
mean, it's pretty overwhelming. It's a huge challenge for a brand new
park, but I want to keep moving forward on it. So I'm going to
support it and continue to support it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, one, Mr. Keller.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. This
really bothers me in a way. When Stoneburner went and had his little
fireworks display in Naples, there was a tremendous lot of people
objecting to it. This -- this here's one here where a commercial
operation is coming in here asking you for money to put on a display.
And, secondly, this area isn't a very big area. I
happen to spend my -- quite a bit of time in the Cooperstown area with
Lake Oswego, and they always have a big fireworks display on the
Fourth of July, but it's a massive lake so if any of this stuff --
when it goes up, depending upon the wind situation, when it comes down
it still got some pretty hot ash on it, and I'm just wondering if we
are opening ourselves up to a problem with fires here, too. I
honestly can't see why we should spend public money to encourage
private enterprise to come in and put on something that they're going
to make a buck on, too. So it's up to you whether you think it's
going to be of public interest and also of public benefit financially
to put something like this on. Basically I can't see the value of it
myself. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, what's the fiscal
impact of this decision today?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, that was one of the parameters that
we went into our negotiations with IFH to start with was that we
weren't going to spend any additional funds within our budget that we
wouldn't have ordinarily spent as part of the construction of that
site. They are proposing as part of the funding for this event that
ticket sales would generate somewhere between six hundred fifty and
eight hundred thousand dollars. Corporate sponsorships -- and
normally the events that I have seen in -- in the Canadian venues that
they have had have had a large, major international-type corporate
sponsor. They expect that to generate $500,000, and then the
remainder of the money would come from tourist development tax monies
which they have yet to make an application for. So from ad valorem or
parks budgets there is no proposal for any funds.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One correction for the record. I
think Mr. Keller said that Mr. Stoneburner had a fireworks display
down at City of Naples. Let the record reflect that's not correct.
It was not Mr. Stoneburner.
MR. KELLER: Somebody. I thought it was him.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It was not Mr. Stoneburner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, it was not.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to move approval on
this, because I would like to see it go one step further. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #8C2
AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN ADDITIONAL $200,000
DONATION FROM MR. HERBERT J. AND MARGARET S. SUGDEN FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN AMPHITHEATER - APPROVED
Next item is 8(C)(2).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This will be a tough one.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is going to be a tough one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This one also deals with Sugden Park,
and it's a request that we accept an additional $200,000 gift from the
Sugden family.
MR. OLLIFF: I love bringing these kind of items to
you. This is actually a surprise and an amazing kind of an item to
us. Mr. Sugden, as you and the community are well aware, has already
donated $500,000 towards this park project. There were some
improvements that were a part of our lease with the Gulf Coast
Skimmers, were their responsibility to construct. The primary
facility from a public perspective was the grandstand facility. That
grandstand would had to have been privately funded and would have
required the Gulf Coast Skimmers to go out and try and generate
donations from the community for the total construction cost. Mr.
Sugden in a meeting two months ago stepped up and offered to pay for
the full construction cost of that -- that amphitheater grandstand
facility in addition to his previous $500,000 donation. He has made
the same arrangements with us as he did in his previous donation, and
those are all outlined in the agreement here.
We would, as the county, be the recipient of the donated
funds, and we will have to work with the Skimmers to actually work out
how the construction will occur, because the Skimmers are able to
realize a lot of local donations in goods and services that perhaps
the county can't. So it may actually be cheaper for the Gulf Coast
Skimmers to do the construction as opposed to the county. But we'll
work out those details and bring back amended leases as necessary.
This particular item is simply a request that the board
approve the acceptance of an additional 200,000 donation for the
Sugden Regional Park project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Greatly so moved.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, heavens, yes, I'll second
it, and I thank Mr. Sugden ever so much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a speaker, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Just one, Mr. Street (phonetic).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Street waives his time, I think.
MR. STREET: Yeah. Just wanted to say again -- Jeff
Street. Thank you all so very, very much. We're going to keep doing
everything we can to keep this program going for you. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, as part of this would you
also draft a letter thanking the Sugdens for this gift for my
signature? I would like to forward that to them. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
acceptance. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
There are none, of course.
Item #8C3
BUDGET AMENDHENT OF $5,000 TO PAY FOR AN APPRAISAL OF THE COUNTY'S
ANIMAL CONTROL PROPERTY LOCATED ON NORTH AIRPORT ROAD - CONTINUED TO
MAY 7, 1996
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is formerly 16(C)(2) and
now 8(C)(3), animal control property.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to suggest the
Skimmers could find a way to dedicate their first show when all this
is done and just have a real public recognition. MR. STREET: No problem.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, before you go too
far on this, it seems to me in our discussion on this a month or so
ago, the revenue derived from selling the property was going to go
toward the purchase and construction of the new animal control site.
If I'm mistaken on that, correct me. But that would be my biggest
concern of simply turning that into a recreation facility. Then in
turn when we built the next facility, that would be a million taxpayer
dollars or more, whatever it comes out appraised at, a million
taxpayer dollars that we wouldn't otherwise have to spend.
MR. OLLIFF: That's correct. That was the long-term
plan for animal control was try and through the revenue realized from
the sale of the property use that as the funding base for the
relocation of that -- that department. The question that came up was
simply what is that property worth, and how much of the new facility
would the revenue support. And we've got a number of different
opinions about what that property is actually worth, and so we thought
the best and smartest first step, rather than going out and actually
putting it on the market for sale, was to have an appraisal done.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got no real objection to
the appraisal. I originally wanted this item only to be delayed a
couple of weeks while some citizens put together and did some
brainstorming on the possibility of it being a park, not that we not
do the appraisal at all, but to give the public the opportunity,
especially North Naples, to look at what they, the citizens who live
around it, would like to see also as a highest and best use for their
use of property they already own, and -- and that's all it was for.
And I guess what I'm asking is merely that we continue this item
another week or two and allow that to come forward.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have any problem with
that. I mean, Mr. Dotrill, is there some -- was a week going to -- or
I guess it would have to be two weeks.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two weeks.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I assure you I'm going to want
the appraisal, but if there's -- I also don't mind waiting two weeks
to get it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me suggest this. There doesn't
seem to be a lot of support to turn this over into a park because of
the money involved. Why don't we go ahead with the proposal. There
will be another opportunity at some point in time to discuss this when
we come to a final decision of what we do with the property.
MR. DORRILL: Just so I'm clear, you may recall that
during the budget process we specifically said that during the course
of this year that we were going to try and get out of the neighborhood
park business and, in fact, we were going to be. And the staff has
completed a proposal to convey neighborhood park operations and
maintenance to existing beautification or taxing districts countywide,
but to get the maintenance obligation out of the general fund and out
of the parks and recreation department because at least last summer
what you told us to do was to deemphasize neighborhood parks, and I
think we defined those as anything less than 10 acres exclusive of
boat ramps and things like that. So while I understand the desire
there, we're headed the other direction with respect to neighborhood
parks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And another corollary here is that
parks are -- capital funds are capital costs of parks. Is it even
appropriate to consider switching these funds into a park capital
fund, and that the other thing, of course, is that if we do, I assume
that animal control is fully ad valorem supported, so any new capital
costs for a new animal control facility would all be ad valorem based;
is that correct?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. And, in fact, the appraisal may
be valuable even if it were to be considered as a park, because I
would assume that the board would want to make the decision to pay for
that out of park impact fees and then to realize that revenue again to
offset the cost of the new animal control facility. So -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. OLLIFF: -- in either case, whether it's strictly
for animal control or a park, I think the appraisal would probably be
a valuable first step.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So what's the pleasure of the board?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to move that we
continue it two weeks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As a courtesy to Commissioner
Matthews, I'll second the motion. I'm hard convinced to change
direction on it, but I don't have any objection to waiting two weeks
tO move on.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, let the citizens come
forward with a program that they see as a good use for it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that cause any distress, Mr.
Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir, no distress here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second
to continue for two weeks. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #8El
PRESENTATION TO THE LEE COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO HAVE LEETRAN EXTEND FIXED ROUTE BUS SERVICE
INTO THE SOUTH LEE COUNTY AND NAPLES URBAN AREA - COUNTY MANAGER
DIRECTED NOT TO PURSUE PROPOSAL
Next item is 8(E)(1), presentation concerning a fixed
route bus service.
MR. DORRILL: I thought Mr. Olliff was going to stay up
there and say that Mr. Sugden had agreed to pay for the -- there's --
there's not much constituency for public transit. So I will tell you
that we have put the same executive summary on that we had at your
joint meeting with the Lee County Commission. You had specifically
asked me to answer two questions with respect to the proposal that is
there. The FDOT grant cycle and agreement can be developed in such a
way that you can opt out of that agreement at any point in any
individual year or combined year basis up to a maximum of four years,
but in any -- I mean, you can get out at one year or two years or up
to four years.
The issue with respect to delaying the capital purchase
can be done for two reasons, the first of which is that the current
time frame that it's taken to take delivery on new buses has been
delayed by an additional six months. The reason for that seems to be
a backlog of buses on a nationwide basis as a result of a huge
purchase that was made by the metropolitan Atlanta transit system in
anticipation of the Olympics this summer. They've replaced their
entire fleet in conjunction with the Olympic committee. So the
earliest that you could take a delivery on a new bus has been extended
beyond 18 months. Because Lee County has purchased their new buses
that will arrive next year, they have indicated that should the board
decide to proceed to develop an interlocal agreement, that they would
write it in such a way as to defer the sale or trade-in of their
existing buses in order to provide the bus fleet here for a period
less than four years also. So the answer to the two questions that
you had -- and rather than reiterate the proposal that has been
developed, I think I'd prefer just to answer questions that you have
or have Mr. Perry answer those if you --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a question that -- that I have
is once we -- let's assume for the moment that we would decide to go
forward and at some point we discontinue our interlocal agreement with
Lee Tran and form our own bus transit service. What capital costs are
we looking at then?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Probably significant.
MR. DORRILL: I, frankly, haven't -- haven't developed
that. I will tell you that it's my observation that you would need an
extensive renovation at the County Barn site and to purchase or lease
and modify your repair facilities to have the jacks that can lift
buses and the like. And we would need some sort of administrative
space and staff similar to that that the Lee County people have.
You're going to need to hire the drivers and all of the associated
fringe benefits that go with that. And you might need to have some
additional facility beyond the one that's currently at County Barn,
because I just don't know where we'd begin to try to put the buses and
develop the wash racks and things like that at that site. You know,
we're working on another site. I did not put any specific proposal
together if we were to try and build our own bus system. I'm sure it
would be beyond the $280,000 operating subsidy that they proposed to
us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And where would these -- what funds
would those costs be assigned to?
MR. DORRILL: The proposal is going to come from
unobligated gasoline or sales taxes. And I said repeatedly that in
any particular year that is a real nip and tuck sort of decision with
respect to gasoline taxes. Sales taxes have a little more latitude,
but you'll -- you'll recall that we had been -- and this year in
particular we're going to have to use your sales taxes to fund the
road and bridge maintenance department. And while individual road
projects this year have come in under budget on the gasoline tax side,
the best example that I have is when 951 came in 4 million dollars
under budget. Over the long term, I'd say three to five years and out
up to ten years, the staff has expressed some concern that the
mitigation of environmental impacts on future road construction and
specifically projects like Golden Gate Boulevard four-laning and that
the environmental mitigation costs may exceed those three to five
years from now than what we're currently paying, and they've asked me
to at least remind you of the difficulties that we're going to have
with gasoline taxes. My proposal would be on a year-to-year basis
from either gasoline or sales taxes, not property taxes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that really gets to the heart of
my concern. What we see as a surplus today, the next time we bid out
a contract it might be a deficit so --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It could go away fast.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As you point out, we might lose 4
million on the next one.
MR. DORRILL: I can't guarantee what those are going to
be next year or any year after that. I know what the current year has
to offer for us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For one thing, if we obligate
ourselves to form our own transit service, then those costs don't go
away, and we'll have to subsidize that very heavily. And, of course,
along with this is the fact that back in early -- 1993 we raised the
gas tax on -- for -- for a ten-year period so that we didn't have to
go to bonding to build our roads. Now, if we're going to start
shuffling gas tax money out of the road service, I think that's a
small breach of faith with the citizens because we put the gas tax on
to build roads, not to buy buses.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fact, the motion was
specifically worded that way so that it would be for those roads which
were concurrency driven, and I guess my concern is -- one of my
concerns is very similar, and that is if there's excess in revenue
from the gas tax, then let's roll it back and have it be three cents
or four cents or two cents, and if you're concerned that at the other
end there's not going to be enough money to roll back, then we
shouldn't be spending it on something else anyway. Anyway, it doesn't
make much sense to say, gee, we could dedicate gas taxes.
I also expressed some concerns up in Lee County, and
I'll just reiterate some of those. We do have a private citizen who
has indicated he'd like to put together a private system that will
require zero taxpayer dollars. And part of his routing is exactly
duplicative of some of this routing. And it doesn't make much sense
for us to compete with the private sector if somebody is going to do
that on their own and not charge the taxpayer a penny. Why would we
want to spend taxpayer money? I don't know.
I asked the question, and I wasn't completely satisfied
last week in our meeting with Lee about traffic interruption. I just
find it hard to believe as you go down 41 in season and as congested
it is, that if you stop -- and the way it's been proposed, you'd stop
anytime anyone waved to the bus, that if that bus stops and takes up a
lane of traffic arbitrarily, and I think the report says that on the
average of 18 miles an hour, I find it very hard to believe that
that's not going to interrupt the traffic flow on an already congested
major thoroughfare.
And I guess as I look at it, we're laid out differently
here than some of the larger metropolitan areas. We don't have one
logical central population area. You've got -- in downtown Fort Myers
you have several thousand people that go to downtown Fort Myers every
single day to go to work, to go to their office. They can get off the
bus and walk two blocks to their office. But other than this
government center and maybe the mall -- but those aren't regular nine
to five hours anyway -- there isn't really one area. We're so spread
out, so you couldn't have a bus stop and have everybody unload and
load. You'd stop and start and stop and start, stop and start. It to
me doesn't make logical sense. It doesn't fit.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I agree with those comments. And the
other concern that I've had all along is that when we take a survey of
residents on our annual basis or in the focus meetings or in the calls
that we get on a routine base, one of the primary concerns of all of
our citizens, all of us, is that we want to keep the small-town
character of Naples and Collier County. And I just don't see how you
can reconcile that number-one desire of our citizens with the
establishment of a fixed bus route. I just don't see how you can do
that. So that to me is a major concern.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That is a major concern, and --
but at the same time many of those people who are saying they want to
maintain a small-town flavor to Collier County, which I thoroughly
agree with, are also saying they would like to have a fixed route bus
system. And maybe the two are diametrically opposed to one another.
I don't know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But they're also saying in
that same little survey that they wouldn't use it, and they don't want
to pay for it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. But I think
the thing that concerns me over the last several days as we've been
reading more and more about this, especially through the news media,
is this thing about unallocated gas taxes. And I feel the same way
Commissioner Constantine does. If we've got unallocated gas taxes
that are free and available for this, then we ought to either reduce
the tax itself or reduce the time that we've assessed it for. But at
the same time Mr. Dotrill has assured us that in the outyears we're
going to need that money. So I -- I don't -- I don't see that there's
much choice.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sure we have some public
speakers.
MR. DORRILL: You do. Mr. Keller.
MR. KELLER: Good morning. George Keller, concerned
citizen. I'm glad that you're going the way you're going, and I
probably shouldn't say anything. But the point is very simple, but we
are becoming a metropolitan area, and unfortunately we may make the
same mistakes that other areas made and become too metropolitan and
get too crowded. What we really should be doing is paying a little
more attention to how we build out and -- so that we don't become so
congested.
You know, in the past -- in the past originally we set
out with about four units to the acre. Now we're getting up to 15, 20
units to the acre. And actually speaking, what we're doing, we're
creating something that I myself -- I moved here 27 years ago, and I
wouldn't move here again right now because it has become a
metropolitan area.
Secondly, I -- I'm not enthused about getting involved
with Lee County on anything because Lee County -- Lee County has a
very poor history of organization and financial effectiveness, two.
Three, you've answered some of my questions. There --
the surveys have been made, and there is no real -- real desire for
people to go and have public transportation and be willing to pay for
it. All public transportation all over the world is subsidized. Back
in my youth there were private organizations in New York City that had
BMT and IRT, and they were successful for many, many years. But when
the city got to be a certain -- at a certain point of population and
they turned it over and made it a public transportation system, it's a
mess. So, please, don't get involved in the public transportation
system unless you -- you make a real detailed study of it and know
that the people really want it and are willing to pay for it. Thank
you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, while
they're coming up, your discussions on the private system, what time
frame are we talking about in that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure. We had that
presentation at the MPO meeting several months ago. I know they have
a particular formula for how they want to do that. I've got to assume
they want to do that in March.
MR. DORRILL: He's here, might be able to answer that in
a second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I assume next season --
probably summertime isn't the prime time to launch that.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I wouldn't think so.
MR. DORRILL: Go ahead.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman from East Naples, and I'm
speaking for TAG, Taxpayer Action Group, Collier County Incorporated.
Looking at the first page of the executive summary, and it says that
this executive summary was prepared by Jeff Perry who is the AICP,
Naples, Collier County, MPO coordinator, and reviewed by county
manager, Mr. Neil Dotrill. I believe that the MPO -- MPO consists of
five of our -- five commissioners and two Naples city councilmen who
give direction to the MPO coordinator; am I correct, sir? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, if that is the case, sir, then
someone in the MPO, five commissioners, two city councilmen must have
told Mr. Perry to prepare this executive summary about transportation;
correct, sir?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your point?
MR. ERLICHMAN: My point is that if the MPO is -- gave
Mr. Perry directions to prepare this, then someone was or on the MPO
must be in favor of public transportation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the genesis of this
was actually Mr. Dotrill and Mr. Stillwell from Lee County sat down
and had a meeting of discussing of potential ways to do things
together and save money. I don't think it came out of the MPO.
MR. ERLICHMAN: It didn't come out of the MPO
originally, but it had to come out of the MPO for Mr. Perry to write
the executive summary; correct, sir? MR. DORRILL: No.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Then I'm wrong. Then Mr. Perry did not
have any direction from the MPO to prepare this summary? MR. DORRILL: Correct.
MR. ERLICHMAN: All right. Well, then my --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Dotrill. Did you
direct Mr. Perry to do this?
MR. DORRILL: I did.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ERLICHMAN: All right. Well, I'll proceed further
then. First of all, according to the Naples Daily News back in
February -- I think it was February 14th -- Lee Tran lost 3.69 million
or 3.96 million dollars in 1995. That's the case, giving any money to
Lee Tran by Lee -- by Collier County for anything whatsoever, whether
it's a start-up for bus service or whatever, is like giving a blood
transfusion to a corpse. And I cannot see pumping any money into a --
into a company or any type of organization that is -- that is losing
money to the extent that Lee Tran is.
Now, we're talking about public transportation again.
Public transportation, there is no such thing as a viable public
transportation system that is completely independent of taxpayer
money. In other words, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for
whatever happens. They're going to have to subsidize it. There is
not one city or community in the United States that has public
transportation that is paid for by the -- by the person that uses it.
According to Lee Tran, it costs them $5 per passenger for each person
that uses it. The passenger only pays one -- one dollar. It
supposedly costs $5. So, therefore, the public is -- is subsidizing
it to the basis of $4 for each person. Those come from federal
grants, state grants, and so forth. Federal grants -- anything you
get from the government, whether it's state or federal, is taxpayer
money, so it is not free. It costs the taxpayer.
TAG is not in favor of any type of public transportation
that is subsidized or paid for by any taxpayer dollar, whether it's
ad valorem tax, sales tax, or any other tax. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kobrin.
MR. KOBRIN: My name is Cliff Kobrin. I pay taxes, and
I vote. I'm for public bus service, and here's some of my reasons.
The average people are not wealthy. This bus service is in great
demand. I lived here since 1989 and have seen an enormous growth in
commercial and residential development. A public bus service would
probably be in the red every year. The voting public wouldn't mind
the one or two cents tax for public bus. This bus service would be
used by all the people who do not drive and young people who do not
drive. This bus service would also be an alternative for workers who
don't want to take their car to work ridership, high costs, and
pollution. First, the bus ride is a (inaudible).
Second, high costs, this cost would only be a drop in
the bucket compared to a lot of our tax dollars that are wasted. This
county has grown enormously. The population is here now. The timing
is right. The bus service should not be privatized because this cost
to ride might be too expensive. Naples and Collier County has already
lost its small-town feel. Naples has the trolley for tourism, and if
you want to get around, you can get anywhere in Naples. Collier
County has a private bus service called Community Transportation which
charges $6 a ride which is too much. The taxicabs charge too much.
Pollution from buses would only be a very small fraction compared to
construction truck pollution.
We all know we are going to pay taxes for programs
whether we want or not. Let's get our priorities right with our tax
dollars. The whole community would benefit from this public bus
service. Some of us are against every program that they personally
won't use when they know they will have to pay for said programs. Our
friendly community which has grown enormously has helped many large
companies, small businesses, and groups grow. Let's keep growing in
the right direction. The population is here now. Let's get the
public service going to help our community get around. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. KOBRIN: Any questions.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just have to say I'm so glad
and appreciate you're showing up. My only comment was going to be
count, and we're not going to get this passed today. But my question
was, am I the only person who hears from people who need public
transportation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely not.
MR. KOBRIN: Well, it's a shame that the timing is not
-- that this meeting is held at this time, because the average person
can't come here. They're working, and they're the people that would
use this service.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One of the problems with the
proposed routes that I see is -- is that it -- for one thing, that it
doesn't really provide service necessarily to the people who need it
the most other than Golden Gate City. There's -- there's a whole
'nother population in the eastern part of the county that will never
access this service because they can't get from there to it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we don't start somewhere,
we're never going to get there. I think that Mr. Dotrill did an
outstanding job in producing the most cost-effective possibility for
us to start public transportation and with so many outs, with so many
opportunities to -- to -- to discover. If it doesn't work, if it's
not used, if it's too expensive, we aren't, you know, sold forever.
And I just have to tell you thank you for being here. MR. KOBRIN: I agree with that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think you and I have
spoken, but I have heard from people who said, please, we need this.
Where are you people? Are you up in some sort of ivory tower
somewhere? We need this.
MR. KOBRIN: Well, they're working right now. They can't
come to these meetings because this should be held at a time when the
public could come instead of during the day when they're working
because I would -- I would like to say a lot -- a lot of people would
be here. This office -- this room would be full if it was held at a
later time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would like to correct one
thing that you said, that the Community Transportation fee is $6.
It's been reduced back to 3.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's three each way.
MALE VOICE: Is that the place that takes you someplace
that's federally funded? They're also federally funded. They take
people someplace; they leave them there for hours until they come back
around to get them. There's no set timing where they say they're
going to be.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's pretty close.
MR. KOBRIN: I used it. Okay, thank you.
MR. DORRILL: And Mr. Patterson --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just before he comes up, I
need to reference Commissioner Hac'Kie's comment that we need to start
somewhere. I don't think it's a good idea ever to just do something
for the sake of doing something.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't either. I'm not saying
that. You know I'm not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Realistically if it sounds
great, if you live three blocks off U.S. 41, you have to walk three
blocks to get there. I picture in July in the afternoon I want to get
to the bus walking through the downpour and being soaking wet as I get
on the bus and go to wherever I'm going. It's just as it's laid out
is not workable and is not realistic.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it something -- should Mr.
Dotrill be hearing from this board that we're interested in pursuing
public transportation but that this route system is not good?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I got the
information on the route before you were on the board from Community
Transportation to start a fixed-route service, and it was less
expensive than this, but let me share that with you, and you can look
through that, and if you're interested, bring it back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'd like to see it.
MR. PATTERSON: Good morning. My name is Fred
Patterson. I'm with the Naples Visitors Center. I'm the gentleman
who's trying to get the other bus started, the first privatized bus,
excuse me. To answer the gentleman's question there, the previous
gentleman that was here a moment ago, the Naples Trolley is here,
provides public transportation. The trolley does an excellent job
here for the tourists here. It costs approximately $10 to get back
and forth on the -- from north to south, approximately an hour to an
hour and a half drive round trip. That to me is not a public form of
transportation.
Our public form of transportation that we are proposing
-- Pamela mentioned earlier, we're going to be heading out to Naples
Manor, as far out as Naples Manor, and possibly clear out to Eagle
Creek Country Club across the street where Coral Factory Outlets are
located. We have since -- since we last met with the MPO, we're
negotiating right now with a bus company called MBI, which will handle
-- which will facilitate -- we will keep all the buses there. They
will be maintained there, mechanics, logistics, fueled up,
everything. I'm here today just to answer any questions that the
county commissioners have or the county manager has regarding our
proposed bus system. To answer Bettye's question earlier, she
mentioned she wanted to know when we were going to be starting. We
wanted to be up and running last January.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, just past?
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, good.
MR. PATTERSON: However, we want to make sure we have
things -- our ducks lined up. We didn't want to start during season.
We are also looking to have -- most of our stops are on private
property. I think it's quite dangerous to have a vehicle stop
anywhere they want to along the right-of-way of Collier County and
also the City -- City of Naples. It's like you or myself or anybody
else just stopping whenever we want to stop. There has to be
designated stops. Most of our designated stops are on private
property.
We will come back and speak with Jeff and Neil and your
group and the MPO requesting at a later point in time that we can seek
limited public right-of-way for the pedestrians as far as bus stops,
as far as the pedestrian covers where the individuals during the
summer season can stay dry. Hopefully we'll have this bus system up
and running by June, the 1st of June.
We are dead set. We already have one vehicle here in
Naples. We have one up in Kissimmee, and we have one that just came
from the U. K. over in Miami right now getting the EP and the
emissions done. We will convert -- these are double-decker buses
also. Those -- the standards on those are -- they -- they meet all
the standards that are required. We're also going to retrofit those
buses. There was a big challenge earlier with our group regarding the
bus -- the buses originally come with the left side lower as far as
people getting on and off. We are retrofitting those buses where they
load and unload on the right side of the bus. We are also making sure
that those are ADA equipped for handicapped individuals and also for
bicyclists, too, where they can actually put a bike rack on the
vehicle itself.
The only thing that we changed in our original proposal
with the HPO, we were originally going to have the bus running from
nine o'clock to twelve o'clock seven days a week. However, we felt
that the individuals, the Collier County inhabitants here, most of --
it's a service industry around here, so we felt that if we could
increase the ridership by starting the bus up at seven o'clock in the
morning and then cutting the service off at eleven o'clock in the
evening. But right now the bus will head down to Naples Manor and
then turn around. It will go as far north as our original proposal to
Pine Ridge and Airport. Hopefully by September or October we'll go to
the Greentree Shopping Center -- we're talking to some groups up there
-- and then down 41.
I think it's also important for the local business
community, too, to understand, whether it be physicians here in the
community, merchants, shopkeepers, restaurants, or what have you, we
all know that the cost of goods and services are a lot cheaper up in
Lee County as opposed to Collier County and Nap -- the City of
Naples. A lot of the individuals down here are going to be up to
Bonita, up to Fort Myers to get cheaper products, goods, and services,
and it is not going to benefit the local business community.
And I'm just here to answer any questions that you folks
have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds good. So you're talking
about having it up and running this June?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, ma'am, not 18 months down the road,
not November of '97. Our ridership is only going to be one dollar so
that it's not -- we're not -- we're not competing with the Community
Transportation. We're certainly not going to be going down into
residential neighborhoods. Somebody beeped me. Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I asked a question. You can
answer it.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. I lost my concentration. What
was the question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You were telling us how you're not
competing with Community Transportation.
MR. PATTERSON: Correct, yes. I've spoken with Mr.
Whitney on previous occasions and Scott over at HBI. So we're
bringing the local business community together as far as their
knowledge of public transportation and what they have, what I have so
we can jointly make this project work privatized. Once again, it is
only $1 in complimentary boarding, so it is not going to be $6, $3,
$8.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one
more question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
MR. PATTERSON: You're not going to beep me, again, are
you?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. What I'm trying to do is
get more information out to the public so they know what to expect.
You said that you're -- you're negotiating with private property
owners for your bus stops?
MR. PATTERSON: Correct. We have already acquired
several private property stops where it is off the public
right-of-way, where the community can get to the -- the bus itself.
We recognize, though, that not only do we need shopping centers as
stops, but we need to hit like Naples -- Naples Manor. That's a very
highly densely populated area. Those individuals need to get into
town, get to work. So it's just not the shopping centers that we want
to stop at. You can't get ridership from shopping centers. You need
to get them from the neighborhoods.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think as June
approaches and you have that stop list finalized, we ought to help in
getting that word out, because if there's a concern about the public
being able to get around town, then we ought to be able to do what we
can to help.
MR. PATTERSON: I appreciate that. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: He's the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That was our final speaker.
What's the pleasure of the board today?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I guess what's -- what we
probably ought to be doing is giving direction to our county manager
not to further pursue this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a motion?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll make such a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to not pursue public
transportation at this time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I do want to include in that
motion, if the second doesn't mind, that we applaud the efforts of our
manager and Mr. Stillwell and the support of the Lee County Commission
in lending their staff time to examine this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second will allow for a
smattering of applause.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A lot of time was spent on it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Yes, it was. They did an
excellent job bringing this proposal forward. We have a motion and a
second. If there's no further comment, all those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-208 APPOINTING D. HEINEMANN, P.A. HEYERS, AND J.
PENCZYKOWSKI APPOINTED TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT
ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a few housekeeping items here
left to go, then we'll take a short break. 10(A), appointment of
members to the Collier County Public Health Unit Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To appoint three members, and
there are three names?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's a tough decision.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
the three names included on our executive summary.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
appointment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-209 APPOINTING G. HERMANSON TO THE PELICAN BAY HSTBU
ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
10(B) is appointment of one member to the Pelican Bay
HSTBU Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve
George Hermanson.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll second that to get it on the
floor.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. I would have
seconded it. I'm looking here at the one from District 3, and I'm
wondering --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's unusual for us not to accept
the recommendation that we got. So is there a problem with Mr.
Griffith, or is there a reason?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not at all. There's --
actually it's not that unusual that we don't follow recommendation.
We do sometimes, and we don't sometimes. I think we're in the nice
position of having several good folks here to choose from. I talked
with Mr. Hermanson in some detail, and I know particularly not only is
he a resident up there, but with his engineering background and some
of the problems up there environmentally, it would be a nice mix.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just wonder why we have the
recommendation for a person from District 3 unless I'm -- I'm missing
something that District 3 is not in this.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Matthews, the ordinance
indicates that they are a representative of both residential and
business interests and landowners.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint Mr. Hermanson. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Mr. Hermanson is appointed.
Item #10D
REQUEST BY STACIE RUSKIN TO SERVE ALCOHOL AT THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
CENTER FOR CEREBRAL PALSY EVENT - APPROVED TO SERVE ALCOHOL BUT FEE NOT
WAIVED
How lengthy of a budget discussion does everyone
anticipate? Maybe we should take a break before we do that one, but
we could go to item 10(D), alcohol at Golden Gate Community Center.
That's -- my opinion, that's strictly against our county policy.
We've never made an exception.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not true. The Golden
Gate Community Center particularly has written in its little charter,
whatever it is, that allows for that. I'm not sure what the nature of
this event is, whether it's outdoor. If it's indoor, I don't know if
they need to come to us each time it happens. Maybe Mr. Weigel can
help me.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, our county ordinance 78-46 as
amended, which is parks and recreation policy and use ordinances,
provides specific exemptions with a list of criteria that must be met
for organizations or applicants to use Golden Gate Community Center
with the service of alcohol --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you pull your microphone
just a little bit closer, please? Thanks.
MR. WEIGEL: -- for the use of alcoholic beverages at
functions designated for the Golden Gate Community Center. So if the
board were to recommend for approval, the -- the applicant here would
need to follow the policy that's in place specifically for Golden Gate
Community Center.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know the nature of
the request, and I'd like to hear from the applicant but -- MR. WEIGEL: There are insurance and other requirements
they have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know just by way -- if the
other board members aren't familiar, The Golden Gate Community Center
has its -- the ordinance that they have has that specifically written
in --
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because the -- a special
taxing district out there created it. One of the big ways they've
offset paying for that is wedding receptions in that facility, so
they've allowed for wine at a wedding reception, and I think that was
the original intent of where that came from.
MS. RUSKIN: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Stacie
Ruskin from United Cerebral Palsy, and this occasion is a fund raiser,
a not-for-profit fund raiser at Golden Gate Community Center. And the
reason that I was asking for the alcohol permit -- I know about the
licensure and the insurance. I was privileged enough to have someone
donate the insurance to me, and we understand that coverage and what's
required by the county. But you actually -- we were actually told by
the Golden Gate Community Center we could have it indoors, the
alcohol. But what we'd like to do is have it outdoors because of the
nature of the event. It's a chili cook-off with super trucks and the
Corvette Club and a couple of other items like that so it would go
along with the nature of the event, and we think it would be more
profitable.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Chili without beer? I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You can't have chili without
beer, can't be done.
MS. RUSKIN: So that's where we are. And I understand
the alcohol permits that need to go through. I'm trying to get one of
the community clubs to pull the permit for me, the Eagles Club of
Naples. So I'm following the appropriate standards. It's just that I
wanted to have it outside in the field if possible instead of inside
the building.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as they conform with
all our legal requirements and it is consistent with what we've done
in the past out there, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the
item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MS. RUSKIN: If you don't mind, I'd like to add a little
bit to that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you add too much, I might
withdraw the motion.
MS. RUSKIN: Just one second, then I'll be done, I
promise you. I should have asked for a waiver of the $75 permit
policy through the commission.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine will pay
it. He'll donate it.
MS. RUSKIN: I ask for a lot. I'm sorry. That's my
job.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well -- I guess if we're going to have
a --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion maker --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- mixture of chili and beer, we
probably better have the event outdoors.
MS. RUSKIN: There will be six Port-O-Lets available.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God, someone take a break.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second that did
not include the $75 at this point. If there's no amendment, all those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
MS. RUSKIN: Thank you, Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
Item #10C
BUDGET DISCUSSION - MANAGER TO COHPILE LIST OF SUGGESTED CUTS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our budget discussions might take a
few minutes, so why don't we take a very short break and be back.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. We're at item 10(C). This will be our budget discussions.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, we don't have a presentation
on this. This is where the board had continued this item from last
week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is -- this is where each of us is
going to sort of give an idea of some of the potential cuts that we
want to consider in our upcoming session in June, and who would like
to start? Let's start on the -- at the left wing today, Commissioner
Mac'Kie, if you would like to start with yours.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With duly noted objection to the
left-wing characterization. Actually my computer has let me down
today because I have my -- my memo on my computer, and it's not -- I'm
unable to get it to print out for you guys. But I can tell you
generally the nature of some of my cuts and proposals, and then I'll
eventually make my technology come up again. It's -- it's trying.
Some of the things that -- one that I wanted to start
with has to do with the Board of County Commissioners' office. I
think that it's incumbent on us to start -- as we ask other
departments to cut, that we need to start with the County Commission's
office itself making some cuts. It -- we have in our -- in our budget
discretionary services in the amount of $30,000 that I think needs to
at least be cut in half. The only thing I'd suggest that we'd leave
in there has to do with the participation in the -- at -- what is it?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: FAC?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: FAC, whatever the dues are for
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: FAC, Florida Association of
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then I think that some of the
things that are characterized under essential services in our budget,
which is $174,000, I'd like more information about what exactly --
what goes into that particular line item, because I think that we need
to set the example for hard cuts in the board of county commission
office and some -- some -- taking on some more responsibility
individually instead of having some staff available for that.
And I don't know, Commissioner Norris, what's the format
for this? Since I don't have my memo, I'm kind of at a loss. I'll
tell you another one --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the staff is taking notes on
this and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question along
the same lines you were?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, the --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The format is you tell all your cuts.
If you can't print them out today, just tell us verbally, and the
staff is taking notes, and we'll see these items in closer detail when
we start our June budget hearings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, some of the other things
I'm interested in doing are closing the county pools in off-peak
months. I don't remember what the number was on that, but I think it
was about a couple hundred thousand dollars. I'm interested in
looking at the Q-plus program that I think is about $50,000 to find
out -- I need to see a dollar translation on -- on value, what are we
getting back, what's the benefit. My computer is doing more straining
things right here, so I'm just going to try to ignore it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go too far, I want
to ask on the first item you mentioned, the $30,000, that encompasses
what, Miss Filson?
MISS FILSON: It encompasses $10,000, $2,000 for each
county commissioner for travel; $2,000 for Florida Association of
Counties travel, Florida Association of Counties dues; and $5,400 for
the lobbying effort.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll tell you, I'll be real
clear about it. I think if it looks like next year our salary is
going to be about $46,000, I don't think we should get a travel
allowance on top of that when we're trying to find some budgets to
cut. I think we ought to pay for our travel out of the $46,000 salary
that we get.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually I was going to ask
if what we might do is get like a five-year history because it seems
to me -- we had this debate when Commissioner Volpe was on the board.
It seems to me there are particular years when issues come up that are
of higher priority or particular commissioners are more familiar, and
they will go and represent us in Tallahassee on issues or what have
you, and I don't think the commissioner should need to take that out
of his own pocket. But what we've done, I think, and I'd like to see
the snapshot of this, is over that five-year period some of that money
is turned back every year and ends up going back to general revenue.
And when we had the discussion with Commissioner Volpe, it was that we
would have the money budgeted so that as issues came about or as
opportunities came about where we could benefit the county, it was
there. But those who chose not to use, it didn't. I think some years
-- and I know we've had smaller numbers some years and larger numbers
some years. But some years we've had like 60 or 80 percent of that
actually returned, the majority of that not used. I'd like to see a
snapshot of that over a five-year period. I think that would help in
the discussion a lot. If a lot of that is being turned back anyway,
that's going to help the process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then my -- the other is I think
we can't afford the lobbying effort and that like I think that Q-plus
may not translate enough into dollar returns for Collier County that
the expenditure in Tallahassee on the lobbying we might be able to
accomplish in a more cost effective way without us having to have an
apartment and go up there. So that's something I'd like to see cut
out for sure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, someone is taking notes
on all this so we can talk about this --
MR. DORRILL: We're taking notes. And so that you know
what my intent is, if the three of you seem to have the same item, it
will be shown in the budget -- it will be shown, but it will be shown
as not approved. And it will not be in the line-item budget for that
particular department or cost center. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the -- on the --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Let's see if we could have
our TAG meeting outside, please. We're having a little trouble
hearing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Miss Filson --
MISS FILSON: May I ask one question, Commissioner
Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MS. FILSON: Is it your intention to cut staff from the
operating budget?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speechless.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, no. But I'd like -- well,
I'd like to look at that with you on a one on one. MS. FILSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just that -- where I go --
I'm not sure I agree that we can have less people in there because
over the past -- I mean, the best example -- this is an extreme
example, but what is the urban boundary situation where we had 800
phone calls come in in a week. But in the last three years we've seen
increasing burden in there on the staff, and I think what we have now
that you may not -- Mr. Dotrill can probably attest to this better
than anybody, but none of us have been on the board more than four
years, but five years ago or eight years ago or ten years ago, I don't
think you had five commissioners who were pretty much full-time
commissioners and who responded to every call and every letter. And I
think all five are doing that now, and I think the burden on the staff
to take care of that versus what may have been the case prior to that
where you had a couple of folks that were in there all the time, but
not necessarily all, really makes a difference. You know, I don't
mind looking, but I don't want to put more of a burden on them than is
already there because I think that's increasing constantly now that
all five of us are there regularly.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to comment on the lobby
coalition thing. And, true, there may be a less costly way to do it,
and I am aware that most -- most of the commissioners who -- who go to
Tallahassee are only staying there three to four days, and perhaps a
hotel would be a more economical way to do it, but I really wouldn't
want to cut the program out. And the reason is that we've only been
doing it for two years, and this really is something that's going to
be a long-term investment in just making ourselves known that we're
even there. So I wouldn't want to cut the program, but if we can do
it with hotels and -- and maybe cut five hundred or a thousand dollars
out of it -- I mean, if you look at a hotel bill of a hundred dollars
a night three nights for a week for five weeks, because that's what
our burden of this is, you're still going to be looking at with
airfare and meals thirty five hundred to four thousand dollars.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, another thing to think
about is -- or thing to keep in mind -- I don't want to get too far
out there -- if we choose to keep the lobbying effort up, try to get a
hotel consistently in Tallahassee when session is a problem. Also now
when I'm there I go out and buy frozen lasagna for a buck sixty-nine;
whereas, if I'm stuck in a motel, I have no choice but to go out to
eat because there is no kitchen in a hotel. It will cost a lot more
than a buck sixty-nine.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it's kind of nice to get up
in the morning, get your coffee, get a donut or put a bagel in the
toaster and be done with it. Well, anyway, I'm not sure that a hotel
expenditure is going to be all that effective.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me remind --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Let me remind the board
that all we're doing today is presenting the items that each
commissioner wants to look at. Rather than debate the individual
items here today, let's just list them, and the time to debate them
will be in June at the budget hearings. And that way I think we'll
move this discussion along a little faster.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I have -- let me just hit
down my list again from recollection, and I do want to preserve the
right to give you my printed list when it prints. The closing the two
pools in the off-peak times was on my list. There's an administrative
helicopter ride. And I know I took a helicopter ride when I got
elected county commissioner and wondered what that cost the county and
don't think that that was a very useful expenditure. So I have
personal experience with that one --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was a heck of a lot of
fun.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually it made me sick.
There are two paid positions that are volunteer
coordinators. One of them is the library. I can't remember what the
other one is, but I think perhaps we could get volunteer -- volunteer
coordinators. I hate to say this, but I think that we're going to
have to look at the 4-H program going to be a fee-based program. And
I think we're going to have to look at parks and rec programs being
funded even to a greater extent by increase in user fees. That's what
I can recollect of my list right this minute, so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'll do is a real quick
run through mine. Then I thought I would also just -- I have
highlighted -- I have a copy from Commissioner Hancock and
Commissioner Matthews of their suggested cuts, and I highlighted the
things I agree with, and it might make it easier on the manager. Some
of them I matched up on my list, and some of them I hadn't come up
with before.
Central mail service, that's also on Commissioner
Matthews' The question is fairly simple. We seem to be doing some
of the work that the postal service does.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And we're paying 32 cents a
letter for it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ought to have some savings
there. Quality improvement, I have the same question that's been
raised by at least two of the other commissioners. Savings and
service enhancements as they appear on our discretionary list here,
about $23,000 a year, and special services follow that, another --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, can I
interrupt you?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You've got page numbers down
here and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Those are the
pages from our discretionary booklet.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They were highlighted.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So I know where I can get
these.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I also have the
administrative flights for county agencies. It's in there at
sixty-nine hundred. I wrote down sixty-nine hundred. Perhaps there
is some need at some point, but I --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I know last year with the
flooding that I -- I had an administrative ride to over -- overlook
the eastern part of the county, so -- and that was quite beneficial.
And I'm sure that Mr. Boldt and Mr. Archibald used that occasionally,
too.
But what bothered me in that list was that I saw that
special districts were also using it and -- and if we're going to help
fund their tax -- their budget --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We need to pay that back.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- I'd like to see the money
come back to us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also on special events for
EHS coverage, it seems that that might be something that needs to pay
for itself. There are a couple of particular events that we do every
year, but that seems to grow instead of shrink, and I don't mind
having an ambulance on call at particular things, but someone other
than a taxpayer at large ought to be paying for that.
Same question you brought up on volunteer coordinator,
and we have one in courts and related agencies as well as the library
service.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the other one.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it might make sense to
either put those together or -- I just -- I have a real hard time
having a lot of different volunteer coordinators, seems to --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If I could interrupt there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- interrupt the purpose.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The RSVP program has a -- that's
similar to a volunteer coordinator that we're paying -- paying some
dollars out. We may want to just fold all of that into a single
program.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of my pet peeves has
always been the ag department subsidies, as I call it, the minimal
service to our ag department, $63,000 out of that, big chunk. The
vast majority of that goes towards research, and it seems to me the
Collier Companies and Pacific Land Co. and Monsanto can probably pay
for their own research and will probably still do business here in
Collier County.
Environmental safety and effectivity in planning and
landscaping, we spend $142,000 a year teaching farmers how to farm and
landscapers how to landscape. I don't know that we need to do that.
Family and community education program, $184,000. And I
don't know that we can cut that entire thing, but it seems that some
of those are duplicated by private social service agencies in the
county.
In the library reference service and the children's
library services, there may be a way to do some rotation or some
combination within the libraries there. And I need the -- we need to
get some input on that, but I took a small piece of each of those.
Again, the volunteer supervisor, I don't think we want to cut them. I
just think there may be a way to lose the duplication.
Parks maintenance, we cut a big chunk last year. We
still got about $639,000 going toward the mowing and so on. I think
we may be able to cut another piece of that, about another 107,000
bucks.
Park ranger slot that's vacant, I think we can lose some
of the hours we're doing there, particularly when we get to the
nighttime hours and some of the work being done. I'm not sure we're
getting our money's worth there.
The ever popular NRPA, I think we could cut the 93,900.
Economic development, under the county attorney's
office, advisory board meetings, we -- we still are spending -- we had
this discussion last year. We're still spending a lot of money,
$72,500, on having an attorney attend those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want you to know that's on my
list.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Code enforcement needs to
have that, and Planning Commission needs to have that, but some of the
others request that they're there, it seems to me the need may be --
having served on a pile of those myself, the need may better be served
if questions arise to submit those in writing when they arise instead
of having somebody sit for two hours.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got that on my list also
and that even perhaps paralegals could address the problem, maybe not
to cut -- cut it entirely, but certainly to cut it in half.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The median maintenance -- and
this, it's about $86,000, but it's -- some of that is paid for out of
the special districts. Some of that's out of general fund. But we
pay, for whatever reason, a higher rate than private industry normally
pays. I remember that -- I think you referenced a number,
Commissioner Matthews, in your notes. I can't remember what that is,
51 cents or something --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fifty-one cents per square foot
as opposed to what the county is paying, like ninety-one cents a
square foot.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may be mistaken, but it
seems to me the number -- up in Vineyards we had the cooperative
agreement where we put it in, and they're maintaining it --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's like 42 cents.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it was even less than
that. And so I'm not sure how we go about that. But if somebody is
out there doing it cheaper, then obviously we'd rather do that.
MR. DORRILL: We're out for bids, or we will be out for
bids by the end of the month.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I put a little asterisk at
the bottom here. It says explore capital savings. That's simply that
we have a number of capital projects every year, and Mr. Dotrill gets
a list somewhere in the neighborhood of about 18 million dollars and
pares that down to 7 or 7-1/2 million dollars. And I'm wondering if
we cut 11 million, that perhaps we can cut 12 million or 13 million.
It seems to me if we can pare that much off or defer those projects,
that there may be other areas. And that list isn't available for us
yet, but just as we go forward in the budgeting process, the county
manager will continue to do what he's done every year and pare that
down as much as he can, but it seems we ought to be able to go a
little beyond that.
Just real quickly, I wanted to hit on Commissioner
Hancock and Commissioner Matthews' items, and I have highlights on
almost all of, frankly, on Commissioner Hancock, the county manager,
slash, board-related costs. I agree with the agricultural. I agree
with the museum item. I agree with the social services item. I agree
with Collier County Public Health Unit.
I just got a memo handed to us at the break. I haven't
read it yet, but I'm interested in doing it. I'll see what the memo
says.
Department of Revenue, previous year one-time cost of
63,000 shouldn't appear on -- again in this year's budget. And also
the expanded request was to show a generation of some money, and I'm
not sure that it has. So we'll need to get some information on that.
Helicopter operations we've already mentioned. I agree
with all those on him.
And, Commissioner Matthews, I have your list. Central
mail service, as I said, quality improvement, employee assistance. I
don't know if we end up saving money if we do that in the health care
package or not but --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know. But it's
certainly worth investigating rather than duplicating it. MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. Which one?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Employee assistance program, if
we can include that in our health care package.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Savings service enhancements
I think we both had. Additional craftsmen positions, going to take a
little work to justify those to me.
Interfacility patient transfers, great point. If 41
percent is for nonemergency, maybe there's a way to trim that down,
and those aren't cheap.
We've all mentioned administrative flights, special
events. EMS coverage, we mentioned that. And there a number of
things here where there might be a way to do it fee based; domestic
violence unit, the ag service, and as you said, 4-H, Commissioner
Matthews says that as well, and I got to agree.
And then the library, children, young adults, is there a
way to combine and mix and match, some of that, I agree with. I think
you word it well here. You have no desire to cut the program, but
maybe there's a more cost-effective way to do it. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if we can tap the school
system for --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: For help.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for help, yeah, because
they're certainly benefiting. And the parks and recreation
maintenance I agree with. Park ranger item I mentioned, and part of
economic development I agreed with. I think I mentioned that one.
County administrator item here with price of agenda
packets and putting it on Freenet and all, I'd like to explore all of
that. I think those are all good ideas. This is a great statistic.
Your public affairs office item, on average each complaint costs $110
to process.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Based on the numbers in the
package.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, but I look at per --
I'm a numbers person -- what can I say -- but that's what it works out
to.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that's a fact, we've got
to do something there. County attorney at the advisory board
meetings, I mentioned I agreed with you on that. Median maintenance
and traffic operations, I didn't have this. It's a good one, the sign
maintenance. If private sector is doing that a lot cheaper, then we
need to find a way to do that. But all of those items I agree with
wholeheartedly.
MR. DORRILL: What was the one right before sign
maintenance?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Road and bridge, median
maintenance.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Median maintenance. Also, if I
could pick up on that, when I was going through this package, Exhibit
1 that Mr. Archibald continually referred to was not in this package,
so I really couldn't determine what might be in there that I thought
we -- we should look at. So if we could have a copy of that Exhibit 1
between now and June, then we can -- we can go through it a little bit
better.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't you go forward with yours,
Commissioner Matthews.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think that Commissioner
Constantine has hit it pretty well. The additional craftsmen was the
one that I had circled after he had gone through his list and Ms.
Mac'Kie had been through hers. I think that's probably definitely
something that can be outsourced at a considerably lesser cost.
There's another one here that I circled.
Oh, there are airport authority items mixed in here.
And while I'm interested in the airport authority really getting off
the ground and doing all that we -- we can do in getting it off the
ground -- no pun intended -- but it was my understanding as we moved
forward with the airport authority, that we were lending the authority
money and -- and that these probably -- while they are expenditures to
the general budget, general fund, but we are anticipating recovering
those monies over time. And I'd like to see those treated more as a
loan than as an expenditure not to be recovered at some later date.
The parks and recreation maintenance, we've kind of
covered that. We did cut it last year. I think there's only been one
phone call of complaint about the cuts that we did make, and that was
-- that was dealt with quickly with putting some dry clots out to
drag the infields.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hear a lot of complaints about
soccer field maintenance. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do you?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I haven't had any of those but,
anyway, other than Immokalee there aren't any parks and soccer fields
in the 5th District, so I guess I wouldn't hear them yet.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The toughest thing with the
soccer fields is, as Mr. Olliff says, they don't get any rest. And I
think as we get more fields down the road, that helps.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I think that we may want to
consider continuing to -- to cut some of the maintenance areas and be
creative in -- in inventing ways that we can do it otherwise. I mean
when -- when I was a kid we -- we mowed our own ball fields. I'm not
asking them -- our kids to do that, but that's what we did when I was
a kid. And tennis courts, I mean, we squeegeed our own tennis courts
and so forth when it rained, so all kinds of creative things can go
And I think that was it other than -- Commissioner
Constantine hit the bulk of it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. I -- I agree with a
large number of the individual items that -- that were presented by
all of you. I took a little more of a global approach on my
suggestions for budget cutting, and the first one concerns Mr.
Olliff's area.
Mr. Olliff, I would like to see a -- in our first
sessions a little more detailed analysis of the public health unit and
some of the expenditures that we have over there that could possibly
be rearranged or -- or modified to -- to the benefit of the taxpayer.
Mr. Dotrill, I would like to see -- I would like to see
an analysis of our reserve accounts and how we -- what our -- what our
minimum safe reserves are and what we're carrying, what we expect to
carry, and what this year's budget impact will be on those reserve
accounts.
And beyond that I generally agree with -- with most of
the items that I -- I've heard voiced here this morning. I think we
-- we should look at some of them perhaps in more detail and give the
staff an opportunity to justify some of these, especially areas like
the park maintenance. I certainly would not favor reducing the park
maintenance down to the point where it becomes problematic with the --
with the public. But if there are savings to be made, I certainly
would be in favor of that. But beyond that, I think that's -- that's
where we need to go. It looks like we've got a good start. I think
we'll have a lot of discussion items come -- come June.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It can be done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me just ask one on sort of a
general comment question. I find myself often wishing that I had what
-- what Lee County has, that base level, you know, so that we could
tell people. When people in my district call and say they have nicer
lighting there, the landscaping's prettier in their medians and that
kind of stuff, I wish that we had that that I could say here's what
you get for your taxes, for your base ad valorem taxes in Collier
County. If you want more than that, here's how you set up a special
district. But I don't know if that's something you can quantify, Mr.
Dotrill, but that's the last comment on my little memo.
MR. DORRILL: I think that we can generally. And I
think a good example of that, you know, as I ride home in the
evenings, I listen to people call in and complain about drainage this
week. I'm a taxpayer; why doesn't the county come out and fix my
drainage in my subdivision that may be 30 or 40 years old? And the
reason for that is the average taxpayer in this county pays about
three to ten bucks a year based on what their house is worth. And if
it's in Naples Park, it's less than that, or Naples Manor, it's less
than that. The point being, Mr. or Mrs. Taxpayer, you're not paying
in support of the water management program of the county. And so when
Mr. Boldt is out talking about an assessment project or a taxing
district project to improve drainage in your community, it's not
within the base level of service that we can -- can guarantee that you
get for your three bucks or either five bucks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd very much like to quantify
that if that's something we can come up with in this budget process.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That would help me, too, to know
under each of our individual departments how much -- what percentage
of that department is funded from what tax source, be it gasoline
taxes, sales taxes, general fund, ad valorem tax, impact fees, user
fees.
MR. DORRILL: We -- we can reduce that to kind of a
narrative comparison.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The number that keeps coming
back to me that the ad valorem tax that we do -- that we do assess,
and help me if I'm wrong, only about 1 percent of it or 1 mill goes
into the general fund for general fund -- I mean for things that we --
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- control, only about one mill.
MR. DORRILL: Or -- not taking into account some capital
things, but we can show that.
Mr. Chairman, if I can take like two minutes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, just a second.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's one more thing that I also
wanted to bring forward is that depending on where we start heading
with our ad valorem budget to try to reach our goal, I would also
support delaying the transfer of ad valorem funds into road and bridge
for this year if that's what is necessary to reach our goal of the 1
percent adopted millage reduction.
MR. DORRILL: Delay transfer of what funds?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Have we already done that?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Haven't we already adopted that
policy?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This was, I think, the third year that
we were going to transfer ad valorem funds into road and bridge and
take the sales tax and gas tax into --
MR. DORRILL: There's no ad valorem, but there is some
sales tax, but we can show you that in the analysis.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ad valorem supplants the sales tax
that would have otherwise paid for something else. It's all -- it's a
crazy circle, but it all ends up in the same place.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aren't those concurrency driven
issues, though? Isn't that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, not -- the funding sources are
not concurrency driven. I'm just relating only to the funding
source. And it was a timely comment you made about drainage and
drainage districts and funding, Mr. Dotrill, because on Thursday at --
I believe it's at seven o'clock right here in this room Mr. Boldt is
going to present a proposal that will affect everyone in the drainage
basins of Lely and Lely Manor, which encompasses a very large amount
of real estate in eastern Collier County. And anyone that's affected
should be here at that meeting. Just an advertisement plug.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just a
question. What is our schedule from here? What is -- what's our next
step in the budget process and a calendar date for that?
MR. DORRILL: I can tell you generally the county
manager will start reviewing budgets in Hay, and we'll have those
complete and hopefully received with the constitutional officer
budgets so that Mr. Smykowski can turn those around and begin showing
you the line-item budgets, I'm going to say, in June. And you help
me, Mike. I'll say the second, third week in June so that it all is
complete and that copies are available in advance at least two weeks
before you begin reviewing them for the public's review. But we're
supposed to be and scheduled to be done prior to the 4th of July
recess.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. The scheduled -- for
the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. The board workshops
are scheduled for the 19th, 20 -- 20th, and 21st, which is a
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and then if need be, we would spill over
into the final week of June to conclude prior to the 4th of July.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All the information is --
from the various departments and constitutional officers is due to you
Hay 15th; is that right? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's our cutoff date?
MR. DORRILL: Hay 1st was for the constitutional
officers.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Hay 1st but to Hay 15th if need be.
MR. DORRILL: Right. No later than.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you are currently working
on that capital list; is that correct?
MR. DORRILL: Right. It was received last Friday. We
did provide the board with a list, although it's only roughly been
compiled. I'll say it's 15 or 16 million, and you will have about 6
or 7 under the budget policy that you adopted to spend, but we can
show you the cuts that you've asked for.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As that progresses prior to
our June hearings and takes a little more shape, maybe we can get a
look at that.
MR. DORRILL: I have that note.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, so there will be no concern
upon the part of the board a month from now, let me tell you the ones
that I think that you already have consensus that will not show in the
tentative budget. I don't want some board member to come back and say
I thought we told you to take that out if I don't think that at least
three of you had that. Some of them I can offer a quick comment, but
we'll -- we'll prepare the budgets accordingly, for example, the mail
room. Just keep in mind that the primary function of the mail room is
to delivery interoffice mail. And we drop -- bulk receive the
incoming external mail, and we deliver it along with internal mail.
But from my perspective the one and a half people associated with that
is the most cost-effective way to delivery mail to over 54 departments
and all the constitutional officers. We can show you some -- some
potential savings, but otherwise if -- if we just eliminate that
program, we're going to have to come up with an alternative to deliver
interoffice mail. And it's my understanding that while the post
office will deliver first-class mail, it would be as though it were
any other condominium or commercial building. We'll have to install
mailboxes in the main lobby of each building, and they will only
deliver to those mailboxes, and it will have to be a specific
address. Otherwise it will be returned as undeliverable. It would
have to say Board of County Commissioners, Room 20 or 305, Third
floor, Building F, and there will have to be a mailbox downstairs for
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if that's a
hundred percent accurate, because if things come to condominiums,
homes, and don't have that exact address, the post office will --
MR. DORRILL: Obviously the mailman is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume our postmaster will
work with us if we go into that transition and not simply return
everything that comes to us.
MR. DORRILL: No, I just want you to understand that
it's not always quite as simple, especially when it comes to
interoffice mail. It's my understanding they won't deliver it to your
office. They will deliver it to a mailbox that's in the lobby.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which then can take 60
seconds to have somebody run down and get it instead of spending
$53,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It just seems to me that each
office could designate somebody to pick up mail in the morning or pick
up mail after lunch, whatever their pleasure is.
MR. DORRILL: Part B is the interoffice mail. And if
you're sending something out to Mr. Olliff, you know, if you're
waiting for him or for him to send somebody over to get it, I just
want -- I'm telling you that at least three of you want that out of
the budget, but there are ramifications of what it takes to actually
get these things done.
The other ones I have are nonemergency helicopter rides,
volunteer coordinators, 4-H and other agricultural department support,
and the ones I had were research and family and community education.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we have --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fee based. I think we were not
saying so much to eliminate it, but to see if we can't find a way to
make it fee based.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did want to eliminate the
research unless it's fee based, but particularly the 4-H and those, if
we can have that generate some revenue as well but not just simply
eliminate them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I didn't hear three for
cutting the family education.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- let me make a suggestion
here, Mr. Dotrill, before you just go eliminate these things, because
three voiced some concern. Why don't you put them on a separate list
reflecting the three -- at least three people had some concerns about
them. But come back with a in-depth explanation. And we don't want
to cut something if there's something more to the issue that maybe has
not been presented.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, when I made my list, I
used a hundred percent of the money that Mr. Smykowski said was
devoted to that project. And I'd like to see our departments justify
why we should continue it at whatever level.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's what -- that's what I think
I'm asking Hr. Dotrill, is to just have a stronger justification --
list these items separately, and then come back with a stronger
justification on all of this.
MR. DORRILL: I'm halfway through. If I can at least
run -- if I obviously missed something that at least three of you
think -- parks maintenance, library reference, and children's section
positions.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Boo, hiss. I don't want to see
that one cut.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought I saw that --
Commissioner Constantine said a more equitable way to distribute the
children's librarians.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't say cut.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We didn't say cut them.
MR. DORRILL: I've got them combined with children and
reference. There are no programs there. They're positions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- around the county the way
that's used, and there may be a more cost-effective way --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to do the same program.
MR. DORRILL: I've got economic development, but I need
you all to elaborate on at least what department or cost center that
was in.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last year on our -- on the
information Mr. Smykowski gave me that was on page fifty-three and
four, had 53,500.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Dorrill, I heard that on one
list.
MR. DORRILL: I have that on Mr. Constantine, Mr.
Hancock, and I believe Ms. Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fifty-three thousand what? What
page was it on?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifty-three and four.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So I used Mr. Smykowski's page
numbers. I don't know where we are now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But, again, what I would be
looking for is -- while I might have a hundred percent of the money
allocated to be cut, what I'm looking for --
MR. DORRILL: I understand. I understand. I understand
Mr. Norris's remark as well that these aren't going to be cut in their
entirety, but there may be some changes, wholesale, otherwise, or some
of them might be cut.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've got Commissioner Hancock's
list on there, and it's not on there.
MR. DORRILL: I don't have any of those lists.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This doesn't seem to be going
quickly. Let's go to Commissioner Norris's suggestion that you put it
in writing. Give us a hard copy of it, and if there's something
missing from that list, we can point it out, or if there's something
on there that Commissioner Hac'Kie doesn't think three of us agree to,
she can point that out. And that's probably a much more effective way
of doing it. We're hitting or missing.
MR. DORRILL: I just don't want us to come back a month
from now --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. Give us a list
tomorrow, and we won't have to worry about it a month from now.
MR. DORRILL: That will be fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, we do. Mr. Lee and Ms. Campbell.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many we have, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: I've just got four.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Light's on.
MR. LEE: My name is Arthur Lee. I'm on the board of
directors of the Friends of the Museum. I've been serving as a museum
volunteer for many years. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage because I
don't know the particular items that have been under discussion over
time on the museum.
I'd like to make a general point, and that is that while
the museum has demonstrated its ability to carry out a world-class
exposition, what is not generally recognized is the vast amount of
work that takes place behind the scenes. Now every day you have the
staff over there assembling pertinent pieces of the history of this
county as it's being made. Some of this is obliged to by law, other
part of it simply in the interest of preserving historical artifacts
ranging all the way from newspaper clippings to photographs and so
on.
What also is not generally recognized is that there's a
continuing flow of people through there; attorneys, engineers,
surveyors, educators, writers, artists, screen writers, students in
various fields, who are using the facilities of the museum to forward
the major task of presenting the history of this part of the world. I
feel that anything that limits the access of the public to the
facilities of the museum in the form of admission or otherwise is to
be looked at very, very carefully. I personally would oppose it.
Another thing that I'd like to make is a result of
observations as -- as a person interested in anthropology. I've
visited museums in every continent of the world, and nearly without
exception these are -- institutions are devoted in good part to
forwarding the education of their young people in the history and the
moralies (phonetic) of their country. I feel, again, that anything
that is done to make this more difficult, more costly, to impede it in
any way, certainly would be done as an absolute last resort. These
are essential functions.
I feel that -- that in the museum you're getting more
for your dollar than anyplace else I know of in the county. We're
using volunteers to the maximum. They're increasing their use and
training of docents. And I certainly feel that you have a very, very
firm organization and one that certainly -- the basis of it should not
be impaired. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Campbell, then Miss Chenery.
MS. CAMPBELL: Ann Campbell representing the League of
Women Voters of Collier County. I'd like to, first of all, compliment
you on the process you've gone through, the commission. The Board of
County Commissioners took the first step and took a bit of risk in
identifying areas that need to be cut. As a member of the league who
works with teenagers and going around to all the county departments
for the past 15 years or so, I think you get a lot of bang for your
buck from your -- from your staff, and I hate to see any of them cut.
But I especially wanted to speak to two areas today.
One is social services. I called Hartha Skinner last week and asked
her to fill me in a little bit on what she does, and we had
interviewed her last year for the league committee. And she tells me
that she sees about 20,000 people a year or that she serves in the
county for social services. Some of her budget is mandatory, but it's
.638 of the county budget. In any case, .305 is discretionary. They
provide emergency Hedicaid and general assistance, negotiate with
doctors to reduce fees. In many cases the hospital will re -- will
absorb the cost of patient care. They provide assistance with
prescription medications, oxygen, short-term recuperative assistance.
They refer individuals to other agencies when possible. They take
care of the chronically ill, elderly, and disabled. They're the only
agency in the county providing these services.
I asked Hartha if she had to turn people away, how does
she look them in the eye, elderly people who don't fit in any other
place, they fall between the cracks. And she said that's not too easy
to tell them that they can't get any help.
And secondly, the public health unit. I heard
Commissioner Norris mention that he wanted to hear more about how
their budget is expended, and I think that's a good first step. I
think we all need to keep an open mind. They provide a tremendous
service to the county. It's very often an unrecognized service
because it's behind the scenes. They have the screening in the
schools, tracking communicable diseases, and that's very labor
intensive. So I think if you keep an open mind, that's a very good
first step.
And also I wanted to mention that I got a little
confused, though, because as the lists were being read -- and I wanted
to know if they could be available to the public so we can react.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They have been made available.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They are now.
MS. CAMPBELL: Okay. Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Chenery and then Dr. Polkowski.
MS. CHENERY: Commissioners, I'm Mary Chenery. I'm the
new treasurer for the museum, and I did want to speak to a few of the
items that I heard are on the list. To begin with, I'm not sure that
you're all aware of the fact that most of the programs are funded by
the memberships and by special grants that -- for special projects
that we do, and so I -- I don't want you to feel that the county is
supporting beyond those things that are the responsibility of the
county. The -- the total budget to the county for the museum is less
than your budget to buy videos for the library. We have a very
fractional thing. And we're concerned of any possibility of cutting
because we are now taking on the Roberts' ranch that has been
granted. The details haven't come out, but we have no provision for
anyone to go out there.
We have the Everglades museum which is now being added,
and our director is down there sometime, and somebody else has to
cover. And I understand that one of the facili -- one of the jobs --
one of the grant -- funding -- items -- about 52,000 is expected to be
cut, about 25, which is one of our things dealing with the children.
And I've heard also that you're thinking of charging admission for the
children that come, the school children that come to the museum.
Well, the school already pays $180 every time they move that van to
bring the children over. But, on the other hand -- and I'm no lawyer
-- I have heard that the statutes say that you cannot take money from
one government entity to pay another, so the -- something about the
exchange of money.
And I guess that's basically the thing. I really want
you to be serious about the budget for the county -- for the museum.
And it is growing. We are trying to do more. The Friends are
covering more things. But the basic thing -- the items that belong to
-- oh, and I did hear that mowing that the -- they're complaining
about cutting the grass for Rosemary Cemetery. And I understand when
that was established, perpetual care was taken -- I hope you're not
going to let it go back looking the way they did when they used to
call it a dog cemetery. Okay, I guess that's the best I can do.
Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Polkowski is your last speaker.
DR. POLKOWSKI: My name is Jane Polkowski, and I'm the
director of the Collier County Public Health Unit. The public health
unit will provide a detailed description of its expenditures for you
during your June workshop. The public health legal mandate through
Act 154 is to protect and promote the health of everyone in Collier
County. County tax dollars deliver public health services that save
significant community costs through basic preventative
population-based services. Collier ranks third in population growth
in Florida at 23 percent from 1990 to 1994. It also has high poverty
level compared to other counties with high per capita income, 10.5
percent by the 1990 census data. Tremendous population growth as far
as communication between countries and areas increase the need for
public health services to protect the public's health here in the
community.
County tax dollars are used for preventing epidemics and
spread of disease. We have very high incidence for several infectious
diseases like TB and enteric infections. Due to the high rate of
syphilis in Immokalee -- 80 percent of our county total syphilis cases
are in Immokalee -- the district considers Immokalee like a separate
county in the planning because we have such a high rate -- high number
of cases. And when we exclude AIDS, TB, and sexually-transmitted
diseases where we also have high rates, the actual number of other
reported confirmed conditions that we have to follow up on and apply
appropriate preventative measures was actually higher in Collier than
Lee, which has double our population, and, of course, much higher in
terms of actual numbers than Sarasota.
Communicable diseases affect all income levels and
tourists. These require follow-up, investigations, and preventative
measures to protect others and prevent spread. As Ann has indicated,
a lot of our work is done behind the scenes, and it's not visible.
And I do suspect that a lot of our work you would prefer also be done
invisibly and effectively and not be in the media.
We had several tourists that fell ill that we had to
follow up on last year, one of whom died of bacterial meningitis. And
these are regulars. We get more visitors from different areas and
tourists. They also are becoming ill within Collier County.
Environmental health and engineering programs provide
various regulatory services for public health and safety for the
entire county. Most of these are fee supported.
Public health is not indigent health care, although
that's a perception many people have, because that's where most of the
publicity has been occurring. Some of the tax-funded services are
provided, however, primarily for the medically indigent through
primary-care programs because this reduces long-term community costs
by reducing expensive complications.
And the public health unit provides a significant amount
of its services in the field, in the homes, in neighborhood locations,
and literally in the field with the homeless. Until the past few
months, our field work was done by staff in a categorical manner.
Certain staff did a particular function in different parts of the
county. But in order to be more efficient and effective, we
reorganized how the field workers did their work. We cross-trained
them into cross-functional, self-directed work teams. They are
assigned to know and work in a specific part of the county and are
accountable for performance in that area. And these individuals are
doing the same type of work as before while focusing on the local area
specific needs.
In summary, public health's legal mandate is to protect
the health of all in Collier County. Act 154 refers to a partnership
between the county and the state to accomplish this. Several counties
contribute much more to their public health units on a per capita
basis than Collier County based upon the poverty population as well as
total population. Population-based services provided through the
public health unit are the most cost effective part of the health care
system and are delivered to protect the entire community's health.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I assume that that includes this --
concludes this discussion then. Any more comments from the board?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only question, Mr. Dotrill,
how quickly can we have that list to us to verify?
MR. DORRILL: I think we'll have it by the end of the
week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're going to compile all of the
lists that you were handed and all the lists that we discussed today
into one master list, but you're not going to physically cut anything
out.
MR. DORRILL: No. I thought I was, but I don't think I
will now. We'll just issue a new list.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a comment.
Just glancing through this letter from the information technology
department, it's addressed to me and doesn't copy the other county
commissioners. But effective today the county commission agenda is
on-line with the Freenet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, very good.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Address is
HTTP:\\WW.Naples.net. Welcome aboard.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public comment today?
MR. DORRILL: None today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner MAc'Kie, would you like
to read that at this particular moment?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. I have a letter from
the Olde Naples Association that they asked be read into the record,
so this is probably the appropriate time. It's addressed to John
Norris, Collier County chairman, and Bill Barnett, mayor, City of
Naples.
Gentlemen, the Olde Naples Association supports the 1996
position paper of the Women's Republican Club of Naples Federated
urging the Collier County Commission and Naples City Council to use
all methods at their disposal to reduce density for the purposes of
restraining population growth, close quote. And plan and please
proceed to update the county and city comprehensive plans. This
public direction is timely. It is also consistent with the Olde
Naples Vision study report and its vision statement, a copy of which
is attached.
Further, ONA wishes to commend both commission and
council for opposing on 4-9-96 the expansion of the urban boundary
under the county's growth management plan. It was a position
exhibiting both leadership and responsiveness to the public and very
much related to the above-referenced position paper regarding the
ultimate density and our future population in Collier County. Please
read this statement into the record. Sincerely, Virginia B. Corchoran
(phonetic), president.
MR. DORRILL: If I'm not mistaken, they have asked for a
public petition, the League of Women Voters, and they'll be here, I
believe it's next week --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two weeks.
MR. DORRILL: -- two weeks, excuse me, to make that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next meeting.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One more little housekeeping item. I
have received a letter from the MArco Island YMCA. They would like to
ask us to direct our staff to -- to consider the -- some sort of an
agreement to use their swimming pool on MArco for public usage. And I
just want to know if there's board support to have our staff at least
investigate what the YMCA would like to do and if we can make an
agreement.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It certainly doesn't hurt to
investigate.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It certainly doesn't. They're
asking us to investigate the use of their pool for public purposes?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Their pool for public purposes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They probably want us to pay
them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's what we'll determine in
the investigation.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: The investigation of it will
determine that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They'll all be silly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have certainly no objection to at
least discussing it with them. So, Mr. Dorrill, can you make sure
that happens?
MR. DORRILL: Thank you. I'd like to make an
announcement. Once again, we only have four commissioners here
today. We're getting ready to go into our public hearing section. If
there's any petitioner that feels that they would rather continue
their item until we have a full board to hear your item, now would be
an appropriate time to ask us for a continuance. If not, what we're
going to do at this point then is to break for lunch and be back at
one o'clock to start with the Marco master plan discussion.
(A lunch break was held from 11:54 a.m. to 1:05 p.m.)
Item #12A1
RESOLUTION 96-210 TRANSMITTING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
AND THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL THE MARCO ISLAND
MASTER PLAN FOR REVIEW ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
OUTLINED IN SECTION 163.3184, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND RULE 9J-5, FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reconvene the county commission
meeting, and we are ready to go to item 12(A)(1) concerning the Marco
Island Master Plan.
Miss Cacchione, are you going to handle this? Miss
Preston is going to handle it?
MS. PRESTON: Yes. For the record, Debrah Preston,
senior planner, comprehensive planning section.
The item before you today is the Marco Island Master
Plan which was authorized by the board in 1994. Marco Island as
defined in this plan is the area between the Jolley bridge and the
Goodland bridge. Goodland is not included in the study area.
The master plan has been prepared with the intent to
have it become a separate element of the Growth Management Plan. And
today we're asking you to transmit the plan to the Department of
Community Affairs and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
for their review.
Today's presentation will include a brief overview of
the public input process by Harold Vann, chairman of the Marco Island
Vision Planning Advisory Committee. And then county staff will
present a brief summary of each of the sections in the plan. Jeff
Perry will present the transportation section. Barbara Cacchione will
present the future land use section and the future land use map. And
then I will present the balance of the plan which includes population,
potable water, sanitary sewer, recreation and open space, governmental
coordination, and capital improvements.
Following staff presentation on the plan, I will present
the proposed changes that have just been handed out to you by Barbara
Cacchione.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have no idea.
MS. PRESTON: To assist in the planning process, the
board appointed ten residents of Marco Island to the Marco Island
Vision Planning Advisory Committee. The committee consists of res --
representation from the major organizations on Marco Island. I would
like to introduce the committee members that are here and ask that
those that are present stand to be recognized.
Frank Blanchard representing the Marco association of
condominiums; Bill Dunnuck representing the Marco Island Board of
Realtors; Pat Neale representing the Marco Island Chamber of Commerce;
Joe Coriaci representing the Marco Island Civic Association; Fay Biles
representing the Marco Island Taxpayers' Association; Dick Disseler
representing the Marco Island Ministries.
In addition, four at-large committee members were
appointed: Jim Haynes, Paul Meyer, Sal Marzullo, and Harold Vann.
I would like to thank the committee for their time and
ask that Harold who was elected by the committee to serve as the
CHAIRMAN to give you a brief overview of the public input process at
this time. Harold?
MR. VANN: Good afternoon. And thank you, Debrah.
The county staff has done an excellent job in
summarizing this report, so my comments can be very, very brief. And
I'd just like to hit that this is not the committee's report. We hope
this is Marco Island's report.
We've had 13 community workshops on the island. Four of
these were all-day workshops where we spent about eight hours a day
with facilitators pulling out the needs for Marco Island. There's
been over 30 and still counting meetings of this committee. We have
made two polls of the island, one in August, one in February. And
over 3,000 people were contacted in one way or the other for these
types of polls.
We've had numerous subcommittees. I won't go into all
of that. We have had excellent news coverage. I'm one of the few
people that's not going to complain about our news coverage. They've
done a good job for us.
This period was conducted over two years, a two-year
period of time. We believe that this has given every person on Marco
Island numerous and convenient opportunities. We've held some of them
during the day. We've held some of them during the evening. We held
some of them at night to provide input to this program.
When the program was finished, a poll was sent out to
over 1,100 people on this island by the county staff. This poll
included a complete summary of the plan. It included methods of
financing this plan, made it very clear that this wasn't going to come
for nothing.
Of all of the reports that came back from this survey,
92 percent of those returns favored adoption of this plan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many were returned?
MR. VANN: About 350 in round numbers, Mr. Constantine.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's not bad.
MR. VANN: We believe that we have a good plan. We
believe we've got a major consensus. We believe that we've generated
the data to effectively implement this plan.
We also believe that we've developed a relationship with
the community and with the staff that would be very extremely helpful
and we think should be continued as we move to implement this plan.
Without going into any other details, I would like to
reserve, if possible, the chance to com -- comment on some of the
questions, any questions, that you or the members of the audience may
have in regards to this plan. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. PERRY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry. I'm the
transportation planning manager for the planning department.
The Marco Island Master Plan, the limits of the
transportation analysis like the limits of the other components, were
from bridge to bridge. We specifically looked at a number of key
issues that we felt were important to the community of Marco Island,
dealt with those issues during the course of the numerous public
meetings and public workshops.
What finally came out and is included in the goals,
objectives, and policies section of the plan under transportation are
primarily three areas of -- of special interest. One is the
conceptual design plan for the arterial and collector roadways on
Marco Island. These proposed plans would include pathways and
sidewalk treatments, drainage treatments, landscaping, traffic
operations improvements including traffic calming techniques.
In addition to that, it was very -- one of the most
important issues that was raised on the -- Marco Island was having an
interconnected pathway system. This would be both sidewalks and bike
paths affording residents, tourists, and visitors of Marco Island with
a first class opportunity to -- to move about Marco Island without
having to get into their automobiles.
Thirdly, the -- it was felt that the improvement to
traffic flow on Marco Island should be done without the addition of
new lanes. The additional capacity should be -- should be found
within the existing system, that existing two-lane roads would remain
as two-lane roads and those few four-lane roads that we have on Marco
Island would remain as four-lane roads, that we would try to make
improvements through intersection improvements, traffic calming
techniques, the use of an extensive pathway program as well as look
into the advantages that public transportation might have in a limited
scope on Marco Island to assist tourists and residents alike.
Several outstanding issues that were left that you'll
find in the goals, objectives, and policies deal with the bridge and
-- and/or bridges on Marco Island leading to and from Marco Island.
One deals with the specific need or desire to widen or -- or not widen
the S. S. Jolley Bridge on State Road 951.
In addition, the idea of the possibility of placing
tolls on one or both of the bridges was also proposed as a means of
funding as well as constraining traffic flow to and from Marco Island,
also providing a funding source in the event that the county were to
take over the bridge. Those funds might be used for transportation
improvements on Marco Island. So that was also an outstanding issue
that was left.
Both of those issues are -- are left to a series of
public information meetings as well as surveys that would then try to
build a consensus on the island as to whether or not the bridges
should be expanded to a four-lane capacity and if not or -- or -- or
in the event that it were to be expanded whether or not there should
be tolls placed on the bridge or bridges as a means of generating
revenue. Both of those issues would be left to further exploration
and determinations both on Marco Island as well as the Board of County
Commissioners.
And with that, if there's any specific questions you
might have about transportation in the plan, I'll be try -- I'll be
glad to try to answer them for you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How do you get into -- or how
do concurrency issues play a role in -- you just mentioned not
expanding any of the road systems, and I've got to imagine concurrency
plays into that somehow.
MR. PERRY: It does, and that was one of the first
issues we raised when the discussion of -- we sort of began to emerge
that we don't want to widen these roads. We don't want two-lane roads
being four laned and that type of thing.
There are several different ways of doing it. One, you
-- you extract as much capacity out of the existing system through
other kinds of improvements, intersection improvements, for instance,
that would improve the efficiency of the existing system. Getting
people out of their cars and on to bicycle pathways and sidewalks as
well as the possibility of limited public transportation, moving
tourists and -- and visitors as well as residents around Marco Island
in lieu of providing extra highways for those people to -- to drive
their cars.
The bottom line is that if push comes to shove, we have
to lower levels of service. If the community wants to maintain the
two-lane character of their roadway system and is willing to live with
more congestion during the peak seasons of the month, peak seasons of
the months of the year, that they would do that, if that was the
consensus that we could lower our levels of service on those roads for
those months and not have to widen them. In other words, do
everything we can to -- to deal with concurrency without widening the
roads by just simply adding new lanes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only other question
relating to that is how does that affect evacuation. And I realize
the population's considerably smaller in the summertime, and that may
be what you've taken into consideration. But long term how does that
impact --
MR. PERRY: That's the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- evacuation?
MR. PERRY: That's the primary concern that we would
have not only with the improvement of roads on Marco Island but also
with the bridge or bridges is making sure that there is adequate
evacuation capacity if you will to be able to get the residents and
visitors off Marco Island during -- during evacuation notice.
And those kinds of things would have to be dealt with as
the -- as the population continues to grow. If we cannot maintain
those kinds of levels of service that our -- our expert evacuation
experts would -- would tell us we have to have that we may, in fact,
have to come back and -- and make expansions to facilities, change the
plan where -- where it would be mandated to preserve those evacuation
times. That's one of the major issues that the DCA will look at when
they start considering any requests to lower levels of service on --
on any roads, especially on Marco Island, a barrier island.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Perry, talking about
evacuation, it -- it was my understanding and -- and help me if I'm --
if I'm wrong -- but I thought after the east coast experience in 1992
with Andrew that our emergency management group had decided to take a
-- take a more serious look at -- at what's called vertical
evacuation instead of horizontal. Have we moved further along with
that in -- in -- in helping that be accomplished, or is horizontal
evacuation still the -- the primary for Marco Island?
MR. PERRY: I'm probably not well equipped to answer
that question. I do know that vertical evacuation -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I was looking around to see if
somebody was here.
MR. PERRY: The county has limited capabilities to evacuate people
to shelters --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right.
MR. PERRY: -- due to the amount of shelter space. So there is an
evacuation that gets people out of the island -- off the island and out
of Collier County as well as the idea of vertical evacuation in areas
that are -- are -- can be sustained during a storm -- during a storm
event because there is just limited amounts of shelter space that we
can actually take people from one spot in Collier County and take them
to -- to someplace else.
So I think that emergency management staff are looking at all of
those particular options in -- in their evacuation planning.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything else for Mr. Perry?
Thank you, Mr. Perry.
MR. PERRY: Thank you.
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name is Barbara
Cacchione, and I'm the comprehensive planning manager. What I'd like
to go over for you today is the land use map for Marco Island.
The existing county land use map, as you can see --
sorry -- is -- defines Marco as in an urban coastal fringe area. It
is designated zero to four units per gross acre and has two activity
centers that are denoted by the red squares.
One of the problems that we found with that map is that
it doesn't clearly represent the existing zoning pattern that's been
in place on Marco for 30 some years. While keeping the overall
density the same of four units per acre, we -- we continued to
recognize the existing zoning patterns that exist on the island.
The map here again is from bridge to bridge, and I'll go
over -- there are four land use designations. The residential
designations identify that most of the island -- and this is most of
what has to be developed yet -- are the residential single-family
lots, and this is zero to four units per acre.
The next designation are the medium density, and that's
zero to six units per acre. And there are basically two areas that
are developed, and this one is currently under development.
The third area is higher density residential, and that's
this area along the beach. And that allows up to 16 units per acre.
And the gold area is a mixed use residential which also allows for
hotel, motel at 26 units per acre and 16 units per acre for
multi-family.
The next designations are for commercial, and there are
basically three designations for that -- for the commercial uses: The
community commercial which are basically your community shopping
areas; the village commercial which is this area which has Old Marco,
and that allows for a density of up to eight units per acre and also
commercial uses; and mixed use town center, which is really the hub of
the island and an area that we want to concentrate on in a little more
detail, basically allows for commercial uses as well as residential
uses up to 12 units per acre.
The other two designations are the golf course and open
space, and those are denoted in blue; community facility recreation
designation; and the final designation is the open space preserve
areas which are denoted in green.
One of the main changes -- one of the main changes from
the current zoning pattern is in the mixed use town center we've
allowed for the density -- density to increase from the current
density of 4 units per acre to go up to 12 units per acre. And we
also deleted the hotel, motel use in that area.
The other overlay change is in the village commercial
where we allow that to go up to eight units per acre. Both of those
density regulations where we're allowing higher density than we
currently allow will not kick in until the overlays are developed
which will look at development standards such as building height,
setback, and that type of thing.
So two areas where we're allowing for increased density
will not occur until we develop overlays for those areas. And again,
the hotel, motel uses is proposed to be deleted from the town center
area.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Cacchione.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How does that impact the
current property owners of those areas that are being deleted?
MS. CACCHIONE: The current property owners -- C-4
zoning which is -- is zoned on this island -- I believe there's 30
some acres zoned C-4 -- that would be deleted as a permitted use under
the comprehensive plan. There is some language in the plan that says
if you get a building permit issued by the effective date of this
plan, you can continue and you would be vested. If it is after the
effective date of this plan, they would no longer be permitted the
hotel, motel use.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if someone had purchased
it with that intent but just isn't at a point yet where they're ready
to start constructing, they're just -- they're just out of luck.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MS. CACCHIONE: They would lose that particular use.
And in lieu of that, we would have residential density at 12 units per
acre instead of the 4 units per acre and also all the array of the
other C-4 commercial uses.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Cacchione.
MS. PRESTON: For the record, Debrah Preston. I'd like
to start off with the population section in the plan. And Marco
Island like much of the county experiences a tremendous influx of
seasonal residents during the winter months. And due to the seasonal
variation and the different lifestyles of condominium and
single-family dwelling unit owners, the committee decided that a
separate population study should be done to analyze occupancy trends
and person per households. Time share and hotel units not usually
included in calculating population were included due to this impact of
the transient population on Marco Island.
In 1994 it was estimated that 14,000 dwelling units
existed on Marco with a peak population of 32,000 while the August low
population was 13,000. Population more than doubles between the peak
and low season.
In addition to the residents of Marco Island, it is
estimated that approximately 5,000 day visitors visit the island
during the day on any peak season day.
The plan recommends that an annual growth rate of 1.7
percent is used to calculate future -- future growth. And based on
this increase, build-out would be expected to occur in 2016 with a
peak population of 45,000 and an August low population of 25,000. The
plan also recommends that the population estimates and projections are
updated annually for the -- both the peak and low population periods.
Water consumption on Marco Island well exceeds the
county's standard of 200 gallons per person per day. It is estimated
that on Marco the average is 324 gallons per person per day with the
majority of the water used for irrigation.
With the completion of an expansion to the reverse
osmosis plant expected in early May, the potable water system will
have sufficient capacity for the next five years based on current
allocation standards used by the private utility company, Southern
States Utilities. However, it is estimated that Marco will need an
additional five million gallons of water at build-out unless measures
are taken to cut water consumption.
The plan does not recommend a change in the level of
service. It is the objective of this plan that the actual potable
water use on Marco is reduced to the county standard of 200 gallons
per person per day.
The plan does recommend reducing the amount of potable
water usage by one mel -- one million gallons through a voluntary
conservation program already initiated by Southern States Utilities
and by installing a reclaim water line to divert two million gallons
per day of treated waste water for lawn irrigation. In addition,
increased capacity of the reverse osmosis plant or other equivalent
methods are to be encouraged.
There are approximately 2,400 dwelling units on Marco
Island connected to septic tanks, and approximately half of the island
is sewer. Five thousand additional single-family units are estimated
to be constructed by build-out, and the majority of those units will
be on septic tanks unless another alternative is provided or desired.
There have been much discussion on water quality and its
relationship to the continued use of septic tanks. Water quality
tests taken in the canals in 1992 indicated that the fecal chloroform
count exceeded the level permitted by class 2 waters. However, the
tests were only collected at one point in time, and the source of the
chloroform was not identified.
The plan proposes that additional water quality tests be
completed. And if the tests show that -- the fecal chloroform count
in excess of that permitted by the Florida Administrative Code for
class 2 waters, then the residents of Marco Island would be asked
through a survey on whether additional waste water treatment methods
are necessary to ensure water quality.
If the tests show that the fecal chloroform count is
within the limits of class 2 waters, then the plan recommends that
septic tanks be permitted as long as the fecal chloroform count stays
within those limits.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question on that.
MS. PRESTON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the -- if the counts exceeded
the limits for class 2 waters, we would ask the residents if they
wanted to do something about it instead of just decide to do something
about it?
MS. PRESTON: Well, the board, of course, could make a
decision to do that. But there's been a lot of controversy on the
island whether or not to -- if there was a need to expand the sewer
system or not. So the committee felt that the best way to handle it
would be to do a survey of those affected by the expansion and see if
there was some other alternatives that could be looked at besides
sewers.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- the only thing I want to be
careful about -- and I'm sure Mr. Weigel wouldn't let us unlawfully
delegate any authority and was watching that in this document but that
-- that if there's a health and safety reason for the board to take
action that we have still the authority to do that. We haven't put a
step in there that would prohibit that. Just to ask your advice on
that at some point in this hearing, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. PRESTON: The plan does recommend that the level of
service for waste water be decreased from the county standard of 121
gallons per capita per day to 100 gallons per capita per day. And
this reduction is based on the historical use of approximately 80
gallons per capita per day and the Public Service Commission's
recommendation of 90 gallons per capita per day.
It should be noted that the plan does recommend that a
special potable water and sewer subcommittee be created to further
research these two complex topics prior to plan implementation and
before any financial commitment is made.
Under the recreation and open space section --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go too far --
MS. PRESTON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I've got questions on
sections you've already done.
MS. PRESTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On population --
MS. PRESTON: Uh-huh, yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- do we do -- don't we do
county-wide studies regularly and segment that into different parts of
the county?
MS. PRESTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how does this differ from
what we're doing now? I assume we look at Marco Island by itself.
MS. PRESTON: Marco Island is in the Marco planning
community which also includes Goodland and Isles of Capri, and those
are updated annually. This study is just in a little bit more detail
where it looks at the time shares and hotel units and that they would
also like to have the August low figure provided as well as the peak
figure provided.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how much additional staff
time will be required to do the August low figures and the more
detailed plan?
MS. PRESTON: I don't know if Barbara wants to address
that.
MS. BILES: The committee did it.
MS. PRESTON: The committee is -- is available to update
it, but I don't think it would take too much more staff time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if it's going to be done
on an annual basis, I assume the committee's not necessarily going to
do it every year.
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically that's something that we could
work right in. It is part of the existing information we have, and it
would just involve another calculation which we can easily do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a question, comment on the --
on an element that you've already done too, so now might be a good
time to do that.
On the -- the sanitary sewer section here, Commissioner
Mac'Kie had asked a question about what was going to be the
procedure. I'm not sure if you were in receipt -- I was in receipt of
a letter from HRS that -- that said that their recent counts came back
favorable and they do meet class 2 waters.
MS. PRESTON: Right.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That may not hold true in the future,
but for now that's -- that's true. The language if you'll go to page
27, about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 lines down it talks about the -- a
county survey. I'm not comfortable with a county survey. I would
like to change that in this section to referendum.
And in any -- any section in the plan which calls for
expenditure of money, I -- I want to see a vote of the people of the
-- the registered voters before the decision is made to spend money.
So a survey to me is not really hard enough evidence that that's what
happens. So I'm not comfortable without the word referendum in
there.
MS. PRESTON: We can make that. You'll notice in the
change sheets that were handed out today that we have addressed a
referendum for the funding sources but not specifically for the sewer
issue, but it does --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have not had time to go
through this.
MS. PRESTON: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So you're going to have to point that
out to us.
MS. PRESTON: Okay. It's on the last section of the
page, page 53 of the plan. We've added the word referendum. I think
it's the last change sheet that you've been handed out today by Miss
Cacchione.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Change sheet.
MS. PRESTON: With a memo on top of it from me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Last page on that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last page there. The plan will
be modified and amended if dedicated funding sources are not approved
by referendum to the extent necessary to implement the plan I
personally was glad to see.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm glad to see that. It's
still a little vague. I mean, by necessary to implement the plan --
and again, I think if you're going to leave the word -- I think your
point's well taken. If you're gonna leave the words in there survey,
then that may or may not ever bring itself to amount necessary. So I
-- I think Commissioner Norris's point is he wants to make sure it's
clearly the will of the --
MS. PRESTON: Right, and we can --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- people on the island and
not just --
MS. PRESTON: -- add that, referendum. I'll also point
out that in policy 8.2.2 we have added that the selection of the
preferred funding source will be determined through referendum on
Marco Island, and that would be one year after the Board of County
Commissioners reviewed the survey results that were done by the -- by
the community.
I think the idea -- the intent of the plan was that
first there would be a presentation to the community of all the
available funding sources and the projects with a cost item tied to
that. And then they would narrow it down and bring forward to you a
recommendation that this is what they were recommending. And then you
could then direct staff to put it on a referendum.
They had originally looked at providing a vote for each
of these items, but legally we are advised that the vote would be
taking some of the power away from the Board of County Commissioners
and that it was really you all that were directing staff when you
wanted to have a voter referendum held. But if your -- your option is
to delete the word survey and put in referendum, in those cases we can
do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Now, are you saying that it's
not legally appropriate to have a binding referendum?
MS. PRESTON: No. What the -- the community had wanted
to do was to have a vote that they would be calling the vote
themselves as opposed to coming to the Board of County Commissioners
and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see what you're saying.
MS. PRESTON: -- asking you all to -- to do the vote.
So this way we're doing the survey, and then that would be a
recommendation to the board. And perhaps that's an additional step
that doesn't need to be in place. But their idea was to bring a
recommendation to you all to then hold the referendum. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple more
questions.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, if I may comment in regard to
the use of the -- of the survey and the vote, particularly as pointed
out in the last page of the changes is that a survey can have multiple
questions or -- or multiple answers to a question, whereas when you
get to the -- a actual ballot referendum, almost without exception
you're subject to a yes-or-no vote to a particular question.
And we could run into the problem on a ballot referendum
where you would have to have multiple questions and then get answers
to each issue which may be in conflict with another issue such as
different funding sources. If you ask the question do you approve XYZ
tax or XYZ toll as a funding source, these are two different
questions. You may get 50 percent or 70 percent of the respondents
saying yes or no to each question, and they kind of cancel themselves
out.
So I think the -- the staff's intent with using a survey
first was to get a ground swell grass roots opinion of different
suggestions for a ballot question, and then the board would have to
determine which ballot question -- what ballot question it wanted to
use and perhaps even schedule, if they have more than one question,
successive referenda to ask the question because a yes-or-no vote may
end up with a funding source voted down. And so then the next
referendum you come up with a different funding source to see if
that's the one that might be approved by the board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much do each of these
referenda cost, and who's going to pay for that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's my question.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I would think if it's on a
general ballot it costs very little.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It costs very, very little if it's on
a scheduled election.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If it's on a scheduled election.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's an if.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big if.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, to do a mail ballot,
obviously that's got dollars connected to it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or a special election has even
more.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just in the event there
is some additional expense, I'm curious as to who's going to pay
that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Cacchione is going to answer that
it looks like.
MS. CACCHIONE: The -- the intent was that there would
be numerous things that we need to get a better feedback and consensus
from the community on because we don't have specific costs for some of
these items, and a rational decision can't be made until we do have
the costs. That's why we intended to do the survey mechanism first
where we could put a number of these ideas together, get a consensus,
and then go to one referendum hopefully at a general election ballot
where it would be just another question on the ballot and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I appreciate that. But,
I mean, the word hopefully is one thing, and the word that it
absolutely will be is another. And I'm saying in the event that there
is some additional cost because -- because it is not simply appearing
on a regular ballot, who incurs that expense?
MS. CACCHIONE: That is something we could -- we could
find out. And -- and again, this is a transmittal hearing. It will
come back again after it is reviewed by the state and region for two
more public hearings for final adoption, and we can definitely check
into that in more detail in terms of any costs that would be
associated if it's not on a general election ballot.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hate to transmit something
to the state that I don't agree with. And if I don't know those
facts, it's kinda hard to say, well, yeah, I might agree with it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's going to be one of
many funding source questions, you know, that -- that are gonna arise
out of this document.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- I think probably you're going to
find the board's concern and my concern I -- I know definitely is that
I'm concerned that there is no language in this plan that absent Marco
Island stepping forward to fund this plan the responsibility somehow
falls back to the county to fund the plan.
And I'm looking here at the last item on page 53 of the
memo that you gave me. And it's -- it's new language policy 8.2.4,
the plan will be modified and amended if dedicated funding sources are
not approved by referendum to the extent necessary to implement the
plan.
Now, I could interpret that to say that we're gonna
modify the plan to make someone else pay for it if Marco Island's not
going to pay for it. And that's -- I -- that's what I'm trying to
avoid is -- is obviously we've had this discussion -- I've had this
discussion with the committee members many, many times. If Marco
Island's not willing to step forward and fund the plan, then it's not
gonna be implemented.
MS. CACCHIONE: I think that -- that is, Commissioner
Norris, the intent of that policy. If -- if we need to modify the
wording, that is, in fact, the intent. There's also another policy in
the plan that says the time lines are conditional on appropriate
funding. And if the funding is not identified, the time lines will be
modified. So everything in the plan is contingent on funding.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MS. CACCHIONE: The problem is is we don't have detailed
cost estimates at this time because we have not done the conceptual
road plans and the things that we need to do to determine those. And
that is really our next step.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nevertheless, we could when we
talk about identifying -- what was it? -- dedicated funding sources --
we all here are sort of nodding that we know that that means sources
that result in Marco Island paying for Marco Island's plan. I don't
object to this if it says dedicated funding sources -- I don't know --
from Marco Island. I don't know how you say that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Harold, we can't -- first of all,
Harold, please don't jump in like that. And if you do, you gotta be
on the microphone.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, is there --
perhaps you can assist in wording that appropriately so that the
intent is clear. I think the -- everybody agrees on the intent.
We're just not sure the wording indicates that clearly.
MS. CACCHIONE: Perhaps we could work on that and Debrah
could finish the presentation, work on that language.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I offer that as far as a
referendum is concerned if we're concerned about the potential cost of
a special election or a special ballot that we include in it that the
-- that the referendum be scheduled at the next regularly scheduled
election. And if somebody wants it other than that, they've gotta
find a way to do it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. That's fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had some other questions on
the items she'd already gone through. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Objective 3.2, policy 2.2,
within a year from the date of the plan adoption a landscaping
ordinance limits the amount of sod in a landscape plan to 50 percent
of lot size. How does that compare to general county-wide? I'm just
-- I understand we're trying to conserve water --
MS. PRESTON: Right. I don't --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I assume is the intent
here.
MS. PRESTON: Well, you just meet your basic setback
requirements, and then whatever land you had available you could sod
or put in native plants. So this would be to try and deter people
from putting in sod because sod does eat up so much more water than
the native plants does. And so this would be sort of a -- a new thing
for the county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For Marco Island, not for --
MS. PRESTON: For Marco Island specifically.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then policy 3.2.4, within
one year from the date of plan adoption, the county will adopt a water
restriction ordinance for Marco that will restrict lawn irrigation.
It's -- again, I understand conservation is the intent and a good
one. But in what will that be based? I mean, we have about three
layers of government dealing with water and water management all with
different ideas on how we conserve and -- and ways to do that and the
appropriate times to do that and -- MS. PRESTON: Uh-huh, right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- are we adding one more
layer of repetition there?
MS. PRESTON: Well, right now the ordinance -- the
ordinance that you have on the books says that you have to declare a
state of emergency in order to get the limited watering in place.
This would be a flat time set up so no one would have to monitor
whether or not we were in a state of emergency. So that would take
away some of that monitoring of that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that would be enforced by
whom and how?
MS. PRESTON: It would be enforced by the utilities
department, and -- and code enforcement would be available. And so a
lot of it would be people calling in reporting on their neighbors.
Of course, these policies, like I mentioned before,
they're gonna have a special committee set up -- that's the intent of
the plan -- to review both the water and sewer implementation phases
to make sure that they're doing the optimum that they can to conserve
the water and lower the cost of water as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under goal 4, policy 1.2,
water quality tests, do we not do any of that type activity now?
MS. PRESTON: The pollution control department -- and I
don't know if Vince has an idea of this, but they don't actually do, I
don't believe, canal testing. They do some random testing but nothing
that's specific in Marco Island on certain canals on a regular basis.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the expense for that will
be picked up by whom?
MS. PRESTON: Well, right now the water quality tests
are being done by DEP, Department of Environmental Protection. And
then I believe there was a committee that organized with the
Conservancy to do some of the water quality tests. And again, once
this subcommittee is formed, if they should feel that more tests are
needed from a different source or if they would like to come to the
county, they could come to the county and ask for that to be done.
But right now that's not the intent of the plan to do any --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And again, the expense would
be picked up by whom? I -- maybe you answered that in there
somewhere, but I didn't hear it.
MS. PRESTON: Well, I guess, one, they could come to ask
the -- the board if you would like to pick up that expense, pollution
control division doing that. Or we haven't gone any further if the
residents of Marco Island would want to pay for that expense or not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right now it's DEP picking it up,
though.
MS. PRESTON: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then finally, under
policy 4 -- actually two things. 1.5 and 2.3, county will investigate
and report to the residents other technologies for waste water
treatment, and also the county will provide preliminary designs
showing reclamation water lines. Is this anticipating that the county
will operate the utilities down there? I'm just -- if it's a private
utility, I'm a little confused as to how the county does those two
things.
MS. PRESTON: I'm -- I'm not sure. I don't have the
policy in front of me, but is it to encourage the use of reclaimed
water? They are hoping to work with the private utility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hold on. It's not just to
encourage. It says the county will provide preliminary design plans
showing the size and location of reclaimed water line and sewer
collection line.
MS. PRESTON: It's part of the conceptual road plan. We
wanted to encourage the provision of having reclaimed water lines
available so when we're looking at the right-of-way, that would be
included. We're not suggesting that the county go in and do the
reclaimed water line.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand, but there's a
cost attached to doing engineering work and -- and planning. And if
it's a private utility, perhaps they're the ones who should be picking
up the tab to do what will ultimately link up with their product.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I -- can I just add to that?
So that there's not confusion, I think what we're all saying or what
I'm hearing is yes, yes, yes, we want to do this. We absolutely want
to encourage the tense of water, and we want to have this provided.
But it goes back to what we talked about in the budget dis --
discussions that we owe the taxpayers the same bang for each buck they
pay. And to the extent Marco wants something special, we want them to
have it, and we encourage them to do it. But we want to be sure they
pay for all of it.
So as -- as we're discussing these things, it's not, you
know, some lack of interest or lack of support in Marco doing -- using
as much reclaimed water as possible. But the mission today is to be
sure -- as far as I'm concerned, the mission is to be sure that Marco
pays for everything -- all of its extras.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. On both of these
policy -- and you said you don't have the policies in front of you,
but let me read you 1.5. County will investigate and report to the
residents other technologies for waste water treatment.
We don't operate the existing waste water plant. And --
and my thought is if it's going to be SSU operating the plant, it's
their place to come up with alternatives. It's not -- we don't even
operate the utility system there. So I'm a little confused as to how
we can come up with alternatives unless we take over the utility
system.
MS. PRESTON: I -- I believe the intent of the plan was
to look at different technologies besides your typical septic tank
system. Now there's some upgraded septic tank facilities that don't
pollute the area as much as maybe your current ones as well as besides
the conventional gravity sewer system which is what the private
utility company does. And I'm not sure it necessarily is in their
best interest to look at other alternatives besides what they're
already providing to their customers.
And so this -- the intent of this was that existing
county staff would do some research and come up with some alternatives
that could then be presented to the public.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- I'll need some help
from our legal staff here. But on utilities, I mean, there are
particular areas that are set aside for that utility to operate a
sewer system and regardless of what type system it is. I mean, we --
we can't simply go into Golden Gate and start laying pipe where there
isn't pipe or laying alternatives in there because that's set aside
for Florida Cities. I've got to assume it's the same thing on Marco,
that there is a area that's been designated for Southern States. And
while I understand --
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we got a number of
problems with Southern States, we can't simply barge in and start
doing it without an agreement with Southern States. It just seems
premature to start doing work in an area we don't have any authority
in. Is that -- am I mistaken in that?
MR. WEIGEL: You are correct, yes.
MS. PRESTON: Septic tanks, of course, aren't under --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MS. PRESTON: -- Southern States Utilities and the
board.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the con -- conventional
gravity sewer system is.
MS. PRESTON: But you do have the Marco water and sewer
district there which you, the board, sits as the ex official governing
board of that district. So even though you purchase the waste
treatment from Southern States Utilities, you do have an area there
that -- that is under your preview (sic).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Blanchard seems to want to jump in
and add something. Mr. Blanchard, you're kinda coming out of sequence
here.
MR. BLANCHARD: Well, there -- there seems to be a lot
of discussion over where's the design for a reuse water line coming
from. To be explicit, the Southern States Utility Company has already
made a design for a particular reuse water line going down Collier
Boulevard and also serving the Hideaway Beach section. That design is
already there. There have been many discussions as to how to fund and
how to set up that particular district. But we're pretty well along
the road of having a design. It's a question of trying to get it
implemented.
So the design phase has already been done at this
point. If you want to talk about the specifics of Marco Island, that
particular reuse line has already been designed.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, then -- then I don't
know what this policy's purpose is then because it said will provide
preliminary design plans showing the size and location. You're
telling me those plans are already done.
MR. BLANCHARD: The plans -- the design plans are
there. The problems are the implementation of that, of how to set up
the funding source timing --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we can just strike this
policy then because --
MR. BLANCHARD: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it's already taken care
of.
MR. BLANCHARD: -- this has been a rather fluid
situation for the last two years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Every pun intended.
MR. BLANCHARD: We have tried to get this tense water
line in place or agreed to, and it's been rather elusive. That part's
been elusive. Is that all right, Debrah?
MS. PRESTON: Yeah. I believe, though, that the current
plan that SSU is doing is for just coming down Collier Boulevard; is
that correct?
MR. BLANCHARD: But they have a design all the way down
Collier Boulevard. We've been arm wrestling over how far with the
present availability of gray water who is willing to pay what amount
of money up front or on time or on a per-use basis. This is the part
that's been fluid, but the design is there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then we can strike this policy and it
MS. PRESTON: The intent of this policy was to provide
for that space in the right-of-way for reclaimed water line in other
areas besides Collier Boulevard. There had been some discussion that
everyone on the island would like to have reclaimed water, not just
the people that live along Collier.
And as you read the rest of that policy, it says, as
part of the conceptual design streetscape plan identified in the
transportation element of this plan. And as Jeff Perry had mentioned,
the concept to go out and do an overall design streetscape plan for
the major roads on Marco Island should include the provision to where
those reclaimed water lines would go.
It's just it's not a detailed design. It's a conceptual
plan so that you would know in a hundred feet of right-of-way you
would set aside ten feet or twenty feet, what's ever needed, to have
that reclaimed water so that sometime in the future that line might be
put in and you wouldn't have to redesign your roadway plan.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And specifically on our staff
who would do that type design work? Somebody in Jeff Perry's
department?
MS. PRESTON: OCPM? We could do probably a joint group
of people from OCPM, from transportation, from MPO, from the planning
department.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how would those bills --
how would those hours be billed and to whom?
MS. PRESTON: Once again, that hasn't been determined.
We would like to have the conceptual road plan done if Marco Island
chooses to do that if the -- or the board chooses to pay for that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think -- again, I mean,
I've -- I've made the point I think, and Commissioner Mac'Kie's
repeated it. But these are all fantastic ideas. Don't get me wrong.
But how they're going to be paid for is a -- is a very legitimate
question. And when you say I don't know, that raises some concern
with me. And it's not something that let's go ahead and endorse it
but we have no idea how we're gonna pay for it, you know.
MS. PRESTON: I think of the list of projects we tried
to identify which departments with existing staff could do a lot of
the studies and research that or include it in the plan. And then for
the actual construction and design work, that's when the alternative
funding sources would have to be identified.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there's still a cost associated with
staff. Do -- existing staff, fine, but there's a cost associated with
that and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we're told every year in
the budget season, gosh, we need another FTE in this department or
that department, it's because existing staff is busy doing things. So
yeah, there's an associated cost with that whether they're doing
that. And I have a concern when it's a general ad valorem dollar or a
system-wide utility dollar or whatever it is that comes from the
entire county that is going for a very specific purpose on Marco
Island for this one section.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me see if I can approach this from
a different direction. There's -- there's a number of different
elements here. This may not seem related at first, but I'll -- I'll
tie it together. I promise you.
There's a number of different elements in the plan, and
how at this point is it anticipated that we are going to determine if
we're going to implement all of the elements or certain elements? Is
that supposedly to be determined during a survey? Is that what's
being suggested?
MS. PRESTON: I think the intent of the plan is that
once we could get some good cost estimates together for the proposed
projects that are conceptually listed in the plan that then that would
be presented to the public at a -- on a survey on what they wanted to
implement --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's '-
MS. PRESTON: -- based on cost estimate.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's say that then we have
element A, B, C, D, E and the public says we want A, B, D, E, not C.
Then we take that package to a referendum; is that correct? MS. PRESTON: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Now, at that point we will have
a referendum to fund A, B, D, and E. And then we will know that we
have a funding source or that we do not have a funding source to do
some of the things that -- that a couple of the board members are
questioning where's the funding coming from. Is that the way this is
all supposed to work?
MS. PRESTON: Right. That's the intent of the way the
plan is set up.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But it seems to me that at the
same time we have some timing problems here -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- with -- with determining costs
before we can put out a survey. So that gets back to the questions
that these two commissioners have raised is who's going to forward the
-- the funds before we even know, num -- number one, are we even
going to fund the project at all; and number two, which elements are
we going to fund, so we have -- we have sort of a timing problem.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See, you're telling me that
absolute nothing will be done, no staff time expended, none of these
research or design or anything else will be done without a
referendum. Absolutely nothing in here will be done.
MS. PRESTON: I -- no, that's not what I said. I think
that there's a list of projects in the back that identify existing
staff that would be involved in doing some of the preliminary studies
and perhaps some of the conceptual design plans.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my point is somebody
needs to tell me who's going to pay for all those things, and you
haven't been able to do that so far.
MS. PRESTON: Barb wants to answer this.
MS. CACCHIONE: I think basically it's very similar to
the approach we used in Immokalee and Golden Gate. There are certain
things that we have budgeted within our current staff level that we
feel that we'd be able to undertake within our current FTEs. And
those are things like the commercial overlays, certain development
standards.
The main issue of funding that we need to probably
resolve is the conceptual road plans because that is, in fact, what we
need to get the cost estimates in order to do the surveys and go
through referendum.
The other item is the four laning of the bridge and that
study, and that's being done by DOT. So a lot of these things are
anticipated to occur. A lot are expected to occur within the current
budget levels. The main decision point would be on the conceptual
road plans, and that would be something that we could look at during
the priority budgeting this year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the majority of these
items will be paid for out of general ad valorem tax or out of general
fee payor costs from Horseshoe Drive.
MS. CACCHIONE: Very -- not just Horseshoe, but it would
also involve other departments -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Utilities.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- very similar to how we did Golden
Gate and Immokalee where with Immokalee we probably had ten different
studies in there and things that we needed to do because we hadn't
done them. And basically that was funded through our current budget.
Now, the timing issue, how it fits in so that we do not
have to come and request additional people, is always something we
tend to play with, in fact, more. Where we might amend it in
Immokalee, we've amended those time lines three times because we
needed to do that within the existing staff.
And that's what we tend to do, and that's why that
policy is in there in regard to the time lines being changed if we
can't find the appropriate funding to complete the task.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So what you're saying is that
you're not really asking for anything different to be done that was
not done in the Immokalee or Golden Gate Master Plan process.
MS. CACCHIONE: At this point that is correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Essentially.
MS. CACCHIONE: And basically --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not --
MS. CACCHIONE: -- what we're doing a little bit
different --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not accurate.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- is that when we get to the point --
and there are some things in this plan that go beyond what we did in
Immokalee and go beyond what we did in Golden Gate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To -- to parallel the two is
completely inaccurate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because we're talking -- we're
talking extras versus most basic services. When we're talking about
Immokalee, I think it's appropriate for general tax dollars to pay,
and I don't know enough about the Golden Gate to say. But we're
talking about general basic fundamental services that government
should be providing. Yes, general tax dollars should go towards
studying those issues. But when we're talking about if -- you know, a
wonderful program that I'd like to see county-wide, water tense
systems, that's not -- that's an extra. MS. CACCHIONE: That is --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They have to pay extra for that.
And, Mr. Dotrill, that's back to that base level of service. Please
give us that. We really need to tell people this is what you get for
your property tax dollar.
MS. CACCHIONE: That is where we did draw the line.
Basically what this plan does is certain things that's correct we can
move forward with. For instance, in Golden Gate, the development of
the architectural guidelines for the parkway district, that was done
with existing staff much as the overlays on Marco Island would be done
by existing staff.
Where we get into the issues of the surveys and the vote
is in the implementation, the actual doing of the conceptual road
plans. And that is the issue that will be put to referendum and will
be funded by Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the --
MS. CACCHIONE: And that's why it's in here in probably
seven different policies that we -- that that is the procedure for the
implementation of those things.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the expected methodologies for
these surveys?
MS. CACCHIONE: We have been conducting them in-house.
We -- there's certain ways that you need to ask survey questions so
that you don't get a particular result. You have to get a random
sample. And there's about 8,000 registered voters on Marco Island.
It will cost us about $6,000.
Basically we have also been looking into the University
of Florida to see if they can conduct it for us so that the whole
survey mechanism is above reproach and done by an independent. And we
are checking into the costs of that as well.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that will be paid for by --
MS. CACCHIONE: That would be paid for through a request
out of one of our budgets within development services.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So regular tax money, not Marco
Island specific money.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, see, I don't -- again,
that's not parallel to Immokalee or to Golden Gate.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The -- the problem --
MR. DORRILL: Well, I think what Miss Cacchione is
telling you is that year in and year out when your long range planning
department comes to work, they're -- they're doing something. And
last year the something that -- that they did was working to develop
the Marco plan. The year before that it was Immokalee, and the year
before that it was Golden Gate. Next year it's going to be North
Naples because those people are already out there, you know, bringing
a proposal that they want a North Naples master plan.
I think only at the time when you look at Ms.
Cacchione's budget this summer if you start seeing expanded service
requests for additional full-, part-time, contract employees to work
on the implementation of the Marco Island plan would you then say,
aha, I don't know why all of a sudden it sounds to me like we want to
stop our long range planning focus in terms of what the -- the staff
is working on as part of their work plan to make sure that we account
for every dollar because everything they do is in the general fund.
Nothing that the long range planning group does is supported by any
other funding source than ad valorem tax dollars.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not suggesting we stop
long range planning. I'm suggesting that the extent to which some of
this goes is well beyond what previous studies have done, and the
expense associated that -- with that is well beyond what previous
studies have done. And so I'm concerned then that the general
taxpayer is picking up something that is well beyond what's previously
been done. It is not identical. It is not parallel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just to add to that, that if
-- it's sort of like that gas tax thing you guys were talking about
on the buses this morning. If -- if we can afford to have a staff
sufficient to study water reuse on Marco Island, we may be
overstaffed. Or maybe if we're gonna do that, that FTE ought to be
funded by the district that's going to benefit by it.
So just because we've spent this money every year in the
past doesn't mean we continue to do it once we're getting into what I
would call --
MR. DORRILL: Well, it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the fluff department because --
MR. DORRILL: Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we're getting into fluff.
MR. DORRILL: And that's -- and that's policy decision.
But before they have the -- they don't have $6,000 in their budget now
to conduct the mailing of a registered voter survey. That would have
to be shown to you as an expanded service request on their line item
budget this year. And your budget analyst who's responsible for that
department is going to make sure that they highlight any extraordinary
expense beyond that base level service that is otherwise approved by
the board as -- as part of last year's adopted budget.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the -- the other thing is that I
understand your concerns. I can't say I disagree with the principle
here, but you're -- you're putting this plan in the chicken and egg --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- problem of without the plan they
can't implement funding, and without funding they can't implement the
plan. Now we gotta make up our mind. Are we gonna have a plan? Are
we not gonna have a plan? At some point we need to give some
assistance and perhaps even with the -- with the requirement that
certain things would be refunded in the event a referendum is
successful.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But, you know, we -- the citizens have
been two years getting to this point. And to say now that we're not
going to extend a little staff time to -- to get it over the hump and
get it implemented I think is probably a disservice to everybody
that's involved. So let's -- let's think about it a little bit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not suggesting we're gonna
stop. I'm suggesting that we need to come up with -- it's -- it's
Davis Boulevard beautification. If they want it beautified, they
gotta raise 10 percent of the money to try and get a matching grant
from the state to try to come to the county. Same thing. You may
have to raise your own seed money.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the -- this is a transmittal
hearing; is that correct?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And after it's found to be
sufficient by the state and the regional planning council, it will
then come back for two more public hearings?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct. And what we could do in
that time frame is -- is as you suggest, and maybe this is something
we should prepare for you to -- to see item by item. We can pull out
any policy that requires an action and try to associate a cost with it
and to determine if that can be done with existing staff within our
current budgets or if that would require some expanded service and
where we intend to draw the line with regard to implementation.
And we can prepare that for you -- if we transmit today,
we can prepare that during that three-month period that the DCA and
the region are reviewing the plan. And then if we can make those
changes, we can actually put those things into the plan. And, in
fact, when we presented Immokalee to you, we did do that. And I think
that estimate was $175,000 if I remember correctly on that one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So then does that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- help your concerns?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It does. My only other question
just as a process question is -- I wish Commissioner Hancock were here
to talk about the stick that we give to DCA to be dismissed. Will we
be doing that, Mr. Weigel? I mean, once we say this is our plan, if
we -- how -- how much trouble do we get into with DCA? Or maybe it's
Miss -- Miss Student.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Until we adopt it I don't think
there's any trouble.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: Well, what happens when we transmit the
plan, DCA will prepare what is called an ORC report.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who are you? Would you identify
yourself?
MS. STUDENT: Oh. I'm Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney, for the record. And when you change some things in
the plan, you run the risk that, as we said, it hasn't been ORC'd. So
we don't know what DCA's response is. And they may be able to take us
to task for something that we haven't seen before, and we'd be thrown
right into the administrative hearing process rather than having the
benefit of an ORC report to give us some guidance as to where they
have a problem.
On an augmentation, I don't -- you know, I don't know
that there would be that much of a problem where unless we felt we had
to take something out.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- my --
MS. STUDENT: And then we run the risk of having them
question why it was taken out and what was the support for that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was can they make us
do it? Once we've said, this is our goal, can they enforce it?
MS. STUDENT: They can't -- they can't make us do it
until we adopt it. And remember that the plan is not legally
effective now until DCA finds us in compliance.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they could drag us through a
process.
MS. STUDENT: So they could drag us --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: They could conceivably drag us through a
process. The purpose of the ORC, again, is to give us some guidance
so we know where they have a problem. And we don't have that if we
make some changes at that adoption hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: More questions?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm fine.
MS. CACCHIONE: If you'd like, we can conclude with
Debrah's presentation -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- and finish that up.
MS. PRESTON: Okay. Were there any other questions on
the things that I had already talked about? If not, we can move into
recreation and open space.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just one on the toll bridge. I think
you've already covered the toll bridge.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Jeff talked about that.
MS. PRESTON: Okay. The toll bridge under the
transportation section?
CHAIRKLAN NORRIS: Okay. The toll bridge was talked
about. And here again, it's a -- the language is county survey. And
any of these -- any of these things that require funding I'm simply
not comfortable with the term county survey or survey or something
like that. It needs to be referendum.
The other thing is policy 5.5.4 talks about putting the
toll bridge, if there ever was such a thing, on the north side of the
Goodland bridge. And that wouldn't be appropriate because Goodland's
not part of the plan. So the -- the toll bridge should be west of the
entrance to Goodland -- the toll booth, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Toll booth.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Toll booth should be west of the
entrance to Goodland so that Goodland people don't have to pay the
toll because since they're not part of the plan, they shouldn't have
to pay the toll.
MS. PRESTON: Right. They'll pay the toll to get on to
Marco Island. That's all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right.
MS. PRESTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I got a little problem
with the toll bridge idea and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we can cross that when we
get to it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- that -- that's --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pun intended.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're having lots of puns today,
aren't we?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a pun kind of day.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Please continue.
MR. PERRY: If I -- if I could just -- again, for the
record, Jeff Perry, planning department. I'm not so sure putting the
toll booth on the west side of the bridge is where the people --
Goodland would like to have it. I'm not sure because they're west of
the bridge as well. Are you talking about west of their entrance road
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The entrance to Goodland.
MR. PERRY: -- so that they would have to -- to shop or
to do anything on Marco Island they would have to pay the toll? I'm
not sure where it's better from their standpoint. We'd have to ask
them where they would rather have the bridge. It's like Isles of
Capri on whether or not the people of Isles of Capri would prefer to
have the toll north of their entrance road or south of their entrance
road depending on whether they're going to be traveling north up the
road or on to Marco Island. Somebody's going to have to pay the toll
sooner or later.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, if I lived in Goodland and I
wanted to go to Naples, I wouldn't want to have to go over a toll
bridge.
MR. PERRY: Right. But if you also wanted to go on
Marco Island, if that's where you shopped, you certainly wouldn't want
to pay a toll there either.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wouldn't want to pay it
either way.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I wouldn't want to pay it either way.
MR. PERRY: Right. So I think -- the point is well
taken. I think we would want to make sure that the people of Goodland
have expressed their opinion if there is to be a toll bridge, toll
booth someplace on that bridge, where is it going to be?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think the operating principle is
they're not part of this plan. They shouldn't be subjected to or have
this toll imposed on them to get back and forth to their houses if
they're not part of this plan. I think that's the operative
principle.
MR. PERRY: And I guess I just wouldn't want to
predispose where that toll booth should be because no matter where it
is, it's going to affect them one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Continue, please, whoever's
left.
MS. PRESTON: Okay. The next element or section of the
plan is recreation and open space. Based on existing county
standards, there's sufficient community park land available on Marco
Island. However, the plan does recommend that the county reevaluate
the current level of service standard for community parks on Marco
Island. And I understand that was part of the EAR process that they
are going to be evaluating community park standards throughout the
county.
And the plan also recommends that the county investigate
the potential for land banking, additional banking properties suitable
for future civic, community, cultural, recreational and open space
usage.
The plan recommends --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt. What
page in here are you on? These seem to be out of order so --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry.
MS. PRESTON: Recreation and open space on page 45.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. PRESTON: Plan recommends that you investigate --
the county would investigate and negotiate a feasible tract K on Marco
Island which the school board owns and is feasible to look at
developing that property as a community park site.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which one was that?
MS. PRESTON: That's policy number 6.1.2.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what is that currently,
that tract?
MS. PRESTON: Tract K is currently owned by the school
board. It's a vacant parcel. And the community would like to look at
negotiating that since they're not going to be building any more
school sites on Marco Island, to look at developing that as a
community park.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the next item, tract D on
Heathwood, what is that currently?
MS. PRESTON: That is currently owned by the county. It
is a vacant parcel.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, are -- are we sure that we're
not going to need that for library expansion?
MS. PRESTON: I believe the -- I'm not sure, but I
thought the library had already been working on their expansion this
year. They're already completed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Policy 6.1.3 says within one
year of plan adoption, the county will designate tract D as a
neighborhood park open space and begin public input on potential
improvements.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We get back to the discussion
that we were trying to move away from neighborhood parks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'd like to look at
it and see. I mean, it may make perfect sense, but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll have --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'd like to investigate
like the item above instead of designate absolutely are gonna. And
maybe -- maybe some of the committee can comment on that.
MS. PRESTON: You wanted to add the word investigate?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Investigate, yeah. That would be --
this says will, and that's pretty definitive, and it appears to
obligate us to do that. I'm not sure that we want to be obligated as
-- in the plan at certain points so -- but we -- we do have public
hearings yet to come where we can determine some of these things a
little better I would think.
MS. PRESTON: We can add that word if you so choose.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Please continue then.
MS. PRESTON: Okay. Is there anything else under
recreation and open space that you would like to ask me about?
If not we can move to governmental coordination which is
on page 48 of the plan and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neil?
MS. PRESTON: The plan recommends that an implementation
committee be appointed by the board to monitor plan implementation and
report on the effectiveness of the plan. The committee also would
review all requests for land development changes for property on Marco
Island and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
And the potable water and sanitary sewer subcommittee that I had
mentioned earlier would be appointed by this full committee.
I would also like to bring to your attention that at the
planning commission's meeting on April 4 that the planning commission
recommended that this new advisory committee report to the planning
commission and not to the Board of County Commissioners and that they
don't look at land use changes.
However, the vision planning committee would like to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A little girl, seven pounds, one
Ounce.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Baby Hancock has arrived.
MR. DORRILL: I wanted a cheerleader, not a football
player, so I'm very happy for Valetie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. I thought that was worth
an interruption.
MS. PRESTON: Sure. So the vision planning committee
would like this new advisory committee to report to the board and that
they should look at land use changes. So both of those committee
structures are presented to you today for your -- your discussion and
decision on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While I'm making myself unpopular
with people on Marco Island, let me go ahead and say about that one
that I -- I am not interested in adding another layer of bureaucracy
to local government. It's bad enough as it is. I absolutely endorse
there being a committee of interested people on Marco Island who want
to -- if a developer's smart enough to take their petition to them to
-- to offer them the opportunity to be heard by this group and to
understand the community's concerns but not as a requirement. I -- I
think that that is a step backwards for -- for what we try to do here
which is simplify and streamline. We're starting to look more like
the state with separate agencies.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I gotta agree. There's
-- I mean, we have the step with the planning commission which has
particular -- at least one representative appointed directly by the
representative of Marco Island. And just adding one more step for
somebody to jump through before they can do anything -- and we always
think of the evil developer putting together the big project. But if
I want to build a house, I need to go through all those steps too. Or
if I want to do an addition on my house, there are a number of steps I
have to go through. And I want to be careful that the little person
isn't getting pushed into several more steps and hiring an attorney
for another day and so on.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sort of like with apologies to
Mr. Coleman, Pires, and Pickworth in the room, but, you know, those
hourly fees are high enough already. And to add one more place where
they get to show up and charge 200 bucks an hour --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fees. You guys charge?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry, guys.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make a comment. I think we can
avoid having any problems with -- with an ordinary petition process.
But I think that the intent here is to have a -- a board that would be
very similar -- similar to Pelican Bay services division. Assuming
that the funding source would become an MSTU on Marco, you would need
a board in any case to operate that MSTU. And I think what we're
talking about is something similar in function to that board.
And, of course, I don't think it would be necessary at
all to require someone to pull a regular building permit to go through
this board. I think we would be talking about extraordinary type
petitions like fezone or -- or something like that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't believe those -- I
mean, maybe I'm mistaken. Do those go through the Pelican Bay MSTU
board right now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Water management related issues
do, but that's all that I know of.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But anything to do with
zoning or building does not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. DORRILL: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this would be precedent
setting.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I didn't say precisely like that
board. I said similar to that board in function.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And I -- and I
disagree with you. I don't think we need to have another hurdle for
-- I mean, there's a planning commission. There's a board of
commissioners. We have a number of public hearings -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: EAB.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and an opportunity to take
bites at the apple.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm not sure it's not
such a -- a bad idea to have an HSTU board when it's formed oversee
zoning applications and so forth for Marco Island in an advisory
capacity to our planning commission. But, you know, they -- they have
the master plan. They know what the master plan entails, and they'll
know in detail if any proposal is -- you know, is supported by the
master plan. And -- and I'm not sure it's not such a bad idea.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But our planning commission can
handle that. I mean, they implement -- they evaluate everything else
for compliance of the plan. The staff can do that. They evaluate for
compliance with the plan.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many steps of government
do you need to go through? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, the -- the staff
assists our planning commission, and the staff certainly is or should
be familiar with this document. And, I mean, how many more steps do
you add?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm not so sure that I
would want to make review by this board mandatory but -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- certainly if -- if they have
an objection to a particular proposal coming forward that -- that they
have the planning commission hearing available to them at even --
carrying more weight than an ordinary citizen because this is the HSTU
board and they're finding that this particular proposal is not an
agreement with the master plan on some particular that our planning
commission members may not be aware of.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have an objection to
that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No problem with that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Fine. Please proceed.
MS. PRESTON: Okay. And then the final element is the
capital improvements planning section.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go to that
element, you'll -- you'll correct the wording there then to represent
what Commissioner Matthews just outlined?
MS. PRESTON: So it would be to be an advisory board to
the planning commission?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. It would be available as a
board that was endorsed by the county commission in association with
this project. It would be available to applicants who wanted to be
reviewed by it, or it could also avail itself of the opportunity to
comment on petitions but not that it was a required step in any
application process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just make a suggestion
that perhaps someone here was listening when that was explained and/or
we can review the minutes but just make the change according to the '-
MS. PRESTON: Could you also please tell me your wishes
then on the other duties that this board would do? Would they also be
available to monitor the Marco Island plan and look at the budgeting
of the plan and look at the implementation of the plan?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, it would be the HSTU
board, so they would be doing all of those things --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- they always -- HSTU boards do.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And as far as the zoning and the
rezoning's going, they would have the ability to comment to -- to the
planning commission.
MS. PRESTON: I believe the intent of this policy was to
set up an advisory board prior to maybe an MSTU board being set up.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, we know that, but that's
what we're saying. I heard '-
MS. PRESTON: You don't want that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the majority of us say that's
not a good idea.
MS. PRESTON: Okay. Sorry. I know that there's people
in the audience that will probably address that when you get to that
public comment.
In the capital improvement planning -- I'm sorry. The
final element is the capital and improvement planning section. The
capital improvement plan we've already mentioned. There's a schedule
to be completed in five years, and there are several alternatives that
have already been looked at including the toll bridge and the county
providing some of the existing funds which we may want to take out, a
special HSTU, and a flat rate tax assessment.
And then it also calls for a survey to be taken. And
perhaps Commissioner Norris's recommendation of just changing that to
a referendum at this point and that there is a policy to allow some
flexibility in the time lines.
Do you have any questions about the capital improvement
element?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just a couple of comments while we're
on that element. I think I'm probably correct assuming, board
members, that none of you have any intention of imposing taxes on
Marco Island.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: (Commissioner shook head.)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Referendum; right?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, that's -- that's my point. I
think three basic points that I have for funding matters all
throughout the plan, wherever they appear, is that any increased
fundings -- we've -- we've discussed this. I just want to reiterate
and make it clear. Any increased funding must be borne by Marco
Island and must be enacted by referendum, not survey, referendum. If
such referendum should fail, there must not be any language in the
plan that would then otherwise obligate the county to provide
funding.
And number three, the -- the -- the plan -- we need to
be careful in the plan that there's not other language in there
outside of funding questions per se that -- that obligates the county
to do part of the implementation beyond what would be considered
fairly normal, routine type work anyway which we had a long discussion
on earlier. And that's, I think, what's critical to me about the
funding issues.
MS. PRESTON: If there aren't any other questions, I'd
like to just go over some of the changes, the other changes, that were
on the handout that you received this morning. And most of these
changes are for clarification of some of the policies in the plan.
The first change would be that wherever it says within one year of
plan adoption it would read within one year of the plan's effective
date which means that once DCA finds the plan in compliance that's
when the time frame would begin and the plan would be legally
sufficient.
The next change is on the first page of the plan, and
this is just to delete the first sentence in the last paragraph, since
we don't have an intergovernmental coordinating committee, to delete
that sentence.
And then on page 16 of the plan, it's recommended that
we add some language, policy 2.1.6, and this is to clarify that uses
in development standards allowed by existing zoning would be permitted
until the overlays are developed and adopted except for the
multi-family residential higher density units in the village
commercial and the town center. And those would not be allowed until
the higher density -- until the overlays were adopted.
On page 19 that change --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me.
MS. PRESTON: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are -- are you saying then you
-- you want to -- to freeze building permits between the time of
adoption and the overlay completion?
MS. PRESTON: For higher density multi-family in just
the mixed use town center area and the village district, the pink and
red area there, until the overlays would be adopted.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One -- one thing we've been
cautious of is not depriving a property owner of his valid use of his
property. What -- what time frame are you looking at between the
adoption and the overlay?
MS. PRESTON: Well, the policy says that within one year
of the effective date of the plan that the overlays would be adopted.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're talking about no
development rights in the red or the pink for a year?
MS. PRESTON: Just for higher density multi-family.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel --
MS. PRESTON: You can do all your existing commercial
zoning.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- is that going to get us in
trouble?
MS. STUDENT: If I could clarify, that's because you
wouldn't have any development standards yet for those uses. So it
would be very hard to be able to develop under that land use category
without development standards.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. But what are we taking
away in the end?
MS. STUDENT: But it doesn't preclude from the other
uses that you have in a district from developing under, you know,
those uses and existing zoning.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe I didn't understand then.
I thought that there -- that we had -- uses A, B, and C are currently
permitted. We're going to eliminate use A. We're going to add use
Z. During the period of time while we're coming up with regs. for use
Z, you still can't do A? It seems like A ought to continue until Z is
added in, you know, not that something's eliminated before something's
replaced. Am I missing it?
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically the two areas we're talking
about are the village commercial and the town center. Right now the
density is capped at four. We're providing for those densities to be
higher than what they are today. But we want to develop some building
-- some development standards on building height, setback, and how
those increased densities will occur on those parcels. Our hope is
that the time frame is very short --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Barb '-
MS. CACCHIONE: -- from the effective date.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- at the same time if you -- you
are increasing, you're also taking away I know one, hotel, motel.
MS. CACCHIONE: In the town center, that's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we're subtracting one, and
we're gonna add another one in as soon as we can, and we expect that
to be about a year.
MS. CACCHIONE: And -- and for the most part, those
areas are zoned C-4 commercial. They would require a rezoning to go
to residential anyway. And so there would be that time period for the
property owner that would have to fezone their property because C-4
zoning does not permit residential at 12 units per acre.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just want Mr. Weigel to give us
advice on that as the private property rights law for '- MS. STUDENT: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just get a yes-no
question? In a 12-month span if I'm a property owner, there may be
something I just can't do. I just might have a year lost.
MS. STUDENT: There would be one of a menu of things you
couldn't do. You would still be able to utilize your property for
certain uses that are available now, so there is --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just maybe not for the
preferred current legal use.
MS. STUDENT: -- one item on a menu. So I don't think
that we run into --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Student '-
MS. STUDENT: -- a taking problem here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Student, excuse me. Try not to
talk over one of the board members, please; all right?
MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
MS. STUDENT: So I don't think there would be a taking
problem because they have uses available to them. On the private
property rights aspect, there are no cases brought under that yet, and
the law talks about interference with reasonable investment-backed
expectations. And it's very loose. And until we have some cases,
it's very difficult to predict what -- you know, what -- what that
really means.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I sure wouldn't want Collier
County to be the first case in Florida under the '- MS. STUDENT: I -- I can't --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- private property rights
bill. But let me -- let me just see if I can settle this for my
mind. Property owner A right now in these two area (sic) has certain
rights vested in the property he owns. And right now basically
they're -- they're C-4.
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And you're talking about
adding a residential component to that that today does not exist. MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So he -- he owns his
property today. He does not have the ability to put up residential,
but he will have maybe a year from now, but we're taking away the
hotel, motel in the meantime.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MS. STUDENT: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there any properties in this
area that are suitable for hotel, motel?
MS. STUDENT: I would have to ask Hiss Cacchione to
address that.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or maybe the people who own them
should address that because '-
MS. CACCHIONE: There's 40 acres zoned C-4 in the mixed
use town center. Probably 20 acres of that would be suitable. By
that I mean the property ownership is such that lots can be aggregated
to form a parcel big enough for hotel, motel; ten acres on Smokehouse
Bay and about an equal amount along Elkcam Circle.
I think the suggestion was -- and it was brought up by
owners or representative of owners of those parcels -- that they'd
like to do multi-family and that they'd like to do that at 12 units
per acre. That was one reason for the increased density above what's
currently permitted today. Basically the hotel, motel use was to try
to decrease the intensity in that area and hopefully encourage the
property owners to move towards multi-family.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So if what -- if what you say is
so -- and I don't doubt it -- but the -- the property owners who owned
that property are indicating a -- a desire to put up multi-family.
it won't be any harm if we leave the hotel, motel in the plan until
the overlay is done because they don't want that anyway. Is that --
is that what I'm hearing?
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically the option is, of course, up
to the board as to whether they want to leave that as a permitted use,
hotel, motel. And that's something that is -- you know, we can modify
the plan, if that's a desire of the board, to allow hotel, motel use.
And the only property owners I'm speaking about are those along Elkcam
Circle because those are the only ones that have represented to me
that they would like to develop it residential. And, in fact, it was
an appeal before the board in the summer to come in at 12 -- well,
actually it was 16 units per acre. And it was reduced through this
process to 12 units per acre.
So basically those are the only property owners. I
don't know about the property owner on Smokehouse Bay, their intent.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm just a little bit
leery about taking away a property use that the property's already
vested with until the overlay is -- is finished. And while I
understand the desire of the committee who put this together, I'm '-
I'm just a little bit leery of -- of doing that because suddenly a
property owner because we've done this may decide he wants to put up a
hotel, motel and just see what happens.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I also think it's significant
what Barb just said. We don't know what the other owner wants to do.
And the fact that we're looking at tinkering with what you can and
can't do with your property and yet we haven't ever contacted
apparently that individual scares me a little bit. I mean, they --
they have some rights in this process too. And I'm not comfortable
tinkering with their uses without them having any idea it's going on.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even if it might not technically
violate the -- the law, the state -- you know, the new statute, it
just doesn't feel like the right thing to do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Cautero, do you have something?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vince
Cautero for the record. I've always been told by attorneys -- and I
think it's something that you should address today and perhaps ask
your attorneys -- that zoning by itself without any development plans
approved is not a vested right. I'm not an attorney, but I think you
need to -- to get that clarified on the record.
I guess what I'm trying to recommend to you is I don't
think we should be scared necessarily of what DCA might say about our
proposed plan because that's what it is is a proposed plan.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not worried about DCA.
MR. CAUTERO: If you want to take things out, you
certainly can. And I don't think we should be worried about what is
-- what the zoning is if you want to change it either by increasing
the intensity or decreasing the intensity. I think you have that
option.
MR. DORRILL: I -- I think, Mr. Cautero, that I heard
three board members say that is it good public policy to in effect
have a one-year moratorium against hotel uses in return for the
promise that we're going to try and develop some higher densities, and
is that some sort of bait and switch, and you all tell me if I'm
putting words in your mouth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's exactly what I was
saying.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's exactly the way I feel,
that -- that we're depriving them of a specific use in hopes that
they'll get some other use further down the road. I -- I'd rather
keep that specific use in the plan until we do the overlay and make
those property owners aware, though, that we're -- that -- that the
overlay is coming.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't share the concerns I've heard
voiced by the members. I think Mr. Cautero has expressed precedent
pretty well, and I appreciate the concerns, but I appear to be the
only one saying that, don't I?
Okay. Well, let's go forward then.
MR. DORRILL: If we're concluded, Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, I
think we've got a number of speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. How many do we have?
MR. DORRILL: Fifteen.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fifteen, okay. All right. Well,
let's get started.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles and then Mr. Quinnell or
Quinntell.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For those public speakers who may not
have been here before, we ask that you speak for five minutes or
less. Less would be fine. If -- if previous speakers have made your
points, perhaps you could just maybe cut your speech down a little
bit, and we can get through this pretty fast. Fifteen speakers I
guess would be a maximum of nearly an hour and a half. So, Dr. Biles,
if you would like to start.
MS. BILES: Fay Biles, a member of the committee and
also president of the MArco Island Taxpayers' Association. You've had
your say. Now we'll have our say.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There you go.
MS. BILES: First of all, I'm a little concerned about
all this concern about taxes and ad valorem taxes and what's coming
out and what MArco Island should pay for. I would -- I'd like to
remind you that MArco Island pays approximately -- I don't know what
it is this year. Last year it was 17.5 of all the ad valorem taxes
paid in Collier County. Never once has anybody on MArco Island that
I've heard of ever complained about paying taxes for things that
happen in the rest of the county.
I've never heard anybody complain about paying ad
valorem taxes for the maintenance and the operation of the Immokalee
swimming pool even though it was paid by impact fees. We know that
those costs are very high and that the children are being charged a
dollar and a half to swim. They can't afford it. So there's no
swimmers there in the summertime.
We've never had anybody in Marco Island complain about
paying for maintenance or operation of the Golden Gate Community
Center, Constantine, Mr. Commissioner. I've never heard anybody
complain about paying for anything that happens in Golden Gate or
Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fay, I've heard that argument
from the Marco Island taxpayers every single year. So I'm not sure
where you've been during the budget hearings. I think I've seen you
here every year. But I hear those complaints every single year. So to say you've never heard it is news to me.
MS. BILES: But, you know, it went through. I mean,
we're paying it, and I'm not hearing anybody complaining now that, you
know, that's part of our tax bill.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Budget hearings are next
month. You'll be hearing it then.
MS. BILES: Oh, I'll be here. We're talking about
drainage in the county. We're talking about paying for part of that
and so forth. I mean, Marco Island people are very willing to pay
their share. We always have been.
But here today I have the feeling that you're saying if
Marco Island wants anything they're going to have to pay for it
themselves. We do pay taxes, and part of those taxes should be paid
for part of the things that are gonna occur on Marco Island.
So as the taxpayers are concerned, I just think -- I
don't think you can just say, well -- if anything Marco Island wants
they pay for it themselves and let it go at that. I don't think
that's quite fair.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Above the base level which is why
I'd like for -- for our county manager to give us -- to quantify that
for us. What I'm saying is anything above the base level that
everybody else gets -- MS. BILES: True.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- should be paid for.
MS. BILES: True. I agree -- I agree with that, but
things are going on all over the county. There's a south Naples
community park going to be on the budget. Impact fees will pay for
it, but the operation and maintenance will come out of ad valorem
taxes. And we all know that, and we're willing to pay our share. But
then I don't want to hear that anything -- we'll pay our share, and we
want our share of the taxes to come back to Marco Island, and I'm not
talking equity now. I'm really not. But I do think that some of
these things should come out of the planning com -- committee, the
department, because that's part of the county.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Quinnell, then Mr. Blanchard.
MR. QUINNELL: For the record, my name is Art Quinnell.
I'm a professional engineer and a policy land surveyor. Unlike most
of the people in this room, I have lived on Marco Island for 30 years
come November. In fact, I'm one of the ones that helped prepare the
original Deltona plan, master plan, back in the sixties, the early
1960s.
The ones I represent, the people I represent, are the
owners in the town sate -- town center area, the one in red up there
on your map, the one specifically that owned the property on Elkcam
Circle between Bald Eagle and Collier Boulevard. This land is now
zoned C-4.
It -- also I represent the owners of the single-family
homes which are the yellow area right across the waterway from the red
area, the -- this commercial area, right across the waterway. I
represent those people also.
The history of the thing is that right now that land is
zoned C-4. It can be used tomorrow. A person can bring in a set of
plans and build a hotel, motel, a grocery store -- in fact, there's
one gonna go up there right now. They've got a piece of that
property, a new Winn Dixie -- with building heights up to 100 feet.
This is allowed right now.
If any other use is desired -- and if -- you saw me here
before a year ago when I tried to tell you that maybe an RMF-16 would
be a good alternative as opposed to a real high density commercial use
for this property. I was the one that came before up on the board --
before the board on the -- whether the master plan had correct, and I
was turned down naturally because the master plan was correct. It
didn't allow for this type of the thing because the coastal overlay of
four units per acre.
In other words, if you want to change anything other
than C-4 on this property right now, if you want to go to RMF-16 or
anything else, you can't because you fall under the auspices of the
coastal fringe overlay. And that coastal fringe overlay states four
units per acre. Nobody could afford that. You can't -- those people
paid $200,000 per lot for that property, and I represent 60 percent of
the owners of that strip of property.
They asked me to come before the planning -- the new
planning commission -- not the commission, the -- for the master plan
and ask them for a alternative to high density commercial use. I was
the one that brought it up. What I asked for was RMF-16 because they
can build RMF-16, residential multi-family 16 units per acre, and
still make a fair profit. They cannot at 12.
So in -- in effect what you're going to give if you give
them a 12, they can't use that as an alternative because they can't
make an economic goal. They can't make a -- a paying proposition out
of it, so that turns them right back to commercial.
For a while when the -- I attended about -- I think it's
26 of their meetings, of the various meetings there on Marco and 2
here in town, one at the planning commission and this one. And I
can't understand why -- like Miss Matthews why they would take out
that hotel, motel part of the zoning, C-4 zoning, right now because I
have another owner who I have a set of plans, in fact, on my desk
right now for a three-story -- two-story motel over top of parking for
a piece of this property, a low-rise motel, not 50 feet high, only
40. And this would be a very nice use in there as opposed to hotel up
there of 100 feet high. But to take that hotel, motel away from him
would just make this property virtually valueless if they can't have
that C-4 zoning.
And I've also in my experience throughout the country --
and I've -- I'm an engineer in seven states and a surveyor. And I
found -- I've also represented or been hired by a multitude of
attorneys as a witness in eminent domain, in zoning problems. They
use me quite often. In fact, I was at one last week over in Miami.
What -- how did I get all my information? How did I --
why did I do this to start this in the first place? Well, what I did
was, of course, the owners asked me. Then I went to the developers
and asked them, well, how can you get by -- what can you get by with
instead of a ten-story motel? They all said, we have to have at least
16 units per acre.
This is what I asked for. This would be a viable
alternative for them as opposed to high density commercial. They all
said that to me, every one of them. I did not rely on the opinions of
people who weren't knowledgeable in these fields or the opinions of
people who didn't know anything about it.
Stop it says. Okay. Let me put it then in a final
sentence. Suppose it was your land. Suppose you paid $200,000 an
acre for it and it was based on a hotel, motel use and an alternative
would be an RHF-16. What would you do?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Blanchard and then Mr. Martin.
MR. BLANCHARD: My name is Frank Blanchard for the
record. I'm the president of the Marco association of condominiums,
and I'm the chairman of the Marco beach maintenance committee, and
I've served on this committee of development of the plan for Marco
Island for the last two years with respect to condo and beach front
and, as you heard, tense water line issues.
I would simply urge you to -- let's get on with the
development of whatever this agreed-upon plan is so that these kinds
of activities can be concluded. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Martin and then Mr. Harzullo.
MR. HARTIN: I'm Fred Martin, 641 Dorando Court on Marco
Island. I have had property on Marco Island for 18 years now.
I object to policy 51.1 of the master plan -- it calls
for no lane expansions on major roads on HArco -- and part 52.2 that
calls for roundabouts and other things to slow traffic on Marco.
People have said during the planning meeting that good
traffic flow is very important to the quality of life on the island.
They do not want the traffic congestion and delays that occur now
during the winter season to worsen. They want improvements in the
traffic flow -- flow compared to now. They do not want to lower the
level of service. Why didn't the committee listen to them?
Turn lanes and other improvements could certainly
improve the current traffic flow. But as build-out approaches, when
the population increases to 45,000 people and -- we may well need 4
lanes on several major roads on the island. The right-of-way is
already in place, and a county-wide plan a few months ago showed some
four laning would be needed in the future. We should include that
possibility in the plan, not preclude it.
We need improvements to the road system that will speed
up traffic flow, not increase traffic speeds necessarily but lessen
the time it takes to go from point A to B. Remember, Marco's not a
small town. It's five miles from the south end of Collier Boulevard
to the Jolley bridge.
We do not need policy 52.2 as stated that calls for
roundabouts. It's fine, and we must have bike lanes and sidewalks and
major streets. A few more people may use a bike or walk, but most
will still want to use a car to shop, see friends, go to restaurants,
and do all the things they now do in a car. Construction and service
personnel will not bike. Calming techniques will not take traffic off
the road. They will lead to a much worse traffic situation and a
lower quality of life on Marco.
As for the roundabouts, look at the ones in Naples.
They do slow traffic way, way down and cause traffic to leave the
streets and travel on alternate streets. On Marco, we have no
alternate roads. Why not conduct a live test on one of these
roundabouts using the number of cars that use Bald Eagle and Elkcam
Circle during the winter season and also note the increase in that use
from the proposed Winn Dixie supermarket? This will save the county
some money.
At a recent woman's alumni club meeting when Mr. Vann
talked about roundabouts, some of the group booed when this was
mentioned. Right turn lanes were mentioned, and there was a cheer
went up. I've talked to many friends and acquaintances on Marco, and
not one has been for the roundabouts.
At the February 8 master planning meeting, the attendees
were broken into various groups. All groups except the transportation
group were allowed to make changes, recommendations, have discussions
in the master plan. Some of the changes that were suggested were
incorporated in the plan when they made sense. In the transportation
group, the attendees were told that no changes could be made. The
policies were read, and that was it.
The goal of traffic calming may be to have gridlock on
Marco Island so people who can't or don't want to walk or bike will
stay at home. This -- is this the kind of life that most people on
Marco want? I say no. Please let us have proper road planning and
adequate roads on Marco. Please change part 51.1 and 2.2 of the
master plan to add the possibility of four laning roads and deleting
the roundabouts. And I think there will be a speaker after me that
will further address how many people are against the roundabouts on
the island.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Marzullo and Mr. Haynes.
MR. MARZULLO: I'm Sal Marzullo, president of the Marco
Island Civic Association. And we thank you for allowing us to come
before you this afternoon to talk about our plan. My remarks will be
very brief. I just want to reiterate a couple of points.
One, ten people were selected from Marco Island
representing the major organizations on Marco Island, organizations
which on many occasions didn't agree on different strategies and plans
for the island. On this plan they worked together, worked together
very effectively, opened the process up in a way that I've seldom seen
in other communities either in Florida or in the northeast and have
come up with a plan which is not perfect. This plan does not contain
everything any of us on the committee would like to have seen
included. No plan does.
But it is an inclusive plan. It's one which has been
given comprehensive and serious thought. And the notion that it
wasn't open to the people in Marco Island is pure nonsense. The
process involved more people than any other plan or program that has
been opened up to the constituency on this island.
Secondly, we are part of Collier County. Just as Dr.
Biles said, it is our responsibility to help other parts of the
county. But Marco Island has an infrastructure which is aging, which
has not been attended to. Marco Island continues to put an intensity,
particularly in terms of growing population pressure, which requires
that we manage growth and deal with it before serious problems occur,
not after they occur.
So we come in the spirit of cooperation and a
willingness to say we bear the share of the burden that we have to and
willingly, but we also need people to understand that this little
island belongs to all of us in Collier County, not just Marco Island,
and we need you to help us keep it the very unique ecosystem and the
very unique place to live for people from your respective communities
who come to visit us. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Haynes. Then we'll have Mr.
Disseler.
MR. HAYNES: Jim Haynes. I'm a member of the vision
planning commission also. I'd like to without being burdensome add a
few facts to what -- the information that's been given.
One, we've talked about six civic organizations being on
the vision planning committee. They -- their combined membership is
ten thousand plus people. That's a lot of people.
Number two, the two surveys that we conducted on --
telephone surveys we conducted on Marco Island, one in August of '94,
one in February of '95, we worked with a professional pollster who
does work for the county to conduct them correctly. He told us that
if we contacted, got input from 550 people, we'd have a very adequate
sample that would reflect the wishes and the desires of the people on
the island.
In our August survey we had 350 volunteer callers, got
comments from over 1,100 people. And in our February survey, the
callers contacted between eight and nine hundred people. You add to
that the fact that we've had a number of forums, particularly one in
point the design charette where we had outside experts from West Palm,
urban design. We had state people come in, people who have experience
in Australia, France, and other places around the country to input,
conduct focus groups of our citizens, and then to feed back to them a
design that the people commented on.
We've done an awful lot. We've had a myriad of
discussions with groups that wanted presentations. In our first year
we had 32 articles in the newspapers that presented the results of the
surveys, the plan progress. We've done everything reasonably possible
to get public input on this plan. No one could expect more than has
been done.
And 80 percent of the people responding to the
infrastructure question said they want Marco Island to be tropical,
small town, and they want in some way to calm the traffic. They do
not want it to become a race track. I thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Disseler. Mr. -- Ms. Martin, Carol
Martin. Ms. Martin, and then we'll have Ms. Schroll.
MS. MARTIN: My name is Carol Martin. I'm not related
to Fred Martin who spoke previously. I'm a concerned citizen. And I
like the plan, but I have a very big reservation with the traffic
circle or roundabout I should say. So I went with a petition to
Publix, and I spent an hour talking to people and seeing how other
people felt about it.
In that time I spoke with 46 people. Forty-two of them
were against the roundabouts. Four of them thought we should try it.
The objection seemed to be older people were afraid they'd be
confused. The EMS workers were upset. They said there's a lot --
there are a lot of accidents at that intersection and they could only
see more with a roundabout. The consensus is everyone would like a
traffic light there with turn lanes.
My feeling is taxpayer money shouldn't be used for
experiments when there is a good solution which would cost a lot less,
and that is a traffic light with turn lanes. Imagine when the Winn
Dixie comes in at the other end of Elkcam Circle and Collier
Boulevard. The traffic jam -- we actually are going to need two
traffic lights, one for Collier and Elkcam and one for Bald Eagle and
-- and Elkcam.
The -- the back-up with a roundabout that would occur
when you're having such heavy traffic, particularly in season and
particularly adding a very large grocery store, is going to be
incredible. And imagine if there were an accident at that situation.
You would have a back-up that would be extreme.
A traffic light provides a known situation for people to
make a decision. A roundabout means people have to pause and think
about whether to go, and they can make a mistake, and there can be far
more accidents with a roundabout than with a traffic light.
At the February 28 meeting, a survey was proposed asking
specifically about roundabouts and four laning as well as other direct
questions. But -- and this is the survey, and I would like to read
particularly about the roundabout. Do you support the installation of
a demonstration roundabout at the intersection of Elkcam Circle and
Bald Eagle as an example of traffic calming technique and to increase
capacity of the intersection?
This -- it was decided that this -- this had to be
deleted from the survey that was sent out because people might answer
no, and so the survey that was sent out did not address specific
questions directly. The committee did not want to hear the no's about
these issues.
So the questionnaire was changed so that it could assure
yes answers. Ninety-two percent were favorable to the survey, but the
survey gave no specific information, and it was put forth in such a
way that, I mean, everyone would want bicycle paths and -- and the
types of things that were generally mentioned.
Also I'd like to say that of the two hundred fifty or so
state transportation engineers, only one attended the meeting, and he
said he is in favor of traffic circles. He also mentioned that all
others the -- in the straight -- state transportation engineers are
against traffic circles but only he is correct. I have reservations
about that statement.
I also have heard the roundabout compared to the Seventh
Avenue roundabout that was -- that was made in Naples. But you can't
begin to compare the traffic at the Seventh Avenue roundabout to the
traffic at Bald Eagle and Elkcam or the traffic that will be after
that Winn Dixie comes in.
I have to wonder why this roundabout is being pushed so
hard. And, you know, I have some theories about it, but -- but
they're only theories. But one thing that strikes me is that I am
wondering if it's a copy cat situation that Naples had a very well
known designer come in. And my personal feeling is designers like to
show something splashy and -- and different, and that's how they make
their reputations. And in some cases it works, but I don't think it's
gonna work at a place where there's such heavy traffic and where a
much simpler solution is readily available that would cost the
taxpayers a lot less money. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Schroll. And Mr. Schroll --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hold on a second. We need to change
paper over here it looks like. Why don't we take a five-minute break
and let the -- let the court reporter change paper.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene.
MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Schroll, you'll -- you'll be next,
and then, Mr. Schroll, if I could have you stand by, please, sir.
Mr. Chairman, we're about halfway.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MS. SCHROLL: I'm Joan Schroll. I'm a resident of Marco
Island. I'm here to offer this petition to the commissioners. It's
approximately 300 signatures which I and other people have collected.
This is -- this was a spontaneous thing. In fact, I had a gentleman
come up to me outside and sign it. I mean, people are really serious
about this. They oppose the roundabout. And some of the people who
have signed it are Jane Hittler, Dick Shanahan, innumerable firemen,
EHS workers, and a couple of MICA board members; okay?
Many of the people who signed it were amazed that the
roundabout is still an issue because they thought it had been
scrapped. They thought due to cost and lack of safety that it was no
longer going to be used. And the vast majority opposed roundabout
which brings us to a question I -- I have not been able to get asked
-- answered. And that is since democracy 101 says majority rules,
okay, what is it about this particular issue that the majority -- and
I have many more people who have offered to work to get signatures --
the majority says we do not want that roundabout in that place. Other
people say, who cares. It's a fait accompli. You're getting it.
So anyway, I have this for you gentlemen and ladies.
And we're not trying to trash the master plan. In fact, we think it's
very good. There's this one little area, just the roundabout, that is
expensive. They keep saying it's an experiment. It's an experiment.
It's a hundred -- at least $170,000 experiment that is too costly and
too dangerous. It is unnecessary. There are other things we can do.
You know, why don't we all work together? This could go smoothly if
everybody stops digging their heels in on this one issue. So I would
like you gentlemen to have this. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And ladies.
MS. SCHROLL: And ladies.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Schroll, then Mr. Coriaci.
MR. SCHROLL: Thank you. For the record, my name is
George Schroll. I'm a resident of Marco Island.
I was involved with the planning initially and doing the
telephone surveys. In fact, I did two groups in August of '94 and two
groups in February of '95. And among the volunteered statements made
to me at that time were, do you have any other ideas I would ask the
person on the end of the line. And more than once they said, yeah,
please put a traffic light at the intersection of Elkcam Circle and
Bald Eagle Drive.
I've attended a number of the meetings. And like my
wife, I applaud the time these people have put in and the effort
they've put in to develop this plan. I think it's excellent. I see
you find some discrepancies in it, but that's not to be unexpected.
But I do not understand this adamance despite the vast
majority of the people with whom you speak saying they do not want a
traffic circle at that particular intersection. If they want to try
this experiment, try it someplace else where it's not the heavy
traffic volume. But they persist in doing this. And we have to voice
our objection to it.
But aside from that, I applaud every member of the team,
and I applaud their plan. But that one instance of a traffic circle
at Elkcam Circle and Bald Eagle is absolutely wrong. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Coriaci and then Mr. Pires.
MR. CORIACI: I'm Joe Coriaci, resident of Marco Island,
former president of the Marco Island Civic Association and a member of
the vision planning committee.
I came here today with the idea that we were going to be
looking at a plan in its entirety, and we're beginning to focus on
individual elements of the plan, so I feel it necessary to -- to
comment on the roundabout issue.
Number one, with the exception of Harold Vann, I don't
know of any other member of our planning committee being an engineer.
So when we started looking at traffic calming and traffic in general,
whether to expand the laneage (sic) on Collier Boulevard, whether we
should go with four lanes on some of the roads, just what was
necessary -- and we are constrained -- for those of you that have been
on Marco, we are constrained with water. We can't do some things with
roads that maybe would make life a little easier for everyone because
there are waterways in between a lot of those roads.
So what we did was we had a design charette, and that
design charette was pulled together through the county planning
staff. And it was a four-day event held over a weekend and, as you've
heard before, eight-hour days in many cases. There were over a
thousand residents that participated in that. Now, I can't tell you
if that's a net of 750 with some people attending on 2 days or 3 days
but a little over 1,000 in the total of those 4 days.
One of the things that came out of that charette was the
fact that those thousand plus residents wanted traffic calming
techniques explored for Marco Island. That should be included as one
of the plan components.
In looking at traffic calming, we looked to the
engineers, the engineers from the county who were present, the
engineers from the design charette group that -- that was hired to do
this. And we found that there are three or four or five different
ways of calming traffic.
Number one, you can certainly go with traffic lights.
Number two, you can go with rumble strips. You can go with a
roundabout. You can do turn lanes. You can do something with speed
limits. Or you can do a combination of a whole bunch of those
things.
The engineers on the final day came forward with a plan,
and I don't see it here, but I know that we have it in our materials,
that they recommended 11 roundabouts for Marco Island to comment -- to
calm traffic. When that came to the planning committee, the planning
committee said, wait a minute. We're looking at calming traffic, but
many of us have had experience with roundabouts in the past that have
not been all pleasant experiences.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean like when you stopped
laughing you said that?
MR. CORIACI: Well, we didn't really laugh, Commissioner
Mac'Kie. We were very serious about this -- this whole situation
because we're looking not only at dollars but what's going to happen
to the appearance of the island and the way traffic flows on the
island.
But we did say that these are engineers making these
recommendations. They toured the island. They looked at the island.
They looked at the components of the island, the business district,
the residential district, et cetera.
And the committee came up with the idea of let's put in
a test roundabout. And at that time we started working with Mr.
Archibald, Mr. Perry, and the people here in the transportation
department to look at the differential in costs between a traffic
signal and a roundabout so that we're not spending excess dollars in
an experimental situation. But we just didn't feel that it was
appropriate to go with 11 without testing 1, and that is how the 1
came to be.
We're at -- we received our first bids for the one, and
we turned it down. It was just unbelievably high. And Mr. Archibald
and his staff have been working on some additional bids, and I know
you're going to be addressing that in a week or two.
Part of the planning process included the fire
department, included EMS, included the sheriff's office. They were
all part and parcel of what the engineers looked at. They tested how
much room a fire truck would need to make it around the turn, semi
trailers delivering groceries to the Publix and Winn Dixies and so
on.
So this wasn't something that was just done off of
somebody's kneecap, and it's certainly not a predisposition of the
planning committee. We have taken the advice of experts, and we want
to test their scenario. Hopefully it will work. If it doesn't, then
we have to come to the planning table again. Just wanted to kind of
set the record straight for a moment. Thank you for your time and
listening.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pires, then Mr. Pickworth.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Anthony
P. Pires Junior of the law firm of Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo.
Thank you.
I represent GBFC Beach Limited, a Florida limited
partnership, and Parcel M1, Inc., a Florida corporation doing business
as FC Beach Joint Venture that own property on Marco Island on 4888
South Collier Boulevard in section 17 and 18 of township 52 south,
range 26 east.
First of all, I want to take the opportunity to thank
the staff for taking time to work with myself and discuss various
issues and clarify various aspects of the plan.
There are 4 points -- and if I can briefly go over
those -- at page 10 of the overview, the -- I have a concern with
regard to some language there that states that the Collier County Land
Development Code is not compatible with Marco, Deltona deed
restrictions in the tropical small town environment Marco Island
residents want to maintain.
I -- I believe that's inappropriate to have the -- the
reference with regards to the deed restrictions which are private
contractual matters blended in with a comprehensive land planning
process and land development regulation which is a basic function of
the police power, the public health, safety, and way -- welfare power
of the county. So I believe it's inappropriate to make that
statement. And furthermore, I don't believe it's supported by
anything in the plan.
So I would request that the language the Collier County
Land Development Code is not compatible with Marco, parentheses,
Deltona deed restrictions be deleted. I think that's inappropriate.
I have in the back of the room -- I don't want to carry
it up -- about a two-volume set of the deed restrictions for Marco
Island. It's bigger than the Land Development Code. And I'm not sure
where they're incompatible, but I -- I -- I get nervous about
combining those two apples and oranges.
Additionally, there was a discussion, very extensive
discussion, with regards to objective Roman numeral 2, policies 2.1.5
and policy 2.1.6. That's at page 16 of the plan. I just want to
clarify that as I understand it, that policy 2.1.5 and policy 2.1.6
and the language to be prepared per your direction will provide and
ensure that my client and other property owners can obtain building
permits and development orders under existing land development
regulations for existing uses and under existing development standards
until such time, if any, that overlay modify the uses or the
development standards.
I think that was the direction of the board, that until
the overlay districts are in place with any modified standards,
development orders can be issued under existing regulations. I think
that's what the board's direction was. I just wanted to clarify
that.
One of the biggest issues and concerns I have is with
regards to giving any land use powers or land use related powers to an
advisory committee. I'm not sure if I understand the suggestion by
Commissioner Matthews. The planning commission was very clear. They
felt it would be appropriate and very well done to have a local group
make recommendations to the planning commission as to the
implementation and monitoring of the plan itself.
But they were very clear -- and I'd like to make and I
will make if I -- with the board's indulgence, the chairman of the
board's indulgence, a transcript of the planning commission meeting
where the motion was made and seconded, passed unanimously that the
planning committee would be one to advise the planning commission
solely on the issue of implementation and monitoring of the plan and
not have any land use advisory functions.
The Pelican Bay services district advisory board, I'm '-
I'm a -- I'm pleased to be a member of that board. We don't have any
land use functions. We don't have any zoning functions. We don't
have any building functions. In fact, we have a recent opinion that
we don't have the authority to review water management plans. That's
a staff function. So we primarily act as a conduit for
recommendations to the board on budget issues and -- and items such as
that.
So I just wanted to clarify that aspect as to what was
meant by the -- an HSTU in an advisory role. I think it's --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think the clarification on it
was that the HSTU board when it's formed would have the ability to
comment to planning commission on items brought before the planning
commission that may not be in compliance with the master plan.
MR. PIRES: Okay. So the petitioner would not
necessarily have to submit anything to the HSTU. But if they wished
to dog the planning process, they can follow up with staff and make
those comments.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That -- that's it. They can --
they can go to the HSTU board to verify that their proposal is in
compliance with the plan. Or the HSTU board, if it feels something is
not in compliance, they can comment to the planning commission.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it's a comment process.
MR. PIRES: The first part, I guess, is troublesome. If
-- if -- if it -- if it's set up so that we'd have to go to the HST
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, it's not required.
MR. PIRES: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the --
MR. PIRES: Okay. Once again, I thank you for the
opportunity to address you and to the planning commission. Appreciate
the opportunity to work with staff.
And with those changes -- and I believe the staff has
already made the change with regards to the beach access to change the
language to ensure that beach access is available for all residents of
Collier County as opposed to language that was initially in there that
said permanent and seasonal residents of Marco Island. Thank you all
very kindly. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pickworth and then Mr. Perkins.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. I'm Don Pickworth representing GPL of Marco, Inc., a property
owner whose property is within the red, the town center district on
Smokehouse Bay.
I will be extremely brief in my remarks if I may give to
the county manager, whoever's appropriate -- I have a brief letter
just for you all and to be -- just be placed in the record, and then I
can be extremely brief with my remarks.
I -- I'm here to address simply one issue, and that is
-- and it was touched on earlier -- the removal at this time of the
hotel, motel use from the town center district. My client is
considering the possibility of such a use within his property. No --
no -- no decision has been made at this time.
We feel that to remove that as a use at this point in
time is a bit premature. The -- as my letter says, the basic scheme
or regulation proposed by the plan is that there's going to be an
overlay district done within all these commercial areas. A -- a hard
look at all of these various commercial uses is going to be taken to
determine what would be appropriate. And we think the appropriate
time to come to a decision on the appropriateness of the hotel, motel
use in that area would be at that time.
So our -- our narrow point today is simply that the
specific sentence prohibiting these uses currently in the town center
land use designation be deleted. And we understand that that simply
means it would throw it into part of the consideration in the
overlay. It won't prevent it from being considered. It will just
affect the timing of it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then Mr. Vann.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, commissioners. A1
Perkins, Belle Meade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property
Rights. We totally support the Marco Island Civic Association and its
efforts in this endeavor.
I want to address you on another thing that has been
touched on, the evacuation routes, very important, save lives, protect
people, because as Marco Island and the whole area grows, it's gonna
be a year-round thing. It's not gonna be seasonal. You talk about
evacuation vertically versus horizontal, and you have to understand
you're talking about elderly people. You're talking about dark
stairways when the power goes out. And the power will go out because
according to the codes, transformer rooms are on the first floor. And
when you get a storm surge of 16 feet, you are going to wipe it out.
So now you have dark hallways, dark corridors, dark stairways, and
you're not going to get these people out unless you get them out in
advance.
The rest of the houses like that you're going to end up
with downed power lines. Some one -- some of them will be alive.
Now, when it comes down to killing people, I'm totally against that
even if it's done out of negligence and stupidity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're against killing people?
MR. PERKINS: I sure am.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got to agree with you
there, A1.
MR. PERKINS: Well, the stupidity -- the stupidity end
of the thing is where I'm basically coming from.
As long as we're talking about that, let's get down to
the children. Right. Well, I got news for you. You take a look
around, and you'll see -- you'll be disgusted at some of the things
that you see. But the children are the ones that are going to pay the
penalty because they have to do what adults have to say; okay?
When you have a hurricane, don't forget you're going to
end up with debris, nails. You're going to have lack of food. Sewage
treatment's going to be a problem, and you're going to have looters
all over the place. Emergency personnel are going to be bailing out
to take and protect theirselves. And the equipment will leave the
island just so it doesn't get totally destroyed so that they can come
back with it.
As far as the water goes, you're going to have to take
and really look into that real good as far as reuse of effluent. It
needs to be done. If you're gonna run out of water, you might as well
take and fix it now rather than postpone it.
Five thousand new homes and no new schools? I don't
know about that. You're going to take and tell everybody don't bring
kids; right? That needs to be looked at.
I've covered everything about the toll booth. You had a
problem where you're going to put the toll booth. You can always put
it in Immokalee. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Vann's your final speaker.
MR. VANN: Thank you. It's been a long day. It's been
very difficult to set and listen to all the questions brought up.
We've discussed most of those for two years. There's more answers in
this time to permit here. Let me make of three points which I think
may be of interest to this committee.
First, we have discussed the minimum level of services
on Marco Island. We have discussed at most all of our meetings that
that's all we're paying for, so I don't think there's any illusions on
Marco that they're paying for a whole lot more than they're entitled
to get.
Now, if the wording didn't come out right, let me try to
make it clear. Anything above that minimum level of service which
we're paying for, I think everyone assumes that Marco's going to pay
that bill. Now, if the words don't come out that way, let's change
it. That's the first thing I want to make.
A second comment, there was some concern over this
designscape. What we tried to do here was to come up with a concept
that would save money, would make sense, and integrate a plan. Now,
most of Marco Island's master plan focuses around the roads. It's the
roads, the drainage on the roads, the beautifications, the bike
paths.
So what we've proposed is that what we do is that we
make a conceptual design of these roads. And on Marco that's pretty
easy because we only have 10 major roads representing about 24 miles,
that we would tie all of these things together in a concept before we
implemented any part of it.
Now, we wanted to do that so that someone doesn't come
up, put in a bicycle path, and then when we get to another part tear
the dad burn road up and redo it again. Now, that was the whole
purpose of laying out this study. That was the intent, and that's
what we would plan to do.
Now, all that is is a conceptual design to fix those
concepts. Now, then we can implement by parts if we so desire once
those conceptual designs are set. So that was the purpose of that.
And we wanted to leave that.
Now, sure we've made estimates on the cost. They're
preliminary estimates based upon assumptions. But then you would take
these conceptual designs. Then you can come up with a better estimate
to refine your numbers, and you know what you're talking about in the
cost.
So that's the precursor as we see it to initiating the
plan. It would save us a year's time if we could get those studies
started earlier. We're talking a sum of maybe -- oh, incidentally on
that point, we -- we did not envision the staff doing those studies.
We envisioned farming those studies out to road experts such as David
Plummet, other people working with the staff and with our committee in
setting those up and getting a consensus on the final product as well
before we took the next step. So that was the purpose of that.
That's the engineering part of that plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask you a question, though,
because that's a real -- that -- that sounds real -- like it could
solve a problem I have. These studies instead of being done by
existing staff would be privately funded by the committee or Marco
groups, or is that what you said?
MR. VANN: We -- we have not identified obviously the
funding source, but let's talk about that for a minute. And let's be
a little specific at the risk of being a little wrong here and there.
We're thinking about maybe there will be four or five studies. One
would be the concept of the roads so that you take each individual
road, determine whether you need right-hand lanes or left-hand lanes.
Now, not all of the roads are the same. Now, you have
recently redone Route 92, for example. The only thing I think that
we'd have to do to Route 92 is to widen those bike paths. They're
only four feet wide. And whoa, they're dangerous. But now on some of
the other roads like Bald Eagle it would involve the whole scope of
work. Now, that's why we want to do them one at a time.
Now, we would visualize having a road expert -- I don't
want to use names here but some that you would be familiar with, well
qualified to help us in laying out these individual roads. Now, then
we would look at the drainage system, and you don't have to put
drainage on all those roads. But a major portion of them we would put
the drainage system on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but who would pay for
hiring that person whose name I would recognize if we were going to
mention it?
MR. VANN: Well, now sooner or later we're gonna pay for
it, but now we don't have a ready pocket of cash now. So now we would
even consider such things as this: How about lending us the money?
We'll pay you back. I mean, we want to work with the county to do
this as a partnership. So whatever solves your needs, that's what
we're going to have to do.
Now, you see, this leads me into the next thing as to
why do we want this coordinating committee. I mentioned earlier that
we developed a good working relationship with the staff. I think we
have. I'm proud of it. We've been able to sit down with Barbara and
Jeff and the rest of these people and work the problems out and get
them done.
Now, let me be specific here. When Barbara proposed to
put on a charette, we said, this is going to cost $10,000. Barbara
was coming to ask the county to pay for this. We said, hold on just a
minute. We'll pay for half of that because we want it to be a joint
effort, and we did. We raised the $5,000 and so forth to pay for
this. I think working with the county we can find a way that will fit
the bills where the residents of Marco pay for what they get.
Now, this coordinating committee --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. -- Harold, your -- your time
expired.
MR. VANN: My time is up. Let me say one thing -- is a
good step towards establishing a partnership that I think we can solve
this -- problems that have come up today and others that are going to
come up in the future we don't even know about. And that's one of the
reasons why we want to establish this committee. Thank you for your
attention.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Comments from the board?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment and -- and to
Harold and to the entire group, we -- each of us has raised some
questions, but I applaud the effort. I know you put in a lot of
effort, each one of you, and Harold I've talked to several times on --
and while we may have questions on specific items and -- I think the
overall picture here is good and where you're headed is very good.
And I'm particularly impressed -- someone early on
criticized the amount of public input, and I take a little exception
to that because I think you've gone out of your way and I think done a
very good job at getting as much public input in the process. And
while there may, again, be specific issues in there that there are
questions about, I think in the overall thing the amount of activity
on the island and interest in this on the island is probably
unparalleled in any of the others.
I know in Golden Gate or in the Immokalee plan, I don't
think the numbers came near to that. So I applaud your effort not
only for -- for doing it but for including as much of the public as
you could in the process.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I'd like a motion that we
trans -- I'd like to make a motion that we transmit this plan to the
DCA and get the ORC report. I would like, though, to note Mr. Pires'
comment regarding the deed restrictions. And -- and that to me is --
is a bit of a problem if there's some way that we can work around that
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- I can address --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- because I don't want to get
caught up in that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- I -- I didn't know that -- that
-- that it was going to be necessary to respond to Mr. Pires. But
actually that -- that particular statement is actually the genesis of
this whole process.
About three years ago I was working with some of the
groups on Marco to -- to try to get a zoning overlay that would
reflect some of the deed restrictions so that they could be enforced
by someone other than MICA who couldn't really effectively do it. And
from there grew the -- the idea to, well, if we're going to do
something like that, let's make a master plan.
And so we did a master plan, but really that particular
portion of it was the genesis of the whole thing, and it's really very
simple. If you line the deed restrictions up with their corresponding
Land Development Code, they're -- they're very similar, but there are
some differences. And so the thought is to simply put the overlay on
so that it reflects what the community was supposed to have in the
first place and go from there. So it's really I don't think any
problem.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just think -- I just think I
might feel more comfortable if there was a sentence or a clause added
into this that it is not the county's intention to enforce deed
restrictions in any other manner than as laid out in the overlays and
so forth. I mean, I don't want to get caught up in a hassle because
we have this paragraph in here that somebody somehow at some future
date determines that we're supposed to be enforcing deed restrictions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I don't think we have the legal
ability -- and I'll ask Mr. Weigel. I don't think we have the legal
ability to enforce anybody's deed restrictions, and that's the reason
for the overlay in the fist place actually.
MR. WEIGEL: And the answer is no, you don't. And
unless you specifically take upon yourselves that obligation through
some manner of approval and -- I think you're creating your record
here today which will lay the base for the interpretation of this
document in the future.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I think I would just like
some wording in this document so whoever reads this document ten years
from now doesn't perceive that clause as our taking that -- that
responsibility.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question about
that? Couldn't -- couldn't we accomplish the same goal maybe,
Commissioner Norris, if we just said that -- that the goals of the
people on Marco Island aren't met by the existing codes who are going
to adopt an overlay? I mean, could we just leave out the reference to
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think Miss Cacchione has indicated
that they can massage that language to reflect the desires of the
board and it won't be a problem. Is that correct, Miss Cacchione? MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: She's indicating yes. Let the record
reflect she's indicating yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That -- that would remove for me
the last of the problems that I was having with this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I would like to move that we
transmit --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- the master plan to the DCA.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could I ask you to -- to include the
-- the concerns that I have which is the three items I related
concerning funding? I think we've gone through that enough times.
But just to make it part of your motion that any increased funding
must be borne by Marco Island and must be enacted by referendum. If
the referendum fails, there must not be language that would otherwise
commit the county to provide funding unilaterally and that the plan in
general must not contain other language that would require county
funding outside of the Marco referendum.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd be happy to include that,
but I -- I also want to make sure that Miss Cacchione and all the --
all the ample notes that have been taken today that all of the
concerns of the entire board --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was going to
ask.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- will be met and addressed in
the final document that's forwarded.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Cacchione is indicating --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Shaking her head.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Maybe she better indicate on the
record on this one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or maybe even summarize them? Do
you think we've -- if --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We'll be here another hour.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we miss something, I don't
want that to be --
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically in my notes I have is that you
want an itemized cost of any policy that is creating an action and --
and who would be responsible and if that can be done within current
staff levels or identify funding; that you wanted to change the
wording from survey to referendum, and we will do that in conjunction
with the attorney's office because that's -- there may be some
concerns there.
The hotel, motel use and the mixed use you wanted to
place back in there as a permitted use; that the overlays do not
restrict the ability for increased density so that they would not have
to wait for increased density until the overlays are adopted. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We had three --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I wasn't for that.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, no, no, no. I -- I -- I
don't think -- read that again.
MS. CACCHIONE: The two areas in the village commercial
and the mixed use town center where they can go from 4 to 8 or 4 to
12, the overlays restricted the ability -- until the overlays were
adopted, they wouldn't be able to get that increased density.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that. I just don't want
you to take away hotel, motel while you're considering the overlays.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's all my concern was was
taking away a particular use while the overlay was in the production
phase.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not take away the hotel, motel.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct. I'm third on
that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So there's three to one on that
one, but that's a majority so --
MS. CACCHIONE: All right. And that basically the
advisory board will not be formed at this time, that if there is an
MSTU board set up that we will create that mechanism at that time, and
that language and that goal will be deleted from the plan at this
point in time.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
MS. CACCHIONE: And the language in regard to the deed
restrictions --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- in page ten.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just blanket that with
and any other consensus changes that are reflected on the record? I
think that covers it, but in the event --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bless you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess we're asking you to make
sure you read the record again before you transmit this thing or at
least to have some assurances that all the little things that we
talked about -- because there were a lot of them, I thought. But
anyway, with that --
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those are the major ones.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Incorporate those major ideas
and Hiss Cacchione to review the record before it goes, I would amend
my motion to reflect that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
That passes unanimously.
MS. CACCHIONE: We can also send those change sheets to
you under separate cover for your review after transmittal.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That'd be great.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. VANN: Thank you for your patience.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you for yours.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for all your work --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thanks for all the work, yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and all the committee members.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two years, huh? I wonder if North Naples
is ready for two years.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, God.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 96-20 RE PETITION R-96-5, BLAIR A. FOLEY OF COASTAL
ENGINEERING REPRESENTING JONATHAN R. MYERS, REQUESTING A REZONING OF
CERTAIN DEFINED PROPERTY AS HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM INDUSTRIAL TO C-4 FOR
AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT-PULLING
ROAD NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, SOUTH OF J & C BOULEVARD - ADOPTED WITH
THE CLOSING OF THE ACCESS ON THE EAST SIDE AND THE WEST SIDE
Our next item is petition R-96-5.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead, Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bryan Milk. I am presenting petition R-96-5.
Petitioner is requesting a fezone from industrial to C-4
for an automobile dealership. The subject property is 12 acres in
size and is currently undeveloped. The property is located at the
southern end of the J and C Industrial Park and has approximately 330
feet of road frontage contiguous to Airport-Pulling Road.
The area to the north and to the west of the property is
industrially zoned and is primarily developed with service repair and
light manufacturing uses. The area to the south is the Pine Air Lakes
DRI. It's been approved for 957,000 square feet of office and
commercial related uses. Currently on site is a 63,000-square-foot
movie theater. Across Airport-Pulling Road is a developed
multi-family complex.
The petitioner's site plan reveals a shared ingress,
egress point with the Pine Air Lakes DRI, its northernmost ingress,
egress point which currently aligns with the median opening and
Airport-Pulling Road.
The petitioner is required to make all the necessary
lane improvements, turn lane improvements, any modification to the
median and any signalization if warranted.
The master plan also calls and reveals the closure of
the Corporation Boulevard access point on to Airport-Pulling Road.
The plan also provides the terminus of Corporation Boulevard at the
project's westernmost boundary.
Staff is in support of the master plan because this
would bring the current access point into agreement with the Collier
County access management plan and would provide a storage lane for
ingress movements into the subject property and into Pine Air Lakes.
At the planning commission meeting, there was discussion
from the -- from a few of the business owners which front the J and C
Boulevard who have expressed concern with the closure of Corporation
Boulevard at its point on Airport-Pulling Road.
At that meeting there was some discussion about the
historical use of the particular road. The fact remains is that
Corporation Boulevard is a private road. It's on private property,
and there's no easements which encumber it. The discussion at that
point was limited to that discussion and pertinent to the fezone for
the particular change in zoning.
Upon the advisory of the attorney's office and the
recommendation of the planning commission, the ordinance of adoption
was amended slightly to express the county's concern and to bring this
forward with a recommendation of approval.
And at this time I will hand out the amended ordinance,
comment on that, and answer any questions at this time.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Milk, what was the vote at
the planning commission?
MR. MILK: The vote was seven to zero --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. MILK: -- unanimous. In your packet on page 33 of
the executive summary, I'll start this by going through the list of
changes. On page 33 in the ordinance of adoption, item number D was
amended to add on the first sentence at line 11 the joint access point
with Pine Air Lakes PUD was added to that particular paragraph.
Item G was struck. That language struck was the
existing access point at Corporation Boulevard shall be closed,
patens, abandoned upon the granting of this fezone petition. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's the purpose there?
MR. MILK: The purpose there was I think the attorneys
were -- they -- they alluded that this would be a private civil matter
and that they wanted the petitioner to encumber that bridge when they
-- when it came, that, in fact, they didn't want us to support that
strong language in an ordinance with this particular fezone.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let -- let them fight it out privately
you're saying?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who owns that property?
MR. MILK: The property is owned by the petitioner at
this point, Hr. Erbes (sic).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's his road.
MR. MILK: It's his road.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If he wants to dig it up and tear it
out --
MR. MILK: That's correct. That's his business.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- what are we to argue with it?
MR. MILK: And we're in support of that closure because
it will bring our access management plan into compliance with the
shared access point of Pine Air Lakes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is Corporation Boulevard otherwise too
close to J and C under our access management ordinance? MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what worries me,
Commissioner Norris. I mean, if -- I don't want to get into
somebody's private fight either, but I do want to be sure that we
enforce county regulations as we would with any other project. I
mean, if this is one --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's why I put it on the record.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, yeah. If this is one where
it ought to be -- it would be taken out in the normal process, it
ought to be taken out. I don't want to do anything different here
because there's a private fight.
MR. MILK: I think that was the recommendation of the
attorneys at the planning commission is why we struck it from the
ordinance.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no. That's the opposite of
what I'm saying.
MR. MILK: I see.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought you said that it was in
the ordinance because our access management plan required that. MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I don't want you -- I want you
to enforce our access management plan. And if there's a private fight
among property owners, let them go have that separate from us. But we
don't adjust our policies and rules based on some sort of private
arguments.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ask Mr. Weigel. Mr. Weigel?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, I think it's --
MR. WEIGEL: We're ready to respond.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- or, Miss Student, I think it's
appropriate that we enforce the access management plan. And if they
have a private fight, they can go fight it somewhere else.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. I believe -- and maybe Mr. Milk can
correct me -- that item D referencing the joint access point as being
consistent with our policy, I believe it came out of the planning
commission that that would take care of it and we wouldn't have to
reference -- make any reference to Corporate Boulevard; is that
correct, Mr. Milk?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm confused. I thought you just
said that the two -- that the roads were too close together if we --
MR. MILK: They are.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- if they were both there.
MR. MILK: They are.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So one of them has to go.
MR. MILK: That's correct. The access point on to
Airport-Pulling Road needs to be redesigned, closed. And we're in
favor of the shared access with Pine Air Lakes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So is that point D, or is that
point C?
MR. MILK: That's point G.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. MILK: Point D was a matter to clarify without
getting real specific.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was with you there for a
while. I'm gone now. Okay. Somebody else try.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've got it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Go.
MR. FOLEY: If I may, for the record, Blair Foley
representing the petitioner. I'll be brief. Your amended package
that Bryan handed out, we would like item G to be placed back into the
record per Commissioner Hac'Kie's request. And basically what we're
talking about is a Corporation driveway. It needs to be taken out
now. I think they're getting confused. There are two separate
roadways there. There was the access point, and then there's a new
access point. And currently it also is connected on the west side
that would also like to be closed as well. So the -- the access issue
with Corporation Boulevard is not in compliance with the Land
Development Code, and we would like to have that removed. MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we're going to put back in
what the planning commission took out. MR. FOLEY: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that we're in compliance.
That's what I -- that's what I support.
MR. FOLEY: Both sides east and west. It's not specific
in the language. We'd like it to -- the record to reflect both east
and west sides.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Where's the term -- terminus for
the road on the west side?
MR. FOLEY: It goes back into the subdivision behind the
property.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Does it connect to another
road?
MR. FOLEY: Yeah. It's a county right-of-way. We just
want to terminate it at the pri -- where the road is no longer under
easement and it's on private property.
MR. MILK: It provides access to Elsa Street.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I know where that is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So do we have consensus to put that
back in?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Fine.
MR. FOLEY: Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: I have none.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have to put something on the
record, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a client who is adjacent
to this private road, though he's to my knowledge not involved in the
private argument. This doesn't present a problem for me, does it?
MR. WEIGEL: No, it does not.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you for your --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if the public
hearing's been closed, I'll go ahead and make a motion we approve the
item with the amendments that were agreed to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- during this public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now all you suits get out of the
room.
MR. CARDILLO: If I might, members of the commission,
that's with the closing of the access on the east side and the west
side, correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what Mr. Foley said.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The access -- just a minute. We may
have to reopen this. You're clear that the language should reflect
closing on both ends, east and west.
MR. MILK: Both ends, correct.
MR. CARDILLO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're welcome.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 96-211 RE PETITION SNR-96-3, LISA COE OF COASTAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING EAST SOUND REALTY, INC., REQUESTING A
STREET NAME CHANGE FROM GULF STAR DRIVE NORTH TO YACHT HARBOR DRIVE
LOCATED IN THE SOUTHPOINTE YACHT CLUB PUD - ADOPTED
Next item is 12(C)(1), petition SNR-96-3.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All day, just think of the
combined hourly rates. Get your checkbook out, Kevin.
MR. HULHERE: For the record, Bob Hulhere, current
planning manager. This is a standard street name change. All the
property is still under the control and ownership of the developer.
Nothing unusual about this petition.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who -- who objected to it?
MR. HULHERE: I have received no objections.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No objections, okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Close the public hearing.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you close --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Move we approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
make a motion we approve the item.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Okay. That one is approved.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 96-212 RE PETITION CU-96-2, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, REPRESENTING
GULFSHORES CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S IWTNESSES CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR A
CHURCH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF YARBERRY LANE - ADOPTED
Our next item is petition -- well, it's 13(A)(3),
petition CU-96-2.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current
planning staff presenting petition CU-96-2, Mr. William Hoover
requesting conditional use 2 of the RSF-1 zoning district to allow for
a church and related facilities.
The subject three-acre site is currently undeveloped and
cleared for agricultural purposes. Petitioner proposes to develop a
church in two phases. First phase limits the church to 4,800 square
feet and 165 seats. The second phase goes up to 6,000 square feet and
215 seats.
As you can see, the subject property's located on the
west side of Yarberry Lane. It's abutting RSF-1 zoning to the north
and south. Across Yarberry Lane is the Sunshine Village PUD developed
at 5.5 acres. Arbor Walk is developed at 12 units per acre. There's
a landscape nursery and Italian club, and to the north is Emerald
Lakes at 3.5 and the Cay Lagoon at 5.3 units per acre.
The traffic impact review indicates that the
site-generated traffic for the church is 44 trips on a weekday and 173
trips on a Sunday. At build-out the church will generate 56 trips on
a weekday and 220 trips on a Sunday.
Staff analysis indicates that this is -- will not be a
significant impact on Yarberry Lane. The project will not
significantly impact any other level of service standard.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this on
April 4 and recommended approval by a 6-to-1 vote. Staff has received
one letter -- two letters, one for and one against this proposal. I'd
be happy to answer any questions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the nature of the
objection?
MR. BELLOWS: The lady wrote a letter concerning
traffic, thought it would be --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And at planning commission the no
vote was based on --
MR. BELLOWS: He basically said that the residents don't
want the church. We shouldn't be forcing it on them. At the planning
commission there were several residents who came in opposition.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers?
Petitioner seems to want to say something.
MR. HARTIN: Mr. Hoover is not here. I'm -- I'm Sanford
Martin. I'm an attorney representing the petitioner in this matter.
If there are any -- any -- any questions, I would be glad to address
those. I know the day's getting late. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There being none --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Done.
Item #14
DISCUSSION REGARDING BAY VIEW PARK CONCESSION - RECORD TO BE CHECKED
AND BROUGHT BACK ON 5/7/96
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- we are done with our afternoon agenda.
Commissioner Matthews, do you have any communication?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just one item. There -- there
is a meeting tomorrow morning in Immokalee with the game and fresh
water fish commission on Lake Trafford, and I would hope that at our
next meeting to share the results of whatever their findings are.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That would be great. Thank you.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, can I see you immediately
following the meeting for about three minutes?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll have to vote on that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have one item, Mr. Dorrill. I saw something
come across my desk that was a -- an RFP for a Bayview Park concession.
I wasn't aware that we had authorized going forward with that. What is
the board's recollection on that fuel station at Bayview Park? I
remember a discussion, but I -- I thought we had said not to go
forward, but maybe I'm mistaken.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I thought.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought we said we were
going forward with that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I thought we were not going forward.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought we were not going
forward with that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't remember.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, there's -- there's two nots, one
yes, and one --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It will be -- it will be easy
enough to check the -- check the record to determine that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Or we can make another determination
right now and give staff direction on whether we're going forward or
not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not having full recollection
of the item, I'd be much more comfortable looking at the record --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and seeing what we did
last time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- I keep in my office the executive
summaries and agenda for each week for the last three and a half years,
and -- and I usually note what the vote is. So if you --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind revisiting it, but I don't
want to do that now only because I don't have recollection of the item,
and I'm not prepared to discuss it in any detail.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, did --
MR. DORRILL: I'm almost certain that we were asked to
go out and take proposals, and I know the city was intending -- and I
may -- seem like I recall telling you that it would be our intent to
submit our own bid but that in addition to the city there might be
others, but we -- we can put that on for next week and clarify it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or two weeks from now.
MR. DORRILL: Excuse me. Two weeks.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two weeks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all I have.
Item #15(2)
FLAG TO BE AT HALF MAST FOR CRIME VICTIM'S WEEK - CONSENSUS
Mr. Dotrill, do you have anything else?
MR. DORRILL: Two -- two quick things, Mr. Chairman.
Just to advise the board that we've received a request from the
sheriff, and it's my intent to comply with it. Tomorrow is national
crime victims' day. And he's asked if we would fly county flags at
half staff. And while we usually do that in the event of death of
certain dignitaries, unless you tell me otherwise, I think we'd comply
with the request by the sheriff. It's part of national victims' week,
crime victims' week.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please do that.
Item #15(1)
LYLE SUMEK WORKSHOP CHANGED FROM APRIL 30TH TO MAY 3RD - TO BE
SCHEDULED FOR A LATER DATE AND NO MEETING TO BE HELD ON THE 30TH
MR. DORRILL: The -- the other item, I've -- I've
received a request. We have a scheduling problem with Mr. Sumek for
next week. There is one additional problem for one commissioner who
could not participate next week, and I have some alternative dates.
And if you could give me your desires with an alternative date, you
may recall what we want to do is have a mid-year half-day session with
Mr. Sumek to do a little reality check of where we are at with our
work plan and your goals. He has suggested either Friday, the 3rd --
I know some of you may be planning to go to the Leadership Collier
event. That does not begin -- the luncheon does not begin until
noon.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Noon.
MR. DORRILL: That would give those of you who are going
to that time to get there. Or he also has the end of the month May
which is the 28th, 29th, 30th, or 31st.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does he have anything in 1997 or '98?
MR. DORRILL: Don't know. Everybody likes Mr. Sumek,
though.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think the 3rd --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Speaking of budget cuts --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think the 3rd is fine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to be here May
3. But, I mean, if you all want to go ahead, you're welcome to. If
he's here at the end of the month, then I'll -- I'll join in with
you.
MR. DORRILL: Well, the days at the end of the month
would be either Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday at the end of
May.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: End of May. Well, Miss Filson is
going to have to check our calendar then on that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whatever you all decide is
fine by me.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I -- I think any of those
days are fine. And if you can't be here the 3rd, certainly --
MR. DORRILL: I'll coordinate with -- with your
secretaries or your individual offices, and we'll try and reschedule
it. But I -- I did want you to know that you're free to do whatever
you want to next Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we are not having a meeting next
week.
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. We're adjourned.
Oh, Mr. Weigel, you don't have anything.
MR. WEIGEL: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Matthews and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Hancock absent),
that the following items under the Consent Agenda be
approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 96-200 AUTHORIZING A 50% WAIVER/50% DEFERRAL OF ROAD,
LIBRARY SYSTEM, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES SYSTEM, AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A
TWO BEDROOM HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY MARK OWENS IN COLLIER COUNTY; SAID
IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND
See Pages
Item #16A2
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING ALLOCATED REVENUES FROM THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX FOR EQUIPMENT NEEDED TO CONDUCT SEA TURTLE MONITORING
ACTIVITIES AND BEACH COMPACTION STUDIES AS REQUIRED BY STATE PERMIT
CONDITIONS FOR BEACH NOURISHMENT
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-201 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED TO
EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER THE WEED, LITTER AND
PLANT CONTROL ORDINANCE FOR CASE NO. 51114-104 - OWNER: SIDNEY AND
LIBBY BARBET
See Pages
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 96-202 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED TO
EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER THE WEED, LITTER AND
PLANT CONTROL ORDINANCE FOR CASE 51127-001 - OWNER: EMILIO ROLAND
STILLO, ET AL
See Pages
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 96-203 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED TO
EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER THE WEED, LITTER AND
PLANT CONTROL ORDINANCE FOR CASE NO. 51129-011 - OWNER: THOMAS P. AND
LORI S. HANEY, JR.
See Pages
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 96-204 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED TO
EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER THE WEED, LITTER AND
PLANT CONTROL ORDINANCE FOR CASE NO. 51220-036 - OWNER: HERHINIO AND
MARTHA A. MORALES
See Pages
Item #16A7
FINAL PLAT OF CARLTON LAKES, UNIT NO. 1 WITH STIPULATIONS AND
CONSTRUCTION, ESCROW AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16B1
PURCHASE OF BEACH TECH STR 3000 FOR BEACH CLEANING EQUIPMENT NECESSARY
TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE MAINTENANCE OF THE RESTORED BEACHES ON MARCO
ISLAND, NAPLES, PARK SHORE AND VANDERBILT BEACH - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$82,881 AS SOLE SOURCE FROM KASSBOHRER OF GERMANY
Item #1682 - deleted
Item #1683 - deleted
Item #1684 - deleted
Item #1685- deleted
Item #1686 - deleted
Item #1687 - deleted
Item #1688 - Withdrawn
Item #1689 - deleted
Item #16B10
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO RAW WATER SURGE RELIEF FOR THE NORTH REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT UNDER BID 95-2465
See Pages
Item #16Bll
WORK ORDER ABB-FT96-3 TO AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE FOR REPAIR OF THE
THREE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS TANKS
See Pages
Item #16B12 - deleted
Item #16B13 - deleted
Item #16B14 - deleted
Item #16B15 - Continued to 5/7/96
Item #16C1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING MONIES FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVE TO THE
PARK AND OTHER PROPERTIES OVERTIME ACCOUNT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,000 FOR
CLEANING AREA BEACHES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF RED TIDE
Item #16C2 - Moved to Item #8C3
Item #16C3
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND FUNDS FOR NECESSARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
VINEYARDS COHMUNITY PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-349; 96-354; 96-355; AND 96-356
Item #16E2 - Continued to 5/7/96
Item #16E3 - Continued to 5/7/96
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILE AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented to the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #1611
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE LIEN AS
CONTAINED IN RESOLUTION 91-99 FOR LOT 17, BLOCK 132, MARCO BEACH UNIT 4
See Pages
Item #1612
RESOLUTION 96-205/CWS96-5/HWS96-1/GDW96-1 DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO INSTITUTE FORECLOSURE ACTION ON DELINQUENT WATERAND/OR SEWER
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES
See Pages
Item #1613
RESOLUTION 96-206 DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PROPERTIES AND OWNERS OF CERTAIN PARCELS THAT
ARE DELINQUENT IN PAYING THEIR PAVING ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:56 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara Donovan and Shelly Semmler