BCC Minutes 01/28/1997 RREGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 1997
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:02 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRPERSON:
ALSO PRESENT:
Timothy L. Hancock
Barbara B. Berry
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Hike HcNees, Assistant County Hanager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to call to order the
January 28, 1997, meeting for the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.
Dotrill, would you please lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this
morning, thanks for the start of another week and the new
opportunity. Father, we always give thanks for the opportunity that
we have as elected and appointed officials to be able to make a
difference in our community, Collier County, and for its people.
Father, as we go about the business of the people of Collier County
today, it is our prayer that you guide the deliberations and the hand
of the county commission as they make these important decisions, that
this might be a -- a blessed and fruitful time for those who are
involved, and that you would bless our time here together this
morning. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Good morning, everyone.
Good morning, Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do we have this morning in the
way of changes, sir?
MR. DORRILL: Several changes, Mr. Chairman. I have
three add-on items. The first one is community development, is
another item similar to the one that we had last week which is a
routine water and sewer facilities acceptance agreement for a project
known as Indian Wells Golf Villas, 8(A)(2).
8(B)(1) is an add-on item, is to approve a change order
and a work authorization for Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage for Clam
Pass maintenance dredging; that will be under public works.
Item 10(D), under the county commission's portion of the
regular agenda, is a discussion of Lake Trafford task force
assistance.
Then I have one item being requested for a continuance,
Hr. Chairman. It's 12(C)(7) under advertised public hearings, request
that it be continued for two weeks until your meeting of February the
llth. That was a recommendation that the board consider amending
Ordinance 89-11 as it pertains to beach and water safety vessel
control.
There is an agenda note that Item 12(C)(1) will be heard
following the lunch recess. That was an ordinance providing for the
juvenile assessment center and suspension program, and I presume,
although I -- Hiss Pedone, was that in order to accommodate one of the
judges who's going to be here for that item?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's correct. Judge Baker is
scheduled today as such that he requested a time certain, and after
discussing it with him, I felt that 1 p.m. was a sufficient --
sufficient solution to that.
The second item is -- 9:30 to 10 o'clock is a target
window for Item 8(E)(5). Judge Brousseau will be a registered speaker
on that. That's not time certain, but we're going to try to put that
in that half-hour time window as closely as possible.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, those are the changes that I
have. You should have copies of each one of the items that pertain to
an add-on this morning, for which there are three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None from me either. Do we have a
motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor please signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none --
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve the minutes of the January 7, 1997, regular
meeting of this board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. And a second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second. Thank you. Any discussion?
All those in favor please signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Seeing none, on to Item 5(B), service awards. It's my
pleasure this morning to present service awards to three employees
ranging between 5 and 15 years. And the first is kind of special to
all of us here. For 15 years, the tyrant of the Board of County
Commissioner's office -- no, just kidding, Sue. It has been the
pleasure of this community to have Sue Filson at the helm of the
administrative staff in the BCC offices, and, Sue, we'd like to
recognize you this morning for 15 years of service to county
government.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought she was the mom of the
county commission, not tyrant.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We also have ten years in solid waste
administration, Adelaide Duffy. Adelaide.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, congratulations. As we
like to say, a third of the way there.
And for five years this morning at the south county
wastewater treatment plant, Raymond Barth. Is Raymond here?
(Applause)
Congratulations, Raymond. Thank you.
Item #5C
BETSY PERDICHIZZI, PRESIDENT OF MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY,
REIMBURSEMENT OF TDC FUNDS FOR KEY MARCO CAT EXHIBITION - CHECK
PRESENTED FROM THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,062.00
We're honored this morning to have a presentation being
made to the board and which may include a check, as I understand it,
from Betsy Perdichizzi. We're always excited about receiving checks,
but this is for something that I think the board embraced. Miss
Perdichizzi.
MS. PERDICHIZZI: This is your check (indicating).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Imagine the size of the checkbook.
MS. PERDICHIZZI: Chairman Hancock, Commissioners, my
name is Betsy Perdichizzi, president of the Marco Island Historical
Society. It is my honor to come before you presenting this second
payment representing my society, many of whom are in the audience
today.
As you may remember, on August 8, 1995, in Resolution
95-456 Collier County gave a grant on our behalf, our society's
behalf, to the Collier Museum for the exposition of the Key Marco
Cat. In Item 8 of that resolution it states that my society agreed to
continue fund raising during that time and would remit those funds to
the tourist development tax.
So this check in the amount of $2,062 is the second and
final payment made to you. The first payment was made in last June,
$7,500, and that represented the contributions, all the contributions,
large and small, from the residents and the students in the Key Marco
Cat Fund. It also represented the money earned by my society when
local jewelers, Mr. Eric Schilling and Mr. Jose Aragon, donated part
of their proceeds from the sale of their Key Marco Cat jewelry to the
society. The second check represents money from the -- made in the
gift shop during the exhibition.
Many of my society members spent countless hours as
dosins and working in the gift shop earning this money. It represents
T-shirts, postcards, pictures, a lot of T-shirts, post cards, and
pictures. I wish it were more, but -- I understand that the
admissions at the door of the museum amounted to $19,662.93.
So the Key Marco Cat ex -- exhibition with your success
was a great help. The visitors and school children amounted to
36,912. The states represented were 40; foreign countries
represented, 7; and the amount -- the total amount reimbursed,
$29,224.93. And to that you could add the building fund, 30,000, that
was capital improvements. So all in all for the grant that you made,
$66,516, you're getting half of it back and a -- a lot more in
building.
When we approached you in August of 1995, we found you
and the TDC board very receptive, and you answered our urgent call for
money up front, because of that that we were able to secure the loan
and start fund raising. I hope that your policies and regulations
will continue to support these types of efforts of civic and community
organizations.
Ron Jamro's to be congratulated -- I think he's in the
audience -- because he secured the loan of the Key Marco Cat,
something -- from the Smithsonian, something that had never been done
before. He also put together an exhibition of the -- of the largest
exhibition of artifacts from that famous dig a hundred years ago.
I don't know if you're used to getting money back, but
this has been a unique event in everything that we have done. And we
could not have done it without you. So on behalf of the citizens of
Collier County and my society, we would like to thank you very much.
We appreciate it, everything that you've done, and we think you
contributed greatly to the betterment of -- of Collier County. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Perdichizzi, as much as I'm
appreciative of your comments, if it weren't for the efforts of you
and the volunteers and the members of your organization, that exhibit
would not have happened. So from the community to you and all of your
volunteers, I think you deserve a round of applause. Thank you.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a big check.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have so much money, we're just
tripping over it.
MS. PERDICHIZZI:
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
MS. PERDICHIZZI:
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
Norris. What?
(Laughter)
Thank you. In answer to your question, no, we're not
used to getting money back, but we'd like it to become a trend.
Thanks again.
Next on our agenda -- okay.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe we should just put Ms.
Perdichizzi in charge of organizing the Category C events.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is a plan. I'm for that.
Thank you very much.
Betsy, thank you.
Thank you.
Wait. This is made out to John
Item #SA1
PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHIN THE COASTAL URBAN AREA
AS REQUESTED BY THE BCC AS PART OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
(EAR) - WORKSHOP DATES TO BE DISCUSSED ON 2/4/97 MEETING
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next on the agenda item, 8(A)(1),
preliminary review of residential density in the coastal urban area
requested by the board as part of the EAR. Miss Cacchione, I
understand you and other members of our county staff have been working
on several facets of this and have a presentation this morning.
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, we do, Commissioner. Good
morning. For the record my name is Barbara Cacchione with the
comprehensive planning section. What I'd like to do this morning is
go over some information relating to density within the urban area.
I'd like to discuss the results of the zoning teevaluation program,
the development approved and planned unit developments and
developments of regional impact, the agricultural property in the
urban area and the buildout analysis of the urban area.
To begin with, when the plan was adopted in 1989, there
was a zoning teevaluation program that was called for, and part of
that effort, to look at property that had been zoned for a higher
density or intensity than the plan allowed. We went through that
process; it took approximately 2, 2 1/2 years. The results of that
effort were a reduction in dwelling units of approximately 6400 units,
approximately 215 acres of commercial, less than 1 acre of industrial,
and 632 acres of travel trailer zoning. Approximately 1276 acres were
granted exceptions and exemptions under the ordinance, and the
remaining property that was improved was not subject to that
ordinance.
Those maps -- those maps which identify those properties
are in your packet, Land Use Maps 9 through 13. Everything in blue on
these maps represent property that was determined to be improved and
not subject to that ordinance, and everything in red represents an
exception or an exemption. And basically all of these properties have
a higher density or intensity of commercial use that is not in the
location called for by the plan, but they are consistent through the
policies in the plan.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If it's blue or red, we thought
the effort was made to get it downzoned via ZRO and was unsuccessful
in reducing the density?
MS. CACCHIONE: On those properties identified that were
improved, that's correct.
The next thing I'd like to discuss this morning is
planned unit developments. In terms of what we have approved in
planned unit developments, we have about 234 PUDs approved today. The
approval of commercial space is 14.7 million square feet of
commercial, approximately 4 million, 27 percent of that, is built and
on the ground today. In terms of industrial, we have 4.4 million
square feet approved in industrial less -- approximately 4 percent of
that is developed today.
And finally in dwelling units, which I've kept
everything in dwelling units so it's a common denominator, 114,931
dwelling units have been approved, and approximately 37,000 or 32
percent of those are actually built and on the ground. There's also
7,000 acres approved in golf courses and 20,000 acres in terms of
conservation area.
Table 1 in your packet identifies all the PUDs in the
county, what's approved, what's existing for each PUD, how much
commercial square footage; so it goes into a detailed analysis of each
PUD.
Table 2 identifies all those PUDs approved at a density
below 4.31 units per acre. Approximately 89 PUDs on 34,000 acres and
88,000 units are represented in that category. That would be 83
percent of all the PUD acreage. Seventy-seven percent of all the
units are in PUDs that are less than 4 units per acre.
Table 3 identifies the PUDs that are over 3 -- excuse
me, over 4.5 units per acre; that acreage is much less. That's four
-- approximately 4,000 acres and representing 26,000 dwelling units.
Finally, Table 4 shows you all the PUDs, and those
number 52 that have been approved and built; they have completed. And
there are approximately 3,000 acres in that category representing 8
percent of the total land area and 10 percent of the units, about
11,000 units.
It's also interesting to note that there are 21
developments of regional impact in the county. Most of those, except
for one, which is Cedar Bay Marina, are also zoned PUD. In DRIs,
approximately 60,000 units, 53 percent of all the PUD -- PUD units are
in developments of regional impact. The next -- the PUDs are also
mapped on Hap 1, which is identified in your packet as Hap 1.
The next thing I'd like to discuss is the agricultural
area within the urban area of the county. As you can see on this map
and Hap 3 in your packet, the areas identified in green represent the
agricultural acres left in the urban area that are zoned
agricultural. The red line, of course, is the urban boundary line.
Sorry. Can you see that? The acreage, as I said, is about 18,800
acres.
If you were to look at that under the base density of
the comprehensive plan, west of Airport Road we would look at a base
density without any density bonuses of approximately 3 units per
acre. East of Airport Road we would look at a base density of
approximately 4 units per acre, excepting this piece here
(indicating), which is called the urban residential fringe, which is
1 1/2 units per acre. When you do all those calculations, what's left
in the green area could accommodate approximately 60,000 units at the
base densities. The area identified in yellow (indicating) is the
estates property, which is not part of Golden Gate Estates
subdivision, and that density in that location would be 1 unit per
2 1/4 areas.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so I understand again, the green
area are all agriculturally zoned areas? MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And at 3 units per acre in the
traffic congestion zone and 4 units per acre outside of that, within
the urban boundary we're looking at 60,000 units, plus or minus? MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
Finally, the last issue I'd like to discuss is the
buildout analysis that was done. In 1994 we did Phase 1 of a buildout
study that we worked with a lot of public participation, including
various civic and community groups, as well as the builders and the
Economic Development Council. And we came up with what we thought was
a fairly conservative estimate; it is not a worst-case scenario. In
that study, which basically covered the urban area only, which is
approximately 80,000 acres, the estimate was 275,607 dwelling units
and a population of 458,000. That's the only time I'll -- I'll use a
population number.
What we also calculated is two other areas of growth
that we have in the county, Golden Gate Estates and Immokalee. Golden
Gate Estates we -- we took into account just the northern part of
Golden Gate Estates which is north of 1-75 and east of 951, and we
calculated about 18,500 units on that property.
Finally, we looked at the Immokalee area, and we
calculated approximately 38,000 units in the Immokalee area. As we
totaled each of these up for buildout of that total area, the number
we came up with was 332,952 dwelling units. And that would assume
buildout.
Today we have about a hundred and fourteen thousand
units in the urban area. It -- excuse me. We have a hundred and
fourteen thousand units in the county including the city. So we're
approximately 34 percent of where we can potentially be at buildout
giving -- given the fact of what's on the ground today, what's
approved in terms of zoning, and the potential for the development of
the agricultural area.
The 2020 financially feasible plan identifies a road
system which can accommodate approximately 246,000 people -- excuse
me, units, 246,000 units.
Table 6 represents the second phase of the buildout, and
that was an assumption based on the service providers on the
infrastructure that would be needed to service the urban area buildout
population.
In terms of the rate of growth, our growth rate has
slowed somewhat. In the past, in the '80s, we had been growing at
approximately a 6 percent growth rate. We're now averaging
approximately a 4 percent growth rate. What that means in building
permits annually is about 4,000 building permits for residential
construction.
The final maps that -- was basically handed out to you
this morning. And our graphics staff, Tim Billings and Tom McDaniel,
have been working very hard to -- to finish those up, and I thank them
for that. But what this is described here (indicating) is the urban
area, and what you see here (indicating) is a density pattern with the
shades reflecting the different density. Zero to two is the very
light yellow color. It gets a little darker at zero to four. The
orange color in this area (indicating) is zero to six. The purple is
the industrial. The red is the commercial. So what you can see, by
taking your time and reviewing this map set, is the density of the
urban area, and it becomes very clear that the -- the density
increases from north to south and also that our base density is
somewhere around 4 units per acre. As you move further south, you can
see there's more residential density at -- at 6 units per acre and
then Marco, which is, you know, the last future land use map that was
just adopted.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, Barbara, but since
that -- I just got that. The light yellow is zero to two, and the
more prominent yellow is zero to four?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, this would be zero to two
(indicating).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: And this color (indicating) would be
zero to four.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I see the six is obviously
the brownish, but it shows that most everything is zero to four and --
and in that -- in the zero to four -- okay, that would really be two
to four, right, because zero to two is light yellow? Two to four is
dark --
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: You're correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Cacchione, do you know what the
density for the City of Naples is per acre, units per acre?
MS. CACCHIONE: I have that number, but I -- I don't
recall it at -- but I can get that for you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd -- I'd be curious just to know
that as a reference point if -- if we can -- if someone can find that
during this discussion, that would be helpful. MS. CACCHIONE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's pretty high because of the
high-rises along the beach. It would be good to know two numbers,
Wayne, if you're looking. What is the coastal density and then what's
-- it would be good while you're asking to ask what's the coastal
density and then what's the noncoastal because those high-rises
significantly skew the total.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, that -- that won't make a
difference in the point that I'm getting to, but that -- that's fine.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: The final attachment in your plan is the
review of the property rights legislation that was adopted two years
ago, the Butt -- Butt Harris Act. And there has not been much case
law on that to determine the effect of -- of any change in zoning on
-- based on how it would be viewed under that act. So any
alternative is -- that is looked at would have to be reviewed under
that act.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Cacchione, I -- just for my
purpose, the board members do have questions as we go along here.
MS. CACCHIONE: That concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what I was asking.
Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Cacchione, when you give us
the figures for units in the county that are already developed and
plan to be developed, are you including those units within the City of
Naples?
MS. CACCHIONE: In terms of the -- yes. In the buildout
analysis the city is included and in the existing number, yes, they
are.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just looking at the
alternatives toward the end. And I think this may be where
Commissioner Mac'Kie was leading on your point on the yellows. I
don't know that if simply tinkering with the 4 units or that number is
the answer. But I look at some of the alternatives, and I like some
of these. I think a lot of us had the experience. If we go to any
civic group or local chamber or go to the FOCUS meetings or we hear
right here in this board meeting is most people in the community are
concerned about growth. And we always hear that we don't want to be
like the east coast, and I think we probably all agree with that.
The one issue that evoked more response than any other
since I've been on the board was the urban boundary issue and -- and
so I like a couple of these suggestions, and that is, I'd like us to
investigate. I'm not suggesting that we take this action immediately,
but I'd like to look at a couple of these alternatives in detail. And
that is, one, reducing the size of the urban area, and I think if we
look at the potential impacts long term, that's beneficial. A couple
of the others, I'd like to see us reduce the maximum base density on
the agricultural-zoned property east of Airport, that if you look at
the statistics we have here can have a very, very big impact.
And I'd like us to investigate deleting the density
bonus provisions and -- and seeing what impact that would have. I --
I suspect other than just the raw numbers, that may have impacts on
some other things we do in the county, and I'm not sure right now what
those are, but I'd like to look and at least know.
A couple of things I don't think I'm interested in, and
that is promoting increased density within the activity centers or
promoting increased density on in-fill properties, because while the
intent may be good and while the initial response may be that we
concentrate the activity there instead of elsewhere, I just fear long
term that when that gets filled up down the road, those areas that
haven't been filled up suddenly become the appropriate area to get
filled in and -- and while today's intention is good, 20 years down
the road you've got a very intense activity center or very intense
area.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If -- the one place I think that may
be appropriate is under transfer of development rights. And we had a
discussion not too long ago, and there was some on the board that
wanted to remove that altogether. And the reason I didn't is for this
purpose, that TDRs can make an in-fill piece which is not marketable
at 4 units an acre marketable by providing open space elsewhere that
can never be developed. And so that may be the one area that in-fill
increases have -- I just wanted to mention that. I'm sorry for
interrupting.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The discussion I remember
from TDR is that -- and you're right. The one thing I want to see is
a literal number, because of what we've seen in the attempts on TDRs
in the past have been --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh, yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with land that was
unlikely to be developed at any point anyway; so I'd like to see some
apple-for-apple exchange there instead of buying a piece of swamp land
and trading it off for heavier use in the area. Those are just my
thoughts on it, and I think -- I saw you nod, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I
think you're probably right on the density on single-family homes, but
I'd like to look at those others and see -- because they appear that
they may have the largest impact, and do what I think from the public
is the goal, and that is to have some limitations on our growth long
term.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like a lot of what you're
saying, Commissioner Constantine. And I, frankly, would -- even
though I would suggest and agree that the reduction from four to three
of a base density doesn't have much real-world effect in translation
in what's actually being built out there, I think that it's a good
idea to go ahead and do that reduction from four to three because of
the projection numbers that result from the four to three and the fear
that that causes in the community. We're not building at four. Let's
reduce it, and that would reduce some of these population numbers, get
them to a more realistic number.
I also -- I also like the idea of reducing the maximum
base density in the agricultural -- agriculturally zoned property east
of 41 -- I mean, I'm sorry, east of Airport and would like for us to
look at -- I know today's discussion is residential, but -- but the
thing that jumped out at me the most in this review was, frankly, the
lack of success of the ZRO process in reducing the strip commercial in
this county so that the net effect was we have significantly increased
the potential for commercial development because the -- the ZRO did
not result in significant reductions at all. What'd you say, 200
acres of commercial was reduced?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So now we have these huge
activity centers and strip commercial. And the number that knocked me
out was -- Coastland Center is a million square feet. Over the last
six years in Collier County we have permitted a million square feet
building permits, not zoning, but building permits for a million
square feet of commercial a year, each year for the last six years.
So we've built six Coastland Centers in Collier County, one a year.
And -- and that flabbergasts me, and that was a big red flag to me
about that the next place we need to look is on the intensity
potential of commercial development in the county.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I feel it's -- hmm, it's kind of
appropriate to -- to mention something. Do we have the numbers on the
City of Naples density?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. The numbers that we have are
approximately 2 units per acre.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. For the whole city?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was it? I'm sorry.
MS. CACCHIONE: Two units per acre. We might need to
verify that a little bit, too, and high-rises along the beach are
built at approximately 25 units per acre.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So you're giving me two
separate numbers. What I'm talking about is the overall. MS. CACCHIONE: Two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With the high-rises and the
single-family, 2 units an acre?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Boy, something doesn't sound right
there, but either way '- MS. CACCHIONE: We'll double-check that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. The reason I ask is --
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They might be using the same
thing we used on our park space, all that open space on the beach.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I ask is we're talking
about density, and we're talking about square footage of commercial as
if those are the -- the elements that make up the quality of our
community. And density doesn't create quality, whether it be low or
high. I can cite projects that are 6 units an acre that are far more
desirable to live in and to live next to than projects that are 3
units an acre. It depends a lot on design, a lot on road network, a
lot on several factors. And I think we put blinders on when we start
focusing on units per acre sometimes. By reducing a base density from
four to three, what we do is we make people think we're doing
something regarding growth.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we're not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we're not. I call it a bandaid
on an open-heart wound. It -- it just isn't worth the effort to go
through that and make people think we're controlling growth or
reducing growth when, in fact, what we're doing is window dressing.
The issue isn't -- isn't the numbers, but the character
of growth. And the only way to address that is on a neighborhood
scale. We can't take the urban area of Collier County and create a
vision or a picture by addressing solely density or commercial square
footage.
And, Commissioner Hac'Kie, you made some comments that I
think -- that I -- I have a disagreement with. Everyone points to
commercial as being bad, that commercial is not in the best interest
of the community when, in fact, every commercial acre takes
residential acreage out of development. When you have 200 acres and
it can develop as a commercial shopping center, the converse is that
that would have been 200 acres at 4 units an acre. It would have been
800 residential units potentially. Commercial does not exact the
services from a community that residential does, yet its tax base is
much higher. The more commercial development -- I'm not talking about
the mall, please, but -- but the more commercial development, the more
diversified your tax base are and the less reliant you are on
individual homeowner property taxes. I think we have to recognize
that, because a lot of times we're taking what we hear from the public
and restating it up here when, in fact, it may not be in the long term
best interest of the community.
As I've looked at all this, the one thing that keeps
coming back to me is I received information from a town called
Redlands, California. And Redlands in the '70s adopted growth control
similar to what our Growth Management Plan is. They went out and
said, These are our goals. Well, they found several years later their
goals weren't being realized because they had not been specific enough
in what they wanted to become.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So they went and made additional
changes. And -- and, Commissioner Constantine, you hit on one of
them, the preservation of farming lands. Lands that are currently
being used in agricultural production must stay in that mode for a
certain period of time and qualify for a lower density. What this
does, it keeps people from going, throwing cattle on a piece of
property to get an ag exemption and developing at maximum density
later, which we know happens all the time.
All these things when you put them together shows that
this is too complex an issue to find a single magic bullet for. You
have thrown a myriad of things out that I think all need to be
investigated. But it's my opinion that our planning staff has --
probably for the first time since the Growth Management Plan was
finalized has embarked upon something that is trying to get a handle
on where we're going.
I keep coming back to the number of building permits
issued every year. If we have 80,000 units out there that can be
developed or 60,000, excuse me, that are in existing PUDs, that means
next year, assuming the roadway network can handle it, 60,000 building
permits could be pulled. Maybe the issue isn't density, but the rate
of growth. What rate of growth over a long period of time can we
sustain and maintain quality?
So I would like to take some of what Commissioner
Constantine has -- has pointed out and maybe workshop with our staff
what our individual goals are and the goals that we have and start on
a process of looking specifically at areas of the county, specifically
at what their pattern of develop may be. Maybe we need to specify
areas that are -- are available for lower densities. Let's specify
areas that are developable for transfer development rights. We need
to be more specific about the character of that develop and not just
looking at it on a macro level. And that's a long, tedious process,
but I think we're missing the boat if we don't do that. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you
wholeheartedly. It is not as simple as density. That's a part of the
equation. But you're right. The type development, the quality
development, where certain things are allowed are all part of it. And
I -- the raw numbers do make a difference, I think, as we look -- you
said if the road network could handle it, you could pull permits for
everywhere. I think that's what scares people is you look at those
raw numbers, and you see 60,000 new units could go in, and there's not
a whole lot we can do other than through our sunset provision to do
too much about that. What we can do, though, is all that raw land,
particularly east of where Livingston will be, we can look at making
some changes, and the ones that are outlined here, as I said, with the
urban area and all, I think, give us an opportunity to deal with both
sides of that problem, those that have been already approved and
something to -- to kind of slow that down a little bit in the future.
And I don't know if we have public speakers on this, but I would make
a suggestion on a direction if we don't, and I'll wait if we do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there further comments by
the board? Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A couple of comments. I -- I like
the direction we're going. I think some of these things are -- are
pretty good suggestions, and I'm happy to see that we're going to go
ahead and do a little further investigation of them. Just -- I have a
little bit of a disagreement with a comment that you -- you made. I
think the issue is number of units. I mean, that is the issue.
Density, per se, may not be, but numbers of units certainly is.
And Commissioner Mac'Kie is concerned about the -- the
amount of commercial space. I'm not particularly concerned about that
for the simple reason that commercial building is going to be market
driven. If there's no market, then -- then the commercial space is
not going to be developed because it would be unsuccessful. And if it
-- if commercial development starts to become unsuccessful in our
area, the -- the construction will dry up real quick. In other words,
it will match the population that's here. The commercial will develop
at the same rate that -- that the population demands it to.
And, finally, a concern about TDRs. I -- I was always
real concerned with the ability that we had previously to -- to be
able to buy swamp land and transfer development rights into some
usable property. I'm glad that we are not going to do that in the
future, but my concern with transfer of development rights within the
urban area, from one urban piece to another, is that you may have
unforeseen circumstances where you allow a congested area to become
more congested. And I think it's something that you -- that we really
need to be careful with. For example, if -- if there was a busy
intersection, like, Pine Ridge and Airport, as a good example, if
there were a piece of property that were to be developed there and
somebody transferred additional units into that particular piece of
property, that would just further exacerbate the problems that are at
that intersection already. So TDR is one thing I'm really leery of in
any circumstance. I think we need to be real cautious if we're even
going to discuss that one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: The only comment I have, and I
would -- I don't think you mentioned this, but any of the units that
have already been built out, can we get an exact number, because
sometimes the numbers on those are indicated to be higher? But what
was the actual buildout of those particular units? Did you have this
in here?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. That would be described in Table
5. That would show you the 52 existing PUDs --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- and what they were approved for and
what they were actually built for and what their gross density was.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. We do have that
information?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I obviously didn't catch that in
here.
MS. CACCHIONE: The tables are all the same format --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: -- so it's kind of hard to see when one
starts and one stops, but it is Table 5 that describes that.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One -- one thing I'll -- I'll just
share with you that I've discussed with Hiss Cacchione and Mr. Arnold,
those of you that have been sitting through the HPO meetings and have
looked at our 2020 transportation plan know a few things, know --
first of all, I would assume all of you have looked at it, would agree
that it's not exactly the road network we would love to have. It's a
road network that we have to have based on the potential growth in the
community.
The second thing we all know is that there is a
shortfall between what roadway -- network could be required at that
time and what road network we can financially afford. I refer to our
road network as the framework on which all growth will hang or occur
within. If that framework is not strong, that growth impact becomes
more of a concern. We are limited by, I'll call it, sins of the past,
of not acquiring sufficient right-of-way in the right locations to
provide enough roadways, that there are more options for the traveling
public out there than what exist. Because of that I think we are
making some mistakes in looking at the general issues instead of
looking at our most restrictive piece of infrastructure, which is our
ability to move people from one place to another without creating
overpasses, flyovers, and all these things that do not match the
character of the community that we are all trying to preserve and --
and promote.
So as we go further in this, my individual efforts are
going to be to look at that transportation network as a key element in
this community, and I think we can back into the density numbers that
Commissioner Norris is talking about by looking at the most
restrictive element of our framework, our roadways, and determining
what we want that system to look like, first and foremost, and then
using that as a benchmark for growth to occur within. It just makes
the most sense to me.
We can provide the water. We can provide the sewer.
Almost all other facilities can be provided for the buildout
population that's been proposed. The one we can't build, unless we
tax the dickens out of everyone that lives here, is a roadway
network. So that's the most restrictive element, and that's where I
would like to place a focus and build from.
So as we go forward in this, I think what we're doing is
we're giving a lot of very general direction to our staff, but maybe
it's just to further the exercise of what has gone on here. And we
can go through this checklist and pick out those things that we think
are good ideas and those that are not to give a little further
clarification. Before doing that -- Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one more thing. I'd like to
endorse what you were saying about the transportation network being
the driving -- no pun intended -- force behind growth and how
wonderful it would be if at the HPO level we could adopt another plan,
instead of the 2020 financial feasible plans with flyovers and things
that none of us want to see, if we would develop a road network plan
that would be what we would like to see in 2020 in Collier County,
give that to our planning department, ask them what density does that
support and what areas, because as we're currently going the adequate
public facilities ordinance will prohibit growth beyond the road
network, but it will happen without any control. It will just, you
know, fall.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You are right -- you are right on the
direction that I've been --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- considering heading in. And you,
in essence, back into what is an acceptable density. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You then make individual decisions as
to which parts of the county can accept higher or lower density based
on traffic modeling. We have the ability to plug density numbers,
population numbers, into a traffic model in geographic sectors and
come up with what is acceptable and what is not. And part of that is
the level of service of our roadways.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's simply being proactive
with the transportation network instead of reacting to whatever
happens.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't build the roads for what is
coming. Determine the road network you want, and that determines what
densities and what community growth can occur within that. It -- it's
not as easy as that, but it, to me, is the -- is the right approach as
opposed to the opposite, which is kind of the way we've been doing
it. So you are -- that's exactly the direction I was heading.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I -- I agree with that statement.
I think, though, at the same time we've got some areas where we're
currently a little deficient; so we've got to kind of catch up and
then level off where we can go ahead with this plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Before we -- Mr. Dotrill,
do we have registered public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, you have two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go to the public
speakers, if we may.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Straton, and then, Mr. Duane, if I
could have you come up here and also stand by, please, sir.
MS. STRATON: Good morning. My name is Chris Straton,
and you're probably going to expect me to say that we should do
everything possible to reduce density, especially as we drive here and
we -- this time of year. But that's not what I'm here to say, and I
guess everything I've heard you say was what I've been saying to
myself where this is probably the most important thing that you're
facing and the community is facing is wrestling with this particular
issue. And while it's dealing with density, what is wonderful is that
the recognition that we have an urban buildout study, but we really
don't -- we haven't gone to the next step of saying how are we going
to accommodate all those parks, all those roads, all those facilities
that that buildout population is going to require.
We have other things going on, relooking at the activity
center; that whole concept will have implications to the issue of
density, which is the issue of character in a certain extent. The
transportation issues are overwhelming. My biggest concern about this
whole effort, without having the benefit of hearing you, was that some
steps would be taken without really looking at the long-term
implications of the efforts.
One of the things you risk with reducing density is that
if everybody still wants to move to our form of paradise, then the
question is, how do you accommodate those people after the fact? And
one way you do that is you push the urban boundary limit, and that's a
very expensive effort. It's not good for the environment. It's not
-- it's very expensive to provide those services. So that's a
long-term thing that also has to be wrestled with. Where really do we
want this community to end up, and how serious is that buildout?
I'm glad to see that Commissioner Hancock mentioned that
residential development is not necessarily a panacea. For every
dollar in services that we generate of -- excuse me, of every dollar
of revenue that a residential person develops -- provides, it's a
dollar twenty in services that have to be provided. And we haven't
even begun to address the infrastructure needs of the -- the projects
that have already been approved.
So I -- I'm thrilled to see that this is a comprehensive
look at not just density, but many of the major issues that the
community is going to be wrestling with. I like the idea of a
workshop. I hope that that would be a public workshop and that the --
the public begins to realize that the -- the steps that are being
taken here now probably have more of an impact on what the community
is going to look like than a lot of the other types of things that
have been done.
So I applaud you. I think it's appropriate. Please
bear in mind that -- the short and the long, and there are a lot of
implications that I know that you'll be wrestling with. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Miss Straton.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Duane.
MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, Robert
Duane. I'm representing the EDC Chamber Coalition this morning, their
growth management committee, and coming to you just to make a couple
of comments. We'd like to be a partnership in this process. I'm sure
that you would agree with that. We also want to understand, before we
make any changes to our plans, that we understand the consequences of
those.
I was glad to see that staff in their package pointed
out that we need to look at the cost, the effect on land, on housing,
and the tax base, and some of the other things we haven't talked about
this morning. But we would like to assist you in that endeavor any
way we can. I enjoyed the discussion this morning, and I agree with
our -- our chairman. I think looking at our buildout stud -- looking
to build out, and particularly our buildout study, I think we lost
some opportunities with that study. We took it a long way, collected
a lot of data, but we really didn't generate any alternatives from
that, just as you were mentioning. So I hope that we'll focus on some
of that work we've done and some variations of it so we can make some
comparisons. And we appreciate the opportunity to speak this
morning. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Duane.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I wandered around, as
I think did maybe one other commissioner, for about six months during
the campaign last year talking about growth issues, and it's good to
have this come back. And I think somewhere between unbridled growth
and a moratorium is a realistic approach to this, and I think we're
headed in that direction. This discussion certainly takes us in that
direction.
I'd like to see us investigate three areas that are
outlined here for alternatives, and I certainly compliment our staff
on the job they've done bringing that information back to us.
Reducing the size of the urban area, reducing the maximum base density
on ag east of Airport, and doing away with density bonus, I'd like to
look at all three of those.
Commissioner Hancock, you mentioned it might be worth
our while to investigate TDRs and kind of cautiously look at an
apples-to-apples approach, and perhaps we could do that too. I'd like
to suggest we look at all of those things and that we set a calendar
date, say, within 30 days that we have a workshop. That may be on a
Tuesday; it may not but -- I don't know that we need to set that
specifically right now, but sometime within 30 days we sit down and go
through some of the details and some of the impacts of those specific
things. And that way by the time March rolls around and our next Land
Development Code hearings and all, we have an opportunity to be pretty
well informed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask for a timing question from
Miss Cacchione. There's one other element I would like to add to that
direction, and it was the one of looking at our -- our 2020
financially feasible road plan, determining what population and number
of residential units that could serve at the acceptable levels of
service and then determining whether or not that road plan is what we
want, and if it's not, then send it back to the MPO for -- for
revision. I would like to have that as a basis for these other
discussions, because we need to know how these changes may parlay --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- into that -- that effort. If we
could add that into the list of things, I would then ask Miss
Cacchione if 30 days is a reasonable time frame because this is a --
this is a very significant undertaking, and I'm looking for an
aggressive but fair time frame for -- for you and everyone to bring
this back.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my 30-day suggestion is
to workshop. It's certainly not for us to be taking final action.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
MS. CACCHIONE: As the board knows, we're in the process
of basically rewriting and including all the EAR-based amendments into
our plan. We are hoping to come to the board with that in April. The
traffic modeling that would need to be done is something I would need
to check out with the planner and the MPO to see how long that would
take. I understand that you want to have this fairly soon, and we'll
try to accommodate that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Filson, when is the first fifth
Tuesday of this year? COMMISSIONER BERRY: April.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, that's too far away, okay.
MS. FILSON: April 29th.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would have been convenient if it
were a little closer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, next week Miss Cacchione
could tell us some reasonable dates.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we do that. Why don't we
ask for an update on this next week and a potential workshop hearing
date to get, I guess, the first-blush response to what has been asked
here today.
MS. CACCHIONE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that acceptable?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great. Miss Cacchione, to you and
your department, thank you very much for all your work on this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great job.
Item #8A2
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR INDIAN WELLS GOLF VILLAS -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Moving on, Item 8(A)(2), it's
a water and sewer facilities acceptance for Indian Wells. Routine?
MR. DORRILL: All documents have been and were approved
by the county attorney's office.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
the item. I do have one question, though. I know these pop up for
various reasons from time to time. It seems like we've had a number
of them lately as add-ons, though. Is there any -- any reason why
it's happening more often, and if not, I'll move right along?
MR. DORRILL: Commissioner, I can't say -- I think they
run in cycles sometimes. I think some of it has to do with laziness
and/or a desire to hurry on the part of developers and to meet
closets. And if I had a better answer than that, I'd give you one.
But when they create problems, they occasionally manifest themselves
in add-ons to your agenda, but it is -- it is seldom, if ever,
attributable to poor work on the part of your staff.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll move the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. I might suggest
in the future when you ask that question and find there's no real good
reason, that we ask that it be placed on the agenda and advertised
properly and maybe send a little message on get your ducks in a row in
time. Mr. Arnold, was there --
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, planning services director.
One other item that generally may occur in these situations that
otherwise would be a routine consent agenda item is that the
bacteriological testing and the flow tests that occur may be a little
bit out of sequence with the board's typical agenda time frame. It's
easy for us to process something that can be done as an add-on to help
facilitate those closings, as Mr. Dotrill indicated. But typically
it's a very minor point of making sure the testing and the paperwork
is in-house. And until it gets in-house, we don't schedule it for the
agenda, but it is typically to facilitate this process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #SB1
CHANGE ORDER TO WORK ORDER #ABB-FT-96-7 WITH AGNOLI, BARBER AND
BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR CLAM PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING - APPROVED
Seeing none, on to add-on Item 8(B)(1), Clam Pass change
order. I'm sorry, I looked through my things here, and I didn't see
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, me either.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- an item on this. Mr. Huber, did
we receive any information on this?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have any in the packet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have an 8(A)(1) add-on.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neither do I.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is this fairly straightforward
and simple or --
MR. HUBER: I believe so, yes, sir. For the record,
Harry Huber with the office of capital projects management. Once
again, this year, of course, Mother Nature has failed to cooperate.
It's necessary to dredge Clam Pass again, and what this change order
is for is a change order to the work -- current work order with
Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage which has been performing the monitoring
of the performance at Clam Pass over the past year. And based on that
monitoring, we feel it's necessary to initiate the procedures to open
up Clam Pass again prior to May 1st. So this change order is to
obtain the engineering services necessary to prepare the plans and
specs and put it out to bid and achieve the construction prior to May
1st.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Huber.
MR. HUBER: Thank you.
Item #BE1
AMENDHENT OF TOURIST DEVELOPHENT COUNCIL GUIDELINES FOR CATEGORY C
GRANTS - APPROVED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR
CONSIDERATION
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On to -- on to 8(E)(1), information
to amend Tourist Development Council guidelines for Category C
grants. Hiss Gansel is here, but I have a feeling I might be bearing
the bulk of this discussion.
MS. GANSEL: That's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners, Jean Gansel
from the budget office. The board had directed the Tourist
Development Council to review the Category C guidelines. They did
create a subcommittee, and the subcommittee reported to the full
tourist council January 20th, and the recommendations that they are
making to the board are included in the cover sheet. If you would
like me to go over them or, Commissioner Hancock, if you would like to
identify them --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't I go through the list, and
you-all check those that you have a -- a problem or discussion with,
and then we can just isolate those that there is -- is discussion on
and go from that point.
First item is to change a verifiable audit to accounting
which may be verified by county internal audit department, changing
the reporting period from 60 to 90 days. The basis for that was that
a verifiable or certified audit may not always be possible on smaller
events, or the cost of getting that could preclude it in itself. If
the county -- if this board decides to sufficiently limit Category C
funds to specific purposes, then it was felt that the accounting that
may be verified by internal audit department is sufficient. In other
words, here's the list of things that -- that qualified. Here's, you
know, what we'll pay for, and that makes accounting very, very simple.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you want comments on these as
we go or wait until you get through them all?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you have a question, why don't we
mark them. And I'll try to give you what the TDC subcommittee and
TDC's reaction was on each of these or reasoning, and then we'll go
back and hit them one by one if that's -- that's necessary.
Second one, change the number of submission times for
Category C applications from four to two annually. This is no
different than trying to have a lineup of hitters so you can pick the
best ones; that's simply all it is. By getting them four times a
year, you get late submissions and so forth, and it's a little more
difficult to -- when you have limited funds, to pick the best events
when you're doing it four times a year.
Category C events must be held in shoulder and off
season as opposed to the event demonstrating the potential for
attracting off-season visitors. Self-explanatory. The event needs to
occur in the off season was the feeling.
Eliminate the provision for cash match and
reimbursements. If the board approves, only funding promotion and
advertising. So this ties into a later suggestion. Obviously a
recommendation coming up is to limit promotion and advertising. And
the reason cash match and reimbursement would not be necessary is the
dollars are used to promote and advertise the area in the off season.
Why you would then require a cash match -- and as we talked about, the
not-for-profits that come in, you know, generally don't provide that
anyway. We've yet to have -- we've only had one for-profit, as I
understand, have an event, and it did not go well. Was Fantasy and
Fire for profit or not for profit?
MS. GANSEL: Profit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was for profit; that's what I
thought.
MS. GANSEL: That's correct; it was for profit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And, again, it gets into the
accounting quagmire of did you make any money or didn't you, and what
ability do we have to track every single dollar and require that with
the event.
Next, include that funding of Category C grants would
only be for advertising and promotion. This was really a big source
of discussion, and I'll tell you my reason for -- for being supportive
of that, and I've read some comments that Commissioner Norris made to
the paper, and I -- I don't necessarily disagree, assuming they were
printed correctly.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Out of context.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the reason for that is that as we
have funded a broad spectrum of things or just someone comes up and
says here's an event I want to have and we go, golly, gee, that's a
good idea, it sounds like it's worth $200,000 of Category C funds. We
put ourselves in the position of then answering for every step, right
or wrong, that that person takes in the holding of that event, because
the funds were not specifically allocated at the outset for something
that we could track or something that we could audit. That's the
problem that we have had in the past, and the way to avoid that is to
limit it to -- to promotion and advertising. I don't think the county
needs to be in the business of holding events. And we kind of put
ourselves in that position by funding the event in total instead of
the promotion and advertising solely, or if you want to broaden that,
that's fine, but let's broaden it with specific categories or areas
that we can audit.
Next, salaries of personnel would only be paid as
specified in the grant application. We had this discussion during the
-- the -- what was it, the -- the outdoor epic drama. You had to ask
how much money are you making out of this, because it wasn't even in
the grant application. So if it's not specified, they don't get it,
period. If funds are paid to a marketing firm to do something or to
-- to do an event, well then it's understood that some of that goes
to salaries, but the check is written to the marking firm, not to an
individual in that firm.
Add a provision which would exclude funding of special
events which are exclusively local in nature. We're going to have one
coming up that I think this -- this would have an effect on if we
approve, but if they don't draw anyone from out of the county, why
should they qualify anyway?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not tourism. That is it.
That's -- those are the changes that have been recommended, and what
I'll do is just first come, first served. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Third one down, Category C
events must be held in shoulder and off season as opposed -- and I --
I agree. I wonder if we can define that, whether that would be
completely in off season, primarily in off season, or just partially
in off season, because if we have an event that begins April 30th and
runs throughout the summer or, by the -- by the same token, if it
starts throughout season and goes to May 1, theywll say, well, itws
run in the off season. Itws going May 1st.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: I didnlt support this one. And the
reason I didnlt was because I looked at a -- at a past application and
a current application that both had been favorable. Take the epic
drama. Letls say they get up and running and they want to do
promotion and advertising. And thatls the kind of thing that tour
buses come in for. It becomes a part of a stop, and -- and itls easy
to draw out of county and out of area with that kind of event. But
theylre in season and out of season. So does the advertising only go
towards those that occur in the off season, and how do you
differentiate at times? If the advertising is a national magazine
that promotes the drama that occurs this month through that month, how
do you -- it becomes very difficult logistically to do that.
The second thing is what is coming up as -- in an
application is in an event associated with the Nuveen Masters. It, in
essence, is a grass roots tennis qualifier so that 5-0 or
higher-ranked players nationwide can come to Naples in the summer,
compete for a slot in the Nuveen Masters that they would then play the
following February. It -- it all but guarantees hundreds of
out-of-county tennis players in for a two- or three-day tournament.
See, theylre seeking funding for that. The advertising that will draw
those people to that event occurs during season nationwide. So if
welre paying for the advertising, does it have to be in season or out
of season? Iim just not sure that line can be that solid.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- in answer there it
says Category C event must be held. So in the case -- in the example
you cited, as long as the event itself when theylre actually filling
the beds is in the summertime, if it takes an ad in April to get them
here in June, thatls fine.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Itls just that we have suffered from
lack of clarity in the past.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thatls why I said we need to
be clear whether thatls completely or primarily -- and there are
certainly ways within marketing to define -- you used the epic drama.
And if they happen to run year-round and do some advertising on their
own and do some advertising with tourist dollars, you can
differentiate that when you run it, but I just think we need to be
very careful there because -- or very clear there, anyway, as to what
we intend, whether itls primarily in the off season or whether the
benefit is in the off season or what we mean.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So is it your -- your intent to
specify dates, that the event must occur between this date and that
date?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, my suggestion is if it
is an ongoing event, when it says here must be held in the off season,
that would indicate itls exclusive. In my opinion, if it ran from
April through September -- well, April isnlt in the off season, but
the majority of it is -- that doesnlt bother me. But on the other
hand, I donlt want it abused and have it be January through May 1 and
May 1 considered the off season so --
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Would an acceptable --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Maybe the word "majority" ought to
be included in there, that the majority of each event must be in the
off season.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just wrote in Category C events
must be held primarily in the shoulder and off season as opposed --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we could have primarily
defined in the introductory part.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we should.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We should define that word and be
as clear as we can.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my concern there is the
board is often criticized for how we are interpreting these things,
and if we close that definition a little bit, it will make it clear
how it was intended.
MS. BERRY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It sounds like there's a -- I'm not
understanding. It says here that we're talking about an event in that
third bullet. We go to the fifth bullet, and we're talking about
advertising and promoting an event. It says "only" now. I thought --
what is Category B funding?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Category B funding is for -- for
general promotion of the area.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not off season necessarily.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. What happens is those funds
are utilized by -- there used to be a division of the -- a subdivision
of the Chamber, and I believe they have -- they have separated now,
marketing of -- of the Naples-Marco area.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As opposed to an event
specifically.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. As opposed to there is an
event designed to draw people from out of county here in the off
season, and the promotion and advertising of that is what would be
qualified under Category C.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Palm trees, beaches.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay. So in Category C, go back to
Bullet 3, the promotion of the event, or are we -- do we -- can we
sponsor the event? I mean, we can't sponsor it, but we can give money
for the event or only for advertising of the event?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's an important distinction;
so let me be clear on that. The recommendation here is that the funds
not be used to actually stage or hold the event, that the funds be
used specifically for the promotion and advertising of that event;
that's this recommendation. So, in other words, we don't get in the
business of funding events, only the promotion and advertising of it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to assume that also
puts the responsibility on whomever is hosting the event to actually
have the money to put it together and organize it. All -- all the
county's assisting with in this scenario is actually promoting the
event.
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
advertisement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
COMHISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
COMHISSIONER BERRY:
So basically this whole function is
Promotion and advertising; correct.
Promotion, and that's it.
Correct. Very easy to audit.
Then I think the rest of this, why
don't they just say that in one bullet and that's it, you know,
because it sounds like we've got all this other -- you know, the more
you say the more trouble you get into.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you have to go to the -- the
five pages that follow that are actually the mission statement and
guidelines the board has adopted. These are all recommended revisions
to those guidelines.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. I understand. But I -- I
think that it gets very confusing, and I'm not complaining, because I
think it's been confusing all along. But it just seems like if it's
-- advertising is going to be it, then, you know, let's get on with
it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just to sort of -- sort of
supplement that, I think that the salaries of personnel would be paid
only if presented in the grant application is critical if that
happened but unnecessary if we adopt the one, two, three, four, the
fifth bullet, right. We're only going to advertise and promote. And
I don't like the idea even of paying a promoter -- you know, somebody
who comes here and asks for the money and then forms a corporation for
promoting it, I think that should be specifically disclosed. If -- if
the -- if the requester is going to receive money in any format, that
needs to be disclosed in the application and -- and I think that's the
intention of this salaries issue, but -- but I don't care if it's paid
to a corporation or an individual.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's important.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with that, and I
think you need to keep the bullet in only so that if you have a tennis
promotion and you've hired Jimmy Connots to go out and promote, you
need to pay him something, but that would be clearly defined in there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if it's Pam Hac'Kie Inc., I'm
getting the money the same as if it's Pam Hac'Kie so --
My other comments are another term that I think needs to
be defined is "an accounting which may be verified." I don't know
what that is any more than I knew what a verifiable audit is. So if
it's by attaching an example of, you know, elements that must be
included in the accounting -- we do that with PUDs. We give a model
PUD. Let's give a model accounting statement so people know exactly
what we are expecting from them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let me respond to that quickly
before Commissioner Norris has some comments. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm not done.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The -- the reason there is --
or the background for that is that if we are promotion and advertising
and you go out and purchase 20, 30-second spots in radio markets
throughout the Southeast, you produce an invoice for those markets for
those -- that service. That invoice is then paid. Now, explain to me
what depth of accounting needs to be provided beyond that. Okay. We
can verify through internal that the -- that that was -- that that
radio station exists and that it was paid, you know. That's -- that's
all that means.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think it has to be much
more complicated than that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- but I'd like for it to be very
specific about what's required, that -- I just think that that -- that
your explanation is sufficient, but should be included as the
definition --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- because if you just say
accounting which may be verified by county internal auditing
department, then we'll come back and argue about what's good enough to
be verified, so let's just say what that is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's a function of the
clerk's office that I -- I don't have information on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: Part of the recommendation is that if you
accept these changes, we would come back with a resolution, and
possibly we could address Commissioner Berry's thought -- we could
maybe rearrange --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MS. GANSEL: -- how the guidelines are set up to start
out with the advertising and promotion and then get into what isn't
allowed and to include a definition section so that you would have
another opportunity to -- we will take your intent and maybe reformat
it so that some of these issues -- rather than taking what hasn't been
working and just scrambling it a little bit.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then my last comment is, if
we want to make these binding guidelines instead of getting back into
that discussion we've had so many times. The Marco Cat comes in, and
we want to do it. So we say, wink, wink, those are just guidelines;
they're not law. I want binding guidelines is what I'm going to
support.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Here, here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If that's ordinance format or
whatever's appropriate and binding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not necessarily discreet.
Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, a few things. If we're
going to limit the funding for Category C only for advertising and
promotion, then really the lines between B and C have blurred to the
point -- I think I'm picking up on what Commissioner Berry was
alluding to a moment ago. You're really almost eliminating Category
C. You're just sort of amplifying Category B. I make the -- the
proposition here that -- I don't know. I -- we could check it easy
enough, but I would assume that under that particular criterion, it
would be likely -- unlikely, very unlikely, that we would have ever up
to this point have expended any Category C funds. I don't think we've
ever done any Category C event that was strictly limited to
advertising and promotion. So, you know, that's one of the things
that we need to -- to consider. We'd be back in the position we were
a couple of years ago when we had Category C money piling up on us,
and no one was applying to take the -- the grants.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wouldn't disagree if those had been
effective events.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, some of them have, and some
of them may not have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: True.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I would hate to see us shift
this money into effectively Category B funding. That's not the way
we've -- we've been operating Category C. I -- I don't disagree that
we need to do something different in Category C, but not just shift it
to Category B.
And another item that I wanted to touch on, Commissioner
Mac'Kie talking about the auditing requirements. And if the board
does decide to go ahead and limit it only to advertising and
promoting, well, this -- this is going to be the same discussion or
similar discussion that we've had recently on Category C events, is if
-- if -- if all we're funding is advertising and promotion and that
gets verified to our finance department that that's what the money was
spent on, why do we have the right to go any further and see what --
what the event did? I mean, it's none of our business at that point.
As long as we're satisfied that -- that our money that we gave for
promotion and advertising was spent for those purposes and that can be
verified, that's the -- the limit of what we deserve any accounting
for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was -- you've -- you've surmised
the purpose of the language in the first bullet -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- exactly as it was intended.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's it. I'm just -- I'm
just concerned that we're going to do a couple of -- I mean, there's
-- there's a couple of traps here, I think, we could get into the
point where we're not really doing events anymore. We're just --
we're just doing Category B functions with Category C money. And the
other thing is, I -- we may get it to the point where nobody's going
to apply again. I don't want to see that either.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I guess I disagree with
you that we're going to blur the lines between B and C, because one is
generic advertising for the area, beaches, palm trees, so on. The
other is advertising and promotion for a specific event. Come over
for the PG -- PBA Senior Golf -- I mean, Senior Bowlers' Tour. Come
over for whatever's going on, and bring people to the area for a
specific event. And just from an advertising perspective, those are
two very different things.
I like the rationale Commissioner Hancock gave, and that
is it simplifies the job of what the county has to do, and that is,
we're not responsible then for the whole event. We make sure the
promotion was done as promised and done appropriately and -- and we're
out of the game.
I also like the fact that it puts more responsibility on
the proposer, whomever it is that wants to hold the event. And rather
than coming to the county and looking for us to fund the event because
they have a wonderful idea, they need to put all the pieces in place,
and then when it's ready to go, we'll help them promote it. And I
think that's ultimately the purpose of tourism dollar, is to promote
the area and provote -- promote events in the area, not necessarily to
put on the event itself.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- the basis -- and I'll give you
an element of that discussion that -- that the TDC had. It's my
feeling, and I think there was a general consensus, that if someone
wants to hold an event, they can't come in and hold the event and sell
enough tickets to break even, then we shouldn't be funding any element
of that event. I mean, if -- if it's not a good enough event that it
can at least make break even or make money, why would we want to be a
part of that? And Fantasy and Fire was a textbook example of -- of
what could have been a very good event if -- if certain things had
been done that weren't done, if there were certain considerations that
were made that weren't made.
And the problem I have is that I don't know how to plan
that type of event. I don't know if what they're telling me on how
they're going to do it is a good idea or a bad idea. In hindsight the
idea that you have a show on a Wednesday and a show on Saturday and
people are going to stay in between was silly, but that's what was
presented. And it's just -- I'm not in the business of event
promotion, nor is -- is anyone else up here, nor are any members on
the TDC in that. And it's very, very difficult to -- to say no a lot
of times to a request when it sounds like a good event, but you're
just not sure if it will work.
And I just would like us to get out of the business of
events -- you know, of holding events. And that's why I'm comfortable
with this kind of change. And, yes, it will be more restrictive, and,
yes, fewer dollars will, in all likelihood, be spent. But we already
have one proposal that already meets all of these guidelines, and
their original request was almost half a million dollars for promotion
and advertising. So there are some out there, but the magnitude and
planning that goes into the event would have to be far greater than
what we've seen in a lot of applications in the past.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one last comment about the
-- the fact that we don't want to be in the business of putting on
events. I assume that we're not putting anything in these guidelines
that prohibits us from looking carefully and deciding whether or not
the county wants to be involved in advertising and promoting. You
know, we don't want the Communist Party comes to Collier County, yeah,
here, go advertise or something worse.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it depends on how many people
they're bringing in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we still would have that
ability to look at and become involved -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Headline.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in whether or not the event is
something we want to be involved in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think we've always had that
discretion. You know, Commissioner Norris makes a point. We probably
could go back and find events that occurred that were good ideas. We
had one this morning that we could not have funded if these guidelines
were in place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the other side is look what we
have funded, that had we known then what we know now, we probably
wouldn't have, and so --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And my point is simply don't throw
out the baby with the bath water. Sure, we can tighten up Category C
guidelines, but you're -- I think what we're proposing to do here is
contrary to what we have always done, and that is we have -- the
problem is -- you know, promoting an event is very risky business.
You say how are you going to pick the ones that are successful and
not. Well, there's no way to do that. There's no history on a lot of
these events. It's the first time they've ever done it. They don't
know if it's going to be successful, and neither does anybody else.
What we're interested in is bringing tourists to town.
But the point is still that the events that we have, the
successful ones as well as the unsuccessful ones, none of them have
perfectly fit these guidelines to date, and I don't think we would
have ever spent a penny of this money if we were strictly running on
these guidelines alone. So I think we're -- we're making, not minor
changes here to Category C, but major, and not just in the way it's
done, but in the entire philosophy of Category C, and I think we
should be cautious about that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What changes would you suggest?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think probably the one
that is -- that I have the most concern about is that it -- it can
only be used for advertising or promotion of an event, because that's
-- that's where it is such a dra -- drastic change from what we've
done in the past. And you can go from the smallest ones like the Lely
band, for example, where we gave them -- I don't know -- a couple
hundred -- a couple grand, something like that, to hold their
competition. Probably dollar for dollar that was the most successful
one we ever had, because they brought in all the parents from other
parts that stayed overnight, that sort of thing. Dollar for dollar
that's probably the best one we've ever had. That one doesn't fit the
guideline, for example. And, you know, you could go through each
example and see which ones were successful and why, but you'll find
out still that if you had limited them to only advertising and
promotion, the events would never have happened.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, maybe the problem is one of
scale. You know, where we have had problems are in the high-dollar
events where we are, in essence, in a position of -- of fronting funds
to stage a large-scale event that's never been done before. But
you're right. You know, some of the smaller, you know, $10,000
expenditures -- we had one of what; $1,500 or something for the Naples
concert band, and double that was spent in hotel rooms and more on
food and so forth.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So maybe it's one of scale that
there's a dollar limit that these guidelines kick in at, but below
that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's more flexibility.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, a little flexibility.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that idea.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That sounds like a reasonable
proposal. I don't know. You'd have to pick a number. Let's say
100,000 or --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going lower than that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm in the twenty thousand dollar
range or ten, fifteen, twenty.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, twenty, twenty-five.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. You know, I think that's --
your point's well taken. I don't -- you know, I don't want to throw
out some of those smaller options because they're -- they're very
straightforward. So let me -- let me ask this. I would like to, you
know, get some input from the TDC on that, but we're not meeting again
until when? April?
MS. GANSEL: Well, actually we do have a meeting next
Monday, but you really have restricted it to the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah.
MS. GANSEL: I don't know if you want to extend that.
The next one is in April, the third week in April.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, obviously the board has the
ability to make that decision today. But I think the concern was
coming from the large -- the big-ticket items, if you will, not the
small ones. So if someone would like to include a caveat in that
change -- I'm not sure. Where does that show up in the ordinance
regarding promotion and advertising?
MS. GANSEL: We would actually -- previous to this what
we had in the guidelines were prohibitions or ineligible expenditures
as the positive, this is what we will fund. And that has created some
problems, because if it wasn't specifically identified as a
prohibition, it was assumed to be eligible. So we were just including
it prior to the -- on page 6, supplement disbursement guidelines, we
would include, you know, this could only be used for -- funding would
only be used for advertising and promotion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry, that was located
where?
MS. GANSEL: Page 6 of your -- no, I'm sorry. It would
be under ineligible expenditures and organizations. We would include
that Category C funds shall only be used to advertise and promote the
event under ineligible. That's probably not a very good cap -- title
for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, maybe instead of our trying
to draft this, we'd get Miss Ashton or whomever Mr. Weigel designates
to bring this back, because I would like to have a whole rewrite to
look at the whole thing before we finally adopt it but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Including the prioritization
Commissioner Berry referred to earlier. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's simplify this thing and make it
more to the point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where on as you said before,
I'd prefer to have it come back in the form of an ordinance --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- rather than simply
guidelines that we have here, because the board has maken (sic) a
habit of -- well, from time to time said, well, they're only
guidelines and -- and just excuse that. That shakes the confidence of
-- if we can't follow our own guidelines, it shakes the confidence in
government a little bit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Ashton.
MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant
county attorney. The recommendation is to just adopt the guidelines
today, but they would come back in a resolution form which will
include also the guidelines for Category A and the remaining
guidelines for Category B so that all of them will be all inclusive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And can those go --
MS. ASHTON: By resolution rather than ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why by resolution instead of
ordinance? If we would prefer it to be ordinance, is that an option
available to us?
MS. ASHTON: It would be an option that's available.
The current guidelines were adopted by motion only, and we're
recommending resolution only because they're -- they're very lengthy
and very specific at this point, and you just have a longer ordinance,
make it more difficult to change it if you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we adopt it by resolution, is
it binding on the county commission?
MS. ASHTON: Not necessarily, because the -- the board
can by resolution change it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why I'm interested in an
ordinance.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. When you say change an
ordinance -- when we say it's more difficult, we mean you have to
advertise and so on, but it's no more difficult for us to change that
down the road, other than advertising for the change of an ordinance?
MS. ASHTON: Right. I would recommend, though, that --
that the -- your current guidelines are about four or five pages when
you include the A, B, and C. So I'd recommend narrowing that down so
that you don't have a terrible lengthy ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, part of our direction was
to please simplify it, as Commissioner Berry suggested, to let's put
this in English as simple as possible and as clear as possible. Not
so much lawyer talk, right, Commissioner Norris?
MS. ASHTON: Also, for the board's information, I'm
currently in the process of rewriting the B and C contract based upon
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good.
MS. ASHTON: -- the guidelines; so some of this could be
included in the contract such as the accounting, etc., rather than in
the guidelines. And then we could incorporate the rest of the
language into the ordinance as is your desire.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees has informed me we do not
have speakers on this; so would anyone care to attempt to craft a
motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make an attempt.
MS. GANSEL: Excuse me. One thing. I misstated the
actual recommendation of the TDC where we have "the event must be
held," and you've changed it to "primarily in the shoulder and off
season." They, actually, in their recommendation -- it was Hay
through November. I just wanted -- that we do identify shoulder and
off season as Hay through November, but I didn't want to have
something that they did not specifically recommend. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we adopt
these guidelines cleaning them up a little bit as outlined earlier by
Commissioner Berry. The third bullet should be appearing with
primarily, and primarily, I guess, should be defined by 50 percent --
more than --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, 50 percent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- fifty percent. And if we
need to define shoulder season, that should be Hay 1 through November
30th. And I'd like to see under the fifth bullet that we do only
advertising and set the line there at $25,000 so that we could give
ourselves a little leeway on the smaller events. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Now, wait a minute. Hold on.
You're gonna -- you said for the advertising and promoting, you're
going to limit it to twenty-five?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's not what you said. What did
you say?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For any request exceeding $25,000,
the only eligible expenditures will be advertising and promotion of
the event. For those under 25,000, the -- the balance of the
guidelines will apply.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'd also like -- as part
of that motion, I'd also like to see this come back in the form of an
ordinance --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as opposed to strictly
guidelines.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is
there any discussion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just one. I think probably the
25,000 is too small. I think you'll find as we go along that that's
going to need to be raised, and the -- the one we had this morning,
the Marco Cat's a good example. That was 66,000, I believe it was.
MS. GANSEL: Yes, it was.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: However, had they projected the
revenues, it would have been only $30,000.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: True enough, but it's the only one
that's ever paid us back anything.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, between now and the time that
this is -- is brought back, I think investigation into past
expenditures might give us a track record as to what -- if we want to
move that at all. And I will have communication with individual
members of the TDC. I'm sure they'll be calling me today and tomorrow
as to what they feel about this.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Is it wise to set the amount then?
Would it be better to -- to start -- just say -- just because you said
an amount doesn't mean that you have to spend it all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Would it be better to
stipulate a hundred thousand, and you have the leeway everything up to
that point, because you may have several things that -- that may come
in there. Is it better to do it that way?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I might could support, you know,
up to 50,000. But if we give ourselves $100,000, my experience on
this board is that somebody comes in with a great idea, and we want it
to come, and they tell us it's not going to happen if we don't do it,
and you know, we wimp out. I think, you know, twenty-five is the
right number, and up to fifty might be okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it behooves us not to wimp.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, but you only get to vote
one vote, Commissioner Berry, and you'll find --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I know, but you-all are strong.
You can hang in there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I tell you what, Let's --
MS. GANSEL: For clarification, when you say up to
twenty-five or whatever that figure would be, what if you received a
grant application for 150,0007 Up to 50,000 of it was for
some conduction of the event, and the other amount --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. This is the total grant
application amount, is -- is the -- the applied number here, as I
understand the motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion maker says yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: (Commissioner Mac'Kie nodded
head.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second says yes.
The motion is for 25,000. This will come back to us.
What I would suggest is we look at the Category C expenditures that
have occurred, those that a majority of the board felt were good,
qualified expenditures but exceeded 25,000 should be a focus of
discussion as to whether or not that amount should go up.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: That's fair.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could agree with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll call the question. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none -- another meaningful discussion.
Item #8E2
DIRECTION TO A_MEND CATEGORY A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO INCLUDE
OTHER INLET AND INLAND WATERWAYS NOT CURRENTLY SPECIFIED - STAFF
RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
Item 8(E)(2), request direction to amend Category A
development guidelines to include other inlet and inland waterways not
currently specified.
Miss Gansel, what was the TDC recommendation on this?
MS. GANSEL: The TDC did recommend amending the
guidelines. In fact, in your next item actually is recommended
funding of some inlet management features that were not in the
guidelines. It's a little confusing in the guidelines. We discussed
-- okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's fine. Mr. McNees, any
speakers?
MR. McNEES: Yes, you have one speaker, Jan Staiger.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Jan, do you want to talk us out of
this?
MR. STAIGER: I prefer not to talk you out of it. For
the record, Jan Staiger, City of Naples natural resources manager, and
I am the staff for the beach committee. This sort of started with the
committee reviewing inlet dredging plans for Caxambas Pass and some
earlier inlet management work. The guidelines presently talk about
maintenance dredging of Wiggins and Doctors Pass and dredging of Clam
Pass for biological integrity, and that's -- that's it. So what --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Dr. Staiger, is there anything that
is being proposed today that you feel we should change, or are you
supporting --
MR. STAIGER: Well, I don't know whether you want to
just say inlets and inlet management or you want to specify the list
of them or whatever. I -- the main thing was -- from our end of it
was that the guidelines do not cover things that the committee felt
were very reasonable requests for funding and that they were sort of
at odds with the guidelines and, therefore --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm comfortable with the inlet
and inland waterways because those applications will come in front of
us, and we can approve or disapprove. MR. STAIGER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand what Dr. Staiger's
comments are, because where do we draw the line as to what is an inlet
and what is an inland waterway unless we have by reference some
definition, because what keeps somebody who lives on a canal from
saying this is an inland waterway, so the Category A funds should be
dredging my canal for me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: These five people keep them
from doing that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the answer to that
question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you with the Army Corps,
Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I'm not.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: She just works on the board.
MR. STAIGER: The Army Corps of Engineers has indicated
that they will no longer do the dredging that they have been doing in
Gordon Pass and similarly for the waterway from Naples Bay to Marco
and Indian Key Pass so that these are other inlets and inlet and
interior waterways that would logically fall under this -- this
funding support so that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. STAIGER: -- we may want to look at just how to
tweak that language to include those things.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
MS. GANSEL: The recommendation is to send this to the
beach committee and then to the Tourist Development Council for their
review of the Category A --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: -- guidelines.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I move that
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: A little bit. I kind of like the
idea of specificity. Would you recommend that they take a close look
at that in your motion?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly will.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second agrees.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, we're going to take a five-minute break for
us and the court reporter.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8E3
FUNDING FOR CAXAMBAS PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING $380,600; T-GROIN
CONSTRUCTION IN CAPRI/BIG MARCO PASS $363,200; AND CLAM PASS
MAINTENANCE DREDGING $13,800 FROM CATEGORY A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
- APPROVED
(The following proceedings recommenced, Commissioner
Constantine not being present.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to call to order the
January 28th meeting. We are now on Item -- excuse me. Ladies and
gentlemen, can I ask you to please end your conversations and have a
seat.
We're on Item 8(E)(3). Hiss Gansel.
MS. GANSEL: We have received three applications for
Category A funding, da, da, da, da, da, for the Caxambas Pass
maintenance dredging, T-Groin Construction in Capri/Big Marco Pass and
Clam Pass maintenance dredging. These were all approved unanimously
by the Tourist Development Council for funding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. In addition, we
received a repeat -- report from Mr. Huber that approval of these has
not adversely affected the funds that are being set aside for beach
renourishment when it is again needed somewhere in the future; so that
was an important piece of that information. Is there -- are there any
questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No speakers. Thank you. Any
discussion?
All those in favor please signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, motion carries 4-0, Commissioner
Constantine temporarily absent.
Item #8E4
CONSIDERATION TO AMEND ORDINANCE 92-60 RELATING TO THE LEVY OF 2@
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX TO INCLUDE THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC
FISHING PIER - APPROVED
Miss Gansel.
MS. GANSEL: And the next item, we had -- the Tourist
Development Council had received an application from the City of
Naples for reconstruction of the outer portion of the Naples pier.
The TDC was very much in favor of funding this project; however, as
our ordinance now stands, this would not be a permitted use. It is
allowed under state statute. Their recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners was to amend the current ordinance to allow for
this project as it was submitted. They -- their recommendation was
that the -- the funding -- that this would not be a part of Category
A, but Category A would be diminished by the amount that would be
necessary to fund this particular project. As Commissioner Hancock
had mentioned, on the other project Mr. Huber did state that there
would be sufficient funds in the 15-year program to fund this out of
Category -- there would be sufficient reserves.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And likewise, the -- part of this was
a three-year payback of up to $150,000 a year. And there are, again,
sufficient funds in Category A to accomplish that. The question
before us is simply whether or not we want to amend our local
ordinance as state statute allows for to provide Category A funds for
the construc -- reconstruction of the Naples pier.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: What was that about paybacks?
They're going to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The City of Naples would perform the
work and would be reimbursed over a period of three years at $150,000
a year from Category A. That's not the total expenditure. I believe
the city then had over $200,000 in additional expenses; so it's --
it's not a question of this paying for every dime of it. I believe
the city would be out some additional funds also.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a 50-50 grant.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that what it is?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Again, my recollection may not
be absolute.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think the fishing pier is
certainly a tourist attraction in Naples and the fact that you don't
have to pay to go out on that as you do in most areas. I would think
that as long as this has the blessing of the TDC, which I understand
it does, I would like to move approval.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Are there any
speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is just to go forward with
discussion to amend the ordinance at this point?
MS. GANSEL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is not the specific -- this is
not the specific allocation. This is simply on the ordinance. Motion
and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, motion carries 4-0, Commissioner
Constantine absent.
Item #8A5
PRESENTATION OF THE 5 YEAR NON-CIE CAPITAL IHPROVEHENT PLAN
Item 8(A)(5), review of five-year non-ClE capital
improvement plan.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. Our objective today is to
review the five-year non-CIE capital improvement plan which is funded
principally by general fund ad valorem taxes. As part of our
discussion today, we're seeking policy direction from the board
regarding alternatives to balancing the plan.
On an annual basis the county manager is forced to sift
through a number of capital budget requests funded by a limited pool
of funds made available on an annual basis. In FY '97 that available
pot of funds was $5.5 million. As part of the FY '97 adopted budget
policy, the board directed staff to develop this non-CIE capital
improvement plan.
In that effort staff has compiled a list of the
requested capital projects for the five-year period beginning in FY
'97 through 2001 in the following categories: government facilities,
public safety, libraries, parks and recreation, airport authority,
storm water management, and museum. The FY '97 adopted budget serves
as the first year of the proposed five-year plan.
In bold you'll note on the executive summary that the
plan as presented excludes any funding associated with the county jail
expansion and the Immokalee Jail Center pending determination of an
appropriate revenue source, given the voter denial of the sales tax
bond referendum.
As I indicated previously, the principal revenue source
for non-CIE capital projects is a transfer from the general fund.
Again, there was five -- slightly over $5.5 million available in FY
'97. In recognition the -- of construction inflation staff is
recommending at a minimum we increase that by 4 percent. And next
week when we talk about budget policy, I have factored that 4 percent
growth into my projections for the upcoming year -- three years
regarding the general fund tax picture. However, after considering a
4 percent growth factor in the general fund dollars allocated to
capital projects, there is an overall shortfall of approximately
$10 1/2 million, and that's on page 3 is a -- is a summary that shows
by fiscal year the various project categories, the available funds;
and at the bottom of the page it does indicate by fiscal year the
respective shortfalls over -- over that five-year period. However,
staff felt it was important -- rather than bringing you some
recommended changes to the staging of project requests, I felt it was
important for you all to see the magnitude of the requests.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the boardroom.)
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Typically when we bring you the annual
301 budget or the parks capital budget, you're looking at a -- at a
honed-down list of recommended projects as recommended by the county
manager on an annual basis. What -- what we're doing here is showing
you the magnitude of the dollar requests on an annual basis and based
on the available funds, the projected shortfalls during that period.
I think it's important to note, too, as well that the
City of Naples has requested -- requested projects totaling slightly
over $2.4 million in the parks area during that five-year period.
Now, the board has on a limited basis funded some projects in the
past, Naples Landing primarily being a boat launch facility in the Tin
City area that is used in part by county residents, but we have
included -- there's $2.4 million, slightly above that, in City of
Naples requests during that period. And that -- that's another
important policy issue for the board is the extent to which they're
going to use the available capital dollars to fund capital projects in
the City of Naples. And there is a representative from the City of
Naples here today if there are any questions regarding those
projects.
In addition, page 11 of the executive summary identifies
some additional sheriff's requests that are not included in the
magnitude of the shortfall. Many of these projects, though, represent
short-term capital needs that would have otherwise been addressed had
the jail sales tax referendum been approved by the voters. Those
represent an additional $7.7 million exclusive of the Immokalee and
Collier County Jail expansion. If -- if you would include that $7.7
million, the projected shortfall, three- to five-year period actually
increases to slightly above $18.2 million.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a list you received January
17th?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is it typical that we get -- and I'm
sorry. I use the term "wish list" for -- from constitutional officers
regarding this item and then are required to hone them down, or do --
is there usually -- I mean, does every consti -- constitutional
officer submitted a list to you of all the things they would like to
have if funding were available?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. Again, though, this was subsequent
to the -- the jail referendum. We've gone through various stages of
revision of this plan to get it to this point in time with the numbers
as -- as they are. And the sheriff's office did submit those, though,
as a result of the action taken by the voters in denying the sales tax
bond referendum.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In first blush if you would, please,
help me understand the disparity between what has been requested and
what has been funded and how it's presented to us in our packet.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. If you would all turn to page 3
of the executive summary, that's essentially a synopsis of all the
project detail that follows by category. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And it just breaks down essentially by
the type of project or the fund, 800 megahertz on down the line,
government facilities 301 projects --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give me an example on that.
We've got over 10 million for fiscal '97-'98 for building facility,
almost 11 million.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's -- on page 4 is the detail of
that. Again, page 3 is the summary. The detail follows that totals
the $10.8 million. FY '98, the largest component of that is the
county -- the new county maintenance facility at $6.5 million.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see the animal control
facility here too. Did -- did we ever finalize what we were going to
do with that, or that's still up in the air?
MR. OLLIFF: We -- we to date have gone out and gotten
appraisals on the property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name, please.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry. Tom Olliff for the record,
public services administrator. We are looking and waiting to see the
results of the long-range planning department's analysis of
neighborhood commercial, because the board wanted us to look at the
types of land uses that might be available that might increase the
value of that property prior to us considering selling it. They are
scheduled to have that report done within another couple of months,
and then we'll bring that back to you for consideration.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe I'm remembering wrong,
but I thought we wrapped up that discussion by saying selling that
property so that we could spend more to be elsewhere, it didn't make a
whole lot of sense. That would offset some of the cost, but it wasn't
necessarily more expensive to build where we were, to rebuild a better
facility where we were. And maybe I'm remembering that wrong, but I
didn't think we gave direction as though we were definitely going to
sell that and go elsewhere.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. And that isn't what I heard
Mr. Olliff say, is that we were going to have the analysis so we'd
have the facts and figures in front of us as we made that decision.
MR. OLLIFF: Correct. You've not given direction to go
out and sell the property. We're supposed to be bringing you back
information about what would be the highest and best estimate of
realized value for that property so you can make that decision.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In addition, there is no revenue
projected currently in the plan you see before you from the sale of
that property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for Mr. Smykowski?
I guess, you know, I look at this as more or less the
board is presented a Chinese menu of -- of projects that are -- those
that are recommended, and we have a shortfall in funding, and the
board has to make decisions on priorities within that menu. Is that
the -- the focus of today's presentation?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, actually we're seeking policy
direction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Some of the options outlined in page 2
of your executive summary available to balance the five-year plan as
presented including A, increasing the pot of funds available from the
general fund. Obviously, though, that -- you're talking additional
tax dollars.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Phasing or deferring projects to
coincide with the available revenue stream to the extent that that's
feasible. Obviously you see in -- on page 3 in -- in the outyears,
we're in a little better financial shape. There's surpluses in fiscal
year 2000 and 2001; so obviously by staggering some of the more -- the
larger big-ticket item projects, you could utilize some of that
available surplus in the outyears and -- and help you balance.
But, again, overall you're looking at still a 10, 10 1/2
million dollar shortfall without considering those additional
sheriff's projects.
Utilization of short-term borrowing mechanisms. In
addition, in discussions with the assistant county manager, long-term
borrowing with a covenant to budget and appropriate could be
considered. However, the covenant to budget and appropriate is a less
than ideal form because you're not pledging a specific revenue source,
and I know given the previous actions regarding the $13 million in
roads where we didn't have a specific pledge, that's something, I
think, the board is -- approaches with extreme caution in long-term
funding out there without a specific revenue pledge.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, I have a question. In
the non-CIE, the reason these show up in this category, as I
understand it, is because we have not identified impact fee revenues
that go specifically for these types of improvements; is that in a
nutshell correct?
MR. DORRILL: The history here is that it has been
probably five years ago at one point where we had a -- a one mill what
we call pay-as-you-go capital improvement fund. And over time that
one mill fund has been reduced and reduced and reduced. But we
continue to see items that are nonconcurrency driven but that occur
annually. And we felt, with the help of Mr. Smykowski, that it's --
it is not good planning or management practice to surprise the board
in any one year --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. DORRILL: -- with what can be a very long list of
items that are not recommended by the manager in order to balance the
fund. And occasionally you'll cross paths with constitutional
officers or other people or groups that really felt like they were
depending on the board in year X to deliver on a big project, and then
the money's not there. And so this is intended to be more of a
managerial tool for the board to recognize from the people who -- who
spend money or develop projects what the bigger picture looks like
over a five-year term.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have the constitutional officers been
provided a copy of what we have for today's meeting?
MR. DORRILL: I'll -- I'll say not in -- in the sense
that -- that we were developing this, and that might be an oversight
on -- on my part. I worked closely with the sheriff because of the
size and the magnitude of his needs in terms of capital improvements.
You never see requests typically from the other constitutional
officers in this fund because of one of two things, either A, they are
fee officers and they develop their spending requests, as was the case
last year when I worked closely with Mr. Carlton to put the addition
on his building that was essentially money that he had from excess
fees. So we -- we handled fee officer requests that way.
Mary Morgan's organization, for the most part, is
self-contained aside from the occasional bulk purchase of voting
machines, and you'll see that blip up in this from time to time.
The clerk's primary needs are -- are either one of two
areas, data processing, and his need to still have mainframe-type
computers for his big batch applications or space. But we, for the
most part, have been able to meet his space needs primarily by leasing
or renting space over the last two years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I'm kind of leading up to
this is I look at a lot of these elements that are law enforcement
related, and the board in the past -- I don't think any of us -- maybe
two of you were sitting on at the time that a law enforcement impact
fee was proposed and not adopted, but we have discussed -- I know
Commissioner Mac'Kie has been on the positive side of, you know, why
don't we take another shot at that, because I look at a lot of capital
projects here that were there a law enforcement impact fee -- these
are growth related, a substation, an Orangetree substation. You know,
if people weren't building out there, we probably wouldn't have to
locate a substation there. I know Mr. Weigel is grimacing. MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, you're not.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's even better. I thought you
were getting the attorney grimace that I'm making your life difficult
with these comments.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In that regard, Mr. Chairman, next week
as part of the budget policy discussion, we have a section devoted to
consideration of a law enforcement impact fee and seeking board
direction whether or not we should pursue implementation of same.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I total up a lot of those
elements, we're talking several million dollars worth of improvements
that may be eligible for payment through law enforcement impact fees.
That could help us with some of these other decisions. So before
setting a policy direction on these, I would like to at least have an
answer and projection on that to play into the mix.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sheriff's staff is here, but I believe
the -- the estimate for the impact -- the last time we considered the
implementation of a sheriff's office impact fee, we were only looking
at a couple hundred thousand dollars a year, correct me if I'm wrong.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, there's certainly more than
$200,000 a year in capital improvement impacts from the sheriff's
office on just, you know, capital improvement operations. So I -- I
think it was more the method that got us there that needs to be
revised, and we can be more aggressive with that method if need be.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But, you know, that decision is yet
to be made, but it certainly would have an impact on this list and how
these elements are funded.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a comment on some of
these items and a question on some of these items. Maybe I can run
down through. On our first page of capital improvement projects, it
has correctional facilities repairs, $184,000. I just -- I guess I
see that as a little ironic that we're pursuing two courses at the
same time. If we're going to do an expansion of a new correctional
facility and that we're going to do repairs on the existing -- and I
don't want to continue to do both of those unless there's something
I'm not aware of, and that's very possible.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, typically the nature of those
types of correctional facility repairs involve things like bars that
are rusted or need to -- in need of replacement or steel doors within
the jail that are beyond the state of repair and in the interim need
to be fixed now as opposed to we can't wait five years for a new jail
expansion, because in the meantime there's a -- a safety risk or --
and Captain Smith is here from the jail if we need to get into the
details.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Captain --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's typically -- and those are also
not law enforcement -- you know, if they're replacement, they're not
impact fee eligible as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we -- help me with this, if you
would, Mr. Smykowski. When we reviewed the sheriff's budget this past
fiscal year, was this $184,000 shown anywhere in his budget? When we
approved his budget for fiscal year '96-'97, if we looked at the
budget for '97-'98, would this $184,000 be in his budget, or would it
show up solely in our -- in this element?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The nature of those repairs, it would
show up here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: On an annual basis within your 301 fund
there are some dollars allocated toward the sheriff toward laundry
equipment or kitchen equipment, freezers, whatever the case may be, in
the jail facilities that are required in the short run.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. I just needed to
reconcile the two. Thank you. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: PC modernization, is that our
-- as far as our new computerization of what we're doing in our PC
network, or is this replacing old things? What is that for?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's the -- that's Phase 2 of -- of
the rollout of the PC modernization, putting PCs on everyone's desk.
Originally you'll recall it was a -- a one-time dollar request for one
fiscal year, and the board as part of its budget balancing act in '97
spread that out.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. As we look at the
cost of those, I think Commissioner Mac'Kie and I raised the
discussion during the budget sessions last year about all the bells
and whistles on those PCs and the fact that they came with headphones
and compact discs and you could listen to music while you were
working. And we were assured during that public hearing that that
wasn't the case, and it wasn't two weeks later that the PCs arrived in
our offices, and they did have headphones and all that, the bells and
whistles. And so, again, I've got to assume if you have less options
on there, they are less expensive. And so when we look at that four
hundred and thirty-two, it's probably not a big impact, but if we can
shrink that some by losing some of the needless bells and whistles,
while I enjoy music as much as anyone here, it's probably not
something we absolutely must have on every PC.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm sure the IT staff in procuring those
additional computers, given the board's direction, has complied with
the board's direction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly hope so, because
we were misled last year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Environmental improvements,
$341,000 --
MR. DORRILL: Excuse me. Just so that you'll know on
your last point, the final decision that was made was that depending
on the department's size, that there would be one or adjusted,
depending on the -- the larger departments, for purposes where there
is interactive training software, that there would only be one set per
department that would have the CD player and headset so that people
could participate in training activities in their department. If --
if we did not do that in the case of the board's department, then I
think maybe we ought to provide a summary to assure you that what you
asked us to do was done.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be great, because I
had the same question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Environmental
improvements, Item 8, $341,000, what are those? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We have the appropriate staff here to
address specific projects.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, facilities
management director. They include a nonchemical treatment for the
water cooling towers at the jail and some dehumidification that we've
been trying out, as you know, for the last year in order to get rid of
the mold and mildew and those kinds of problems for Building C-l, C-2,
and Building B, and that would be an ongoing thing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are we currently doing
with the water at the jail that pertains --
MR. CAMP: Right now we're using very, very toxic
chemicals, and we found a way -- in fact, we've tried it on all the
buildings but the jail, to use chemicals that are not caustic, and in
fact, we have one individual with serious burns. We've been able to
get rid of the chemicals that are around -- I think they're around
$17,000 a year, just totally eliminate them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I have to ask -- I appreciate
both of those concepts, but I have a tough time reconciling, you know,
341,000, then a continuum of $170,000 a year for those two aspects.
The dollar just seems higher than --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There must be more to it than
that.
MR. CAMP: Well, there are -- there are -- you have over
200 facilities countywide. And for a five-year period, in order to
address -- the single most important thing is probably humidity in
your buildings. We're spending over a hundred thousand dollars a year
just to clean the HVAC systems; that would eliminate this total
expenditure. So that's just an ongoing thing, and we hope to have all
of them done within probably five to seven years, actually.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Camp, before you sit
down, the next three items you can probably answer as well, and that's
14, 15, and 16, building renovations, 156,000; floor covering
replacement, 125,000; and courthouse repair.
MR. CAMP: Okay. The floor covering is to -- first of
all, is to do Building C-1 and C-2. That has -- that's been about, I
believe, 12 years, the carpet's been in there for a long time. It
needs to be replaced.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pretty interesting --
MR. CAMP: We probably have to have an ongoing carpet
replacement. Ten years in a highly trafficked area is really too
long.
The courthouse repairs, that's to repair leaks in the
new courthouse. We have problems with the glass block and -- and some
of the granite, the imitation granite. We -- we chose to save a lot
of money initially, and we put some imitation granite on the outside
of the building, for instance. That was not a good idea. We should
have gone with a more appropriate granite-type material. But more
than that, the glass block on the back of the building is leaking, and
that's a substantial problem.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that not a problem that the
contractor should address?
MR. CAMP: We're -- we're investigating that at this
time. It's just that there's a little -- a time period. It just
surfaced last year, and it's a significant problem. Either way it has
to be fixed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the first item, building
renovations, 156,000.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 14.
MR. CAMP: This is to repair the -- the windows in
Building C-i, the tax collector, property appraiser, and the office of
capital projects building. Those three buildings are put together by
panels. Panels are -- are bolted, actually, or welded to the side of
the building, and each one of those panels has a gasket between it,
and all those gaskets are failing. In fact, all the buildings on this
campus, for the most part, are put together that way except for the
courthouse. And this building, although they're not architectural in
nature, they're just panels that are actually bolted to the side of
this building, and each -- each panel has a gasket between its panel
and the next one, and all those -- this one is okay, but those older
buildings that were done in the '60s have to be repaired, those
gaskets and also the gaskets around the original windows.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Item 20, the animal
control facility, I understand we're not going to have all the
information, but a $1.6 million animal control facility just seems
like a palace to me for puppies and kittens. And I love puppies and
kittens as much as anybody here, but that's a heck of a place.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Headline, Constantine slashes funding
for puppies and kittens.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just thinking we're -- my
congregation is building a new church, and it's 1.4 million, and you
can fit in 600 or 800 people in there, and I'm thinking -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In cages?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, all in cages. That
would be a lot of -- a lot of puppies in that space. So I'm just
wondering if for an additional 200,000 what can we put in the animal
control facility that we can't have in a church. That's a lot of
money.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A lot of puppies.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, in addition to stainless cages, which
you probably don't have in the church, the actual estimate that you
have here is a rough estimate that we just simply did by looking at
three recent animal control facilities that were built in Alachua
County and somewhere in the panhandle and, I believe, in Seminole
County. And just using square footage cost per construction and
looking at what we have and what we would have to build in order to
have a facility, that's where the number came from. In addition, that
number includes the purchase of property; so we're -- we're looking at
10 acres of property somewhere else. So that's all going to be part
of your consideration when you look at how much you can get for the
current facility before you make that decision.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess those are some of
the considerations when we're looking for items where we can save a
few bucks, that one jumps out at me.
Next page, and this is an item -- I see our judge here,
and it's near and dear to many people's heart, but I have a hard time
putting in $370,000 and $2.4 million for the work release center when
that was part of the ballot question that the public just turned down
2 to 1. And we can have all the argument in the world for the
purposes for it. I completely understand that, and I think a lot of
people do. But the fact remains it was part of the question that was
declined by the public, and -- and I'm concerned when we have that
much budgeted in here, almost 3 million budgeted in here for what the
public has said no. The only option, if it comes back on another
question by itself and they say, yes, that's fine. But the only
option they've had so far it was 2 to 1 against.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, though, the purpose was to show
you the full magnitude of the project requests before we had to shift
projects, delete projects, defer projects, whatever the case may be,
to get us to a balanced --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- five-year plan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As we're looking at
$10-million shortfall, and I see 3 million of that for something that
the voters said thank you, but no thank you, you know, that jumps out
at me too. That's not a commentary on the merits of the -- of the
center. It's if -- we don't have funding for it right now.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. And overall as you look
through the plan, there aren't very many huge, big-ticket items that
just stand out: the animal control facility obviously, the county
maintenance facility, the work release center, and the -- I guess the
package of the City of Naples projects are -- are the largest
component pieces in terms of dollar magnitude.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a comment on the work
release center, and -- and I know we aren't going to have that debate
today, but the funding mechanism of the sales tax was rejected, and
the public might have a different opinion if -- as I recall it, we
have a very generous offer about funding that includes maybe even
interest-free loans or some sort of a generous funding mechanism. So
I'd like for us not to knock that one off the list until we examine it
more -- more thoroughly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of other comments
and -- and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's try not to have that debate
today if possible.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. A couple of other
comments on different items here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- we're taking off all
the items we don't want to see and I know sometimes we're critical of
the sheriff. I'll tell you one item on here that we are definitely in
need of, and that's the computer-aided dispatch system. I spent some
time over there with the sheriff's department on that, and that one's
a strong need. I know I appreciate the work those people do.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, that was the second phase of a
two-year kind of program. We broke that piece out to meet our budget
needs in '97.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple items down here in
the TBD column, to-be-discussed column, one is the Chokoloskee boat
ramp. And while we certainly need more boat ramps in the area, that
might be something we look at privatizing rather than spending a
hundred thousand dollars ourselves.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Now, that was in the adopted '97 budget
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- just so you're clear.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- and the other is if we
look at the city, there's the Pulling property, and I'm not sure we
committed to half a million dollars for that, but just kind of an
ideological thing with the city, I realize the Naples pier or any of
these things the county benefits from tremendously, but I want us to
be careful as we look at what we do share in expenses with the city,
with Pelican Bay and Marco Island and all these other areas
entertaining incorporating. They need to realize, as they entertain
that, that there's some responsibility that goes along with that, and
the county is not going to carry all the load if they decide to have
their own government. They're going to need to carry that
themselves. And so while we look at these individually, some of these
may be appropriate and some of them may not. I think we also need to
keep the overall view of what is our relationship with these different
city governments in place. I just -- if I can get an answer on the
Pulling property, what are we being charged for there? What is that?
I don't recall the board having any discussion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: While someone's coming up on that,
philosophically, you know, city limits are limits for a reason, not
just geography, but for funding, for decisions that are made locally
for facilities, you know, if -- if you can't have your cake and eat it
too. And I'm a little concerned that -- that we have a list of -- of
requests here to fund improvements in parks wholly within the city. I
-- I just -- I have a problem with that philosophically.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just say I respect that but
would urge some caution that if we start focusing on that city limits
are there for a reason, we might find that coming back to us in the
form of increased charges for county residents to use city facilities
or even that lack of availability of city facilities. You recall in
the 25 vision they were even talking about limiting beach access
parking. So let's -- let's be cautious as we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I agree. There's a
balance there. And as I say, we benefit from the Naples pier. We
probably benefit from Cambier Park. But there are other things here
that I'm not sure the benefit is as clear. And I think you're right.
There are boundaries -- there's a declared independence there, and we
need to be aware of that and find what that balance is.
Can we get a description on the Pulling property?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. In regard to the questions
regarding the city projects, Dr. Woodruff had sent the county manager
some correspondence outlining each of the individual projects and the
requests and the nature of the requests. I'd like to introduce Anne
Middleton, a representative from the City of Naples. I'll turn it
over to Anne.
MS. MIDDLETON: Good morning. The Pulling property, as
you know, is a donation. And what we're planning on doing with that
is making it into a park with boat ramps and docking and different
things to alleviate some of the impact that we have at Naples Landing,
because that is a very busy park. So this one will be in addition to,
but very similar to the Naples Landing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fueling station?
MS. MIDDLETON: I don't know. I don't think so. We're
not planning on that at this time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- before any of the -- and this
isn't necessarily a comment for you. Before any of these show up in
this plan, it should be a joint decision between this commission and
the city as to what is a joint responsibility for funding. And what I
don't like is all of a sudden these getting entered into here as if
they're in the mix unless we particularly exclude them. So unless
this commission has made a decision on joint funding of an item, I'm
not going to support any of them being in this CIE until we have that
discussion. And we have a joint workshop with the city coming up, so
what a perfect time to have it. We need to understand the
relationship of each of these items before it -- it shows up in here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd ask that that be expanded
to include constitutional officers as well. Whenever it's a request
not generated by the county manager's staff that -- that it's not in
our CIE until we have made that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many times have we gotten phone
calls from a constitutional officer saying I need this and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like, hello.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: From a policy standpoint, though, the
board historically has made some funding contributions to City of
Naples projects. And we thought while we're assembling the gross
magnitude of this plan, we need to extend that -- that invitation to
the city, and this is the result of that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we'll continue to do that --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but this isn't the way to do it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final comment, and as
I ask that series of questions, I summarized it by saying we say,
gosh, look, we may have a $10-million shortfall, but of those items
that we're unsure of, I think 2.4 million are city projects that we're
raising the question we don't know. And I'm sure some of those will
be funded, but that's 2.4. The work release center is nearly 3
million, which we don't have funding for at this time. And the animal
control is 1.6. Those are the -- all the big ticket, and that's 7
million out of the 10 million right there that we've got questions
on. So our struggle may not be quite as difficult as it looks, and it
will still be challenging, I'm sure. But I think big chunks of that
add up quick.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know we have some speakers. I know
Judge Brousseau had made time on his -- his docket to be here, time
specific, and we're a half hour past that. So if I could ask the
board's indulgence, Mr. Dotrill, if we could hear from Mr. Brousseau
and then the speakers to follow him, please. MR. DORRILL: He is the first speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I did say plus or minus, Judge. I'm
afraid we're more plus than minus.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Thank you. Good morning. My name is
Ted Brousseau, circuit judge. I'm here on behalf of the Citizens for
a Safe Community again. And basically we're pleased to see this
included on this proposal, and I'm here to answer any questions that
you may have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What are -- I know that the numbers
here are based on previous construction costs of other like
facilities. Is there a good chance that we could bring this number
down on -- for -- for local purposes? What -- what ideas or concepts
do you have regarding that?
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: This was specifically tailored to
Collier County, the -- the footprint on the property. It's not from
another site. And that would be a policy decision. The -- the work
release center that we saw in Orange County was in a steel building.
You know, we've got Naples. We have an image, and whether you want
granite, fake granite, or steel is up to you. I thought -- I thought
drywall and steel would -- was fine, but that's that -- yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Yeah, there are ways, I'm sure, to
lower the costs.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know how we're going to
fund it?
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Well, one suggestion has been impact
fees, and I heard -- I -- I didn't follow the '92 discussion of the
law enforcement impact fees, but I was advised yesterday that your
library impact fee, which I think is about $180 per dwelling, raises
three-quarters of a million dollars a year. And that seems to be
right in the balipark. That would bring this thing in at about a
five-year payout.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any further
questions for Judge Brousseau?
Judge, for such a brief comment, thank you for --
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: No. I appreciate being here, and
we'll follow up with some of the other numbers that we've discovered
and since -- in the last week on financing possibilities and all and
get them to you before next week's discussion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great. Thank you very much.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Thanks again so much.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Slebodnik.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many speakers do we have total,
Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: She'll be your final one, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. SLEBODNIK: I'm Kathleen Slebodnik, president of the
League of Women Voters of Collier County, and Member of the Safe --
Safe Citizens for a Safe Community. I'm just here to urge you to not
dismiss the idea of the work release center. There are ways, I'm
sure, of finding funds for this. The -- the county is working so hard
to get the law enforcement and all of the programs in order. The --
and this completes -- this is one aspect of it, of the whole cycle,
that -- that citizens have asked for which is a safe community. And
it goes from the sheriff's department through the prevention cycles
for children and then down to the enforcement and the work release
center. It's part of this whole program. And we are doing, I think,
an excellent -- an excellent job in this area, and the -- the whole
county benefits from this. This is an important part of the entire
cycle allowing people to work while they are serving their sentences.
The process is one of decision making. Years ago it
seems like a previous life when I was teaching economics. It was
unlimited wants, unlimited resources, the whole scarcity thing, and
that forces decision making. Please remember that this is a decision
to be made for the benefit of the entire county. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Hiss Slebodnik.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, that's all the -- all the
speakers. I wanted to just tell the board briefly there are two areas
that we could not get a good handle on yet, but I think they are going
to be emerging issues that -- that someone other than myself has to
struggle with in the not-too-distant future. One of them is
intriguing to me because it appears, as I follow some of the actions
in the legislature, that one of the -- the most unpleasant public
service functions that any of us can imagine is getting a driver's
license. And it appears to me that the Association of Tax Collectors
in the State of Florida has begun to make some inroads in order to
assume responsibility to co-issue driver's licenses in conjunction
with their DHV responsibilities for car tags and registrations and
titles. If that occurs, I think a very good argument could be made to
work with Mr. Carlton to build an off-site satellite department of
motor vehicle facility where you could go, get a car tag, go and get a
driver's license. And I think the volume of that would be so large,
because people will do anything other than to go out there on Radio
Road and struggle with that process, that he needs a facility separate
and apart from the government center. I can envision very difficult
parking needs and situations, and I think that is something that the
board should work with Mr. Carlton on.
The other thing, as I sit and watch requests year in and
year out, you're having some explosive growth throughout the court
system, and you are beginning to hear louder and louder voices for
requests within the public defender, the state's attorney, the clerk
of the circuit court, and all of the court support administrative
areas that run the gamut from guardian ad litem, to probation, to
court counseling, to witness assistance. And all of that is going to
come home to roost when the legislature conveys an additional district
judgeship within this circuit whose home seat and chambers will be in
Collier County. And then the dominoes are going to begin to fall.
And at some point we need to do a comprehensive space plan so that the
board not be caught off guard.
And I can envision at some point that the courthouse
will have nothing but judges and the support people to support
judges. All of the other departments in conjunction with the state
attorney and the public defender will probably end up in this building
some day, and there will be two buildings that house nothing but
court-related functions and people to support the courts or to try
cases or defend people. And long term this board is going to have to
do some planning to build a separate administrative tower on the space
that was purchased for that behind the Texaco gas station. And you
own all of the property between this building and the Wal-Hart store.
And some day this board will need to come to grips with converting
this building to a -- a court administration building and then
developing a county commission administration building. Because of
the proximity, I think courts will probably end up here so that they
can have easy access into the courthouse. Those are two things that
-- and rather than come up with wild plug numbers and put them in
here, those are the only items that we could identify that are not
included in this but probably will emerge within the next year or two.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm beginning to see the wisdom of
career change.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's imperative that we --
and, Mr. Dotrill, before you -- you exit on the llth, we need to know
with the resources necessary to develop a long-term space plan and
begin the process of allocating those resources, because it is -- it's
kind of like a roadway network. You know, if you look out and you
don't like what you see, now is the time to get ahold of it and make
the changes. So I would like a little further work on that particular
item. It's been a concern of mine, and it would help us field some of
those phone calls we get from constitutional officers about I need
more space, and we want to make sure the right hand and left hand know
what each other is doing.
There have been some -- Commissioner Constantine has
mentioned some specific elements. And, Mr. Smykowski, what's the
pattern from here? This is a review. At what point do we make a -- a
final budgetary decision on these matters?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That can be at any time essentially.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're heading into the FY '98 budget
process. The idea for this would be to have a plan in place and it --
and rather than have the annual what amounts to a free-for-all in
terms of the annual requests, this is trying to, again, become a
management tool to manage that process and say, you know, here's our
plan of which projects we anticipate funding over the next five years,
and then if some great need materializes in the interim, it would have
to compete against what is in the plan as opposed to just, again,
there being $40 million worth of projects and $5 million worth of
available funds. And you hit or miss year -- year by year. The idea
is to get a little -- put a little more order to the chaos, so to
speak.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection is that we
had asked our staff to do some homework on the law enforcement impact
fee, and I don't know what our time frame is to get that back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next week.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it -- is it that quick?
Great. And we -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're going to discuss that and ask you
for direction. That was the idea for it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we have information
coming back on animal control. We need to have the philosophical
discussion at some point, probably not now, on the city as well. But
those three add up to a lot of money, and -- and I think as quickly as
we can have the information back on those three areas, that helps us
tackle and put this into a more realistic light. And I don't feel as
bad about trying to track down $3 million as I do 10 -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that's an easier task.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And then obviously in terms of the total
dollar magnitude, the county maintenance facility is the single
largest project. The ability to, perhaps, phase that, that's
something that staff could be exploring in the meantime as well, that
again --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great idea.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- being the largest dollar component
fits right in with your direction as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Point just being you asked
how quickly can we do this. And I think if we've got one of those
items coming back for information next week, and I don't know how
quickly the animal control comes back, but I would think as quickly as
we have that information, then we ought to give our staff some solid
direction so that we don't end up with that free-for-all come budget
season.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a joint workshop with the
city on February 3rd. I think the other information -- we're probably
looking at, I think, safely three to four weeks out to get some of
these answers and get them clarified a little bit more so we can make
item-by-item decisions. Is that a reasonable time frame, in your
opinion, Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. We essentially would be bringing
back this plan again, and at that meeting you would tell us your
specific direction regarding work release --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. With additional information
on the noted areas of concern that the board has expressed -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- during this item.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's certainly reasonable.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is that acceptable to
everyone? Okay. No specific action is necessary other than staff
direction on that. Thank you, Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you very much.
Item #9A
COLLIER COUNTY STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES BY
PREVIOUS ACTION OF 12/17/96 PER RESOLUTION 96-589
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are on to Item 9(A),
resolution to adopt Collier County Streetscape master plan. MR. WEIGEL: Thank --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this item is
before you today in part for clarification in the sense that this
board heard the item in -- in its entirety on December 17th, and the
board direction at that time was that staff prepare a resolution with
certain specific requirements. I have crafted a resolution, and it's
before you now. And if you don't have your packet, I can -- I have
spares here if you don't have that there that I transmitted to you.
But, in essence, from the December 17th meeting brought
forward by the transportation department and Mr. Botner on behalf of
Naplescape and the Streetscape Master Plan, the board had directed
county staff to prepare appropriate amendments to incorporate the
Streetscape Master Plan, both into the Collier County Land Development
Code and the Growth Management Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and had
actually adopted the Streetscape Master Plan with its action on the
17th but -- but directed the staff to prepare a resolution.
The clerk recognized the direction of the board and
actually gave it a resolution number for 1996 to coincide with that
December 17th agenda item. I have had opportunity to speak briefly
with Mr. Botner again this morning, and I think he signed up to speak
briefly. And he has a couple suggested language tweaks to be provided
to the resolution that's before you now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before Mr. Botner speaks, I remember,
Commissioner Constantine, you actually kind of led the discussion on
the existing MSTUs and how do we incorporate their concerns -- MR. WEIGEL: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and their -- their entities, if
you will, into the Streetscape Master Plan. I want to know, has that
been addressed, and do we have any letters or recommendations from
those MSTUs regarding the master plan? That input was critical to
this decision, if I remember correctly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
MR. WEIGEL: I can respond at least in part. And that
is from the meeting of December 17th that concern and direction was --
was made that the MSTUs be provided a copy of the plan and be able to
provide input. The specific motion that the board made was that the
MSTUs have the opportunity to review -- the staff provide them the
opportunity to review and that their comments be taken into -- into
context and into consideration in the ordinance or incorporation
process into the Comprehensive Plan and the -- and the LDC, but did
not -- the direction of the board, from the transcript, did not
indicate that changes, further changes, be made to the plan itself.
Again, this is before you today in the sense that you can alter,
adjust your direction if you wish to at that point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we need to make that change
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that we include another whereas,
if you will, that says the, you know, individual MSTUs adopted for the
purpose of -- of, you know, median landscaping be incorporated by
reference. In other words, I don't want this controlling them because
they already have, I guess, the best of both worlds. They're
determining their own landscaping and their own funding. So that's
not mentioned in this resolution?
MR. WEIGEL: Not exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I have a copy of the
resolution?
MR. WEIGEL: I've got spares.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, my concern is I
don't want -- I don't want them to just be told, okay, here it is and,
you know, we want your comments, thanks, and then we keep doing
whatever we're going to do anyway. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that's George's
intent, but they just need to be an integral part of this, and we need
to make sure that's covered.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. The last whereas on the first page
of the resolution is a very close adaptation of the board direction,
the motion. But, again, that can be altered and -- and probably I
think Mr. Botner can comment. We've discussed whether this resolution
-- whether it had the '96 number from the December 17th meeting or
today's number if the board adopts a resolution or alters one today.
And I don't think that -- I don't think that he -- and for the
purposes of this resolution, that there's any importance or problem
either way.
I might suggest that since this is a little bit of a
further action taken by the -- well, if itws purely a clarification of
the action of the board in December, then -- then wewll just tool it
and leave it with the same w96 resolution number.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And I know Mr. Botner has a
couple of comments, but I -- I feel that we have to have in this
resolution a statement that existing and future MSTUs established for
the purpose of median landscaping may have the option of -- of setting
specific standards that they -- that they themselves will adopt,
something to that effect so that it recognizes the existence of the
Marco MSTU and the Golden Gate MSTU and doesnwt send a signal that
wewre trying to control or bind you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Lely beautification.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Lely beautification. I donlt know
them all. Iid fail that exam if given. So I would like that
incorporated in -- in some manner that existing MSTUs for the purpose
of median beautification or landscape beautification be recognized in
that -- in that form. Are there any other further questions for Mr.
Weigel?
Mr. Botner, is there anything you want to talk about on
this?
MR. BOTNER: I have a few items that I would like to try
to talk you out of.
For the record, Mr. Chairman and members of the board,
my name is George Botner, president of Collier Naplescape. We have
been your partner over the last three years developing the Streetscape
Master Plan, which I believe all of you have a copy of. And itls in
its final draft review at the moment clarifying some scribnerls errors
and whatnot from the original draft. But basically what I wanted to
-- to stress with you-all today was that welve got a time commitment
as it might relate to some certain state grant opportunities that
welve been pursuing along with the final incorporation of your
Streetscape Master Plan into code that requires that we, in order that
we might be successful in such grant applications, have a very clear
relationship between our overall strategy of landscape development of
our public rights-of-way as is elucidated in detail in the Streetscape
Master Plan and each and every grant application that we make. And we
know specifically that the first grant application is Davis Boulevard,
that first mile between the Trail and Airport Road. We have to submit
this grant application by Thursday because FDOT doesnlt work on
Friday. And thatls going to be our deadline for the year. So what we
would like to see, if you could -- could do, and I will tell you also
that your county attorney, Dave Weigel, has been working with us very
closely and hard on this. In fact, I got faxes from him on Sunday. I
mean, the guy is really working hard to -- to see that this gets
done. But I just wanted to point out a couple of items within the
context of the resolution that perhaps we could see clarified.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, letls get to those changes.
MR. BOTNER: The -- the changes that we would -- we
would like to suggest, onels just a spelling error. In the fourth
whereas, the word xeroscific (phonetic), which I even have a hard time
pronouncing myself, should be xerophytic, and welre going to fix that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So noted.
MR. BOTNER: The second item is in the -- in the fourth
whereas. The second -- third line from the bottom of that whereas
where it says "or as otherwise appropriate," we would suggest that we
strike that because I think the board has already dec -- made the
decision that this document is going to be incorporated within the
context of the LDC and its Comprehensive Plan.
There may be a reason to add a -- an additional whereas,
and this was brought to our attention earlier by -- by county staff
more than anything else. A new whereas may say something to the
effect that the community development division should lead the review
process just as they do in site design for projects that are offered
up within the -- the Streetscape network as identified in the
Streetscape Master Plan. In other words, what wewre trying to do is
to find a way to clarify how reviews may be processed because right
now, I can tell you, wewre trying to do that through a couple of
different groups, through transportation, community development, and
we need to have sort of a central clearinghouse for those reviews to
take place.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Botner, have you discussed this
with Mr. Cautero before todayws meeting? MR. BOTNER: Yes, through staff.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, could I ask you to come
to the microphone for a second? Before we incorporate this by
reference into this resolution, I need to know what specifics you are
comfortable to agreeing to in that regard.
MR. CAUTERO: For the Comprehensive Plan -- I'm sorry.
I was talking to one of my staff members --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the Streetscape Master Plan, Mr.
Botner has asked that there be some whereas that -- that refers to the
review process being similar to that for site development plan review
approval, that it go through your staff in a similar format to insure
compliance with the master plan. Are we comfortable with that?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes. My staff and I have talked about
that after Mr. Botner talked to them. And what we're trying to do is
come to grips with how -- how we will adopt that or how we will bring
it to you adopting the Land Development Code. I don't think that
that's something that we can't achieve. We're comfortable with that.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Okay. Since this resolution is -- is
nonbinding in the sense that final adoption of ordinance will -- will
take precedent, I think we can leave that as a general term that the
county attorney can check for clarity before authorizing the final
signing of the resolution. MR. WEIGEL: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that acceptable to everyone?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Botner, anything else?
MR. BOTNER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, on the second page of
your resolution, Resolution Item No. 2, and Mr. Weigel and I discussed
this specifically as to a potential change of language, basically what
we would like to request that be inserted in after the word
"applicants" in Item No. 2 on the resolution would be the language
that says "all project applications within the streetscape network as
identified in the Streetscape Master Plan." Basically all that does
is it clarifies the extent of involvement of the master plan to
overall streetscape work within the county.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ANy problem with that clarification
from the board?
(No response)
Seeing none, anything further, Mr. Botner?
MR. BOTNER: No, sir, that's it. I just wanted also to
very quickly identify a couple of our directors: Ned Putzell, who is
here today, if you would like to hear any commentary from him; Donna
Fiala, who has been championing the effort, as you know, in East
Naples; and Ellie Krier, who has registered to speak for the Chamber.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If any of those folks feel a
need to speak, fine. As much as we like to hear from you, I don't
think we're going to have much of a problem with this. MR. BOTNER: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, Mr. Botner. Any other
registered speakers other than those mentioned?
MR. DORRILL: I'll go through these: Mayor Putzell,
Miss Krier, and Miss Fiala were the others, I presume all in support.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyone want to stand in the way of
lunch?
(No response)
Okay. All right. Is there a motion?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll -- I'll make a motion to
approve with the changes as noted. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, Item 9(A) is completed. Thank you to
everyone for your assistance on that. Mr. Botner, work well done.
Item #10A
DISCUSSION OF COUNTY MANAGER POSITION - CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO BEGIN
REVIEWING RESUMES ON 1/31/97
Item 10(A), discussion of county manager position.
MR. DORRILL: We've had a brief update here.
Mr. Chairman, the board had asked just -- like, where we were. I have
not and will not play a role in the process from -- from this point
forward. Ms. Edwards has convened a meeting of your short-list
committee to begin work Friday for the 45 to 50 resumes that we
already have on hand.
In addition to the national and the state ads that we
ran in professional journals in Today's Eastern Seaboard and Southeast
Wall Street Journal is an ad with your announcement in it and the
deadline that will conclude Friday for any last-minutes that we may
have missed in the professional journals.
Miss Edwards' staff has also sent previously job
announcements to every medium-sized and larger city and county in the
southeastern United States through direct mail. It required a lot of
work on the part of Jerre Salmon, and we ought to thank him for
identifying all of those. So your citizens' committee will begin
their work and will begin sifting through the resumes Friday. And
they will be -- and develop their own schedule.
We've had some questions in our office: Are those
meetings public meetings that must be conducted in the sunshine? The
answer is absolutely yes. So to the extent that people wish to come
and observe or to have copies of any of the material that is there,
all of that material is a public record. All of our announcements
have indicated to prospective clients that we comply fully with the
sunshine laws, and all of the meetings will be open to anyone who's
interested in that process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I know there are a couple
of questions that Miss Edwards' department had. I received memos from
Mr. Salmon -- I think we all did -- regarding what number of
applicants we would like the -- the review committee to narrow it down
to. There were suggestions there. Seeing as how we may only end with
70, plus or minus, applications, I think an area -- my first blush is
15 for consideration. Is there a number that's comfortable to this
board?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're -- I think 15 is fine,
as long as it's give or take. I hate to see black and white and end
up with somebody get bumped, but I think that's a fair estimate of
where we should probably be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So issue that as a ballpark
but not --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, if the committee comes up and
they hit 15 and they say, gee, here's one, you know, but we've got our
15, can we include? I would rather include than --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the same token,
if they come up with 12 --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same thing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that's fine. Don't feel a
need to fill all 15 slots -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Look for that significant natural
break.
Okay. The second item is one just of information. I
received a lot of questions and input on how to make this process more
public, not necessarily such that -- that 180,000 people are going to
interview each candidate, but I think people want to feel that they've
had an open view of the process. I am considering -- and I'll float
this. If there is significant reservation by any member of the board,
then we'll put it on the agenda next week as a topic of discussion.
But I'm discussing with Mr. Fuchs the availability of when the
applicants come in for interviews, that maybe we have a panel
discussion televised on Colony Cablevision that evening so the people
in the community can get a look at the applicants themselves, and if
they have concerns or questions, they can contact us or the county
Kandu line to register those -- those observations, again, just trying
to open the process up so that people can view it a little more easily
than has -- may have been done in the past.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me take a step back from
that, and do we anticipate bringing everyone who makes this 12-,
15-person list here, or is that the number that comes to the board?
We sift through those? I anticipated it being four or five people
tops that we would actually bring here to talk to.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: My --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. That was my understanding, was
the latter, is that the initial screening is to narrow down a pool for
consideration. And if we can't differentiate between those 12, maybe
we interview all 12, but if we can, then the strongest ones would be
interviewed, is my understanding, and this board makes that decision.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you're suggesting rather
than do that during a Tuesday meeting, we schedule that in an evening,
or do we just schedule a -- if we do it during a Tuesday meeting, when
we talk with them, make sure we schedule our time at night so that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my -- you know, my first blush
is to -- that we have those discussions open on a Tuesday, which is
televised and is advertised publicly, but then that evening have an
adjunct session with a panel of -- of, say, members from -- you know,
maybe someone from the EDC and someone -- you know, business and
organizations able to ask questions, open questions of the -- the
applicants.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry first.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I -- to do this, this is going to
take some time. And to schedule this during a regular commission
meeting, I think, is not the proper approach. I think this is
something that warrants a separate meeting to deal with this so we're
not under the pressure of time, because we've got our regular business
to deal with at a commission meeting. But if we're going to narrow
that list, whatever that list is of 12, 15, 16, whatever it is, if we
are going to do that initially, which that's our role, I believe, then
it definitely is a public meeting where people can come and listen to
us discuss amongst ourselves, you know, what we're coming up with,
what we have in front of us, and to make that cut. Obviously that can
be televised, and there can be people in here listening to the process
and, you know, would let people know that that's exactly what we're
going to do.
When you get to the final cut of five people or whatever
that magic number happens to be, if they are going to be questioned
by, say, members of the Chamber or the EDC or whatever, again, that's
an open process as well, and that's when you're going to be viewing
these five people. Obviously the 12 people or 16 people they're not
viewing because we're going to be looking at pieces of paper --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- prior to that time. But, again,
I think all of this should not be done during a regular commission
meeting because I think it's -- it's too much of an involved process
to -- to deal with all that; so that's from past experience in a
different capacity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. So you would recommend an
-- a workshop or a -- a certain day set aside solely for that
purpose?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I very much support that just for
clarity of thought.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As a point of clarification, it's
always been my assumption that the screening committee would -- would
be looking strictly at outside applicants, and those internal
applicants wouldn't even necessarily go through the screening
committee as we are already fairly familiar with those. So they would
just be -- whatever the 12 or 15 that the screening committee submits
to the board, then on top of that would be the internal applicants.
Is that everyone else's understanding?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm comfort -- that's actually how I
would structure it. I'm comfortable with that.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: The only other observation I would give
you, having had the opportunity to be considered for the type of
position before, was something Hillsborough County did where they had
a brief reception the evening before the individual interviews with
county commissioners where they invited the constitutional officers,
because otherwise constitutional officers are not going to get a
chance to participate in the interviews per se, but it can be a little
more relaxed, and it's at the option of the constitutional officers
and perhaps some of the key staff people, the county attorney, to be
able to meet the out-of-town applicants while they are in town. And
it was a very nice sort of welcome. It was very low pressure sort of
thing. The commissioners were not there, obviously, but other people
within county government were there, the chief judge and all the
constitutional officers. And as you get a little closer down the
line, you may want to individually give a little thought to that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm comfortable asking Ms. Edwards to
plan on inserting that in the process as we narrow down to the final
applicants. I think it's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great idea.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any further
directions to be given to Miss Edwards, or, Miss Edwards, is there
anything lacking from your position?
MS. EDWARDS: I do not have any questions at this time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that we'll --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one for me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we get a list of the current
applicants?
MS. EDWARDS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just liked to know who are
the 50, if there are 50, or maybe I'll wait till the 31st, but --
MS. EDWARDS: We have a list that we prepare daily. We
currently have 57, and I will get a list of that -- I will get that
list to each of you today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Actually, you may want to wait
until the end of the deadline.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to start now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Knock yourself out. Any
further questions?
Seeing none, Miss Edwards, Mr. Dotrill, thank you very
much for that update. I'm going to try to get these last three items
before we break for lunch; so we'll actually have done the afternoon
agenda in the afternoon.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 97-64 APPOINTING EDWARD OTT AND JOHN SCHOEMER TO THE COUNTY
GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I assume --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Two and two.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two and two.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go to that item,
are we going to have a discussion on the interim manager this week?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the next item after this.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the next item after this
One.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, thank you. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For those who weren't watching or had
blinked, the motion was for Item 10(B), appointment of members to the
Productivity Committee, and as usual let the committee decide which of
those two individuals fills the vacant term? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10C
DISCUSSION REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM COUNTY MANAGER - ASSISTANT
COUNTY MANAGER MCNEES TO ASSUME POSITION OF INTERIM COUNTY MANAGER
EFFECTIVE 2/11/97
Seeing none, we're on to Item 10(C). The reason this
was placed on the agenda, as you may remember from last week, is there
was a discussion regarding whether or not -- I think it comes down to
one issue, whether the appointment of an interim county manager should
be someone who is interested in the job of county manager or not.
There was some division on the board, and I guess we're just --
everyone kind of state their case, and we will -- we will try and take
a vote on which direction we think is most appropriate. Why don't we
start on my left, and we'll just move down. Commissioner Berry.
Everyone's got an opinion here so --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Having looked at the current policy
dealing with the assistant county manager that we currently have in
place, I don't believe this situation differs any from whether
Mr. Dotrill leaves or whether Mr. Dotrill is coming to work one
morning and something terrible happens on the way and he's
incapacitated and cannot be the county manager. That's why you have
an assistant county manager. I mean, that's one reason. But you have
him there to fill in that role in the absence of the county manager.
I think if we do anything any different, then we're -- the perception
is that we are tinkering with this whole process. This does not
preclude that individual from going on and applying for the position,
if he chooses, or whomever that is to -- chooses to do so. So I think
if we do anything else other than to let him assume the position of
interim county manager, I believe that the perception is going to be
that we're tinkering with the process, and I would definitely be
against that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Commissioner Berry.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like you, I believe the
public's perception of this process is very important. However,
that's probably where our agreement on this one stop -- stops. I'm
concerned that the perception is that if we appoint a person -- in
this case, who would be Mr. McNees -- as our -- who is our assistant
and he applies, that there is a perceived advantage there, and I don't
think among the five of us that is necessarily true. But it does two
things: One, it may set up a perception that he's got a leg up and
that he has some sort of advantage.
My second concern is, it's been known to happen before,
particularly with Mr. Dotrill, that someone was put in an interim spot
and the board ended up just kind of blowing off the process partial
way through and -- and appointing him. Now, in his case that happened
to work out wonderfully, but I think for the process itself it needs
to be sure and completed, and I hope that temptation isn't there
anywhere along the line. But I'm much more comfortable if we take a
neutral party, someone who said they're not interested in that. We
certainly have a number of people on our county staff who are capable
of serving in that capacity. And I think to suggest that only our
assistant county manager is capable is -- is not correct. And so I
think we ought to take one of those people who has said this is solely
interim; it's not a permanent position. I -- I think this is a little
different situation, but in the City of Naples when they needed a
mayor temporarily, Kim Anderson stepped up and said, I'm not going to
run. I'm just going to fill these shoes for the time being. And she
did that, and there was no extra motivation there. She served very
well. The public perception was that, you know, she was doing that in
-- in public service as opposed to for her own furtherance. And so I
think we need to do the same here and simply have someone who will
fill that temporarily.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. I guess my two
cents are that we appoint an assistant county manager for a specific
purpose, and that is to fill in for the county manager in his absence
or inability to perform his job. If Mr. McNees had been in that
position for five or six or seven years, I think the points you're
making would be -- would have a greater effect on -- on my position in
this matter. Because he has been in there such a short period of
time, it does two things: One, I think it lets him know that the
nationwide search we're having is going to bring us some of the most
highly qualified applicants in the country. And I doubt any of those
have been assistant county managers for one year and will find their
way to the final grouping. I think that's just a reality. So if we
were uncomfortable with him filling the role as county manager, we
shouldn't have made him assistant county manager. I know that's not
what you're saying, but I'm just more interested in the structure that
we have established and that we hold true to that structure.
And for me personally it doesn't give him a leg up at
all. If anything, the fact that he's going to have to deal with some
issues in Mr. Dorrill's absence may hurt his chances, for all we
know. But -- but I think that that option needs to be available to
him and will only give us a clearer picture. So I'm -- I -- I don't
wish to exclude anyone who is applying from the position of county
manager from becoming interim.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize you're going in
line here, and I'm jumping back, but just -- and, no, we didn't
appoint the assistant; we approved him, but that was a point I wanted
to make.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Approved without reservation, if I
remember.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My preference would be that the
interim county manager be selected from those who are not applying.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Your brevity is appreciated,
by the way, more so than the three who came before you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I can count to two.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I had some reservations
philosophically about whether or not someone who was applying for the
position should be appointed for the interim position. Upon
reflection, upon looking at Mr. McNees's job description, I am more
concerned that it will look like we are trying to monkey with the
system. The system's in place. It says that Mr. McNees is to serve
in the absence of the manager. A resignation is the absence. I -- I
agree with you, Commissioner Hancock, that it -- he will be very
hard-pressed to compete for the permanent job against some of the
applicants that I know we are getting in who have significantly more
experience and more senior positions. That, frankly, eliminates the
concern that I had that the interim had sort of an inside track. So
having looked at his job description, seeing that it says what it
says, I -- I have eliminated my concern with that reservation and
think that Mr. McNees should have the job.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It sounds like the majority of the
board at this point is saying that those who are applying for the
position of county manager should not be excluded from consideration
of interim.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This also corrects one other
concern I had last week, and that is that Commissioner Mac'Kie and I
were agreeing on too many issues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's over.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You need a motion, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I don't -- actually, yes, a
motion would, I think, be appropriate, at least for the record.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I move that we name Mr. McNees as
the interim county manager until that position is filled by the
selection of a new -- or of a candidate.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only concern I have on that
motion is that we had asked for a list of individuals who are
interested.
MR. DORRILL: You did, and there were two. I'll -- I'll
paraphrase. You had asked them to register their interest with me by
five o'clock yesterday afternoon. Mr. McNees was one of those, and
I'll paraphrase his memo to me. He says he fully expects to be
considered, but to have to compete for the job, and in his wildest
dreams he just doesn't think that it would just be handed to him. And
also Captain Day had expressed interest, albeit for some different
reasons, and -- and he indicates that at this point in his career that
he -- he's too old and too wise to ever want to be a county manager.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those are the only two internal
applicants.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we have a motion and a second. Is
there discussion on the motion? Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're -- we're appointing
Mr. McNees today?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what the motion is. The next
question I had was for Mr. Weigel. We did not advertise the actual
appointment of a county -- of an interim county manager. Does it need
to be advertised?
MR. WEIGEL: No, I -- I do not believe so.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume this is effective
upon Mr. Dorrill's departure?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This would be effective February
llth. So, yes, the motion is to, in fact, appoint Mr. McNees as the
interim county manager and upon Mr. -- Mr. Dotrill moving on to -- to
his new duties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Evil developer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Evil developer.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, why don't we -- didn't we
already have a discussion on this item set up for next week?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was the original direction, was
that we would have this discussion today and have -- make the decision
next Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm prepared to make the decision
based -- we have two applicants.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We know where we're going
with it.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. Let's be realistic.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, that's three. We have a
motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion carries 4-1. Mr. HcNees
will be the interim county manager as of February llth until a new
county manager is hired.
Item #10D
DISCUSSION OF LAKE TRAFFORD TASK FORCE ASSISTANCE - ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS APPLICATION APPROVED WITH NO EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
Item 10(D), Lake Trafford. This is an add-on.
Commissioner Berry, I know we're getting into the lunch hour, so let's
try and be as concise on this as possible.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I can set this up quickly.
Your staff has been participating in the Lake Trafford task force. I
will get right to the point. Through the South Florida Water
Management District, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Save our
Everglades program, there are some funds for which will take us
through the preliminary permitting and design for a dredge and
demucking operation at Lake Trafford. The attachment that you have
shows $30,000 in terms of a local match. I want to make it clear for
the purposes of the record that that is in-kind staff support that you
have already authorized. The balance of the match will have to come
from state sources of revenue through primarily the Department of
Environmental Protection.
We need to have our application complete and at West
Palm Beach and a staff person designated to be there for this item on
the 4th of February and, thus, the rationale for asking you to add it
today. There are absolutely no ad valorem or general revenues of the
county that are contemplated at this time or at any time as part of
this request. Mr. Thomas is here as chairman of the task force and
can answer any questions --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before going to Mr. Thomas, does any
member of the board have any question of Mr. Dotrill or staff? Mr. Thomas.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you. I just want to make sure -- for
the record, Fred Thomas, chairman of the Lake Trafford Recreation Task
Force, and thank you for letting it be an add-on today. There are
actually two things that we want to do today: get your authorization
to support the application to the Army Corps of Engineers for the
funds, which is what the deal Dotrill was talking about; and, second,
to allow staff to piggyback with Game and Fish to apply for the permit
for dredging the lake, which is another process that's not under the
same time constraints, but we can take care of it all at one time. By
you-all -- by the Fish and Game working with the county, they can
waive the permits that is necessary to get the permit for -- to allow
the dredging.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I understand, Mr. Thomas, this is
-- is directing staff support but no -- no expenditure of funds?
We're going to let the -- we're going to let the state and feds pay
for this one?
MR. THOMAS: Yes, we are. But in order to facilitate
that, we're asking staff to take the lead in helping to secure those
funds.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. In unison.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second in unison?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let the record -- let the record
reflect Commissioner Mac'Kie with a motion, Commissioner Norris with a
second. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- and you just asked
the question. I just want to reiterate; there's no local money. I
read the 50 percent matching program here, and I just always have a
fear we come back a few months from now and have to ante up some
dough.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That has been identified as in-kind
services already provided. No further discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, motion carries 5-0. Thank you, Mr.
Thomas.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Public comment, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: None today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None today.
We will break for lunch. We'll see everyone back at
1:15.
(A lunch break was held between 12:15 p.m. and 1:22
p.m.)
Item #12C1
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER AND
SUSPENSION PROGRAM THROUGH COUNTY DELINQUENCY PREVENTION FINES PURSUANT
TO SECTION 775.0833, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR A MANDATORY COST
OF THREE DOLLARS ($3.00) TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST EVERY PERSON CONVICTED
OF A VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE, A MUNICIPAL OR COUNTY ORDINANCE,
OR A TRAFFIC OFFENSE IN THE COUNTY - CONTINUED TWO WEEKS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to call to order the
balance of the meeting for January 28, 1997. We had a time certain
scheduled for one o'clock, and we're about as close as we're going to
get to it. I'm looking for Judge Baker. If Judge Baker's in the
hallway --
MR. DORRILL: He is here and in the hallway. They can
get him.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. This is on your agenda, Item
12(C)(1), an ordinance providing funding for a juvenile assessment
center. This is back on the agenda at the board's request, and Judge
Baker has -- has -- is here to make a presentation to us on this
matter.
MR. DORRILL: Judge, you're up.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Judge Baker.
JUDGE BAKER: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, my name is
Frank Baker. I'm one of your circuit court judges. I can't tell you
how much I appreciate the opportunity to be here at a time certain.
In my business I rarely give a time certain; so I won't pass this on.
I -- I know you all have looked at -- I put some stuff on y'all's
chair today.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the boardroom.)
JUDGE BAKER: I don't know if you had a chance to look
at it. You can look at it at your leisure. It's about a boy,
ll-year-old boy, in my court. It took us months to get this
information, and if you can look at that, you can see it's pretty
chilling, what was going on in this boy's life. That information was
available long before we became aware of it. The information was
available through other centers and other people. We think that the
assessment center that we're proposing as sort of a one-stop place
makes a lot of sense in the juvenile center because of the following
reasons: We have a drill academy. It's been very successful. The
drill academy after-care program follows up on the kids and tells us
whether they go to school regularly, whether they follow my curfew
assignments, and whether they follow all the other requirements.
(Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the boardroom.)
JUDGE BAKER: The rest of the kids that don't go into
the drill academy are ordered, when they come into court -- is that my
feedback here?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I was asking Miss Filson if
we could monitor that.
JUDGE BAKER: All right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please continue.
JUDGE BAKER: All right. The -- the kids that come into
court now -- our policy has been that everyone that comes into court
that enters a plea is required to perform certain sanctions. One of
them is curfew; the other is mandatory school without disrupting
school; and the other is staying away from certain kids. That's
outlined in every single child that comes in. Every two to three
weeks we bring that same child back on a Friday, which has now been
designated our review docket. And what we do is, we bring the parents
in. They're mandated to come in, and we ask them how they've been
doing.
Between you and I, if I couldn't count on the mothers
and fathers to tell me the truth, I probably wouldn't know that Jimmy
or Susie didn't go to school that week. I probably wouldn't know that
they left, didn't obey their curfew. The fact that the parents tell
me that -- and usually the kids, once they've been confronted with
that, admit it, gives us the teeth in our community to do something
about their promises. We have tried to respond to our community by
saying we will make a consequence available for every child that comes
into the juvenile justice system.
What I'm here to tell you, though, is there's a lot of
times we don't know what our alternatives are. There are a lot of
times, as in the case of Edgar -- and I've whited out his last name --
that we didn't know this history about Edgar. I returned Edgar home.
I kept him for four days. I had no indication that Edgar had a
history of abusing, not only other people, but animals. I had no
indication, until I released him and brought him back, that he tried
to brown -- drown his younger brother. Remember he's 11 years old.
We now have Edgar in a program, a residential program,
that he will be in for many, many months. We are hopeful that when
he's released the following things will have occurred: He'll be
medicated. He'll have at least have received enough instructions --
and we'll be aware of him enough that we can monitor him throughout
the rest of his juvenile time, and hopefully, he'll change his
behavior. But until that assessment was sent to me by the
psychologist that had prepared this a long time ago, all I was doing
was hearing reports regularly about Edgar.
I'd lock him up for two days, because he had tried to
drown his little brother. That's all I could do. In adult court that
would sound kind of crazy, but that's the most I could do. I'd send
this same boy back home not knowing a single thing about him. I
didn't know what happened when he went to school. It was after I
called the principal on a Friday that I found out he hit a girl, and
that wasn't the first girl he'd hit. He'd hit many girls. That's the
way Edgar responded to things.
This information; had it been available, we could have
done something with Edgar or I could have six months before I finally
did. Had we had an assessment center available, what they would have
done was gathered all this material together. They would have talked
to the schools. They would have talked to all the psychologists and
brought all the reports together. We wouldn't have spent the extra
money that we spent on Edgar asking for more psychological reports,
because we wouldn't have needed to. This was discovered by the
psychologist we ordered. That cost this county probably four to five
hundred dollars to prepare what we already had available.
It happens all the time. I won't say it happens in
every child. Host of our children come in and get out of the court
system successfully. But there are enough of them that promise to me
every time they come in or to you that they're going to do things.
The assessment center gives me the assurance that we're going to, one,
know about them; two, we're going to know what they do.
They told me that they have one assessment center in the
State of Florida right now that helps monitor curfews. If we impose
curfews and let them earn the right to go off curfew individually, why
don't we enforce it? And the way we can enforce it is by having
people help us, not just the parents. The majority of my parents that
come in there are great people. There are a few that are our
problems; so we can't always count on the parents to tell me that
Jimmy or Susie were out too late. I can't always count on them to
tell me that they hit somebody in school. The only way I know that
information right now is by calling the school.
So I think you ought to take a close look at this
program. I've spoke longer than I promised to speak. We have the
chairperson of this committee, and I have the pleasure of serving on
it. I am sad to say that we have lost out on some grants that we
should not have lost out on. I think that the funding source here is
set out in the statute, one part of the funding. The balance of it
they're going to look for state agencies and, perhaps, federal
grants. We haven't been able to apply for some of those because we
don't have an assessment center approved yet. When we do there's a
lot of funding sources available. Like you, I don't think bigger is
better. I think if we can have one or two people run our assessment
center, we can put it in our new detention facility over here. I
think it's wonderful.
I'd also invite you all to the juvenile court. I
promise to do this: I promise you I'll save you a seat up in the jury
box. I'd like you to come in on a Friday and watch the review
docket. And if you can see it firsthand, you'll say two things, I
believe: One, it's working; and, two, we could make it a little
better. So I'd ask for your support, and maybe you can show
consideration in supporting the assessment center. I really believe
it makes a lot of sense. I'm going to turn this over to Kathleen
Passidomo, and thank you again for a time certain.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before you do, Judge Baker, are there
any questions of Judge Baker?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one, and -- and it goes
to the financing; and I realize this is a little bit of a chicken and
the egg, but I hate to start imposing fines and start collecting
monies if we don't know what those other sources are going to be. I
know from my conversations with Ms. Passidomo the other day there are
some grant sources you hope to collect. But my concern is, we don't
know where that's coming from. I hate to have a segment set aside
that isn't enough to fund the whole program and then not be able to
get what you hope to get on the other side. You've got to pool the
money, and what you do with it -- or do you come back to the county
looking to make up the difference or -- and so I just would like to
have a more solid picture of that.
JUDGE BAKER: Well, I guess in my business one of my
limitations and one of the benefits of my job, Mr. Constantine, is I
know when I can't answer that question. My hope would be that when
you all approve this, if you do, that the funding sources that we've
talked about clearly are out there. Collier has, for some reason,
been a favored child for a while from the state. They like our
programs. We recently lost -- lost an after-care program because we
didn't apply for it because we had no way to apply the monies if we'd
have obtained it. So I agree with you. That's a legitimate concern.
My hope would be that we could -- let's -- let me say it differently.
Let's not spend the money until we get it. If you all agree, then
maybe you could make it subject to getting grants or applying for
grants or matching grants, but I'm stepping way over my bounds right
CHAIRNAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Judge.
MS. PASSIDOMO: My name is Kathleen Passidomo, and I
have the pleasure of cochairing the Collier County Juvenile Justice
Council/Juvenile Assessment Center Advisory Committee. It doesn't
have an acronysm (sic) so, you know, just call it Juvenile Assessment
Center. Commissioners, the Juvenile Justice Council, as you may know,
has appointed a committee to look at creating and operating a juvenile
assessment center in our community. There are currently eight
assessment centers in operation around the state. They are --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Passidomo, I may be able to save
you some time.
MS. PASSIDOMO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does anyone have a problem with the
concept of the juvenile assessment center?
MS. PASSIDOMO: Oh, good.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Lukewarm.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have one lukewarm, and we
have --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One strong support. Maybe
that'll balance the lukewarm.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'm -- I'm supporting it
because it's -- after I had discussions and found out a little bit
more about it, it goes hand in hand with the detention center. It's a
one-stop kind of thing. It's not an additional program as such. I
think it could be beneficial, not only to the court system, I think
this may have some implication as well with the school age --
obviously, school-age children. That's what we're talking about. And
I think that this might -- this might be a more efficient way of
serving this group of troubled youth. I -- I have some questions, but
it has nothing to do with the assessment center.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I like it because it doesn't
have a cutesy name.
Do we have speakers other than Miss Passidomo?
MR. DORRILL: I have several who are here also in
support, Miss Fitch and Sheriff Hunter and Miss Barton.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before we get to that --
MS. PASSIDOMO: Could I answer the -- go ahead?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I sense the one concern here
is -- is budgetary.
MS. PASSIDOMO: Okay. Let me answer -- yeah. I'm
sorry. I went into my speech. I can't help it. There are two issues
that -- that I sense the commissioners are concerned about. Number
one is, what will the -- the fiscal -- how much are we going to
generate from these fees? And I got the information from the clerk of
the court. Just for your information, they -- these fees are only
assessed against certain types of offenses. They're criminal
offenses, not against civil types of traffic offenses. And I tried to
figure out myself, you know, which ones were civil and which were
criminal. And to be honest with you, as an aside, now I know why
trial attorneys make so much money, because the statute's this thick
(indicating).
In any event, I got the clerk of the court to estimate.
There are about 27,000 traffic fines, 10,000 misdemeanor fines, and
2200 felony fines imposed each year. They have a collection rate of
60 percent. Of those 27,000 traffic fines, the clerk figures that a
large percentage of those -- or not a large -- but 30 percent of those
are -- are civil. So we're only talking about 70 percent of that
27,000. So, you know, going through the math and doing whatever --
and, you know, I'm notoriously bad at that -- we estimate about
fifty-five, fifty-six thousand dollars a year we will receive from the
-- this fine system. Hopefully, over time -- well, actually it's
probably going to be more when you see all those deputies out on the
roads giving out traffic tickets. So maybe we'll get more over time.
In any event, that's -- that's the generated amount.
Insurances and cost of operating an assessment center,
that's a really -- that's a really interesting question. It's a
difficult question to answer, because of the eight assessment centers
around the state, they're all operated differently. Pinellas County,
I believe, is funded completely by county money. We're not asking for
any county money. What we -- what we're going to do is we're going to
colocate currently funded projects. For -- the partners in the
assessment center right now are the school board, the sheriff's
office, police and emergency services, and the judicial system, and
mental health.
We are in the process of -- of gathering the information
on what sort -- what programs and services are currently being
funded. For example, David Lawrence Mental Health Center has two
people that do juvenile assessments. He's going to take those two
individuals who are on his payroll, and he's going to move them over
to the assessment center. They will not cost money to the county. So
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, I'm -- I'm --
MS. PASSIDOMO: I know. I know. I know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- trying to direct the discussion --
MS. PASSIDOMO: I know. You're --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to where the questions may lie
other than -- MS. PASSIDOMO: I'm giving you an answer in terms of so
if we -- if we take a dollar figure to operate the assessment center
-- I -- I'm going to just throw a figure out of a million dollars --
I don't know -- or $500,000 what it would cost. Of that, 80 percent
of it we are estimating -- based upon our discussions around the
state, 80 percent of it are co-located, currently existing programs
that are being put in one place. So what we're assuming is that we're
going to have -- about 20 percent of the cost to operate our center
would be what we're looking for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the new money is 20 percent of
the total operating budget.
MS. PASSIDOMO: Thank you. And what I -- I know.
That's what you guys do, and I'm long-winded. But so I think what
we're -- what we're saying is that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Remember this is pro bono.
MS. PASSIDOMO: Yeah, I know. Maybe that's why I'm
talking so much. My client's not watching. But if -- so you have --
if -- if we're -- if we've got the -- the fifty-six -- fifty-six --
I'm waiting for you to say something, Commissioner Norris -- the
$56,000, that should go a long way towards that 20 percent, because
we're talking about, you know, administration. I --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In a -- in a nutshell, I think the
problem that Commissioner Constantine outlined, and it's still there
is, we are -- would be allocating or allowing for funds to go into an
overall program that -- that we don't even know what the cost of the
program's going to be, where the funds are going to come from. Five
years from now if the grants are not available, is it going to fall in
the lap of the county? Is this a county program; is it a state
program? Who has the ultimate responsibility for it, because grant
funds dry up eventually? Grant funds are not in perpetuity forever.
So -- which is redundant, but --
MS. PASSIDOMO: Can I interrupt then? The -- the
facility is a state-operated facility. The state is -- is leasing the
land from the county. We are going to be co-located with the state;
and if there's not enough money to operate it, then the county
commission isn't going to be stuck with, you know, a facility that
they have no control over, because you're -- you have basically leased
that facility off to the state. So you'll -- you'll be okay in that
regard.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not the facility we're
talking about. I often will -- will make the analogy -- we always
hear government should run more like a business, and -- and you can
have the greatest idea in the world; but unless you have specifics,
the bank isn't going to give you money. And -- and we have a very
good idea here, but what concerns me is we don't have any specific
budget in mind, and it just seems we're a little step ahead. We're
saying, okay, we want to be able to collect this amount and that'll go
a long way toward the budget, but we don't know. I mean, you said,
gee, it might be a million; it might be a half million. I don't
know. Does anybody know what that number is?
MS. PASSIDOMO: Well, I can tell you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Miss Barton's raising her hand
that she does know; so when she comes -- why don't you come on up.
MS. PASSIDOMO: We're waiting for David Schimmel,
because he's got the figures, but he's not here yet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- the problem here is -- is I
think the concept has found a majority of the board in favor; however,
we have been presented with -- and we can probably talk until the cows
come home today. But until in front of me is a breakdown of what
those costs are, where the funds are to be allocated from, how does it
all come together to create a -- a complete picture, our stepping into
a -- a partial funding role is probably not a wise step.
MS. BARTON: I -- I understand. One -- one piece that
we haven't -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Your name for the record,
please.
MS. BARTON: Excuse me. My name is Pat Barton, and I am
president of the Juvenile Justice Council for Collier County. I'm
also vice-chairman of the district juvenile justice board. We have as
a board made assessment centers our priority. We also have it
budgeted in the juvenile justice budget, LBR; and it's approximately
-- and I don't have the figures with me, but it's -- approximately
235,000 is the line item in the juvenile justice budget for Collier
County's assessment center. And that would probably go a long way
toward operating the facility. It's not in this year's bud -- you
know, every -- they run a year behind; so we wouldn't actually see
this money until 1998.
But that is -- it's -- it's not like we're stepping out
there and saying, okay, we're going to have all these partners alone
run a juvenile justice assessment center -- or assessment center --
excuse me -- but rather that the juvenile justice budget will carry
part of that, and that'll be mostly operational. We're way ahead of
some of the other counties in the area in that, fortunately, we have
partnered with -- with the county commission and also with the
sheriff's department to run -- you know, run it out of the detention
center facilities. So we have a very good shot at getting the funding
as opposed to those that don't have those partners in place; so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly appreciate that.
I guess my concern -- and what I think I heard you saying is -- is
before I create another revenue source for government, even if it is
tacking it on criminal offenses behind the wheel of a car, before I
create any more revenue, I'd like to know some of the details of what
it's going toward. What -- what are those operational costs? I think
it's great. We have worked successfully with HRS, and many thanks to
you for making that happen, but as far as -- is it two hundred and
thirty-nine thousand, or is two thirty-nine part of '- MS. BARTON: Well, that is --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish my comment.
MS. BARTON: Okay. Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is -- the two thirty-nine, is
that part of it? What are the specifics of what that money is going
toward? And before I have a comfort level saying, yes, let's go ahead
and do this, I -- I need to know who are -- who is picking up the rest
of the tab, and what are those expenses going toward.
MS. BARTON: I don't think that -- that number was
pulled out of thin air. It's based on what the state understands it
costs to run such a program on -- you know, and based on their
experience with the eight other assessment centers that there are. We
might possibly come up with something entirely different. We're in
the formation stages, but we do need some sort of financial help to
get that plan out there, and right now we have nothing. And this is a
vehicle that the legislature has -- has set up there, the $3 charge,
to help people like us get an assessment center off the ground.
You've got to start somewhere, and we -- but we -- it's not like we
haven't worked on it; we have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I just wanted to -- to
point out that if -- just to be clear, what I understood Hiss Barton
saying is that in the districtwide juvenile assessment board budget
they show a line item of -- I heard $235,000 for a Collier County
juvenile assessment center. Hiss Passidomo told us that based on the
co-locating or whatever the partnering terms are we're using now --
based on the partnerships that they have in place with the state, they
need to fund 20 percent of the operation. Twenty percent of 235,000
is about 45,000. The $3 fee will generate about 50,000; so it seems
like we have answers to the questions. We don't have them on a piece
of paper in front of us in the format that we typically get at county
meetings, but -- but I heard answers to those questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But what -- where we're -- when I --
when we asked for this to be put back on the agenda, one of the main
reasons was we didn't -- I felt, anyway, we didn't get enough
information to make a sound decision on -- on the matter in the first
case and that Judge Baker could provide that. I think Judge Baker has
provided, clearly, a need, and that's great.
The next step, I think, is -- although, Commissioner
Hac'Kie, we -- I noticed when you were going through that that you
used the words "about" and "almost" and "nearly" and so forth. I
understand everything is -- is kind of out there right now, but I
would just like to be able to see and to understand how this parlays
into a juvenile assessment center and have a relative degree of
comfort that that's going to happen before approving it. And if it --
if it's money that lets you get off the ground, great. I don't have a
problem with that. I just need to see how it parlays into the end
result. And without having a feeling of comfort for that, and I'm
sure I will get it '-
MS. BARTON: I -- I think you will.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I just -- but I think it's prudent to at
least ask that that be shown a little more clearly before we take this
step; and I think that's what I hear my colleague saying and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's exactly -- I'm not
suggesting that the district and you all haven't done work. I'm
telling you I haven't seen any of that, and I don't know any of those
details, and I'm not prepared to vote in favor of creating a new
revenue source without knowing that information. That information
probably exists, but I haven't seen it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Do we need to have our part of this
in place first '-
MS. BARTON: Well, I wouldn't exactly --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- before we can get the two
hundred and thirty-some thousand or how -- what -- what's the '-
MS. BARTON: Well, we're coming to you as a vehicle to
get a little seed money so we can continue to -- to work on this,
because it's -- it's people like -- like the community leaders and
people from the state's attorney's office, law enforcement, judiciary,
etc., who are putting in their time. We probably need a little more
expertise on exactly how the pieces fall into place, and -- because
we've not done this before. So we're looking -- you know, we're going
and looking at the other ones that are out there. We're trying to
find out what is -- the law requires, and we pretty well know that,
and so does juvenile justice when they came up for a figure -- with a
figure for us and the other counties. But we just -- we need to go
the next step further, and that's what this seed money, which I
wouldn't exactly call tax dollars, is kind of geared to do, is to help
communities get started and to help -- and let the community help get
-- get -- be a part of the thing as a partnership deal.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I -- I think this puts a little
different light on this. It sounds to me like we're not quite at the
point yet of operating the assessment center, but it sounds like
you're -- what you're asking us for is -- you know, I would rather you
had said right up front that you needed a little money to -- to better
get the plan organized. I would -- I would have a little more comfort
level in that because then when you come to us -- you're going to have
a plan, a definite plan, I would hope, when you come to us to ask us
for money to help fund -- and -- and I do have to say from past
experience you do have to be careful with grant money, because that's
exactly what happens. It does dry up, and there will be a burden, you
know, that will come back to the commission -- future commissions to
pick up that burden.
So it -- it's something you do have to consider, even
though we may be very supportive of the assessment center, and I am.
In concept I -- I think it's a great idea. But I am concerned about
-- not right today. I'm not concerned in two years from now. But I
might be very concerned in -- seven years from now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In fairness we -- we do have '-
MS. BARTON: Could I relinquish to the sheriff?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, in fairness we do have several
registered speakers, and rather than taking a -- you know, just -- I
told Judge Baker that the trade-off for a time certain was a
ten-minute presentation, and we're entering a half hour now. I
understand there have been a lot of questions '-
MS. BARTON: Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand that there were a lot of
questions, but in fairness I understand we have public speakers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Kathleen, I just saw Mr. Schimmel
arrive if he's got your budget. MR. DORRILL: Hiss Fitch.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We're not going to have an
ask-him-up-and-pound-him-with-questions setup. What we're going to do
is, we're going to go through the public speakers as they're
registered, and if you have questions, we'll ask them at that time.
Again, I have in front of me one paragraph. That's all I have in
front of me. It's very difficult to make a decision on that, and I
think I'm hearing that from at least one other member. Mr. Dotrill,
let's go to the public speakers, please.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Fitch, and then the sheriff is the
only other one, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FITCH: Dorothy Fitch, League of Women Voters
representative. It amazes me that there's so much confusion going
on. I thought this was rather a -- a simple procedure where we would
approve using fines from people who have been arrested for various
reasons and use that as our seed money, and then we'd go on from
there. But apparently we're stuck in some kind of a budget dispute.
So what we wanted to tell you is that the league
certainly supports an assessment center. We've been part of the
Juvenile Justice Council since its inception. One of our members,
Renee Hanson (phonetic), is our justice chair. She's on the District
8 council, and we feel that this is something that needs to get off
the ground, and the way to get the seed money is to start getting
these fines collected. To me that was the issue today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you knew more than we did
before this meeting, because the first I heard of seed money, as Barb
-- as Commissioner Berry said, was -- was from Hiss Barton; so
apparently somebody's given you information I hadn't received.
MS. FITCH: Well, it's in your agenda. It's quite
clear. Sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not on our agenda as
seed money.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't say anything about it.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Good afternoon. Don Hunter, sheriff,
Collier County. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. Real
quick, we just did a quick caucus over here, and we think we have a
new direction, perhaps. I would like to endorse the concept as well.
One of the biggest problems we have at the drill academy, of course,
is getting the right clients for the academy so that they don't return
consistently in the after-care program back to the facility or to
readdress issues that they're facing on the street. With an
assessment center in place, of course, what we would have is a better
assessment, not just the -- the grazing shot that we're able to give
it with DJJ assistance today, but we would actually be able to get the
level -- hopefully level four- and level-six-type kids instead of
level-eight- and ten-type kids that we're currently getting, and we'd
have a better chance of success with that.
Secondly, it would return dollars to the pockets of
taxpayers because we would have law enforcement in and out of the
facility much quicker. We wouldn't be taking kids to detention at Lee
County. The detention facility would be right here, and the
assessment would be immediate. And Judge Baker addressed the other
issues as far as law enforcement and judicial go, and I'd like to
endorse his comments as well.
I think that I understand the board to be saying that
you need more of a budget. You need to know what the school board
might be willing to donate in terms of resources. You need to know
what David Lawrence is going to contribute, perhaps some other
counseling group. You need to know what our projected utilities might
be, etc., etc. If that's the direction of the board, perhaps we could
go back. A partnership agreement is required by the -- by the
statute, as I understand. It will get the partners lined up and on
paper and take a shot at proposing a budget to you so that you know
what the recurring costs would be that would not be funded under the
budget of the Department of Juvenile Justice, but would be picked up
by the various partners in the partnership. Is that where we're
headed?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, that's -- it's -- it's a
kind of a simple question. You know, how much money is going to be
generated? It's about $50,000. And how's it going to be used? And
I'm sorry, but that's not in our executive summary. I'm not trying to
make anybody look bad. It's just that we have this silly little thing
about knowing how money's going to be spent --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- before we allow the
appropriation. So I --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Understood. I think we were coming
from a different position which was, we know we need it, because right
DOW '-
CHAIRNAN HANCOCK: Right.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- the kids -- if they're -- if they're
failing in the system, it's because they're not being properly
assessed and given the right resources, or at least we're not assured
that we're doing those kinds of things. And we thought that the
sooner we had the ordinance in place, of course, the sooner the
money's going to be collected and we could meet that $50,000
projection for the first year. Now we may be falling off that
slightly, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me see --
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- we could certainly go back and
redesign it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me see if I can be specific as to
-- to -- and just simple point information that if we can get, we can
probably zip through this at the next available meeting. The
executive summary we have says that the funding would be used for --
for the funding of the juvenile assessment center and suspension
program; and then in the comments I heard -- well, it's seed money to
kind of get the plan established and get things going. I just need
that reconciled. What's the money going to be used for, and what is
the -- you know, how many ducks need to be in a row before we can have
a juvenile assessment center? If that all looks fine, then I
personally will be supportive of it. I just need to have that -- that
put out in front of me to make sure we aren't just trading the funding
mechanism and sending revenues to an area that we're really not sure
how they're going to be spent. That's really all it is, quite
frankly.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We recognize several steps to
implementing the program. One would be, obviously, designing the
program, which we think will require some consultantship from some
other experts. We -- the ad hoc committee have our own orientations
and our own expert opinions, but we'd like to see some consultantship,
visits to other sites, and we know we're going to have to pay some
money. That's seed money as well.
We know also that the $50,000 per annum or perhaps a
little bit more as the -- as the years go by and the number of
citations and misdemeanors and felonies increase will probably grow,
but it is not going to be sufficient to cover the complete operation
of an assessment center. We aren't trying to suggest that to you. So
I think the use of the term "seed money" is both for the
consultantship, to get the plan off the ground, to provide you with
some specifics. And we may be locked in a loop here, but I think we
can do some preliminary work and give you some assurance that we've
looked at it. We can predict, as best we can, a budget. We can tell
you what it would be used for and go from there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I guess you've helped
some of -- with the -- I'm -- I'm a little concerned that the first
we've heard that this money was for consultants rather than for the
operation of the center was today. And if it is, that's fine, and we
need to decide that on its own, but that wasn't how it had been
introduced to me up until this point. But second -- and -- and I'm
not sure if you can answer this or maybe Mr. Schimmel or someone, but
we heard the -- the estimate -- best-guess estimate is the overall
budget's $239,000. Does -- does that include what's donated in time
and effort by the local partners, or that is all cash?
MS. BARTON: That would be juvenile justice funds.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait. Wait. Wait. The only person
we have on the record is the person at the podium; so we need a name
and a response.
SHERIFF HUNTER: As I understand it from the president
of the Juvenile Justice Council, Pat Barton, that is money that is
being -- has been set aside or will be set aside, I should say, by the
Department of Juvenile Justice as a line item budget number that they
will spend on this project. But they -- I've heard no representation
that that will be the total operating cost of -- of the facility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and that's what I'm
trying to answer, because Commissioner Hac'Kie earlier had --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I did get that impression.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and I did too. If,
then, two thirty-nine plus fifty-five is 80 percent of the budget,
we're looking at a whole different thing. I -- I still have a lot of
those questions as to what the overall budget is. And while I think
all five of us like the idea of the center, I -- I don't want to
contribute $55,000 only to find out after some study that, gosh, we
can't afford to do it without more from the county or we can't afford
to do it at all. And those are the questions -- until I have some
budget figures, I'm not prepared to create the revenue. And I
understand you want to get it going as soon as you can, but I just
want to see a little clearer picture, I guess, than I have to this
point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: See, I think probably that the
problem here is that this is an ordinance we're being asked to enact,
and to enact an ordinance is a fairly serious matter when it deals
with raising money like this. And it appears from the discussion
we've had here that we're really not totally sure that we would go
forward with the project at all, because we're talking about having
some consultants tell us -- develop the information first that would
make us make the decision. Obviously, if it required $2 million from
the county general fund, we're not going to go forward with it. So we
don't know that information as of yet, because we haven't developed
it. And so I think it's a little premature to enact an ordinance to
raise the funds.
But a question comes to mind. If -- if it's as you say
and as we all agree, and I believe that it's -- it's a very important
program and could be very beneficial to the community, why doesn't
your agency and, perhaps, some of the other agencies go ahead with the
-- the preliminary portions here, in effect, front that seed money to
get us to the point where we have all of the information developed? I
don't -- I don't understand that.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I may be mischaracterizing the effort
that has already been completed. We've been working on it for about,
I'm going to say, roughly a year. Under Kathleen Passidomo's
leadership when she was the president of the Juvenile Justice Council,
she invited down various experts. They discussed this -- this issue
and how to design the assessment center, what the components of the
center would be. We have a rough plan. We weren't considering
consultants for purposes of feasibility of the project for Collier
County. Obviously, the Department of Juvenile Justice has endorsed
the feasibility and know -- and knows of the need for Collier County
as it -- as that need interfaces with the other -- the elements of the
comprehensive plan for juvenile justice.
We already have endorsements from various organizations
that consider these types of plans and consider need statements and
the problems of an area. What I was suggesting as a consultantship
would be to pull together all the information that exists out there
and study the other programs and help us to design the best program.
That seemed to be the discussion we had last time we met in the -- in
the meeting with Judge Baker. That's what we're really shooting for.
And I wasn't trying to suggest that we were going to use all that
money for consultant services, and certainly we're going to contribute
our share as best we can to getting the program off the ground.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, let me try and offer a course
that will give this the greatest chance of success, because what has
happened here is an all-too-common problem when -- when matters come
before us, which is you have worked so closely with an issue that the
-- there is just a general assumption that this is such a good idea.
You know how you got here. You came here today knowing where you want
to go, yet none of us have been involved in that year-long process.
So the particulars of where this is taking us and how is this money
going to be used are questions we have not considered and are looking
for answers to.
So it's all too common that when you're in the middle of
something, you're entering it in -- in the middle step. We're at the
very front end; so we need to be educated a little bit on -- on how we
got here financially and what the financial plans are to make sure
that these funds can, in fact, create something that we all seem to be
very supportive of. That's really the -- the disparity here today.
So if you can help educate us on the fiscal side of this matter, I
think you'll find a favorable end to that. But as Commissioner Norris
said, it's an ordinance, and that carries some weight with this
board. And I -- I think we're looking for just a little more
information to be comfortable in that decision.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Would the Chair entertain the
possibility of assigning a member of the board to the ad hoc committee
as we work through this process so that reports may be made back to
the board in the format that the board prefers?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll open it up to any member that
wishes to -- to volunteer to work with that board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm happy to serve, but I'm '-
I'm already a convert. I haven't served on the committees, but I've
been -- know a little bit about it. If there's somebody who would
prefer to do it, I would -- I'd defer to somebody who doesn't know as
much about it as I do already, but I'd be happy to serve.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't -- I don't think it -- I
really don't think it requires that. I think all it really needs --
and -- and I'm not hearing that much opposition to the concept. What
I'm hearing the opposition to is the funding mechanism of what we're
going to do with the money and how much does it really cost, okay,
because we really haven't established that. We're looking at $50,000
here, roughly, $3 per case, and that's how you're going to arrive, I
assume, at the $50,000. And then where do we go from there? How do
we know that -- if it's -- if juvenile justice is going to provide
239,000, roughly, that 50,000 from here on out is going to benefit
you, or are you going to have to come back to the board and say, oops,
you know, we didn't make it this year? We need another ten or fifteen
or whatever, or is fifty thousand too much? I mean, it's -- it's --
we've somehow got to get a better handle on the financial end of it.
In -- in all fairness, I -- I think that's -- that's what I'm hearing,
that this is where we're at.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. No need to sell the concept
anymore. But let me -- let me suggest that we continue the item, and
I'll ask if the board is -- is consistent with this, that we continue
the item for a period of two weeks and ask that -- due to the concerns
that have been raised, that we just present a financial picture and
plan that shows how the funds are going to be utilized to create the
assessment center. With that, I think, a level of comfort will --
will be present that -- that could allow for a decision. Does that
sound reasonable --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's very reasonable --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to the members of the board?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I'll make a motion to
that effect.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion to continue
for a period of two weeks. Close the public hearing. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none.
SHERIFF HUNTER: One final comment?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And thank you for permitting me. I'm
reminded by the president of the Juvenile Justice Council that the
Chair is a member of the Juvenile Justice Council and certainly is
invited to all of the -- these ad hoc committee meetings, and we'll
make sure that you're aware of it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me know when they are, and if I
can be there, I'll be there.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- just one other thing.
I -- I'd like to ask Mr. Dotrill if there's somebody from his staff
who he could ask to coordinate preparation of an agenda packet --
information packet for us as this comes back.
MR. DORRILL: My inclination would be your budget
director or maybe the senior budget analyst or somebody, and it's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, Miss Passidomo, if you'll get
with Mr. Smykowski and present him the information to include into our
packet in two weeks, he might be able to give you some helpful hints.
MS. PASSIDOMO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That was a lengthy ten-minute
item.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 97-5 RE PETITION PUD-81-30(1), PETER L. BRETON REPRESENTING
MANOR CARE OF BOYNTON BEACH, INC., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT OF THE LELY
PALHS OF NAPLES PUD DOCUHENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPLACING FIFTY OF THE
APPROVED FUTURE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS WITH 50 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS
WITH A COHMON KITCHEN FACILITY SERVING THE 50 ALF UNITS AND TO ADD AN
ADULT DAY CARE FACILITY FOR PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK ROAD - ADOPTED
On to Item 8(B)(1) (sic), Petition PUD-81-30(1), Peter
Breton representing Manor Care of Boynton Beach. Mr. Nino, is this
yours?
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon.
MR. NINO: We -- we --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would all individuals who are here to
testify on 81-30 please stand and raise your right hand.
(The speakers were sworn.)
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, your planning services department.
This was Ray Bellows' petition, but I'm standing in his place. Lely
Palms of Naples is an existing PUD on Rattlesnake Hammock Road. It's
largely developed. It was approved for 296 independent residential
apartment units in addition to nursing care facilities that are
currently on the property. This -- this petition asks to take 50 of
the 296 independent residential apartments and convert them to
independent residential units -- to assisted living units. And as you
know, in a direct -- direct correlation is really not a one to one in
the real world; so we're, in effect, coming up with lesser density
indirectly by exchanging a conventional dwelling unit for an assisted
living unit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, excuse me. Would it hurt
your feelings if I kind of cut to the chase on this? MR. NINO: No, it would not at all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The number of units, as I see it,
remains the same; is that correct? MR. NINO: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The actual impact, external impact of
the project due to the nature of change to the units, would be less?
MR. NINO: Will be less, correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some would refer to this as a
no-brainer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, some would.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to hear the reason
for the setback change, though -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- before we go forward.
MR. NINO: I might point out relative to the setback
change that that property is adjacent to the jurisdictional wetlands
to the east.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. But we don't want to
encroach on the raccoons back there.
MR. NINO: Yes, you're right, Commissioner, but perhaps
Barbara Cawley can address that -- a reason for that.
MS. CAWLEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Barbara Cawley.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Afternoon.
MS. CAWLEY: Good after -- I've been here since
morning. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Barbara Cawley,
and I'm here representing Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. The
question is for this small (indicating) -- this setback right here
(indicating), this building. This -- changing this setback to a
20-foot setback would make it consistent with the group-care setback
requirement in the LDC. It allows 20 feet, and in order to construct
this building to get handicapped bathrooms and -- they were a little
larger than -- than anticipated. They need an additional --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Miss Cawley.
MS. CAWLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I sense that the question might
have been answered already in your -- in a fantastic way there.
Commissioner Norris, does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it does.
MS. CAWLEY: Okay. It was just in order to get some
room.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That -- appreciate that. Are there
any further questions for the petitioner?
Any additional public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: I believe only this gentleman who's also
here to answer any questions that you might have. MS. CAWLEY: He's part of the petitioner.
MR. DORRILL: Well, then I have none, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any further
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you.
MS. CAWLEY: Thank you.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 97-6 RE PETITION PUD-96-14, ALAN D. REYNOLDS, OF WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. AND GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG,
VANASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, REPRESENTING SUNCO BUILDING CORPORATION,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AND "A-ST" TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS ISLAND
WALK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A HAXIHUH OF 2,100 DWELLING UNITS AND
A FIFTEEN ACRE TOWN CENTER FOR PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD, ONE MILE EAST OF 1-75 (COMPANION TO ITEM #12C2) - ADOPTED
WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On to Item 8 -- I'm sorry, 12 --
12(B)(2). This is Petition 96 -- PUD-96-14, Alan Reynolds of Wilson,
Hiller. This is actually a companion item to 12(C)(2), if I'm not
mistaken also. Mr. Nino, is this still you?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. We need to swear
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Could all individuals who
are here to testify on Item PUD-96-14 or DRI-96-1 please stand and
raise your right hand.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: With your indulgence, I'd like to discuss the
two petitions concurrently, both the DRI development order and the PUD
zoning order. As you know, because of the size of this development,
it -- it rises to the threshold that makes it a development regional
impact as well as the local zoning order -- local PUD zoning order.
That means something, because it requires the applicant to prepare an
extensive analysis of the project, all of which you have that we just
-- we don't get this in a PUD. It -- it has gone through a -- an
exhaustive and comprehensive review by state, regional, and local
agencies addressing physical, environmental, social, economic, and
natural features, conditions. So it -- it -- to make a long story
short, it just gets a lot more review than -- than a purely local
zoning petition.
All of those agencies have responded in -- in the
context of the DRI through the regional planning organization, who
publish a -- a report called their recommendations, all of which are
included within the DRI development executive summary. Let me say
that all of the recommendations that came out of the state and
regional review are contained within the development order. The
development order was sent to regional staff. They had an opportunity
to review it, and they have confirmed in writing to me that the
development order satisfies all of the RPC recommendations.
With respect to the PUD, all of our staff, all
jurisdictional county staff, have reviewed the PUD. It's been
reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Board for environmental and
water management issues. And I'm pleased to say that the PUD document
contains all of our requirements to ensure that this PUD, as it is
permitted throughout its development permitting phases, will be
consistent with the requirements of the Land Development Code. It is,
as a result of this review, determined to be consistent with all
elements of the Growth Management Plan.
There are two issues that came up in this discussion.
One has to do with the reservation of a hundred and fifty foot
right-of-way along the west portion of the project in response to the
county's long-range traffic waste plan. It's the extension --
provides for the extension of Logan Boulevard. And secondly, this
parcel of land is a piece of the puzzle to accommodating the drainage
from the Harvey drainage basin. And the PUD is responsive to the
drainage issues.
I might add that I was advised not too long ago that the
drainage -- that the drainage language that's in the PUD needs some
minor adjustments. It is not of a substantive nature, and Mr. Boldt
and Mr. Varnadoe agreed to take care of that issue. Mr. Boldt is here
to address any specifics of the water management plan. I also have
because -- because -- because the hundred and fifty foot right-of-way
and its relationship to the estates area was a matter of some
discussion, I asked our transportation people to prepare a sketch of
how that might lay out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was done at 7:45 this morning.
MR. NINO: Now, I appreciate -- I appreciate that it
doesn't look very pretty, but you have to understand that we have --
don't always have the ability to respond to making things look
pretty. The Environmental Advisory Board has recommended approval of
this DRI/PUD. The Planning Commission have unanimously recommended
approval. There was some objection, and that objection that was
voiced at the Planning Commission had to do with the relationship of
the hundred and fifty foot road reservation and how it will be
developed and the space between that and the estates area. Mr. -- I'm
sure Mr. Reynolds has a far prettier proposal to make and -- and more
-- more substance as to what the project is really all about.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And before getting to the petitioner,
Mr. Nino, I think we have some questions of you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First and foremost, I need to
disclose that I've had conversations and communication with both sides
on this issue; however, as required under the statutes of the State of
Florida, I'll base my decision solely on the information provided in
this public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I also have had contact, but I will
base my decision on the information presented today. Commissioner
Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had contact but will base
my decision on what I hear today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the road right-of-way --
and I realize part of what I'm asking is a county decision outside of
the PUD, but I -- I'm looking at a 22-foot median -- let me -- before
I get to that, it's not anticipated that any of those streets east of
Oakes will connect to Logan, is it?
MR. NINO: That decision is entirely separate from the
approval of this PUD. That decision would be made at some subsequent
date and probably by the county and the people who reside in that
area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding is the plan
as it's currently shown does not anticipate that. I realize that
could change, but I want to at least put the folks who live out
there's mind at ease.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In fact, Commissioner, I'll go one --
MR. KANT: For the record --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll go one further. I believe this
is intended to be a limited-access roadway which will have greater
distances between planned accesses than the balance of the general
collector arterial roadways. Mr. Kant.
MR. KANT: For the record, Edward Kant, transportation
services. The direct answer to your first question, Commissioner
Constantine, is that that roadway is shown in the 2020 plan but is not
in the work plan, which would be the 5-10 year plan. Therefore, there
-- as Mr. Nino pointed out, there has been no decision made either as
to cross-section or connection points or what have you. In answer to
Mr. Hancock's question, that roadway, it has a great deal of
possibility to serve as a more limited access type of roadway than
some of our other roadways; but again, those would be more future
decisions. What we're looking at here is a planning level decision as
to the future location of a -- of the right-of-way.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One final comment and -- on
what will probably be a future decision, and then I'll come back to
the specifics of the PUD. And that is in the hundred and fifty foot
right-of-way, considering we are projecting that this may be built
pretty close to a lot of folks' homes, I'd just as soon see -- and
particularly since the project proposed is being put in in concert
with this, whereas those homes are existing, I'd -- I'd just as soon
see that median shrink and -- and some of that moved to our east so
that we have the least impact possible on those homes. Medians are
beautiful, but I bet they'd like 22 feet more of trees and -- and
buffer area.
MR. KANT: Again, Edward Kant for the record. The --
had I known that the drawing was going to be published, it would have
looked much prettier. I -- I -- this drawing -- I did the drawing in
-- in response to Mr. Nino's question of what could it look like. I
believe, and I -- I can't speak for the petitioner, but based on our
staff review of the project, the ultimate drainage concept will
involve taking the roadway drainage through the project as well as the
project's drainage. That will give us some opportunities in the
future as this road is designed to work within that right-of-way,
perhaps, not to have to put it exactly in the center of the
right-of-way, which will give us some opportunities to move it further
to the east.
In addition, if there is a decision or some decision is
made as to whether or not this should remain as a four-lane as opposed
to a six-lane section, there is a possibility that the median could be
cut down by a few feet. Again, we'd have to look at accepted
engineering minimums and those types of things. But what we were
looking for here was a first-brush look at what could we do if we did
it the way we would normally do it, and my -- my charge there for
Mr. Nino was to say, well, what kind of separation could we expect,
and the -- the number of about 30 to 35 feet was what I was -- what I
was looking at.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Back to the specifics of the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Set aside as far as land for
this, I assume we have adequate land at the south end of the property
to handle the S-curve which will be a necessity to hook with existing
Logan Boulevard?
MR. NINO: I believe -- I believe the geometry --
MR. KANT: Yeah. The -- my understanding, again, this
being a conceptual plan at the site development plan stage, we will be
able to specify where the center of the proposed roadway would be so
that we can make a good intersection with existing Logan Boulevard.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. The -- I guess what
I'd like to get from a -- for a commitment from the petitioner -- and
I don't anticipate a problem with it, but -- is that there will be no
objection should the attempted roadway be shifted toward the east side
of that hundred-and-fifty-foot area. And I -- I say that only because
part of the reason that it's where it is as opposed to going straight
north and south from existing is to accommodate the -- this
development. And I just think in -- in deference to the existing
homes -- I think they realize, hopefully at this point, that the road
isn't because of your project, but that it is in future long-term
planning, but just that location on the northern half, if within that
150 foot right-of-way the county can -- can place, particularly when
we're looking at two and then four and, who knows, possibly six lanes,
if we can start that out to the eastern portion of the road and then
work to our left. I assume there's not a problem there, but I just
wanted to verify that on the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any further
questions of staff?
Why don't we ask the petitioner, one, if they could
respond to Commissioner Constantine's question and then, any
additional information you have to present might be -- may be
advantageous.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of
the commission, I'm Alan Reynolds. I'm director of planning with
Wilson, Miller, and we're here today representing Sunco Building
Corporation for the Island Walk master plan community. A few things
-- and I have taken notes of your desire to move through this
quickly; so I have furiously edited my presentation. I'll try to make
it very brief. I do want to identify that in the audience today with
me are part of the team including our client, Mike Rosen; Chuck
Hathaway and Bill Shannon from Sunco Building Corporation; George
Varnadoe is the legal counsel; Mark Gillis, who is our transportation
planner; and Steve Means and Ray Gonzalez, who are the project
engineers. And I'd also just like to thank staff, because we've been
working with them now for almost a year on this review process, and it
has gone very smoothly for us, and they've been very accommodating; so
I'd like to thank Ron and the staff.
Island Walk is a proposed master plan community. It has
an overall density of 3 units per acre. It's a controlled-access
community, and it has as its focal point a network of lake and green
space and a town center that connects all of the land uses together
and provides, not only for pedestrian access to recreational
amenities, but the town center in the project is a rather unique
concept first tried at the Village Walk project here in Collier
County. And that -- that concept has a lot of positive benefits that
I think are important to take note of. In particular by providing for
a lot of the uses on site, the retail uses, the -- the general store,
the central post office facility, this project is able to capture a
lot of trips that would otherwise be external to the project and keep
them internal to the project.
So there's a substantial benefit to this concept of a
project where you provide for an internally oriented town center. And
I believe I would be correct in saying that this town center is the
first to be approved under your PUD commercial criteria in your
comprehensive plan which has been on the books now for seven or eight
years. It has some very stringent criteria, and we meet those
criteria, but there are not that many places in the county that can.
So that may be worth revisiting the next time you look at your
comprehensive plan.
The subject property is in the urban -- excuse me, is in
the urban zone; so it is a location that has already been determined
to encourage this type of use. The site is very well served by
existing public facilities and services, and the density that we are
proposing is about 25 percent less than the base density that is
allowed under your comprehensive plan.
I would like to just amplify on the two issues that --
that Ron discussed and that is the Harvey Basin plan and the Logan
Boulevard dedication, because those are two features that -- that
really represent substantial public benefits to the -- to the
community that are beyond any mitigation that was required from the
project. We have worked very closely with John Boldt and your staff
in looking at how we can design the implementation of the Harvey
Basin, not only to -- to put the improvements in place that will allow
for the restoration of that southwesterly flow, but also, frankly, to
save cost to the county in the implementation of any improvements.
And we have agreed to accept stormwater through our lake system; and
that will, among many other things, save the need to construct a
series of ditches that not only are expensive to build and maintain,
but -- but can often represent a -- a bit of an eyesore. So this is
going to be a very positive attribute of the project.
With respect to the Logan Boulevard extension, and I'll
-- I'll answer your question, yeah, we would -- we would agree that a
shifting of that alignment within the right-of-way is -- is certainly
something that we would not object to. In fact, anticipated that as
the -- as the county looks at that design process going forward, it's
our estimation that you're going to be looking at whether it
ultimately would need to accommodate a six-lane or not. But it is
important to know that we were required to reserve enough right-of-way
to accommodate a six-lane section. So I feel very confident that not
only -- not only in the six-lane configuration, in which case there
would be some additional buffering, but certainly in a four-lane
condition there is adequate space for some additional buffering. And
part of that is because we have agreed to accept the stormwater from
the runoff of that road into our lake system which helps reduce the --
the width of the swale improvements that you need to make. So -- so
we think that's -- that's a very positive benefit.
I think Ron has covered all the other essentials. We
have gone through all of the required steps; we've had unanimous
approval every step of the way; and we would be pleased to answer any
questions that you might have about the project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one that may be more
appropriate for the -- the developer interests, but the question is,
is the -- this construction going to be similar to Village Walk?
MR. REYNOLDS: The construction of the -- yes, it will
be. The construction of the residential units will be similar.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Village Walk is a very nice
community, and the little, the -- little town center works very well.
It's -- it's very well done, but the only criticism is that when you
come up over the interstate, you look out and you see this big sea of
red roofs. And the question is, is there anything you can do to break
up the roof line or at least plant taller vegetation somehow to
visually break it up or something, because the criticism -- I get it a
lot -- I hear it a lot, I should say, that it's like when you go
across the Alley and hit Fort Lauderdale, you see these big strings of
red roofs, same thing. And I just wonder if there's anything we can
do to maybe change that a little.
MR. REYNOLDS: As a matter of fact, we have already had
discussions about how the -- how architectural theming of Island Walk
may differ in -- in many respects from Village Walk. But I think it's
also important to recognize that -- that what you -- that impact that
you get of going over that overpass is not a condition that is present
at the Island Walk project. You don't ever get that view because it's
not adjacent to the interstate; and so I think you're seeing sort of
the -- the, you know, most exposure, if you will, because the
landscaping is still maturing and growing, and it has not had a chance
on the eastern side of that project to be fully implemented yet. But
to answer your question, yes, we are looking at -- at architectural
design alternatives.
And I think also I'd just like to -- to say that the
impact or the view that you get from a distance of the project, when
you get up close you start to see that, in fact, there is a lot of
variety in terms of elevations, roof lines, landscape treatment within
the project. From a distance it does -- it does look repetitive,
because you're not really seeing all of the architectural detailing
that's put into the units.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And your statement was that --
that, yes, you're looking at doing something different, but are you
committing to taking some action to -- to make it look different?
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I think I -- I think I can safely
say that the project will look different in some respects from, you
know, the landscaping and the architectural theming than -- than
Village Walk.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I -- because I have the same
concern, do you mind if I try, because the question that I think
Commissioner Norris is asking that -- that I would love to know if
there's something we can do about is some architectural diversity
among the roof lines so that we don't see the cookie cutter -- so that
our community has -- you know, our standards are a little higher
architecturally. I don't know if we can require that under the code,
but it would be wonderful if your client would commit to some
diversification of the architecture.
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, you know, I -- I guess what I'd
like to say is -- is that -- that, first of all, the -- there is
diversification in the Village Walk project, but -- but from a
distance you really don't get the -- the impact that you do when you
see the units close-hand. But there are different roof styles; there
are different elevations and -- and colors. I -- I think that if you
travel to other master plan communities around Collier County, you
will see that -- that the trend is towards unified architectural
themes within projects with some degree of diversity, and certainly
that's something that -- that the market demands.
I also want to say that -- that there's a -- I guess a
misperception sometimes that -- that -- that similarity equates to low
quality, and I want to make sure that it's very clear that -- that
that's not the case with this project, that -- that Sunco uses very
sophisticated construction techniques. And, yes, there is a method to
it, and it's systematic, but I can -- I can assure you that they --
that they try to respond to what the market is looking for. And part
of that is providing some architectural diversity within the project.
So I hope I'm answering your question about --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I was just going to say, let
the record reflect that it's not only lawyers who can talk a lot
without answering the question -- (Laughter)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- because I -- I'm going to take
that as, no, we're not willing to make any specific commitments in the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- let me --
MR. REYNOLDS: I'm -- I'm not sure what commitment that
you're looking for us to make.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I think what they're
saying is there's 2100 units or something like that, and they don't
want to see 2100 red roofs.
MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Well, if you'd like that as a
commitment of the PUD, we'll certainly make that commitment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, you drive through
Countryside, and they've only got about three or four different house
designs, but even the similar home designs will have different
coloring or different roof coloring and all. So you get a little --
it's a nice look, and it's a uniform look, but it's still peppered
with a little variety. And I think that's what you're saying.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Particularly from the -- what --
unfortunately, what you see from Island Walk when you're on that
overpass is you see all these little triangles, and you can tell
everybody, you know -- and I've -- I have looked at them closer, and
they obviously aren't cheap. But the perception is -- public
perception is that when you see all these little triangles out there,
that you now have developed a little Hiami or a little east coast over
here. And if there's anything in Collier County that's distasteful,
don't you ever compare us to the east coast; and the minute you start
doing that, you're going to be in trouble in Collier County.
So that -- that's a concern that's been raised before.
I think, from what I'm hearing, I didn't know the rest of them had
that feeling, but obviously it's -- it's a feeling that -- that all of
us are -- are kind of having here. But, again, you're not going to
probably have it on this because you're lucky. You don't have another
interstate that's going to be going over this project. But anything
you can do would certainly be appreciated; so --
MR. REYNOLDS: We -- we will be happy to add some
language to the PUD that addresses the desire for architectural
diversity within the project. I'm sure that we can do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think it's --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The problem is that we're going to
be asked to vote on it now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think we can be specific
enough that -- the problem is that if you look at the -- the
structures closely, it's not diversity. If you look at the -- you
know, you have a hip roof and then a gable, and you know, there is
diversity. The problem is the roof tiles all appear to be the exact
same color house to house, and it creates that mono -- I call it
monochromatic look, you know, that everything from above looks the
same. Granted, you're not going to have the same problem, but if the
-- if the petitioner is willing to commit that the -- the color
scheme of roofing materials will vary within the project, does that
answer the concern, because the styles already are different?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It -- it does -- it does to a
large measure, and also, you know, mature landscaping will help a
great deal. But, you know, we're going to be asked to vote here real
quick on this. So what specifically are they committing to? We need
to know that if they're going to commit to something.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, why don't we, before we close
the public hearing, come back to that as an -- as an item and give
them time to consider what commitments they're willing to make in that
regard.
MR. REYNOLDS: I think what would help us is if you'll
tell us the kinds of commitments that you're looking for. You said
different-colored roof tiles. I guess we're -- we need to -- you
know, we need to hear from you as to what kinds of commitments you'd
like us to make, if you can -- if you can assist us with that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me throw something out
just to get it rolling. It doesn't necessarily have to end up this
way. What if no more than 35 percent of -- of the units have the same
color or -- you know, within a certain -- I mean, if you have red and
off-red, that -- that doesn't help us either, but no more than 35
percent so at least you get a smattering of some mix in there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and instead of us making
it up, wouldn't you rather propose something instead of us just
guessing something and throwing it out?
MR. REYNOLDS: We can do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we ask them to come back
and revisit that before the -- the public hearing is closed and see
what -- see what --
MR. REYNOLDS: George has a comment he needs to make
about the development order; so while he's doing that, let me visit
with our client and see what we can --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Varnadoe, were you sworn in?
MR. VARNADOE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Madam Court Reporter, would you --
MR. VARNADOE: I do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- please swear him in.
(The speaker was sworn.)
MR. VARNADOE: One comment on the development order. We
-- although we -- we handled the DRI aspects as far as the amount of
retail by specifying it wouldn't be -- it wouldn't exceed 10,000
feet. We did not put in there the amount of service facilities that
we're going to have, which is another 15,000. So I'd like to clarify
that in the DO so future people looking at this don't have any -- any
questions in the town center.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. That specific
clarification again is.
MR. VARNADOE: In the town center, we're going to have
approximately 35 -- 30,000 square feet -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: -- of building. Ten thousand -- no more
than ten thousand of that are going to be for associated retail uses.
Another 25,000 -- 20,000 -- 15,000 -- I'll get it right. Fifteen
thousand is going to be for service facilities. And I just wanted to
make sure that's clarified in the DO, that's all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I do have questions that may
be more planning related. Would you like me to pose those to -- MR. VARNADOE: No. Go right ahead.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the PUD disallow relocation of
the town center to be adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Road?
MR. VARNADOE: The -- it's tied to this master plan; so
the answer is yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So from a staff perspective,
if the town center were to be moved closer to Vanderbilt Beach Road, a
master plan amendment would have to occur? MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Second issue, there's a little
isolated corner on the southwest that's created by the jog in Logan
Boulevard. Let me give you a project that gives me cause for concern
for that piece. It's the Calusa Bay multifamily development north of
Orange Blossom. What happened is the board approved in total a
development that had a roadway splitting it into a small piece and a
larger piece. A density shift occurred that allowed a great amount of
multifamily on the small piece while low density, single-family
occurred to the south.
I look at this, and that little residential cutout there
is not going to be marketable for single-family. Its size is such
that it lends itself to multifamily. I would like to know what unit
mix or unit -- total unit-per-acre impact is -- is planned to that
piece, because what I'm concerned about is many times you don't build
all the units that you -- that you get approved for. But what this
could allow you to do is to shift the balance of that all to this
site, increase its marketability, and then, in essence, get an
overdevelopment on that site. I'm trying to make sure that doesn't
happen.
MR. VARNADOE: Okay. We -- let us deal with that also
with -- with Mr. Reynolds. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: And I don't know what they've come up
with back there, but my problem with no more than 35 percent red roofs
is there's only so many colors of roof tiles you've got. I think what
we're looking for is more of a mix, and what I would -- you know,
these are broken up into fingers, and my suggestion is that we don't
have any more than two adjacent fingers that have the same color of
roof tile so that, you know, you wouldn't have more than two streets
adjacent to one another with the same color roof tile so you get the
mix.
And maybe you'd have -- you know, you might have the
same color tiles, but they would be separated by other -- all you're
looking for, as I understand it, is -- is some diversification in the
project as opposed to them using the same monochromatic look as far as
the -- as the roof tile is concerned. I know in the Village Walk,
they have four basic building colors; but, yes, the roof tiles are all
-- are all the same. Let me throw that out to you for
consideration. I think that would give you the -- the look you want
without tying it to some percentage, because -- I mean, once you get
past natural red and green, I'm at a loss for what you can get with a
-- with the barrel tiles that they like to use and -- as far as
colors are concerned.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If my house built in 1960 means
anything, mustard yellow is available.
MR. VARNADOE: Mine's just a plain concrete. I prefer
the red.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Does anyone have any further
questions for Mr. Varnadoe?
Seeing none, I guess we're awaiting a response on the --
the roof tile issue, if we can have that. And I'd like to discuss the
isolated, residential piece in the southeast corner, and maximum
developable units tied to that would be my preference to -- trying to
avoid an overdevelopment on that piece.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Is that the long strip,
Mr. Hancock?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. And what happens is many times
-- and also, Commissioner Berry, since this is the first DRI that's
come through that -- and your first exposure to them, do you have any
questions on the DRI and PUD and anything that our staff could help
you with, or are you fairly comfortable with this at this point?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'm pretty comfortable. I just
know a DRI is even a more complicated process or more comprehensive
process, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a gross approach, and then the
details are in the PUD more or less. Mr. Reynolds, do we have an
answer for --
MR. REYNOLDS: Just -- we're tag teaming. Mr. Varnadoe
is going to try to get a -- a response to your second question. On
the question of the diversity, we would be willing to commit that no
more than 40 percent of the units would have the same color roof line
or -- or roof tile. We think that we can vary it sufficiently with
that kind of percentage. If you'd prefer the percentage -- if you'd
prefer the -- the concept that George enumerated, we could -- we could
certainly address that one, whichever one you'd prefer.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just offer a suggestion,
and the -- and the one that Mr. Varnadoe made is certainly a -- a good
suggestion, and I -- I think it was that no more than two adjacent of
those peninsulas or fingers would have the same roof color. But I was
thinking, and I'd like to ask you if this would cause any problem,
that -- that within the -- the fingers themselves there would be mixes
and diversity. Does that cause a problem -- MR. REYNOLDS: No.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that I'm not aware of, because
I think that's what would break it up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I like your 40 percent
number, because that guarantees a minimum of three different colors
throughout the whole thing, and I like Commissioner Norris's
suggestion. So maybe you can do the 40 percent within any given area,
but I -- I like your suggestion. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the -- it would be 40 percent, and
then each individual street will have varying colors on it?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I think that will give you a
more than adequate visual breakup there, and it won't look the same,
and -- and I think that really probably will quell the criticism that
we've seen from the public on the other project, which is the only
criticism. Other than that, it's -- it's a very nice project.
MR. REYNOLDS: And I'm sorry. I missed the -- the
second question. I think it had to do with the -- the density of the
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. The second question was that
lower piece on the southeast corner that's isolated by Logan
Boulevard.
MR. REYNOLDS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My concern is, what happened with the
Calusa Bay development where there was a -- a total PUD approved, a
unit shift and that was -- it was proposed, but a unit shift occurred
to allow a heavy concentration of multifamily to the north on the
smaller piece with lower density single-family to the south. So what
was shown as a low-density project became high density here and low
here (indicating). I want to make sure that that little piece isn't
the leftover chunk that every unit that can't be built in that gets
shifted here for market value and you end up with a little compact,
you know, miniproject there.
(Laughter)
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They turned their backs on that
one .
up.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need the theme from Jeopardy cued
Mr. HcNees, do we have any public speakers on this matter?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I have to buy time up here while
we wait for an answer.
MR. HcNEES: Well, you sure don't want me to sing the
theme from Jeopardy.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine could
interview someone.
MR. REYNOLDS: Let me -- let me try something. We
didn't know we were going to get into this kind of a detailed
discussion about the design of the project; so forgive us for spending
a little time -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. It didn't occur to me in
advance.
MR. REYNOLDS: I think what has been used in the past in
these kinds of situations is a limitation so that you have a
consistent height and setback situation along those -- that common
property line. So would the Chair be amenable to us limiting the
height of the structures that would be adjacent to the estates zoning
to the -- to a comparable height that -- that's allowed in the
estates?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that 35 feet?
MR. REYNOLDS: I think it's 35 feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that ring a bell, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Two stories.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Two stories or 35 feet.
Okay. What's your minimum floor area in all the R -- MR. NINO: 750 square feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Again, I -- I understand the
height, and I appreciate that, but you know, we start --
MR. NINO: Hay I -- may I offer a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would love it if you offered a
suggestion.
MR. NINO: Two-story housing -- two-story apartment-type
housing in -- in my opinion, takes on a -- a characteristic of
crowding when you get over 9 dwelling units per acre.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not to mention that particular piece
is adjacent to estates zoning, which I -- in my ability to try and --
and step projects in density and in physical characteristic, you're
going from 1 unit per 2 1/4 acres to a potentially higher density even
if the height is similar. That does have a different look and feel to
it in itself. I guess I'm looking for either a -- a density applied
-- a maximum density applied to that particular piece or a maximum
number of units to -- if I could be assured that that piece would be
developed in a similar character to the rest of the development, I'd
have no problem. But I'm just -- I'm wrestling with it a little bit,
and I don't have an answer for you.
MR. REYNOLDS: We are, too, because normally these kinds
of discussions occur, you know, when we're into the site development
plan process. And so we're -- frankly, we're sitting here -- we're
looking at that piece of property and looking at the location where it
has an arterial road along it. You know, I think that -- that the
overall densities that we're talking about in this project are fairly
low to begin with. So I guess our concern about having -- you know,
crowding a bunch of density onto a piece of property, frankly, I don't
see where that would be highly marketable. But you're asking us to
commit to some maximum density on that property and --
MR. NINO: We need to agree that the highest density
that's permitted in the standard zoning district is 16 units per acre;
and we, in my memory, have never granted 16 units per acre other than
in an activity center. So that's one end of the scale, and the base
density is 4 dwelling units per acre in this area. So you have a
scale of 4 to 16, and I suggest the market, obviously, is going to
direct multifamily housing to this isolated parcel (indicating), and
we have all kinds of projects that span 9 to 12 units per acre in the
multifamily development.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you would have to agree that 9
units per acre is not consistent with estates zoning located
immediately adjacent to it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would be awful.
MR. NINO: Well, it's going to be a multifamily tract.
I mean, it's not -- it's certainly not suitable for single-family
housing.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: What's the total number of units
that could be placed on there?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's -- the problem is that
when you approve a PUD in total, the units can be shifted internally
as long as minimum lot sizes and housing sizes are met. And I
actually wrote a number of -- of 6 units per acre on that piece.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to suggest, what
if we just made an agreement that -- if we can get you to agree, that
you won't have more than 6 units per acre on that particular parcel,
gross in that area.
MR. VARNADOE: That -- that just -- you know, frankly,
we -- in complying with the -- with the county's comprehensive plan
and aligning Logan Boulevard to meet the -- the -- where the access is
to the south, the location to the south, we have created a piece
that's only suitable for multifamily. We're going to have a four-lane
or a six-lane road on -- on two sides of it, and it's a very shallow
piece. You know -- you know, and I'm sorry. That's the way it is.
And I have a hard time with the fact that -- that residential is not
compatible with residential as long as you don't put a tower next to
me.
You know, I live in a single-family home. I back up to
a condominium that's a two-story condominium. I don't care how many
units are back there; it's two-story. I mean, you know, it -- it --
and they got higher ones behind it. It it's what's next to you
that -- that controls. But to sit there and tell me, Commissioner
Hancock, that -- that I can put single-family or even 6 units an acre
on that parcel and make it marketable, I'm sorry. That's not my
experience in the development field in this county. I mean, that --
that is going to end up as a multifamily parcel simply because of what
we've done to the road. Now, if you want us to offset the road and
run it up the section line and not have Logan Boulevard have a mash
line there, then -- then yeah. That's -- that's very simple because
we now have it internal to our project, and we don't have that
six-lane configuration on two sides of us.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think those are the
only choices. I think -- MR. VARNADOE: I don't either, Commissioner, but I mean,
I don't think 6 units is -- is really a good choice for us.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do. I think residential
multifamily 6 is a very good choice when you're backing up against 1
per every 2 1/4 acres. I -- I understand you live in a neighborhood
and you back up against condos, but that was all a part of the plan
when you were in -- well, it's a pretty upscale neighborhood. The --
the -- when you go in the estates, you don't anticipate backing up
against, you know, 9 per acre or 12 per acre or 16 per acre.
MR. VARNADOE: But if I'm putting -- if we're willing to
constrict our height on that side where we back up to them, I think we
-- we've addressed that -- that question. But when you tell me 6 per
-- per acre, now you're forcing me to push those units -- I've got to
spread it one way or the other, right. I spread them up against the
streets, and I haven't made a good -- a good neighborhood for anybody
in -- in there then. I think that's my problem with it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it -- the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How big is the --
MR. REYNOLDS: Can -- can I just put something into
perspective while we're on this discussion? The tract of land that
we're talking about that -- that abuts the estates has this frontage
right here (indicating). Based on looking at the aerial photo, you
have one, two, three lots (indicating) that would abut that tract.
Now, I don't see any of those three people here today voicing a
concern about the plan that we -- we presented. So I think to take
the -- take the position that we have to, you know, agree to some very
stringent density standard on that when we're talking about three
residential lots that have wider-than-typical setbacks -- because
they're estate lots, they have to set back from their property line.
There's a 30-foot drainage easement in there. We provide a 20-foot
buffer, and we're willing to agree to a limitation of a two-story
height. Frankly, that addresses the compatibility ssues between the
two pieces of property.
The density on that piece of property with its direct
access to Logan Boulevard has no effect on those adjoining
properties. So the only effect it would have would be the height of
the units and the separation, and we have agreed to put the 20-foot
buffer, to have a setback. They have a wide side-yard setback; so I
think it's -- it's reasonable to give us some -- some consideration on
that part.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How large is the parcel of
property that is west of the proposed Logan Boulevard, the section
that we're talking about?
MR. REYNOLDS: It's approximately 20 acres. Would --
would you consider if we limited the density on it to -- to 10 units
per acre and the two-story height maximum along the -- that west
boundary?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds, the concern I have is
that the people next to it have been told the model of this community
exists right down the road, and it's Village Walk. We're going to
build something very similar to Village Walk right next to you. As I
looked at Village Walk's plan, I didn't see a 10-unit-per-acre
multifamily pocket anywhere in that plan, and I don't think the people
living next to it foresaw that. I mean, I didn't catch it until today
when I was sitting here that it -- that it may occur. So, you know, I
think they're -- they look at Village Walk and see a very nice, you
know, what appears to be a single-family dominant-type community; and
that's why they're, in all likelihood, not here. But this piece is
not going to have that development pattern. It's going to be a very
different pattern, a very different character. And -- and I disagree
that density doesn't necessarily have an impact or density is not a
part of -- of compatibility. I -- I think it is, because it does
generate additional impacts.
MR. REYNOLDS: It's -- it's certainly an element of it.
All -- all we're trying to say is that there has been a fair amount of
consideration given in the plan to making sure that -- that our
property is going to be adequately buffered from those estates
residents, and we're talking about three lots, each of whom have a
minimum side-yard setback of at least 30 feet at a bare minimum. So
we're talking about 50 feet separation, and frankly, that's a lot
greater separation than you have in many other instances around the
county where you have single-family adjacent to multifamily. So I
think -- I think the development standards that we've included in the
PUD and the layout and with the additional limitations that -- that I
stated as far as the height and, you know, the density I would hope
would satisfy the commission that we've -- you know, we've taken the
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a moment ago you said
what; about 10 units per acre in that section, and -- and I had
suggested 6. That's a differential of 80 units on that parcel.
Taking into account 2100-and-some-change total units, that's about 3
percent of the entire project. I've got to assume the multifamily at
10 units per acre is going to be considerably lower in cost per unit
than a single-family home or -- or a villa within the rest of the
development. So taken as sales, a unit of sales or a unit of cost,
we're probably looking at about 11/2 percent of the entire project is
what you're selling there in differential.
So I know there's some units here, but I don't want to
overblow what we're looking at when we look at that little parcel. I
think it's a -- there's a valid concern for those neighboring
properties; and I understand you're trying to take care of your
client, but perhaps at a 1 percent differential, we can get an
agreement here. Perhaps not. Perhaps the entire project goes down in
flames because of a 1 percent differential.
MR. REYNOLDS: That would -- that would certainly be
unfortunate.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It certainly would.
MR. REYNOLDS: I guess we're -- we're not sure we know
exactly where you're at, Commissioner Constantine. Did you say 8
units per acre as a compromise?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had -- I had said 6 and 8
-- or 6 and 10 were a difference -- and I'm not suggesting any -- if
you want to throw 8 out there, we can look at that and talk about it,
and then it gets us down to a differential of, I think, 40 units. So
I think we're in the right neighborhood then.
MR. REYNOLDS: How does the rest of the commission
feel?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a suggestion from
you?
MR. REYNOLDS: I think it was a suggestion from you, and
we're -- we're just discussing it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'm assuring you it
wasn't a suggestion from me. I'm asking, though, is -- is that --
MR. REYNOLDS: Could you give us a minute, please, to
discuss this?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: While -- while they're doing
that, Commissioner Hancock, could you take me back through one more
time? I mean, I understand the piece of property that we're talking
about, and I saw on the aerial where it connects to estates-sized
lots. Did you -- or maybe, Mr. Nino, you can tell me the minimum lot
size on -- on that little -- the piece in question.
MR. NINO: If you look at the aerial, we're looking at a
piece of property that -- it looks like it goes something like that
(indicating).
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. And -- and what's --
MR. NINO: And this is the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the minimum lot size or
minimum unit size, whatever the restriction is?
MR. NINO: Well, the minimum -- the PUD -- the PUD
proposes a minimum unit size for multifamily units of 750 square
feet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe that's --
MR. NINO: Quite frankly, at that -- at that minimum
floor area, it wouldn't be very difficult to get 20 units per acre,
but I -- you do need some -- some cap here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- but I'm confused. The
initial discussion as I heard Commissioner Hancock raising -- and I'm
just trying to get a handle on what the issue is here so I can get my
-- my vote in my head -- was that you're concerned that they would
transfer some density from that -- outside the project parcel inside
the project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, just the opposite.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: The other way around.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My -- my concern --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, of course. I got you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- is that if they develop the bulk
of this project and this is the last piece remaining, whatever they
didn't build here could be transferred to here (indicating). And even
though there may be height restrictions, a density of 10 or 12 units
per acre does have external impacts beyond visual, and I was just
trying -- recognizing that that's immediately adjacent to estates
zoning. We wouldn't fezone a piece of property -- or it's not my
history that this board would fezone at 10 units an acre right next to
estates, but that, very realistically, could be the impact here.
I understand why that piece is being created, and we, as
the county, have a part in that creation because of our request for
the road. So I can't very well ask -- you know, I -- I sit down --
sat here and wrote numbers. I wrote -- first wrote 4 units per acre,
and I thought there's no way. I mean, you know, if we required 4
units an acre, we'd be in court talking about who has to buy that
land. So 6 or 8 is -- is where I start getting comfortable, and --
and that's what the request is. Whether the petitioner is willing to
MR. REYNOLDS: Hopefully we can help move this -- this
issue to a -- to a conclusion. We will agree to a limitation of 8
units per acre, two stories abutting the estates property line within
that -- within that tract if that would be acceptable.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's -- that's the
petitioner's commitment. Are there any further questions of the
petitioner?
MR. REYNOLDS: And may I just make one more
clarification, because I want to make sure in our discussion about the
percentage of the roof tile -- we had said 40 percent, and that's 40
percent applied to the project as a whole; is that correct? That's
our understanding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. I -- I don't see any reason why
MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not 40 percent of an
individual roof.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Clarification again. I -- I think
the way that we discussed that was that -- that 40 percent would apply
down any of those peninsulas or streets or -- or fingers as well as
the whole project, because if you go -- I mean, you could have 40
percent along Vanderbilt Beach Road, for example, and it would all be
one color. That doesn't accomplish what our --
MR. REYNOLDS: Our problem with that, Commissioner
Norris, is that if you -- if you look at any of the -- the way these
streets are designed is they create kind of individual neighborhoods,
and they have similar product on each street. You can look at -- at
almost any project in this county where you have that kind of common
architectural theme, and you'll have a similar and consistent style
including roof colors on a given street. So that -- that creates, in
our mind, a -- a restriction that I don't really think accomplishes
what -- what was trying to be accomplished and goes way beyond,
frankly, what anyone else is required to do. So we're -- we'd very
much prefer if you can accept the 40 percent as a limitation to the
project as opposed to trying to, you know, specify that to every
individual street. That -- that's very difficult for us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I certainly need to clarify, because
I didn't have entirely the same understanding, but right in the middle
of what you both are saying, which is 40 percent projectwide, but that
each street must have some variation. In other words, you can't do a
whole street in the same color; there must be variation on that
street. But to require 40 percent per street would be somewhat
onerous, I would -- I would think.
MR. REYNOLDS: We -- we can assure you that on every
street you will see differences in the roof line, differences in the
elevation, differences in the color of the units, differences in the
landscaping. Those are all articulations that we will make on every
street so that there is variety within each street.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And differences in the -- the roof
tile colors.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He did not say that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that -- we're saying differences
in the color of the roof tiles on each street.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. He's saying --
MR. REYNOLDS: No. What we're saying is we do not want
to have mandated to us a -- a percentage requirement on a given street
within this project that we have to have -- what -- some percentage is
a certain color tile. We're hoping that we don't have to get to that
extreme to accomplish what -- what we understand you're trying to
accomplish, which is to make sure that there is variety projectwide,
that we will not have the same color tile throughout the project; is
that reasonable?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Perhaps if you could explain to us
your objection, why you object to it, then maybe we could understand
it.
MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Norris, can I give you some
examples? I mean -- George Varnadoe for the record again. If you
look at Pelican Bay and you take the Bridgeway project, okay, there
are two streets in Bridgeway. There are 60-some-odd units. They all
have exactly the same roof color; they all have exactly the same roof
line, okay, and they're two streets. You take Tetramar and that
project and it's exactly the same. They all -- it's a -- it's a
villa-type project. On the same street you see the same units, the
same color on each side. We don't mind varying it within the project
so that each street has its own identification, but we've done these
projects all over the county for years where inside the -- the same
street, you had exactly the same color roof.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me suggest this then,
that no two adjacent streets have the same roof color. Can we do
that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's good.
MR. VARNADOE: Listen up, guys. No two adjacent streets
are the same roof color. Yes, sir, we can do that. But I -- do you
understand what -- well, I'm not trying -- that's -- that's very
simple. We've done it all over the county, and it gives you a
standardization that -- that -- that people seem to accept and
appreciate. And that'll -- that'll make sure from Vanderbilt Beach
Drive or Logan that you won't ever see the same color.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that'll accomplish what
I'm trying to accomplish.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're getting dangerously close to
discussions on ducks here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody quack.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. HcNees, are there any
other registered speakers? MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the
public hearing. Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll attempt to
craft a motion that -- that we approve Petition 96-14 subject to the
40 percent -- no greater than 40 percent of the total roof -- roofs'
tile colors be identical. No two streets will have -- no consecutive
two streets will have identical colors.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No more than two consecutive streets
Was '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that we won't get any
greater than a density of 8, RMF-8, down in the southwest corner
section that is west of Logan Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion on the
floor. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Is there any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Petition PUD-96-14 is
approved. We have companion Item 12(C)(2), DRI-96-1.
Item #12C2
DEVELOPHENT ORDER 97-1/RESOLUTION 97-65 RE PETITION DRI-96-1, ALAN R.
REYNOLDS OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING SUNCO
BUILDING CORPORATION REQUESTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL OF THE "ISLAND
WALK" A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT CONTAINING A HAXIHUH
OF 2100 MIXED DWELLING UNITS, RECREATIONAL, OPEN SPACE, AND COHMUNITY
SERVICE ELEMENT, A "TOWN CENTER" PROVIDING RETAIL, RECREATIONAL AND
COHMUNITY SERVICES, AND MULTIPURPOSE GREEN SPACE LOCATED ON VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD BETWEEN INTERSTATE 75 AND C.R. 951 (COMPANION TO ITEM #1282)
- ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve DRI-96-1
subject to the same restrictions -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as -- as they apply.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know we have a motion. We haven't
closed the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the petitioner have something on
this?
MR. VARNADOE: And with the clar -- with my ability to
clarify the service square footage in the DO?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, yes. You made that statement
during the previous public hearing; so we will ask that that be
incorporated into the motion, and I will close the public hearing.
Does the motion stand with the inclusion of Mr. Varnadoe's comments
from the previous hearing?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It does.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, 12(C)(2) is passed
unanimously.
Item #1283
ORDINANCE 97-7 RE PETITION PUD-87-31(3), COHMUNITY DEVELOPHENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
GADALETA PUD, ORDINANCE NO. 88-50, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNATING TWO
ACRES OF THE GADALETA PUD AS A COHMERCIAL TRACT ENTITLED TO ALL OF THE
C-2 USES FOR AN AREA PREVIOUSLY ZONED C-2 PRIOR TO THE AMENDING OF
ORDINANCE 88-50 - ADOPTED
Back to Item 12(B)(3). Hadam Court Reporter, are you
about ready for a break? Okay. Why don't we take five minutes.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to reconvene the January
28th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. We are on Item
12(B)(3), which hopefully will have nothing to do with roof color.
Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino with planning services
department. You may recall that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Nino. Could I ask
everyone to please either have a seat or carry your conversations out
in the hall.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: When the EDC stops their meeting
back there, we'll -- we'll go on with ours. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, please continue.
MR. NINO: Yes. You may recall about three months ago
we brought you a problem with respect to the Gadaleta PUD and
indicated that as a result of an error in the amendment to the last
PUD, a parcel of land was included that was zoned C-2; and that wasn't
the intent of that action, and neither was it advertised. And you
agreed that we ought to restore the 2 acres of C-2 zoning and -- but
include it in the Gadaleta PUD. The action before you does just that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions of
Mr. Nino? Seeing none, is there a staff presentation on this -- I'm
sorry, a petitioner on this matter? MR. NINO: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close -- any public
speakers?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion
on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 97-66 CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE WOODLANDS DRI
DEVELOPMENT ORDER, DEVELOPMENT ORDER 96-2 WHICH AMENDED DEVELOPMENT
ORDER 86-1, RELATING TO ADDITION OF A ROADWAY SEGMENT FOR MONITORING
PURPOSES AND TO CORRECT LEGAL PARTICIPATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
COHMUNITY AFFAIRS IN ANY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE PROCESS - ADOPTED
We are moving along at the speed of light all of a
sudden to Item 12(C)(3), resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners to correct a scribner's error in the Woodlands DRI
Development Order.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, are there any public speakers
registered on this one?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of staff by the board?
(No response)
I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries 4-0,
Commissioner Constantine absent.
Item #12C5
BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 97-1 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL
YEAR 1995-96 ADOPTED BUDGET - ADOPTED
Item 12(C)(4), recommendation the BCC adopt an ordinance
providing for mandatory street numbering of all structures. This is a
wonderful idea.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But there's some questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But there are questions. Who is the
staff member making the presentation on this, please?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ed Perico did the -- that would
be hard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere, do we have a staff
member here who's --
MR. MULHERE: I -- I would have to be in the room at
this moment. Actually, I think Vince Cautero was going to make the
presentation, and I'm not very familiar with the ordinance. If you
give me a minute, I'll see if I can track him down.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't we table this item
until Mr. Cautero's available, and we'll proceed with the next item.
Next item, 12(C)(5).
MR. McNEES: Mr. Smykowski is on his way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It may not be necessary. Do we have
any public speakers? None, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12C6
BUDGET AMENDHENT RESOLUTION 97-2 APPROVING AMENDHENTS TO THE FISCAL
YEAR 1996-97 ADOPTED BUDGET - ADOPTED
Item 12(C)(6). I will close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
12(C)(7) was continued.
Item #12C8
ORDINANCE 97-8 THE COLLIER COUNTY FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE - ADOPTED
12(C)(8), Collier County False Alarm Ordinance,
providing definitions, responsibility for security, etc. Do we have a
member of the sheriff's office here on this matter? We do. Do we
have any questions on the board? I do, and I'll just kind of start
off with one. I know one of the holdups on this originally or the
last time it was before us was communities such as Pelican Bay or
others that may contract for additional levels of -- of patrols from
the sheriff's office felt that they were kind of paying for that
service already. Has that been resolved to everyone's satisfaction?
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Jim Sanders representing the sheriff's
office, captain of uniform patrol. No, sir. Our standpoint as the
sheriff's office, that is something that needs to be addressed by
Pelican Bay with the board. If you look at the executive summary and
false alarms ordinance and -- and review -- and it has to be an
interpretation of what you pay for and what you're not paying for, in
my perspective. You have a driver's license, which is a privilege in
the State of Florida. An alarm system you pay to preserve your
property. Now, that's -- that's your particular right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Captain Sanders.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Now, for us to -- for us to respond to
that, and it's a given false alarm, is that's a paid item, and that
should be addressed. Our services are for those criminal acts and
help preserve the -- the peace and respond to the need of the public.
The alarm system that we've looked at that's caused the problems are
repeated offenders, and I can provide you with documentation if you'd
like. I happen to be looking at one here where we've responded to a
particular address 67 times on a false alarm, and that's just one
example.
And somewhere along the line -- maybe the residents in
Pelican Bay may have numerous alarm calls, but it is due to someone
not properly setting the alarm or taking care of the alarm. The issue
of whether or not they should be compensated because they already have
an HSTU and are provided a service by the sheriff's office is
something that the board is going to have to look at, and I don't
think -- me, as a representative here today, I'm not willing to
address that issue. I know it has been discussed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just --
CAPTAIN SANDERS: What we are -- what we are presenting
is an ordinance and supporting that ordinance because of the calls for
services that the law enforcement officers in this county have to
respond to. If you look at in particular the executive summary, it
talks about a 98 percent rate of false alarms throughout this county.
I can give you figures. For 1995 there was 22,600 alarms; 79 of those
were real. That's less than 1 percent. If you take that average and
break it down at an average of a deputy at $14 per hour not counting
his benefits and add another 40 percent on that, depending on where
you -- which study of time response you use, Henderson Young or an
average of 45 minutes from the time you receive your call, time to
dispatch, time to arrival, to the time you clear, that particular
figure's going to calculate to $236,000 a year just on those figures
alone based on one deputy sheriff.
So somewhere along the line someone has to start taking
some accountability to make sure that the alarm is properly coded,
that they know how to get into their own house. And I'm not sure that
the issue of Pelican Bay and HSTBU is -- is -- I'm sure it's not
something that -- that I need to address. It's something that -- that
they need to present to the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a -- I think this is
absolutely something we need to just breeze by and support quickly.
It's -- it's such a good idea. And -- and Pelican Bay, God bless
them, they agreed to get extra patrols, but not to be exempted from
other, you know, future charges. So I -- and I'll just tell you the
City of Naples has this, and I fixed that lock on my screen door in
the back after I had to pay that false alarm fee twice. So it just
motivates you to get it done. We need to pass it for the county. We
should have had it already.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My reason for asking was just for
informational purposes. But I -- I agree. If you remember, one of
the main reasons we passed the HSTBU was for traffic control, not
false alarm responses. So, Captain Sanders, your comment is -- is --
comments are well taken. Are there any further questions?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. I heard this last night at the
second district meeting, your concern, which brought to my attention
that there's always a limited number of patrol on at any given time in
any given area; and when they have to respond to one of these, that
takes that particular patrol off of, maybe, something that's more
serious having to respond. So I think that this is something we need
to do.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Well, I -- I thank you. And just a
little more light there, you're absolutely correct. When most of the
people in the community understand that the sheriff's office employs a
large amount of deputies -- but if you break that -- that down to any
given time of the day, the number of officers actually on the street
available to respond to a call, and then you add alarms to that, and
in this particular case, let's say it's your home and you have the
burglar alarm going off. We send two units, because there's a safety
issue there. So now you have to pull someone from another complaint
to dispatch them to that particular alarm. And -- and more support to
this --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, Captain Sanders --
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- there may not be a need to add any
more support to this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I think he's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, do we have any public
speakers?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. Is
there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Captain Sanders, thank
you very much.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Thank you.
Item #12C4
ORDINANCE 97-9 PROVIDING FOR MANDATORY STREET NUHBERING OF ALL
STRUCTURES AND THE ESTABLISHING OF A GRID PATTERN FOR STREET NUMBERING
- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero is here; so let's go back
to Item 12(C)(4) that was tabled regarding a -- an ordinance providing
for mandatory street numbering of all structures and establishing a
grid pattern for street numbering. Mr. Cantetc.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The ordinance in
front of you is a consolidation of three existing ordinances, 79-92,
81-47, and 85-68. The Development Services Advisory Committee
considered the ordinance and recommended that you approve it, and Bob
Hulhere and I are here to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Will this apply retroactively to
Golden Gate City?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, it's one of the
only places where there is a numbering system. You just have to find
your way to the road between the canals.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can't we do something? I've
never been so lost.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aren't there about thirteen 46th
Terraces?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Southwest, Northwest, Northeast.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be happy to give you all
a tour anytime.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. But I just would hope that
some common sense enters in here that some existing situations that
might be there that -- if -- if there's any question, that we look at
that real carefully.
MR. CAUTERO: I think that's an excellent point. We --
we have had a lot of talk in the office about that, especially when
you do have similar sounding names, and there's a section in the
ordinance dealing with that. You wouldn't have developments with
names like Pelican Marsh and Pelican Strand if the -- the literal
interpretation was taken in the ordinance; and my stance on it is, it
has to be the same name. Similar sounding names, you would block out
a lot of words that are used in Collier County.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. I -- I think just -- use --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you're not --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- use common sense.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you're not arguing against using
common sense in this?
MR. CAUTERO: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Good.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Very clear on that. Thank you,
Commissioner Berry. Are there any public speakers? MR. HcNEES: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I move approval.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, the motion carries 5-0
on that one.
Item #12C9
RESOLUTION 97-67 RE PETITION SNR-96-10, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE
FROM RIFLE RANGE ROAD TO THE LORD'S WAY WHICH STREET IS LOCATED EAST OF
C.R. 951 - ADOPTED
Item 12(C)(9), Petition SNR-96-10, street name change --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close
the public hearing, I'm sure no one --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nobody's turning down the Lord's
Way.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's sure a
hundred-and-eighty-degree shift.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One at a time, please, folks. Is
there a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve SNR-96-10
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to the Lord's Way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, the glorious Rifle Range
Road is now the Lord's Way.
Item 13(A)(1), advertised public hearings, Petition
V-96-28, John Grissom of Diamond Pool Construction. Is Mr. Grissom
here?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Continued to the meeting of
2/25/97.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He'll be here on the 25th of
February; so we'll look forward to seeing him then. Thank you.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMUNICATIONS'
We are now down to BCC communications. Commissioner
Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did I -- I'm sorry. Nothing?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no communication.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir, nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have one quick update. I'll be
meeting with Mr. Weigel in the next week or so to review what action
the board needs to take in response to former Commissioner Matthews'
letter from her legal representative, which in essence, refuses to
repay the taxpayers for the Leadership Florida expenditures. Since
there has been -- and, Mr. Weigel, I'll ask for your input on this.
Since there has been correspondence received from -- from her --
apparently, her attorney on this matter, we may, as a board and
individuals on talk shows and so forth, want to refrain from
discussing specifics of this since there is a potential for a lawsuit
here. Would that be a wise move, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I'll ask that our discussion occur
in two weeks from now as to which direction to take with this. I
think it's clear that the board has asked to recoup those expenditures
so the taxpayers will be repaid.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a clarification. She's
withdrawn her offer to pay anything back at this point?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is correct. And has, in fact,
also requested that we pay her for expenses incurred while in the job
-- while -- while being a commissioner, yet will not repay anything
regarding Leadership Florida, which she is continually being a part
of. So that's my understanding based on her letters, and I'll be
meeting with Mr. Weigel. Two weeks from today we will have something
brought back to the board asking for direction. Okay. With that,
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. One small comment. In regard
to the false alarm ordinance just passed, Item 12(C)(8), it does have
an actual effective date for the commencement of enforcement. And I
spoke with Captain Sanders in the hallway, and the date that we've
agreed on -- and I'd like the record to reflect that the ordinance
that will be signed by the board and sent to the secretary of state
would be 12:01 a.m., April 1, 1997.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any objection or discussion
on that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. By virtue we'll incorporate
that into the motion.
Mr. McNees.
By virtue of what, I don't know, but virtue.
MR. McNEES: No, nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. In that case -- oh, I'm
sorry. I didn't ask Sue if she had anything on this, her 15th
anniversary of employment with the county. MS. FILSON: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Sue. With that we will
adjourn the regularly scheduled meeting.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, Seconded by Commissioner
Norris and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 97-61 RE PETITION AV-96-036 APPROVING FOR RECORDING THE
FINAL PLAT OF NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS REPLETE AND THE VACATION OF THE
RECORDED PLAT - WITH STIPULATIONS AND LETTER OF CREDIT
Item #16A2
FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLER'S CREEK, PEPPER TREE VILLAGE AND BENT CREEK
VILLAGE - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item #16A3 - Deleted
Item #16A4
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR PELICAN HARSH, UNIT EIGHT,
PHASE ONE - WITH STIPULATIONS
OR Book Pages
Item #16A5
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TARPON COVE - WITH
STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT, AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
Item #16B1
A_MENDHENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEHENT WITH HUHISTON
AND MOORE ENGINEERS FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIG MARCO AND CAPRI
PASS INLET NLA/~AGEHENT PLAN
Item #1682
RESOLUTION 97-62 APPROVING AND EXECUTING THE DECLARATION OF EASEMENT
CONCERNING THE MAX A. HASSE, JR. COHMUNITY PARK LOCATED ON GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD
Item #1683
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD AMOUNTS FROM FY 1996 FOR
COUNTYWIDE CIP PROJECTS IN FUND 301
Item #1684
AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOLE, HONTES &
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO IMPROVEMENTS AT
THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Item #16C1
REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FLOATING DOCK SYSTEM TO
BE LOACTED AT THE CAXA_MBAS LAUNCH FACILITY
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD WITHIN FUND 130 GOLDEN GATE
COHMUNITY CENTER
Item #16C3
CONFIRMATION OF THE SELECTION OF DR. CHARLES KONIGSBERG AS THE NEW
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
Item #16D1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND ROGER
CARVALLO CONCERNING THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT OFFICE SPACE
Item #16D2
COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY DECLARED AS SURPLUS AND OFFERS RECEIVED FOR THE
SALE OF SURPLUS TERMINALS, KEYBOARDS, AND MICROFILM EQUIPMENT UNDER BID
#596-2627 FROM COMPUTER RESOURCES UNLIMITED AND DRNJ GROUP, INC.
Item #16D3
CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH PCA SOLUTIONS, INC. TO PROVIDE RUNOUT GROUP
HEALTH INSURANCE CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES
Item #16D4
BOARD EXAMINATION AND APPROVAL OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF BONDS OF COUNTY
OFFICERS
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 97-099
Item #16G1
SATISFACITON OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC
was directed to the various departments as indicated below:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:24 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Barbara Drescher