BCC Minutes 03/11/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 11, 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock
VICE-CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
John C. Norris
ALSO PRESENT: Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'm going to call to
order the Tuesday, March llth, Collier County Board of County
Commissioners' meeting. This morning it's a pleasure -- for the
invocation we have Father Spinelli with us this morning. Father
Spinelli, if I could ask for you to give us the invocation followed by
the pledge of allegiance.
FATHER SPINELLI: In the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. We stand before you, Holy Spirit
of God, conscious of our sinfulness but aware that we gather in your
name. Come to us. Remain with us and enlighten our hearts. Give us
light and strength to know your will, to make it our own, and to live
it in our lives. Guide us by your wisdom. Support us by your power,
for you are God sharing the glory of Father and Son.
You desire justice for all. Enable us to uphold the
rights of others. Do not allow us to be mislead by ignorance or
corrupted by fear or favor. Unite us to yourself in the bond of love,
and keep us faithful to all that is true. As we gather in your name,
may we temper justice with love so that all our decisions may be
pleasing to you and earn the reward promised to good and faithful
servants. You live and reign with the Father and Son, one God,
forever and ever. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to thank Father Spinelli
from St. Elizabeth Seton Church. Thank you for being here. All right. Mr. HcNees, good morning.
MR. HcNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What kind of changes do we have
today?
MR. HcNEES: We have a number of changes this morning,
an unusual number, actually, but fortunately, we have three
continuances to go with the five items we're asking to add.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the boardroom.)
MR. HcNEES: We're asking that you add a presentation
under Item 5(C)(2) of safe driver awards. That's at staff's request.
We're asking that you add an item, 8(A)(2), which is a facilities
acceptance for Naples Heritage Golf Club to allow some closings.
They, apparently, had people in moving vans on the way to Florida when
their problems arose, and they -- they didn't get their package in on
time, but we've agreed to add that so as to not leave people in motel
rooms for a few -- for another week.
We're asking to add Item 8(B)(2), which is a
construction award -- or a contract award related to some very
time-sensitive drainage work on State Road 29. We're trying to get as
far advanced with that project as possible before the rainy season.
Two items at the county attorney's request: 9(B), a
request to consider a resolution regarding tourist tax revenues and
beach parking facilities; Item 9(C), a discussion of the Lely Barefoot
Beach guardhouse case, would be the two adds from the county
attorney's office.
We have three continuances. One is the Consent Agenda
Item 16(A)(10) to be continued to Hatch 25th. Item 12(C)(1), which is
our telecommunications ordinance, to be also continued until March
25th. And, finally, Item 13(A)(1), a side-yard variance at staff's
request to be continued until April the 8th. Those would be the only
changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Commissioner Hac'Kie, do
you have any changes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a question: What would be
the reason for continuing 12(C)(1)?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, the telecommunications
ordinance.
MR. HcNEES: That was at Commissioner Constantine's
request.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine, the
purpose for continuing 12(C)(1), the telecommunications ordinance?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. One of the cable
companies' general managers who that impacts is out of town this week,
and obviously, if it's going to impact them, they ought to have a fair
shake. And he called and asked if we would carry that off for a
couple weeks, and I said, yeah, we would.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris, any
further changes?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two items from the consent
agenda: 16(H)(2) and 16(H)(3), both grants the sheriff's department
is looking to get. I'd just like to see what kind of life is on those
and how we expect to pay for those things once the grant has ended.
HR. HcNEES: Those have become ll(A) and ll(B) on your
regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And, Mr. HcNees, will you have
someone contact the sheriff's office and ask for a representative. MR. HcNEES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. And those were 16(A)?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: (H).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (H) (2) ?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And (3).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 16(H)(2) is now ll(A), and 16(H)(3)
is now ll(B). Other than two items under communications, I have no
other additions to the agenda. Do we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to accept the
consent agenda and the regular agenda with the changes as noted.
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, the motion's unanimous.
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 1997 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I make a motion that we approve
the minutes of February 18, 1997, regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 9-15, 1997, AS FRIENDS OF BAREFOOT BEACH
WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Item 5(A),
proclamations. We have a -- I have a -- the first of three
proclamations this morning, and Dr. Ira-Dash, if I could ask you to
come up and accept this proclamation. You get to come all the way up
here and turn around and face the camera, and we hope the VCR at home
is running. Good morning.
The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, the Friends of Barefoot Beach are an integral
part of the Collier County Parks and Recreation system; and
Whereas, during the past six years, the Friends
organization has donated in excess of $20,000 to our public parks; and
Whereas, the Friends of Barefoot Beach have developed
the education and learning center at Barefoot Beach -- which everyone
must see; and
Whereas, the Friends of Barefoot Beach organization now
contains 320 members; and
Whereas, the quality of life in Collier County would be
reduced without their presence.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that extreme gratitude and
appreciation is extended to the membership of the Friends of Barefoot
Beach for their successful partnership between the public and private
sectors of our community. It is accepted by both that an investment
in our beach park is not only an investment in our future, but in our
present as well. We, the Board of County Commissioners, do reaffirm
our commitment to a high-quality beach park by proclaiming the week of
March 9th through 15th, 1997, be designated as Friends of Barefoot
Beach Week honoring these citizens who have given so much to Collier
County.
Done and ordered this llth day of March, 1997. Signed
Timothy Hancock, Chairman.
I would like to move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second -- third.
aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none --
(Applause)
MS. IRA-DASH: As president of the Friends of Barefoot
Beach Preserve, Inc., I would like to thank the Board of County
Commissioners. We have 351 members as of today. And I would also
like to acknowledge our hard-working members, some of whom are
present, if they would please stand up, including two past
presidents: Leon Eisenbud, a founder, and Jeff Moore and also Park
Ranger Joe and anyone else who is here who has helped to make this a
reality. And we do thank you all for your continued cooperation and
invite you all to the dedication of our new aquatic garden this
Saturday at noon. Everyone is invited. Please do come. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Dr. Dash (sic), and we'll
see you on Saturday.
(Applause)
Item #5A2
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING MARCH 9-15, 1997 AS KNOW YOUR GOVERNMENT WEEK
- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our second proclamation this morning,
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. It's my pleasure to read
the proclamation honoring the folks who are here today. And I
understand Shauna Douglas and Shelli Douglas are going to accept this
proclamation, if you'll come on up. This is quite a crowd here today,
but come up here, and let me read this for you on their behalf. I'm
sorry. But I'm -- I'm struck by the understatement of the first
whereas.
Whereas, Collier County government is a complex and
multifaceted process which affects the lives of all residents of
Collier County; and
Whereas, an increased knowledge of how various aspects
of county government work can enhance an individual resident's quality
of life in Collier County; and
Whereas, Collier County 4-H, the League of Women Voters
of Collier County, and the Collier County Public Schools are, for the
18th consecutive year, co-sponsoring a teen citizenship program
entitled "Know Your County Government." The program is designed to
enlighten selected local high school students in the area of county
government; and
Whereas, it is desirable for all county residents to be
knowledgeable of the county's government and how it works.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of March 9th
through 15th, 1997, be designated as Know Your County Government
Week.
Done and ordered this llth day of March, 1997, Board of
County Commissioners, Timothy Hancock, Chairman.
And I'm happy to move approval of this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye. Congratulations.
(Applause)
SHELLI DOUGLAS: Good morning. My name is Shelli
Douglas, and I'm a senior at Barton Collier High School, and for the
past seven years I've been a member of the Corkscrew Swampets 4-H
club.
SHAUNA DOUGLAS: I am Shauna Douglas, and I am a
freshman at Barton Collier, and I have been in the Corkscrew Swampets
4-H club for the past seven years.
SHELLI DOUGLAS: First of all, we would -- we wish to
thank the commission, the county manager, all partic -- all
participating officials, the constitutional officers, the adults from
-- from 4-H, the League of Women Voters, and the Collier County
Public Schools who have worked together to make the Know Your County
Government program possible. This year we have 28 teens throughout
the county who are participating in this program representing
Immokalee, Barton Collier, Naples, Lely High School, and as well as
home-schoolers.
Now we would like to take this opportunity to tell you
of our experiences in the Know Your County Government program. This
program teaches high school students the purpose and function of the
-- of county government, how it operates and what career
opportunities it offers. We met many people with very responsible
jobs. The acting county manager, Mr. Mike McNees, gave us a great
overview of county government. Our visit with Sheriff Don Hunter
revealed that he is truly committed to protecting our community.
Mr. Tom Olliff of the public services division really opened our eyes
to the growth in the -- to the growth in Collier County when he showed
us that the phone book in 1948, which was only one page, looked like
this (indicating).
Know Your County Government has also taken us through
many departments such as community development and environmental
services, animal control, south water treatment plant, the county
landfill, the Lely wastewater treatment plant, and the Collier County
museum.
SHAUNA DOUGLAS: I would also like to share with you
some of the other interesting departments we visited. These places
were property appraiser, Mr. Abe Skinner; Mr. Frank Mattera of the
health department; Miss Mary Morgan, supervisor of elections; and
cooperative extension service, Jan Bennett and Bob Peterson. Our
group was overwhelmed when we realized the magnitude of what disaster
can mean without proper planning. Mr. Ken Pineau and his department
really help to keep our homeowners and business informed. In
addition, we wonder how such a man like Mr. Guy Carlton with great
financial responsibilities could still have a sense of humor at the
end of the day.
(Laughter)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So do we.
SHAUNA DOUGLAS: We think he was born with this talent.
Miss Anne Goodnight of the Collier County School Board has always been
a great supporter of Know Your County Government and 4-H. Miss
Goodnight shared with us future expansion plans from our schools and
adjust overcrowded classrooms. Today our travels will allow us to --
to view your commission board in action; visit with clerk of courts,
Mr. Dwight Brock; and then to see the Honorable Cynthia Ellis. And we
are looking forward to sharing more of our experiences with you at
lunch. The Know Your County Government program has added another
component to our learning process. On behalf of all the students here
this morning, we wish to thank you for your support. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, ladies.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we will be breaking at about
12:15 today to attend a 12:30 luncheon with the students that are
here, and we look forward to that. Thank you all for being here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't that make you feel safe
about the future, this crowd? I mean, they just make you feel good
about the future.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It makes the present look a little
shaky, doesn't it, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The future looks good, though.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING PILOT PAUL CURTIS FOR HIS OUTSTANDING FLIGHT
HOUR ACHIEVEMENT AND CONTINUING DEDICATION
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The proclamation -- the third one
today, Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we could have Paul Curtis
come on up to the front.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the helicopter parked outside or
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Outside somewhere.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Turn around and face everyone
in television land.
Whereas, Pilot Paul Curtis began his aviation flying
career in December of 1970 with the United States Air Force; and
Whereas, Pilot -- every time we say that, Paul,
Commissioner Hancock and I have to think, okay, what were we doing in
1970, and usually it involves elementary school.
Whereas, Pilot Paul Curtis retired from the Unites
States Air Force in the rank of captain having accumulated over 1,000
flight hours in five years of military service; and
Whereas, Pilot Curtis has accumulated 10,000
accident-free flight hours over the course of his 26 years of aviation
career, 900 hours of which have been as a Collier County Emergency
Services Department helicopter pilot; and
Whereas, by this outstanding accomplishment, Pilot
Curtis has demonstrated his exemplary ability, discipline, and
commitment to aviation safety; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners would like to
take this opportunity to offer their appreciation to Pilot Curtis for
his outstanding achievement and contribution to flight safety and the
citizens of our community.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Pilot Paul Curtis be
recognized for his outstanding flight-hour achievements and his
continuing dedication to Collier County.
Done and ordered this llth day of March, 1997, BCC,
Timothy L. Hancock, AICP, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, it's important to note
-- you may have seen in the paper over the weekend, they're also
looking at other helicopters; so we've decided to give Pilot Curtis
his own helicopter here this morning as well.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You may have seen the test flight
information last week, and I was invited to -- to be a part of the
test flight and was unable to make it. But I asked them to give a
message to Paul: one, enjoy it; and, two, we can't afford it.
(Laughter)
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Service awards. Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. This morning we have three
service awards. The first one is Maria Sillery with stormwater
management for ten years. Obviously, Maria was here during the big
storm.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Our next award is to Robert Wiley
in the office of capital projects management, ten years.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And our last award goes to Roger
Tompkins from the road and bridge department for five years.
(Applause)
Item #5C2
SAFE DRIVER AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next we have Commissioner Constantine
with something we -- that we like to recognize as regularly as
possible, safe driver awards.
If Miss Filson puts it on my agenda here, it goes here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have a number of people
who we'd like to recognize for their safe driving, and when you hear
the mileage they've gone accident free, it's pretty amazing. And I
will read one of the certificates. I won't read each one, but I'll
read the mileage for each one.
The first certificate goes to Tom Bartoe, and it says,
On this llth day of March, 1997, the Collier County Board of
Commissioners proudly presents this certificate of safe driving for
over 130,000 accident-free miles beginning August 29, 1998 (sic).
It's with great appreciation that we recognize Tom Bartoe. Tom, if
you're here.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My record isn't quite that
clean. For over 120,000 accident-free miles beginning May of '86, Ed
Perico.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For over 110,000
accident-free miles beginning July of 1987, Pat Webb.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that include the golf cart
around campus? That's 200,000 thousand miles then.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Over 100,000 accident-free
miles beginning in January of '89, Don Barth.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then the one with the
cleanest driving record of anyone with this name, Mike Constantine
with over 70,000 accident-free miles beginning in September of 1990.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And with over a hundred
thousand accident-free miles beginning October of '88, Kurt Jokela.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: High speed, but no
accidents. With over 70,000 accident-free miles beginning December of
1990, Mike O'Hara, just in time for St. Patty's day.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With over 110,000
accident-free miles beginning in June of '87, Louie Salvatori.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And our grand champion with
over 150,000 accident-free miles beginning October of 1988, Joe
Boscaglia.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is over a million miles
accident-free standing right here; so, gentlemen, thank you very, very
much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations. Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #5C1
EDWARD TORRONI, OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTHENT, PUBLIC SERVICES
DIVISION - RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a pleasure once a month to get
to recognize a special employee, and this month, in a moment of
weakness, Ed Tottoni. I'm just kidding. Ed has done a fantastic job
in our park service. The first time I met Ed, I was putting a team
together for softball and didn't know how to do it, and he helped to
structure that. You don't remember it, Ed, but you did a good job
just the same.
I'd like to read, if I may -- Mr. Tottoni, it is a
pleasure for us to announce your selection as Collier County's
employee of the month for March 1997. This well-deserved recognition
is for valuable contributions to the county through your work in the
parks and recreation department. This honor includes an exceptional
performance plaque as well as a $50 cash award, which I am proud to
present to you.
And, Ed, if I may, for employee of the month, official
recognition is tendered to you for today. We appreciate that. Give
you that. I'll give you this -- you probably have some idea of what
to do with this -- a $50 check. And is there any truth you spent the
weekend in a hammock in Sanibel, Ed? Congratulations and thank you.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Keep up the good work, Ed. We
certainly appreciate everything you do.
MR. HcNEES: It's not easy for a former high school
basketball coach to see a referee get the employee of the month award,
but it's well deserved.
(Laughter)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are on to -- that finishes
proclamations and service awards.
Item #SA1
RESOLUTION 97-160, AFFECTING ORDINANCE 91-44 KNOWN AS ARROWHEAD PUD,
EXTENDING THE CURRENT PUD APPROVAL TO HARVCH 11, 1999 - ADOPTED
We're in Section 8, county manager's report. Item
8(A)(1), staff review and recommendations relative to Ordinance
91-44. Good morning, Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request
for direction by staff regarding the Arrowhead PUD and the Land
Development Code sunset provisions. This is a 307-acre PUD in
Immokalee lying approximately 1 mile west of the intersection of 29
and Lake Trafford Road. Staff review has found that the PUD was
consistent with density, being in the low density area of the future
land use map of the Immokalee master plan, and having 3 units per acre
gross density. There is a small 15-acre commercial unit, which will
be required to meet the architectural standards of the Land
Development Code, and staff recommends that the Arrowhead PUD be
extended for two years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions of staff?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- staff's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Do we have any
speakers on this, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any discussion on the
motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, the motion carries 5-0.
Thank you, Mr. Reischl.
Item #8A2
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR NAPLES HERITAGE, PHASE ONE-B
- APPROVED
Item 8(A)(2), water and sewer acceptance for Naples
Heritage, Phase 1-B.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question. And I
know these are routine, but I had asked two or three weeks ago. We
seem to have an unusual number of these popping up as add-ons. Was
there a reason why we're adding this on this week?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For your benefit, Mr. HcNees did
express that during the add-on phase but --
MR. HcNEES: Frankly, we had quite a go-round with these
folks -- let me rephrase that. I had quite a go-round with these
folks the other day, and -- and I finally caved at the site of people
in moving vans who were going to get here and, through no fault of
their own, be stuck living in a motel for a week.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did hear that. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any speakers on this, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None. We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #SB1
RESOLUTION 97-161, URGING THE 1997 FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO CREATE A
DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE FOR STATEWIDE BEACH MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
HOUSE BILL 103 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Item 8(B)(1), motion --
request to adopt a resolution urging the '97 legislature to create a
dedicated funding source for statewide beach management and support
House Bill 103. Good morning, Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo
Gonzalez, capital projects management director. Your staff and the
Beach Renourishment Committee has endorsed this resolution which urges
the state legislature to adopt a dedicated funding source for beach
preservation types of projects. The funding source would be put into
the Ecosystem Management Trust Fund. It would be administered by the
Department of Environmental Protection. It would apply to everything
that is within our beach and coastal management capital program right
now.
Staff has already given the Department of Environmental
Protection information on the funding sources or the funding requested
for the following -- following fiscal year, and they've added that to
their initial request to the legislature.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez, can you help me
understand. We have obviously have a -- the enabling tourist tax for
beach widening. What exactly does beach management mean, because when
you said the ecosystem trust fund, that's a rather broad-based fund,
and funds could be used or expended in a number of ways. First of
all, what is meant by beach management as this bill indicates? And,
secondly, in the ecosystem trust fund, would these funds be solely
dedicated to those beach maintenance purposes, or could they be
diverted to other uses within that fund?
MR. GONZALEZ: The funds will be solely dedicated to
beach maintenance, beach management types of functions, and it's
stated so in the draft legislation. There will be a separate account
within the trust fund for just beach management types of projects.
Anything that has to do with erosion control, minimizing, preventing
erosion, inlet protection, all those types of activities would be
covered by this fund.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would this fund be able to be used
for some of the past maintenance that is being shifted to the counties
now by the state such as Gordon Pass, for example?
MR. GONZALEZ: I don't have a -- an answer for that one,
sir. But it will cover, if -- if adopted, any future work that falls
within their priority list, and it will be based on the severity of
the erosion. We'll compete with all the other coastal counties for
that fund. Since '86 when the initial legislation was adopted,
they've only funded about $9 million a year, and there was a
commitment from the state to fund about $35 million a year. This
surcharge on cruise boats should bring in about $28 million a year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And that's what House Bill 103
is is the surcharge on cruise ships? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But this resolution indicates support
for that or for any other legislative effort to provide long-term,
dedicated funding. So I think that's important. It's not locking in
solely to one source. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if we have
speakers on this, but if the state wants to assist us in taking care
of our beaches, I'll make a motion we approve the item.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have further questions or
discussions of staff?
Seeing none, do we have speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is
there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Item #882
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR S.R. 29 CANAL CROSSING IHPROVEHENTS, PER BID
97-2638 - AWARDED TO SALTSMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$229,067.00
Item 8(B)(2), contract for Saltsman Construction, State
Road 29 canal crossing. This was an add-on. Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. The reason we're requesting this as
an add-on is we'd like to get this work done this dry season before
the onset of the rainy season. These are some of the structures that
were identified after the Tropical Storm Jerry period a year and a
half ago that we've since gotten the design done, and we've also
gotten, more importantly, the property owner's easement to allow us to
do that work.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is the purpose for the add-on
today as opposed to going through the regular procedure?
MR. GONZALEZ: Again, with -- there are six structures
involved. There is eight total. We're going to do seven of them.
The Big Cypress Basin is going to do one of them. We simply wanted
the contractor to take advantage of the last remaining days of the dry
season as quickly as possible, and we're trying to expedite that.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, I'll answer that. We -- the
way that the analysis of the bids fell, they were just short of the --
making the deadline, and it seemed like if we could save a week in
what is a critical project to those folks and beat a week into the
rainy season, it was worth adding on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. Thank you. Further
questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: One question: Where is this
located exactly?
MR. GONZALEZ: These are culvert crossings between 1-75
and Immokalee, scattered throughout that entire State Road 29
corridor.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we'll call the
question. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #BE1
EXTENSION TO AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES AND DIRECTION
REGARDING THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NEW FINANCIAL ADVISOR - 90 DAY
EXTENSION APPROVED AND TOP 3 ADVISORS TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BCC
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we're on to Item 8(E)(1)
under county manager, request for 60-day extension to agreement for
financial advisory services, providing direction regarding the
selection process for a new financial advisor. Mr. HcNees. I'm
sorry. Mr. Smykowski, are you going to handle this?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. For the record, Michael
Smykowski, budget director. I apologize. I change -- the -- it -- we
are requesting a 90-day extension to the agreement for financial
advisory services. The current agreement with Raymond James expires
on April 1st. It was a three-year agreement. We're currently in the
process of developing RFPs to select a new financial advisor. We're
-- that would pry -- provide continuity with our current outstanding
bond issue that is being contemplated at this time regarding the --
MR. NORRIS: Motion to approve a 90-day extension.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could the motion maker add some
direction about -- I'd like to have the top three brought back to us
for ranking and approval instead of deferring that to a committee for
selection. That would -- if that could be included as part of the
direction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since it is a -- a financial advisor
to the board, if we can limit those presentations to a reasonable time
period, three to five minutes, I have no problem with that.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion amends. Does the second
amend?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second amends. Is there
any discussion? Questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, you did
say 90 days?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It is 90, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion is for 90.
MR. McNEES: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No speakers.
MR. McNEES: Just clarifying, you want us to bring you
three and --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three.
MR. McNEES: -- let you select --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. The top three and limit
presentations to either three or five minutes. I'll leave that at
your discretion.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, that is the process
utilized in the last selection as well. The board did hear
presentations.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think it's -- it's
worthwhile. Call the question. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, a 90-day extension is
approved, and we will see those -- the top three back.
Item #8E2
REPORT ON REVENUES FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 1977 -
PRESENTED
Item 8(E)(2), report on revenues for the first quarter
of fiscal year 1997. Again, Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. For the record again, Michael
Smykowski, the budget director. The first-quarter revenue report
overall looks very favorable. At this point the only projected
shortfall is in landfill tipping fees. As I reported at year end of
FY -- FY'96, there was a -- an actual shortfall in -- in landfill
tipping revenue as a function of a private contractor performing
construction demolition, debris processing. However --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to -- to just do,
like, a 30-second interjection that -- and, Mr. McNees -- Mr. McNees,
the executive summary and what Mr. Smykowski just said about the --
the private contractor in the Pine Ridge Industrial Park, I understand
they're having some financial difficulty and may or may not have
declared bankruptcy at this point and may be accepting debris and not
actually doing anything with it and sending it out, and just -- it
made me think a little bit when we saw this, if we might have someone
check that, because we don't want a company to go bankrupt and keep
piling debris up and leave it there.
MR. McNEES: We certainly will.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On -- on the heels of that, that
location has been problematic in trying to get the street clean and
getting the businesses locally. I mean, they're being crudded up from
the debris that's left on the streets and so forth. So we need to
take a very conservative approach with that.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. I'll speak with Mr. Russell when
I return to my office, and we'll get a response to you as soon as --
as SOO~ as We Ca~.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, are -- the shortage in
tipping fees, are we approaching any point in our contract that you're
aware of that would require us to actually make payment to Waste
Management, because the shortage -- there was an element in the
contract that if the -- the tonnage dropped below a certain level,
that we would then make payment to Waste Management; so there was a
guaranteed minimum. Do we know if this shortage is anywhere near to
hitting that mark?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I don't know, to be honest with you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I would like to --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I will --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- see someone check that in the
contract and --
MR. McNEES: We'll get you an answer on that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions of
Mr. Smykowski?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I just have one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, I asked you this
question a couple of years ago, and I -- I don't believe I ever
understood the answer or still don't understand why -- looking at the
gas taxes --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- why we -- why they're --
they're not same. I mean, you charge this tax on every gallon; so why
are some of them one percentage, and why are some of them another?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: They -- each gas tax -- some of the --
they vary according to if it's diesel fuel or inclusive of diesel
fuel, exclusive of diesel fuel, and it varies according to type, and
__
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So diesel has a different
-- different tax structure? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That clears it up.
MR. McNEES: Each tax, Commissioner, also has a
different distribution formula and collection formula. I'll admit to
you that after four years as budget director, I still didn't really
understand why they're all different. It's -- each has a completely
different collection and a completely different distribution formula
based on which penny it is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, there's no sense having
it simple.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If -- if I'm not mistaken, the
authority to levy those is -- is created by the state, and each one
passes on a separate bill with its own formula. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Commissioner Hac'Kie. I'm
sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just next -- Mike, the next time
we get a quarterly report, might it include the broader -- is it -- is
it too soon that the next quarterly report will include some of those
budget committee recommendations?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I.e., revenues?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. I -- I'm sorry,
expenditures in addition to revenues. Is that too soon for that to
start?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I believe it is. It -- we're --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I just wanted to know.
Yeah, I -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just forging ahead, we'll be in the --
in the height of the budget crunch at that point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I just wanted to know what
to expect. I -- I don't want to add anything.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We are -- we are addressing those
issues, though. The budget instructions are going out this week, and
they provide direction to staff regarding performance measures, etc.
So we are taking those recommendations to heart and implementing them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to see a -- a copy of
the budget instructions. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I bet -- I mean, I don't know if
anybody else would, but I'd like to see them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, would you copy all members
of the board on that, please.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good idea, Commissioner
Hac'Kie. Any further questions?
Do we have any speakers, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Do we just accept the
report? It does not require a motion, Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
Item #9A
RECOHMENDATION FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER A SETTLEHENT PROPOSAL IN
ROBERTS V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 96-362-CIV-FTH-17, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA - SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
NOT ACCEPTED
Item 9(A), recommendation for the board to consider a
settlement proposal in Roberts v. Collier County. This is to be -- to
be presented by Mr. Pettit, and each board member has been briefed, I
believe, individually. And what I would like to remind everyone is
our goal today is not to hear the entirety of the elements of this
case, but to make a decision based on those individual comments and
any questions you may have today on whether or not a settlement is in
-- in the best interest of Collier County. Mr. Pettit.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mike Pettit
from the county attorney's office. I'm simply here to asking -- to
answer any follow-up questions anybody has or any questions regarding
the executive summary or the lawsuit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll -- I'll go ahead and -- and set
the stage. After meeting with Mr. Weigel and Mr. Pettit and reviewing
what they had presented to me, I'm not of a mind, typically, to look
at settlements in cases where the merit is less than -- less than
obvious. However, the cost of going to the next level and trying this
case is enough for me to believe that a settlement proposal is in the
best interest of the taxpayers of this county. So I would be inclined
to move along that path in this particular case. Whereas, I think, in
the past I've taken a -- a different stance, but I think this one has
a few different elements to it that -- that lead me to that -- that
conclusion, and that's where I am.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I just would say,
reluctantly, I agree with you that it's -- it's too bad, but we're
going to have to do -- I think the right thing for us to do in our
principal fights is to fight those with our own money. This is --
this is something that would be a waste of taxpayer money. And as --
as hard as it is to say, yes, I think we have to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we all have that same problem
with settlements.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I don't fully agree with --
with your assessment of it. I -- I think we should not accept this
settlement, and that's the way I'll vote.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, we have a 2-1. Is there
any questions of staff before giving further direction on this?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I have trouble with the
settlement. I just think that it sets a precedent for other things to
come.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I assume and --
and my little summary had indicated that this doesn't set any
precedent at all from a legal standpoint; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. We -- we would take -- and
the board certainly can indicate on the record itself that it does not
look at this as a precedent setting, but only looks at this to the
facts and issues that are before -- before us through this particular
litigation. And I just remind the board that we bring this to the
board for purposes of review of all aspects, including a business
decision that is certainly a part of this as required under the Rules
of Civil Procedure to bring settlement proposals from opposing parties
to you. We are required to do so, and that -- it's in that context we
bring it to you formally today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think -- I think it's important to
note also that the employees involved here are not -- no longer in the
employ of Collier County. So it's a situation that, I think,
recurrence is highly unlikely because the -- the individuals have
changed. But -- but those individuals and how they parlay into a
witness list is played into my decision. I'm sorry, Commissioner
Constantine. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly agree with each
of you, that on -- on principal I don't like the idea of -- of
settling. I think from a financial perspective, though, it makes
sense. If we're going to spend at least that amount of money fighting
the thing anyway, better to -- to put it to rest. And -- and I just
think if we're looking out for the best use of the tax dollars -- as
much as I hate to do that, as long as it does not set any precedent
and the county is clear that it's not acknowledging any wrongdoing,
then I'm going to suggest -- with you, Commissioner Hancock, that we
go ahead and settle.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Weigel, explain again how you
-- you indicated that this does not set a precedent. And -- and when
I say that, what I meant by this is that if there are others who might
be inclined to do this same thing, that this is not an invitation to
do so. You -- you don't feel that it is?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I don't believe that it is, no.
Different parties with different interests can -- can tee off and --
and take different perspectives of this. But from a legal precedent
or from the -- the facts, a review of these facts seem to be rather
particular unto themselves and -- and the allegations that are -- that
are provided here.
We, the county attorney office, risk management office,
look at all of these in a very individualized concept. We are
prepared to go forward and try this case if the board directs us to do
so. We just wanted the board to know all of the elements that are
appropriate to review at this point in time before additional
investment of resources, expenditures, discovery, and things of that
nature.
As far as a legal precedent, no, none whatsoever. I
think the board is making it very clear on the record today that they
look at these things very carefully and at the same time look at this
with -- to make a business decision also. And so I -- I think that
it's your option, always your option, and the staff and the county
attorney office are prepared to handle the determination that you
make, whichever way it may be today, as far as that goes. I -- I hope
I've answered your question, but please continue.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, you have, but it's -- it's
just very troubling. You know, not only this case, but other cases
that we end up having to settle, whether it's this body or -- or
anyone else when I don't believe there's any wrongdoing, and it -- but
it still sticks in my craw. It -- it comes out like we're agreeing
that there's a problem, okay, and -- and we're acknowledging a
problem, and -- and I -- I just -- I have a real strong sentiment
about that. And -- and I understand the dollars, and I don't want to
waste taxpayer dollars either, and I understand that but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My assumption is if -- if we
do enter into a settlement, part of the stipulation is that we're not
acknowledging any wrongdoing whatsoever.
MR. PETTIT: That's correct. I want to address, too,
since I haven't had the opportunity to, the issue of cost again to
make sure that -- that that's clear. Reasonable people can differ on
how much it will cost to try this suit. I am estimating that -- that
it could be a substantial cost to us, but I think that there are other
estimates. And I think the risk management department has estimated
that it would be substantially less than I believe, and they base that
on some prior experience they've had. And I think --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: So can you give us your --
MR. PETTIT: -- that's a fair -- I think that's a fair
assessment on their part. I have reasons for what I think it might
cost to try it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Your balipark number and their
balipark number.
MR. PETTIT: My balipark number is close to the amount
of the settlement. Their balipark number, I believe, is seven or
eight thousand dollars.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that head shake
would have got recorded on the minutes.
MR. WALKER: Jeff Walker, risk management. My estimate
was based upon the -- the Pratt and Leis case, which involved the
sheriff's department. Mr. Bryant handled that case, and we expended
about $6,000 in that case. Now, that case did not go to trial. I
would estimate if you go to trial, it may be fifteen to twenty.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- this is for Mr. Pettit. So
this is -- basically what we have here is an offer of judgment that if
we don't accept it -- is -- is this an offer of judgment?
MR. PETTIT: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. PETTIT: This is simply a settlement proposal. It's
my understanding that it's good until the end of the business day
today, and then it's off the table.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and I -- I misunderstood.
I thought that this was an offer of judgment and -- and that the
significance of that is -- is that if we don't accept it, we can later
get stuck with the other side's fees. But if this is merely -- if
this is just a settlement offer and if the worst-case scenario is that
we will spend -- if your -- your number, which is the highest we have
before us -- is that we'll spend $35,000 to fight this -- MR. PETTIT: I think through a trial we would -- we
could get very close to the thirty to thirty-five range.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I know. And -- and, of
course, that assumes we win. I'm having trouble.
MR. PETTIT: Again, it's really --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I had -- I had in my mind
that, you know, trials cost fifty, seventy thousand dollars and that
expert witnesses would result -- you know, would cause us to spend
more than $35,000 to try the case.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem I have is that I don't
want to send our legal staff into a battle with their hands fiscally
tied. They need to be able to go in and do what they need to do to
win a case. And they have been very, very forthcoming on the issues
in which they felt they -- that we were on as solid ground as you
could be in a legal format, and we have been very successful in
those. The problem here is that some of the individuals involved that
did work for the county no longer work for the county. We don't know,
but there may be some resistance in the testimony stage to -- you
know, to -- to really be forthcoming.
And with those kinds of problems out there -- I have all
the confidence in Mr. Pettit and our county attorney staff that they
can do as good a job as anyone, and we could probably have a better
than 50 percent chance of winning this thing. But in the end I think
it's in the best interest of the taxpayers, after all those dollars
are expended, to walk away up front on this one and save our efforts
and monies for those in which -- which could be far more costly to us
if we were forced to settle.
So I think you have to put it in perspective with the
other cases that we have tried successfully and what our -- if you
will, our ammunition was in those. I don't think we're weak here at
all, but I do have some questions as to whether or not this type of
lawsuit is in the best interest of the county. And I -- I just -- I
don't feel that it is. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if -- if you look at
dollars expended -- and it will be roughly equivalent if we go through
a court case or if we settle. The unfortunate reality is if -- if we
go to court, we expend a lot of staff time and effort over and above
that money. We also have the reality of whatever is printed and said
in the newspaper and in -- and in the media, it doesn't matter whether
it's true or not. There is a certain segment that will believe
whatever they want to believe. And -- and I -- I just think that's an
unfortunate portion as well.
And if -- if you can spend the exact same amount of
money, not acknowledge any wrongdoing, have the case put to bed, and
have, you know, all -- all parties go away, if it's not costing you
any money, I don't see, really, the downside of that other than -- I
get frustrated with the principal of it, like you, Commissioner Berry,
in that the county's not at fault here. But I -- I'm just thinking in
practical means and in the taxpayer dollars and the use of our staff
time. I think, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you're probably right that it's
-- it's not pleasant to go this way, but it's probably better to go
this way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I appreciate your comments,
but that's exactly one of the reasons why I -- I can't support a
settlement is because the -- the -- the negative publicity is going to
be there either way you go on this decision today, because if we
settle, you're going to see that presented in a negative light, and --
in the media, and it will be perceived, as some of you have concerns,
as a somewhat admission of guilt.
And after looking at all the evidence very carefully, I
can't support a settlement simply because I think we're right and that
if we go to trial, I think we'll be successful. And sure we'll get
negative publicity by going to trial, but if -- if we're successful,
which I think we will be, at least we should have the opportunity to
-- to portray to the public that we were right all along. If we
settle, that perception is never going to be out there. So I'm going
to make a motion that we do not accept the settlement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion on the floor. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm -- I'm going to support
that motion, and -- and my reason is a little different from -- from
all of them, is that I think the worst thing we could do is to settle
a case to prevent -- not that -- not that anybody is -- is doing
this. I don't want there to be a perception that we're settling a
case to prevent a public airing of the facts of what may have happened
or of what happened in Collier County government, good or bad, right
or wrong. I don't want to try to keep that from being publicly
aired. That's not a -- a reason. Frankly, the opposite is -- is a
good reason not to settle. So I'm going to support the motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I have no problem with the facts
of this case being presented in a court of law. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think anyone here does
because, as -- as Commissioner Norris said, yes, I think we are more
in the right than the plaintiff is in this case. But I think there is
a decision to be made. We have a motion and a second. I'll call the
question. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries 4-1.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. That's 3-2.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 3-2, Commissioners Hancock and
Constantine in the negative.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, what's the -- in
the event we don't win -- and I -- I think that's one of the things we
didn't consider in our discussion. In the event we don't win, what's
the potential award? How -- how great of a number could we be looking
at there?
MR. WEIGEL: Beyond the cost of litigation preparation
and the trial itself is the potential for a jury determination of
liability. Mike, would you address that?
MR. PETTIT: As I understand the applicable law, and
it's changed in the last -- in the 1990s, there is a cap on
compensatory damages for an employer of our size in a case like this
of $300,000, and then, of course, that's exclusive of attorney's
fees. If you have a prevailing employee -- former employee, in a case
like this, they get attorney's fees, which would be substantial, I
suspect, in this case.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I guess -- and -- and
the motion's made, but I guess we just need to realize this isn't a
matter of, okay, for sure we're going to spend the same amount of
money either way. There's a very real possibility, even though all of
us are very confident that we're in the right -- you know, all of us
probably think O. J.'s guilty, too, and anything can happen in a court
of law. And I just hate to have us end up costing -- this costing us
$300,000 down the road.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I appreciate that, and -- but
the majority of the board has given direction to the county attorney
staff. We know you'll go and do the work that you do so well, and
we'll move on to the next item -- MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
Item #9B
DISCUSSION RE SENATOR FRED DUDLEY'S REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER
AND PROVIDE INPUT ON ISSUES AFFECTING PROPOSED TAX REVENUES TO ACQUIRE
PROPERTY FOR BEACH PARKING BEACH ACCESS AND TO CONSTRUCT OR IMPROVE
EXISTING BEACH PARKING FACILITIES OR BEACH ACCESS AREAS - COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO DRAFT LETTER FOR CHAIRHAN'S SIGNATURE TO SENATOR DUDLEY
INDICATING THAT THESE ISSUES SHOULD BE TREATED SIMILAR TO OTHER
CATEGORY A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAXES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- on the agenda.
Item 9(B), this was an addition, Senate Bill 402,
sponsored by Senator Dudley. This was the one I think you'd asked
about earlier, Commissioner Constantine, which, correct me if I'm
wrong, this is the senate bill that is to request that the tourist
development tax allowable expenditures be expanded to include
acquisition and construction of beach parking facilities.
MR. WEIGEL: That's absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman.
You may have with you -- and if not, I can pass out another copy or
two of what the county attorney office received from County Attorney
Jim Yaeger of Lee County Thursday afternoon, hence the add-on after
the published agenda. At -- at the behest of Senator Dudley had come
the proposed amendatory language in Senate Bill 402 to address and
provide for tourist development tax monies to be used toward the
expansion and the acquisition of beach parking areas.
There were a couple caveats, and you have may have that
with the note from Mr. Yaeger. One is that with the use of these
monies infused into beach parking or expanded beach parking purchase
and development, would be free usage of the public of these parking
facilities indicating no charges for parking, no parking meters. And
that second -- secondly, that the use of these funds pursuant to the
bill would require a recommendation of the tourist -- the Tourist
Development Council, the local Tourist Development Council for such
expenditure. And to override that council recommendation in case it
were negative -- or either way, it would require a majority plus one
vote of the county commission.
Mr. Olliff may have some comments and certainly be able
to respond to -- to questions. I was out of the office in Tallahassee
on Friday, didn't have an opportunity to talk with Tom, but there may
be some fiscal considerations in regard to this potential funding
source and the park operations with meters and out-of-county parking,
things that -- that Tom may wish to address. I don't mean to speak
for him there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before Mr. Olliff speaks, you know,
there are a lot of uses that qualify for Category -- or that qualify
for tourist development taxes that we choose not to use or have chosen
in the past. Simply because they're allowed in the bill doesn't mean
that we automatically will pursue them. The recommendations that we
-- we've received from -- I believe it was the Lee County attorney --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- as far as I'm concerned -- and I
just heard a murmur to my left, "chuck it." And I'm -- I -- I agree
with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those -- those restrictions are just
ridiculous. I don't think this should be treated with any higher
level of restriction than any other qualified tourist development tax
expenditure. And -- and, again, everyone's talking about the eroding
of tourist development taxes. I don't know how you can call
increasing beach parking eroding a tourist development tax, but I -- I
feel as strongly about this now as I did when we made the request.
I'm not supportive of any changes unless Mr. Olliff has some
information that -- that would -- would cause me to see things
differently.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate, you know, Senator
Dudley bringing, you know, the status to us and telling us sort of
what kind of pressures he's getting or -- on the lobbying efforts, but
-- and, frankly, I don't know if I would choose to use tourist tax
money this way or not, but this category shouldn't be any different
from any other; so I'm opposed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it's kind of ironic that the --
the hotel industry says that these funds initially were supposed to be
used solely for marketing. Well, heck, why don't we go out and market
agriculture, too, while we're at it? I mean, what other industry --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If we don't have a beach --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- can we market?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- we're not going to have much
to market.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you know, I -- I think that the
beach and the coastline is the anchor of tourism. Disney has its own
marketing plan because it's not on the beach. But, you know, I just
-- I disagree with that -- that entire lobbying effort, and I really
don't want to cave into it.
MR. OLLIFF: The only thing that I would add -- for the
record, Tom Olliff, public services -- is that I -- I think they're
confusing two issues. What we're talking about is capital
expenditures in order to be able to buy properties for our beach
parking lots and to improve beach parking properties, but we collect
beach fees in order to be able to provide beach maintenance. And --
and I think those are the -- two completely and separate issues, and
-- and I don't understand the correlation between the two. And --
and with your comments, I don't think I have anything else to add.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further discussion, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, it appears that Senator
Dudley through -- through County Attorney Jim Yaeger wanted those two
points, those two issues, to be discussed with you so that you might
provide some input back to Senator Dudley just so he knows how the --
how the county may feel in that regard. And, you know, if the county
attorney or Tom or you, as -- as a board, wish to provide a
communication to Senator Dudley, I think we will fulfill the mission
that County Attorney Jim Yaeger has sent down to us on behalf of
Senator Dudley.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, you began to
kind of phrase a -- a -- something that I thought was -- was really
how I feel as far as appreciating Senator Dudley bringing this to us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd be happy to draft something
for your signature from the board. Is that appropriate?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's -- let's at least state
the content of that on the record.
First of all, we appreciate Senator Dudley bringing this
to our attention. Our desire is to treat this similar to all other
allowable uses under the tourist development tax, under state statute,
and not to place special restrictions on this alone.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that is a --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Actually, the Tourist
Development Fund Category A is for beach maintenance and beach -- pass
maintenance and that sort of thing, beach renourishment. And I always
thought that it was appropriate to include beach parking in Category
A. I always thought it was -- it was somewhat strange that it wasn't
there from the outset in the state statute. So I think -- I agree
with you, of course, that it should just be another item in -- within
Category A that -- that's a normal expense, and -- and there should be
no restrictions on it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the -- the people who are
concerned, again, about Category A, you know, eroding, they don't
understand that we make priority decisions in Category A already. And
we've been very clear that beach renourishment and beach maintenance
is the number one priority and shall not be interfered with regardless
of how many uses are allowable. So I don't think there's -- there
should be any question about our dedication to -- to beach maintenance
or -- or beach renourishment. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to repeat -- I
know we voted 4 to 1 in -- in support of this general concept a few
weeks ago, and I just need to repeat my opposition and the reason
why. And that is, while it's true we can choose to utilize this or
choose not to, if the state approves it, it's fairly clear with a 4 to
1 vote that we probably will choose to use it if it passes. And I --
I just have a philosophical problem with -- the public voted on a
particular use for tourist taxes, and I -- I hate to alter that, as
I've stated before, and I just wanted to get that back on the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any further discussion on
the item?
MR. OLLIFF: The -- the only other thing I probably need
to add is you need to be aware that there are two separate bills
working their way through the legislature. The one at the house level
was the one that was sponsored by Commissioner San -- or
Representative Saunders, and it had a -- a few minor amendments to it,
but in -- in all essence, it was the bill that was presented to the
legislative delegation. And it doesn't include any of these type of
amendments; so that -- hopefully that's already been out of committee
and will be on the floor for -- for discussion by the full
legislature.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, why don't we ask
that, since the points are on the record, Mr. Weigel to draft that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Perfect.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that letter.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And -- for my signature, save you
some time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. Appreciate it.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is that sufficient direction
from the board? Okay. Thank you.
Item #9C
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD ORDER ENTERED IN THE LELY BAREFOOT BEACH GUARDHOUSE CASE - COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL
Item 9(C). Hr. Weigel, discussion of the Lely
guardhouse issue and potential or future litigation on the matter.
MR. WEIGEL: That's quite a day today, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, it is.
MR. WEIGEL: Again, I appreciate that we could bring to
your attention some discussion concerning the Lely guardhouse matter
that has been before the Code Enforcement Board. It's brought before
you today as an add-on item by virtue of the fact that the order of
the Code Enforcement Board was just issued subsequent to the cutoff
for the published agenda, and so that's why it's before you today.
And the assistant county attorneys Ramiro Hanalich and Shirley Jean
HcEachern, who worked with staff and the Code Enforcement Board, are
here today to discuss some of the issues with you and answer
questions.
MR. HANALICH: Good morning, Commissioners. Ramiro
Hanalich and Shirley Jean HcEachern. We are the assistant county
attorneys that tried this case before the Code Enforcement Board. I
wanted to make you aware that their order has just been issued
recently. And at this point, basically, some time frames kick in that
you need to give us direction in regard to. And that is, under our
ordinances and under applicable appellate rules, we have, essentially,
about a 10-day window to decide if we want to ask the Code Enforcement
Board to rehear this case and approximately 30 days from the date that
the order was issued, which is last week, to determine if we want to
appeal to the circuit court.
Basically, the decision, we believe -- although we
compliment our Code Enforcement Board members for putting diligent
effort into the case and, you know, hearing all aspects of it, we do
believe it has some significant error in that decision. And,
specifically -- the most significant of which was that they did not
address the PUD requirement as to the guardhouse location and that
violation. So we do believe we would have a strong issue on appeal.
However, I want to also acquaint you with two other
items that would affect this analysis. One is that I have been in
contact with the attorney general's office, and on behalf of
Mr. Butterworth, that office indicates that his position on this whole
issue has always been very clear, and that is that public access is
paramount. And in his pleadings he has stated that he disagrees with
the location and operation of the guardhouse.
Now, nonetheless, you need to also be aware that there
have been recent public statements by persons interested on the other
side of this issue. I've had informal, essentially, conversations
with Mr. Hazzard, who is the attorney for the opposing side. And I
must, in all honesty, tell you that there does appear to be a
legitimate opportunity for negotiation here at this juncture which you
need to consider. At this point we would await your direction as to
-- and recall, please, that you have two cases going on at the same
time. You have the Code Enforcement Board case on appeal, and you
also have a circuit court case which was filed by the property owners
which has its own separate existence in the circuit court and is
pending there.
The one thing that we would strongly advise you is that
whatever course you choose, even if you choose a negotiation course,
that you should, at least as to the appeal, preserve that remedy so
that in the process -- if there were to be directed by you a process
of negotiation, we would have all options open and the best possible
position entering those discussions and preserving our rights in the
event that any negotiation was not fruitful. I don't know if Miss
McEachern has anything to add, but if not --
MS. McEACHERN: The county attorney's position is that
we recommend that we do go ahead and file a notice of appeal, and it's
important to know that that also would incur no dollar amount. So
we're just keeping all options open. So if we want to go forward with
it, we can; or if we want to negotiate, we can. But it also gives us
leverage in the negotiation process if we choose that too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I don't know if I copied the
other board members on this, but the county attorney's office already
knows my position because I put it in writing, and that is I strongly
urge an appeal. Nobody -- I certainly never thought that this case
would end at code enforcement because, frankly, had code enforcement
-- had the board given a decision that I had hoped they would, we
know that the other side would have appealed, and we would be in
circuit court on this issue.
To -- to cut to the chase here, I hope that we won't
embarrass ourselves by requiring the state attorney general to protect
Collier County residents' right to beaches in Collier County. I hope
that we will do that instead of compromising, in which case I would
suggest that the attorney general's made it clear that he's not going
to compromise. So I -- I would urge us not to -- and -- and to forge
ahead. We knew this was a difficult path, and let's stay on it. It's
a long road, certainly negotiations during the process at all times to
try to settle this, but never without the stick of the appeal and
continuing to -- to stand up for the rights of the property -- of the
public.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the county attorney
staff just summed it up by saying what this does is keeps all options
open, and I don't -- I don't think we want to do anything but that.
And as Commissioner Mac'Kie said, we can continue to negotiate; and if
we can come up with an agreement in the meantime, great. But I -- I
think we'd lose a lot of those options if we close this door now.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman,
Commissioner Constantine, the only thing we would need some
clarification from you in regard to your just-made comments is that at
this point we have been in a pure litigation mode to fight this, and
what we need to know is if it is the intent of the board to open
dialogue on this, we need to know that, even if we preserve our
appellate remedies in the meantime.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Manalich, in your estimation,
what is the approximate cost of appeal to the taxpayers in this
matter?
MR. MANALICH: Well, you're going to talk about two
cases possibly each going, either consolidated or separately, through
multiple appeal levels. At that point you're talking about very
substantial sums, I think, for both sides in this case. I estimated
that if you were to follow it through its complete progression on both
cases, for the opposing side, which is paying out of pocket for -- you
know, on the market rate for attorneys, I estimate, frankly, you could
reach a hundred thousand dollars easily.
I think comparably for us, it would be the same thing,
although, of course, that analysis is a little different because, you
know, we have salaried attorneys. We still have costs. We have
impacts on the office, but we're not out of pocket quite as -- as
badly. But, nonetheless, it's a very big impact, because these cases
brought a lot of attention.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess the center of my problem with
this -- and I've made no secret about the fact that I, after reviewing
every document given to me by either side of this argument -- and I
spent a minimum of 30 or 40 hours doing that -- there's no clear right
person in this discussion. The county didn't do everything
perfectly. We didn't structure everything properly the first time,
and thus, we have an argument before us today. The residents at point
X and Y could have done something different that would have changed
the course of this and didn't. So there's liabilities on both sides.
The problem I have -- and I do take exception,
Commissioner Mac'Kie, to the concept that we would embarrass ourselves
if we don't appeal. It seems to me that we have appointed a Code
Enforcement Board of volunteers who spent three days hearing an item
and came up with a decision that members of this board don't like,
members of the public don't like. That's not basis for an appeal.
Those individuals made an independent decision on something, and quite
frankly, I didn't expect it either. I expected something a little
less -- or a little more to the center than -- than what they did.
But I think if we want to embarrass ourselves, let's go
spend a six-figure amount, and the result would be to have a
guardhouse destroyed and rebuilt a hundred feet down the road, because
if you -- and, Mr. Manalich, you mentioned the one issue that we think
we really need to look at on an appeal is that they didn't discuss or
cover adequately whether the guardhouse is fully located within the
confines of the PUD. Well, folks, if that's the crux of the matter,
that can be resolved by rebuilding a guardhouse.
And I just -- you know, look at the surveys that are
taken from people who use that park. Tell me then there's an access
problem, when you look at 400 surveys and see, what, five or six
people that said, you know, anyone stopped them or didn't stop them
and so forth. We can lock in an open-access operation there through
an agreement with the homeowners, and we can do that on our terms.
And that's all I've tried to do from day one is to ensure access, not
to blow a lot of -- of tax dollars on appeals and -- and unnecessary,
lengthy court battles only to result in some situation we could have
accomplished at this stage.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's very well spoken,
Mr. Chairman. I completely agree with your comments and share --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm just a little
frustrated --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just a second. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First of all, I think it's
important on the record to say that I disagree that the county has
done anything wrong. I don't want that to be an admission that might,
you know, hurt the county in any way in the appellate process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's not what I said.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I want to be clear about
that and --
CHAI~ HANCOCK: I referred to the structure of the
agreements that could have been done better.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you. Secondly, two
issues here, one legal and one practical. Legally, the -- first of
all, the efforts of the three days and the untold hours of the Code
Enforcement Board volunteers cannot -- we can't begin to -- to say how
much we appreciate and can't understand, frankly, that kind of
community dedication and the amount of time that somebody would spend
for free on -- on these kinds of issues. However, the fact that this
is a volunteer board is the issue, because this is an extremely
complicated legal issue. But I very strongly disagree with their
legal assessment of the facts of the case. I think that their
determination is legally incorrect and that a judge will be able to
see that.
And then on the -- on the practical point, I think the
issue is greater than is it simply move the existing facility down the
street? I think the issue from a practical perspective is, are they
entitled to have a facility in the middle of the street at all? My
reading shows that there is a -- a guardhouse, gatehouse -- I forget
which word the PUD calls it -- but it's on the side of the road that
may be -- at most they might be able to have an arm come across the
road to close off night access to their community. So I don't think
the issue is just to move that structure down the street. I think it
is, do they -- are they entitled to have a structure in the middle of
the road at all?
So both -- legally I think that the decision was wrong
with all the respect and appreciation to that board. I think it's
complicated legally and needs to go before a judge. And practically I
think that we could have a much better result for the public if we
could have that legal interpretation done by a judge.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just not interested in spending
tax money to find out whether you're right or I'm right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I find it a bit unfortunate
that you would choose to disparage the qualifications of the Code
Enforcement Board. By extension you could condemn the jury system
that we operate under in the United States. You're saying, though,
that if we took this to a jury trial, you would -- you would be more
willing to abide by the -- the ruling of the jury, and I -- I fail to
see the difference philosophically between the Code Enforcement Board
and a jury of any other court.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me explain that. The
difference is that in a jury trial there is a judge who -- who makes
rulings of law, and the jury decides questions of fact. And the issue
here is a question of law that needs to go in front of a judge.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: What -- I can probably -- I know --
how many speakers do we have on this? MR. McNEES: You have six.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Six. Okay. Before getting into the
speakers, let me just clarify what I think our course needs to be.
The first thing is, we need to go through the process of filing the
appeal to preserve the rights of the county, because there's other
litigation that is out there that we don't -- we don't want to deal
with from a position of weakness. We want to deal with it from a
position of strength. In the meantime, before that appeal comes to
fruition, I am in favor of reaching agreement on the operation of the
existing guardhouse in such a way that it is set in stone for the long
term, that it becomes, in essence, an operational document, that there
are immediate fines and recourse for improper activities that may
occur there that are verified, period.
Let's move on. Let's stop wasting time and -- and tax
dollars on this issue. I know that's not the popular thing to say.
And you know, I'm sure that my name will lead the editorial, and I
could care less, because we've spent enough money on this. Let's --
let's draw the line and say enough is enough.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I want to say I respect your
taking that position, because I know it's hard, and I respect you for
saying what you think is right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I haven't been here during this
whole operation in terms of -- you-all have dealt with this a lot
longer than I have. I guess my name will appear along with yours,
Mr. Chairman, because I'm -- I've already -- this is in writing to
several people who have written me in this regard that I feel that a
10-year battle over this whole affair is, obviously, a long time. If
both sides are willing to sit down at the table and negotiate out an
agreement where everybody is going to win on this -- and I think they
can do it. I think they want -- I think the other side appears to
want to do this.
I do agree with the attorneys to go ahead and -- and
leave this appeal process in place. That's fine. But I think at the
same time we need to sit down and make sure that there is no problem
in terms of being able to enter the park, leave the park. And I think
during the normal park hours, whatever that would be, whatever works
with all the rest of our park system, I think that's a fair idea. And
if there's any violation along the way, then we'll have to revisit it
and take another course if -- if that truly happens. But I believe
that -- that we ought to try and negotiate this and get out of this
hundred-thousand-dollar business in lawsuits.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, do you have
any comments before we go to public speakers?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's go to public speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, as we head to that, just
one other comment, and that is we -- obviously, the time frames
involve both rehearing and/or appeal. We are not recommending
rehearing because, frankly, we thought the will of the code board was
expressed pretty clearly on this matter whether we agree with it or
not. We are recommending preserving the appellate rights consistent
with the board's direction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES: Your first speaker would be Jack Pointer,
and if the second one could be standing by, that would be Genevieve
Pistori.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And for the information of those who
have not spoken or addressed the board before, you are allotted up to
five minutes. Feel free to use as little of that time as you wish.
MR. POINTER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Jack Pointer. I live in Willoughby Acres which is adjacent to Palm
River. Willoughby Acres and Palm River are located on Immokalee
Road. Adjacent to Immokalee Road and parallel to Immokalee Road is
Piper Boulevard, a frontage road. In 1989 on the east side of -- of
Piper Boulevard in Immokalee, a developer stole 660 feet of that road
from the county. The homeowners in Willoughby brought this to the
attention of the county, and the county was able to get the 660 feet
back and get some -- a little -- concessions as a result of it.
The reason that we knew about this was because 25 years
before, residents of Palm River and Willoughby Acres knew of 400 feet
of -- of Piper Boulevard that was stolen from the county in front of
-- of Palm River. That particular 400 feet has recently been needed
by the county, and the county went and spent over a hundred thousand
dollars getting that -- that land back that was stolen from them years
ago at a cost of somewhere in the range of probably $5 a square foot.
Now, in -- in the area that we're talking about in
Barefoot Beach or Lely Boulevard, there's about 600,000 square feet
there. And the plan is, in my judgment, that this land, which is
owned by the homeowners but has a permanent easement on it by the
public, that ultimately they will come before you and say, sometime or
another, we'll sell that to you at $5 a square foot or $10 a square
foot. That will be somewhere between three and six million dollars
that you're going to pay to buy this road back which you're in the
process of letting them have at this time.
Now, I personally have had them try to put stickers on
my windshield and stop me at that guardhouse gate at least five times
from going in there. They've got speed bumps on there, and somebody
is going to get their back broken coming out in an ambulance or a fire
truck. The speed limits are put on there by them and not by the
county. So, therefore, I am asking you to move ahead and take this
and appeal it, because sometime or another your actions today are
going to be paid for by the county taxpayers of tomorrow with another
commission. Three to six million dollars is what we'll have to pay.
Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Miss Pistori followed by Ron Pure.
MS. PISTORI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Genevieve Pistori and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was quick.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's okay. We have a rookie on the
time.
MS. PISTORI: -- and I live in Naples Park. Homeowners
of Naples Park remain in -- for -- to removing the guardhouse at the
entrance to Barefoot Beach state park road. The board -- the board
which decided that the guardhouse was not in violations did not
examine all of the information that led to many persons -- to decide
the guardhouse should be removed. I would like to submit two
incidences that happened to Naples Park residents. One, guard told
the driver -- and they -- oh, that the beach was private. They were
not let in. Another incidence the driver was told that there was no
more parking space, and again, they were not let in.
If the guardhouse is allowed to remain, there will be
more and more incidents like these. At a time when beach access has
become a critical problem in this county, we cannot afford to allow
any accesses to be whittled away. I urge you to allow this case to
continue to the courts where proper legal opinion would be given.
Thank you.
MR. McNEES: I think Mr. Pure must have been 12(C). I
couldn't really tell which item, and that has been continued, since
he's not here.
Your next speaker would be Don Dawson followed by
Marjorie Ward.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir -- sir, excuse me.
MR. McNEES: If Mr. Pure would come forward --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I could ask you to come up to the
front of the room and speak to the assistant county manager.
MR. McNEES: If Mr. Pure would come forward and tell me
which item it is, because I can't tell which one it is he wants to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And we'll proceed with the
next speaker while he's doing that.
MR. DAWSON: My name is Donald Dawson. I've been a
resident of Collier County since 1975. I've been a resident of Bonita
Shores for 21 years. With all due respect to Barbara Berry and the
comments that she needed to work out a settlement with them, I think
that will never happen. This started back in 1986. Gentlemen, this
is 1997. This is not going to go away until righteousness is upheld
in this situation. I beg of you and I plead with you not to destroy
accesses by easements. If you have a legal easement, then you'd
better protect it and adhere to it, because it doesn't just involve
Lely Barefoot gatehouse. This goes throughout the whole county, and
we have seen a lot of cases that have been lost and the taxpayer has
paid a lot of money.
Respect with you, Mr. Hancock, I don't agree with your
hundred thousand dollars. I think if this -- if you decide not to do
the appeal here, I think it's going to cost you more than a hundred
thousand dollars because there's other people that will file lawsuits
in this matter. And this won't go away, and state -- it's just like
Mr. Rearhart's (phonetic) case in Lee County. You -- you're taking
people's rights away, and you can't do that. I agree with Pam here,
what she says. You have to let this go ahead and go to the court. It
should have been in court a long time ago.
I can go through different times that I've come here and
spoke about this. I wish I had a record of every time that I've been
here, everything that was said by different commissioners. I wish we
could bring all the commissioners that were here, bring them back
since 1986.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's don't do that.
(Laughter)
MR. DAWSON: I mean, really, when you stop to think
about it, I remember talking here about the fire department. The Lely
people were complaining and -- and they put the bumps in. They were
complaining about the fire department not getting to their place
quickly. Well, when you put a bump in, you're going to -- you
restrict the fire department from going in there. I said back then --
I was a volunteer fireman for 17 years, and every time you go over one
of those bumps, part of your equipment can pop off of your fire
engine. If a person's standing on the back, he could fall off the
fire engine, and I experienced a lot of that up in Connecticut many
years ago as a volunteer fireman. They restrict the flow that -- of
ambulances getting there.
So I've said this all before, and here I am saying it
again. You're wasting my time. I've got more than 40 hours in on
this thing. This goes back to 1986; so I got a lot more time than you
have, and if you haven't taken and looked at the record from 1986 and
followed this whole thing, then you are not going to make a good
judgment today. And if you don't want to make that judgment, then let
the courts do it. Let this appeal go through.
Now, as far as the -- the gatehouse, this was not a
gatehouse issue in the beginning of this. This was restricting the
people from going to that beach. We went through this before,
people. Like this lady just got up and said, we were told lies. The
gates used to be down. It wasn't until Butt Saunders insisted the
gates stand up -- so they have been wearing us down with their money
and fighting this thing, because they are a development that wants to
say the same thing that Quail Creek is. It's a gated community, and
that will never happen. It's not Quail Creek. It's Lely Barefoot
Beach, and we have a public beach there. We have a right to go there
without any restriction whatsoever.
And so I plead with you. Do something that is right for
the majority of the people of this county, and that is to stop them
from harassing -- I am harassed this morning, even as I speak to you
this morning. This is harassment. This is not justice. You are
harassing me. The county commissions before that -- you shake your
head, Mr. Tim Hancock. You're a --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I certainly do, sir.
MR. DAWSON: -- young man.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sir, I think you're harassing us,
it seems to me.
MR. DAWSON: Well, no. I'm trying to get you to do
something that is for the public.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's your opinion. We don't --
MR. DAWSON: That is my opinion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Some of us don't share it with
you.
MR. DAWSON: That's true.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's -- that's --
MR. DAWSON: Look at the facts. Then I ask you to look
at the facts.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have done that. I have done
that.
MR. DAWSON: Well, I'm not going to argue with you. I
-- I didn't come here to argue with you. I came here to plead with
you to do --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You came here to dictate to us,
didn't you?
MR. DAWSON: No, I did not come here to dictate to you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You came to harass us into taking
your position.
MR. DAWSON: No. Don't say that. If you feel that way,
I'm sorry that you're offended.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, sir. That's what you said to
us.
MR. DAWSON: If you're offended, I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's what you said to us,
Mr. Dawson.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Commissioner Norris. Mr.
Dawson, the -- the allotted time has passed. The reason I'm shaking
my head, sir, is I haven't directly harassed you. I think that's an
unfair charge.
MR. DAWSON: Well --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I'm sorry you feel that way, but
I simply haven't directly harassed you. And I'm sorry you feel that
way, but that just hasn't happened.
MR. DAWSON: Well, don't take that in the context -- the
wrong context about harassment. What I'm saying about -- this whole
situation has been harassment because it's restricted me from my
private right to go to that beach --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Unfortunately your time has
lapsed.
MR. DAWSON: -- and so don't misunderstand what I'm
saying here. When I say harassment -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Dawson.
MR. DAWSON: -- I meant the whole situation is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Your time has
lapsed. Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Harjorie Ward, and your last speaker is
Emily Haggio.
MS. WARD: For the record my name is Harjorie Ward
representing CABB. As you know, our association has been very
actively involved in the area known as the Barefoot Beach Preserves
prior to the first house ever being built in the Lely subdivision.
The decisions rendered by the Code Enforcement Board were a shock to
most of the public because it had been proven and reported in the
various media that the guardhouse, which sits in the middle of Lely
Beach Boulevard, was erected in the wrong PUD and without the proper
permit.
The general public cannot understand why there are two
standards, one for them and the other for the people who are
privileged to live inside the gates. Since most property owners also
own the roads to this center and they pay taxes accordingly, yet have
no jurisdiction over what is done there and are even prosecuted for
encroaching on the edges of the right-of-way of their home if they
place a rock or a tree in that area, these people cannot understand
why the same does not apply here.
Having attended all of the board hearings, it was
evident that the Code Enforcement Board decision was based on the fact
that Collier County had allowed this building to be constructed and
remain standing. Hence, Collier County condoned it, even if it was
not a legal place for it to be. None of you were on the commission at
that time. You are not responsible for this error, but as presiding
officials of the county, you are responsible to see that two wrongs do
not make a right.
Although we admit that since the state became involved,
the gates have remained up during park hours, and those who were aware
of the situation were able to drive on through to the park. In other
words, good behavior to prove innocence was the attitude at the gate.
Well, please tell us; what is going to enforce this continuation of
noninterference if the illegal guardhouse continues to prevail? When
the master and homeowner lawyer repeats, as Mr. Hazzard did during
those hearings, a motion to have an easement removed from Lely
Boulevard, is that any indication of compliance? No. But it is an
indication that if this is not pursued further legally and the
guardhouse is condoned by you commissioners, that we'll be back to
business as previously. They will control the parking, the entrance,
and interrogation.
Now, we've personally experienced this on several
occasions in the past, and I have substantiated this by many letters
and listings which went to Gary Franco for his report. If the county
condones that the guardhouse is not an impediment to the public, then
there will be no recourse to the public if the public is later treated
as though they are infringing on private property. Those who complain
about expenses are the homeowners who are demanding the control. They
are temporarily on their good behavior, but they surely realize that a
guardhouse is intimidating to anyone having to pass by, especially
with a guard standing there.
Actual taxpayer expense has been minimal, because the
Code Enforcement Board is voluntary, and the code enforcement
department and the legal department are on salary doing their job that
they're paid to do. A compromise? Poppycock. The public has nothing
left to compromise with. The guardhouse was and still is illegal.
And as we have written to each of you, unless you stand firm behind
your legal department and the code enforcement department's
investigation, what happens to the credibility of Collier County?
Please file the appeal with the circuit court and leave the options
open. Thank you.
MS. MAGGIO: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record my name is Emily Maggio, and I'm here today representing not
only myself, but the Bonita Shores and the Little Hickory Shores
Improvement Association. Our president was out of town. You already
have a letter which we sent on February 10th that details the
position. I'll just read it -- a couple of excerpts from it for the
record.
It is totally incredible to us that the Code Enforcement
Board reached the decision it did given the fact that the county's
code enforcement department, the county attorney's office, attorneys
for the State of Florida, and the county manager acting as hearing
officer at an administrative appeal have all concluded and contend
that the guardhouse in its present location, i.e., Tract R, Lely Beach
Boulevard, is a violation of the county ordinances and does, indeed,
impede and interfere with access to the preserve. To that I would
only add I personally hired on my own an attorney very familiar with
land use issues, argues and represents developers in this very room,
and he came to the same conclusion.
More than a few residents of Bonita Shores have suffered
harassment or been turned away at the guardhouse. Just last week the
guest speaker at our monthly meeting, a representative of the Sprint
United Telephone, told how he was once turned away by a security guard
who told him, quote, unquote, the park is full. He was riding a
bicycle. One can only wonder how many more incidents have gone
unreported and unrecorded; and in our opinion, even one incident is
too many.
When I read in the paper only five people is to
trivialize what has happened to a lot of people. More than five
county employees, people who work for this county, have come to me and
-- and told me what has happened to them. We were at a District 2
roundtable meeting, former Commissioner Bettye Matthews, Chris
Straton, Vera Fitz-Gerald, myself, and some other gentleman I don't
remember, plus all the letters that have gone in. Please don't
trivialize what has happened. I -- I think of -- of what happened at
Clam Pass Park when for years and years there were complaints about
how the tram was operated. But when it happened to the county manager
and his family, it made front-page news, and things happened. Every
person is important.
I -- we are also concerned when we hear negotiation and
compromise. The negotiations took place a long time ago. You have
not only the authority, you have the duty to enforce the management
plan. Our rights are secure right there under the terms of the
easement, under the terms of that management plan. I -- what is there
to negotiate? Do they want to give us something? Au contraire.
We've seen what they want in this settlement offer, which,
Commissioner Hancock, you know, they -- this was your idea they said.
And when you read through this, it's nothing but control, control,
control. They want to control how we use the access, and they want us
to pay for the road. If that happens, then we have lost all the
benefit that the public was to get when they agreed to move the
easement and allow the development to have gulf-front homes in the
first place.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I certainly hope you're not implying
that I supported in any way our paying for the road, Miss Maggio.
MS. MAGGIO: I'm only telling you what they want. I --
you publicly have said you -- that you did not do this, but I'm
telling you they, right here in writing, say it was your idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So they're obviously right,
and I'm wrong. Okay. We'll move on.
MS. MAGGIO: All I'm saying is, you have to consider
this is what they want. This is the position they will negotiate
from.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just asking you not to smear me
in this. Stick with what I have said, because that is what I believe.
MS. MAGGIO: I think I -- I think I presented --
presented it properly, that they said -- they said it. I didn't say
you said it. I said they said it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And faced with that -- that
disagreement, I respectfully choose to believe Commissioner
Constantine -- Commissioner Hancock's version of what he said.
MS. MAGGIO: Well, that's fine. And I didn't -- all I'm
saying is that's what they put in writing.
Are these negotiations going to take place without the
state, because you are partners with the state? You see, the -- the
point is, it doesn't matter if the guardhouse is on Tract A, if the
illegal guardhouse stands in the middle of the road, if they put
another illegal guardhouse on top of the illegal guardhouse, and if
they put six more illegal guardhouses all the way down to the park.
It doesn't change the public's right of access. We have a legally
binding easement, and you have the authority to enforce it.
I -- I just have -- I'm standing here, and I'm looking
at very successful educated people; and I have a hard time believing
that were we talking about millions and millions of your own personal
dollars -- which is what is invested here, millions and millions of
public dollars -- would you not turn every stone? Would you give up?
I don't think so. I don't think you would allow yourselves to be
cheated. This situation would never have gone on this long, and that
doesn't -- I don't only mean you. I mean previous commissioners. It
just never would have happened, and I think that as stewards of the
public trust, you can do no less for us. You simply must continue. A
hundred thousand dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the
millions of dollars that -- that are at stake here. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry said
earlier that -- that we should certainly enter into discussions and
negotiations, and I don't think at any point any of us would suggest
anything contrary to that. Obviously, if Mr. Hazzard and his clients
are open to talk with us and try to come to some sort of an agreement,
we'd be silly not to do that. But I -- I think we also need to not be
naive. We have done that certainly for a long time.
In 1994 we were under the impression that we had an
agreement, but it fell by the wayside. In 1995 we thought we had an
agreement. This board even went so far as to agree to the specifics
of it in November of '95. January or February of that -- of the
following year, '96, the -- Mr. Hazzard came back and wanted changes
to the agreement that he had proposed. So while we're certainly open
to talk with them, by no means should we assume that that's an easy
task, and I don't think any of us are.
But, ultimately -- and I want to go back to something
Commissioner Hac'Kie and Commissioner Norris talked about earlier, and
that was Code Enforcement Board and its role. I certainly don't want
to sell short -- I -- I served on the Code Enforcement Board when it
was first created, and I know they have a difficult task, and I have a
great deal of faith in them. But ultimately the responsibility on
this or anything else falls to the board. They're appointed by us,
and all that -- the ordinances that they enforce are created and
upheld by us.
So, ultimately, the responsibility falls to us, and I --
I don't think -- and you had said we want to make sure we don't blow a
lot of money, and I don't think anybody wants to do that either. But
it's not just about moving a building a hundred feet. We had -- you
had even brought in sketches showing what some of the different
scenarios were when we talked about this in '95 and '96. And I think
-- I think during those hearings, we recognized that they could
attach to the side and perhaps try to come into the middle of the
road.
But this isn't simply about something in the middle of
the road. This is about access, open and free, unimpeded access of
the public to that park. There is a question right now as to whether
that unimpeded access exists. I've been one of the people that was
turned away at that park. It was about 1993 or four, and it was a
Saturday morning. I'd worked out. I was a little messed up. I was
in an old car. I pulled up, and they did not want to let me have
access to that park; so it does happen. And -- and I think it's our
duty to make sure it doesn't happen again.
And -- and the one thing I think I've heard all five of
us say, while there may be general disagreement on some of the
specifics, is that we need to keep the option -- all the options open
and that we should go ahead and file. And hopefully, in the meantime,
we can talk and come to some of the agreements we've discussed in the
meantime. But I'd like to make a motion that we go ahead and file the
necessary paperwork to make sure we keep all of our options open at
this time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- there are a couple of things,
and -- and Miss Ward, she and her husband, Dave, sat down with me two
years ago; and I tried to explain this to them, and they -- they just
told me I was dead wrong. And I think people need to understand
something. There are some things we can't change. We can't change
the fact that the agreement that was -- that was signed for access by
this board and the state shows that the residents own the roadway.
This is not a public roadway. This is a privately owned and
maintained roadway. There is no question about that. There is no
argument about that. That's a simple fact.
What we have is an access easement on that roadway
during park hours, and all I have ever wanted this board to focus on
is the access question. If you remember the designs we brought
forward, whether the guardhouse is in the middle, whether it's on the
right, whether it is on the second floor -- I don't care where it is
-- I want open lanes of access. We had an agreement that showed a
gate that -- that the county would open in the morning and the county
would close in the evening. Now, someone explain to me how that's
different than any other county park in the system. It's not, but
that wasn't good enough for the, quote, unquote, public, slash,
editorial board. That was somehow still caving to residents of Lely
Barefoot.
So I have to admit, I mean, I got so discouraged at that
point that we had an agreement that gave access on a public -- a -- an
easement over a private roadway that the county controlled the
operation of that gate, and somehow that still wasn't good enough.
And I'm not blaming anyone on this board, because there are so many
facets to this issue that if you don't like it, you can find a way to
disagree or you can find a way to support it, because there's a little
bit of something here for everybody.
I'm going to support the motion, but I'm also going to
try, once again, to put something together that puts this thing to bed
for the long term; and if I fail again, I fail again. But my
single-pointed mission is to ensure long-term access, unencumbered
access for the general public. And anyone who wants to slap any other
label on me can do that, but just make -- just know that you're wrong
in doing that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And in support of you, I
don't think you failed two years. I think, if I recall correctly, it
was kind of a hybrid of some things you'd suggested and I suggested.
The board agreed, and at the time Lely agreed, and a couple months
later they came back and wanted to change that. So if there was a
failure, I -- I'd say that might fall on Mr. Hazzard, not on you. And
-- and I think you did a good job a couple years ago trying to come
up with a reasonable agreement, and I think the board at that time
came up with what would have worked for the public and for those
homeowners. So don't sell yourself short.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I appreciate that, but the fact
that we're still talking about it today leads me to believe I didn't
do enough.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And while we're doing love fest
here, I just have to ask you, please, not to disparage those of us who
disagree with you about -- intimating that the editorial board has
some influence over my opinion --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- because they don't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That wasn't intended in any way. No,
no. That wasn't intended. I just -- I get to see my name in lights
so often on this issue that -- that I -- that was the purpose of that
comment. It really served no purpose.
(Laughter)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion -- another comment
that serves no purpose. Great.
We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there
any further discussion by the board?
Does that give sufficient direction to our -- our staff.
MR. HANALICH: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, at this
point we will file the notice of appeal, and at the same time,
negotiations will take place if both sides are willing to do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The table is there. Whoever wishes
to sit down at it may, and we'll try and put something together -- I
will try and put something together and bring it back to you for your
review, and -- and we'll see where we go from there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Call the question. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you.
We need to take -- I'm sorry. We ran you past 10:30. Take about a
five-minute break. We'll be back at 10 minutes till 11.
(A short break was held.)
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 97-162, IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF NAPLES/THE NAPLES PLAYERS
COHMUNITY THEATRE PROJECT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to reconvene -- excuse me,
ladies and gentlemen. I'm going to reconvene this morning's meeting.
We're on Item 10(A), resolution of BCC in support of the
Naples Players Community Theatre project. I -- Commissioner Hac'Kie,
is this yours?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I did ask for this to be put on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- this is -- this is a
resolution -- first, let me tell you what -- what you want to know.
Host importantly, it very specifically says nonlocal tax-related
funds. So there's not any -- any request or any -- any indication of
any local funding that we're seeking here. But I know that you're all
familiar already with the project downtown; so I won't belabor it.
But they have asked for a resolution from the county commission just
to put in their packet as they do private fund-raising and as they
seek grant applications. And so I would ask that -- that we do that
and move approval of the resolution.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any speakers, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
5-0. Thank you, Commissioner Hac'Kie, for bringing that
forward. That's -- I'm looking forward to that becoming reality.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's going to be great.
Item #11A
RECOHMENDATION TO APPROVE A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTHENT
OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR A QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROGRAM - APPROVED IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $28,350.00 FOR THE SOFTWARE
ONLY
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're under 11. These were add-ons
from the consent agenda. ll(A) is Item 16(H)(2) previously. Hr.
Nind, I see you're here. Good morning.
MR. NIND: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, did you
have specific questions that you'd like Mr. Nind to address this
morning?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I do. Both these grants
are a great opportunity for us, but the question we've raised a number
of times as of late is, what happens when the grants go away? I
understand they're only a year or -- or a couple of years.
MR. NIND: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And do we anticipate
continuing these positions, and how do we anticipate paying for them?
MR. NIND: If I can introduce myself, it's Christopher
Nind, telecommunications director for Collier County Sheriff's
office. We submitted two grant applications to the Board of County
Commissioners. The first is for an emergency medical dispatch
training grant. It is something that we have submitted every year
since 1989, and in fact, we have been successful in getting that
grant. That is for the training of our emergency medical dispatch --
dispatchers. As you know, the 911 operators are also trained in
emergency medical dispatch.
The other grant application that we submitted was for a
quality assurance individual, and it was a grant for the salary for
that quality control person. We submitted it last year. We were
unsuccessful in getting that grant. We are going to try again. The
reason for a quality assurance individual is that we really do need to
look at a hundred percent of all of our emergency medical dispatch
calls. Now, we do do that in conjunction with EHS, and obviously, the
medical aspects of those EHD calls do come under the medical director,
Dr. Tober. If we were successful in getting that grant, we would
resubmit next year for the continued salary. Obviously, if we were
unsuccessful subsequently, then obviously that is a position that we
would have to look at and review in conjunction with EHS, but we would
sincerely hope, because we consider it an essential position, that we
would be able to find the funding to continue the employment of that
individual.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-oh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is -- this is exactly where we
have had some concerns in the past is that it -- it's a great idea.
We'd love to see it happen for a year, but then what happens is we see
an automatic increase in the sheriff's operating budget the next year
of that amount because the grant's only for one year. It's difficult
to say, yes, we'll approve the grant, but you can't have it next year
if -- if the grant funding is not continued, and that's tremendously
difficult to do. I assume that's -- and first of all, thank you for
bringing this up, because we had just discussed this. Kind of makes
us in a no-win here, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I guess my concern is
I hear you say we wouldn't want to give it back -- if we didn't get
future grants, we wouldn't want to cut the position because it's
essential, makes me wonder why --
MR. NIND: Well, I think it would --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I finish my question?
And it makes me wonder why if it's essential and we applied last year,
why the sheriff just didn't absorb it into his regular budget last
year, if it is essential.
MR. NIND: Well, if -- we certainly did apply for it
last year. It is certainly a position that we believe is essential.
As I say, it will enable us to do a hundred percent of quality control
in conjunction with EMS. Presently we manage about 43 percent of all
those calls in quality control. We are applying for the grant, and we
know that there are, obviously, funds available, and we are
endeavoring to get a grant for that position. If we are unsuccessful
in this grant application, then obviously that is an area that we
would need to discuss, and the sheriff would need to review that with
his -- in his budget. But the continued position, we would obviously
have to review that. We would continue requesting grants for that
position, but if we were unsuccessful, we would have to review the
continuation of that position.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: These are the dangerous grants in my
opinion. These are called enablers. It allows you to start
something, but it doesn't allow you to continue it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Seed money.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Seed money,
one-year-commitment grants, and I think those should be used for
specific-term projects. If it's a one-year grant, typically it should
be a project that in that one year it can be completed, and it's
done. That's the idea of a grant. Otherwise this is just a kick
start. And since we haven't seen this position being requested as
additional services in the past, I have to agree with Commissioner
Constantine in questioning the essential nature of the position. It's
only essential if we get the grant. But if we don't get the grant, it
hasn't seem -- doesn't seem to have been essential in the past.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what are the -- what are the
problems? Could you -- could you give us any idea of what are the
problems that this position would correct? I -- I also see Miss Flagg
in the room, and since it's related to EMS, if they're -- if somebody
has not received appropriate service as a result of our not having
quality review, that's one thing. But, you know, we've got an
award-winning, top-of-the-line action happening here.
MR. NIND: We have. If I could -- if I could just go
back first of all, Commissioners, to the chairman's point. We didn't
apply for this position in the sheriff's budget last year because we
were endeavoring to get a grant. We were unsuccessful in that. We
are trying again. Presently the quality assurance of EMD calls is in
the region of about 43 percent of those calls are reviewed, and we do
that, as I say, in conjunction with EMS.
Now presently we are using, obviously, people who are
presently employed in the sheriff's office. We're either paying
overtime, or we're using part-time staff. If we can get a full-time
quality assurance individual, then we would be able to review 100
percent of those calls, and obviously that will improve the way in
which we respond to those calls. I'm not saying that it's bad right
now, but we're only reviewing 43 percent. We need to be able to
review more. There's always room for improvement in everything we do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- the software that you're
requesting in the one grant -- MR. NIND: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would the software enable your
existing percentage to go up without adding personnel should the grant
not be -- not be renewed?
MR. NIND: Yes. That would, in fact, improve the way
that the EHD calls are handled by the 911 dispatchers because they
would be incorporated into the computer-aided dispatch system rather
than using the flip cards.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's where I draw the separation,
because the grant that allows us to purchase software and do training
that increases that percentage is fine, but the grant that enables the
additional position that would then have to be funded at an increased
administration cost the next year is one of those enablers that I am
not fond of. So am I correct in reading that Item 16(H)(2) is the
software aspect of that, and 16(H)(3) is the personnel aspect?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It looks that way to me.
MR. NIND: I think that is so. Let me just confirm.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: While he's looking for that, can
I just ask --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it says quality assurance --
it said just prior to that in that paragraph that funds were requested
for a quality-assurance program that would fund a quality-assurance
coordinator, computer hardware, and state-of-the-art emergency medical
dispatch.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I read that, and that's why I'm
asking for the clarification, because if we can limit that application
to software that improves the efficiency rating from 43 percent
without turning it into an increased administrative request in the
outyear, then I would like to see that happen.
MR. NIND: Okay. There are two areas of software that I
think we -- we just need to clarify. One of them -- and this is on
the project budget narrative of that grant application. Under
software the Pro-QA for Windows, basically we are looking at that
software being installed on the 911 call-taker positions so they would
be able to handle emergency medical dispatch. Rather than using the
flip cards, which I think some of you have seen, they'll be able to
have that actually on the computer system.
The other one is the software for the quality-assurance
coordinator. So, in other words, for that particular terminal, that
will enable her to -- or him to -- to go through the quality assurance
for each of the calls.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie just passed down
to me -- actually, if I'd been on my toes, I would have seen this, but
the -- the breakdown in your -- your app -- your package of a $39,000
salaried position.
MR. NIND: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thirty-two thousand of software, and
you have even travel expenses of -- of eighteen hundred and fifty in
there for the individual. So, Commissioner Constantine, am I -- am I
following a similar line in -- in your concern in that it's really the
personnel position that we have a concern about because we've never
seen this position before? It seems to be created by the grant, so to
speak, and then funded in increased administration costs. I am more
than -- than happy to -- to sign off on a grant requesting the
additional software to improve that percentage. But the personnel,
it's not something that's been an identified need in the past, and I
think it's an enabling fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And on the next page of the --
page 8 it -- it does break out -- total equipment cost is $28,350 as
the state grant. Of course, there is an almost $10,000 local match;
so -- so we are spending -- and that -- that -- I, again, don't have a
problem with buying the software, but I would suggest that what we
approve is the $28,350, not the additional position.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there any further questions
for Mr. Nine on this matter?
Mr. McNees, do we have any speakers?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval of 16(A)(2) with
the change that the maximum amount is the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be H, hotel -- 16(H) --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. 16(H)(2) with the --
in the maximum amount of $28,350. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: To be used --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To be used solely for the
equipment, software, set out on page 8 of the executive summary.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Nine, thank you for
the explanation.
Item #lib
RECOHMENDATION TO APPROVE A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
DISPATCH TRAINING - APPROVED
HR. NIND: And the other -- the other application for
the continued training?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do need a motion to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to deny.
MR. NIND: For the continuing training of EHDs?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second to deny
16(H)(3). Any -- any discussion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whoa. Wait.
MR. NIND: Commissioners, I -- I think we just need to
clarify. There are two grant applications. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wait a minute.
MR. NIND: We've looked at one now which we've taken the
quality-control coordinator and taken that out of that application
leaving in the software for the EHD. There was another grant
application which was submitted to you at the same time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nine, let me see if I can
expedite this. What this -- the second grant is to provide the
training for the software in the first grant?
MR. NIND: No. It is continued training for all of the
dispatchers and recertification, which we have applied for every year
since '89 and been successful in getting it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you've gotten it. So if it goes
away, are we going to see it as a line item in your budget?
MR. NIND: We would continue the EMD program, and it
would have to be continued, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So this is something you're going to
do anyway --
MR. NIND: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but you're -- you're --
MR. NIND: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- requesting grant funds to
accomplish it?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I withdraw my
motion. Hove to approve Item 16(H)(3). COHMISSIONER BERRY: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion
on the motion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you for that
explanation, Mr. Nind.
MR. NIND: Thank you much.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just -- before we leave
that subject, I'd like to ask -- I -- I know that we can't control how
the executive summaries are prepared by constitutional officers, but
that when we have grant application executive summaries that these
kinds of questions are addressed in the fiscal impact section. Future
fiscal impact includes outyears.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: I think we've already given that
direction to our staff.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In essence, I think what we need to
do is if we see something from one of our departments or a
constitutional officer that does not provide the outyear financial
projections, that we just simply either deny it or -- or send it back,
because we need that information.
MR. HcNEES: We'll communicate that to the other
constitutionals who actually bring items to you, and as you say, it's
-- we can't control the item itself.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we can once it hits our package
and whether it's included and discussed by this board. Thank you,
Mr. HcNees.
PUBLIC COHMENT - DISCUSSION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION
Okay. We're at the public comment section.
Hr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: You have two registered. Stan Olds.
MR. OLDS: Good morning, gentlemen -- and ladies.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. OLDS: Anyway, my question is that you have taken
off the agenda 12(C), and I was just wondering, what was the reason
for taking it off the agenda?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I explained toward the
beginning of the meeting, some of the folks that this affected;
namely, one of the cable company's management team was going to be out
of town. And while this may be something very good for the public, I
did think probably in order to be fair, that those companies this is
going to affect ought to be able to be here as part of the public
process. So I continued it at their request. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For two weeks.
MR. OLDS: Well, I guess the only reason I wanted to
speak was because -- understanding something about those ordinances,
is that the public should be able to have access to the television
channels of about 1 for every 60 channels so that the public would
have, perhaps, 6 television channels to put out public access
information about activities in the county and activities of various
organizations. And I was just wondering if that was in -- involved in
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olds, we -- actually, that is --
we either have or -- and -- and, Commissioner Norris, we have or will
have two of those, and the county currently has Channel 54, and I -- I
think the access to that channel -- it's fairly new -- is being worked
out right now. But there's another one in the works as I understand
it. But I think that is a very appropriate question, and for the same
reason, maybe at the time of this -- this discussion, the people that
run those cable companies need to be here for it so that --
MR. OLDS: I see your point, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, it's --
MR. OLDS: I didn't realize that, and that's the only
reason I wanted to do it is to bring it before the public to let them
know that we do have this availability, because whether we use it or
not, at least we have it available.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I might ask you to contact Mr. Ken
Fuchs at Continental directly and ask that question. He might be able
to provide an answer for you quickly more so than --
MR. OLDS: At least I want to get it across to you
people. You -- you people will have to make the decision on it as to
whether you're going to do it or not. And that's why I wanted to let
you know that the public is interested in it, and we certainly would
like to see you agree on it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, thank you. We appreciate that.
MR. OLDS: Thank you very much.
MR. HcNEES: And Ron Pure.
MR. PURE: Thank you. Good morning. I thought I was
going to come right after the Lely Barefoot Beach discussion, because
that has something to do with public access as well as the topic that
I'm going to address.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, sir. Your name for the
record, please?
MR. PURE: My name is Ron Pure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. PURE: Thank you. I am a community-access
television producer, and I'm also a member in the state of Connecticut
of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Sanction Cable
Advisory Commission. And with regard to what you folks were
discussing a few minutes ago about Lely Barefort -- Bare -- Barefoot
park, that seems to be something that is real problematic, because
you've committed yourself to certain things, and you now have to deal
with them.
Now, with regard to public access or community-access
television, you are operating with a clean bill of health, so to
speak, because you're in the midst of negotiating a new contract and
franchise agreement with Continental, Time Warner, and Marco. Those
folks provide the service to you in the county. Public access or
community access, which is what it's become more commonly known in
most areas where it exists, is a -- a boon to any community with which
I'm familiar in that it provides an opportunity to the public at
large, taxpayers, subscribers, anyone and everyone to seize the
opportunity to put together their own program and have it appear on a
dedicated channel in a franchise area.
Just let me run a few things by you, if I may. Grass
roots -- it is a grass-roots forum for people within any community to
produce their own shows. Groups and individuals benefit from the
opportunity of participating in community access, and I don't want
anyone to get the idea that this is only a forum within which
activists get involved, political activists. It's also for people
like artists and authors and nongovernment civic organizations,
environmentalists, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, 4-H clubs, religious
groups and leaders, musicians, hobbyists, crafts people, and more.
It is not something that costs the taxpayer a dime,
typically, either. It is something that is in your hands as the
governmental leaders within Collier County to address, and to -- to
get -- for the lack of another word -- from the cable operator. You
have the legal means by which to pursue that cable operator -- in this
case, Continental, Time Warner, again, and Marco -- and have them
provide at their cost, the cost of doing business within the county
and provide services to the community on the level of a production
studio, editing suite, cameras, and so on.
Now, there are many people who think that Channel 10 is
public access or community access. This is often pitched by the local
general manager -- at least he has to me -- as being the community
access station within the county. That is not a public or community
access station. That is a commercial entity. Channel 54, which I
think you folks addressed a minute ago, is the government access
station, which is now shared by the education department within the
county. Each of those entities -- and I advocate your pursuing as
much government access as possible during these negotiations. All of
-- all of those entities are entitled to, through negotiation, a
separate and distinct channel to broadcast public, a/k/a, community
access, education access, and government access. If you can get more
than that, that's fine.
But, again, it's up to you folks, and I hope that you
will seize this opportunity to construct a -- an arrangement with the
cable companies within the county so that the public at large can
enjoy the benefits of something that is appreciated and taken
advantage of in many, many areas around the country. And I'm here to
answer any questions if you wish to ask them and identify anything
that I am able to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have a question, Mr. Pure.
MR. PURE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mentioned all of the nice
programs that public access TV's available to. What about the
programs on racism? What about the programs from the -- the
subversive side? Public access means everyone gets access. It means
government cannot control nor can the Cablevision control whether
somebody -- regardless of their message -- can put that message on TV,
and my child can watch it. Now, I can control the TV in my house to
some extent.
MR. PURE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: However, it's a slippery slope that
I'm not sure -- you know, Continental has a -- a very broad range of
programs: senior life-styles and things that seem to address -- but
there has to be some merit to the program in order to -- to -- to be
there. And there's one super talk show on Friday night I understand.
I haven't seen it a lot.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's probably late at night.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Entertainment-related ticket
something.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. But my point is --
MR. PURE: The show of shows.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that once you go down that path --
MR. PURE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and you lose any control
whatsoever of content, it can become a forum for things that the
community doesn't necessarily want to be subjected to.
MR. PURE: Well, that's a good point, and any community
such as the one that I live full time -- I'm down here part time at
this point -- and is -- has dealt with that pretty effectively over
the past few years. And most recently the FCC and -- and Congress and
the courts have legislated and made decisions with regard to those
kinds of things happening. It becomes, then, the responsibility of
the county or the town or municipality to take those things under
control by using common sense and community standards. And I'm sure
that you're familiar with community standards with regard to what
supreme court decisions have been of late in the past five or six or
eight years.
We have not had a problem in Fairfield County,
Connecticut; Westchester County, Connecticut. There are occasional
duffuses (phonetic) that show up with their production in hand and
wish to have it aired. These are --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Pure.
MR. PURE: These are far outweighed by the benefits.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pure, you've -- you've answered
my question.
MR. PURE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is, in essence, kind of come
back -- comes back to us, and we get to make First Amendment fights,
which I'm not sure is something that we -- we want to do. But we did
broach this question two weeks ago, and there did seem to be -- to be
a lot of interest. But as we come up with these contracts, we can
discuss the options. If you want to provide commissioners
individually information on how to make sure that the programming is
acceptable to the community standards, that might be worthwhile and
helpful. But beyond that I -- I don't know that -- that there's been
much that would change the board's direction given two weeks ago in
this matter.
MR. PURE: Well, if I could just mention two other
things, and that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. Unfortunately, we -- I -- I've
actually extended your time by asking you a question beyond -- MR. PURE: Did you? Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- what was alloted initially.
So are there any questions of Mr. Pure from the balance
of the board?
Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. PURE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that it, Mr. McNees? Okay. We
have finished the morning portion of the agenda.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 97-14, RE PETITION PUD-97-2, BOB THINNES AND Q. GRADY MINOR
OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING DEVOE FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP AND DEVOE'S INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM C-3 TO PUD TO BE
KNOWN AS DEVOE PONTIAC PUD FORAN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP AND ALL OF THE
USES AUTHORIZED IN THE C-3 INTERMEDIATE COHMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AIRPORT ROAD (C.R. 31)
APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET SOUTH OF GLADES BOULEVARD - ADOPTED
We'll move to the afternoon public hearings. Item
12(B)(1), Petition PUD-97-2. We have, it looks like, Bob Thinnes and
Q. Grady Minor. This is a request for fezone from C-3 to PUD Devoe
Pontiac. Good morning, Mr. --
Would all individuals who are here to speak on this
matter please stand and raise your right hand.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Court Reporter.
Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino for the record, planning
services. The petition before you is -- is, as you stated, a petition
to fezone certain property.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, let me see if I can
do the short version of this. It's Currently C-3. C-3 doesn't allow
a car dealership. Rather than -- rather than request C-4, which opens
up all kinds of things, they're asking for C-3 plus the one use, which
would be automobile dealership, in an effort to expand their existing
dealership.
MR. NINO: Exactly stated.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which abuts another dealership.
I mean, this is such a piece of cake, as far as I'm concerned. I
don't need to have a long discussion on it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any letters in opposition,
Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: We have no letters in opposition. Planning
Commission unanimously endorsed it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees indicates there is no --
MR. HcNEES: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- public speakers on this matter.
Are there any questions or a motion?
I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a 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, the motion carries.
Item #12Cl - Continued to 3/25/97
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 97-163, RE PETITION AV-96-037, TO VACATE ALL EASEHENTS AND
DEDICATIONS FOR PUBLIC ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY, UTILITIES, AND DRAINAGE IN
THE WOODLANDS DRI/PUD LOCATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED CONTINGENT UPON THE TWO
EASEMENTS IN SECTION 21 EAST BEING WITHHELD PENDING OWNERS IN SECTION
22 HAVING OTHER LEGAL ACCESS
We're -- Item 12(C)(1) was continued. We're on Item
12(C)(2), Petition AV 96-037 to vacate all easements and dedications
for public record. This is the Woodlands DRI/PUD. Good morning.
MR. HULLER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record my name is Russ Huller with transportation. Item 12(C)(2) is a
public hearing to consider vacation -- or Petition AV 96-037 for the
vacation of all road, utility, and drainage easements in the Woodlands
DRI/PUD. Site location is north of Immokalee Road, east of Longshore
Lake. They want to comply -- they want to vacate to comply with the
road alignments on the PUD. The PUD is -- along with the map on the
wall, the PUD is on page 8 of your agenda packet, and the vacation map
of what they want to vacate is on page 7.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I interrupt again? On this
one it seems to me this is just a simple matter. We should have --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have some questions on
this one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Well -- but the easement
should have been vacated at the time that the PUD was approved. The
question is, are we going to make the roads match what we've already
approved in the PUD? So if it's more complicated than that, let's
just go straight to those issues.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mullet, I believe the board
members have been individually addressed on several matters within
this. Why don't we just open up the board discussions with you, if
that's acceptable. Is there anything else you feel a need to get on
the record as far as -- okay.
Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear the
witnesses on this matter.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a variance.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a variance. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not a variance --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Vacation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- a vacation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You are correct. I am not. Thank
you.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: It can happen.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions from Mr. Mullet on
this?
I do have one for either Mr. Mullet or the petitioner.
I received a -- one letter I received was someone who was talking
about access to their property. Mr. Mullet, are any of these
easements necessary for access to parcels outside of the Woodlands
DRI? In other words, are we prohibiting or removing access to parcels
that exist on the perimeter or outside the Woodlands DRI through this
vacation?
MR. HULHERE: I think Mr. Varnadoe might want to address
a -- a PUD that's north of the Woodlands.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Varnadoe, this one had to
deal with the crossing of a canal also, which I don't believe is a
part of this application. But, again, I just want to address first
and foremost, are we cutting off access to anyone's property and
creating a possible takings issue here?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Prior to his response I want
to ask -- because maybe we're talking about the same thing. We have
three different property owners: Welborn, Nelson, and -- and Land and
Sea Investments.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This was in --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if these are the
same ones.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This was a -- a different one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. In
direct response to your question, the answer is no. The -- on the
wall you'll see the approved Woodlands master plan on your left and
the same property boundaries on your right. The -- just by way of
history, the Woodlands DRI was an amalgamation or consolidation of
some 32 different parcels, 5 acres, 10 acres, 20 acres. So there's
several private and public easements that were on the property. We've
gotten rid of the private ones. The public ones now do not match up
with the road system that were part of the master plan and approved as
part of the master plan.
What we're seeking to do is get rid of the easements
that no longer match up with the approved master plan. The law is
fairly clear. Section 336.09 says that if they're not needed for a
public benefit or a public use, then you have the ability to vacate
them. None of the easements on here provide any access to anything
that would be needed for public use because they're not shown on the
-- on the master plan.
Mr. Constantine, the only existing crossing of Immokalee
canal presently is down in this location right here (indicating),
okay. So I don't think that anyone -- we are not -- any of these
parcels that are along Immokalee Road, the two outparcels (indicating)
-- now, this one's multiple ownership. That may be the people you're
talking about. They have direct access to Immokalee Road just like we
do. You -- you have to get there from here and get a -- get a -- a
crossing of the canal from the county and South Florida Water
Management District in order to access your property, but they do have
legal access to their property (indicating).
We are providing -- as you remember, we had a big
discussion on this westerly road. There were some constraints put on
that on the size of that road in Mr. Constantine's motion to approve
the PUD amendment and DO amendment. We have reached a -- agreements,
written easement agreements, with the out -- the outparcel owner here
(indicating), with Section 16 here (indicating), and with -- although
we weren't legally required to we're glad to -- with Sections 9 and 4
which is the Parklands and Parklands East, I believe, to provide --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's west.
MR. VARNADOE: West, I'm sorry. You're right.
Parklands West to provide them a -- an easement here (indicating),
which would be effective once you've approved the vacation of the
other easements, and that becomes -- your decision becomes final so
that they would -- could use that for access to -- to their
properties. The reason that hasn't been recorded as of this date is I
didn't want to put another set of easements on this property until we
got rid of the ones that are already existing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just -- just for clarification,
Mr. Varnadoe, you're saying that -- that your -- your intention and
your commitment is then to vacate these easements and subsequently
immediately establish a new easement along the west boundary of the
property?
MR. VARNADOE: That's correct. And that easement would
extend to the individuals and projects that I had previously
mentioned. Two of those agreements are in your packet. And for the
record -- Mr. Weigel, if you'd pass that wherever it needs to go --
the other agreement with Parklands and Parklands West is -- needs to
be made part of the record, if I could.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Varnadoe.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To kind of bring closure to my
question -- because I think I -- I see the answer. From the only
canal crossing that is -- is existing on the -- on the property, I
don't see any easement or easements that exist that give legal access
from that crossing to the outparcels; is that true? MR. VARNADOE: That's true.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So -- okay. So if they were using
that to get to their property, they're doing it by crossing private
property.
MR. VARNADOE: They're trespassing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That kind of reduces a claim if their
properties are in those areas. Okay. Thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: And I'll be glad to, you know, talk about
any other issues, but I want to kind of cut this short since I don't
think we have many other issues. The -- I'd like to introduce John
Wanklyn, who is president of the -- gen -- managing partner of
Immokalee Road Partnership, which is the owner of this property.
There was some issues with the adjoining property owners, mainly
Longshore Lake and the homeowners' association and the residents
therein. They've reached some agreement to address some concerns on
-- on privacy and buffering, and I think it's better they address
that directly rather than me.
Mr. Constantine, did I answer all your questions on --
on access for these other people?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. But I -- I'll
let you know before the public hearing is over.
MR. VARNADOE: All right, sir. I just didn't want to
leave without having addressed your --
MR. WANKLYN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record I'm John Wanklyn. I'm president of McAlpine (Immokalee Road),
who is the managing general partner of the Immokalee Road Partnership,
and the Immokalee Road Partnership owns 500 acres, which is known as
the Woodlands, and the plan of that -- the site plan of the Woodlands
is on the wall.
We have been speaking for the last four days or five
days with our neighbors at Longshore Lake, which lies to the west of
the Woodlands property. They are concerned about the location of a
road that is what we call the western road -- I guess they call it the
eastern road -- up the boundary between Section 21, which is the
Woodlands, and Section 20 or the eastern half of Section 20, which is
Longshore Lake.
This has nothing -- this has nothing to do whatsoever
with today's proceedings, but in an effort -- because today's
proceedings, as I understand it, are solely to consider the vacation
of easements on Section 21. However, in an effort to be a good
neighbor and to get unanimous consent from everybody, we've come to an
agreement with the residents of Longshore Lake, and I would like to
read that to let you know what the agreement is so it becomes part of
the record.
We will deposit $75,000 in an escrow account -- we being
Immokalee Road Partnership, will deposit $75,000 in -- in an escrow
account at Quarles & Brady. These funds will be used by the residents
of Longshore Lake to build a berm or a fence or a hedge or a barrier
on their property in any loc -- to any design and at any cost that
they wish, nothing to do with us. It is their choice what they do
with the funds.
As part of this agreement, they tell us that right now
there are four or five residents of Longshore Lake who did not get
proper notice of the meeting to consider the PUD amendment, which was
on the 22nd of October of last year, and the revised development
order, which was on the same date. And they are -- they were,
naturally, concerned about this. They also -- I'm sorry -- didn't get
-- some of them didn't get notice for these proceedings, I
understand.
The escrowed funds -- as part of our agreement that we
have entered into, finalized this morning -- as part of our agreement,
we will release the funds from escrow or the funds will be released
from escrow when we get a waiver of the defects in the notices --
that's the notices for both October and for this meeting -- from the
affected residents. If you have any questions, I would be pleased to
try and answer them; and if not, I would like to -- well, first of
all, are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me step in there, if I may. Your
-- your first statement was absolutely correct. Any agreement you
make with the folks at Longshore Lake is not a part of this
proceeding.
MR. WANKLYN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think they appreciate you stating
on the record the content of that agreement. I don't believe this
board has the authority to make it legal and binding here today
because it is not a part of this vacation; however, your stating it
for the record at least, I think, has some validity and -- and may
allow them some recourse if -- if things don't occur in that fashion.
What I don't want to do is start acting as an
arbitration board on this agreement. You've stated it for the
record. We have all heard it. The residents who are here have heard
it. I don't think that it's appropriate to have discussion on the
details of that agreement. If the residents want to state whether
they like it or they don't, that's their right. But the issue today
is the vacation of these easements. And as much as I appreciate --
and I'm sure the residents appreciate your statement, I would like to
ask that that discussion be set aside for an appropriate forum. Is
that the consensus of the board on this matter?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Is there anything else
you wish to add, sir?
MR. WANKLYN: Thank you, sir. All -- all I would like
to do is to introduce Mr. Dominick Cavuoto, who is the president of
the Longshore Lake residents' association, to confirm that we have
entered into an agreement, which I think hopefully, Mr. --
Commissioner Hancock, is appropriate, that we've entered into an
agreement to agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If it takes less than five minutes,
it's appropriate.
MR. WANKLYN: Thank you, sir.
MR. CAVUOTO: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record my name is Dominick Cavuoto, president of the Longshore Lake
residents' association. We are a civic organization. We do not
control the foundation at this point in time. Our real concern here
was the issue of -- we've just -- as a result of what was being
developed, it opens up approximately 1 mile of exposure for the
Longshore Lake community, that presently is natural Florida landscape,
to a roadway.
Our big concern there is we don't know the end result of
that roadway. There is rumors that it is anything from a two-lane
access for the communities involved to a possibility of a
multi-four-lane or highway going all the way up to Bonita Beach Road.
It's around there that, obviously, our anxiety opens up extremely
high. We believe we live in a secure community. We advertise it as
such, we bought it as such, and we really would look for that to
continue and quality of life that we have there.
Our major concerns, obviously, were security, noise, and
visual. Opening up a full mile to an open road where today there is
none is extremely concerning. There were a number of community
residents who did not receive notification. The hope here is that a
waiver would be signed by all the residents who would have -- or
should have received the notification to part of this agreement with
the -- those who own the property presently. We understand that
vacating is -- the objective of vacating is for the good of the
community, and we consider ourselves part of the greater community of
Collier County, and we hope that would be the same.
Clearly, we would thank the commission for their
support, allowing us to address this issue. We clearly understand
your position of not being arbiters. We clearly understand that. We
clearly understand that there's a future to this and everything else
that happens in the future, and as you clearly stated, there's a time
for everything. But we hope that this could be resolved, as we hope
to today, in an amicable manner and be able to rect -- rectify the
situation where they're presently -- obviously, everyone is agreeing
that opening up that full mile does impact the community at Longshore
Lake.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I think you're on the
road to doing that. I will ask all future speakers to confine your
comments to the vacation. The issue of vacation is what's before the
board today. And, Mr. HcNees, why don't you go ahead and call the
speakers.
MR. McNEES: You have 12. Your first speaker would be
Michel Saadeh followed by Frank Grandi.
MR. SAADEH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Saadeh. I represent Vineyards Development Corp, and
we have ownership interest in Sections 4 and 9 in Township 20 --
Township 48 south and Range 26 east. I just want to confirm that we
have an agreement with the Woodlands, and I appreciate Mr. Varnadoe
and Mr. Wanklyn's introduction to the record the grant of easement
that will be recorded as soon as these easements are vacated. And
that's as short as I can make it. If you have any questions, I'd be
happy to answer them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One quick question. Can you
point to me on the map where those sections are.
MR. SAADEH: Actually, they're outside the map, but I'll
try.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Saadeh, could you use the
microphone there? Thank you.
MR. SAADEH: There's -- there's another mile in here
(indicating), which is Section 16, and then there's -- Section 4 and 9
is north of that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. SAADEH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Saadeh. Mr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: Frank Grandi followed by Honica Grandi.
MR. GRANDI: I think Mr. Cavuoto expressed the -- my
intentions, and my wife also. Honica says the same.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Grandi.
MR. HcNEES: John Dodd and Mr. --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Feel free to waive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Dominick has waived his right.
MR. HcNEES: And Mr. Cavuoto had registered. I assume
he's already spoken. Bill Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank
you. My name is Bill Roberts, and I represent myself and the Land and
Seas Investments. We have some other speakers who -- who will speak
to more detail than I. And I've furnished you a written document
which has some of my objections to the vacation of the public road --
road easement, which I believe is trying to be vacated today.
The notice that we received did not identify
specifically any easements and -- nor do the maps here particularly
show easements. We just talked about generally vacating all the
easements in Woodlands, but what I'm concerned about is -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, you'll need to use the
microphone to your left.
MR. ROBERTS: I just wanted to point it out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ROBERTS: What I'm concerned about is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. What we're going to need
you to do is to -- to point to the map that shows -- the easements in
green on the right are those to be vacated today, and which of those
are you referring to?
MR. ROBERTS: If this is the easement between 22 and
here (indicating), and if that's the 1 mile. All right. This is the
first we've seen this. I mean, it's interesting -- I would be
objecting to this green one and this green one (indicating).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the purpose of?
MR. ROBERTS: For the purpose -- for the purpose of that
we own land that's within the high-density band in Section 22, which
borders on the exact other side of the Section Line 21. And this is a
public road easement, and to deny us -- to -- to vacate the Woodlands'
side of that easement would be, in effect, to deny a normal road from
the Immokalee Road through that area backwards. And particularly our
new information today is that they are now blocking the western, which
means that there's not going to be any access from Immokalee on the
other side of Woodlands back.
So it would make it more important for future planning
to permit that public road easement to remain open until we see how
that land would be developed. But in any event, it would preclude our
-- access to our own properties. The -- under the county's use map,
our property is located within the high-density band. To -- to deny
us a normal 60-foot road easement through there would, in effect,
negate the county's planning, because there would be no way to access
the properties.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I'm confused, and I
-- and if you're about to lose access to some property with a high
value, I understand why you'd be upset about that; so I want to try to
understand your point. This -- this is an easement that's half on
their property and half on yours.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that correct?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- is that true?
MR. ROBERTS: I -- this is the first that I'm seeing
it. They -- they have -- the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir -- sir, don't you know the
easements that are in --
MR. ROBERTS: Yeah. But let me -- let me make a point.
I would assume that that's correct, that we have a 30-foot easement;
so do they.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So half -- half -- half of
a normal 60-foot road, 30 feet of it is on property owned by
Woodlands, and 30 feet of it is on property that you own. My question
is why -- if you own a 60-foot road, you can make that on -- by adding
another 30 feet on your side.
MR. ROBERTS: As indicated in my letter to you, the
notice that was given to us showed no reasoning why they were
vacating, what they were vacating, what their purpose for vacating
was, or anything else. So we have no way of -- of approaching or
responding to that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, sir, that's the purpose of
this public hearing is to --
MR. ROBERTS: Well, I know. But we're now being asked
to respond to something in less than five minutes when we're hearing
it for the first time, and I still don't --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I'm sorry. You're not hearing
it for the first time. When you received a public notice, it is, in
fact, notice of potential action that may affect you. It is then
incumbent upon you to contact the individuals listed on that notice or
the county listed on that notice to get further information on that
matter. We can't send out a full agenda packet.
MR. ROBERTS: I -- sir, I think I addressed that in my
letter to you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, sir, what you're standing here
telling me you're not sure which easements we're talking about -- MR. ROBERTS: No, no. I -- I'm -- I'm not sure because
I didn't know what the little green things were until you just pointed
them out to me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have a map that shows the
easements that affect your property?
MR. ROBERTS: They're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In your survey, probably.
MR. ROBERTS: Yeah. They're -- I -- you have a letter
from me with -- attaching -- which shows my property and the -- and
the -- to the extent that my property adjoins Section 21, there's a
road easement of 30 feet on the Woodlands and 30 feet on ours.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In -- in fairness,
Mr. Varnadoe and crew do this all the time. This gentleman doesn't.
So I -- I want to afford him as much opportunity as we can, because I
realize this probably isn't something you do regularly.
Can you show me on the -- the map that has the green and
the yellow and the blue there where your property is so I have a clear
understanding and then where -- not the one with the -- the green
lines, but the actual map itself. Where in relation to that is your
property?
MR. ROBERTS: My -- my -- I believe if these are --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not on that one, on the
actual map to your left. Can you show me -- MR. ROBERTS: I'm not on this map. I'm here
(indicating).
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Constantine, can I try to help him to
try to get him situated on these two maps, because I'm like you. I
want to understand where -- where he is.
Sir, this is Immokalee Road (indicating). This is the 1
mile to here (indicating).
MR. ROBERTS: Hold on a second. I'm reading it upside
down.
MR. VARNADOE: I understand. This is Immokalee Road
(indicating). This is the east boundary of -- of Woodlands. This is
this boundary right here (indicating), and this is the same scale; so
this is the -- this is the -- 1 mile from here to here (indicating).
And I think what they're asking you, is your property here
(indicating) or where --
MR. ROBERTS: My property would be bordering, probably,
right here (indicating). It shows on the letter and map I gave you.
I gave -- it's bordering right against this (indicating) probably.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you have 20 acres there;
is that right, Mr. Roberts? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I -- I guess -- and,
Mr. Varnadoe, as long as you have the microphone, do you have any idea
how he'll get access to his property if those easements disappear?
MR. VARNADOE: Sir, as you can see clearly from here, he
doesn't get access here (indicating) because there's a break in the
access point here. I have not researched his chain of title, no, sir,
to tell you how he's got -- most of this property over in this section
(indicating), he's got access from the -- from the midpoint of this
section much as this section's got access here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What about the other green
lines that lead from our top down? I'm just -- I'm assuming and --
and that's kind of a -- don't worry about answering that question.
The -- I'm assuming this gentleman has to have some legal access to
his property which is located off -- I need to know from someone on
our staff if Mr. Varnadoe can't answer the question, does the vacation
of these easements impact his access to his property, because if this
takes away a legal access for him, I have a concern. If he has other
access to his property, then that's another story.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's why I was asking my
question, because from what's being vacated, it would appear now that
you don't have access from the easements that are contained within the
Woodlands DRI, and that's why I was asking if you know where your
easements are to access your property.
MR. ROBERTS: It's my understanding that the road
easement goes all the way through there, but I mean, this is the first
that I'm hearing otherwise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. That's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, I need to hear from
someone who does know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He -- he must have thought -- I
mean, I -- I'm just going to say this so everybody can look at it --
that his access would have been that -- that broad center one and then
across. You can see how he had a -- a right-angle access that's being
vacated. I'm willing to bet that he has other legal access, but that
one I can't answer.
MR. MULLER: Most of those squares on there --
MR. ROBERTS: Excuse me. That's all I have to say for
the moment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We -- we're -- we'll try and
get an answer here. Mr. Mullet.
MR. MULLER: Most of the squares on there indicate
40-acre tracts, and as there -- they were sold, they were sold either
with an easement or without. And there was a number of them that had
an easement on their deed, and that's why it's so fragmented. Other
ones didn't, and in essence, this gentleman could be losing half of a
couple of easements along that section line.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the question is, do we know
where his other legal access is?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or if there is other legal
access.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. MULLER: No. I -- I haven't searched the title for
__
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe somebody behind you knows.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The question is, was his access up
the center line and to the right to get to his property, or was it up
the center line and to the left from -- from the east? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we don't know that, and -- and I
assume he doesn't at this point either.
MR. MULLER: They've given me a -- a copy of the map.
It shows Nursery Lane and -- and Rose Boulevard in that land section,
and they don't appear to be up the center of the land section like --
those are broken up; so I -- I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I guess what I want to
do is make --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just a second, sir. Are you a
registered speaker?
THE SPEAKER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then you'll have your opportunity to
speak as it comes up in succession.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I want to make sure is
that if this is the only access that -- I -- I don't care if the
access changes. I just don't want the guy to lose access to his own
property, that's all. And -- and if there's no other access, than
perhaps an alternative can be arranged, and if there is another
alternative, then that -- that will answer the question altogether.
And maybe Mr. Welborn will be able to answer that, but if -- if
someone can't answer that today, then I -- I am a little concerned
vacating these without knowing whether or not we're completely taking
away. Perhaps by the end of the hearing we'll know, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's proceed with the public
speakers, then, and see if we can get answers.
MR. HULLER: Can -- can I say one thing about -- I think
they came in for a PUD amendment. If you notice from the green and
blue and yellow map, that's all swamp. So a -- a road, in all
likelihood on paper, would do them no good on that side of the -- of
the land section. They moved it when they came in for the PUD
amendment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would do him some good. He could
spend $2 million getting it permitted.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Welborn is your next speaker followed
by Nevan Fisher.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I --
MR. WELBORN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
the commissioner (sic) and all of you interested folks out there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, we -- we need you on the
microphone for all comments, please.
MR. WELBORN: All right. My name is Odell Welborn, and
I bought 10 acres of land in 1979 on that section line, Section Line
22 on that side (indicating). Twenty-one is this side; twenty-two is
on that side (indicating). My property is one-half mile north of
Immokalee Road. In front of it is Bay West Nursery. Probably many of
you are familiar with Bay West Nursery.
In October of 1995, we had a flood. We were this deep
in water (indicating). Florida Management came out, the water people,
and they decided they would build three bridges: one at Rose
Boulevard; one on Nursery Lane, which I live on, in this 10 acres
that's out behind my house out in the back; and another one on the
Section Line of 21 and 22. The cost of these have now been on a low
bid of $460,000 so that each bridge will cost $150,000 more or less,
and they are in the center of 21 and 22.
Now, there's to be a road or something on 21 or 22,
because from the time I've bought it and Nursery Lane also, we have
put a fence up or built a barrier so that our 30 feet -- we have not
had any use of it for 17 years to go further backwards. In Golden
Gate there is a boulevard named Sunshine. Sunshine goes straight
north by the new Gulf Gate High School and to Section 21 and 22 and to
Bonita Road someday.
Now, how -- you know, why would you want to vacate a
north-south road -- a north-south road that we've always been told
forever there were going to be a road there on 21 and 22? And -- and
why build the -- why build a bridge across there if nobody's going to
use it? My only concern is that I have 10 acres of land. I -- I
turned 80 in November, and I've been saving it to sell someday for my
re -- to sort of take care of me when I get old; so --
(Laughter)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you're getting there.
MR. WELBORN: And if you take that road away from me, I
have no way to get to that 10 acres of land.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have no access to that through
the property that your house sits on either?
MR. WELBORN: I can go across that piece of land, yes.
I can, but I don't see why I should. You know, we have a -- we have a
right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually we don't. Mr. --
Mr. Mullet, this is -- this is becoming a problem for me, because as I
look at this, there is no county-owned right-of-way that provides
continual access from Immokalee Road north to the section line for
that mile stretch. There are little pieces, but there are segments
missing.
MR. HULLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So do we have a roadway plan, and did
South Florida contact us about the location of that bridge? It
wouldn't be the first time a state agency didn't talk to a local
government before building something, but --
MR. WELBORN: I -- I believe the transportation people
of -- of Collier County know about it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's ask them.
MR. WELBORN: I -- I know that Mr. -- who just retired.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Archibald. Archibald?
MR. WELBORN: Yes. Yes. He knew about it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, somebody needs to tell me if we
have advised or recommended the bridge in that location for the
purpose of a future roadway, particularly since we -- it doesn't
appear that we own right-of-way to make that happen.
MR. BOBANICK: For the record, Dave Bobanick,
transportation director. At this point in time, I cannot answer
that. I -- I have not seen any correspondence or had any
communication regarding those, but that does not mean it does not
exist.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does our future roadway plan show
Sunshine Boulevard extending north to Bonita Beach Road?
MR. BOVANICK: I have -- I have no information on that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But from a practical perspective
HALE VOICE: Mr. Hancock, I can answer your question
when this gentleman -- this gentleman finishes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. From a practical
perspective, even if -- what I think we're asking is we see two green
segments there along the right-hand border and two white where the
easements weren't privately granted and -- but -- but net -- net,
we're talking about that wetland. We're not going to get a road
permitted across that wetland whether we had the easements or not.
And I think that, sir, is -- is your problem. Whether we do anything
or not --
MR. WELBORN: I don't mind.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- you never could build that
road.
MR. WELBORN: I don't -- I don't care, just so you get
it up to our -- Mr. -- Mr. Hahn (phonetic) back here owns the last 20
acres. The Roberts own the next 20. I own 10, and Cleesons
(phonetic) at Bay West own their 30. So that mile -- if we put a
bridge in there that's paid for by the taxpayers, then I think we
ought to be able to use that bridge and the road however the -- who
pays for the road, that's immaterial. Then we will be able to PUD our
land, which we're now talking about because of -- because we go get
the bridge, and then we have access to it. Do you follow what I'm
saying?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do. I just -- the question is
whether or not these segments on the west side of that section line
are -- are necessary or need to be an element of that. And I'll tell
you where that falls apart. If we were going to build a roadway that
-- that bisects that section line, we would have to -- or you would
have to as a private citizen -- purchase or lease the private sections
that are missing in order to accomplish that. MR. WELBORN: I don't follow you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm saying is segments are
missing to get -- if you were going to bisect the section line, in
other words, 30 feet on one side of the section line and 30 feet on
the other --
MR. WELBORN: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- there are pieces in there from
Immokalee Road to get to your property that are owned by the Woodlands
folks, not by the county. We don't have 60 foot of right-of-way that
runs up that section line.
MR. WELBORN: Well, why did you let them have it without
an easement?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We never -- we didn't let them have
it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We didn't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was never -- those were
never owned by the county.
MR. WELBORN: Why did I have an easement on my side, and
they didn't have an easement on their side?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because the other guy negotiated
a different deal. This has all been private land transactions.
MR. WELBORN: You know, this is what sort of tick --
tickles me sometimes. Downtown on 12th Street we got a nursing home
with no road on either side of it. You know, they -- they built
houses on either side of it. Someday we're going to regret that we --
if we vacate that area right there (indicating), period.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, you as -- private property
owners always have a right to together donate right-of-way along that
section line to the county for the purposes of a road. No one is
precluding that future right by this action. But what I'm saying is
we don't have a continuous right-of-way in that location now to do
that.
MR. WELBORN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have broken segments.
MR. WELBORN: What you now have where that green is, but
just past it you do have?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, sir. We -- we currently have
just the green segment. We do not have what's --
MR. WELBORN: All right. You've got the green.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's correct.
MR. WELBORN: That goes up 20 acres.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. And then we have a -- a
void.
MR. WELBORN: Then on the other side we have a 30-foot
for 20 acres.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. WELBORN: Then we don't have for 20 acres, and then
we do have for 20 acres.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. WELBORN: What kind of a mess --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's the mess that the
landowners created up there, because that section line is not slated
for a county roadway.
MR. WELBORN: Well, I wish we had been told that. You
know, when I bought the land and I went to the road people, I was told
it was and for me to vacate it then and not put anything on it because
they would have to remove it at some date, period.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, we need to see -- you know,
we need to look into that.
MR. WELBORN: Also -- of course, he's come in with a new
thing, which I -- I think that's great. He's going to service the
people back that mile behind there, which is now 40 or 50 people, with
this Vineyard Road or this road that's on the -- on the east side
there. So they don't have to be concerned about that, I don't guess.
But is there to be an easement across the top of that piece of land of
any sort? Woodland -- is there to be a road of any sort between --
well, it seems to me like -- you know, you have fire protection and so
on that -- and the county's got water and sewer on Immokalee Road. We
-- we need some source of -- to service those people.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, it -- it would be impractical
for the county to plan road -- roadways on every section line.
MR. WELBORN: Oh, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's really what -- what we're
talking about here, and one of the main reasons we don't have a
roadway going through there is take a look at that huge wetland.
MR. WELBORN: Oh, I see that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's just not really a place for an
arterial-type roadway, which is what the county builds, collectors and
arterials. So I guess what I'm saying is your property is not losing
access by virtue of this, nor are you being prohibited from future
access by joining with other property owners. So I'm not -- I'm not
sure where -- that -- that legally we can say -- and -- and forget
legal. I'm not sure we can say we -- we can't vacate those because
they don't provide anything right now.
MR. WELBORN: Well, I don't think we need a bridge built
for Woodway (sic) then.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Take that up with the South
Florida Water Management District. They put --
MR. WELBORN: Well, I mean --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I appreciate -- thank you
for your -- your explanation. Mr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: Nevan Fisher followed by Herbert Wright.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As the public speaks, I --
maybe our staff is looking at this now, but I'm still going to need an
answer as to whether or not these individual home -- property owners
have other legal access to their property, and if you can't answer
that today, I -- I'm not prepared to vote today. So somebody needs to
be doing that. We've got seven or eight more public speakers, but
somebody needs to be able to answer that by the time we're done with
the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I'm not mistaken, that's the basic
tenet of staff's approval on this is that we are assured that we are
not eliminating access for other private property owners.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I haven't heard anybody get
up at the podium be able to say that. Russ couldn't answer the
question before. So if they can, that will help, but they haven't
been able to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Go ahead, sir. Please
state your name.
MR. FISHER: Good noon, Commissioners. My name is Nevan
Fisher. I have an interest in the Land and Seas property, which is 20
acres, 40 acres away from Immokalee Road. I don't know how many --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think that's on, sir.
MR. FISHER: How many acres is this?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, turn that on.
MR. FISHER: How many acres is this from Immokalee Road
to here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that 20, Mr. Varnadoe?
MR. FISHER: How far is this --
MR. VARNADOE: Quarter of a mile --
MR. FISHER: Is this --
MR. VARNADOE: Quarter of a mile.
MR. FISHER: Okay. Is it --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. This is -- this is not -- this
is not a discussion time with the audience and the gentleman up here.
So we need -- we need this on the record.
MR. FISHER: Okay. Well, I -- I own 20 acres of -- that
begins 40 acres back from Immokalee Road, okay. So I don't know
exactly whether or not my 20 acres begins here or here or here
(indicating), okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know how many miles back?
Is it a half mile back from Immokalee Road?
MR. FISHER: Is 40 acres a half a mile?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. FISHER: Okay. It begins a half a mile, which
begins right here (indicating).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a half a mile if it's in
sections.
MR. FISHER: Right. Okay. My 20 acres begins right
here (indicating) and goes back 20 acres, and the -- we've always --
I'm not sure that we have any access to this land from the east at
all, but we've always thought we had access from Immokalee Road back
up this 60-foot easement going back this way, 30 on us and 30 on the
Section 22 people. That's what we thought, all the way back. Now, if
they vacate 30 feet here and here (indicating) and I'm here, then this
40 acres here, this half mile is owned by somebody else, and so
there's no way I could get to my 30-foot easement on the side of
mine. It appears to me like that I'm going to be landlocked if the
easement is vacated.
MR. McNEES: Your next speaker is Herbert Wright
followed by Robert Hannah.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Cavuoto answered our question from
Longshore Lake. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Hannah.
MR. HANNAH: I'll waive also.
MR. McNEES: Gerald Devito.
HR
HR
HR
HR
HR
HR
DEVITO: I'll waive.
McNEES: Bob Eshelman.
ESHELMAN: I'll waive.
McNEES: And Larry Pasco.
PASCO: I'll waive at this time.
McNEES: That would be all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. It seems like we're coming
down to a single question for staff as we have heard several speakers
talk about: Do I have access or not? I have to admit that if I owned
property, I would hope that I would know where my access is coming
from in the first place, and it seems that their understanding that
access from Immokalee didn't factor in that there were private
easements in there that they legally did not have access to because
private easements are for the property owners' use and benefit only.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Varnadoe, when -- when
were those private easements vacated? I know there's some sec --
sections on there that have been vacated fairly recently.
MR. VARNADOE: Within the last year. They were not any
that ran along the border, Mr. Constantine, if that's where you're
trying to go with this discussion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you didn't -- that was not a
private easement that was vacated -- MR. VARNADOE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that would connect those two green
areas?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So there never was an easement on
that section line?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. But by the same token, we are
not legally able to landlock anybody. I mean, that's not -- that's
just the law. Let me -- and to address this question of the bridge
just so that every -- not that it has a whole lot to do with this
discussion, but just so that everybody understands, there is a
crossing, as I said, in that location (indicating). There is a
crossing down here for Bay Nursery.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bay West.
MR. VARNADOE: Bay West Nursery. The Bay West Nursery
crossing is not of -- of a size that allows the flows through, and
South Florida Water Management says it's going to go. And they have
suggested that this one (indicating) be where the crossing is and that
they're going to build that if we would provide an easement to the
adjoining landowner here so that he can use that to get to Bay West
Nursery, which we have certainly agreed with him to do that. So that
answers the question of this, quote, bridge. It's not a bridge, but
it is a -- a crossing.
I have two suggestions, Mr. Constantine. We can either
vacate all the rest of these easements with the exception of those two
there (indicating), or you guys can take action that is contingent
upon me showing, satisfactory to your county attorney, that these
people have other legal access then, and they don't need those two
easements on the east. That would be my suggestion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to ask -- and I
think something along the same lines. Let me see. If there is no
other legal access, and again, if -- what you've just said is -- if
you can provide that, great.
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. I'm not -- I'm not suggesting
we'll provide them legal access.
out.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
MR. VARNADOE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
No, that wasn't --
Let me get the whole thing
MR. VARNADOE: Excuse me. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you just said if you
can show that there is legal access elsewhere. And if you can,
great. But if there is no other legal access, you-all would provide
half of the 60 feet, I guess, but right-of-way on the north-south
stretch there between 21 and 22 from Immokalee Road to allow access to
their property if there's no other.
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. I'm not going to agree to give
them access on our property here. That's not my -- my requirement.
What I am willing to do is go to see if these two sections
(indicating) of this easement are necessary to provide them legal
access, and if they are, then obviously I have no ability to vacate
them. If they have other legal access, then I'm -- I'd like to have
your vote contingent upon me showing there is other legal access.
Mr. Welborn has admitted he has legal access.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if those two are
necessary for them to have legal access, it's fairly obvious that that
piece in the middle would be necessary, too, and -- and I'm just
suggesting that as part of your agreement to keep those two, that
perhaps you could provide the 30 feet for the one part in the middle
as well.
MR. VARNADOE: Maybe we ought to wait and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It won't do them any good if
they don't connect.
MR. VARNADOE: Maybe we ought to wait and see if those
are necessary, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's what I'm
saying. If they are necessary, are you willing to do that?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. I cannot commit to that today
__
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because --
MR. VARNADOE: -- because right through the middle of
the wetland that we are --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure --
MR. VARNADOE: -- granting an easement to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I -- could I just point out
that -- that in private ownership those two green easements weren't
given away. I mean, I'm sure they were -- they -- that there was some
consideration paid or given somehow. I don't think it seems fair to
ask Mr. Varnadoe to -- to give away easements on this section of land.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. But I -- at the same
time, I don't know that it's fair to ask other private owners to have
no legal access to the property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any further questions of
staff?
Mr. McNees, no -- no other further speakers?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
MR. VARNADOE: Let me -- let me address that so
Mr. Constantine -- make sure that he's clear on this issue. If they
do not have legal access, they have the right to force legal access
from their predecessor in title, in other words, the person who
landlocks them. And I think that -- that the attorneys in the au --
in the audience can -- can tell you that's -- that's what the -- the
law is.
So in other words, if we subdivided them on our title,
subdivided them out so they don't have legal access, then it's our
responsibility. But my -- my thinking is because of this -- the chain
of title in Section 21 was pretty much all from one derivative owner
where it did not include ownership in Section 22, that if they are
precluded legal access -- which I doubt very, very seriously -- then
it was their predecessor in title who's required to get them to their
property and not the adjoining landowner, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well --
MR. VARNADOE: I just wanted to make sure you understood
very clearly where I was coming from.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that you understand very
clearly where I'm coming from, if you look at those green lines as
they exist right now, they have legal access to their property on
those green lines. If there is a small, private owner that, when
those lines are taken away, no longer has access, I hate to have them
penalized because you need to move ahead with your project and have to
go hire an attorney and have to spend a bunch of money to try to be
able to get on -- on their own property. And -- and so I -- I'm just
suggesting that you're asking to vacate those, and -- and it's not out
of line to say we want to make sure as part of that process that these
people still can get to their land.
MR. VARNADOE: They can't get there today, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's the distinction, and
I'm going to -- I'm going to close the public hearing. I think the
distinction is -- is, quite simply, that right now it doesn't -- that
segment doesn't exist. So to require a property owner to grant it,
I'm not sure is a -- is -- is appropriate. That's why I'm having a
problem. If it doesn't exist now, what right do we have to tell him
he has to now provide access for someone when they didn't have it
previously? That -- that's my only problem with that. Commissioner
Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm going to make a motion that we
approve the vacation of these easements with the one contingency on
the two easement segments on the eastern boundary of Section 21, is
it?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That those be withheld pending the
-- the research by Mr. Varnadoe that -- that those property owners in
Section 22 do have the other legal access to their property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I hear the last part of
your motion again? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The last portion says that -- that
-- starting where?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pending.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Contingent -- contingent upon?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Contingent upon -- concerning
those -- those two on the eastern boundary of Section 21 that that
would be -- those would be vacated contingent upon Mr. Varnadoe
providing information to our legal staff that there is otherwise legal
access to those properties in Section 22.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. Is there any question or discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. We never did hear from
Mr. Mullet as far as the other legal access question.
MR. HULLER: No, sir. I -- I don't know the answer
right now today, but I can -- I can find out the same way that
Mr. Varnadoe's going to research the easements.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. -- Mr. Mullet -- and I'm -- I'll
direct this to Mr. HcNees, in the future for vacation issues, if our
staff is unable to tell us whether the vacation is restricting access
to the parcels, that seems to me to be a basic element of our
decision, information we should have ahead of time. And I would be
very disappointed if, in a similar situation, we are not provided that
from our staff.
MR. HcNEES: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. There's a motion and a
second on the floor. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-1.
We, at this point, are going to have to break for a very
important luncheon with some of our youth. We will return -- I
believe that luncheon is 12:30 to 1:30. We will return at -- let's
make it 1:45 so everyone can be here, and we can get going.
(A lunch break was held from 12:10 p.m. to 1:47 p.m.)
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 97-164, RE PETITION AV-96-035, FOR THE VACATION OF TWO (2),
12 FOOT UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON LOTS 45, 46, AND 47, BLOCK
74, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 2 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll call to order the -- what is
today -- March llth BCC meeting. We are on Item 12(C)(3), Petition AV
96-035, request for vacation of two 12-foot utility and drainage
easements this is in Golden Gate Unit 2. Hello again, Mr. Mullet.
MR. HULLER: Hello. For the record, Russ Mullet with
transportation. Petition 96-035 is the vacation of two 12-foot
utility and drainage easements on Lots 45, 46, and 47, Block 74,
Golden Gate Unit 2, Plat Book 5, pages 65 through 77. Site location
is on 951 north of 20th Place Southwest, and the reason for the
vacation is the -- the petitioner wishes to construct a discount auto
parts. Letters of no objection have been received from all pertinent
utilities and user agencies. A resolution was prepared and approved
by the county attorney's office in accordance with Florida Statutes
177.101, and based on the letters of no objection, staff recommends
approval.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a discount auto parts that
will be subject to the county's architectural standards this time.
I'd make that note for fun. Are there any questions of staff on this
item?
Seeing none, is there a petitioner or registered
speakers?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Mullet, this, again, in
your opinion, will have no negative effect on drainage or future
utility use in the immediate area? MR. HULLER: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Mullet.
Item #13A1 - Continued to 4/8/97
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 97-165, RE PETITION V-96-33, JOHN P. ASHER, P.E. OF COASTALL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING EL PARTNERS OF NAPLES,
INC., REQUESTING A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MULTI-FAMILY REAR
YARD ACCESSORY SETBACK OF 20 FEET TO 10 FEET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
SWIMHING POOL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON BONITA BEACH ROAD (C.R. 865 ,
CONSISTING OF 5.6 ACRES, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED
We are on -- 13(A)(1) was continued; so we're on
13(A)(2), Petition V-96-33, Mr. John Asher of Coastal Engineering
Consultants. I'd like to ask all members of both staff, the public,
and petitioner that are going to speak on this item to please stand
and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Nino.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before we start this petition, I
need to state for the record that I am very proud to represent Earl
Frye, and -- and as a result of that, since this is property owned by
him, I won't be able to vote on this. I'll be abstaining from the
vote.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Weigel, how many
votes are necessary on this item?
MR. WEIGEL: Just three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just three? I do need to disclose
that I have had discussions with the petitioner on this matter. I've
received no other correspondence. Anyone else has had any contact on
this they need to disclose at this point?
Seeing none, Mr. Nino, please proceed.
MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino for the record, planning
services. The petition that's before you seeks a variance for the
location of a swimming pool to the bay side of Little Hickory Bay for
property fronting on -- on -- on Bonita Beach Road. You might recall
it wasn't too long ago that that property was rezoned, and the board
at that time took special pains to -- to indicate to the developer
that you would like the building set back as far as possible. Well, I
think the developer took that too literally and basically left an
inadequate space between the high water mark and the building to
really respond to the amenities that, in our opinion, are commensurate
with that type of environment.
Consequently, he's requesting a -- a variance to the
required 20-foot separation between the mean high water mark and the
-- the pool and the supporting area to 10 feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: We have not received any objections to this
petition or communications. The Planning Commission unanimously
recommended that you grant the variance.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In a nutshell, this building exceeds
the front-yard setback as was the direction of the board. I think I'm
actually the one that -- that asked for that. Is there a conservation
easement to the rear of this property also?
MR. NINO: No, there is not, not to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I thought the plans showed
some conservation --
MR. ASHER: Yes, there is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, there is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Asher, if I could ask you
to step to the microphone, is there a conservation easement to the
rear of the property also?
MR. ASHER: Yes, there is. For the record my name is
John Asher. I'm a project engineer from Coastal Engineering.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The building meets all
required setbacks; is that --
MR. ASHER: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All you're asking for is a 10-foot
reduction in accessory setback for a pool? MR. ASHER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where's the nearest neighbor on this
one?
MR. ASHER: The nearest neighbor in -- in the rear yard,
it's infinitely far away. We've got a bay, an open body of water that
goes a long ways until it seeks anyone.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Is it likely in the future that
anybody would be close, John?
MR. ASHER: No. I -- I've got a photograph that will
pretty much show the site. I've only got one copy, but if you'd care
to see it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even though I can't vote, I
understand I can speak, and since I'm intimately familiar -- unless
they live on a houseboat, it would be very difficult for them to get
into the backyard of this piece of property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, is there anything special
or unusual in this petition that -- that you think the board needs to
make a -- a decision on this?
MR. NINO: I think there are peculiar difficulties or
peculiar conditions that are present is the fact that it fronts on the
-- on a large body of water, and that -- that that condition is not
common to most properties seeking a variance. When you think that
setbacks are driven by requirements for circulation of air,
preservation of open space, and -- and circulation of light and air,
those normal conditions that push the reason for setbacks, don't come
into play.
There's one other issue. If, for example, we were
concern -- if there was a beach in this situation and we needed to
protect the pedestrian access, that would be a -- a -- a factor for
insisting on the setback. But as you know, there's a mangrove area
there. There's really -- there is no beach. There's no way that
pedestrians can traverse the front of this property.
And we also pointed out that the -- actually, the -- the
activities of this building will extend into the waterway, because
they're going to build a number of boat docks so that, functionally --
the property doesn't stop at the water mark. Functionally, it extends
into the water and takes in the boating activities that they will be
building into the project, all of which, we think, are peculiar
circumstances that don't apply to the general application for
preservation of required yard spaces.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Any other questions of
Mr. Nino?
Seeing none, do we have any speakers?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. Is
there a motion?
COHHISSIONER BERRY: I'll move for approval.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a
second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-0, Commissioner
Hac'Kie abstaining. Thank you.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 97-166, RE PETITION V-96-32, DARREN H. TAYLOR REQUESTING A
25 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 75 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 50 FEET
AND A 25 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 75 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO 50
FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 501 DONNA STREET, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT
1, LESS THE NORTH 250 FEET, COCONUT CREEK ESTATES, UNIT 2 - ADOPTED
On to Item 13(A)(3), Petition V-96-22 (sic), Darren
Taylor requesting a 25-foot variance to the required 75-foot
front-yard setback located at 501 Donna Street in Coconut Creek
Estates. I'd like to ask everyone who is here to testify on this
matter to stand and raise your right hand please. Madam Court
Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred
Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a 25-foot variance
from the required 75 feet for estates-zoned property which is not in
Golden Gate Estates. It's east of Airport Road, south of Radio, in --
in the subdivision of Coconut Creek Estates. It is a nonconforming
lot of record -- legal nonconforming lot of record that was created
from Lot 1, which extends approximately another 250 feet north of the
red area, which is the subject lot (indicating). The lot was created
in 1961; therefore, it is a legal lot of record. The lot is
approximately 200 feet by 260 feet. A typical estates lot is -- a
typical conforming estates lot would be a 150 by 660 with the short
side running along the road and the length being the rear and side
yards. Now, this unusual configuration for an estates lot is the
reason for the variance.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, it looks like there's a
cut-to-the-chase item here. MR REISCHL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The front and rear setback is 75 foot
each for --
MR REISCHL: The front and rear are both 75 apiece.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the property is only 200 feet
deep?
MR REISCHL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's an odd-shaped lot.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With strange requirements to me.
MR REISCHL: The lot is more similar in size to an
RSF-1 lot, which has a 50-foot front and rear setback.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any --
MR REISCHL: If --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- do we have any objections from
neighbors, residents, in the immediate area?
MR REISCHL: I had one phone call from a gentleman who
asked a few questions, had no objection. And I had one letter from a
lady who objected in principle to variances.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions of staff on
this?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I -- I do have one. Sometime
back we had asked staff to come up with some sort of a way of granting
conditional variances in cases like this, and have we ever gotten
through with that?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. That's being worked on right now.
MR. HULHERE: We'll be bringing that forward with the
next --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name, please.
MR. HULLER: I'm sorry. For the record, Bob Hulhere,
current planning manager. We'll be bringing that forward with the
next LDC amendment cycle, which you will hear in Hay and June.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, sir, that's all.
MR. REISCHL: I think one of the differences that your
question alluded to is this is not an after-the-fact variance. I
think some of the ones that you were having questions about were after
the fact and whether the variance would run after that structure is
destroyed. In this case you get a chance to make the decision before
the structure is built.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What roadway -- does this front on
Donna? Am I seeing that correctly? MR. REISCHL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the setback they requested for
reduction is the front yard?
MR. REISCHL: Front yard and rear yard both being
requested to be reduced to 50. In effect, it's going to be a 70 foot
(indicating) front yard setback, because there is unpaved
right-of-way, 20 feet. So from the edge of the pavement to the front
of the setback line would be 70 feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the technical setback is still 50
feet?
MR. REISCHL: Fifty feet. And if this lot was as it was
originally platted, then this (indicating) would be a side yard, and
this neighbor would only have a 30-foot setback anyway. The way the
lot is configured now, it's a rear yard, and 50 is required.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what I thought. That's what I
was trying to get to, because it looked like he could turn things
around and resolve that problem, but then his entry is on the side of
his house, and he is facing -- yeah. MR. REISCHL: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That doesn't make sense.
MR. REISCHL: There -- there is a way that you could
build a minimum size thousand-square-foot house on there, but as the
executive summary said, the neighborhood is changing. More larger,
more expensive houses are being built in the neighborhood, and
Mr. Taylor wants to have his house be consistent with the other houses
in the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have further questions of
staff?
Mr. Taylor, I assume that's you. Did you have anything
to add to this?
MR. TAYLOR: No, sir, not if I don't need to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any speakers on this?
MR. HcNEES: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve V-96-32.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: 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, the variance is
granted.
Item #13A4
RESOLUTION 97-167, RE PETITION CU-96-27, TERRANCE KEPPLE OF KEPPLE
ENGINEERING REPRESENTING UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION OF GREATER
NAPLES, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE 2.2.3.3.1 IN THE "E" ESTATES
ZONING DISTRICT IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE SEATING CAPACITY OF THE
EXISTING CHURCH FROM 150 TO 300, PROVIDE A NEW FELLOWSHIP HALL AND
SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASSROOM AND INCREASE THE TOTAL BUILDING SIZE FROM 4,300
SQUARE FEET TO 23,000 SQUARE FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN 10TH
AVENUE S.W. AND 12 AVENUE S.W., ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 75, SOUTH OF
PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896), TRACTS 6 AND 7, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT
33, CONSISTING OF 6.79 ACRES - ADOPTED WITH ITEM "C" BEING DELETED
Item 13(A)(4).
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly. Petition CU-96-27,
Terrance Kepple of Kepple Engineering. This is Universalist
Congregation of Greater Naples, Inc., requesting conditional use of
estates zoning to increase seating capacity of a church. This is
roughly a doubling, as I understand it. Mr. Milk, is this your item?
MR. MILK: Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record my name is Bryan Milk, and I am presenting petition CU-96-27.
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use for the purpose of
expanding the existing church worship fellowship hall and the
classroom facility on site for Sunday school class.
In 1981 the applicant received a conditional approval
for a maximum seating capacity of 150, a maximum building area of 4300
square feet, and a classroom facility for the Sunday school
classroom. The current acreage of the site is 6.79 acres. This
petition is -- is exactly the same acreage. It -- it does not
constitute any additional acreage because additional acreage in a
conditional use in the estates area is prohibited by virtue of the
Golden Gate master plan.
What the applicant proposes to do is to expand the
seating capacity from 150 to 300. He also wishes to build a
fellowship hall of approximately 23,000 square feet of which the
Sunday school classrooms will be provided, an office for the
administration, some bathroom facilities, and an interim hall for the
congregation services at that point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you say 23,000 square feet?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that sound large for a
fellowship hall to anyone else? I'll ask Mr. Kepple that, because I
-- for some reason that number seems a little higher than what I've
seen in the --
MR. MILK: I -- I think -- I think what staff tried to
do in this situation is it's been there approximately 14, 15 years.
They -- they're experiencing congregational growth. If -- if there's
not some parameters on the record -- if they only want it for 10,000
and they wanted to expand beyond that, they'd be back before the board
again for that additional growth perhaps in five or ten years. It was
staff's argument or -- or recommendation to provide, really, a maximum
building size for the 300 parishioners and fellowship hall and interim
hall for the service. That's -- that's why that number is so large at
this point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILK: Secondly, the historical access to the
subject property was from 10th Avenue Southwest which provides access
directly to Pine Ridge via Napa Boulevard and to the east to Logan
Boulevard. The applicant has withdrawn a request for a secondary
access to 12th Avenue Southwest; so that's no longer a concern of
staff or the Planning Commission. Planning Commission recommended
approval 6-0 on this particular item. At that hearing there were two
individuals, family members on 12th, that were in opposition to the
access but were not in opposition to the expansion of the church and
related facilities and uses.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many parking spaces do we have
here?
MR. MILK: Approximately a hundred and twenty-eight, a
hundred and twenty-four, somewhere in that area.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the --
MR. MILK: That would be the maximum necessary for the
church. Seventy percent would be grass; thirty percent would be
paved.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And ingress and egress is using 10th
Avenue Southwest which bisects -- it has commercial on one side and
residential on the other?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any complaints from the residences on
that roadway?
MR. MILK: Not to date.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any other questions of
staff?
Is the petitioner here?
MR. KEPPLE: Good afternoon. For the record, Terrance
Kepple representing the petitioner this afternoon. We're in agreement
with Mr. Hilk's recommendations, and as far as the size of the
building, it is to be built in phases. The initial phase will be a
temporary sanctuary to be turned into a -- a social hall and
associated uses that -- when the final sanctuary is built. The 23,000
encompasses the entire future buildings and not just the social hall
and, as Mr. Milk stated, some additional room for possible changes to
the building as -- as design progresses over the years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, Mr. Kepple. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Access on 10th is just --
it's -- for everybody that's not familiar, it's just down that
dead-end street; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. KEPPLE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, you don't anticipate use
of this as a regular day-care facility?
MR. KEPPLE: We are not requesting that, no.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you're not anticipating
use as a homeless shelter?
MR. KEPPLE: We're not -- no.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor as a soup kitchen?
MR. KEPPLE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How about a school?
MR. KEPPLE: And -- nor a school.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. KEPPLE: Other than Sunday school.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. KEPPLE: I do have one -- one comment on the
proposed resolution. Item C requesting placement of a conservation
easement over the area of preserved vege -- vegetation. I do question
the need for that. We are required by code to preserve, I believe,
it's 15 percent of the existing native vegetation on the site. We
agree to do that, have to do that by code. We do question the
requirement for a conservation easement. We're not platting it or
anything of that nature, don't intend to use that area for anything
besides leaving it in its natural state, just don't see a reason for
placing a conservation easement over it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: And to further speak to that, that is not a
requirement of the Land Development Code. It's a requirement if you
were to subdivide or plat in a subdivision-type situation. But for a
property such as this, it requires that a native vegetative area be
set aside to comply with the landscaping and native vegetation
requirements of the Land Development Code.
This is something that staff likes to do for larger
tracts of lands. If -- if the church was to change owners or change
churches, that was merely identified on there as a conservation
easement that development could not occur in that area. That was the
justification of why staff included that in the resolution. It --
it's mere -- merely a secondary precautionary area for staff. The
site plan will show that. Mr. Kepple is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What's the size of the
conservation easement?
MR. MILK: It's 15 percent of that particular area,
roughly, what, a couple acres.
MR. KEPPLE: Well, it's actually 15 percent, as I
understand, of the existing native vegetation. We have not determined
the exact extent of that native vegetation on the site. So we -- at
this point we don't know the exact size. We do an -- anticipate
maintaining more than that 15 percent.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, are you saying that this is
a condition of -- of platting that is just standard on -- MR. MILK: It's a condition -- it's a condition that's
required as a platting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But he is -- but he has not platted
or may not plat.
MR. MILK: That's correct, he may not plat. So this
could go away.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm -- I'm -- I think our open
space requirement is sufficient to -- to cover that. I'm -- I don't
necessarily think that that should be a requirement.
MR. MILK: And I would not dispute that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I don't think it's a bad
idea, but if they have a problem with it, I think the open space
requirement speaks for itself.
Are there any questions of Mr. Kepple or of staff?
Do we have any public speakers?
MR. McNEES: You have one additional speaker, John
Carpenter.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right, Mr. Carpenter,
we'll need you on the microphone if you would, please.
MR. CARPENTER: My name is John Carpenter. I live on
6236 12th Avenue Southwest. I think our problem has been addressed in
the limiting the access to 12th Avenue.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Correct. Mr. Milk, there will be no
access to 12th Avenue Southwest from the site; is that correct? MR. MILK: Thatls correct.
MR. CARPENTER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I~ll close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Iwll make a motion to approve with
the elimination of Condition C on line 30 to 33 of the resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC~KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is
there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries
unanimously. Congratulations.
Item #15-1
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPERTY BEING SOLD BY AVATAR - AVATAR TO PULL
PROPERTY FROM AUCTION AND PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD TO LOOK AT
THESE PARCELS
Item 14, Board of County Commissioners communications.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One brief item, and it was on
the add slip for staff anyway, but I just wanted to bring up, and that
is if you remember a week ago, I mentioned some of the prop -- the
pieces of property in Golden Gate, one or two of them looked like they
might fit for park-type properties, one in particular as I looked at
them. The other two I don't think really do.
One in particular appears as though it might, and Avatar
has said that if we would like, they will remove that piece from their
auction -- auction. That doesn't bind us in any way, but that will at
least give us a time line by which our parks and rec advisory board
can look at it and say, yes, it's something we should pursue, no, it's
not and -- and give some recommendation to us. So I wanted to see if
there's any objection to us requesting Avatar to pull it off their
auction list.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As long as that -- and I think there
was also a parcel on Marco that's being looked at -- goes through
parks and rec advisory board and we get a full staff recommendation on
it, I -- I have no problem looking at it. I just want to make sure
our staff has the opportunity to give us the up side and down side to
those types of acquisitions.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as long as the parks and rec
advisory board -- although they're an extremely independent group
anyway. But as long as they don't see this as some, you know, message
wink from the county commission that we really do want you to approve
this as a park. Nope. We're asking them to look at it just like they
would look at any other proposal.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, not at all. The auction
is scheduled for Saturday, that's all, and they'll pull it off.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have an opportunity to look at it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can I ask you a question in that
regard? I think sometime this week I received some kind of
communication. Maybe -- is this the same communication regarding some
other lots, or is this the same property?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, that was --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I think we all got this
communication.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was indicating a second potential
park site. Are you asking they both be pulled off and looked at?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If anybody else has interest
we can. I -- I know there's one -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think they're too close to each
other personally --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are three --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to consider both.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- actually, all up in the
northwest corner of Golden Gate City. I -- I don't think it would
make sense to have more than one. I don't think the other two really
lend themselves to even considering, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I would also encourage the parks
and rec advisory board to -- to weigh heavily the comments of our
staff on the -- the issues of neighborhood parks versus regional,
because the concepts are -- are almost polar when you look at
financing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I -- are we finished with this
issue?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that issue, yes. Did you have
something you wanted to --
Item #14-1
DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE V FUNDING - DISCUSSED
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, yeah, I do. And I just have
a question about -- this came from the Florida Association of
Counties, and this is in regard to this Article 5 funding for juvenile
justice. Would someone please explain this to me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't I -- I ask --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just -- I didn't know if this was
something that we needed to address. Is this something that the
commissioners need to tend to, or how do you normally --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Florida Association of Counties
has taken a position of advocating that the state begin funding of a
greater share of its Article 5 costs that we bear. Article 5 costs
are -- they're kind of an umbrella, and Commissioner Matthews was very
involved in that, but things such as -- I think this is the cleaning
of the judges' robes, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is -- yeah. And, frankly,
where -- where you'll hear more about this is in the budget process,
because as we look at the court budget, we'll start arguing over the
fact that there are costs in our budget that should be paid by the
state because they are Article 5 costs, maybe things like cleaning the
judges' robes, and maybe things like salaries of staffs over there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Cracker Barrel trial comes to mind --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- as something that's -- that was --
the state attorney's office prosecuted it, but the local taxpayers
hold the bill for. So I -- those kinds of things all fall into
Article 5. What I would suggest is you may want to meet with
Mr. Smykowski --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and Mr. McNees to -- to talk about
those --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and see where they are in the
budget.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just wanted to know if this was
any concern -- if we had to deal with this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: FAC's working on it continually, and
Miami Dade has taken the lead because they're bankrupt and looking for
ways for the state to bail them out, and Article 5 is the biggest nut
for --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I -- I just need to find
out, I guess, what Article 5 is. Thank you.
Item #14-2
LETTER TO BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD REGARDING THE HINORITY ISSUES OF
THE SELECTION OF A COUNTY MANAGER
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. I have two things to kind of
bring to your attention. Host of you should have received the weekly
report on the county manager recruitment process. You have also
received a letter from the chairman of the Black Affairs Advisory
Board asking that all operations in this area cease. I wanted you to
be -- and I know one of you has responded -- at least one of you
that's been copied has responded. A letter will be going out to
Mr. Tribble ^ today or tomorrow that I -- I've put together.
In essence, looking at the charges, Mr. Tribble lined --
or put in that -- in that correspondence, and I thought you would like
the benefit of those things. The ICHA, which is the county manager
retirement fund, if you will, has a membership of approximately 58
percent of all top officials in city and county government throughout
the United States; so I think it's a fairly representative
organization. Of those 58 percent, the percentage of minority holders
of top administrative positions is 4.6 percent nationally.
Our application process, in the original applications we
received, of those who filled out the EEO form, we had 15 percent
minority participation. Of the 19 that then moved to the next round,
we had 16 percent minority participation. The statement that in some
way the process has been flawed in attracting minority candidates, in
my opinion, holds no merit, and I think the facts merit -- ferret that
out.
The second thing of consideration is the insensitivity
to racial issues that has been implied. I can tell you now that the
interviews have been completed, the top question that the five-member
prescreening committee came to was, how would you address issues of
racial diversity and discrimination, and how have you done it?
they ask someone to draw on experience. That was the top question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Top meaning the first question --
CHAI~ HANCOCK: The first --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- of -- of five very important
questions.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: The first one, and there was very
little discussion on its importance. It was all agreed upon that it
should be the first question asked and -- and appear at the top of the
list. So, again, the -- the charges that float around out there from,
in particular, Mr. Tribble's correspondence just haven't seemed to
have been proven true. Yes, there is not a minority of those five
members, but I think their actions speak louder than that -- that
potential accusation.
So for that reason I've informed Mr. Tribble that I
personally have no intent of stopping the -- the process. I think
it's shown an extreme sensitivity to minority issues, and -- and
unless there is someone on this board who wants to do otherwise, I see
that as the course to take.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
Item #14-3
DISCUSSION REGARDING WNOG AND HURRICANE NEEDS - STAFF TO LOOK INTO
MATTER
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second thing is to ask if the
board has any interest -- with the changes that have occurred at WNOG,
we are coming into hurricane season. We kind of relied on WNOG as
that outlet that was immediate and there to get public information
out. I don't know what the capabilities are, if they're the same, if
they're better, if they're different. I would like to ask for staff
to take a look at that and report back to us on that before hurricane
season hits. We may need to make arrangements with another station if
we can't rely on that. I don't know what the situation is, but it's
something that's been brought -- been brought to my attention, and I
would like to -- for the board to hear a report on that. Is that
something that -- and it would be -- it would be brief, but it's
something I think we all need to hear.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's all I have. Under
staff communications, we have the neighborhood park issue, which I
believe we've just discussed. Is there any additional information we
need to know on that?
Item #15-2
DISCUSSION REGARDING LANDFILL TONNAGE - DISCUSSED
HR. HcNEES: Not on that, but I have one other piece of
information for you. You had asked about the landfill tonnage and
whether we were in -- in danger of triggering some payment mechanism
to Waste Management. The answer to that question is that that tonnage
is based on lined cell tonnage, of which construction debris does not
count. That's not lined cell tonnage, and we're in no -- not near any
point where we would pay Waste Management for tonnage not delivered.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Very quick response. I
appreciate that. Anything else, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
Item #15-3
DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDHENT TO CODE ENFORCEHENT ORDINANCE - STAFF TO
ADVERTISE AMENDMENT
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I guess just one thing, and it could
be brought formally as a -- as an agenda item, consent agenda, but the
county attorney and development services and Vince are prepared to do
a brief, small amendment to the Code Enforcement Board ordinance
having to do with the notice that's required. We're actually a little
more stringent than the state statute is, and we could make -- we
could bring this into -- into broader compliance -- I should say more
ease of -- of use if we were to go forward and draft and to advertise
an ordinance. We can either bring it back next week as an agenda
item, but if -- with your common consent right here, we'll bring it
back. I would assure you it's very unproblematical, I think.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, if it's unproblematic and
requires little discussion, I'd love to see it on the agenda.
MR. WEIGEL: Well -- oh, okay. Do you want it on the
agenda, or should we just go ahead draft it and advertise it and bring
it back? It speeds it up --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As far as I'm concerned, whatever's
most expedient. I think being consistent with state law on issues
makes things a lot easier for us -- MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in some cases.
Hiss Filson, anything?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are adjourned. Thank you.
Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Hac'Kie
and carried unanimously, that the following items under
the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1 - Deleted
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR AUTUHN WOODS SALES TRAILER - WITH
CASH BOND AND STIPULATIONS
OR BOOK PAGES
Item #16A3
HEHORANDUH OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL (SWFRPC) TO PARTICIPATE IN A STUDY TO ADDRESS
FARMWORKER HOUSING AND SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TO SUPPORT
AGRICULTURAL GROWTH IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 97-156 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "HAWKSRIDGE UNIT
TWO"
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 97-157 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WALK, PHASE
THREE"
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 97-158 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LONGSHORE LAKE,
UNIT 5Bl"
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 97-159 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LONGSHORE LAKE,
UNIT 582"
Item #16A8
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR NEW HOPE MINISTRIES - SUBJECT TO
CASH BOND IN THE A_MOUNT OF $1,560.00 AND STIPULATIONS
OR BOOK PAGES
Item #16A9
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.572 "HERON PARK APARTMENTS", BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH BY ST. MATTHEWS HOUSE AND THE GLADES APARTMENTS, ON THE EAST BY
THE GLADES APARTMENTS, ON THE SOUTH BY COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
AND GALLMAN PONTIAC DEALERSHIP, AND ON THE WEST BY AIRPORT ROAD AND
COHMERCIAL PROPERTIES - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A10
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF HERITAGE GREENS F/K/A DOVE POINT - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
RECOHMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE A PORTION OF FY 96/97 CARRY
FORWARD TO OPERATING FUND (131) MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION H.S.T.U.
DISTRICT, FOR CONTINUED SOD/MEDIAN LANDSCAPE REFURBISHHENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $71,800
Item #1682
CONTRACT OF ADDITIONAL PATHWAY LOCATIONS FOR THE COUNTY-WIDE PATHWAYS I
PROJECT, BID #97-2621, WITH BONNESS, INC. AMENDED IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $145,998.85 AND STAFF AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT THE $10,000.00
PRIVATE DONATION
Item #1683
CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 97-2628, MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT - AWARD
TO LAKE MICHIGAN CONTRACTORS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $397,000.00 -
SUBJECT TO STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS ON OR BEFORE 3/17/97
Item #1684
SPEED LIMIT CHANGES IN CONFORHANCE WITH BOARD ACTION ON 8/6/96
(RESOLUTION 96-340) ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY SPEED LIMIT REDUCTIONS
TO TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (25 HPH) TO: WHITEHURST'S PLAT, PB5, PG5
(ALL ROADWAYS); HALDEHAN RIVER SUBDIVISION, PB 2, PG 87 (ALL ROADWAYS);
PLAM RIVER ESTATES SUBDIVISION (ALL ROADWAYS); 41ST TERRACE SW (BETWEEN
23RD PL SW AND 20TH PL SW)
Item #1685
FINAL RANKING OF CONSULTANTS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
HISSIHER INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR A GROUNDWATER SALINITY BARRIER
FEASIBILITY STUDY, RFP NO. 96-2600 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,920.00
Item #16D1 - Deleted
Item #16D2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FUND 518, WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE, FOR
SETTLEMENTS FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 1997
Item #16D3
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN TWO EHS STATE OF FLORIDA 75/25
MATCHING GRANT APPLICATIONS
Item #16D4
AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO PAY COSTS
OF HIRING A NEW COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - IN THE ANTICIPATED A_MOUNT OF
$15,500.00
Item #16G1
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1662
CANCELLATION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR CASE NO.
96-10222-HHA
Item #1663
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
ASTROLOGY PERMIT 97-1 ISSUED TO ANNA MARIE NICHOLAS
To be resubmitted to the BCC on 3/25/97 for a Clairvoyant Permit
instead of an Astrology permit.
Item #16H2 - Moved to Item #11A
Item #16H3 - Moved to Item #lib
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:16 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
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 Drescher