BCC Minutes 09/23/1997 RREGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
ALSO PRESENT:
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 9:00 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-CHAIRMAN: Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Hac'kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a pleasure to welcome everybody. It's a
also a pleasure to have Reverend Wicker from the Naples United Church
of Christ here with us this morning.
Reverend Wicker, if I could ask your blessing and invocation this
morning.
We'll follow with the pledge of allegiance.
MR. WICKER: Let us pray.
Almighty and eternal God, you are the God of the nations and the
agencies of government. As we gather for the meeting of the
Commissioners of Collier County, we remember the importance of
government and that your Word has said that government exists for the
good of the people.
We thank you for all those who serve our County, both in
government and in services.
Important concerns are before us, concerns which affect the lives
of the people of our community, indeed, those whom we call neighbors.
Hay we give our best thought and attention to what is important
if we may accomplish much that is worthwhile for the good of all.
Hear us as we pray in your name, Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Wicker, thank you for taking the time
to be with us this morning. We do appreciate it. No changing of the guard necessary.
Mr. Fernandez, I understand you were all the way down on Marco
speaking to a breakfast group this morning, so I -- hopefully, you
avoided any tickets on the way up. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, barely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, good morning to you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand we have quite a few changes this
morning.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman.
The first is a clarification of an item that's on the agenda.
The wording should have been clearer. It's Item 8(E)(1). The
language should read, reconfirmation of letter of endorsement for
certificate of need for the Cleveland Clinic.
The wording on the agenda was a little confusing there.
I'd like to add Item 8(D)(1), a discussion of the status of
hurricane shelters as a staff request.
I'd like to also add Item 9(B), which is a request for approval
of a resolution designating certain county employees as code
enforcement officers, request of the county attorney. COHMISSIONER BERRY: What was that again, sir?
MR. FERNANDEZ: 9(B), request for approval of resolution
designating certain county employees as code enforcement officers.
It's a follow-up to the citation ordinance. There is now the need to
identify the actual positions that will have the authority to enforce.
Next is Item 10(H). This is a request from the Department of
Environmental Regulation to appoint a member to the Land Management
Review Team, request of Commissioner Hancock.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I received that either yesterday or the day
before, so I apologize for the lateness, but it's something I think we
can take a look at.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is a withdrawal. The item is 12(B)(4),
petition PUD 82-33(1). This is the petitioner's request for
withdrawal.
The next is a series of items that has been before you before,
Items 12(C)(2) through 12(C)(5). These are petitions regarding --
requesting street names changed. This is a request of Commissioner
Constantine that the items be continued to the October 28th, 1997
meeting. That's Items 12(C)(2), 12(C)(3), 12(C)(4) and 12(C)(5).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just because there is a block of them, these
have been continued one time previously?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. There was actually two or three
issues going on at once.
One of these is -- one of those is, one of these streets -- at
least one of these streets, hasn't -- doesn't actually have the 50
percent yet. Our staff has gone ahead and done the count. They have
the required number of signatures and all, but they haven't met that.
I suspect it's only off by two or three people, so I suspect before
the continuance comes back, it will have met that, will correct that.
The other is there is a neighborhood issue as far as trying to
address not only these streets but other streets in the area.
And, finally, I think from a policy standpoint, we've got two or
three things that are currently zoned estates that would like to
create some identity, and I think we need to, perhaps, use this as a
model but have some sort of procedure in order to do that. There is
one already in the works right now, so I think this will probably end
up being the model for those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Continue on, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next item is Item 16(A)(3). This is a
request to continue. This is the approval of the agreement with
Wilkison and Associates for engineering services for infrastructure
improvements for Shellabarger Park in Immokalee.
Also, we'd like to move Item 16(A)(5) from the consent agenda to
the regular agenda as Item 8(A)(1). This is the approval of the
agreement with the Economic Development Council to execute Phase II of
the Economic Diversification Program and provide a contribution of up
to $250,000 for fiscal year '97-'98. This is a staff request.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That becomes 8(A)(1)?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, that becomes 8(A)(1).
I'd also like to move from the consent agenda Item 16(B)(17).
This becomes Item B(2)(8) -- I'm sorry, 8(B)(2). It's a
recommendation to uphold Collier County Board of County Commissioners'
direction to proceed with judicial action to establish pre-descriptive
easement rights in favor of the county and the public over the road
segment known as Miller Boulevard Extension and to approach property
owners to obtain easements by gift.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whose request is that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's a staff request.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The last is Item 16(D)(5). This is removed from
the consent agenda to regular as Item 8(B)(2). It's the award of Bid
Number 972688 for the purchase of medical equipment for the Emergency
Medical Services Department, also a staff request.
Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to mention that we had planned to
present today the items regarding the Big Cypress Sanctuary
Looneyville. Those were not ready to be presented to the Board today.
I wanted to mention that to you rather than request to add them to the
agenda and take them off again because they're not ready to be heard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I have no changes other than noted by Mr. Fernandez,
I appreciate that.
A little different, but I have a request from one of the parties
that's involved with a continuance item to address the board before
the change may or may not be effectuated standing by.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What item?
MR. WEIGEL: I can't tell you the specific item. It's in the
12s.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 12 (C) (2) through 12 (C) (5) .
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I don't want to really get into the
position where the board begins debating changes to our agenda. We
start having hearings on whether we do or do not change the agenda, so
as a matter of process -- Mr. Constantine, did you inform any of the
applicants that you would be requesting a continuance before the
meeting?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bob Salvaggio from our staff talked to
them on Friday.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, do you notice -- I prefer
not to get into that.
Does the board feel differently about that matter?
Any further changes to the agenda, Mr. Weigel or Mr. Fernandez?
Seeing none, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have no changes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seems like there's already plenty of
changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I also have none.
Do we have a motion on the agenda?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a motion to approve the agenda
as amended.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a notion and second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Items #4A and #4B
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 AND BUDGET HEARING
OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1997
We are to approval --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion we approve the minutes of the September 2, 1997, regular
meeting and our budget hearing of September 3, 1997. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and second. Is there any
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five-zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIHING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 1 - 7, 1997, AS UNITED WAY
OF COLLIER COUNTY CAMPAIGN KICK-OFF WEEK - ADOPTED
The next item on our agenda is proclamations and service awards.
It's a pleasure for me this morning to read a proclamation
regarding the United Way Collier County Campaign Kick-off Week.
Here to help us with that this morning we have Ms. Shannon
Anderson, Mr. Ernie Bretzmann and Mr. Jim Gaylot.
If I could ask the three of you to step forward. If you would
stand here in front of the dais and face the camera, it will be my
pleasure to read this proclamation, and then we do have one more
presentation regarding the kick-off immediately to follow.
Proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, since 1957, the United Way of Collier County has
sponsored and funded qualified non-profit community agencies which
provide essential social and health services to our citizens; and
Whereas, throughout the 40-year history of the United Way Collier
County, the organization has demonstrated continued growth and is
currently funding 18 community agencies providing services to all
areas of our county; and
Whereas, the 1997-98 Community Campaign officially begins on
October lst; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners gratefully
acknowledges and supports the fine work of the United Way of Collier
County and its member agencies.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October 1
through 7, 1997 be designated as United Way of Collier County Campaign
Kick-off Week. Done and ordered this 23rd day of September. Timothy Hancock, Chairman.
I would like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Applause.)
MR. BRETZHANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board
of County Commissioners for this proclamation recognizing the United
Way of Collier County.
This year, the Collier County government employees are what we
call a pace-setter company. Pace-setter companies are very important
to the United Way in the community because the pace-setters will
determine the tone of our entire campaign and also will help determine
the tone of the rest of the Collier County government employees'
campaign who work for the various constitutional offices.
We'd like to recognize Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Oates for their
leadership and, most importantly, for the many, many Collier County
employees who are supporting the United Way through volunteer efforts
and contributions.
As we speak right now, the pledges and contributions by Collier
County government employees are over five times above what the total
results were last year, so we certainly applaud your efforts.
(Applause.)
And we do have --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Ernie, I haven't got my pledge card
in yet.
MR. BRETZMANN: Then that's going to go to six times over last
year.
One more thing, I would like to present this small token of our
appreciation. This is to all Collier County employees and elected
officials who are supporting the United Way.
In recognition to Collier County government employees and in
appreciation of your leadership role as a pace-setter company, United
Way of Collier County 1997 Campaign.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ernie.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez is the one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just might be a place in the County
Administrator's office for this, don't you think?
Also, in recognition of our county staff that are a part of the
pace-setter program, which is kind of an interesting corporate
kick-off to the United Way, it gets the ball rolling hopefully very,
very well. It has in the past and has continued to do so this year.
We have approximately 25 people that are involved in Collier
County government that we want to recognize as United Way pace-setter
campaign members on behalf of the county employees.
What I would like to do is call each of you up one at a time. If
you'd come up, we have a certificate and a pin for you from -- really,
from the county, but on behalf of the United Way, and we'd like to
recognize you at this time.
Don Blalock from Human Resources. We have Norma Boone from
Planning Services.
Gee, Norma, this is twice in two weeks. You're making a regular
appearance here.
We have Sue Buck, Information Technology.
Sue, do you have a velcro place on your business card for which
department you're in?
Steve Camell, Purchasing Director. Dan Croft, Fleet Management.
Dan's managing the fleet as we speak.
John Dunnuck, Parks and Recreation.
I saw John. There he is.
Jennifer Edwards, Human Resources. Jane Eichhorn, Human
Resources and a Bills fan. Boo.
We'll be there with you this year, Jane, battle of the basement.
Karen Kocses, Human Resources.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go Buccaneers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have Sheila Leith, Office of Management and
Budget.
Shelia has spent way too much time here recently going through
the budget process.
Pamela Libby from our Water Department, who was not able to be
here.
Herb Luntz, County Administrator's Office.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is he celebrating, his 37th year
with us?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something like that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second 37th celebration.
Jane Mc Donald, Veteran Services Department. Kathleen Mclarty,
Support Services Administration. Patrick Merritt, Parks and
Recreation, who has taught me how to line a baseball field. You're a good man, Pat.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Got to be really good if he can teach
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Joy Merschdorf, Waste Water Department.
Hay have accidentally even got your name correct.
Lorainne Oldham, Social Services Department.
Joseph Pep Saldana, Facilities Management.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Quit being shy. Some of you come over on
this side.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie is starting to wonder if
something's wrong this morning.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is something wrong on this side?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rhonda Snell, Purchasing. Bradie Soars-Allen,
Parks and Recreation. Jeff Walker, Risk Management. He's in trial.
We don't like to hear that, Leo, but thank you.
Eric Watson, Emergency Services.
There's Eric. Downstairs with our newest unit.
Dave Weeks, planning services.
Dave is off planning.
Rebecca Wilson, Library. And John Yonkosky, Revenue Department
Director.
I think on behalf of the United Way and certainly on behalf of
the board, I'd like to thank each of you for your involvement and
efforts and we're looking forward to bigger and better things. You've
already achieved, I assume, our goal, but let's see how far we can go
this year. To you, thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5C1
PLAQUE FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION -
PRESENTED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FERNANDEZ
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Next item is something that's not on the
agenda, but I'm going to do anyway.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Chairman's prerogative.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Chairman's prerogative. Hey, you only get one
shot at this anyway, right?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Somebody that's been new in our midst is
certainly Mr. Fernandez, but he's had a significant and real impact, I
think, not just on our activities but on the community and his
appearance shows the fact that he has spent a very long time in
government service. And recently at the Vancouver, British Columbia
Conference, the 83rd Annual Conference of the International
City/County Management Association, Mr. Fernandez was unable to attend
but was recognized at that conference honoring 25 years of service to
local government.
Bob, if I could ask you to step forward, I'd like to read the
plaque honoring your service to county government or to all forms of
government.
It states that Robert F. Fernandez is recognized for significant
contributions and achievements in the advancement of local government
administration.
This was presented at ICMA's annual conference in Vancouver,
British Columbia, 17 September, 1997.
We hope that your next 25 years will be with us, and we
appreciate your service to government -- all forms of government
throughout the State of Florida.
(Applause.)
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You started when you were 12, huh?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the right price, later I'll tell you who
scheduled that embarrassing moment.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
We're to service awards.
Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have two today. From Code Enforcement, we have Shirley Eilers
Ray, for 10 years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't forget the goods.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Marks with 20 years.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Don't forget the goods.
And from Social Services, we have Judith
WOW.
That's a good start.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know it's hard working with Martha.
Congratulations to the both of you, and thank you.
Item #SA1
AGREEHENT WITH THE ECONOHIC DEVELOPHENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY,
INC., (EDC) TO EXECUTE PHASE II OF THE ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM
AND PROVIDE A CONTRIBUTION OF $250,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 -
APPROVED
We are to the item on our agenda under county administrator's
report, community development and environmental services. This was an
add-on, 8(A)(1). It was formerly 16(A)(5).
Oh, there you are.
MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm
Greg Hihalic, director of Housing and Urban Improvement for the
county.
Commissioners, the only reason we pulled this off the consent
agenda was because there was some words missing, at the recommendation
of the county attorney's office, but this agreement codifies the
budget decision that you made for fiscal year '97-'98, and it talks
about reimbursement of up to $250,000 to the Economic Development
Council of Collier County for economic diversification activities.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No change in the intent or follow through,
just simply words missing on the county administrator's report? MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That should be a pattern of presentations
today.
Item #SB1
REQUEST BY LELY CIVIC ASSOCIATION FOR ASSISTANCE RELATED TO REPAIRING A
STORMWATER PUMPING STATION - APPROVAL TO FUND REPLACEMENT OF POWER LINE
*** Eight(B)(1) request under Public Works to provide staff
direction on request by Lely Civic Association for assistance related
to repairing a stormwater pumping station. Mr. Gonzalez, good morning.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners.
Adolf Gonzalez, Capital Projects director for the record.
Since you last directed us to get some additional information on
what it would cost to replace the faulty power lines to the pumping
station at the end of Torrey Pines Point, we have done a few things;
one is, we researched and found out that the county does have a
utility easement across the Hibiscus Golf Course. The power line
right now runs from a fairway west of Forest Hills Boulevard, across
one fairway, across the Naples Racket Club parcel, across another
fairway, and into the northwest quarter of Torrey Pines Point, the
cul-de-sac there where the pump station is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, but
I'm looking at the fiscal impact and it says, actions one to three not
to exceed $5,000. One other park has 45,000 per year and the only one
surpassed for funding resolution is unknown. If we can get a number,
balipark for that, I bet we could move right along.
MR. GONZALEZ: We have that. It's about $12,000 to do an in-kind
of replacement on the power line, that's about 1,000 feet of service
to the pumping station.
We also recommend that when we replace the power line, we also do
a condition survey of the pump station just to make sure the pump is
in good condition.
There are a few citizens from the Lely Civic Association and
community here that wish to give you some additional information
regarding the project.
We estimate it would be about $17,000 or less to do the in-kind
replacement, figure on how many lots are draining into that problem if
you decide to go with a HSTU rather than just pick up the entire cost
of the replacement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Gonzalez, are they here to talk us
out of this?
I just bet we could save the effort and they're still certainly
welcome to talk, but it seems like a no-brainer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's the right thing to do, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would cost us more to set up an HSTU than
$17,000.
I do have one question. We don't really accept -- these types of
situations don't happen anymore the way we do water management design
where they're basically a sump pump for a collection area that flips
it over to a transfer area.
That's not happening anymore, is it?
MR. GONZALEZ: Correct. There are some pump stations with the
county, but that's part of a new, modern storm water management
system.
We don't have an easement across the Naples Racket Club parcel.
The owner of that parcel is here today, and he has some drainage
concerns he'd like to speak to you about regarding that parcel, but I
think he is amenable to at least exploring how he can give us some
access right across his parcel.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I sense a direction from the board to
move ahead with making these repairs and improvements, so why don't we
go to the speakers on this matter, and if you wish to talk us out of
that or offer different information, feel free. Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Mr. John Hooley.
MR. HOOLEY: I'm not going to talk him out of it.
John Hooley, members of the board. I don't want to talk anybody
out of it, I just looked at the executive summary. It says it's like
4,000 to $5,000 a year to maintain the pump based on your experiences
in Victoria Park. The Civic Association has been maintaining the
pump, and if we can get a conduit in there, it's like $600 a year, so
it's even cheaper than that.
Okay?
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Hooley.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Gregory Gonzalez and then Richard
Sweeney.
MR. GONZALEZ: I appreciate this being looked into. I just want
to make sure the people are aware that I have the property at the end
of Forest Hills that -- for which the old neighborhood drain stores.
If I get as little as an inch of rain, I have water backed up my
driveway, and I can't even get to my mailbox or walk to my adjacent
property at the Naples Racquet Club. I believe fixing the pump will
at least bring me back to where I was over the past couple of years.
The drainage is still very, very serious, and I'm hoping the
county will be doing something to ultimately fix the drainage in that
whole area.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you state your name for the record?
MR. GONZALEZ: Gregory Gonzalez.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Richard T. Sweeny
MR. SWEENY: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Sweeny.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, is there a motion on this
matter?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Gonzalez has one more item.
MR. GONZALEZ: If I could ask for some clarification. If you
decide to fund the in-kind replacement of the power service, I also
need some direction as to whether you're considering funding the
long-term maintenance of that or is that going to stay with related
civic associations since we gave you that number in here also?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Gonzalez, did we ever determine who
owns the pump?
MR. GONZALEZ: It's difficult to say right now. It is very close
to straddling three property lines, Hibiscus Golf Course, Royal Palm
Country Club and the property for Torrey Pines Point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to keep our action to the narrow
focus that was presented to us which is assistance in running the
conduit and getting power to the pump.
If the maintenance issue still remains and the property owners'
association would like to talk to us about that, fine, but I
understood the immediate crisis being getting a new conduit there and
the maintenance cost would then drop substantially.
If they had been providing the maintenance, I see no reason for
us to take that over.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I just wanted to clarify -- see if we had
clarified the issue of that ownership, but we have not.
I'll make a motion that we go ahead and fund the replacement of
the electric power line.
And do you need anything else, Mr. Gonzalez?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There was some cleaning out of the pump and so
forth that was associated with that outside of what would be the,
then, perpetual annual maintenance.
MR. GONZALEZ: Just checking to make sure the pump works.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You wanted to survey the pump?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, I'll add that to the motion.
Anything else?
MR. GONZALEZ: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This electrical service will be inside a
conduit?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it will. Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion, second. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Hooley, thank you very much, folks.
Item #882
RECOMMENDATION TO UPHOLD COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH JUDICIALL ACTION TOESTABLISH PRESCRIPTIVE
EASEMENT RIGHTS IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC OVER THE ROAD
SEGMENT KNOWN AS MILLER BOULEVARD EXTENSION AND APPROACH PROPERTY
OWNERS TO OBTAIN EASEMENTS BY GIFT - PRIOR BCC DIRECTION UPHELD
*** Our next item on the agenda is Item 8(B)(2). This was
removed from the consent agenda regarding Miller Boulevard Extension.
Mr. Mullet, your life's work is before us again.
MR. HULLER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Russ Mullet.
Staff is requesting that the board uphold their prior decision of
July 29, 1997 to pursue prescriptive rights and acquire 60-foot
easements by gift.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mullet, you know, this issue has gotten a
lot larger because I started hearing about paving the road and so
forth.
What is the minimum it takes to have the ability to go in there
and make the road passable for emergency vehicles, because that's what
I've been concerned about, that's what I've remained concerned about,
and this idea that it's becoming a paved thoroughfare somewhere down
the road or cost associated with that is not where I wanted to go.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exact dittos for me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that I was ever --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think that was ever even mentioned.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm using this as a basis for clarification
because I believe the board was solely focused --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's gotten out of control.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- on getting it passable for emergency
vehicles and trying to avoid the permitting quagmire necessary to
bring this up to above flood elevation and flood stage and all that
business.
So this action today, does it take us beyond that point?
MR. HULLER: No, sir.
I think what we intend to do or what we would like to do is fill
in one hole. One hole out there is the problem. We'd like to fill
that in and that way, fire trucks, police vehicles can --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: EHS.
MR. HULLER: -- EHS can get across that one hole.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're not going to kill any bunnies and bugs
doing this, right?
MR. HULLER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
Any questions, Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student, assistant county
attorney.
This is an item like you saw last week on the Twin Eagles matter
where the complaint was filed as a prerequisite to litigation in
circuit court, so we would just recommend that the board go with
Option 1 and uphold the previous decision and direct our office to
defend the same if it should go that far.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Student, the comments they made on the
record about the intent, which is simply to make the road passable for
emergency vehicles, I assume that will be part of the Court's
consideration.
MS. STUDENT: I should certainly think it would.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to
uphold the suggestion made by the attorney.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, motion and a second. Any discussion?
Do we have any speakers on this, I'm sorry, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two.
Mr. A1 Perkins.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you want to talk us out of it?
MR. PERKINS: No. All I want to do is say thank you on behalf of
the Belle Meade Groups, A1 Perkins for the Belle Meade Groups. Okay.
And you're doing the right thing. It saves some lives out here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ty Agostin.
MR. AGOSTIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I also want to
thank you for your action, however, I'd also like to say that I don't
understand why the various environmental groups have a constant hurdle
in doing whatever anybody wants to do that conflicts with their
agenda, an agenda that is not published, or it is published, but it's
not widely known.
As far as I could see, Southern Golden Gate Estates has not been
purchased yet, and is the county policy to simply abandon all those
people down there?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Obviously not.
MR. AGOSTIN: If it is not, why aren't we simply proceeding to
pave that road?
You know, there are a lot of -- the last figures that I have
seen, the state has not bought, I believe, over two-thirds of the
owners in Southern Golden Gate Estates. They're a long way from
achieving their stated goal.
I also understand that they have lost the funding for it.
Consequently, there was no immediate solution. So while you're
looking at a very narrow issue here in terms of providing access to
emergency vehicles, there is a larger issue that's not being
addressed, and it seems that we are kind of backing away from a
confrontation with the Federation of the Audubon who are here always
pushing you back for one reason or the other.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Agostin, you're here regularly, so
I think you know how I stand and how most of the board stands -- MR. AGOSTIN: Yes, I do, and I appreciate it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think traditionally we back
away from those groups on these, but in answer to your first question,
why don't we go ahead and pave, I think you need only look in your
area in the Northern Golden Gate Estates. We don't pave those roads
either until there is a certain number of people living in that
proximity. Quite simply, we need to take care of the safety issue
here, which it appears is the action the board will take, but because
there are a limited number of people who are actually living there,
it's no different than the same policy we're utilizing up in the
Northern Golden Gates Estates.
MR. AGOSTIN: I realize that and I appreciate your past stand on
the matter. There is the fact that there were no more people living
there, they couldn't put up with the various obstacles put in their
way; no power, no roads, no services, which is utterly unfair.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
MR. AGOSTIN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any more speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: One late add.
Ms. Velma Sorensio (phonetic).
MS. SORENSIO: I'm Velma Sorensio. I am past president of the
Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, and I want to thank you because
this is the first time we've had some encouragement for the people
that live down there and need that road so badly; that, even if you're
just filling it in, it's going to help a lot. So for the people that
were members of the Civic Association when I was president, I'm
thanking you for them because they're going to be very happy to know,
finally, there's a little progress. Even if it isn't too much, at
least it's the beginning, so thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all we have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
Is there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #8C1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CITY-COUNTY BEACH PARKING - AGREEMENT APPROVED
WITH REQUEST FOR FIVE YEAR EXTENSION AND INCREASE OF $34,000.00 WITH
CONDITIONS
*** We're to Item 8(C)(1), request for approval of an interlocal
agreement for city-county beach parking.
This was continued from last week, really, because we were just
kind of all over the board on how we wanted to approach this. I think
we all agree that there was not something in front of us for a given
year or two years that was entirely acceptable, so why don't we just
find out where everyone sits on this?
Mr. Olliff, do you have anything to offer from the city?
I believe we're pretty much where we were last week, are we not?
MR. OLLIFF: We are. The board --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just want to be sure everybody has
copies of the two memoranda that we got from Mr. Olliff that gives us
the finance backup that we had asked for last week.
MR. OLLIFF: And I apologize for when those got to you, but just
given the time frame, trying to generate that much information, it
just took that amount of time.
Last week, when this item was discussed -- I'm sorry, for the
record, Tom Olliff, Public Services Administrator -- the board had
requested that the mayor and the city manager might be in attendance
today in order to be able to discuss this from the city's perspective.
On their behalf, the mayor is out of town and was unable to attend.
The city manager did indicate he could come but, frankly, because of
the city council action, that there is actually very little that he
would be authorized to be able to say other than the agreement that
had been submitted already.
He did indicate, however, that he felt strongly that should we
not be able to come to any conclusion by the end of the month, the
city council would certainly be willing, and has told him, that he
would be willing to extend the agreement under its current terms,
whatever it took to be able to work something out.
In the memos that I provided to you yesterday, there were two
options that I was suggesting that you might want to consider.
Let me begin by indicating in either option, I would suggest we
consider a longer term. I think the city staff that I talked to also
agree that a longer term is probably something that the city council
would like to see as well because it would preclude us from having to
do this every other year as the current agreement does.
The first option is to simply allow the city, as they had
originally intended, to create a small city-only portion of the
parking lot within Lowdermilk Park.
In that case, because it would be a response to a city
neighborhood, the county staff would recommend there wouldn't be any
financial remuneration for anything in that regard, and I think that
would satisfy the issue with the city.
The county commission had wanted to fix, then, the remaining
spots that were available within the agreement so that we would have a
guarantee that those spots, as of the execution of the agreement,
would continue to be available for county residents for the life of
the agreement, and I think that's something that they would be
agreeable to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question is, using the city's logic
as far as their count in Lowdermilk Park, if there are less spaces
available to county residents, applying the logic they're applying in
the other scenario, we should then pay less money to our beach
parking.
It seems like they're arguing both sides of the question. If
it's a formula tied to the number of spaces, then one scenario should
result in less cost to the county and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't expect Mr. Olliff to answer --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To speak for them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm just a little disappointed
that -- I mean, this is an issue that is important to residents and --
but no one from the city decided to come talk to us about it, because
I think we need to have communication on it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Be careful in characterizing it that
nobody from the city decided to come.
What they have done is say they can't be here today and they're
willing to extend, without any written agreement, our understanding
with the city until we are able to come to a formal agreement. So I
hope that, you know, that is taken in the spirit in which it's
offered. I don't think we should feel insulted that nobody's here
today. It wasn't possible on a one-week notice.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not insulted, just disappointed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me see if I can get this off-center, at
least push it in a direction.
I had discussion with Mayor Barnett last week, which is always a
kick. He's actually fun to work with. So you know, a lot of the back
and forth, let's just put that to bed.
What we have is we have a beach parking agreement that has a
dollar amount attached to it. That dollar amount was not arrived at
through logic or reason, it was just suggested years ago, and the city
said okay.
We developed a contract that then grew from year to year by three
percent, so there was no logical basis for that number in the first
place. So to try now to go back and recreate the logic for the number
is really a wasted effort, in my opinion.
What we have is an existing relationship. In the meantime, since
that has started -- how long have we had a beach park agreement, Mr.
Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Six years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I knew it was probably '90 or '91.
In that time, we've seen a three percent increase, yet the
population in the incorporated part of the county has grown more than
within the city, so I think it's fair to say that the pressures put on
those spaces are from the unincorporated part of the county than they
are from the city.
Not making a case for anyone, but I think you'd have a tough time
saying that's not true.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask Mr. Olliff a question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In that same period of time, how many
additional beach parking spaces or beach access areas has the county
added?
MR. OLLIFF: We have probably added, and this is a rough estimate
on my part, probably four to five hundred.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So from a percentage standpoint, that
may have out-paced the growth in the county.
MR. OLLIFF: We have probably doubled the number of parking
spaces in the same period of time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good effort at catch-up, but still a
significant need.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you'll let me continue on my line of
thinking.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't interrupt you.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: The bottom line is that, you know, yes, we're
doing well, yes, we're tying to do better and that's all fine and
dandy, but we still have a number that wasn't arrived at from a
specific formula.
My concern is simply that a one-time adjustment on a one-year or
two-year contract is not something you want to do because a year or
two from now, it's going to come back with another adjustment in it.
I don't have a problem adjusting the contract amount, whether
it's 20 or 30 or $40,000 isn't as big an issue to me, because if you
break it down, $210,000 a year is a buck a resident to park anywhere
in the county for free.
So I think financially, from that perspective, it's a good deal
for everyone, including the city, so I don't have a problem with that,
but I want to lock in a long-term contract that is not amendable by
one party alone.
So I would ask that we arrive at a dollar amount, increase the
contract amount by whether it's 20 or 30 or $40,000, put a five-year
time frame on the contract, and make sure that it's not amendable by
one party, it has to be a joint amendment by both parties as most
contracts are.
That's where I'd like to see us go in this discussion because I
think it --I don't want to throw away the beach parking agreement. I
don't think the city wants to throw it away.
If there is going to be a change in revenues, let's share in that
change and everyone still gets to park at the beach for free.
that's where I'm trying to go.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Since we only got these memos, and I
understand you could not have done it faster, so no criticism
intended, Mr. Olliff, but what I understood Commissioner Berry to say
last week is that we were being asked to make a financial decision
without the backup sufficient, and I understand that, and I think that
was a good point.
I hope that you've had a chance to look at the brief -- the
shorter of the two memos that we have from Mr. Olliff and we can see
now where the $40,000 was a round figure, but an actual -- the actual
number is 33,580 based on the actual revenue loss and the actual
percentage of usage, and so I hope that's going to be sufficient
backup to let us be able to make a sound fiscal decision, and I would
very much support Commissioner Hancock's idea that we go forward with
a long-term agreement and send the message to the city that we want to
continue to cooperate with them in this way.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree, a long-term contract is probably
in the best interest of both parties. My point on this matter still
is, though, that it was the city's unilateral decision to remove some
of the parking meters from their own revenue stream, county had no
involvement in that decision at all, yet we are being asked to fund
the shortfall for a decision that we had no relationship at all in,
and that's my point.
You know, if we had been asked beforehand, would we be willing to
fund some of this difference if we removed some parking meters, then
we have a discussion, but the decision was made without our input.
You know, we could take action here in the county that would
fiscally impact the city as well, but we don't normally do that
without consultation with the city. And that's my argument with this
whole matter.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion that we approve
the increase of $34,000 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which one of these? I can't find that
in this memo.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: September -- there are two, one has little
green tabs and one doesn't have any information tabs. I'm looking at
the one without the tabs on it.
In the first numbered paragraph, Number 1, it sets forth the
proposed amount for consideration would be $33,580. This figure is
based on the actual percentage of the vehicles with stickers using
Lowdermilk Park during the season that are from the county, which is
69.49 percent, times the actual estimated revenue loss of $48,324.
That does exactly what Commissioner Berry asked them to do, which
is give us some firm backup for the quantification of the dollar
request.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask you a question about that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you may be able to answer.
It says according to the Coquina Sands resident survey, those are
the residents who first complained there weren't enough parking spaces
for city residents, so, you know, I know surveys can get slanted, and
I have a concern there.
It seems to me last week we were in numbers that it was 40, 40
and 20, as far as outsiders and county stickers and city. If 40
percent is the number, I don't know where that -- maybe you know,
where the 40, 40 and 20 came from,
but if that's the number --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's in the backup to the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then we could plug that in instead of
70 percent.
MR. OLLIFF: That's the same survey, and the argument the city
has made all along is that we ought to look at those vehicles that are
metered and what is the percentage of county vehicles -- I mean, those
vehicles that are actually stickered and what is that percentage of
county vehicles. That's where that 69.49 number comes from.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In conclusion of my motion that I was
making --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would just like to complete the motion,
that we approve the contract, the beach contract parking agreement
with the city, we request an extension for the term to be five years
so that we're careful that we do what we would like for them to do and
that is not unilaterally make changes, but to indicate a request for
an extension for five years in consideration of the $34,000 additional
payment above the standard three percent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the other problem I have with
this formula is the count, if it's accurate, we don't know how many of
those stickers were in metered spaces, how many were in reserved
spaces.
Theoretically, all your reserved spaces could be city residents
and all your metered spaces that are used up could be by county
stickers, and you have a greater impact on the fiscal when you take
those figures away.
Theoretically, none of them could have been on metered spaces.
Really, the impact on fiscal isn't necessarily shown by this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would point you back to a dollar per
county resident for a five-year parking agreement and the fact, as
Commissioner Hancock said, we really didn't have a sound financial
basis for the original agreement, you know, per capita, and that makes
it a little difficult to try to apply some formula to the present
agreement. But the modification has a significant -- I mean, has a
basis in fiscal policy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, how did we arrive at this
number in 19927
MR. OLLIFF: It was strictly a negotiated number. The city
actually originally requested a much, much higher number. They were
looking to get an 80/20 split of users. They were looking for the
county to step up to that kind of a level. I simply didn't think the
commission wanted to do that and negotiated a much lower number.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was a negotiation between city
and county?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Regardless of how they came to it, the
city agreed to it, and we've used that for six years, and we've added,
you know, according to C.P.I. but when we say, well, we just picked a
number out of the air, I don't think the county just plugged a number
in and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we did.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like Commissioner Norris said, it
wasn't a unilateral decision. That was something the city and the
county agreed upon, and I suspect if we picked a number out of the
air, it might have been considerably lower.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The lack of a second on my motion, is it
something that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I haven't gotten there yet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's still a lot of discussion going on.
You know, you can take one of two tacks here, and I think the two
are being represented pretty clearly. You can either get internal to
what this individual request is for 40 or $50,000 and really pick it
apart, because I agree with you, I mean, just look at the number of
who uses the lot, who came up with it, and how much it cost, and
revenues here and revenues there, it's just a quagmire. I mean, it
doesn't really ferret out, it's not really clear.
Has there been discussion, there is discussion now. And this is
the discussion to make the decision. And if we want to have a
workshop with the city, they've invited us to do that.
So what I'm saying is, I don't need a workshop. I'm saying
forget, you know, all this -- the Coquina Sands bit and the residents
in there saying, you know, whatever exclusionary efforts are being
made by a handful of people in the city, I don't want to get embroiled
in that. All I want to look at is the big picture, what does it cost
us to have a joint parking agreement, what is a reasonable number for
that, because getting embroiled in the details of this is just not
going to take us anywhere fruitful is my concern.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree, but I just don't want a
commission six years from now saying, well, they just picked a number
at random again, and that's what it feels like we're being asked to do
unless we do look at those numbers specifically --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've asked for the study.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess what I'd ask us to do is, when
you say is there an alternative suggestion, Commissioner Mac'Kie,
let's just exercise the city's offer. Thirty days isn't going to kill
us. I think we all want to get to the same point of having public
parking, but let's exercise their offer to dig into the numbers a
little bit.
You just pointed out yourself, we just got this this morning.
That's not a complaint. I know you've been putting that together, but
we just got this. I think it would be silly not to go ahead and
accept their offer and talk this over and spend the 30 days trying to
come up with the most reasonable numbers possible so that down the
road, future commissioners, future city councilors have something
concrete to put their hands on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not a bad suggestion. They did
offer to extend it for 30 days so we could talk about this. I think
that's what we ought to do.
Another question, Mr. Olliff, in order to clear up maybe some
confusion that we heard here this morning, how many beach parking
stickers are issued on an annual basis?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't have that number. It's, well into the --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's about 20 to $25,000.
MR. OLLIFF: That's a good rough number.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: To say that it's 200,000 people going to
the beach is not correct. There is only 20 to 25,000 beach parking
stickers issued in any given year, so it's not the same as saying all
200,000 people are using that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good thing, there wouldn't be any parking
available.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. I just wanted to make that
point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Berry,
I haven't seen you flag me down down there, but --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Waiting 30 days -- unless in that 30 days,
you know, there is a plan of action that's going to come to a final
solution, you know, great. I think I have one.
I am going to second Commissioner Hac'Kie's motion but request an
amendment to the motion also, so I'll withhold the second until I get
the amendment.
The amendment -- I agree, $34,000, five-year term, the contract
can only be amended by joint agreement of both the city and county,
which is typical for contracts.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Standard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One-year notification of intent to change the
contract amount by either party.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's a good amendment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The next amendment is, that the city and
county shall form a joint committee to adopt a funding ratio based on
population and available parking.
Let's go ahead and get that ratio. If the population of the
county versus available parking, it's almost like having a concurrency
level of parking that says, if we, the county, continue to grow
outside of the city, we realize that's going to put increased pressure
on the available parking, whether it be in the city or outside, so we
have a responsibility to continue trying to provide ample parking,
whether it be at the beach or off-site, and by doing that, we can
avoid the amount of this contract getting out of hand.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have to say I couldn't endorse that more
strongly. My reason for not adding it in the motion, frankly, was I
feared there might not be a majority of support for that concept
because that's exactly where we need to go and where Ms. Ramsey
started us in adding the beach parking as an element of our parks
review plan. So that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The suggestion is--
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we have a five-year agreement and
then we look at a ratio after we've entered into the agreement?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We enter with a fixed amount with the three
percent C.P.I., which is 34,000 more than we pay today, and that the
contract require the formation of a joint committee and development of
a ratio so that future contracts can be based on and can be known and
grown based on that formula.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the purpose of that formula really
would be in the sixth year, we could plug it in?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct, or by mutual agreement of the
parties since the contract can be amended with mutual agreement at any
time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But it seems to me it doesn't
make much sense to do it now because the picture has changed so much
in the last five years, I suspect it will in the next five years. It
just seems like that's out of order.
I agree we should look at that number, but it seems like, kind of
a waste of time to look at it right now and then plug it in six years
from now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I guess my concern is that I don't know
if we can do it within 30 days.
The city has offered an extension of the contract and, you know,
I'm looking to get this resolved at least to the greatest satisfaction
we can and, you know, that's where I'm comfortable.
If you want to ask that the committee produce that within 12
months from the date of the contract being signed for incorporation
into the contract, I don't have a problem with that. It probably
won't gain your support for the vote anyway, but I'd be happy to amend
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say is there another plan of
action, my plan of action is let's have a formal conversation with the
city on this because to date, we haven't. It seems silly to enter
into a contract without ever having had a formal conversation on the
topic.
We have an offer from them, we haven't talked to them about it.
I know you talked to the mayor informally, but it seems like if you're
going to enter into a contract with somebody, you ought to talk to
them about it a little bit.
I understand your point about as the county grows, population
impact on the beaches grows, but if we've more than doubled our
number, then we've more than covered, from a statistical standpoint,
more than covered our end on that because it's suggesting people will
only go to the city beach and not go to the county beach.
I think in either place we need more spaces, and I think we're
all working towards that, but it just seems the most prudent thing to
do would be talk to them, they've offered an extra 30 days, we ought
to take advantage of it, talk to them and see what we can do here, get
the best opportunity available for county residents. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think probably going ahead with some kind
of a contract is probably all right, but if you are going to establish
this committee, why don't we go ahead and establish the joint
committee?
What if they come up with numbers that are less than what we've
entered into the contract with, which is fine, but should we not make
something contingent in this contract that if this study committee
comes up that there is some -- and they come up with better numbers,
can we go back?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like your --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess, maybe I'm making it sound more
complicated than it is.
If the city and county today say this amount today is an
acceptable amount, this is our known population, this is our known
parking spaces, there is an easy mathematical formula that's derived
from that. It's not really that complex if we all agree that today's
funding amount is appropriate, I have to assume if we both sign the
contract we do, so what I'm saying is a funding formula that reflects
those elements with this dollar amount so that that's the basis for
future contracts.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which would be a really good deal for the
county and, you know, we'll have to see if the city will continue to
offer that really good deal.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It does two things; what it does is it tells
the city if we don't provide more parking throughout the county as
needed by the unincorporated growth in the county, that this contract
amount will be effective, so it's really kind of an incentive for us,
it's a protection for them, I think it covers the bases and says let's
protect the ratio relationship we have now, and if they go adversely
affecting spaces within the city trying to exclude county residents,
that, too, has an effect on the ratio and relationship.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It just seems to make, at least, mathematical
sense to me.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Just to join very briefly, typically we don't provide suggestions
for terms on the floor, but the concept of meeting or having a
committee with the city might lend itself to become a part the of
terms of this contract to be implemented in the third or fourth year
of this agreement, which the parties then look toward an
implementation date, everything is fixed in stone at this point in
time, but at the third or fourth or some milestone part of this
agreement, the parties contractually have agreed in good faith they'll
put together a committee at that point in time looking for the out
years beyond this agreement. Just a thought before you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand why that is any
different, frankly, from what's being proposed. It certainly was
intended by my motion that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you don't see any difference, you
don't mind changing it, do you?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you don't mind my finishing, please --
I just want to restate the motion for you.
My motion is that -- was that funny?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion is that we enter into the
five-year agreement with the county.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: City.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, with the city.
That we increase our payment by $34,000, that we increase it by
the three percent, that we have --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not the first year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three percent the first year.
That we have a -- as all contracts do, but in this case, a very
important provision that the contract can be modified by the mutual
agreement of the parties and not otherwise, and that that is
particularly important because of the fifth part of the motion and
that is that we enter into a joint committee with the city to study
the ratio of availability of beach parking and the cost appropriate to
be shared for the maintenance of that beach parking.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the difference between what
you said and Mr. Weigel said is he's suggesting that the result of
that committee will be implemented. You're saying, well, if the
parties want to, they can. And it seems to me if that was
particularly disadvantageous to one side or the other, they would opt
not to, and we'd have a five-year agreement, period.
But if we're going to -- if you are going to go through the
exercise of appointing a committee, checking the ratios and seeing
what's a fair number, then let's make that part of the agreement.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I love that. That's a great addition to
the agreement. I predict that that will fiscal negative for Collier
County but a fiscal positive to the City of Naples, and I'm happy to
add that to the agreement -- to the motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It seemed so simple when I was thinking about
it at home.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It still is.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It seems like it should be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, when you said fiscal positive and
negative, it kind of concerns me because if we agree today that this
amount is fair, we agree this amount is fair for tomorrow. We agree
that whatever the elements are establishing that amount, be it the
population, available parking, then it's fair. Either it's fair or
it's not. If you sign the agreement, you assume it is, and you're
going to develop a ratio based on that fiscal relationship. I don't
see how that's a negative.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, then, I'll explain it to you.
The negative is going to be, if you base your splits on that, if
you base the cost that the county is going to subsidize the city for
on that ratio, since the city is not growing in population at any kind
of a rate and the county is, the growth is in the county, then as the
years go by, the county pays a bigger and bigger share.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we don't -- if we don't provide additional
parking spaces, that's the catch. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a responsibility to our Parks and
Recreation Department to continue providing additional parking.
If we provide that parking at a rate consistent with the growth
in the county, then the fiscal relationship with the city is not
changed, it remains constant.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed, but do we want to force that
situation through an agreement with the city? And the reason I ask
that is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want to force it any way I can force it, to
be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The reason I ask that, we used to do
in the budget process a prioritization and we'd say what was
absolutely a necessity, what was discretionary, and so on. While we
want to have more beach parking and for the past several years have
had no strong financial concerns as far as our tax rate, you may get
three years down the road, five years down the road and have some lean
years, and in those lean years, you need to have the ability to
discretionary -- make discretionary changes, and if you have linked
yourself into a contract like this, you don't have any discretion to
change it and you are forced to spend that money and then --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You just '-
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- suddenly that becomes, whether you
want it or not, a higher priority than tax rate, than, you know, any
of the other things we are forced to spend money on like the Sheriff's
Department and those things every year.
So I think we want to be very careful not to make ourselves --
while we want to clearly make it a priority and we're doing that in
our growth management plan with the state, we don't want to tie our
hands or tie future boards' hands through some agreement that forces
expenditures what could potentially be a higher discretionary item
than --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what you just asked Mr. Weigel to
ask me to do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, we do it already through concurrency
through our library books and so forth. We've deemed those vital or
important public services. I'm just saying that so many people come
to this community, and I think we have to recognize that beach as an
asset and anchor for the values in this community, and access to it is
equally important.
I don't mind locking us in to providing that because I happen to
think it's a priority, and maybe that's a discussion for a different
day as to where that should or should not fall, maybe it's a
concurrency discussion,
but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it certainly is, and I think
we're on the same page as far as where we want our beach parking to
grow. I'm just saying concurrency and dealing with the state is the
right place to do that not agreement with the city, because should
there be some fiscal crisis, you can deal with that with the state,
but it's much harder to go back and try to renegotiate separate
contracts as a result of that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you want to remove that from the contract,
I don't have a problem with it as long as I understand that there is
at least some direction by this board to approach the concurrency
issue in beach parking because I -- that's really -- I think that's
important, not just to us, but it's important for the city to know
there is a level of parking per capita we're trying to accomplish,
whether it be on the beach or off-site --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm respectfully going to leave my motion
the way it is and that is as an element of the motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not going to withdraw the second. I'll
leave the second with the motion.
Do we have speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you do.
Mr. Gil Erlichman and Mr. Ty Agostin.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning. Gill Erlichman, I reside in East
Naples and elector and taxpayer in Collier County. I'm speaking for
myself.
I was here last week when this agenda item was discussed and
postponed -- put over for this week. Truly, I don't understand the
commission's action. You're talking about an agreement. Has the City of Naples signed anything?
Have you discussed anything with the City of Naples on this
question, sir?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, would be the answer to has the
city signed anything; no, would be the answer to have we discussed it
with them.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They've made an offer and we are discussing
that offer.
MR. ERLICHMAN: So in other words, if you -- whatever this motion
is that was made now by Commissioner Mac'Kie and seconded by you, Mr.
Hancock, in other words, when this motion is passed, that means that
you signed on to the agreement that is under question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It means that we will send a modified
agreement back to the city for their signature, correct.
MR. ERLICHMAN: In other words, then they have the right to veto
or not sign the agreement, then.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They certainly do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which they can do right now. They can agree
not to even discuss the beach parking agreement, which is not what
they want to do.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Why doesn't the city and the county get together
for a final discussion on this, that's my question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What a great idea.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is how government bodies negotiate
with each other. This is how you enter into a contract. You know, we
correspond with DCA by writing and with the City of Naples by writing.
They've made an offer, we're modifying, we're accepting, or I'm
proposing we accept it with a modification, that's technically a
counter-offer, they will accept it or reject it, that's how contracts
are negotiated.
MR. ERLICHMAN: I understand, ma'am. I understand. So what I'm
trying to -- not understand, but trying to fathom here is that the
time that the commissioners are taking to get this straight -- to get
this agreement agreed to, if you could get together again with the
city and have a final discussion, I think everything would be cleared
up. That's all I'm asking for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- never mind.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Erlichman, not only would it be a
final discussion, it would be the first discussion.
MR. ERLICHMAN: You've answered my question. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a great idea.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ty Agostin.
MR. AGOSTIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty
Agostin. I live in Golden Gate Estates, speaking for myself.
I have a very serious problem with any elitist exclusionary
movement and the letter from Coquina Sands to Mr. Woodruff, which is
part of the executive summary, is claiming just that.
For the county to pay per capita for the use of the beach when,
according to their study, they're approximately using one-third of the
city's stickers for parking as opposed to two-thirds for the county
stickers, doesn't make any mathematical sense to me, and even if you
apply the same percentage to the remaining, those stickers, the most I
can come off the top of my head here is 55 percent of the people using
it from the county and the balance is city usage.
The other thing that I don't quite understand, why are we rushing
into this agreement? You could sit down, there are a couple of people
from each government and you should be able to negotiate this
reasonably. I have a problem with them trying to put barricades from
the poor neighborhood, such as I live in, and, frankly, I resent it
and I think that the least we can do is at least enter into a
discussion before signing a five-year contract.
I mean, I think that's elementary business practice. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No others.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There is also another elementary business
practice and that says, this is what I'm willing to live with, and if
you disagree, then you sit down and talk about it.
They sent us an amount, we said, hey, we think that's too high,
please come back with a different amount, and you know what, if we
arrive at an impasse, let's sit down and talk. But if they agree with
this proposal and the majority of this board agrees with it, that's
called working together, see. And this us and them garbage, I'm
getting tired of it.
It was a half-dozen residents of Coquina Sands that got upset,
made some inflammatory statements, not every resident of the city, nor
does every resident of the county think they're being told, you know,
stay out of the city. So let's stay away from that and stick to the
issue of beach parking.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You raised a very good point. There are
half a dozen residents from Coquina Sands putting pressure on the city
government to make a unilateral decision that we are now being asked
to spend $34,000 to fund.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They could also say two residents put pressure
on us not to adopt an agreement today because they spoke at our
meeting.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think I said that before those two
residents -- we won't count that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then you're excluded, the other four of us are
being pressured then.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: On the metered parking places at these
parking areas, if you have a beach sticker on your car, you're allowed
to park without paying, am I correct?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Regardless?
MR. OLLIFF: Regardless.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. What I don't understand is, they
decided to remove the metered parking places; is that correct?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct. Well, they want to.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: They want to.
If they leave those, then tourists, whatever, come in and they
have to pay.
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: What is the big deal about taking -- why do
they feel compelled to remove the metered parking places?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can tell you the answer to that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I can tell you the answer.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I think I can.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's hear both.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course we'll hear from everyone, and
we're going to talk about this for hours.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Just answer the question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The answer to the question is that it
essentially reserves those spaces for locals as opposed to tourists
because tourists, then, can't park in those spaces. It reserves those
spaces for county and city residences -- residents.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: If they take the parking meters out, they
are providing a place that if you have your beach sticker, you can go
and park there?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you live here and pay taxes here, all
you need is a sticker to park there.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Only stickers can park there, and they're
saying that we need -- they need to have this because there is not
enough spaces for the stickered people to park.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For the locals to park.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: All of us, whether city, county, whatever.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that the counter argument, of course,
is we need to do things to increase parking for tourists.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's it.
I'm kind of -- I don't understand -- I don't understand this.
I mean, I do understand what you're telling me. I got brains
enough to understand that, but I don't understand -- I think maybe the
best situation is just leave the meters in there; first come, first
served. If you get there in the morning to go ahead and use that
beach, fine. You don't have to worry about me because I don't go to
the beach, so it's not a big deal, but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not our park. We don't make that
choice.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I understand that. It's not our park.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sounds like to me we're heading to a workshop.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hr. Chairman, would you call the question,
please?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
Again, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I want the motion to be voted on one
way or the other, but I have kind of come around that the forming of
the committee is a good idea, but I want to do it regardless, I don't
want to make it a part of the agreement.
I think we need to adopt a concurrency level for beach parking,
but that should happen outside of this agreement. I have to agree
with Commissioner Constantine's comments on that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll take that out of the motion --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- in an attempt to get an agreement with
the city.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will -- the second will amend also.
We have a motion and a second.
Is everyone clear on the elements of the motion?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Elements of the motion are that the contract
amount currently will be raised by $34,000 per year. The three
percent per year of cost CPI index will remain in the contract. The
contract term is five years. There will be a notification of one year
of any intent to change the contract before it terminates. Amendments
can be made only by joint agreement of the city and county.
Have I covered it all, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think I need one clarification.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You stated that the contract would be
increased by $34,000 per year -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The base amount of the contract increased
$34,000, the CIP -- CPI index is --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Is going to be on that $34,000.
In other words, it's not $34,000 every single year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I disagree with that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no.
The CPI -- the $34,000 is this year's increase, then the base
amount of the contract is whatever it is, and it increases by CPI as
it has for the past six years.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What is the base of the contract going to
be? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in our --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: $206,000.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: 206?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was 172, wasn't it, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: 178 --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 178.
MR. OLLIFF: -- plus the $34,000.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it's 212, then.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: So if you look at this as a buck sticker,
you figure you're getting to your cost? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, that's kind of the reason -- the point
-- again, just trying to back up and look from a big picture, that
makes sense.
MR. OLLIFF: The only other issue that I would add that you
talked about before that we would expect to include in the contract,
it was not part of the motion, but that the parking arrangement that
is there today then would be fixed for the life of the contract so we
don't deal with the city deciding that if some other neighborhood
decides to come up and they can't get access to 22nd Avenue, the city
manager has already indicated we would leave exactly as it currently
sits for the life of the contract. I think that's an important point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, I guess, the alternative here, if you
don't support the motion is that you are more or less saying, well, I
don't think this is a good contract and let's sit down with them and
work on a different one.
I happen to think this is a good contract and that's why I'm
going to support it.
That's really kind of the two choices you have.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to call the question.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you hit it on the head. You
said a week ago you wanted to make sure this wasn't made out as a turf
war and a disagreement doesn't have to be a turf war. Each of us has
used the word negotiate and in order to negotiate, you have two
different sides. Our job is to represent the residents of Collier
County, including the City of Naples, and the city councilors are
representing their city folks. And we're both trying to do the best
we can, and I think we're all trying to get toward the beach parking,
but I think you've wrapped it up nicely there.
Just because I disagree with this, doesn't mean I don't think we
shouldn't have anything. I just think we need to work on a better
contract. Frankly, I think we do need to have that first and
hopefully final discussion.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: In this thirty-some thousand, provides for
how many more parking places?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There is no additional spaces.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It reserves --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: It reserves? How many?
MR. OLLIFF: Eighty-one additional spaces.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For sticker use only, that could have been
occupied by -- again, you know, I don't -- there are a lot of things I
don't necessarily agree with, but the park sits in the city.
I'm just trying to arrive at a contract amount that allows the
residents to continue using city and county facilities. They're one
and the same for beach parking, and I think this is a fair amount.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: It's a place to start and if there needs to
be further discussion, we can get into discussion.
What if that discussion comes out whereby it's less dollars?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we've removed that as an element of the
contract, but I think that's something we need to adopt as a county.
Here's the bottom line. To me, this contract amount shouldn't be
changed after five years other than the CPI because we, as a board,
should adopt a concurrency level for beach parking that keeps beach
parking in pace with population growth. If that occurs, then there
will be no additional pressures placed on parking within the city.
That is my hope and it's my -- I would say as strongly as a direction
I'd like to take.
If we can do that in the meantime, I think it takes away the,
well, the city is -- the county is impacting our beaches more than
they were last year because by signing this agreement, we're saying
this all makes sense, and so is the city. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries three-two.
The contract will be amended and sent back to the city for,
hopefully, their approval. If they don't approve it, we'll certainly
have that workshop, Mr. Constantine, but thank you, everybody.
It's a little bit of a gray area there.
Item #SD1
DISCUSSION OF THE STATUS OF HURRICANE SHELTERS - STAFF TO PURSUE LIST
OF RED CROSS PEOPLE TO BE INVOLVED
*** Next item on our agenda is item 8(D)(1), hurricane shelter
discussion.
I see Mr. Pineau coming forward on that.
Good morning, Mr. Pineau.
MR. PINEAU: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Ken Pineau,
county emergency management director.
(Commissioner Mac'Kie exits board room.)
MR. PINEAU: I just want to make you aware of the potential
problem as we get into the last third of the 1997 hurricane season.
As you know, Commissioner Hancock, on the second of June, the
American Red Cross sent down some guidance saying that they will no
longer allow us to use any storm shelters that would be manned by the
American Red Cross within the category four vulnerability zones, and
that, essentially, is the entire area of Collier County with the
exception of Immokalee. They have asked us to submit exemptions,
which we did. We submitted those exemptions in early August, 13
exemptions.
It's always been our philosophy that we would open up any storm
shelter that would be away from the storm surge disregarding the wind
because we're telling people it would be perfectly safe to stay in
their homes now if they're under the storm surge, with the exception
of those folks living in mobile homes.
Well, last Monday, we got word back from the state disaster
chairman up in Tampa rejecting all of our exemptions, which brings us
to the problem right now that I have very few American Red
Cross-trained shelter managers and it also --
(Commissioner Hac'Kie enters the board room.)
MR. PINEAU: -- incurs some other added financial burdens on the
county itself for taking or assuming that role of managing the
shelters, overtime costs, for example.
We do have an agreement with the School Board since 1980,
September 4th, 1980, that covers pretty much our roles and
responsibilities, and those are pretty well set.
We incur a lot of the financial obligations for damages
associated with sheltering in the schools, not the damages from the
storm itself, but also the food and beverage issues and things of that
nature there. So I'd just like to make you aware of that and try
to get some guidance from the board on how I should proceed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pineau, as you know, I served on the Board
of Directors for the American Red Cross for four or five years now.
At our last board meeting, it was discussed that their -- their
requirements they're talking about are for land-falling storms, in
other words, they have to make landfall on the West Coast of Florida.
If they're a crossing storm, those restrictions do not apply.
MR. PINEAU: Not necessarily. They haven't made that decision
yet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I can only tell you what's reported at
the board meeting, and I'll pass that on.
I know the Red Cross will continue to work with you to make sure
that the people we've trained as Red Cross volunteers to man those
shelters will be available. We're fighting that as hard as you are
because our job is to serve the people of Collier County from that
side.
Putting the county commission chairman hat on, we need to take
whatever steps necessary to ensure that we have registration in
manning of shelters in the meantime. If that means -- I know the Red
Cross worked jointly with you in training people to do that, not
necessarily as Red Cross, but how we do it, and in the event of an
emergency, the board could activate those people or authorize the
necessary overtime to accomplish that in a community function.
So if you are asking for direction, I guess I would like to see
the board allow you to pursue the list of people that would perform
that and what eventually determines the overtime type costs associated
with it, training costs, if necessary.
In the meantime, hopefully, we'll get this resolved with the
National American Red Cross because it's like being county government
because we're the local voice telling them, you know, aren't we the
guys who know best how to protect our people. So we're trying to do
that with the Red Cross also.
MR. PINEAU: Our local chapter has been very supportive. I
think this is not a local issue for us, it's a statewide issue because
I don't think that there is a -- very few shelters in the State of
Florida that meets the standards that the Red Cross has set up a of
couple years ago.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any other direction or assistance for
Mr. Pineau?
Mr. Pineau, thank you very much.
MR. PINEAU: Thank you, sir.
Item #8D2
BID NO. 97-2688 FOR THE PURCHASE OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Item 8(D)(2), request for EMS medical
equipment.
This was moved from the agenda 16(D)(5).
Who do we have on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, this item was only requested to be
brought forward because it -- the backup had an incorrect page and
there was the need to correct the page in the record. I would ask the
board to consider that. I don't think there is the need for any
particular --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #BE1
RECONFIRHATION OF LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FOR CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR THE
CLEVELAND CLINIC - LETTER TO BE RECONFIGURED INDICATING OVERWHELMING
SUPPORT FOR CLEVELAND CLINIC
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** We are to Item 8(E)(1), reconfirmation of
-- this was the -- a verbiage change that was on the first item of our
add sheet.
The purpose for asking this to come back on the agenda, as you
may remember from last week, is that the state is reconsidering on
appeal and other items the Columbia application.
I thought this board took a very firm stance in saying we are not
in the business of deciding which hospital -- or deciding if a
hospital comes here, but given a choice, our constituents, for the
most part, are asking that that not be given to the Cleveland Clinic
over Columbia.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to correct that?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict in this
particular area. Citing Statute 112.3143, I will not be able to enter
into a discussion on this item.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Berry is required to
abstain.
I would just like to ask that the board would give direction that
the letter be reconfigured for -- to be appropriate in this process,
again, trying to further at least the phone calls we've gotten and the
letters we've gotten saying the Cleveland Clinic was supported by a
vast number of people in this community.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I support that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make it as
strong as possible. I think we've heard overwhelming support from the
public in favor of the Cleveland Clinic.
I think the recent difficulties at Columbia certainly don't do
anything to alter that. If anything they strengthen it, and I think
we are very clearly representing the public if we go ahead and support
as strongly as we possible can, and as strongly as you feel
comfortable wording it that Cleveland is the preference of this
community.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let me ask -- one element of that, I
believe, is that the state determined that 100 additional beds in
Collier, that it's okay to have them. Well, Columbia, facing a lot of
issues they're facing, we certainly can't prejudge them on those
issues, but we know that may tie up --
(Commissioner Berry leaves the proceedings.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- whether those 100 beds ever become a
reality.
Yet we have Cleveland Clinic who says they're ready, willing and
able to begin tomorrow providing those 100 beds.
If the state has said 100 beds additional in the county are
warranted, it seems to me timing falls to Cleveland Clinic's side
also.
I think referencing Columbia's current legal issues in this
correspondence, not taking a position on, but simply that they exist
and may cause a delay in what the state has already deemed needed or
allowable, I think is a reasonable point. I just want to ask if there
is any problem having that in the letter.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm strongly supporting the point and
I think it's a good one.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Strong support.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Strong support.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I don't believe we need a motion on the
that but simply board direction that the letter be transmitted, and I
will begin work -- I will start with your base letter that was sent
initially and wordsmith that to reflect the discussion today.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I would suggest that, in fact, you do have a motion
so we have a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, a motion to approve the
item we just discussed.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Commissioner Berry abstained from voting.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, if I could ask for your help in
actually taking Mr. Norris' original letter, doing a redraft for me
and then we will review it and get it out this week. MR. WEIGEL: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
We're to -- I tell you what, we're right at about 10:30. Let's
go ahead and take a five-minute break for the court reporter and
others, and we'll return at 25 till.
(A brief recess was held.)
Item #8E2
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND ASA PROPERTIES, LLC REGARDING THE
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP IN-LINE SKATE COMPETITION SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER
11-13, 1997 - APPROVED; STAFF DIRECTED TO REVIEW CONTRACT REGARDING
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Excuse me, folks. We are going to
reconvene the Board of Collier County Commissioners' meeting. We are
on item 8(E)(2), request to approve contract between Collier County
and ASA Properties regarding the World Championship In-Line Skate
Competition scheduled for October llth through 13th. Ms. Gansel, good morning.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, commissioners. Jean Gansel from the
Budget Office.
At your last board meeting, the board did approve the allocation
of $60,450 for the World Championship In-Line Skating Competition and
they have requested that the contract come back to the board with
certain provisions, and the contract is attached.
One of the items Commissioner Hac'Kie was concerned about was
that the ASA contribute the amount that they have said that they would
in their application.
We have included a provision in the contract that $148,000 would
be documented with invoices that were paid with funds other than
Tourist Development funds so that that would assure their
contribution.
Also, there was concern as to what the definition of certain line
items in the budget were. The last page of the contract does include
the definition of the line items, which is also a part of the
contract.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, except it doesn't go far enough. The
last page, things like cost to hire artists, cost to produce the art
work, that's not detailed enough, in my opinion.
They cited newspapers and magazines that advertising would be
placed in, but in order to come up with that dollar amount, I assume
they're saying so many half pages at so many days and whatnot.
Again, I don't have a problem with the contract amount, but this
is not detailed enough to satisfy me or satisfy what the TDC had
requested.
I know they were only given seven days. We said we want this
back in a week, and I appreciate getting this contract back, but this
detail is really little more than we received in the oral
presentation, so I'm not happy with that at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was considering -- wondering if we could
ask -- if we could approve the contract and give direction to the
county attorney to lawyer it up, frankly, to get a little more legally
binding kind of language in the description of those services.
We can either do it today or -- I'm not dying to approve it
today. I don't know what the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't really have a problem with the
artists to create layout design and copy or the advertising campaign,
including film reproduction and tape stock, that's fine, but I think
you're right, I mean, when we talk about local, regional, national
print, we need to be fairly specific as to what we expect there.
Frankly, I'm not sure ads in the Naples Daily are going to draw
in -- if the purpose of tourists' tax dollars is to draw in people
from away --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hotel beds.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I don't know that tourists' tax
dollars should be advertising to the locals.
Obviously, Hiami Herald is in line or other publications are
fine, but I think you're right,
we need to get some detail there.
MS. GANSEL: With regard to the Naples Daily News, we did discuss
this with the applicant a great deal, at this point, and they had
included that because they wanted to draw some local people, but they
had assured us that there would be no invoices that the Tourist
Development Council would be paying for that were of a local nature
for advertising.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That shouldn't be on our list, that should
not be on Exhibit A.
MS. GANSEL: Right. It was -- when you say we had a week, we had
two days, and we did discuss that with them and Fed-Exing back and
forth, and we did get assurances from them and you can make that a
part of the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When I ask for details on this, what I'm
asking for is -- they've provided the what but they haven't provided
the -- not even that, they haven't provided the to whom for how much.
I mean, if you are going to say cost to create television
advertising, cost -- we know the cost is to the TDC, but who is being
paid, who is anticipated -- you know, is it ESPN? Is it, you know--
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Details.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- there has to be a little more detail there.
Because we don't meet for two weeks from today is why this was
here today instead of next week.
There was a timing issue, Mr. Olliff, I believe, with the dollar
amount and the contract being signed.
Could you help me with that timing issue?
MR. OLLIFF: They simply needed to have a commitment in terms of
the location and the funding so that they could -- for advertising
requirements for their own participants and major sponsors, they
needed to be able to send something out and say it's going to be in
Collier County, it's going to be at such-and-such hotel, just the
mailing time frames and all that because we're four weeks away from
the event, we needed to have that.
I am more than comfortable with the suggestion that the county
attorney's office -- and I will be real honest, they have not had the
opportunity and the time because we're talking, frankly, about two
weeks since this item was originally approved, to be able to flesh out
that detail and tell you how many half-page ads and what exact
publications are going to be there, but I am more than comfortable
being able to sit down with the attorney's office and being able to
develop that level of detail for, I think, the Chairman's satisfaction
because I think the Chairman was on the TDC and understood their
concerns as well as the board, who had concerns as well. And I think
we can approve this agreement with the understanding that that's going
to be revised, detailed, flushed-out and then added back to the
contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm comfortable that the Chairman who
will have to sign this agreement anyway will be able to review what
the county attorney has drafted to be sure that it implements our
understanding, so I make a motion to approve the contract with that
condition.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If anything goes wrong, you just raise the
yardarm and put my name on a noose.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we'll do that to David.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me run through a couple of
specific costs that I would be looking for here. I mean, creative
design, creative execution cost to create a television ad or radio ad
are going to be fairly specific costs regardless of what vendor they
choose to use. I don't have a problem with that.
Print advertising, I do want to know when, where--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what frequency and so on.
TV and radio, we get into the same thing. It says place locally
and regionally. Local ads on TV and radio, again, TDC dollars are
trying to draw people from outside the area.
You may make an argument they broadcast up as far as Charlotte
County, I don't know. I would want to know specifics there very
carefully.
As far as creating those things, it's fairly easy to pin a number
on them, but if we have vague references on where those are going to
appear, we need to know specifics.
And also, under promotions, the cost to develop promotional
materials, I don't know whether that means balloons or a banner to be
pulled behind an airplane. You know, that's just too vague, and,
clearly, there needs to be some detail there.
So if those are the items that you're comfortable with, I'd like
to propose specifics.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
Production fees and features production, I understand, they've
really done as much detail as they can there because of cost of hiring
a crew and equipment to do what, and they have listed that, so I don't
have a problem with either production fees or features production.
Cost production, I think, is in the same ball game. They've said
it's for editing for taking 30 hours of footage to air on ESPN, the
question is who do they hire. That is still their liberty, so I don't
have a problem with cost production.
Dubs, they've sent tapes out for duplication. That's pretty
straightforward.
And printing, they've listed that pretty well.
So I'm going to agree that what Commissioner Constantine has
listed is precisely what the TDC was asking for, and if the board
wishes to get a motion on the floor to approve a contract before us
giving me, the Chairman, latitude to make sure those elements are
included in detail as an attachment prior to signature, I'm pretty
comfortable with this.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
Do we have speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one.
Mr. Gil Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Gil Erlichman, East Naples, taxpayer and elector
in Collier County. I'm speaking for myself.
I really don't understand how quickly the commissioners --
withdrawn.
I don't understand how quickly Mr. Hancock changed his mind on
the -- on this agreement as to his doubts and questions in the first
part of his -- his description of this agreement where the -- where
the agreement did not answer sufficiently the what or the how, and all
of a sudden, now, you commissioners are going to approve this
contract.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Erlichman, since you're directing
that at me, allow me to respond. MR. ERLICHHAN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The answer will be provided or I won't sign
the contract.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Well, how can you sign a contract if the answer
is not provided right now, sir?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not signing it today. The contract will
come back to me for signature. If what Mr. Constantine has elaborated
on is not provided in full and sufficient detail, I will not sign the
contract until it is. That's the direction my colleagues are giving.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
MS. GANSEL: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Gansel.
Item #9A
CONSIDER REQUEST BY PELICAN HARBOR, INC. FOR BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMIEEIONERS TO CONVEY COUNTY-OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS (VANDERBILT
LAGOON) TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OF THE STATE
OF FLORIDA - NO ACTION
*** Item 9(A) under county attorney's report, consider a request
by Pelican Harbor to convey county-owned submerged lands to the
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.
As a courtesy to Pelican Harbor, Inc. and related interests
concerning these lands we place this agenda item before you, it is
kind of a historical item showing that, in fact, Collier County came
to the ownership of a certain parcel of land, essentially submerged
lands, many years ago, and those -- this land is, in fact, part and
parcel, no pun intended, of some current property issues of a purchase
and sale agreement.
Attorneys for both the purchaser and the seller are here today.
Mr. Ron Stetler is here on behalf of the seller interest and Dick
Grant is here on behalf of the purchasing interest.
We have attempted to make the executive summary pretty
self-explanatory. It does, in fact, provide to the board a couple of
choices that it may make if it wishes to make choices at all
concerning this particular property.
Again, in brief restatement, the county staff has been consulted
to determine the reason or the why of the county coming into ownership
of this property at the time that it did. Records are lacking. We do
not find any specific history. I will note that our executive summary
attachment provides that Mr. Harry Huber had indicated for the record
that there may be a value for that -- this property in terms of
mitigation, county projects.
We have since the submission of the executive summary to
publication received another memo which indicates from Villatens
(phonetic) on behalf of the Environmental Department of the county
that he also recommends that this property may be of some benefit to
the county to utilize and bargain with the state for mitigation
purposes.
With that, I would turn to the public speakers unless you have
any other questions for me at this point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do.
Even though the property may not have real value to it, its value
rests in what someone potentially would like to use it for and whether
that use is something that's advantageous or not to the immediate, you
know, area, surrounding area. So I'm not comfortable transferring
this to the state without knowing what allowable uses for the land go
with that transference.
What I don't want is somebody doing a backfill project and
creating something there we simply don't want, you know, the old days,
build a seawall, backfill into it and call it upland property. So I'm
a little concerned about what can happen with that land.
Right now it is just, you know, it's land being used for
recreational purposes by people, I assume, because it's submerged.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, and, again, the question of recreation, in
quotes, it's hard to tell, in fact, what this land is used for.
Again, we've placed this under county attorney certainly not as a
protagonist for a decision in any way but just to assist the parties
that were in the context of an ongoing transaction with some title
questions that they wish to try to answer.
There is a bit of a history of an interest at a point in time
earlier with the Florida Internal Improvement Trust Fund Committee,
but, again, I think Mr. Grant and Mr. Stetler can add a little bit to
the information.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, can you tell me who runs the
Internal Improvement Trust Fund? Under whose control is that fund?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Governor and the Cabinet.
MR. WEIGEL: I was going to say it's the Governor or the Cabinet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you want to wait till next year to do this?
I'm just kidding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a Jeb endorsement?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anti-law endorsement.
MR. GRANT: Commissioners, I'm Richard Grant. I'm the attorney
for Vanderbilt Partners, Ltd. which is a contract purchaser of land
that's affected by this -- not land but is in question.
Let me try to explain this if I could because I'm the one that
has brought this up.
Pelican Harbor, Inc. owns some land that is south of the area in
question, which is located, just to orient you geographically, in the
intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Drive and Vanderbilt Road in the
northwest quadrant.
Some of it is submerged land, but most of it is upland. It is
obvious, when you look at it, that most of it has been filled in the
past.
The reason this has come up is somewhat involved but yet I think
I can make it very simple. The subject of what is or is not
sovereignty land in this state is somewhat complex. It's a function
of, literally, the physical state of affairs and characteristics of
land in terms of whether it was upland at the point in time of the
admission with the State of Florida in the Union, which took place a
long time ago.
It's obviously somewhat difficult to know precisely what that
condition was today. But that, indeed, affects the character of
whether land is sovereignty land.
In the course of this property being transferred, it has been
important to our client to determine that the property it is buying,
which is not the property at issue here, was, in fact, privately
owned, that it was not potentially subject to claims by the State of
Florida, that it might have been sovereignty land.
It has been impossible to make that decision completely safely.
A lot of research has been done. In the course of doing that, we
determined that back in 1975, which was when some of the areas of
Vanderbilt Lagoon, which is where this property is located, were being
filled in and dredged.
This matter actually came up before the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund, which, as Commissioner Mac'Kie noted, is the Governor and
his Cabinet, they serve in that capacity, and in that capacity, they
hold title to all state sovereignty lands in trust for the public.
In that action, and the county attorney has copies of all of the
paperwork in 1975, the state essentially approved giving a deed to the
owner of the property that my client seeks to purchase to eliminate
any question as to whether any part of this property might have been
sovereignty land. In return for that the owner, who had record title
to the property that we're talking about, the county has agreed to
conveying that property to the state, in other words, a trade. The
state agreed, all right, we'll resolve whatever questions there may be
about whether any of this property is sovereignty land. Mr. Owner,
you give us the deed to the land that is today in the water so that
the state can rest assured that you can't somehow come back and claim
it, and we'll give you a deed to the land that either is filled in or
was filled in. That was all that happened. That was in 1975.
For reasons that I'm unable to explain to you and nobody else is,
they never followed through with the paperwork. They approved the
exchange of deeds, but there were no deeds exchanged.
Fast forward to 1997. We determined that that was to have
happened. The Internal Improvement Fund staff located all of this.
We went back before the Cabinet a month ago, on August 28th,
requesting that the Cabinet approve or ratify, if you will, the doing
of what was done in 1975. It did.
In the intervening years, the real estate has, of course, been
transferred a number of times, and, again, for reasons that I'm not
able to explain and the county attorney and the Rural Property
Department have been very gracious in taking the time to look into
this on somewhat of an expedited basis or request, from what I
understand, they have been unable to determine why this property was
ever conveyed to the county, but suffice it to say that some of the
submerged land that was to have been transferred to the state, in
fact, in 1981, was conveyed to Collier County.
There is no evidence to show that the commission ever accepted
that deed. I'm not clear that the county even was carrying the
property on its records of land owned. It is clearly, in fact, in the
middle of Vanderbilt Lagoon.
In response to Commissioner Hancock's comment, I obviously cannot
speak for the State of Florida, but I have had, literally, hundreds of
conversations with people in the State Department of Environmental
Protection about this over the past several months, and I'm as
confident as I can be that if you wish to incorporate some kind of a
restriction in any deed that you might give to the state to ensure
that it must remain in the current condition, I just cannot imagine
the state would have a problem with that because that's all the state
wants.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask you this. Let me ask you a
question.
MR. GRANT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why would I give control to the state over
property in Vanderbilt Lagoon that I currently maintain? What's the advantage to me for doing that?
MR. GRANT: Let me respond to that, if I might.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please be brief because we need to get --
MR. GRANT: I understand.
I would like to say this. I don't believe the county really has
good title to this property to begin with. I say that not to be
provocative, but to just be as honest with you as I can.
The property is, in all probability, the sovereignty land. The
state takes the position that it is sovereignty land. That being so,
any deed that was given to the county in the past wouldn't have been
effective.
That may or may not be correct. I believe it to be the case. I
have with me Mr. Todd Turfell, who is the local environmental
consultant who's done a lot of work in this area. He's got some
photographs and some maps that we've had over the past several months
that will show the character of this land.
I think you can look at that and see that, in all probability, it
really was --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm pretty sure the question wasn't
whether or not the state thought they owned the land. The question
was, what's the public benefit, why would the county want to do this.
MR. GRANT: The public benefit is something you have to address.
All I'm trying to do is to rectify something that should have been
done a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay, again, the question was, why
would the county want to do this?
And so far you haven't answered that question. We had a
five-minute answer, we had a 60-second answer and neither one of those
answered Commissioner Hancock's question.
Why would the county want to do this?
MR. GRANT: I don't have a good reason to give you why you should
do this. I can --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask -- Mr. Weigel, who owns the land
around this, the similar lands that back up to lots in Vanderbilt
Beach?
MR. WEIGEL: I can't tell you off the top of my head.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you know, sir, who owns the land
surrounding this parcel that actually make up the canals and waters
behind --
MR. GRANT: Well, there are privately-owned homes, I believe,
along the east side and west side of the water body.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was the --
MR. GRANT: The land that -- the land that the Vanderbilt
Partners wishes to buy is to the south of it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Were the homeowners' association and
homeowners immediately abutting this consulted in any way, shape or
form about this change of ownership?
MR. GRANT: You mean the request we're making today?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. GRANT: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I apologize in advance,
but I need to put this in perspective. MR. GRANT: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long have you been working on
this? MR. GRANT: I've been working on it since about last April.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've been working on it since April
of '97 or '96?
MR. GRANT: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So about six months.
You don't know why the state wants this after six months --
MR. GRANT: No, I know exactly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and you haven't contacted any of
the property owners directly abutting this in six months?
MR. GRANT: Commissioner Constantine, that isn't because of some
disrespect or feeling that it was something that shouldn't be done but
because of an honest belief there was no point to it.
As I say, all we're trying to do is to get the county to assist
in clearing title to something that should have been conveyed to the
state 25 years ago.
It really is just a question of title to land. I'm simply unable
to answer the question why the property was transferred to the county.
Your staff has been unable to figure it out either.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if we don't do this, there is a portion of
land that you believe you purchased or your client purchased that is
now in title question or not?
MR. GRANT: Yes, sir, there is that question. I want to be
totally honest with you and bring you up to date on some things.
When we approached the county attorney in the Rural Property
Department about this a month ago, we were working to convince the
state that it didn't need to require Collier County to relinquish any
claim to title that it might have as a result of the deed because,
quite frankly, we weren't convinced that deed was of any efficacy.
The state concluded, I believe, as of yesterday afternoon, that
it isn't really going to require the deed from the county, but,
frankly, I think the record should be made clear.
I don't see -- I think the way you have to look at this is, is
there a reason why it was given to the county, why does the county
want it if it does have it, and what is the harm in transferring it
to the state if, in fact, it's going to remain in the same condition
that it has been, which is part of Vanderbilt Lagoon.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm looking at it a different way. I'm
looking at it as we own it, we know it's going to be an infinite item.
And if the state says they don't need it, as you just mentioned to me,
yesterday afternoon, you received that opinion, then we shouldn't have
had this conversation today unless our county attorney feels there is
some liability to this board or this community by maintaining the
ownership of these submerged lands.
If there is not, then our only function here is to clear up a
title issue that you are dealing for on behalf of your clients and
that's not compelling information enough for me to grant this land to
the state or transfer the deed to the state. That's how I'm looking
at it.
So if the state says they don't need it for your transaction,
great, you know, Godspeed and go on. And I just don't see a
compelling reason to transfer title to the state in this case.
MR. GRANT: I'd like to make one comment, if I might. I will try
to be brief.
We considered not coming here today but, quite honestly, we made
the request, we did it in good faith. We were, I think, as up front
as we could be, and I, frankly, felt that it was important to be here
and not just not show up.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I appreciate it. I'm not trying to beat you
up at all.
MR. GRANT: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am just trying to understand the issue and
right now, I'm -- I have no reason to trust the DEP again.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I appreciate it.
Mr. Weigel, is there some liability to the county by not
executing this transfer?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't see any liability. Of course, there are
other submerged lands that pertain to the county outside of this
particular geographical area.
Your prior question about who are the adjacent landowners, on
Page 15 of the agenda item itself is the drawing that shows the
relative positions of these submerged parcels and the Vanderbilt
Lagoon canal landowners, and also on page -- on the first page of the
-- which is called Page 7, the first -- under description of the
subject rural property, it does indicate that it's 165 feet
approximately from an existing seawall of the Hitalia property, again,
for identification there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think what's happened here is the state
wants the land and they're kind of holding you over a barrel to get
it, and -- or they've asked you to get it on their behalf, or
something. It just -- I don't see any benefit --
MR. GRANT: Could I ask your indulgence to have Mr. Turfell
explain something here?
I don't know if it will affect your thinking. I did misspeak.
The surrounding property actually is all water.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So is this piece.
MR. GRANT: I understand. There is certainly property beyond
that that is private residential property, that is what I meant.
I would like to have Mr. Turfell show you these maps, if I might.
He can also comment on something that may be affecting your thinking
about value having to do with whether or not it is something that
could ever be offered in mitigation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll be honest with you --
MR. GRANT: I promise to make it very quick.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know about the rest of the board,
value is not a question for me. I just have no compelling reason to
transfer deed of this property to the state right now, zero.
So if -- Mr. Turfell, I'd be glad to hear from you. If there's
something that you can offer that gives me a reason to transfer this
to the state, I'd love to hear it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to hear it, too.
My only -- I'm a real estate lawyer, as you guys know, and when
you examine abstracts to title, those of us, like Mr. Grant, who
review those abstracts, like to try to cure any problems that we find.
And if this is simply a title defect problem that needs to be cured
for the interest of the public records, that would be a benefit.
I'm interested to know if that's all we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We could do that by reaccepting the
dedication, clear owner of record.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's true.
MR. TURRELL: My name is Todd Turrell, I'm an ocean engineer
locally here. I deal a lot with submerged lands in the things I do in
the Board of Trustees and the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.
I don't think the land, the submerged land, has any value and,
frankly, I agree with the State of Florida that I don't think that
Collier County really actually owns it, and I'll show you why.
We -- this is an aerial from 1952 that shows the area in question
right here. This is Vanderbilt Lagoon. Believe it or not, it's bone
dry. They dug it, they blocked it off up here and pumped it down dry.
The edge of the mangroves is right here, and as you can see this area
up here is open bay bottoms. That's where the property in question
is.
As far as the state is concerned, unless you have a deed
specifically from the Board of Trustees, the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund to those submerged bottom lands, which no one does, or you
dredged it from uplands, which obviously you didn't, then you don't
own it.
And there's actually people paying taxes on submerged bottom
lands out there still that don't really own it. You know, their taxes
are, like, six dollars a year for five acres or something. So it
really -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me get this straight, they're
paying taxes on something the state is telling them they don't own?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
MR. TURRELL: That's correct, and that they don't own.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The state law is they don't own it,
because it's formerly navigable waters, therefore, owned by the state.
HR. TURRELL: That's fact, and there is a lot of case law and
stuff --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The state hasn't bothered to tell them that?
MR. TURRELL: The state hasn't bothered to do a lot of things
when it comes to submerged bottom lands.
It really is a corrective deed thing. I don't think there is any
value in it. If by some chance the county or an individual did own
those submerged bottom lands, then the only potential value would be
if you could, number one, getting dredge and fill permits to build
another subdivision, it couldn't happen, I mean, not with the way
permit things are these days.
You could theoretically use it as a trading card for some
mitigation or something like that. I actually tried that, though,
once when we were permitting Vanderbilt Beach Road, four-laning for
you guys.
There is another piece of submerged bottom lands a bay over and
that, once again, people are paying taxes on and I approached the
state on that and they just said, you know, no way, you don't own it.
That is their opinion on this land as well, that if it wasn't for the
legal mumbo-jumbo, then I wouldn't be here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That'd be up to Dick, the mumbo-jumbo.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Turrell. I appreciate that,
but the state isn't always right, and if we think -- what I'd like to
see us do to clear this up is just the opposite. I'd just like to see
us reaccept the dedication of the property and then go from there.
If the state says we don't own it, then, fine, they can ignore us
and tell us to go away. I'm not going to continue this hearing for
another half hour on this matter. Okay?
MR. GRANT: Could I have the principal from Vanderbilt Partners
speak for just a minute?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry?
MR. GRANT: Could I have one of the principals from Vanderbilt
Partners speak for just a minute, Mr. Griffin?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly.
MR. GRANT: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly.
MR. GRIFFIN: I'm Gerald Griffin, I'm the person that's under
contract to purchase, resident of Collier County.
I understand what you're saying, you're asking why would you do
such a thing. It's very simple. At the same token, there is two
acres of property between upland property and the property in question
that, in essence, supposedly, we have fee title to.
After going through four months of research, I wouldn't be giving
anything to the state on top of my own two acres if I didn't think
that there was sovereignty rights involved.
All we're doing this for is to clean up title to keep a piece of
property that is not even adjacent to the piece of property at hand so
it can keep its value, and what does that do for Collier County, it
keeps its tax bill at about nine million dollars.
The most important thing is that this piece of property sits in
the middle of the lagoon. All the property that surrounds it is owned
by the state under the sovereignty land, and if everything around it
is, you would have to presume that at one time it was an island, and
then you'd have to presume that that island existed before 1975 by law
to be upland property.
This is just cleaning up a title issue. As far as a liability
goes, I don't think you can have a liability because I think if
anybody ever tried to sue you on the property, you would tell them
that it's sovereignty land and the state owns it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't appreciate your attitude, Mr. Griffin.
Let me also explain to you, you're asking us to clean up your title
issue. That's not what I'm going to do today. Your title issue is
yours and yours alone. Any cost and effort associated with that is
yours when you undertook ownership of the property. MR. GRIFFIN: I don't own it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I have a separate item to consider here.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions, comments on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
Mr. Gill Erlichman and --
MR. ERLICHHAN: Gill Erlichman, East Naples, taxpayer and elector
of Collier County. I have one comment.
Stand fast, Mr. Hancock. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't get so close to the microphone next
time. You've got people in the back losing their hearing there. MR. FERNANDEZ: Velma Sorensio.
MS. SORENSIO: I wouldn't have been speaking except that I happen
to be, you might say, a property owner on that lagoon.
I have a timeshare on Vanderbilt Beach and the Gulf side faces
this lagoon, and I feel that I've been there looking at that water, it
is getting dirty because of the flow. Now you're talking about giving
this land to these people, which I agree with you, I'm against it,
because there are big buildings there right now. There is a Japanese
restaurant on the south side of the lagoon. Across the way, on the
east side, there is either a four or five-story big condo or apartment
complex and there is another little condo on the south side, and then
there is the cut-out piece with all the residential homes.
Now, this is prime land there, and I don't believe if you are
going to give it to the state it's going to stay as it is. In another
few years, they would be back to fill it in and develop it.
And like I said, if you fill in more land there, you're going to
cut off the flow. There is a problem right there now. So I agree
with you. Please turn it down. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just a final note.
I haven't been persuaded either, but I do appreciate the
gentleman coming in.
One of our complaints two or three weeks ago was dealing with
another government agency and this morning we complained about not
getting clearer communication or discussion with the city, and we do
complain about that from time to time.
So I do appreciate you making the effort to come, and while I
disagree with you, I appreciate you coming down and communicating with
us directly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the board wish to teattempt communication
or leave this lie as is?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would just say I can't agree to -- I
won't personally vote to accept the rededication since I am
knowledgeable of the fact that that would be --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, don't let that stand in your way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in violation of state law. We can't
possibly own that bottom.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Leave it as is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- perhaps have a discussion
individually, if we're so inclined, with Mr. Weigel on the topic and
then if we feel a necessity to bring it back and do what you're
suggesting, we certainly have the opportunity to do that. But I have
a series of questions that may lead to other questions, and I don't
know that we need to go through that in this forum now, but, you know,
it will lead one direction or the other.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, likewise, Mr. Weigel, if you would
prepare for me -- again, I'm concerned about the interest of the
residents of Vanderbilt Beach.
If you look at the shape of this piece, at one point there was a
plan to have canals and at -- what they -- it's very obvious what
happened. They abandoned that plan and allowed this to become a
lagoon, or dug it out and allowed it to become a lagoon because if you
look at this, it's symmetrical. I mean, it's not by accident. So
there was a development plan for this piece of land at one point, and
why it didn't happen, I don't know. But what I want to make sure we
do is that we, you know, we just make sure that that piece cannot be
used for anything other than what it is right now. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely agreed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, Mr. Weigel, if you can look at it from
that perspective for what is our best course to ensure that that's the
case, and if it's to do nothing, great.
MR. WEIGEL: I'd be happy to, and I expect even for the title
determination that the seller and purchaser are looking to accomplish
both here and outside of this forum, that the discussion of this
governing body today may assist them with the other agencies with whom
they're dealing.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 97-368, DESIGNATING CERTAIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES AS CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WITH AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE CITATIONS AND NOTICES
TO APPEAR AS AN ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEANS OF OBTAINING
COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY CODES AND ORDINANCES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go to the next item, please.
Under 9(B), this is a request for county employees as code
enforcement officers.
This is kind of a follow-up --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was a fine presentation.
Any speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
Opposed?
(No response.)
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 97-369, APPOINTING MICHAEL DAVIS, ROBERT D. LAIRD AND GEORGE
T. LEAMON TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COHMITTEE -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to appointment of members to the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I move adoption of the three recommended
by the committee.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 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: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 97-370 REAPPOINTING LILLIAN JEAN JOURDAN TO THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES LAND TRUST COHITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item, appointment of members to the Golden Gate Estates Land
Trust Committee.
Commissioner Constantine, Commissioner Berry, the majority of
this lies in your district.
Do you have elements of concern or words of wisdom on this
matter?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Naturally, I would support the individual
from my district.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I know David Driapsa. He and I have
talked about -- he lives in the District 2. He doesn't live in the
Estates but -- oh, never mind, that's historical archaeological.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the next one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, I won't appoint David to the
Golden Gate Estates Land Trust. He'd be a little upset about that, I
would guess.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have one applicant, a Lillian Jean
Jourdan has applied for reappointment and then Karen Acquard, and I
probably --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Acquard.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Acquard.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I guess she has spoken to us before. She
was here in regard to some budget items.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Quote, don't save me any money, end quote.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if we have a -- and I don't
want to get on a district thing here, but if we have someone who is
serving and serving in a good capacity and we don't have any
particular reason to let them go, I'd like to see Ms. Jourdan
reappointed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that a form of a motion?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make that motion.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a second by Commissioner Norris. Any
discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 97-371, APPOINTING DAVID DRIAPSA, LAURA RUPP BURKE AND LORA
JEAN YOUNG TO THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Now, Item 10(C), one of which I've had
time to review. I'm pretty comfortable with the committee
recommendations.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Motion for David Driapsa, Laura Rupp
Burke and Lora Jean Young -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- by Commissioner Mac'Kie, second by
Commissioner Norris.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 97-372, APPOINTING HAUREEN MC CARTHY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
*** Next item is Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board
appointment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would move acceptance of the committee
recommendation, Maureen McCarthy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have any discussion?
Seeing none, is there a second?
I'll second the motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 97-373, REAPPOINTING MICHAEL PEDONE AND RUSSELL A. BUDD AND
APPOINTING RUSSELL A. PRIDDY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
- ADOPTED
Next, we have a very important appointment to -- not that the
others are not -- but this is a planning commission.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, we have three vacancies.
I would like to suggest that Mr. Russell Budd be reappointed for one
of those.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: And I would like to suggest Mr. Priddy from
Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And Mr. Pedone was filling a partial term,
so I think we should keep him on as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move those three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Can you ask -- I don't see any request
from District 2, but we do have one current member serving from
District 2; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have two. Vacancies were in Districts
1, 3 and 5.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. I was a little behind.
Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's only District 4 that has just one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you know, these things happen.
We have a motion and a second. Did I hear a second?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Pedone, Mr. Budd and Mr.
Priddy are all now on the Planning Commission or continuing on the
Planning Commission.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 97-374 APPOINTING KARIN E. ENGLISH, FITZGERALD A. FRATER AND
HICHELLE CHARLENE AUSTIN TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED;
AND ONE VACANT REMAINING POSITION TO BE READVERTISED
Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board is our
next item.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the four committee
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I'm going to raise a question here.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to raise that same question.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to make a statement.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you know what question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Wilson, who has served on the Black
Affairs Advisory Board, also is an attorney and has filed suit against
Collier County representing someone on a racial discrimination suit.
My concern is by no means to retaliate on Mr. Wilson for doing
his job, or what he sees as his job, my concern is that the Black
Affairs Advisory Board is an advisory board to this Board of
Commissioners on the issues many times involving, you know, the --
what is compounding as a maybe a racial problem, potential racial
problem.
I'm concerned that Mr. Wilson's involvement on that committee
becomes a fact-finding mission for clients, and I think there is a
potential conflict there that we need to steer clear of.
So although we only have four applicants, I have no problem with
the other three, but I think because of Mr. Wilson's professional
relationship and responsibility, there is a conflict that's evident
there that we need to avoid.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think if we're going to do that, I don't
support that, because Mr. Wilson is a reappointment to the committee.
If we're going to take that position, we need to adopt a policy that
is for all advisory committees that if a committee member comes into a
position of conflict with the county commission or county employees,
that they're automatically removed from the committee.
Something on a broader base like that, would be fairer then we
should have removed Mr. Wilson at the time he filed the lawsuit if
this is our issue.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you make a good point. I
think we ought to have such a policy. If these are the boards we are
depending on to help us formulate policy, whether it's environment or
racial issues or anything else, we need to have a -- just -- we went
through the issue this past week of what is influence and what is not
and so on.
I think our boards clearly need to be steering a clear path as
well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because it pays so well for all of us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't disagree with adopting a policy, but
at this point, I'm not comfortable reappointing Mr. Wilson because of
that relationship,
SO I'm hot '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion can fail for lack of a second,
but I'm going to leave it on the floor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a substitute motion for Karin E.
English, Fitzgerald A. Frater and Michelle Charlene Austin.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a re-advertisement for -- is there four
positions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Readvertisement for the vacant position.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'kie's motion failed for lack
of a second. We do have a substitute motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
Motion carries four-one.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment
that I am disappointed in the number of applicants. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shame, shame public.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, we are criticized from time to time
for people applying for different boards and what have you, and here
was an opportunity for involvement and I'm amazed that the number
isn't higher than what it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On just this particular or all of them,
because we pretty much had the number of applicants matched the number
of open seats.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think on all of them, Pam. This is a
chance for people to be involved, and -- but this is, in the past, has
been one where we have been criticized, and I'm surprised that there
aren't more people that applied for these.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez has a comment, but real quickly
I'll tell you what I told the Productivity Committee when I chaired
that committee as a citizen and that was if we, as a committee,
believe in what we're doing, we need to ensure that the proper number
of people apply, so we, as a committee, would go out and find industry
people that we felt would be beneficial and ask them to offer their
names to the board for consideration because we felt what we were
doing was important.
And I've asked each committee to do that as we went through a
similar discussion recently, so, you know, I would charge the
committees if you believe what you are doing is important, go out and
find the qualified people because sometimes people just need to be
asked. It's not a lack of desire or the lack of initial effort. Mr. Fernandez, you had something?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, we were -- I was at the Black
Affairs Advisory Board meeting when this subject came up. We talked
about different things we can do to improve getting the word out, and
I just wanted to let the board know that I'm taking a look at the
method that we used and see if we can maybe use some non-traditional
ways of getting the word out using some other tools that are available
at our disposal, maybe public service announcements, radio, that sort
of thing, other things we can be a little more creative and do more to
get the word out.
This is a problem every government has. You typically have the
number of people apply that you need to fill, and I think we need to
ask our friends in the media to help us out a little bit with this
One.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good idea. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great.
Item #10G
DISCUSSION TO APPOINT A BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THE NEED FOR
A LOCAL ETHICS MECHANISM - LETTER TO BE DRAFTED REQUESTING INTEREST AND
SENT TO SCHOOL BOARD, CITY OF EVERGLADES, CITY OF NAPLES AND CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND
*** We are to the next item, which is Item 10(G), discussion to
appoint a Blue Ribbon Committee -- what's blue ribbon? Who assigns
the blue ribbon? That's what I want to know -- to establish a
committee to consider the need for local ethics mechanism.
Last year, we asked that everyone kind of go back --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last week.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Last week. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seems like a year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's been such a long week.
Asked that everyone go back and kind of take a look at this and
develop parameters, so someone start with a point of discussion so we
can get somewhere.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I will.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask a question just on the
agenda item?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I read something where that was being
altered, but was that -- I don't want to nitpick here, but was that
wording the question we asked for? COHMISSIONER BERRY: What?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To set up some local mechanism on a
permanent basis -- that's why I'm reading this. I just want to make
sure --
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, that's not the word that I reported back, and
I apologize that it got on the agenda worded this way.
I believe the wording was to discuss whether a local ethics
mechanism is appropriate, which left the question open, I think,
whether there is the need for a committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And why I asked, I thought our
conversation was a little more broad than just that and I wanted to
make sure.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My suggestion, if I may, Mr. Chairman, is
that we do form a committee to look at ethics issues for local
government. And I have what I hope is an idea that a majority of the
board will support because I bet all of you have heard, as I have,
that, while we appreciate Fred Hardt, the chairman of the Republican
Executive Committee, we appreciate his idea, the idea of this board
appointing two members each to review local ethics issues smacks of
the fox guarding the hen house.
My suggestion would be that similar to what we just discussed on
these other appointments, that we form a committee and we advertise
and solicit interested applicants as opposed to our appointing them,
and that there be a couple of exclusionary criteria and then maybe one
that I thought of, and you will undoubtedly have other recommended
criteria, that the exclusionary criteria would be that you cannot
apply to sit on this committee if you have in the past 12 months
appeared before the county commission for pay, or if you apply, you
are excluded from appearing in the next 12 months before the county
commission for pay, thus the definition of lobbyist, so that -- so
that the portion of our community that we tap into here hearkens back
to last week's productivity committee.
There were -- there is a group of people with no political axe to
grind in this community and with a wealth of experience and expertise,
and that -- that pool of potential applicants exists for this kind of
a committee as well.
So I would like to ask that we advertise for interested
applicants with those two caveats, that you cannot be -- you cannot be
somebody who appears in front of the county commission, either that
you have for pay in the past 12 months and that you won't in the next
12 months, and that the inclusionary criteria would be we would
request some experience or expertise in ethics in government or
business or otherwise, but some expertise in the area. And that the
charge we give to that committee is to look at the local -- I'm sorry,
to look at the state law and advise whether or not there are
improvements that could be made by adoption of a local policy but not
to decide to adopt an ordinance today but to decide whether or not --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For those who apply, let me just
understand, do then we select from there, or anyone who applies then
serves on the committee or --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I would -- I would like that we would
select from the applicants after we've excluded those people who
cannot apply, and I would love to have an idea of -- I really
struggled with a body to make recommendations to us for -- from the
pool of applicants and frankly, if the productivity committee would be
willing to make those -- make recommendations to us from the pool of
applicants, it's kind of a stretch for their charge as a committee,
but I'm looking for some way to distance -- to take us away from the
politicization, however, you would say that word, of this word.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The fact that this board ultimately would make
the final appointment anyway is going to bring it right back. I mean,
if we're -- we cannot take a step forward attempting to address the
issue of ethics in this community and try and do so in such a way that
the, you know, that the media won't criticize us in some way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, of course we can't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of course we're going to get -- I saw someone
else wrote, you know, fox guarding the hen house.
I think an individual's appointment says a lot about the
individual. If you are willing to appoint someone to the committee
that comes before this board on a regular basis, then I think that's a
reflection on you. If you are, however, willing to appoint someone
who is well-respected in the community, who, you know, has a
background that helps them understand this and that has no axe to
grind, I think that says something of you also.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, the only -- the reason why I
think that -- you're absolutely right, but the reason why I wish we
would go with an application process is because of the talent in this
community that goes untapped by virtue of our lack of knowledge of
who's out there.
I don't personally know a soul on that productivity committee,
but I'm extremely impressed with the work that they did and the talent
and experience they have.
When I asked those people, how did you come -- you know, how did
you become willing to give this kind of time and effort to Collier
County, the answer was, you know, I saw it advertised, I saw it as a
genuine need, I have the experience and I thought I'd give something
to this community that I have moved to.
I think we might get the same -- there may be people out there
with experience and expertise that we won't know about unless we
advertise and seek --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with the advertising, I
just think if you get an exclusionary criteria, what -- are you then
including everything that you didn't mention?
You know, does that mean everyone else is fair game?
I think that's common sense that we as individuals and servants
have to recognize.
Also, we talked about making it five to us, three from the school
board, two from the city. Well, they're going to -- they're going to
have their own criteria, so we can't force ourselves on them, per se.
I think that that complicates it probably a little further there
than it needs to be. I know you're trying to defend against an
accusation before it's made --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm actually not trying to defend against
this accusation, I'm trying to defend against what I perceive is a
real fear. I don't want this -- I'm not --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of loading the committee?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I'm not doing this -- I'm not
proposing this out of trying to defend against the media, and I would
encourage you to quit trying to defend against the media because --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just make fun of them now. It gets me in
the paper regularly.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, God bless you, but I -- mine is from
the impetus for this is to restore confidence -- as much confidence as
we can in our community in their local government. And the best thing
we can do to try to restore that confidence is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Besides having the lowest taxes,
lowest utility rates and lowest tipping fees in the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think they have confidence in us from a
fiscal perspective. I think what we're looking for here is confidence
in us from an ethical and moral kind of perspective, and if we can set
up some criteria to distance us, absolutely there's not going to be a
perfect way, because we're going to make the final appointments. But
this, at least, would provide some distance, and the whole motivation
here is to give the Collier County electorates some confidence in
their government.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's try to take this a step at a time if we
can because we're probably trying to decide too much in one shot.
I came in with kind of a framework. I think we all kind of
agreed that this idea is -- had some merit and we needed to see if
there is a way to pursue it. Let me float what I think is
appropriate.
A 10-member committee, five appointed by the county, three by the
school board, two by the city, no one serving on the committee may be
an elected official. The committee has a maximum one-year duration.
Their scope is to review state law to determine if strengthening is
needed in the area of conflict of interest and ethics. It's begun
with a review by a representative of the State Ethics Committee so the
committee is well aware of the state laws governing these offices.
That's as far as I got.
We have 10 people appointed by those bodies, those people, their
first function is to get a review by a representative of the State
Ethics Committee. If we need to pay to bring that person down, it
doesn't cost much money, but it will be worth it, as it would for an
advisory board if needed. They come down, at least inform the
committee on that, on what we are already governed by and how it
applies and let the committee work to determine if that state law is,
indeed, inadequate locally.
Whether they recommend a local ordinance, whether they recommend
changes in the state law, I don't want to predetermine that because I
happen to believe the best law for this is at the state level, take it
out of local politics, because we're the ones that enforce local
ordinances. You want to talk about the fox guarding the hen house.
If there are changes that need to be made, I think they need to
be made at the state level, but I don't want to presuppose the
committee one way or the other. If they -- you know, let them
determine that.
That's as far as I got in something -- I just wanted to float to
see if it was a good first step.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, as we go along, I think
it's probably important if we find the areas we all agree on, it will
make this move that much quicker.
I think I have a very similar makeup anyway of the proposed board
that you did. I had five members appointed from the board, I had two
from the -- I had a nine-member board only because I thought of an odd
number, two from the school board, one from the City of Naples, but I
also had somebody from the City of Everglades because they're an
elected body.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: City of Marco.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I was going to say that. If
you wanted to get back to the 10 number, it's only six weeks away,
because the election's going to happen in Marco, and if this is
something that will be an ongoing activity, and if we are going to
advertise for ours, the time frame really isn't that far apart to have
someone appointed by the City of Marco and that gets you back to the
10 again. So I think we're on the same lines there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The rest of them, as far as membership not
being allowed to be elected, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you stated it
cannot be someone who appears -- why would you say cannot by someone
who appears before this board, you know, as a paid professional?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's pretty straightforward.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think you would be half an idiot to appoint
someone like that anyway, but you never know. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You never know.
And that we advertise for the 10 positions --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are government after all.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and if we advertise for the 10
positions and in the advertisement, you know, make it clear that those
-- who's ineligible, and I would like for us to, you know, specially
request people with experience to apply, but hopefully that will
happen anyway.
But that 10-member setup, I don't care where it comes from, I
don't care who gets the final blessing of what number as much as I
care that we advertise and that we preclude lobbyist.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine, but here again we're sort of
doing what we were talking earlier when the city just made up -- made
up a policy and dictated it to us. We don't know that the city
council wants to participate in this and we don't know if the school
board wants to participate in it. We're assuming and making up their
minds for them at this point. We really need to ask them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Why don't I suggest rather than us
taking specific actions directed out to go ahead and do this, let's
put these parameters in the form of a letter, correspond with the
chairman of the school board, the mayor, the mayor of Everglades City,
and Marco will just have to hear about it --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: When they're seated, we can contact them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and transmit those letters and
ask for their comments --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we ask for them within four weeks?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, yeah.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Quicker than that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Couple weeks?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was thinking, you know, let's say, you know,
within two weeks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, could I ask you to draft that
letter?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Be glad to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And let's get their comments on those
to determine if that's a makeup. Let's define the makeup now.
There were two suggestions --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, my suggestion and I just
kind of scratched through here to include City of Marco and we'd
advertise, obviously, for our own five members, but that we offer two
to the school board, one to the city -- one to each of the cities; one
to the City of Naples, one to the City of Everglades, one to the City
of Marco.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Everyone comfortable with that makeup?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, how many to the school board,
two?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two.
They spend so much money over there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could get back to an odd number if we
made it -- we could get back to an odd -- well, never mind.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, again, this isn't something that there's
going to be some major five-five vote that is going to change the
destiny of the world.
What we are looking for is a consensus group to review things and
make recommendations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I wanted to say how strongly I support
the idea. I think it's great that we have someone -- we request
someone from the State Ethics Division to come down and make a
presentation of this committee, and also I know this is already
everybody's understanding, but that these will be advertised committee
meetings, they will be open to the public, and the good news about
that is there is your first town hall, Commissioner Hancock, that you
were looking for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I've got a series of four coming up
in a couple weeks.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This will be your fifth town hall.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask, at what point and who,
actually, I guess -- who and at what point is going to decide the
specific mission or missions of this committee?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've stated what I believe is the only mission
that needs to be stated, and that's to review of state law to
determine if strengthening is needed in the area of ethics or conflict
of interest.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the local level. I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You keep saying on a local level. I think
that precludes the strengthening at the state level.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That we as a community desire standards that
exceed or currently are the standards of ethics or conflict of
interest at the state level and what should those be.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: At an earlier meeting, we discussed the
potential for this committee to also be charged with examining the
ethics of our local news media.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, I like that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is anyone not willing to have that charge
added to our committee?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There is nothing wrong, you know -- I
think that it's going to be impossible to have a discussion of
government ethics without discussing also how that information is
disseminated in the community and that would be through the media.
Let's be realistic about our inability to police the media.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you didn't hear the rest of my
proposal, did you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I'd love to.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Part of my proposal would be that if we do
authorize this committee or empower this committee to look into that
sort of thing, that they also look into what sanctions, if any, can be
provided, what could we do in case we find ethics violations on the
media's part. What is going to be our method of redress.
What relief do we have right now? We're absolutely at the mercy
of the media and there is nothing you can do about it, so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Libel lawsuits.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Huh?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The answer is a lawsuit for libel.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you can't do it as a public official.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem is, as a public official, you're
guilty until proven innocent if an editorial accuses you of something.
And, you know, if our state lawmakers are so up on making sure, you
know, we are ethical, I would think another equally important industry
would be the media. And ethics laws in the media should be on the
books that give us, as public officials, recourse against editorial
slanders.
And I disagree with you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, because I've
checked into it on two separate occasions. If an editorial is written
that is, in my opinion, slanderous, the litmus test for my suing the
paper versus Joe Citizen for suing the paper, it is tremendously
different.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's really not fair because Joe
Citizen's reputation is no more or less important than mine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can have a whole First Amendment debate
about --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not the point. I am just asking
that we consider that the committee have the authority to examine it.
Perhaps they will come up at their examination and say, we don't
really think there is anything you can do, but, on the other hand,
they may come up with a series of measures that are applicable.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, a healthy debate -- a healthy
debate on what is the role and what is the responsibility of the media
is good.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think that's the important part right
there. I don't think any one of us, and I think I mentioned this last
week, we can't debate First Amendment rights. There's nothing --
we're going nowhere with that. The committee from now until 10 years
from now can debate it and nothing's going to change. But I do
believe that a committee of citizens in this community could make a
very strong statement to the local media of what the expectations are
of Collier County residents.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I'm asking.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: We always -- we always want to take things
in Collier County, and we maintain this and we've said it at this
board, we've said it at previous boards, we have a very high standard
in Collier County. That goes for all segments of our community,
whether it's county government, whether it's the media, whether it is
anything else that we do in this county, we always say that we take it
one step further and we raise and elevate, and I believe that that's
an important issue right here as well.
But I agree with Commissioner Hancock, I think to start off with
the study of what is currently -- you have to start from a basis, and
to do that, you need to start with what is currently on the books that
we're all governed by, all segments, and then go from there.
Now, what they do from there on, what their findings are, that's
what we're going to find out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think that could probably boil down
to saying discussion and recommendations, if any, regarding display '-
I'm looking for, in other words, how things are portrayed in the
media, how things are written --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The responsibility of media, community
responsibility.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The responsibility --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Responsibility.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just before we go, I thought of one more
thing.
This is also probably an assumption that we wouldn't appoint
somebody, but that just like we wouldn't appoint somebody who appears
in front of the board, likewise, we would exclude people who have
contractual relationships with the board, anybody who has potential
conflict of interest.
In other words, if you provide services and are paid by the
county, that that would be another important -- and I left that out
before.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's fine. As an exclusionary criteria, I
agree with that too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have public speakers?
Or I'll try to craft a motion out of what we said.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers on this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, let's see if we can hit the list
so Mr. Fernandez can be entirely clear in his correspondence.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that
we go ahead and advertise for five members with limitations and the
preferences outlined in our earlier conversation; that we send
correspondence to the school board and each of the three cities,
obviously the Marco one won't go yet, but for two members on the
school board, one on each of the cities; and that we define the
purpose of this within the scope of the two items that we've addressed
verbally here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Prior to advertising for those
positions, at which time we can take up the specific exclusionary
criteria, I believe we should correspond with the respective cities
and school board to get their input before finalizing.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll agree. I'll amend the motion to
reflect that.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that there is not -- we're not
advertising for positions until we've gotten our responses from the
other governments.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you have included the scope of the two
elements?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions on that?
Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10H
REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (DER) TO
APPOINT A MEMBER TO THE LAND NLA/~AGEHENT REVVIEW TEAM - APPOINT THE
PRESIDENT OF FRIENDS OF LELY BAREFOOT BEACH
We are to Item 10(H), DER request to appoint member to Land
Management Review Team.
We have -- Mr. Weigel is bringing something up.
We have a request by the Department of Environmental Regulation.
They are going to be reviewing Lely Barefoot Park. They do an
inventory of their parks and basically look at how they operate and
whatnot, and they're requesting somebody be appointed. I thought it
would be appropriate to ask that that appointment be the president or
designee of the Friends of Lely Barefoot Beach.
I have not had the opportunity, since I just saw this yesterday,
to discuss that with them, but if they're coming to look at the
facility, those folks, combined with our park rangers, are probably
the most appropriate to talk to about how the facility operates.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That sounds appropriate to me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is -- it sounds like a broader charge
for this committee but that's, in fact, the limit of the charge?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The letter describes it in several points as
to what they look at, but the reason for the local person is someone
who is familiar with that operation, and I would ask that our Parks
and Rec have a staff person monitor that meeting at the park because
there may be operational questions they can answer. But the Friends
of Barefoot Beach know that park like the back of their hand, and I
think they would be most appropriate to be a citizen representative
for the community.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That sounds --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, I will -- Sue, will you draft a
letter to the president of Friends of Barefoot Beach Preserve -- I'm
not going to try her name because I get it wrong half the time --
requesting an appointment or designee with the appropriate meeting
times?
Thank you.
Mr. Olliff, any problem with having someone?
I know one of our rangers will probably be there anyway that day,
so -- thank you.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - AL PERKINS RE MILLER BLVD. EXTENSION
*** We are to public comment on general topics.
Mr. Fernandez, any registered speakers today?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
Mr. Chairman, we had a speaker registered to speak on an item
that was a consent item, and I just wanted to announce that at this
time. His name is David Rice. He wanted to speak on the line item
transfer item that was on consent, and that item has already been
approved.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. A1 Perkins?
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. Again, A1 Perkins,
Belle Heade Groups.
I've heard nothing but good stuff here this morning. You're
really taking a look at the whole county, its functions, the function
of government, the ethics, the morals, the whole nine yards. The only
thing I can say to that is you need to be congratulated because
everybody's eyes are on you and especially on the media.
The media needs to be put in its place, so to speak, and to tell
the complete truth about anything, not a spin on it. We could have
used public access for this purpose, and, Carl, he hasn't gone away.
He did a hell of a job for this community. Change of subject.
You approved the fixing of the Miller Boulevard Extension. I
would highly recommend that you take and go out of your way to stop
the hunting south of the alley in the Belle Heade, Southern Golden
Gate Estates and, of course, the Fakahatchee.
We had children out there this past weekend picking up trash,
collecting garbage, trying to make the Fakahatchee State Forest a
decent place to camp, hike, horseback ride and all the rest of it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Perkins?
MR. PERKINS: Yes?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the state own the property?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, God, here we go.
MR. PERKINS: The state does not own the property, yet they have
advocated that you can come on over from the other coast with your
dogs, your four-wheel drive pick-up trucks, your ATVs and shoot --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm just amazed --
MR. PERKINS: -- the place up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just amazed that it's referred to
as a particular name, state forest, when the state doesn't even own
it.
MR. PERKINS: Well, I like that for the simple reason that they
have assumed all of the liability out there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have a point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What about the taxes?
MR. PERKINS: If these people really knew what was going on,
they're getting screwed over three times out. They're paying these
people to do it to them, they're losing the tax base coming in, and
also their legislators took and put the tax on them to Preservation
2000 to the tune of 300 million dollars again this year. Somebody
better wake up.
Anyhow, back to the kids out there. If you read the paper, you
noticed that the kids were out there picking up the trash trying to
clean the place up. All I want to do is make them safe for them. I
want to make it safe for the people who are using the place, and also
we have -- we're going to end up having access to the City of Naples,
Marco Island and Goodland that they can get in there and pay attention
to what is really beautiful in nature. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: A1, could I comment about the hunting?
I'm not sure on this and we need to check with Mr. Weigel. I had
the county attorney's office pull up some information regarding
hunting as of October 1.
Are the south blocks affected by that, do you know?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think what we determined was that there was
no new legislation that was affecting anything at this point in time.
The county does have special acts which go out in the Estates area. I
cannot recall if it gets clear down into the south blocks, however.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because it mentions about platted areas
about the hunting that there is a new ordinance -- or a new state law
that goes into effect October 1.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can't hunt anywhere that's been platted?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There is some -- some information and you
have to have permission to go on -- you could hunt, I believe,
something -- you could hunt on the land, but, in other words, you
can't just go on the land, you have to have permission and all this --
there is a whole ordinance that comes down, and it's effective October
1.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, in fact, Commissioner, I know that another
person on our staff provided that to you, and I don't know the detail
on that.
MR. PERKINS: Can I follow through with that?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, no, sir. She wasn't asking the
question of you, she was asking of the county attorney, so -- MR. PERKINS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The good news is you might get your
wish, A1.
MR. PERKINS: For the kids and people, I hope so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Additional speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are to the afternoon portion of the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right on time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've got a couple of items that are probably
going to be on the lengthy side. Let me ask what the board's pleasure
is.
Would you like to take a brief recess and return and get through
it or would you like to take a full lunch?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's get through it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Brief.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's get through it. I'll be leaving at
1:30. Let's see if we can get through it.
Item #12B1
PETITION PUD-97-7(1), BARBARA H. CAWLEY OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON &
PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING OUTDOOR RESORTS OF AMERICA, REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE "LAURELWOOD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - DENEID
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Okay. Since we're just prior to noon,
let's go ahead and hear Item 12(B)(1) and then we'll take a break
after that one.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I need to, before the speakers start, to
announce that I have discussed with the county attorney and have a
voting conflict again, citing Section 112. And since that section
says that the public officer shall, prior to the vote being taken,
publicly state to the assembly the nature of the officer's interest in
the matter, mine is that I represent adjacent property owners and
based on that have been advised not to vote.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, let's go ahead and provide all the
disclosure information, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had contact from multiple parties on
this, but I'm going to base the decision on what I hear today in this
hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have had the exact same situation from
communities in the immediate area, adjacent property owners and so
forth and also base my decision on the information presented here
today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, state law requires us to
base our decision on the information provided during the public
hearing and that's exactly what I'll do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know what, I just want to take a
second and say that actually all state law requires is that we
disclose whether or not we've spoken to anybody about it and that we
do that before the petitions start. We're allowed to make our
decisions based on everything we've heard, including not in the public
hearing. So I just thought I would make a mention of that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your application for county attorney got in --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought it might be a useful little
service to the board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to reflect the District 4
commissioner has expressed her opinion of the legal requirements.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you want to tell her, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: She is correct and looking back at a list of 1995
resolutions provided to you indicates that, in fact, you are allowed
to use -- pardon my frog in the throat -- you are allowed to use
information that you received in ex parte communications, but the
requirement is that you indicate the nature of those ex parte
communications and the correspondence you have and the correspondence
you may receive outside of the board meeting would become part of the
record of the meeting itself.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But in practicality, unless you're going to
base your denial on something that was presented in a letter form to
you two days prior, that's really where that kicks in. If you are
going to base your decision on information outside this public
hearing, not just that you talked to them but that you need to present
that information.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: That's very true, and you certainly have the ability
to state that you're basing your decision on the information before
you at the hearing, but that's not the absolute legal requirement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Berry, would you like to
agree to all that?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Whatever. I've had contact from outside
sources regarding this particular issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let the record reflect the baby was doing fine
in the back of the room until the attorneys began talking. I need to
point that out.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: She's a future lawyer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and proceed with this
public hearing.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Planning Services,
presenting petition PUD-94-7(1), Barbara Cawley of Wilson, Miller,
Barton and Peek, representing Outdoor Resorts of America requesting an
amendment to the Laurelwood Planned Unit Development through a PUD to
PUD rezoning action with the effect of deleting the residential
dwelling unit types and adding motorcoach recreational vehicle units
as a permitted use.
We also are changing the name to Outdoor Resorts of Naples, the
Motorcoach Country Club, and they're also revising the master plan.
The property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road and
is approximately one-half mile west of County Road 951.
Petitioner states that there is a demand for upscale motorcoach
developments in this area and proposes to modify the PUD document to
replace the 465 single-family and multi-family dwelling units that are
currently approved on the subject site, replacing with the same number
of motorcoach lots.
The PUD amendment also will provide 15 acres for a golf course
and clubhouse facility and is designed around 11 acres of lakes and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many acres of golf course?
MR. BELLOWS: Uh, 15.5 acres.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many acres does Ken Richards
encompass on his golf course?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm not familiar with that.
The total acreage of the subject site is 78 acres. The subject
PUD is entirely located within the urban mixed-use area as designated
on the future land use element.
The Laurelwood PUD, when it was approved, received a density
bonus of two additional units per acre out of the possible three, so
it was approved at six units per acre.
The proposed motorcoach density is consistent with the future
land use element which states that travel trailer recreational
vehicles' parks shall be allowed at a density that's consistent with
the land development code. That section states that 12 units is the
maximum density, so the proposed six units is consistent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do the future land use elements call
for TTRBC zoning here?
MR. BELLOWS: It allows for it, it doesn't call for it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: Basically, there are three criteria for the
location --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, before you go on, the
existing PUD allows for what density?
MR. BELLOWS: It's approved at six units per acre.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So when we say TTRBC could apply for
prior higher -- I mean, this is a preapproved PUD so the likelihood of
this even ever having anything to do with 12 or a higher number is
really non-existent. We're looking to keep it roughly the same.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The original submission they discussed at
6.3, I guess, and during the review, they agreed with staff it's a
recommendation at six units per acre.
The traffic impact review indicates the proposed amendment will
generate approximately 2,500 trips on a weekday. This represents a
reduction of approximately 787 trips per day from the amount currently
approved.
Because the proposed motorcoach development is deemed a
non-residential use in the growth management plan, the growth
management plan requires the travel trailer recreational part meet the
following criteria; one, the site shall have direct access on to an
arterial road; two, the proposed density shall be consistent with the
growth management plan; and, three, that it's compatible with the
surrounding land.
The first two criteria have been met, as I previously mentioned.
It fronts on Immokalee Road, which is an arterial road, and the
density is consistent with the growth management plan.
In regards to compatibility, the subject site is across from some
small C-5 zoned lands to the north, to the east is Richland PUD which
permits --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Can you define for me
where the C-5 is?
MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, C-3. I'm sorry. Little C-3 plot right
here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's important because C-5 is light
industrial, C-3 is -- what's typical use,
Retail commercial?
MR. BELLOWS: Retail commercial, general retail commercial.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how big is that? It looks like a
very small box.
MR. BELLOWS: It is a very small little corner here. There's
also vacant agricultural land here. There is some nurseries here.
To the east is the Richland PUD approved at five units, three per
acre, undeveloped agricultural land to the south, and vacant land to
the west and the new Gulf Coast school just abutting this land here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Directly to the south is the DiVosta
project, is that right? It's ag right now, but that's scheduled to be
the --
MR. BELLOWS: I believe it is. I'm not positive.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm pretty sure it is. It was a kind
of rhetorical question.
The other part to the south is agricultural, what's the future
land use element call for on that?
MR. BELLOWS: It's urban residential.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would be at four units an acre?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Up to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maximum.
And the -- I apologize. I don't have very good eyesight. The
little tiny box there that's C-3 --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That happens at your age.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How could you hear that? I couldn't hear
even that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How big is that, do you know? Is that
like a quarter of an acre, is it --
MR. BELLOWS: I'd say it's approximately --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- .23?
What else is right there? What's directly across the street?
That's currently zoned A?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. There is some retail nurseries in throughout
here and some small residences along Rose Boulevard, Woodland Nursery
Lane, there is some --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And to the east of the C-3 is what?
MR. BELLOWS: I think it's vacant at this time.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And future land use element calls for?
MR. BELLOWS: Urban residential, four units per acre.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maximum four units per acre. Okay.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have a question, Mr. Bellows.
Are you about toward the end of your presentation?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Just one other point from a compatibility
standpoint.
Petitioner has agreed to place an 8-foot high wall around the
perimeter of the building, or of the property, along with landscaping
a 15-foot wide buffer strip. An opaque wall will be provided along
the east, west and south property lines.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on
August 21st, and they recommended approval, and they agreed with
staff's requirement of six units per acre, and they also stipulated
that the wall be eight feet in height to provide additional screening.
Staff has received seven letters in opposition and twenty letters
in support of this petition.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you just kind of a general
question.
What is the current rate at which single-family units are being
developed?
We have a maximum of four that's allowed, but what's average,
isn't it 3.17
I'm trying to remember -
MR. BELLOWS: A little over two.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A little over two on average.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Couple of questions, Mr. Bellows.
As you said, you had letters of objection, were they from
individuals or homeowners' associations? MR. BELLOWS: A little bit of both.
We have Quail Creek Country Club sent a letter.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That would be --
MR. BELLOWS: We also have a letter from Quail Creek Village
Foundation, Incorporated, a letter from Mr. George Warner, who owns 22
acres in the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and 951, a letter from
The Saundry Associates, I think they are in the Richland PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The adjacent property?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: And a letter from Joanna Glasselwood (phonetic),
and she's an owner of property adjacent to the west side of the
subject property.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I received a number of
letters which I asked our staff to include as part of the record today
so that those would all --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think those were the same ones I had.
The one you did not mention that I had is Longshore Lake
Residents' Association, also a letter in opposition. The rest of them
I have here, but you have already -- I take it this is the package you
asked to be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It certainly looks familiar.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the other glove is -- okay. Mr. Bellows,
I have a question.
The current zoning of the property that's the subject of this
request today is at six units per acre for single and multi-family
development; is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. In the staff report, you state the use
is compatible with surrounding land. I understand that based on a
density approach; in other words, there is going to be the same number
of, whatever you want to call it, dwelling units or roving dwelling
units. There's little shells people live in, the same number -- MR. BELLOWS: There will be lots, RV lots.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand the numerical compatibility, but
I've introduced in the past something called a sound planning
principle which is a reasonable right of expectations.
When you purchase a piece of property amongst other zoned
properties, how they're zoned and for what uses they're zoned, you
develop an expectation for it; in other words, they're going to -- you
have an idea how they're going to develop based on their zoning.
Where I see an incompatibility here is the change from that
single and multi-family use to RV. If you are the adjacent property
owner and you're going to build a two-story house on the edge of the
property and you're going to stay on the second floor, whether you're
looking down or looking over a single or multi-family home or whether
you're looking at the top of two or three RVs with antennas or
canopies and barbecue grills outside, I think are two very, very
different pictures.
Just from a planning perspective, I see the first as being
compatible. You can look across to the exact same unit. However, I
don't think the same compatibility issue exists when you talk about
someone in a single-family home looking over an 8-foot wall or above
an 8-foot wall and seeing recreational vehicles.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, staff was aware of that possibility and during
our review, we already considered the fact that the Richland PUD has
over 150 thousand square feet of commercial approved for the site.
We had discussed possibilities with the petitioner to shift the
golf course arrangement around to maybe provide a little more
screening and buffering from that side of the site. It turns out you
probably wouldn't have gained that much if you shifted the units
closer to the wall, you may get a little bit more screening from those
first units, but maybe less from the units if you are further to the
west. That's why we figured, from a staff's standpoint, the 8-foot
high wall would make the project a little more compatible with
landscaping that they are proposing, that you wouldn't notice it from
the roadway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have any idea from ground to top the
height of an RV these days?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have the exact figures.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It has to be less than 13 feet to get under
the bridges.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So somewhere between --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm pretty sure it's taller than you
and me, so it's probably more than six feet.
MR. BELLOWS: The petitioner has a presentation where they can
discuss the size of the vehicles in more detail.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But you do agree there is a visual aesthetic
impact from single, multi-family to RV from the adjoining property?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, and that's why we were hitting on
the landscaping buffer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I think you make a good
point, but I really question the numerical compatibility as well.
You do have five to the east, but you have future land use zoned
that's calling for 40 units per acre to the south and the north, and
what is directly to the west?
MR. BELLOWS: Outside the density bands, so that would be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we have four on all sides,
we've been told on average our four unit per acre allowances are being
developed over two --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 2.3.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I think there's a real question
there as far as compatibility numbers as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree. I think it's a difference between
comparing what they're proposing to existing versus to what could be
built.
Do we all know -- I love that argument about, well, we'll just
turn it around and build it that way. Well, if that made you more
money, you would have done it already. So we have to be able to do
what you can, but there is already six units an acre approved.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. They could be all multi-family or
they could be single family.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand what you're saying.
Any further questions of Mr. Bellows?
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I would ask that Mr. Bellows' testimony be sworn in
and then the following speakers be sworn in also.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. That was my fault for not doing it
already.
Mr. Bellows, you're already standing.
Anybody here to speak on this item, whether you are for or
against it, please stand and raise your right hand.
Madam court reporter, would you please swear the entire room in?
(Witnesses sworn in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I watched each one of your mouths.
Okay. Thank you.
As you come to the microphone, please state your name, who you
represent, and whether you have not -- whether you have been sworn in.
We need that for the record, please.
We will stipulate that Mr. Bellows' testimony was agreed to be
under oath.
Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're not going to change your mind on
anything you said?
MR. BELLOWS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go to the petitioner.
MS. CAWLEY: Good afternoon, commissioners, I'm Barbara Cawley of
Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. I'm here representing Outdoor
Resorts of America today.
We have a presentation that we'd like to show you because we
understand the issues here today are compatibility, as you already
have spoken about, and we understand that it's our responsibility to
show you compatibility, and we believe we can do that today, we can
convince you of that.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go too far, can I ask you a
question '-
MS. CAWLEY: You certainly can.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- about this plan here?
One of my pet peeves is what I consider to be little deceptive
layouts.
When we had the issue in Livingston Woods and we were deciding
commercial property, I remember giving Mr. Anderson a hard time
because where the wall and the green space behind that visually
appeared to have a sidewalk back there and we asked and, no, that
would all be grass. And then, so, sometimes, visually, these are
misleading.
Where the arrows are going or between all the different golf
course things, is that all going to be roadway?
As I looked at it and it's all green, I'm wondering is that all
grass, how do people get to their units '-
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct, and I know part of the problem with
PUD master plans is they are very general just in their nature. The
SDPs, of course, are much more specific and they show the lots and the
roads.
When we do PUD master plans, this is a typical way of doing a
layout where you don't show all the lots and all the roads. You're
required to show certain elements under the code, and that's basically
what we've done here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it be safe to assume those
spaces between the 15.5 acres of golf course will be where the actual
vehicles traverse?
MS. CAWLEY: Yes. The vehicles will be actually located around
the golf course and around the perimeter that the lots will be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those light green areas will be split by
roadways for access purposes and the lots will be double, one on each
side.
Is that correct, Ms. Cawley?
MS. CAWLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Basically a narrowed '-
MS. CAWLEY: We can show you a more specific plan and we'll pass
that around for you so you can see this in your hand, and you can see
how the lots are located and how the lots are laid out.
Yeah. I know it's -- you comply with the code in terms of how
you design these and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. I just wanted to be
clear. I don't want to misunderstand you if that was going to be
green space.
MS. CAWLEY: The other thing that we've understood is there are
some questions in terms of impacts to the school children. We've met
with the citizens at Longshore Lake and at Quail Creek Village and we
understand some of their concerns, so we will be addressing those
today, and also questions of traffic and density that were brought up
this morning from other board members, and we understand those are
questions today.
What I'd like to do, and in order to give you an idea of the
compatibility of this particular type of use and this particular type
location, is to introduce our team and also the person who knows more
about these units than probably anyone in the country, and that's
Randall Henderson who is the president of Outdoor Resorts of America.
Scott Price is our attorney who is working with us. Steve
Kempton is here, who will answer any engineering or drainage type
issues that may come up, and John Dowick (phonetic) is here to talk
about traffic if there are any traffic issues that come up.
Mr. Henderson would like to go through this display that we have
put together for you. It's -- it shows other areas around the country
that are similar in nature to what we're talking about here today and
should give you a really good idea of what we're talking about in
terms of what this will actually look like.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Cawley, in an attempt to be fair, as we
have with all petitioners, anybody who registers can speak for five
minutes. We would like each speaker to honor that five-minute
commitment and not have an overly drawn-out production. MS. CAWLEY: We understand that.
This is very important. Mr. Henderson has spent a lot of money
to try to get this --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As have every applicant that's appeared here
before us.
MS. CAWLEY: I understand.
These -- it will take a little bit of time to go through some of
these, but we will try to do the best we can to speed it up as fast as
possible.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We will go ahead and time each speaker
individually.
MS. CAWLEY: I consider him part of our team, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand, but we're being consistent here
from one week to the next.
MR. HENDERSON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name
is Randall Henderson. I'm president of Outdoor Resorts of America.
We develop RV resorts. We have been running for 25, 26 years now from
the term trailer park, campground, et cetera. It hasn't been a snob
situation as much as a differentiation as you do in many businesses.
We've gone from tourist groups to nice hotels on the beach and we've
tried to evolve the same way. Unfortunately, the exposure that you
have gotten here in Collier County is very much the same across
Florida. Once someone's built a relatively nice RV resort, as they
choose to call it, it becomes a trailer park. We have evolution, you
bring in the park models, you add the screen rooms and et cetera, and
it becomes a trailer park.
What we tried to do in the past is to totally differentiate
ourselves in areas that we thought would support the concept and that
is to do something that's motorcoach only.
We went to see the people at Longshore Lake. We went to see and
met with them on Saturday. We met with the adjoining property owners.
I met with Mastercraft, who has a property under option. Actually
went across the street from the property and met with the majority of
those property owners yesterday, met with about actually 15 of them,
to explain what we're proposing to do because they didn't have any
concept other than what they perceived as a trailer park, and they
were opposed to a trailer park.
If I might try to, I guess, combat perception, that's really what
we're doing here, we've had an evolution in the industry, and I know
it doesn't necessarily reflect itself at regulatory issues that
quickly, but in this industry, we have a stratification that's
occurred. It's been gradual in coming, but today it's very unlikely
that a person with a large motorcoach and a person with a small pop-up
tent camper would care to be in the same place. Frankly, one is
looking for a rustic, pristine environment and the other one is
looking for full services and all types of amenities.
We're trying to address that. We have addressed it in two other
places in the United States. We've addressed it in the Palm Springs,
California area, we've addressed it in the Hilton Head area.
We understand the concern of compatibility. We understand the
concern about sphere of influence, proximity of one unit to another
and in terms of our development, how do we impact someone else's
development.
So what we've tried to do is basically take, number one, what is
the equipment we're addressing, is it a pop-up tent camper, is it a
pick-up camper, is it a park model, is it a fifth-wheel. Those are
all different types of recreational vehicles, just like in boating you
have everything from a canoe to a yacht. Well, the RV industry is
stratified, too. Same accommodation, just simply doesn't take care of
the total marketplace anymore.
We're trying to address the -- it's a very thin market, candidly,
like a pyramid in the top, but we're trying to address the motorcoach
segment of the market only. Those are people with motor homes that
are fully self-contained, they use them as you would use a yacht, in
the wintertime, in the summertime, at different markets.
So these photos are indications, both exterior and interior, of
the kind of equipment we're trying to attract. Now, we're not just
saying it from a marketing perspective, we're asking to amend a PUD
which limits both us the developer but, probably more importantly,
limits the future owners from being able to change it. It has to stay
motorcoach only. That's our objective.
Next, having tried to show the equipment, this map over here, and
I realize you, for the most part, can't make out any detail, but this
map here is an indication of the Mission Hills Resort property in
California. We adjoined that on our rear property line. We are
one-third of a mile from the entry to the Gary Player Golf Course.
They have expanded possibly -- no, Barbara, we're -- I'm sorry -- this
is the Hission Hills at Palm Springs. That's the motorcoach. MS. CAWLEY: I'm sorry. Wrong one.
MR. HENDERSON: In any event, we're trying to demonstrate that we
do, in fact, understand concern about perception of an RV and how it
would impact, or a motorcoach, and how it would impact surrounding
property values.
We cannot combat someone's perception or what they speculate.
The best that we can do is to show you, I can do it, someone else can,
the properties that we have developed right next door to.
This is Hission Hills. This is our resort right next door. We
have both been mutually successful and we have not negatively
impacted. Now, why? We screened it 100 percent. Landscaping all the
way around, we did berms, we did walls, we did vegetation, we
accomplished 100 percent screening.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Henderson, may I ask a question?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the distance between -- what
is the closest distance between one of your motorcoaches and one of
the homes?
MR. HENDERSON: I can skip to that. Example, Hission Hills would
be certainly not three miles apart like Quail Creek, but Hission Hills
would be somewhere in the neighborhood of a third of a mile. I was
using this as an example, certainly not going out as far as three
miles.
Everything I'm alluding to here is within a mile, but I can -- if
it would be beneficial, I can skip to one that actually abuts us, not
on one side, but on two sides, if that would be more informative.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At this point, Mr. Henderson, again, trying to
be consistent and not have many speakers in a half-hour presentation
here, we're really trying to get to the heart of the matter.
You have touched on the aesthetics issue a little bit, that
question about proximity of residential neighborhoods to similar
development --
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, let me just skip to that rather than -- I
could give you examples of the motorcoach and La Quinta, but this is
actually far more specific.
Right here, this is Hilton Head Island, this is the Sea Pines
Circle, right here where my finger is is where my motorcoach resort
is. This is a larger map showing it's here. The lower portion is the
entry to the motorcoach. This is the clubhouse at the motorcoach, and
this is a site. This is Wexford Plantation. It is probably -- it
came after us, I might add. It is probably the most expensive
single-family, there is no multi-family, there is no hotels, no other
lodging.
The houses range -- I just got some of their most recent listings
-- the houses range from $775,000 to a million, nine. They have been
very successful.
Again, the bottom line is, we screened it. Our entry comes off
of another street, as is the case here, but the bottom line is, we did
enough vegetation and enough -- to make it compatible so that they did
not see what we had done and nor did our people look out at anything
residential.
This is the best example I can give you, other than, I guess, if
you -- right here in your own county, I could give you an example of
our Chokoloskee Resort where the cottages are right across the street
and we've done extremely well and every one of them have sold, and
they're in the $180,000 range. They're straight across the street
from the resort. The best one I can give you with true value not
$150,000 houses but seven fifty to two million, is right here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Henderson.
MR. HENDERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I do have a question, Mr. Henderson.
Are any of your projects anywhere else -- anywhere in close
proximity to schools?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes. We adjoin the school in Palm Springs. The
resort that I was mentioning earlier in Palm Springs, we actually
adjoin the school across our entire rear, we're much closer than we
would be. There are two properties in between us.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They're to the rear of your project, they're
not side by side?
MR. HENDERSON: They're actually within a quarter of a mile from
our property to their entry, but you enter from the side, but they're
actually -- the majority of the school is to our rear, but they're
closer than here. We basically, again, don't have that much traffic
in and out.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not concerned about the traffic.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other questions for Mr. Henderson?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
MS. CAWLEY: What Mr. Henderson has shown you today is an example
of how -- an example, several examples of how his properties around
the country are compatible with adjacent properties right next to
them. They are not impacting their property values or their ability
to sell or any of those types of things. This is a very high-quality
use.
What I want to center on is what we're going to do to make sure
this property complies with what he's shown you in other parts of the
country. We know that that's what's really important to you.
What we're talking about here today is a gated golf community.
It will have lots that will range from 60 to $75,000. These lots are
comparable to the lots that are sold at Hawksridge or Longshore Lakes
or some of the other nicer communities in the county.
The motorcoaches are limited in size based on a definition by the
Motorcoach Industry of America to a minimum of 25 feet and a maximum
of 45 feet, so you're not going to get any type of trailers or park
models or anything like that in there, and a maximum of 102 inches
wide.
There is a limit of a six-month stay inside the PUD that requires
they cannot stay any longer than six months. And most of the year,
for these types of uses, this property will be almost vacant because
as in yachting or in these type -- the use of these type vehicles,
they have so much invested in these vehicles, they follow the seasons
pretty much like the snowbirds in our community do.
It will be managed by Outdoor Resorts of America year-round, not
sit vacant and not maintained and not mowed and taken care of.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question on your last
point?
MS. CAWLEY: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said a lot of folks are snowbirds
__
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said most of the year. I suspect
our snowbirds, many of them spend more than six months here.
If I -- does Outdoor Resorts own the individual lot or would I
own the individual lot?
I bring my bus in, I park it, I hang out for seven months, and I
leave. Do I have an opportunity, then, to rent that to someone else?
MS. CAWLEY: Yes, it can be rented. Probably about $50 a day,
similar to a motel room, that type of thing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does Outdoor Resorts participate in
that?
Would they manage that for me?
MS. CAWLEY: Yes, it will be managed in a pool, just like in a
marina, very often a slip will be a transient slip, that type of thing
being rented out.
But if you notice the traffic of these types of vehicles, there
aren't very many of them down here this time of year. The majority
come down during the season as do the snowbirds.
Each lot will have electricity, sewer connections, cable
television, telephone, that type of thing.
Now, I'd like to go through the plan and talk about what we're
doing that we believe will help create this buffer and compatibility
with the adjacent property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For everyone's benefit, why don't we take a
10-minute break here so we can get through the lunch hour and not have
to take a full break after this.
Let's take 10 minutes for the court reporter change and we'll
reoonvene.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We're going to reconvene the
Board of County Commissioners meeting. We stopped in midstream on
item 12(B)(1).
Commissioner --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the speaker's on, he's okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do need Commissioner Norris, but the
speakers are on in case he's indisposed. Let's get Mr. Norris back,
but let's go ahead and proceed with the presentation and if he missed
anything, he can tell us when he gets here.
MS. CAWLEY: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner.
I was just getting ready to go into our PUD master plan and what
we're doing to ensure the compatibility and the high quality of this
property and this project.
The -- the property, as we were saying, borders on Immokalee
Road. We will have a 25 foot donation of property for the widening of
-- of Immokalee Road.
There's going to be a drainage easement on the south end of the
property that would allow for an overall drainage facility in the
Harvey basin. That's all been proposed by the county, and we've been
working with Mr. Boldt to donate some property to allow for drainage
for that entire basin, to assist in the drainage for that entire
basin.
We will have eight total buildings on site. They will include
the -- the guard gate, the check-in facility, the clubhouse, and there
will be satellite swimming pools in each of the four corners that will
have spas and swimming pools and restrooms and washers and dryers and
that type of thing.
About 60 to 70 percent pervious area. The only thing that will
be paved in this will be the roads and the paths and, of course, the
areas where the buildings will be located, and of course, we have the
amenity package that is going to attract the high quality user that
we're looking for in terms of the motor coaches which will include the
golf, and I know that was a question about 15 acres, but what we've
actually got is the golf and the -- then the lakes will all be -- the
golf area -- designated golf course and the lakes will all be included
in that, and we're talking about a par three here. We're not talking
about a championship 18 hole golf course.
This is a par three. That's what these people are looking for,
and we'll be able to accommodate their needs and we'll be the only
recreational vehicle resort in Collier County that will have a golf
course, and we believe that that's something that's very high quality.
Again, we will have the clubhouse with tennis and spas and the
satellite pools and all of that.
I'd like to go through some of the renderings we've got because I
think that will give you an idea of what we are planning out there.
It's hard to do this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to have the sound of that baby in the
room even when you're not here.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes you feel like home, doesn't it?
MS. CAWLEY: I don't recognize that sound.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Sounds like somebody's happy.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the good news.
MS. CAWLEY: I know one of the concerns was what is it going to
look like from Immokalee Road and how can we buffer the adjacent
properties, and we've been very sensitive of that. We have a six foot
wall that will go not only in the front of the project, but all the
way down the entry road, so that all you see when you enter from
Immokalee Road will be the, of course, the sign and the entry gate --
guard gate and the clubhouse. That's all that will be seen, as well
as the landscaped area.
There will be pools in the front which will be fountains and
bubbling fountains and that type of thing, plenty of landscapings
through here. This is consistent with many of the upper scale
projects, Kensington and Pelican Marsh. That's what we're thinking
about, a verdigris sign with keystone, that type of thing.
This is a view from Immokalee Road looking into the property.
This is, of course, looking down on the property, and this is not just
pretty pictures. I want -- I'd like to try to emphasize that, that
this is consistent with what they've done throughout the U.S.
Their entryways have been highly landscaped and with pavers and
with many large plantings and very low key graphics and that type of
thing.
One of the questions that came up, I know, was what is it -- how
visually are we going to see from adjacent properties and from
Immokalee Road, and this graphic gives you a perspective. Immokalee
Road here with the -- a future right of way, plus the 25 foot reserve
right of way, and then we have a 60 foot berm with a five foot -- five
foot elevation, a six foot wall on top of that, all of which is
landscaped.
Then you have a ten foot swale on the inside, the yard of the
motor coach lot, and then you have your motor coach, and the height of
the motor coach is between ten and 12 feet. It's shorter than a
single family home. So visually, you will never see anything from
Immokalee Road.
Now, that's for two purposes. One, these folks don't want to see
Immokalee Road, and Immokalee Road, of course, we don't want them to
see inside the gate as well.
This is looking from the adjacent property. This would be, say
Richland PUD right here, and their buffer and setback requirements,
that's a single family home. We have a -- an eight-foot wall that
we've agreed to here and they've -- they've been required to put a row
of mahogany trees along their buffer, I think 30 feet on center.
That's in their PUD.
Then we have our landscape requirements and our buffer, 15 feet.
Then we have another yard, ten foot yard for the motor coach, and then
we have the motor coach parking.
This person will never see this motor coach. Even on a second
story, you know, they would never see -- they would see the vegetation
instead of seeing the motor coach.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will it be opaque vegetation?
MS. CAWLEY: It will be opaque vegetation, whole way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Trees?
MS. CAWLEY: We would be glad to put in ficus, any kind of opaque
vegetation along there. That would be no problem.
What I wanted to do also and this, granted, is sort of a worst
case, but it's allowed under the current PUD.
Right now, we can put in a three story, 35 foot, and the 35 foot
is defined in the -- in the Laurelwood PUD to the highest point in the
ceiling, with a 15 foot wide landscape buffer, a -- a six foot buff --
fence or wall, it doesn't specify that it has to be a wall, but it
could be a fence, then our shrubbery and, again, that same single
family home that we had before, and visually, these people are going
to be much more impacted with this property if it's developed this
way.
Now, granted, if it's a single family home, you still have a less
distance between that and what we are asking for in terms of our, we
believe, lower impact motor coach setback. They're allowed up to 465
multi-family units in -- in the Laurelwood PUD today.
One of the issues, I know, that was brought up at the homeowner's
association meeting was the school issue, and I must admit, I'm not
sure I understand what the connection is between the motor coaches and
the schools, but we believe that Immokalee Road is not an appropriate
facility for school children, particularly elementary school children,
to be walking down anyway.
It's a -- it's going to be four laned within the next few years.
I think they're going to start construction next October, and then in
the next -- between the next six and eight years, it will be six
laned, and it will function similar to Airport Road.
That's what we've been working with the -- the county staff on
that, and this -- this -- this road right now, and I know, I drive on
it every morning, functions very heavily with trucks, pickup trucks,
buses, recreational vehicles, cars, agricultural trucks from
Immokalee, and there's a rock and gravel pit out there, and so you get
a lot of rock and gravel trucks going in and out of the -- the site
along Immokalee Road.
This type of use is going to reduce the number of trips out there
787 trips per day, and that's according with your staff and according
to our TIF's, and traditionally, these people don't drive -- well,
they don't, they don't drive these motor coach vehicles out during the
day to shop or go to restaurants. They have a vehicle that they --
they bring with them, whether that's a motorcycle or a motor scooter
or a car, and they park their recreational vehicles and then they
travel around town in their alternate vehicle.
They have one vehicle, unlike the traditional residential unit
which could have up to, you know, three -- two to three, four
vehicles. So we really have a much de minimis use in terms of the
amount of traffic that could go in and out of that, and I have
DeWinkier here who would like, if we need to have any questions about
the traffic, to -- to cover that.
Additionally, these people are very safe drivers --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. Cawley.
MS. CAWLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the balance of your presentation much
longer, because your microphone time has far exceeded a half hour
already. I'd really like to hit the pertinent points here and then
see if the Board has any questions.
MS. CAWLEY: Yes, sir, it is almost through. I guess I'm a
little bit confused. I didn't realize we had a time limit on the
presentations of an applicant. I'm willing to go with whatever time
limit you set, but I was not -- I'm just not sure what that is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My goal is to move the presentation along to
the pertinent points, and you started mentioning things such as these
are typically safe drivers. That's an unfounded comment that cannot
be proved or disproven, and I don't think it's appropriate for the
public hearing.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, I do have a letter.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, their driving record really
doesn't have anything to do with land use.
MS. CAWLEY: Okay. I just -- these are the issues that were
brought up by the homeowners, and I wanted to cover those in our
presentation. I know we've got people who are concerned about that,
and I wanted to make sure that all the items were covered, and I do
have a letter from a -- an insurance company, Alexander and Alexander,
it's a national company --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What did I just get done saying?
MS. CAWLEY: Well, I'm sorry, Commissioner, but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does whether someone has an auto
accident or not have anything to do with a land use item?
If -- if a neighbor expressed that, share that letter with that
neighbor, but we can't use that information one way or the other to
approve or not.
MS. CAWLEY: I understand.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So share that information with the
inquirer, but we don't need to hear it in this forum.
MS. CAWLEY: I appreciate that, and I don't mean to take up your
time on extraneous issues. I was feeling that that might be one that
you were interested in.
In other words, if you're interested in school issues or is that
something that you're concerned about or should I --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe we could just ask her questions if we
MS. CAWLEY: Maybe you could just ask me questions. I mean --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- if there's something in the presentation
that she has not hit yet.
MS. CAWLEY: The only -- the only issue that I know that has been
asked earlier and that dealt with the -- the question that
Commissioner Hancock brought up was a reasonable right of expectation,
and I would like to address that very briefly.
I understand what your concern is about an adjacent property
owner who -- who buys a piece of property with the expectation of
what's going in next door and thinking that that is exactly what's
going to happen and I -- and I understand that our -- the person who's
here is going to be challenging this petition is the owner of the
Richland PUD, and we understand that he's very concerned about this
piece of property.
When he bought his property, Crystal Lake existed right across
the street. Florida Rock, an industrial site, existed right across
the street. The middle school has gone in since he's -- or before he
bought his property, and that's an intensive use, so -- and a
commercial district is also across the street. He does have
commercial that he's asking for and has approved on his site.
Reasonable expectation, I would say that it's -- what we're
asking for is consistent with the growth management plan. Our density
is actually reduced over what is currently zoned there. The impacts
will be substantially less. The -- the services demanded by the
people in the motor coach resort are substantially -- are non-existent
compared to a residential project.
Buffering, we're going to substantially buffer his property so
that he would not have any visible sight -- sighting from his property
onto our property. The wall has been extended to eight feet.
So in terms of reasonable expectations, he has gone into an area
that's a growing area and a changing area, and has an understanding
that his neighbors are such projects as this type of a project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The difference being though that property was
zoned for something other than what we are discussing today, and I
think you have to agree that if you're an adjacent property owner, the
perceived valuation of your property being next to a single family or
multi-family, versus, even though it may be the nicest in the world,
RV park, you have to recognize there is a difference there, and
potentially an impact, and to fail to recognize that -- I think it
fails a logic test.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, if it can be shown that there is an impact of
-- which we believe we have not shown. There is no impact to the
adjacent property owner. This is a -- a use that is existing
nationwide and has had no impact, no negative impacts on adjacent
properties in terms of values, and as a matter of fact, these property
-- this -- this type of use, when we were -- when Mr. Henderson was
looking for sites around the country, he was interested in such places
as Carmel, Naples and Vail, looking for the high quality areas of the
country, and that's why Naples has been chosen for this, to -- to keep
that image, that high quality land use idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any other projects you're aware of
in which the motor coaches would be approximately 50 to 60 feet from a
residential structure that are of this character?
MS. CAWLEY: In Wexford, I believe that they are approximately
that way.
Now, it's my understanding that in Richland, the units are going
to sell between 125, $150,000. In Wexford, they sell between 750, you
know, 450, $350,000, so I think that we're talking about a -- a close
proximity, yes, they are in extremely close proximity in both of those
projects.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The exhibit we have of Wexford does not agree
with you. It shows across an entire golf hole on one side. On the
other it shows, and it's not to scale, but assuming the roadway is
some 30 feet wide or 25 feet wide, it shows a good hundred feet across
a roadway and open space. That's why I asked if there were any other
examples, because this one does not -- I mean, there's nothing within
50 feet here. So that's why I asked if there's another example.
MS. CAWLEY: I see. Okay. Well, then -- we have others around
the country.
In Virginia Beach -- we tried to limit what we were -- again,
trying to limit our presentation, but again, in Virginia Beach, we
have residences that are directly adjacent to and in visual sighting
of, and I will pass these down, to a motor coach. CHAIRMAN
HANCOCK: And again, who was there first, the motor coach or the
neighborhood?
MS. CAWLEY: The motor coach was there. These are new units that
have gone in since the motor coach resort, and you can see that. You
can see that they are newer type units.
Hold on just a second. This is very awkward.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If -- that's okay. You answered my question
on that.
MS. CAWLEY: Yeah, it's -- it's very obvious when you see -- it's
hard to see here, but here are the motor coach units, here are the
residential units. They're directly adjacent --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I get a closer look at that?
MS. CAWLEY: Yes, you can.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CAWLEY: Those are some of the units that are right adjacent
to the units --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ms. Cawley, if -- if this were -- if this
project were approved, what special safeguard -- I know you made a
comment about probably there wouldn't be children walking to school --
MS. CAWLEY: I don't -- I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- down Immokalee Road because of, you know,
possible potential six laned highway. Airport Road, Poinciana
Elementary School, case in point; very close. There is a sidewalk
there. Kids do get on that sidewalk. I remember there was a huge
discussion about that, but nevertheless, it happens.
If this project were approved, what special consideration would
you give for exiting vehicles or entering vehicles to be able to
observe children who might be on some kind of a bike path or whatever?
MS. CAWLEY: We would be very willing to work with the School
Board to come up with some solution on that. I -- I'm not an expert
in terms of what the School Board would feel is important. We could
have a crossing guard. We could have a --
MR. KEMPTON: For the record, my name is Steve Kempton. I'm a
civil engineer with Wilson Miller.
We have a deceleration lane planned. We've met with Ed Kant, and
initially when a -- a four lane scenario, we would have a full median
opening.
The decel lane would be structured such that incoming vehicles
would have enough line of sight to stop in time for any children, and
if you can look up here, I think there's enough room to actually pull
the sidewalk away from the road.
If you look at Airport Road, there is a police officer out there
every day. There's a flashing light. There's a guardrail because of
the fact that you have six lanes of traffic adjacent to that school
Zone.
Some -- those things are -- are things that cost the county extra
money. I think if you pull the sidewalk away and then maybe put a
barrier, those would be things that Outdoor Resorts would be willing
to do and -- and actually --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm looking actually if -- because it's
talked about that you've got Pebble -- I forget the name, Pebble Brook
Lakes on the corner there, and if there's going to be homes and
possibly it looks like that would be a potential area for children, if
those children are the ones that are going to be going to school,
coming down toward and crossing in front of your property, my main
concern was, is visibility when they're coming down the walkway, and
these are good size vehicles, and the time frame would be perhaps at
an hour when vehicles would be exiting that particular area, and that
is just a concern.
MR KEMPTON: Well, and to address that, and I know I -- I -- I
have our traffic impact statement that can -- can support this, is
that typically the users would be coming in at off peak hours, off
school hours also, and -- but as an engineer, and I have to sign and
seal that set of construction documents, the health, safety and
welfare of the public is one of my main -- main focuses, and there
will be a line of sight such that you will have a crosswalk that the
children or the pedestrians have the right of way, and it will be a
stop situation for outgoing traffic and probably a yield situation for
incoming traffic with a deceleration lane with enough storage that you
will have several of these vehicles, if it did occur, would be able to
stop and not impede traffic on Immokalee Road, but the key is, I
think, the line of sight, where people can actually see, hey, here's
some kids coming up on a bicycle, and that will be addressed.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's the exact issue that I'm --
MR. KEMPTON: That will be addressed.
COHHISSIONER BERRY: That's the exact issue that I'm concerned
about, if kids were coming down and just being able to see them. MR. KEMPTON: That will be addressed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have further questions for -- further
questions for Miss Cawley?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to hear from the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many speakers do we have, Mr. Fernandez?
HR. FERNANDEZ: I guess there are about ten or 12.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The policy on public speakers on
matters is that each is afforded five minutes. You must make your
comments within that time. We're going to ask, with that number of
speakers, that you not be redundant in your comments. If you're
expressing a view similar to that as already expressed, please state
that. I think it will carry as much or maybe even more impact with
brevity, so we would encourage that. Mr. Fernandez,
let's call the speakers again two at a time. The second person being
in the on deck circle, so to speak, so we can try and do this as
efficiently as possible.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First is Mr. Don Pickworth, and second is Mr.
J.E. Carroll.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Don
Pickworth. I'm representing Pebble Brook Lakes, the project you've re
-- been referred to a few times during this hearing, the project
adjacent to the subject property on the east.
I know you're hard against a time deadline and I will be
extremely brief, and I have also asked the two expert witnesses I have
with me today to also be extremely brief and we have all prepared our
remarks in writing to pass out. So we will simply summarize them, but
obviously if either you or the petitioner have any questions, they can
ask it, but otherwise, I think it will perhaps move the -- move this
along a little bit quicker.
So with your permission, I would like to just give you a --
MR. BELLOWS: Hay I also request a copy too?
MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, there is a copy for Mr. Bellows, if you
would give one also to the court reporter.
I just have about three points that I think need to be put on the
record and they don't kind of make it in anywhere else because I know
we have a lot of people to testify on the expert substance of this,
but I do want to note that there are some defects in the petition in
the process that I think need to be noted for the record, and -- and
it is sort of annotated in there, but if you -- if you look at the
application, the applicant is Outdoor Resorts.
Your LDC requires that the applicant be the owner of the property
or have authorized whoever is applying for the zoning to apply for the
zoning, since your code says nobody can apply for zoning he doesn't
own. Outdoor Resorts, I don't believe, owns the property. I think
Mr. Owen Ward owns the property. I know Mr. Ward is here, and I'm
sure would have already objected to all of this if he didn't consent
to this, but your -- your application form says an application has got
to be complete and accurate before any public hearing is advertised
and, obviously, that was not done here.
A second point, the -- the application process requires that the
applicant identify the type of corporate entity he is, and in the case
of a corporation, identify the officers and major shareholders, and
again, that information does not appear in this application. We only
know today that Mr. Henderson identified himself as the president of
Outdoor Resorts.
The fact is, all of that information must be completed and
accurately supplied prior to any public hearing, not supplied at the
final hearing before the County Commission. Those are the
requirements of -- of -- of the LDC and the application process.
The other point is -- is the fact that in -- and I know in
reading your executive summary with your agenda package, the staff
makes the comments that no findings are necessary. We would
respectfully disagree with that fact.
Obviously, here, where you have something that is certainly
unusual in my memory where you have a PUD that is changing, you know,
not some boundary lines, not some density, but is actually changing
its use from one use to another, that's a fairly significant thing,
not something that happens around here very often, and I think that
the complete findings -- the complete findings outlined in the LDC
needed to have been made. They clearly weren't. The staff
acknowledges that they weren't.
Again, I don't want to take a lot more of your time here with any
of this other than to answer any questions, but I -- I wanted to bring
this to your attention, and I have two people to talk to you about
some of the other aspects, Mr. Carroll and -- and Mr. Hutchcraft and
then the owner himself. So I'll answer questions.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any representative of the
County Attorney's Office in the room? You don't need to come up now.
I was just going to say, if you'd, at the conclusion of the public
speakers, be prepared to address those points. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Pickworth.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Mr. J.E. Carroll and then Mr. Mitch
Hutchcraft.
MR. CARROLL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My
name is Ernie Carroll. I'm a partner in the firm of Carroll and
Carroll. We're real estate appraisers here in Naples. I -- I was
sworn. I represent Pebble Brook. I'm a state certified general
appraiser, and I am designated by the Appraisal Institute.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to recognize Mr.
Carroll as an expert.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Pickworth has been kind enough to see that you
received this report which is very brief and I'm going to cover the
items that are in it. You can follow along with me.
I -- I was employed by Mr. Pickworth for Pebble Brook Lakes, and
my assignment was to research to determine if there were -- or to see
if I could find any substantial reason why the subject, Laurelwood
PUD, cannot be used in accordance with its existing zoning under the
Laurelwood PUD. This is required by item number 13 under 2.7.2.5 of
the Collier County Land Development Code on Page LDC 2:234.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Carroll, the purpose of your
comments are to summarize the point, as I read in here, that the
market will bear development as it's currently zoned and a fezone is
not necessarily required for the property to be used or be of any
benefit. Is that it in a nutshell?
MR. CARROLL: That is basically my understanding, yes, sir, that
the -- that really it's the reverse of that, sir, is that there's
nothing that shows that it cannot be used.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The reason -- the reason I ask is, and
I'm -- the reason I'm pushing people for some brevity is because we
have a member of the board that has to leave at 1:30, at which time we
will lose a quorum. We will not have enough individuals to move
forward on this, so we do have your report and it's entered into the
record and if we could just ask for a synopsis, that may be helpful in
hopefully receiving --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The board member's staying.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, never mind.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But that doesn't mean that you can talk all
day.
MR. CARROLL: Thank you very much, but really, what I have to say
is really very brief, because that was my assignment. That was the
entire scope of it.
I -- I researched. I -- I took a look at the aerials. I took a
look at the zoning maps for the area. I took a look at the PUD maps
that were generated for the area, the assessor's plats, all of the
other things I had an opportunity to look at. I went and looked at
the properties. I researched, went to the records bureau in the
county, pulled each one of the planned unit developments, including
the Laurelwood, and extracted the information from them.
From that, I produced an analysis that showed that in the five
that I looked at, there were -- they were approved for single family
residences of various kinds totaling about ten different things,
single family, townhouse, what have you.
The Laurelwood PUD has six of those uses in it. It is approved
for 465 units at six plus per acre, because of its proximity there to
the activity center.
I looked at all this, looked at all the different things I could.
I did some research and said, are people buying single family lots,
are people buying single family residences, and looked at Heritage
Green, Longshore Lakes, Pebble Brook, Quail Creek, Woodlands, so on.
Some of these aren't finished, they're not selling. There was
only about three that were selling, but in the last three and a half
years, they've sold 114 vacant lots, 202 single family, 122 condo, for
a total of 436 units. People are buying this kind of product and the
Laurelwood PUD has a significant number of units to develop. It's in
the density band. It's got the right mix. It is approved for all
sorts of residential usage, and the market is showing that they're
accepting that type of product.
I could not find anything that showed that it substantially
couldn't be used under its present zoning. In the addenda, there is
the information, the data, that supports what I'm saying. There's my
certificate. There's my qualification sheet.
Do you have a question?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one question, kind of getting
away from the specifics of this for a moment, but just a general
question.
Would it be fair to say a change in land use on a -- any
particular property can and very well may impact the value of
surrounding properties in general?
MR. CARROLL: Very broad general question. The answer to that is
yes, it may or it may not. It depends on what it is and, you know --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. CARROLL: A slaughter house next to a mansion will have an
effect.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for Mr. Carroll or any
questions on the slaughter house?
Seeing none, Mr. Carroll, thank you.
MR. CARROLL: I think Mitch Hutchcraft is next. He's a land
planner.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Hutchcraft and then Kenneth Saundry.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Good afternoon. My name Mitch Hutchcraft. I'm
with Vanasse and Daylot. I'm a certified planner and a registered
landscape architect, and Mr. Pickworth is handing out a summary of my
comments, and I'll try and review them briefly. Included in that
summary is a copy of my resume.
I have been retained by Mr. Ken Saundry and Pebble Brook Lakes
Limited Partnership to review primarily three items. One, is it
compatible -- is this proposed use compatible with the surrounding
land uses; two, will it create an isolated district, zoning district;
and three, are there changing conditions which would necessitate the
approval of this -- this amendment.
Just quickly in terms of overview, the project is on Immokalee
Road adjacent to the Richland PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, if you're going to speak, you need to be
on one of the two microphones.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: One of the important points is that this is
primarily a residential corridor. There are basically eight
residentially zoned PUD's, and the remainder of the property, almost
the remainder of the property, is all zoned either estate or
agriculture.
It's important to point out that agricultural district, the only
use permitted by right in your Land Development Code, is single family
unit. Estate also requires single family residential uses.
So in -- in summary, these uses -- I mean this corridor is
primarily a residential corridor with the -- the residentially zoned
PUD's and the existing zoning.
The -- the comprehensive plan, your growth management plan,
designates this area as an urban residential category. There are
activity centers located at the intersections of 951 and Immokalee
Road and at the interstate. Those intersections are designated for
commercial uses, and the -- the quote out of your growth management
plan is that the mixed use activity center concept is designed to
concentrate almost new commercial uses -- almost all new commercial
uses in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated.
In staff's summary, they did identify that the proposed use is
not a residential use, it's a commercial use.
The -- the request that's before you is primarily to approve a
rezoning from one PUD that's a residential district that would include
medium to low density residential and multi-family to a
non-residential, transient motor coach development.
The criteria to review this -- this application are identified in
your Land Development Code, Sections 2.7.2.5. There are three
primarily -- three primary criteria. The first one is zoning district
compatibility. The second one is land use compatibility, and the
third one, are there changing conditions.
Going back to zoning district compatibility, again, in looking at
the map, almost all of the surrounding land uses or all of the
surrounding zoning districts support low density residential
development. The approved PUD's range anywhere from 854 acres to 78
acres with a density ranging anywhere from six -- .6 units per acre,
from a low, to a high of six units per acre, which is the -- the
subject property.
The majority of these developments have some level of development
already occurring.
Again, in -- in the staff's report in supporting and recommending
their -- in supporting their recommendation for approval, they
addressed that the proposed project is adjacent to non-residential
uses or is compatible with the surrounding districts because it's
adjacent to a school, agricultural land and a PUD that has a
commercial use.
First of all, the agricultural district, as I mentioned, the only
use permitted by right is a residential use. The school, which is
more than a quarter of a mile away and separated by agricultural
districts, is a use that is conditionally approved in residential
districts where RV uses are not conditionally approved in either of
the adjacent A or E zoning districts.
And the third area that staff suggested that it is compatible
with is the Richland PUD because it does have a commercial component.
While it's true that there is a commercial component in that
development, in looking at the site plan, the commercial component is
located at the corner in the activity center. There's more than a
quarter of a mile of separation between the proposed use and the
activity center, with low density residential uses intervening.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Usually, when you start off with I'll be
brief, you don't run out of time. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, is there room for a planner joke here
instead of a lawyer joke? I had to say it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good luck coming up with one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got a few.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: If you have any questions, I do have some brief
comments on compatibility.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm afraid you've used your allotted time.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just a comment. As I
review his resume here, I think we should go ahead and recognize Mr.
Hutchcraft as an expert in land planning. I'll make a motion to that
effect.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Thank you for your comments, and your report's entered into the
record also.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Kenneth Saundry and then Tom Bolf.
MR. SAUNDRY: Good afternoon. My name is Kenneth P. Saundry,
Jr. Address is 13102 Valewood Drive, Naples, Florida. I will be
brief.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've heard that before.
MR. SAUNDRY: But I promise.
I'm recognizing that your decisions you're making here are local
in nature specific to your community. They're not specific to
Virginia, California or any place else, and contrary to what other
people have talked about, what my expectations and understandings were
when I bought the property, I'll be brief and state what they were so
there'll be no misunderstandings whatsoever.
I think that this proposed rezoned PUD amendment is incompatible
with the surrounding property that is developed and is being developed
in the area. I think the direction of the county has been very
clearly seen by me and the citizens of Collier County.
I think that -- I should point out that people have made mention
that Richland PUD is approved for six units per acre. I've heard that
mentioned a lot. That's fine. It was approved for it. I'm building
the area at 2.6 units per acre, and that was our understanding, that
we wanted to build with a compatible low density, quality development
corridor.
By reasonable expectation when I bought this property of zoning
in the adjoining property was that it would be compatible with the PUD
that was recognized. I did not think I had to go to the comprehensive
land use plan and look at the whole cornucopia of uses that could
possibly ever be asked for and try to get some assurance that that
wouldn't happen. I don't think I do.
I would not have purchased the property that I did and paid cash
for the property and being ready to develop it now had this property
use been allowed next door, and I do think there's a definite
situation where if that went in next door it would lower the value of
my property, and that it would lower the expectations of my purchasers
and of the builders to buy there, and I think I'm allowed to say that
because I am the specific owner of the property. This is not
conjecture.
Mastercraft Homes keeps getting tossed around each time I come in
here, so I'll touch on that extremely briefly. They have a letter on
file that they objected to this. I, yesterday, reached an agreement
with Mastercraft Homes. They are buying lots from me. I don't care
who talked to them. They're buying from me and they don't want this
use next door.
And the issue of school children walking down Immokalee Road, a
lot of people are talking about it. I have volunteered, out of my
pocket, to build a sidewalk all the way down to those schools and I am
ready to cooperate with the county and with the School Board out of my
pocket. No one required me to do it, because we have a quality single
family home neighborhood that's going to be a compliment to Naples and
built. Those are my brief comments.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
Next?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Tom Bolf and Mary Marnell.
MR. BOLF: My points have already been covered, so we'll pass.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. You get extra bonus points.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mary Marnell and Judy Leinweber.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Marnell is not here?
MR. PICKWORTH: I think she's also indicating that her points
have been covered and she's passing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Miss Leinweber.
MS. LEINWEBER: I am Judy Leinweber. I live at Bay West Nursery.
We do have 30 acres. I have to give Outdoor Resorts credit for coming
into our neighborhood. They went on Rose Boulevard, Nursery Lane.
They talked to all the homeowners. They spent quite a lot of time
with my husband last night, and we do appreciate them coming into the
neighborhood and talking to the people and explaining to them exactly
what they're going to do. That's more than anyone else has done from
any of the other neighboring developments.
As far as I know, most all the people on Nursery Lane, Rose
Boulevard and Bay West Nursery, my husband and myself, are in favor of
Outdoor Resorts. If anyone has been in that neighborhood, I have for
18 years. We're talking about my barn yard, the people in my
neighborhood.
If anything, this is going to raise the quality of our
neighborhood. If any of our County Commissioners have ever been back
there, you would know what kind of dwellings are back there. We
look forward to Outdoor Resorts. Yes, we are not Quail Creek. We are
not hoity-toity. I am a farmer's wife. We're talking about common
people. We would enjoy having them as neighbors.
That's all I have to say. I don't have any fancy brochures to
pass out, just the words from my neighborhood. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You get extra points for not handing
things out.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Joseph Zaks and then John Wanklyn.
MR. ZAKS: I covered my two primary points in a letter I think
you all have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name, please?
MR. ZAKS: I was sworn.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your name for the record?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We just need you to state your name, Joe.
MR. ZAKS: Joe Zaks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. ZAKS: And I'll keep it under a minute.
I did get a presentation from the group at Longshore Lake and was
very impressed with it and the quality of the development that they're
proposing. However, it does not change my view, nor the view of
Longshore Lake residents in standing in opposition to this, both
because of the change in the use of the area property, but more so
because of the effect that we perceive it will have on the schools.
This was called the residential corridor. I think we can also
call it a school corridor. With three schools within walking distance
of this proposed development, I see an adverse effect on the safety of
those children.
When I was ten years old, I saw a bus run over a school mate of
mine. You probably saw the pictures. These look a lot like those
same buses. I don't care about line of sight. What I do care about
is the fact that we have untrained people driving those buses down the
road, and if we can avoid such a tragedy, I think that would be
beneficial.
If you are inclined to approve this change to the PUD, what I
would ask is that you approve it with a condition, and the condition
being that in addition to the 15 foot easement along the southern
boundary, that you consider requiring a 30 foot easement for a green
way down there, not inconsistent with what we've done in Golden Gate
and recently on Marco Island, where there's a pathway along the back
of the subdivisions and along with the Richland PUD, if they were to
divert their money to creating this green way to the south side of all
these subdivisions, we would get all those kids off of Immokalee Road.
Whether that subdivision goes in there or otherwise, we're still
going to have traffic there every morning pulling out of Valewood
Drive. I have to wait while the gravel trucks go by about 70 miles an
hour. It's a dangerous street. It will always be a dangerous street
unless we put some sort of a cement wall between the sidewalk and the
street.
What I would suggest to you is that you consider creating an
easement that would be along the back of all of these PUD's to change
the direction of pedestrian traffic, safe and away from Immokalee
Road.
You're probably aware, I'm sure Hiss Berry is, that the Gulf
Coast High School has been developed with the anticipation of putting
a pool in there. During the development process, they've taken the
lime rock out and it should be just a very short step to make that
additional attractive nuisance, as those lawyers like to call it, a
reality, and I would anticipate a lot of traffic from the Oak Ridge
Middle School heading down to the high school for the use of that pool
sometime in the future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: John Wanklyn and Richard Grant.
MR. WANKLYN: Mr. Chairman and members of the board, my name is
John Wanklyn, and I am sworn.
I'm here today to represent the Immokalee Road Partnership. The
Immokalee Road Partnership is the owner of the Woodlands PUD. The
Woodlands PUD is one-quarter of a mile to the north -- to the west and
immediately opposite on the other side of Immokalee Road.
For the record, our density, we are allowed 1,100 units on 500
acres for a density of 2.2 units to the acre. We do not feel that the
subject property is appropriate as a recreational vehicle park or a
motor home park or whatever you want to call it.
It remains, in my opinion, exactly the same, and we support those
who are against this petition. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Richard Grant. That's the final speaker, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I take it this one's going to be a little
easier, Mr. Grant.
MR. GRANT: I will be very brief, believe me. I am Richard
Grant, for the record. I am the attorney that represents Owen Ward as
trustee who is the record owner of this property as was noted. I'll
let Mr. Price address the question of his approving the application,
but he certainly did that, and I will certainly state for the record
that Mr. Ward gives his approval to this application.
I want to bring up one thing here, and I've got a letter that
I've written to you, which I will pass out. You can read it
yourselves. It relates to the strength of some of the objection that
you hear from the owner of the Woodland PUD. You can judge it for
yourself -- I'm sorry, Pebble Brook.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're referring to Mr. Saundry and Pebble
Brook.
MR. GRANT: I'm sorry, Mr. Saundry's development.
I'm sure Mr. Saundry and his people feel what they say, and
believe what they say, but I would like to show you a letter that was
written to Mr. Ward by Mr. Saundry in the past that at least I would
read and Mr. Ward certainly read to indicate that at that time there
was no objection to this. Mr. Saundry desires an easement from Mr.
Ward. Mr. Ward has been unable to provide that to him.
I leave it with you to judge how strong these objections really
are. I'm not trying to suggest anybody has bad motives, but I think
the credibility of the objections could be influenced by the lack of
an easement that was not provided. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if we could hear from
the County Attorney's representative as far as Mr. Pickworth's
comments and their validity.
MS. STUDENT: Commissioners, Marjorie Student, Assistant County
Attorney, for the record.
As far as the ownership goes, there's information that was
provided to the county to indicate that the applicant owns it, but
nevertheless, it has been historically our position in the nearly ten
years that I have been with Collier County that a contract purchaser
serves as the agent for the owner, and under our LDC, that's -- an
agent can also be an applicant, and as far as the other objections
concerning the LDC criteria, I'm going to defer to Mr. Bellows,
because it's the practice of planning services to review those
criteria when you do a -- this is a PUD to PUD fezone, and in
substance, it's really like a PUD -- or is a PUD amendment, and it's
only for administrative convenience that it's a PUD to PUD fezone and
I'll defer to Mr. Bellows to explain how that's reviewed by staff.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before going into that in depth, it doesn't
really change the tenets of what we have to consider today. I think
Mr. Pickworth put it on the record for a -- a specific purpose. I
don't disagree with that. Obviously our staff is telling us that you
believe the applicant met all the application requirements. You're
not here to tell us anything different.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I would like to see in the future is, Mr.
Fernandez, if you would work with Mr. Cautero, let's make sure we get
a little more consistent in how we show agents and elements of trust
in the application, because sometimes they're in different places when
they come to us. It would be nice in the front of the packet if we're
able to see right away who the trusts are, who the named individuals
in the trust are, because that's important.
A trust can hide some things that if you do business in the
community, you need to know, so I would like to see a more
standardized approach to presenting that information in the front part
of the packet, and that would probably also go to some of Mr.
Pickworth's concerns for the future, but I -- not to discount your
comments, Mr. Bellows, but I think either there's going to be a legal
challenge or there isn't, and nothing you say is going to change that,
so thank you.
Do we have any additional speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions of the
petitioner, of Mr. Bellows, anyone at this point?
MS. CAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address a couple of the
points that were made if possible in response.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't usually allow that, do we,
Mr. Chairman?
MS. CAWLEY: Well, it's traditional that we --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, ma'am, it's not, because in the year that
-- at least that I've been chairman, what we don't do is rebuttal. We
don't do they say, you say. Then what happens if they disagree with
you, we have to let them back up.
What I'd like to do is if someone has raised a question, a member
of the board, in which they would like to address you on, provide that
opportunity, but I -- I want to avoid turning this into a court of law
where we have question, requestion and rehearing of certain items. I
don't think that's appropriate.
MS. CAWLEY: Could I put on the record that a statement made by
one of the people that we might agree to that might give you some more
information?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you believe that's pertinent, certainly. I
think that's fine.
MS. CAWLEY: Okay. Mr. Zaks has -- has discussed with us this
idea of the green belt on the south side of the property, and we think
that that is a good idea, and we're willing to build a bike path along
the south side of the property on a 15 foot easement to provide access
between the schools, and we feel that that's not a problem and we
would be willing to do that. That would assist in the safety of the
children.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
With no further speakers, I'm going to close the public hearing.
This is -- what we have is we have probably one of the nicest RV
resorts you could ever get in a community, on one hand. On the other
hand, we've got an existing development pattern and we have to
determine whether or not it's a square peg in a round hole. That's
really what it comes down to, in my opinion.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I think the
compatibility question is a very real one. The future land use
element calls for single family to the south, to the west, to the
north. We've got the Richland PUD. To the east -- I mentioned the
south area, the DiVosta that will be directly to the south. C-3 is
really hardly even a factor across the street, it's so tiny.
It is, as one speaker described it, all residential family
neighborhoods. It's a residential corridor, and I think Miss Cawley
may have described it best when she pointed out the use they're
applying for is a, and I quote, I wrote it down word for word, a
transient use, just like a marina, and I don't know that a transient
use is an appropriate use in a neighborhood corridor, and we heard
from a recognized expert witness in appraisal, we heard from a
recognized expert witness in land planning, both suggesting that it
doesn't meet the requirements for our changes under our LDC or growth
management plan, and so I think each of those points were very clearly
demonstrated. There is an incompatibility, and I'm going to make a
motion to deny the question.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: And I will second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My -- I come from an area of concern that I --
some of the examples that were cited were not apples for apples, and I
asked Miss Cawley specifically about which came first, an RV resort or
the adjacent residential community, and the answer was the RV resort,
and that, I think, is appropriate.
Had this been the first land use in that general area to come in,
with no either approved zoning or action on zoning in the immediate
area, then I think we're dealing with, you know, if you're the first
one in and you set the mark, well, then more power to you, you acted
early.
What we have is we have a mark that has been set by other
developments, and I think -- and by their zoning, and I think that
mark is inconsistent with what we're considering, no matter how nice
you make it, and the reason I say that is if you look at the distance
from which people live and have objected to this, it's a perception
issue, and if people who own homes and who buy homes perceive that,
then I think we're dealing with potentially a negative fiscal impact.
We can't base our decision solely on that, but I do believe that
what we have is in the urban area, we have said this is where urban
services belong. I think there is a place for this type of
development in Collier County. I think we should encourage, in the
recreational side, this type of development in Collier County, but I
think this is the wrong place for that to occur. I think if they were
to move out Immokalee Road a little further into the more rural area
where they could buy a little more property, buffer it from the
surrounding --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Cows.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- property owners and cows and snakes and
chickens and whatnot, I think that would be appropriate.
I just don't find putting a series of motor coaches 40 feet
apart, 50 feet behind somebody's house, a consistent land use
decision, so I'm just unable to move off of that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I seconded this because, number one, it is a
good project, and I believe when they came in and spoke to me
regarding this project, I looked at it and it -- no doubt, it's a
first class project.
My problem is the location of it. If you can put it any other
place, but the reason I say any other place has to do with the
location of three schools within a very, very, very close proximity,
and the fact that you have basically housing approved in that
particular area is my reason for not being able to approve this
project.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just for purposes of the
record, I should probably put one other reason on, and that is -- for
my objection, and that is we've mentioned school a couple times.
Quite frankly, a transient use where you can rent something for $50 a
day probably isn't appropriate next door to a school and children.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think it's a great project. It
really is. I -- if we can find a place to put it, it would be fine,
but this is not the place.
It's -- it's not consistent from a zoning aspect because it's not
a residential use. It's described in our growth management plan as a
non-residential use. It's not consistent from a neighborhood
standpoint, as the rest of you board members have pointed out, and my
largest concern is the one of reasonable expectation from the property
owners who are existing with the property that they've already
purchased expecting this existing PUD to be developed as it was when
they purchased their property. I think that's a reasonable
expectation, or at least have the expectation that it will be
developed in some manner that's fairly similar to what it was when
they bought, but this is a completely different use, and so I support
the motion.
Might as well call it, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four to zero. Petition
PUD-94-7(1) is denied.
We are to item -- it's just past 1:30. Let's keep going.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 97-47, RE PETITION PUD-89-28(1), FREDERICK R. PAULEY,
TRUSTEE, AMENDMENT TO "BRENTWOOD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD),
ELIMINATING LIQUOR STORES FROM THE PRINCIPAL RETAIL USES, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), CONSISTING OF
18.6 ACRES, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED
*** We're to item 12(B)(2), Petition PUD 89-28(1), Frederick R.
Pauley, Trustee, requesting an amendment to the Brentwood PUD. Mr.
Bellows, this is simply doing what the Board had requested in the sun
setting previously?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything you need to get on the record, Mr.
Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: No. Staff's report covered everything.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just a unanimous group.
Item #1283 - Withdrawn
Item #1284 - Withdrawn
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 97-375, PETITION SNR-97-10, CLYDE C. QUINBY REQUESTING A
STREET NAME CHANGE FROM VILLAGE WAY TO GLEN MEADOW LANE IN THE VILLAGES
OF WYNDEHERE - ADOPTED
*** We are to item 12(C)(1), Petition SNR-97-10, Hr. Clyde Quinby
requesting a street name change.
Mr. Reischl, good afternoon.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services, presenting this petition for Bob Salvaggio.
The proposed street name change is a private street within
Wyndemere affecting approximately ten lots, six of which are owned by
the developer, four are under construction, and we have unanimous
consent by all of the affected property owners. Staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anyone need anything else on that one?
Mr. Fernandez, any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we
approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five zero. Commissioner Berry
continues to be shut out of the motion making business.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: They sit there and they all look in that
direction. I could sit down here and die and they wouldn't even know
that I was gone.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you die quietly.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, just go quietly. I understand.
Items #12C2 through Item #12C5 - Continued to 10/28/97
Item #12C6
ORDINANCE 97-48, CONSOLIDATED UTILITY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDINANCE AND
WATER-SEWER UTILITY RATES - ADOPTED AS AMENDED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Item 12(C)(6), request to adopt a
consolidated utility administrative ordinance and adopt water-sewer
utility rates.
Mr. Ilschner.
MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Chairman, I guess I need to be sworn.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't believe we have to swear people in on
this item. We may swear at you, but you do not have to be sworn in.
MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ed Ilschner, your public
works administrator, and I will try to be brief on this matter.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please, everybody, stop saying that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you know what the definition of eternity
is? It's the time in which it takes when someone says time to be
brief to the time they actually conclude their comments. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be it.
MR. ILSCHNER: We're hoping to achieve, Mr. Chairman, closure on
an item we've been working on approximately 18 months, and that is, of
course, a review of the Collier County water and sewer district rates,
as well as the Goodland rates and Marco sewer rates. That process
began in April of 1996, and was also supplemented by the hiring of
John Mayer Associates to actually review and conduct a rate study, and
then we appeared before this board on August the 26th to present the
results of that information to you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is pretty well ratifying what we
discussed on the 26th?
MR. ILSCHNER: That is correct, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except that we had discussed the concept of
phasing in and whatnot?
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir, and we're here to address those two
issues for you today, if you'd like us to. I have Mr. Ed Finn, who
has looked into those two matters, and I can turn the meeting over to
him at this point and let him brief you on that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please. That was really my main concern, was
two-fold. One is making sure we aren't paying for something we're
required to do as an adjunct to the potable water system anyway, and
to also make sure we don't adversely affect homeowner's associations
MR. ILSCHNER: Let me turn it over to Ed Finn, our operations
director.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Finn?
MR. FINN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ilschner.
A couple of housekeeping matters having to do with the ordinance.
I want to just get on the record a couple of strike-throughs.
I handed out for the board a photocopy of the title page of this.
There are some strike-throughs listed on that. On page one, the
phrase, providing for assessments of the Marco Water and Sewer
District, is deleted from the ordinance.
Also on page one, the phrase, provide for legislative intent of
the Goodland water district is struck through.
On page four, the phrase, the Marco water and sewer district and
the Goodland water district is struck out of the ordinance.
I also have a few typos. On Page eight of the ordinance there is
a sentence, G district, or Goodland water district shall mean the
municipal services taxing and benefit district created hereby and
comprising the area of the district described above. The word above
should be struck through and replaced with the word below. On page 12, item --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. -- I'm sorry, is it necessary to read
all those or could he just submit that for the record? He's provided
us copies and they're just typographical --
MR. FINN: I have this one and one more and then it's done.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. FINN: On page 12, paragraph B, sentence, the definition set
forth in section 1.1 shall apply to this sub-section is to be deleted,
and the final one on page 48, section 8, there's a word nay there that
should be the word, any.
All of those have already been submitted.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All those in favor, signify --
MR. FINN: When we came before you in August, the only matter of
substantive discussion was the tense program and the rates to be
charged for the tense program. We've gone ahead and taken a look at
that and provided you a handout with some information on that.
On page two of that handout, we addressed the principal question
that Chairman Hancock had raised regarding the implications regarding
demand for or the development community's interest in tense systems.
Generally, our tense systems are provided to golf course
communities. Because of their -- their large usage of irrigation
water, they -- they are really the only viable candidates for it.
They are master metered bulk customers, and the proposed rate of 20
cents per thousand gallons would apply essentially to new customers
and the existing customers as it becomes possible to revise their
contracts.
In reviewing their contracts, we've concluded that of the 18 we
have, about 12 of those are locked in for approximately five years,
which should start changing in '98, '99 and the year 2000, in some
cases.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Finn, I need to get to Commissioner
Hac'Kie before she hurts herself down there.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, my question has to do with what
you said about the golf courses are the primary users, and you know
that the board stated maybe a couple years ago that a strong support
for encouraging residential use of effluent for gardening, for lawn
maintenance and otherwise.
Have you done an analysis of -- of how this rate change could
affect the -- our stated goal of -- of encouraging that use?
MR. FINN: The county's approach to residential tense at this
point is to allow the developers to install, own and maintain those
facilities, because we found in our experience in dealing with the few
communities that have those systems, those communities being Pelican
Bay, Pelican Harsh and Lely Resort, the cost of maintaining those dual
systems for the County is somewhat disproportionate to the folks that
are actually benefitting from them, so it's our desire to move in a
direction where we're providing bulk tense to an entire community and
the developer would essentially own and maintain the entire irrigation
system and the provision of that -- that service to the single family
homes, the multi-family homes would be an adjunct to the bulk system
installed in the community.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not sure I understand if that
addresses the question of neighborhoods that may be wanting to go on
line with effluent for irrigation.
MR. FINN: I think, in part, the answer to that is that in our
experience, unless the Board were to require that through ordinance,
and require infill, it is very unlikely that those communities would
find it cost effective to install those systems unless they have a
golf course that requires substantial irrigation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand, and I just want to be -- I'm
not sure that that is satisfactory to me anyway about whether or not
we can continue to encourage the use of -- of effluent for irrigation.
I don't want to do anything to discourage that, so I'll just put
that out there.
MR. ILSCHNER: Commissioner Hac'Kie let us look into that issue
for you and develop that further for you and bring something back to
you.
MR. FINN: And perhaps I could just add a little more to that.
In terms of the bulk user, we're estimating that the cost for the
bulk user pulling irrigation water out of a well is about 23 cents per
thousand. We intentionally set a rate arbitrarily, if you will, at 20
cents per thousand. We felt it was below their cost of producing the
same -- same product, and we also, in looking at a -- a broad review
of rates across -- across the -- across the state, that fell -- fell
right within the middle ground of what bulk rates are. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Finn.
I'm gonna -- I'm going to suggest a couple things. One is that
we make no change in the tense water rate at this time, that any
change in that be delayed until October 1st of 1998.
I'm also not going to support an increase to 20 percent -- or to
20 cents, excuse me, for the simple reason that -- and this is just
something I individually have come to, and it's not a reflection of
your work, because I think you've done a good job, but the water all
comes from the same place.
Now, whether it's more advantageous to take it as a tense or to
drop your own well, one has absolutely no effect on the water table in
the community, while the other has a substantial effect, and we need
to be in a position to encourage the tense far more because we've
already got it and it does not adversely affect the water table over
dropping wells and getting permits to do your own irrigation, and
that's both residential, commercial and whatnot.
So I want to hold off on any change in tense until October 1 of
1998, and even then I'm probably going to stop short of the increase
to the 20 cents. I think an increase is appropriate, but maybe make
it a very marginal increase at that time. That's my personal feeling on it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's pending this report that Mr.
Ilschner has just offered to prepare.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, may very well be.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to be careful though. When we
say encourage, I see that as a different thing than require, and I
don't want to get the government to get into a situation where we're
requiring, particularly because of the cost involved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I think we're all on the same page
as far as encourage.
I'm not sure if I agree we need to wait to accomplish that or
waiting will accomplish stronger.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But waiting is simply fiscal. There's a
handful of folks out there that aren't -- that cannot -- that collect
homeowner's association fees and can't take the bump in the budget. I
know you said the 12 of 18 won't be affected for five years, but I
think I talked to one of the six.
MR. FINN: Actually, I believe that Beach Walk is -- is one of
the very few that actually have a 30 day ability to change that rate.
The balance of them are subject to negotiations or five years in many
cases.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The bottom line is I don't want to, as you
said, Commissioner Constantine, require, but I don't think anybody
could read a rate increase as encouraging tense for irrigation, and --
and so I'm glad to hear that there's support on the Board for not
encouraging that tense rate. I'd like to -- to support a delay in
that change as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wasn't the purpose of doing that
initially, though, so we weren't penalizing the regular water and
sewer user?
MR. ILSCHNER: From the subsidization standpoint, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's, I guess, where my support
for it comes along, is that those who don't have anything to do with
this, by choice or not, shouldn't have to pick up the tab in the
meantime.
MR. FINN: I've prepared a chart in here, it happens to be on
page eight, that gives the Board a graphic representation of what the
current status is. That is, the two or three bars at the far left
deal with the present situation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that something you handed us this
morning?
MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. I just handed that out while Mr. Ilschner
was speaking.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll find mine. That's okay. It's here.
MR. FINN: On page eight, the bar to the left shows the present
situation. The tall bar is the cost program, which is about a million
dollars a year. The other bars represent the revenue source.
What we have is about $313,000 in revenue coming in through the
program to support a program that costs a million dollars. That's
about a 68 percent subsidy by general -- general funds or general user
fees, both water and waste water, and actually I would prefer to say
it comes from the existing fund balance or fund reserves every year.
The next column over, marked proposed, indicates the original
proposal that we came to you with in August. That reduces the subsidy
to about 23 percent. The revenue generated there would be about
$760,000. That doesn't foresee any change to the bulk user revenue at
this point because we fully anticipate that will take a couple years
to phase that in already.
The next column, marked phase in one, proposes a half -- a change
of the rates one-half of what we originally proposed, bringing us to a
46 percent subsidy with a year two phase in, bringing us to where
staff believes we should be, which is the 23 percent subsidy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me the majority of
our -- of these are going to be phased in, and 68 percent subsidy, 68
percent are being carried by people who don't necessarily have
anything to do with it.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
But frankly you do have --
Well, let me -- I know we're trying to get
Okay. You were next. You go right ahead.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hr. Finn?
HR. FINN: Yes, sir?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we weren't selling tense water, then we
would have a 100 percent subsidy?
MR. FINN: If we weren't selling tense water, we'd be using deep
wells, and the cost would be substantially lower than this program.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But -- but the point is it would cost us to
get rid of it.
MR. FINN: Substantially less than this.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Substantially less than this, but it would
cost us to get rid of it? MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So we are -- we are in effect --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Spending more money by doing this.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no, no, no, no.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, we are.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we're not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let the man speak.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that correct? If we did not do any
tense, we would save money?
MR. FINN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct? Well then, why don't we do
that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because that's bad ecologically and bad
planning.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who said?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it's bad for the effect on the water
table. It's bad for the --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's not, if we put it -- we're putting
it back in the water table.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you put it in a deep well, you can't
ever touch it again. It's gone.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I didn't say deep well. Did you hear me
say deep well?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, but that's what the alternative is,
reuse or deep well.
MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Chairman, if I could interject.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I hate to break up this conversation, but
let's see if Mr. Ilschner has something to offer.
MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the waste water
treatment permit that we receive from DEP are predicated on the
utilization and promotion of reuse as well as the recent 20 year
permit we received for water also encourages.
Now, there's no state law that requires that we promote reuse,
but it encourages that reuse, and of course, the waste water permit is
predicated on a reuse program. So it's a matter of we simply don't
have the option of not doing some form of reuse at this point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I look at it as economics. If we reduce the
demand on potable by offering reuse wherever possible, then our well
fields last longer, and that makes some sense.
The second thing is if it discourages someone from dropping a
well for the purpose of irrigation, that has a positive effect on our
water table. So, you know, the -- the touchy feely stuff about reuse
is all fine and it's cute and wonderful, but I think it has a very
real impact on our water table here, and that's why I support it. I
want people to use more of the tense water, and I don't think raising
these rates is going to deter them from using it, but I think being
only three cents difference between dropping a well and using tense,
that may not -- you may not gain enough by doing that -- that you want
to maintain your own control.
So all I'm asking is that we just -- we adopt what's been
proposed with the exception of the tense, that we delay any increase
in tense until October 1, 1998 and at that time we determine the --
the incremental ratcheting, because by that time, all of the people
that are on tense will have had the time to review their budgets and
make any adjustments they deem necessary so if the rate does go up,
they aren't being hit from the rear.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
effect.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
I think that's a very reasonable approach.
I agree. I'll make a motion to that
Can't.
Can't because there's --
Public hearing?
-- a public hearing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any additional speakers, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you have one, Jeanne Brooker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I didn't figure Jeanne was sitting in the
audience just as a spectator today.
MS. BROOKER: I don't even think I have to get up here, but I've
sat here all day. I'm going to have my say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Jeanne, come on up and give us your name and
let us know --
MS. BROOKER: Okay. And I will even promise to be brief. My
name is Jeanne Brooker, and I'm president of Lakewood Community
Services and I've been there for the past four years, and we're the
master association for Lakewood and I'm coming here, of course, to
oppose the recommended rate increase for reused water.
We are in the final stages and in fact are ready to sign a
contract for the use of reuse water for irrigation of the entire
Lakewood community, so I don't think I was in Mr. Finn's survey, but
we will be a bulk rate user, and that means that you have no
administrative overhead, and there's one bill, and we do our
assessing, and just to sort of confirm what Mr. Hancock has said, we
proceeded on the assumption, as I say, the contract is on my desk now,
on the assumption of 13 cents per thousand, and just so you have some
idea of what this proposed rate increase would have done to us, it
would have increased our cost by $30,000, and that's -- those are
actual -- that's the amount -- that's the impact that would have had
on our Lakewood community.
We've sold the idea of using effluent for irrigation to our
residents under the premise that there would be a nominal increase
over our present system in operating costs, and there will be.
Now, you -- I don't have to -- another consideration that you
might want to make to your staff, we were required, under the contract
that I will be signing, to take 365 million gallons per year, and that
was to help recoup some of the engineering costs for bringing the
effluent to our community. Our actual estimate is though that we will
use probably less than 225 million gallons. So we are, in effect,
subsidizing, even under the contract, because we are being required,
and I'm not arguing with that, but I'm just saying that is also a fact
of life.
So we will be paying for water we actually will not be using, but
that -- we've agreed to do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can install a lot of bird baths around the
community maybe.
MS. BROOKER: Well, we wanted to be able, you know, to put it
somewhere and use it in other seasons, but that won't work.
Another thing that perhaps is relevant here on your more general
discussion is that Collier County has taken the position that reuse
will be the primary method of dealing with waste water. That's my
understanding in terms of the waste water permit, and using that water
is the best use.
It makes environmental and economic sense, and deep well
injection is a waste of a water resource, and as you say, it's a
circle and it's a cycle and this is just a waste.
Reuse customers are an ally with the county. We are helping to
solve the disposal problem, and this justifies having the county as a
partner, this sharing the costs, and I agree with the commissioners
here saying that every means should be utilized to attract more users
through attractive rates and increased accessibility.
I'd like to perhaps qualify that using effluent is not always
entirely voluntary. When it is available, South Florida Water
Management requires an evaluation of this method as part of the water
usage permitting process, and that's really how we got into this for
our water permit.
So it isn't entirely voluntary, and I think that also should be a
consideration.
I agree that if, after all the facts are in, you believe some
rate increase is necessary, it should be phased in rather than an
astronomical jump with sufficient advance notice so that all reuse
customers can make sound budget decisions.
Our only source of income, the golf course is a part, but our
only source of income is from our residents, and I want you to know
that our board believes that reuse for irrigation is a plus for
Collier County, and it is a plus for us. It will help to preserve
healthy lakes in Lakewood and reduce the strain on a system now over
20 years old, and we think it's a win-win situation for all of us, and
we want you to help keep it that way, and if you agree with your
chair, you will. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Miss Brooks (sic).
Do we have any further speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item in
accordance with the chairman's comments. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the balance of today's meeting, anyone
that starts with I'll be brief will have their time cut in half.
MR. FINN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only people that have hit their time today
are people that said I'll be brief.
Thanks, Jeanne.
Item #12C7
RESOLUTION 97-376, RE PETITION AV-97-009, VACATING A PORTION OF AN
EIGHTY FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 17, QUEENS PARK AT LAGO
VERDE, PHASE SIX - ADOPTED
*** Next, petition AV 97-009, request to vacate a water
management easement.
Mr. Mullet, you have done all the homework on this. You fully
recommend it because it makes a heck of a lot of sense. Is that what
I understand?
MR. MULLER: Yes, sir, but I won't be brief.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for Mr. Mullet on this?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mullet, will you make an
appointment with my secretary before you leave today? MR. MULLER: Sure.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
I've been forgetting to ask him that, so I thought I'd take
advantage of this opportunity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five zero.
Mr. Mullet, the king of presentations today.
Item #12C8
RESOLUTION 97-377, ADJUSTING LANDFILL TIPPING FEES, RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL
ASSESSMENTS AND COHMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION FEES - ADOPTED
*** Item 12(C)(8), recommendation that the BCC approve a rate
resolution that we have talked about time and time again. Is that
correct, Mr. Russell?
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. This pretty much codifies our rate
resolution for the '97-'98 fiscal year. It incorporates the price
freezes in our franchise collection agreement and also the rate
reduction on the commercial side.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Russell's presentation is better than
yours so far.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's nothing new on this from the contract
that we approved just two weeks ago, is there?
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct, there is not. The balance of this
does recognize a CPI increase for the balance of our tipping fees to
be consistent with the budget that we brought before you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You went to law school, didn't you? I'm
just betting you must have gone to law school somewhere, because, no,
it doesn't; yes, it does. Those are hard lawyer answers, and I just
was observing that maybe you missed your calling.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of Mr. Russell? Any further
belittling of Mr. Russell's vocabulary?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir, just kidding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All in fun.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fun mood today. Okay.
Any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion by Commissioner Hac'Kie. Is
there a second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, we're still waiting for
you to chime in on a motion down there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not making any more until she makes
One.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's best to just stay off the record. I
learned that a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the School Board experience.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 97-378, RE PETITION V-97-6, GREG CARLISLE (CONTRACT
PURCHASER) REPRESENTING HENRY JOHNSON REQUESTING A 10 FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIED 25 FOOT REAR SETBACK 15 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF BAYFRONT DRIVE, LOT 18, BAYFRONT GARDENS
SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Okay. We're on to Item 13(A)(1), board of
zoning appeals advertised public hearing, Petition V-97-6, Mr. Greg
Carlisle, representing Henry Johnson requesting a ten-foot variance
from the 25-foot rear yard setback. This item is quasi-judicial. I'm
going to ask that members of the staff, the petitioner, and anyone
here in the public to speak on this item, please stand and raise your
right hand.
Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in?
(The speakers were sworn).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
As you can see, the subject site is located on the west side of
Bayfront Drive. It's irregularly shaped. The petitioner is seeking
relief from the rear yard setback requirement of 25 feet to 15 feet to
allow for a proposed dwelling, single family.
The site is currently vacant and is platted. The petitioner or
the property owner received a variance in '96, a five foot variance to
allow for the reduction from 30 feet to 25 feet. The PUD requires a
30 foot setback on the rear when butting a bay. Interior lots have a
25 foot setback requirement.
It's staff's opinion that the -- the current owner did not create
this odd-shaped lot, and tried to develop plans to meet the existing
setback requirements, however, the floor plan just won't fit that
setback requirement.
It's staff's opinion that the granting of this variance will not
be in keeping with the general purpose and intent of the land
development code. However, it is unlikely that any detriment to the
public will occur from its approval.
The Planning Commission reviewed this petition on August 21st and
voted seven to two to approve Petition V-97-6. Their reasoning for
the objection was that he felt that the residence would be too large
for the site and appeared to be overly large for the homes in the
area.
As you can see, though, the home is typical of the homes in that
area and this only needs a setback on the rear and not the front.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, do we have any letters of
objection or comments from adjacent property owners or residents of
the immediate area?
MR. BELLOWS: No letters of objection. One letter in support.
However, during the Planning Commission, two individuals did speak in
opposition. However, the owner has met with the homeowner's
association. I believe he has more information on that.
MR. CARLISLE: The objection came from the president of the
homeowner --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name for the record?
MR. CARLISLE: Excuse me. My name for the record is Greg
Carlisle. I'm under contract to purchase the lot from Mr. Johnson.
The opposition came from the president of the homeowner's
association, Doug Grant. His opposition was primarily based on that
we did not meet with him prior to requesting a variance. We have
since met with Mr. Grant and he is in favor of this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have a letter from Mr. Grant to that
effect?
MR. CARLISLE: No, I do not. He was here before. He's not here
now, so--
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions for the petitioner or for
Mr. Bellows?
Do we have speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've seen this issue before in this area
and have a time or two over the last few years. I don't see much
that's really different on this particular case, so I'll make a motion
to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 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. Thank you, Mr. Bellows.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 97-379, RE PETITION CU-97-9, TIHOTHY W. FERGUSON, P.A.,
AGENT FOR EL ESPRESSO BUS COMPANY, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "12" OF
THE C-5 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A BUS TERMINAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF NEW MARKET ROAD AND STATE ROAD 29, IHMOKALEE,
CONSISTING OF 0.2 ACRES, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED
*** We're to Item 13(A)(2). This is also a petition CU-97-9,
conditional use. Timothy Ferguson, I have to say this, as agent for
E1 Espresso Bus Company, requesting conditional use 12 of the C-5
zoning district. This also is a quasi-judicial matter. All members
of the public, the petitioner and the staff who are here to testify on
this item, please stand and raise your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter?
(The speaker was sworn.)
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record.
This petition, if approved, would be entirely consistent with the
Immokalee area master plan. The Planning Commission heard this
petition and unanimously recommended approval.
The property is zoned C-5. A bus depot is a conditional use in
the C-5 district. It's completely surrounded with industrial zoning.
Actually, the ticket sales office is a permitted use. It's only
the storing of a bus. We recommend -- there are no objections to this
petition. No one has written us or otherwise voiced any objection.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, did we -- did we exempt the
Immokalee area from the commercial architectural standards?
MR. NINO: No, we did not. This petition will be subject to site
plan approval. However, our site plan approval -- the reason to
generate our site plan approval condition was more in terms of
landscaping and striping horizontal improvements, quite frankly.
We're dealing with an existing building. The building is occupied by
E1 Espresso. It really comes to us by virtue of a citation, and any
suggestion that architectural requirement be applied to the building,
I think, would extremely complicate matters.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of Mr. Nino?
Mr. Ferguson, do you have anything to add?
MR. FERGUSON: For purposes of the record, Tim Ferguson. I just
have to say that it's completely consistent with all your plans. The
-- the special conditions that were required have already been
complied with. It's already been striped. It's already -- it's
already ready to go, and unless you have any other questions, I think
-- I'm brief.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where does this bus operate to and from?
MR. FERGUSON: It comes -- Mr. Alvafez could probably answer
that, but it's based out of Texas, and they go out -- they're all
through the southeastern United States --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's basically migrant workers?
MR. FERGUSON: -- and Mexico, yeah.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not a local transportation service?
MR. FERGUSON: They have very nice buses, nicer than Greyhound's.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hr. Ferguson?
HR. FERGUSON: Yes, sir?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Go Gators.
MR. FERGUSON: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we done with the trivial matters, Mr.
Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers on this matter?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ferguson was the only speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
Is there a motion on this matter?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Move for approval.
Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. I need to say a motion
by Commissioner Berry, second by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five zero. Thank you.
Now to the item the hearty hopeful have been waiting for today,
and the baby seems to be doing well, so we're pleased with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like this feed them thing. That's a
good trick.
Item #13A3
PETITION CU-97-15, SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH REQUESTING CONDITIONAL
USE "2" OF THE "RSF-i" ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH AND RELATED USES
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 CARIBBEAN ROAD - DENIED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Item 13(A)(3), Petition CU-97-15, Seventh
Day Adventist Church requesting conditional use of an RSF-1 zoning
district. Also, because this is quasi-judicial, Mr. Reischl, members
of the petitioner's group and staff and any member of the public
wishing to speak on this item, please stand and raise your right hand.
Hadam Court Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And she couldn't do it, but we'll say the baby
raised her hand too, if she has anything to say.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just for purposes of disclosure, I had a
brief conversation with someone on the -- on one of the breaks today
about this matter, and I think I've received some correspondence.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had outside correspondence, but I'm
basing my decision on the hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've had discussions with the Civic
Association, individuals within and outside of Pine Ridge, and
although I've played phone tag with some representative of the
petitioner, never had a chance to speak to him. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I've had outside correspondence and meetings
with individuals involved in this particular discussion. CHAIRMAN
HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Reischl, please proceed.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Fred Reischl,
planning services.
This is a request for generally an expansion of a parking lot for
the existing Seventh Day Adventist Church which is located close to
the intersection of U.S. 41 and Pine Ridge Road. The existing Seventh
Day Adventist Church is on lot one. The subject lot is the adjacent
lot to the north. This is within the activity center. The lot in --
the subject lot is zoned RSF-1, a residential zoning district.
With regard to transportation, the staff report did the study on
a minor increase in traffic since the church itself is not expanding.
The -- basically the parking lot expansion is to alleviate an existing
problem with parking.
Staff also recommended that the driveway access that was shown on
the site plan provided the limited -- those two driveways on the
existing site we recommended be closed to traffic and the existing
driveway for the existing church be solely utilized, and the
petitioner has since agreed to that.
According to the growth management plan, this is within an
activity center. The neighboring properties are required to -- the
church is required to be buffered from the neighboring properties by a
type B buffer along the northern property line adjacent to residential
and along the Caribbean Road right of way with a type D buffer, a 20
foot type D buffer, since this is an activity center.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I get myself oriented, Mr. Reischl?
I know where the church is and what we're talking about is that
they want to expand the church activity in toward the Pine Ridge area
by one lot?
MR. REISCHL: One lot to the north, correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks.
MR. REISCHL: As far as compatibility is concerned, this seems to
be the major question. In residential districts, churches are
conditional uses, which, according to the land development code and
the growth management plan, if a use meets certain criteria, it is
then deemed to be compatible with the surrounding uses.
I have received numerous letters, phone calls, personal visits by
people of the surrounding community stating that they don't believe
that the expansion would be in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
One of the objections was that there would be, for a parking lot,
there would be removal of the existing pine trees which they say is a
characteristic of the Pine Ridge neighborhood, and I can let the
church speak for themselves, but in conversations with Mr. Rampton, he
has stated that the majority of the trees will remain, and that he has
committed to non-asphalt parking. Churches are allowed to have 70
percent of their parking as non-asphalt, and he has committed to both
of them, but again, I'll let him go on the record for that, and the
Planning Commission used the compatibility issue, as well as the
economic effect on the neighborhood as a reason they recommended
denial seven to zero.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The expansion is of the parking lot.
There's no request of expanded use of the sanctuary, there's no
expanded physical part to the sanctuary. It's just that they
currently have an overflow parking problem and they want to have
someplace to take care of that?
MR. REISCHL: Well, that -- again, I'll let Mr. Rampton explain
that a little further.
There is an existing single family house on the site, and that is
a complicating issue, because the original petition called for a use
as like fellowship. People would have meetings during Saturday
services, and in conversations with him, he has agreed to limit those
-- the use of the single family house. Therefore, the primary
direction of this petitioner would be to alleviate the parking problem
they currently have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say limit, how do you mean
limit, or do you mean eliminate?
MR. REISCHL: In the conversations we had, it was to limit it to
certain groups on Saturday mornings.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess my concern is if you wish to purchase
the house and use the parish residence, you could pursue a joint
parking agreement if you wanted to let them park on your property or
whatnot. My concern is, going with the conditional use, what can
happen down the road on these things is five, seven, ten years from
now, let's face it, most churches, you know, wish to grow. They wish
to gain in membership, they wish to gain in -- in people who attend
that church, and growth is a good sign for churches. That's -- a
pastor loves nothing more, and I have absolutely no problem with that,
but what we're seeing, I think, is a growth issue here.
The church has a building. It has existing parking. It's been
there for a very long time. By adding parking, you're now saying the
church can handle larger -- or more gracefully handle larger or new
types of events or maybe even more services at the same time. So
there's an intensification.
The bigger problem comes later when someone says, well, it's been
a conditional use for seven years. We've used it for parking. All we
want to do is expand our parish by a thousand feet. We already have
enough parking to do that, and I think it -- what it does is it opens
the door on that encroachment into a residential area further than
what is already there, and I think that -- that needs to be a concern.
We cannot tie a future board, but if there's a parking problem
and the parish and its contained site is too small, then let's go out
and get a new site. Let's start a building fund and let's go do that,
but expanding parking is a sign of intensification over what the
existing site can handle, and I'm concerned in neighborhoods that we
don't -- that we don't intensify those uses.
I personally wouldn't mind living next to a church. I think most
people wouldn't, but I think it's the concern over what may come down
the road, because once you begin down that path, it can easily
continue and grow.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But in fairness, we need to base our
decision on what's being asked for and not on what might be asked for
in five years. I understand your point, but we have to have a little
bit of faith that future boards will have the common sense we like to
think that we have, and aren't going to let additional uses encroach
on a neighborhood where they shouldn't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wanted to state it as a concern and whether
you use it or don't use it is up to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just a little uncomfortable trying
to use, you know, a hypothetical of what might happen seven years from
now as a manner to turn down something now or -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
Well, I felt before the parish speaks or before anyone else speaks, I
wanted to at least list those as concerns and we can go from there.
Any further comments for Mr. Reischl or questions for Mr.
Reischl?
Seeing none, let's go to speakers. Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Chris Lombardo, to be followed
by Arnold DeHart.
MR. REISCHL: I believe the petitioner is here too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we hear from the petitioner first.
Is the petitioner here? If you could come forward and state your name
and indicate whether or not you've been sworn.
REV. RAMPTON: Pastor Colin Rampton is my name. I am the pastor
of the Naples Seventh Day Adventist Church, representing 240 members
of the Naples Seventh Day Adventist Church, as well as a lot of winter
residents in addition to those members who come in during the winter
months.
I do not want to repeat what our planner has already indicated
over here, but I do recognize your concerns as far as intensity is
concerned. I believe you have a paper that was presented to you, was
given to you. It was handed to your secretaries on Friday, addressed
to the Collier County Board of Commissioners, Collier County Planning
Commission and officers of the Pine Ridge association. Do you have
that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do.
REV. RAMPTON: This was given to you preliminary to a business
meeting that our church had on Saturday night, and in that business
meeting, they voted this particular paper to be presented outlining
our concerns, as well as our initiative to do everything we possibly
can to be in harmony with the concerns of the Pine Ridge community.
We have been there in Pine Ridge and I correct this, it's more
than 25 years, it's 30 years we've been there. We were there before
many of the residents were there, and to kind of quote your chairman,
as you said, one of the first ones in and kind of set the mark in Pine
Ridge, and we want to work with Pine Ridge.
We never expected -- we never expected that this would come down
to a you, me situation, because we've been respectable members there
of Pine Ridge for years and years, and at our initial hearing two
weeks ago, I was completely mind boggled, I guess, by the decision of
the planning committee -- commissioners.
We could do very little about that except to come back and
appeal, and our -- like I said, our -- like has been presented, our
greatest concern is a concern for parking. I don't think Pine Ridge
Association would like us to be parking our cars down Caribbean Road.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not to mention, it's illegal.
REV. RAMPTON: Well -- okay. So we wouldn't do that anyway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
REV. RAMPTON: And we certainly don't want to do that, but what
we have done in our parking lot at the present time is, instead of
having regular nine foot spaces, we've cut them down to approximately
seven feet. So people are complaining about knocked in doors and
chipped doors and all that kind of stuff and difficulty getting out of
their vehicles and this type of thing, and so that's the kind of thing
we deal with.
A question has come up regarding the removal of trees. Now, I
have indicated that there may be a possibility that we may remove
them. When I say them, there are some pine trees in the front.
However, and I think we need to be consistent here, if anybody came in
and purchased that property as a residence, I believe that they could
come in and cut down any tree they wanted to because they own the
property; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, that's correct.
REV. RAMPTON: And therefore, it would be consistent that we
would have that right also, wouldn't it?
Now, I'm not saying we're going to cut down trees. Our desire is
to keep that property in its original setting, looking like it is, and
I've stated that in this paper.
Two years from now, that property's going to look a whole lot
better than it does now, because the property is run down. You're
talking about other people in the neighborhood complaining about a
church perhaps causing or other facilities around their properties
causing the devaluation of their property.
There is a property that is -- it is the next property, beyond
the one that we're talking about, that has been on the market for at
least a year and a half. That's as long as I've lived in Naples, but
it was there on the market for sale. It's been -- and it hasn't sold
yet, and I don't believe for a moment that it has not sold because of
the church, because the church is a very nice looking facility, and
we've done our utmost to make it look that way.
I think there is a greater concern that that property, because of
its proximity to Pine Ridge Road, which is a very busy road, and the
drugs and everything else that goes on across the street, that is a
greater concern to people wanting to buy that property than the
church.
There is one other issue that I would like to bring to your
attention, and because this is a request from a church, I would like
to ask the Collier County Commission if they have considered the
religious implications as far as our rights are concerned, as far as
the first amendment rights that we have as a church.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have we considered whether not approving a
conditional use of a property for expansion of parking keeps you from
practicing your first amendment right of freedom of religion? Is that
your question, Pastor Rampton?
REV. RAMPTON: Well, I can perhaps go into it a little more than
that if I wanted to. I mean, that's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You asked the question. I'm just trying to
clarify it.
REV. RAMPTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that your question?
REV. RAMPTON: Well, I know you're establishing an ethics
committee and you have legal counsel, but because this is a church,
I'm simply assuming that you have looked at those ramifications.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'd be happy to assure you that the
-- the vote that I make and I -- I would be willing to gamble almost
anything that the vote of everybody on this board is going to be based
on whether or not this is an appropriate land use and not whether or
not we like your church or we like your particular religion. It's not
relevant, and you can be assured that this board's not going to
consider that.
We're gonna look at land use factors and nothing else.
REV. RAMPTON: Okay. Could I ask another question?
Is it --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your time has expired.
Let me ask, Commissioner Norris, you had a question?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I have a question for you, sir.
Who owns the subject property today?
MR. MULLER: I have that information. It's Dr. and Mrs. Meade.
REV. RAMPTON: The property was purchased because it came -- it
came under default about six months ago. It was purchased by some
investors. They added their price to it and it became available. It
became available to us -- it was available about five years ago to us,
and for some unknown reason, we were not able to purchase it, not
because we didn't want to, but there were other circumstances, I
guess.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So the church -- the answer is that the
church today does not own the property?
REV. RAMPTON: We have a contract on the property, but the
contract is dependent upon the decision of this committee this
afternoon.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. That's my question. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We -- I know we have public speakers on this.
Are there additional questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got one question. I had asked
our staff about the, quote, limited use of the building there. I
don't, frankly, have a whole lot of problem with the parking,
considering it's going to not be paved and so on, it doesn't bother me
as much, but if we're looking at additional activities and so on, I've
got a concern. So what do you envision using the structure for?
REV. RAMPTON: The fact is we're interested in the property and
not the structure. The structure's 35 years old. It needs a lot of
improvements. There's $20,000 worth of improvements to bring it up to
par, from what we can gather.
We do have a problem at the present time on Saturday mornings.
We don't have enough room for classes. We would use it on Saturday
mornings from this -- this time period that I've spoken about. As far
as additional intensity, we're talking about a three hour period from
9:30 to 12:30 on Saturday mornings, when most of the neighborhood is
still probably asleep, but that's the major use. Possibly some use on
Saturday evenings for youth activities, but we have -- we don't have
any other use for it, basically.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I need you to confirm this, since
Mr. -- since Pastor Rampton has raised a first amendment issue. The
practice of religious freedoms is in no way, shape or form the element
of consideration on a land use petition such as this; is that correct?
HR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And any member of this Board that turns it
down because they don't like the taste, color or smell of the religion
is acting inappropriately; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Rampton, does that settle your
concern?
REV. RAMPTON: It was not my intent to threaten the Commission.
I was simply asking a question because these things don't come up.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, they come up rather often.
REV. RAMPTON: Do they really?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very regularly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do a lot of church fezones, and more get
approved than don't.
REV. RAMPTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions for Pastor Rampton?
Thank you.
Do we have further speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First speaker is Chris
Lombardo. The second speaker is Arnold DeHart.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The gentleman who stood up and raised your
hand, we have a -- you need to fill out a speaker slip if you're going
to -- if you're requesting to speak. They are out in the hallway on a
table, and you'll be called in order.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't see Mr. Lombardo.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Lombardo left. Okay.
So we'll skip him and go to Mr. DeHart, followed by --
MR. FERNANDEZ: DeHart and then Himi Watson.
MR. DEHART: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I am Arnold DeHart.
I am secretary of the Pine Ridge Civic Association. Chris Lombardo is
our president. He was here to speak and had another engagement. He
had to leave.
He would like to have expanded the concept raised several times
here about the reasonable right of expectation. He would plead that a
resident of Pine Ridge who moved into a primarily residential
community would see that it would stay a primarily residential
community.
For the record, I'm sworn, and I would proceed with observing
that the Pine Ridge subdivision, which was originally platted in
1954, it was one of the very early planned residential communities in
Collier County.
The developer specified in this first Pine Ridge sub, and in the
later extensions, areas for single family homes, businesses,
agricultural areas, multi-family development and churches. This was
done before the days of the PUD's, which comes under county control.
Our only protection is the covenants and restrictions set forth
by the developer. At the time that they were done, they were the
state of the art. They are now old and outdated in several respects,
but we will always rise to defend the central theme, that the original
design areas in Pine Ridge subdivision will remain so designated.
The Pine Ridge Civic Association is committed to maintaining the
single family residential character of the community. As given in the
covenants and restrictions that we have, and more specifically in our
resolution, the board will not support efforts to make changes by
modifying zoning or the applicable declaration of covenants and
restrictions unless first it is shown by compelling circumstances and
that the continuation of the residential usage is no longer feasible,
and that other uses are not injurious to the adjoining properties, and
two, that by an appropriate vote of the lot owners, that's like 50
percent plus one, there is a stated desire to amend the applicable
declarations of covenants and restrictions.
Since neither one or two of our resolution has not been
satisfied, the board of directors of the Pine Ridge Civic Association
cannot and will not support the subject petition. Please deny the
petitioner's request to fezone the subject property to a use other
than that originally intended.
I have a personal property (sic) with the fact that this -- for
granting a conditional route -- conditional use for a church parking
lot when the church is trying to sell their property. There's been a
for sale sign on the lot now for several years.
We respectfully request that you reject this petition. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. DeHart, I need to ask you this because I
know you're a past president of the civic association? MR. DEHART: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aren't there -- I know of at least three
churches that are in Pine Ridge; is that correct or is there more?
MR. DEHART: They are in O, which was designated for churches in
our original covenants.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All three churches then are designated --
designated originally for churches? MR. DEHART: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The subject church, I am told, I wasn't here
then, is where it is because at that time, in the activity center and
our business area, there was a fire station, and they agreed to put --
the church could go there and act as a buffer, but the fire station
has since moved.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Susan Timmins and then --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Himi Watson.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. WATSON: I'm on deck.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Himi Watson, and then Susan Timmins. Sorry.
MS. WATSON: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Himi Watson, and
I'm a resident of Pine Ridge, and also on the board of directors of
the Pine Ridge Civic Association.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Hiss Watson, have you been sworn
in?
MS. WATSON: I have been sworn. I was about to say that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I just wanted to get that on the
record.
MR. WATSON: My husband and I have lived at 43 East Avenue since
1959. We have seen a lot of changes in Pine Ridge. When we first
moved there, there were five houses on our street. Now there's only
vacant lots where the egg ranch was.
Pine Ridge, as Arnold said, was extended twice, and the Pine
Ridge extension and then the Pine Ridge second extension, but we are
the Pine Ridge subdivision. The map that I have given you, I have
colored in, but the -- the face of it is the original Pine Ridge
subdivision. The rest of it is the extension, and this is colored in
by -- because of the petitions that we circulated, and we have 120
signatures representing 86 homes in the Pine Ridge total subdivision.
We have support from the other areas as well. Pine Ridge is a very
unique area. All the residential lots are one acre and larger, and
they are zoned RSF-1. We are surrounded by major highways, four and
six lane highways on every side of Pine Ridge now.
When we first moved to Pine Ridge, there was a two lane road that
went to the railroad and stopped, and 41 was two lane. Vanderbilt
extension was not built. Goodlette Road wasn't even started, and so
it's changed a lot.
But we do have a lot of young families with children moving into
Pine Ridge, and so we want to preserve the essence of Pine Ridge. It
is a -- well, we are protesting the attempted encroachment into our
residential area.
It would alter the character of our area, and as you can see, we
have support from a lot of people who want to preserve Pine Ridge as
it is and as it has always been.
You have copies of the petitions. Dick Grant was here and he is
also a resident of Pine Ridge and he left a letter to the
commissioners. He couldn't stay, and so I'll pass this on, and you
all can look at his letter.
If you want, I'll read it, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you'll just enter it into the record, that
will be sufficient.
MS. WATSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll give her a copy of what has handed to the
board, Miss Watson, for the record.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Susan Timmins and then Jim
Anderson.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm willing to hold the baby.
MS. TIMMINS: I'm sorry. She's gonna cry.
First of all, did you receive the memorandum, the Collier County
Planning Commission, Community Development and Environmental Services;
is that right?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MS. TIMHINS: All right. Good. A lot of this has to do with
that.
My name is Susan Timmins and I live at 76 Caribbean Road with my
husband and our three children. Our home is five lots north of the
subject property on the east side of Caribbean.
We are extremely concerned about the traffic impact that will
result from the proposed conditional use. Simply stated, the proposed
expansion of a non-residential use in a long-established residential
neighborhood zoned RSF-1 is not consistent with the character of the
neighborhood.
While I'm not a traffic engineer and have never even seen an ITE
trip generation manual, I offer the following three or four
observations and comments to the July 10th, 1997 memorandum from
Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services to the
Planning Commission regarding Petition CU-97-15.
Item number one, under the heading requested action, the
applicant requests approval of a conditional use for expansion of
church parking and accessory church uses. What are accessory church
uses?
The memo also states that the existing building will also be used
for offices and a fellowship home. This is the building, the
additional building that they were talking about. What precisely is a
fellowship home and what are its hours of operation?
If we do not have absolute clarity on these issues, then how will
Collier County know if the church is operating within its conditional
use limits and the traffic impact?
Item number two, under the heading transportation infrastructure
and environmental impact, the memo states that the ITE trip generation
manual indicates that the proposed fellowship home church will
generate 15 to 20 trips on a weekday. Why is there no reference to
the trip generations on a weekend which is the busiest time for a
traditional church operation?
Doesn't it make sense to consider the traffic generated on these
two busy days, especially given the fact that the weekend is when
neighborhood families are most apt to be outside playing and riding
bikes in the street?
Further, if 15 to 20 trips will be generated on a weekday, and
this is the assumption under which staff determined that the expanding
conditional use will not negatively impact traffic volumes, then why
does the applicant's own site plan show 50 parking spaces? This does
not pass any test of common sense, particularly given the fact that
these 50 parking spaces can turn over two, three, four or more times a
day.
Item number three, there is no reference in the memo regarding
the fact that the Seventh Day Adventist Christian school provides nine
grade levels of education, kindergarten through eight. A sign is
posted on the property advertising this fact, and the school is listed
in the yellow pages. What does the ITE trip generation manual say
about the traffic generation for a private school serving grades K
through eight? Was this considered?
Further, it is likely that the existing home located on the
subject property would be utilized to expand the school operation
under the heading, related church use. Was this considered when
analyzing the traffic impact? It appears that this is not the case.
Number four, my fourth and final issue relates to item A of the
staff analysis section of the memo. This section correctly states
that since the property is in an activity center, that the proposed
use is consistent with the growth management plan. While this may be
technically true, it would be tragically ironic if the activity center
concept were somehow twisted and used as a conduit through which
non-residential uses were injected into long-established residential
neighborhoods.
The activity center concept was born to keep non-residential --
non-residential development out of residential neighborhoods. Let's
remember this fact.
In summary, I believe that to actually -- accurately determine
the traffic impact of the proposed conditional use, one must consider
the full extent of the current church, private school, related church
uses, offices and fellowship home. These uses are not separate. They
are intertwined, just like the real estate under them.
To suggest that the proposed conditional use will generate 15 to
20 trips on a weekday is an incomplete and flawed way of evaluating
the real world situation before you today.
While I am happy that the church, school and fellowship
activities are successful, their expanded presence is not consistent
with the neighborhood, poses far greater traffic impacts than reported
and therefore creates a safety hazard for all residents in the area.
We're opposed to this conditional use application.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Last speaker, Jim Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon. My name's Jim Anderson. I'm one
of the deacons up at the church.
I've noticed, as I've been there for the past couple of years,
that the parking during the week is more than ample. There's only a
couple of cars there during the week, which is a couple of teachers
and a couple people that work in the office of the church, and that
doesn't turn over three or four times a day. We've got, you know,
a pile of parking spaces and you're only using a couple of them.
On the weekends, the amount of traffic that would be in addition
coming down the side road there where this lady said her home is,
right now, I've actually stood outside, and I'm one of the earlier
persons to get there to the church, and if I count five cars coming
down there that come into our church, that's a lot, and I think that's
a little bit less than the amount of homes they said have been
developed there within the last 25 years.
I'm sure those homes have at least one and a half cars per home,
and that comes up to a little bit more than five if you've got that
many new homes in there. So the amount of traffic that the church is
causing on that road is negligible to the amount of homes being built
in the area itself.
Going back to the -- the looks of the property with trees and
whatnot, if any of you take a ride up through there, as I have, you'll
find some of the properties are virtually bare. You'll also find that
there's a massive amount of tree cutting going on where the top of
Caribbean goes left heading west toward 41, and you'll find there's a
tremendous amount of tree cutting out there, and I haven't heard
anything about that from anyone worried about that situation.
We don't plan on cutting down all the trees. There may be a
couple of small trees that may be in the way, but in no way do we
intend to have the church area look out of place from what is there
now.
There's a lot of new homes going in that actually do look out of
place there, if you compare them with the older homes.
That just about sums it up. Like I said, I -- I've taken notice
of what's going on there, and I can't see any way that the figures
that the previous speaker had would in any way be accurate. Just from
my standpoint and what I have seen, they're extremely inaccurate
figures as far as traffic going through there.
Like I said, I've only counted about five cars coming in. That's
on a Saturday morning. That's our busiest time, and during the week,
I don't know that there's any.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Any further speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing.
We always -- we sometimes say jokingly that there's a couple
people we don't say no to and God's one of them, and it would be the
desire to assist churches in getting where they want to go, and to
provide places for them in the community, I think, is something that
we have done for the most part.
I guess where I draw a difference, and I have voted against one
fezone in the past on a church because I thought it was inappropriate
for its setting, but Pine Ridge is different than most communities.
When they built Pine Ridge initially and platted it, they said,
okay, here are places in which we would like to set aside for
neighborhood churches, and those were developed for that purpose, for
a neighborhood church.
The Seventh Day Adventist Church there is just that. It's a
neighborhood size church. What happens is when you start going and
expanding or adding to that increase in the parking, is you start
pushing outside of a neighborhood size into what my brother-in-law
calls church world.
You know, now it seems that when churches are built, half of them
are tens of thousands of square feet and a ton of parking and so
forth. I think it's important for the people in Pine Ridge, because
when they -- they bought homes in there, there were places set aside
for neighborhood churches, that that is an integrity issue that may be
a little different than if we're looking at a piece of property along
an arterial road elsewhere.
I think the provision was made. I think it's -- it's healthy to
do that, and I think it's healthy to -- to hold future land owners to
that provision, and for that reason, I'm not going to support the
petition. It has nothing to do with the Seventh Day Adventist Church
being a good or bad neighbor, but simply has to do with the planning
issues in that neighborhood, how they've been met and how they need to
continue to be met in the future.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that's a very important point that
the subdivision was laid out with churches -- property set aside in
the original master plan. The -- the -- this particular church is not
part of that. As we've heard, it took over the old fire station when
the fire department moved to another place. So they're not even, in
the present facility, in the church designated zones.
I would feel the same on any other church, in a church designated
zone, that wanted to step out into residential property in this
particular case because the church zones were set aside in the first
place.
The point of doing that was so that you did make a boundary and
you didn't have expansions into the residential components, and so for
those -- for that reason, I'm going to also not support the proposal.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question for staff, because I, to
date, haven't ever voted against a church application, and don't want
to start, but I -- but I am very persuaded by the idea that in Pine
Ridge there are designated sites, and I guess I'm asking you, on the
plat of Pine Ridge, are there sites that are designated for churches,
and if -- and are there other -- because this issue comes up in Golden
Gate. When they come in for conditional use for a church, that --
that they, you know, it's a residential neighborhood, we don't want
this in our -- in our residential neighborhood.
Are there any zoning districts in the -- in the county that are
designated church sites? We've talked about this, I think, a few
times. I'm afraid I know the answer to that and that the answer is
no, but in Pine Ridge in the -- in the platted subdivision, are there
church lots?
MR. MULLER: There are -- there are specific sites that, in the
deed restrictions call for it, but they are also zoned RSF-1.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this -- this is not one of the
specific sites so designated in the -- so let me ask you this
question. Maybe this is a Mr. Weigel question. Whether we approve
this or not, it still has to go to the private deed restriction issue?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's one thing we always have to --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know it's separate, but I guess what I'm
asking is, have you -- do we know if there's a deed restriction
prohibiting the use of this property as a church?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I personally don't know. I don't know if it's
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't know, and it's probably better
to keep that out of the discussion anyway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think we would have had reason to
investigate that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep, you're right, but there are
designated church sites in this --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did I misunderstand, or has this
church been at this site for 30 years?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thirty years.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So when we talk about designated
church sites, if something's been in use, particularly in this county,
for 30 years --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's old.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's pretty well established.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Practically historic in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess we need to move at least off center on
this. I'm going to make a motion that we deny Petition CU-97-15 on
the basis that the additional parking represents an intensification of
an existing conditional use, that intensity would be borne by a very
low-density residential area. I'd establish that as a finding.
The other element I've already stated is that we have many sites
for neighborhood churches in the Pine Ridge community, and I think if
a church is going to grow beyond a neighborhood size, there are more
appropriate locations in the balance of the community than Pine Ridge
or my neighborhood or anyone else's for that fact, and I encourage
them to seek out those opportunities and options, but I don't think
this is an appropriate place for that expansion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question on the motion -- well, actually,
a question of staff. It's not on the motion, so I should wait and see
if there's a second.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'll second the motion based on the fact
that, number one, I don't think there is a church, during the winter
season down here, that doesn't suffer a problem from a parking
perspective; number two, the fact that you are right on the edge of a
residential area; number three, the fact that there are some
designated places within that particular area for this, and the
covenants as expressed by the homeowner's association, all those
things relating, I -- I just don't see how you can go ahead and
enlarge this particular area.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Reischl?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, my question is where are we on those
-- maybe it's for Mr. Cautero, but where are we in developing
standards so that we give churches some idea of where we think it's
appropriate planning for churches to go in to expand. We've talked
about it a lot.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: You know, Pam, I have noticed recently there
-- just for an example, I know that the North Naples United Methodist
Church, I believe they're going to be leaving their site and have
obtained another site, another church site.
Now, one of the concerns for them doing this is the growth of
their particular church, and I think that that's something that a
church has to make that decision. If you have outgrown your
particular site, then I think you have to make that decision and do
whatever's necessary.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That church --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to know how they did it, you know,
what was -- you know, their -- I don't know who's taking over their
site, I have no clue, but I do know that they're going to be leaving
that site and the sign is up, I believe, on a piece of property off of
Goodlette Extension, indicating the new site for their church.
So, you know, there must be sites out there that are available
and, you know, if this becomes a major problem, then I think that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The question Commissioner Hac'Kie asked of Mr.
Cautero is that we had a request from the clergy, really, help us
understand the rules, because there are some, you know, it is a little
-- it depends upon how the community really is willing to accept it,
the scale of it and so forth. I'm not sure we can ever develop rules
to make those absolute, but just quickly, Mr. Cautero, because we do
have an individual land use decision in front of us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Have we started to develop anything along
those lines?
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cantetc. I haven't been sworn, but I believe
the question's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The question's not relevant to this.
MR. CAUTERO: The staff is looking at that in relation to our
second cycle, that we see amendments, and I don't -- I don't believe
it's been prepared, if they plan to prepare some documentation for
that, but it's something that we would certainly be able to do outside
of that process.
I -- I will check with Bob Hulhere and Wayne Arnold. I don't
know if they've proceeded at this point or how far they are.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And for people who live in Pine Ridge, I'm
disappointed to hear that North Naples Methodist Church is moving out
of my back yard. I mean, that's where they are, and they're a
wonderful neighbor. I mean, churches are great neighbors.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They're not moving far, but maybe the Seventh
Day Adventists want to take their old building. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Talk to them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
Is there a discussion on the motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just repeat the motion before you call
it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion is to deny Petition CU-97-15 based
on two findings. The first is that the additional parking on the
adjacent lot represents an intensification of an existing conditional
use in a residential area. The second is that this, with Pine Ridge
having set aside areas within the deed restrictions for church use and
community use, I think if you're going to expand beyond that, off site
makes a lot more sense and then allow the on site to continue to be
neighborhood style churches, not larger than that.
That's the basis for my motion, and seconded by Commissioner
Berry.
I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
use .
simple majority.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion is three two to deny the conditional
Mr. Weigel, is that sufficient for denial?
MR. WEIGEL: That is sufficient.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure we didn't have a
Okay. Then 97-15 is denied.
Item #14
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
*** We are to staff communications on our agenda. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing. Happy to be here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Besides that, you're hungry?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That lunch thing is really bothering me now.
I didn't expect to go till three o'clock today.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I have some long, drawn-out remarks to make to
indicate that I'm also --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean you've lengthened them in the
meantime?
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- happy to be here, and thank you very much for
that recommendation today. That was a real surprise, and I really
appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations. I think it's an
accomplishment to stay 25 years in a form, any form of government.
It's tough to do, particularly on a local level where you're held more
accountable than I would say at a state or federal position.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's true. Thank you.
Item #15
BCC COMMUNICATIONS - LDC MEETING TO BE HELD ON 12/3/97 AND 12/17/97
AT 5:05 P.M.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Board of County Commissioners communication.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'm making it unanimous. We're out of
here, kids.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Hancock, you need to announce the LDC.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, is that a part of our agenda?
MS. FILSON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reconvene the Board of County Commissioners
meeting.
We need to announce the scheduled land development code
amendments and make sure Miss Brighton has this for Mr. Constantine's
schedule, because I know he goes up to that great white north.
The LDC hearings are scheduled for December 3rd and December 17th
at 5:05 p.m. It requires a super majority vote, which is four out of
five, so everyone needs to be here on December 3rd and December 17th.
They will be at 5:05 p.m., should not last more than two hours each.
How's that?
With that, we're adjourned.
Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris, and
carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda
be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "MAPLEWOOD UNIT THREE" - WITH LETTER OF
CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "HUNTINGTON LAKES UNIT THREE" - WITH
PERFORMANCE BOND, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3 - Continued
Item #16A4
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF PELICAN STRANT REPLAT 1B - WITH LETTER OF
CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5 - Moved to Item #SA1
Item #16B1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR A PORTION OF
PROPERTY KNOWN AS OUTLOT "B" QUAIL CREEK UNIT TWO
Item #1682
EFFLUENT USE AGREEMENT WITH THE VINEYARDS UTILITIES, INC.
Item #1683
BID #97-2726 FOR CHLORINATOR EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FOR PUBLIC WORKS
WASTEWATER AND WATER DEPARTMENTS - AWARDED TO WATER TREATEHENT AND
CONTROLS COMPANY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA
Item #1684
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER SHORTFALL IN ROAD CONSTRUCTION - GAS TAX FUND
(313) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,400.00
Item #1685 - Deleted
Item #1686
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL CARRY FORWARD INTEREST EARNED
AND ANY ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE-OUT
WESTLAKE BEAUTIFICATION HSTU FUND 135
Item #1687
ACCEPTANCE OF AN EASEMENT FROM ST. KATHERINE'S GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH,
INC. FOR A RIGHT-TURN LANE ON AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD - WITH STIPULATION
Item #1688
A_MENDHENT NO. 3 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEHENT WITH COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND
SURVEYING SERVICES NECESSARY IN PERFORMANCE OF ANNUAL MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT PROJECT
Item #16B9
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FOR
4 INCH SEWER FORCE MAIN
Item #16B10
BID NO. 97-2699, WIGGINS PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING - AWARDED TO LAKE
MICHIGAN CONTRACTORS, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $368,712.50 - WITH
STIPULATION
Item #16Bll
ONE YEAR RENEWAL OF CONTRACT 95-2422 FOR FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES AND NEGOTIATED RATE SCHEDULE FOR EACH FIRMAS
INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B12
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF ADDITIONAL
SERVICES ON THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN -
IN AN A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $257,620.00
Item #16B13
SECOND LEASE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND CITY OF
NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Item #16B14
PROPOSALS FOR RFP #97-2649 "RECYCLING OR REMOVAL OF AGRICULTURAL
PLASTIC MULCH" AT THE IHMOKALEE LANDFILL - REJECTED
Item #16B15
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NAPLES
ASSOCIATES FOR ROAD IMPACT FEES IN RETURN FOR DONATION OF LAND FOR
RADIO ROAD, CIE NO. 16 - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16B16
BID #92-2703 FOR BAGGED ICE FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE SECTION - AWARDED
TO THE SOLE BIDDER, NAPLES ICE
Item #16B17 - Moved to Item #882
Item #16B18
FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO COMPLETE WORK TO REPLACE
GOLDEN GATE WELLS #11 AND #16
Item #16B19
BID #97-2727 FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO TRIAXLE DUMP TRUCKS FOR THE
WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT - AWARDED TO WALLACE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS,
INCORPORATED IN THE A_MOUNT OF $158,888.00
Item #16820
AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HAZEN &
SAWYER, P.C., FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY 5-HGD EXPANSION, CONTRACT #96-2472 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$768,895.00
Item #16C1
STATE CONTRACT PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND SHELVING FOR THE MARCO ISLAND
BRANCH LIBRARY RENOVATION IN EXCESS OF $25,000.01, ACCORDING TO COUNTY
PURCHASING POLICY
Item #16C2
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DR. MARTA U. COBURN, H.D. FLORDIA
DISTRICT 20 MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOING BUSINESS
AS DISTRICT 20 MEDICAL EXAMINER - IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,783.00
SEMIMONTHLY THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
Item #16C3
ANNUAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT FOR THE 97-98 FISCAL YEAR
Item #16D1
LIHITED USE LICENSE AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND WE CARE
MINISTRIES, INC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILIZING COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY
WEST OF THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER FOR A FUND RAISER TO BE HELD
ON OCTOBER 4, 1997
Item #16D2
RECOHMENDATION REGARDING PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE - THE PURCHASE
OF NORTHFIELD ALL LINES AGGREGATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE PROGRAM
AND ADDITIONAL EXCESS COVERAGES AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY,
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1997; AND THE PURCHASE OF AIRPORT LIABILITY,
BOILER & MACHINERY, POLLUTION LIABILITY, STATUTORY ACCIDENTAL DEATH,
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LIABILITY COVERAGES AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1997
Item #16D3
CONTRACTUAL AGREEHENT WITH EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT
FOR FIRE AND RESCUE PROTECTION SERVICES WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 97-367, ACCEPTING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS
Item #16D5 - Moved to Item #8D2
Item #16El
BUDGET A~ENDMENT 97-442, 97-452, 97-454 AND 97-467
Item #16E2
LINE ITEM TRANSFER REQUEST FROM NORTH NAPLES LITTLE LEAGUE FOR THE
FIVE-EVENT WEEKEND, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS SPECIAL EVENTS
Item #16E3
LINE ITEM TRANSFER FOR THE MARCO ISLAND SPORTS FESTIVAL, TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, SPECIAL EVENTS
Item #16E4
BUDGET A~ENDHENT IN THE A~OUNT OF $29,975.33 FROM RESERVES IN
ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO THE NAPLES AREA
ACCOHMODATION ASSOCIATION FOR BROCHURES
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
Item #16H1
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,560.00 TO COVER THE INCREASE IN
THE FY-97 TAX INCREMENT PAYMENT TO THE NAPLES COHMUNITY REDEVELOPHENT
AGENCY
Item #16H2
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR PUBLIC GUARADIANSHIP ACCOUNT - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$22,319.00
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:01 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
presented or as corrected
· as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
BY TRACI L. BRANTNER AND HEATHER L. CASASSA, RPR