BCC Minutes 12/16/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1997
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Collier County Commissioners in
and
for the County of Collier, 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
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Barbara B. Berry
ALSO PRESENT:
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Bob Fernandez, County Administrator
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
to
of
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone
the December 16th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. It
a pleasure this morning to have once again Rabbi James Perman of
Temple Shalom here to bless us with an invocation this morning.
Rabbi Perman, welcome, and we'll follow that with the pledge
allegiance.
RABBI PERMAN: We turn to you, oh, God, this day as we
assemble
in this chamber. We are grateful that you have brought us together
in
health and safety and in well-being.
In this joyful season of the year, we turn the pages of our
lives. We turn to you as we prepare to enter a new year. We thank
you for the sense of purpose we feel in our great nation and for
the
opportunity for public service in our county. We thank you for the
partnership of those who govern and those who are governed and the
obligation of all to carry a fair share of responsibility.
Almighty God, move us to put our whole trust in you and in
your
powerful spirit of love. Hay we draw from you that goodness which
alone gives meaning to our efforts. Inspire us with the power of
faith toward tolerance and decency, intelligence and character.
May
of
we come to fulfill the promise of all that we can be.
We pray for the safety of our great country. By our skill and
with your help, we have brought forth abundance. May we, in our
lifetime, see an end to hunger and fear among all the inhabitants
our land.
May your blessing rest upon us this day, upon the
deliberations
of this body, and may all, in the future, remember our time as that
in
which the progress of the county was made secure.
Bless all our homes and our country with the abundance of your
blessings. Amen.
(Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rabbi Perman, once again thank you for
taking
the time to be with us this morning. Happy holidays to you, sir.
All right. Mr. Fernandez, good morning.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do we have in the way of changes?
I see adds and no deletes. That's not a good sign.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, we have four requests to add
items.
of
The first is add Item 8(A)(2), which is the discussion of the City
Marco Island Interlocal Agreement. It's a staff request. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have the request to add Item 8(B)(3),
approve
work order to replace three public water supply wells, staff
request.
We have add Item 8(B)(4), terminate contract with Sovereign
Construction Group, Incorporated for bid Number 96-2588, Riviera
Colony Phase Two utility improvements.
And, finally, we have add Item 10(I), discussion regarding
adoption of a budget for court administration requested by
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the Item 10(I), Commissioner Hac'Kie, is
there anything new or significant that -- because we just had that
discussion a few weeks ago and had a direction that the board chose
to
take.
Is there anything new or additional in that information,
because
I've been watching the correspondence from the clerk to us, from
chief
judge to the clerk, and, quite frankly, I happen to feel that the
chief judge has made the commitments he needed to make to make sure
this problem gets resolved, and I really think it's between them.
I'm
the
not anxious to hear it, to be honest with you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, my only thought is this, is there
are, as Commissioner Constantine referenced when we discussed it
last time, a significant number of people who are innocent
bystanders
who are being harmed by this. As I understand it, and if you have
some information that I don't, please tell me, there is not a way
that
they are to be paid, that the contract vendees are to be paid.
We're
losing interpreters, we're losing -- some serious crises are
resulting
in the court system as a result of this ongoing dispute.
My simple reason for adding this to today's agenda was in the
hope that we would step back, realize that there are two positions
that have been advanced -- and we've gotten correspondence this
week
from both sides. But as I reviewed the two positions that have
been
advanced, Judge Starnes says the county commission adopted a budget
already. The clerk says the county commission did not adopt a
budget.
It seems, to me, a simple solution to either reinstate the
budget
that the judge says we adopted or adopt the budget that the clerk
says
we didn't adopt and make this go away so people can get paid and
the
court administration system can go on.
I think that we owe it to the people who are working without
pay
and the people who are no longer able to work. You must have
gotten
those letters, too, from people who have quit their jobs, working
at
K-mart and bouncing checks. You know, I just don't think we can
continue to ignore that since we have the power to solve the
problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think there's anything wrong with
working at K-mart.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, not anything's wrong -- what's
wrong
with it is they've quit their careers and are bouncing checks. And
I
SO
iS
jUSt want to ask you to look at it and see if we don't want to --
many times we have what's perceived to be power that isn't. This
one of those rare occasions where we actually have the power to
solve
the problem for the people who are being harmed, and I'd like for
us
to look at it again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As you know, a couple weeks ago --
agree with you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, that it's unfortunate the
number
of innocent bystanders are getting hung up in this thing. We have
people that, particularly during the -- there's no good time to be
short on money, but particularly during the holiday season it's not
good. I don't, however, know if we have new information on really
add
so
on
despite the fact that you and I were in the minority a couple weeks
ago, I don't want to revisit it if we don't have something new to
to it and rehash the same information.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I was hoping that all the
correspondence that had come into our offices over the last week or
might have provided some information to at least one other member
the board that maybe somebody else had gotten enough new
information
to reconsider their choice. Unless you guys want to tell me it's
not
a possibility, I wish we would discuss it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris and then Commissioner
Berry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think it's very unfortunate that
these people have been put in this position, but at the same time,
there are, as you pointed out yourself, two sides to this issue.
You're asking us to take one side not knowing whether we're right
our
not, and I'm not prepared to do that.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think the issue should be settled by
the
clerk and the court, the chief judge, and when the determination is
made, then we can do it. Unfortunately, they're trying to -- the
clerk is trying to put us in the middle of this deal and take his
side
and settle the issue. Well, you know, I don't think that's the
appropriate thing to do. This procedure was legal for two years
and
let
now, all of a sudden, it's not. I would rather -- I'd prefer to
it work itself out through the proper channels rather than us
trying
to come in and do it unilaterally.
And the other thing is it appears we've already had the
discussion, so I don't see any reason to put it back on T. and I.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I see no reason to put it back on the
agenda. The only thing -- and I'm sure we all got the information
that was received in here yesterday, and if you will go to Page 4,
if
you happen to have that information with you --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is that, Ms. Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: This is the one that it's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: From the --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- dated December 15th.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We sent it to you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have it. Thank you. I just didn't
know
which one.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: The second paragraph, I believe -- I
don't
know what venue they have to do this, but I would assume that there
must be something -- it says, in conclusion, we will make sure that
interpreters are paid, court reporters are paid and vendors are
paid.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's my question. I would like
to
I'm
two
have the discussion so that we can find out today how that's going
happen.
Let me be real clear in what I'm asking us to consider. What
asking is not that we take sides, but that we do -- there are only
sides here. The judge says we adopted a budget. The clerk says we
didn't adopt a budget. We can solve the problem by saying the
budget
is adopted, either it was already or it is today. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me, Pam.
Are you willing, then, to sit down and say, what are we going
to
do about the sheriff's office?
You're talking about constitutional officers' budgets here.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if you will let the discussion
happen
today, you'll hear there are statutory distinctions.
There are
statutes that have to do with the sheriff's office, the property
appraiser and the tax collector. There is a statutory distinction
here about the method for payment and --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But there is also an agreement in place
here
that has been in place.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I may, it sounds like, to me, we're
having
the discussion already.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But it boils down to whether we're going
to
put this on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I'm not going to support the
item
on the agenda --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The voice of God. That was a
raspberry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was Dave Taylor's fault. I want
everyone
to know that.
The reason I'm not going to support the item being placed on
the
to
and
agenda today, is that this was a situation of Hr. Brock's creation.
There is a right way to do things and a wrong way. Mr. Brock chose
take a path that eventually has hurt people. I am very sorry for
that, but it's a path of his choosing and one he must answer for,
Judge Starnes has taken the reins in seeing that this problem is
resolved.
I still contend it's a problem between the clerk of courts and
the court system and shall remain there, in my opinion. So I'm not
going to support the item being added to the agenda.
I'll just poll the board.
Commissioner Mac'kie wishes to add it.
Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Item 10(I) is not added to the
agenda.
We have an agenda and consent agenda.
Any further changes, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one announcement that I'll do
under
communications.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Under communications.
Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No additions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No additions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None for me.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we accept the
agenda and the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and A second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18 AND 25, 1997 REGULAR MEETINGS - APPROVED
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion
that
we approve the minutes of the regular meetings of November 18th and
November 25th, 1997.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero. We're on a
roll.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING DECEMBER AS DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING
PREVENTION MONTH AND DECEMBER 19, 1997 AS LIGHTS ON FOR LIFE DAY -
ADOPTED
This morning, under proclamations and service awards, it's my
pleasure to read a proclamation this morning proclaiming December
as
Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention month.
I understand we have Ms. Regina Wagstaff from the David
Lawrence
Center here.
Regina, if I could ask you to come forward, it would be my
pleasure to read this proclamation into the record and ask you to
accept it.
The proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, obtaining a license to drive is a major milestone for
youth and a necessity for the majority of our citizens, we must
teach
young people the responsibilities that accompany having a driver's
license. At the same time, we must teach them about the risks of
driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol; and
WHEREAS all citizens and institutions need to acknowledge that
license to drive is not a license to kill, injure or destroy. We
must
also recognize that when we drive under the influence of drugs and
alcohol, we are saying that, under certain circumstances, it's okay
to
harm our families, friends and neighbors; and
WHEREAS we all need to take a stand against impaired driving,
individually and collectively, intervening to prevent others from
drinking and driving should be common practice among hosts and
friends. We must use designated drivers and plan alternative
transportation when we know we will be drinking. Through our
schools,
places of employment, houses of worship and community
organizations,
we must send a message that drinking and driving is not socially
acceptable; and
WHEREAS the holidays are approaching, we ask each citizen to
make
our community safe by not driving under the influence of drugs and
alcohol.
We also ask -- also ask that, on December 19th, everyone drive
with their headlights on to support National Lights On for Life Day
in
memory of those who have been killed or injured by impaired drivers
and as a reminder of the dangers of impaired driving.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that December 1997 be
designated and Drunk and Drugged priving (sic) -- Driving
Prevention
Month -- that's twice I messed that up -- and that December 19th,
1997
be designated as Lights On for Life Day.
We can all call on citizens and organizations to observe this
month by taking responsibility for preventing impaired driving in
our
one
community and teaching our young people safe driving behavior.
Done and ordered this 16th day of December, 1997, Timothy
Hancock, Chairman.
It's my pleasure to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Regina, thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. WAGSTAFF: Commissioners, thank you for signing this
proclamation helping us keep Collier County roadways safer.
Approximately 17,000 people are killed each year on the United
States roadways by a drunk driver. And here in Collier County, in
1997, there were 12 alcohol-related traffic fatalities with just
being this past weekend where one of our own law enforcement
officers
was killed by an impaired driver. So we really encourage you
please
don't drink and drive and remember those victims who have suffered
because of this.
And I have a little token for the commissioners. This is a
red
ribbon that M.A.D.D. puts out during the month of December, and I'm
going to give one to each of you and ask that you put it on your
vehicle as a remembrance not to drink and drive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. And on behalf of the Board of
Commissioners, our deepest sympathies to the officer and his family
who was killed this past weekend. Our thoughts are with them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put it on the antenna?
MS. WAGSTAFF: Antenna or car door or wherever you can tie it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Wagstaff.
Proclamations are important but how we govern ourselves from
here
that
proclamation by this community.
forward is probably the most important thing and the accepting of
Thank you.
Item #SA1
PRESENTATION OF THE 1997 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON
PUBLIC
FACILITIES (AUIR) AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3.15.7 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Item 8(A)(1) under Community Development and Environmental
Services, it is a presentation of 1997 AUIR, annual updated
inventory
report on public facilities as provided for in the Collier County
Land
Development Code.
Mr. Litsinger, good morning.
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, happy holidays to
you.
This morning we're here for the seventh time to present to you
the updated inventory report on public facilities, better known
throughout the community as the AUIR.
We will make a presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners
and ask that you give staff direction on project and funding
sources
for inclusion in the next capital improvement element update and
amendment.
The process will result in the compliance with Division 3.15
of
of
the Land Development Code for an annual determination of the status
both facilities and through board direction to include projects
identified in this AUIR. In the next financially feasible CIE
update
and amendment, you will establish and maintain concurrency for the
next 12 months.
I would propose to proceed by giving you a brief presentation
on
all Category A facilities and ask for you to give direction by
straw
vote on each Category A facility relative to projects and revenues
to
be included in the next capital improvement element update.
On Category B facilities, I will point out a couple of
significant points and ask for direction in one particular facility
type and ask for a straw vote to be followed up by a vote on the
entire AUIR and a finding of a status of concurrency on the
proposed
projects.
If there are no questions, I would go directly to the first
facility type.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Litsinger?
Please proceed.
MR. LITSINGER: Very briefly on -- here, again, I'm referring
to
your agenda, Page 8, excuse me, agenda, Page 9. We have a summary
CIE
the
the proposed or recommended projects to be included in the coming
update and amendment and the proposed revenue sources.
Very briefly, to outline these, these are revenues that are
currently in place or that the Board of County Commissioners has
authority to levy. In one case relative to the jail funding on the
proposed jail project that I'm going to review with you, we need
direction from the board on funding alternatives, but I will get to
that in a few minutes.
On Page 12 of your agenda package, we're indicating a total
five-year road program totaling a hundred eighteen million dollars
a hundred eighteen million seven hundred four thousand dollars,
including reserves.
Revenues for these road projects are currently funded. These
revenues have been adjusted for the Marco incorporation and the
revenues associated with Marco and the project, the loan project
that
was in our capital improvement element for Marco has been removed.
The recommendation of staff is to include all of the road
projects appearing on the Collier County five-year road plan,
FY9802,
which is Attachment C of your package, Page 25 in the coming CIE
update and amendment.
If there are no questions, I'd ask for a straw vote on roads.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It relates, excuse me, back to Page 12
where it says the new five-cent gas tax
MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that another new five cents, or what
is
that?
MR. LITSINGER: No, ma'am. We would call it the five -- new
five-cent gas tax. That is the local option five-cent gas tax
which
was enacted by the board in 1993.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. So this is not in addition to
that.
MR. LITSINGER: Right, but it is scheduled to sunset in 03,
but
that's an issue for another day.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ANy other questions?
Seeing none on a straw vote, is there any wishes to oppose?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Acceptance?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, let's continue.
MR. LITSINGER: Next category would be on Page 30 of your
agenda
package. Here it's showing recreation facilities against current
level of service standard, current plan facilities in both your
budget
and your capital improvement element. Level of service standard is
projected to be maintained. In the previous year, we had
recommended
an alteration to the level of service standard, and the board
declined
to alter the level of service standard.
At this time, staff is not recommending any changes to the
level
of service standard other than to include the projects indicated in
the capital improvement element and to adjust the inventory for the
cost of construction index, which for 1997 was 4.4 percent.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions?
I'm sorry. I need you to move a
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
page
down --
MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
item.
the
I was still looking at the last
Can you move me to the page you're on?
MR. LITSINGER: Yeah, I'm on Page 30 of your agenda package.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. LITSINGER: Item 8(A)(1). The primary funding source for
parks, recreation facilities continues to be primarily impact fees.
Any questions on parks, facilities?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, is there any wishes to oppose
park facility element as presented?
Seeing none, move on.
MR. LITSINGER: I'm moving on to Page 33, capital community
park
land. At this time, staff is not recommending any acquisitions or
projects be added to the capital improvement element this
particular
year. It's my understanding that the park staff will be bringing
to
you recommendations early in 1998 relative to acquisitions of new
community park lands. And as we go forward, also, to regional park
lands, on Page 35, also with some proposed projects for acquisition
of
additional regional park lands, particularly of the active
recreation
type.
Just as a noteworthy against their adopted level of service in
both areas, we have no issues relative to concurrency.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions?
Opposition?
Please continue.
MR. LITSINGER: Next facility type on Page 37 of your agenda
package, drainage canals and structures. Staff has proposed a
total
of 170 -- excuse me. Staff is proposing a total $27,785,000 in
improvements to the existing drainage canal network and system.
It's
not a level of service-related improvements, but to maintain an
improved service of the existing facilities.
We have an outline of those proposed projects on Page 38. I
believe that they have previously been presented to the Board of
County Commissioners and we would ask your direction to include
these
projects in the coming CIE update and amendment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions on that item?
Any opposition to the recommendations?
Seeing none, let's continue to the next.
MR. LITSINGER: Next facility type on Page 39 of your agenda
package is potable water. Here, in this case, staff is
recommending
an amendment to the adopted level of service standard to 185
gallons
per day per customer. This is a change based on the recent water
management -- excuse me, water master plan. It also relates to the
change in the population used to measure the level of service
provided
where we had previously used the population of the service area.
We're proposing to amend the camp plan to measure the level
of service provided against the customer base which provides a more
accurate measurement of the actual service provided, because the
reality is that some residents of the service areas will never be
served by the water or sewer system.
We believe that this is consistent with planning principles in
the camp plan. So the recommendation on potable water would be the
amendment to 185 gallons per day and the adoption of the peak
service
population as the standard for measurement of L.O.S.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That 185 is a move upward from 154; is that
correct?
MR. LITSINGER: It's moved up from 135, plus 21 percent. I
may
need a -- it's an increase from 135 to 154.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That kind of goes against the throes of
water
conservation concepts.
Is there a specific reason for that? Is it the irrigation?
Is
it --
MR. LITSINGER: Yes. The recent studies through the water
master
plan indicate it is more realistic in reflecting actual service
provided.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just curious, how do we fall at 185 per
person?
Is that statewide or nationally?
Is that ballpark; is it high; is it low?
MR. LITSINGER: I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to answer that
question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Ilschner, if you would give me
Some
information on that just to -- you know, in the next week or so.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Is there -- are there any questions on that element?
Is there any opposition to the element as presented?
Seeing none, let's continue.
MR. LITSINGER: Your next item is on Page 41 of your agenda
package. It's the sewer treatment and collection system north
county.
Here, again, their proposed project is to add five mega gallons of
treatment capacity per day by the year '02, with a total cost of
$29,483,000. Funding source here to be impact fees and user fees.
Also, the staff is recommending that the adopted level of
service
for the north plant be amended to 145 gallons per day per capita to
reflect actual service provided, and also, here again, to use the
peak
population served as opposed to the population of the area as the
standard against which we measure level of service stats.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question on that. It shows available
inventory is one-tenth of the H.G.D. below the required inventory,
in
the
essence, operating at potentially deficiency; is that correct?
MR. LITSINGER: No, sir. If you look on Page 42, which has
spreadsheet which applies the proposed level of service and the
proposed peak population, with the addition -- we're currently
running
1.6 mega gallons a day surplus.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's the projection at five years
if
day
we do nothing.
MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The available inventory versus required
inventory is saying in five years, if we do nothing, we would have
deficiency; is that correct?
HR. LITSINGER: If we were not to add the five mega-gallon-a-
increase, we would, in fact, have a deficiency.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand. I'm sorry. My mistake.
Any questions on that?
Any opposition to the information as presented?
Seeing none.
MR. LITSINGER: Your next item is on Page 43. This is the
south
the
county sewer treatment plant. Here we have after notation of a
proposed increase in -- of 2.5 mega gallons per day. This is to be
achieved through a re-rating of the plant in 1999 as opposed to
construction.
Here again, there is -- in this particular case, there is no
recommendation to amend the level of service standard at the south
plant, to keep that as it is, 100 gallons per day plus 21 percent
non-residential. However, we are proposing to use the peak service
population as opposed to population of the entire utility service
area.
On your next page, 44, it also indicates that, as a result of
re-rating in 1999, we do not project any deficits during the
planning
period in level of service standards.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a very small question. How do we
re-rate a plant to the tune of 2.5 million gallons a day?
MR. LITSINGER: I've asked that question myself. It's an
engineering study relative to the functionality of the plant, its
updates of equipment and methodologies to the Department of
Environmental Protection.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, this is the plant that was
completely redesigned and rebuilt.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we're going to re-rate it after
it's
in operation after a few years. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That helps.
Any objection to the elements presented in that section?
Seeing none, Mr. Litsinger.
MR. LITSINGER: Moving on to Page 45, solid waste, 10-year raw
land supply. Here the staff is not recommending any additions to
the
capital improvement element this year pending presentation of next
year's AUIR and further decisions and presentations by the
committee
looking at re-siting the landfill. I do feel that I need to point
out
to you, on Page 46 of your agenda package, that next year at this
time
we probably will be lacking a decision on relocating the landfill,
be
reporting to you a potential deficit in 10-year raw land supply,
but
today, we have no deficits.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Since the next scheduled meeting of
this board, we'll be discussing that, it probably won't be a
concern
in a year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions on that item?
Any objection to the items presented?
Seeing none, Mr. Litsinger, please continue.
MR. LITSINGER: Moving on to Page 47, which is your cell
capacity
at 1.1 tons per capita which is the level of service standard you
adopted last year reflecting actual usage. Here, again, we're not
recommending any additional cell openings at the current landfill
for
the obvious reasons this year. We currently have cell capacity
during
the planning period and does not require any decisions at this
point
in time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions?
Any objection?
Mr. Litsinger.
MR. LITSINGER: That would complete your Category A or your
concurrency-related facilities, and I would ask for a motion and
vote
on inclusion of recommended projects and revenues in the coming CIE
for Category A facilities.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
Any discussion on the motion?
of
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none.
MR. LITSINGER: Category B facilities, which begins on Page 50
your agenda package, to quickly point out to you, Category B
facilities level of service standards are targets for providing
quality service within the community, however, they are not
concurrency related.
Generally, we have no issues in Category B, with the one
exception of the county jail expansion. In last year's AUIR
presentation, your direction was to remove Project 400 from the CIE
until completions of the integrative corrections strategic
development
plan, which is currently pending final approval.
Staff, at this time, is recommending that for the coming CIE
update that you include a project totalling $29,988,000 and 260
additions of beds to the coming CIE update.
Further, staff is also recommending that the board give us
direction on one of the supplemental revenue sources that we have
identified for funding the jail expansion, as the sales tax did not
pass referendum.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. Just a comment, though.
When you look at the unit cost per bed in the jail, I think
it's
something that should be noted. I think that's a tremendous price.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you ready to start plans for the Big
Cypress Tent and Wilderness Prison?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, it's just there. People ought to
know the cost is pretty hefty.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When would you like to receive that
direction, Mr. Litsinger?
MR. LITSINGER: Well, I would like to receive it today, but I
understand the decision process that you have before you.
What I would ask, probably, would be -- the best situation
would
be a general consensus of the board whether or not we want to go
forward with a jail expansion to the standpoint of including it in
your capital improvement element. Here, again, we've listed about
four alternative revenue sources available to you, everything from
G.O.B. referendum to certificate of participation bonds to build
the
jail.
We don't necessarily need a firm decision on either one of
those,
but from a planning perspective, we would ask if there is any
consensus to go forward with including this in your capital
improvement element in this coming cycle, which will be coming back
to
you probably after you have made decisions on this matter in the
early
months of 1998.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I think we all
recognize
the challenge facing us with jails. I do have a concern, including
something if we have no dedicated funding source yet, we're not
even
saying, as a group, that it will necessarily be one of these four
options that appear in front of us. So I'm just a little
uncomfortable including it when we haven't, as a group said, you
know,
what -- where 29 million dollars is coming from.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
Mr. Fernandez, you're more closely involved with the V. Group
study and its progress as it moves to the next phase or the next
stage.
When can we expect to see additional information for the
board's
consideration on that effort, or have they completed that phase and
they're done?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe they've completed that phase.
I would ask Mr. Gonzalez if he has additional update
information
for us on that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just trying to attach a time frame to
this
because, as Mr. Litsinger said, today is not D. day, but certainly
in
the first part of next year, I think we're going to have to set a
course for this and include it in the budget discussions for next
year.
Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital Projects Director.
The V. Group has completed their report and you have accepted
that report. You charged a citizens' committee to look at whether
the
dollars and timing specified in the report was feasible. That
information will be back to you the first week in January. We've
concluded those discussions, and we'll have some recommendation to
share with you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Terrific. I look forward to that. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is for Mr. Litsinger about
the
significance of not including it in today.
Is it something we can amend later?
Is it -- what are the repercussions of it not being included?
MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner, it's my opinion that, since your
decision process probably will give us plenty of lead time, we will
not draft the CIE probably until April or May. At that time, you
can
CIE
give us direction to include it before your adoption of your next
in probably next October, so it's merely a policy decision at this
time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm comfortable with identifying the
funding source before we decide to spend the money. Reasonable
position.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call me crazy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to join Commissioner Constantine
in
being patient enough to wait until at least the first quarter of
next
year to have more information before doing that.
MR. LITSINGER: Sure.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: Now, on the rest of the Category B facilities,
there are no specific issues that need to be addressed. The
facilities that are planned are generally funded through impact
fees
or relate to previous direction by this board.
If you have no questions, I would just ask for a -- with your
exception noted for the jail -- a motion and vote to include
Category
B facilities in the CIE.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: First of all, any question on the Category
ask.
of
information?
Seeing none, do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Move acceptance of Category B.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With the exception of the jail, may I
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As discussed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that with the exception
the jail.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Litsinger.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes. I have one more action I would ask of
you,
and that would be going back to Page 2 of your agenda package.
In order to complete this process relative to concurrency and
your annual determination for concurrency, I would ask the board,
by
motion and vote, to find upon analysis, review and actions taken
this
day based on the '97 AUIR that adequate Category A public
facilities
will be available as defined by the Collier Concurrency Management
System as implemented by Division 3.15 of the Land Development Code
to
support development or issuance until presentation of the 1998 AUIR
approximately 12 months from this day.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
o~lr
the
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, quick question for
staff on two of the transportation items. I'm just trying to put a
more definite time frame on them. They appear on our list, I don't
know where in the five-year plan they are; Santa Barbara Boulevard,
Davis to Rattlesnake and Santa Barbara Boulevard, Radio to the
Parkway.
MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital Projects Director.
Santa Barbara Boulevard, Davis to Rattlesnake is not shown on
five-year plan as a construction project. That's pursuant to
previous
direction you gave us about three years ago. We have some
environmental studies underway, and that will be completed next
year.
And then we'll bring that information back to you to either decide
to
go with final design and construction funding at a later date.
Santa Barbara Boulevard, Radio to -- Golden Gate Parkway to
Radio, that is on the five-year plan. It's on Page 21. It's Item
Number 86 with a construction target date of FYO2.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions?
Seeing none. Thank you very much.
Item #8A2
FOR
MARCO ISLAND INTERLOCAL AGREEHENT - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
THE TEN PROJECTS AS DISCUSSED
We are to the next item on our agenda which is Item 8(A)(2)
which is an add on, Marco Island Interlocal Agreement.
Mr. Ilschner, did I -- is there something you needed to add on
the previous item?
MR. ILSCHNER: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, good morning.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Vince
Cautero, Community Development and Environmental Services
Administrator.
This morning, I'm asking you to consider and provide direction
to
staff to prepare an interim interlocal agreement with the City of
Marco Island to provide certain planning services, and those
planning
services would involve only those petitions that would go in front
of
the Marco Island Planning Board and/or the Marco Island City
Council.
This would not involve day-to-day administrative procedures, which
I
will get into in a moment.
Within the past three weeks, the Planning Department staff has
received numerous inquiries from applicants of various petitions
that
were filed with the Community Development Services Division that
would
require approval from the Marco Island City Council since the
incorporation. The ten petitions that are on the table as we speak
now include five boat dock petitions, one conditional-use
application,
an off-site parking proposal, one fezone application, one
temporary-use petition and a variance application.
When the staff started receiving these inquiries, I
recommended
to Mr. Fernandez that we approach the city council through their
interim city manager and recommend that we bring these petitions
forward in a normal manner that we would bring them forward to your
planning commission and ultimately either the Board of County
Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Subsequent to that, I put that recommendation in writing on
December 8th, and you have a copy of that memorandum in front of
you
that I gave to Mr. Fernandez.
I then spoke with Skip Camp, the interim city manager at
Marco,
and after discussions that he had with city officials, they invited
us
in
to appear before their planning board last Friday.
Skip took the opportunity to invite the city council, and it
became a joint meeting. And I believe the entire planning board
attended the meeting, and five of the seven elected officials were
attendance.
After a very productive discussion, I left the elected and
appointed officials with my intention, which was to speak to you
today
about preparing such an interim interlocal agreement.
The focus or the focal point, I should say, of the interlocal
agreement is for us to bring these petitions forward at an hourly
rate
of $30 per hour per employee for each petition that is brought
forward
to the City of Marco for each meeting that we attend.
In anticipation of a question that we received at the meeting
that I'll explain to you now, being why would you recommend an
hourly
rate when you're receiving an administrative fee for these
proposals.
The answer that we gave to the city council and the planning
board is that these are petitions or these are proposals that we
would
not normally be involved in at this point in time, since the
incorporation, that was not budgeted for. For example, these
include
extra meetings that the staff would not normally attend since the
incorporation took place, and we may be involved in a situation
where
overtime would take place which would involve either comp time
and/or
overtime pay for certain employees, depending on what category
they're
in.
The $30-an-hour rate was derived from an average salary of
those
employees that would touch the application that would be involved
in
it, plus benefits. That is our simple, straight forward
methodology
that we came forward with, and I presented that to Mr. Fernandez.
There are ten petitions, as I said. Depending on how the city
structures their ordinances, these would involve at least meetings
with both bodies, at least one meeting with them. There was some
discussion at the joint meeting on Friday as to how they would
handle
boat dock petitions. For example, your ordinances provide that
they
are done by the planning commission only. The city is going to be
dealing with that perhaps in a separate ordinance.
I will point out to you that the charter, the City of Marco
Island, contains a provision that the ordinances in place at the
time
of the incorporation are those that are in effect today, so no
ordinance amendments to your documents are in effect in the City of
Marco Island unless they should adopt them.
So the Land Development Code, as it stood on August 28th, and
the
and
and
comprehensive plan would govern the City of Marco Island land use
zoning activities until such time as they should adopt their own
ordinances.
I believe this is the most appropriate way to go since we're
involved with these petitions and ultimately we would issue the
building permits until such time as Marco should make the change,
that's why I made the proposal to Hr. Fernandez that we represent
these applications or present them, I should say, to the planning
board and the city council.
We did have a productive meeting, and I believe there are
speakers today. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you
have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions on what I think
you've
covered, but I just want a yes or no.
The $30 an hour will cover the cost -- will cover the county's
expense for it, for the employees? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second is, will -- will
existing
responsibilities of the employees be compromised in any way by the
time and effort they need to put forth doing this?
MR. CAUTERO: I don't believe they will because we estimate
that
we would not have to put in more than two or three meetings for
this
and we would be able to cover for that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: How long will this agreement be in
effect?
MR. CAUTERO: As long as you wish for it to be in effect.
Certainly for the conclusion of the ten petitions, should the board
be
desirous, if the city council should ask you, or if you wish to
include it in the agreement, it is conceivable that we could add a
clause in there that states that for petitions that come forward
that
would normally need to be brought forward to the Marco Island
planning
board and/or city council, until such time as a staff is in place
or
to
are
the City of Marco has made other arrangements.
Your question is a very good one in that we are handling the
administrative duties day to day, and we are adding those costs day
day for a proposal to Mr. Fernandez for early next year. So we are
working on Marco petitions daily, as we speak, in the Planning
Department and the Building Department. However, these petitions
ones that are above and beyond and outside the budget. The
agreement
could be as long as you want it to be. You can include other
petitions or you could limit just to these ten.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I think when we discussed
this
early on back during the budget cycle and we knew that this was
going
to take place with Marco, did we not indicate, like through this
budget year, that any agreements, and we looked at different things
and we talked about through this particular budget year, in other
words, by next June, things -- whatever they're going to do on
Marco
ought to be in place and there should be, at that point, a --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I remember us talking about there being
kind
of a year to get a lot of things together.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: A year to get on their feet and to move
that direction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I never did make any firm decisions on
services in that regard.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. But I think we need to look at
that.
I mean, this was a decision that Marco Island made, and I think at
some point in time we've got to cut the umbilical cord. It's time
that -- you know, they have chosen to become a city. They are a
city.
And we're here to -- we're here to help you get on your feet, but
then
at that point in time, it's time to go, and I think we need -- this
can't be something that goes on indefinitely and we continually get
this kind of thing.
I think there is a time when it's got to -- it's got to
change.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chair --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think we're there yet, but that
will
happen.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez -- Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's fine. No, go ahead.
MR. FERNANDEZ: My understanding of the purpose for the visit
down to Marco Island by the staff and the discussion that was held
there was to discuss these transitional applications, these that
are
pending right now. I think, given that fact, it would probably be
cleaner if you limited your agreement to those that are pending
right
now.
I -- I don't believe that there was much discussion, and Mr.
Cautero could correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I don't believe
there was much discussion about an ongoing, continuing relationship
there. I think the focus of discussion was on these ten. Is that correct, Mr. Cautero?
MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. The focus was on these ten.
There
was some discussion about long term, but we tried to focus on the
petitions that are before you that are before the county that would
have to go before the city that are not administrative in nature.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That solves my problem. That's exactly
what I want to support, is those ten, and then we'll look at it as
things go forward, but frankly, those ten people need this to
happen,
and we owe it to them. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This was one of the things I recognized
right
after cityhood was established, was that there were people in the
pipeline that were going to be severely affected, and we need to do
what we can to help assist them getting it completed.
I would agree to doing all these. What I would then suggest
or
of
ask of the city council is projected dates on when a city attorney
will be hired, which before you enter land use you better have one
those, and when a planning advisory board or planning council
expects
to be appointed. I think that will help give us and the public,
both
on Marco and off, a time frame when the assumption of those duties,
should they so choose, can be taken care of.
So those two things -- I know I saw the chairman of city
council,
Hr. Kallen (phonetic) here earlier.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There he is.
Oh, Harry, I was looking over your head.
Those two things, as far as an informational point, would
probably help Mr. Cautero in his planning of any petitions that
come
in and his ability to inform the public. So, I think if we get
that,
that would be very helpful to see the end of this element as you
referred to.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I believe the planning
board's already been appointed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Has it? Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're ready to go on that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're ahead of the game.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yes, they're ready.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good enough.
Mr. Cautero, is there anything else on this item?
MR. CAUTERO: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers on this,
Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do not.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the interlocal
agreement
for these ten specific petitions.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 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: Mr. Cautero, thank you very much.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you.
Item #SB1
CONCEPT OF A LIVINGSTON ROAD CORRIDOR JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
STAFF TO WORK WITH LONG BAY PARTNERS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS WHICH HAVE
BEEN RAISED AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITH A NEW AGREEMENT
to
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The next item on our agenda is Item 8(B)(1)
requesting approval of the concept of a Livingston Road Corridor,
joint participation agreement.
Mr. Ilschner, good morning.
MR. ILSCHNER: Good morning and happy holidays, Commissioners.
For the record, Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator. This
morning, we're here to discuss with you a proposal that was brought
the Public Works Division staff in early December by
representatives
from a group called Long Bay Partners. This was a concept plan to
develop a joint participation agreement that would govern and
provide
for the development of Livingston Road from its current terminus
just
north of Immokalee Road. And if I refer you to the map that's in
in
and
front of you, it would be that section of roadway that's identified
red, and then subsequently past an existing development previously
known as the Livingston Woods PUD, and then on to Lee County line,
then subsequently to Bonita Beach Road.
Many of you may know that this was a project that has some
history. The project began, I think, in early 1986, when a
municipal
services taxing benefit unit was created, and efforts were made to
acquire permits to build this particular roadway. Through
difficulties associated with obtaining these permits, the project
was
and
delayed and, of course, private backing on this project went away,
the project was no longer on a fast track.
Long Bay Partners is proposing, and I'm just going to briefly
try to briefly cover the main points of the proposal that they have
brought forward. They're proposing to build Livingston Road
between
Immokalee Road to the Collier/Lee County line, and do so in return
for
road impact fee credits.
Their concept proposal points are briefly, the Long Bay
Partners
would build, fund and construct a two-lane roadway from near
Immokalee
Road to the Collier County line.
Item two in their concept plan is that LBP, and I'll refer to
them as LBP from this point forward, would provide fill material
for
the road project.
Item three, LBP would dedicate right-of-way along the road
frontage to the proposed development.
And item four, these would be Collier County commitments.
Collier County would complete the roadway construction plans,
permits,
right-of-way purchases and mitigation.
Let me bring you up to date where we are on that particular
area
on that point at this point. We have acquired approximately one-
third
of the right-of-way. If I can refer to the S curve, there is an S
curve shown in red, that one-third of right-of-way is up to the
first
bend to the left in that S curve. The remainder of the right-of-
way
the
2.1
has not been required. This current budget year, we have
approximately 1.4 million dollars in right-of-way monies for
continuing purchase of right-of-way. The total cost to take us to
Collier County line is estimated somewhere in the neighborhood of
million dollars.
I might add also that there is an east/west connection of the
Livingston Road that comes from the terminus of the S curve over to
the
U.S. 41. All of that right-of-way for that segment of roadway has
been acquired or is included in the Livingston Wood PUD for
dedication.
With respect to the other commitments contained in that item,
Corps of Engineer permits, we have acquired those. The Water
Management District permits, we have acquired those. There are
Some
expiration dates associated with those permits.
The mitigation area referenced in that particular item, we
have
also acquired all the required mitigation area as well.
Item five in their proposal is that Collier County would
cooperate with LBP to establish a project identification signage at
Immokalee Road.
And item number six is if Collier County would issue road
impact
fee credits for residential unit mix to be determined by LBP and in
accordance with the ordinance.
Issuance of these credits would be phased through a
phase-construction approach. Their approach is that they would
phase
the project, and the first phase would be to the entrance of the
project, the second phase to the Lee County line. The estimated
cost
for the roadway improvement is approximately four million dollars.
Now, the density associated with this project will be
approximately two units per acre. And the proposal also involves,
because there will be surplus impact fees, that Collier County
allow
the developer to sell or transfer credits to developers, builders
or
be
property owners that receive a benefit from the road.
The sale or transfer of these credits and the time frame would
done so that there would be no impact on other road projects that
have
been slated for construction in that district. That's district
one.
Our staff has reviewed this proposal, this concept plan, and
we
concur that, as required by the road impact fee ordinance, in order
for impact fee credits to be issued, the road does and will serve a
public purpose once it's extended to the Lee County line and,
subsequently, to Bonita Beach Road.
In fact, the staff would indicate that we feel that impact fee
credits, as requested by the proposer, should be linked to the
completion of the roadway to Bonita Beach Road in Lee County or at
least to the completion of the east/west connection to U.S. 41.
We're also indicating that we feel the value of impact fee
credits should not exceed the investment in the road project. And
with respect to that particular item, after visiting with our legal
staff, they're recommending that any discussion associated with
impact
fee credits and their value be determined pursuant to the ordinance
and in consultation with our legal staff in Collier County.
With respect to the sale or transfer of impact fee credits,
the
staff would require board direction on this item because previously
the board has not allowed the sale or transfer of impact fee
credits
as requested by the proposer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Ilschner, can I interrupt you for a
second?
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody check me on this, but in my
prior
life, when I had a law practice, I represented a client who
purchased
impact fee credits. They were school impact fee credits. It had
to
do with the Pelican Bay -- a site that had been sited for a school
in
Pelican Bay that was -- or in Pelican Marsh, maybe, that was sold.
If somebody would check that, I'm pretty sure --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: In Pelican Bay maybe.
MR. ILSCHNER: We certainly can.
that
the
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
happened.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
sold.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
right?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
Yeah, that's right. I'm pretty sure
You say that was a school impact fee?
The school impact fee credit that was
Then that wouldn't be our jurisdiction,
No, actually, we -- I had to come to
county commission to get approval for it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And they gave it to you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just joking.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Hey, I never lost.
MS. ASHTON: If I could comment on that.
For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney.
There are some agreements out there that do allow for
assignment
of impact fees. There had been a proliferation of requests for the
assignability of impact fees in road -- in the road impact fee
arena,
the
in
and we've recommended that we not assign them unless it's a project
that staff really, really wants and sees significant savings for
county, because we don't want to see a cash-flow problem in our --
our impact fee funds.
So the past direction from the board, when we did discuss this
item, was not to assign it unless, you know, advising the board
that
that's what's going on.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
MS. ASHTON: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
Ilschner
I remember that now.
There had been some, before Mr.
was here, some times that it happened and you brought it back to us
for a policy overall, but I just wanted to make the point that I
think
it has happened before, because I think it has to happen to make
this
work.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ilschner, do you see any
overwhelming reason why we'd want to change our policy now?
MR. ILSCHNER: No, I don't. I would certainly need some time
to
investigate and more properly answer that, but off the top of my
head
at this point, I don't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Based on my discussions with staff and with
the -- with LBP on this matter, what's before us today is not
really
the details of an agreement. We're not approving an agreement
today
nor are we saying this is -- this is set in stone.
What is being asked here today, as I understand it, is whether
the board is willing to consider an agreement with these elements
contained in it to be negotiated by our staff and by the county
attorney to be consistent and beneficial to the county as a whole.
The reason that this is before us today, and I'm sure the LBP
people can expound on this more, is they have a financial issue in
front of them that is in the short term and they're just looking
for a
sense from this board whether or not we feel an agreement of some
sort
is favorable to have the construction time line on this roadway and
the manner in which the construction is being proposed acceptable.
And so we could probably get mired in some of the details here, and
think it's important for our staff to at least understand concerns
from the board, but I think this is rather general in its
presentation
and probably if there is any direction at all, probably going to be
very general in direction.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just think at this point if we're
going to allow or not allow the transfer of impact fees, we
probably
need to give that direction before we send staff away today.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, that was our intent.
Staff would recommend approval of the JPA concept -- in concept,
and
JPA
the staff would work with the Long Bay Partnership to develop a
for board approval.
I would like to point out that we also feel the approval of
this
concept should not be taken as an approval of any specific
condition
as contained therein.
We have, representing the Long Bay Partners, this morning,
Alan
Reynolds of Wilson/Miller, who is prepared to present additional
to
information for you from the perspective of the proposer.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple more questions for
staff.
Explain to me number five, the signage. I assume that's in
perpetuity. What does that mean?
MR. ILSCHNER: That's an item we would probably not bring back
you as a requirement in any JPA. That was a request by the
developer
to have a permanent signage identifying the project and its
location,
et cetera, at Immokalee Road. We don't believe that's something
that
the Collier County Board or the staff should participate in the
future.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Signage is one thing. Permanent?
MR. ILSCHNER: Yeah, that was the thing that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The word permanent kind of scared me a
little
in there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just don't know if public land
signage is necessary anyway. I understand the marketing aspect of
that, but I don't know it's something the county needs to be
involved
in.
MR. ILSCHNER: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When are we assuming the necessity
for
another north/south roadway?
HR. ILSCHNER: There are some points that the proposer will
bring
out that will answer specifically that question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear what your opinion
on
that is --
MR. ILSCHNER: Certainly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as opposed to someone who's
hoping
to build on that.
MR. ILSCHNER: Certainly.
The completion of the roadway system from Immokalee Road to
Bonita Beach Road, certainly for the future, will, I think, provide
an
alternative north/south segment or route that, I think, is a vital
link to our transportation network that will offload U.S. 41 and
also
offload 1-75, which I think will be imperative in the future.
As you know, we are now involved in the process of widening
U.S.
41. There reaches a point where you can't widen anymore, and with
this particular linkage, I think it provides that vital link that
will
provide that access into Lee County and also into Collier County
that
will offload those two facilities. That's the primary --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. My question was when do
you
It
see --
MR. ILSCHNER: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that as being a necessity.
MR. ILSCHNER: I'm sorry. It is not presently in the current
CIE, five-year CIE. It is not in the immediate ten-year horizon.
is certainly in the 2020 plan.
So from the standpoint of when it would be necessary, it's
probably going to be somewhere in that ten-year horizon.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Follow-up to that is if we moved
ahead
with this agreement, when would we likely see that final connection
to
we
us
has
Lee, because it's not a north/south connector until it connects.
MR. ILSCHNER: That's one of the concerns the staff had that
feel like it really becomes a public benefit when it does make that
connection.
If the developer were to begin construction of the first phase
and second phase, the connection would actually take place when
Imperial was connected, too, at the Lee County line, but that's a
deficient roadway. So there would have to be some additional
improvements made by Lee County. I'm thinking we're looking at, at
least, six, maybe seven years before all that might take place.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What have the Lee County folks told
on that?
MR. ILSCHNER: Our staff nor the proposer, to my knowledge,
had an opportunity, because of the short time frame of this
proposal,
to contact the staff there and visit on that issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree with you 100 percent, and that
becomes
the lynch pin when you look at the public benefit of this roadway,
either that or the east/west through to U.S. 41. That way it
becomes
a part of the system. Otherwise, as I explained to the petitioner,
it's a dead end for the purpose of a development, which is not a
public benefit, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- it's either -- I did talk to
Commissioner
John Manning in Lee County very briefly about the concept of the
project. They already have, I believe, a lime rock roadbed -- MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that extends south to the county line
there. We didn't go into detail, but he seemed initially fairly
receptive, because of our success in working together on Bonita
Beach
Road, that joint projects between Collier and Lee to benefit both
roadway systems is something we should pursue, but that was the
nature
of our discussion, but that was just two individuals.
So the link to Lee County or the east/west, before it becomes
a
the
for
roadway of public benefit, to me, is a lynch pin. Without that,
rest of this is really irrelevant.
My question for you, Mr. Ilschner, we currently have permits
the right-of-way of Livingston Road; is that correct, for roadway
construction?
MR. ILSCHNER: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When do those permits expire?
MR. ILSCHNER: The Corps of Engineer permit, I believe,
expires
in 2005, and the Water Management District permit, I believe,
expires
in the year 2000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They require commencement of
construction
to keep them alive or --
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They can be extended, but I think you have
to
for
do restudies for the extension.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And these -- these were extremely
difficult permits to get, as I recall. MR. ILSCHNER: They were, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How much have we spent to date preparing
the potential acquisition of this corridor; any idea?
MR. ILSCHNER: I think I have that in an executive summary
here.
permit
__
orl
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The one that concerns me is the Corps
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- not really knowing what's on the horizon
with the Corps of Engineers.
MR. ILSCHNER: We've spent approximately 4.4 million dollars
the project so far. We've spent 1.5 million dollars on right-of-
way,
1.1 million dollars on design and the permitting process. I don't
have a break out of how much of that was a COE permitting, and then
the mitigation, approximately point six million dollars.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're already well in excess of six and a
half
million dollars expended on this roadway with a couple of permits,
probably the most critical of which has a time frame of 2005 before
we
the
have to go to the Corps on hand and knee? MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How are we as far as compliance with
conditions of the permits, if you don't mind my just jumping in
there?
MR. ILSCHNER: From my knowledge, we are still in compliance.
If
we do not exercise the permit, of course, the permit will lapse.
are
as
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess what I meant were that there
conditions for affirmative actions on behalf of the county as far
mitigation.
How far are we in --
MR. ILSCHNER: To my knowledge -- to my knowledge, we have
complied with the mitigation aspect, I think.
Adolfo, would you be prepared to answer the other question,
please?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have we completed the mitigation
requirement?
MR. GONZALEZ: For the record, Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital
Projects
Director.
We've spent about $600,000 in acquiring a 430-acre parcel that
was the primary component of the mitigation site. There are some
restoration obligations on our part. They're all tied to the
construction of the road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. GONZALEZ: Most of them are within six months of starting
road construction. We have to build some water level control
structures, do some site restoration, preserve some areas, plant
Some
trees, do some monitoring along the corridor, things of that
nature.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they are -- have to do with
commencement of construction? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. GONZALEZ: The only thing we're required to do right now
is
on
report to them on an annual basis what we have done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question.
You had mentioned you have so much money for right-of-way
purchase?
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: How does that affect any of our other
roadway projects?
MR. ILSCHNER: The existing right-of-way is already -- the 1.4
million dollars for this budget year is in there and has no impact
any current project. There are some additional funding
requirements
that would need to be considered next year. If we commit to
continue
right-of-way purchasing, that might have an impact. We need to be
able to study that as a staff, which we have not looked at at this
point in time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ilschner, going over to the map
here,
going into the Lee County segment, that's the critical part. If we
don't go to -- if we don't go up into Lee County and connect to
is
is
something, the road's not of any value to us. So the little yellow
segment I can understand that is not there, but did I hear somebody
say that there is a lime rock bed there?
MR. ILSCHNER: Well, it is there to the Lee County line. It
an existing roadway called Imperial.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Where does that go --
MR. ILSCHNER: It's a deep --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Where does it go to the north of Bonita
Beach Road?
MR. ILSCHNER: It stops at Bonita Beach Road at this point in
time. And I understand, in visiting with some planners, that there
no plan to carry a four-lane facility north at that point. They
plan
to disperse, in their particular plan, to two-lane roadway systems
or
disperse the traffic that would reach Bonita Beach Road into two-
lane
road systems north in between 1-75 and U.S. 41.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, how does that then affect the
viability of a north/south connection in our county called
Livingston
Road?
I mean, if it just goes up there and T-bones into a two-lane
road, it doesn't appear to be of much value.
MR. ILSCHNER: That is something staff needs to work on and do
some modeling on to determine what impact that would have, and I'm
not
we
an
prepared to answer that question today.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The other part of the discussion is that
would be relying on Lee County to take some action, and we have no
control over that whatsoever.
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, as I envision it, we'd have to have
agreement with Lee County in order to pursue this. I mean, that
would
have to be a necessary part of it because you're right, why would
you
go down this path if you don't have a firm commitment from Lee
County.
So I would put the onus of that negotiation on LBP to
accomplish
that if this is going to move ahead because, like I said, that is a
critical link.
I had something else, but let me go ahead and defer.
Are there any further questions of our staff?
Okay. We have a presentation from a representative of LBP
Mr. Reynolds.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Alan
Reynolds with Wilson/Miller.
First, I want to thank Ed Ilschner and his staff because they
have responded to this request in a very short period of time, and
we
appreciate that.
The -- excuse me, the request before you is a conceptional
approval of a JPA and the reason we are bringing this forward as a
conceptual approval are two reasons; first and foremost, we
recognize
the short period of time did not allow a fully-executed agreement
to
be brought forward to you, and my client has to make a decision at
the
If
end of this week as to whether or not to proceed forward with the
acquisition of the two pieces of property that would constitute the
project.
So what we were looking for is basically your indication as to
whether or not the concept that we are proposing works in concept.
it does, we will proceed forward, work with your staff, bring back
final agreement that will cover the details of some of the points
that
you have brought up today, but, as importantly, if this concept is
not
something that you feel you want to pursue it, we would very much
appreciate that indication today so that we can make an informed
decision by the end of the week.
The details of this, and you have a packet in front of you
that
has been distributed, and it summarizes a couple things. First of
all, it summarizes the essence of the agreement concept that we
have
proposed. It also includes three sheets that show you how we would
propose to phase the project. And I would point out to you that
the
Lee
recognizing
it's a Lee County road.
to
you
proposal that we are making does, in fact, address the segment in
County to the extent that Collier County can address that,
But I can tell you that it is our intent
proceed forward.
If we get a conceptual approval from you and to initiate this
exact same process with Lee County with the intent of getting to a
joint participation agreement with Lee County that would construct
that last piece of road with an impact fee credit, and we have had
discussions with people in Lee County and we feel pretty confident
that Lee County will be very receptive to that, but recognize that
all are the ones that drive the process.
There is really no benefit to Lee County to be programming
that
segment of roadway if there is not a road to meet up with, and
wewre
talking here about a three-mile segment. We're talking in Lee
County
about a one-mile segment that's already partially in place. So
it's
important that Collier County proceed forward with its part and
then
we can, I think, get Lee County to likewise look at this, because,
frankly, it's a great deal for both counties.
Long Bay Partners also happens to be a unique position because
they have an extensive amount of development activity in Lee
County.
Long Bay Partners is an affiliate of Bonita Bay Properties, so I
think
you have a developer here that not only has the wherewithal to
carry
this out, but you have someone who is able to handle both sides of
the
deal, so to speak, because of the projects that they have in Lee
County.
The proposal is very simple, and, frankly, it is one that you
have approved in one form or another in many instances in the past.
A
private party will build the road. They receive a value in the
form
of impact fee credits and that is -- will be done in accordance
with a
phased construction schedule.
In your packet, we've also included a summary of the public
benefits of this, and I would take issue with the notion that
constructing this roadway in phases doesn't have any public benefit
until it's fully connected.
If you look at decisions you have made in the past as far as
road
impact fee agreements, anytime that you are approving a road impact
fee proposal, it must be something that's in accordance with your
adopted plan and it must be basically a piece of the network.
Clearly, what we're proposing to you today is, frankly, not
only
that, but, frankly, quite more than that which is actually getting
that link established, not only from here to the county line, but
ultimately to Lee County, and I'll address that in a second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds, that's the difference, is
when
it's wholly within Collier County, those links we have control
over,
the future development of the links. That's why I made the
statement
that because it's not in our control, if we don't assurance of that
final link being done, then it, in essence -- I understand the
benefit
of it being there, but that final link doesn't occur, then that's
the
benefit question, not necessarily the individual phases.
MR. REYNOLDS: I understand that completely and, frankly,
that's
why in our proposal we have addressed the entire segment up to
Bonita
Beach Road, even though in prior instances, most recently in the
Carlton Lakes agreement, you approved an impact fee credit for only
building 700 feet of that roadway, and they got a full impact fee
credit for that, and there was no part of a plan in their proposal
to
get it all the way up to Bonita Beach Road. So I think the
important
thing is, is that we're -- not only are we addressing it in
accordance
with the ordinance, but, in fact, are proposing a larger plan that
actually gets the full segment established.
Why is this good for Collier County? There are a number of
reasons why it's good. One is that it's going to save a
substantial
amount of money to the citizens of Collier County.
What we are proposing in this is to construct a road segment
and
a
by accomplishing that earlier than the county would probably be in
position to do so, we save not only the county the carrying cost of
those funds, but F.D.O.T. conservatively estimates the inflation on
road projects increasing at four to five percent per year. And
when
you're talking about a four-and-a-half million dollar road
improvement, that is a significant amount of money that would
accrue
to the benefit of Collier County.
Secondly, the discussion has been made about the permits.
These
were some of the more difficult permits that Collier County has
ever
tried to achieve. In the case of the Corps of Engineers permit,
you
filed your applications in 1990, and you received your permit in
1996.
That was a six-year process to obtain that permit. The Corps
permit
requires the construction of the roadway in order to complete the
permit. So if you think about the timing of this roadway, if the
permit expires in the year 2005, and it's going to take you
somewhere
between a year and a half or so to build the road once it's funded,
you would be looking at the need to include this project in your
CIP.
probably next year in order to make sure that you can take
advantage
of that permit that you have invested a significant amount of money
in.
The South Florida permit has an even earlier expiration date
in
get
to
it
the year 2000, and that permit, although there is a possibility to
that extended, are clearly already behind, frankly, in being able
get the road program in place if the county proceeds forward with
without losing that permit. So I think those are very important
considerations.
Another point is how important this road segment is to Collier
County, and I will tell you that, in my opinion looking at it,
there
yOU
yOU
iS no more important road segment in Collier County, and I'll tell
why. If you look at the map and you look at north/south corridors,
you can see, with the exception of U.S. 41 and 1-75, west of 1-75
have no other arterials that are planned to extend up to Lee
County.
You can also see that Goodlette Road and Airport Road both
terminate
at Immokalee Road. And then if you look at the northern part,
you're
familiar with the fact that we've got Old 41 and New 41 coming
together. So what you have here is the classic bottleneck in road
transportation networks. And the solution to that bottleneck,
which
is putting all of those trips onto Immokalee Road and then onto
those
other two roads, is this road segment. So this is a highly-
important
segment to Collier County.
Another advantage to Collier County in this kind of agreement
is
it's partially self-funding because you will note that -- that in
receiving road impact fee credits, many of those credits, including
the ones that would accrue and be used by Long Bay Partners in
their
project are impact fees that aren't realized until you have the
road
in place. And if the county has to go forward and build the road,
then what they have to do is wait for those road impact fee
revenues
to come in over time. In the case of our project, that would
probably
be over a seven to eight-year time period to absorb those credits,
and
only when the road is built.
Just our project alone, we estimate road impact fees between
1.1
and 1.5 million dollars. So those are revenues that you cannot
plan
on right now to implement your road network until such time as this
road is actually in place and there are other properties.
I mentioned the partnership with a proven developer, and I
don't
think I need to elaborate on that except to say that there are very
few people who could bring this kind of proposal forward to you
because what we're talking about doing is investing four and a half
million dollars into your road network and we are doing that with a
project that will only generate about 25 percent of that in road
impact fees.
(Commissioner Mac'Kie leaves the room.)
MR. REYNOLDS: So the issue of being able to take the residual
credits and have a plan that you approve that allows us to assign
those or sell those credits is absolutely essential to this
proposal.
Without that, this does not work. It's just that simple.
the
the
you
you
of
We cannot leave three to three and a half million dollars on
table without some way of recovering those dollars, but I would
suggest to you that the -- that there are instances, in fact, that
county has allowed excess credits or credits to be assigned and
marketed. And, in fact, in one instance, I know of a case where
allowed a cash reimbursement to the developer for any credits that
could not be used. So I don't think that approving --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What instance was that?
MR. REYNOLDS: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What instance was that?
MR. REYNOLDS: That was the Carlton Lakes agreement.
So I -- you know, I understand that we need to come back to
with all the details of this and -- but understand that it is very
important to our client that at least these conceptual, you know,
points be addressed one way or the other today.
I really hope, on behalf of my client and, frankly, on behalf
Collier County, that you can approve this in concept, and I can
assure
you that when we come back, the issues that have been raised by the
staff that are important, we recognize the importance of those as
well. And the issue of phasing I will address for just a second.
Mr. Ilschner made the comment that the ordinance requires that
if
you enter in this agreement, you do so in a way that the road
impact
fee credits that would be issued would not have a negative impact
on
your funded-road program.
(Commissioner Mac'Hie enters room.)
MR. REYNOLDS: And that, in fact, is a requirement of the
ordinance.
The way we think you can accomplish that is what we have
proposed
in concept which is phasing of the project. What that does is it
allows the pieces to be built, in our case, we're talking about
three
segments, and then the road impact fee credits can be issued in
phases. So what that does is gives us a manageable way to make
sure
the amount of credits that are being issued are taking place in a
phased way so that you do not have a large number of impact credits
coming on line at one point in time.
But beyond that, what you will see in our proposal is we are
leaving a substantial number of credits on the table until such
time
as the road is completed to Bonita Beach Road. So there is a -- in
fact, in our proposal, a huge incentive to Long Bay Partners to
make
sure that they get the agreement in Lee County executed.
We have a four and a half million dollar road project. We
only
way
in
receive 2.5 million dollars of credits until the road is all the
up to Bonita Beach Road. So we have 1.75 million dollars invested
the road that's dependent on our ability to get a similar kind of
agreement worked out in Lee County.
So beyond all the other reasons why this is important, I can
tell
you the dollars and cents of it make it absolutely essential that
we
follow through with what we say we're going to do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the point of phasing impact fee credits,
just so I understand, in essence, plus or minus a year or two, your
impact fee credits really would not be available fully to you until
approximately the time that it would have taken us to build the
roadway -- to accrue dollars and build the roadway anyway.
Is that about a similar time frame?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct.
Right now, it will take your staff probably the -- a year and
half or so to complete the right-of-way acquisition, complete the
construction plans and the permitting update, so we are looking at
tentative schedule of commencing construction in the year 2000. So
the first year in which we would be talking about road impact fee
credits accruing would be in the year 2000, but those credits are
going to be tied into our project, so that has -- that has no
negative
-- and, frankly, all positive impact to the revenue stream that you
are already planning on.
Then the next segment -- I mean, we would hope that we'd be
able
to get this thing done in a couple, you know, couple years after
that,
get the pieces in place, but doing that and then staging the
credits
in such a way as you issue the credits concurrent with the road,
you're not looking at all of those credits coming on line at once.
But if you look at road impact fee, district one, which is the
district that these credits could be used in, that road impact fee
district has consistently outperformed your estimates for budgeting
purposes. And I'll give you a for instance.
Last year, I think your budget called for maybe 2.8 million
dollars in road impact fees in district one. You collected 3.7
million dollars in road impact fees last year in that district.
And
in
we have done an extensive amount of study of that district because
it's important on our side to make sure that we believe that there,
fact, is going to be some market for these credits, the excess
credits.
We're very confident the road impact fee, district one, is
going
to continue to be the district that is going to be generating the
lion's share of road impact fees in Collier County, at least three
million dollars a year, and perhaps more. And this exhibit shows
the
or
by
boundaries of road impact fee, district one, that are outlined in
green, so you can see it's the high-growth area of Collier County.
One last comment I would like to make and that has to do with
U.S. 41. Right now, the six-laning of that road segment is funded
is in the road plan, and it is scheduled to be completed, I think,
the year 2000. But once it's completed, that's it for U.S. 41.
There
is a D.O.T. policy that says that you cannot expand that beyond six
lanes. Our analysis shows that that road will fail from a
concurrency
point of view not too long after it is six-laned, and it's a matter
of
several years before that road will reach its capacity.
1-75 right now is the only existing road that you have that
could
possibly provide relief to that. Our analysis shows that road,
likewise, is probably going to fail long before the D.O.T. has
scheduled funding for it. The solution to all that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Plug in some years in there. It's
easy to say 41 will fail very shortly thereafter.
Does that mean six months? Does that mean six years?
MR. REYNOLDS: We think before the year 2005, you're going to
reach your concurrency levels again on U.S. 41 if this road is not
in
place.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about 1-757 You said long
before
they even appraved funding.
MR. REYNOLDS: 1-75, Ran, do you have a projection on that?
MR. TALLON: They're trying to maintain level of service B on
that road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't you come up and speak in the
mike, please.
MR. TALLON: My name is Ran Tallon (phonetic). I'm with David
Plummet and Associates, a traffic consulting firm.
The Florida D.O.T. is trying to maintain L.O.S.C. as their
standard on the interstate, so it will be some time before it
reaches
the L.O.S.E. or F. threshold, but it will be exceeding L.O.S.C.
probably in five to ten years' time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And where is D.O.T. right now on
reviewing necessity for extra lanes?
MR. TALLON: The current plans for Collier County show it at
four
lanes, and the prior reason for that is, in the development of that
plan, THE county was advised -- the M.P.O. was advised that there
were
no funds available from Florida D.O.T. to be widening 1-75 beyond
its
current four lanes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is no funding in what time
frame?
MR. TALLON: Through year 2020, there's no funds available for
widening 1-75.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there's no ongoing review of
that
right now?
MR. TALLON: That may be the case, but at this time, though,
there has been no notification that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not asking if there has been a
formal decision made. I just don't want to mislead the public into
thinking the Florida Department of Transportation isn't looking and
doesn't have any intention of looking, until 2020, at any
additional
funding if 1-75 gets too crowded. They are doing a review right
flow
of
to look at needs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we look every year at every road.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not just us, but Florida Department
Transportation is looking at 1-75 and the needs in Southwest
Florida
currently, so I don't want anybody to be mislead on that.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's a very good point, but what we're
telling
you, is based on the adoptive plans today, there is no money to do
that through the year 2020, but in comparison to that, this road
segment is not only in your 2020 plan, it is shown in your 2010
financially feasible plan as a six-lane road.
You know, you recognize that typically you don't start off
building a new road corridor in six lanes. You start out by a
two-lane or four-lane and expanding it. So if you start backing up
from the year 2010, it reinforces the conclusion that we have
reached,
and that is, that, frankly, Collier County will need to be looking
at
this very closely next year as a county-funded road improvement in
order to preserve your permits, make sure the road is completed in
timely way, and avoid, frankly, some -- some difficulties with
respect
to the network because the value that this gives to the network
goes
beyond just 41 and 1-75.
If you think about it, Immokalee Road probably carries the
lion's
share of that impact, because if you are heading north, you T into
Immokalee Road at Goodlette Road or at Airport Road. You must go
east
or west in order to proceed forward north. So the segments of
Immokalee Road, particularly the ones that extend east out to 1-75,
right now, are significantly impacted by trips that could be using
this roadway, if it was part of the network, to extend on into Lee
County.
So, you know, we think, again, that what we're proposing in
this
concept is -- certainly meets all of your criteria. It meets your
ordinance. It's a great deal for Collier County. It allows a --
it
allows a developer to proceed forward and, frankly, take on a
responsibility that we have been hoping for over ten years now
would
be borne by the private sector, and what we're bringing you today
is a
private-sector solution to that problem that we don't see any other
alternatives out there.
The MSTU that was created almost ten years ago and has already
expended, both the county and the property owners a fair amount of
money, at least at this point, we don't see a viable proposal to
resurrect that, so, you know, I hope that you would give us the
opportunity to work out the details of this with staff, bring it
back
to you, but I hope you would also appreciate that, in order for
this
to work for our client, that the basic premise of what we're
talking
about, which is road impact fees phased with the construction and
the
ability to market excess road impact fee revenues are critical
items
to our ability to proceed forward and work out an agreement.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ilschner, I asked you earlier
in
up
the hearing about when this road would be necessary, when the
necessity for this would -- you said possibly in 2010 but it showed
for sure in the 2020 plan. Mr. Reynolds has just said it shows up
maybe I misunderstood, but I think Mr. Reynolds just said it shows
up
in the 2010 plan as a six-lane road. Which one of those is accurate?
MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Reynolds is correct.
financially
feasible plan for a six-lane facility in 2010,
yes, sir.
It is in the
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we see it as a necessity at that
point?
MR. ILSCHNER: As a six-lane facility and a necessity at that
point, not probably as a six-lane facility, no, but as a four-lane
facility.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'm wondering is if we do go
ahead, then if we're going to start construction in 2000 and then
take
a year and a half to build so we're into 2002, and if within seven
or
and
eight years, it's going to need to be maybe six-laned, why would we
want to build it as a two-lane and tear it up three or four years
make it a four-lane or a six-lane?
MR. ILSCHNER: I think I can answer that, Alan.
It would be designed and constructed so that there would be no
destruction of the two lanes that are constructed. We'd build half
the roadway and then the other four lanes -- two lanes would be
built
in the future to meet that need. I don't ever foresee it being a
six-lane facility because of the plans in Collier -- in Lee County,
the
their transportation network plans.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't have a particular objective to -- objection to having
segments built as long as the impact fees are consumed within the
project. The transferring of the impact fees or sale of impact
fees
is what's causing me some concern, because the development that's
associated with the building of this roadway segment today is not
going to cause any impacts, particularly on any of our road
networks,
except for the people who have to drive to get there, but if some
impact fees are sold to other areas within even the same district,
then you have a situation where people who are creating impacts
currently are not providing the funds to help improve the roadway
networks associated with their particular development, and that's
the
problem I have.
As long as all impact fees are held within this particular
development, I have no objection to going forward with it, but it's
the sale or transfer of impact fees that concerns me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would your concern be lessened if it were
limited to properties that accessed the Livingston Road Corridor
because they actually would be creating a direct need for the
roadway?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it would.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm not sure what that would amount
to,
but that was one of my early concerns was, you know, somebody pays
impact fees down here, you know, at 896 and Goodlette Road and it
gets
kind of consumed because of a -- you know, the initial impact to
those
funds because of this construction, and that didn't seem to make a
lot
of sense to me. However those that are, say, north of Immokalee
Road
that are actually generating the need for this roadway segment seem
to
make a lot more sense. Now -- so it's that kind of, again, details
that I'm looking for.
I -- I guess I want to -- there was a couple of points that I
made as you were discussing -- we already discussed how the phase
plan
would not adversely affect our road program. As the ordinance
indicates, we cannot allow that to happen, so our staff would be
vigilant on that.
This is -- we know that we're going to have to build this
roadway. We know that we have permits that expire in 2000 and
2005,
respectively. We know that the latter of those two permits may be
difficult to get extended, so what I'm concerned about is it's
never
popular or attractive for someone on this board to enter into an
agreement with a developer for the purpose of building a roadway
before it is a dire need. You know, I think we all recognize that,
for whatever reason, because there is this mind set that if we
don't
build the roads, people won't move here. If we can avoid building
them, then there is no room for anyone else to come.
The communities that have tried that, such Sarasota, when they
stopped building the roads and said look, we need to catch up,
let's
just stop it all right now, or they tried to restrict them in such
a
now
way to slow down growth, are paying the price three and ten fold
because of that decision.
I look at this as you can see it as a liability because it is
quote, unquote, encouraging development, or you can see it as an
opportunity to purchase today what will cost you 5 percent per
annum
more in several years from now.
In addition, and this is a discussion I had with Mr. Reynolds
and
his
he has offered to sit down and work with me, and I don't know if
client would pay him for that or whether he's just being a good
guy,
but there is a North Naples --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or both.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- master plan going on right now that is
looking at the fact that this is the last big tract or area of land
from Immokalee Road north to the county line that is, for the most
part, undeveloped, with the exception of Imperial, being kind of a
big
element in there. This is going to have a tremendous impact on all
the facilities in North Naples. And rather than doing the arterial
activity center concept we've done in the rest of the county, we
have
an opportunity here, with a clean slate, to design something that
benefits the entire community as this area develops. And I see
this
roadway corridor and the east/west section as being the backbone
for
that opportunity to make a better mouse trap than what we have
throughout the rest of the urban roadway system, and I want to be a
part of doing that.
So I put all of that together, and in the end, I have someone
who
to
says, we'll build it, we'll hold the note and we're not going to
charge you interest. If there is banks like that out there, I want
know the names of them.
So I'm -- I think there is reason enough to ask our staff to
work
with the petitioner to determine if the concerns that have been
raised
can be answered effectively and to have the opportunity to look at
that agreement to determine if it is in fact in the best interest
of
Collier County financially and as an overall perspective for the
or
the
if
up
community, and that's really all that I would ask that we do today.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to be as melodramatic
about Sarasota. We're not talking about restricting our existing
roadways or anything else.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Sarasota took it to a new
level, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Never to be seen again.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First, I think the folks who are
involved here in Bonita Bay, they've done a wonderful job on the
various projects they have been involved in and so on and so forth.
I do have a concern, like Commissioner Norris, on the selling
assigning of credits. I'm not comfortable with that, even on other
parts of the corridor.
I have a real concern that we're giving credits in excess of
amount needed within the community. I realize the work may end up
exceeding what that would be, but frankly, they are building a
particular community. There are impact fees that go with that, and
those need to be credited, if there is an exchange there that ends
moneywise, fine, but excess over and above that concerns me a
little
bit for a number of different reasons.
Also, and I assume we'll have this conversation with Lee
County
and try to get some formality before we move ahead with this, but
Mr.
Reynolds said he took exception with our suggestion that it doesn't
have a public benefit unless it's connected to Lee County, unless
we
get that connection through, and yet you have a couple of pages,
three
pages here of public benefits of Livingston Road. And if you'll
indulge me, I'm going to go through them, because all except one of
them, every single one of these benefits that the petitioner has
given
us require that linkage to Lee County to be a benefit, and so I
don't
understand the exception.
The first one talks about long-range transportation plans of
both
Collier and Lee, and we've talked about that. While it's not a
necessity for at least ten years, it does get us ahead of the game,
but -- provides north/south continuity in the highway network, not
until we link up with Lee County.
Provides relief to traffic congestion on U.S. 41; not until we
connect through.
Provides relief to traffic congestion on 1-75. Again, it
doesn't
-- there is no relief if it dead ends up there.
Improves traffic operations at several critical intersections,
and it goes on to give an explanation of how it will divert traffic
away; not unless it outlets somewhere up there.
Provides concurrency relief, talks about U.S. 41 and
concurrency
issues, as Mr. Reynolds mentioned. Again, not until it links
through.
Helps implement a grid road network; not if it dead ends up
there.
Provides improved accessibility to Bonita; not unless it goes
to
Lee
the
The
Bonita Beach Road.
Provides improved accessibility to Southwest Florida
International Airport and F.G.C.U.
Every single one of those requires that we work that out with
County and have that connection through, and so --
MR. REYNOLDS: Commissioner Constantine, if you would go to
last page of the summary I gave you and the first three points.
first three points on that piece of paper outline the benefits that
accrue to Collier County even prior to the linkage up to Bonita
Beach
Road. So, granted, the ultimate benefits occur when the network is
in
place, but those three benefits, which are getting the road in
place
before your permits that you have invested heavily in expire,
reducing
the cost of construction and right-of-way acquisition is a
significant
benefit, I believe.
And probably the last one is the most important. You've got a
three -- you really have a four-mile road that needs to be built
here
to connect the two. If you have a plan in place to get three out
of
four miles built, when the time comes that you have a concurrency
problem, I would suggest that it would be a lot easier to get that
last mile handled if the road is in place than it will be if we
have
just sat and waited.
So I think those benefits are tied directly to what we're
proposing and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm saying the plan is wonderful if
we
have a plan how to get that last mile, but I'm not willing to
gamble
the expense if we don't have that other plan.
Mr. Ilschner, the question, again, when we get into the
concurrency issues, at what point, what year do we expect to be
deficient and absolutely need this?
MR. ILSCHNER: Let me ask Ed Kant if he has a more definitive
answer to that.
Ed, do you--
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While Ed's coming up, let me ask
you
another question.
be
If the permits that expire in 2005 -- does the project need to
completed before those permits expire or do we need to have some
action on those before the -- they expire?
MR. ILSCHNER: I believe the answer is we have to be under
construction, not complete.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. So really we have another
eight
years, if we chose. I'm not saying that's the best avenue, but we
have another eight years, if we chose -- MR. ILSCHNER: Approximately.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to get started.
MR. ILSCHNER: Except for the Water Management District
permit.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. I understand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have two years on that one, I guess.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not going to -- even if we
follow this, we're not going to start in that time frame. We're
just
under the gun in that frame. We're going to need a renewal there.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Services.
The question that was asked specifically was at what year
we'll
become deficient. That -- for a roadway segment that doesn't
exist,
there is no deficiency. This particular roadway segment that is --
any segment of Livingston Road except for that short segment that
now
And
the
exists from Golden Gate Parkway north, is a system improvement.
the implication is that, when we become deficient on other segments
and we have to divert traffic into another corridor, that's when
value of this segment becomes apparent. I think that -- and again
without --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's my question is we're
being
told that this is going to save us from becoming deficient on
parallel
corridors. And I'm asking you when do we anticipate that?
MR. KANT: As an example, U.S. 41, from Immokalee Road to
Vanderbilt Beach Road, in the most recent capital element, shows a
deficiency date of 2003.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That includes the six-laning?
MR. KANT: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That includes the six-laning or not?
MR. KANT: No, that shows as a four-lane segment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. KANT: Once the road is six-laned, obviously that
deficiency
date is going to change. The problem here is that that is not yet
under construction so we're still looking, as we stand here and
discuss this, at a 2003 deficiency date. That's only one segment.
If we move to a different segment of that roadway, and again,
as
an example, from the -- here's a segment which is already six-laned
from Golden Gate Parkway to Fourth Avenue North, which is much
further
south, shows a deficiency date of 2001.
Every one of these segments is reexamined every year. The MPO
has a process of going through this, so what we need to do is we
need
to look at that whole segment -- that whole system of the
north/south
roadways, which is U.S. 41, Goodlette Road, Airport Road --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you --
MR. KANT: -- and factor Livingston Road into that mix.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a really simple question
and maybe -- if you don't have an answer, just say you don't have
an
six
answer, but we have construction planned for U.S. 41 to make that
lanes. It's not six-laned today, I know that. But there is a plan
before 2003 to have that six-laned.
MR. KANT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When that is six-laned, at what
point
would it become deficient if we didn't build this road?
MR. KANT: I can't answer that question today, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. I don't know how Mr.
Reynolds
is answering it then. And maybe you've done the study and our
staff
hasn't. Maybe that's how you answer it.
But to be told that we're saving deficiency on U.S. 41 and I-
75
one
by building this in the year 2000, I don't know is a completely
accurate statement.
My point is that, as we look at the public benefits, and I'm
looking at the summary that you gave us, I'm not just picking at
random, I'm looking at the summary sheet that you gave us, that one
out of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine items,
of those is not dependent on a link going all the way through. The
other eight are.
And so if we can work something out with Lee County and we can
find a way to save some money and we can actually have a realistic
impact on deficiencies at 41 and at 75, great. They haven't been
able
to tell us that we are going to have an impact on deficiencies. No
one has been able to tell us that we have an agreement. I do
appreciate you making a call ahead of time to Commissioner Manning
that hopefully we can work something out with Lee County, but --
and
also, I have trouble giving credits in excess of the amount your
project needs.
So if we can work all those out, it's a great idea, but if
it's
going to be a dead-end road that goes up there and we don't know
until
ten years from now if Lee County is going to hook up or not, I have
a
real hard time saying there's a public benefit there.
but
MR. REYNOLDS: Could I ask you a question, Commissioner
Constantine?
If we were to bring back an agreement that had a similar
provision with Lee County that called for that segment to be put in
place under a similar agreement, would you agree to the rest of the
terms of the proposal we've made?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would agree with the majority of
them. I think the signage and a couple little details I have some
trouble with, and I also do have some trouble with excess credits,
I -- that goes a long way toward solving my problem. Bottom line
just
being if we don't link through, I have a real hard time seeing the
public benefit.
MR. REYNOLDS: Let me give you one good reason why I would
hope
that you would reconsider on the excess credits. Okay. It has to
do
with something that I think is important to you and that is density
reduction.
The reason why our project cannot consume all of the value
that
we are offering to the county in this is because the density that
we
are proposing to build is less than half of what we would be
allowed
to build under your comprehensive plan. If we were to be building
a
higher-density project, frankly, we could have come to you with a
proposal to use all of those credits or at least most of those
credits
within our project. By virtue of the fact that we're reducing the
density, that's what's causing the need for us to have a way to
market
those credits, so I just --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Friday you also told me if you
increase density, the project doesn't work, so -- I know there is a
balancing act there and --
MR. REYNOLDS: It doesn't work for us but it may work for
somebody else.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do appreciate the fact you are
trying to put together a quality development and a low density
development.
MR. REYNOLDS: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I also like the idea that if the first
project
in there comes in at about two units an acre, the word
compatibility
comes to mind for the surrounding properties, and consistency, and
it
of
the
becomes a benchmark of a low-density project in a pretty vast area
undeveloped land.
So, you know, that combined with -- those are all things down
road to consider, but I think there have been some concerns laid on
the table by individual commissioners. I think there are enough
that
there is going to have to be some work done with our staff, but,
again, I would like at least to see if those can be put in some
form
of an agreement. I'm going to ask the board to consider moving in
direction.
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question for Mr. Ilschner.
When is the six-laning of Immokalee Road scheduled? Can you
tell
me offhand, or maybe Mr. Kant?
MR. ILSCHNER: I think Mr. Kant may be able to.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is from 1-75, I guess, over to 41.
MR. KANT: From I -- Edward Kant, Transportation Services --
from
1-75 to U.S. 41. Excuse me one second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, I requested and
received
some information on system-wide effect of this road segment once
it's
in place, and even though it doesn't keep a deficiency from
happening,
the fact that it staves off deficiency is a consideration, and
looking
at which segments it affects will be probably a very important
part,
and I think that's why you're asking -- one reason you're asking
Mr.
Kant is -- and we need to know what system-wide impact it's going
to
in
have, what segments are impacted beneficially and whatnot, because
think that's important also.
MR. KANT: We are presently programming six-laning of -- well,
first of all, from 1-75 to U.S. 41, there is no plan for six-laning
the five-year. The project which is coming up next year, which
will
be October of '98, is the six -- is the four-laning from 1-75 to
951.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: To 951, right.
MR. KANT: So -- and even in the out years, the so-called next
or
second five years, the only thing we have programmed from U.S. 41
1-75 appears to be some monies for some design studies.
Again, the deficiency dates for -- the existing deficiency
dates,
and that's based on this year's analysis, for the segment from U.S.
41
to Airport Road shows the year 2000. That is acceptable because we
have that three-year window so we don't have to show it in this
year's
five-year plan. I suspect it probably will show up in next year's
or
as
all
And
at
you
the following year's. The segment from Airport Road to 1-75 shows,
we speak, deficiency of year 2004.
Keeping in mind that as the travel patterns change, these
deficiency dates change. We've had some segments of roadway, for
example, County Barn Road, which was showing deficient this year,
of a sudden jumped out to 2006 once Davis Boulevard was finished.
now we expect that, once traffic settles down, it will move back in
least two or three years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's why, Commissioner Berry, when
look at this, I'm starting to wonder whether the east/west segment
between 41 and I -- and the future Livingston Road isn't as or more
important than the connection to Lee County. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Both are system improvements, but that
east/west road, and I've already begun the questions investigating
and so far it looks like we have the reservation of right-of-way
between Old U.S. 41 and new, but we have not acquired it yet. If
that
east/west roadway connects between 41 and this segment of
Livingston
Road, we have, in essence, provided a reliever for Immokalee Road
that
wasn't there.
So I don't -- that's why, in looking at this in the future,
those
two segments to me are critical. I don't know which is more.
MR. KANT: We just finished, and you just approved within the
last 90 days, an agreement for the last segment of the right-of-way
acquisition for the east/west segment with commercial development.
That was -- again, that was for an impact fee developer
contribution
agreement, and we -- we've been approached by a number of different
developers along that corridor, and we're looking at several other
projects where we want to make sure we get reservation of
right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I have another question for Mr.
Ilschner.
When you -- when we charge the impact fees, obviously it's at
whatever the current rate is; in other words, whatever our impact
fees
are at that point in time.
MR. ILSCHNER: As stated in the ordinance, yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: As stated. Okay. However, if these
range
over a period of time, and what if the impact fees were raised,
what
happens to the impact fees that we have sat on this at this point
in
time for then future building of roadways that obviously are going
to
be more expensive?
How does this balance out?
MR. ILSCHNER: In fact, that was one of the concerns we
addressed with the proposer in that we would key it to a fixed
amount
of credit and not to any floating rate associated with an impact
fee.
Is that the answer to your question?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I guess my concern is that when
you're
going to build roads in the future -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- they're going to cost you more.
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. How does that affect -- what is
the
a
effect of being assessed the impact fee, let's say, let's just use
date of, say, 1998, and you're going to build a road in the year
2003,
which obviously, unless things go totally to pieces, you're going
to
be paying more for that roadway in the year 2003.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yeah. The ordinance limits the impact fee
credit,
if that's what we're speaking to here. As far future impact fee
credits, the actual cost of the improvement. So you key it to that
dollar and not some future dollar amount.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. In other words, it's whatever is
current, right?
But in the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your point is in the impact fees,
theoretically, eight years from now will likely be higher than they
are right now.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right, and so is the cost of the roadway
up
get
but
MR. ILSCHNER: Correct.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- so here you have given credit at this
rate when, in effect, you're being -- the roadway is costing this
here and the current impact fees are up here.
This is the future, okay. How does that -- how do you equate
this to -- and how do you make this work?
MR. ILSCHNER: The impact fees that are given as a credit are
going to equate to the actual cost of the improvement.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In other words, they're going to get a
credit for how much money they spend. MR. ILSCHNER: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're building it. They're going to
a credit for the cash --
HR. REYNOLDS: The amount of the credit is based on the actual
expenditures.
MR. ILSCHNER: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I was doing something different with it,
I understand what you're saying. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do know -- and we probably have some more
questions, but what I'd like to do is try and limit those to
whether
or not we give staff direction to work with the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion that we give
staff direction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask if we have speakers first, and
then
we can entertain --
MR. FERNANDEZ: You do have one. Mr. Rick Miller.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is Mr. Miller here?
MR. MILLER: I'm not going to speak at this time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Miller has waived.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion that we give
staff direction to develop a full-blown joint participation
agreement
addressing as many as -- as many of the concerns that have been
raised
by the board members as are possible with the -- with the other
participants bringing back an agreement to the board, even if all
points can't be resolved, so that the final decision can be made by
the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For the benefit of the motion, I'm
second that if we can include these points --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that we look to Lee County for
some
sort of agreement on what Alan mentioned as far as their portion;
that
we limit the ability to transfer the credits.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Geographically, you mean?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That we eliminate the ability to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, eliminate. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did say limit.
That we get rid of the signage item, and that we at least
address, for my benefit, and we can talk about that however you
want,
but the excess impact fees. ANd I won't put any terms on that. I
just want that as part of the discussion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only -- the only one that I have a
problem with is eliminating the transferability of impact fees. I
don't want to make -- frankly, I don't want to make any of those
points requirements for further discussion. I would be happy to
give
all of those four points to staff as negotiation items. I wish
that
it would be limit instead of eliminate impact fees. That -- I will
make my motion, include the four points that you made with the
change
of the word eliminate to limit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I thought your idea was
appropriate and that would be to limit the transferability to
those
areas that are directly serviced by this segment because they would
have paid impact fees to build that road in the first place, so
that
does make sense to go ahead and let them be able to transfer those
credits to those properties that are directly serviced. That, I
ca~
support, but to take it outside of this road segment, I can't
support.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that -- that is my motion.
So is that a second?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Which is your motion?
WhatCommissioner Norris just said?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can live with that. If we're
leaving it wide open --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: She's saying limit instead of eliminate.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds, did you have something?
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to
comment on the motion, if I could, because what we're seeking
really
is some -- is as clear a direction as possible from this board.
We can work with your staff to come up with a way to limit the
geographical area that any excess credits would be marketed to and
the
the
the
as
criteria in your ordinance is that they have to be marketed only to
projects that receive a benefit from the improvement being made.
We would ask you to please clarify the motion to give us that
degree of flexibility so that we can come back to you and show you
relationship between the area that we're marketing the credits and
benefit received. Without that, I'm afraid our hands may be tied
far as being able to rely upon at least some ability to market
these
credits. And if we don't have that, frankly, I would rather that
you
not approve this because we don't have an ability to move forward
with
this if we are limited only to impact fee credits within our
project.
I just want to make sure that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question of Mr.
Reynolds?
I want to understand what he's saying, that's all.
You're saying if someone is impacted, they may or may not be
Oh
it
that corridor; they may be on Immokalee Road, but you're saying
because this is -- or on 41 or somewhere else, but you're saying
because there is a relationship on the impacts?
MR. REYNOLDS: We would have to tie the location in which the
credits could be used to a benefit that is derived from the
construction of that segment. That does not necessarily mean that
is only projects that directly access that road segment.
The way your ordinance works right now, and the way you have
approved prior agreements, you would have allowed credits to be
issued
within district one. So we can limit that to the extent possible
by
showing you who benefits, but I can tell you the benefits received
by
these improvements would extend beyond just the properties that lie
north of Immokalee Road.
All welre asking for is the flexibility to be able to work out
those details in an agreement and bring back for your
consideration.
We do need that flexibility.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Once again, Mr. Reynolds, I need to
reiterate, I guess, for you to gain my support, it needs to be
limited
to those areas that will be directly serviced by this road segment.
MR. REYNOLDS: I understand that, Mr. Norris.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I donlt know if the -- second
condition -- I donlt know if the second on the floor right now is
mine
or not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I didnlt recognize a second on
the
had
the
motion because you placed conditions on it, and the motion maker
to -- the motion maker has a motion on the floor and incorporates
four elements you stated with the exception of limit as opposed to
eliminate the transfer of impact fee credits.
We have a motion on the floor.
Is there a second on the motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Iill second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- maybe I just donlt
clearly
understand Mr. Reynoldsi suggestion. It sounds to me like anything
can connect is going to be roughly district one, and Iim not
comfortable with that, and I realize there is a burden there to
prove
that somehow itls connected.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The man at that microphone probably isnlt
going to let him get away with somebody down at Pine Ridge Road and
Goodlette saying that road segment benefits me. I have a strong
sense
that Mr. Ilschner is a negotiating kind of guy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. I just -- Iim not going to
support the motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four, one.
Mr. Reynolds, thank you very much.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ilschner, thank you.
Let's go ahead and take about five minute recess here.
(A brief recess was held.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'd like to welcome
everybody
back to the Board of County Commissioners meeting.
Item #BE1
CONSIDER FUNDING MARCO ISLAND CIVIC ASSOCIATION - WITHDRAWN
We are to Item 8(B)(2) on the agenda, but before going there,
Mr. Fernandez, I just received notice from representatives of the
Marco Celebration 2000, they wish to pull that item from the
agenda.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It is an amendment to -- I believe an
amendment to the agenda. Mr. Weigel, does it require a motion?
MR. WEIGEL: It would.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move that we withdraw that item.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four, zero.
Commissioner Constantine not quite near enough a microphone
for
that one.
Item 882
THE
PROPOSED PLAN TO REHOVE NON-SPECIFICATION MATERIAL FROH PORTIONS OF
NAPLES BEACH - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
We are to Item 8(B)(2), request approval of a proposed plan to
remove non-specification material, red rocks, from portions of the
Naples Beach.
Mr. Huber, good morning.
MR. HUBER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The
objective of this item is to obtain approval to implement a
proposed
plan to remove non-specification material that was placed during
construction of the Collier County beach restoration project along
portions of the Naples Beach.
As you know, during the construction of the project, the
contractor pumped non-specification material onto the Naples Beach
in
the vicinity of Fifth Avenue South and 13th Avenue South.
This situation was discussed with the board on several
occasions
back in January and February of 1996. As a result, a decision was
made to deduct money from the contractor for the non-specification
material placed on the beach in these areas and address the
ultimate
clean up as a function of beach maintenance.
The county attorney's office has reviewed this procedure, and
of
think found it was appropriate with respect to the contractual
relationship.
We have been performing this function, you know, as a function
beach maintenance, and, at this point, there are still two areas
that
are considered unsatisfactory. In fact we know that there is still
unsatisfactory material, particularly below the water line, in
these
areas, and the proposed plan before you is intended to correct
that.
The estimated cost associated with this proposal is $75,000,
which includes a 10 percent contingency. The proposed funding
source
is from TDC funds already appropriated for beach-maintenance
activities.
Other than what is already included in your packet,
that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any
questions
you might have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mine is on the issue of the county
attorney's opinion that we have -- we can't go back after the
contractor at this point to make them pay this $75,000. I need to
know what the evidence is of our, quote, acceptance of the work,
because it seems to me that's the lynch pin of the decision or of
the
opinion from the county attorney's office that -- that we have
accepted the work pursuant to Section 23.4.
Was that in some written formal form?
How did we, quote, accept the work?
MR. WEIGEL: I think Mr. Huber can begin to address that.
Assistant County Attorney Helissa Vasquez did the review and
will
stand by in regard to your specific question of the documentation
that's there.
I'll have a few comments later.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: She said --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Attached to that, if I may, Commissioner
Hac'Kie --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Attached to that, I'd like to know who made
that decision and under what review process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because that is -- she says based on
the
information provided to me, it appears that we have -- wait -- it
does
not appear to me -- it does not appear from the information
provided
to me that the work was rejected, but rather was accepted pursuant
to
23.4 discussed below.
So what is the information provided to her that made her
conclude
that the work was accepted?
MR. HUBER: I'm not sure if it was provided specifically to
her,
but I would -- the answer to that would be our -- referring to
something in writing as far as acceptance, would be -- would have
been
the acceptance of substantial completion, and then, of course, the
final payment. Both of those items, I think, will be directly
related
to that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's ask Ms. Vasquez if that, in fact, is
the
material that she reviewed that allowed her to arrive at the
opinion
she proffered.
MS. VASQUEZ: For the record, Melissa Vasquez, Assistant
County
Attorney.
That was based on an assumption based on the fact that final
payment had been made and final acceptance of the project had been
completed. That was an assumption I made in rendering the opinion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I hire a contractor to do work in my
house,
I write a check, and a few weeks afterwards find out that part of
the
work that contractor did is unacceptable, do I not have legal
recourse
against that contractor even though I paid for the services
performed?
MS. VASQUEZ: I believe that you would, but in this
particular
case, the problem arose during the course of the contract and the
resolution was made during the course of the contract.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, in essence, the negotiation of the
$60,000
being withheld was the settlement for this issue in settlement in
total and was realized by the final payment?
MS. VASQUEZ: It was an option utilized under the terms of the
contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ms. Vasquez, am I saying it --
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
Have you looked at that documentation or are you just relying
what people have told you happened then, because I want to be
really
careful that if there is a crack in the door for going after the
contractor for this money, that we pry the door open through that
crack. And I don't remember casting a vote that said we all agree
that this is full and final settlement of the contract problem that
we've identified.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. My understanding was that it was during
the
course of the contract that the issue arose and the decision was
made
for resolution of that issue is to back-charge the contractor for
those insufficiencies and then proceed with the rest of the
completion
of the contract.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your understanding meaning that's
what
you've been briefed on or --
MS. VASQUEZ: Exactly. My understanding was from the review
of
the R.L.S. that we received in our office, and the review of the
contract documents is my -- where my analysis has come from.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I would ask if a majority of the
board would agree that the county attorney's office be requested to
look into that specific question further and proffer a legal
opinion
on whether or not there is a crack in the door.
I'm going to support spending the $75,000, but my vote today
should not be read as indication that we should not go after the
contractor for reimbursement. Just like my vote on the $60,000
question should not be read as a determination that that would
satisfy
all problems with the contract. There -- that was not a full and
final determination. That was part of the process of trying to
resolve it.
We've subsequently discovered that that was inadequate, and
I'm
not willing to let the contractor or the consultant or anybody
else,
or, frankly, the staff person, and I'm still concerned with
Commissioner Hancock's question about who accepted it, because I
don't
think we did. And if we did, we shouldn't have, but I'd like for
the
county attorney to look into the question of whether or not we can
be
-- we can further pursue the contractor for reimbursement for the
cost
of cleaning up the problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. Mr. Weigel, I hope you'll
look and see hopefully the contract or the agreement with the
contractor does not resolve them of any future responsibility of
any
problem with the work they've done.
legal
the
to
If it does, that's some bad
work on our part and equally as important, that was certainly never
mentioned in this forum when we talked about the issue, and so if
board was voting on something on which it -- the -- an important
detail like that was not mentioned, I have a great deal of concern
there. So I hope our research finds one thing. If it finds the
other, my concern goes beyond the specifics of this contract to how
the board is being informed on issues. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed.
MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate that and we can provide that report
has
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There are really three elements to this
decision today as I see it. The first is whether or not to take
action to correct the situation in its entirety, and I don't think
there is really a lot of discussion necessary on that. Anyone who
seen the condition of the area we are discussing, I think sees the
immediacy of that action and the need for it.
The second item is, as Commissioner Mac'Kie has outlined, and
agree with 100 percent, the initial work by Ms. Vasquez to come to
this determination is fine, but I think we need to put the fine
tooth
comb through it to make sure we have exhausted all available
efforts
to recoup those funds from the contractor for what is obviously
improper material on the beach.
The third element is, and this is internal probably for Mr.
Fernandez, is the decision that was made by our staff that may have
resulted in the contractor being let off the hook with a $60,000
slap
on the wrist for a problem that's going to result in about 150,000
or
more in corrective expenditures, there needs to be some internal
work
on that to identify the problem and to ensure that in the future,
expenditures with these tax dollars, I don't care if they're
tourist
tax, I don't care if they're ad valorem, they're tax dollars, to
make
sure that that money is not squandered in the future when others
are
certainly responsible for those actions.
Those are the three areas I see and the three areas that I
would
like to suggest to the board that we follow in pursuing this
matter.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I support all three of those.
I assume we need a motion on the $75,000, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do know we probably have speakers on
this.
Are there further questions of staff on this matter?
Seeing none, Mr. Fernandez, let's go to public speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Bill Boggess and then Gil
Erlichman. Those are the only two we have.
MR. BOGGESS: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning.
MR. BOGGESS: My name's Bill Bogas. For the record, my
address
is 1100 Eighth Avenue South, City of Naples. I'm a retired
graduate
engineer, former beach committee member, and a beach lover, and as
you
all know, I am a critic of this project, the fact that there are
rocks
on the beach.
I have reviewed the proposed project, as Mr. Huber has
presented
it, the 16,000 cubic yards of material to be filtered for rocks.
This
represents about 15 percent of that which needs to be done in that
area. This represents only between Fourth and Sixth Avenue South.
If you had been down there yesterday morning, you would have
seen
rocks all the way to 13th and 14th Avenue South. No, they would
not
have been 13-inchers, but they would be rocks along the beach.
Secondly, the rocks extend 150 feet into the surf. This
project
is only attacking out less than the full depth. They're only going
out 90 feet -- I mean, there would still be 90 feet of rocks under
the
9th
in
the
toe of the original fill that was placed there where the rocks came
from.
Thirdly, in checking the permit, the permit expired October
of this year of the state as far as any work below mean high tide
the sovereign waters of the state. Mr. Huber did point out to the
committee that all they needed to do was to call Fort Myers, but
permit has expired.
Also, you obtained easements from property owners who own the
beach along there back before the project started. I doubt that
they
gave you a permanent easement. It was probably what is known as a
construction easement that would extend to the period of the
warranty
of the contractor, which ended March 25th, 1997, seven days after I
filed my first complaint with you about the illicit rocks. So you
may
the
have some problems that you might want to look into.
If you like, I can enlighten you as to why the rocks are there
and that you are looking at the wrong place when you're looking at
contractor. If you would like, I will happy -- be happy to spend
five
minutes with you on that score.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bogas, I appreciate that, and I've read
your correspondence on that. My primary priority right now is to
correct the condition on the beach.
MR. BOGGESS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, you know, we'll take one step at a
time
at least --
MR. BOGGESS: Very good.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- from my perspective --
MR. BOGGESS: I'm just making myself available if you want it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do appreciate that.
MR. BOGGESS: So those are the three points I have as far as
this
proposed project is concerned.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BOGGESS: I have been in touch with the Corps of
Engineers,
and they said that, to go out where the rocks actually are, this
may
not
entail additional permit as far as manatees and navigation out 165
feet from the shoreline. Of course, as it's shown there, they're
going out that far.
I know that Mike Stevens, Mike Poff (phonetic) and Harry Huber
were in touch with the Corps of Engineers on the afternoon of
November
13th, the day before I called the -- actually, the engineers called
me. And we did not discuss what they discussed, but when I
enlightened him as to where the rocks actually were, and I might
add,
that little Russian that we saw wading back from out there, the
News-Press reporter picked up on, I doubt that he's gone back to
Russia and tell them that we do have the sugar white sand that is
being advertised throughout the world and being paid for by our bed
tax.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Bogas.
Mr. Huber, on that, obviously, one of the main reasons that as
I
for
met with Mr. Ilschner -- and by the way, thank you, Mr. Ilschner,
your attention in this matter.
One of the main reasons I met with him is that we were doing
kind
of a Band-Aid approach on a weekly or monthly basis that was
costing
us money, and it made sense to me to just get in there and assume
that, you know, that statement, if you have dog that needs to have
his
all
at
tail cut off, do you do it an inch at a time or do you just do it
at once. Well, doing it all at once makes the most sense.
What I want to make sure we don't do here is authorize an
expenditure that does half the job or less than half the job. So I
need to have the assurance that the conditions that we're looking
-- and I'll be down there touring it with the city council tomorrow
for this stretch of beach -- the assurance that we are going to fix
the problem of unsuitable rocks on the beach, which is anything
over a
certain size according to both permits and our regulations.
So I'm going to assume that's the case, but the points brought
up
by Mr. Bogas, we need to have those answered.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to follow up on that, because, if
understand it, the continuing problem is that the wave action
unburies
-- digs up some of the rocks that are currently, you know, well
under
water and well under the existing sand. I don't want to do this
for
75,000 now and then find that Mr. Bogas' additional 90 feet of
rocks
are just going to wash up next year. Let's get it all done, be
sure
that we're clear that we're getting it all done.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Particularly if we have to pursue any type
of
permit or whatnot. You know, there may be a point when you go
offshore over six or seven feet of water depth, which does take
awhile
to get out to, that it's, you know, getting those rocks is not
really
necessary.
What we're talking about really is the wading portion of the
beach and that depends on the beach profile below the mean high
water.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the portion of the rocks that will
be
unearthed by tide and wave action over a reasonable period of time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That relates to the depth we go down, so
agreed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we're speaking from the same
position.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next speaker, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Gil Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Morning, Commissioners. Gil Erlichman,
elector
and taxpayer in Collier County, and I'm speaking for myself. And I
just learned a new word for rocks, or words, non--- what is it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Non-specification material.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Non-specification material.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not just for rocks. That includes
cars, washers, dryers.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Oh. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those are all non-specification.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Old tires, et cetera.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly.
MR. ERLICHHAN: All right. I would like to quote from -- this
was a request for legal services by Mr. Huber to the county
attorney
and background of request, et cetera. And the last part of the
request it has three questions; were our actions legally
appropriate;
were there any other remedies that could have been taken; if so,
are
they still available. And the third question, based upon
information
contained in the contract documents, did the design professional
take
appropriate action in identifying the sand source.
Would somebody tell me what -- who is the design professional?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Coastal Engineering.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you.
And the reply to this request -- that letter was written on
it
the
October 15th, 1997. A reply was written on November 5th, '97, and
was written by Melissa A. Vasquez, Assistant County Attorney.
In answering the last question which asked about the design
professional, it says, based upon information contained in the
contract documents, did the design professionals take appropriate
action in identifying the sand source.
The answer, this is not a legal question and is not within my
expertise to answer, period.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, Gil, that's really kind of a
judgment question best answered by a professional engineer, not by
assistant county attorney.
I understand you're saying it hasn't been answered. I agree
with
you. I'd like to see a judgment call by our professional engineer
the
our staff as to whether or not that was and what supporting
information is there.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, I would like to focus on where the blame
for the rocks should be -- should be focused on. And I'm taking
second paragraph out of the blue -- blue sheet on Page 1 of the
executive summary, under considerations.
After investigating daily survey records, it was discovered
that
the contractor had dredged outside the specific limits of the
borrow
area during the time period when the non-specification material,
bracket, rocks --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rocks or --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Gil -- Gil, it's not necessary to read
this
stuff to us. We've already read all that. I mean, what -- do you have a point?
MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. My point is, the focus of this
discussion
should be with -- on Coastal Engineering, because they're the
design
professional. I feel that there should be, or there was an absence
of
proper supervision of the sand while it was being pumped -- dredged
and pumped onto the beach. If that were the case, the rocks would
have been seen being pumped on the beach and work should have been
halted, and, at that time, the source of the sand, the dredge,
should
have been moved, not to continue pumping the rocks on the beach,
and
to take a $60,000 credit for that particular time when they were
pumping rocks on the beach, because now we've got a festering,
ongoing
situation on the renourished portions of the beach of Naples that
we're going to have to continue to resift and reclaim the next ten
years, I assume. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
One thing, and I always feel obligated to say this when we
talk
about the problems on the beach, is that this is a project that 90
percent was not just within specs, but very good quality work.
What we're talking about is ten percent of the project that
was
not done appropriately. I think, because this is the first time
we've
ever done a beach renourishment in Collier County, there is
somewhat
of a learning curve for our staff in dealing with consultants.
That's
not to excuse any actions that are inappropriate or actions that
cost
us additional funds, but I think to recognize in a projected
14-million-dollar project, the level of problems we've had have not
been significant, however I think we could have acted on them in a
more appropriate manner, and that is why I've asked Mr. Fernandez
to
and
look at it on the staff level and who made what decisions and when,
what information was supporting to determine if there was -- quite,
frankly, if there is somebody out there that is holding the bag on
this, whether it be the consultant, whether it be a staff member,
whether it be the contractor.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good point. We did several miles
several million dollars of very, very good work and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Beautiful.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Coastal Engineering and our
staff
did very, very good work. If we have a particular area we need to
correct, we will. And if we have an error somewhere in the process
along that, we need to correct that so it doesn't happen again, but
your point's well taken. The vast majority of this project was
done
exceptionally.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion to approve
the
$75,000 expenditure in tourist tax funds for the clean up as
outlined
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- in the staff report, but also with
instructions to the staff as we've talked about before to be
absolutely positive that they can report to us that this is an
adequate plan to address the problem.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: You had also mentioned, in addition, legal
staff taking a more detailed look at the contract to determine if,
in
fact, all remedial efforts have been exhausted.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good lawyers can find ways to sue
people
when somebody's been wronged, and the county's has been wronged
here.
And I want you to find a way to go after whomever caused the
problem.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: I'll add the caveat sue and win.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. That's included in my motion.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Sue and lose is not authorized.
that
of
in
Mr. Fernandez, is there any additional information or from
motion that you think is lacking, based on your exposure to this
particular problem?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. I think the motion is complete.
As I understand it, you want us to be sure to address a number
issues, including if there is an opportunity to pursue any legal
remedies, if there are staff responsibilities that I should address
my internal process, and if there is -- we need assurance from the
staff level that this will completely address the problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's precisely what I would like to see
addressed.
Motion maker, does that --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second stands.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
I will be at the city council meeting tomorrow to explain to
them
what action we have taken today and also to join certain members of
the city council, basically taking a look at the area -- the
affected
area for me once again to take a look at it, so I'll convey this to
them. I'm sure they'll be pleased.
Mr. Huber, thank you very much.
Mr. Ilschner, thank you again for putting this together in the
short fashion you did.
Item #8B3
WORK ORDER TO REPLACE THREE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELLS - APPROVED
Next item was an add-on item, Item 8(B)(3), request to replace
three public water supply wells.
Good morning, Karl.
MR. BOYER: Good morning. Karl Boyer with your office of
Capital
Projects Management. Thank you for accepting this item as an add-
on
item.
It is a fairly routine item to replace three wells, but we're
asking you to help us accelerate the schedule so that we can meet
peak
water demands anticipated for the March/April seasons.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does anyone have a problem with --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Karl.
Item #8B4
TERMINATE CONTRACT WITH SOVEREIGN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. FOR BID
#96-2588, RIVIERA COLONY PHASE II UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS - STAFF
RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
Next item under -- it's also an add on, excuse me, add on
8(B)(4), request to terminate -- someone have a tongue I can
borrow?
Request to terminate contract with Sovereign Construction
Group.
Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. Again, for the record, Adolfo
Gonzalez, Capital Projects Director.
Regrettably, I'm here to tell you that the Riviera Colony
water-sewer replacement project is about 39 percent complete in
terms
of the value of work paid out to date and over 100 percent complete
in
terms of the contract time.
Your staff has been working with the contractor, Sovereign
Construction Group, over the last few weeks on trying to develop a
plan to complete this project on some basis. Regrettably, we
weren't
-- we came to an impasse. We're recommending that you terminate
the
contract for default for failure of timely and properly performing
the
work. We also are recommending that we start with some immediate
restoration activities.
If you have been out there to that site, you'll have noticed
that
the primary road, Riviera Boulevard, is torn up, at least the --
the
north -- north leg of it. There is debris and material within the
project site. There is dirt within the swales and other material
within the yards. We're suggesting or recommending that we start
Some
of the restoration work immediately as particularly on the streets
that is we've already accepted the sewer and water work; St.
Rafael,
St. Tropez, the southern half of Monaco, and as soon as we complete
the
final testing of sections of Menton and Monte Carlo Lane, we're
recommending that you proceed with the immediate restoration of
that
work also.
This is subject to the contract notice provisions to be given
to
the contractor. We're asking that you start that process today so
that we can notify the contractor that we're going to terminate the
contract for default. We're also going to notify the surety so
that
we come back to you hopefully in early January with a plan to
complete
the sewer restoration work.
We've put together an initial estimate to complete the
project,
and it should be about $850,000 to complete all remaining work.
The
contract value is just under $900,000. We have a performance bond
equal to the contract value of just less than $900,000.
The initial restoration work we're asking you to do is under
Some
various existing county contracts. You have a pave -- an annual
paving contractor that we intend to use, although we are
recommending
also that we substantially exceed the formal competitive threshold
for
that paving contract so that we can proceed with getting the
restoration work done.
We've already solicited a quote for the yard restoration work.
That will also --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez, I just had a sewer put in any
neighborhood and if I had to deal with it from 1996 of last year
till
now, you know, I'd probably be armed to the teeth, so I sense an
immediacy here.
Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I just wanted to know -- these
unfortunate
people have been living with this for two years with all this
disruption, what are we going to do about completing the project,
not
just the restoration of the completed areas, but the total project?
What are we going to do?
MR. GONZALEZ: The best case is once we've notified the
surety,
they would step up and provide us an alternate contractor,
according
to the obligations of --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who's the surety on this?
MR. GONZALEZ: I don't recall the name of the surety. It's a
firm out of the East Coast.
As you recall earlier on when we started this project, we also
had the surety provide an underwriter because, at that time, the
surety's bond rating was a B plus, plus, and our contracts call for
an
our
A minus rating or better. So we have an underwriter underwriting
surety on this project.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's like having a built-in suspender,
isn't it?
MR. GONZALEZ: Hopefully so. That is the best case scenario -
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Oklahoma analogy.
MR. GONZALEZ: -- in that the surety provide an alternate
contractor.
emergency
to
you
are
If not, we would have to undertake, under some
provision, soliciting quotes to have another contractor start or
complete the sewer restoration.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: When can you come back to us and tell us
whether we can quickly obtain a substitute contractor through our
surety?
MR. GONZALEZ: I expect it's going to take three to four weeks
work that out with the surety and we should have some indication to
you with a schedule -- with a definite schedule to complete the
project by the end of January.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right. I'd like to see that
do that as rapidly as possible, and if we don't have a satisfactory
answer or resolution from the surety, that we go immediately to an
emergency-type bid situation and get this project underway.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Got to happen.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's just too long.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise. I understand what those folks
going through.
Okay. Any further questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do have a speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Butt Saunders.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is
Butt Saunders with the Woodward, Pires, Lombardo law firm. I'm
representing Sovereign Construction Group. I'm not exactly sure
what
action is being requested. This is to start the termination
notice,
is that -- am I understanding that correctly?
We're objecting to this procedure. As of yesterday morning,
we
thought everything had been resolved so the contractor could finish
this job. We were somewhat blind-sided here with the fact that
this
has now turned into a termination. We got a phone call late
yesterday
afternoon to suggest that.
I'll also tell you that this is not the first contractor on
this
job. This is the second contractor on this job. You're about to
get
a third contractor now.
So I want to object to the procedure. I'm not sure I
understand
what you're even being asked to do this morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've made a motion to provide notice of
intention to terminate pursuant to the contract terms.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez, is that the requested action
by
staff as I see it?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
And -- you're recommending staff's
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're making a motion --
MR. SAUNDERS: Can I ask a question in reference to this --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just going to say -- do you
have
a copy of this?
MR. SAUNDERS: No, sir, I do not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll read you the three parts and
the
the
recommendation.
That the BCC terminate and -- terminate in whole for default
Construction Agreement with Sovereign; authorize staff to proceed
with
securing the necessary work to initiate site restoration, and waive
the formal competitive threshold for yard and road restoration
work.
MR. SAUNDERS: Excuse me. Could I ask a question of staff
for
clarification as to what the contractor is supposed to do from this
point forward?
The contractor is out there today doing work.
What is the contractor supposed to do from this moment
forward?
MR. GONZALEZ: As I understand our contract obligations, today
we're asking you, with that action, to then have us notify the
contractor that we are terminating the contract for default, and
the
contractor has seven days to cure all defective work or any work
that
is not completed as previously submitted to the contractor.
Failure
of completing all that work within seven days, the termination will
go
into effect seven days from today.
We will also be notifying the contractor today that he has --
that we're going to start some of the restoration work this week
with
our road and bridge crews to smooth out Riviera Boulevard and that
will be after a two-day notice per the contract specifications.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez, what was the time frame in
which
the contractor was supposed to complete this work?
MR. GONZALEZ: Two hundred days to substantial completion and
two
hundred twenty-five to final completion. That final completion
date
was October 30th, thereabouts.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Final completion was seven weeks
ago?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a follow-up just for
clarification purposes?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually --
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm trying to find out what the contractor is
supposed to do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's really not relative to the board
action
that's on our agenda today, but I think Mr. Gonzalez can answer
that
question, you know, just --
MR. SAUNDERS: I was not able to meet with Mr. Gonzalez and
Mr.
Ilschner yesterday.
HR. GONZALEZ: I'd be happy to respond to that.
Cure all the defective work, all the remaining work within
seven
days or the contract will be terminated effective a week from
today.
MR. SAUNDERS: Does that mean staff-authorized wet trench
installation will be acceptable?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is not the forum for meeting with our
staff, Mr. Saunders. This is the forum for a board decision on
whether to terminate the contract and that's the decision before us
today.
Mr. Gonzalez, will you make yourself available to Mr. Saunders
immediately following this item?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Clarify the motion. Does that include
direction to the staff that I have mentioned about the rapidity of
o~lr
process?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did I hear a second on the motion? I don't
recall.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second by Commissioner Constantine.
Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Clarification on the motion, Mr. Chairman.
Does -- is it the intent of the motion to incorporate those
three
provisions that are in the backup that was given to you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As far as staff recommendations?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes by motion maker. Second agrees?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So done.
Any questions on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
Mr. Gonzalez, thank you, and we'll look forward to seeing, as
soon as possible, the remedial work for that community.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Item #8E2
CONTRACT FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES - APPROVED
you
We are to Item 8(E)(2), approval of contract for financial
advisory services. Again 8(E)(1) was withdrawn.
Item 8(E)(2), Hr. Smykowski --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have anything to add?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You've put on paper the contract that
we've already authorized with the financial advisor that we asked
to -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: The motion would include the budget amendment,
staff -- also staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. We have a motion by
Commissioner
Norris, a second by Commissioner Hac'Kie. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
Mr. Smykowski another fine presentation, sir.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I tell you what, since he's now in the
private
sector, we'll go ahead and squeeze this one in before for lunch.
Item #9A
SETTLEMENT OF LAWSUIT STYLED EAGLE CREEK PROPERTIES V COLLIER
COUNTY -
APPROVED
Item 9(A), under county attorney's report, recommendation for
the board to consider and approve a proposed settlement of a
lawsuit
styled Eagle Creek Properties v Collier County.
I want to ask Mr. Pettit, before you launch into something,
have
you had the opportunity to meet with each commissioner individually
and discuss this?
MR. PETTIT: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have not. Okay. So we get the A
description, then.
MR. PETTIT: For the record, Mike Pettit here on behalf of
the
office of the county attorney. This is -- we have had the
opportunity
to discuss this with some of the individual commissioners, a
proposed
settlement of a lawsuit filed by Eagle Creek Properties, Inc. and
several other plaintiffs against the county in 1993. It arises out
of
PUD
has
a 1985 PUD agreement -- PUD ordinance, and it also arises out a
contract from 1987.
The issues are, does the county get to serve the Eagle Creek
and does a class of property owners get to recover impact fees it
paid for county service.
The items -- the central tenets or principles of the
settlement
are set forth in the executive summary, so I'm not going to review
those unless you want me to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyone feel that's necessary?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: Mr. Ilschner and I have worked, and before him,
Mr.
Conrecode and I worked on this trying to settle this matter for
Some
time, and Mr. Ilschner and I have brought this settlement forward
today. We think it's a reasonable business solution to the dilemma
in
light of the fact that this lawsuit was filed in '93, and my best
estimate is that it will go on till the year 2001. And I don't
pull
that out of a hat. I've kind of sat down and thought about that.
There will be appeals, regardless of who wins or loses, on several
different kinds of items and, if fact, part of the lawsuit is in
the
court of appeal as we speak.
around
We
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As much as we'd like to see you hanging
to 2001, that's a little long for a lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second.
Any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do want to ask the board's indulgence.
have members of the Housing Finance Authority, which are volunteers
thank you, Mr. Pettit, and best wishes.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 97-466 THROUGH RESOLUTION 97-471, AUTHORIZING THE
HOUSING
FINANCE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS TO
FINANCE QUALIFYING APARTMENT PROJECTS - ADOPTED
so
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have members of the Housing Finance
Authority that have been here. They are volunteers of their time,
I'd like to go ahead and hear Item 9(B) before breaking for lunch.
This is a request by the H.F.A. for approval of resolutions
authorizing the Authority to issue multi-family housing revenue
bonds
to finance qualifying apartment projects.
I'd like to ask members of board, have you each had an
opportunity to meet with Mr. Pickworth and his representatives on
that?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, and these are not land-use
decisions,
it's just sort of endorsing something we've already done.
Unless we need a long presentation, I'll make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since Mr. Pickworth is not being paid to be
here, my guess is he would rather just as soon make a short one.
So
we have a motion to approve.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pickworth, is there anything in
addition
you need to add on this?
MR. PICKWORTH: No. I think the executive summary is
self-explanatory. I'm simply available, and others are available
to
answer questions. I would just like to note publicly that we've
gotten to this point today through the efforts of a lot of the
groups
in the community including the Chamber EDC Coalition who helped us
get
back on the state HFA list.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is your name? Sir, what is your
name?
MR. PICKWORTH: Excuse me. Don Pickworth.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Also, I've indicated I've received letters
of
support on this from several entities and businesses in the
community.
I want to indicated that for the record.
We do have three speakers, Mr. Fernandez.
You're welcome to speak if you want to support this or talk us
out of it or you can just waive.
Go ahead and call the speakers individually.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Ellie Krier.
MS. KRIER: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ellie gets a gold star. Next.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Second is Joan Gust.
MS. GUST: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Gust equally gets a gold star.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Third is David Cook.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: David has decided that it's absolutely
necessary --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Black mark, big black mark by his name.
MR. COOK: I guess I get a black star. I'm sorry. Mr.
Chairman, members of the commission, I know you're hungry. I'll
try
was
to be brief.
I'm here today on behalf of one of the five applicants that
vying for the bond money that the Housing Finance Agency is
attempting
to allocate. That applicant is Arbor View.
I want to commend the agency and this board for getting back
on
are
the state list and getting some money. It's very important. We
fully supportive of the Saxon Manor project being funded because
that
is a project half-built and it is money that was recommended by the
agency to finish that is going to finish that project.
The reason I'm talking today, though, commissioners, is the
manner in which the remaining monies that is realistically
available
is going to be allocated.
There is a state system for allocating the state monies that's
very objective. It's tried and true. It's a very lengthy
application
process that involves a point system.
The Housing Finance Agency prioritized at their last meeting
with
the county agency the remaining four projects and for a reason --
reasons that we have no idea why, our project is ranked last. We
do
not know the system they used for prioritizing those.
the
to
You have resolutions in front of you today to approve all of
projects, but, realistically, only one additional project is going
get funds because there is only about two million dollars left.
All we're asking for you to consider is that the local agency
ought to use the same ranking system that the state uses in
deciding
who's going to get the money because if the local agency picks one
project and the state agency picks another, the likelihood is that
neither project is going to get funded enough to go forward.
That's
all we're asking you to do is to use the same ranking system.
We're willing to play on the same playing field with all the
people, and when the state makes its decision in mid-to-late
February
of the state monies that's going to be available for Collier
County,
you will know then the project at the top of that list, and all
we're
asking you to do is say that the local agency ought to use that
same
ranking system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can just eliminate the local agency
then though and just have the local rankings be the state rankings.
MR. COOK: Well, not eliminate them, use the same objective
standards, Miss Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it would just be going through the
motions, right, because if they use the same standards, why bother
having a local agency?
MR. COOK: Well, let me make an analogy and tell you why I
think
that's important. If it's the goal -- if it's the goal to have
affordable housing -- let's say you're trying to build a car and
the
state is going to provide the engine and the county is going to
provide the wheels and there's only enough money for two cars to be
built, Saxon Manor is that first car and we support that. There's
only enough money for another car to be built and the state
provides
the engine to one manufacturer and the county provides the wheels
to
another, you're not going to have the second car, and that's what's
going to happen here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand your point. I do also
understand
the timing issue at hand for the Housing Finance Authority that the
wheels have been set in motion to appoint, but I'm not sure we have
the objectivity or time today to get into it and make that
direction
of ranking in such a way that the submittal time line is met.
I do appreciate that point, and would like to have the H.F.A.
consider it and respond in their advisory capacity to the board,
but
I'm not sure that we want to sacrifice the application process
that's
currently in track seeing that we don't have another meeting
between
now and that time. That's a concern for me.
MR. COOK: It's my under --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, is the Housing Finance
Authority a true authority or is that just the name of an advisory
board?
MR. WEIGEL: No, it's a true authority. It has certain --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't have the latitude to direct
them
to make any changes in their operation at this point.
What -- would you state your name for the record, please?
MR. COOK: David Cooke. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I must have missed that one. I apologize.
That's why there's five of us.
MR. COOK: I'm sorry. I thought I did say it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's okay. You still have the original
black mark. We won't add one.
MR. COOK: To respond -- I believe, and Mr. Pickworth can
correct
me if I'm wrong, I believe the Authority has the capacity to make
its
decision before its deadline by saying that we will -- we will
award
the remaining the two million dollars to the project that is going
to
no
get state funds based on its priority system.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hy point is simply, sir, that that's a
matter that you need to take up with the Housing Finance Authority
because, as an authority, they are separate and distinct from the
county commission.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can't tell them what to do.
MR. COOK: Yes, sir, I understand, but only the county can
approve these resolutions that permit the issuance of the bonds and
you may --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So your suggestion is we just vote
on that today?
HR. COOK: No, I'm not suggesting you disapprove all
resolutions.
By approving these resolutions, though, you -- I'm bringing out --
there are four of the five that -- there are four of the five
resolutions that you may have none of the other four projects go
forward because the method in which the remaining two million was
awarded by this Authority, and that -- there ought to be something
this board should do to address that. I don't have --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Specifically, what is it you're
asking
us to do?
MR. COOK: I'm asking you to recommend to your Authority, you
cannot dictate this to them, but recommend to your Authority that
they
use an objective method for awarding the allocation of monies the
same
way the state does, because we're not sure what method was used to
not
allocate this money. That's all I'm asking. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask this.
Are you suggesting that whatever method they are using is not
objective?
MR. COOK: I don't know what the method is, and I -- there is
a point system, for example, the way the state uses a point system.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When was their hearing done that
they
made their recommendations, because it seems like, unless that was
yesterday, the first thing I would have done, if I was you, was go
to
them and inquire, okay, what method was used.
MR. COOK: Yes, sir. I have not been aware of this until
recently and I'm sorry. I did not go to them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did I understand that you are a
representative of one of the projects? MR. COOK: Arbor View, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You didn't get in the number two
position
and that's why you're bringing this discussion up? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. COOK: We actually got ranked fifth and we're not sure
why,
because if you look at the geography, where our project is, we're
in
North Naples, which, according to a 1994 study that the state did,
is
the biggest demand for affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I guess my point is simply that
you're not exactly a disinterested observer here.
MR. COOK: Oh, no. I did not --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Clearly an advocate. Understood.
MR. COOK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest this. Rather than our
asking
Mr. Pickworth to come up here and answer your questions, I would
prefer you direct your questions directly to the Housing Finance
Authority for a response on how they rank so that, with an
understanding of that, maybe there is a specific recommendation
this
board can make so that if not in this process, in the future, the
ranking is done in the manner that is best serving the community.
Right now, we would have to go through a little question and
answer period and, again, the time line is somewhat short, so I
appreciate your concerns. I just think, at this point, it probably
serves us best to move it forward with the Housing Finance
Authority
recommendation.
I'll encourage you to discuss this with them so that maybe we
don't have a similar situation next year when we go to the state
for
the allocation. That would be my suggestion singularly. I don't
know
if the board agrees or whatnot.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to call the question
MR. COOK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Cooke.
Commissioner Mac'Kie had previously made the motion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- if I recall, and the second was by
Commissioner Constantine. Thank you.
All those in favor say aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
With that, ladies and gentlemen, we will take a one-hour for
lunch. Be back at 1:15, please.
(Recess was taken)
Item #10A
TO
RESOLUTION 97-472, APPOINTMENT OF JOHN GRICE AND TIMOTHY BLACKFORD
THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
things down sometimes.
agenda
and
It's amazing how that gavel kind of shuts
Welcome back. We are at a point in our
under item 9, county -- sorry, we completed item 9. We're to 10,
Board of County Commissioners, item 10(A). This is a request to
appoint members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Mr.
Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll nominate John Grice
Timothy Blackford.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
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.
Is
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 97-473, APPOINTHENT OF R. BRUCE ANDERSON, CHARLES HORGAN
ABBOTT, HERBERT SAVAGE, DAVID CORREAAND DARLENE KOONTZ TO THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
We're to item 10(B), appointment of members to the Development
Services Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I think the three
folks
for reappointment that are mentioned here by committee
recommendation
are all good. All these folks are good, but -- Mr. Abbott, Mr.
Anderson and Mr. Savage. The one I would like to see is David
Correa,
who has volunteered a couple of different times and has not been
appointed for different committees, but has shown a great deal of
interest and continually kind of keeps tabs on what's going on in
the
county and would like something to get involved in, so I make a
motion
we approve those four names.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Instead of John Grice as a new
appointment, the suggestion is David Cottea. Is there a second to
the
motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What about the -- okay, never mind.
I'll
second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I do have a question in regard to that.
Normally -- how much overlap do we have on committees? I mean are
there -- do we have people who serve on several advisory
committees?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're allowed to serve on two
simultaneously.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Simultaneously -- okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you take Herb Savage off of here,
there's
no one to sing the national anthem at the beginning of the
meetings,
so '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So the -- let me clarify. We need a
motion
for five people, so it's Anderson, Abbott, Savage, Cottea and
Koontz?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, Koontz is included, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, I wasn't clear on that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. With those five, we have
motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 97-474, APPOINTMENT OF KATE WARNER TO THE HISPANIC
AFFAIRS
ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
We're to item 10(C), appointment of members to Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there's one opening,
one
applicant, I would make a motion we approve Kate L. Warner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify, by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 97-475, APPOINTMENT OF CHARLES COLVIN AND CHRIS
XIGOGIANIS
TO THE ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to item 10(D), appointment of
members to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee, in which there's been a lot of discussion lately and
Commissioner Norris, you've spent some time with them.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've spent time with those, so I'll make
motion that we appoint Colvin and Xigogianis.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Even though we can't pronounce the name?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I did.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are those both new appointments?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any discussion?
We have a motion, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'll --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll second the motion.
All those in favor signify, by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #10E
BLUEBILL AVENUE TO BE CLOSED FROM VANDERBILT DRIVE TO GULFSHORE
DRIVE
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:30 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 17, 1998,
FOR
THE THIRD ANNUAL CUB SCOUT SOAP BOX DERBY - APPROVED
Next is a request by me for street closure for the third
annual Cub Scouts soapbox derby.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Make a motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second -- third.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So you guys want the long
explanation
on this or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, that's all right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, just checking. Any speakers on this,
Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
Item 10F
RESOLUTION 97-476, APPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL JERNIGAN TO THE HEALTH
PLANNING COUNCIL - ADOPTED
Next is appointment of members to the Health Planning Council.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only question on this is, did we
have a tax for this?
MS. FILSON: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this the committee that was
recommended
to be dissolved?
MS. FILSON: No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is not the same one?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is Health Planning Council, that was
the
Public Health Unit Advisory Board that was the subject of
correspondence.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Another health advisory committee?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. Okay. We have a -- was that a
motion,
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we approve
each of the names here, Salem, Jernigan for the -- oh, it's only
one
opening.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The recommendation is for Michael Jernigan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm sorry, I thought we had
two
and
openings there. I make a motion that we follow the recommendation
approve Mr. Jernigan. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 97-477, APPOINTMENT OF MARY NELSON TO THE MARCO ISLAND
BEACH
RENOURISHHENT ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
the Marco Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee.
notice
that there's only representatives from District 1 here.
Commissioner
Norris, do you really think that's fair?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I guess it's all Marco Island.
nominate Mary Nelson.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there a second?
I'll second the motion.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Motion carries five, zero.
Next, item 10(G), appointment of members to
I do
I will
Item #10H
RESOLUTION 97-478, APPOINTMENT OF CHERYLE NEWMAN TO THE GOLDEN GATE
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next, item 10(H), appointment of members to the Golden Gate
Beautification Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, all three of these
people are outstanding people who contribute a great deal to the
community, but Ms. Newman's doing a fine job, who's currently
serving
in that capacity, and I see no reason to replace her. So I'll make
are
motion that we reappoint Cheryle Newman to the committee.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's nice to get that many applicants that
active in the community though, I encourage them to continue
applying
for those positions. Any discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Motion carries five, zero.
10(I) was deleted.
Item #10J - Tabled until later in the meeting and discussed under
Staff
Communications
There is an add-on regarding a joint meeting with Collier, Lee
and Army Corps. Do we have any dates that have been decided on? I
have to give Mr. Fernandez and Barbara Pedone credit, they have
been
doing a triangle between the Jacksonville Corps and Lee County,
trying
to figure out which dates are available for all three parties in
January.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have anything at this point to consider?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, we've been through -- I think
we're
on our fifth date. We looked at January 21st, January 23rd, then
January 14th, then February 4th, and it looks like the only one now
that's a possibility is February the llth, but we still don't have
any
two
and
confirmation regarding whether Lee County can make that and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are no dates between now and
months from now that we can set aside three hours?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Not when we can get 10 commissioners together
the Corps of Engineers staff there as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For us the 21st and 23rd, the 21st was
acceptable, but Lee County was unavailable on that date and for
whatever reason, it's just been very difficult to schedule. I
don't
think the Corps is really being difficult, are they, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't believe so. I think it's a matter of
trying to coordinate all the calendars.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Apparently, the Lee County
Commissioners' schedule seems to be the biggest rub.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask if, do we have reason to
believe
that the Lee County Commission is interested in having the meeting?
Do we have any reason to believe otherwise? I mean, I just don't
know. Do they want to do this?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've actually talked with Andy Coy,
who has probably been the most vocal --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or concerned --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Critic.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, critic of the whole process,
who
not
is very anxious to have a sit-down with everybody. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I don't think it's a matter of
wanting to sit down.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
this.
Well, better late than never.
Let's do
we
for
we
Let's hold this item until the end of the meeting today to see if
can get any confirmation on a date. It would be helpful at least
our schedules and for the public to know that day as early as
possible.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll continue to work on it, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. I guess
need a motion to table item 10(J).
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Okay. 10(J) is tabled.
We are to public comment on general topics, and do we have
registered speakers today, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir, not on general topics.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 97-479/DEVELOPHENT ORDER 97-5, REGARDING PETITION DOA-
97-2,
WILLIAM R. VINES AND ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING RICHARD K.
BENNETT,
TRUSTEE, NATIONS BANK LAND TRUST #5222 FORAN AMENDMENT TO THE
TWELVE
LAKES DEVELOPMENT AS AMENDED, FOR REDUCTION OF AUTHORIZED DWELLING
UNITS - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, we'll move into item 12,
under public hearings.
Advertised public hearings, item 12(C)(1), is the first item.
This is Petition DOA-97-2, William Vines representing Richard
Bennett,
trustee, for an amendment to the Twelve Lakes Development of
Regional
Impact.
This is a quasi-judicial matter, and for that purpose I need
members of our staff, members of the petitioner's team and any
members
of the public hear to speak on this item, to please stand and raise
your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in?
(All speakers on this issue were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Nino, good afternoon.
MR. NINO: Good afternoon, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the purpose of disclosure, I need to
ask,
let
does any commission member have a disclosure item on this?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have no disclosure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None here. Okay, seeing none, Mr. Nino,
us proceed.
HR. NINO: The matter before you requests your approval of an
amendment to the Twelve Lakes Development of Regional Impact
development order for the purposes of extending the time frame in
which substantial development may commence by an additional seven
years, and as a consequence of that, changing the phasing schedule
and
the date a down zoning action may occur.
In the process of dealing with this petition, the petitioner
agreed for reasons outlined in the staff report that the total
number
of dwelling units authorized for this project ought to be reduced
from
1,310 to 1,000 and the intensity of commercial development reduced
from 160,000 to 112,500. The petitioner has agreed with those
reductions.
The planning commission has reviewed this petition,
unanimously
supports its approval. The Southwest Regional Planning Council has
advised us that they have no objections to it. The Department of
Community Affairs has also advised us that they have no objections
and
deem -- and both agencies deem this to be an insubstantial change.
The changes to the development order as a result of the
passage
of time in this action, would have a consequence for transportation
stipulations and these stipulations -- and the stipulations in the
development order, in addition to those changes I've already
identified, have been made and are recommendations of the Southwest
Regional Planning Council.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nine, if I may ask, in looking through
it
I didn't pick this up easily. What is the resulting density on the
residential acreage of the parcel after the reduction to a thousand
dwelling units?
MR. NINO: Four dwelling units per acre.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that consistent with the residential
densities in the immediate area? MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions of Mr. Nino?
Let me ask the petitioner, Mr. Vines, do you have a
presentation
for the board?
MR. VINES: Yes, William Vines for the petitioner. I -- as
Mr.
you
Nino indicated, on behalf of the owners I agreed to the staff
suggested intensity reductions. They were not enthusiastic about
but they agreed to it. It will be necessary upon approval of this
make a corresponding adjustment to the PUD document, to reduce the
development intensity so that it will match the development order.
I suggested to Mr. Nine and he agreed that because the PUD
document amendment is made necessary by staff recommendation, that
might wish to consider waiving the normal fee for it. Mr. Nino
said
he thought that was a reasonable request and that I should make it
to
you, so I do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for Mr. Vines?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Vines, could you tell us why, since
this was originally approved in '87, why you need another five
years'
extension on this?
MR. VINES: Well, the owners of this property are
beneficiaries
of a trust. They are investors who invested in the trust which
bought
the property in -- back in '87. For a series of reasons, the
property
has never gotten in the hands of a developer who would take it
through
the normal development process. It has been under contract, there
have been problems, it has come back, it's been under contract,
there
were problems, it's come back, and so they are patiently -- maybe
not
so patiently anymore, but they are waiting and hoping to transfer
ownership of this property to a responsible development
organization,
yOU
tO
get it out of their hands and into a developer's hands and then
proceed. It simply hasn't happened to date.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the reason I ask is that we've --
we've been of recent times updating PUD's for two year extension
periods and this one seems to fall for some -- whatever reason, far
outside that two year extension period and it just -- I don't know
that --
MR. VINES: Let me tell you how it came about, and then maybe
can -- we've -- you know the Regional Planning Council in addition
being a review agency also serves as a consulting group in some
matters. We've retained their services to serve as the updaters of
the traffic impact statement and out of that grew the language
do
this two years at a time. That's what our standard policy is now.
just wonder if that's acceptable.
MR. VINES: Well, I would certainly hope so, and I know the
function of the anticipated time before any additional traffic
impact
could be reasonably expected to occur. So it's a traffic impact
based
time frame and I have no other explanation for that unusually long
time.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm sure their -- they have their
rules and we have ours and -- MR. VINES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Personally, I would prefer that we could
asked what was the basis of it and they indicated that it simply is
that's
incorporated in the PUD document and the additional time frame and
I
asked, you know, it surprised me, it was longer than I expected and
beneficiaries would hope so. They hope, my goodness, within two
years
to have this property sold. There is a substantial lead time, of
course, if a new owner were to acquire this property today. By the
time they revisited all of the permitting wetland jurisdictional
agency requirements, did development plans, it would be -- you'd
have
to go fast in order to be under construction and that's what this
time
-- the end date means, you have to be under construction.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I understand that, but we've gone
to
this two year policy to help us in our planning, so that we know
more
definitively what's going to happen in two years rather than what
may
if
if
happen in five or ten years. MR. VINES: I understand.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So it would help us from our perspective
we could agree to extend this -- make this agreement for a two year
period.
MR. VINES: Well, that's fine, as long as you understand that
things don't go just right, I'll be back in two years saying things
didn't go just right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine and that's exactly what we'd
expect.
MR. VINES: All right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not that we expect things not to go right
for
you.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if they do --
CHAI~ HANCOCK: The other thing is we're really taking a
hard
look at the roadway network system and what residual impacts or
resulted impacts that may have as a short term area, so I would
agree
-- I support two years easily with the reduction in units and
whatnot.
Further questions of Mr. Vines?
Seeing none, Mr. Vines, thank you very much.
Do we have additional speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: I will close the public hearing. Is there
two
motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
approve the request with the provision that it be extended for a
year period.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second by
Commissioner Berry. Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Motion carries five, zero.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 97-82, CREATING THE BAYSHORE AVALON BEAUTIFICATION
MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT - ADOPTED
We are to item -- thank you, Hr. Nino. We're to item 12
(C)(2), request that the board consider adoption of an ordinance
creating the Bayshore Avalon Beautification Municipal Service
Taxing
Unit, a park, as I understand it. I just heard the room exhale
that
we're finally there and for staff presentation, are you back up
again,
Mr. Nino? No? Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I pass out a couple things?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why, we'd would love to receive some
things.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you? The first thing that I have
is
just copies for you of the map that's on the wall there, which is
the
of
proposed district, and the other thing that I'd like to give each
you is, we had gotten several phone calls in the last few days,
which
is the good news, because we have so many people who have not been
involved in this process, who are now involved and interested in
the
process, and that's wonderful news.
The bad news is that they've gotten some bad information, but
we'll straighten that out, but since there have been so many phone
calls, you guys are familiar with this little record that they keep
about who's in favor and who's opposed.
I took my copy of this and just passed it around the room this
morning to let the people who are here and not just who made phone
calls, but who are here and are in favor sign on, and you'll see
that
there's more than twice as many now registered in favor as there
have
been the phone calls from the registered opposed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I also read
the
on
and
newspaper. You had had a pretty good response from public meetings
this, maybe you can give us an indication of the kind of turnout
what the general feel of those meetings was.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The turnout at the first meeting that
we've had so far was excellent, the room was full, and I'm
disappointed that there wasn't more media coverage about that
particular meeting because it was a very good and very active and
very
vociferous meeting. There were people that came who were strongly
opposed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nice word.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Vociferous, good word, huh? There were
people who came who were strongly opposed and felt like something
was
being done to them and some of those left feeling like, oh, well,
maybe this is the time when government is partnering with
individuals
to try to do something to help the community. I can't speak for
everybody there, but that was my impression.
The other thing I want to pass down to you is a copy of what I
would call the misinformation that was distributed among people in
the
map
of
be
community from Larry Ingram, who I'm sure we'll hear about and hear
from.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who is not a part of this district as the
indicates.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's clearly -- the property that I'm
aware of that he owns, that is not a part of this district and,
please, come to that map and look at it, Mr. Ingram, so you can
confirm that for yourself. You may own some other property that I
don't know about, but more important than that, there's just a lot
scare tactics in here about that your taxes may go up $300 on a
$100,000 home. Obviously, you guys know that what's being asked to
done today is to create an MSTU ordinance which would have the
right
to assess a millage anywhere from zero to three. The district may
chose to assess zero. If it does that, there will be no taxes
assessed to anyone. The district will decide. The district will
have
a board of advisers that will make recommendations to the county
commission about whether or not there should be taxes, and if so,
in
what amount, and if so, for what specific purpose within those
green
boundaries.
That group, if you will give us the opportunity to continue to
gO
Or
do
forward, that group will make recommendations to us about whether
not they want to be taxed. So there's no decision being made today
about whether or not there will be a tax.
The decision being made today is whether or not there is a
mechanism available for a tax, if the community decides it wants to
that, and I'm gonna stop, but I do want to tell you one more thing.
I'm going to sort of go ahead and steal my own thunder.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, while you're stealing thunder
there,
let me point out that the bottom line is what we're doing today is
deciding whether to establish the boundaries. There's no proposal
whatsoever to do anything about taxes today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It allows the option.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With the realistic expectation that a
nominal
So
amount somewhere down the road will probably be used, otherwise we
wouldn't establish the district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure hope so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But also the expectation of three mills has
never been realized in these types of districts, to my knowledge.
I think we need to at least establish the parameters. To expect
zero
is not reasonable, nor to expect three is reasonable.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The highest in the county so far is 1.6
in
Lely, and that's significantly higher than most of the others.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And every year we hear from them, every
year
they choose to make a recommendation to this board as to what an
appropriate level is, and have we ever raised it?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the three years I've been on this board,
we've never raised it above the recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, and the only other two things I'll
say
get
and then there a lot of people who have waited for a long time to
to talk, but I do want to remind you that the private sector has
raised over $10,000 and is engaging a consultant to do the design
workshops in the hopes of moving along more quickly the
redevelopment
process in this area, and what I had added for a discussion item, I
want to go ahead and read now.
It's a letter from Dale Chlumsky. Dear Commissioner Mac'Kie,
in
the
the
on
the interest of improvement, beautification and redevelopment of
Bayshore Drive area, my sister and I would like to offer a gift to
residents of Collier County this Christmas. We own attractive land
the east side of Bayshore Drive, almost across the street from the
entrance to Windstar. He cites the specific parcel numbers and
advises that they have a frontage of approximately 273.44 feet on
Bayshore Drive and that the two parcels together contain about 2.66
acres.
Here's the Santa Claus part. It occurred to us that this
would
be an excellent opportunity to create a beautiful waterfront park,
which would enhance the entire area and at the same time provide an
impetus to the revitalization of the area.
If you're interested in acquiring this property for green
space
and use as a park for the area, underlined, free of cost to the
county
taxpayers, please call me, and obviously, I've done that and we're
ongoing with those discussions, but I make that point to let you
know
that there may be some people who don't understand or who are --
who
understand everything and are opposed, but there are a great number
of
people who are genuinely interested and excited in revitalizing
this
part of the community and they've shown it with their pocketbooks
and
they've shown it with the deeds to their land and I hope that
you'll
support them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that property right next to Lake Kelly?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that property, the Chlumsky property,
right
next to Lake Kelly?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know what Lake Kelly is.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's on the east side of -- you'll find
Moorhead Manor and come right across.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can show it yo you on the map.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Lake Kelly is the one we had all the
pictures
of during the flooding in '95.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think I know what --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me find it on the map and I'll show
you.
Bayshore.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: See it, 817
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. No, no, it's not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's this.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where is it on the map, the property?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's on the east side of the road.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: East side of what road, Pam?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: East side of Bayshore Drive.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, this is on the east side of
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand, but I think these are
farther down, the parcels are not directly across from Windstar.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. Well, we can see it.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's near Pinebrook Lakes, those
parcels.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, down to the south of the entrance to
Windstar?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I just want you to know how excited
the
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just thought next to a lake would be a
pretty neat place, not that it's not already. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm looking at Mr. Ingram's letter for
first time, I've never seen it before, and I notice the headline
says,
your real estate taxes are going to be increased by the county
commissioners on Tuesday, December the 16th and you did not even
know
it. Well, that's a boldface lie.
We
As I said before, we're not doing anything about taxes today.
are simply deciding whether to establish the boundaries. Down a
little lower, I notice that they've given your district over to me.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I didn't appreciate that at all.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You see that? John C. Norris, the
county
commissioner for your district. That's not right, that's
completely
erroneous.
The next paragraph, if you fail to make your feelings known to
both Mr. Lennane and all the members of the Board of County
Commissioners before December the 16th, your real estate taxes
increase. Again, that's a boldface lie.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the way, did Mr. Lennane send
his
vote in by proxy or --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Lennane sent his vote in with his
check several weeks ago, he has been a strong supporter over the
many
months that we've been working on this and has financially
supported
it --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Last time I checked, he wasn't made a
member
of the Board of County Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Unless something happened in my
district
that I didn't know about.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The point is, we're going to establish,
perhaps, boundaries today, but there's got to be numerous public
hearings and -- and a charet, you're gonna have a charet?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We certainly are.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And all sorts of public input, plus two
more hearings and budget -- and plus budget hearings in front of
this
county commission before any tax would ever be considered to be
levied. So that's where we are, I mean, and that's where we're
going.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You were misled.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And this letter is junk.
(Applause.)
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Hay I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir, I'm up
here.
or
to
can
What we have is, for those of you who have not had the opportunity
desire to attend a meeting before, the method in which we will go
the individual public speakers is by registration slip. There are
slips out in the hallway to fill out your name --
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I turned in --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, sir, then you will be called in order
and at that time you'll be afforded five minutes to either ask
questions or address the board or give your opinion, that way we
do it in an orderly fashion.
out
and
So if you have not filled out a slip and you wish to speak on
this matter, please make sure you get one in the hallway, fill one
and hand it in to Mr. Fernandez, over here to my right, your left,
we'll be able to go through and make sure everyone gets an
opportunity
to be heard on that.
At this point, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I believe, have you set
it
up to the point that you feel -- I think we've kind of framed
today's
decision about as well as we can. At this point, I guess it would
be
beneficial to go the public speakers, unless there are questions
from
the board at this point.
Seeing none, Mr. Fernandez, how many speakers do we have on
this
item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Probably about 20.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: About 20, okay. Just so everyone knows,
that's about ninety to a hundred minutes of speaking. You're more
than welcome to spend your five minutes however you'd like. If,
however, someone has said exactly how you feel and you want to
avoid
being repetitive, feel free to just mention either support or
opposition and that's certainly your alternative or your option.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thanks. One comment for the record, which may
reduce some of the need for questions or speaking, is that the
boundaries that the board may adopt today, if it adopts an
ordinance
for the creation of the MSTU, are the boundaries that the board
adopts
today.
Now what was advertised and accompanies the agenda packet is a
boundary that is slightly different, slightly larger than what
appears
behind me and what the commissioners passed out.
So please be apprised that it appears that the board is
reviewing
and at the present time considering the boundary that is before
them
at the present and it appears behind me up on this sheet on the
board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just by way of explanation about
that,
as you know this was scheduled quickly because we're trying to get
in
under the end of the year, this is our last meeting, your graphics
department, Mr. Fernandez, has been wonderful. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They as quickly as today, you know,
have
responded and gotten us the official maps, so that there could be
no
question about what we were adopting, even though most of us have
understood that this was just a rough, but, you know, it's got
magic
marker on a map. It's not exactly science, so we wanted to have
the
science here today so you would know for sure what you're doing and
they've done a wonderful job.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions or comments of staff?
With
that, Mr. Fernandez, let's go to the public speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first speakers
are
be
Linda Goodman and William Connelly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Goodman? And if you're the second
individual called, if you'd be so kind to just come forward in the
room so that as the one speaker finishes, you can step up and we'll
able to move through in a more expedited fashion that way.
MS. GOODMAN: Good afternoon. My name is Linda Goodman and I
represent IRT Property Company, who owns the Gulf Gate Plaza on
Bayshore and 41. We would -- we object to being placed in this
taxing
district if we are in fact going to be placed in it and I don't
know
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're not.
MS. GOODMAN: -- that for sure. We're not?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
MS. GOODMAN: Okay. So I guess I really don't need to say
anything else, other than we object to being put in that tax
district,
because we didn't feel it was like any benefit to our property and
our
in
tenants would be burdened with undue taxes that we didn't feel they
could bear.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope that you're participating though
the Gateway Triangle process.
MS. GOODMAN: Definitely. We're definitely interested in
that.
So if we're gonna be in that taxing district, we're very happy.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great.
MS. GOODMAN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, and you can tell your client you
succeeded.
MR. FERNANDEZ: William Connelly and Quentin Kohler.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we have -- is this Mr. Connelly?
Yes,
okay.
off
Then Mr. Kohler would be next.
MR. CONNELLY: I'm William Connelly. I live on Bayview Drive
Kelly Road. It used to be Kelly Road, I still remember it as Kelly
Road. Well, anyhow, I am here to object for many reasons. Number
one, I was not notified of anything going on like this until I
received this from a neighbor and that was two days ago.
I have -- I'm not going to take up a lot of your time, but I
have
a few questions. Who instigated this? Who was the prime mover?
Do
you live in the area?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir, but I represent that area.
MR. CONNELLY: Oh, okay. I don't approve of giving anyone a
blank check, which is what this is. Oh, yes, it is. Three mills,
three mills doesn't sound like much, but it is.
Now, I'm not gonna take up your time. I just want to let you
know that I object to the way it was done. I heard nothing about
it.
I was not notified and anytime -- if you want a new gas tax, you
have
to have the voters approve it. What approval can I give it? What
choice do I have?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can tell you some of those -- some
answers to some of those, if you've got --
MR. CONNELLY: Well, don't answer my questions now. I want to
save your time, I'll sit down, and you'll hear the questions again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I suspect we may hear that
question more than once, the answer to that question, when will you
have an opportunity is, A, today, and B, through the public hearing
process all spring. So there will probably be three or four
opportunities.
MR. KOHLER: My name is Mr. Kohler and I'm opposed to the
creation of the ordinance for the taxing district, for the
beautification, which would put a hardship on all of our taxpayers
in
the district. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Paul Myers and then Larry Ingram.
MR. MYERS: My name is Paul Myers and all I want to know is
this
-- is this map accurate?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir. That's the map --
MR. MYERS: If we're not inside the green, we're not -- not --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're not a part of the taxing district as
proposed toady.
MR. MYERS: Okay. Can you explain to me why you've got --
like
right here, you've got that outlined?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that is -- that's precinct
number
81, so if you will see there are several precincts put together in
this map starting with 86 and 111 at the top, going all the way
down.
That one little area is an RMF-6 area that's precinct number is 81
and
then following it is precinct number 211, so those are just the
taxing
precincts.
MR. MYERS: So everything outside of this is not --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's correct.
can
MR. MYERS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll tell you what, sir, if you're
gonna be at the map, there's a microphone right behind you so we
get you on the record. Either one is fine.
HR. HYERS: I'm done, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay, and very happy, that's good.
Next
speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Larry Ingram, then Laban LeBuff.
MR. INGRAM: My name is Larry Ingram. I'm the owner of Gulf
Gate
South, in the what is now proposed to be excluded area and had this
been done at the last meeting, it certainly would have saved me a
great deal of time and undoubtedly everyone a great deal of
aggravation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then our written -- our spoken
assurances
at the last meeting were not adequate, because we did give you that
on
39
the
the record assurance.
MR. INGRAM: The properties originally platted as 37, 38 and
of Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms, et cetera, but
Gateway Triangle had been included in that re-development district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Ingram, are you going to make your
speech despite the fact that we've told you you're not in it and
you've seen written proof now that you're not in it?
MR. INGRAM: If I'm assured that I'm not in it, then --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're a real estate lawyer, you can
look
at that, I think your strip is right below the C-4.
MR. INGRAM: Thirty-seven, thirty-eight is the legal
description.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I believe that it's clear that you're
excluded.
MR. INGRAM: Okay, fine. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Laban LeBuff and Joe Hayes.
MR. LeBUFF: My name is Laban LeBuff. I'm not a public
speaker
and not realizing completely what was happening today, I've written
up
this thing which I'll go ahead and read, although maybe it should
wait
until later.
I reside at 6024 Bayshore Drive, which is located on the west
side of Bayshore Drive and south of Thomasson Drive. I also own
property with a small business at the corner of Republic Drive at
6023
Bayshore Drive. I've lived at this residence for over 30 years and
our business was opened over 20 years ago.
In Sunday's newspaper there were articles about the proposed
Bayshore Avalon taxing district and Mr. W. Thomas Grim of Windstar
Development was quoted and a Bill Neal involved and some business
owners -- residents steering committee is mentioned. I wonder if
these business owners are property owners and also, I wonder -- I
didn't have this written in, if possibly some of the speakers today
that are possibly from Windstar are in the county or live in
actually
the city.
In a flyer that was recently distributed a Mr. Lennane, a
local
developer is mentioned. Mr. Lennane has started developments on
Bayshore Drive that have come to a standstill. If I read between
the
lines correctly, the main beneficiaries of this proposal at this
time
will be existing developments and developers such as Mr. Grim of
Windstar and Mr. Lennane and not the average property owner.
The top priority seems to be landscaping road medians, excuse
me ·
on Bayshore Drive. I know of no other road medians in the area of
proposal. No way can I agree with this as priority one.
I know the main concern of my neighbors in Turner Oak Hills
Estates is drainage. Any time any drainage maintenance in the area
has been done, it's actually at the height of wet season when it's
almost impossible to correct anything, but I guess complainants are
passed about or just give up. I understand from hearsay, the
county's
latest desire for this subdivision is to run water uphill.
I do realize the cost of government and everything related is
not
cheap. My taxes this year were close to $1,600 and I won't
complain
about that. In over 30 years at this address, I've seen a bike
path
construction along Bayshore Drive, probably financially supported
by
school board funds for Avalon school access. I believe the road
was
resurfaced one time. The roadside ditch was cleaned possibly
twice.
A tractor with a bush hog mode mows over it every two to three
months.
I believe the sheriff's department patrols more often than it
used to. Recently partial resurfacing was done on some streets in
the
area, including Bayshore Drive at my address. This was done
because
of sediment caused by faulty sanitary sewer installation. I doubt
if
the sewer contractor was obligated to do this repair at their
expense,
but maybe so. If not, the residents have paid for it twice. Once
through sewer assessment, et cetera, which cost me a total of close
to
for
$19,000, and again through our taxes. As usual, the job is not
finished as it should be in accordance with normal county
requirements. I don't know if what I've described is a fair shake
30 years of taxes or not.
I believe that most of the people that live in the area of
proposal are working-class people with a high percentage probably
renting. Some residents that own or are purchasing property where
they live are paying the normal taxes, garbage pick up, sanitary
sewer
assessment and possibly potable water assessment, plus feeding
families. They need no more taxes.
In the Hallendale subdivision, which was platted and recorded
back in 1935, the streets have never been paved. Do you think the
property owners, who evidently cannot afford to have paving done,
are
the
concerned about and willing to be taxed for landscaping medians at
north end of Bayshore Drive? It's ridiculous.
All in all, I think this steering committee and the developers
involved are putting the cart before the horse. These problems
I've
mentioned were here long before Kelly Road, now Bayshore Drive, was
four-laned.
I'm against any further taxes in this area especially south of
Thomasson Drive where Bayshore Drives becomes a substandard
right-of-way. I might also interject that I personally think it
would
be unfair or even unethical to approve this proposal without an
approval by referendum by the property owners in this area. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Joe Hayes and then Joe Buscemi.
MR. HAYES: Yeah, my name is Joe Hayes and I live on Bayshore
Drive. I've lived there for 22 years and everything that Laban has
said has pretty well covered everything that I wanted to say.
Thank
has
in
to
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Hayes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. John Morgan and then Hubert Reimer.
MR. MORGAN: I think what I wanted to say has been said.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Morgan indicates opposition and
stated that what he feels has already been stated for the record.
Next speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Hubert Reimer.
MR. REIHER: I don't want to talk about it. I just live here
the wintertime.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We kind of have to have one or the
other. Either you're gonna waive your right to speak or you need
come forward, because I don't want to get your statements wrong for
the court reporter.
Okay. Sir, you have to come forward to the microphone, if you
would, please, so the court reporter can get it on the record.
MR. REIHER: I'm opposed to the taxes. I'm just a half a year
here in the wintertime and bring my money and spend it here, you
know,
have a good time, you know, taxes, taxes, taxes, you know, I am
retired and I have just so much money that I can spend and I'm
against
tax -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name, please?
may
MR. REIHER: Reimer, Hubert H-U-B-E-R-T, Reimer, R-E-I-H-E-R.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And where are you from, Mr. Reimer, if I
ask?
HR. REIHER: From Canada.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: John Payne and then Fred Baker.
MR. PAYNE: Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Commissioners. My name is
Payne, John Payne, I'm a retired naval officer. I live in the
wintertime with my wife at Moorhead Manor, which was mentioned a
little while ago.
If taxes are increased because of this, and they definitely
will
be in spite of what you people think about it, I can afford it, my
wife can afford it with me, but we have widows and widowers in our
park that are living from month to month for their -- for their
social
security or their -- some other benefits. They do not have the
money
to pay additional taxes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
tell you one thing, sir?
MR. PAYNE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
right
about that?
MR. PAYNE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
taxes.
Would you mind if interrupt you just to
Moorhead Manor is mobile homes, am I
And mobile homes don't pay property
HR. PAYNE: Oh, really?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the dirt underneath, they do.
MR. PAYNE: Then I should get a refund every year for the
taxes
that I've paid, for about $45.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forty-five dollars?
MR. PAYNE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You may well pay --
MR. PAYNE: Excuse me, $454.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the --
MR. PAYNE: On our mobile home.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Isn't a mobile home considered an
improvement
on the land?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, not for property taxes.
MR. INGRAM: There are two ways for tax --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, okay, okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I'm talking about for ad valorem,
but I don't think that this will be the problem that you're
concerned
with, but I should have let you finish.
MR. PAYNE: Passing this act is about like Congress giving
Clinton the right to levy a 15 percent increase in income taxes and
if
that ever happened, it certainly would -- it certainly would
bankrupt
many of the people in the country.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, actually, he did that.
on
for
in
and
go
are
MR. PAYNE: I feel that --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That actually did happen, sir. It went
from 28 percent to 39 and a half under Clinton.
MR. PAYNE: The need for -- for improvement money should be
approved by the people of the area. I don't feel it should be
approved by you people, and here is my petition.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Fred Baker and then Gail McClain --
McCain-Brooks, I'm sorry.
MR. BAKER: Good afternoon. My name is Fred Baker and I live
Sabal Court, and I wrote this down because it was the easiest way
me to do it. I feel that this will end up being a three mill tax
the end as these things always seem to do. They start out small
just escalate. This would be a 30 percent increase in taxes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm gonna interrupt you before you
too far. You said, as these always do. Can you cite me a couple
examples?
MR. BAKER: Not right offhand.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because there aren't any.
There
zero examples.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There are zero. Hasn't happened.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You may be referring to the Clinton
administration, which in this area, them's fighting words. Okay,
so
MR. BAKER:
fixed
incomes like me.
100
on
And I feel it would put a burden on people with
Just as one thing -- my house insurance went up
percent in three years, just some of the things we're dealing with
fixed incomes and I don't believe this situation -- for one, they
changed the name of Kelly Road to Bayshore and it didn't make
matters
any better, you know, nothing really changed, and I'd also like to
say
that the sheriff has done a good job cleaning up Bayshore, they
really
have, but it's not done yet. There's still a drug problem there.
I
think this should be addressed before we go into any beautification
thing that's gonna solve the problem. We've got to get the drug
thing
under control first, and I guess the other thing I question is, you
know, how did Airport Road get their medians and stuff fixed out
there? Was there a tax referendum -- district like this made to
get
12
the money to do Airport Road also?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll give an example in my
neighborhood. I live in Golden Gate and we've taxed ourselves for
years to have that Parkway. That Parkway's won statewide awards
for
beautification, but only the people in that area pay for that
beautification.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll give you another example. I
live
in the Lely Beautification District, which is the highest millage
assessed of any of them that we have and it's 1.6 mills, but we've
done that ever since I've been there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The majority of arterial roadways fall
under
the Streetscape Master Plan, and those that are designated arterial
for the purposes of transportation, when they are widened or built
out
are landscaped, I don't believe Bayshore is designated as an
arterial
roadway --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- because it doesn't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't go to anywhere.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- go to anywhere, doesn't connect from one
to
did
ago
and
another, so that's why it is not a part of that program. MR. BAKER: Okay. I did not understand that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Probably gave you a little information
overload there, but --
MR. BAKER: The other thing I would like to state is I really
not get any notification about this at all. I found out two days
that this was going on and naturally panic sets in and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
MR. BAKER: -- it's like, you know, let's do something here,
I'd just like to state that I am against this proposal because I'm
against more taxes that I feel are not gonna do the job. I'm not
against improvement of our neighborhood by any means, but I don't
feel
that this is the answer. Fixing the drug problem is the first
answer.
That's all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Gail --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the second person who commented
they
weren't notified. Commissioner Hac'Kie, you sent out 2,000
letters?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ladies and gentlemen --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've been '-
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I can, I appreciate your desire to
participate from the audience, but it can't get on the record
unless
you're at that microphone, so I would -- please, comments from the
audience, we just -- we can't get on the court reporter's record,
so
please let's reserve our comments for when the speaker's
recognized.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of the things I wanted to say and
I'm
trying to wait until all the speakers are finished, but I did send
out
of
the
an
of
2,000 letters. I got the list from the property appraiser's office
all of the property owners in the area. If you rent, that may be
problem that I didn't get you, because you are a tenter instead of
owner, but if -- you know, the list I got was from the property
appraiser's office. It had 2,000 property owners on it. Each one
those got a letter. They're fussing at me about how much postage I
spent, frankly, on doing that.
If you didn't get any kind of a notice and you would be so
kind
as to stop in to the receptionist in the county commission office
and
and
you will get every other letter, everything from here on out.
the best I can do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go back to public speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Gail HcCain-Brooks and then A.H. Carter.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, we just -- we need to keep
moving
through the public speakers. Please come forward, sir.
MR. CARTER: Collier County Commissioners, I am A. H. Carter,
Jr.
give her your name and address, I promise you will be on the list
It's
and
approach this from a little different viewpoint, perhaps. As I see
it, this is the time of the year where we all give great thanks for
being in the great United States of America, and if you look down
deeply, you find that the building block that makes this country
great
is the community and the families that make up the community and
here
we are, if we have a sound building block, you build a nice
community,
a nice county. If you have a good county, you get a good state.
If
you have good state, a lot of good states, you have a fine nation
that's what I think we all want.
So as I look at it, it's pretty obvious from observation that
Bayshore Drive has been neglected and continues to be neglected in
many different ways perhaps, as some of these gentlemen are
addressing.
So as I see it, we each individually and collectively have a
responsibility to help our communities and make them better and the
objective here, as I understand it, is simply that, to find ways to
make our community better and I certainly think that this effort
deserves the full support of the commission. Thank you.
My home is on Yacht Harbor Drive off of Bayshore Drive. I'd like
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Peter Twiddy and then Lynn Hixon Holley next.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, I'm gonna ask that if you're the on
deck speaker, so to speak, if you go ahead and at least come
forward
so that you will be ready to step to up the microphone immediately
following the current speaker. Sir, please go ahead.
MR. TWIDDY: I didn't know I was on deck.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What was your name?
MR. TWIDDY: Peter Twiddy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, you're up, Mr. Twiddy.
Mr. TWIDDY: I have a property on 2718 Bayview Drive, also
property over on 2938 Poplar. I want to say thank you very much,
Mrs.
Hac'Kie, I'm very much in favor of everything. I did receive a
letter. I'm more or less here today because of -- well, he just
let
but
the room, but the gentleman that sent the scare tactic memo. I
understand that you have to give something to get something, so --
I do understand some of these other problems these people have like
south of Thomasson Road, I do believe that place needs
beautification,
it needs help. It needs, you know, pavement -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pavement, right.
MR. TWIDDY: -- to say nothing else, but I just wanted to say
that I'm definitely in favor of it, the dredging of Haldeman Creek,
everything. The area has been neglected over the years, but the
taxpayers' money has been used because the area has been cleaned up
and that's what we're paying our money for. I've been there for
over
10 years now and I've seen a big change down in that area and I'm
looking forward to the change in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Kind of comical, I guess, that the
gentleman that was so concerned to go to all the neighbors and get
them concerned doesn't even stay to the end of the hearing as soon
as
her
his property's not involved.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Lynn Hixon Holley and then Butch Morgan.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't see Ms. Holley. I don't see
in the room. HR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Irene Lichtefeld.
MR. MORGAN: Hello, I'm Butch Morgan, 3512 Guilford Road, and
represent the Guilford Acres property owners. As property owners,
first of all I have to find out if we're still in this because we
were
never notified, nobody on our street that we know of, nobody came
to
me and said they ever got notified and I'm the person that they
would
come to.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And you're on what street, sir?
MR. MORGAN: We're on Guilford Acres, right off Guilford Road.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. No, you're not included, sir,
that's in the Avalon area?
MR. MORGAN: Right next to Lake Avalon.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Put your finger on where you live.
You're out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're out, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Another happy customer.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Irene Lichtefeld and Dave Carpenter.
MS. LICHTEFELD: Good afternoon. I'm Irene Lichtefeld and I
live
-- I have an office on Bayshore Drive. I own property other than -
in that same area. I have been in practice for 26 years and I hear
people laugh when they say that it went from Kelly Road to
Bayshore.
I stood up before the commissioners the last time and when I went
up
the
and down Kelly Road to get people to support so that the people on
other side of town wouldn't call our children unkind names, no one
wanted to do it. I offered to buy -- you know, they didn't want to
because they had to change their stationery. I offered to buy
their
stationery. Well, anyhow, we got from Kelly Road to Bayshore and
they've laughed at me behind my back ever since and they said you
can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Well, I think
differently. I believe in the people in East Naples and I think
this
is the only chance that your children and your grandchildren have
to
get ahead. I'm for it and I hope everyone else is, too. Thank
you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Lichtefeld, can I ask you a
question?
MS. LICHTEFELD: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you Dawn's sister?
MS. LICHTEFELD: No, no, but everyone thinks that we're
related
because we sort of wave and carry on the same way. She's a
financial
planner and I'm a tax accountant.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Dave Carpenter and then Bill Neal.
MR. CARPENTER: Good afternoon. Dave Carpenter, president of
EastNaples Civic, and Merry Christmas to you-all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Merry Christmas to you, Dave.
MR. CARPENTER: I wanted to reiterate the support of East
Naples
Civic for the Bayshore HSTU project. It's going to be the trigger
that really pulls the area up. The groundwork has been done. The
grassroots level has been taken care of. There's substantial
support
for it and now it's time to go ahead and finish it out and let the
people start with the improvements.
Somehow today I was reminded of the old Christmas story about
the
grinch who stole Christmas and what I suggest is don't let the
grinch
from Aqualane Shores steal Christmas on Bayshore Road.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would that be the millionaire grinch that
sent
out this letter?
MR. CARPENTER: It could be. Very simply, this type of
discussion is no place for scare tactics. I'm surprised it wasn't
suggested the county commission was gonna strip them of their
social
security. We kind of waited for that.
This is the day, and in time for Christmas to reject the
politics
of fear and go ahead and create the MSTU. It's a hell of a
Christmas
present, though, when people want to tax themselves, isn't it?
That
makes it a little nicer. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Dave.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Our final speaker is Bill Neal.
MR. NEAL: Hello Commissioners, thank you. My name is Bill
Neal.
I live off of Bayshore at Clipper Cove Lane and I'm the chairman of
the steering committee for this program, and there was a gentleman
here earlier who mentioned the names that were in the article in
the
He
newspaper this Sunday and I'd like to reply just briefly to him.
mentioned the gentleman that may be involved with builders, may be
involved in business. I'm a retired individual, I also live on a
fixed income. So I'm affected with taxes just the way most of the
folks here are who have spoken against them.
It's a shame that one individual has caused so much
misinformation to be spread into a community that really needs
help,
guidance and direction and participation to be better.
I'm somewhat embarrassed that all of you weren't notified. I
think if you had had the opportunity to listen to what this program
really is, you would have endorsed it 100 percent and as a matter
of
fact, we had very little disagreement about this for all people
that
we talked to until a certain individual, a very negative individual
who has no tax base in our area whatsoever, started representing
himself.
Having said that, I'd like to say that the truth on taxes is
that, there are a number of people who have talked here today that,
under the homestead exemption and I'm not sure, it wasn't mentioned
by
We
say
Pam -- but there is a level that some folks aren't even taxed and
didn't ask them at what tax level they were and I would venture to
that some of the folks, perhaps, that are talking today, may not
even
be taxed on this program.
What another individual said was it gives us the opportunity
to
help control our density. There is no better way than for
government
and private folks to work together to make places better.
I know that we don't get the kind of help we always want from
the
media and I hope that most of you saw the editorial in this
morning's
paper about Bayshore Drive, and if you didn't, I'm not a trained
speaker like the individual who was so against this, but I think
these
words are so appropriate that I'd like to read the editorial to all
of
you who didn't read it.
The title is Bayshore Drive and it says, stay on the road to
rejuvenation. Stay on the road. Special taxing districts are
ideal
mechanisms for home rule. We want home rule, that's what we want.
A
neighborhood taxes itself for its amenities, such as street
lighting,
paving, et cetera, et cetera. I'll skip some of the words.
Everybody
pays, money raised at home stays at home. Nothing better than we
can
ask for. It seems tailor-made for the rejuvenation of the Bayshore
Drive area of East Naples.
The response to crime, an eyesore on Bayshore through the
years,
has evolved from complacency, then idle complaining, and I might
mention I've heard a lot about the idle complaining, to fighting
back
where we started, and now a consideration of a taxing district.
Momentum is on the side of neighborhood leaders who understand
it
is up to them to clean up their own backyard. It's up to us to do
that, folks. Yet, eleventh hour tax protestors raise questions
about
being in not one, but two tax districts, an erroneous assumption,
something that should never have been raised. Property owners
ought
to be in one or the other, not both. We agree with that.
Bayshore initiative should be advanced at every opportunity.
There is no free lunch and self-determination is the best way to
set
the table. Constructive leadership on Bayshore Drive has come a
long
way and has a long way to go. Stay the course. I thank the
editorial
of the Naples Daily News. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that our last speaker, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MYERS: One question, when was the letter sent out?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could you ask in the office right
there?
They'll tell you.
MR. MYERS: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't have the date off the top of my
head. He's got a copy of it back there, I bet ya.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, tell you what we're not gonna get
into
-- I can't really get into question and answer -- no, sir, I'm
sorry.
We have to, you know, we've got a few other items on the agenda to
get
to. The one -- unfortunately, I think a lot of people that were
motivated from the negative sense were motivated by correspondence
or
why
letter or scare tactics, not to say there isn't a real concern out
there. I have to -- I'm curious, why is there a three mill cap,
isn't it a mill and a half?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just, I think that that's the standard.
Heidi, am I right that you always write them that way?
MR. INGRAM: That's the maximum the statute allows.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ingram, you know as well as anyone that
unless you're at a microphone your statements are not on the
record,
so we'll ask our county attorney for that information, if you don't
mind. Ms. Ashton.
MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county
attorney. The three mill cap came from direction from the meeting
that we had.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's nothing that prohibits us
from
making it lower than that. That's the maximum allowed, I assume
you
just -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's nothing that prohibits it from
that, but I would ask you to leave it at three, and the reason is
that
we will set the millage according to what the community wants to
do.
I think it could not possibly -- there is one fraction of the
community that wants to -- a person or two that I heard that wants
to
do three mills. I don't think there's any possibility it's gonna
there, but I'd like to leave all the doors open at this point,
unless
you have some major problem with it. I'd wish that you leave it at
three as a cap.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask you a question?
Commissioner Hac'Kie, we've heard a few different things today, but
you've been the one who's really been on top of this and been a
part
of it. You've been out in the community, you've had your letters,
you
made your phone calls, you feel confident that overall majority of
the
people are in favor of doing this to improve their community?
that
of
had
the
Bay
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I feel extremely confident of that,
this has been started -- this process has been ongoing for over a
year. It's been very seriously ongoing for about six months, you
would be amazed and frankly thrilled to see the kind of support and
neighborhood spirit and community pride that there is in this part
town, and they want this. I'm confident they do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For those that have -- for those that have
-- never had experience with a taxing district, at least I'm sure
every district's the same, but in mine they range everywhere for
something as minimal as just street lighting for a street, where
millage is nearly zero after they're installed, up to the Pelican
community, which actually taxes for landscaping beyond what most
communities have and several other things. So there's a broad
range
there. The key is, it can be tailored to what the community feels
is
in its own best interest.
So today's action in essence sets the stage for that
discussion
to occur to determine if any millage rate and what it is intended
to
accomplish is appropriate and that's going to be the key.
I think there's enough interest here to establish the
boundaries,
to establish the district and to initiate the discussion on what is
and is not an appropriate millage rate to accomplish certain
objectives within the community, and that is the meat of this
decision
and that has not happened yet, that is just starting.
So I, for one, am supportive at least of the district being
created and allowing the community to move ahead with that
meaningful
discussion over what is and is not appropriate in the way of
improvements. Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: If we go ahead and establish this
boundary
and do all of those kinds of things and then eventually an advisory
committee is established, when that advisory committee meets, are
these people welcome to come to those meetings and is it available
for
them to come and be heard?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They will be requested please to
participate and be heard, absolutely.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. So basically what you're saying is
that we can go ahead and set this in motion to be established and
then
the people still have the right to come forward and meet with this
advisory committee and let their wants and wishes or their --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Objections.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- objections be heard as well, am I
correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's absolutely correct, and that
committee could come back to us and say, we'd like for the millage
this year to be zero.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that committee is made up of
individuals
within the taxing district that are appointed by this board.
whether you are for or against the taxing district, your input with
that advisory committee is very, very key and your presence on that
advisory committee is how you can best get things done and get the
feelings of your immediate neighborhood represented, and again,
this
board will make those appointments, but it is given time to be
advertised in the paper for all those interested in serving on the
committee to submit their names, as long as you are a registered
voter
of the county and live in this district, you qualify, and then we
will
make appointments from there.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But it does require the people who live
in
you
this district to participate?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would also like to suggest for those of
who received a letter signed by Mr. Ingram encouraging you to
contact
a private citizen, James Lennane, I've met Mr. Lennane once or
twice,
but Mr. Lennane doesn't make any decisions relative to this and
probably, not only do I feel it was inappropriate for Mr. Ingram to
ask for you to do that, it really doesn't have any effect on the
decision this board is going to make regarding the taxing district,
no
it
the
map
matter how many phone calls Mr. Lennane gets. So I think it's
unfortunate that it was transmitted to you, but if you wish to have
input on this, the first place is in the public hearing process and
outside of that, the five members of this commission.
Thank you for listing our names and phone numbers, Mr. Ingram,
was the one part of this I agreed with. So you can contact us and
I'll be glad to give you whatever opinion and consideration I have.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion we approve
Bayshore HSTU based -- I'm sorry, public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, there's no other speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. Is there a
motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then I'll make a motion that we
approve the Bayshore HSTU in accordance with the boundaries on the
that's on the board and in our possession with the millage cap of
three, range from zero to three.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Discussion on the
motion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five to zero.
Remember, folks, whether you are for or against this district,
keep up your level of participation. Its the only way we're gonna
hear from you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Leave your address and names, if you
didn't get a letter from me and you would like to, please leave
your
address and name in the county commission office.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're not gonna have too many more of
those,
are you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll try not to.
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 97-480, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONRES TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD
VALOREH
ASSESSMENTS FOR INTERIM GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES FEES WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AND INCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
the
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Next item on our agenda under 12(C),
and, folks, if I can ask for attention, we have some other items to
get to, so if you would hold your conversation until you're out in
hall· I would appreciate it.
Item 12(C)(3), recommendation to adopt a resolution setting
forth
the intent of the board to use the uniform method of collecting
non-ad
valorem tax assessments and so forth, so on, et Getera, et Getera,
et
me ·
use
Mr.
in
my
cetera. Staff representation on this item is --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, right here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: With the noise I was having -- and questions to
I had difficulty. We were talking about the notice of intent
resolution; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Item 12(C)(3), yes, intent for BCC to
uniform method.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
Commissioner Mac'Kie, can you get
Reimer out of here so we can hear?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All of you, can we make that map available
the hallway?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a great idea. I just gave them
copy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sorry, folks, we just have some remaining
items to get through, if I could ask for your indulgence.
you.
the
the
be
Thank
Mr. Weigel, would you please continue?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Yes, sir.
I'm ready to talk about
advertised resolution to use the uniform method of collection for
long awaited --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, gentlemen, I'm trying my best to
polite about this, but we really need to get on to other items, and
you're disrupting the meeting. Please, please, have your
discussion
in the hallway.
MR. WEIGEL: We're talking about the notice of intent
resolution,
which provides the opportunity or the mechanism for the Board of
County Commissioners, if it wishes, during the next year to
implement
the interim governmental services fees with the assistance of the
property appraiser and the tax collector.
This is a resolution that is required to be adopted prior to
December 31st unless special permission or approval is received
from
the tax collector or the property appraiser after December 31st, so
this is the appropriate date to bring it forward.
It's similar to what we did in December of last year, if
you've
had opportunity to read the resolution, you will note that it once
again includes a possibility for the inclusion of the incorporated
areas of Collier County.
The record from last year was that the City of Naples
ultimately
determined not to go forward and be included if the county were to
have gone forward this past year with -- this current calendar
year,
1997, with the interim governmental services fee.
We did not hear from the City of Everglades and with the new
incorporation of the City of Marco, we felt it would be appropriate
to
include in this resolution the option for any of those cities to
again
be in contact and work with the county, if they wish to be
included,
but it's certainly not mandatory and the county can go forward if
it
chooses to do so with an ordinance purely within the unincorporated
area of Collier County.
There is no true fiscal impact if the board were to adopt this
resolution today. If the board were to go forward with this
ordinance, adopt an ordinance for the interim governmental services
fee this next year, the fiscal impact statement that we provided
indicates as much as 1,400,000 in revenue may be generated on an
annual basis.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, if I -- I would hope that the
board is fairly familiar with this from the discussions we've had
in
the past. I appreciate your update. Is there additional
information
on either the legal side that we have not received to date that
should
play a part in this decision?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think so. I mean, I could tell you
if
you'd like a little bit about the ordinance soon to be -- to come
forward, if you wish. There was one correction on the record I'd
like
to make of the resolution that appears in the agenda package and
that's on page 4 of the agenda package, on line 17, this is
actually
the second page of the resolution. The end of the line says,
portion
of a tax year. I would add the word "or years" remaining
subsequent
to the issuance by the county. We would add the two words "or
years"
there, and the reason to add that is that in working with our
outside
counsel, as we work forward in a draft of this ordinance, there is
the
an
an
possibility the board will have the option, if and when it adopts
ordinance of the interim governmental services fee, of actually
extending beyond a 12 month or calendar year or fiscal year period.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Since we will be asked to adopt
ordinance similar to what's before us today in January, I think the
discussion relative to the details of the ordinance would best be
held
then.
Are there questions on the resolution setting forth the intent
to
adopt this ordinance?
Seeing none, do we have speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have none. I'll close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 97-481, REGARDING PETITION AW-97-1, RANDY SEYLER OF D.
ASHTON ENTERPRISES, INC., REQUESTING A 250 FOOT WAIVER OF THE
MINIMUM
REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 500 FEET BETWEEN PLACES SERVING ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES AND A CHURCH/CHILD CARE CENTER FOR A RESTAURANT LOCATED
AT
PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED
Next item under board of zoning appeals, Item 13(A)(1),
Petition
AW-97-1, Randy Seyler of D. Ashton Enterprises requesting a 250
foot
waiver of the minimum required separation of 500 feet, regarding
the
serving of alcoholic beverages next to, in this case it's a church,
Seventh Day Adventist Church on Pine Ridge Road.
MR. HULHERE: Yes, that's correct. For the record, Bob
Hulhere,
current planning manager. The restaurant in question, which has
not
yet opened for business, is located at 1046 Pine Ridge Road. You
may
know that better as the former location of the Moose Lodge and
pretty
close to Taco Caliente, which the board has previously granted a
similar waiver for. The waiver is to alcoholic beverages, but only
in
to
conjunction with dispensing food, and additionally, the board has
granted a waiver to another establishment across the street, closer
the church.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I apologize, I missed this. Hembets of our
staff and all those members of the public or petitioner that are
here
to testify on this item, would you please stand and raise your
right
hand and be sworn in?
(All speakers on this issue were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, and you stipulate, Mr. Hulhere,
that your previous testimony is under oath. Is that acceptable to
you?
MR. HULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HULHERE: The only other thing that I would very say
briefly
is that the pastor of the church has been contacted and does not
contest the approval of this request.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I don't have any communication or
have
had any communication from the Pine Ridge residents. I have met
with
Mr. Foley briefly on this item earlier today, but that's the only
contact I have to disclose at this time. Is there any disclosure
from
the
the board?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No contact.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Foley, anything to add?
MR. FOLEY: Nothing to add. For the record, we've reviewed
staff report and have no questions or comments.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a comment that probably doesn't
have a
lot to do with the request for approval, but what quality
establishment are we talking about here? Is it like a family sit-
down
restaurant with an attached lounge? I mean, I'm just curious.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know there's a pool table in the back
and I'm worried about that, as far -- I mean, not like pool's a bad
thing, just that you said that it's gonna be served in conjunction
with food and, you know, this is a real residential area right
here.
I don't want it to be -- I don't want us to be walking into some of
the problems the City of Naples has walked into with live
entertainment, loud music all over -- you know, I mean, people
having
problems with parking lots.
MR. FOLEY: I think right in the staff report there's a
mention
there will be no live entertainment at all or live music. This is
going to be a restaurant, just something that -- by alcohol, it's
beer
and wine specifically.
I know that the decor is going to be all tile so it's going to
be
quite nice from what I'm understanding. The owners are here to add
anything, but, you know, I really feel this is going to be an
enhancement to the neighborhood, certainly shouldn't be a problem
with
no live music, no live entertainment.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it a chain that we might have heard
of?
in
HR. FOLEY: No, it's not a chain. It's a couple individuals
town that have been here for some time and are going in on --
they're
going in on their own, they're trying a new establishment and
trying
their best to make it work in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good luck, not an easy task. Further
questions for petitioner?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wouldn't mind hearing from them
about,
you know, what it's gonna be like. I mean, Taco Caliente is such a
tiny little place and it's opened --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, they're still opened. I know for a
fact.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I would love to hear from them
about
what they have in mind.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a quick question of Mr.
the
Foley before he sits down? What was this building previously?
MR. FOLEY: It once was the Moose Lodge.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did they have beer or alcohol at
Moose Lodge?
MR. FOLEY: Absolutely, and they had entertainment there as
well.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
backwards
from what used to be there?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
So we're actually stepping
Thank you.
ask
for
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you still wanted to
questions of the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll wait.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question of Mr. Foley.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Foley, was the Seventh Day Adventist
Church there simultaneously with the Moose Lodge?
MR. FOLEY: I don't -- I'm not sure. I think it's been there
some time.
know
or
That facility is currently for sale, by the way. I
this board is aware of that. I think it was there, if I recall.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Both of them have been there for a long
time, until the Moose moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this restaurant going to have a beer
and wine license or a general license? MR. FOLEY: Beer and wine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Beer and wine, and is it the kind of
license that has a percentage of food sales as a requirement?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, that's also in the staff report, 51 percent
greater will be food.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What percent?
MR. FOLEY: Fifty-one percent or greater.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you still wish to hear from the
additional
speakers?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything else to add, Mr. Foley?
MR. FOLEY: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any registered speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Foley was the only registered speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
Mr. Foley, Mr. Mulhere, thank you very much, and again, good
luck.
Item #14A
FEBRUARY 11, 1998 TENTATIVELY SET FOR COLLIER/LEE MEETING WITH
CORPS OF
ENGINEERS
the
Head now to staff communications. Mr. Weigel, do you have
anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing today, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, yeah, that's your name,
anything for you, sir?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, we're still --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're already out the door, sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In the spirit of the season.
MR. FERNANDEZ: How soon they forget. We're still working on
confirmation of the date of February llth for our meeting with the
Corps of Engineers in Lee County. We haven't received any word yet
from Lee County and I'm waiting and expect it momentarily.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Even though that confirmation may come at a
time when the commission is not in session, I would ask you to go
ahead and schedule it as long as the majority of the board's
schedule
does not conflict and get that out to the media. Is that
acceptable
to the board?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just to make sure we get on the books.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can't imagine anything that couldn't
be
rescheduled for a subject this important.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have confirmed that the commissioners
calendars can accommodate that date.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anything else, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hay everybody have a happy holiday.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a nice thought.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got one that's in the just
doesn't seem to make sense category. This morning, of course, we
voted not to hear the item regarding the clerk. Within about 20
minutes of that, a call went out to my Golden Gate satellite office
where the clerk's representative out there will -- each Friday, I'm
there for about five or six hours and then the clerk's
representative
will often buzz me and let me know I have someone waiting in the
hall
when I have someone in my office and just let me know.
The clerk instructed his representative out there not to help
me
anymore. So I don't -- that seems A, vindictive, B, it's
penalizing
the public more than it's penalizing me and so, I'm just
disappointed
at the further degradation of communication between the clerk and
us.
That's completely uncalled for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I said in an interview with WB-10 that
there's
a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things and I
expressed
my personal opinion on how I though this is being handled. It
seems
that that small incident in some way ties in perfectly to what I
would
consider the wrong way to do things.
On a more festive note, Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas to
everyone, and this is my last meeting starting and finishing as
chairman.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yea.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All those in favor --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I just wanted to thank Mr. Fernandez
and
an
Hr. Weigel and particularly my colleagues up here for making this
interesting, but overall a fairly easy, year to get through.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: We will now return to two hour meetings.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that depends on who's the next
chairman,
Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just made a comment, Mr. Hancock.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was trying to say something, but never
mind.
All right. Anyway, thanks to everyone. It's been a fun year.
I'll
be glad to relinquish the chair.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, relinquish it and let's get on our
way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Filson, are you gonna have a Merry
Christmas?
MS. FILSON: I certainly am.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Consider that an order. We're done.
**** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine,
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 97-463, GRANTING THE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR "THE ORCHARDS" AND
RELEASE
OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 97-464, RE PETITION AV-97-022 FOR RECORDING THE FINAL
PLAT
OF "AUTUMN WOODS UNIT TWO", AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT AS RECORDED ON THE PLAT OF AUTUMN WOODS UNIT ONE - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 97-465, AND AGREEHENT DEFERRING ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF
THE
IMPACT FEES FOR A 140 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TO BE BUILT
BY
CEI/KENSINGTON, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP KNOWN AS
SADDLEBROOKS/PELICAN POINTE PHASE I APARTMENTS AFFORDABLE RENTAL
UNITS
Item #16A4
AUTHORIZATION TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN STRAND PEPLAT -
2" -
WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
WORK ORDER NO. ABB-FT-98-3, PROJECT NO. 31203 TO PROVIDE ON-SITE
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE IMPERIAL WEST/LANDMARK
ESTATES
DRAINAGE PROJECT AS REQUESTED BY THE STORMWATER NLA/~AGEHENT
DEPARTMENT -
AWARDED TO AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR A TOTAL COMPENSATION
OF
$31,498
Item #1682
BID 97-2690R FOR THE REBID OF THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT
(NCRWTP) PLANT 8-HGD EXPANSION PROJECT - AWARDED TO HILHIR
CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,684,984.90
Item #1683 - Deleted
Item #1684
PROJECT 70824 - JOINT PROJECT AGREEHENT AND HEHORANDUH OF AGREEHENT
WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONSTRUCT THE STATE
ROAD
951 12" WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS AS A PART OF THE STATE ROAD 951
ROAD
WIDENING PROJECT
Item #1685 - Deleted
Item #1686
CHANGE ORDER WITH SUNSHINE EXCAVATORS, INC. FOR THE LELY HIBISCUS
CULVERT CROSSING, PROJECT NO. 31101; CONTRACT NO. 96-2613 - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $19,534.25
Item #1687 - Deleted
Item #1688
AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HAZEN &
SAWYER, P.C., FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY 5-HGD EXPANSION, CONTRACT 96-2474, PROJECT 73031 - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $65,750.00
Item #16B9
BID 97-2694 TO CONSTRUCT IHMOKALEE DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE
BEAUTIFICATION,
PHASE II, SUB-PHASE A - AWARDED TO HID-CONTINENT ELECTRIC, INC. IN
THE
A_MOUNT OF $455,534.50
Item #16C1
VANDERBILT BEACH CONCESSION AGREEHENT AWARDED TO DAY-STAR
UNLIMITED,
INC.
Item #16D1
BID 97-2751 TO WATERPROOF THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING "F" - AWARDED
TO
ROMAN WATERPROOFING & RESTORATION SYSTEMS INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$49,711.00
Item #16El
REALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC DISASTER
PROGRAM
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
BCC
has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as
indicated
on the miscellaneous correspondence.
A
Item #16H1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO SUPPORT
LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM AND FUNDING OF BUDGET AMENDMENT 602
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:42 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S)
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
TIHOTHY HANCOCK,
CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on
or as corrected
as presented
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
By: Traci L. Brantner and Sherrie B. Radin