BCC Minutes 02/03/1998 R REGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 1998
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
February 3rd meeting of the Collier County Commission. If you will,
please stand for the invocation by Pastor Robert Jacobs from the
Messiah Lutheran Church and remain standing for the pledge. Good
morning, Reverend Jacobs.
REVEREND JACOBS: Good morning. We make our beginning in the
name of the Father and of the son and of the holy spirit.
We join with the psalmist in saying, oh, give thanks on the Lord
for he is good because his mercy endures forever, and we thank you,
Lord, that you gave your guidance and protection to us during this
past evening with the heavy rains and the windstorms that came into
our area. We were able to withstand them with very little damage and
we thank you for all of that and we ask your continual guidance and
direction and blessings upon us this day.
We also ask your blessing upon this Collier County Board of
Commissioners. They are a government agency which you established for
the betterment of your people that they could live in peace and
harmony. We ask that you grant them your wisdom, that you will guide
them in all of their deliberations, to do what is right and what
always is in the best interest of this county and the people who live
here.
They rejoice that they are able to recognize people with service
awards, but then they have those more sticky issues, like county
development and environmental services and zoning changes and
concerns, as well as the airport authority and the like. These
decisions do not always come easy, nor are they always popular, but we
know that you will give them wisdom to understand the pros and the
cons and then the willingness to make those difficult and tough
decisions, which will be for the betterment of our county and the good
of your people. We ask this all in the name of you who loved us so
much. Amen.
(Whereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Pastor Jacobs.
May I remind all of those who are coming in, if there's an item
on the agenda that you wish to speak to, please make sure that you
have registered prior to that item being heard. So this is just a
reminder. It's a little bit changed -- different change than we've
had in the past, so just reminding.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we have three changes. The
first is addition of Item 16(A)(2), which is Labelle Longhorn Booster
Club Carnival Permit.
The second is to move Item 16(B)(5) to 8(B)(3), that's from
consent to regular. This is the item to consider a county arterial
roadway landscape improvement funding partnership with the Golden Gate
Beautification MSTU for County Road 951.
The third change is to move Item 16(D)(2) to 8(D)(1), again from
consent to regular. This is selection of the newspaper for
advertising of delinquent real estate and personal property taxes,
requested by Commissioner Constantine.
We also have a correction, Madam Chairman, in the record.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The approval of the minutes should read January
13th, rather than January 12th.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I believe all those changes are noted.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any changes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine indicated to
me just now he does not.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have none.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Nor do I.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move that we adopt the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
Motion carries four, zero.
Item #3
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 1998 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will make a motion that we approve the
minutes of the January 13th regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
Motion carries four, zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 8-14, 1998 AS VOCATIONAL
EDUCATION WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This morning, commissioners, it's my
privilege to be able to present a proclamation for Vocational
Education Week, and if I could have Dr. David Baldaia come up, please,
for acceptance and he can turn around and face the -- you can come on
up here -- no, you can come up here and face the public here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have to be duly embarrassed first.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The proclamation reads, WHEREAS, February 8th
through the 14th, 1998 has been designated Vocational Educational Week
by the American Vocational Association; and
WHEREAS, profound economic and technological changes in our
society are being rapidly reflected in the structure and nature of
work, causing a gradual shift in the job market toward more
technically trained employees who are equipped with good reading,
writing, math, problem solving and critical thinking skills; and
WHEREAS, many of the fastest-growing occupations in Florida for
the year 2005 will be in fields requiring vocational or occupational
training leading to a certificate; and
WHEREAS, Collier County is making efforts to diversify its
economic base beyond agriculture and tourism and to help the
establishment of technology-related companies that offer high-paid
employment; and
WHEREAS, Collier County Public Schools provides vocational
technical programs in high schools and the Walker Institute of
Technology that train students in basic and technical skills that
prepare them to meet new demands of business and industry; and
WHEREAS, the ever-increasing cooperative efforts of vocational
educators, business and industry stimulate the growth and vitality of
our local economy and that of the entire nation by preparing workers
for the occupations forecasted to experience the largest and fastest
growth in the next decade.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February
8th through February 14th, 1998 be designated as Vocational Education
Week.
During this week, we urge all citizens to reflect the outstanding
programs and services by vocational educators in the county and the
vital role that vocational education plays in educating the local work
force. We further urge business and industry to continue supporting
these excellent vocational technical programs in order to enhance the
individual work skills and business productivity.
Done and ordered this 3rd day of February, 1998, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
I move acceptance of this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
(Chorus of ayes.)
Motion carries four, zero.
(Applause.)
DR. BALDAIA: Thank you for the opportunity for a few words. I
would just like to simply say, on behalf of the school board of
Collier County and the over 125 career and technical educators who
daily serve and work with our youth in middle schools, high schools,
and post secondary institutions, my sincere thanks. My heartfelt
appreciation for this recognition.
We are afoot. There is much going on in the district with a
school to career initiative. As a matter of fact, yesterday, the
Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Naples Chamber, set up career
shadowing for over 100 middle school students, linking them directly
with business and industry folks for most of the day. This is one of
many kinds of opportunities that our students are participating in
daily, and again, on behalf of all the career and technical educators,
sincere thanks and appreciation for recognizing their efforts.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Appreciate your being
here today.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Moving on then to service awards, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: These are a wonderful opportunity to thank
our employees for the service they give to Collier County, and the
first one is to Bob Angeline, if you'd come forward, for five years of
continuous service. Mr. Angeline's in the Road and Bridge Department.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Congratulations.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Next, for ten years of service, Mr. Tom
HcDonough -- HcDonough, if I'm saying that right, that's what they
told me, good job. Tom HcDonough is in Wastewater Collection, has
been employed by Collier County for 10 years.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As Commissioner Norris likes to say, good
start.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the room.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
Item #7A
VICTOR VALDES REGARDING THE USE OF A TRAILER IN IHMOKALEE - STAFF
DIRECTED TO HANDLE THE MATTER
Moving on then to public petitions. First individual this
morning is Victor Valdes, regarding the use of a trailer in Immokalee.
Hay I remind all of the public petitioners this morning, you are
allowed -- allocated 10 minutes to make your presentation, and the
board probably will not take any action on that presentation this
morning, but you have 10 minutes to tell us what you want to tell us.
MR. VALDES: Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Commissioners, good
morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And identify yourself, please, for the
record.
MR. VALDES: My name for the record is Victor Valdes,
professional journalist. I am here to speak for the Garibay family.
I am not an attorney or legal counsel. I am an activist for the
community, Hispanic community.
I want to present to you a deep concern that we have in the case
of the Garibay property. They have small mobile home on Immokalee
Drive and llth Street that is in this place at least since 1983 or
before. We have a picture with February, 1985. Around this property
exist a showing of a mobile home.
The Collier County Code Enforcement is trying to spoil this
property for this poor family. I am here to let you know and request
you to move in some way that this person -- this family can keep their
mobile home.
They are willing to take the property up to the code, some
improvement -- what the code enforcement says; electricity, water,
something. They are willing to work with the county to comply with
this, but, I think that it's not -- not fair to take out this property
from this family.
Also, I am concerned because the family left Immokalee in the
morning and had some trouble in the street on Immokalee Road and is
not present. I don't know what really happened, but I hope God put
his hand in this accident.
Well, this is what I need to say. I will give you the -- this
picture and this other that has a mobile home showing and also I give
you -- and this -- and in this picture we have the mobile home here,
at least in 1985. We know that is before. Also, I give a copy of the
signed document that appear in the property when they bought the
property that the triangle appear in the papers. Also, I will give to
you a picture with two stickers from 1991 and 1983 that was placed for
the State of Florida some permit at this time (sic.)
If I am not wrong, the code -- Collier County Land Development
Code was enacted in 1991 and amended in 1992. This mobile home is 10
years before. Too many people know in Immokalee that is and was used
to -- the owner rented for people. Now those people that owned the
property five years ago, have only -- a family, a son and the wife in
the trailer.
Please don't let the code enforcement spoil the effort of this
poor working family. This is what I need to say. Thank you.
(Exhibit not submitted to reporter.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Valdes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cautero, are you familiar with this
particular case?
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. Only in the aspect
that I spoke briefly with my staff about it. However, I have asked
our code enforcement investigator, Gary Harrison, who's had numerous
discussions with Mr. Valdes and Commissioner Berry about the issue,
and he's available to answer questions.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So we are investigating it?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It has been investigated. Mr. Harrison -- in
fact, we've also had a meeting with Mr. Valdes and the Garibay family.
Our attorney, Mr. Manalich, has also been involved in this, so it's
not something that is -- has been overlooked. There's been a great
deal of time spent on this issue. I think Mr. Harrison can also add
some comments if you want to hear it at this time or would you rather
have this at a --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think the issue here is a code --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, at this point, I still don't know
the issue.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a case of -- well, Mr. Harrison could
probably explain it better, because he's been involved in it, but a
trailer home placed on this property, and he can tell you more about
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the issue that we have a code
enforcement case and --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we're seeking to bring some property up
to code and if we can do that so the people can safely stay there,
that's our goal; is that safe to say?
MR. HARRISON: For the record, Gary Harrison, code enforcement
investigator. The situation here is that the mobile home was
illegally placed on the lot. The mobile home was never legally
permitted and although Mr. Valdes does have a photo and it's a 1985
aerial photo showing an object there, it doesn't appear to be a mobile
home.
I have early photos from '81, '85, '89 and '93, which the mobile
home does not -- actually, in 1993, we see part of what may be
construed as a mobile home. So I would think the mobile home was
probably placed there somewhere between 1989 and 1983.
The mobile home doesn't meet the definition of a legal
non-conforming use, because the mobile home was never permitted to
start with. The previous owner of the property, Mrs. Howell, who sold
the property to the Garibays in 1994, did come into our Immokalee
office before she sold the trailer and I don't have a date, but she
applied for a permit for the trailer and she was denied because it
wasn't -- couldn't be there.
The area is zoned RHF6 and there's already a two-story structure
on the property with a shed. The property cards do not show any
mobile home ever there. There were no permits ever taken out for a
mobile home and the state of the mobile home right now is not very
good. It certainly does not come up to any of our codes. Even though
the mobile homes are governed by the state, it does not meet any of
our housing codes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, my understanding is
this petition before us is to see if we want to put it on a regular --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- agenda to hear the whole issue. I
don't know that we should be hearing the whole issue this morning.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the other thing is too that it seems
pretty clear that it is a code enforcement problem and therefore we
shouldn't hear it at all.
MR. HANALICH: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. HANALICH: For the record, Ramiro Hanalich, chief assistant
county attorney. To the extent it may assist, very briefly, in the
meetings that were had with Mr. Valdes and staff, what emerged was
this is an RHF6 district, which does not allow for a mobile home. The
surrounding area is apparently, as I understand it, zoned for a mobile
home use.
Mr. Valdes inquired whether a six L's overlay approach could be
taken in this case and staff concluded that it could not for various
reasons. However, there would be the possibility if the board were
inclined perhaps of entertaining a fezone for this particular
property, and that's probably, I think, why Mr. Valdes came before you
today, to see if there's any willingness on the board to have staff
review that possibility.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But my interest is if this is somebody's
home, they've paid money for it, it's, you know, the home that they
have --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. I mean, they aren't living
in this home. This is an additional structure.
MR. HARRISON: This is an accessory structure to the property.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, it's not a main -- it is not their
main home.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not where they live?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, no, no, no, not at all.
MR. HARRISON: I believe the son -- is the son living --
MR. VALDES: The son.
MR. HARRISON: Right. Now, the other option here would be if all
the requirements are met, they might possibly, if they did a site
improvement plan and did all the applications, might be able to have a
guest house.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, why don't we direct staff to work
with them to find out if there is a mechanism to, you know, to just
advise them of what their options are; you can fezone, here's the
application; you can do an STP for a guest house, here's the
application, you know, just have staff tell them exactly what their
options are?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Isn't our staff telling us that they've
already done that?
MR. HARRISON: We have already done that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. HARRISON: We've had meetings with -- the last meeting we had
was with Mr. Mulhere and Ramiro and myself and Marjorie Student and
we've tried to -- we've done everything we could to try to allow this,
but there's just nothing that we have in our codes or ordinances that
can allow it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they have options to apply for?
MR. HARRISON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what they can do, Mr. Valdes,
is they can apply for these special permits, if you want to look at
them that way and they have to go through that process.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, Madam Chairman, I'm gonna make a
motion that we just let staff do their thing and this not come back as
a formal public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Are
there any further comments?
Okay. I'll call for the question; all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Thank you, Mr. Valdes.
MR. VALDES: Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #7B
JILL BURZYNSKI, CHAIRMAN OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY COMMITTEE RE A
PROPOSAL FOR THE CREATION OF A LEGAL AID SOCIETY - TO BE PLACED ON
FUTURE AGENDA
Our next petitioner is Ms. Burzynski, excuse me, chairman of
the Legal Aid Society committee regarding a proposal for the creation
of a Legal Aid Society.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: My, Jill, how you've changed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got to do something about your
hair, Jill.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And please identify yourself.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And not necessarily for the better.
MR. CARDILLO: My name's Jill Burzynski.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it's not.
MR. CARDILLO: And I am not Mr. Burzynski. I am John Cardillo,
and I am here in my capacity as the Governor for the 20th Circuit to
the Florida Bar Board of Governors to add their support and
endorsement of the creation of the Collier County Legal Aid Society,
of which committee, Ms. Burzynski, to my left, is the chair.
The Legal Aid Society is formed to provide legal services to the
indigent not covered by the increasingly diminishing participation of
the Florida Rural Legal Aid Program, which had been previously funded
substantially from Washington and from our ever increasing pro bono
services, which is nationally -- or statewide recognized as one of the
outstanding services of the bar statewide.
Our Legal Aid Society would mostly deal with family law and would
be for the purpose of funding a professional staff, a lawyer, a
secretary and the volunteers who are continuing to do pro bono work.
With the cutting down of the funding from Washington, various
communities have taken the initiative to take up this problem because
it is still a societal problem particularly in our community, and the
bar supports that initiative and we have agreed to, among other
things, staff voluntarily and have agreed to a 50 percent increase in
our dues to help fund it.
Ms. Burzynski and Ms. Greider are here to discuss the plan that
they would like the county commission to endorse. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if I may interject, I don't
know if Ms. Burzynski has had the opportunity to meet with all the
commissioners, but this is something that if it is to appear on
regular agenda we would hear in total and have the opportunity for a
lot of discussion and debate. Rather than have that twice, I'm
supportive of just placing this item on the agenda for a board
hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's a motion --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I'll second -- third.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'll make a motion to that effect.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think there's a good deal of support up
here. I did have the opportunity to meet with Ms. Burzynski and also
with Mr. Cardillo and I certainly would agree that we ought to place
this on a future agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let the record reflect, lawyers doing
good. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might get out of hand down there,
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second, we will take a
vote on that. I believe it's appropriate to take a vote, so, all
those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero, to be placed on a
future agenda, at which time we'll hear the whole --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would not have been in favor of this, but
I was persuaded by the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eloquence?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- great eloquent presentation of Mr.
Cardillo.
MR. CARDILLO: Thank you very much, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He knows when to stop talking.
Item #7C
MATT CROWDER RE THE CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT AND THE EAST NAPLES FIRE
DEPARTMENT - TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE FEBRUARY 17, 1998 MEETING
Next on the agenda is Mr. Matt Crowder regarding the Capri
Fire District and East Naples Fire Department. Mr. Crowder.
MR. CROWDER: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself, please.
MR. CROWDER: For the record, I'm Matt Crowder, property owner
and small business owner on the Isle of Capri. I'd like to thank you
for taking the time to listen to my concerns. I'm here today to
express concerns I have over the upcoming vote regarding the future of
the Isle of Capri Fire District.
Let me begin by saying that my concern is not as much for the
outcome of the decision as much as it is for the decision making
process itself. I'm just a little worried that the decision might be
being made a bit too quickly and as a result we might be at risk of
making a decision that is not the best one for the Isles.
The most significant part of my concern, I guess, would be the
fact that the decision is being made as far as I can see without any
exploration of alternatives or any sort of competitive bidding
process. As someone who has worked in county government for many
years, I know that typically contracts of this nature, not unlike any
road construction contract or any other agreement like that, are only
awarded after some sort of exploration and bidding process.
I know for a fact that there are other qualified organizations
that would be amenable to the idea of submitting a proposal for these
services, the most significant of which probably would be the City of
Marco Island. I personally met with Mr. Charlie HcCool, the city
manager down at Marco Island, and he indicated that if the City of
Marco Island were approached with a request for a proposal, that he
would indeed be both capable of and willing to respond, and that's
just one example of an alternative that has not been explored to my
knowledge, and I'm concerned, as I said before, that we may indeed not
be making the best decision. I don't know how we could possibly know
for sure that we are in the absence of any process like that.
I think it's important to say that I have every confidence in the
East Naples Fire Department, for the record. The East Naples Fire
Department has submitted or is about to submit a proposal for these
fire services down in the Isle of Capri Fire District. I know that
they are a fully capable and qualified organization. I have every
confidence that they could do the best job possible down there.
My only concern is that we take time to look at what we have
before us and make sure that indeed we are doing the right thing,
especially in light of the fact, it's my understanding that you are
poised to enter into discussions yourself about Collier County's very
role in fire services, and that also could have a long-term impact on
our district.
Now, my wife personally visited over a hundred homes on the Isles
since this issue arose and of all the residents she spoke with, she
came up with an interesting statistic down there. She counted five
people that she could find that were in favor of the East Naples
proposal and three people who were against the proposal. The
remainder of the people -- the majority of the people that she spoke
to actually just wanted more information and wanted this process
delayed so that information could be gathered, and I would say at this
time I'm here to ask for a 120 day continuance on this matter. Not to
mention the fact that there is a petition that was submitted to the
board of commissioners here that essentially asked for the same thing,
and a recent letter writing campaign that resulted in a significant
number of letters that arrived on Chairman Berry's desk also
requesting a continuance for the purpose of the exploration of
alternatives.
As I said before, we have -- what appears to me, we have Collier
County set to examine its role in fire services. In addition, we
have, as you know, an impact study that's in progress right now that
is due to be completed in the first quarter of this year. That could
impact funding levels and staffing needs down on the Isles in our
district.
Our own fire advisory committee is 40 percent -- comprised 40
percent of brand new members who I feel need some time to digest all
this information and look at the history surrounding the issue, and
finally, as you may have heard, there are a lot of residents on the
Isles who are concerned about the redefined role of our EHS battalion
captain.
Just for the record, this transition that's due to take place
down there is going to result in our south battalion paramedic captain
to be redefined as a roving captain and that will have that paramedic
captain out of our district for a significant amount of the time.
That's something that generally has a lot of people worried down there
in the district, especially when you consider the fact that 80 percent
of the 911 calls in the Isle of Capri Fire District are medical calls,
not fire related calls.
So, to close, I would just say this; again, I ask this board to
grant a continuance in this matter for the purpose of exploring
alternatives and allowing a bidding process to take place, since the
likelihood is that any new contract will not become effective until
the beginning of our next fiscal year, which is October of 1998. We
can surely, in my view, afford 120 days to make -- just to be certain
that we've made the proper and prudent decision, and I want to stress
this. All I'm asking for here is time that perhaps we already have
available to us to simply explore some alternatives and perhaps look
at some competitive proposals.
I believe that -- and I hope that you would agree that we're not
in a state of imminent peril on the Isles in terms of fire coverage.
We have a capable department of individuals down there, which is
backed by mutual aid from both Marco Island and East Naples. So we're
certainly adequately covered for the short-term, and I would submit
that perhaps the prudent thing to do at this time would be to take a
cautious and careful look at how we're about to spend the taxpayers'
money down there, and make sure that the decision we're making is
truly the best one for the Isle of Capri Fire District, both in the
short term and in the long term. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Crowder.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Crowder, I have a couple of questions.
Since we have, as a Board of County Commissioners, have no discussion
scheduled at this point in time and, in fact, there has been no
proposal made, how can we grant a 120 day continuance? What would we
be continuing for 120 days? There's nothing on our schedule for this.
MR. CROWDER: Mr. Chairman, I know that --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: She's the Chairman, I'm --
MR. CROWDER: I'm sorry, Mr. Commissioner, I understand that the
issue is about to come up in the next couple of meetings and it is not
so much in my view a matter of when the decision comes up or which
agenda it appears on, but that prior to that decision being made,
whenever it may come up, that some sort of exploration process, some
sort of perhaps entertainment of alternate proposals and things like
that is a --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yes, but you're -- you seem to be
assuming in advance that we're not gonna do that and I think that
might be slightly insulting to this Board of County Commissioners to
assume that we are going to enter into this kind of decision without
developing any background information or without studying
alternatives. So, you know, I really kind of take a bit of issue with
that.
The next thing you mentioned --
MR. CROWDER: Commissioner, could I just respond to that, just
very briefly, please?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. CROWDER: It is not my intent, I'm sure you realize, to
insult the Board of County Commissioners, but I watched and the other
residents of the Isles have watched the process go forward down there
and perhaps, if it is your intention to entertain alternative
proposals and explore other options, we're certainly not aware of that
down there and if the board were to come out and state that that was
the intention, perhaps that would alleviate a lot of the concerns.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But, Mr. Crowder, we can't make those
intentions known until we're presented with something to study as a
board and to make a decision on.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's been our biggest problem, John, as
I've met with people, I have nothing to debate.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There is nothing on our plate right now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have anything so it makes it very
hard to proceed.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There is no formal proposal that has been
presented to anyone, as far as I know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there is a whole lot of talk and that,
you know, is, I think, what we could learn from this discussion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not through with my questions for Mr.
Crowder, please, if I can continue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then I'd like to, Madam Chairman --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You certainly can have that opportunity at
that point. Let me finish.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll ask her.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You mentioned that you're concerned about
the impact fee studies that are ongoing, simply contracting for
services with any organization won't affect those at all. That won't
be a problem, but I'm curious, one thing that you did mention was that
the EMS captain would no longer be fully stationed at the Isle of
Capri; where did you get that information? From where did that
information originate?
MR. CROWDER: Specifically, my understanding is that the EMS
battalion captain's role would switch to a roving position.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who told you that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- where did you get that information?
MR. CROWDER: From Collier County Emergency Services.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who in Collier County Emergency Services?
MR. CROWDER: Members of Diane Flagg's staff and Diane herself.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Fernandez, can you amplify on that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, it's my understanding that the
current assignment of the captain there is related to the need to
support the fire function. When the fire -- if the fire function is
changed, I think the plan is to continue to have the captain stationed
there at the station, however, the job assignment would be different
in that there would no longer be the need to have the captain there
during an entire shift or during an entire -- is that the correct
terminology, Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: (Nods head.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- during the portion of a shift that the
coverage is necessary.
MR. OCHS: That's correct. For the record, Leo Ochs, support
services administrator. Currently the south battalion captain is
headquartered out of the Isles of Capri station, that's a 24-hour
assignment. During the evening portion of that 24-hour assignment,
from 8:00 p.m. till 8 a.m. the next morning, that battalion captain is
currently restricted to the Isles of Capri area to help assist, not
only with medical, but with fire calls, because there is no other
personnel regularly assigned during the evening hours.
So that's the current configuration, unlike our battalion --
excuse me, our battalion captain on the north end, which services the
entire area if the need arises for emergency response.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But there will be medical coverage because
the east -- whoever takes over operation of the fire services will
also be BLS certified, correct.
MR. OCHS: That is correct. To my understanding, they have a
first responder capability with the East Naples Fire and Rescue
Control District.
I might just add for a point of clarification, last week, I
believe it was last Tuesday evening, the East Naples Fire Commission
did vote two to one to accept a formal proposal presented to them by
their chief, to then have us present that to the Isles of Capri
Advisory Board at their meeting. This Wednesday -- excuse me, this
Thursday evening is the meeting of the Isles of Capri Advisory Board
at which time I will be bringing that proposal from East Naples
forward for their consideration and their comment and recommendation
then to the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just allow me one more question, then I'll
be done. Mr. Fernandez, is it within the purview or authority of the
board of commissioners to -- to have input on the decision making
process that would determine whether a full-time EMS presence was on
the Isle of Capri or not?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's been a difficult question to answer
through this process. I think it relates to the degree to which
budget decisions were made and representations that were made to the
board at the time the budget was presented. In other words if we
said, this budget relates to this given level of service, I think we
have a commitment to continue that level of service as long as that
budget is in place.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then, in that case, could you dig out those
budget decision minutes and let's see if we had committed in this
year's budget to full-time presence? That's all.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think Commissioner Mac'Kie and then
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. There -- the issue here --
there are several issues here. The one I would like for you to know
that I at least am hearing and that I believe a majority of the board
is hearing is that you are concerned that your voice is not being
adequately heard at Isles of Capri, that you're concerned that you're
not being well-represented by your fire commission as they make their
recommendations. I am hearing you, I think that other people are
hearing you. I understand why you would be concerned when both the
county manager and your county commissioner and the -- Mr. Ochs,
administrator, all make reference to the East Naples proposal and
correct themselves, catch themselves and say, I mean, you know, the
proposal as it may come forward.
I think you have, you know, every right to be here, every reason
to be here saying please, slow down. What I hope that a majority of
the board will agree to is that I understand, as Mr. Ochs is saying,
that East Naples has a proposal that is going to be brought to the
board.
What I understand your question to be is, would we please advise
our staff, direct the staff to bring forward alternate proposals and
not just the one that's coming to us from East Naples; is that your
request?
MR. CROWDER: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would support that request and I wonder
if there is a majority of the board that would ask that before we get
the East Naples proposal, we ask our staff to also develop
alternatives and give us a menu from which to select and don't please
-- please don't just bring that proposal.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can I make a comment?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm done, so that's between you and
Commissioner Hancock.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just quickly, but I'm gonna take the
chairman's prerogative and interject a thought. This was my concern
and why I asked for staff to come back to us and that's going to
happen on February 17th, to come back to us to have a discussion at
this board table regarding the county's involvement in fire service
for the two dependent districts.
Only my own humble opinion, I think we kind of got this thing out
of sequence here. I believe that we need to have this discussion
prior to anything going to anybody, because I think we all need to get
a determination as to what all of our collective thoughts are up here,
whether we -- we need to have all the facts, first off, presented to
us, and then we need to make a decision as to what our role is going
to be in fire service in the dependent districts in the future, and
after that point in time, then, you know, maybe East Naples will come
forward with a proposition, maybe Marco Island will, maybe I don't
know, whatever, or maybe we'll say we're gonna stay right where we are
and do things the way it's currently being done, but at least we're
gonna have better information in front of us. We should all be on the
same page at this point in time, knowing what perhaps the best way to
proceed is.
So I appreciate -- in fact, you and I had conversation and I
advised you that that was going to happen on February 17th, nor did I
discourage you from coming up and speaking this morning, and I think
that's fine, but I think for the public's review, you-all need to know
that this is going to take place, and again, I really think we got a
little out of sync here, just my opinion, because I think it's
important that we have this discussion first before anything else goes
forward. Now, Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This hasn't been handled any differently
than most things. A proposal is out there, it appears as if the
proposal may have some merit. The board wants to take a look at it.
When it comes before the board, we take all the information we receive
to date, we take the proposal, we review it, we listen to our
constituents countywide and we make a decision we think is in their
best interest, whether it be to delay, to hear, to decide.
The pre-judgment, that we don't have the wisdom to listen to 300
people out of 600 and determine to delay at the appropriate time, is
in fact shortsighted. I mean, you're assuming that we either say yes
or no as opposed to exercising any and all options. So I think you
actually are premature in that those comments you made today would be
most appropriate when and if this board ever hears a proposal, because
I think they're valid, I just think they're premature, because we
don't have the proposal. That's the way it normally works.
What is of concern to me in some of your comments is, it has
become increasing apparent to me that we are subsidizing the provision
of fire service to the Isles of Capri with EHS personnel. That's
wrong. Period. EHS is countywide, funded countywide, not by
districts, and the fact that we have a person who is tied to that
station 24 hours a day or at least at night, to supplant fire
personnel is the county subsidizing the Isles of Capri Fire District
and it's wrong.
The two need to be separate and apart just as they are in my
district. We don't have EHS people supplanting fire service in North
Naples, so it shouldn't have it anywhere else. So, if we did not give
specific enough policy direction in the budget last year, you can
expect next year at least from me and hopefully from the majority of
the board, and I think this entire discussion is going to cause us to
look as what is the real cost of fire service in the Isles of Capri.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's exactly why I think the February 17th
discussion is so incredibly important, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I needed to bring that up, because that
has become one of the primary concerns in looking at what we do or
don't do in Isles of Capri, is to make sure it is a stand-alone cost,
regardless of who provides the service and based on that I think we
can compare apples and apples.
MR. CROWDER: Hay I just make a brief response to your comment,
Mr. Commissioner?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure.
MR. CROWDER: I don't mean for my comments to be interpreted as
my assessment of the board's ability or wisdom in terms of making this
decision.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You haven't offended me at all. I'm not
implying that.
MR. CROWDER: But I do ask you to understand that, you know,
we're just a group of residents down there, property owners, we see a
lot of things flying by and, frankly, we're a little bit scared and if
I am premature, perhaps, I could respond by saying, my intent is to be
proactive.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood.
MR. CROWDER: And if I'm at risk of being premature, then so be
it, but, we -- you know, when people get nervous and scared, they feel
the need to take some action and this is really all that we know to
do. This is our only mechanism, our only outlet here, and we're just
trying to get a jump on things. Like I said, things are moving very
quickly, or at least it appears to us that things are moving very
quickly, so for that reason we do feel compelled to jump in and try to
be proactive. I hope you understand.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Crowder, I don't think you need to
apologize for your being here. You have every right to come before
us, you went through the proper procedure, and you've made I think a
good point, and it's true, I think there's a lot of things flying
around and people have partial truths, partial information. The fact
that you're here today, that's fine. I don't think that has any
bearing on this commission for any future action. So with that, thank
you for coming and making your petition and we'll go from here.
MR. CROWDER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let the record reflect that Mr. Crowder
made the unusual comment that Collier County Government moves too
fast. We don't get that a lot.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Don't get that a lot.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Once in a while it happens.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: In the unusual category, you have two speakers
who have asked to speak on this subject and it's not been your policy
to accept them, so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Speakers on what subject?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: On a public petition, we don't --
MR. FERNANDEZ: On Mr. Crowder's comments.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ab -- no. I think the petition stands. The
individual applied to speak on this and if someone else wants to speak
under public comments at the end, they can certainly do that, but they
need to -- again, they need to register to speak at that point in time
so we know who's going to be speaking.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Thank you
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that.
Item #SA1
COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION STAFF REPORT
ON COHMERCIAL VEHICLE AND COHMERCIAL EQUIPMENT SECTIONS OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, moving on then to community
development and environmental services, regarding the commercial
vehicles and commercial equipment sections of the land development
code, Mr. Cautero.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Madam Chairman and commissioners.
Vince Cautero, for the record. The purpose for the agenda item today
is to follow-up with the board directive a little bit over a year ago
when the commercial vehicles and commercial equipment of the land
development code was amended. The major components of those
amendments, you may recall, was more specific language regarding the
commercial equipment that could be placed in a residential area, as
well as the dimensions for commercial vehicles. After reviewing the
material, it is my recommendation that no ordinance amendments be
directed by the board. We believe that the language is very clear and
it has stated -- as stated and the objective has been met.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In a nutshell, it worked.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We do have a motion and a second, but
do we have any public speakers on this issue?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you have three speakers. The first is Glenn
Wilt and then Cheryle Newman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You ready to talk us out of this?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Wilt, I'm losing support as you stride
towards that mike.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself, please.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that what I think it is on the
necktie?
MR. WILT: It sure is. That's Tigger, courtesy of my
granddaughter. I show it off every time I get a chance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Grandchildren do those things.
MR. WILT: Right. Glenn Wilt from Golden Gate. No, I'm up here
-- I'm not here to talk you out of it. I just want to say that it's
been proved within the past year that the changes to the LDC and the
commercial vehicles, commercial equipment within Golden Gate, followed
closely on the heels of that change, of course, was the citation
ordinance, which you-all passed, which is working well, is giving us
fools out there a chance to clean up our area. I certainly stand up
here and say, I want to thank you for taking that long, arduous
process we went through back on the commercial vehicles and thank you
for a job well done. We appreciate it out there.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Cheryle Newman and then Lawrence
Pistori.
MS. NEWMAN: I'll waive.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect, Ms. Newman waives.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Lawrence Pistori.
MR. PISTORI: Lawrence Pistori, Naples Park, and speaking as a
member of Naples Park property owners. Yes, they have been trying to
do their job, code enforcement, on commercial vehicles, on boats and
miscellaneous violations, but what I think is that we could do a
little better. I think that we could have more investigators to stop
by more often.
When we speak to the investigators or the former -- the
supervisor, the department says, oh, yes, they go out every day. They
go out every day, yeah, but they don't come every day in Naples Park.
We see the same violations day after day.
I know that you're short-handed, it's a big county, but perhaps
we could find some funds, and find a method or system, whereby when we
see violations, maybe the investigators could get there the same week.
That's about it. Otherwise, continue to enforce the codes and improve
on them and we don't want our residential communities to become
parking lots for any commercial vehicles or boats or any other type.
The residential communities are for residing. They're not for parking
-- commercial activities of any type. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if I could ask something very
quickly. Mr. Cautero, what's our average response time in code
enforcement on complaints?
MR. CAUTERO: Twenty-four to forty-eight hours. I would be happy
to meet with that gentleman to follow-up on his --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, if there are particular complaints
in Naples Park that it's taking too long, let's go ahead and try to
deal with those. I know that we added staff this past budget year in
code enforcement to address that, so maybe just a quick note to the
board on what those response times are compared to last year and what
recommendations you may have for the future.
MR. CAUTERO: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Not on this subject.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second before
us. I'll call for the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. Fitzgerald, did you
register for this item?
MS. FITZGERALD: Yes, I admit I was late coming to the meeting,
but I registered.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, it was presented after the item was
introduced.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be O for two for Ms -- hadn't
this just recently happened to you, or was it somebody else?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Policy is policy.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we'll stick with the policy as it is.
At this point in time, I'll call for the question, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #8A2
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO
ISLAND FOR THE COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF TO PROVIDE
PLANNING SERVICES TO THE MARCO ISLAND PLANNING BOARD AND MARCO CITY
COUNCIL - APPROVED
Moving on then to the interlocal agreement between Collier
County and the City of Marco Island for the county planning services
department staff to provide planning services to Marco Island Planning
Board and Marco City Council.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Before Mr. Cautero starts, I would like to
recognize that we have the Chairman of the Marco City Council with us,
Mr. Harry Cowin, today. If any of the board members, after the
presentation of Mr. Cautero, have questions, Mr. Cowin would be glad
to answer them in his official capacity.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Welcome, Harry.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Vince Cautero, again,
for the record. I'll be brief. I've spoken to each one of you
individually about this agreement. We have been -- staff, as well as
Mr. Fernandez, have spoken to Marco City officials about extending the
interlocal agreement that you approved January 6th, in which the ten
outstanding arranged petitions would be brought forward to the Marco
Island Planning Board and the Marco Island City Council. My
understanding is that those will be brought to the city council later
this month.
This agreement is an attempt to extend the services provided by
the planning department for legislative and quasi-judicial matters for
a period of 90 days starting today to Hay 3rd, and I have received
information from the chairman that it is the city's intent to hire a
full-time planning director or community development director or a
comparable staff member to take over this service in time. The staff
looks at this item as a transitional one and we recommend your
approval of it. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I do think it's important to
reiterate, I'm the one that made the comment some time back about
cutting the umbilical cord to Marco Island, and I felt I got a little
repercussion from that because I think many of them felt we'd done it.
My point in that whole discussion was that it's our position, or
I believe it is our position, to help the City of Marco get up and
running and this obviously runs through the fiscal year, and I believe
that was understood by most of us and not very well portrayed to the
public and that was my fault, no one else's.
So the idea is certainly to help the city council down there get
everything in place and we want you to get up and be able to do what
you have chosen to do. At the same time, you know, we need to be --
continue to move in that direction. So that certainly is my point and
I wanted to clarify that to you, but we need to move in that
direction. Oh, Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm completely supportive of the proposal.
Since Mr. Cowin has taken the time to be here today, I did want to
pass on one request, if I may, and I understand you don't have any
more control over your planning advisory board than we do over our
planning commission, but, when our planning -- or any of our
professionals are here, we certainly have the right and ability and
commonality to disagree with their opinions, but hopefully it's done
in a respectful manner, and an incident was brought to my attention at
one of the first planning advisory board meetings on Marco Island
where a couple of members of our staff were, in my opinion, treated
somewhat shabbily, and I would appreciate -- they do work hard, that
if your planning advisory board members have a disagreement, you know,
with our staff, that it just be done in a very respectful,
professional manner.
I am not addressing this to the City of Marco Island. It may
only be one or two individuals, but I was a little disappointed when I
heard that. So with the individuals that you're aware of on the
advisory board, if you would please pass that concern along, I would
be greatly appreciative of that.
MR. COWIN: I certainly would, and I'm just surprised to hear
that now. I was not aware of it. I know that certainly the city
council members, and this is Mr. Rich Nelson, who is the chairman of
the planning and zoning board, have the highest regard for the county
staff. We're very pleased to be able to work with them and they have
-- and I'm very sorry to hear that. I'll certainly check into it and
see what may have happened.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, not trying to make a mountain out
of a molehill, but since they are kind of down there on loan so to
speak, I feel a sense of need to --
MR. COWIN: I think I'd do the same.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cowin, is it the intent of the city
council to have a planning director and staff in place before this 90
days is over --
MR. COWIN: Definitely, yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- as an official position of the city
council?
MR. COWIN: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. COWIN: The advertisement was placed Sunday in the Naples
paper for that position and to be repeated again Wednesday, of course,
in the Eagle. We're hoping within the next 30 days, we'll have
somebody on board.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
MR. COWIN: Optimistically, but that's what we're trying do.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: With that in mind, I'll go ahead and make a
motion that we approve this interlocal agreement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion?
I'll call -- oh, do we have speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, you have two speakers.
First is Cheryle Newman. No, I'm sorry --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: She just waived her right to speak --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On another item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- on a different issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you having your second Monday of the
week, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
MR. COWIN: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much for being here with us
this morning, Mr. Cowin.
MR. COWIN: Thank you, again. If I may take a moment --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Certainly.
MR. COWIN: -- I'd like to introduce you to Charles HcCool, you
have not met him, he is our acting city manager.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, and welcome.
MR. COWIN: And Mr. Rich Nelson, who is the chairman of our
planning and zoning board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We know Rich all too well.
MR. COWIN: As he was formerly on the planning -- county planning
commission.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we miss you, Rich.
MR. COWIN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, and thank you for being here and,
Mr. HcCool, it's nice to have you here with us and I'm sure we have
plenty of people that are here to assist you as well in your job.
MR. HcCOOL: Charles HcCool, city manager of Marco Island. I
just wanted to thank you, the county commission, for the excellent
support you provided. The county manager and the staff are providing
excellent support, they're making the transition possible, in fact,
and we are, as the chairman has alluded and as you questioned,
staffing up now. We will be adding a substantial increment of staff
in the next 30 days and should be able to assume those
responsibilities which you are so kind in helping us with. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. HcCool. Nice to see all of
you. Thank you for being here.
Okay. Moving on then, we moved the one item to the consent
agenda, I believe.
Item #SB1
RESOLUTION 98-29, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BY GIFT, PURCHASE
OR CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS AND/OR PERPETUAL,
NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SIDEWALK, SLOPE, UTILITY, DRAINAGE,
MAINTENANCE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUR-LANING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR LIVINGSTON
ROAD PROJECT BETWEEN GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (C.R. 886) AND RADIO ROAD
(C.R. 856), CIE NO. 053; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 97-359 - ADOPTED
Then going on to the resolution concerning acquisition of
right-of-way for Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Road, Livingston Road
segment. Adolfo, good morning.
MR. GONZALEZ: Morning, Madam Chairman, and commissioners.
Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects director.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We just had a lengthy presentation by Mr.
Gonzalez. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any speakers on
this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Cheryle Newman, Glenn Wilt.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Come on up, Cheryle, we're dying to hear
from you today.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Did she waive on this one? Glenn Wilt wants to
speak on this one, too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Glenn, you want to speak on this one?
MR. WILT: Eight (B)(3).
MR. FERNANDEZ: Sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Actually, what it is, we're really short on
speakers this morning and we're feeling really neglected that no one
wants to talk to us.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are doing our best to drag this meeting
out.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Actually, what it is, I was hoping we were
gonna have a real short meeting this morning and they're trying to
discourage my having any kind of a record here for a short meeting, so
-- I'm only kidding.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Too late.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you can speed it up now. You're long
past the record.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second to
adopt this resolution, if there's no further question, I'll call for
the question; all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you, Mr.
Gonzalez.
Item #882
RESOLUTION 98-30,/CWS-98-1, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT,
PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WATER WELL SITES REQUIRED FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT'S NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION PROJECT - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My guess is he's got another one right
following this one that's gonna have the same amount of discussion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He's very persuasive.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, he is. Motion to approve Item
8 (B) (2) .
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any speakers on this issue?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No -- Cheryle Newman and Mr. Wilt.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #883
COUNTY ARTERIAL ROADWAY LANDSCAPE IHPROVEHENT FUNDING PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION HSTU FOR C.R. 951 - APPROVED
Moving along to consider a county arterial roadway landscape
improvement funding partnership with the Golden Gate Beautification
HSTU for County Road 951. Mr. Bobanick, good morning.
MR. BOBANICK: Thank you, Commissioner, I think Cheryle is going
to get her shot this time. Commissioner -- for the record, my name is
Dave Bobanick, transportation director for Collier County. The
purpose of this executive summary is to consider a county arterial
landscape improvement funding partnership with the Golden Gate
Beautification District for County Road 951. Staff recommends
approval.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I interrupt you just a minute? Is
there an executive summary?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, 16(B)(5).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, I just was lost here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Hold on just a minute until we
get to the page, it's in the back of the book. MR. BOBANICK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Everybody on that page?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Continue, please.
MR. BOBANICK: Again, this is a continuation of the agenda item
that we were before the Board on on Hay 27, 1997, Item 8(B)(1). Staff
recommends approval of this agenda item, and if you have any
questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bobanick, this is consistent with
the direction we gave at that prior hearing?
MR. BOBANICK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only concern is, and I'm as anxious as
anyone to get the median landscaping project up and running. I think
it's a quality issue, that people who come here are met with and very
pleased by. My concern is that much as we would a developer
agreement, if it puts us in the maintenance role far quicker than we
otherwise would anticipate, are we robbing funds from other median
beautification projects in order to do this one? It's not that I
don't certainly appreciate what the Golden Gate HSTU is offering, but
under our current schedule, when would the county have anticipated
landscaping the median on 9517
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Without the acceleration?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Without the acceleration?
MR. BOBANICK: Without the acceleration, I don't have the exact
information before me, but I believe it would have been in
approximately two or three years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two or three years? That's all?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and frankly, I think that the
point of what we're trying to do here is we're not damaging other
parts of the county, yet it gives us an opportunity to move it up a
couple years' time.
MR. BOBANICK: And, of course, the maintenance funding will come
out -- will be from the district, the taxing district, the HSTD.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was my predominant concern.
It's not that one area is more important than another, but just like
we do in roadways, if we're going to expend funds earlier than
expected, that becomes a concern of robbing either the district or the
county of those roadway dollars. So if that's not the case here, if
we are not necessarily jeopardizing other projects to move ahead with
this, then I'm a hundred percent supportive, but I needed to hear
that.
MR. BOBANICK: This is generally consistent with the master plan.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Realizing we have public speakers,
Madam Chairman, I'll still move the item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We do have a motion. Do we have a
second?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Do we have
public speakers? No public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Cheryle Newman.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the weather outside, I guess we're
just gonna provide entertainment today.
MS. NEWMAN: Good morning. For the record, Cheryle Newman. If I
may, I have some support letter packages I'd like to give to you. I
had a whole big speech to tell you, but because you are being so nice
and it looks like everything's gonna go according to schedule, I just
want to thank the board for taking this under consideration and I feel
that it is a good proposal from the MSTU to move ahead a little
quicker than what was originally planned.
This is a good roadway, I think, to do now. It is a roadway
directly into our area, as well as other areas of the county from
1-75, and I just would like to thank you very much for considering
this today and for letting me speak. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Glenn Wilt.
MR. WILT: I'll waive.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Wilt waives his opportunity to speak.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers. All right. We have a
motion and a second. I'll call for the question; all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #SD1
SELECTION OF THE NEWSPAPER FOR THE ADVERTISING OF DELINQUENT REAL
ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES - CONTINUED FOR ONE WEEK TO ALLOW
STAFF TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE
Okay. Hoving on then to support services 16(D)(2), selection
of a newspaper for advertising. This was moved off the consent agenda
to this particular --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I asked that we remove that because
last year as you recall, when we had the issue of what the advertising
was and whether or not there should be bidding and so on, we gave some
specific direction to our staff, so that there was -- we felt the one
other bidder didn't have adequate listings last year, but if they made
some specific changes and followed some direction, we wanted to make
sure it was opened for bid again this year, and it wasn't according to
this, and I wanted to A, find out why you didn't follow our direction
and B, see what we can do to correct that.
I appreciate the fact that the numbers you came back with were
smaller, but again, it just seemed contrary to what we requested last
year.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Camell, purchasing general
services director. As just briefly referenced in the executive
summery, we are issuing -- this is the placement of the advertising in
the newspaper for the delinquent real estate and personal property tax
items on properties that have not been paid for and are delinquent and
subject to sale by the tax collector through a bidding process that
typically takes place in the early summer/late spring.
In response to Commissioner Constantine's comments, specifically,
a year ago at this time we did come before the board after attempting
to bid this unsuccessfully. We only received one bid at the time,
which was from the Naples Daily News, and at the time we had a
discussion, if you'll recall, about the fact that this --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to interrupt you there.
That's not my recollection. We got a bid back from Tuff Publications
last year and we had some discussion as to whether or not it was
appropriate or whether or not it met what we were looking for as far
as circulation, but I mean, unless I am way off track, I remember us
getting -- two years ago we brought the issue up and we only had one
responder. Last year we actually got a response from Tuff
Publications as well, with a combination of the different
publications. I remember it well because Commissioner Berry had a
very colorful comment during the hearing on that item, so I remember
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Darn, I don't remember the colorful
comment, but I do remember the combination of some different
publications to try to meet the circulation requirements.
MR. CARNELL: We bid it twice in the same year, is what happened
a year ago. I don't recall actually, maybe I'm just blanking out here
about getting a bid from Tuff Publications. We may very well have. I
don't remember that, but let me proceed, because there's some other
salient considerations, whether we did or didn't, that we need to talk
about here.
The -- at this point in time, the board did have a discussion as
you've referenced, Commissioner Constantine, regarding what could we
do in the future to make this more competitive and what we also
balanced in that same conversation was the fact, and this goes back to
whether or not we could split this into multiple newspapers and use
other publications, that whole question whether you have bids on the
table or not, was the issue of the fact that by using the Naples Daily
News, we are able to maximize circulation and distribution in Collier
County and also bearing in mind that the cost of advertising is paid
for by the buyer of the certificate, rather than the general taxpayer,
and at the time there was some discussion about splitting and dividing
into multiple publications, I do remember that discussion clearly, but
the issue was that we had to trade off circulation to do that, because
there was no other publication in Collier County that would even
approach the numbers of the Naples Daily News and that even when you
put the other publications in tandem, you still have a wide and
substantial difference. If I could, I'd like to distribute some
updated information on circulation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And while you're -- while he's doing that,
Madam Chairman, I've got to say, Commissioner Constantine, I do
remember the discussion and that we wanted -- I'm wondering if we
might want to continue this item for a couple of weeks.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Take a peek at the minutes, because I
remember crystal clear.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
MR. CARNELL: Okay. Well, let me finish discussing this with you
here, just so that you consider the information I have, and that is we
did -- we did look at the option of bidding it again, and I certainly
remember the discussion with the board and the desire to seek other
alternatives for disseminating this information.
At the time -- we started working on this actually in October and
gave a request for legal services to the county attorney's office.
One of the questions was, do other publications in the county meet the
test of Section 50 of the state statute regarding being a publication
of general circulation; that was one of the issues at the time, and at
this point in time, the list I've given you includes the publications
that either clearly meet that test or prospectively might. There are
other publications in the county, but I do not believe, from my
knowledge, at this point that these are the only ones I know of that
might meet this test and what we did was --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Since the public does not have a copy
of this, it's the Naples Daily News, Everglades Echo, Marco Island
Eagle and Immokalee Bulletin. MR. CARNELL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: According to you, those are the only
ones that even approach meeting that test?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, to my knowledge those are the only ones
publishing weekly and doing all the other things that the statute
requires. Now, there is --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What about the Golden Gate paper?
MR. CARNELL: I don't believe it's a weekly publication and I
don't believe -- and if it is, it doesn't have --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is.
MR. CARNELL: It doesn't have the second class permit or if I'm
-- unless something's changed that I'm not aware of, to my knowledge,
these are the only publications that possibly even meet all the
criterion of the statute.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me refresh your memory,
Steve, because last year this was the conversation we had. We did
have other bids and I'm sorry you don't recall that, we did have other
bids, and the concern was whether or not they met that criterion, and
Mr. Weigel at the time had said, they may, they may not. We had some
concern, I think price-wise, we all liked the price of the alternative
better last year, but our concern was the it may not part of his
opinion and so we went ahead and supported the Naples Daily News bid
because we weren't sure the others met these criteria.
We said, however, that this coming year we wanted our staff to
work with the others to make sure they clearly understood what those
hurdles were and that this year we could again have a bid and then
other people could appropriately -- appropriately bid as part of the
process.
My understanding is different than yours, and maybe I'm mistaken,
but my understanding is different than yours that one other
publication has gone ahead and met those criteria for the specific
purpose of trying to meet this bid this year, and so if we have then
just said, well, we don't think anybody else does and ignore that,
that brings me concern for two reasons. One, we're not opening up to
everybody that meets the criteria and, two, we're not following the
direction of the board of a year ago.
MR. CARNELL: Okay. And not to argue with you, I just -- I'm
still trying to get to the punch line here from my perspective and
staff's perspective, and that is that when you look at the numbers
here -- and let me read them aloud for everyone. The Naples Daily
News publishes on its daily distribution --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Steve, I'm sorry to interrupt you
again, I know you're trying to get to the punch line, but it's based
on faulty information. I'm telling you that there are other
publications that aren't included here and it's -- regardless, it's
still contrary to the direction we gave you this past year.
So I appreciate where you're coming from, but if you don't recall
us even having another bidder last year, that's faulty information.
You don't have some of the other publications that apparently are
clearing the hurdles, that's faulty information.
So I appreciate you trying to get to a point here, but it appears
it's based on information that isn't wholly accurate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And even if it is, you know, if it's
perfect information, we were very -- I remember feeling very strongly
that we wanted the small business person to be able to have the
opportunity to bid on what would be a significant piece of work for
them, and that was real important.
So my question at this point is how much damage is done if we
delay this decision for a couple weeks and let you go back and look at
what the direction was of the board, because everybody's entitled to,
you know, misunderstand or something, but is there a crisis if we
delay this decision?
MR. CARNELL: Well, to answer your question I need the help --
Mr. Weigel's help on this. The Florida Administrative Code requires
that the board of county commissioners select a newspaper for this
publication no later than the first meeting of February. The code
also says that if the board doesn't act, that the tax collector will
make the decision no later then the end of February. Now, you can ask
Mr. Weigel as to what latitude that gives us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please, Mr. Weigel?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let me kind of throw something
into that mix as you're answering. I don't know if we have time, if
we hear this item next week, if we continue it for a week if we have
time to have bids on it, have answers back by the end of February. If
we do, Mr. Carlton has indicated, gosh, if you guys don't meet that
February date, there's still -- the first meeting of February date,
but still have a recommendation, I'll take that into consideration.
So I think the opportunity is still there, I just don't know if
time-wise we can actually do that.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I think it's always important to
coordinate with the tax collector in this regard with an application
of the Florida Administrative Code, which is a regulation that
purports to have the effective law. So from that standpoint, it might
behoove this board if there's any information or speakers that wish to
go forward today to create a record, conceivably, and Steve certainly
can respond to this, but with the information that he has and I expect
he's gonna have very quickly, he may be able to come back to the
board, not necessarily with an agenda published packet, but with a
distribution to the board maybe as quickly as next week to assist the
board and the tax collector in the decision making process here.
Steve, am I -- see if you think anything about that.
MR. CARNELL: Well, certainly we can solicit -- it's not going to
be difficult to solicit expeditiously and get an answer expeditiously.
The newspapers would have to cooperate and turn around in a very short
amount of time, and Mr. Weigel's correct, there wouldn't be time to
submit an item in advance for the agenda package.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, maybe if we just continue --
MR. CARNELL: We can certainly bring you what we have a week from
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we '-
MR. WEIGEL: There is one legal comment I would like to make,
however, and that is, and we had the discussion last year and the
county attorney's office did the research last year and we've done it
again this year and that is, that you cannot take a grouping of
individual papers that do not individually meet the statutory
requirements of a paper with general circulation and by putting them
together meet that statutory requirement. I would advise the board
that that is inappropriate under the law to do that. There must be
one paper, even if you go with a grouping of papers, that meets that
statutory requirements of second class mailing capabilities and have
the threshold of general circulation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So like the Naples Daily News and the
Marco Daily News wouldn't be one paper? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those would count as different
newspapers?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's important, and it may well be,
Steve, that we end up exactly back where we are today, but I'd like to
move continuance for one week to allow you the opportunity to get all
of the data about who -- whether or not there are newspapers that meet
the criteria who are interested in advertising, in the interest of
fairness to the smaller business people.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I second that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Whether it be for Mr. Weigel or Mr.
Camell, whoever's most appropriate, I don't remember specifically
from reading it last year what the state statute requirements are, but
is there -- I'm looking at $135,000 to let everybody in this county
know that there's a tax certificate sale. It sounds like it would be
cheaper to mail one to everybody.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would be cheaper.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So can we meet the statute by direct mail
to residences and businesses instead of advertising? We cannot? MR. CARNELL: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we need to do the anti-newspaper lobby
next year and get that changed, because we could save our taxpayers
some money by mailing these things to homes and businesses.
MR. CARNELL: Well, there's two things to consider there. One,
remember, we're talking about four publications. So you have to mail
it four times to get apples to apples and then, secondly, the other
thing is that we are -- the second purpose of this, it's an ancillary
purpose, but the second purpose of the public distribution of this
list is to notify prospective bidders on the properties as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we could do that by --
MR. CARNELL: Well, all of that's moot as long as the Florida
Statutes are what they are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The statute doesn't allow it then --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It seems like there ought to be another look
taken at it and updated perhaps. Anyway, Mr. Fernandez. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you call the question?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I was just going to say that I'm
aware that communities that use alternative distribution methods, may
be special distributions in order to meet the statutory requirement,
and that allows some of the smaller papers to compete with the big
dailies. So I'll be discussing that with Mr. Camell and hopefully
we'll have some additional information for you next week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And maybe we'll talk about computers some
day. The Internet's the easy, free way to do it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not until the statute changes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion, and would you
restate your motion, so we all know what we're voting on?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Continuance for one week to allow staff to
consider the alternatives available.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, Mr. Roy Tuff.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there any limits as to a prospective
bidder on Mr. Tuff or on the board for this communication, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: This is -- I don't think -- I don't think so in this
context, really.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I didn't want to jeopardize Mr.
Tuff --
MR. WEIGEL: That's a good question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- unnecessarily.
MR. TUFF: For the record, Roy Tuff, publisher of Tuff
Publications. Yeah, last year I -- we submitted a bid and I was
invited to come here a half hour after the discussion was over, so I
didn't get to speak my piece last year.
We were not invited to bid this year. Our bid, you know, I can
safely say, I mean, if we're asked to bid, we would bid the same as we
bid last year and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was that number?
MR. TUFF: Well, it would have to be $37,500 to fulfill the
requirement of the law.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we'd save a hundred grand?
MR. TUFF: Right. Now, options from that point, you know, that
would fulfill the legal requirements. We could print, you know, 60 --
56 -- say 60,000 extra and insert them in the Daily at a high estimate
of 15 to $20,000 on the high end, and you're still, you know, less
than half of what you're doing this way and you still get the daily
news coverage if that's important, you fulfill the legal requirement
of the law. I'm familiar with the paper trail of what is considered a
legal newspaper and the corroboration with other legal newspapers and
this is not what we're doing in this case.
This is another county, another -- I mean, it doesn't add up, and
I have the description of what's a legal newspaper and what is not,
and I mean, that's an opinion, you know, what -- you know, what is
clearly a legal bid, that's an interpretation. I guess, of course,
you know, everybody's always welcome to bring up a lawsuit whether
they don't get their way or not, but if you're doing the right thing
for the right reasons, that usually governs the law, and that's all I
have to say. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question.
MR. TUFF: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because we are only talking about a
continuance for one week, is that enough? MR. TUFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you respond within that amount of time
if your appropriate -- if your publication is available for response?
MR. TUFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We do have a motion and a second
before us to table this issue or this item for one week.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Commissioner Berry?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought I saw Mr. Weigel with a point.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: I know with Mr. Camell, I will work, of course,
very closely with Steve as he goes forward with this. We might -- Mr.
Tuff mentioned the possibility of a lawsuit or something about a
lawsuit and, of course, that's always in our mind in advising the
board, and it might be appropriate that any paper wishing to submit to
become a player or a service provider for the county might in fact in
the -- in their proposal indemnify the county in case there is a
lawsuit with regard to their selection meeting the statutory
requirement, solely in that regard.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's one of the things we could look at.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure.
MR. WEIGEL: We'd like to discuss that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just in the interest of protecting
against lawsuits too, I'm sure that you guys are going to contact
individually every potential bidder in the county, so that we don't,
you know, just have this notice go out to people who happen to be
watching today or --
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So please be careful about that.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call for the question. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
At this time we'll give the court reporter a break. We'll take
about a seven minute break.
(Whereupon, a break was had.)
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 98-31, APPOINTING KAREN URBANIK TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COHMISSION - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will reconvene the commission meeting.
Next on the agenda is Item 10(A), appointment of member to the
Collier County Planning Commission.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'd like to nominate Karen
Urbanik to our planning commission.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Norris, I have a question and maybe
you've thought of this, on the planning commission, it's a nine member
commission. The fact that Marco Island has incorporated, does that
put them on a parallel with say the City of Naples as far as
representation is concerned? Because I fully support Karen Urbanik,
I'm just -- you know what I'm saying? Because -- if the zoning
decisions, per se, within the City of Marco and the City of Naples,
are governed by another body, have we altered the makeup of the
planning commission because of the existence of municipalities?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think so. Not in the past --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Even though Marco Island and the City of
Naples are incorporated, I don't think that should preclude them from
being involved in countywide zoning matters.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly not pre --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the question is the City of Naples
has one position on the planning commission and I think that each
other district has two. Am I right about that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the question and Ms. Urbanik
resides on Marco Island; is that correct? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the other member of the district
planning -- nominated for district one also live on Marco Island?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Answers my question, I'll second Karen
Urbanik then.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 98-32, APPOINTING SERGEANT ROBERT ASBEL, JR. TO THE
IHMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item is the appointment of a member
to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I move approval of the one applicant, who
is Sergeant Asbel.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Sergeant Asbel recently was appointed
the person in charge out there in the sheriff's department.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I have a motion, do I have a second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to appoint
Sergeant Asbel to the Immokalee Enterprise Zoning Development Agency.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 98-33, APPOINTING COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE TO SERVE ON THE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
The next appointment is of a commissioner to serve on the
county government productivity committee. I did that this past year
as the vice-chairman and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought that was always the vice chair.
I thought that was the way we had it set up.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is. It is, that's what it says.
MS. FILSON: The ordinance says -- excuse me --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Vice-chair or designee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or designee.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or designee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or designee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you willing to serve, Mr. Norris?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure the vice-chair will do a heck
of a job.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm certainly willing, but I have time
constraints that won't allow me to fully serve on that particular
committee.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So we are open and I will tell you it's a
great group of people to work with and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'd love to serve if anybody --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Commissioner
Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second, if that answers your question.
I have done it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know that you both have, so that's why
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd love do it again, but I think you'd
enjoy it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a great group of people to work with,
and not only are they great to work with, they're fun to work with so
I think you will enjoy it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that the quietest, most polite escape
you've ever heard or --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. I would have -- personally, I would have
stayed on with that group, because they do a good job, they get things
accomplished, so, anyway, we have a motion and a second for
Commissioner Mac'Kie to work with the productivity committee.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. You meet on the
second or third Wednesday morning at 9:30, unless they changed the
time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless it's raining.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, unless it's raining.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
We are now down to the item of public comment. Do we have any
registered speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, the first speaker is Kenneth
W. Thompson.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Kenneth W. Thompson, and I'd like to talk to
you about the sheriff's department. I'd like to know what Don Hunter
does with all the money that you people are giving him. Any time a
deputy makes $35,000 a year and when you call them, they get nasty to
you, it takes them a long time to get there.
The other day we had a bunch of Mexicans dump a big load -- did
it deliberately right on Bayshore Drive, right in front of my house,
you get a deputy out there and I take him to where the guy dumped it
at, and the county -- one of the officers out at the substation, says
to me that we can't have the deputy -- the Mexicans clean it up
because he may hurt his back, because I'm gonna tell you, if that's
the way Hunter -- Hunter's got the right name all right, you have to
hunt him to find him.
Now, God help me, somebody needs to impeach him and get him out
of office, take the money that you're paying him and give it to these
officers, because he does have some awful good officers.
So, number one -- but everything you do, they have to see it
done. You call a deputy out there and a man shoots a man, he'll stand
right there and tell you, well, I have to see it done.
I've about had all the Hunter I can handle, and everybody in this
room that don't like it, you can speak up, because if you don't do
something pretty soon, by the end of his term this time, there will
not be a deputy -- he'll figure out how to run it on the Internet or
something. He's a -- I had one of his lieutenants out here at the
substation saying Hunter's the most powerful man in Collier County. I
don't see where he is.
Have you been down and seen his airplane? He's got to have three
fences around it to get to it. You would think he was Bill Clinton.
Jesus Christmas, and I like Bill Clinton. If he'd run again, I'd vote
for him again.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Thompson, let --
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- me just interject a comment here. Sheriff
Hunter is an elected official.
MR. THOMPSON: I know he is.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The county commissioners do not have
jurisdiction over -- he is a --
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, but you're giving him all this tax money.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, sir, we do, but he also determines how
he spends it. All we do is allocate the dollars for his budget. He
makes the determination as he is supposed to do as to how those
dollars are spent. We cannot tell him -- statutorily, we cannot tell
him how to spend that money.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, then quit taxing me then, okay?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we don't have that prerogative --
MR. THOMPSON: If you quit taxing me, then you can do as you
please with your money.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we don't have the right --
MR. THOMPSON: Don't bother me no more, okay?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We don't have the right to do that and since
he is an elected official, whatever your thoughts are, you can address
that at the ballot box when the elections come up. MR. THOMPSON: You bet I will.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you registered to complain on this
incident with the sheriff's office?
MR. THOMPSON: You can't find nobody. If you go on a Friday --
if you go on a Friday and look for Hunter, they'll say, oh, he's out
today. You go to any of these big county officials around here in the
tax office, they'll say, oh, well, he's out today. You come over
there on Monday, he ain't got there yet. I don't think it's funny,
it's the truth.
Mr. Norris, I want to tell you what I heard about you on several
occasions. Everybody said you might have stepped -- said something
wrong, put your mouth in the wrong place one time, but I don't think
you did. They'd vote for you a million times over.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Appreciate your comments.
MR. THOMPSON: This county, you know, somehow or another you've
got to quit spending money. Take the money you already got from us
and spend that. This is a wonderful man, I didn't even know who was,
somebody told me, and there's another one, this Mr. Vince Cautero, and
you people let Linda P. Sullivan go, that was the biggest mistake you
ever made. Everybody's entitled to get their foot run over.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: She left on her own. We didn't let her
go.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Thompson, let me explain something to you
MR. THOMPSON: She was a very sweet lady.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: She was a wonderful lady.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- this board of county commissioners hires
two people. We hire the county administrator and we hires our county
attorney.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three, the airport director.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the airport director, I'm sorry. Other
than that, we don't hire and fire our employees. That is the county
administrator's job.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, I just put it that way.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I understand, but those kinds of
concerns should be taken up with the county administrator, if you have
any concerns about that.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, how do you find him? You go over there and
there ain't nobody there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's right here. He's sitting right there in
the chair.
MR. THOMPSON: I've got him cornered now, but --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Believe me, he's in the phone book and he's
available.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm gonna hang around and I would like to see you,
to see if there's any way to cut Hunter's money off and give it to
these deputies because they're very fine deputies.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you need to talk to Mr. Hunter about
that because we don't have any control over how he spends his money.
MR. THOMPSON: How are you going to find him?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How do you find him?
MR. THOMPSON: I ran into him out here the other day and I wanted
to get that badge he's got right there because that's -- go to Sheriff
HcDougall in Fort Myers, you'd have no problem finding him.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's pretty easy to find.
MR. THOMPSON: He works for his deputies.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sometimes we should have a problem finding
him.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just watch the Today show.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Madam Chairman, is Alfred
Luckerbauer.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. LUCKERBAUER: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Alfred Luckerbauer. I am a resident of Isle of Capri for two years
and I would like to bring a few facts to the record which might
probably help also the board to understand certain issues which
happened in the past.
Number one, I attended the meeting on November 3rd, which was for
me the first exposure about a proposed plan of changing the fire
coverage or even to contract with East Naples. Also, in answering a
question of Mr. John Norris, why, as residents, we are concerned with
this issue. On November 4th, here's a copy from the records, public
records and Item Number 8(D)(2), and I would like to quote, staff
directed to work on two-phase approach, I emphasize two-phase
approach, regarding emergency services contract with the East Naples
Fire District for the Isles of Capri, and just for the record, I would
like everybody to understand, if anybody reads this, what would be
your conclusion?
Madam Chairman, if you read this and you're a resident of Isle of
Capri, what would be your conclusion? Our conclusion was two-phrase
approach means something is going on.
So my next issue was actually to go one or two days later to the
fire chief and ask him for the records. I said, do we have any
records on this advisory board's meetings? He said, yes, we have a
secretary. What it turned out, it took three weeks, it took the
involvement of the sheriff's department to get the records from this
"appointed advisory committee."
I attended the following meetings, which was more than
discussing, I have to say, specifically from one member, Mr. Ed
Hoogle. He approached Mrs. Diane Flagg and people from the county in
a very, very inappropriate way, and I wrote according to this a fax in
December, just to the county's commissioners, you probably have it,
yeah, and I'm very surprised there's not one single action taken by
today and we are three months later more or less, from 3rd of November
to 3rd of February.
In the meantime last Friday, I obtained a copy from the public
records of one of the sexual harassments suits against Mr. Ed Hoogle
and I'm very, very, very concerned, especially on the upcoming meeting
on Thursday, how can somebody who is appointed by the county as an
advisor, in the position of an advisor, be under investigation for the
Florida Sunshine Law, being under this sexual harassment, which is
closed, and a third one which is pending. I couldn't so far obtain
any records on it, but I believe very, very strongly this whole matter
started without even having ground for it, and the present standing is
the staffing on Isle of Capri, just volunteers, has nothing to do with
EHS, we love EHS, just for the medical. Just for the fire, we have
over 22 volunteers, it might be 25, 27. Out of this, we have 8 living
on the island.
One incident that happened on the 18th of January was a fire I
think on -- I think it was Elkclap (phonetic) or something in East
Naples, where eight firefighters from Isle of Capri were assisting
East Naples and the station was still covered.
So I believe very strongly, just by looking at the issue, if it
works, don't fix it. I think it's not necessary to spend the
taxpayers' money to go into all of this investigation, which is
obviously started from one or two people. Nobody on the Island wants
any change that I spoke to personally and we think we're covered and I
would really just put it on public record for future evidence, why
should we go to all this? Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. LUCKERBAUER: I'm open for any question or documentation, if
anybody has -- I spent about three months trying to compile good stuff
on it and I will continue doing it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Luckerbauer, you met with me
yesterday and I advised you at that time that on February 17th, the
board of commissioners is going to be having a meeting. It will be
part of our regular commission meeting here and we're gonna be
discussing fire service of the dependent districts. That's gonna be
first and then we'll go from there, but I think that's the proper way
to address this situation.
MR. LUCKERBAUER: Yes. Also, I would like to thank you, you
know, for yesterday on the short notice and I feel very confident in
all of you, you will make the right decision and just I would like to
address Mr. Hancock's little remark, you know, on the budget. You
want to take something that we have, please don't do it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, I'm not taking away something you
have. I'm making sure you don't have something you're not supposed
to. I want to make sure that everybody's treated evenly in the county
for EMS services, that's all.
MR. LUCKERBAUER: Yeah, sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we can see the confusion and the
concern of this issue among the residents. Mr. Crowder was here today
telling us not to go so fast. Mr. Luckerbauer just told us we were
going too slow, so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Somewhere we're gonna hit something in the
middle here. Do we have any other speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other public speakers, Madam --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When that issue's done, there'll be enough
discussion to go around for everybody.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 98-9, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 84-8, FORD MOTOR COMPANY
VEHICLE EVALUTION CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Now we're to the public hearing section of
the agenda, and the first one is the community development
environmental services division requesting an amendment to the Ford
Motor Company Vehicle Evaluation Center PUD, ordinance 84-8, and a
form of disclosure, I have had meetings with the petitioner on this
particular item and I will base my decision on that information and
also what I hear today at this hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Same disclosure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I may have had a brief discussion or maybe
some written communication, not very much but -- with the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have the same disclosure as you,
Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I feel left out, I didn't meet with the
petitioner, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't meet with them either, Tim.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but, I'll base my decision on
information presented today and the packet before us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Good morning, Mr. Arnold.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You need to swear in --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I need to swear him in. All those
individuals who are planning to speak to this issue, please rise and
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers on this issue were sworn.)
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners, Madam Chairman, Wayne
Arnold, planning services director.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For how much longer?
MR. ARNOLD: Approximately, 20 more days, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And he's counting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, we hate to lose you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't have that down to hours and
minutes yet, Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: Not yet, thank you.
This item, of course, is something we brought before you to act
as agent for Ford Motor Company and Collier Enterprises on their
behalf in amending the Ford Motor Company Evaluation Center PUD.
The specific purpose of the project, as we know it, and currently
exists, is it's a 530 acre site where a variety of motor testing
occurs for Ford Motor Company. One of the restrictions placed on that
PUD back in 1983 was that they were limited to passenger vehicles,
light-duty trucks only for testing purposes.
We believe, and through discussions with Ford Motor Company and
the Colliers that there is a necessity on behalf of Ford Motor Company
to change of some of their operational characteristics and to do some
things a little bit differently than they have in the past. That's
one of the purposes for us bringing this amendment.
There are a couple of other significant issues that we're asking
for as part of the amendment to the PUD. One of those is to
specifically reference that a communication tower is a permitted use
in the PUD, and let me expand on that momentarily, and that is that
right now the PUD is silent to the issue of communication tower, but
it does reference that antennas may be constructed and that they are
excepted from the height limitations in the PUD. It's my opinion that
the 15-year old PUD and the reference to an antenna is an antiquated
reference to what we now know would be a communication tower.
After discussion with the sheriff's department, our county's EMS
Department, the Colliers, Ford Motor Company, we believe that a
communication tower of a height of 500 feet is necessary to serve as a
backup to the county's system for its 900 megahertz radio system.
I think it's important to note that currently with only the
reference to antenna in the PUD, this ordinance is silent to it's
maximum height, and further under the county's land development code,
specifically antennas, are excepted from any maximum height in our
code.
A communication tower, on the other hand, does have height
restrictions. Therefore, we think it's very important section that
reference the section under our code that governs communication
towers.
One of the other amendments that we're proposing to make is to
the general provision section, of course, which would -- not a
permitted use section, but the general provisions of the PUD and one
of the stipulations of the PUD which authorized only passenger vehicle
and light-duty truck testing.
We're proposing to amend that PUD to make reference to high
performance -- or essentially to say all vehicle types are
permissible, however, with the limitation that any high performance
testing could only occur during daylight hours.
The other amendment that we're proposing to make here is one
related to some of the road improvement stipulations that were part of
the original 1983 PUD involving paving along DeSoto Boulevard, and
this has been somewhat of a contention for the past several years,
that I'm aware of, as to whether this condition of the PUD had been
satisfied.
I think anyone who's been on DeSoto Boulevard can see that that
road has been paved. I think the question is, who did the paving and
when, and this was resolved back in 1985, not by a PUD amendment but
by action of the county commission at the time, in which then
transportation director, George Archibald, indicated that there was no
need for the paving to occur south of the Ford Motor Company entrance
on DeSoto Boulevard, since there would never be a connection to 1-75
at that location, but again the county did make that paving -- did
pave the road surface. The Colliers then paid for the road surfacing
north of DeSoto Boulevard, but the road is paved, and we believe that
those conditions have been satisfied adequately and there's no need to
retain those in the PUD document. That's the substance of the
changes.
You're going to hear several issues, I believe related to
procedure, advertising notification, et cetera, and I'd just like to
put on the record that those issues were also discussed at the
planning commission meeting and I think it's also important to note
that while you can argue that this is an amendment to the PUD, I don't
believe that we are modifying the permitted use section of the PUD
document, and I think that will be important for you to consider.
I think one of the other important issues to reference here is
the fact that we advertise people based on the tax roll information as
published through TRW Ready Book Services. That information is
probably not as current as we would all hope that our tax information
could be, but nonetheless, it references the standard form that we use
to notify property owners in Collier County and that's a three-fold
system of not only notifying people who are within 300 feet of any
subject rezoning or PUD amendment, but we also, of course, notify and
place signage on the site. We also place advertisements in the
newspaper.
And I think it's also important to note that we are serving here
as the agent for the applicant and, in fact, for the property owner,
Collier Enterprises and that was, of course, a board action that
occurred and that was having about a two-year history of our
involvement with Ford Motor Company here to act on their behalf, and
you're going to hear some challenges to that.
And one other thing that I'd like to point out, in reference to
some of the PUD standards and procedures that are outlined in land
development code. They're very well documented for new PUD zoning
actions to occur. They're very less structured when it comes to PUD
amendments and, in fact, you're going to hear maybe some contention
that the application materials are not sufficient, et cetera, but you
may recall through numerous PUD amendments that you see, that we
reference that all the standard fezone conditions are not necessarily
at issue for a PUD rezoning.
There are certain issues of compatibility, et cetera, that we
typically look at, but in this specific instance, we don't believe
that we need to go back and reformulate an environment impact
statement. We don't need new owner disclosure, we know who those are,
et cetera, et cetera.
So I think that it's important to note that we did evaluate those
conditions and it's within my administrative authority to waive
certain application requirements under our land development code if we
deem them not to be applicable, and with that I'll entertain any
questions the board may have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion that we
recognize Mr. Arnold as an expert in the field.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye, in planning and land use and urban
and those kinds of issue, I assume?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Arnold, in your professional
opinion, did we make every effort to meet the legal requirements for
advertising and were those requirements met?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir, I believe we took every effort to do so --
effort to do so and, in fact, this has been advertised and noticed as
we have with any other land use petition.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. It mentions in here the
noise issue and it talks about Ford has committed to testing being
conducted within the parameters of the Collier County noise ordinance.
I assume the reference in the PUD is to the ordinance itself and not
to decibel numbers or levels?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions? Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, how many complaints do we have
filed against the Ford Test Facility since it's existence, to your
knowledge?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't have a total number on -- from the time it
became an official operating track back in 1984, but I do know over
the past few years, we've had I'm gonna say, in my opinion, a handful
of complaints regarding noise, exotic vegetation, et cetera, a variety
of complaints. Those have been addressed and those were documented
when we were dealing with the issue of the noise -- the sound pad
addition some two years ago. To my knowledge, they have been
satisfied. I'm not aware of any recent noise complaints associated
with the testing facility on the issue of sound.
The issue of sound, which I discussed at the planning commission
meeting, I think it's important to note that we're using an industrial
-- the industrial classification adjacent to residential development
for the parameters of saying that 65 DBA is the acceptable noise level
for daytime operation here.
Should this become -- should this have been agricultural land, as
it formerly was, you can have up to 75 decibel levels 24 hours per day
and that's -- an increment of ten is quite substantial from what I
understand, relative to sound.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So from a compatibility standpoint on the
sound side, it is more compatible with residential development or
single family homes, per se, than would agricultural be in a typical
use?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. I'd also go on to say that the one
dissenting vote at the planning commission in their recommendation for
approval was on the issue of sound because it was suggested by one of
the speakers that it takes so long for a code enforcement person, once
the call is made from someone who's near DeSoto Boulevard for that 40
to 45 minute drive, to get to that location that in fact the actual
violation may have already, you know, ceased.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which the way the ordinance is read and as
I understand, basically, noise generation, it's not necessarily
exceeding it at a single peak, but over a period of time must be
exceeded in a fashion -- in other words, I can stand across a property
line from you and your house and yell at you and I've just exceeded
the noise ordinance, but it's a matter of over a certain period of
time and number of increments where it has exceeded it that it creates
a violation; is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not that Julia would ever do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: She exceeds noise ordinances all the time,
but the idea there is a lawn mower. Leaving it running outside your
neighbor's house is one thing --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But making a pass to mow your lawn is a
different one, same -- same concept.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a comment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I was -- saw something very interesting on
television on Sunday. I was watching the 24 hours of Daytona, where
they race sports cars 24 hours in a row, that's the type of racing I
used to do, many, many years ago.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And still do at times.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I still do once in a while but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do it in your Mustang.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What I saw that was very interesting was
for those of you who have been to Daytona, know that the airport is
directly across the back-straight and so you have the airport and the
race track right there together, that the ESPN camera was showing an
eagle flying and circling over the track, a bald eagle, and it turns
out that they reported that there's a nesting pair of eagles on
speedway property. So, apparently, eagles at least are not concerned
with the noise because they've been there for years, according to what
I saw on ESPN. I thought that was quite interesting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll check it out for sure, Mr. Norris, in a
couple weeks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The annual trek.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The annual trek to Daytona.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You riding your Harley over or --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not hardly, not hardly.
Any other comments from commissioners?
Any other questions for Mr. Arnold?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not at this time.
MR. BRADY: The public has a question for him.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll deal with that, sir.
MR. BRADY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you let her run the meeting, sir?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not gonna forget you. At this time then,
we'll hear from public speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Mr. Jim Brady, second speaker is
Brian Reese -- I'm sorry, Bryan Pease.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess since we're the petitioner --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's exactly right, so we are the
petitioner I guess in this case. Mr. Brady, I understand, would you
state you are representing someone; is that correct?
MR. BRADY: I'm going to introduce myself, Madam Chairwoman. May
it please you, my name is Jim Brady, I'm with the law firm of Brady
and Cochran (phonetic) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and I represent
today, Dr. Robert Gore, who's sitting behind me. I think you know Dr.
Gore, and what I would like to do this morning is a couple of
housecleaning matters and then I'd like to put some questions to Mr.
McDonald.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Housecleaning or housekeeping?
MR. BRADY: Let me tell you, I spoke to Marjorie Student
yesterday and she and I agreed that the ordinances, the code of
ordinances, the comprehensive land use plan, the laws of the State of
Florida are automatically a part of this record and I'd like you to
accept that or tell me that you don't accept it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll defer to Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county
attorney. That is correct and I have no problem with stipulating that
the laws of Florida and our comprehensive plan and our land code are
part of the record.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We do that just about every Tuesday, so I
don't see any reason to object to it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. BRADY: In addition, I'd like to know that your -- that you
agree with me that your backup package is part of the record for
today's hearings.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe it always has been.
MR. BRADY: Okay. So we have a stipulation on that.
MS. STUDENT: And I believe that maybe with any oral
modifications that were made by staff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly.
MS. STUDENT: We typically do that at our board meetings.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Correct.
MR. BRADY: Madam Chair, I asked you before the meeting and I
will put it on the record so we can get a final decision, I have some
questions of Mr. McDonald, and I know that they will take over a five
minute presentation. I understand that your procedure is to limit the
presentation on the opposite side of the application to five minutes.
I would ask you to extend that time so that I can fully question Mr.
McDonald on his testimony.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Arnold?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Brady, let me tell you how we're going to
do it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, I believe.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you mean Mr. Arnold?
MR. BRADY: I'm sorry, yes, Mr. Arnold.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm going to give you five minutes to make
whatever verbiage you want to put on the record, and if you wish to
cross-examine or whatever you want to call this, I will give you five
minutes for each person that you feel you want to cross-examine.
MR. BRADY: Okay. Let me just note my objection to that because
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Brady?
MR. BRADY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me a second. MR. BRADY: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Time-out, Ms. Filson.
Mr. Weigel, we don't do this. Why are we --
MR. BRADY: You're not turning off the tape, are you?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brady, we have some experience at
running public meetings under the sunshine law.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a minute -- excuse me -- all she has
done is stop the timer. The tape is still running, so is that
television camera right out there so -- we also have a court reporter
here. You are covered, Mr. Brady. We're not novices at covering
these board meetings.
MR. BRADY: Madam Chair, I just asked a question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand you did, sir --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You interrupted me to ask the question.
Don't do that again
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hold on, please.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I'll respond. The fact is this is a
quasi-judicial advertised public hearing and speakers do have, in
fact, a recognized right to examine or cross-examine other persons and
what has been determined under law is that they must have a reasonable
opportunity to do so.
So the rule of the Chair or the board this morning is that along
with the five minute presentation period that they would be given five
minutes, including -- beyond the five minutes he or she may use for
their initial presentation per witness for cross-examination.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, is that for anyone from
the public who wants to get up and speak?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure is, amazing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We've never
done this before. We have never allowed that policy to be utilized
before. Why are we making an exception in this particular case?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the board in these proceedings rarely has the
question come up like this before, but it is, I think, an appropriate
determination for me to advise you legally that you must afford an
opportunity for cross-examination. The reasonability or reasonable
time to be afforded is a determination to be made of the Chair and, of
course, would be subject to review in the courts, if someone wished to
review that later, but to absolutely deny the ability to
cross-examination would put you at risk.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whether this applies to the given
circumstances today or not, we'll see, but as I understand it, this
gentleman is a representative of Mr. Gore, has no greater standing
than the average citizen. That citizen and this gentleman also had
the opportunity to provide questions in writing to our staff prior to
this meeting and obtain responses from our staff prior to this
meeting. He had not been precluded from that contact in any way,
shape or form.
So the idea that -- I understand the reason for cross-examination
of up to a reasonable time frame, but who determines reasonable? If
he's got a list of 150 questions, his determination is a little
different than ours may be.
So the fact is that if he wishes to turn this into a court of
law, we don't necessarily need to afford that because he was given the
opportunity prior to this meeting to obtain answers to every question
he possibly could think of from our staff, had he taken advantage of
that opportunity, and he's chosen not to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the practice by attorneys who are
familiar with how the meetings are run in Collier County, as everybody
will recall, because we often get these large booklets submitted for
the record, is that that's exactly what does happen is that they ask
their question and if they'd like to have them sworn, I'm sure they do
that in an affidavit format, but the opportunity certainly exists to
do it in a written format, whether or not that's the policy of the
board across, you know, maybe we should adopt that as a formal policy,
if the practice is not sufficient because that is how we've always
done it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed, but as I understand your
recommendation, it is to give this gentleman as any member of the
public, five minutes to make whatever comments he deems appropriate?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: After that, if he has an individual or
individuals he wants to pose questions to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's got five minutes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- he's got five minutes per individual to
do that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the absence of a written policy from
this board, it's your recommendation that we do that so as not to give
him cause in a court of law later to deny some form of due process?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's correct.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's correct, and he may still maintain that
he hasn't had enough time and that would be his prerogative to do so,
and it's not -- certainly the board -- I would not recommend to the
board that they need to know ahead of time whether he has three
questions or three hundred questions, but the fact is that in the
public hearing process, a modicum or a reasonable amount of time is to
be afforded these people, notwithstanding whether they have exercised
any efforts, prerogatives, prior to the meeting to obtain information.
Obviously, when people are talking before the board, they're looking
to create a record before the board, apart from any information
gathering they do outside of the board proceeding.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if I could ask one question
of this gentleman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you make any attempt to contact any
member of our staff with questions or concerns you had regarding this
matter?
MR. BRADY: I contacted Marjorie Student and I reviewed the prior
record of the CCPC.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But that's the only individual of
county staff you attempted to contact, including any individuals you
wish to ask questions of today?
MR. BRADY: That's correct.
MS. STUDENT: And for the record, Madam Chairman, Mr. Brady
contacted me with some questions he had about procedures in our land
code. It had nothing to do with the actual substance -- of the land
use substance of the petition.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No questions were posed to you that were
material regarding the land use decision today, solely procedural
questions?
MS. STUDENT: Not -- solely procedural questions, not on land
use.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine, a
question?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brady, your questions are for Mr.
Arnold?
MR. BRADY: I'm sorry, sir?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your questions are for Mr. Arnold?
MR. BRADY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't have anybody else you need
to be --
MR. BRADY: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So that's the only person you're gonna be
questioning?
MR. BRADY: Unless you have another member of staff get up to
offer testimony, then I'll ask a question -- I'll cross-examine that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I haven't got anybody lined up to do
anything. This is -- you're getting five minutes. When we start the
clock, you have five minutes to make your speech and then you've got
five minutes to question Mr. Arnold.
MR. BRADY: I don't have a speech to make, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, whatever it is you want to do, you've
got five minutes to do that and then when you start questioning Mr.
Arnold, you have five minutes to do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two comments, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume the time he's already used
will count against his five minutes, just as it would for any other
member of the public, and just for what it's worth, I understand if we
need to create a policy, as suggested by Commissioner Mac'Kie, that's
probably a good idea.
I'm not gonna disagree with the Chair, it's certainly your
prerogative. Just on a general note, I don't happen to agree with the
direction we're taking, but if -- I think it's a good idea down the
road to make sure we set the policy so we don't cross that hurdle
again.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. Thank you. Ms. Filson, if
you'll start Mr. Brady's clock, we'll let him say what he needs to
say.
MR. BRADY: Thank you, Madam Chair.
What is the land use designation on this property?
MR. ARNOLD: Land use designation is industrial.
MR. BRADY: Is it rural industrial?
MR. ARNOLD: Rural industrial.
MR. BRADY: All right. And do you know as the -- I think you
said that the applicant is Collier Enterprises, the owners?
MR. ARNOLD: Property owners are Collier Enterprises, yes.
MR. BRADY: Even though the application shows the applicant to be
the county; is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: For the purposes of this procedure, I think that the
county is acting as agent for the property owner, I think the, you
know, who the applicant technically is, the whole process was
initiated by Collier Enterprises. I would state for the record that
they are the applicant.
MR. BRADY: And -- but you signed as the agent for the county? I
just want to make --
MR. ARNOLD: That is correct.
MR. BRADY: -- sure that's understand for the Court.
And if the owner had made the application, the owner would have
set forth the ownership and any lessees' interest; is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: The ownership of the property is disclosed in the
staff report and the supporting materials.
MR. BRADY: It would be on the application if the owner had made
the application; is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, not necessarily, sir, because the application
that's submitted with our PUD amendment, those have taken many forms.
The standard application form for an amendment is there. We have
rezoned property and conducted PUD amendments without an application
at all.
MR. BRADY: If the owner had made the application, the owner
would have signed the application under oath, would the owner not?
MR. ARNOLD: Not necessarily.
MR. BRADY: Do you just disregard your form then when you take
these applications?
MR. ARNOLD: No, the form is merely that, it's a form, and I
think if you look at the section under a PUD zoning district, there's
wide discretion given to the planning director to determine what is
necessary for a PUD amendment.
MR. BRADY: Is there potable, municipal or county water to the
site?
MR. ARNOLD: No.
MR. BRADY: Is there municipal or county sewer service to the
site?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm not certain.
MR. BRADY: You're not sure of that?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm not certain, but I don't believe there is.
MR. BRADY: Do you know what the emergency medical service
response time to the site is?
MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
MR. BRADY: Do you know what the fire service response time to
the site is?
MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
MR. BRADY: Do you know what kind of specific testing operations
are going to take place, should the amendatory ordinance pass?
MR. ARNOLD: Can you elaborate on that, please?
MR. BRADY: Do you know what kind of testing operations will take
place?
MR. ARNOLD: We're proposing that we allow high performance
vehicle testing and heavy truck testing.
MR. BRADY: Do you know any other kind of testing that will take
place on the site?
MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't.
MR. BRADY: All right. Do you know what a high performance
vehicle is?
MR. ARNOLD: I think I know what a high performance vehicle is.
MR. BRADY: What is it?
MR. ARNOLD: I would put it in the category of something that's a
prototype for racing, et cetera.
MR. BRADY: And would you limit it to that?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think -- I don't know what you mean in terms
of limiting it to that.
MR. BRADY: Well, as I read the ordinance, it says that -- and in
your backup, it says high performance automobiles are to be tested.
I'm trying to find out what that is since the ordinance doesn't say.
MR. ARNOLD: I think we might get the property owner or the Ford
Motor executives to commit specifically, if they're willing to, to
exactly what types of vehicles will be tested.
MR. BRADY: But we don't have that before the commission right
now? I didn't see --
MR. ARNOLD: We don't have it in the current PUD either, sir.
MR. BRADY: Is it fair to say under the language that's proposed
in the amendment, that any kind of motor vehicle could be tested
without limitation?
MR. ARNOLD: No, that's not correct.
MR. BRADY: Where is the limitation that would --
MR. ARNOLD: The limitation is in hours of --
MR. BRADY -- define the program material?
MR. ARNOLD: -- of operation and subject to our noise ordinance
in the county, sir.
MR. BRADY: I'm sorry, I must have asked a bad question. Is
there any limitation in the proposed ordinance that sets a parameter
for what kind of motor vehicle can be tested?
MR. ARNOLD: Not specifically in language, no.
MR. BRADY: Okay. So if they had a rubber tire jet-propelled
vehicle, would that be testable on that site?
MR. ARNOLD: Technically, I think it could be, certainly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If it could meet the requirements that are
otherwise in the ordinance --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- which include the noise ordinance and
other restrictions within the PUD.
MR. BRADY: Where are -- thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, I
forgot to go through you.
Would you tell me where in the ordinance the 65, 60 decibel
limitation is?
MR. ARNOLD: That appears in the Collier County Noise Ordinance.
It's part of the county code of laws and referenced in the land
development code.
MR. BRADY: Can you show me or tell me in the noise ordinance at
Article 2, Section 22, where that limitation is set forth? I think I
have your code and it's not set forth as I see it.
MR. ARNOLD: Which code are you looking at, sir?
MR. BRADY: I'm looking at Article 2, Noise, Section 22-21, at
page 1240.9, which was provided by the county staff?
MR. ARNOLD: I need to borrow Mr. Weigel's copy of the code of
laws, if I could.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, on this particular instance,
if it is the gentleman's interest to question all county codes and
ordinances that he deems applicable, that could have been done in
writing stating that he does not feel that they are consistent with
what's being proposed. So the fact that we've extended beyond the
five minute time limit that you originally outlined --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's into that time, so if he wants to take
the time for them searching this --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think we already stipulated that
the laws and ordinances apply.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood.
MR. BRADY: Madam Chair, I'm trying to iljustrate that at least
from the code that your administration provided me, the limitation
which staff has indicated somehow is becoming part of the ordinance,
simply isn't there.
If I'm wrong, that will be good, then we don't need to pursue
that, but if I'm correct, then perhaps you should amend the amendatory
ordinance to provide that limitation. Inasmuch as staff, as the agent
for the owner, has represented to you that that limitation will apply.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I'm familiar enough with the
codes as they exist to be confident that that decibel limitation is
there and want to be sure that you know that it's your obligation to
do the research to find out what our actual current ordinances are if
you've gotten a bad copy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll go a step further. I helped
write the existing ordinance and I'm very confident that those
limitations are there, and I agree with you, it's his responsibility.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the mere fact of mentioning in the
public hearing puts it on the record that that was a stipulation or
attachment to this particular approval if that should occur, so -- I
appreciate the law 101 class, though.
MR. ARNOLD: I think Mr. Brady may have been referring to maybe
an incorrect citation under our code.
Under Article 4, Noise, Section 54-81, specifically the table
that sets out use occupancy categories, times of operation and sound
level limits and decibel levels are found on page C.D. 54:15, and
specifically Section 54-92, maximum permissible sound levels.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does it state it in there?
MR. ARNOLD: What it states under manufacturing or industrial is
within a thousand feet of a residential use occupancy, 7:00 a.m. to 10
p.m., Monday through Saturday, 65 DBA. After 10 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. and
all day Sunday, 60 DBA.
MR. BRADY: Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: I believe that's exactly as worded in my staff
report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You must have a great deal of relief --
MR. BRADY: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You must be relieved then --
MR. BRADY: I am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to know that that --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is in there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is covered.
MR. BRADY: And that's the -- Madam Chair, that's precisely the
purpose for cross-examination.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Fine, you've completed your
cross-examination.
MR. BRADY: Madam Chair, I would request that you extend the time
for me to complete my cross-examination. I have some other questions
for Mr. Arnold. I'm going to submit those questions to the city
manager now as part of the record.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's the county manager, sir --
MR. BRADY: -- because I anticipate that you will deny me the
opportunity to continue to question him.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're absolutely correct, and he is our
county administrator.
MR. BRADY: Thank you, Madam --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question for the speaker.
MR. BRADY: I'm going to sit down. I want you to -- I want the
record to reflect my protest because I believe that you are now
violating my client's constitutional rights as well as his rights to
proceed in a quasi-judicial context. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a question for the petitioner.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I have a response to that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, please, go ahead, I have a question.
I'll get to that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think you did your client a disservice by
not supplying these questions in advance in writing, as is our current
unwritten policy on this board, so that you could have those questions
answered which our staff would be very happy to do, and prepared in
advance and placed into the record today.
MR. BRADY: Madam Chair, I thank the commission for that
invitation, and perhaps if that policy were written, it might be more
easily followed than when it's unwritten, and I doubt very seriously
if staff would have responded to the questions that I have because I
think staff would probably see that it was to staff's disadvantage to
answer some of the questions put --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I think you would see that it would
have been to your -- it's clearly to your disadvantage to have asked
those questions ahead of time when your motivation is delay and
obviation.
So the -- if you had genuinely wanted to know the answers to
those questions, you would have asked them. Instead, it appears that
your motivation is to delay the processing of this petition and that's
why you submit those questions today instead of having asked them as
any normal person who wants an answer would have done.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair --
MR. BRADY: Madam Chair, let's me just -- since I've been accused
of something that I think borders on the unethical, just let me
respond to the commission, I have no purpose to delay this proceeding.
I think the record is very clear what the vote is going to be. I
understand that.
My purpose, as I told you before the meeting began, is to make a
record so the that judge who reviews this will have an opportunity to
fully appreciate and deliberate on all of the issues.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brady, when you talk about
unethical accusations, I think of three minutes ago or less, when you
accused this board of crossing your client's constitutional rights and
when you suggested that our staff would purposely not answer your
questions so that they could move forward with this. That's an
unethical accusation.
MR. BRADY: That's your choice, Mr. Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't need to hear anything back
from you, but for you to stand there and say that you're being accused
of unethical behavior, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
MR. BRADY: Madam Chair --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question. Based on the statement
you just made --
MR. BRADY: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I understand that you now are stating
that the reason you did not supply questions to our staff for the
purpose of getting answers is you believe they would not have
responded to you because, as you stated, it would be to their
disadvantage. Is that your full and total belief and reasoning for
not submitting questions?
MR. BRADY: And lack of time.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And lack of time? When were you hired by
your client, sir?
MR. BRADY: I don't recall, about a week and a half ago. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A week and a half ago.
MR. BRADY: I think so, right before or after the CCPC. I think
it was after the CCPC.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So your client did not hire you in
a timely fashion in order for you do this?
MR. BRADY: I guess that might be your contention. I'm not here
to argue with you --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, you just said "and time." So
I'm just seeking a clarification on your statement.
MR. BRADY: Your notices are wholly inadequate and I think you
didn't give the citizenry an opportunity to conduct the appropriate
investigation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When was the planning --
MR. BRADY: It's clear from your background of materials, that
staff did not conduct any investigation because --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, that's not answering -- that's not
answering my question. You're not afforded another five minutes of
editorializing.
MR. BRADY: Oh, I thought that was an invitation, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it wasn't.
When was the planning commission hearing. Mr. Fernandez?
MR. ARNOLD: If I might -- January 15th.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: January 15th. You were hired a week and a
half ago after a public hearing was held on this matter and you are
blaming noticing, so I think it's important that we get those
statements on the record because it shows to me that there are areas
well within the control of your client that he failed to act in a
responsible manner, being timely, fell to him, obviously he was aware
of it, we had a public hearing and coverage in the newspaper and local
media about it. So I really appreciate the additional dialogue, I
think it has made our position far clearer.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, did we meet Florida
Statute requirements for noticing? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, apparently, the State of Florida
Statutes are wholly inadequate according to this gentleman?
MR. BRADY: No, what I said is your procedures are inadequate
because you did not --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what you said, sir.
MR. BRADY: -- you did not follow the statute --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what you said, sir, and I
really didn't ask you.
MR. BRADY: Well, while you're making your record I'm not gonna
sit up here and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
MR. BRADY: -- like Brendon Sullivan said, a potted plant and
keep quiet while you try to make a record, Commissioner. You're only
a representative, you're not a king.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me --
MR. BRADY: Do you understand that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brady --
MR. BRADY: Mr. Weigel, I believe --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Brady, at this point, I believe, sir,
you're out of order.
MR. BRADY: Thank you, Madam Chair --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And let me just --
MR. BRADY: -- shall I sit?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You may sit, but I'm gonna make a general
comment. For those of you who are in this room today, and maybe you
haven't been here for a while, this is Collier County. This is not
Fort Lauderdale, this is not Hiami and this is not West Palm Beach.
I don't expect rudeness in this room and I don't expect to
receive rudeness in this room. To have our staff maligned, I think is
an improper behavior. I don't care what the profession is, it makes
no difference to me. I will show you the exact respect that you've
shown me.
We're not -- we don't behave like the east coast of Florida.
We're not gonna be the east coast of Florida. Let me say no more.
Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, I just want to state for the record
and echo what Mr. Weigel said, we have met our local requirements for
PUD amendments and the statutory requirements as they apply to our PUD
amendments and we have also met the notice requirements because what
we must resort to are the latest tax rolls and Mr. Arnold informed me
that he not only looked at the ready microfiche, but also updated that
and the notice to the gentleman's client came after the tax roll was
certified, so -- and that's a local requirement and we met that.
And there may be some issue about what the state statute
requires, but I have a colleague in Pinellas County who drafted the
state statute and he advised me yesterday, because I believe I spoke
with him a few years ago when the law was changed, but I wanted to
double-check with him and he is the drafter of that legislation, that
it does not apply to PUD's. This is something that Collier County
does, I guess probably more than at least Pinellas County, they're
treated as development orders up there and the legislature could not
have contemplated that. It was not in his contemplation when he
drafted the statute that it apply to PUD's.
And I also want to state for the record, that it would be rather
ridiculous because PUD's by case law typically have to be started or
initiated by the property owner and that's the case law, where we
would have one type of meeting and have to have two meetings to amend
a PUD. That would be a totally ridiculous construction of the law.
And, furthermore, not all these are changes, they deal with
stipulations and clarifications to already established permitted uses.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Ms. Student.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I just need to clarify
the one comment that Mr. Brady interrupted, and that was I'm sure if
we read back the record and when we get the written minutes, I'll be
glad to highlight it for everyone, but I wrote it down when he said
it, and the quote was, noticing was wholly inadequate and despite his
later denials, that's an exact quote and that's why I asked Mr. Weigel
and why our staff had pointed out that noticing was completely within
the requirements of Florida State Statutes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And our more stringent local codes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good point.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any other speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, the next speaker is Bryan
Pease and then Gena Gundeck.
MR. PEASE: My name is Bryan Pease, and I'm a citizen of Collier
County. While I serve as vice chair for the Charter and Taxi Advisory
Board that answers to this group, I am not representing them. I am
representing our company, Excel Destination Management Services, which
is a home-grown business. We started without a job, we lost our jobs
with a company that was based in Orlando in the same industry, which
is the transportation and convention service business, and so we
started from scratch. In seven days we put the company together and
it now has 55 employees and is in multi-million sales after four
years. One-fourth --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Congratulations.
MR. PEASE: Thank you. One-fourth of our business is from the
Ford Motor Company. It's a very important company for us and our
employees. The divisions of Fords -- of Ford groups who do not go out
to the track, still come to this market for tourism purposes for
conventions, meetings, dealer intros.
As a result of the knowledge about the Ford track and its
importance to this county and this area, we have in just a few days,
we have 500 people coming into this market that are going to stay 15
days, they're going to spend one day at the test facility.
Mrs. Mary Ann Kelly put a letter on record against this issue and
the one comment she made was to think about the taxpayers, and I agree
with that, one-fifth of our 55 employees' income is derived from
business related to Ford and the test facilities. These families are
taxpayers. They're citizens of this area. They live here, they work
here, they buy goods in the community.
I think of one of our drivers, Roger O'Brien. He supports a
disabled wife, he has a disabled -- mentally disabled child and his
income is directly related to the success of our company, which is
directly related to the Ford Motor Company.
I also think of the boat captains and the musicians and the tent
set-up people and the restaurant wait staff and the catering wait
staff and the hotel front desk employees and all the hotel employees,
and many, many others, these are taxpayers of the community and their
income is directly supported by the convention business and this test
track and the Ford Motor Company.
I know firsthand of major donations that this company has made
while they're having conventions to local charities. This next group
coming up is making a substantial donation to the Immokalee families,
and so these convention guests are also introduced to the area and
many return as tourists, many return as homeowners, they buy, they
become citizens, they purchase real estate in our community, these
convention guests.
Ford, as part of its Vision 2000 program, and many corporations
today are evaluating their facilities and what are important
facilities and where they can consolidate, and so they're always
reviewing the benefits and negatives to each location, and this is
really the bottom line that I wanted to share. I wasn't asked to come
here by Ford. I wasn't -- you know, I just saw it in the paper and I
wanted to respond on behalf of our people, but it is in Collier
County's citizen's and taxpayers' interest to take a positive
proactive economic approach to this item, and I thank you for your
time, and answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Questions for the speaker?
Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Gena Gundeck and then John
Passidomo.
MS. GUNDECK: Good morning, commissioners. I have some letters
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name?
MS. GUNDECK: -- from residents -- can you hear now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your name?
MS. GUNDECK: Oh, Gena Gundeck. I live at 4939 26th Avenue
Southeast in Naples. I have letters from residents that were not able
to attend today because they're working and they ask that you read
those before you vote, if possible. Do I give these to you? And in
addition to that, I have a copy of the speech, I guess you would say,
that I made at the planning commission and I had given them a
photograph that I could not find in Mr. Arnold's file the other day,
so I found another one. I'd like to give it to you so you can look at
it to see the location of our property where it relates to Ford.
MR. WEIGEL: If I may interject one moment with a question for
the speaker?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that the same picture you just pulled
out of your file, Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it is.
MS. GUNDECK: Oh, good, you have two.
MR. WEIGEL: In regard to the letters that you have tendered for
the -- to the board members to read. MS. GUNDECK: Yes, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: They're being submitted during this hearing. Are
you able to summarize what these letters address? The opinions?
MS. GUNDECK: They address the Ford Evaluation Center, I would
feel certain of that, but I have not read them. Some of them are
sealed and that's -- they just dropped them off at my house and some
probably illegally in my mailbox, but oh, well.
MR. WEIGEL: By virtue that they've been submitted, I'm going to
pass them up to the commissioners for their review. They can open and
pass them down and they can become part of the record of the meeting
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can also bring up the photograph and
information that she submitted. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can I ask you a question --
MS. GUNDECK: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- regarding the photograph?
MS. GUNDECK: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I assume this is your house that's --
MS. GUNDECK: That's the one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're looking at the rooftop.
MS. GUNDECK: That's the roof -- it has a metal roof on it, so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Can you tell me what the distance is
MS. GUNDECK: Are you okay?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can you tell me what the distance is from
your house over to this track?
MS. GUNDECK: As I scaled out some of the drawings, the legal
drawings at the county, I guessed at approximately 900 feet from the
end of the track to the border of our property.
I guess I should X that part out of my speech, save me a little
time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on, just to clarify
there, you said to the border of your property. How far does the
property extend beyond the house? I'm just trying to get a feel. On
the picture I can't tell. It just looks --
MS. GUNDECK: Right, correct, no, I understand that, and there's
some ditches there that you can't see either, but, boy, it's hard for
me to say exactly, but I would say not more than 200 feet. That's a
guess, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MS. GUNDECK: I didn't scale that part out.
Okay. I did give my name for the record and I have showed you
the photos, so now I guess I'll start this.
First, I'd like to state that I'm not against the Ford Evaluation
Center. We made a decision to build our home knowing that the
facility was there. The noise level at the time were minimal and
acceptable. However, they have substantially increased in the past
three to four years.
On September 7, 1983, Cliff Barksdale of Collier Enterprises,
stated to the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, a copy of
which I provided for you, and I quote from the public transcript, this
will not be a 24 hour testing ground. He said that the plant will be
operational from September through May, with hours of 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. and one test once a week, end of quote.
Collier Enterprises represented that the cars to be tested would
be automobiles that are fully complete off the assembly line. The
facility would not be used as a proving ground, but as a customer
evaluation center, and that such would be indicated in the PUD
document. These and other representations made by Collier Enterprises
somehow never appeared in the PUD.
On January 15th, 1998, Michael Bruet said, and I quote, the
testing we are talking about is -- obviously takes place in January,
February and March. It will take place over about a 20-day period of
which one or two racing vehicles, which I think are probably the
biggest concern, will be here. It will be a couple of days and they
will be gone. The trucks -- this is the major large tractor trailers,
we are talking like one vehicle will be brought down and tested during
daylight hours, tested for aerodynamics, not performance, not speed.
They are here -- they are here to be tested for aerodynamics and
performance, so not speed and a -- that was the end of his quote and
the end of his sentence.
Which is it, Mr. Bruet? Aerodynamics, not speed, or aerodynamics
and performance? Mr. Bruet did not say the racing vehicles would not
be testing for aerodynamics at their maximum speed. Most racing
vehicles, include Indy cars -- including Indy cars, are not built to
perform at the average 65 miles an hour.
I call Collier Enterprises' representations in the past and
present codes of honor. It is in my opinion that they have been
violating their codes of honor for many years now, yet we have learned
to live with them, in part because we did not know about the
representations they made until a couple of years ago. There are many
more representations made, but time doesn't allow me to mention them.
With no monitoring or specific governing of the PUD, FEC has been
allowed to do -- I just started.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead.
MS. GUNDECK: -- to do as they please for years. The majority of
the public, if they even know of it, thinks nothing of it because they
do not live in our neighborhood and it does not affect them.
As a resident, I feel certain there would not be as much concern
with the FEC if their previous representations were adhered to and it
was indeed a Ford Evaluation Center and not a Ford Test Center.
Because we are at least 45 minutes to the office of two code
enforcement officers who are experienced in noise testing, any
references to ordinances in place are meaningless, as the noise will
be gone long before anyone arrives to witness or test it.
No sound reducing control methods have been specified by either
Collier Enterprises, Collier County or Ford in this proposed PUD
amendment. Instead, they all make statements that look good to the
general public.
Because a PUD document is a legally binding document, it should
contain such details, but it does not. It is very, very vague. The
proposed amendment is even more vague in that it states that testing
units shall be motor vehicles, but fails to describe a motor vehicle.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Gundeck, can you wrap it up? You've
gone over your five minutes now.
MS. GUNDECK: Well, I was giving you documents. I hoped that you
would --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we started it over for you.
MS. GUNDECK: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe Ms. Filson started it over for
you. No?
MS. FILSON: No.
MS. GUNDECK: It will be just another minute, sir. I hope that
-- a minute, a minute and a half. Would you allow that time for me?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's up to the chairman. I wouldn't, but
it's up to the chair.
MS. GUNDECK: Madam Chairman, would you allow that time?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Gena, can you summarize what the rest of your
statement, is because your --
MS. GUNDECK: I will do the best I can.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's gonna become part of the record, anyway,
the written form. Okay?
MS. GUNDECK: Okay. Then I'll go right to the end and say that
once again I am not against the FEC. I do appreciate Ford's gifts to
our community. True gifts are very nice to receive, however, a gift
is given without anything expected in return.
I'm protective of our neighborhood and I feel that if the
emendation is implemented, it will greatly affect not only our quality
of life, but the fair market values of our properties. It will
degrade the tranquility of our neighborhood as it exists today and
will certainly make our property less desirable, because no one wants
to live next to an Indy car area.
I urge you not to ignore us. Please consider the needs of the
property owners and residents over the desires of a large corporation
and vote no to the emendation of the PUD. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to just make one comment, because
I want to be sure you understand and you probably already do, but the
testimony that we had before about the noise ordinance -- MS. GUNDECK: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- makes it really clear that if this were
industrial rural, the permitted noise that you would be able to hear
from your property is louder than what it will be if we go forward
with the amendment as proposed. In other words, if what youwre
worried about is noise, this protects you. This gives you a lower
decibel requirement.
MS. GUNDECK: Yes, mawam, I realize that, and I realize that the
-- that it is an industrial PUD, and not an agricultural rural.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: I just wanted to be sure.
MS. GUNDECK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thanks, Gena.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speakerws John Passidomo and then Mike
Bruet.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the
Board of County Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. I serve as
immediate past chair of the Economic Development Council of Collier
County. We appreciate this opportunity to share with you some sense
of a historical perspective and we respectfully submit that it will
have some significance to your deliberations today.
You will recall in the summer of 1996, Ford abruptly announced
its withdrawal of pending petitions to expand the FEC in Collier
County after challenges were made by a private citizen to it. The EDC
and the Board of County Commissioners responded quickly to this
challenge. A delegation, led by Florida Lieutenant Governor Buddy
McKay, then county manager Neil Dotrill, representatives of Enterprise
Florida, EDC executive director Susan Pareigis and I, met with
decision makers of Ford at Ford headquarters in Michigan that August.
We carried a message to them, from you, as representatives of the
people of Collier County. We emphasized that the FEC was a matter of
statewide significance throughout the State of Florida and two, that
the private and public sectors in Collier County were prepared to take
the steps necessary to retain and expand the efforts of high wage
generators in our local economy.
We understood then and we understand now that in doing so that
the Ford 2000 right size and initiative necessarily requires
maximizing finite resources throughout the companyws worldwide
operations. We, therefore, argued to decision makers at Ford then and
we believe now that we are uniquely positioned in Collier County at
the FEC to provide a facility that will accommodate a significant part
of the companyws comprehensive testing needs into the next century.
This petition is part of that process.
We urge you to approve it and send a signal to decision makers at
Ford and at other high wage job generators here in Collier County and
throughout the world, that Collier County is indeed open for business
that creates high wage jobs in our local economy.
Thank you on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Economic
Development Council for your ongoing efforts to support our economic
prosperity program. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mike Bruet and then Robert Gore.
MR. BRUET: Good morning, Madam Chairman and commissioners. Mike
Bruet, here on behalf of Collier Enterprises, the owner of the
property. Iwll be very brief. I simply want to say that we have
worked with staff -- Ford Motor Company, myself and staff to get the
amendment to where it is right now.
There are ordinances in place to provide any checks and balances
with respect to noise and I simply want to remind the board of that.
If there are any other questions, Iwm here to answer those.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bruet, as a representative of Collier
Enterprises, is it correct that Collier County is permitted to be the
applicant and Mr. Arnold is the agent on this application? MR. BRUET: I believe that's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As an agent of the property owner, I think
that carries some weight. MR. BRUET: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Additionally, as a member of the planning
commission, were you required to abstain from a vote on this matter?
MR. BRUET: I did, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for Mr. Bruet about the
enforcement issues related to the noise ordinance. I wonder if there
might be -- well, and maybe it was Mr. Arnold who said that we have
some agreements from Collier Enterprises about enforcement of the
noise ordinance.
I know that some -- the Registry Resort, for example, had a lot
of complaints about noise. One of the things that they did was as a
company purchased a noise meter so that they could have a record of
what kind of -- frankly, theirs was in defense of noise complaints and
I wonder if that's something that Collier Enterprises or Ford might
want to do in order to make it clear because of the 45 minute ride
that it takes to come with a code enforcement officer.
MR. BRUET: We've -- Commissioner, we've discussed, myself and
the Ford Motor Company, have discussed that issue and they're willing
to take their sound equipment that they have in place, place it around
the property initially to find out exactly where they are.
I'm not sure that satisfies all the concerns because the property
owners are beyond the property line, but certainly to get a feel and
we'll certainly make that to -- the results available to staff, and we
thought that was a good way to start and they have the equipment to do
that, to monitor, and we will do that and provide it to the staff.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I am sorry to spring that question on you
with not having asked --
MR. BRUET: Actually, we talked about that as being something
that might be appropriate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's a real step in the right
direction, shows continued community goodwill and concern for the
neighbors that they're gonna monitor that -- that noise at least at
their own property boundaries, so thanks.
MR. BRUET: They're willing to do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions of Mr. Bruet?
MR. BRADY: Madam Chair, I have three questions. Hay I put them
to him?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't believe so. At this time, that's not
proper.
MR. BRADY: Thank you. Would you please note my protest for the
record.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we've been doing that most of the
morning.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker's Robert Gore and then Fran
Stallings.
MR. GORE: For the record, my name is Dr. Robert Gore. I hold a
Ph.D. in marine sciences from the University of Hiami. I moved to
Collier County in 1983 and was employed as a consultant for the
Collier County Natural Resources Management Department, where I was
coastal zone management supervisor. During my five year tenure, I
formulated and completed the first investigatory survey of all the
lands in the county and categorized them with a view towards
determining their best and highest use.
I advocated using the Erdast (phonetic) satellite system as a
baseline indicator to aid in this implementation. These data form a
series of technical reports submitted to the county between 1984 and
1988. I seriously doubt if any of you have read them.
I have walked, swam, driven or flown over every part of this
county. My training as a graduate ecologist with more than 80
published papers and refereed scientific journals allowed me assess to
the biotopes that make up the broader ecosystems in this county.
I am completely familiar with the area where the FEC now exists.
In fact, I purchased land in the immediate vicinity because of the
very ecological and biological amenities that I saw. I have
established an approximately 200 acre nature preserve, namely,
Naithloriendum Wildlife Sanctuary, on this acreage and provide
environmental education to the schoolchildren and other interested
groups in this county and from South Florida.
On January 15th of this year, I presented to the Collier County
Planning Commission a series of arguments, bolstered by factual data,
which indicated that numerous factors had not been properly taken into
account by county staff before they made a recommendation of the
emendation of PUD 84-8.
With the exception of the chairman, all of the other planning
commissioners ignored me and paid little or no attention to the
concerns voiced by myself and others. I am therefore entering into
the public record the complete text of my presentation in order to
forestall that happening in this forum.
Let me briefly reiterate these concerns for you. First, I
pointed out that as a property owner having land lying within what
could only be considered an arbitrarily selected distance of 300 feet
from the Ford Evaluation Center, I was never -- I was never properly
notified by mail of the forthcoming public hearings.
Again, and for the record, this land is legally described as
Golden Estates, Unit 91, Tract 116, Tax I.D. 41510640003, OR Book
2356, page 2627. This land is properly recorded as a tax deed by
Collier County upon my payment of represent monies and was legally
recorded on 10/21/97 at 10:08 a.m. by Dwight H. Brock, Clerk of the
Court.
Mr. Donald Arnold, director of development and environmental
services, failed to properly research this data. His excuse was that
the property ownership rules are from 18 to 24 months in arrears. Yet
he considers them, quote, to meet the legal test for notifying
property owners, close quote. This was in the minutes of the meeting
on page 26. However, he did not provide any further information to
support that contention.
I submit that lacking this information, the planning commission
was immediately at a disadvantage because they were not provided
up-to-date data so that they could make a fully informed decision.
For example, does anyone know how many other current property owners
have not been notified?
Second, I pointed out based on the documentation provided me from
the PUD ordinance file at development services that the, quote,
application for public hearing for PUD amendment -- D.O. amendment was
incompletely filled out. The paragraph of the affidavit at the end of
this document clearly states that the application must be completed
and accurate before a hearing can be advertised. That's a quote from
the affidavit. Thus, if this document was as represented to me, the
CCPC hearing was illegally convened.
Third, I point out that in their hasty assessment of the proposed
emendation of PUD 84-8, county staff clearly ignored 12 different
subsections and paragraphs 2.7.2.4 and 2.7.2.5 of the Collier County
Land Development Code. Moreover, the proposed wording to define the
PUD is not only deliberately vague, but if accepted as it stands, will
be completely unenforceable. Moreover, the effects that result from
this deliberate vagueness have the very real potential to accrue over
time and have a serious impact on the quality of life and property
values in our quiet rural residential neighborhood. We are taxpayers,
too.
I strongly suggest that you not make the same mistake of the
CCPC. Please read my documented statement and those presented by
others to the CCPC, as well as the letters of several property owners
in our neighborhood who are unable to attend, so that you can gain an
appreciation for our position.
Now, let me briefly address the issue of the communication tower
by asking you a series of questions. These are rhetorical. Are you
aware that it is not the Ford Motor Company which is asking for the
variance to the PUD that permits the tower, but rather Collier
Enterprises?
Are you aware that the Ford Motor Company has apparently redfawn
the boundaries of the property they presently lease to incorporate a
smaller operational area within the larger PUD property boundaries?
Are you aware the proposed location of the communications tower
is now outside of the redfawn leased area presently occupied by the
Ford Motor Company?
I am entering into the record a surveyor sheet made by Putnam
Engineering and Construction Company of Tampa, Florida, which clearly
documents this.
Are you aware that Mr. Arnold orally amended the request for
permission for this tower by stating that the tower was not to be 185
feet high, but 500 feet high?
Are you aware that Mr. Arnold justified this greatly increased
height by stating that the tower, as yet unpermitted, was apparently
necessary, not for any purposes of the Ford Motor Company, but rather
that the Collier County Sheriff's Office and the Emergency Medical
Services could have access to it as a secondary, not a primary, backup
to their existing communication systems?
Are you aware that Mr. Arnold stated that an antenna and
communications tower are one and the same entity? Anyone who has any
technological knowledge at all knows that such a tower is merely a
platform for antennas and transmitters and provides no electromagnetic
transmittal capabilities in and of itself?
Are you aware that Mr. Arnold believes that a 500 foot high tower
will not be visible from nearby properties? Anyone who's passed
introductory trigonometry in high school would never make such a
statement. The law is as old as our Archimedes. The height of the
vertex of the hypotenuse, in this case anyone's line of sight, is
exactly the same as the height and the supporting line, in this case
the communication tower. There would have to be some awfully tall
trees halfway down the hypotenuse to hide a 500 foot high tower.
Redwoods and Sequoias come to mind.
Are you aware that Mr. Arnold has as much as admitted that
enforcement of violations of sound ordinances will be difficult, if
not impossible, owing to the fact that -- and I quote, the distance
that you are from where the county staff is headquartered is,
unfortunately, just a situation in so many other locations, relative
to enforcement.
My question would be, would it not be better to provide in the
amended ordinance a stipulation that before enduring any tests of
Indianapolis type racing vehicles, heavy trucks, military tanks or any
other so-called motor vehicle that might come down the line, that
county staff be notified so that they may set up their sound recording
apparatus and determine whether the FEC is within compliance with the
noise ordinances?
Finally, I have been castigated into fame by some under the false
apprehension that I am against the Ford Motor Company and want them to
leave Collier County. Nothing is farther from the truth and I stated
that in a letter to Mr. Jacques Nasser, president of Ford's worldwide
operations in Dearborn. Anyone who states that it is -- anyone who
states that is a liar. Categorically so.
I am, however, against hasty and unconcerned analysis and
recommendations promulgated by county staff. May I therefore suggest
that you do not ignore my concerns and those of my neighbors and other
members of the environmental community, but give this entire emending
your most careful and protracted thought before you act. Get the
facts. I state it again, get the facts. Barring this, there are
other appropriate avenues which we may investigate and other venues to
which we shall go. We thank you for your attention.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, and let the record note that the
time was extended and Dr. Gore had more than enough time to make his
presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I also just wanted to note that the
letters that Dr. Gore urged us to read are a part of our packet and
certainly have been reviewed by all of us in preparation for today's
hearing and they've also been delivered separately this morning and
we've all had the opportunity and have submitted them to the record
and read them this morning.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The letters -- the -- excuse me, Mr. Gore.
The letters submitted by the neighborhood total a different number of
seven individual's letters with multiple copies of several so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got multiple copies and I think what
you given to Dr. -- to Mr. Weigel is also an additional set.
MR. GORE: So I understand, the letters that you have already
seen were letters that were given to the planning commission and you
have read them; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have read the letters to the planning
commission that were in our packet and we have also the letters that
were hand-delivered to us by a lady who proceeded you speaking this
morning.
MR. GORE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Mr. Fran Stallings and then
Scott Gundeck.
MR. STALLINGS: Good morning, commissioners -- well, good
afternoon, commissioners. I'm Fran Stallings, I'm speaking on behalf
of the responsible growth coalition and the environmental
confederation of Southwest Florida.
Both organizations have either members who live in the area or
other interest. For example, Dr. Gore is a member of the
environmental confederation and I have worked with the panther refuge
on their management plan and whatever.
We have a concern here, in fact a variety of concerns. I guess
our foremost concern is the procedure. I must say that I find it
highly irregular that a paid public employee like Mr. Arnold can serve
as an agent, as we've heard repeated here several times, for a private
group, Ford Motor Company and Collier Enterprises, to come before you
and seek to get this fezone. This process in my mind just isn't
right.
If I, Fran Stallings, went to Wayne and said, hey, Wayne, I got
a little piece of property out here, I'd like to get it rezoned. How
about being my agent? I just don't feel like he would do it for me.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that depends on the community
benefit, Mr. Stallings.
MR. STALLINGS: Well, perhaps so, but we very much feel like this
is sort of a special deal for special people, that the process is
wrong and that really you ought to go back and start over again and
let Ford Motor Company do it like everyone else. The expansion may be
a very good thing, it may not, but they should receive the same
treatment along with Collier Enterprises as any other citizen would
receive. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Scott Gundeck and then the final
speaker, Linda Weinland.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What may assist Fran Stallings is a
review of our minutes from last year where we discussed this whole
item and discussed what level of participation from the county was
appropriate and why, and I think it was a fairly thick packet there
and that may assist you, anyway, in understanding how we got to the
point we're at.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just -- a thought occurs to me that,
Mr. Weigel, we probably -- since that issue has become so contentious
about who is the appropriate applicant, perhaps we should submit those
earlier records that Mr. Passidomo referred to as our 1996 discussion?
Perhaps we should submit that as a part of the record too, so any
reviewing judge would have the opportunity to see why Collier County
chose to authorize our staff to act as agent for this particular
application.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you do that for us, please?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's just fine. What I will tell you, for
the record then, is that the board is directing that that be made be a
part of the record of today's proceedings and administratively -- and
we can facilitate that that becomes part of the package.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
MR. GUNDECK: Good afternoon, commissioners, other distinguished
professionals, and good citizens of Collier County. My name is Scott
Gundeck. I'm a general contractor and I live in close proximity to
the Ford Evaluation Center. My wife spoke before.
I've purchased several other local properties with plans to
improve the area where I live by building nice homes. I recently sold
two and a quarter acres to a Mr. Tom Mazza, whom you've received
letters of concern from. We already have a set of engineered house
plans and a loan approval. If you read his letter, you'll find that
his decision to proceed will largely rely on the choice you will make
today.
You will have a direct and immediate effect on my neighbors'
property values, as well as my own. Your choice will also affect the
way I plan to earn a living.
It is my understanding that the Ford Evaluation Center has been
in violation of the planned unit development in the past. They have
not been monitored and the PUD has not been enforced. Granting them
amendments to a set of rules that they have not followed will prove to
me once again that if you have enough money, you can do anything that
you want to in Collier County no matter who it affects or how it
affects them.
I ask that when you make your decision today you will consider
the opinions of your local residents and landowners. We can't afford
to donate fancy new cars, but we do vote and pay our taxes. Please
consider us. Please read our letters and realize that contrary to
popular belief and the opinions of the media, it is not just one
whacko tree hugget who opposes this.
This is instead a group of ordinary people who want to live in a
nice quiet neighborhood. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Could I address a couple of issues here, and
then I've got a question. The noise implications, is Mr. Hazza --
have you informed him about the noise in terms of --
MR. GUNDECK: He's read all the documents and he has, I believe,
written you a letter.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, but he states -- I mean, he couldn't
have read them and understood what he read because he states, and I
quote, the noise implications from this will be tremendous since I
would be living so close to the test track.
I don't think he does understand this because the decibels are
going to be far less than what could happen there if it were used in
some other manner.
MR. GUNDECK: Right. Well, I understand that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So, obviously, there is a concern there that
he doesn't understand that part of it, Scott.
MR. GUNDECK: In the past, monitoring has been nil. There are
supposed to be written yearly reports filed. They were not filed in a
timely manner and they were only filed when someone questioned them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. But I believe too, then again this
morning that was addressed as well as in terms of possibly things that
we can do or that they're willing to do in terms of noise. So I think
that needs to be given an opportunity to work.
I have a question and this is a question that's raised by this
individual. This 500 foot tower, does this have any impact if you
were to have satellite dishes in your yard? Does this tower have any
impact, and I just want this stated publicly, that you're aware of?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it going to interfere with the signal?
Is that the question?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Is there any interference from a
tower like this?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm certainly no tower expert, but I'm not aware of
any circumstances that have resulted in satellite communication
disruption because of cellular towers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is governed by the FCC and what is
allowed to be placed on the tower, particularly with wireless Internet
and whatnot in the near future, that's -- I actually know someone in
the wireless Internet business and the regulations are fairly strict
and any interference goes directly to the FCC for resolution, so that
one individual is not unduly impacted. So it, you know -- again,
that's an FCC issue.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, just along the same
lines. In one of the other letters here from Lloyd Turgeau -- or
Turgeau, it says at present we have no complaint to the noise level.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect, good.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It goes on to say, the testing and
racing of faster and larger vehicles will increase the noise level
significantly, and I think the point that we're trying to make is,
they're going to be held to the same standard now, so you may have a
bigger vehicle, but it can't make any more noise than what is allowed
right now.
MR. GUNDECK: I'm sure these people will rest assured that the
noise will be monitored and enforced.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Thank you, Scott.
MR. GUNDECK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Our final speaker is Linda Weinland.
MS. WEINLAND: Madam Chairman and commissioners, good morning, or
good afternoon. My name is Linda Weinland, I live on 38th Avenue
Southeast, approximately 900 feet west of DeSoto Boulevard, within
hearing range of the Ford Evaluation Center.
I have been for the past 18 years a professor of biology and
ecology at the Collier County campus of Edison Community College. In
addition, I worked for approximately three years as a consultant to
the Collier County Natural Resources Management Department, during
which time I assisted in the investigation and analysis of all the
major biotopes in the undeveloped Collier County area. In the course
of my work, I drove and/or walked through much of the county and what
I learned there led me to purchase property in my neighborhood. I
have also since 1991 served as a member of the Board of Directors of
the Naithloriendum Wildlife Sanctuary.
Let me state at the outset that I am not an enemy of the Ford
Evaluation Facility and I neither wish nor intend to drive Ford from
Collier County, as has again been erroneously stated about people in
my neighborhood. I am, however, pro-neighborhood.
Let me tell you a little about the area in question. Members of
my residential neighborhood along DeSoto Boulevard have been good and
caring stewards of our land, which contains some of the finest native
communities in southwestern Florida. We have purchased property and
moved there for the peace, the tranquility and the beauty of the rural
environment.
The area is noted for its natural history, amenities and for it's
natural reservations, including the Florida Panther and National
Wildlife Refuge and the greater than 200 acre Naithloriendun Wildlife
Sanctuary. In addition, surrounding the Ford Evaluation Center are
environmentally sensitive wetlands, clearly depicted on the county's
land use map, including the Stumpy Strand and Lucky Lake Strand.
Currently, the testing conditions are periodically bothersome, but not
yet intolerable.
Our concerns include, number one, we are not eagles and we
respond differently to noise. We are concerned about noise pollution
from accelerated vehicular testing and among our unknowns and our
concerns are the types of vehicles, the exact noise levels, the
duration and timing of the tests and especially, the enforcement, and
I would ask if you decide on some enforcement plan that some of us who
are well educated people in the neighborhood also be allowed to
monitor the equipment, not just the Ford employees.
Thirty decibels is the average rural area noise level, thirty
decibels. Fifty decibels is the average suburban level. Sixty-five
is significantly higher than that and approaches the occasional damage
level at -- depending on the number of meters away you are, the
decibel has greater impact.
Number two, reduction in the quality of life for current and
future residents of the area of Golden Gates Estates along DeSoto
Boulevard.
A third concern, the decline in current and future property
values.
A fourth concern is the wildlife. The threatened Florida black
bear, the endangered panther, numerous permanent migratory birds,
among other species, utilize the area. Previously released
information by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission shows
and my previous training leads me to be very concerned that at least
half a dozen black bears and half a dozen panthers have been tracked
inside the current fence. I repeat, inside the existing fence of the
Ford facility. I submit my previous statement, today's and the
following documents containing data and concerns.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Did I understand you right, I just want to
make sure I heard you right, you said that within the Ford test track
area?
MS. WEINLAND: Within the existing fence, yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They've got panthers and they've got black
bears?
MS. WEINLAND: Yes, and that's of great concern for those of us
who value the wildlife.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there some reason to think that they
are not flourishing? I mean, they have diminished in number because
they are within the fence or they have -- I mean -- I don't -- it
seems?
MS. WEINLAND: Picture a black bear with cars racing at them at
80 to 100 miles an hour.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But doesn't it seem like he would leave
the area if he were offended by the --
MS. WEINLAND: Radio data don't show that, they just document
that. In fact, these animals are getting inside the existing eight
foot fence.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess that sort of --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But it's not driving them away?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Obviously, if they're coming in, they're not
being driven away and if they don't like the noise, it would seem to
me they would go in the opposite direction.
MS. WEINLAND: Oh, they're probably being killed. I don't have
any mortality on data, but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Did you just make an
accusation that endangered species are being killed on the Ford Motor
Test Track without any reporting?
MS. WEINLAND: I did not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You said, "probably being killed."
Was that not your --
MS. WEINLAND: I did not. I -- she said, they're apparently
still using the area and I said, we have no data to say that it is a
viable use. Maybe they walk across the highway, they use that area
also, but what happens to them when they do that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You just said probably being killed.
Those were your exact words. I just wanted to clarify that. MS. WEINLAND: We don't have any data on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll let you correct that statement, but
I mean, that was --
MS. WEINLAND: Well, let me finish my points.
My fifth concern, increased traffic along DeSoto Boulevard,
increased testing will certainly adversely affect residents,
schoolchildren, wildlife and family activity, such as jogging
bicycling, walking and so forth.
A major concern I have, number six, the educational value of the
area, as biological resource and natural reservation will certainly
decline, schoolchildren, teachers and college students from throughout
Collier County have visited and studied on dozens of occasions this
rural area and used it as an ecological classroom. The rich innocent
diversity of native flora and fauna are indeed priceless educational
treasures in this county.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can you summarize the rest of your comments?
MS. WEINLAND: Yes, indeed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MS. WEINLAND: I would hope that you would consider the children
and adults that we educate.
Finally, this is a case where it appears that a multi-billion
dollar out of state corporation, which brings in its own well paid
engineers from Michigan, may be granted unduly favorable treatment to
the detriment of our rural middle income residential neighborhood. I
hope that you, the county commission members, will have the foresight,
the wisdom, and especially, the courage to do the right thing and
recommend against the emendation of this PUD. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one question for you before you
leave, over here. About halfway through your talk there, you
mentioned having some well educated people in the neighborhood to help
monitor the noise level. By that statement, did you mean to preclude
any lesser educated people in the neighborhood who may also have an
interest?
MS. WEINLAND: Not at all. I think all of us in --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't understand --
MS. WEINLAND: -- the neighborhood are well educated and I
thought that perhaps the opinion was the average citizen might not
know how to operate decibel recording equipment and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, a well educated --
MS. WEINLAND: -- in fact, many of us are scientists and we would
in fact be able to volunteer to do that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think a well educated scientist
could also not know how to operate a decibel meter, but they are quite
simple.
MS. WEINLAND: Fine, but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can anyone answer the question -- thank
you -- this lady alluded to, implied that perhaps there's been panther
or bear deaths at the test track. Can anyone answer the question
definitively, have there been or have there not been?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems like an unusual
question. If the transistor monitors the movement, it seems like if
something were killed the movement would be pretty limited from that
point forward.
MS. WEINLAND: But not all the animals are --
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Is there anyone qualified to answer that
question for me?
MR. BRUET: Yes. For the record once again, Mike Bruet.
Commissioner, there have been no accidents dealing with wildlife at
the Ford site from the time it was put together until today. There
are none.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I understand, the area surrounding the
track is cleared in such a manner you can see something coming from a
fair distance.
MR. BRUET: When Ford does testing of vehicles in the area 60 to
80 miles an hour, they have what they call spotters along the
straightaway to make sure there are no -- with communication systems
to the driver to be sure that the fairway -- the fairway --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You wish, Mr. Bruet, you wish.
MR. BRUET: I do, I do. That the straightaway is free and clear
of other vehicles and certainly wildlife. So that's a policy within
the company.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I wonder would it make any difference if --
would it -- we seem to be focusing on high performance, but also
larger trucks will be out there, would there be any potential to have
more animal deaths because it's a large truck than it would a
passenger car? I mean, would an animal -- would it make any
difference to the animal if he got run over by a car or a truck? MR. BRUET: No, I don't think so.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't mean to be facetious, but I mean,
really, if there are safeguards in place, there's never been a
collision with an animal --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I assume Ford is obviously
concerned not only about the animals, but the driver. I mean, a
collision is going to endanger a human life as well. So you're gonna
take every precaution to make sure that never happens.
MR. BRUET: I believe with wildlife, especially if the bear or
the panther had been hit with a vehicle and had a monitoring unit on
him, I think everyone would be well notified, probably be in the
paper, I think that would go quite a ways --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't even know if there's such a word
as emendation. Don't we usually just call it amendment?
MR. ARNOLD: I believe that Ms. Student has researched this issue
and may want to address that point.
MS. STUDENT: For the record --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do think we have the authority to make
words up as we go.
A SPEAKER FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Inaudible)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, there have been several
comments from the audience that are inappropriate. MR. GORE: Are you asking me?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I was asking Ms. Student.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A question from this commission. This is our
meeting to decide and gather information --
MR. GORE: (Inaudible.)
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have him thrown out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Your statement won't make it to the
record, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Dr. Gore, I believe that you are not in order
right now, please. You had your time to speak up here and make your
point.
MR. GORE: Mr. Bruet had a chance to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We specifically --
MR. GORE: You asked specifically is there anyone in the audience
who can address that point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're about as rude as they come, Mr.
Gore.
MR. GORE: (Inaudible.)
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have the deputy escort him out.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Dr. Gore, please be seated --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please be seated.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- or I will ask the deputy to ask you to
leave the room.
MR. GORE: Let it be recognized then for the record, I was told
to be seated.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is not on the record, Madam Chair.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what you're saying, Dr. Gore, doesn't
make it to the record. Please just -- please, for your own record
making, so that this court reporter can report what your judge will be
reviewing, all of what you say from there doesn't make it to the
record.
MR. GORE: So the record is now off?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. The record -- the videotape is
on, the audiotape is on. The court reporter cannot record statements
made from the floor as opposed to from the podium.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, we don't banter with
the people in the audience who have been asked --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just trying to help.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. I believe the question was
asked, Mr. Bruet has answered the question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a question about what that word
means. Is that what you were gonna tell us?
MS. STUDENT: Emendation, we looked it up, because it was new to
me, it is the amendment of a literary work or a change to a literary
work.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I just wanted to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That answers that question. Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, I have a land use question for
you in reference to our zoning ordinance. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the individuals who buy property and
choose to build in a home in the area surrounding the test track,
under the current zoning I believe you can also buy the property and
raise pigs and chickens without any words from this board; is that
correct?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Golden Gate Estates, being
immediately west of the subject site, do allow a certain number of
livestock and small ranch type farming.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in addition to what may be a known
zoning category out there, the existing zoning category surrounding
the project allows for some fairly noxious uses, such as raising pigs,
which is not exactly environmentally beneficial? MR. ARNOLD: It certainly could.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think it's important that we
recognize that there's a buyer beware issue for anyone who purchases
property, it's like buying a piece of property next to a busy road.
Well, you probably got it for less than the guy a mile from the busy
road and there's a reason for it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or the landfill.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or the landfill.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just had to. I just had to do it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Provided the landfill doesn't expand, but,
you know, there is a buyer beware issue there. The question for us, I
think on impacts, is whether or not the proposed impact is of a
significantly greater degree and the way in which we measure noise is
through sound levels and that sound level constraint is constant.
You could increase the number of vehicles being tested out there
to a point that you could meet or exceed that sound level under
current regulation. You could meet or exceed that sound level, you
know, what's being proposed. The question is whether or not that
sound level is held constant.
So I think in that case we're not talking about a doubling or
tripling of impact. I think we are talking about a growth issue. You
know, adding different materials to be tested under the exact same
noise standard that is in place today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That is in fact more rigorous than the
underlying adjacent properties.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. What I would like to ask, and I
know Mr. Bruet is here as representative of the property owner, and I
don't know if this is more appropriate for you or a representative of
Ford, but there has been the discussion of taking sound measurements
at regular intervals in essence to have a background, so that should
there be a complaint filed and we send our appropriate staff personnel
out, we could determine if in fact it jives with what's being done out
there in place or not.
When we refer to high performance test vehicles, I think all of
us in our minds see things such as race cars, I mean, in a nutshell.
I heard someone mention tanks, which I thought was a kick, apparently
the H-1 Abram's Tank is gonna have competition from Ford next year, so
good luck, but I think we're all really talking about performance
vehicles in the way of race cars, probably the most noxious use I can
imagine.
MR. BRUET: You're correct, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At times when there is peak testing of
performance vehicles, can we receive a commitment that Ford will take
sound measurements at the perimeter of the property closest to the
testing of those vehicles?
MR. BRUET: Yes, you can. I can speak for Ford on that point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And that those -- that information
will be made available to the county staff or at least be copied on
the results of those tests?
MR. BRUET: Yes, it will.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The high performance testing of
vehicles, Mr. Arnold, it's Monday through Saturday; is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Saturday generally being a time around the
house for most people. At least in the area of high performance
vehicles, would there be any resistance to limiting that from Monday
to Friday?
MR. BRUET: Just one second. None at all, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Saturday is the day of rest for
most people, and as is Sunday. So I think that would be more
conducive also.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mike, you might want to --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: If you'd like to confer on that.
MR. BRUET: Yes, excuse me one second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there's a reason that that's not
acceptable, I'd like to know, as someone who selfishly enjoys their
Saturdays and Sundays.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good, then I'm gonna ask a question. I'm not
sure you have the answer here, but how many houses were built out
around the Ford Test Track after it became the Ford Test Track?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't have specific dates for construction, but I
do know that on my visits to the site, I can count less than a dozen
homes that are along DeSoto Boulevard and the roads leading to the
Ford Test Track. There are several more homes west of DeSoto that
would put those structures nearly a mile from the test track facility.
MR. BRUET: Yes, Commissioner, the Ford people say that Saturday
is a day that they like to set aside for using -- for testing the high
performance of the racing vehicles because the other vehicles are not
being tested on that day.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BRUET: The decibel readings, you know, the ordinance would
-- you know, it applies to Saturday, Sunday and Monday, if there's a
problem, and again, they would be willing to station decibel reading
devices throughout the facility on a Saturday, and if it becomes -- I
would certainly say this; if it becomes a problem, we would certainly
step back.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The noise level still governs, I
understand that, and actually the fact that Saturday would be, I
guess, a premiere test day for those types of vehicles may work to the
advantage of reading the acceptable noise levels. MR. BRUET: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a follow up. One woman had asked
could other people participate in that as well, and actually we've
done that successfully where we've had noise problems elsewhere in the
county or there were night clubs or with equipment use or with other
things, we've had a joint effort between whomever the alleged offender
was and whoever the offendee was and it has worked out very well, so I
suspect we could do the same thing.
MR. BRUET: I would -- Commissioner, I'm sure -- I'm certain that
we could find a way to get everyone involved in that process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, there was a -- in Golden Gate, I
mean, just as a suggestion, but in Golden Gate with the landfill, I
think that that community committee has worked so well out there with,
you know, representatives from the community meeting regularly with
the operators and that might be something you should consider as a
good neighbor policy.
MR. BRUET: Well --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I encourage you to do that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all I had by way of questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will -- Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: I would just like an opportunity, if I could very
briefly, to respond to a couple of the comments made relative to
property owner notification, if I could? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure.
MR. ARNOLD: I know Mr. Gore had made some comments about his
purchase and tax deed property that abuts the Ford Test Track. I had
our staff print out off the on-line computer system with the tax
collector's office on January 21, 1998. I have the information here.
Dr. Gore's name does not appear within 300 feet of the Ford Test Track
property and, in fact, we can only find reference to his property at
406 feet from the Ford Test Track.
Again, and I think it's important to note that the information we
used, the TRW Ready Map Series for microfiche and microfilm that they
have available and other county departments use very similar
information that's published and certified at one point in time. As
people buy and sell property on a daily basis, this of course cannot
be noticed and, again, that's why we have multiple forums of
notification and I think Mr. Gore's presence here identifies the fact
that he did gain the knowledge that we had a public hearing on this
issue.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the tremendous irony in that we
hear about notice complaints from people who are here complaining that
they didn't know about the meeting. Okay. So it's a little ironic.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions?
I'll close the public hearing.
Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and I have a second to
approve the staff recommendation.
Any further questions or comments?
If not, I'll call for the question; all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #15A
REQUEST FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE REPORT RE THE CLERK AND THE
PAYMENT OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR'S BILLS
At this time, we'll go to board of county commissioners and
staff communications first. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Still happy to be here. No comment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No comment?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No comments.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: County commissioners, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a couple of real quick questions,
both that have to do with the county attorney's office that I wish you
would give us a report at some point, not necessarily right this
second, but I am curious at some time to know how the negotiation is
going between the clerk and the courts about the payment of those
bills, and I don't want us to fall behind and have to do an emergency
meeting again, so I just want be sure that that is ongoing so that we
can deal with it in the normal course of business and not in an
emergency fashion, please.
Item #15B
THE ISSUE OF ROCKS ON THE BEACH
The other issue that I have has to do with the rocks on the beach
and the fact that as I look at the contract, there is a warranty by
the contractor for one year beyond the date of final acceptance, final
acceptance being March. I hope that we're taking actions to prepare
to preserve warranty objections within that 12 month deadline, so that
we hear that sometime this month.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely. I know our staff's -- my staff's
looking into that to prepare to get back to you and we'll certainly do
that in a timely manner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. WEIGEL: In regard to the lawsuit of the clerk with the
county, there is certainly not anticipated any further emergency
meeting agendas in that regard. We had discussions, significant
discussion of the attorneys this past week and are -- the case is
still ongoing and we still have discovery and things that we have to
respond to in regard to Mr. Brock's lawsuit. However, we are looking
to attempt to eliminate and reduce the issues as much as possible.
The lawsuit, of course, involves Judge Starnes also and we take these
things on a daily basis, but we're looking at them very closely. I
can assure you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question specifically, though, 'cause I
know you're doing your best to get that lawsuit settled, but my
question was during the pendency of that and maybe it's for Mr.
Fernandez, will we have as a regular, I guess monthly, item to approve
expenditures so that we don't have people who are not getting paid for
a long period of time? Is that the anticipated plan? It's what I
understand the board --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wouldn't that depend on whether the clerk
submits a list to us or not?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I have nothing before us now. The clerk has not
submitted a new list since our last action. It was my hope that the
attorney's discussions would yield a quick resolution. If that's not
the case, we will make every effort to avoid an emergency meeting and
bring those things -- those items to you on a regular board meeting
agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I just want to be sure that -- I
guess I'll take it up myself, if the clerk doesn't send the list, I'll
ask for the list because I don't want people not to get paid and
that's what I'm looking for here, so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hopefully, he doesn't either.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I hope so too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
Item #15C
DISCUSSION RE PUBLIC SPEAKERS AT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
MEETINGS - STAFF DIRECTED TO DRAFT A POLICY RE PUBLIC SPEAKERS
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, pursuant to our last hearing, I would
like to direct our staff to set our speaker policy down in writing. I
really strongly object to having these trials on our county commission
time. It seemed that Mr. Brady was appealing our decision before we
even made the decision, and I don't really think that's what we should
be doing. I'd like to see that policy in written form where we allow
them five minutes and if they anticipate going over their five
minutes, they're certainly welcome to submit anything in writing for
the record in advance, but by the time they get here, it's hard for
them to make the excuse, like Mr. Brady did, that he didn't know that
he was coming or whatever, he didn't have time to do it. I mean, it's
got to go through all the advertising and the planning commission and
advertising again before you get here, so that's really a very thin
excuse.
I would like to get that down in written form and make sure that
our planning department distributes that as a matter of course in all
of their preplanning discussions with applicants in the future.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed, and I think a part of that is when
we have, you know, the team approach, where somebody, you know, a land
use attorney or a planner will bring a team of six people and threaten
to throw five minutes each at us. We may want to incorporate that
into a petition or presentation time frame like Mr. Fernandez and I
had discussed, you know, as a part of that, I think let's look at it a
little more broadly and really answer a lot of questions there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I had three items last week, so
I'm not allowed any this week.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's correct. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the formal policy of the board.
Item #15D
COHMENTS RE BOARD ACTION RELATIVE TO THE FORD TEST TRACK
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want to -- I'd like to mention
something in the way of thanks to everybody else on the board and that
is the issue with Ford Test Track today has painted a handful of
people as a David and Goliath. You know, it's the big company coming
in and getting the decision from the commission, and the truth I think
is it takes more in the way of guts for this board to step up and do
something in the reign of economic development on the basis that Ford
doesn't vote.
We're represented by voters or we're a representative -- we
represent everyone, but we're elected by voters and today everybody
stepped up, recognized the community contribution, the economic
benefit and development that Ford brings to this community, and I
think we took the considerations into account on that and did a good
job with that, but I think on the economic development side, you-all
should pat yourself on the back because it's tough to make those
decisions when the politically expedient thing at times is to just say
no. So I just want to thank you for your attention to that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If I could just relate just a second to that
particular comment. I think too sometimes you start looking at these
issues, it's amazing to me the misinformation sometimes that people
have when they come before us and use as their position in a denial,
because once they're more or less reminded of certain facts, I think
that kind of takes some of the fire out of perhaps their presentations
and then it becomes -- it's based strictly on an emotional side of it
that they just don't want something to happen for whatever reason, but
when you get down to factually, what they seemingly throw out as their
objection to it and they have nowhere to go with that, then I think
that, you know, once those points are made that they have had as
considerations and I think once you get that clarified, I think that
makes a decision certainly a lot easier.
Item #15E
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE HELD ON 6/10 AND 6/24/98 AT
5:05 P.M.
Anyway, I have just some communication notices for all of you to
put on your calendars. These have to do with the land development
evening public hearings and believe it or not, those dates are already
being set. That will be in June, the two dates are June 10th and June
24th, and both those dates are on Wednesdays at 5:05 p.m. So that's
June 10 and June 24th and I would assume also that the budget will
probably fall in there as it did I believe last year prior -- just
prior to that time, and looking at those dates, you're probably
looking at somewhere in the week of maybe the 18th, 19th of June, and
then perhaps ending up prior to this particular issue.
Item #15F
DISCUSSION RE UPCOMING BCC VACATION SCHEDULE AND REQUEST FOR
COHMISSIONERS TO REVIEW THEIR CALENDARS FOR UPCOMING SCHEDULING
At the same time, I guess the fun thing to go look at, maybe we
all need to check our schedules and consider what our summer vacation
schedule might be in terms of the commission.
So, anyway, next time or shortly thereafter, or I suppose we can
wait until March or whatever's convenient, or latter part of February,
we need to take a look at our schedules for the summer. Some of you
are going to be a little busy this summer, so we need to take a look
and get your best guesstimate on time frames that you think will meet
your --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Yeah, the earlier we establish that
vacation schedule the better for petitioners and whatnot to time their
projects.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so, I think so. So if you can maybe
bring a calendar and kind of look at your own schedules, we'll deal
with that, and I'll let you know ahead of time, so everybody will be
prepared.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as you look, I know last year we
got about three weeks off in July, we came back for I think two weeks
and a couple of weeks in August and that actually -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Which was really nice.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it worked out pretty well. I
think maybe if we could do something consistent with that again this
year, by coming back in between for two weeks, it allows us not to
have too much of a pile-up on the petitions, but maybe the fact is we
just don't have as much on the agenda in the summertime.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It may also work out well for the two of you
because of activity this summer.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Only one of us is announced, so I have no
idea what she's doing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The city election is today so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know the potential is there and so I'm just
maybe making a false assumption, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I heard you're running for President, Pam.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, hey, you never know.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But it would give you some time at probably a
critical time. So, anyway, having said that, if there's no further
business, the meeting's adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris,
and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Constantine absent), that the
following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or
adopted:
Item #16A1
ACCESS EASEMENT TO GOLDEN GATE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,
INC., A FLORIDA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, TO UTILIZE THE COUNTY OWNED MAX
HASSE JR. COMMUNITY PARK ENTRANCE ROAD TO PROVIDE FOR A COMMON DRIVEWAY
TO SERVICE THE HOUSE OF WORSHIP
Item #16A2 - Added
CARNIVAL PERMIT 98-2, REGARDING PETITION NO. C-98-2, LABELLE LONGHORN
BOOSTER CLUB REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL ON FEBRUARY
9-15, 1998 AT N. 1ST STREET AND EAST MAIN STREET
Item #16B1 - Deleted
Item #1682
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGES ON THE COCOHATCHEE CANAL
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF A PORTION OF THE CARLTON LAKES ROAD IMPACT FEE
FROM THE DISTRICT'S FUNDING AS SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENT
Item #1683
BID #97-2762 FOR PUMP AND MOTOR REPAIR - AWARDED TO HORVATH ELECTRIC
MOTORS IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $100,000.00
Item #1684
PURCHASE OF TRACT 6, UNIT 29, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES FOR ROADWAY PROJECT
60061, LIVINGSTON ROAD (CIE NO. 53) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,010.50
Item #1685 - Moved to Item #883
Item #1686
AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO WORK ORDER HHA-FT96-7 WITH HOLE HONTES &
ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE NLA/~ATEE ROAD 1.5 HGD AQUIFER STORAGE AND
RECOVERY PROJECT, 70860 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $49,700.00
Item #16C1
AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE AN EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT CONCESSION
AGREEMENT WITH THE REGISTRY RESORT OF NAPLES, INC. - STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
WITH FLORIDA PANTHERS HOLDINGS, INC.
Item #16C2
ELECTRONIC SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT WITH R.R. BOWKER TO ENABLE THE
LIBRARY TO SUBSCRIBE TO BOOKS IN PRINT - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $3,850.00 PER
YEAR
Item #16C3
GRANTING OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AT VETERANS
PARK FOR THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITY FACILITIES TO BENEFIT PRIMECO
PERSONAL COHMUNICATIONS, L.P. (PSC) - STAFF TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO
LEASE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND PSC
Item #16D1
PURCHASE OF DEHUHIDIFICATION EQUIPMENT FOR THE REMAINING FOUR FLOORS OF
THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND THE IHMOKALEE COURTHOUSE - COMPETITIVE
BID PROCESS WAIVED; STAFF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH CTSI
CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $82,522.00
Item #16D2 - Moved to Item #SD1
Item #16El
LINE ITEM TRANSFER REQUEST FROM GULF BAY MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR
TARPON FISHING TOURNAMENT, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, SPECIAL EVENTS -
AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-116, 98-117 AND 98-118
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred as
indicated:
Item #1611
LEGAL SERVICES AGREEHENT WITH GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A. BY AND
THROUGH MICHAEL W. PETTIT AS LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY ON
MATTERS RELATING TO THE CASES AS IDENTIFIED IN THE LEGAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
Item #1612
SETTLEHENT PROPOSAL IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT CASE OF
KITCHENS V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 95-4852-CA-01 - AS OUTLINED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:42 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S)
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BARBARA BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
By: Sherrie B. Radin