BCC Minutes 11/01/1994 RREGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1994,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:08 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
ALSO PRESENT:
Timothy J. Constantine
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Michael J. Volpe
Butt L. Saunders
Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Bill Hargett, Assistant County Hanager
Ken Cuyler, County Attorney
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning and welcome to the
November 1st meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.
Dotrill, if you would be so kind as to lead us in an invocation and in
a pledge to the flag.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, as always, we thank you for
the wonderful quality of life that we enjoy in Collier County. We
thank you, and we praise the people, all of the people of this
community, whether they be the farm worker in Immokalee, the young
couple in Golden Gate in their first home, or the retired couple on
Marco enjoying their sunset years. We give thanks for all the people
of this community.
But, as always, we pray this morning that you would guide
the direction of our elected officials, the county commission, as they
make the very important business decisions that affect Collier County.
And we would ask that you bless our time together. We pray these
things in your son's holy name. Amen.
(Attendees invoked the pledge of allegiance in unison.)
Item #2A
AGENDAAND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, we've got just a couple
of changes this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. We
have very few changes this morning. I have two add-on items. The
first one is a potential emergency item concerning the abandonment of
a wastewater package treatment plant by the current owner for that
facility that serves the Royal Cove subdivision. That will be an
add-on item under utilities, item 8-D-2; that's a facility where we
may have to assume the responsibility for that facility today. We
were aware of the possibility of that. In the event that power is
turned off, we've made arrangements to assume responsibility, but
we'll need some direction on that, 8-D-2.
We have also received a request to have an add-on in
recognition of the current airport authority, and the status almost is
an annual report vein of the work of the airport authority which will
be 8-H-2. There is a request upon the part of the -- of the authority
to hear that item as close to 11 a.m. as possible on -- it's my
understanding that all seven members of the authority will be here as
part of that.
Also a request confirming prior Board action that item
8-A-5, which is a reimbursement for the presentation of a check for
Habitat of Humanities be heard immediately following the
proclamations. I believe Ms. Hankins from the finance department -- I
see her, she is here, and she has the check, and if we could do that
immediately following the proclamations, those are the only two agenda
notes that I have. And, Mr. Chairman, that is all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How many people that are here are
here for the Goodlette meeting, Pine Ridge issue? I'm going to
suggest that we take that item directly after the Habitat for Humanity
item since we have so many people here already, rather than have them
sit all morning if there's no objection from the Board. That item is
8-B-1. We'll move that up under -- Mr. Cuyler, any changes?
MR. DORRILL: Excuse me. There's a lady waving at me.
Ha'am, if you would come forward to the microphone. Good Morning.
FEMALE: Good morning. Pardon our noise level today.
I'm a member of Pine Ridge, a resident, and we were told on Friday
that the meeting would address this particular item approximately
10:30. There are many people coming, and I see a lot of other people
here from various sides of this issue. If you could just please give
us the fairness of allowing everybody to get here because we were
expecting it about 10 -- somewhere around 10:30.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We can keep it in the order it was in
then.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I had a couple people call wanting a
time certain, and the Board has stopped doing that. We have suggested
that they watch the sequence of events and adjust accordingly.
FEMALE: They said mid-morning. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm suggesting that strictly as a
convenience, and apparently it's not convenient, so leave it as it
was. Commissioner Norris, anything? Any changes?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Saunders?
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Volpe?
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have one item. I'd like to
remove -- suggest we remove item 10-D. It was just a week ago that
the commission said it was inappropriate for the Board to be taking
any position on anything that appeared on the ballot. If there's
anything that bothers me more when the Board is inconsistent on
policies, I can't think of what it is. If it was inappropriate a week
ago, surely it's inappropriate now as well.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any
objection to that. I do have a resolution concerning the same subject
that was passed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council on
that subject. If you have no objection, I would read that into the
record at that time and so --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, a week ago we didn't even want
to have a discussion. I suggested we not take a vote on the fishing
issue, and the Board didn't want to hear any of it. I would assume
the same holds true now. We had copies from other counties on
resolutions on the net ban, and no one wanted to even discuss the
matter. I don't think it's appropriate to discuss that.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I have no objection to the removal of
that item from the agenda.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, the reason that item
is on the agenda, quite frankly, is that we had received
correspondence from the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce, the Economic
Development Council, and numerous other phone calls requesting them to
place this item on the agenda. If the Board wants to take it off the
agenda, that's fine. But I would suggest that this is one of those
issues that entities across the state, the Republican party in
particular, is taking a strong position on, and I would suggest that
we proceed to discuss this item.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand that entities across the
state are taking a position, but across the state were taking a
position a week ago, and we can't pick and choose which issues. We
have a policy which four members of the Board said last week it was
inappropriate, and I think the wording was not about that particular
item. It was about things that are on the ballot should be left up --
Commissioner Matthews, I think, said it best -- should be left up to
the public. And it's arrogant for us to try to put our feelings
forward.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I still feel the same way. I think
the public at large -- I've had enough to say about the casino issue
in the last six months. The public at large knows how I feel, and I
still feel that the Board as a whole should not take action on it.
It's an individual issue to be addressed in the ballot box.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I concur. I'll make a motion that
we remove this item from our agenda and the item relating to the
resolution with respect to a position of the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the motion?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion
state aye. All those opposed? Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Saunders opposed.
If there are no other changes, we need a motion to approve
the agenda and consent agenda.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's been a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion state aye. Anyone opposed? It
carries 5-0.
Item #3
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 BUDGET MEETING- APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Approval of minutes for the September
14, 1994, meeting, budget meeting.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that
we approve the minutes of our September 14th budget meeting.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion please state aye. Anyone opposed?
The motion carries 5-0.
Item #4A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE ROTARY INTERNATIONAL GROUP STUDY EXCHANGE
TEAM DAY - ADOPTED
Proclamations and service awards. We have the Rotary
International Group Study Exchange Team with us. Commissioner Volpe.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might ask
Mike Davis to come forward as a representative of the Rotary group
and the international team from the Netherlands. Welcome. I'd like
to read the following proclamation proclaiming today Rotary
International Group Study Exchange Team Day. Whereas, we welcome the
Rotary Group Study Exchange Team from the Netherlands to Collier
County, Florida; and, whereas, the Rotary Foundation of Rotary
International Group Study Exchange Program has sent to us a team of
four professionals who are visiting Collier County to study our
institutions and ways of life; and, whereas, the team members will
also observe the practice of their own professions and exchange ideas;
and, whereas, the team is able to virtually experience family
life-styles as they are hosted by Rotary clubs of Collier County and
given accommodations in local homes; and, whereas, the Rotary
Foundation is a nonprofit corporation supported by Rotarians and
others worldwide. Its objective is the achievement of world
understanding and peace through international humanitarian and
educational programs.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Tuesday, November 1st,
1994, be designated as Rotary International Group Study Exchange Team
Day. Done and ordered this 1st day of November, 1994. Done and
ordered by the Board of County Commissioners, Timothy J. Constantine,
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second. All
those in favor of the motion please state aye. Motion carries 5-0.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Davis, can I ask you to introduce
the team on behalf the Board, and then you can introduce the team.
(Applause)
HR. DAVIS: On behalf of the Rotary International and
all the Rotary clubs in Collier County, we'd like to thank the
commission for this wonderful recognition of what we know to be a -- a
wonderful program that will soon be celebrating it's 30th year as
hundreds of teams and thousands of individuals have traveled around
the world and created pockets of peace and understanding through this
wonderful exchange program.
Before I introduce the team from the Netherlands, I'd
like to recognize some people in county government that have
participated or are currently participating in the program. The --
everyone -- many people from the community have participated over the
years, and I think it's important to recognize these people.
With us today is George Drobinski, director of
probation, who has been selected the alternate team leader for the
six-week trip to the Netherlands next spring. So he's just sitting
back hoping that the team leader maybe gets sick or breaks his leg or
something. Also with us today is Sam Saadeh who works in development
services. He traveled last spring to India for four weeks on this
program and also Stephanie Sauther, director of our motor vehicle
registration licensing department, and Joe Delate from development
services. I was lucky enough that these two people accompanied me as
team members down to Bogota, Columbia, about 18 months ago for our
trip down there.
And with that, I'd like to introduce to you my Rotary
counterpart, the team leader of the team from -- from Holland,
Rotarian Joe Vinje. Joe. (Applause)
MR. VINJE: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, it is an honor
for us to be here with you. We just arrived last Sunday for a
six-weeks stay here in Florida, and already now after one and a half
or two days I can say that your hospitality is overwhelming here.
I am Joe Vinje, 65 years old. I live in the north of
the country. All the team members come from the same district of
Rotary in the north of Holland. Holland, as you may know, is a
country which is situated for more than half of it below sea level,
but we keep our feet dry, and we are here and enjoy our stay here. I
would like to introduce to you shortly the team members. First,
Corien, will you say a few words about yourself.
MS. VAN DER HEIDE: Good morning, I'm Corien Van der
Heide. I'm from Holland. I'm very glad to be introduced here at the
county, and it's real -- this is our second day over here. It's
beautiful weather. All the people are very nice. I'm impressed about
your living here. I'm working for a newspaper in Holland. I'm doing
the advertisement over there. I work for a cable TV station also.
I'm planning everything what's around there, everything what's
happening. So I want to see what are the differences between mine job
in Holland and your jobs further in the USA with all your publicity,
business. I'm willing to learn a lot of you, and thank you for being
here. (Applause)
MR. VINJE: Next is Higchiel. But Higchiel is too
difficult to pronounce here, so we say Marco.
MR. DE JONG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Higchiel DeJong. I'm 26 year old -- 26 years old. I'm
currently employed as an electronics design engineer for a company
based in the field of nuclear medicine. I'm very honored to be on
this team, and I'd also like to thank the Board for their interest in
the group study exchange and also like to thank the community for
their very well and good presentation here and very well -- very well
welcomed here, and I hope to really enjoy the six weeks that I'll be
staying here, and I hope I really have the chance to exchange thoughts
and ideas on all types of things, especially to learn about the
American way of life. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. VINJE: Next is Jan Willem Prins or John.
MR. WILLIEH PRINS: I'm John Willem Prins. I'm 34 years
old. I am account manager of a bank. I advise some 200 agriculture
business in the Netherlands. I'm also from the north of the
Netherlands. They call it Friesland. We have also a different
language. They call it Fries. It's nice. I like already for two
days I'm here this country. It's very nice. (Applause)
MR. VINJE: And the last one is some relation, as you
will see, with your commission, is Steven Pieters.
MR. PIETERS: Okay. Good morning. I first will explain
what my relation is with your commission or your board. I'm the
secretary general of the board of eight cooperating municipalities in
the Netherlands, and, well, I -- well, what I am doing is comparable
to what here is called the county manager, although we are not an
official board. We are in kind of administration and service of those
eight municipalities. We are not autonomous in what we are doing, but
we are on the regional level, working on the regional level, and not
on the local level.
To show our appreciation, I have taken with me a special
coin from the major city within my region. It's the city of
Groningen, short for a few years ago it was existing for 950 years,
and to celebrate that day, made a special coin. One part of the coin
is giving the impression of a traditional city coin in the days that
the cities were allowed to make their own coins, and the opposite side
of the coin is giving a picture of the province and the city, how it's
within that province. And I put with that a small booklet about the
city of Groningen because I suppose perhaps you even have never heard
of the city, so it gives you an impression what kind of city it is
like. I will give it to the chairman as a token -- sorry -- as a
token, of course, of our appreciation. It's just small, but be sure
that we appreciate everything very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's great. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. VINJE: To add, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to present
the banner of the Rotary Foundation for the group study exchange and
lead the particulars about the banners and about myself. And I'd like
to end and thank you very much for your hospitality and for your
proclamation of this day. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Davis, is there anything more
you'd like to share with us?
MR. DAVIS: No. Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you, and enjoy your stay here
in the United States.
Item #4A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 14-20, 1994 AS YOUTH
APPRECIATION WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Commissioner Volpe.
Commissioner Saunders, Sunset Optimist Club.
COMHISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is Mr.
Wilhelm here, Bud Wilhelm?
MR. WILHELM: Yes.
COMHISSIONER SAUNDERS: Bud, if you would come forward.
Good morning. Let me read the proclamation. Proclamation: Whereas,
the vast majority of youth are concerned, knowledgeable, and
responsible citizens; and, whereas, the accomplishments and
achievements of these young citizens deserve the recognition and
praise of their elders; and, whereas, Optimist International has since
1954 developed and promoted a program entitled Youth Appreciation
Week; and, whereas, the members of Collier County have indicated a
desire to join the Sunset Optimists in expressing appreciation and
approval of the contribution of youth.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 14
through 20, 1994, be designated as Youth Appreciation Week, and by
this action let it be known that we have faith in the ability of
today's youth as they assume responsible roles in the future of
mankind. Done and ordered this 1st day of November, 1994 by the Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J.
Constantine, chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to
approve the proclamation.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion please state aye. Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
COMHISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Wilhelm, I'd like to present
this proclamation to you. I don't know if there is anything that you
would like to say. If so, we'll ask you to use the microphone. I do
want to in advance of that thank you and all of the people associated
with Optimists for the fine work that you do. There are tremendous
youth programs that Optimists sponsor in, and you do a tremendous job
for all of the kids in Collier County and throughout the world. So on
behalf of the county commission, congratulations, and thank you very
much.
MR. WILHELM: Thank you.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Bud, if you'd like to say a
few words, feel free to.
MR. WILHELM: The youth work in recognizing Tuesday
night, November the 15th, in youth relations. And we'll expect 300
people to be in attendance.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's November 15th at Oak Ridge
Middle School?
MR. WILHELM: At 7:30 in the evening.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, sir.
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have four service awards for
our employees this morning. We have two folks who have been with us
for five years. We have Bob Nonnemacher and Gary Stover who are
celebrating five years with us. (Applause) Congratulations, and
thank you very much.
We have one employee who has survived ten years,
currently in compliance services, Randy Casey. (Applause)
And from traffic operations, the rare 20 years -- 20
years of continuous service with Collier County. That's hard for me
to fathom being 29 myself, Elida Valdez. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to tell you in
recognition of Miss Valdez, that she is the sole person in the entire
incorporated area of the county that makes the traffic signs up and
down all of the highways and roads in our community. So every time
you see a traffic sign, Elida has made that at the sign shop and has
done so for almost 20 years and does a fine job. We're very proud of
her.
MS. VALDEZ: Thank you. (Applause)
Item #8A5
CHECK PRESENTED TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR REIHBURSEHENT OF IHPACT
FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,506
MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, commissioners. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi.
MR. MIHALIC: I'm here this morning to have you present
a check to Habitat for Humanity for reimbursement for some impact fees
that they paid in 1992 as part of the 135 homes that they have built
in Collier County to assist variable income families own their own
house. There's over 700 people that are in their own house. That
could only be accomplished by Habitat through the Humanities
programs. We have Mr. Rudell, Mr. Smith, and Miss Coin (phonetic).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we have a check for
twenty-seven thousand five hundred and six dollars and some change.
(Applause)
MR. SMITH: Well, we want to thank the commissioners,
not just for this check, but for the many actions you have taken to
help affordable housing in the county, and particularly the waiving of
impact fees and the refund of these impact fees which were already
paid. We are deeply appreciative. We're going to be asking for the
same sort of action in the future, so it's a real privilege to be able
to thank you today for what we've already done.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We certainly thank you. If you
picked up today's paper, Collier County does not have a sterling
reputation for affordable housing, and the Habitat of Humanities is
one group in particular which is helping us change that reputation, so
thank you very much.
MR. SMITH: Thank you. We'll continue to do that.
(Applause)
Item #5
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 94-733; 94-738/740; 94-746/757; 94-760; 95-19;
95-29; AND 95-32 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, good morning.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How's that new office working out
for you?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Working out just fine. That is a
temporary.
MR. DORRILL: Mike, if you would -- we made a change
today for people who are here in the audience and in particular the
staff. We have a new recording secretary here as part of a service.
If the staff people would give their name for the record, that will
assist in the preparation of today's meeting minutes. Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That ' s fine. For the record, Michael
Smykowski. I'm the budget director. Report today that there are
three FY '95 budget amendments associated with our new fiscal year
budget, and there are a series of 17 administrative budget amendments
associated with the final closeout of the fiscal year '94 budget at
this point.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for our staff on the
budget amendments.
COMHISSIONER VOLPE: When do you expect, Mr. Smykowski,
that we'll see all of the budget amendments for 19947 These are 1994
budget amendments.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: These are all of the amendments?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. That is the final closeout of the
fiscal year.
MR. DORRILL: I might add one of the things we tried to
improve on this year was holding down the amount of budget amendments
necessary for the Board's approval. And we're in the process of
calculating what the final tally -- total budget amendments this year
were less than 1 percent of the approved budgets, and when you close
out the year with only 17 budget amendments, I think that's good
testimony for the work done by the department directors this year to
be able to project and plan their expenditures according -- and with
Mike ' s help in particular.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and the second. All those
in favor of the motion, state aye. Anyone opposed? The motion cares
5-0.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
say that Mr. Dorrill's department -- I was the one last year who
complained quite a bit about the constant budget amendments at the end
of the year, and I felt -- I felt strongly that we needed to do better
planning, and I'm pleased to see this year that we've done that.
MR. DORRILL: They've -- they really did. For a three
hundred million dollar organization to be able to close out the year
with a very limited number of budget amendments is good testimony to
the work of the staff, and I appreciate you mentioning it. Thank you.
Item #7A
JANE VARNER, TAXPAYER ACTION GROUP OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. REGARDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE - TO BE PLACED ON REGULAR AGENDA
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. We have three public
petitions this morning, the general -- general rules of the game for
public petitions are -- you have 10 minutes to present your case. The
Board will likely not take action. If we can, great. But in the
usual course of events we will decide whether or not to put it on an
agenda as a regularly scheduled item and give it a full-blown hearing.
First one, Jane Varner with Taxpayer Action Group regarding
affordable housing ordinance. Good morning, Hiss Varner.
MS. VARNER: Good morning to all of you. I'm Jane Varner,
Taxpayers' Action Group. There are two parts to our petition, and
both are confined to affordable housing, rental only. I will give
the first part, and Mr. Neiditz and Mr. Sommer will give the second
part.
I -- what I am presenting regards the 40 percent increase in
income allowable for low and very low income families before their
tenancy in affordable housing is terminated. First, the affordable
housing was designed with one purpose only, and that was to provide
housing for people whose incomes were not sufficient to afford the
rents of privately-owned units in a given area.
The present affordable housing ordinance allowing this
40 percent increase places a low income family of four in an upper
income bracket of $36,120 a year and a very low income family in an
upper income of thirty thousand one -- one hundred dollars a year.
Previously in these chambers we have agreed that an
income over $29,500 a year, which allows about $740 a month for rent
and utilities, is more than ample to find and afford regular market
rate housing in all of the large rental complexes and other housing
advertised in Collier County.
We found that by increasing a low income family's income
15 percent, they would reach an income of $29,670 a year. We also
found that by increasing the very low income family's income 25
percent, they would enter the low income bracket and consequently be
eligible for low income housing at which time they could move and
avail themselves of this and -- and an additional 15 percent increase
to an amount of $29,670 a year.
The reason we chose to request the two-tiered approach
for the very low income family is because there is such a shortage of
very low income housing. Having the very low income family move up to
low income provides us with more low -- very low income housing.
Therefore, we request the affordable housing ordinances be amended and
the 140 percent of low income become 115 percent of low income and the
140 percent of very low income become 125 percent of very low income
before the tenancy in affordable housing is terminated.
We feel this proposal fulfills our prime objective while
also providing the added benefit of an area of opportunity for the
family to save money each extra year it takes them to reach the 15 and
25 percent increases. We have given you an example of the possible
savings. We also feel this proposal is more proper than what now
exists because its makes an attempt at equity and balance for all
parties that are affected by the advent of affordable housing
programs.
These are some things to consider. A 40 percent
increase in income creates too great a gulf between families who can
avail themselves of this program and families who cannot. Number two,
when the incomes of low income people exceed a certain point where
they could afford market rate housing, the government housing comes
into competition with the private market and deprives them of their
prospective clients.
Number three, if our need is great, then lowering the
140 percent to 115 percent and 125 percent will free up more low and
very low income housing. Increasing the rate of turnover makes more
housing available.
Number four, taxpayers would save money by having to
supply fewer affordable housing complexes.
Number five, residents of Collier County would have
fewer affordable housing complexes in their neighborhoods which would
help to alleviate some of their concerns. Government must always be
careful to pursue equity in its laws, and we must keep in mind also
that government cannot give to one person without taking from
another.
All taxes, whether federal, state, or local, come from
the people. We live in a time when we are burdened with an
overwhelming federal debt, so it is even more important that seek
efficiency and cling to our principle of never taking more from
government than we need.
Lastly, there has been raised the point of the legality
of our proposal. The wording in the documents we have seen clearly
places an upper limit on eligibility, but the wording does not seem to
preclude the lowering of this limit. We ask that you consult with our
own attorney -- county attorneys about the legality of these
amendments. Please approve this petition. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Mr. Hihalic, do you
want to help us out a little bit on the formula?
MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Greg
Hihalic, your former housing director. The 140 percent formula
mirrors and models section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code for
developers that have low income housing tax credits. And that's all
the multifamily affordable housing developers in the county utilize a
tax credit program. It also mirrors the agreement that the developers
have with the Florida Housing Finance Agency for the S.A.I.L. and HOME
and other programs that they offer for second mortgages. The county
attorney may speak to it, but I believe if we change our limits, the
developers would not be able to enter -- they would be violating their
contracts that they have with the Florida Home Finance Agency as well
as be in jeopardy of losing the low income housing tax credits that
they've received from the federal government under the IRS codes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Would you have to look at that, I assume?
MR. CUYLER: Yes. As normal with the public petitions,
we would check that out at your direction.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Mihalic, we have a lot of
petitions that come to the county commission regarding affordable
housing for low income but not very low.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes, it's a critical problem,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What -- is there anything on the
burner for very low?
MR. MIHALIC: In fact, it's moving in the other
direction, and I'm having developers who now want to change their
standards and eliminate the very low units that they have proposed
originally for developments. So it's becoming more and more difficult
to have very low income units mixed into a --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So our really true entry level
housing for families of four is not only not expanding, it's actually
shrinking?
MR. MIHALIC: It is. In the study we did last year
there were only about 150 units that were subsidized for very low
income, only 153 units out of 5,500 that were affordable to very low
income people.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Volpe.
COMHISSIONER VOLPE: Didn't we just amend the appendix
to our affordable housing ordinance to make the adjustments that are
being addressed by Miss Varner in this public petition?
MR. MIHALIC: We made amendments, but we didn't make
amendments to that section.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So it has been this way --
MR. MIHALIC: It has been this way mirroring the state
and federal programs.
COMHISSIONER VOLPE: If I understand the concern that's
being expressed in this public petition is that people are moving into
an affordable housing unit, rental unit, and then they are improving
their position in life. They're making more money, and they're
occupying a unit which would otherwise be made available for someone
who was in the very low income bracket. So it really has to do -- I
don't understand how a developer loses his credits because the housing
is still available. It's just when these people will have to move out
as they begin to improve their station in life.
MR. MIHALIC: No. Going back and reviewing the Internal
Revenue Code, when they have to move out again is really a question,
because if you have an affordable housing development that's a hundred
percent affordable housing, once people are in there, they do not have
to move out. If you have a project that has mixed income, partially
affordable, partially nonaffordable, then if a person's income goes
above 140 percent threshold level, then they would be shifted to a
market rate unit, and another affordable housing would be made
available to the next person. But because most of our developments
are 100 percent affordable housing, once people are there, they are
essentially grandfathered in if they qualified initially.
COMHISSIONER VOLPE: But what began as affordable
housing rental development becomes market rated. It is no longer
affordable housing.
MR. MIHALIC: Theoretically that could happen, although
I have talked to developers who have developed here and developed in
other areas. They don't have any instances where people's income
rises 40 percent above the threshold limits at all. They have never
seen that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the petitioner is asking
us if we would like to take a look at this. I, for one, would. I
think you've raised a good question, Commissioner Matthews. I think
you've raised good questions, Commissioner Volpe. I think we need to
take a complete look, and perhaps from a legal standpoint we might not
be able to do anything, but I'd like to be able to find that out in
some detail.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So would I. Some good points have
been raised.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I -- can I ask that we carry
that one step further? Since very low income housing seems to be the
real problem, that -- that we search around with other counties and
see what they're doing to promote developers to do something with low
income housing.
MR. MIHALIC: I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean with very low -- I'm
sorry, very low income housing.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Low income. It seems
moderate. We've got plenty.
MR. MIHALIC: It only goes up to 60 percent of the mean
income in the rental units completed, so that's the level you're
dealing with. When you get below 50 percent, which is the very low
income level, that's where we have our most critical need.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's plan on reviewing the issue
sometime in the next four to six weeks. We won't set an exact date
because we've got two new commissioners coming on board, so I'm not
sure when we need to schedule that.
MS. VARNER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We will let you know in advance
whatever that date is. Thanks. We have used the 10 minutes. I'm not
sure what the second issue was.
MS. VARNER: It was the -- I --
MR. SOMMER: This is a prepared statement, because we
only have 5 minutes. My name is Bob Sommer. I'm with the Taxpayers'
Action Group.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Bob.
MR. SOMMER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question, I'm not sure if you're
talking about the affordable housing issue itself, the petition
process is only to ask us to put that on our regular agenda. We've
agreed to do that --
MR. SOMMER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- so if you're looking to do
that, I would save this until we have that public hearing.
MR. SOMMER: All right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you're asking us to do
something different, then --
MR. SOMMER: No. What we are proposing will be part of
our input to you as you go ahead with your considerations. Okay?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. SUHMER: You're welcome.
MS. VARNER: Just ask Mr. Hihalic to take the second
letter and include it.
MR. SOHMER: Yeah.
Item #7B
DON DUNHIRE, CHAIRMAN, GOLDEN GATE RESIDENTS/HOHEOWNERS - REGARDING AN
ORDINANCE REGULATING RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY - STAFF TO
INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 7-B, Don Dunmire -- oh, I
believe it's Glenn Wilt, chairman of the Golden Gate
Residents/Homeowners regarding an ordinance regulating residential
rental property. Good morning.
MR. WILT: Good morning, commissioners, bright sunshiny
Tuesday morning.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And a bright tie you got there.
I like that.
MR. WILT: Thank you. As I mentioned, my name is Glenn
Wilt, and I'm speaking on behalf of the resident/homeowners group of
Golden Gate and also the Golden Gate Civic Association in support of a
petition to adopt a county ordinance regulating residential rental
property. We are convinced as these two groups that regulatory acts
are required to insure the health, safety, and welfare of persons
utilizing residential rental property within Collier County.
I have prepared some photo boards here to iljustrate a
point. Keep in mind that we're sort of a low-budget operation. We
don't have fancy photo boards, but you'll get the point. All the
photos depicted on this board -- and I must say I only have one board
representing this property. All of these photographs were taken of a
property that's located at 2542 Santa Barbara Boulevard. And to
summarize for everyone in the audience the problems depicted in the
photos at this rental unit, it's a fourplex. Garbage and debris were
thrown around the entire outside of the units. They were thrown back
under the weeds and brush. The lot was overgrown with weeds,
exotics. In fact, very little yard existed when you considered all
the exotics. The covers on the electrical boxes, both the cutoff
boxes and the AC units, the safety covers were open, which is a safety
hazard. A broken window had been repaired by taping a garbage bag
over the opening. The interior had holes broken in the drywall. The
walls had mold and mildew. The lanai screens and window screens were
torn out, and there was spoiled food and insects in the kitchen.
There are many, many more very unhealthy and unsafe aspects throughout
the property which can be substantiated by your own code enforcement
personnel. I personally walked through the unit, and I cannot
adequately describe the filth, the stench of garbage, urine, and the
piles of filthy clothing that were in that building. The property
owner is Jetmayer Distributors (phonetic), Incorporated, out of
Deerfield Beach, Florida, but I understand the unit does have an
in-town property manager who I have not been able to identify so far.
Question, and I must ask to you, commissioners, what can
be done to prevent recurrence of this type of health and safety
hazards in Collier County? But to continue, I have a few more
examples of rental units for you to review. And in this case I have
duplicates, so there are two boards representing the same properties.
I'll only highlight each of the properties depicted in these photos.
5397 25th Avenue Southwest, trash, debris, and other
material piled under the trees and bushes. I couldn't tell what all
was involved because I didn't want to trespass on the property. If
this is what it looks like outside, what does the inside look like?
5000 31st Avenue Southwest, debris piled at the curb,
trash piled alongside the house, weeds 3 feet high in the rear -- in
the rear yard. The building needed painted. Again, what does the
inside look like?
5160 31st Avenue Southwest, the weeds are out of
control, trash piled alongside the house, gaping holes in the garage
door. The building needed painting. Does the inside look the same?
5400 Coronado, trash and debris piled at the curb, trash
along the front of the building. The building needs painted. Is the
inside clean?
5220 28th Avenue Southwest, trash, bottles, and debris
piled under the bushes. The dumpster is overflowing. And if you
notice in the photo they also have a loaner cart from the supermarket,
The supermarket cart in the yard. Evidently K-Hart hasn't yet figured
out where they park the carts so they can retrieve it.
8124 24th Avenue Southwest, trash and debris piled on
the curb and along the entire front of the units. The overall
appearance is bad. Would the inside be any cleaner?
I've used these photographs to iljustrate that a real
problem does exist within Collier County regarding residential rental
properties. However, even photos do not adequately depict the overall
exterior condition of some of these units. Are tenters being required
to live in units that are substandard and possibly unhealthy? Are the
landlords or property managers acting in a responsible manner? It is
quite obvious that the owners and managers of these units are not
acting responsibly, but I also must give credit where credit is due.
There are a great number of rental units within Collier
County that are maintained in an excellent manner and are a credit to
the community. On this photo layout you will see two properties, 2454
and 2492, that are just north of the first fourplex I addressed of
2542 Santa Barbara Boulevard and the other two -- two properties,
excuse me, 2724 and 2748, just south of 2542 Santa Barbara. I have
included two other properties, 2567 55th Terrace Southwest and 2530
Tropicana Boulevard.
How would you feel if you owned property next to 2542
Santa Barbara or the health and safety factors plus a big factor of
what it does to the local property values? These photos show that
some landlords and property managers do care and are doing a good job
of maintaining their property. Responsible property owners desire and
expect your support to prevent a reoccurrence of a 2542 Santa Barbara
Boulevard.
However, we're here -- we are here today to talk about
the negative, not the positive. Rental properties, whether rental
property as commercial or business, all Collier County businesses are
required to obtain a C.O. prior to operation. A residential rental
unit is for the purpose of making money on your investment a
business. Something needs to be done. Collier County can no longer
rely solely on property managers or landlords to do the job. Some,
and I emphasize some of them, just don't care. I believe they're
referred to as slum lords.
The voluntary code enforcement controls are having an
effect on the overall appearance of Golden Gate in regards to cleanup,
control of weeds, exotics, and commercial, slash, abandoned vehicles.
However, beautification is only skin deep. Health and safety of
people are more important. The health and safety of tenters forced to
live in such an atmosphere as the one I described earlier, 2542 Santa
Barbara Boulevard, is of great concern to me and should be of great
concern to you, our elected county leaders.
The southwest part of Florida is known as a platinum
coast, and yet we permit certain business people to operate rental
units that should be burned, not lived in. I have listened to various
pros and cons as to the use of legality of a certificate of occupancy
for rental units. The use of a certificate sounds reasonable to me.
However, it may not be the total answer, but I do know that one bad
piece of property ruins the entire area. Something must be done. The
people have made the facts known. Voluntary compliance with some
property owners is not working. It's time for regulatory action.
We as the resident/homeowners' group and also the civic
association are willing to spend whatever time is required working
with staff or legal to find the solution to this matter. However, any
proposed solution must give regulatory personnel on-the-spot authority
to correct conditions of the type I have referenced. Any proposed
regulatory action must ensure that a vehicle is in place to allow
periodic inspection of all rental units. Any proposed regulatory
action must have the bark and also the bite to ensure that health and
safety conditions of rental units are maintained and not allowed to
deteriorate to the state of 2542 Santa Barbara. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The homeowners group and the
civic association are asking us to look at issuing a C.O. each time --
for rental properties each time a new tenant moves in or a -- or
something close to that to try to regulate the rental properties?
MR. WILT: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: First of all, I want to
compliment Dick in code enforcement. I think it was the same day as a
matter of fact, that complaint went for that Santa Barbara property
you were describing, which was disgusting, and you all were there.
And, matter of fact, I think our staff helped clean that up, and then
we in turn had billed the owner over in Deerfield Beach for that, but
they did a good job responding to that.
Also compliments to you on the volunteer code
enforcement patrol for -- we've got over a thousand citations turned
in during the past month.
MR. WILT: If I might --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The rentals are the biggest
problem. You're absolutely right. Trying to have -- I think the
thing you pointed out was -- said it's got to have the bite along with
the bark, and right now I'm not sure we do.
MR. WILT: It is our understanding that -- we need
something. We're not sure a certificate of occupancy is what's been
addressed. And that's why I mentioned to you in working with code
enforcement, they've been most cooperative with us out there with the
staff and your enforcement officers, and they're doing a great job.
But we need to go one step further. And we're willing to spend the
time and the effort to assist in any way we can. We need something,
an ordinance or something, or least a public hearing, a workout,
something. We need some control over these units, or the County needs
some control over these, not me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think I probably need to make
the Board aware, I have asked the county attorney as of a couple of
weeks ago to look into this and see what's legal, what's feasible,
what's cost effective, and see if we can do this. So if there's some
agreement from the Board, I think we probably need to set some sort of
calendar on when we want to accomplish this. Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any problem with
trying to set some sort of control for rental property when it gets
into the condition of some of the pictures we saw. We need to find a
way, though, to do it legally obviously.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Some areas in other parts of the
country I'm aware have permits for rental properties. I don't know
whether we can look at it that way where it could be an annually
renewable permit, which requires an inspection by our code
enforcement, or something similar to that in order to renew. And, of
course, the renewal permit price is tied to the cost of the inspection
and so forth like that. But I've heard some areas do that in order to
keep their rental properties on an upgraded basis.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Clark, is there any of the
concerns that have been raised here this morning that are not already
addressed through code enforcement?
MR. CLARK: Commissioner, I think there are -- I think
Mr. Wilt and the chairman and all of you have a good point. We do
have -- we do have ordinances that control a lot of this now. I think
perhaps we need to go one step more too. I also think we probably
need to workshop this with your direction. But if I might make a
couple comments, I have -- Mr. Wilt has gone with me on several
evenings -- or some evenings, and we've gone out and identified some
problems together. And we've also with the direction of Chairman
Constantine looked at this issue in depth.
The civilian patrol that they have there has immeasurably
helped the County identify some of the problems. We have over 1,000
complaints. I mean they're doing a tremendous job. They're the eyes
and ears. We're mostly responsive. I mean that's what are -- we
don't have the kind of resources to go out and look most of the time.
So in that regard we're continually responding, so they have
identified a lot of problems and over 1,000 in a little over a month.
If I might, I think we probably need to work with the
county attorney's office a little bit and establish some objective
criteria, and I think maybe Commissioner Matthews and all of you have
identified one means, I think, that might be possible to look at in
amending the ordinance. If -- if we have -- if we write an ordinance
that would say if we have outward signs, as Commissioner Wilt has
identified, outward signs of any property -- of any property that has
-- get away from the discrimination area. That way maybe -- outward
signs of deterioration, of considerable deterioration, of littering,
of unsanitary conditions, that a C.O. could be pulled on any
residence, rental or not. And that -- that may do away with -- and
maybe the county attorney would like to respond to that, but -- so we
could adequately put our resources to -- to something they could
identify or we could identify by driving by and seeing some
dilapidation, and there is a lot of it throughout the county. In
Immokalee, as you'll remember, we spent a lot of time up there and
have demolished, in fact, have declared through our ordinance, unsafe
structure, over 250 units unsafe and demolished them. Many of these
that we're talking about are not to that point, but they will get to
that point.
One of the areas that Mr. Wilt just addressed on Santa
Barbara of the Deerfield Beach people, they're in bankruptcy. So this
thing could go on for six months, a year, whatever. We do need more
teeth to do something. We send people out under emergency conditions
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a good point, Mr. Clark.
If those people are in bankruptcy, all the ordinances in the world are
not going to help that situation. In your study of this issue have
you made any quantification of how many inspections would be required
if we required an inspection at each rental turnover county-wide? I
mean there's got to be thousands and thousands.
MR. CLARK: If we did it on a county-wide basis it may
not -- in your -- I think -- in my opinion, I think you hit the
point. If we did that on a county-wide basis, we said a
million-dollar condo on Marco requires the same staff inspection as
something that has obvious deterioration, it wouldn't be productive
use of taxpayers' money at all. But if we could focus on some
objective criteria, say visible signs of neglect and so forth, then we
have --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That gets to the other point. The
other point is if we create an ordinance like this, we're going to
punish all the -- probably what -- 98 percent of the rental owners
unnecessarily by requiring inspections on them when they operate in a
fine manner --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- just to address the very few
that allow the properties to deteriorate like this. You know, I have
no interest in getting into that kind of regulation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I think the
point is the current ordinances are not able to meet --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think Mr. Clark said they were.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If I can finish. I think the
current ordinances are not able to meet in many cases in the rental
situations. I can tell you from serving close to three years on the
code enforcement board and from two years on this board, they are not
meeting other rentals. When you have absentee landlords, and you have
tenters that come and go, we get a problem. You look in the heart of
your district, Naples Manor, you see that problem. We had a terrible
problem while I was on the code enforcement board over there. We see
it in Golden Gate every day. I think what the residents are asking is
whether that is the particular solution or not, we need to find one.
And I've asked Mr. Cuyler to look into what may be legal and cost
effective and so on. Doing -- I have the same concern you have on
that specific solution, but that's not to suggest that we should just
throw up our hands and say there is no solution.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And you didn't let me finish
because that's not my point either. What I said was I could not
support legislation that required everyone to have these inspections
and when probably 95, 98 percent of the property owners, I would
guess, are fine. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't support tightening
up our codes where we could get more deep code enforcement and could
address the problems when they arise. But -- but to just paint
everyone with the same broad brush I think would be a mistake, and it
would be very expensive for the taxpayer too and unnecessary.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, you've had this on
your plate a couple weeks. I know you're going to need a little time
to work on it. Do you have any idea how much time?
MR. CUYLER: Again, this is something that probably a
combination of my interests and the Board's interests are going to
come into play. The four to six weeks is fine if you would like to
set that as a general time frame too.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. This
will all occur after my term on Board comes to a conclusion, but I
think we need to understand -- and I'm sure all of the members of the
Board do -- I mean the private property rights here that you're
dealing with and the pictures that have been shown to us here are
aesthetic issues in part. And my view is that you're not supposed to
put your garbage out except the night before the collection. We've
got that provision in the ordinance. There are existing ordinances.
It sounds to me that the real heart of the problem is an enforcement
issue.
You've made the point that with the cooperation of the
citizens in that particular area of our community we've identified
over a thousand violations. It becomes now the question of
enforcement. And all what I've seen here I think is -- most of what I
see here is addressed. When you get inside of someone's home and how
he keeps or they keep their food and what they keep on their floor,
the county attorney will advise to what extent you can through
legislation infringe upon the privacy of an individual's home, which I
think is going to be a difficult balance that you're going to have to
strike here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Clark, my suggestion perhaps
would be maybe to create such a -- such an authority for the county to
say you could pull the certificate of occupancy under objective
criteria. I mean there would have to be somebody -- that was -- we do
an inspection and find out obvious signs of neglect, deterioration,
violations, and the housing code violations, that we could pull the
C.O. under those circumstances, and they could not get another C.O. or
let anyone occupy that house or that structure until such time as all
those are cleaned up in addition to the authority we have now.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What do you do about the family
currently living there in a situation like that?
MR. CLARK: Well, that does create a legal dilemma as
far as -- but I think we would need to prosecute -- to be frank with
you, we're doing it right now. We have absentee owners who have
supposedly real estate agents down here who are getting paid to look
after the property. Therein lies most of the problem. So the real
estate agents or other people are absentee owners. Someone is not
supervising that property. It's an income property, as Mr. Wilts
stated, they are not supervising. We are now prosecuting real estate
agents who are getting paid for that, because in our ordinance it says
we can prosecute agents, owners, or tenants.
And we are even going to the agents now. If you have
somebody in Massachusetts that's very difficult for us to get up there
and serve notice on them, so we're even prosecuting agents right now
in Golden Gate on some of these properties. But I think this
additional -- if you want to direct staff to work with the county
attorney's office and create some objective criteria in that regard, I
think it may be effective.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Saunders.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion just to get
the issue on the floor that we do -- do direct staff to take a look at
the potential solutions to the problems that have been identified out
in Golden Gate and throughout the county. I, like Commissioner Volpe,
will caution the Board that even though we've identified a problem,
that doesn't mean that there's a solution that government can find for
it. This gets into a lot of tricky areas, but it is worth having the
county attorney evaluate what we can do.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I'll second the motion. I mean if
there are public funds that are involved, I think, is another issue
here, but you're talking about private enterprise. I'll second the
motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't want to drag this out
much longer. However I think the point that was made by Mr. Wilt, we
talked about health, safety, and welfare. Mr. Clark showed me these
photos. You open the refrigerator, and a couple hundred cockroaches
roll out. We're talking health, safety, and welfare.
All those in favor of the motion, state aye. Anyone
opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thanks. We'll try to have that back by
early December, mid-December.
MR. WILT: Thank you for your time.
Item #7C
JOHN C. CAPONE REGARDING THE HODIFICATION OF THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - TO BE HEARD ON REGULAR AGENDA ON
11-22-94
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. And 7-C, John Capone
regarding modification of south county regional wastewater treatment
facility. Good morning.
MR. CAPONE: Commissioners, my name is John J. Capone.
I'm an east Naples resident and a member of Taxpayer's Action Group.
I'm also a Florida Class-A wastewater treatment plant operator with 16
years experience in municipalities. I possess associates degrees in
both environmental science and engineering.
It is the request of TAG that the county commission
reconsider its appropriation of ten million dollars for certain
modifications to the south county regional wastewater treatment
facility. In particular, TAG wishes to address three critical issues
concerning this project: One, the construction of a newer aeration
basin using diffused air to replace the Orbal aeration basin, which
under your plan would be converted to an effluent storage tank to
eliminate odor and noise problems; two, the installation of deep well
injection sites as either the principal or alternative method of
effluent disposal; and, three, the use of sodium hypochlorite bleach
for disinfection of treated wastewater.
Our first point concerns the reasoning for replacement
of the Orbal aeration basin. With regard to noise problems,
engineering consultants claimed at the August 2nd, 1994, county
commission meeting that having covers over the rotors to provide sound
-- to provide sound insulation is not practical because the covers
would have to be removed too often. This argument is not true.
Covers only need to be removed for a few minutes each on a semimonthly
basis to check for loose discs. Furthermore, while rotor covers
designed by the manufacturer are intended for heat insulation in
northern states, no one, to our knowledge, has ever inquired as to the
availability of covers with special sound insulating properties.
Next, with regard to odor, be assured that no matter
what type of aeration process is used, there will always be some odor
at the beginning of the process, especially if the biomass is sick or
out of balance. Moreover, any mist forming in the air above the plant
has more to do with temperature differences between the air and water
and would take place no matter what type of aeration is used. This
facility, when operated correctly, will not produce the noxious odors
that nearby residents have been forced to experience in the past.
In further defense of the Orbal process, not only does
it possess nutrient reduction capability, it also has at times
produced some of the finest quality effluent I have personally seen in
my 16 years of working in wastewater treatment. Replacing the
aeration basin would only constitute a tremendous waste of federal
grant money and local tax dollars, as well as lost capacity to treat
wastewater. It is our belief that the worst of the odor problems have
been caused by periodically sour aeration basin due to improper
process control and not due to incoming raw sewage or defects within
the facility and that better operation of the current facility will
reduce odor problems.
The next major issue is that of wastewater plant
effluent disposal. Simply having more storage capacity does not
address the problem of disposal. We believe that the County should
greatly expand the area of its distribution system and utilize all of
the water for irrigation purposes rather than lose this valuable
resource to a very expensive deep well injection system. When supply
is eventually matched by the demand, Collier County would profit very
well by providing reclaimed water to paying customers. Until then it
should be given away to users at no charge.
The effluent distribution system is envisioned as
follows. Depending on space available, the treated wastewater would
be pumped to either a lake or a small storage tank located near each
golf course. The lakes would be lined to prevent percolation. Each
user would maintain their own pumping system at that site. In order
to handle the periods of heavy rain when demand for effluent is low,
overflow pipes would be installed at the tanks or lakes which would
allow water to enter a percolation pond. Additionally, miles of
median strips along U.S. 41 should also be utilized for effluent
disposal.
Finally, we wish the Board to consider the following
proposal for dealing with the current chlorine situation at the
plant. We feel that the County should stay with the present more cost
effective chlorination system. For safety purposes, however, it
should abandon the current chlorine building at the plant and utilize
this structure for storage of nontoxic inventory. A new chlorine
building should be erected on the other side of the aeration basin
where the current gas scrubber system exists. The new location for
the current building takes advantage of the aeration basin as a buffer
on the west side and the pond as a buffer on the east side.
Additionally, the old scrubber system should be
dismantled in order to build a larger system to better handle the
requirements. The same chlorination equipment used to disinfect
treated effluent could be used in the new scrubber system. This
should save money when compared to the current system whereby
contracted individuals are paid to come in periodically, service the
equipment, and replace chemicals. It would also provide better
service than the present system which seems to produce its own
offensive odor. See 10-8-91 memorandum, please.
This is a memorandum from myself who -- at the time I
was a senior operator at the plant to the chief operator. "This is to
inform management of the apparent side effects I have personally
experienced while working near the scrubber system. In my opinion,
this system is not functioning properly as per the noxious odor
emitting from the stack. While the long-term effects of breathing
this may be unknown, the short-term effects, though empirical in
nature, are substantial.
During evening hours especially the air lingers
virtually undisturbed. This causes a concentration of the emitted
gases around the facility. The odor becomes so strong at times that
it induces nausea and chest pains while walking along the south end of
the plant. Perhaps a blower could be utilized to reintroduce these
gases into the oxidation ditch, thus, eliminating them altogether."
My response to that was a couple days later of a memo
from the chief operator who was then the wastewater superintendent.
"As a follow-up to our discussion on the attached
memorandum, please be advised that I've also spoken with wastewater
director, Timothy L. Clemons, about senior operator John Capone's
concerns today.
I have spoken with two gentlemen that work on these
units on a daily basis. Neither of them said that they have
personally experienced any elements such as John's.
Additionally, Mr. Dave Hunterford has been contacted for
further discussion. He is the chief design engineer with Davis
Process. Currently he is out of the country attending the WPCF
conference. I will continue to seek an explanation and will advise
you accordingly." That was the only response I got on that.
Finally, with regard to chlorine trucks, it should be
noted that their proximity does not represent a danger unless valves
on the ton cylinders are not being replaced on a regular basis by the
supplier. This is easily monitored by staff and does not, to our
knowledge, present a problem with the currently contracted company.
To summarize, TAG believes that the county commission
must act discerningly on these three critical issues; the aeration
basin, the effluent disposal method, and the chlorination system. We
hope that the commission will seriously consider our proposals as many
millions of dollars would be saved. Thank you very much for
listening.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Tim we had a public hearing approximately
three months ago that was very widely attended by the residents of
Lely. I won't attempt to dispute nor argue against some of the claims
Mr. Capone has made, but we did have a very widely publicized public
hearing here during which time the Board has given us some alternative
direction to effectuate changes and modifications in treatment process
to that plant. Before you were going to entertain a petition to
expand that facility, you gave us that direction at the conclusion of
that public hearing several months ago. That work is in progress
under contract with a separate engineering firm that you selected at a
previous public hearing approximately six to nine months ago. And I
would think that if you would like an update during the preliminary
design phase, that we can do that. Otherwise I think that we have the
direction that we need to rectify some of the problems that are there
prior to us initiating the expansion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, you know I haven't
been happy with the way our utilities department has run as a whole.
You and I have discussed that a number of times. I have some concerns
here. I don't mind spending the funds out of what is in enterprise
funds, so this is not local taxpayer dollars. This is local utility
dollars, but I don't mind spending those funds when we are looking
toward the greater goal of trying to get the maximum use of that
facility.
I understand the residents of the two associations now
are in agreement to some limited expansion there, though I'm sure
we've gotten past the idea of ever going to twenty-four or thirty-two
million gallons a day at that site. That's not appropriate.
But I guess I would like to see that update. If this is
solely for the purpose of clearing the odor and noise problems, then I
share Mr. Capone's concerns, that nine million dollars, ten million
dollars may be excessive. If this is included as what I thought was
explained to us three months ago, was some of those costs are also
preparing for potential expansion to sixteen million gallons a day,
then I'm more comfortable with that. But I, for one, would like to
see this item come back for a review process. This has been very
sensitive for Commissioner Norris and for the residents of his
district, and I think it certainly would benefit all of us to keep a
thumb on that as we go through the process.
MR. DORRILL: We'd be happy to do that, and I understand
that you may have some particular conclusions that are different from
the other members on the Board, but in particular we were directed to
begin the preliminary design to change the disinfection process.
Aside from Mr. Capone's observations and comments concerning chlorine
gas, I think that by and large the staff would agree that chlorine gas
is otherwise widely accepted throughout the industry for purposes of
disinfection, and from an business standpoint, they are very few and
far between, but that's not the direction that the Board gave us. The
Board gave us direction to pursue a change in disinfection to go to
the liquid chlorine bleach system.
I have similar contentions with his statements
concerning effluent reuse. All of the golf courses in south and east
Naples at the moment do participate and have storage and use
agreements for effluent reuse for golf courses. To try and go back
and redesign that now and dig perc ponds within existing subdivisions
is just, frankly, something that I don't think has a practical use.
That's not to say that it couldn't be evaluated separately. But if
overall what you want is an update in the preliminary design work that
Hole, Montes is doing, we're more than willing and -- and should
receive that, and we can schedule that within 30 days if you'd like a
review of that in terms of what they're at.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, is there anything in
Mr. Capone's presentation today that he has not made over the years
before at some previous time?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Capone is a former county employee and
whose relationship, at least with my office, has been good. Over --
over the years he has filed complaints against the Board of County
Commissioners for the original Glades and the original Lely wastewater
treatment plants. He's filed complaints with the current south county
regional wastewater treatment plant, all of those with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. Their surprise inspections
and results are documented. I can share that with you. He has most
recently filed a complaint against the Board of County Commissioners
and Federal Environmental Protection Agency concerning the south
county plant.
The one area that -- that is new in terms of his
complaints against that plant is his question concerning capping the
aeration process and his contention that while the insulating
characteristics of that traditionally are for temperature insulating,
he has asked a question specifically whether it can pose a acoustical
benefit. That is something new, and I think that is something,
frankly, that can and should be evaluated and a proper response
given.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My question really was are there
any new claims today that we have not heard before and that we have
not examined the validity of before.
MR. DORRILL: Not from my perspective other than the one
that I mentioned. He's asking you in effect, I believe -- and he
should correct me if I'm wrong -- that you need to reconsider your
direction of several months ago and especially as it concerns the
current oxidation ditch in its proximity to those homes along the
southeastern edge of Lely. And he's also questioning whether you
should change the disinfection from chlorine gas canisters to liquid
chlorine.
MR. CAPONE: The sum total of my expertise on this
subject is not limited to this report, and I have additional support
for each one of those items if you are interested in hearing them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The -- you're right as far as the
Board did give direction particularly with the chlorine, that type of
thing. I don't have as much concern there if there's a certain level
of safety, even if it's a minimal amount, if that is attained and puts
that neighborhood more in use that benefits us all. I would like to
look at the possibility of covering that oxidation ditch and doing
some of those things that aren't available. I would like very much to
see that. I have to assume if that can help us with the noise or help
us with solving these problems, perhaps it will lower costs. It's
worth looking at.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My memory on this aeration tank
on the presentation that we had a few months ago, the methodology for
the aeration tank itself is being changed and that instead of having
the wheels that go round and throw it up in the air and atomize it in
the air, we're going to have air pumped -- or oxygen pumped in from
the bottom.
MR. DORRILL: From the bottom.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that we're reconfiguring the
entire tank and that the reconfiguration is part of the expansion that
we're going to come up with a sixteen-million-gallon-a-day tank at the
end. So the ten million dollars is part of this expansion project as
well is what my understanding was.
MR. DORRILL: And I think that if we're directed to have
a review of the engineering that's being done, perhaps you should
understand what is the difference between the change or fix in
disinfection and treatment versus the cost attendant to expansion.
They are two different issues by and large, and if you want to see the
breakout of what the current engineer's estimate of cost is, that's an
easy thing to do.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just -- the ten million
dollars is not to -- the way my mind remembers it, is not to fix the
existing problem at the existing facility, but it's part of the
expansion change.
MR. DORRILL: It's -- it is part of that, but it's not
exclusively just fixing what's wrong. There are costs attendant to
expanding the capacity; that's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I mean the presentation
given to us was a new aeration tank.
MR. CAPONE: A replacement.
MR. DORRILL: And change in process.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And change in process.
MR. DORRILL: Change this tank to effluent storage.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's what the ten million
dollars is.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONERS MATTHEWS: Replacement of the current
eight-million-gallon-a-day tank with the sixteen million gallon with a
different process?
MR. DORRILL: Different process, and then the conversion
of what I call the ox-ditch tank that is there now with the disc
wheels to be an effluent storage tank. It's not going to be
demolished, but it will be for storage purposes for rainy-day storage
in particular.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I thought.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unless the Board objects, why
don't we try to get Mr. Taylor from Hole, Hontes to come in perhaps
sometime during early December and update us on where we're at, and
perhaps we can explore some of the alternatives at that time. If --
you know, if there's something we're missing here, there's a more cost
effective way, I think it's our duty to look at it. But the majority
of the direction we gave Mr. Hontes, I'm comfortable -- I mean Mr.
Taylor -- I'm comfortable with. But there are a couple of legitimate
questions raised here.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I was going to make the comment,
Mr. Chairman, that the direction I recall was given to the consulting
engineers was to begin the design work for the change in treatment
methodology, and I'm reasonably confident that they've embarked upon
that process and to delay this for 30 to 45 days with even the
prospect of maybe going back to different treatment.
MR. DORRILL: I'm not anticipating a delay,
Commissioner. I'm telling you if you would like to see -- in fact,
the contract was -- some -- some work has already begun. The
contract, to my knowledge, was executed two or three weeks ago.
there -- there's not a tremendous amount of work that has already been
done. And if you want a status report within 30 days, I think that's
something that we can do. The one area in particular that we did not
talk about was the evaluation of a deep well versus what other
alternatives would be available for effluent disposal.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, Mike HcNees with the
utilities division. You may recall that you asked us to come back to
you on November 22nd with a report on our effluent status, and we'll
be happy to give you an update on these items as well. I think pretty
much everything discussed this morning are items that were brought to
you as options when you had your prior public hearings, and we'll be
glad to update you on where we stand today and how we stand on this
process when we come back on November the 22nd.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That will be an interesting issue
for our two new members.
MR. CAPONE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that any
-- any methodology used to handle waste is going to have pros and
cons or advantages and disadvantages. But I think if you look at the
capital costs, the operating costs, and the potential damage to the
environment of each, that the percolation pond system is -- is by far
the most common method used. It's widely used over the deep well
injection system, which is only used in areas where they have no other
choice. An example would be north Fort Myers utilities. That sewage
plant is out in the middle of a swamp. There is standing water all
around it all the time. There is no place to build percolation
ponds. There is no place to spray irrigate, so they have no choice
but to go with deep well injection.
We have a choice. We have a lot of room, and most
utilities that -- that have spray irrigation as their primary effluent
disposal have percolation ponds as the backup.
Now, there are several advantages of it. The
percolation ponds will add to the water table, maintain the water
table to head off drought periods. I know that right now maybe some
people can't conceive of a drought, but ten years ago we did have a
very severe drought period, which leads to other problems like sink
holes and damage to roads and sewer lines and things like that which
have costs.
The disadvantages of percolation ponds are that you
can't just put them anywhere, and you can't just spray irrigate
anywhere. You cannot build a perc pond above an aquifer recharge
system or upstream as the groundwater flows from an aquifer recharge
system. But aside from that, generally that's the way it's done. I
have a lot of problems with the deep well injection system. There's a
difference between --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I tell you what. Mr. Capone, I
don't want to get into each one of those issues today because the
public petition isn't the proper forum for that. What I will suggest,
Mr. HcNees said he's willing to open up each one of those issues on
the 22nd when we have our update and our new Board members. I would
encourage you and the members of TAG to participate. That's three
weeks from today. And if you could be prepared particularly on deep
well and the covering of the ox-tank issue -- MR. CAPONE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- I, for one, would find that
very helpful. I don't think it's appropriate we get into each one of
those issues today, but we will hear those in their entirety on the
22nd.
MR. CAPONE: It's for your information, and I'm willing
-- I come here in good faith to be of assistance to you free of
charge, and any expertise that I can lend in that area, I'll be glad
to. As I said or was about to say, I think there's some possible
geologic damage that maybe the commission isn't aware of with deep
well injection system on that magnitude and also the other areas that
I feel that we have a lot of evidence to support the reasons for our
positions, and I will be here in three weeks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Let's take about a
ten-minute break. We'll come back at quarter of the hour.
(A short break was held.)
Item #SA1
CARNIVAL PERMIT 94-4 RE PETITION C-94-4, REVEREND JOSEPH SPINELLI OF
ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A
CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBER 9 THROUGH NOV 13, 1994, AT 5325 28TH AVENUE
S.W., GOLDEN GATE - APPROVED
CHAIRKLAN CONSTANTINE: We are back. Item 8-A-l,
petition C-94-4, St. Elizabeth Seton, a Catholic church, requesting a
permit to conduct a carnival. This is I'm guessing the same carnival
they have every year for the past -- forever.
MR. HULHERE: For the record, Paul Hulhere, with
planning services. Actually this petition and the next one are both
carnival permits. I could read a brief description --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just a second.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Nothing unusual?
MR. HULHERE: Nothing unusual.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to
approve that.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's for both of them?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's take them one at a time.
MR. HULHERE: One, our Lady of Guadalupe is requesting
waiver of the surety bond. I just wanted to get it on the record.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. We have a motion on
C-94-4. There's a second. Any discussion? All those in favor of the
motion, state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 4-0, Commissioner
Matthews out of the room.
Item #8A2
CARNIVAL PERMIT 94-5 RE PETITION C-94-5, OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE
CATHOLIC CHURCH REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL NOVEMBER 23
THROUGH NOVEMBER 27, 1994, ON THEIR CHURCH GROUNDS LOCATED AT 219
SOUTH 9TH STREET IN IHMOKALEE - APPROVED
8-A-2, petition C-94-5. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hotion to approve.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Discussion on that item? All those in favor of the motion, state
aye. Motion carries 4-0.
Item #8A3
DOA-94-4 AND RESOLUTION 94-774 RE PETITION DOA-94-4, GEORGE VARNADOE
OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP, VARNADOE AND BENTON, P.E., REPRESENTING
IHMOKALEE ROAD PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE WOODLANDS
(DRI) DEVELOPMENT ORDER 86-1 BY EXTENDING THE DATE OF INITIAL
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE BUILD OUT DATE BY FOUR (4) YEARS AND
ELEVEN (11) MONTHS - ADOPTED
morning.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask you a question.
this particular item considered a nonsubstantial change? MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And you're recommending
approval?
Next item, 8-A-3, petition DOA-94-4. Hr. Nino, good
MR. NINO: Good morning. I'm Ron Nino for the record.
Is
HR. NINO: Yes, we are.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's just meet --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I might add to that at the
Regional Planning Council we heard this item. It was not considered
any substantial change at all.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to approve
petition DOA-93-4.
MR. CUYLER: And to adopt the resolution in your agenda
package?
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion, and I'm
hesitating. Second. All those in favor of the motion, state aye.
Anyone opposed? Motion carries four to zero.
Item #8A4
COUNTY NLA/~AGER DIRECTED TO ORGANIZE CONTRACTORS FOR VOLUNTEER WORK AS
WELL AS INMATES FROM COPELAND PRISON TO COMPLETE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
TO INFRASTRUCTURE IN COPELAND WITH NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING BEING
AUTHORIZED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 8-A-4, recommendation to
provide additional funding to complete capital improvements to
infrastructure to the Lee Cypress area in Copeland, Florida.
MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Greg
Mihalic. I'm before you this morning to request additional funding
for a community development block grant project for the Lee area of
Copeland. In 1992 the Department of Community Affairs awarded
$650,000 community development block grant for the neighborhood
revitalization of the Copeland area of Florida. These capital
improvements for this project included street improvements, water
facilities, sewer facilities, code enforcement, water hookups, and
sewer hookups, and most of the portions of the project have been
completed.
We had a lot of volunteers that have been involved in
this project. There were over 150 tons of debris that were removed
from Copeland during the code enforcement activities. 30 abandoned
and deficient buildings have been leveled in Copeland, and it's really
a different community today than it was several years ago. However,
because of the tightness of funding of this project, it really
probably required almost a million dollars of funding to do the
project properly, but the maximum funds we could get from the
Department of Community Affairs under this program was $650,000.
Before the project could even go forward, we had to
remove $42,000 from the contracted services of the contractor to be
even able to start the project, and then we had no contingency left.
Our engineer for the project, Wilson, Miller, is here to answer any
additional questions you may have. But I need to ask you for some
additional funds to add additional piping to the water treatment plant
that's in the area. This is a requirement the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection has changed since we originally started the
job.
The water and sewer hookups for the houses, the 64
houses in this area, were initially to be done by volunteers with
donated material. This was required because of the limited funding
that we had available to us, and the community at the time thought
that they could voluntarily hook up their houses and dig the trenches
and run the piping. There also was the potential availability of some
labor from the local prison facility. These volunteers are no longer
available, and the prison labor is no longer available. And I'm
coming back to ask the Board for some additional funds in this area.
We've gone out to some estimates to private plumbers, and the lowest
bid we received -- the lowest estimate we received was approximately
$50,000 to do the hookups for the houses for the water and sewer. For
the water and sewer hookups we need some construction management. I'd
like to say that I certainly appreciate the on-site supervision by the
Department of OCPH, and I would hope that they will continue to donate
their time to oversee this project and handle the inspections on it.
We have a tract of the original area, tract H-1 through
H-7, that was within the original grant application but was not
specified to the engineer to be included with water and sewer piping,
and we need to add this back in for a total of $4,000. We originally
thought we needed money for the abandonment of some lift stations that
are associated with the existing sewage collection services. Our
engineer now advises us that, in their opinion, this is part of the
construction services that the general contractor, Florida State
Underground, is responsible for. So we can eliminate the request for
the thousand dollars in that area. And we're asking for some
additional contingency money.
I believe that if -- if things go as well as they can
go, the maximum amount of funding that will be required for the
additional cost overruns and additional parts of the project are
$66,500. Of that the State is authorized to shift $42,000 from the
hurricane assistance grant funds, which will partially fund this --
these cost overruns and changes, which could make the County's
involvement as little as $25,000. But I need to ask you for more than
that for contingencies and other overruns that may take place.
We originally were asking for $76,486 from the County.
I can certainly cut that back by a thousand or two, but I don't want
to be back there -- back here in a month or two from now because I
need more money. I would say that -- like I say, if things go well,
we could utilize as little as $26,000 of these funds. If we run into
more problems, we could obviously use up the maximum amount.
Can I answer any questions you might have on this or
have our engineers, Wilson, Miller --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One particular concern -- I don't
have any problem at all with the additional piping or the tracts or
the abandonment of the lift stations and so on. And obviously we need
to finish the project. However, you may recall the first thing this
morning when we were debating whether or not to keep the casino issue
on for discussion, I said nothing bothers me more than when the Board
waivers from week to week on its policy. This is an issue which is
older than a week old, but the policy -- when east Naples sewer
hookups were forced in Coconut Estates and Flamingo Estates, in that
area, those people were forced to pay themselves. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We did provide financing and
allow them to spread that out over time. However, we didn't pay for
those hookups in their entirety with the exception of what we've now
established for a few people in hardship areas. I have a hard time
turning around and putting in a complete system at the expense, not
only of the entire system, but of those people in particular who just
got done being forced to pay in east Naples, and now we're asking them
to pay again for the people in Copeland. And I understand we're
trying to do a community effort, but I have a strong concern when we
flip-flop on our policy that way. What's good for one area of the
county should be good county-wide.
MR. MIHALIC: I understand that concern, but in this
particular case, commissioner, we have an audit by the Department of
Community Affairs that says we will hook up these people for very low
income at no cost to them. That is one of the audit findings that
they have made in this particular project.
MR. DORRILL: I should say too, if you don't mind, we
have an opportunity to appeal that. The difference between the east
and south county project, this project is not a county commission
utility project. This project is not part of your utility division.
You were requested as a result of a public petition originally on
behalf of this community to be their local sponsor because they did
not have the ability to apply to the State for funds to build their
own utility system.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if I recall when they
requested us to be that sponsor, the question was specifically asked
would this cost us dollar one, and we were told no, absolutely not.
MR. DORRILL: And there are -- some of the original
residents are here this morning, and I will tell you that I think that
they responded in good faith at that time, that they were going to
work with the Collier County Plumbers and Mechanical Contractors
Association and utilize volunteers and licensed plumbers to effectuate
their service line in the connection from their house down to where
the public utility line will be. I will let them speak for
themselves, but I think the good intentions of volunteerism and the
work by the contractors association, they have not materialized. And
they either need your help to make that happen on a volunteer basis,
or otherwise the State is going to come down here and has made a
finding that these people do not appear to have the ability, because
this is one of the poorer neighborhoods in the county. And then
they're going to come back, and because you're convenient the State is
going to say, well, then we're going to compel the county commission
to do this. That is appealable, and you need to know that. That will
take us through a Chapter 125 appeal-type mechanism.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I have to say I
agree with your comments. I think we established a policy in the east
and south county sewer expansion project, and we did allow for
hardship cases, as you recall and pointed out. I have no objection
either to making the -- the small capital improvements that we need to
do, but as far as paying for hookups, I don't think we should do
anything that's any different than we did in east Naples. And by that
I mean they -- the people are -- are able to qualify under our
hardship criteria, that's fine. We'll treat them just as we did the
east Naples residents. Even though, as county manager pointed out,
this is not an official county utility project, I think the Board of
Commissioners needs to be evenhanded in the application of their
policies.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thanks. One of -- one of the
problems that we may be headed for based on what you're saying is that
one of the conditions of the $650,000 grant was that we make
arrangements for these people to be hooked up at no charge. MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And while I agree, I'm -- I'm
not happy either about the course of the events and the fact that the
volunteer labor and so forth has dissipated. Perhaps we can find a
way to reconstruct that. I don't know. But I would ask that for a
cost of what may be only be twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars in
the end, that we move carefully and not have the State come in and
demand that we hook up, and we go through an appeal process, and we do
all these things that may in the end cost us a great deal more money,
and we have to hook them up in the end anyway or get the $650,000
back. So I'm asking that we proceed carefully with this. I
understand the problem, and I'm not happy with it either, and I -- I
wish that we in -- well, it wasn't us. It was a prior Board in August
or February of '92 when the application was made -- had a more
definitive plan for what these volunteer efforts were going to be, but
we're here now in 1994.
MR. MIHALIC: I think the problem is really -- this job
required much more than $650,000 in Copeland. That was the problem.
That was the maximum grant that could be applied for. It was cut and
cut and cut, and I think that while the people did, indeed, volunteer
and say they would do the hookups, I'm not sure that was realistic
even with their best intentions at the time to do that. That's the
problem.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I certainly wish someone had
shared that with us on the front end of this instead of the back end.
MR. DORRILL: That was, Mr. Chairman, and I think that I
had intended for Wilson, Miller to speak. Wilson, Miller's original
estimates that were shared indicated that the totality of the work
could not be done for the amount of the grant. The one exception to
that was the one requirement that was made at the plant for some
additional piping, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. We
knew when we went into this that we were going into it on a lick and a
promise by the residents that once the system was there, that they
would develop the mechanism to hook up.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mihalic's comment was that
perhaps we knew, despite best intentions, that there would not be the
ability to fulfill the intent of those intentions. Nobody told us
that at the beginning. At the beginning the question was specifically
asked, will this cost the County anything if we sponsor this project.
And the answer was no, it will not. Now we're being told, well, maybe
we knew that. Well, if we did, we should have been told that at the
front end when that question was asked. We were not.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we hear from the two
commissioners that were on the Board at the time what their
recollection might have been?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Volpe?
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: My recollection is it was expressed
by the chair that we were asked to be the project sponsors but that it
was simply lending our support but that we were not by that
underwriting any of the costs of the project. That was my
recollection where we were on this particular project. In that
regard, Mr. Mihalic --
MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: -- just a couple of questions. You
mentioned there are 64 residences that are required to be hooked up?
MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How many of them are mobile homes?
MR. MIHALIC: I'm not sure of the percentage. I can
find out from staff if you'd like to know, but a substantial
percentage are mobiles.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are mobile homes?
MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are these within rental parks, or
are they condominiums, or how are they set up? Are there master
meters or individual meters for these various --
MR. MIHALIC: Right now there is nothing. There will be
individual meters when we finish hooking them up. Right now -- I
don't know if there's a master metering system on the --
MR. DORRILL: It's not a rental park, Commissioner. The
Lee Cypress community at Copeland is an old logging camp, and in many
instances the old cabins or the -- the buildings that were built for
the loggers and the cypress industry back in the '20s and the '30s are
still there. Some of them are. There are mobile homes that are
probably some of them approaching 20 to 30 years old that are parked
on the other lots, but the lots are otherwise owned by the resident or
either the landlord there, but it's not a rental-type park.
MR. MIHALIC: I've just been told that there's only one
master meter by the well where it comes out of the well. There's
approximately 40 mobile homes I've been told.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: 40 of the 64 are mobile homes?
MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How many of those are occupied --
are homesteaded?
MR. MIHALIC: About 40 of all the houses are owner
occupied. 19 are rental. One has no response. There's three other
lots that -- where something is burned down, so there are three that
are not occupied at all at this time.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You said it was going to cost
$50,000 to hook up these 64 homes.
MR. MIHALIC: That's the best estimate that we got.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. Your budget shows $80,000.
MR. MIHALIC: That was an estimate by the general
contractor, Florida State Underground. That's what they would charge
us to hook up the lots. That was an estimate by the present general
contractor who really doesn't want to do the job.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. So where did the $50,000
come from?
MR. MIHALIC: We went out with some estimates to
plumbers to ask them what they would charge us to do the project, and
that was the, quote, best estimate that has come back so far. We have
to re -- we have to put this out on a bid. If the job is not done by
the general contractor or our own utility people don't do it, we
basically have to go out with a bid with a community development block
grant type of a bid.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I guess where I'm driving is that,
number one, I have some reservations about the community, certainly
the general fund, underwriting the cost of these sewer and water
hookups. If what you said, that this is a condition of obtaining the
block grant was that we as a Board signed on to the bottom line that
says if there's any shortfall in this project, we will underwrite the
cost of that project, I didn't understand that we were doing that, and
I apologize for not having been insightful enough to realize that was
happening.
MR. MIHALIC: That was before my time, so I cannot speak
to what was told to the Board when it came forward, but generally the
things that were enumerated in the grant request were required to be
done.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Then even if we were in that
process, it seems to me that we've got an obligation to cut these
costs to the very minimum --
MR. HIHALIC: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: -- and your request is even though
you can see some cost savings, you're leaving the number at $80,000
even though the estimate you've got is $50,000. You've got $18,000 in
there for contingencies. I mean maybe we have to provide the
laterals, but do we have to buy the meters as well?
MR. HIHALIC: We anticipate using used water meters that
the utility services department takes out over time. But we've found
out that they say most of those malfunctioned, and they want to charge
us essentially $1,600 to check those used water meters where new ones
are $2,400, so the used water meter scenario didn't make economic
sense.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I think we have a responsibility
beyond this discussion. If you've got 40 people who are mobile home
dwellers, and then you said that there are, I think, 20 did you say or
14 that were rental?
MR. HIHALIC: Yes, 19 are rental at least.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: 19 are rental at least. You know,
Mr. Dotrill said that -- I think you did too, Mr. Hihalic, that
there's been a predetermination made that all of these people are
eligible for some sort of government subsidy.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes. They were surveyed originally. They
met the low or very low income --
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: When were they surveyed
originally?
MR. HIHALIC: That was developed in '91. Actually
happened in '91.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: We need to do our homework to pare
down the cost to see if there are any of these costs that can, in
fact, be transferred to the perhaps out-of-state owner of a mobile
home located in this area of our community to make sure that those
people are qualified. I just don't think that we should underwrite
the entire $118,000 if we're obligated to do that in the first
instance.
MR. HIHALIC: I think that's reasonable. I will work to
that. Like I said, I would hope that we can keep our County
contribution to $26,000. And if everything works out well, that is
what it would be. $42,000 will come from the State from shifting
funds from another grant. We'll need about $26,000.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Let me just -- if that's the case,
you said realistically all you're going to need hopefully is 23,000?
MR. HIHALIC: 26,000.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: 26,000?
MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm certainly not supportive of
saying, well, we'll budget $76,000 right now, and you don't have to
come back to us later on if you need some additional money.
MR. MIHALIC: That's if everything falls the right way.
But I think there's a big latitude there, Commissioner. We can
currently cut that $76,000 figure down appropriately.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have three public speakers on
this item.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Miss Jane Bee, if you would,
please, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: She'll be followed by Greg Bee.
MR. DORRILL: Greg Bee. Mr. Bee, if I could have you
sit here. Mr. Bee, if you would come and stand by Mrs. Bee, if you
would.
MS. BEE: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Jane Bee, president
of the Lee Cypress Water and Sewage Co-op, as I have been since it was
formed. If I may for a minute give you some history and perspective.
Originally our community was Lee Tidewater Cypress Lumber Company, a
company town. All residents worked for the company and lived in
company homes that most were rough-cut cypress shacks, sometimes two
families to a home. The cypress was cut, snaked out of the swamp, and
put on railroad cars to be shipped north. Cut lumber came back precut
to the homes. The company town was sold to Turner Corporation and in
turn sold to millionaire Doug HcGoon. As his health and finances
failed, he began selling off the lots. The water and sewer system ran
from home to home as each new one was built. The system was
extended.
Our sewer plant is old and yet still functioning within
the parameter of DEP's rules. It meets all current requirements. Our
water supply, again, according to the DER, is the best water south of
Gainesville. Many of our people still live on the lots they rented
back in 1943, some in renovated cypress homes, some in trailers, some
in Jim Walter homes. The fact that Mr. HcGoon made it possible for
them to own their own home has not been forgotten even though Mr.
HcGoon is gone.
We have four streets that were the original town. Then
we have two streets in the HcBeth Park subdivision. At the top of the
lake and in the woods we have another 20 families on the water system
alone plus 10 or 15 more families that would come on line if this
project ever gets finished. The town and HcBeth Park are on water and
sewer. The top of the lake in the woods are on the water system, but
all have septic tanks. The ones not on the system have their own
wells as well as septic tanks, but they're anxious to come aboard
which will increase our financial integrity.
Our people cover a broad spectrum of categories. We
have blacks, whites, Hispanics, and some malinias. Our oldest citizen
is almost 90 years old and the youngest just a few months. The
average income is approximately $6,000 a year. Jobs range from
seasonal work as hotel maids and maintenance, waitresses, tour guides,
correctional officers, postal workers, laborers, park rangers, bus
drivers, nurses, and retirees and aviation workers. Some of these
people have lived there their whole lives, and some were relocated
from the Alley. Some of our seniors are raising their grandchildren
and great grandchildren. We fill two school buses with children for
Everglades City School. The school enrolls only approximately 239
students, and we provide almost one-half of those students.
When Harilyn Connor Reynolds was forced by finances to
give up the water company, she offered it to the County first who
turned it down. She then approached several of us in the town, and we
formed a cooperative. Each family in this town owns one share of this
co-op. We had town meetings and began applying for grants from the
Farmers Home Administration. We were approached by the County and
told that they had obtained a grant for us and would upgrade our
system, provide fire coverage that we've never had, haul off 50 years
of accumulated trash, pave the streets, remove all the old shacks and
trailers, and bring us in compliance with the DER's ever-changing
rules.
We were thrilled. We were going to have new underground
water and sewer lines, new automatic lift stations, a cleared
reinforced firm for our percolation pond, and a fence around that
pond. We were getting new and bigger wells and pumps, storage tanks,
a pump and chlorinating house.
Right now our pump house is a four-sheet cypress shack
and a pump with a little injector chlorine pump. This new system is
going to be heaven for us. At the time the grant was applied for --
and we found out that inadvertently the house hookups had been dropped
from the grant. I work at a prison. And I went to my superintendent,
and I said, I have a community that's going to die if we can't save
the water system. And he gave me two public service squads that would
come out and dig the ditches from the streets to the home. That was
two years ago. My superintendent is no longer in charge of the works
-- the Copeland Road Prison. We no longer have the work squads
available. But for two years I had available to me 30 inmates that
would have hand dug these ditches to the homes because we have a
superintendent of prisons that feels if you stop problems in the
community, you don't need so many prisons, and he was going to use
inmates to save the community. It wasn't a pie in the sky volunteer
system. We were really going to help make this work. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We don't usually allow that. If
you want to wrap up your comments in another minute or two, that's
fine.
MS. BEE: We didn't try to snow you guys. We really
want this to work. We've worked closely with the County. They worked
closely with us. We tried to get our own grant money. You guys saved
our lives, and we appreciate it. We just want it finished. We've
tried everything we can, and we've run out of volunteers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, there's one
additional speaker.
MR. DORRILL: There is Hiss Lord. I was not aware until
I spoke to -- Ms. Lord, if you will come forward.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Hay I just ask, ma'am, under the
cooperative arrangement you bill your utility customers on a regular
monthly basis '-
MS. BEE: Yes, we do.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: -- for the service?
MS. BEE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: And does any part of the monthly
billing involve the maintenance, repair, and replacement or any
capital costs that will be anticipated? I realize it's a small system
and the like.
MS. BEE: We bill $34 a month, and that provides water
and sewage. It also provides us to replace the pipes and have a
maintenance man that runs around and pumps the lift stations every
day. We -- we all own this system. We run it at no profit by
accident and on purpose, because there is no money in the town. If
the County came over and billed the same rates down there they bill in
the city, we couldn't survive. The town would die. With this new
system with the pipes buried, we won't have the breakage. We won't
have the repairs. We'll be able to eventually break even and go
ahead. As it is now we have board members that are paying phone bills
and paying electric bills and buying chlorine. We want this town to
live, and we're just asking, please help us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the
Board? You got a suggestion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- what I would like to
see this board do is to move ahead and try to use the $42,000 that we
-- that we have available and perhaps -- let me ask this question.
Mr. Dotrill, you and I talked a little bit about this a couple weeks
ago, and you had indicated that it may be possible that our -- our own
-- own utilities staff might be able to over time make these
installations?
MR. DORRILL: I acknowledged what I felt was going to be
what I've already heard today, which is a reluctance to use taxpayer
funds in support of making the hookups. The system is in, and what I
had offered to you at that time would be to see whether we could still
arrange for volunteer labor through the road prison that is at
Copeland, even if it took me making a plea of whomever the new
superintendent is, and existing county utility crews to provide
in-kind services but no cash.
The one area that we are deficient on is I don't have a
licensed plumber on the staff of the County utility division, and that
may sound funny. We don't need a licensed plumber. We have licensed
water and wastewater operators. The building codes require someone
who is a licensed plumber to go down and certify the physical
connection with the utility-owned pipe, and the domestic supply pipe
and we need a licensed plumber. We are still going to need the aid of
the Collier County Plumber and Mechanical Contractors Association to
do that at either no cost or some nominal cost, and someone is going
to have to pay for that.
There has already been a great deal of volunteer work
that has been done by your County employees on their own time on
Saturdays and Sundays to clean up the town, and so there's a
willingness upon the part of your staff to go down there and try to
make this happen. You need to give us that policy direction as to
whether you want any County cash spent as opposed to in-kind
services.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm well aware of the work that
was done last year, the development services group and it's
specifically code enforcement, many, many hours and days of work that
our staff were in there.
MR. MIHALIC: As well as private people who have donated
their time and their waste management facilities and things like that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the citizens who live there
also. They've passed many weekends of cleaning out undergrowth and
tires and white goods and 50 years' worth of stuff, as Ms. Bee said.
MR. MIHALIC: 150 tons.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think what I would like to do,
and we're probably going to have to give the grant people some
indication of what we're going to do fairly quickly, would be possibly
between now and next Tuesday to contact the plumbers and
subcontractors association, see if we can get a group of plumbers
willing to devote a few hours to check the hookups to certify them and
perhaps talk with the Copeland prison to see if we can get the labor
to dig the -- to dig the ditches, and then take the $42,000 that we do
have available to keep our costs as low as possible.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Your suggestion is funded from
the emergency assistance grant that we already have available to us
plus the volunteers.
MR. KELLER: I'd like --
MR. DORRILL: Excuse me just a second, Mr. Keller.
Excuse me just a second. But no cash. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
MR. DORRILL: It would either be in kind or volunteer
through either the County utility division or just volunteer County
employees, the prison, or the plumber contractors' association.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are some parts of this
that we probably will have to put some cash out. I'd like to try to
limit that to the $42,000 we've got available.
MR. DORRILL: That's the State money, and I'm taking
that into account.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Keller.
MR. KELLER: I'm George Keller, concerned citizen.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Keller, just a moment,
please. You as well as anybody -- no, as a matter of fact, a week ago
you stood up and complained because we weren't following procedure, so
I'm going to ask you this morning to follow procedure. From here on
please do sign up. Secondly, don't talk at the same time because our
court reporter is trying to get all this down. Thirdly, you do need
to identify yourself for the record.
MR. KELLER: I'm George Keller, concerned citizen. Are
all these people invalids down there? They can't dig their own
ditches? These two ladies that just walked up, they looked to me like
as if they could use a shovel. I dug my own ditches. I dug my own
ditches when I was 62. So let's -- let's -- you know, it's nice to be
generous, but these people want water hookup. Can't the kids go out
and dig these ditches? You only need to go down about 18 inches or
something.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Keller.
MR. DORRILL: -- in defense of the women who are here
today, they have single-handily run and kept water to these homes and
subsidized, so I would apologize in terms of -- (Applause)
MR. MIHALIC: Let me say, Commissioner, that much of the
substrate of this area is crushed rock. It is not sand that you can
dig into very easily.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I would make a motion that
the Board direct our county manager to try to organize as best he can
the points that were just laid out, that we try to limit our costs to
the $42,000 available and supplement that cost with volunteer hours
from our subcontractors, if we can get it, from the Copeland prison
system to give us a hand with getting this work done.
COMHISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On the motion I need to ask,
Commissioner Matthews, does your motion anticipate -- you said try to
stay within the $42,000. Does your motion anticipate that we possibly
could use County funding if we can't stay within the $42,0007
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, let me -- let me amend the
motion to this. If we are not able to do this, and it looks as if the
cost is going to rise above the $42,000 available, that staff come
back to us and tell us what it's going to cost, and we can make that
decision.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll amend the second, although
I had no difficulty with the language that was used.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So the motion prohibits at this
time using any County funding to -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It directs them to come back and
tell us what County funding may be needed.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But at this time it doesn't
authorize any County funding.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: On the motion I think as a part of
the process we need clarification just to understand what our legal
obligation may be, if, in fact, we have agreed as a community the cost
of hooking up this entire community in whatever way, shape, or form it
can be done, I think it's important for us to know what our legal
obligation was as a part of sponsoring the application for the grant
monies just to know. Okay. So maybe at the time you can report back
on that information.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes, if we discuss that with the county
attorney.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there's no further discussion,
all those in favor of the motion, please state aye. Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
MR. HIHALIC: Thank you.
Item #8H2
AIRPORT AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Next item is going to
be H-1 and 2, the airport items which were requested for eleven
e'cleck. I understand we have the state of the authority from
outgoing chairman George Barren, and then we also will have the
request from our executive director. Mr. Barren, I understand you've
got about a ten-minute presentation to bring us up to date on what
you've done in the past year.
MR. BARRON: Not what I've done, What everybody has
done.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What "you" meaning plural, the
Board -- the port authority.
MR. BARRON: My name is George Barton. I am the past
chairman of the Collier County Aviation Authority. Good morning,
members of the Collier County Commissioners. As the outgoing chairman
you have asked me to -- for a report on the progress of the airport
authority in its first year of operation.
Approximately two years ago you and the Economic
Development Council began the process to formulate an airport
authority. In August of 1993 with the Board resolution of 93-36 you
formed the Collier County Airport Authority. You had many interviews
with individuals and eventually chose seven to become the first
airport authority.
The first thing the airport authority did was elect a
chairman and vice chairman, myself and Ernest Pinnelli (phonetic).
The next thing we did was to find and then hire a well qualified
executive director for the new formed airport authority. This was
done within 60 days of the appointment of the authority. The
selection was made of Commissioner John H. Drury who was the number
one candidate from the 30 applicants who applied.
As chairman of the authority and through my leadership I
formed eight committees to utilize each of the authority members'
expertise. These committee assignments are before you to help you to
realize it has been a cooperative effort of all members of the
authority in the results we have made this first year. All of these
committees have labored to produce fantastic documents and tools to
carry out our business plan and have done an outstanding job in the
overall success we have this past year.
You, the Board of County Commissioners, have assigned us
many tasks to complete in order for this new authority to be
successful. I offer you the following status report on each task as
follows: Number one, you asked us to prepare a budget. This has been
done; number two, develop a business plan for the free airport
system. That's been done. Prepare three 20-year airport master
plans. We have obtained two airport grants totaling 180,000 for
Immokalee and Everglades Airports to accomplish their master plans
this year. Marco Island Executive Airport is on hold. Number four,
the paraleasing policy, that has been done. Number five, prepare
minimum standards for commercial aeronautical activities. Done.
Number six, prepare an administrative code. The second draft is
complete, and I offer it to you today for your advanced review as we
in the near future will be providing you the final draft after County
staff has completed their review. Number seven, prepare a capital
improvement program. This has been done. As you're aware, we plan to
complete four million dollars' worth of work this coming year with
three million dollars in grants. Number eight, an annual report has
been done. Number nine, transfer of airports from the County to the
authority through leases except Marco Island Executive Airport. This
has been done. Ten, negotiate transfer of Marco Island Executive
Airport from the State. We have assigned Monte Lazarus as an airport
authority member and a Marco Island member to work with this board on
that issue.
Within each of these areas you asked us to accomplish we
elaborated on that by developing such documents as the
one-stop-shopping guide for those people wanting to lease our property
to help reduce the bureaucracy to the private sector. We have a logo
contest which is coming to a conclusion. We have also selected a
professional airport engineering and design team, Dufresne-Henry,
which teamed up with local firms to accelerate the conversion of the
landing strips to airports. My philosophy all along has been just
like the movie Field of Dreams. If you build it, they will come.
I would now like to briefly outline the airport
projects. The Immokalee Regional Airport, at the Immokalee Regional
Airport we plan to construct an air-side and land-side industrial park
for the following: Industrial park, ten sites. Seven of those we are
already in negotiations with firms who have left us a nonrefundable
deposits; 18 T-hangers, 70 percent are full with deposits; 3,000-foot
terminal building; access road; fuel farm; master plan; water and
sewer lines; taxiway; aircraft aprons; sheriff's dwellings.
Then we go to Everglades Park Airport: Eight aircraft
hangers, 25 percent full with deposits; 1,000 square foot terminal
building; waterlines; sewer lines; fuel farm; aircraft aprons; and
sheriff's dwellings.
Marco Island Executive Airport: Plans for ten hangers,
apron, maintenance, building repairs, and mangrove clearing are being
held up by the title transfer. The Marco Island Executive Airport has
ten hangers that are going to be built, and already 100 percent are
leased, and we have -- a waiting list has already been started pending
the title transfer.
This is what I call field of dreams. We are building,
and they are coming. The more we build, the more they will come.
Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, these airstrips will no longer be
considered airstrips. They'll become airports and will become a
vitalization in the economy of Collier County.
I certainly want to thank the press, the media, for the
great cooperation we have had the first 52 weeks of our formation and
hope this will continue throughout the life of this airport
authority. This is what makes the engine go, everyone being involved,
everyone working towards one goal that will benefit all constituents
of Collier County.
I want to thank each of the Board of County
Commissioners who have worked with us through the initial year:
Commissioner John C. Norris has done an outstanding job representing
the Marco Island area; Commissioner Butt Saunders, who has been very
cooperative, and has certainly supported us all the way. I expect he
will continue to support us when he reaches Tallahassee; Commissioner
Timothy J. Constantine, chairman, has been leading -- has been a
leading advocate for the authority this past year; Commissioner Bettye
J. Matthews with three airports in her jurisdiction has been extremely
helpful; Commissioner Michael J. Volpe whose support we certainly
appreciated as a fifth member of this fine Board of County
Commissioners.
I will now have more time to devote to my own business
by selling life insurance annuities through the Prudential and other
fine companies.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No commercials.
MR. BARRON: I got that in real quick, didn't I.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: At least you didn't give the
telephone number.
MR. BARRON: But I have always felt that you give back
to your community that which you take out of it. This is why I spent
four years with the Hillsborough Aviation Authority as we designed and
built the Tampa International Airport, which is considered one of the
finest in the county -- in the country. Now we have three airports to
begin developing into outstanding airport systems in the state and
Collier County.
My commitment will not be any less as a member than it
has been as its first chairman. Build it, and they will come. I
thank all of you for your cooperation over this past year.
I would like now to turn this meeting over to our
incoming chairman of the authority, Mr. Steve Price. Steve will take
us from here and start to build what we are dreaming of and worked for
in the past year. Mr. Price, will you tell them what is planned for
in the coming year? Thanks for this opportunity.
MR. PRICE: I'm going to be very brief. I know you've
got a lot of things on the agenda, and you're behind schedule. Just
briefly let me tell you that what we've got in store this year is
completion of construction. We're going to do the Immokalee and the
Everglades City projects. We hope that during the year we'll obtain
the Marco Island Airport and will be able to progress with that in the
development phase as we've been this past year with the other two
airports to start the construction out there of the improvements and
those types of things. We move into the marketing/leasing phase. We
have a number of people calling us already, and we haven't even begun
to market the industrial park of the Immokalee Airport. So we'll move
into that activity and begin to derive some income from these things.
And then finally you've approved the matching funds for the master
plan for the Marco -- excuse me, the Everglades and the Immokalee
Airports, and we'll move into that master planning phase to review and
redesign the master plan of those two airports.
I would like to take this opportunity while we're here
to present to Mr. Barton a plaque from the airport authority in
appreciation for his service to the authority. It says, in
appreciation, Collier County Airport Authority presents to George W.
Barton, Senior, this certificate of appreciation for outstanding work
as the Collier County Airport Authority's first chairman. George.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: George, don't go too far away.
We've got more hardware for you. Trying to work within the confines
of government is always difficult, but particularly taking something
from scratch and doing as much as you all have in the past year, the
entire authority is to be commended. But particularly for your
leadership in that endeavor we have a plaque as well thanking you in
appreciation for your valuable service to the County as a whole. So
thanks, George. (Applause)
MR. BARRON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Congratulations. There's a
U-Haul waiting outside to help you. Steve, thank you very much.
Item #SH1
RESOLUTION 94-775 AUTHORIZING THE SHORT TERM BORROWING OF $2,253,470
FROM THE POOLED COHMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM TO BE UTILIZED AS AN
ADVANCE FOR $2,253,470 IN PRE-QUALIFIED GRANTS THAT ARE EARMARKED FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF IHMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AND EVERGLADES AIRPORT -
ADOPTED
Hr. Drury, you have an item for us under the airport
authority as well?
MR. DRURY: I too will be very brief because I know you
have a full agenda. John Drury, executive director, Collier County
Airport Authority for the record.
Before you is a request to follow through on the
previous budget that we approved for the Collier County Airport
Authority. What we're asking for is a $2,253,470 loan from the pool
of commercial paper loan program as an advance for $2,253,470 in
existing State pre-qualified grants already issued for Immokalee and
Everglades Airport.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In essence this is allowing the
airport authority to use that money when those grants won't actually
come through till June or July of next year; is that right?
MR. DRURY: Of the following year, and then there will
be another -- the resolution that is before you calls for payment --
two payments, one in December of '94 and one in December of -- I mean
one in December of '95 and one in December of '96. We will draw on
the grants prior to those two dates and repay the short-term loan with
all the grants. I can get into a full explanation if you've got any
questions, but I'll leave it at that and answer any questions. As you
know, we've gone through this during the budget hearing process, and
this is just following through on that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, I hope I'm
correct in assuming that this is identical to the presentation you
have given us. I don't want anybody to think we've breezed through
two million dollars this easily. This is a presentation you have
given us actually on two occasions in the past, and this is merely
ratifying what we've discussed in concept before?
MR. DRURY: Correct. This is ratifying two previous
presentations on all the projects that are being done, where all the
money is coming from, and all the grants that have been issued by the
State and federal government to build all these airports.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Any speakers?
HR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Other questions for Hr. Drury?
Motion to approve.
Second.
There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion, if you'd be so kind as to state
aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you very much.
MR. DRURY: Thank you.
Item #SB1
HEARING ON PLANNED MEDIAN CONSTRUCTION AND CLOSURE ON GOODLETTE-FRANK
ROAD AT CARICA ROAD NORTH - MEDIAN NOT TO BE INSTALLED, LETTER TO BE
SENT TO SHERIFF'S OFFICE URGING INCREASED PATROLS, ALTERNATIVES TO
SLOW TRAFFIC TO BE INVESTIGATED AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION TO
BE EXPEDITED - CONSENSUS
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, are we doing
anything about lunch today? It's getting near the -- lunch hour.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, how many speakers
are we going to have on the Pine Ridge issue? MR. DORRILL: You have 22.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 22. I tell you what we can do,
and we'll see how loud the groans are. Why don't we see how far we
can go with this 22. You have -- each of those 22 has an opportunity
to speak up to 5 minutes. If we get 10 speakers into this, and it's
12:30 or it's quarter of one, we will probably take a lunch break. If
people are using their full time and have -- which you're all welcomed
to do, but I don't know that it's most effective to sit here until
three o'clock concluding this. So if we get to 12:30 or so and we're
not more than halfway through, we'll take a break and then conclude it
following that because we still have more on the agenda after that
item as well. Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, before you start, there is
nothing particularly that I need to caution you about with regard to
what you're going to talk about, but I did want the Board to be aware
that the Citizens for a Safe Neighborhood, Inc., has filed a
complaint, slash, petition for writ of certiorari asking for a new
hearing. You'll recall Mr. Pires gave a presentation. Mr. Pires was
in front of you. They were unhappy with the conclusion of that appeal
hearing, and they have filed a petition for writ of certiorari. I
just wanted you to be aware of that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just so you know, I see more
speaker slips coming in, looks like another half dozen or so. Chances
are pretty strong now we will take a lunch at some point in this.
We've got another -- how many more of those are in there? MR. DORRILL: We're probably 30 now.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Cuyler, the status of the
litigation, has the County responded to the petition for the writ of
certiorari?
MR. CUYLER: I believe it's in the Court's hands as to
whether the Court is going to issue an order to show cause on the
petition for cert. It has not progressed very far. Mr. Pires may
want to -- may or may not want to speak to this when he comes up.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: During the course of this
obviously everyone is welcomed to say what they will along the way.
One thing that will assist both you and us in the process is try not
to be repetitive of the same thing over and over. If we hear the same
thing 30 times, hopefully we have gotten it after one or two times.
First to acknowledge we're a little slow at times, but hopefully not
that slow. If you hear those things, try to condense so you're not
saying the same thing over and over, but feel welcomed to take all of
the 5 minutes available to you if you want.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could dispense
with the full-blown staff presentation as to how it is that we found
ourselves here again today.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We all know that.
MR. DORRILL: One of the things that you had asked us to
do was to accelerate the preliminary design and environmental
permitting of what we all hoped to be the solution to this, which is
Vanderbilt Beach Road. I asked Mr. Conrecode to come forward to tell
you -- his staff has done a fine job in accelerating this. It's my
understanding that the permit applications will be on next month's
agenda at the South Florida Water Management District meeting. I hope
we get the final south Florida permits. There are some Army Corps
permits that go and coincide with that. I'll let him elaborate on
that and let you know where we are on that road segment that you
prioritized. And then only in the event that you have questions would
we have a full-blown staff presentation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: By next month, do you mean
December?
MR. DORRILL: December 15th.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from the
capital projects office. If the Board will recall, they gave us
direction at the end of last year, beginning of last year, to proceed
with this portion of the project. It is probably one of the most
aggressive fast-track road projects --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can you speak up just a little
bit, Tom? I'm not sure everyone can hear.
MR. CONRECODE: It's probably one of the most fast-track
projects that the Board has undertaken in recent memory. To give you
an update on a couple of the key parts of the project, we have applied
for permits and have received a response letter from the Corps of
Engineers asking some additional questions related to the mitigation
issues. We're confident that they'll issue an intent letter within 30
days. The Florida Department of Environmental -- FDP and South
Florida Water Management District are in concurrence on their permit.
We're on the December 15th agenda with district staff asking that to
be deferred. We're asking that it not be deferred and expect issuance
of those permits as well.
Final design notice to proceed was issued on September
1st of this year, which again is pretty fast track. Our duration on
final designs through June of '95. That is not on the critical path,
however, as far as the Board's concerned. Right of way acquisition is
currently in process. In fact, on your consent agenda today you
adopted a resolution authorizing that -- the taking of property
associated with this project.
The typical timeline for right of way acquisition is 20
months. We're on an ll-month schedule for this project right now and
expect final closings for properties acquisitions of October 1st of
next year, which is essentially concurrent with our schedule to
construct -- construction duration is 12 to 14 months from there. So
we're looking probably October to December of '96, best case, all
things considered on this project.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So no matter what we do, we're
three years away?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other questions for Mr.
Conrecode?
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The segment you're talking
about, Mr. Conrecode is just from U.S. 41 to Goodlette Road?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, we're designing, permitting, and
doing right of way acquisition all the way to Airport Road. And if we
were to shorten it up, we're not going to be able to accelerate it.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We had talked about just doing
that one segment initially and trying to get the environmental permits
more quickly. Is that something that is not going to be possible?
MR. CONRECODE: Unfortunately the critical areas from
the permitting standpoint are east of -- of Goodlette and include
Goodlette Road, so the agencies have asked us to look at both of those
corridors in conjunction, so it's not -- we're not going to be able to
accomplish anything any faster --
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I think that sort of
explains why I felt that we might be able to expedite that segment
from 41 to Goodlette. You said that the critical environmental issues
are east of Goodlette Road, and we're talking about the segment west
of Goodlette Road.
MR. CONRECODE: Right.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So it seems to me we should be
able to get environmental permits quickly for that segment.
MR. CONRECODE: We're going to have all the permits
probably within 60 days.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Then are we able to
construct that segment in advance of getting the permits for the
subsequent segment?
MR. CONRECODE: We'll have all the permits. That's what
I'm telling you.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We'll have all the permits
within 60 days? I thought you said that -- MR. CONRECODE: Right now there are two elements that
are key. Final design was --
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I understand. Let's go
to the right of way acquisition then. It's going to take another 12
months?
MR. CONRECODE: 11 months from today's --
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: 11 months. And does that
include the right of way acquisition west of Goodlette Road? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, it does.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is there any way to focus on
that and expedite that acquisition?
MR. CONRECODE: We will absolutely attempt to do that or
-- we're trying to accelerate every possible avenue of this project.
If at all possible, we'll do that. We only have 30 parcels -- no, I'm
sorry, 20 parcels on the whole stretch that we have to deal with.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How many parcels are on the west
section?
MR. CONRECODE: I don't know the answer to that. There
aren't very many because Westinghouse is committing as part of their
development --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. It just seems that if we
focus on that segment west of Goodlette Road, that we should be able
to construct that in less than two years. You don't have the
environmental problems there. You don't have very many property
owners there.
MR. CONRECODE: You have my assurance that if I can do
it any faster -- if everything's clicking and we can do it any faster
-- I'm just giving my assessment.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't want to belabor it, but
my concern is that you're focusing on the entire segment of 41 to
Airport Road, and I think in the near term you need to focus on
Goodlette to get that completed.
MR. CONRECODE: We'll put additional emphasis on that
right away.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Could we get a report back as to
how many property owners there are that we have to worry about taking
with on west of Goodlette?
MR. CONRECODE: I can get back to you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Your comment is well taken, that
I've got to believe Westinghouse with their project planned for their
-- either have a majority, or probably not all, but near all of the
property we're interested in there. I'm sure they would be more than
excited to have that property -- that road done in some capacity. So
can we get an idea on the land back to us?
MR. CONRECODE: Yeah. Just yet this morning -- yet this
afternoon we'll get something to you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you can, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Primarily the western segment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's all I'm inquiring
about. Anything else before we go to the public speakers? It's 5 of
12 now, and we've got about 30 speakers. We've got a court reporter
that will need a break as well. We'll plan on taking lunch at 12:30
unless by some miracle we have 30 speakers completed in 35 minutes.
So with that, what we'll do is have the speaker -- whoever is next in
line, if you'd kindly just stand up and come to the gray doors, it
will help us move through the process a little quicker.
MR. DORRILL: First speaker will be Miss Pestari, Jean
Pestari. Following her is Mr. Phillips, Butt Phillips, if you'd
standby please.
MR. PESTARI: Jane Pestari. I live in Naples Park, and
I support Pine Ridge efforts protesting the proposed cut-through road
of north Carica by the Monterey developers and homeowners. It makes
no sense to us to disrupt the residence community -- the residential
community of Pine Ridge Estates just to save a few minutes to go
through to U.S. 41, especially when Pine Ridge Road is only a short
distance from Monterey development, and Vanderbilt Beach Road will be
built in the very near future.
Pine Ridge Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road east and west
extension should provide adequate traffic flow without causing undue
hardship on the Pine Ridge Estate residential community. There's no
reason why Monterey community residents cannot wait for the Vanderbilt
extension. The Pine Ridge neighborhood should be protected. Monterey
will not allow public vehicles to go through their development. I
tried. Stop. Cannot go through. If it's good enough for them, it's
got to be good enough for other residential communities. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I tell you what, everybody's got
to have an opportunity to speak, but if we can keep the boos and the
cheers to a minimum, it will help us move through this a little
faster.
MR. PESTARI: The median should be -- should go
through. We support it. Please allow it.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Phillips and then Greg Niederhaus.
Mr. Niederhaus, if -- I'd have you stand by. Mr. Phillips.
VOICE: I think Mr. Phillips had to leave. He got
sick.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Niederhaus then. Then if I could have
Mr. Holtman, Robert Holtman, if you'd come stand here please.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good looking jacket, Mr.
Niederhaus.
MR. NIEDERHAUS: Thank you. And I'd also like to thank
the Commission for allowing me to speak today. I am a resident of
Lakeside development, and I am against the median construction I think
for the obvious reasons of access into Pine Ridge, both by emergency
crews and as well as fire department. I have close family friends
that live in Pine Ridge, and it is necessary to have that access in
and out of the community. I believe to cut off the access in there --
those are public roads that my taxes have paid for and my taxes
maintain. I feel that it is no better justified to cut off traffic
north on 75 saying, well, we don't need more traffic in Collier
County. As well, I believe if we paid for the tax -- the roads, we
deserve access to them. Now, such as Monterey, I don't believe that's
a public road. You can't compare that and say, well, I don't have
access to Monterey. Well, you didn't construct that road, and you
don't pay taxes to maintain it. So I ask you -- (Applause) -- I ask
you to decline the construction of the median, and thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Holtman and then Mr. Rust, Robert
Rust. Mr. Holtman.
MR. HOFFMAN: I'm Hoffman, H-o-f-f-m-a-n, Robert.
MR. DORRILL: Excuse me.
MR. HOFFMAN: Gentlemen, the demands in Collier County
on the road system are increasing, as we all know, because of the
population explosion. This county is probably the fastest growing --
one of the fastest in the nation, but this section of the county is
the fastest growing in the county. The -- in two years the demands
will be overwhelming, as they are right now, as the rush-hour traffic
is getting during the season, every year worse and worse. We find
ourselves in a predicament of having to use the same roads without any
new roads, and we see the lead time. As we've heard even with a rush
it's going to be two years to get this new road in.
We have a problem with this in that we are impeding the
flow of traffic from the east to the west and vice versa. The
north-south seems to be going along pretty well. This flow towards
the gulf, which everyone seems to want to go for recreation and for
commercial activities, is a very important flow. But it is, as we
know, in this section impeded. We have huge developments going on,
Piper's Grove, Lakeside. All up and down Vanderbilt Road are new
developments. They are not waiting for the two years. Your approval
of them has not waited for the Vanderbilt Beach Road to go, and so we
have this demand increasing. Every day people are moving in.
If the county council decides that it is expedient, we
have already seen from the first speaker that it will follow that
other people will ask you to take away from the taxpayers -- take away
county taxpayer paid roads. You will know Naples Park is in the
process of trying to ask you to do the same for them.
If you feel it is still necessary, and you feel that it
is necessary to take these taxpayers' roads, I suggest that we have an
alternate for you. That alternate would be to go on Airport Road and
connect the median strips around Orange Tree Road. That would then
impede the flow as effectively as this proposition is, and this -- but
it will find -- you will find it much cheaper to connect the median
strips. You will find that it will do the same effect. It will keep
the traffic from Lakeside, from Piper's Grove, from all these other
communities from going on there. They will have to go either to Pine
Ridge or to Immokalee. But it will be because it's a four-lane
highway and with turn lanes and everything. You will find that it
will be much safer. It will not be a narrow road as Goodlette is
now.
And so for safety's sake, if you want to do this, of
course, you will have an awful lot of people up in arms over it. But
if you wish to continue to impede this flow, then I suggest that
Orange Tree is the answer. Thank you. (Applause.)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rust and then Mr. Miller, Joseph
Miller. Mr. Rust, are you still here? If you'd come forward, please,
sir. You're up, Mr. Rust, and then Mr. Miller.
MR. RUST: My name is Bob Rust. I'm a resident of
Wilshire Lakes, which is between Airport-Pulling Road and 1-75 on
Vanderbilt Beach Road. I am against the median for several reasons,
one being the inconvenience of having to travel that much further and
also for safety reasons. We made a little calculation of what this
would mean and the number of extra miles that would be driven by the
people who are now using that access on Carica to go on Hickory over
to 41. The distance from 41 to Goodlette Road is approximately 1.9
miles. The distance from Immokalee to 41 going north measures 2
miles. The distance along Immokalee to 41 measures -- that's going
west -- measures three-quarters of a mile, and the distance from 41
and Immokalee to Hickory and 41 measures 1.55 miles. That's a total
of 4.3 miles. Therefore, rerouting will force vehicles to travel an
additional 3.4 miles.
According to the counts, about 5,000 vehicles travel
Hickory every day. Converting that to our 3.4, we have 17,000 vehicle
miles with an average of 13.76 miles per gallon, taking all kinds of
vehicles into consideration, and we find that we would use 455,000
more gallons a year. Take that times a dollar and twenty-five cents a
gallon, we are talking $556,000 a year in additional fuel costs to
benefit 24 homeowners.
We think that this is ridiculous, and we feel not only
is it the extra cost to the people of this county, the wear and tear
on your automobile, the higher mileage when you trade it in, and we
think this is a complete waste of resources. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Miller, and then I believe it it's
Fowle -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Miller, there's a hand-held
microphone if that's more convenient for you.
MR. DORRILL: Following Mr. Fowle -- or Mr. Miller,
rather, is Mr. -- I believe it's Fowle, F-o-w-l-e.
MR. FOWLE: Fowle.
MR. DORRILL: Fowle?
MR. MILLER: I'm Joseph Miller, north Naples resident.
Putting a median north of Carica is a bad idea for a number of
reasons. It is a solution that is worse than the problems it attempts
to solve. We have already heard many compelling reasons for the
abandonment of this project, and I'm sure we'll hear many more in a
little while.
Well, a personal concern besides the safety hazards that
it will pose is for the adverse economic impact that the median will
have on the merchants in the Pavilion shopping center as well as the
brand new Albertsons and Eckerds stores that have opened across
Vanderbilt Beach Road from the Pavilion. The Pavilion shops are
frequented by customers year-round from all over north Naples.
At this time the only movie theater in North Naples is
located there. The median will impose a major blockade to convenient
access to the shopping in this district. Loyal Pavilion customers
will likely go somewhere else to avoid the extra distance and time
involved in detouring around the median. The last thing Naples needs
is more vacant storefronts in our shopping centers, but that is a
distinct possibility for some of the smaller stores that will
experience a sudden downturn of trade.
United Parcel Service and Federal Express will have
difficulty making deliveries, will involve more time and expense for
the drivers and those delivery companies in the area which will be
passed on to the consumers. With competition for business heating up
all over the Naples area, it seems very unfair to single out and
handicap the Pavilion shop owners by throwing up an obstacle between
their customers and their businesses, especially an obstacle as
unnecessary and as arbitrary as this median is.
Besides commercial businesses there are other services
that residents need direct access to in that area. The North Naples
emergency services building and the North Naples branch of the public
library are located across Vanderbilt Beach Road from the Pavilion.
The median will unnecessarily restrict access to these important
services. It seems pretty obvious to me that a better solution to
traffic flow problems through Pine Ridge would be to open up all the
streets through the area and let the traffic patterns seek their own
balance. (Applause.) I strongly urge you to open all the barricades
in Pine Ridge and to put a stop to the proposed median at north Carica
as an action that is clearly in the best interests of everyone in
Naples and not a small special interest group. Thank you for your
time. (Applause)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Following Mr. Fowle I have Mr. Day.
MR. FOWLE: Commissioners, my name is Ronald Fowle, and
I reside at 7996 Beaumont Court. I was a volunteer fireman for 30
years before I moved to Naples. I have been involved in seven rescues
and two fatalities, and I was also at the Avianca plane crash in
Oyster Bay, Long Island. Responding to an emergency or a fire knowing
by radio communication that a real life-threatening emergency is
existing makes the heart pound for the most dedicated professional or
long-term fireman. No matter how many years you've been doing it,
when they yell there's a life in danger, everything starts clicking
twice as fast.
I'd like to make a couple -- or discuss a few things
about the median at Carica, the berm at Center Street, and the
barricades at south Garcia as to fire and safety issues.
First, a couple of general comments. The Pine Ridge
subdivision is covered by the Pine Ridge substation which is primary
and first due to the south end of Pine Ridge. Now there's a new
station up by Vanderbilt which will be primary and first due to the
north end. However, there is one ladder truck. That ladder truck is
at the Pine Ridge station. That is primary to the whole Pine Ridge
subdivision. Each one covers for the other one when one is out of
service or on another call. The Vanderbilt station has a lot easier
access. The Pine Ridge station does not have easy access to Pine
Ridge itself.
There are only three hydrants in Pine Ridge that I could
find serving 526 homes. There may be a few more, but I only noted
three. One is at north Carica and Hickory. One is midway on Hickory,
and the other one is on Center Street by U.S. 41. The basic operation
or the preplan is to attack with water contained in the engines. If
there is no hydrant, each pumper carries between five to seven hundred
gallons of water. They have inch and three-quarter task force nozzles
that will use 175 to 200 gallons in a minute. If you have someone
hanging out a window, you need the ladder truck up there to extract
them, but this is not always the case. Sometimes you have tots laying
on the floor, in closets, hiding under beds. They go to the places
where they're not supposed to go, but they run to that because they're
afraid of the fire and the heat. That ladder truck has to get in
there, and it's got to open that roof up and blow out the windows.
Once they're in there, then the engine companies can make advancement
into the house to try to find someone and assist them out, but they
only have a short supply of water. What backs them up is the tanker
trucks that come in behind them. But the tanker truck that comes in
to service Pine Ridge comes from Golden Gate which is 10 minutes away,
so they have difficult evolutions.
The other thing is when you're using tanker trucks, they
have to shuttle back and forth. They empty; then they have got to run
back to a hydrant, fill up and return to the scene. The simplest and
the speediest resolution is to stretch a line from a hydrant to a fire
scene for a steady and dependable supply of water, or in the case of
Pine Ridge, they may be able to find a lake or a swimming pool that's
available. But drafting and using pools and lakes is a longtime
operation. It takes a long time to establish.
Insurance ratings for the north fire district -- for the
North Naples Fire District is five which is excellent giving you a
lower insurance premium. Some areas like Pine Ridge go from seven to
nine because of lack of hydrants, but some insurers like State Farm go
on a flat basis for the entire fire district rating it at a level five
all over. Consequently, if you had big losses in the Pine Ridge area
due to lack of hydrants and restricted access, it could impact the
fire rates of the homeowners policy of everyone in the North Naples
Fire District.
Now I'd like to get specific, the median at north
Garcia, the proposed median. There is no engine or a ladder truck
that's going to come up that road and make a U-turn. If they have to,
they're going to make a five- to a seven-point turn. That means in,
turn, back up, twist, turn. They will not go off the edge of that
road. If they do, they're going to sink right down. Remember these
trucks are 15 to 20 tons. You see the cars stuck on the side of the
road.
Am I up?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes. Take about 30 seconds to
wrap up this point. You're welcome to.
MR. FOWLE: Okay. In general I think you have a bad
fire condition for the residents of Pine Ridge. I think they're
trying to sacrifice a few things. You can control traffic, but if a
fire truck can't get in there and you have a little infant to carry
out who's burnt, well, it's a hell of a thing to live with.
(Applause.)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Day.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Day will be followed by --
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Graham-Yool.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioner, if I could just interject
here to answer your question earlier. Again, Tom Conrecode for the
record -- for the western segment of that road there are six or seven
parcels we don't know because of splits in ownership. We'll know that
answer next week. Of those several of those are expected to be
difficult takes because of business impacts of the take. Several are
owned by the Colliers. One is the Kempfer Building on the corner of
Trail Boulevard and Hickory Road, and there's a small take of some
condos. The others are owned by Pelican Marsh, which we don't expect
any difficulty with, but that's the answer to your question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. Mr. Day.
MR. DAY: Yes, my name is Tyler Day. I'm the president
of the North Naples Citizens Traffic Group. I'd like to highlight a
few things that are going to be talked about today without dwelling on
any necessarily. There are many reasons for opposition to the
proposal to construct the median, and you'll hear a number of them
here. Basically it presents a serious threat to public safety because
it forces drivers to make dangerous U-turns on Goodlette Road. It
impedes the access and egress by emergency services. It may force
police, fire, and other emergency services to make dangerous turns.
It's likely to cause a dangerous traffic pileup on Goodlette south of
Center Street where there's no turn lane as cars wait to turn into
Center. It also is a potentially dangerous obstacle on a relatively
narrow road, and we know that road of Goodlette-Frank is a narrow
road. It's also a high-speed highway.
From the standpoint of breach of contract, the median is
in the breach of contract in regards to the County's 1981 agreement
with the original developers of Goodlette Road which now is
represented by Monterey Crossings and Emerald Lakes. It restricts
access. If the median goes in there, the complaints of the serious
restriction of access from free travel comes from many areas. We've
already discussed eight or ten different developmental areas that are
around the Pine Ridge area, and we see great concern with the penalty
that these people are having to pay with regards to the benefit of
only 24 homes that are on the periphery of Pine Ridge, Hickory, and
north Carica.
It is understood that the staff may talk with regards to
a rebuttal of our original petition. I was somewhat concerned after I
received an original call from George Archibald, which seemed to be an
entreaty to try and get together and present something as a joint
point paper, which we were very much in favor of, and our committee
said, gee, that's great. Let's work with George, and maybe we can
find a solution. Unfortunately the next day I received a fax from
George which did little more than just rebut all the points
paraphrased that we had put in the petition. We feel this is not only
unfair, it's no more a white paper than it is just a defense of a
position that it had before.
We have a great deal of respect for the many county
groups. We would like to work with the transportation department to
try and find a resolution to this problem. We do feel very strongly,
however, though, that the median is not an answer. It's a very
dangerous answer, but we would like to leave the door open as we have
to the Pine Ridge area where we had a meeting several days ago where
we were able to meet based on Bettye's suggestion. We have agreed to
meet again. We have no resolution as of this time, but there was a
very good feeling with regards to the fact that we could talk to each
other. We would like also to be able to talk to the transportation
department and see if there is a resolution. But please, folks, don't
vote for this median. It's a very dangerous, bad thing to have.
Thank you. (Applause.)
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Day.
MR. DAY: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just want to thank you for
making an effort to form a group of citizens to address this problem.
I did get a copy of the letter that you sent to Pine Ridge and tried
to put together a committee to examine them, and I want to thank you
and thank the members of Pine Ridge.
MR. DAY: Well, thank you. We felt it was worth a shot,
and it may still be.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It may still.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Graham-Yool, and then following him is
Mr. Commissioner Wallace. If I can have you stand by, James Wallace.
MR. GRAHAM-YOOL: Good morning. My name is Richard
Graham-Yool, and I can come from, you guessed it, Monterey. And there
is a certain sense of deja vu being in the same place, same set of --
time of day debating the same subject that was debated -- I think it
was like in January 1993. And if a definition of hell is being in the
same place, doing the same thing over and over again, I sympathize
with the county commissioners who may have well found themselves in
some definition of hell.
So the question is, how did it begin. How on earth did
we get as a county into such a state over a very relatively minor
problem? And I suggest it's because we started at one point in time
to think not as a community of north Naples, but of communities
plural. And the beginning mistake was a succession of barricades on
south Carica and Center Street. And the one person perhaps who could
comment best, and I would very much like to bring him here today, but
he has a handicap -- he's dead -- is Barton Collier, Junior, because
when he drew out these plans for the Pine Ridge subdivision, assuming
that he had intelligence slightly higher than saying John Wayne
Bobbitt, Junior, he must have envisaged a parallel community. The
roads that he had just stopping, the north Carica, south Carica, and
Center Street, didn't just stop for a reason. He would have had in
his mind the idea at some point when the economic situation was worth
the investment of developing another paralleling infrastructure to the
east. When he didn't, various things happened. Of course, as I said,
he died. And his estate sold that land to other developers which was
then developed.
It was probably developed in more or less the way that
Barton Collier would have developed it had he continued on, because
being, you know, of a reasonable I.Q., he would have seen that Naples
or Collier County was growing enormously fast. He would have seen the
value increase in the price of land and the merits of higher density
housing. So, yes, he would probably have built condominiums in
Emerald Lakes. He would probably would have had the Villas in
Monterey. He would probably have had single-family homes of only
one-third of an acre increasing the population density, and all of
that development would have -- all those people would have driven
through the roads of that community, super Pine Ridge or greater Pine
Ridge. They would have gone along Center Street and along south
Carica and along north Carica. And as all that land that he owned
stretched all the way to Airport Road, you can assume that some point
there would have been an exit on Airport Road and that at some point
the traffic would have weaved its way through. But we've started to
-- we started back in 1988 to create the idea of multiple communities
and not one community.
Bettye has probably started the right ball rolling on
the suggestion of getting together because I'm not sure there's any
other solution. And maybe the best decision the Board could take
would be to threaten to build a wastewater treatment plant in Pine
Ridge, a soup kitchen in the Crossings, perhaps a landfill in Monterey
unless the residents in the north Naples area could thrash out between
themselves a permanent solution that actually worked to stop coming
before the Board of County Commissioners again and again and again.
Thank you. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Following Mr. Wallace, if I could have Mr.
Zarb stand by, Joe Zarb, please.
MR. WALLACE: Commissioners, my name is Jim Wallace.
I'm representing the 388 residents of Piper's Grove. I'm also a
developer of Piper's Grove, and I will be very, very short. We oppose
officially the median at north Carica. I guess for me it's somewhat
reminiscent of the traffic light further down on Goodlette Road at
Royal Poinciana Golf Club where I believe 350 members decided they
were going to put in a private light that the rest of the county would
have to stop at for the rest of their lives. To me the median at
Carica Road is effectively the privatization of the roads of Pine
Ridge. They are public roads. We're talking about a special interest
group of 24 to 50 people who are trying to restrict the effective use
of public roads by thousands of other people. We officially -- our
group does not support it, and we recommend that you oppose it. We
are going to have a solution in two years or less. Let's wait for
that solution. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Zarb and then Mr. Foy, Thomas Foy.
MR. ZARB: My name is Joe Zarb. I'm against the
median. I want to take this in a little different light somewhat.
Basically I think the issue was a safety issue here, and I think the
-- I think the issue of safety -- I think it is very commendable that
the commissioners are concerned about the safety of the residents. I
would hope that they would be concerned about the safety of all the
residents of Collier County. And as we all know, I think that there's
more people coming into the county, more people, more cars.
I think when you put more people and more cars together,
that means that you have more crime in the county. Well, if that's
the case, I think what we should have is a moratorium on building to
stop the people from coming into the county. That will relieve the
road traffic and everything else. Perhaps we could go a step further
and have maybe police at every intersection of Collier County where
they can check people coming in to make sure that we don't have the
people that would be committing crimes in our county. Again, I
realize this is very facetious comments that I'm making here, but I
feel that it's almost similar to the idea of having these roadblocks
in Pine Ridge. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Foy and then Mr. Pires.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Following this speaker we'll take
The court reporter will get her break, and we'll take a
our break.
lunch.
HR. DORRILL: Hr. Foy.
HR. FOY: I'm Thomas Foy in Honterey. I'm opposed to
the median, and I'll be brief. I just don't understand how a special
interest group of a few people can cause a blockage or a restriction
to the access in a public way. It's beyond my comprehension. The
other thing that I'm particularly concerned about is the safety. You
put a -- put a wall in the middle of Goodlette Road with high-speed
traffic, there's going to be -- there's definitely going to be an
accident, either from somebody trying to make a U-turn or from
somebody hitting this wall. And one accident, one death, one injury
is not worth the -- the peace of mind of some -- of a few Pine Ridge
residents. So I appeal to you, don't put the median in place.
(Applause)
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're going to take a lunch
break. When we return, Mr. Dotrill, we've got approximately 20 --
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- speakers left?
VOICES: What time? What time?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: About 1:20.
(A lunch break was held from 12:20 p.m. to 1:20 p.m.)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Call to order the afternoon
session of the Board of County Commissioners. We'll continue with the
discussion of the public hearing regarding Pine Ridge.
MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, the -- as part of the
continuation, the next registered speaker was Mr. Pires. Following
Mr. Pires I have Commissioner -- I believe it's Mr. Steinmetz.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Steinmetz, if you'd come
forward and stand at the wall, and we're ready to proceed. Mr.
Pires.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Commissioner Matthews, members of
the Board. My name is Tony Pires. I represent Citizens for a Safe
Neighborhood, Inc. I'll be brief. And Citizens for a Safe
Neighborhood, Inc., thanks you for your decision to erect the median
as a measure to attempt to protect the quality of life within this
established existing residential neighborhood. This technique, which
is consistent with good traffic planning principles, as you heard time
and time again about good traffic planning principles, is outlined by
Hornberger (phonetic) who you heard about -- from him about a month or
so ago that residential street design and traffic control should serve
neighborhood protection and quality of life objectives. By virtue of
this board taking the action it did back on September 27th to direct
the staff to engage in this traffic calming technique of the median,
the Board has recognized and needs to address through traffic in the
context of the protection of the quality of life in existing
established residential communities and that the opening up of local
streets to and with adjacent arterials in traffic-carrying streets can
cause problems. This is also reflected in Mr. Archibald's memorandum
at paragraph 15, that by use of this median it would -- that internal
roadway safety and residential character will be improved.
This also furthers another good planning concept, that
if you have residential streets linked to traffic-carrying streets,
they should be linked in a way that simultaneously provides good
access to other parts of the community and region and minimizes the
chances of the residential streets' use by through traffic maintaining
the approach that this board has taken by its action of September 27
and its current plans to wait to begin implementing a policy to
minimize this through traffic. Once again, we applaud the Board's
decision stepping forward to address the issue of protecting existing
established residential neighborhoods from adverse and negative
through traffic conditions. And if the Board has any questions, I
would be free to answer those questions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there any questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No questions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Thank you all very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Steinmetz and then I believe it's Mr.
Fisch, F-i-s-c-h.
MR. STEINHETZ: Hello. My name is Paul Steinmetz. I'm
a resident of Pine Ridge. I had quite a bit to say on my own behalf
for the residents of Pine Ridge. But after listening to the testimony
and reports from the earlier speakers in favor of the removal and --
and not placing the berm on Goodlette Road, I had to come back with
some rebuttals unfortunately.
Mr. Niedermeyer, (sic) in reference to your -- that the
public roads is for the good of the flow of the public, the roads were
built originally by Pine Ridge residents by the original developer of
Pine Ridge. They were not built by the county of Collier County and
that they were deeded over to the county at later years. The county
was then supposed to take care of those roads for us during the course
of the last 26 years.
Now, those three openings have been closed for almost 26
years, and somehow the residents have always been able to find a way
to be able to get to their part of shopping at the time when the
Pavilion shops was really the only place to go shopping. Yet everyone
seemed to have no trouble being able to find a way to go shopping.
Now we have two new shopping centers, the Crossings on Pine Ridge Road
and also Carillon. And as another gentleman mentioned before, Mr.
Miller mentioned -- I'm sorry, Mr. Fowle mentioned before, it's
actually 32 seconds closer to drive to that shopping center and give
your business to that shopping center, to the same Publix, the same
Eckerds that you want to go to and is actually less time to travel.
As you also might not realize, that we are going to be expanding
Goodlette Road to four lanes in the next few years so that any traffic
concerns that you might have on Goodlette Road will be addressed in
about two or three years when they finish the widening of Goodlette
Road.
As to the flow of the traffic to the gulf, since most of
the traffic going to the gulf goes down to Immokalee Road anyway,
meaning down to the County beach and the State park that's down on
Immokalee Road, there's also a park on Pine Ridge Road if you take
that all the way down to where Clam Pass is. Going through Pine Ridge
absolutely serves no extra speedway, gives you no extra better flow to
the gulf whatsoever.
Mr. Rust mentioned before about the amount of cars that
were traveling, about 5,000 cars. Well, at one time we had less than
a thousand cars in a private residential -- I'm sorry, a community but
residential neighborhood. With that increasing to 5,000 cars -- by
the way, gas hasn't -- gas mileage hasn't been thirteen and a half
miles to the gallon since about the 1950s. Right now it's about 27
miles to the gallon.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. We will -- we will
let him complete.
MR. STEINMETZ: The average USDA -- it says the average
mileage of an American car today is 27 miles to the gallon. That is
the average, okay. There's more or less. Okay. I don't drive
Metcedes and Cadillacs like you people do that get 12 miles to the
gallon. I drive a regular car. All right. If you take the road from
Naples Park and go down to Naples Park area or north Pine Ridge and go
down to new Carillon Plaza, it only adds one minute and 20 seconds to
your drive if you take the road straight down 41 and Pine Ridge Road
across, one minute and 20 seconds extra to your drive -- total driving
time for that exact.
Mr. Fowle, you said you worked as a fireman for a number
of years, 26 years, I believe it was. I've been an airline employee
for 21 years, and I have been through many a disaster myself. And I
understand what you're going through, and I understand what takes
place during those disasters. I've been involved in about six of them
myself.
There are more than 3 fire hydrants in Pine Ridge.
There's close to 15 or 16 plus 11 lakes, ponds -- runoff ponds. That
would be more than adequate to fill any of the needs that might be
addressed in case a fire should take place.
Mr. Day says that this -- this berm might actually force
people -- meaning he's representing you, the people of Monterey and
such, might force law-abiding people such as you to make illegal turns
on Goodlette Road. I think not. I don't think you're going to do
something like that. I think you're pretty well informed. I don't
think you're going to make illegal turns and cause any accidents that
way.
Mr. Graham-Yool said how did we get this way? We got
this way because originally we had a plan that was approved by the
county commissioners by a former seated board that somehow that one
opening up on Carica north was going to be opened up. At the same
time there was all going to be -- the plans were still going through
for the extension of Vanderbilt Beach. As that wound up turning and
now Vanderbilt Beach wound up being moved back two or three years, it
put undue pressure on the part of the neighborhood.
Mr. Wallace said there's 388 residents of Piper's
Grove. We actually have about 550 residents who are building lots
here in Pine Ridge, not the 25 that you think are being affected by
this, but it's 550 people being affected. Can I finish?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you can wrap up in about 15 or
20 seconds.
MR. STEINHETZ: There's 550 people such as myself who
live on Center Street and the people on Carica south. If those were
to be opened up, right now land values on Carica north and Hickory
have gone down by 17 percent. And we have statistics. Somebody else
will bring it up later. I have already been told by my appraiser that
my resale value will go down by 17 percent at least if they open up
the other roads. That affects everyone's quality of life, and that
also affects my bottom dollar what I'm going to need to retire on when
I get to be your age. And I'm looking forward to my retirement income
also if I'm able to have it when I get to be 55 or 60 years old.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fisch and then Hiss Fitzgerald.
MS. FISCH: Good afternoon. I'm Sam Fisch. I live in
Emerald Lakes. I'd like to speak on behalf of the residents of
Emerald Lakes.
We've heard people talk about safety issues. We've
heard people talk about mileage. We've heard people talk about saving
a few minutes in driving or the inconvenience. I think the real issue
is one of fairness.
How did the County staff ever permit themselves to get
put in the position of dropping barricades in the middle of public
roads (Applause)
when the -- really the number of people affected -- I would prefer not
to have people driving past my house, but I would never think of
coming to you and asking that a barricade be put up to prevent you
from driving by. Where do these people come off? How do they reach
this point? What privilege gives them the right to even ask for
this? Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Fitzgerald and then Mr. HcGilvra.
Mr. HcGilvra will follow Hiss Fitzgerald.
MS. FITZGERALD: I'm Vera Fitzgerald, and I don't live
in Pine Ridge, and I have never felt the necessity of using Pine Ridge
Road as a shortcut because, in fact, they aren't. It takes longer to
get through Pine Ridge than it does to use 41 to go other places. And
I'm standing here and I'm wondering. I'm listening to these people
speak, and I just can't believe my ears. I'm wondering why outsiders
from the new walled neighborhoods feel that they have the right to
turn the streets of an old neighborhood into new easy polluted busy
thoroughfares. There isn't -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we can both stop just a
minute. We're not going to have continued outbursts. Everybody is
going to have an opportunity to say their part, but we're not going to
have cheers and boos and everything all the way through. Everyone
will have an opportunity to speak, but we're not going to sit and
listen to people get heckled while they express their opinions.
At the same time let's hear the pros and cons of the
meeting, not let's tear up each neighborhood. Everybody has their own
beliefs, and everyone wants to take care of their own neighborhood and
hopefully other neighborhoods too, but let's not beat each other's
neighborhoods up and say what gives that person the right, what gives
that person the right. Let's try to concentrate on is the median
appropriate, why or why not.
MS. FITZGERALD: Okay. Now, this isn't a special
interest group of 24 or so people that you have heard. This is a
group that's trying to save its community. And I'm wondering why old
neighborhoods shouldn't have the same right to quiet enjoyment as the
new walled areas. And someone said the traffic is only going to get
worse and worse because north Collier is the fastest growing community
or area, and that's the best reason I've heard of for building the
median, to protect this neighborhood from this incredible expected
onslaught of traffic.
Another issue was raised of safety. They're concerned
about the safety of drivers because of this median. I have to ask
them what about the safety of those people who live in the
neighborhood of Pine Ridge? They've said Goodlette is a narrow road.
Actually it's perfectly standard. They've said it's unsafe, but the
roads in Pine Ridge are considerably nattower. They're not designed
to be collector or arterial roads or secondary roads. So here we have
another reason to protect Pine Ridge from this predicted increase of
traffic. And then we heard the problem with fire trucks. Well, this
is kind of -- it's facetious because fire trucks have been getting
into Pine Ridge since it was originally built, and it's been there for
decades.
The plight of the Pavilion merchants, I don't think that
that is a problem. The biggest problem with being at the Pavilion is
trying to find a parking spot.
And then we have the old redneck argument. I pay for
these roads and my taxes, and, therefore, I have the right to use
them. Well, we pay for a lot of things that we don't have the right
to use whenever we feel like it. We pay for schools. You just can't
walk in there and take the school whenever you want to use it. We pay
for your secretaries and your offices. We just don't walk in there
and say I'm going to use your office today, or I want to use your
secretary today to write a letter. So that is a ridiculous argument.
And there are rules of social behavior and social
structure. And there are rules for roads too, and the gentleman
earlier had discussed previously some of those. Neighborhood streets
are for neighborhoods, and they flow into secondary roads which take
you to arterials. And Pine Ridge roads are not secondary, nor are any
of the old neighborhood roads second -- old neighborhoods second --
for secondary roads. Theywre neighborhood roads.
And Iwve got to tell you that Iwve never heard such
complete unmitigated selfishness as Iwve heard here today, the whole
attitude that Iwm okay, Jack, the hell with you. Itws appalling.
Now, we know when traffic increases neighborhoods
deteriorate, and crime increases, and this is the honest safety issue
here. Itws unconscionable to destroy othersw homes or neighborhoods,
their right to quiet enjoyment for a group whose only concern is
shaving a couple of minutes to get to a movie or to save a thimble of
gas. You donwt do it.
Protecting an old neighborhood from cut-through traffic
is not setting a precedent. In the civilized world it is normal
procedure to protect neighborhoods from cut-through traffic. Those
who want to take a shortcut will always complain, and I urge you to
stay the course, to stick with your previous decision and not to
vacillate. Send a clear message that Collier County is going to
protect their old neighborhoods. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. McGilvra.
MR. McGILVRA: My name is Doug McGilvra. Iim speaking
as a private citizen today. Iim for the divider or whatever you want
to call it, the median divider on Pine Ridge Road, and Iill tell you
why. I live in Naples Park. Naples Park is a very large community on
the other side of the street. However, we have had drive-through
traffic up the poop shoot, if you will mind -- if you donlt mind the
expression. But welve had it and are continuing to have it and
continuing to address it and try to reduce it, so we feel a lot of
empathy for Pine Ridge and their problems too.
Now, the main thing here I think is the individual
property rights of the people who live in that area that -- you know,
everyone seems to pass that over. Theylre only concerned about how
much time it takes them to move from here to there, from A to B, how
much gas theylre driving. And donlt forget -- itls perhaps a silly
thing to say, but if they are spending more gas, thatls more taxes for
the county, gas tax, so welre improving if they do that. But itls a
stupid argument in the first place.
Okay. With all the developments, the situation, itls
going to get worse. Therels no question about that. Do we want to
make the situation in Pine Ridge worse by having more and more
developments come through the streets and even further decrease their
property values and stifle their individual property rights? And
thatls exactly what welre saying here.
Respecting the median, the median is not a wall as has
been mentioned by -- I kept -- forget the name of the individual. It
is not a wall. It is a slight sloped embankment that if necessary is
drivable across. It is not a wall, however. And from that point of
view, I mean I think this whole thing -- I can understand both sides
of the argument. I can understand both groups being unhappy about it
and teed off and so forth like that, but I think the main thing here
is letls get the Vanderbilt Beach Road segment done. Thatls the
mandatory thing. That will settle the whole situation right then and
there, but letls also respect the individual property rights of the
people who live in this area because I know welve had this problem in
Naples Park. And all small communities, as has been said before,
older communities are having it, and it is a real problem. Thank you
very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. Then I have Mr. Fisch
again. I don't know. We've had one Fisch. Is there a Sam Fisch? Is
there a separate Mr. Fisch here?
VOICE: Ms. Fisch.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Ms. Fisch then.
MR. ERLICHMAN: My name is Gilbert Erlichman, and I
reside in east Naples. I have no interest either real estate-wise or
property-wise in the Pine Ridge area. But I'm a citizen and taxpayer,
and looking at this map -- looking at this map, I never realized that
this Center -- Center Street was blocked off. I -- because I've never
driven through Pine Ridge, pardon me, the Pine Ridge development in
this area. So what they've done effectively up to this point, they've
blocked off Center Street. They've blocked off the Carica Road south,
and now they're going to put an impediment here in Carica Road north
which will effectively make this a gated or closed community. I hear
remarks. No way.
Well, the whole thing is that the commissioners rejected
Foxfire's application to have their -- this through road between Davis
and Radio Road gated. They turned it -- they turned down Foxfire.
Now, I am requesting that all the other communities in the area that
have through roads, connecting roads, apply to the commissioners to
have gates or blockade these roads from through traffic, Countryside,
Lakewood, Kings Lake, Foxfire, and any others that so desire, because
what you -- what you will do effectively is to -- is to block traffic
through the Carica Road area, and you've already blockaded Center
Street and the Carica Road south. Now, I don't know how Mr. Archibald
obtained or got permission to do that. Was that at the direction of
the Board, or was it -- pardon me? Was it at the direction of the
Board, sir?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I believe it was, though -- that
was prior to when I was on the Board.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. Well, the whole thing is I've
heard arguments about safety, fire hazards, time to travel, et
cetera. It's not that. And I heard a remark by a lady preceding Mr.
McGilvra saying that -- the rednecked argument that I paid for roads,
and, therefore, I have the right to use them. I don't consider that a
rednecked argument, although I would consider it an insult to be
called a redneck. But I consider that as a taxpayer I have a perfect
right to drive anyplace I wish as long as it's a dedicated road paid
for with my taxes. I do not want concrete slabs placed in -- in my --
pardon me, in my way so that I cannot go through a certain road
because a certain group of self-interested owners want privacy. Thank
you. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: My apologies to Ms. Fisch, and then Mr.
Reitz.
MS. FISCH: My name is Ramona Fisch. I live at Emerald
Lakes. I work at Vanderbilt Beach Road. This aspect of the median
has been covered from all sides. Safety, blah, blah, blah. But at
the same time nobody has mentioned what it will do to a lot of
people. I'm not the only one who uses that road just to go to work.
There are a lot of people working in Vanderbilt Beach at the
Ritz-Carlton who -- to who that road is quite essential. As it is
said, it adds a lot of gas, time, et cetera.
Now, I heard Mr. Dotrill mentioning publicly that he's
sick of the Pine Ridge issue. Well, we are all sick of it. And I
think this whole thing would have been long off the table if the
county commissioners had just said when Pine Ridge came back after the
road was opened, this is a public essential road. It is open. It
will stay open, and I think that may have been the end of it. Now, of
course, we have the problem that other communities might follow and
want the same privilege.
Now, Mr. Pires and some other representatives of Pine
Ridge have mentioned quality of life. What about the quality of life
of people like say in Lakewood, Granada, Solana, Ohio Roads? They
don't have a right to quality of life? Thank you. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: Mr. Reitz and then Mr. Keller.
MR. REITZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Douglas Reitz. I'm a temporary resident of
Lakeside, soon to become a resident of Monterey. This issue is not
about Monterey or Pine Ridge. I don't usually attend these hearings,
but I do feel a strong urge to express an opinion on it.
My first point involves access as a taxpayer, maybe a
rednecked taxpayer now, I guess, who supports the construction and
maintenance of public roads in Collier County and Pine Ridge
subdivisions specifically. Pine Ridge may have built the roads in the
beginning, but we are paying to have them maintained at the moment. I
feel in this situation it's totally unreasonable to be denied free
access to these public roads. I would understand it if there was some
overriding security or safety issue involved. This does not appear to
be the case in Pine Ridge. You haven't seen any mass accidents or
that type of thing that have occurred there. Here we have a very
small segment of the north Naples community that is receiving
preferential treatment at the expense of many others. And we're not
talking about 500 people. There are many others.
It seems every effort has been made to hamper access to
the public roads in Pine Ridge instead of that effort being made to
solve the problem. The obvious solution is -- as has been pointed
out, is open up Vanderbilt. We've been told today it's going to take
some two, possibly three years to complete that. In the interim you
ought to open up all the roads in Pine Ridge to public access. This
would disperse the traffic more evenly. Instead of having 5,000 cars
a day on north Carica and Hickory, you could get it more evenly
dispersed.
Center Street, that's been talked about. It's a good
example of a short, straight road that would ease the traffic of the
northern access. At present there's two berms in the middle of this
road and a thinly veiled attempt to make it look like a dead end. In
fact, we even have a sign that says it's a dead end. The road still
exists as the photographs showed. Motorists to get around that has to
take a very circuitous route to get around these berms and obviously
that was the intent of placing the dirt there in the first place.
It's a perfectly serviceable road that has been closed for the benefit
of a privileged few. Granada just south of Pine Ridge, to mention one
of number of other roads that have been mentioned already, is the same
width as Center Street. So it falls this distance between the homes
and the road. And look at the traffic it carries. I would hate to
even see the count on it. But you don't see medians and berms being
put on this road.
My second point deals with safety. It's been mentioned
a number of times. When the barrier was erected at Center Street off
Goodlette Road, look at the shambles that ensued. You had people
doing U-turns on both sides of the barrier, backing up the street the
long way, leaving the street altogether to make that turn, and not to
mention flat out running over the barriers. I forgot how many times
in different ways these markers were replaced before sanity prevailed
and they were removed. All these people were trying to tell you
something. This was not a good idea. We don't want the barriers
here.
If you put a median at north Carica, do you honestly
think the same thing will not happen? U-turns will still be made.
This time you have an added problem. Just north of north Carica you
have a turn in Goodlette Road. At that point it is possible there is
oncoming traffic that may not be seen when making this U-turn, and
they will occur when -- no matter whether you think people are law
abiding or not, they still are going to occur.
When approaching Goodlette-Frank on Orange Blossom
you've got plain green traffic lights, not directional arrows. The
sun is starting to go down. Someone is going to go straight through
that intersection and go into those concrete barriers head on. I
would love to be the lawyer on that case. He'll make a fortune.
My third point is precedence. If Pine Ridge is allowed
to manipulate the traffic on public roads in this manner, where will
it stop? Soon every community will be clamoring for its own
restrictions, and no one will be able to get anywhere. As I
understand, there's already certain neighborhoods, and we've had
representatives from them speak today. They are already standing in
the wings with their own traffic plans.
In closing I'd like to ask you, the commissioners, to
oppose the construction of the median and make the public roads
accessible to all. And as a side thought I'd like to also suggest
that you reallocate the $11,500 from the median to the ladies from
Copeland. They could use it far better. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Mr. Shales, Marv
Shales.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I don't
know how much longer we can beat this thing to death. However, it
really astounds me that all these people that are here today weren't
here at the last meeting that you had when you had to make a tough
decision as to what to do about a problem. How long is this going to
go on? You know, I'm really -- I'm very anxious to have the public --
as you know, I represented the public for years to express their
opinions. But do you think on these original public decisions that
this was generated by that we should permit them to come back and come
back and come back? Shouldn't we have a time limit in between so that
at least the staff can get a little rest? You know, we're spending --
these people here are talking about using a road. You realize how
much money we spend on staff time to beat these things to death? And
it's really not fair to you people or to the staff to go and beat
these things to death forever. This thing has been going on for three
years.
Historically Pine Ridge was basically a closed-type
community because the railroad was along what's now Goodlette Road,
and they didn't have any access to what is now Goodlette Road, and
they were perfectly happy. And the point is this, those streets were
never -- look at the bends in those streets. They never were made for
through streets. There was no intention to ever make them through
streets, so -- and consequently what happens when you go and put so
much traffic on a street that was never made for a through street,
you're causing a lot of inconvenience to everybody, and I don't
understand why people in order to save a few minutes can't go to the
main roads and use the main roads. You know, unfortunately, if there
was no road there, I rather think they would go right through the
yards. You know, there are such a thing as property rights, and
people have been there in Pine Ridge for over 26 years. They have a
certain amount of rights. And I don't think that we should go and
subject them to through traffic when -- when the road was not made to
carry through traffic.
And anything you've done, whether this -- this thing
that you're proposing here is good or not, I'm not so sure about. But
the point is this, something has to be done to protect those people's
property rights so that it doesn't become an arterial highway. Thank
you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Shales and then Mr. SalValvo.
MR. SHALES: I'm Harv Shales. I live in Monterey, and I
was dreading being put up near the end of this discussion because I
don't want to become redundant, and a lot of people have covered a lot
of issues. Suffice it to say that I think I see it, or maybe I can
bring a different twist to it. I was sitting at Orange Blossom and
Goodlette, the intersection, the other day, and just minutes prior
there was a head-on accident. Now, the first thing the police did was
to block off south Goodlette at Center Street and direct all the
traffic into Center Street, and where they went once they got in Pine
Ridge, they may still be there. But this is too long a road to have
what in effect is a giant dam between Immokalee and Pine Ridge. Those
who are going to use this road are primarily the six subdivisions --
primarily the six subdivisions that are just to the east of this
area. If you want to go anywhere south of Pine Ridge or north of
Immokalee, you don't go through Pine Ridge because it's not only
inconvenient, it's slow. And I think traffic studies have been done
to show that most people obey the speed limits in there. I don't see
this as a safety issue per se, and I don't know as any crimes are
permitted as a result of Hickory being opened.
The stretch of Goodlette Road is, as I said, too narrow
and too fast a road, which has already been pointed out to you. But
if you've ever had to drive this road at night, it's like threading
the needle. And those of you who have driven on Airport Road south of
Pine Ridge know exactly what I mean. If you loose your focus for a
minute, you're either into a barricade or a truck in the next lane.
So I just think particularly in this road, which does not have any
shoulders, this is a dangerous situation.
Also as it was already pointed out, people do not
respect barricades. I too have seen people almost create serious
traffic accidents by trying to make U-turns, by making inappropriate
U-turns by running over barricades, so I'm just not sure that this is
a viable solution.
No matter what basis you make this decision, I ask you
to please be responsive to the needs of hundreds of affected people,
both in Pine Ridge and the surrounding communities as it applies to
traffic, safety, and plain old common sense. And I am saying this
from the standpoint of having lived in Pine Ridge and now live out of
it. The old axiom is still good; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We
are not asking something that is not safe, reasonable, and going to
create the greatest amount of good and goodwill for the greatest
number of people. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. SalValvo, S-a-l-V-a-l-v-o.
VOICE: Mr. SalValvo had to leave.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Very good. Ms. Hamilton, Barbara
Hamilton. Following Ms. Hamilton is Mr. Schneider.
MS. HAMILTON: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name
is Barbara Hamilton. I live in Lakeside on north Airport Road. Over
the past few years I've read the articles in the paper about Pine
Ridge and Center Street and Carica. And I didn't pay too much
attention to it really because I very seldom go through there, but
when the latest thing came up, I got very upset about taxpayer money
being used.
And I decided since I can't do much on the national
level about how money is spent, that I could have a say on the local
level. So I wrote a letter to the newspaper. And basically it was
about taxpayer money being used to put in this median that essentially
closes off a community and keeps us from using public roads that we
help to maintain. And I feel that $11,500 could be put to a better
use. And I think it should be used to benefit the whole community
rather than just one small part of the community.
Similar situations have arisen in other Collier County
communities, and blocking public streets was not allowed. What's good
for one part of the community should be good for the whole community
-- or for the whole county. Sorry. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Schneider and then Mr. Cullen.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Hi, my name is Cliff Schneider. I live
at 234 Tupelo Road. I lived in Pine Ridge since December of '73, and
I'm on my second house and on the second one on Hickory Road.
All of the streets in Pine Ridge were designed for
residential use. None were planned for collector -- major collectors
or arterials. It's a fact. The residents relied on that when they
bought their properties, and we invested accordingly. The -- you had
somebody say today that the roads were built with public tax dollars.
That's false. That was built by the developer. The people that
bought those lots in essence built those roads.
We also heard that nobody violates the speed limits up
there. The sheriff's department's own studies show that the majority
of the vehicles going through that area violate the speed limit.
Why was the Crossings permitted without connections to
the Pine Ridge Industrial Park? That would have helped me a lot
because I like to go back to the industrial park and get some parts
for something. I could have got to my home a whole lot quicker, but
I've got to go about 3 miles out of the way to do it. It would have
made great traffic sense, terrible for the neighborhood. I agree with
what was done.
Why weren't Emerald Lakes and Monterey interconnected
and also joined to Vanderbilt Beach Road had that provision been
made? It would have shortened travel distances for a lot of folks.
It made transportation sense. Not good for the neighborhood, and I
agree with that.
The average motorist who drives through there says, hey,
there's no problem here. I'm through here in about 30 seconds. I'm
going about 45, 50. It's true. Spend a week or two living there, and
you'll take a whole different perspective. Property values have
fallen. It's dangerous to mow the public right of way.
Drivers, some have deliberately tried to run over people
emptying their mailbox. One person had a beer bottle thrown at her,
said you dirty so and so, Pine Ridget. Every day the streets are
strewn with litter. I pick it up. I'm a good citizen along with the
rest of the folks.
The problem is the high volume of traffic and the
cut-through element. The objective here is to reduce the volume.
Traffic control measures are proposed. That's what we're talking
about. They're still public roads. People can still go on them. You
may go farther out of the way to get there, but this is a traffic
control issue. It's like restricting a right turn or a left turn.
It's been done at other places. A solution is needed. Maybe folks
don't like the cost. You could do it a whole lot cheaper. You could
go buy four concrete barriers and cover it over with dirt for about
500 bucks, a whole lot cheaper than 11,000. But that's not what was
proposed.
We who live in the impacted area don't like what's been
done to our neighborhood and our investments. The opponents, they'd
feel the same way if they live there. Why? Because they're people.
We're not that much different. And the truth is the volumes coming
out of subdivisions to the east, that's not what's really generating
the problem. It's the fact that it's become a community arterial.
A lot of verbiage lately that there's been a lot of
staff time wasted and spent on this. A lot of time has been spent.
The truth is about all that was ever implemented was some four-way
stop signs. Fixed improvements could have been done and cost far less
than the staff time to date.
Hickory Road and Carica would not have required $12,000
in resurfacing -- I don't know if that number is correct; it's around
there -- because the volume of the trucks and the cars would not have
made it fall apart. I mentioned that to everybody here before. The
continual presence of the pothole crews, wouldn't need that. In the
rainy season they're there probably every other day because the
vehicle volumes are tearing it up.
The magnitude of the blight placed in this north Naples
neighborhood is no less than a sewer plant in the middle of a
subdivision or no less than a landfill close to a subdivision causing
problems. And we're prepared to spend millions of dollars rectifying
this. And that's correct. I agree with that. The dollars we're
talking about here is maintenance. Please help the situation.
Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cullen and then Mr. DeHart.
MR. CULLEN: My name is James Cullen. I'm a resident of
North Naples. I'm here today to speak individually and in opposition
to the construction of any traffic impediment. Not to be either
patronizing or presumptuous to the Commission, the role of any
governmental authority is to weigh the benefits and burdens of any
decision you make. You have a traffic problem. It's identified.
It's real. A solution has been identified. Unfortunately, the
solution has not come to fruition for two or three years.
You then have to say where are we today. Looking at
this community as a whole, you represent this entire county. When you
look at the benefits and the burdens and weigh those for the community
as a whole and the precedent you may be setting or not setting, who
would be affected, the numbers, and who would not be affected, the
numbers, I think you may find that there are more people being
burdened by a restricted traffic flow, whether it's located here or
whether it's located anywhere, than those that are being benefitted.
You have to remember in any type of neighborhood
environment, certainly these people in Pine Ridge will have to suffer
for some period of time until the solution is fixed, a burden. The
benefit of that burden is for a huge number of people, not the 24 that
live on Hickory or wherever else. I would, therefore, urge you to
remember the community as a whole and your responsibility to the
community in your decision today and would ask you to vote in
opposition to the construction of any traffic impediments.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Cullen, let me ask you a
question. Isn't it really the role of government in a democratic
society to protect the minority from the majority? Isn't that just
opposite of what you just said?
MR. CULLEN: No. To the contrary -- to the contrary, I
think it's the obligation of any government authority to determine
what is best for the community as a whole. In some cases a
determination that what is for the good of the community could, in
fact, as you state -- would be in favor of a minority. Under our
representative type of government you are elected by individuals who
agree with your positions, and those individuals count on you to use
your best judgment. Sometimes you will make a -- take an action that
is contrary to what they think is appropriate but in your best
judgment for the benefit of the community as a whole. For example, a
safety issue. I mean safety has been discussed a significant amount
of time here. For example, in a safety issue it might benefit a few,
might be safe for a few and to the detriment of the vast majority. In
that case it is your obligation and duty to protect the few, the one,
if it's necessary.
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I agree with your conclusion in
terms of a median. I just wanted to indicate that when I make
decisions, and I presume that everybody on the Board uses the same
philosophy, we don't simply count the number of people that are
affected one way versus the number of people that are affected another
way. That really is not an issue that I think should be considered.
I agree with your conclusion in terms of this particular barrier. I
just disagree with the analysis that you used to get to that
conclusion. That's all I'm saying.
MR. CULLEN: As I said, I don't mean to be patronizing.
And don't certainly infer that you should use a count to make a
decision. My reference was to a review on an overall basis of the
community's needs. The community is the County. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. DeHart and then Miss Tragesser.
MR. DeHART: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm Arnold DeHart. I live at 7000 Trail Boulevard in
Pine Ridge. I'm appearing before you again for the purpose of
preserving our neighborhood in Pine Ridge. I'm quite sure that all
that we've been through, that if we were building Pine Ridge today it
would be a gated community. We are not trying to keep people out as
the media and various letter writers have indicated. There are a
dozen roads in and out -- more than a dozen roads in and out of Pine
Ridge sub. All we are trying to do is keep our streets from becoming
major arterial highways and to keep cars and trucks from speeding past
our stop signs.
Incidentally, after listening to the dire things about
people burning in their houses while waiting for ladder trucks to
come, I'm glad I live in Pine Ridge. We have over a dozen roads in
and out for emergency vehicles. If I lived in a place that had only
one or two, I would move.
You have heard that the large increase in traffic that's
been discussed many times, that many of our residents have had to
suffer through all of this. The police tell us that the increase in
cut-through traffic has given Pine Ridge a measurable increase in
crime. We've all seen an increase in vandalism, not counting bottles
and cans that we now have to pick up. I'm sure that our friends in
Monterey and the Crossings and our neighbors are not the major cause
of our problem.
Since our last meeting here on the subject I have been
gathering information about how we got where we are. I sent all of
you a copy of this. I hope you have a chance to at least get down to
my rather terse summaries. But these are all items that affect the
traffic in Pine Ridge. I was really amazed to learn that we really
started worrying about this in 1973 where we had plans in place to try
to solve the problem of east-west traffic in Pine Ridge. The Colliers
anticipated this problem and tried to head it off.
In reading through this I found that promises were made
and not kept. I found that there were secret agreements affecting
Pine Ridge to which they had no knowledge. Time and again rulings
were made by the commissioners concerning Pine Ridge, and after these
rulings nothing would happen. Some correction would be put in place
but then would either be removed by the County or illegally by the
motorists, or the ruling may have been subsequently reversed.
We in Pine Ridge have put hundreds of hours, if not
thousands, into developing traffic plans to obtain some measure of
traffic economy. Essentially today we are worse off than when we
started. Traffic counts are increasing continually.
As far as asking people out of Pine Ridge about what
they would like to do about going through Pine Ridge, of course, they
would like to have a nice road. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that people,
like the most of you, would like to have a nice highway through to
951. And while you're at it, why not put in a couple of gasoline
stations and a hamburger joint or two.
And, finally, I would like to comment on the editorial
policies of the Naples Daily News and station WNOG that seek to
promote division of the community to set one segment of the community
against the other, to keep the pot boiling, if you will. It seems to
me that the local medium should be seeking to promote harmony and
goodwill, not hate and division, all kinds of hate stuff. We've
already seen some very bad examples of hate directed at our citizens.
It is my opinion that if the editorial policies I have cited were
ongoing in Los Angeles, the riots would still be raging. I firmly
believe that the county commission should be running the county and
setting the policy, not the media. Thank you. Help us preserve our
community.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Tragesser and then Mr. Hitchem.
MS. TRAGESSER: My name is Terri Tragesser, and I live
at 208 Hickory Road. I'd like to submit for the record signatures of
people in Pine Ridge. What we did was anticipating the amount of
interest in the subject, we over the weekend generated some petitions
reflecting the support of our own community, and in a very short
amount of time we have 105 actual signed in support for the median
barrier. And then we also quickly gamered support from virtually
every area of the county. There's 40 here, and this was done in a
matter of two days. Thank you.
Life on Hickory Road is a unique experience. If you
live on Hickory Road, you have a different life-style than you do in
other parts of Collier County. Granada Boulevard experiences, I'm
sure, something similar to what we are going through right now.
The sheriff's department, the County, and the HPO
recognized that if our neighborhoods don't survive, Collier County is
not going to survive. Part of all the planning that goes on for
studies on the year 2,000, any of your futuristic planning deals with
the preservation of neighborhoods.
Pine Ridge sits right smack dab in the middle of three
arterials, soon to be four. It's a part of the County's
responsibility as you urbanize to look at communities and do
retrofitting, access management, to make sure that those communities
and the safety of their citizens is part of your growing process. The
community of Pine Ridge at no time felt that their problems were so
unique that we shouldn't begin to look at the problems of other
communities. And we are involved in that process. We serve on a task
force that the HPO has set up to look at these problems. And you --
this is kind of a test case, if you will. We are going through
something, and it's difficult for elected officials to deal with
issues like this. They're doing it all over the United States.
They're biting the bullet. They're saying, hey, these are
neighborhoods. They must survive. How are we going to do it?
It involves all sorts of barriers, diverters, any number
of -- of processes, but you have a choice, and I can tell you I have
in my hand right now an appraisal that was done before the road was
opened at my neighbor's house and then another appraisal that was done
after the road was open. There is a $77,000 difference in the
appraisal price. And cited in that appraisal are comments relating to
traffic in excess of --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ladies and gentlemen, if we can
keep the comments quiet, please, and let her present her case.
MS. TRAGESSER: Thank you. And then you say, well, so
what. In a couple of years everything will be fine, and the road will
be through. We have residents in our community who are elderly and in
ill health. They've got to put that for sale sign up right now.
$7,000 is two years in a nursing home. It's a very personal matter
for the people on this street, and I'd like for you all to support
Pine Ridge.
Mr. Archibald has defined in detail concerns that the
people in Monterey have expressed relating to safety issues, and he
has indicated that median will be built to F-2-O standards. We've got
them all over the county. This is not a big issue. And I would like
to think that the people outside our community value the lives of our
children as much as they value their own. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hitchem and then Mr. HcGuire.
MR. HITCHEH: Good afternoon. My name is Flynn
Hitchem. I live at the intersection of Carica Road and Myrtle Road in
Pine Ridge. Let me say that again. I live at the intersection of
Carica Road and Myrtle Road in Pine Ridge. At that intersection there
are 15 children that live there at that intersection. Since our
neighborhood has been opened up or made more accessible, I have people
drive through my yard. I have people throw beer cans out in my yard,
which I pick up.
It seems to me the problem and the thing that -- the
decision that needs to be made, as to whether we're going to make an
area more liveable by people or more convenient for automobiles. To
me that's a very simple decision, and there's only one solution. I
just don't see how a decision can be made that will eventually result
in the destruction of a neighborhood simply to make it more accessible
to automobiles and less liveable for people. To me it makes no sense
because I live there.
And as a lady mentioned before, it's a problem that
municipalities are having to deal with all over the country. When
people want to get from one side of a county or one area to another,
and there just happens to be a residential area in between, it's a
problem. And the people that live in that residential area are the
ones that are caught in the middle. It's a problem that we can work
out.
But I honestly feel that if we were manatees or bald
eagles or snail daughters, it would be no question whatsoever. Every
resource whatsoever that was available at the local level, the state
level, and the federal level would be available to stop everything.
But since we're people, nothing is available to us except for us to
organize and try to let other people understand that it's our children
we're worried about. That's the problem. Just at this one
intersection, the 15 children. And when I put my kids in bed at night
in order for me to read them stories and to understand, for me to look
them in the eye, they -- I want them to know that I'm doing everything
I can to make their home as safe as possible. And like I said, I
really can't afford to be here today. I need to be at work, but if --
I can't really afford not to be here either. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. HcGuire, then Mr. Schwartz.
MR. HcGUIRE: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is
John HcGuire. I live in Beachwalk in north Naples, and I'm a member
of the North Naples Property Owners Association transportation
committee. And as a committee we support Pine Ridge. We're looking
at north Naples, at safe neighborhoods and traffic calming and in all
areas, and we feel this is -- applies to this road. And we agree with
what -- the decision you made two weeks ago or so. What nobody has
mentioned here is that you're reducing traffic 50 percent. You're
coming one way, and traffic is open west to east the other way, and I
think nobody has mentioned that. So I think everything is said that
has to be said here, but I just wanted to mention that we do support
Pine Ridge. Thank you.
VOICE: Mr. Schwartz had to go back to work.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Ms. Barker. Following Ms.
Barker is Mr. Berens. Mr. Berens, if I could get you to start coming
forward, please.
MS. BARKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record my name is Sally Barker. I'm a resident of Pine Ridge, and
this is my exhibit. This is my youngest child. This is a Pine Ridge
snail daughter, an endangered species.
Over the last 15 years I have raised two children in
Pine Ridge. For those 15 years I never worried about their safety
when they were out riding around on their bicycles. At least I didn't
worry about it until 22 months ago. Now I worry about it a lot. I
worry about my child. I worry about the more than -- nearly 500
children who live in Pine Ridge. And I'm certainly going to worry
about it with what I've heard about today with all the calls for
opening up Carica south and removing the Center Street berm. That's
500 endangered Pine Ridge snail daughters under the age of 18 that
we're looking at.
The children living in the gated communities to the east
of us can play and run on their streets with no fear of danger from
traffic. Our children can't say that. We have 5,000 cars a day on
one of our roads. That was in July. God knows what it's going to be
like in January. Is it going to be 5,500? 6,000? 6,500? I don't
know. It's going to be abominable if something isn't done, and it's
within your power to do that something today.
The issue before you today is not an issue of public
access to public roads. That's a smoke screen. It really is. The
issue, as the gentleman -- couple gentlemen before him -- is one of
convenience, motoring convenience versus the safety of people. And by
people I include adults and the 500 children of Pine Ridge.
What they are demanding is access that is the most
convenient for them, not necessarily the safest for us. The fact that
no accident has occurred yet on Carica north is not an indication the
situation is safe. That's like saying the pipe bomb that was found in
Bonita Springs last week was safe because it hadn't exploded yet. I
mean that's not safety. That's just pure dumb luck. You can reverse
your vote today on the median barrier; that's your prerogative. But
in doing so you might want to bear in mind the sort of message that
you're going to be sending to the parents in Pine Ridge, the parents
in Naples Park, the parents in Twin Lakes, and all the other
neighborhoods in the county that are grappling with this excessive
traffic problem, and those neighborhoods need help too. Pine Ridge
isn't the only neighborhood that needs help. A lot of neighborhoods
need help.
But the message, if you take away the median barrier
today, is that you don't care, that you don't care about the safety of
the children. You don't care about the safety of the people in Pine
Ridge. I don't think that's the message you want to send. I really
hope it's not the message you want to send.
The point is that we in Pine Ridge do care. We care
passionately about our children. That's why I take off work every
time this issue comes up and come down here. Yes, I have a job. I
bet you didn't know that. My boss didn't see me a lot when these
issues came up because I'm here. I feel that strongly about the
safety of our children, that they have to be protected. Our people
have to be protected.
For reasons that I don't even pretend to understand --
pretend to understand, the news media here has labeled us the bad guys
in all of this. Now, I was raised to believe that fighting for one's
home and fighting for one's children was the American way. I mean we
had young men die in seven wars for that ideal. And that's all we're
trying to do in Pine Ridge. We're trying to fight for our homes, and
we're trying to fight for our families.
A few weeks ago a gentleman tried to tell me that
flooding the streets of Pine Ridge with traffic was progress. That's
progress? Has our value system in this country become so warped that
progress is measured by how many neighborhoods we can ruin with
traffic? Does progress mean we automatically bow down to the all
mighty automobile? My God, I hope not. But some would have you
believe that we are wrong for fighting for our families, that we're
wrong for believing that it -- that this is somehow evil, that we're
pushing so hard to protect our homes and our neighborhood.
The median barrier is not a perfect solution. We never
said it was, but it's a safer solution. It's a safer solution than
allowing the traffic to continue to mount daily on Carica north and
endanger the children and the people of Pine Ridge.
Getting back to the central issue, and then I'll wrap
up. The central issue again is convenience versus safety. Is
convenience worth the deprivation of a neighborhood? Is convenience
worth the danger to the people? To the children? Is convenience the
legacy you, the outgoing commission, want to leave with us today? I
hope not. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Berens and then Mr. Feldman.
MR. BERENS: Good afternoon. I'm Bob Berens, and I live
at 1708 San Bernandino Way in the Villages of Monterey. I thank you
for having this hearing again. I want to state first off,
Commissioner Norris, that I agree with what you said last time, that
we can't have government by consensus. But I'd like to remind the
commissioners and this whole group here that both sides were given an
ample opportunity to present their case in January of '93, which we
did to a great extent, and the Board agreed to open up Pine Ridge. So
the other things that come up like this action of a month ago where as
Commissioner Matthews mentioned afterwards, had she known that this
group that came here backed up by Mr. Archibald did not represent both
sides of the issue, she would have been not so eager to support it.
That group came here with no notice for us to present our side of the
issue. And that's why we're here today, and I thank the Board for
that.
I think to recap what happened, for those that don't
remember the whole thing, in 1981 the Commission then signed an
agreement with the developer that if they would spend more than one
million dollars to extend Goodlette Road from Pine Ridge to Orange
Blossom, we would have guaranteed access to the west. That has been
totally ignored ever since then.
In April of 1990 Commissioner Volpe met with us in the
clubhouse at the Villages of Monterey, promised us faithfully, as did
commissioners at that time that when Goodlette Road was completed up
to Immokalee Road, the barricades would come down, we'd have access to
the west. Never happened. I acknowledge that the commissioners have
a right to shut off traffic when there is an overriding safety
concern, but I'd like to address that whole thing to first see if we
have a problem before we try to come up with a solution.
That road was opened -- well, first let me preface that.
We hired a traffic engineer before that January '93 meeting, a guy
named Jim Banks who Mr. Archibald said was a good traffic engineer who
came down, measured all the roads, rode through Pine Ridge with us.
And the roads then we knew that were the big concern were that short
stretch of Carica Road and Hickory Road and said that Hickory Road,
because of its width, the wide berm, the setback of the houses and the
setback of the sidewalk would handle 600 cars per hour safely. Today
it handles -- Hickory does, handles less than 300 cars per hour. I
ride that road morning and evening rush hour, and I go through there
with maybe one car in front of me and one car behind me, and I pass
one or two cars going the opposite direction. I get to the red light
over at 41, which is a long signal because of the left turn lane
there, and there maybe are two cars behind me for a whole light
change, and yet we hear about this bumper to bumper traffic problem.
There is no traffic problem. The best argument in our favor is that
the roads were opened 22 months ago. There's not even been a cat or a
dog run over, let alone a child or an adult. There is no safety
problems. Those streets are way under what they're rated for to carry
on traffic. And 22 months of opening this should prove that.
I came through Pine Ridge an hour ago on my way here.
There was one car behind me, and I passed one other car, no bumper to
bumper traffic, no speeding. I went 30 miles an hour. Nobody piled
up on my bumper because they want to go faster.
If there were a problem with speed and a problem with
people running stop signs, as someone mentioned, it's not a problem
for the county commission. It's a problem for the sheriff's office.
Their obligation is to enforce those laws. I talked to some of the
deputies out in north Naples who had radared through there. They said
almost every person they ticket lives in Pine Ridge. They are not
outside people. So if there's a problem, it's caused by their own
kids. It's mostly young people they ticket.
So, again, I -- I want to state that the solution should
be that all those barricades are removed so the traffic can -- can
disperse throughout it because most people don't want to drive through
Pine Ridge proper. We want to take the perimeter road that gets us
around Pine Ridge to go to the Pavilion, and there are very few houses
on that road. So I thank you very much for your consideration.
(Applause).
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Feldman is the final registered
speaker, Madam Chairman.
MR. FELDHAN: Michael Feldman. I'm a resident of 7545
Cordoba Circle in Monterey, Naples. Safety is the determinative issue
here. A median will present a serious threat to public safety by
forcing drivers to make dangerous U-turns, impeding emergency
services, causing traffic pileups on Goodlette Road, and introducing a
dangerous obstacle to traffic on a relatively narrow road.
Only 24 houses are on Hickory Road. Therews been no
showing made today of any danger to any of those few residents. Other
roads and barricades that have been mentioned by some Pine Ridge today
such as north Carica barricade are not at issue today. The only issue
before this commission is this barricade -- the median on Goodlette
Road. To deny the public the use of another public road in Pine Ridge
-- you are already denying the public the use of the roads that are
barricaded now. To deny the use of another road in Pine Ridge will be
prejudicial and discriminatory.
Such a median on Goodlette would cause danger to
thousands of cars that travel on Goodlette, cars that just like as the
Pine Ridge residents say may contain children, handicapped people,
people that could be injured by an accident. It would be dangerous to
put in the Goodlette median to all those cars. What can happen is you
could have pileups and various other problems that could develop on
Goodlette Road. Pine Ridge residents have failed to show that there
is any reasonable or justifiable reliance on anything that was ever
done by the County.
There was some mention today that, well, we thought
there wouldnwt be traffic through here. Therews nothing they can
point to. Therews nothing this County or commission ever did that
they can rely upon.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thatws not true. Thatws just not
true. Itws well documented. Itws on the record many times.
MR. FELDMAN: Well, to the contrary, it is well
documented that with Monterey and the other developers to the east of
Goodlette there was a promise made by the County that there would be
access through Pine Ridge, and that was a more recent promise and one
thatws well documented.
I donwt take issues with yours because I have not
reviewed any such documentation, but Iwm very familiar with the
documentation regarding the access for the developments to the east of
Goodlette, and that has been clearly shown and is, I might point out,
certainly more recent and has been sanctioned by the County.
As -- from everything Iwve seen, Pine Ridge has always
been designed to be open to the public. Hickory Road was maintained
by the county and was recently resurfaced at the Countyws expense.
The resurfacing on Hickory Road, which the County paid for, should
easily allow for the small amount of traffic that goes through Hickory
Road to flow through without any problem.
The -- eventually this county is attempting to build
Vanderbilt Beach Road which should help reduce any problem on Hickory
Road as traffic increases over time and so when traffic increases,
Vanderbilt Beach Road will take care of that, and that is another
solution. There are other solutions too that this County can
explore. If there really is a speed problem or traffic problem, they
could put in -- if necessary have the sheriff increase the supervision
over there. They could put in speed bumps. There are other various
things you could do, but donwt bar public access over there.
Another thing, as you did on Crayton Road, you could put
in a bike path which has proved on Crayton to work very well to slow
traffic and make it safer for the pedestrians and for the bicycles
along Hickory Road, but don't block off the road. Another thing you
could do is there's been some complaint about truck traffic.
Eliminate truck traffic. Put one of those no truck signs. Have the
police ticket any trucks going through, and we don't have any truck
problem anymore.
There are 528 homes in Pine Ridge. There's been talk
today about a petition signed by maybe a hundred or so of the Pine
Ridge residents. Where is the other 80 percent of the Pine Ridge
residents? They don't seem to be supporting this. Look at the
majority here today. Hajority is important, Commissioner Saunders,
very important, because it tells you what the people are looking for
and tells you where the people's concerns are. I don't even see a
majority of Pine Ridge people who are opposing this median, and
certainly you have the majority of people throughout north Naples that
are very opposed to this.
So we ask that the -- the Commission follow common
sense. The majority is expressed by Naples Daily News and WNOG just
supporting the common sense vast majority of the people and follow the
most important thing here, which is safety, by not compounding a
safety problem and not allowing this median to be put in on Goodlette
Road. Thank you very much. (Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Feldman.
Discussion amongst the Board on ideas of anything that we've heard or
things that we might do?
COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll just start off very
briefly. A few weeks ago or a month ago when this issue was being
debated by the county commission I said to a lot of good friends that
I had in Pine Ridge that it's very difficult for me to disagree with
them on this type of an issue because I know how important it is, but
I felt that this was not the proper solution to this problem, that it
will create more of a hazard by placing the median in Goodlette Road,
that the real solution was to expedite to the greatest extent possible
the completion of Vanderbilt Beach Road extension from 41 to Goodlette
Road.
I've been advised by Mr. Archibald today that he
understands the need to expedite that. He understands that that's the
ultimate solution. And I understand, Mr. Archibald, that there may be
a possibility of getting that segment from 41 to Goodlette Road
completed within about 18 months. Now, that's not necessarily good
news because that's still an awful long time, but at least it's an
indication that our staff now recognizes that is the ultimate solution
to this problem. That is the -- really the only reasonable solution
to this problem.
But, Mr. Archibald, in terms of that 18 months, I know
that that's not a commitment on your part, but you had indicated that
there may be that -- that opportunity to -- to expedite this and
complete it in that period of time. Is that something that you're
prepared to move forward on?
MR. ARCHIBALD: You heard Tom Conrecode a little earlier
today confirm too that the two critical steps, environmental
permitting and right of way acquisition, should be completed by the
latter part of 1995. When we start construction, whether it's the
latter part of '95 or the very early part of '96, what I hear the
Board saying is to go ahead and assure that the initial phase of
construction is that segment between U.S. 41 and Goodlette-Frank
Road.
I think that we can recognize very readily that if we
put our construction focus and our construction efforts on that first
phase and phase of construction project, that that project should be
completed within six months of the start of construction. So we're
looking at sometime in 1996, best-case scenario, maybe the middle of
1996.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I think it would not be an
overstatement to say that every person in this room wants you to focus
on that segment and get that segment built as quickly as is practical
for us to do. And if that's 18 months, then it's 18 months. If you
can speed it up beyond that, then I think everyone in this room would
say that's where we need to focus our attention in terms of this
particular problem.
I'm also a little bit disturbed that we've kind of got
this postured as we make a decision to put the median in Goodlette
Road or we're making a decision to destroy a neighborhood and endanger
children. And there's no one on this board, and there's no one in
this room that wants to do anything that's going to endanger anybody.
For me it's not that choice. It just seems to me that the proper
solution is to move forward with Goodlette Road and that segment
between Goodlette Road and 41.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I had contacted the North Naples
Fire Control District and sheriff's office in the last several days,
and I have a letter from the sheriff's office indicating that the
median, if it were installed on Goodlette-Frank Road limiting westward
access, would cause the sheriff's office no degree of concern. But I
have also a letter from the North Naples Fire Control District signed
by Jim Jones, and the third paragraph of this letter causes me concern
because he's indicating that if the median were put in place, it would
limit the fire department's ability to access Pine Ridge and that they
would have to turn into Pine Ridge on Center Street and then proceed
north on winding roads, and he foresees a delay of two to five minutes
in accessing an emergency within Pine Ridge. That's quite a delay in
a fire situation. So we have that to contend with also.
I'm -- I had some mixed feelings at first as to why is
the fire department having this trouble and the sheriff's department
isn't, and I'm told that the reason is that the fire department would
be coming from a fixed place, namely the fire station, whereas the
sheriff would be responding from wherever the sheriff's patrol car
happens to be, and that's -- that's part of the reason why the sheriff
would not have a particular problem with this.
So to me we have to weigh that also, that there -- there
is a safety issue that the fire department foresees. That's where we
are.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Volpe.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just a couple comments. Obviously
this is an issue that we dealt with for several years now. When this
matter came back before the Board several weeks ago, I think we all
looked at it as being a possible temporary solution to the concerns of
the people within the Pine Ridge subdivision. I don't think any of us
at the time felt that it was the ultimate solution. The ultimate
solution is, as I think we discussed early on, is the completion of
the Vanderbilt Beach Road between U.S. 41 and Airport Road.
We now have consensus. We didn't have consensus early
on in this process. There was action by the Board to actually remove
that segment of Vanderbilt Beach Road from the CI element of our
growth management plan because it was not concurrency driven.
I'm convinced at this point that the reservations that I
had based upon the concerns that were expressed by our own staff and I
think some points that were made by Commissioner Saunders in terms of
the potential for abuses as we saw occurred at the point in time when
we were allowing or trying to restrict left-hand turns into Center
Street through various traffic control devices are not successful.
I'm convinced at this point that the construction of the
median is not the solution. The solution is Vanderbilt Beach Road,
and I would reconsider my vote and vote to remove the direction to the
staff to go ahead and construct the median.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot of
the arguments we heard today are the same ones that we've heard before
every time we've heard this issue. One of the things that gets lost,
I think, in this discussion is commitment from prior boards. The
history of Pine Ridge goes back a long time, as everyone knows,
decades. The reason those roads are on that east side in the first
place is because it was intended to have a sister residential
community built that connected through those roads. There was never
at any time any consideration for having through traffic come in from
the east or access to the outside to come in through the east. That
was never a concern ever. The community wasn't designed for that.
The roads were never designed for that. It was something that came
about much, much later, in fact, very recently, because there was a
railroad there. A lot of people don't realize that there was a
railroad there. There was never any thought of having an actual
highway there.
So the thing is it's been documented on numerous
occasions with prior county commissions going back decades have made
the commitment over and over that there will be no general access from
the east to Pine Ridge, yet here we are with fairly recent boards
making a deal with Monterey and some other developments to go ahead
and put in access there and to build Goodlette Road, which, once
again, was never intended for Pine Ridge. So to me the issue comes
down to weighing -- as Mr. Cullen said, you have to look at benefit
versus burden. That I don't really agree with, as Commissioner
Saunders did not.
What I use to make a decision is to take all the points
for and against an issue and prioritize those and weigh those. And
what this one finally comes down to is the convenience of the motoring
public, which is very important, weighed against the commitment that
prior boards made decades ago, the protection of someone's
neighborhood, which, by the way, those of you on the side that want
that access, if something were to change and to attack your
neighborhood, I would be in favor of protecting your neighborhood
also. And these neighbors who -- these people who bought their
property who knows how long ago before there even was a Goodlette
Road, they have the right to quiet enjoyment of their property like
everyone else.
So to me the more important things are to try to make
some measure that will limit access to Pine Ridge temporarily while we
get this Vanderbilt Beach Road extension finished, which is the
ultimate solution. And those issues are much more important to me
than I think in this particular case the convenience, the mere
convenience of the motoring public.
But I think I can count to four, and it looks like this
median is not going to be installed from what I've heard on the board
here. So whoever makes the motion, I would like to ask that we
establish some sort of policy here today where we don't continue to
rehear these issues over and over and over and redecide these issues
and have to go through this process over and over. If you could
include that into your motion, at least maybe I could support that.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Commissioner Norris, I've just --
we were all sitting as a board in January of 1993 when we as a board
unanimously agreed that we would open Center and Carica to the north.
And what I'm focused on now is the ultimate solution. Mr. Barton is
absolutely right. The discussions that we had at the time about the
solution at that time I believed was the completion of Goodlette-Frank
Road from Pine Ridge Road to Immokalee Road, that that was the
solution. As it's turned out, that was not the solution. I believe
the ultimate solution will be Vanderbilt Beach Road. But what we were
trying to do two or three weeks ago was to look at a traffic control
measure that was external to the subdivision that would help to
address the concerns that were expressed to us based upon safety and
based upon our commitment to try to recognize traffic calming
measures.
I've just come to the conclusion that this particular
traffic calming measure is not the solution. When I reflect upon what
had happened when we put up barricades at Center Street -- and that's
kind of the thought process I have been through, not that I too am not
concerned. I'm a big supporter of the safe neighborhoods act and what
should be done in terms of traffic calming measures. I don't think
this is the appropriate manner in which to address it when we consider
the high-speed traffic on Goodlette-Frank Road, which I'm sure
unfortunately is going to try to look for the shortest route to get to
U.S. 41 and violate, I'm afraid, whatever the traffic control measures
are that are in that area. That's kind of how I look at it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Well, I understand that,
Commissioner Volpe, and I respect that position of yours. I will
point out that in that meeting of January 1993 when we opened those
streets, that we did commit to reexamination. And if there were
problems occurring, and if we had created a bad situation, that we
would take some action to rectify it. This is an attempt to rectify
that. If we're not going to do this, then we need to do something
that will. We made that commitment, this board sitting right here,
not prior boards, this board.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just one final comment, and that is
that I perhaps was a bit of a pessimist when the suggestion was made
by Commissioner Matthews as to whether this is some sort of an
opportunity. But I think Mr. Day and some other representatives of
the community here had indicated a willingness to see if there were
certain measures that could be agreed upon. It is not government by
consensus, but certainly we work with our staff to try to explore
different alternatives. There may still be some alternatives that we
have not looked at, whether -- someone had mentioned speed bumps of
some kind. If that will cut down on the speed and the violations,
perhaps that's an alternative we have not explored on Hickory in this
intervening period of time as long as it takes to complete Vanderbilt
Beach Road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For me the most frustrating part
of this, as Mr. Cullen mentioned, we have to make decisions based on
the community as a whole. Any issue like this seems to be divisive to
the community as a whole. We end up tearing a community apart.
What's terribly frustrating is take any community that is not your
own, if you live in Monterey, and you're talking about Pine Ridge,
it's those people in Pine Ridge or vice versa, those people. And I
commend the two groups for sitting down this past week because I've
had an opportunity to sit down with people on all sides of this issue,
and everybody has their own valid points, but everyone has their own
thoughts and reasons, and I don't think -- maybe someone that I
haven't come in contact with, but I don't think anybody is being
irrational here. I think everyone is expressing their concerns. And
it's very helpful, as you've said, Commissioner Volpe, when the two
sit down and see one another as real people and see what they can come
up with and work with there.
I had met several months ago now initially with the Pine
Ridge homeowners' group, and we had looked at initially a number of
different possible internal controls, things within the Pine Ridge
community. The discussion came up almost every time -- we got
together maybe two, three times, and each time the discussion came up
about potential things outside of the Pine Ridge community. And I
warned -- and I will jokingly use the word prophesied -- that we would
have this exact situation if we did anything outside the boundaries of
Pine Ridge.
When it came to us a few weeks ago, there was virtually
no objection, and I don't think -- there were a couple suggestions
that the people of Pine Ridge had tried to sneak it through or
whatever. We had an advertised public hearing. I don't think anyone
was doing anything underhanded purposely there. But since that time I
have heard a number of concerns, as Commissioner Matthews points out,
ranging from the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District to just
individual people. And at this point I am frustrated. I joked
earlier today. I said in college the ideal exam was when there was no
right answer because you could write anything down. It's not so much
fun here. I don't think there is a right answer here, and this
certainly isn't as easy to deal with, but I -- I think Commissioner
Volpe is right, is that we need to continue to struggle to work for
the benefit of the neighborhood and the safety of the neighborhood,
but I don't believe this particular solution is that answer.
Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to encourage the two
groups to continue to talk, and perhaps the end result of this is
going to be some internal traffic calming devices. I know we had
asked Mr. Archibald a year and a half ago to look at some internal
traffic calming devices, whether they be one-way streets or street
bumps or bike lanes, a lot of different things. And we've had some
report on that but not a great deal. You know, and I'm thinking here
we are a year and three-quarters later from December of 1993. We are
being told now that the westward segment of Vanderbilt Beach Road
could be complete hopefully in 18 months. Gees, if only we'd given
the right direction 18 months ago, we wouldn't be here right now
talking about this issue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the
Board?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, it appears that
there's a consensus in terms of the median itself in Goodlette Road,
but as part of that I'd like to suggest that we have the chairman of
the Board write a letter to the sheriff's office and to urge the
sheriff's office to increase their patrols in that particular
neighborhood. The sheriff has always been very responsive in
listening to concerns in particular neighborhoods. He's always been
very responsive to our requests to engage in a little bit of extra
speed control and traffic control in various neighborhoods, and I'd
like to see us urge the sheriff to do that.
I think we all recognize we have a -- we do have a
problem, and we're grappling for a solution, and we're kind of
chipping around at the edges of it. But that I think is part of
alleviating some of the concerns is to deal with the sheriff's office
in a proactive way in terms of getting him to engage in some law
enforcement activities out there.
I also -- part of the concerns expressed deal with the
intersection at Carica and Hickory. And there's been some discussion
about perhaps putting a speed bump in there at that four-way stop to
make sure that traffic at least stops at that intersection. So I
would like to urge our staff to proceed with putting that type of
traffic calming device in at the intersection. I know we're going to
hear from certain people that speed bumps aren't user friendly, but I
think that they do result in slower traffic. Then as also part of
that, to direct Mr. Archibald immediately to expedite that section of
Vanderbilt Beach Road from 41 to Goodlette Road, for that construction
to proceed as quickly as Mr. Archibald can get it to proceed.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, did you have a
comment on the speed bump?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Your staff has done a series of studies
about internal traffic control devices. We've looked at a series of a
standard 12-way analysis of traffic calming methods, and obviously our
recommendations have been to stick with what has been implemented. We
do not recommend the installation of speed bumps at that location, and
I think it's well-founded, both from a liability standpoint, from an
operation standpoint. So my -- my comment to the Board today is that
I'll be glad to take a look at it with your traffic calming task force
that you've created, but I wouldn't recommend implementing those --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How much of a liability can there
be for a speed bump at a stop sign? If you do, indeed, stop, you're
not going to feel any detriment by that speed bump.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I don't want to drag this out any
further than it has, but obviously where you have children waiting,
and you've got a lot of activity at one location, and we've had
historic incidents with -- people have even at slow speeds used speed
bumps as the cause for losing control. Then any accident that occurs
at that intersection will be blamed on that speed bump, whether it
relates to it or not.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Let me rephrase
that. Instead of referring to speed bumps in particular, that in
general you investigate what you can do at that -- in particular at
that intersection, but in other areas in that community to calm the
traffic down.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Would you want to have the traffic
calming task force consider it, consider internal traffic control
measures?
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's a new group to address these
types of issues to look at traffic calming measures, and that's an
emerging approach to some of the concerns that's been expressed by
some of the residents. I, for -- one, although I won't be here after
November 8th, but I would encourage the staff to work with the
citizens group to look at the types of traffic calming measures that
would be acceptable both from the technical expert and citizens'
input.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would still, though, like to
see the citizen groups from all of the neighborhoods, in fact,
continue to be involved so that no matter what we do -- maybe nobody's
happy in the end, but at least we've got something we can deal with
say for the next 18 months until we get Vanderbilt Beach Road done.
Was that in the form of a motion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I hate to admit this,
Commissioner Matthews, but I wasn't paying any attention to you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My heavens, Commissioner
Saunders. You weren't paying attention. Why don't we ask Mr.
Archibald and his traffic calming -- what is it, a task force or a
group, that they continue to involve all of -- that they involve the
citizens' groups of the neighborhoods affected so that we can keep
some dialogue going. And even in the event nobody may be happy in the
end, we all know what's going on, where we're coming from, and how
long it's going to last.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I had not actually made a
motion. I was simply suggesting that there were certain things that
we need to direct our staff to do. I think the four of us have
already said that we're not in favor of proceeding with the median. I
think that issue is resolved. The question became at that point what
activities does Mr. Archibald engage in.
There appears to be a consensus that we do a couple
things: One dealing with the sheriff's patrol; the second dealing
with the traffic calming activities, as Commissioner Matthews has
pointed out; and the third, of course, is to expedite the construction
of Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. I think we've all essentially
said that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Two things, Mr. Weigel, because
we made a motion six weeks ago, eight weeks ago. Do we need to
formally make a motion now, or does the obvious direction of the Board
take care of our need here?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think I'll let Mr. Cuyler respond
who was present at the meeting before -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: While he's coming up, Mr.
Archibald, I'd like to hear back in a month or so what you've
accomplished with that traffic calming group because that's
essentially the direction we were -- we gave you 18 months ago. And
we had some limited results, you call it, best at this point. So I'd
like to get an update regularly every 30 days, however often you
meet. I'd like to know what's going on, if anything, there.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Since the Board acting as the HPO
created that task force, then possibly we'll have that task force
report to you through the HPO on a monthly basis or during your
monthly meeting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: I think the purpose of your motion last
time was to direct staff, and I think staff has its new direction, so
I don't think it's necessary.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Let's take about a
five-minute break, and we'll come back and finish the agenda.
(A short break was held.)
Item #SD1
CONSENSUS NOT TO HOVE FORWARD WITH EXTENDING THE UTILITY BILLING
CONSULTANT CONTRACT
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're back. 8-D-Y,
recommendation to extend utility billing consultant contract.
MR. HcNEES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. Hike HcNees from your utilities division. I'm here
this afternoon to start us down the next leg of our utilities data
processing journey that we've been on. You'll recall approximately
five weeks ago you heard a report from your utility billing consultant
who was hired last summer who told you that the next phases of our
journey would be to make improvements that we needed to make to
continue to operate on the existing utility billing software until we
could complete the other phase of our journey, which is the definition
of our overall automation requirements, including business
applications, work order inventory, entire work process for the
utilities division, develop an RFP for the selection of a vendor, to
provide that -- those systems and perform a vendor evaluation.
Why I'm here before you today is to ask you allow us to
engage that firm, Vaccaro Consulting, to take us down and be our
project manager for the next phase of this work. Staff has been
extremely well impressed with the efforts, and, if nothing else, the
reality checks and the systematic methods of this firm to keep us
honest as we go into a conversion, which will be our third in less
than ten years. And I don't think I can stress enough the staff's
desire to see that we do everything right at every step in the way so
that we learn from our past mistakes. We believe this vendor is a
real good ticket to help us get where we need to go.
Under the initial scope of work, it envisions this work
being a part of the contract, and we would need your approval to
extend his contract and to enter into a new agreement to perform the
phases of the work. I've included for you in your agenda a copy of
his proposal and call your attention to what we're asking you for
here. And there is an error on the second page of your executive
summary, is a not to exceed amount of $59,800. That includes expenses
that includes both phases of the engagement.
And I need for your information to tell you that I
received in the mail yesterday late and was able to read this morning
a proposal from another vendor, John Scoggins and Associates, who you
all recall perhaps as your vendor who is doing a similar type of state
in development services agency, who called last week to find out what
-- what it was I was going to be recommending to you today, asked for
a copy of Mr. Vaccaro's proposal, which I sent to him, and he has
essentially mirrored the scope of work and come in with a slightly
lower price.
What I would say to you is staff's recommendation is
that we continue to move forward with Vaccaro Consulting, Inc., that
if you do have a desire that we consider a competitive selection
source, that we open the field up completely, that we not just take
this second proposal, which is a little cheaper, which is easier to do
when you have the proposal in your hand to be just a little cheaper.
But it would be staff's recommendation that given the success that
we've had and the confidence that we have in this particular
consultant and the original scope of work as it was written -- I will
remind you that John Scoggins was one of the original proposers for
this engagement, and you did not select him at that time. You,
rather, selected Vaccaro Consulting Inc. So with that I'd be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Help me here a little bit. We
awarded this contract when?
MR. McNEES: It would have been probably April or May
originally.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And the scope of services in that
contract was what?
MR. McNEES: Was about two pages. Essentially it's not
very explicitly defined. I can read you -- independent outside
expertise and customer information billing systems to effect the need
to select a solid package, implement it properly, and streamline it
with associated finance business processes. It talks about -- it's
not --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can I see that?
MR. McNEES: Sure.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, you have a speaker also on
this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Commissioner Volpe.
COMHISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. McNees, Mr. Dotrill, two
questions. With the actions that were taken by the board last week as
it relates to the creation of our own MIS department and the direction
that the manager has to begin the process of selecting a director of
that new division, my sense is that we should allow for that to happen
before we proceed with expanding the scope of the services to be
performed by this vendor or any other vendor, point one. And point
two, just in reviewing the work tasks that are outlined by -- for this
vendor, if you could just -- you'll answer the first question first,
but just explain to me the tasks one through six in particular about
the settlement negotiations and agreement. So the first question
about the MIS department and the engagement of a new top-notch person
who is sophisticated in this type of application, so on.
MR. McNEES: I would have two answers, I guess, for the
question about the -- the change to an HIS, and also relevant here is
the new revenue department.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Right.
MR. HcNEES: I had conversations with Mr. Yonkosky about
-- in fact, we talked specifically about whether this should
rightfully be a contract administered by the new revenue department or
by the new HIS department or whether it should actually be a utility
division contract given what they're going to work on. And we agreed
and concluded that what we don't want to have happen here is the
business process and related functions that are a part of this
engagement, work order control, inventory controls, things that your
utilities division has been desperate for many years, and we have
finally seem to be getting the momentum to go forward and spend the
money that we need to solve those problems. We don't want those
things to get lost in the idea that this is a utility billing item,
because it isn't. It's an integrated information management system
for your utilities division and will remain that whether the revenue
department happens to administer the billing system once it's created
or not. And Mr. Yonkosky and I agreed that it's something that should
rightfully remain as a contract with the utilities division, and this
consultant as well the existing staff will work very closely with --
in fact, many of them will become the revenue department. It will be
the same people doing the work, whether you call them the revenue
department or whether you call them the utilities division and that
integration is going to be key. And also the integration with the
existing development services effort and their management information
system study that's ongoing, we want those things to all tie
together.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: But we're looking at creating a
system that we haven't had. And I'm just, you know, understand begin
-- beginning to bring together parts of an overall system, but I'm
just concerned that we've been told at different times that we've had
some fits in starts, and we did not approach this, in the opinions of
some, in the most systemized manner.
MR. HcNEES: The only other thing I want to say to that
-- and Mr. Yonkosky may have a comment to make -- your utilities
staff is just as much concerned about as are members of the Board --
that there are things out there in the utility division we would love
to be able to address, and we're trying to do them in a timely
manner.
Your Coopers and Lybrand audit talked about the business
processes and some of the things that your staff's asked for computer
resources and -- and manpower to deal with and never survived the
budget process. What we would not like to see here is us lose that
ability to continue to address our problems in a comprehensive way and
for us to say, well, let's wait six or eight or ten more months. We
believe the effort can be integrated with our coming efforts very
well, and it's not something we need to wait for to address the
problems that we have today. We prefer to get on with business.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: All right.
MR. HcNEES: As Mr. Yonkosky points out, some of the
items in the scope of services, that is negotiating -- I'll call it
the closeout of the existing HCC contract and the support of the
existing utility billing system -- are things we need today. They
can't wait for anything else to happen. Those are things that we have
to move forward with to continue to do business.
COMHISSIONER VOLPE: Well, is that -- that aspect with
the consultants, I mean that's where I'm not quite sure. This is the
an -- this is the expansion of the scope of the work that they would
be doing, and that has to do with settlement of the existing agreement
that we had with the software company --
MR. McNEES: They identified -- they identified the key
items that we needed to do to move forward, and those items that you
are referring to are among them. Those are the things that need to
happen for us to continue to operate for us to get support. In other
words, when I say support, I mean to get the changes that we need made
to get the software system to work like it should.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have two particular concerns.
One, I tend to agree, Mr. McNees. I think you've made Commissioner
Volpe's point stronger actually when you said this isn't simply a
billing issue. This is MIS. This is dealing with all the different
computerized functions that you have. I think you're correct, but for
that reason I think it's better to wait until we have established and
have our MIS department up and running.
Your other comment was it doesn't matter whether it's
done in utilities or done -- you can call it MIS or call it revenue or
call it whatever you want, but the job's got to get done. But that's
like saying call it real property, or call it utilities. The job's
going to get done.
My hope is real property would renew the lease that
utility failed to renew. The fact is different departments have
different expertise, and I think we would be better served to wait.
I have another concern as well. I was under the
impression -- and apparently I was wrong -- but I was under the
impression when we hired this consultant they were going to do more
than say, well, yes, you're right. You need to develop something
here, and we'd like to recommend ourselves to do it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We already knew that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I read the scope of
services here, and it says the selected firm or individual will be
charged with -- let me jump back. Utilities division should retain
independent outside expertise in billing systems to assess the need to
select a solid package, implement it properly, and streamline it and
associated business finance processes. So when it says implement it
properly, I was under the assumption, again apparently incorrectly,
that implementation was part of the initial contract. It goes on. It
says more along those lines to support that thought.
But particularly the last paragraph here says the
consultant will be prohibited from competing for the alternate
software package and any modifications or enhancements if the
recommendation is made to pursue that avenue. My understanding of
that last paragraph was so that we didn't have a consultant making
recommendations that would further enhance their consulting fees. And
so I have -- based on those two things, I would prefer, I think, as
Commissioner Volpe said, to wait until we have an MIS.
MR. McNEES: I think there are a few items here that are
misunderstood. Perhaps I can straighten them out. First of all, when
I say it doesn't matter whether you call it HIS or whether you call it
utilities, I'm agreeing with you. But what staff is saying, please
let us fix these things now. I think you all agree, there are things
out there we need to fix. And we have followed the path that you
selected for us, which is to take Coopers and Lybrand's recommendation
and bring in a consultant, and we'd like to keep that ball moving
rather than be in a position where we are now waiting for some other
effort to take place before we can continue to proceed.
The prohibition that you reference in the scope of
services does not allow the vendor who does the analysis and the --
and the recommendations on our billing system to actually be a
providing vendor to sell us a billing system is what's that about.
And in defense of the consultant in this case, he did not recommend
further engagement for himself as a part of his last effort. Staff,
meaning me, called him and said, would you please submit a proposal.
All he recommended was that we either in-house or contract then for a
project manager to take us to the next phases. He didn't even suggest
that that be him.
What I did was ask him, given the confidence that we had
in his work and our ability to maintain the momentum that we had,
would he submit a proposal to serve as that -- that administrator or
that project manager. So that's not something that he recommended.
That's something we went to him and asked him to do.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. HcNees, on -- on the tasks to
be performed, I hear what you're saying. But 80 hours of the
estimated 168 hours are spent in trying to arrive at a settlement
between Sandpiper Systems and NCC and talking about prepare a draft
of, you know, the agreement, review draft of the revisions attorney,
is that something that -- that we need the expertise of an outside
consultant about? I mean I understand about implementing some of the
provisions and the recommendations of Coopers and Lybrand audit and
keep things moving along, let's not put things on hold and wait; but
here we're trying to settle up with someone that previously had
provided the software package. That -- and again, that's 80 hours of
a 168-hour estimated contract.
MR. HcNEES: Well, my answer, I guess, would be that our
best effort, I believe, would be to hire this firm to guide us through
that effort. That's something that the Board feels like your in-house
staff should accomplish, then we'll do that.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, I'm just trying to understand
the proposal. I mean I hear what you're saying. I want to be
supportive of implementing the recommendations that were made by
Coopers and Lybrand and not putting all of this on hold. But, again,
that aspect of the expanded work, my question to you is do we not have
the expertise within our county attorney's office with our existing
HIS personnel, with whatever knowledge exists, to arrive at some sort
of a settlement agreement that this is to close out the old agreement
with the prior vendor? I mean isn't that what it is?
MR. HcNEES: Yes. And I think part of the value of the
adjusting consultant is what he's already been through in negotiating
and going through the process of learning where we stood and what this
contract is all about with NCC. It might be appropriate to have Mr.
Vaccaro tell you what it is he brings to that negotiation and why he
feels like it's appropriate for him to serve us as a contract
consultant for that purpose. He's here if you'd like to ask him
that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We can do that if you want, but
that wasn't described in the scope of services as to what was --
again, I'm confused in --
MR. HcNEES: I'm not meaning to represent to you that --
that everything that we're asking you to approve here today is
included in the original scope of services because that engagement has
been completed. It was -- does talk in general terms about what the
overall scope of this project is going to be, and I'm not trying to
tell you that you already hired him to do that work. If I'm giving
you that impression, that's not what I'm saying. What we're asking is
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, Mr. HcNees, he can tell us
the expertise that he brings, but you need to tell us from the staff's
perspective as to why you feel this portion of the work assignment
cannot be handled internally with the people whose minds were brought
together to create the HIS system. I mean there are people who have
that -- I sense that there are people who have that ability that are
knowledgeable of the systems. Mr. Cuyler's office to reach whatever
type of -- this is a legal settlement agreement with NCC and
Sandpiper. That's where I'm having a difficulty understanding why we
need someone to consult on that.
MR. HcNEES: Well, the reason I'm recommending that is
because of this consultant's experience in already having dealt with
the issues and -- and being fully up to speed on what needs to happen
and what our needs are, what needs to be closed out on that contract.
If you feel like it's not appropriate for us to bring him on board,
then I'm telling you staff will conduct that effort. I think we'll be
better served by the money spent on the consultant, but that's --
MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Volpe, for what it's worth,
also since we're down one attorney, I mean to support Mike at least to
the extent that I can, not saying we can't shift priorities, but we
haven't been able to pay quite as much attention to utilities as we
have over the course of the last couple of years, because we're down
that utilities attorney.
MR. HcNEES: And, again, if you read the paragraph, it's
not just the settlement, but it's the proposed support agreement. In
other words, what are the terms under which the Sandpiper firm will
continue to provide support services to us for the existing billing
system. That's a real critical component of our ability to continue
to make customer improvements to be able to continue to move forward
with our billing system.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The work order system, Mr.
HcNees, it doesn't work now, does it? MR. HcNEES: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it hasn't worked for how
long?
MR. HcNEES: Ever.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How are you performing the work
order functions now?
MR. HcNEES: We write them down pretty much by hand.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Manual?
MR. McNEES: Manually. There are some system generated
work orders within one section, but primarily that's a hand-driven
process.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just can't help but feel that
as a result of last week's meeting with our direction and efforts to
move forward with those department information systems and the
department of revenue of which a significant part of this software is
in the revenue area, that this service being offered here is
duplicative of what we're going to eventually have to do with the
Department of Information Systems and the Department of Revenue.
I think my preference is to wait and to bring our
directors for those departments on as quickly as we can and get them
to work on this problem so we have a fully interactive system and not
spend $60,000 here and $40,000 there and -- and then that same
director come to us eight or ten months from now and say, gees, we
have to do it over again because what they did, the fine effort works
great, but it won't -- it doesn't fit with what -- with what you hired
me to do and that that -- that's my concern with even spending another
$60,000 to move forward with this.
MR. HcNEES: I understand your concern completely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have one public speaker.
MR. DORRILL: That's correct, sir, Mr. Richard Laymon.
MR. LAYHON: I have some correspondence and a couple of
newspaper articles I wanted to share with you. For the record my name
is Richard Laymon. I'm a resident of Naples and considered by some to
be a systems expert. There were several different points that I made
notes on here that I wanted to share with you as you deliberate this
issue. Certainly you can't be expected to read everything that I put
in front of you, but I think you've seen it all before, and perhaps
just seeing the documents will tickle your -- your memory. As has
been pointed out by a couple of commissioners, the Board just directed
staff a week or two ago to put a moratorium on system spending until a
new systems director is hired and then an approved plan in place.
The question that arises is why does the proposal call
for fixing all of the existing problems, then spend about a million
dollars if you consider the throwing away of the existing system plus
the estimated cost of this phase two. It doesn't make a lot of sense
to me. If you fix all the problems, and it's running properly, then
why throw away the half million dollar investment you've already got
in the existing system and then spend another six hundred to eight
hundred thousand to implement a new solution?
Why is utilities spending a hundred thousand dollars for
a consultant's advice when they have been advised that the problems
can be repaired for a hundred thousand dollars? All you have so far
is advice and no solution in place yet. Why does it cost over a
million dollars to reautomate utilities billing when the City of
Naples is redoing all city hall agencies, including their utilities
department automation, for less than $500,000?
Is the Board aware that the clerk's HIS just upgraded
yesterday with new systems that have a ten-fold performance increase,
ten times as much power as they had last Friday? Are enterprise fund
dollars being improperly spent to later avoid ad valorem
expenditures? I'm not real sure I'm in a position to say yea or nay
on that, but I think that needs to be looked into. Why in the world
is this much money being proposed to be spent just on utilities
division?
I've heard that $90,000 is going to be spent on a
program to manage solid waste collections. This is easily four times
as much as should be spent. It doesn't really fall under the category
under discussion here for utilities, but it does fall under the
category of automation direction.
I don't believe money is being spent wisely. This track
record of spending so frivolously is very troubling. Whether it's due
to bungling or ineptitude or other things, there should be some firm
sanctions levied. Heads should be rolling at the top several layers
of management. How much longer are the taxpayers going to have to pay
for this administration's Peter principle management style?
I should have opened with a disclaimer. I'm not
currently available. I'm not here begging for your business instead
of some other consultant, so please don't misconstrue my concerns as
being that of a businessman groveling for his share of the public
trough, because that's not the case whatsoever. I'm a taxpayer in
this community, though, and I'm extremely concerned about what I see
as -- as being unwise spending of my tax dollars. And whether it's my
ad valorem tax dollars or dollars that come out of my pocket due to
utility rate increases because of all this tremendous capital
overhead, is sort of immaterial if it's dollars out of my pocket.
So in closing I just basically want to ask you people to
follow the lead of the couple of commissioners that said let's wait
until we have this new information systems department in place and
make sure all the puzzle pieces fit together, and hopefully it will
all come together economically and coherently. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Commissioner Volpe.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just one quick question. Mr.
Laymon, you mentioned in your letter to Mr. Brock something about the
NCC system and that the City of Clearwater apparently has found some
mechanism for --
MR. McNEES: Right.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: -- dealing with that support system
or that software package.
MR. McNEES: What is currently a crisis actually arose a
year and a half ago or so when the first rumblings came from NCC that
they were going to be abandoning this software product. The City of
Clearwater has NCC's utility billing package in place. They have one
programmer, just one programmer, no high-dollar consultant. This guy
probably makes $25,000 bucks a year if he's lucky, and they got all
their problems fixed, and it's working just fine.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Do you know that for a fact?
MR. McNEES: Well, that was as of eight or nine months
ago when I last discussed it with him. But they were most certainly
moving forward. I question whether or not utilities even conducted a
thorough poll of all the other NCC users to find out who is or who is
not going to abandon the product.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I've heard three commissioners
state they're not comfortable extending the consultant's contract.
Did I misunderstand that?
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Unless Mr. Brock has something that
he would like to share with us.
MR. BROCK: My administrative assistant said that you
all wanted me. I know not what for. No? Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unless there's some wild argument
from this end of the Board, otherwise -- don't all jump up at once.
It appears we will not move forward with that contract at this time.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. McNees, in this intervening
period of time are there some measures that staff has as the
alternative to begin cleaning up this NCC billing system?
MR. McNEES: We will continue to try to move forward,
yes. I can't tell you at this moment what that means. Our best
business judgment was what we were recommending to you today --
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand that.
MR. McNEES: -- so we'll have to reevaluate and identify
what those options are.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But just so I understand in this
intervening period of time, we're anticipating certain things are
going to happen. One of the aspects of what's involved here is
utility billing and the support services for the utility billing
software systems; is that correct? MR. McNEES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: There are some concerns about
maintaining that system.
MR. McNEES: Yes, there are.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: If it takes six months or eight
months, am I still going to get my bill for water, or is our -- are we
still going to be able to function reasonably efficiently while the
MIS department comes together?
MR. McNEES: Yes. You'll still get your bill, and we'll
still ask that you pay it. Yes, we'll operate as efficiently as
possible. And what I'm saying is we had envisioned -- there are a
number of cleanup issues to do with the NCC contract and identifying
getting that closed out, getting final payment to be made, if there is
any to be made, getting a support contract with the Sandpiper firm to
continue in that six- to eight-month period, whatever it may be. It
may be longer than that. And I'm telling you we'll do the best we can
with staff expertise to accomplish all that.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Laymon's suggestion that the
City of Clearwater may have come up with some solution to the same
issue, perhaps it would be a good suggestion to contact --
MR. McNEES: Absolutely. We're presuming that it's the
same issue and a lot of other presumptions, but we'll sure be glad to
talk to them.
Item #8D2
STAFF TO MEET WITH RESIDENTS TO DISCUSS VARIOUS OPTIONS REGARDING
SEWAGE SYSTEM AND FACILITY SERVING ROYAL COVE AND REPORT BACK TO THE
BCC
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As long as you're here, we had
the other issue of Royal Cove.
MR. HcNEES: Yes. We have a issue with a private
treatment plant operator who is talking about walking away from that
facility. Jim Clemons, your wastewater director, has been sort of up
to the minute on what's happening with that. I'll ask him to make a
report to you and talk to you about our options.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Clemons, long day for you.
MR. CLEMONS: Not as long as you all so far, but good
afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Tim Clemons, your wastewater director.
This item is one we wanted to get before you today to discuss, let you
know what's going on with a little package sewage treatment plant, and
get some direction from you as to what you want us to do.
Royal Cove is a single street located just north of
Imperial Golf Estates. There are 69 mobile homes, I believe, in there
today, 24 of which are connected to a package sewage treatment plant.
The owner of the plant, up until this morning, had said he was turning
off the power today at noon. He is facing some problems with the
plant that are ongoing. He's got some problems with the Department of
Environmental Protection that are ongoing. And he had made the
decision, I guess, from a business standpoint that as of today he was
going to terminate service, shut the power off, and walk away.
We were going to be here today to ask you what options
you wanted us to look at, to give you some options, and then to see
where you wanted to go. As of 8:30 this morning the owner had
received a letter from DEP, and we got a copy of it in which they have
told him that if he will continue to operate the plant and then work
with the County towards connecting that plant, they would be happy to
work with him on his civil suit and to see what they could do in that
regard to work toward a consent order they had already filed with
him.
The reason I am in here today is to ask you where you
want us to go with this. Long term we would believe that this should
be connected to the County system, but it is a single street. It's
set out by itself. We would be looking at -- that option would be to
form an assessment district for that street and to connect all those
properties. That would eliminate the package sewage treatment plant
in that area, which has problems, and they get worse in season, I
understand. And that would then close out this gentleman's problem as
well as the package plant up there today and make those roughly 70 or
75 property owners customers of the County's sewer system. They're
already connected to our water system, but I wanted to find out what
direction you wanted us to take in dealing with this gentleman.
We could just say it's yours to operate. You need to do
what you can and work out your problems with DEP, in which case he may
turn around again, and -- you know, in a few months and decide he's
going to walk away again. So the idea today is to find out how you
want us to proceed with that.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: This has been an issue for as long
as I can remember. There are some deficiencies in that existing
private wastewater treatment --
MR. CLEMONS: My understanding from DEP is there are
serious deficiencies.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And he probably doesn't have the
capital to -- to correct those existing problems. I mean there --
he's still using polyethylene of some kind for --
MR. CLEMONS: He has the capital, but he doesn't want to
spend it on that plant.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. So the long-term solution
has to be to connect up these residents to the regional wastewater
system?
MR. CLEMONS: Long term I believe that is your best
solution.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So I, for one, believe that that's
the direction to work with the residents in the area in terms of
whether it's an assessment district or what it is that they wish to do
in order to bring themselves on as customers of the regional
wastewater treatment system.
MR. CLEMONS: Part of the reason I wanted to get
direction from you today is the 24 or so that are customers of this
plant today, they're very worried that if he terminates service, you
know, what do they do. They've got a health and safety issue then.
The other roughly 45 homes up there today are presently
still on septic tanks. I don't know that they're willingly going to
come in here and say hook us up and let us pay the impact fees and
things that have to be paid to connect to your sewer system. That's
going to be something that will probably require an assessment
district be formed and then back to you for public hearings and
preliminary numbers and so forth.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Don't we have a policy in our
growth management plan as it relates to the eventual elimination of
septic systems, septic tanks? MR. CLEMONS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Isn't it a process --
MR. CLEMONS: The process is over time we are trying to
eliminate small package plants.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Also, isn't that the process that
might result in the south county -- MR. CLEMONS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: -- coming off of septic systems and
MR. CLEMONS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So --
MR. CLEMONS: But that was all done by special
assessment, and this Board opted to set that up. My question today is
do you want us to proceed in that same direction with this -- this
street, these 70-plus properties, and do the same thing?
We can be gathering numbers and come back to you very
shortly to tell you what the preliminary cost would be to bring back a
preliminary assessment role, and then it would be time to hold public
hearings for the residents in that area to see where we're going at
that point.
MR. HARGETT: I think there's more of a -- perhaps, Tim,
an interim short-term problem as well. We have -- the assessment
district, as you well know, is a time-consuming process. MR. CLEMONS: It is.
MR. HARGETT: It could be some many months prior to that
getting approved and certainly some additional time to construct the
facilities, and I think what we're looking for is more -- some general
direction that should the power be turned off and the service
discontinued, the only way to keep these people with sewer service is
to take over the operation on that plant.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: He doesn't have the legal right to
do that. I mean he's licensed by the State of Florida.
MR. CLEHONS: He's permitted with the Department of
Environmental Protection. He's not PSC regulated.
MR. HARGETT: Notwithstanding that -- will he do it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, if we go on the record
saying today --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's why we have lawyers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we go on the record today
saying, gosh, if he closes down, we'll take it over, then as far as I
can tell, that would encourage him to close it down if it's a burden
to him. So I'm not prepared to go on the record to say, yeah, we'll
absolutely for sure pick this up if he closes down. I don't want to
encourage him.
MR. CLEHONS: I don't want to -- I would not want to run
it, I'll be honest with you. You know, he has a contract service
running it today. But Mr. Hargett is right. If -- 60 days from now,
90 days from now this gentleman could decide, once again, this money
is wrong. I don't know his reasoning, but he could decide, once
again, to walk away from it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I assume there's a close-down
period, though, and he can't just one day turn it down, and the DEP or
someone has to have some authority over him if he runs a package
plant.
MR. CLEHONS: They do, but their response to me -- and I
discussed this with their attorney in Tallahassee just this week --
is, you know, we have a civil suit against him now. It doesn't seem
to have a whole lot of effect. We've not been able to really get this
gentleman to the bargaining table with a consent order that's a year
old. They didn't believe they had a whole lot more leverage just to
keep him from closing it down.
Now, I think the letter they sent him has enticed him to
stay open at this point, because he believes that, and they have told
him they will be willing to work with him on the civil suit as long as
steps are made toward connecting to the County system. Long term I
would recommend that that be done. Short term Mr. Hargett's right.
If he walks away in 60 or 90 days, I'd be back before you to ask what
do you want us to do.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I think the residents would be back
before us asking what it is that can be done. Does -- does the
licensing authority -- don't they come in and operate these
authorities when one of their licensed operators shut down? Don't
they have that responsibility?
MR. CLEHONS: Generally they look to the County is what
they've told me.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: They don't have the responsibility
then?
MR. CLEHONS: No, sir. They don't have licensed
operators. They oversee. They inspect, and they hold jurisdictional
control, but they don't operate treatment facilities, water or
wastewater. They look to the County.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You had a question?
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: And we don't even get paid to come
in and operate it for them?
MR. CLEHONS: No, sir. I had already talked with the
county attorney's office. Of course, we would then have to take
whatever steps are necessary to recover our costs too. So, you know,
if we can keep the gentleman in business, I think it's best for us if
we can work towards a long-term solution that's probably best for
everybody in that area, but I need to make sure that's where you want
us to go.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The homes that are involved in
this are mostly trailers?
MR. CLEHONS: Yes, ma'am. I believe they all are.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They all are. What kind of lots
are they on?
MR. CLEHONS: They're small. I'm not sure of the exact
size, but they're small.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's like a residential rental
or '-
MR. CLEHONS: I believe, from my understanding, they're
all individually owned. There's a few vacant lots.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there a health problem with
the septic systems? There's no wells there now, are there? They're
all on --
MR. CLEHONS: No, ma'am. They're all connected to our
water system. The health problem they seem to have comes in season.
They dispose of their waste through a -- the plant does through a
small percolation pond which apparently in season cannot do what it
was originally intended to do, and there's a lot of time they have
ponding of that water out across more than just the pond. It actually
leaches into the side yards and the backyards and other areas of the
residential neighborhood from what I've been told. That is one of the
big problems I believe DEP has had with them. And I know our own
pollution control department has been up there a lot of times doing
inspections and noting violations and so forth also.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The mobile homes or trailers
that are on these small lots that have septic tanks and I would
presume drainfields, is the percolation on the drainfields adequate
for sanitary reasons?
MR. CLEHONS: To be honest with you, I have not spent
that much time looking at those with septic tanks, only with the ones
connected to the package plant at this point. I have not had
complaints. I would need to check with the State's environmental
health department to see if they've had complaints regarding any of
the septic tank lots.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Is this any different than the
issue that we were dealing with this morning down in Copeland where
the residents came together and formed a cooperative to operate their
own wastewater treatment plant?
MR. CLEHONS: Well, that's one option for the residents
up there. However, you need to understand, of course, that the
customer base is not the entire street. It's not the 70 homes or 69
homes that are there today. It's only two dozen homes, you know.
the choice needs to be made, do we go in and provide sanitary sewer
service, central sewer service to everybody on that street, or do we
only worry about the two dozen that are on a small central system --
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I was only raising the question
about you're looking for some direction. Not to belabor the point,
but we've got 24 residents who may have a problem because their
current operator is unstable in terms of the operation of his plant.
MR. CLEMONS: Right.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What are they willing to do, and
what are they intending to do if the County doesn't step in and just
take over the operation?
MR. CLEMONS: To be honest with you, I'm not sure. They
-- they are not a formal homeowners association. They don't have any
official group that speaks for them as a group. They're all -- you
know, we hear from them individually as they receive the notice from
the owner regarding shutting down and discontinuing service. Than we
got calls from five or six individual property owners up there. They
don't have a formal group to speak for them. That's another option.
We could talk to them about, you know -- or the State to perhaps
forming some type of homeowners group and taking it over themselves.
But I think what DEP is going to tell us is that
somebody either is going to invest a lot of money into this system
that sits there today, which is 20 something odd years old, or it
needs to be connected to us, one of the two. It needs improvements in
one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
item?
Board?
Do we have any speakers on this
MR. HARGETT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think, for one, that we need to
meet with the 24 residents. They all have the same problem. However,
they've been contacting our utilities division to find out what
options they've explored. The creation of a special assessment
district seems to me to be something that needs to involve the
residents. We are talking about the elimination of septic systems. I
realize that there are those that feel they don't have the problem
yet, but we've got policies within our growth management plan, as I
recall, having to do with the eventual elimination of the septic
systems.
The question that the Board's going to have to deal with
is how are we going to create a special assessment system. Are we
going to do it the way that we did on County Barn through legislative
fiat, or are we going to do it by a petition, 50 percent plus 17 But
it seems to me that that process needs to begin earlier rather than
later because there is a health problem out in that area.
We've had other problems out in north Naples planning
community, another mobile home park behind Getmain, same type of a
situation as they have on Royal Cove. That problem got solved, so
that's the direction. But I don't think we ought to say that we're
here in the background, that if this fellow decides to walk, that
we'll just take over the operation and make that kind of commitment
today. I mean we'll work with the property owners to try to work
toward --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Your suggestion would be
appropriate that the -- Mr. Clemons tries to get representatives of
the property owners to a commission meeting so we can get a feel for
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Or for the staff to meet with them
and find out -- explain to them what the various options may be,
whether it's forming the cooperative, whether it's continuing the
contract with this particular management company. If the owner walks
away from it, I assume that they can continue to contract with the
management company that's there, and they can put up their own
deposits. They could continue to operate it on an interim basis, or
they can form a special assessment district which would solve the
problem for them long term by them becoming customers of the regional
wastewater system.
MR. CLEMONS: If they were to stay in business and use
what's there today, they're going to have to spend some money. So,
you know, that may be the trade-off to looking at something different.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But in response to your question,
Mr. Chairman, I think it's -- the first discussion that has to occur
is between the staff and the residents out there. I don't know that
that has happened other than the crisis phone call. MR. CLEMONS: No, it has not, sir.
MR. HARGETT: Mr. Chairman, another comment, if I
might. I guess my earlier comment was a concern for the habitability
of the 24 dwellings should he walk. It's -- I think it's clear that
the County does have a responsibility if he walks for operating that
plant by statute. And that's --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, I think we should cross
that bridge if we get to it. But I think by going on the record and
making a statement that, gosh we're going to do that, all we're doing
is encouraging him to walk.
MR. CLEMONS: He has expressed that he does not want to
walk from it. He wants to get this resolved, because he knows if he
walks, then he has problems not only from DEP but from us also as far
as trying to recoup costs.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does he have criminal liability if
he walks?
MR. CLEMONS: I believe his liability is civil. Ken,
you may know, but I think it's only civil liability.
MR. CUYLER: I believe that's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unless there's some other
suggestion or direction from the Board, then we'll call Commissioner
Volpe's suggestion, have you get together with those homeowners and
try to explain the different options available to them.
MR. CLEMONS: Okay. Do you want me with just the
residents that are connected today to the plant, or do you want me to
try and go ahead and talk to even those on the septic tanks?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think that would be a good idea
to talk to as many as we can both on and off.
MR. CLEMONS: Then come back to you?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Hargett, if we have a legal
obligation, and that's what you just told us, then I'm sure that the
Board of County Commissioners will do what we're legally obligated to
do. And if that crisis should occur, that the county attorney or the
county manager will take the necessary action on a interim basis and
get approval after the fact from the county commission.
MR. CUYLER: We have, just for your information, always
resisted that situation and if need to go into court and try to enjoin
him from leaving the plant if that's what it takes. Success on that
is up in the air, but we've in your absence and void direction to the
contrary have always resisted people walking away from these package
plants. Okay. Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 94-776 APPOINTING ROBERT LAID AND CARHELA VRATSOLIS TO THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next item, 10-A, appointment of
members to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee.
MS. FILSON: For the record, Sue Filson from the Board
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Miss Filson.
Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to nominate
Robert D. Laird for the at-large position and Carmela Vratsolis for
the District 3 position.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll second that to get it on the
floor.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And number 4 needs to be
readvertised. We didn't have a respondent from District 4.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any discussion on that? Seeing
none, all of those in favor of the motion state aye. Anyone opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 94-777 APPOINTING NANCY LASCHSID AND REAPPOINTING HICHAEL
JERNIGAN TO THE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. -
ADOPTED
Appointment of members to the Health Planning Council of
Southwest Florida.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, on this particular
one I know there is a staff recommendation for the reappointment of
Michael Jernigan and the appointment of Fred Thomas. And I've always
supported Fred Thomas in his activities, but I notice on the list that
we have Nancy Lascheid as an applicant who has not been recommended
for appointment. I can assure you that she is a real dynamo and would
be an asset to have on any council or board that is advising. In this
case this is a regional board. I'd like to see her get an opportunity
to serve.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I concur with Commissioner
Saunders. I know that Mr. Thomas has really done an excellent job in
various advisory capacities, but I don't recall -- this is a provider,
so I would support --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And Fred is on two boards
already, isn't he?
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: This isn't a county board.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I understand. This is for the
Southwest Planning Council of Southwest Florida. Fred is on the
planning commission as well as --
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I believe affordable housing, but
these are county boards.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right, I understand.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: He's also director of the County
Housing Authority.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I'll make the motion to
appoint -- reappoint Michael Douglas Jernigan and to appoint Nancy
Laschied.
COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion? Anybody from the public? All those in favor
to the motion state aye. Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #10C
DISCUSSION REGARDING COMMISSIONER DISTRICT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS - NO
ACTION
Finally 10-C, discussion regarding commission district
boundaries. Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The only reason my name is on
this is Mary Morgan had sent me a letter. She's just recommending
that we begin the process of redistricting, and all we do is if we
agree that that needs to be started, simply pass a resolution asking
staff to start the process of redistricting.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: She had talked to me about it a
couple weeks ago. And I thought that whatever we did -- I don't know
what the district boundaries should look like. She's kind of
suggesting that we draw them similar to the school board. But I had
indicated to her that after the elections on November the 8th, I
thought it was an appropriate thing to get started on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think she's talked with each of
us, I believe. She's indicated to me what her term is, just
"tweaking" the boundaries trying to even the numbers out, and also it
will make it not only easier for her and her staff, but it would be
more cost effective for the taxpayer if our boundaries and the school
board's boundaries match. They are almost identical right now.
There's a couple areas -- Commissioner Volpe's district, I think, is
currently in district 3, which is my district, in district 3 for the
school board. There is a suggestion perhaps that will help offset
some of the people and so on.
If it's minor tweaking, and we can save some tax dollars
by doing it and clearing up some of the confusion between the school
board districts and our districts, I support that. I don't want to
look at completely redoing everything the way we did two years ago
because I don't believe that best serves the public, particularly with
single-member districts. When we have single-member districts, there
is -- I know we all try to serve the entire county. But for the
people who live in that district, they usually call their own. And I
think if -- I think if we end up with a completely different picture
than we have now, then we confuse those people and probably ourselves
in the process, and I think that's a disservice. But if we can do I
think what Mary's intent was or her stated intent has been, and that
is tweak them and in effect do it for the convenience of the public,
then I think it's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I've got one question on
that, and it's something that's come up, I guess, in the last week or
so. But in working with the Marco Shores citizens and with the
Manatee School compound and the bus depot -- and it's a whole 'nother
world in the county commission -- but the school board member that I
was said to interact with was Mr. Webster with Miss -- Miss Cox coming
on board, so that tells me that the area south of 41 but east of 951
is in the school board district number 1. And -- and I'm -- I don't
know. I looked at the demographics map over the weekend, and it
appears that it's in school board district number 5, so I don't know.
I'm a little bit confused. Any ideas?
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, I don't know the answer to
that question.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I think a lot of people don't
realize that school board members are still elected at large. There's
some confusion in that regard. But I think the chair's made the point
that there are some split precincts. And for convenience purposes, it
may be efficient for Ms. Morgan to bring in those split precincts.
That's one issue. The issue of whether we've got shifts in population
now where each one of the commission districts doesn't have 33,000
people, that instead we found that because north Naples planning
community has grown so rapidly in the last two years, we've got 42,000
people in -- in the north Naples district, and we've got fewer people
within the City of Naples, it seems to me that -- that that is what
we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be readjusting to make
sure that there are equal numbers of people in each one of the
commission districts. I suspect that the City of Naples has not grown
at the same rate, even with annexation, as has north Naples. They may
have fewer people. Commissioner Saunders now represents out to some
areas in east Naples all the way out here past -- yeah, out that way.
So, you know, there's -- you represent --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There might be more than minor
tweaking going on.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: There possibly could. I just don't
know. And if that is the concern that the chair has expressed, and I
think --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If that's the concern, I want to
see those numbers before I commit, yes, I'm ready to redistrict.
Because if it's grown -- it was 31,500 I think last time. If it's now
one of them is 33,000 and one of them is 31,500, I don't have that big
of a concern.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't want to get into a
complete redo two years after we've done it. There were a number of
people who used to be in your district who are now two years, three
years after the fact learning, gosh, I'm not in Commissioner Volpe's
district anymore because your race was on the ballot this year. Other
than that they didn't know who it was. And I think if we start
juggling again two years later, that's not a benefit to the public.
That is causing more confusion and causing poorer service. So if
we're talking tweaking and trying to do it, that's great or if the
numbers have grown so much in two years' time that we are out of
balance, that's great. But if we're talking about a difference
between districts of a thousand people or 1,500 people, and all we're
going to do is confuse the public, I'm not ready to do it now. I
think we should wait another two, three, or four years.
COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Is there a rule of thumb in terms
of where you see a shift of population where perhaps the disparity
between one commission district and the other is greater than 5
percent or 10 percent?
MR. DORRILL: I don't know that there is. I can inquire
of Ms. Morgan. Preliminarily it's because the chairman had
anticipated this. He asked me to at least get updated population
estimates. This is since the 1990 census, but in 1990 all commission
district boundaries were approximately 30,000 to 30,800 in order to
get them balanced, and they are all within 10 percent of that now, the
one exception being the city district. For example, the current
estimates for district 1 are 35,100; district 2 is 40,300; district 3
is 38,300; and district 4 is 31,300, only an increase of 900; and then
district 5 is almost 38,000. So they're all fairly close, the one
exception being the current city, if you will, district or district
4. And if -- having said that with only one district being sort of
out of kilter compared to the others, we -- we can look at making some
minor modifications. What will result is a decrease in district 2 in
adding that to the City and probably a decrease to district 5 and
adding that to district 1 and trying to make those minor adjustments
to make our districts coincide with the school board's. Preliminarily
I discussed this with Ms. Berry who was their most recent chairman.
They may have a new chairman now just prior to this coming up because
I knew that Mary Morgan was going to advise you of this. They are
very reluctant if anything that they are going to do with you forces
them into the single-member district arena because they do not want to
get into a political issue --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's a separate issue.
MR. DORRILL: -- as part of this one, and there's a real
concern there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Bottom line should just be what
we're doing should be beneficial to the public instead of detrimental
or confusing to the public, so as long as we have that in mind.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That would be the goal.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, OPPOSING ANY
AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION RELATING TO CASINO GAMBLING -
DELETED
This item was discussed and delted during the changes to
the agenda.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything under communication,
Commissioner Norris, Commissioner Saunders, Commissioner Volpe,
Commissioner Matthews? Miss Filson, you may be excused.
Commission Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews,
and carried unanimously, that the following items be approved and/or
adopted under the Consent Agenda:
Item #16A1
Water and sewer facilities acceptance for Pelican Marsh, Unit Three,
Stage One - With Stipulations
Item #16A2
Resolution 94-754 granting preliminary acceptance of the roadway,
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican
Marsh Unit Three (Stage One)"
See Pages
Item #16A3
Letter of Credit accepted as security for Excavation Permit No. 59.519
"Shadowood" located at Sec. 16, T50S, R26E
See Pages
Item #16A4
Approval of a Budget Amendment in the amount of $66,801.84 using Fund
111 reserves to pay impact fees that were previously authorized for
reimbursement
Item #16A5
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve those
contractors who have been pre-qualified to work on projects funded by
the Collier County Residential Rehabilitation Program (RFP 94-2280)
Item #16A6
Resolution 94-755 Recommendation approving for recording the final
plat of "Stoney's Plaza"
See Pages
Item #16A7
Resolution 94-756 granting preliminary acceptance of the roadway,
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Falcons
Glen Villas Phase Two"
See Pages
Item #16A8 - deleted
Item #16A9
Resolution 94-757 approving the final plat of "Maplewood Unit 2"
See Pages
Item #16A10
Resolution 94-758 granting final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Mission Village
Unit Two"
See Pages
Item #16C1
Approval of agreement for the 1994-95 funding contribution to the
Salvation Army After-School Program in the amount not to exceed $5,000
See Pages
Item #16El
Approval of a plan to complete remedial cleaning of HVAC systems in
selected county buildings
Item #16E2
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reject an offer
made by Avatar Properties Inc. to purchase a portion of Unit 21, Tract
92, Golden Gate Estates, being part of the GAC Land Trust
Item #16F1
Bid Number S-94-2226 for the sale of EMS Surplus equipment awarded to
Big Corkscrew Island Fire Department and Fastserv Medical
Item #16G1
Approval of Certificates of Correction to the 1994 Solid Waste
Collection Special Assessment Roll, authorization for the Chairman to
sign the Certificates on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners,
and authorization of refunds as appropriate
See Pages
Item #1662
Resolution 94-759 adding units to the 1994 Collier County Handatory
Solid Waste Collection Special Assessment Roll and authorizing the
Chairman to execute Certificates of Correction corresponding to the
Resolution
See Pages
Item #1663
Bid #94-2289 for a self-contained compactor awarded to the lowest
responsive bidder, Hesco Sales, Inc. in the amount of $10,000
Item #16H1
Resolution 94-760 authorizing the acquisition of perpetual
right-of-way, utility, drainage and maintenance easements or fee
simple title by gift or purchase which are required to allow
construction and maintenance of the stormwater outfall swale from
Radio Road North to the Golden Gate Main Canal to occur within the
life of the Surface Water Permit; and for the donation of the related
roadway improvements for the Radio Road Phase II Project (Santa
Barbara Boulevard to S.R. 84), CIE No. 16
See Pages
Item #16H2
Change Order No. 4 to the original Agreement with Law Environmental,
Inc. for engineering/environmental work in Water Management District
No. 6 (Lely and Lely Manor Basins) in the amount of $6,428.79
See Pages
Item #16H3
Execution authorized of a temporary construction and landscape
easement agreement covering the Calypso International, Inc., Parcels
614 and 714, for the Golden Gate Parkway Improvement Project #69031
See Pages
Item #16H4
Resolution 94-761 authorizing the acquisition of perpetual
right-of-way, utility, drainage and maintenance easements, temporary
construction easements or fee simple title by gift or purchase which
are required for the roadway corridor improvements for Vanderbilt
Beach Road (from U.S. 41 to Airport-Pulling Road), CIE Project Nos.
042 and 023
See Pages
Item #16H5
Reappropriation of Tourist Development Tax Funding for Category "A"
projects for FY 94/95 in the amount of $856,145
Item #16H6
Approval of past and current increases in the contract amount to
Barany Schmitt Weaver and Partners, Inc. for additional architectural
services on the Immokalee Recreation Center with an additional 10e
contingency limit authorized
Item #16H7
Approval of a budget amendment recognizing carry forward for the North
County Regional Water Treatment Plant Project in Fund 412 in the
amount of $589,375
Item #16H8
Approval of Fiscal 1994 Year-End Budget Amendments
Item #16H9
Approval of Supplemental Agreement to the Professional Services
Agreement with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. for the design of
Vanderbilt Beach Road Improvements and authorize a new 10e change
order limit for future change orders
See Pages
Item #16H10
Approval of a budget amendment to fund surveying services relative to
a vehicular accident case in the amount of $11,200
Item #16J
Miscellaneous Correspondence
The following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or referred
as presented by the Board of County Commissioners:
Item #16J1
Satisfaction of Lien for services of the Public Defender
See Pages
Item #16K1
Approval of the use of Confiscated Trust Funds to purchase specialized
equipment for investigative purposes by the Collier County Sheriff's
Office - In the amount of $6,200
Item #16L1
Resolution 94-762 approving the Satisfaction of Liens for certain
residential accounts wherein the County has received payment and said
liens are satisfied in full for the 1992 solid waste collection and
disposal services special assessments
See Pages
Item #16L2
Resolution 94-763 approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Account No.
70357 wherein the County billed the property in error for 2 units
which should have been billed for 1 unit; property owner has paid for
one unit and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 solid waste
collection and disposal services special assessment
See Pages
Item #16L3
Resolution 94-764 approving the satisfaction of lien for Account No.
25001 wherein the County billed the properties in error since the
property was receiving commercial service from WMI for the 1992
service year and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 solid
waste collection and disposal services special assessment
See Pages
Item #16L4
Resolution 94-765 approving the satisfaction of lien for Account No.
22606 wherein the County billed the properties in error since the
property is uninhabitable and said lien is satisfied in full for the
1992 solid waste collection and disposal services special assessment
See Pages
Item #16L5
Resolution 94-766 approvmng the Satisfaction of Lien for Account No.
13356 for the 1992 solid waste collection and disposal services
special assessment lien that was placed against the property in error
See Pages
Item #16L6
Resolution 94-767 approvlng the Satisfaction of Lien for Account No.
8002 for the 1992 solid waste collection and disposal services special
assessment lien that was placed against the property in error
See Pages
Item #16L7
Resolution 94-768 approvlng the Satisfaction of Lien for Account No.
5652 for the 1992 solid waste collection and disposal services special
assessment lien that was placed against the property in error
See Pages
Item #16L8
Resolution 94-769 approvmng the Satisfaction of Lien for Account No.
1850 for the 1992 solid waste collection and disposal services special
assessment lien that was placed against the property in error
See Pages
Item #16L9
Resolution 94-770 approvmng the Satisfaction of Lien for Account No.
2558 for the 1992 solid waste collection and disposal services special
assessment lien that was placed against the property in error
See Pages
Item #16LlO
Resolution 94-771 approvmng the Satisfaction of Lien for Account No.
152725 for the 1992 solid waste collection and disposal services
special assessment lien that was placed against the property in error
See Pages
Item #16Lll
Resolution 94-772 approvmng the Satisfaction of Lien for Account No.
1957 for the 1992 solid waste collection and disposal services special
assessment lien that was placed against the property in error
See Pages
Item #16L12
Resolution 94-773 approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Account No.
1850 for the 1992 solid waste collection and disposal services special
assessment lien that was placed against the property in error
See Pages
There being no further business for the Good of the
County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 4:17 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
TIMOTHY J. CONSTANTINE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara
A. Donovan, RPR, CH, CP