BCC Minutes 04/11/2000 RApril t 1, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, April 11, 2000
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting
as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of
such special districts as have been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
Timothy J. Constantine
Barbara B. Berry
James D. Carter
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
John C. Norris
ALSO PRESENT:
Tom Olliff, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER
PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER
PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,
BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS
AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY
MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE
HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY
NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,
WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS
PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN
ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO
YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE
COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING
DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
I
April 11, 2000
III ·
INVOCATION - Reverend Donna Bartleson, Golden Gate United Methodist Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 14, 2000 - Regular Meeting
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1 ) Proclamation proclaiming the month of April as Water Conservation
Month. To be accepted by Mr. Michael R. Ramsey, Chair, Collier Soil and
Water Conservation District.
2)
Proclamation proclaiming the month of April as Conservancy Volunteer
Month. To be accepted by Mr. David Guggenheim, President/CEO and
Ms. Sharon Truluck, Human Resources Director, The Conservancy of
Southwest Florida.
3)
Proclamation proclaiming the week of April 9-15, 2000 as National Crime
Victims' Rights Week. To be accepted by Sgt. Bill Rule, Supervisor of
Victim Assistance Section/Collier County Sheriff's Office; Ms. Liza
Willjams, Project Help, Ms. Janet Weisberg, Shelter for Abused Women of
Collier County; and Sheriff Don Hunter, Sheriff/Collier County, FL.
4)
Proclamation proclaiming the week of April 9 - 15, 2000 as National
Volunteer Week. To be accepted by Barbara Plaag, Volunteer
Coordinator for the Shelter for Abused Women and Sharon L. Downey,
RSVP Director for Collier County.
2
Ap~lll,2000
B. SERVICE AWARDS
.~)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Shawn Luedtke, Code Enforcement- 5 years
Steve Rasmussen, Wastewater Dept. - 10 years
James Raymond, Marco Airport- 10 years
Chahram Badamtchian, Planning Services - 10 years
Kenneth Pineau, Emergency Management- 15 years
Jeffrey Kucko, Building Review and Permitting- 15 years
Steven Donovan, EMS - 15 years
Allen Madsen, PWED - 20 years
Lowell Raines, Facilities Management - 25 years
C. PRESENTATIONS
1)
Recommendation to recognize Jason Valinsky, Craftsman, Facilities
Management Department, as Employee of the Month for April 2000.
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Approval of a budget amendment appropriating funds for expansion of the
Collier County Development Services Center.
2)
Authorize filing a petition for Collier County to intervene in Florida Public
Service Commission Dockets 990696-WS and 992040-WS.
3)
Authorization to evaluate the feasibility of reconnecting the Vanderbilt
Lagoon and Clam Bay Systems.
3
April 11, 2000
Be
PUBLIC WORKS
1)
2)
3)
This item has been deleted.
This item has been deleted.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift, purchase or
condemnation of fee simple title interest for construction of the Immokalee
Road/Randall Boulevard Intersection Improvement Project, CIE No. 72.
4)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift, purchase or
condemnation of fee simple title interests and/or perpetual, non-exclusive,
temporary construction interests by easement for the construction of
Livingston Road from Station 373+75 to the Lee-Collier County Line, CIE
Project No. 21 (ultimate six-lane roadway).
5)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift, purchase or
condemnation of utility and temporary construction easements for the
construction of the thirty (30") inch parallel sewer force main along
Immokalee Road and within Creekside Commerce Center, Project 73943.
PUBLIC SERVICES
SUPPORT SERVICES
COUNTY MANAGER
1) This item has been deleted.
2) Presentation of Pay Plan Study and Recommendations.
3) Discussion and Approval of FY 2001 Budget Policy.
4)
Request from the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board regarding facilitation of
communication between the Immokalee Farmworkers and the Growers.
4
April 11, 2000
F. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
G. EMERGENCY SERVICES
9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Am
For the Board of County Commissioners to make a determination, pursuant to
Collier County Resolution No. 95-632, regarding providing a legal defense to
County employees.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
B. Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
Appointment of member to the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory
Committee.
Em
Public Announcement pursuant to FL ST 259.032(10)(b) of public hearing held
by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Wildlife in
coordination with the Okaloacoochee Slough Wildlife Management Area
Management Advisory Group on Tuesday, April 25, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. @ Dallas
B. Townsend Agricultural BIdg, 1085 Pratt Blvd., LaBelle, FL 33935 to present
public management priorities and intent for the Okaloacoochee Slough Wildlife
Management Area, located in Hendry and Collier Counties near LaBelle.
F. Appointment of members to the Citizens Advisory Task Force.
Discussion regarding a regional approach to solid waste disposal (Commissioner
Berry).
5
April 1 l, 2000
H. Appointment of member to the Collier County Health Facilities Authority.
11.
OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1)
Petition R-99-13, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development
Incorporated representing Caruso Corp. and Brian Jones, Trustee,
requesting to change the zoning classification of a property from "RSFo3"
Residential Single Family to "C-2" Convenience Commercial District. The
subject property is located on the north side of Piper Boulevard directly
north of Immokalee Road at the terminus of Airport Road in Section 24,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. This site
consists of 7.61 acres.
2)
Petition PUD-99-29, D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates,
P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson,
P.A., representing Raymond James Smela, requesting a rezone from its
current zoning classification of "MH" Mobile Home and "RSF-1"
Residential Single Family to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be
known as Champion Lake RV Resort PUD. The subject property is an
undeveloped 101.15 acre parcel located on the east side of Silver Lakes
RV Resort and Pelican Lake RV Resort, immediately north of Fiddler's
Creek in Section 11, 14 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
6
April 11,2000
C. OTHER
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider
adopting an Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 90-111,
as amended, which created the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and
Benefit Unit; amending Section Seven, creation of the Pelican Bay
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee, to provide
for the reduction of the size of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing
and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee; Amending Section Eleven, Officers;
Quorum, Rules of Procedure, to provide for a reduction in the number of
members required for a quorum to conduct business and to take action;
providing for conflict; providing for severability; and providing for an
effective date.
2)
Authorization to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89-69, as
amended, regarding inoculation of Coconut Palm trees against Lethal
Yellowing disease; shortening certain response times from thirty (30) days
to fifteen (15) days; providing for additional means of notice; authorizing
the County to abate these nuisances at its costs if deemed to be cost-
justified by in-house costs benefits analysis; providing that this ordinance
is not applicable within any municipality that has then adopted its own
Lethal Yellowing Ordinance; removing incarceration as a possible penalty;
providing that certain hearings are to be held by a Code Enforcement
Board rather than the Board of County Commissioners; updating
provisions of notice forms; providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; providing an effective
date.
3)
To consider adoption of an Ordinance to amend Collier County's Noise
Ordinance, No. 90-17, as amended; Lowers table I Noise Levels
Applicable to Residential, Tourist Residential and Commercial Property;
adds Table II - Maximum Noise Levels to be Tested by Octave Band
Analysis; adds vibration standards applicable to residential and tourist
residential sites and units; reduces by five decibels allowable sounds
within multi-family units in residential use; amends parts of Section F
related to regulated music and other noise within certain units in
residential use; repeals the grandfathering provision; provides for conflict
and severability; provides for inclusion into the Code of Laws and
Ordinances; provides for a delayed effective date
7
April 11, 2000
13.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 14, 2000 MEETING.
Petition A-99-04, Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and
Johnson, PA., representing Kensington Park Master Association and the
Yorktown Neighborhood Association, requesting an appeal of the
determination of the Collier County Planning Commission on November
21, 1999 that the changes to the Carillon PUD Master Plan by adding new
commercial building footprints were insubstantial.
2)
Petition V-2000-01, Mastercraft Homes, Inc. requesting an after-the-fact
variance of 0.6-foot from the required 7.5-foot side yard setback to 6.9
feet for property located at 3871 15th Avenue SW, further described as the
west 75 feet of the east 150 feet of Tract 142, Golden Gate Estates Unit
27, in Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
3)
Petition V-2000-04, Faith Cagran, representing Faith Fuel Corporation
requesting an 8ofoot variance to 42 feet for new fuel pumps and a 46-foot
variance to 4 feet to replace an existing canopy, from the required 50-foot
setback for service stations, for property located at 2068 Davis Boulevard,
further described as lots 16-18, Triangle Lake, in Section 11, Township 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
14.
15.
B. OTHER
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine
and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If
discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and considered separately.
8
April I l, 2000
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Approve Interlocal Agreement with Florida Governmental Utility Authority
regarding Collier County's oversight of rates, fees and charges of the
Golden Gate Utility System.
2)
Resolution to extend the Ad Hoc Select Committee on Community
Character and Design through April 13, 2001, and reappoint members.
3}
Final acceptance of water and sewer facilities for Creekside Commerce
Park West, Unit One.
4)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Creekside Commerce Park
West" - Unit One.
5)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Bridgewater Bay, Unit
One", and approval of the standard form construction and maintenance
agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1)
Request for speed limit reduction from 30 miles per hour (30 MPH) to
twenty-five miles per hour (25 MPH) in Golden Gate City.
2}
Approve Work Order No. PHA-FT-00-03 with Pitman-Hartenstein &
Associates, Inc. to provide engineering services for the proposed six lane
improvements of Airport-Puffing Road from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt
Beach Road, Project No. 62031.
3)
Reappropriation of Tourist Development tax funding for the Clam Pass
Inlet Management Project.
9
April 11, 2000
4) This item has been deleted.
5)
Approve Change Order No. I to Contract No. 00-3033, Hideaway Beach
T-Groin Construction.
6)
Execute a Joint Project Agreement between the State of Florida
Department of Transportation and Collier County for improvements to the
S.R. 84 and Collier Boulevard intersection.
7)
Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 8 with CH2M Hill for the Pine
Ridge Road Improvement, Project No. 60111; CIE 41.
8) This item has been deleted.
9)
Approve Work Order No. WMBP-FT-00-04 with Wilson Miller for an
evaluation of the requirements for vehicular accessibility of Miller
Boulevard Extension, Project No. 69143.
Approve Work Order No. WMBP-FT-00-05 with Wilson Miller for project
management services to secure a Maintenance Agreement between
Collier County and the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Trust, Project No.
69081.
C. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approve a resolution appointing officers to Collier County Agriculture Fair
and Exposition, Inc. Board of Directors.
2)
Approve Summer Food Service Program Grant for Immokalee and Naples
summer recreation participants.
3)
Approve an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Naples for the Naples
Beach Access Improvements Project and the Naples Landing
10
Ap~Ill, 2000
Improvements.
4)
Request by Paul Harvey representing the Silver Slam Tournament for a
waiver of parking fees.
5)
Report and request to the Board of County Commissioners to authorize
the extension of the duration of the Collier Community Health Care
Committee.
6)
Approval of a concession agreement amendment with the Association of
Unit Owners of the Registry Hotel at Pelican Bay, Inc. (The Registry).
7) Approval of an agreement with the Collier County School Board.
D. SUPPORT SERVICES
1}
A Resolution for Approving the Satisfactions of Liens for Certain
Residential Accounts Wherein the County has received Payment and Said
Liens are Satisfied in Full for the 1993 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessments.
2}
Approve Contract for Construction Manager at Risk for the Proposed
North Naples Library, RFP #00-3037.
3)
Authorization to Execute Satisfaction of Liens for Certain Residential
Accounts Wherein the County has received Payment and Said Liens are
Satisfied in Full for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services
Special Assessment.
4)
Report to the Board of County Commissioners Concerning the Sale and
Transfer of Items Associated with the County Surplus Auction of February
19, 2000 and Authorize Refund and Disposal of March 1999 Surplus
Mobile Home.
11
April 11, 2000
COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendments #00-181;
#00-182; #00-186; #00-185; #00-107.
2) Options regarding the Holocaust Museum.
3) Funding options regarding the Everglades Restudy.
Fe
4)
Recommendation relating to Public Services and Emergency Services
Administrator positions.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EMERGENCY SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1)
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign
Satisfaction of Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case No.: 96-
97-CJA
2)
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
l)
Request that the BCC authorize an extension of the due date for the
Sheriff's Office Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2001 until June 1,
2000.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Recommendation to approve a Legal Services Agreement with Fixel &
Maguire as legal counsel to represent county relating to county's property
acquisition interests including eminent domain proceedings, for the
Livingston Road Improvement Project from Golden Gate Parkway to
Immokalee Road (Project Nos. 60071,62071 and 62061 ).
12
April 11, 2000
2)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement acquisition on Parcel
Nos. 137 and 937 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Mc Alpine
Briarwood, Inc., eta/., Case No. 98-1635-CA (Livingston Road Extension -
Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Road) project.
3)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an
eminent domain attorney position and legal assistant position in the Office
of the County Attorney and approve the necessary budget amendments.
K. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
17.
SUMMARY AGENDA -THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR
APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR
ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD,
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS
ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.
1)
Petition SNR-2000-01, Maureen S. Bonness, representing Shady Hollow
Land Trust, requesting a street name change from a ortion of 43rd
Avenue NE to Shady Hollow Boulevard East and 43rJoXvenue NW to
Shady Hollow Boulevard West, located in the Golden Gate Estates
subdivision, in Sections 8, 9, and 10, Township 48 South, Range 27 East.
2)
Petition V-2000-02, James H. Siesky of Siesky, Pilon & Wood,
representing Albert Hubschman, requesting a fence height variance of 6
feet from the required 6-foot maximum to 12 feet (7-foot fence atop a 5-
foot berm) for property located in Golden Gate Estates Unit 35, Tract 115,
in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
13
April 11, 2000
3)
Petition V-2000-05, Michel Saadeh of Vineyards Development
Corporation, requesting a variance to a rear-yard setback requirement of
ten (10) feet to zero (0) feet for an accessory structure for property located
at 434 Terracina Court, further described as Lot 45, Tract L-22, Unit 3A,
Vineyards PUD, in Section 8, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
4)
Petition V-2000-06, Montalvo, Inc., and RH Enterprises of Collier County,
Inc., requesting a variance of 2.5 feet from the required fifteen (15) feet
applicable to each side of a lot line to be established by platting in
conjunction with the fee simple separation of the Checker's Restaurant
and Valvoline Oil Change previously developed under a unified plan
located at the north side of Pine Ridge Road at the Home Depot project
site.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
14
April 11, 2000
April 1 t, 2000
Item #3A, B & C
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning, and welcome to
the April 1 lth, 2000 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners.
If you'd join me in standing, the Reverend Donna Bartleson
from Golden Gate United Methodist Church will lead us in prayer,
and that will be followed by the pledge to the flag. Good morning.
REVEREND BARTLESON: Good morning.
Would you pray with me, please.
Gracious God, it is a beautiful, gorgeous day, and we're
thankful for that. We're thankful for your gift of life and for the
responsibilities that it brings to us. We understand those
responsibilities, to love you and to love others, and to seek
justice for all people.
And in the busyness of preparing for this meeting, we ask
now that you calm our hearts and calm our minds, that we may
listen clearly and carefully to all sides, and that we may make
strong and good decisions.
We pray also for those who are fighting fires here in Collier
County and around our state. We pray that you will protect them
as they are protecting us. And we pray for those who are
displaced for the -- because of those fires.
And finally, Lord, we do pray for rain. Replenish our supply
of water and help us to be mindful of our responsibility to be
careful of the ecology issues in our world.
For we pray these things in the one who is our saviour, and
who offers us forgiveness and your grace. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning, Mr. Olliff. I
understand we have some changes to the agenda. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning.
We do. And I'll walk you through those this morning.
The first item is a continuance, at staffs request. It is Item
8(A)(3), which was an authorization to evaluate a reconnection at
the Vanderbilt Lagoon and then Clam Bay.
Page 2
April 11, 2000
The second item is at the petitioner's request. It is a
continuance of Item 13(A)(1 ), Petition A-99-04, which was an
appeal of a determination by the Planning Commission regarding
the Carillon PUD.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this a continuance or a
withdrawal?
MR. OLLIFF: It's a continuance. It is a continuance to the
May 9th meeting.
The next item is moving Item 16(E)(4), which is a -- an item
which was inadvertently placed on the consent agenda, moving
to 8(E)(5), which is a confirmation of the two division
administrators for your consideration this morning.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that goes where again?
MR. OLLIFF: That will be 8(E)(5), under the county
manager's portion of the agenda.
The last item is a -- on the list, on the printed list, is a note,
and it's a request that Item 12(C)(3), which is the consideration
of some amendments to your noise ordinance, be heard prior to
lunch.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whose request is that?
MR. OLLIFF: That's actually the staff request, because the
consultants that are here are actually here through lunch. We
are paying them on an hourly basis, and one of the reasons we're
trying to get them in and out of here.
The last item, and it's not on your change list, but it is a
request that we add Item 5(A)(5), and it will be a proclamation
where we will be asking you to consider the declaration of a
local emergency in regards to the fires.
The -- if I could, simply for timing reasons, if we could have
that also heard as the first proclamation. We need to get Ken
Pineau back out with that proclamation and get back to work, if
we can, because there are some things that we need to follow up
on after that. So if I could have that proclamation heard as
5(A)(5) and hear that as the first one.
And that's all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have about three things here that
Page 3
April 11, 2000
I want to have moved. 16(B)(9), which happens to be the
Wilson-Miller item. I don't know where you want to put that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Will become 8(B)(6).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 8(B)(6), all right.
Main thing is just a brief discussion about what we're doing
there, so people that are concerned about that will know what
we're doing.
The second item is the Collier Community Healthcare
Committee. If we can move that so we can have just a brief
discussion about that item.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Where is that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It is on -- I've got it circled here,
but I've got to get to the first number. It's in the consent, 16, and
it must be C -- t6(C)(5), I think.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 16(C)(5)?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be 8(C)(1)?
MR. OLLIFF: a(c)(l).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just trying to help move things
along.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unless you're emergency
personnel, we ask you to turn your cell phone off, please.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. The next one, 16(E)(2), the
Holocaust Museum. I have another idea I'd like to just throw out
on that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's t6(E)(2)?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That will become 8(E)(6).
Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have no changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have three items to remove
from the consent agenda. 16(B)(3) will become 8(B)(7), 16(B)(5)
will become 8(B)(8), and 16(E)(3) will become 8(E)(7). Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Glad you pulled that off.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the agenda,
Page 4
April t 1, 2000
summary agenda and the consent agenda as amended.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second -- is there
a second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any discussion? Seeing none,
all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 1-0 I'm sorry, 5-
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
APRIL 11, 2000
CONTINUE: ITEM 8(A}(3}: AUTHORIZATION TO EVALUATE THE
FEASIBILITY OF RECONNECTING THE VANDERBILT LAGOON AND CLAM
BAY SYSTEMS. (STAFF'S REQUEST).
CONTINUE: ITEM 13(A)(1) TO MAY 9, 2000: PETITION A~99-04, KENSINGTON
PARK MASTER ASSOCIATION AND THE YORKTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION, REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE CHANGES TO THE
CARILLON PUD MASTER PLAN BY ADDING NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING
FOOTPRINTS WERE INSUBSTANTIAL. (PETITIONER'S REQUEST).
MOVE: ITEM 16(E)(4) TO 8(E)(5) - RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR
POSITIONS (STAFF'S REQUEST).
NOTE: REQUEST ITEM 12(C)(3) TO HEARD PRIOR TO LUNCH: ADOPTION
OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 90-17, AS AMENDED (NOISE
ORDINANCE).
April t 1, 2000
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE BCC MARCH 14, 2000 REGULAR MEETING -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Looking for approval for the minutes of the March 14th, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion? Any objection? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
Item #5A5
PROCLAMATION DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY
RELATING TO THE FIRES IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
We go to proclamations, and the first proclamation was
5(A)(5), add-on, and we're adding that. Mr. Pineau.
MR. PINEAU: Good morning, commissioners. Ken Pineau,
the emergency management director.
As you know, we've had more than 22 fire districts from
Southwest Florida, primarily Lee and Collier County, since early
Sunday morning fighting a massive brush fire in the south blocks
of Golden Gate Estates.
To date we've had over 9,400 acres of land burnt. We lost
five RV's, or mobile homes, out there. Two of those had annual
residents in there.
We're incurring quite a bit of additional cost trying to fight
this blaze in overtime for the -- at least the Lee County troops.
And as well as fuel. We've been bringing fuel for the firefighters
in there since early Sunday morning.
The firefighters are losing a lot of their stamina. In fact,
yesterday during the day we had 11 other fires in the
Caloosahatchee district. So it's not only this one, although this
is the major one. So they're being overtaxed.
We've requested additional support. We have strike teams
Page 6
April 1 t, 2000
coming in from Broward County, Palm Beach County, a joint team
of other southwest Collier -- or Southwest Florida fire districts.
And they'll -- they're actually moving into the area today. The
Division of Forestry has another overhead team coming down
from North Florida to help combat the blaze.
So we're asking you to declare a state of local emergency
for Collier County. This will allow us to free up additional funds.
It's going to be -- I don't have an estimate on the amount of
funds. This could go on for several more days.
The Division of Forestry is asking FEMA for a fire
suppression grant, but I'm not sure if this is going to help us at
all. I think that the first 1,500,000 is deductible, so I don't think
we're going to experience -- we hope not, anyway -- this amount
of damage.
But the fire is moving into the Sable Palm Prairie, and that's
a heavily wooded area of melaleuca, and it's a very difficult area
to get into. So we're going to be spending all of our efforts I
think today between 86th Avenue Southeast and 70th Avenue
Southeast, primarily to the west of Miller Boulevard, trying to
contain the blaze. It's still out of control. It hasn't been
contained yet.
With that, are there any questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the
proclamation declaring '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- a local emergency.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a pair of seconds.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. PINEAU: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Thank you.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF APRIL AS
WATER CONSERVATION MONTH - ADOPTED
Page 7
April 11,2000
Which takes us to 5(A)(1), proclamation proclaiming the
month of April as Water Conservation Month, to be accepted by
Michael Ramsey, chairman of the Collier Soil and Water
Conservation District, and presented by Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. I believe they are coming
forward.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Come on right now.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Come on up here. Clear up.
MR. RAMSEY: You're not going to let us talk.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You will after. Just turn around
to TV land and they'll see you out there, as Commissioner Berry
reads the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, the Florida Water Wise Council, Incorporated and
the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District encourages all
aspects of water conservation among producers and users, and
to promote and achieve sound water management practices
which will protect the environment; and
WHEREAS, with over 100 volunteer members representing
industries, organizations and government agencies, the Florida
Water Wise Council and Collier Soil and Water Conservation
District strive to foster cooperation among diverse water-use
industry, utilities, developers, environmentalists, manufacturers,
contractors and educators, as well as governmental and
regulatory agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's
Mobile Irrigation Lab saved over 27.6 billion gallons of water
during its lifetime, among agricultural, residential, governmental
and institutional irrigators through an efficient application of
water; and
WHEREAS, the Council, and the CSWCD, consistently
promote water conservation by establishing educational
networks supporting research for water use deficiency,
developing water-wise guidelines, disseminating water
conservation information, serving as a resource for the
development of state-wide partnerships, working one-on-one in
the field, and advocating water management practices which are
compatible with economic growth; and
WHEREAS, the Council and the CSWCD have identified an
additional opportunity to raise conservation awareness, and has
Page 8
April '1 '1, 2000
designated April, typically the last month of Florida's dry season,
when water needs are most acute, as Florida's Inaugural Water
Conservation Month to educate consumers about the need for
conservation and the ways in which they can help save the
state's precious water resources; and
WHEREAS, residential, governmental, agricultural and
institution water users have many ways to save water, including
ultra-low-flow plumbing, xeriscape landscaping, and the wise use
of lawn sprinklers to help conserve water; and
WHEREAS, to save water, much of agriculture and industry
have converted to water conserving systems for irrigation; and
WHEREAS, every business, industry and homeowner can
make a difference when it comes to conserving water, a natural
resource that is vital to everyone.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of April,
2000, be designated as water conservation month in Collier
County, and urge every consumer to become more aware of the
need to save our precious water supply and to take appropriate
measures to conserve and protect this vital natural resource.
DONE AND ORDERED this 1 lth day of April, 2000, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J.
Constantine, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move acceptance of this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All in
favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries, 5-0.
(Applause.)
MR. RAMSEY: On behalf of the Collier Water, Soil and
Conservation District, we'd like to thank the Collier County
Commission for claiming April Water Conservation Month.
And the two gentlemen that's standing up here with me, I'd
like to have you all recognize them, too. They're the main reason
that this operation works. Our contributors are Tom Jones from
Barron Collier Partnership and Tony Palizos (phonetic), from the
Page 9
April 11, 2000
Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Again, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF APRIL AS
CONSERVANCY VOLUNTEER MONTH - ADOPTED
Commissioner Mac'Kie, April, Conservancy Volunteer Month.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to ask David Guggenheim,
who's president/CEO of The Conservancy, Ms. Sharon Truluck,
human resources director of The Conservancy, and frankly, all of
the people in those pretty teal shirts who are here, if you would
come forward while we read this proclamation. If we -- instead
of April being the month to honor Conservancy volunteers, if it
were up to me, we'd have the year of Conservancy volunteers.
You guys do an incredible amount of work and incredible service
to the community. So I'm honored to get to read this
proclamation in recognition of your work.
WHEREAS, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida is the
region's leading nonprofit environmental organization; and
WHEREAS, The Conservancy has helped protect nearly
800,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land since 1964,
including the Fakahatchee Strand, Belle Meade, South Golden
Gate Estates, Rookery Bay and Big Cypress Preserve; and
WHEREAS, The Conservancy actively assists with state and
federal land acquisitions and restoration programs in the greater
Everglades ecosystem, and more than 5,500 members support
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and more than 700
volunteers generously donate their time and expertise to The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida; and
WHEREAS, The Conservancy helps shape environmental
policy in South Florida by participating in and monitoring more
than 125 Southwest Florida environmental issues annually; and
WHEREAS, in addition to playing a key role in environmental
advocacy and protection, The Conservancy operates in support
of its mission the Naples Nature Center, the Briggs Nature
Center, the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center, and the Sea Turtle
Page 10
April 11, 2000
Monitoring and Protection Project; and
WHEREAS, The Conservancy provides environmental
education programs, reaching thousands of adults and students
every year, and
WHEREAS, over 700 volunteers assist in the daily
functioning of The Conservancy, as museum docents, information
desk volunteers, store sales personnel, wildlife caregivers,
special events volunteers, dockmasters, boat captains, mailers,
volunteer coordinators, office helpers, couriers, carpenters and
horticultural assistants; and
WHEREAS, local business professionals, including
veterinarians, medical staff and business leaders also donate
their time and service; and
WHEREAS, in fiscal year 1999 volunteers donated more than
50,000 hours to The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of April,
2000 be designated as Conse -- I'm going to try that again.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Easy for you to say.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- be designated as Conservancy
Volunteer Month.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 1 lth day of April, 2000, Board of
County Commissioners, Tim Constantine, Chairman.
I'm honored to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
objection?
Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's a rarity indeed. This little
button says I'm appreciated. I'm not sure I have the guts to wear
it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are these less than $25?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope so.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you, Commissioner Mac'Kie and
commissioners.
It is a privilege for me to accept this honor on behalf of our
volunteers. This honor recognizes thousands of dedicated
individuals who over more than 35 years have demonstrated their
Page 11
April 1 t, 2000
compelling dedication and conservation ethic through their
selfless volunteerism. Thanks to them, the Conservancy has
helped to ensure the permanent protection of some of the most
magnificent parts of Southwest Florida, the western Everglades.
Today our volunteer force stands at more than 700. And I'm
very proud to be here with them this morning, wearing my green
shirt -- my teal shirt.
Exactly two weeks ago today The Conservancy received a
resolution from Governor Bush and the Cabinet, recognizing 35
years of environmental leadership. And I told them in
Tallahassee how in the early Sixties a group of concerned
citizens united and began a movement to stop the so-called road
to nowhere proposed in 1964 to join Naples to Marco Island
through pristine Rookery Bay. And there were full-page ads in
the paper, "Act now. Don't pass up this lifetime opportunity.
Waterfront acreage at $20 an acre."
And the times have changed a bit since then. But they
succeeded. And with the support of the National Audubon
Society, the Nature Conservancy and other organizations,
Rookery Bay was saved. But instead of disbanding, the leaders of
The Conservancy grew with the community and continued as a
conservation leader.
And since those days, The Conservancy has helped to
protect more than 300,000 acres of environmentally sensitive
land, and as you mentioned in the proclamation, the wildlife
center and our two nature centers.
But perhaps what is most impressive about The
Conservancy is its great tradition of volunteerism. Our
volunteers donate their time and invest themselves into the hard
work that makes it possible for The Conservancy to do what it
does. And it is that kind of powerful connection to its community
that has been emblematic of The Conservancy since those days
in the Sixties.
I see a bright future for us and success here in Southwest
Florida, because our organization's history suggests that
Floridians, and particularly those here in Collier County, as
evidenced by our volunteers, have always and will always
treasure their natural heritage, and will invest of themselves in
order to protect it.
The Conservancy is a testament of the human spirit, to the
Page 12
April 11, 2000
community and to the beauty and wonder of Southwest Florida.
And on behalf of all of our volunteers, I thank all of you this
morning. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF APRIL 9-15, 2000
AS NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, you have
a proclamation for National Crime Victims' Rights Week.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do indeed. We have some
people we'd like to call up to accept this proclamation. Sergeant
Bill Rule, the supervisor of victims assistance section of the
Sheriff's Department; Sandy Mummer, from Project Help; Janet
Weisberg, Shelter for Abused Women. And is Sheriff Hunter here
himself? Oh, we got a stand-in. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Bill.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've got Mr. Bill here.
Okay, let me read this proclamation. I'll have a copy for
each of you.
WHEREAS, year 2000 marks the 20th anniversary of the
commemoration of National Crime Victims' Rights Week; and
WHEREAS the victims' rights discipline in America has for
nearly three decades dared to dream of a nation that is free from
violence, and an America where crime victims are consistently
provided supportive services to help them cope with the trauma
of crime and victimization; and
WHEREAS, while the rate of most crimes continues to
decrease, U.S. residents still experience nearly 31 million
criminal victimizations, including nearly 8.1 million violent
crimes; and
WHEREAS, over 30,000 federal and state laws have been
passed that define and protect the rights of crime victims, 32
states have passed constitutional amendments that afford
victims important participatory rights throughout the criminal
and juvenile justice systems, and a federal constitutional
amendment that's currently pending in U.S. Congress; and
Page t3
April 1 t, 2000
WHEREAS, important partnerships have been formed among
criminal and juvenile justice agencies, allied professionals and
victims services to ensure that crime victims are treated with
dignity and respect; and
WHEREAS, our nation's commitment to victim assistance,
crime prevention and public safety has resulted in countless
individuals and collaborative initiatives that truly do our
community justice, including but not exclusively the Collier
County Sheriff's Office, Shelter for Abused Women, Project Help;
and
WHEREAS, citizens of Collier County are encouraged to
pause and consider the plight of our local victims of crime and
consider giving of themselves to help victims service agencies
provide much needed comfort and support; and
WHEREAS, the new millennium will afford us the opportunity
to continue to dare to dream of a nation where liberty and justice
for all includes each and every person who has been touched by
crime.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of April
9th through the 15th of the year 2000 be designated as National
Crime Victims' Rights Week, and that our individual and
collective efforts reflect the dreams we dare to have of a nation,
where no crime victim goes unserved, and every crime victim is
afforded rights and services and fair treatment by the justice
system and by society.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 1 lth day of April, 2000, by the
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy
J. Constantine, Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I'll move that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor, please state aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
Item #5A4
Page 14
April 11, 2000
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF APRIL 9-15, 2000
AS NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if Barbara Plaag will come
up, who is the volunteer coordinator for the Shelter for Abused
Women. And also Sharon Downey, who is with RSVP of Collier
County.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: RSVP.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And face the television
cameras. We have the following proclamation:
WHEREAS, the entire community can effect positive change
with any volunteer action, no matter how big or small; and
WHEREAS, volunteers can connect with local community
service opportunities through hundreds of community service
organizations like RSVP and the Shelter for Abused Women of
Collier County; and
WHEREAS, more than 109 million volunteers working in their
communities utilize their time and talent daily to make a real
difference in the lives of children, adults and the elderly; and
WHEREAS, during this week, volunteers will continue to
perform their services in Collier County, and should be
recognized for their commitment; and
WHEREAS, volunteers have the power to fight the pervasive
feeling of social disconnection experienced by 81 percent of
Americans, especially young people; and
WHEREAS, volunteers are vital to our future as a caring and
productive community.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County that the week of April 9 through
15, 2000 be designated as National Volunteer Week in Collier
County, and urge citizens to join the effort and celebrate
volunteers in their communities. By volunteering and
recognizing those who serve, we can connect with neighbors and
strangers, and replace disconnection and isolation with
understanding and compassion.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 11th day of April, the year 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Timothy John Constantine,
Chairman.
I'd like to move approval of this proclamation.
Page 15
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why thank you.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
mint.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
worth a mint today.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Wait till tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, tomorrow's another day.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tomorrow's another day.
It says volunteers are worth a
We're appreciated today, we're
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, you have
a number of service awards for us.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. My pleasure this morning to
provide the opportunity to award our employees. I'd like to start
first with Mr. Shawn Luedtke, code enforcement, five years.
Shawn?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And continuing on, Mr. Steve
Rasmussen, wastewater department, 10 years. Steve?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. James Raymond, Marco
Airport, 10 years. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Chahram Badamtchian, planning
services, 10 years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love to correct and say Dr.
Badamtchian.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. And a gentleman who was
here earlier this morning, Mr. Ken Pineau, emergency
Page t 6
April 11, 2000
management, 15 years.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make excuses to
Mr. Pineau. We sent him back to the office to get back to work.
So I'll accept on his behalf.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And for 15 years, Mr. Jeffrey
Kucko, building review.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: He's back.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
safe.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
EMS. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, and the grand prize this
morning is Mr. Allen Madsen for 20 years in public works
engineering.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, Mr. Chairman, that
concludes our awards this morning.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're going to take about a
two-minute break while we clean up the running water.
(Recess.)
Just when you thought it was
Also 15 years, Mr. Steve Donovan,
Item #5C1
JASON VALINSKY, CRAFTSMAN, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT - RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
APRIL, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're back.
Next item is -- if we could quiet down, please. Next item is
recommendation to recognize Jason Valinsky.
Jason, if you'd come up. Employee of the Month for April, of
the year 2000.
Come on up. We're being carried on C-Span this morning, so
you'll be seen from globe -- all around the globe. Globe to globe?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something like that. Maybe.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Jason Valinsky is craftsman in
the building maintenance section for facilities management
department, and continually goes beyond his job duties to satisfy
Page 17
April 11, 2000
the needs and concerns of county staff.
Jason performs more than routine maintenance on our
county buildings and assets, he takes ownership and
responsibility for the county's 300 plus facilities. His constant
initiative allows Jason to consistently complete more work
orders than any other craftsman.
Jason was instrumental in handling the United Way
Campaign for facility management department as well.
Additionally, he actively participates on committees and
staff meetings, providing input and suggestions on ways to
operate more effectively and improve the working environment
for fellow employees.
We have a number of things here for him as Employee of the
Month, including a plaque that reads Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Employee of the Month,
April, 2000. Official recognition and appreciation is tendered to
Jason Valinsky for exceptional performance.
We have a letter, and then perhaps most important to Jason,
we have a check good for American tender.
Jason, thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's an especially outstanding
recommendation you got. I wanted to commend you for it. It
really was.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2000-110 AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN
FUNDING THROUGH THE POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN
PROGRAM, NOT TO EXCEED $4,500,000 AND APPROVAL OF A
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR EXPANSION
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CENTER -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That moves us on to the regular
part of the agenda. County manager's report, Item 8(A)(1 ),
approval of a budget amendment appropriating funds for
expansion of the Collier County Development Services Center.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
Page 18
April 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any discussion on the item?
Do we have public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
of the motion, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Seeing none, all those in favor
Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #8A2
PETITION FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO INTERVENE IN FLORIDA
PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION DOCKETS 990696-WS AND
992040-WS - APPROVED
8(A)(2), authorize filing of petition for Collier County to
intervene in the Florida Public Services Commission Dockets
990696-WS, and 992040-WS.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second
from Commissioner Carter.
Is there any discussion?
Are there public speakers on this item?
MR. OLLIFF: No~ sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, all those in favor
of the motion~ please state aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Unless Mr. Wallace needed to get
something on the record.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thanks,
Bleu.
Item S(B)(6) was 16(B)(9) --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 3. 8(B)(3).
MR. OLLIFF: 8(B)(3)? I believe, 8(B)(3), (4) and (5).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry~ they all have lines
through them. Someone tampered with my agenda.
Item #883
RESOLUTION 2000-111 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
Page 19
April 11, 2000
GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE
INTEREST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMMOKALEE
ROAD/RANDALL BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, CIE NO. 72 -ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
add?
8(B)(3), adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition gift,
purchase or condemnation of fee simple blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we need to get something on
the record here?
MR. KANT: Yes, commissioners. Edward Kant,
transportation services director.
Typically this would be a fairly routine item, but I've been
asked to make sure that the record reflects that this is a parcel
of land that is essential for the improvement of Randall
Boulevard and Immokalee Road intersection. And as such, we
want to make sure that if we do have to go to an eminent domain
proceeding, that we have covered all our bases.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Motion stands.
Mr. Bibby, anything you need to
aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Please, I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Any speakers on this item?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
--second.
All those in favor, please state
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #884
RESOLUTION 2000-112 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE
Page 20
April 11, 2000
INTERESTS AND/OR PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE, TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM STATION 373+75
TO THE LEE-COLLIER COUNTY LINE, CIE PROJECT NO. 21 -
ADOPTED
Takes us to 8(B)(4), adopt a resolution authorizing the
acquisition by gift.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I move that we adopt the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bibby?
MR. BIBBY: Jeff Bibby, public works engineering director.
The County Attorney's Office has just counseled us on we
need to develop a discussion on these resolutions --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Develop that discussion.
MR. BIBBY: Livingston Road~ of course~ is our north-south --
next north-south corridor. We need this. These are for the
parcels north of the Mediterra piece to the county line. It's a
needed function. That's all I think I need to say.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Any speakers on this?
MR. OLLIFF: No~ sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion, we have a
second.
All those in favor of the motion~ please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #885
RESOLUTION 2000-113 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF UTILITY AND
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE THIRTY (30)) INCH PARALLEL SEWER
FORCE MAIN ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD AND WITHIN
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE CENTER, PROJECT 73943 - ADOPTED
8(B)(5), adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by
Page 21
April 1 t, 2000
gift, purchase or magic.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bibby?
MR. BIBBY: Similarly~ we need this 30-inch force main along
Immokalee Road to tie in from U.S. 4t to the north plant. It's a
needed item~ reflected in the master plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No~ sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion~ we have a
second.
All those in favor~ please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #886
WORK ORDER NO. WMPB-FT-00-04 WITH WILSONMILLER FOR AN
EVALUATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VEHICULAR
ACCESSIBILITY OF MILLER BOULEVARD EXTENSION~ PROJECT
NO. 69143 - APPROVED
Takes us to 8(B)(6), which was 16(B)(9). Commissioner
Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: t6(B)(9). Which one was this? I
had three of them here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I did the same thing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: t 6(B) --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (9).
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- (9). Work order for
Wilson-Miller.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman~ while we're getting settled on
that item~ a fellow handed me a speaker slip named Mr. Robert
Jenkins~ and he had scheduled to speak on an item that was on
the consent agenda and has already been approved. And I just
wanted to make sure that Mr. Jenkins was aware of that and
didn't sit through the rest of the meeting waiting for that item to
come up.
The Silver Slam Tournament item was already approved.
Page 22
April 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The issue regarding the Miller
Boulevard -- the only thing I want is just publicly to state what
this is~ so people who are concerned about Miller Boulevard will
know exactly what this item is. If you could just do that, please.
MR. HELLRIEGEL: Good morning~ commissioners. My name
is Rich Hellriegel. I'm with your public works engineering
department.
This is the work order for Wilson-Miller under our annual
contract, fixed term annual contract.
I understand that Miller Boulevard is currently -- there's a
case pending for the county to obtain the right-of-way for
under-prescriptive rights. This study is to have Wilson-Miller take
a look at what environmental and engineering concerns we need
to address, if the county obtains the ownership of that
right-of-way, so that we can maintain that. And today would be a
good day to have that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. Is there anything at
this point in time, before we get the prescriptive rights -- I guess
the question actually goes to Mr. Weigel -- that there can be --
any of these potholes can be fixed out on that roadway? Or can
we do nothing until that is approved?
MR. WEIGEL: Well~ if the county were to fill in potholes and
things of that nature, there is the risk that the underlying private
property owners over which those potholes exist may attempt
either in our prescriptive action we have in court right now~ or in
a separate action~ attempt to prevent us from access on those
properties.
It is somewhat distinguishable from the rights we are trying
to assume under prescriptive easement, however.
I think that this agenda item can work -- can work~ if the
board were to approve it, with the ongoing court action. The
agenda item itself talks about working in coordination with the
County Attorney Office. And it would need to be in coordination
with our particular action, which involves property owners that
are contesting our declared right that we believe we have.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So really, until we get that cleared
up, any other -- any work out there is --
MR. WEIGEL: There is some risk if we go out there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There is a risk.
Page 23
April 11, 2000
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But at this point we're going to be
taking a look and doing all those things? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Objections?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Motion and a second.
Discussion?
Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #887 & Item #888
REAPPROPRIATION OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDING
FOR THE CLAM PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PROJECT -
CONTINUED AND CHANGE ORDER NO. I TO CONTRACT NO. 00-
3033, HIDEAWAY BEACH T-GROIN CONSTRUCTION - CONTINUED
Next item is 8(B)(7), which was 16(B)(3), reappropriation of
tourist development tax funding for the Clam Pass Inlet project.
It reads funds in the amount of $25,000 were appropriated in
fiscal year 98-99 for professional engineering services related to
the dredging of Clam Pass. Such funds were unencumbered and
unexpended but are necessary this year. Therefore, approval for
reappropriation is requested.
This sounds suspiciously like funds that were approved but
never spent for roadways, which I know you don't have control
over but we're all particularly sensitive to now.
Why weren't these encumbered? Why weren't these spent?
Why didn't this project move ahead last year?
MR. HUBER: For the record, Harry Huber with public works
engineering department.
These were -- the dredging did take place, was completed,
and these funds were appropriated for the engineering services
associated with that. But they never -- actually, this was done
through the Pelican Bay Services Division, and they were never
Page 24
April 11, 2000
MR. HUBER: Last summer.
to be completed before May 1st.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
year?
billed for those services till after the fiscal year ended. So the
money essentially went away at the end of the fiscal year. They
didn't carry forward. So '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When was the project done?
Well, actually last spring. It had
And they didn't get a bill for a
MR. HUBER: Well, it was actually-- it was after October.
Actually '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I assume if it came in October,
it didn't take another six months to get it on the agenda.
MR. HUBER: No. Well, I didn't receive it -- actually, Pelican
Bay Services Division sent me an invoice to pay it out of the TDC
fund, so that's the reason I put it on that agenda.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a copy of that invoice
somewhere? I didn't see it in our packet.
MR. HUBER: I've got a copy of it, yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would it cause any heartache if
we continue this to the next meeting till we see that invoice, if
the board will humor me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, if they waited a year, they
can wait a couple weeks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are there other projects that we
haven't been billed for and the money's just floating around out
there?
MR. HUBER: Not to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are there other projects '-
MR. HUBER: I mean, certainly normally in this particular
consultant, engineering firm has several other projects that
utilize TDC funds, and they're normally several months behind
time in their billing, but '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are there other projects that we
approved funding for last year that were never spent?
MR. HUBER: There are some projects where we haven't
spent all the money yet, although we have purchase orders that
we've obligated the money.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But there's nothing else that
will come back to us because it's just sitting out there?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I guess your point, Mr. Chairman,
Page 25
April 11, 2000
iS that when we are dealing with contractors, it would behoove
them to understand the fiscal cycles that we're on and to get
their bills to us so that we don't go through this process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the point is actually more
-- that may be a part of the point, but a point that I would like to
make, and I frankly had planned to talk about this under budget
policy~ is when we look at things -- I've asked Mr. Olliff to try to
get us answers to some questions about carryforward. We set
policy on what's acceptable for carryforward and reserves every
year, but unless we look more carefully at the CAFR information,
we aren't going to know the results of those policies that we've
set.
And I'm looking for a way, like I think you're digging for right
now~ to find out what besides roads do we have the 50 million
dollar pot of money sitting around that's unspent? Where else is
there a carryforward that's significant?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I really didn't get an answer
to my question, and that is where I'm headed is~ are there
projects from fiscal 98-99 that -- approved by this board that the
money was never spent~ contract never let?
MR. HUBER: Right now I can't give you a specific answer on
that. But I --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's a yes/no question. Either
they were let~ you're confident that everything we approved last
year was let~ those contracts are out and underway, or you're
not.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I think I can pretty safely say
that there probably are some that were not. And just so you are
aware on this particular area of capital construction, beach
renourishment in particular~ I've asked Mr. McNees in our office
two weeks ago to start doing an analysis of what was budgeted,
what was actually accomplished, what wasn't accomplished,
why wasn't it accomplished, and then getting us a summary
report for that.
But if the board wants us to look at that in more of a total
picture for all capital type projects, we can expand that as well.
But I will tell you~ just from what I know of budgets, there
are two areas where we have that as an issue. One is beach
renourishment~ the other was transportation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand. And you and I had
Page 26
April 11, 2000
that conversation a couple of weeks ago.
What I'd like to ask the board to do is continue this item,
and I'm going to ask the same thing on 16(B)(5). There are
questions on both of those. And I think hopefully they are
answered -- well, they will be answered -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes, they will.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- whether we get a good
answer or not. But they'll be answered in the next couple of
weeks, as we sift that out. But I think there are some questions
hanging over this and I'd rather just continue these than give
them a blanket approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that, Mr. Chairman.
And just seeing that we have the clerk in the room, I don't know
if now's the appropriate time or maybe under the budget policy
discussions, I would really like to have, if you are available to be
here to talk to us some more about where do we have funds? I
mean, obviously you are in charge of where those monies go and
how they're invested and where they sit. What money do we
have that is unspent and carried forward?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that part will be
appropriate for the budget. But bring the lights -- MR. BROCK: Very quick.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- up and the music up, our Clerk
of Court, Dwight Brock.
MR. BROCK: My name's Dwight Brock. I'm the Clerk of
Courts.
If you look at the comprehensive annual financial
statements, the CAFR, one of the areas required under GASB --
that's the accounting standards of which we report -- you have a
budget versus actual, which is the budget you adopted, and
those amendments associated therewith, versus the actual
expenditure.
In conversations that I have had with my finance director, I
am aware that Tommy and he have already started going through
some of those particular discrepancies and trying to delineate
what the problem is and what we can do to solve the problems
as they exist.
So what you're asking for, I think your county manager has
already started undertaking that task.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
Page 27
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I think -- if I
understand your concern, it is primarily the projects that this
board has authorized but has not even been contracted out or let
out or initiated in any way. Is that your primary concern?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That is my primary concern.
There are some attached concerns with some different monies
that may have been shuffled from project to project and so on.
But yeah, that's the crux of it.
I'm going to ask the board to continue 16(B)(3).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And B(5)?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And B(5). If we can do that all
under one motion, that's great.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move those continuances.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Any public speakers on that item, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor, please state
aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Thank you.
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8C1
EXTENSION OF THE DURATION OF THE COLLIER COMMUNITY
HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE- CONTINUED
16(C)(5), I think this was. Commissioner Berry had pulled it.
Is that the --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Resolution extending the
creation and duration of the Collier County Community
Healthcare Committee.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. I have -- first off, let me say
I have no problem extending the healthcare committee until such
time. However, I do believe that if-- before we do that, I think it
would be very appropriate that we have a report as to what they
have gotten at this point in time.
I understand -- I have talked to a couple members of that
Page 28
April 11, 2000
committee, and they do feel that in a few areas, not all areas, but
in a couple of the areas, they do need to get some more
information. I don't have any problem with that at all. But I do
believe that since this commission authorized this group and
established the group, I believe it's very appropriate for us to
hear what information they've retrieved at this time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Schedule it for our next
meeting?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. Or May, whenever -- I
think there was a time set in May that they -- I believe we
indicated that they -- which I guess the next meeting would be in
May, duh. So that would be perfectly -- I don't care which
meeting in May, whichever one's most appropriate.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you're looking for an interim
report?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. And I think it's very
appropriate to have that. And then if they need more time to get
some more numbers or some more information on some of the
areas, fine, let's have that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So we'll continue this item until
we have that '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think so.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- report.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like that -- I'd like to move that
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you like to hear from our
director of the Health Department, since she's the requester?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't really want to hear it
twice, if we're going to do a continuation. She just made a
motion. If there's a second, a --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- continuation is a continuation.
Motion and a second. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All due respect to Dr. Colfer, I've
had the opportunity to meet with her, a fine individual, and I
know she's got a lot of things to get a handle on since she's been
here in the county. But I do believe that the other people who
have been involved in this group have been working, and this will
allow her to hear some of that information as well, and then she
can certainly continue working on with that group, so --
Page 29
April 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion to continue and a
second. All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #8E2
PAY PLAN STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED
8(E)(2), presentation of pay plan study and
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Historic moment here. I just
have to note while people are coming up that I want to commend
our county manager for and to thank constitutional officers~ all of
whom have worked so well together. And it's just not -- those of
you who don't live in government like we do don't know how
unusual it is for the constitutional officers and the manager's
agency to work so well together. And I just want to thank all of
you for that cooperation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there.
MS. EDWARDS: Good morning. My name's Jennifer
Edwards. I'm the human resource director.
We're here this morning to present to you the results of the
pay plan study. First, on behalf of the employees, though~ of your
agency, I want to thank you for being proactive in directing us to
have this study performed.
Second~ I want to publicly thank the committee members~
each of them -- and these are representatives of each of the
other agencies. We have all worked together~ as Commissioner
Mac'Kie commented, very cooperatively and they've been very
responsive. And this cooperation will not end today. We will
continue with this committee.
Now I would like to introduce to you Sandra Gaffin. Sandra
is a partner with Arthur Andersen. She has been with the firm for
three years. Prior to joining Arthur Andersen~ Sandra was a
partner in the human resources management consulting firm~ HR
Associates. She also served as the senior human resources
executive in the following industries: Property development~
financial services~ and higher education.
Page 30
April 11, 2000
And here is Sandra.
MS. GAFFIN: Thank you, Jennifer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MS. GAFFIN: Good morning. Are we on the screen yet?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It appears we are.
MS. GAFFIN: I'm Sandra Gaffin. I'm a partner with Arthur
Andersen. I do have a presentation to go through with you, and I
hope that I don't make this too formal; that I'm sure you'll feel
free to speak out and ask questions as we go through it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Actually, we're going to try to
get through the whole thing and save the questions till the end,
just to be efficient.
MS. GAFFIN: Okay. That would be fine with me also.
We were hired to review the compensation system that you
all have, the structures of the various agencies, to ensure that
they are, first of all, objective, to give an objective look to them;
to test how competitive they were in the marketplace and
whether they were being equitably administered to all the
organizations and the agencies.
The main focus of what we were hired to do is conduct a
private survey to benchmark the positions within the labor
market, using other published survey information, and to adjust
or recommend adjustments to the various case structures.
Part of our focus was on hiring rates. One of the things that
we did when we initiated the study was to meet with all of the
heads of the agencies and some of their representatives to find
out what their issues were; where were they having problems in
terms of attracting and retaining people, which is really the
bottom line of what a compensation structure is all about, is to
hire people, to keep them and to keep them motivated while
they're here.
We were also, as part of the RFP, were asked to, once we
conducted this analysis, to recommend what it would take to
adjust the new structure to market to market, plus five percent
and to market plus 10 percent. So that's why you see the
numbers as they are represented.
What we did, just to give you a little historical background,
was we first of all asked for information about various agencies.
We looked at organizational structures, current salary schedules,
current job descriptions, HR policies and procedures on how
Page 31
April 11, 2000
you're administering your structures; anything relative to the
strategic focus of Collier County so we'd understand the kind of
system and the kind of county you are seeking to be.
We, as I've mentioned, met with the heads of agencies and
their representatives. I personally conducted the interviews and
met with them. And then we met with the county's task force
that Jennifer referenced, which had representatives from all of
the agencies working together.
The main kinds of questions I asked were things like what's
your labor market; again, where do you lose people from -- lose
them to, where do you hire them from; who do you see as being
your labor market competitors. Try to develop what we call a
compensation strategy. And the real focus of this -- because
most of what we were doing was conducting a labor market
study -- was to determine what organizations we should be
studying.
You all have a report. And on Page 6 of the report, I believe,
we do reference exactly how we conducted this. And we
followed this strategy fairly specifically. When we survey
organizations, you want to survey organizations that are in the
right location, of the right size and complexity, and that provide a
similar nature of services. So we categorized your jobs into four
categories: Clerical, trades, professional and management.
And the clerical and trades organizations, we benchmarked
them in the local labor market. If they were industry specific,
meaning they were jobs you only found in the county, then
obviously we only used, you know, counties right around you all.
Otherwise, we also looked at the private employer market,
because that's where you hire your secretaries from or lose them
to, or your plant operators or your accountants.
Professional and management jobs, we benchmarked both
locally and within Florida. We looked at other similarly sized
counties, other local governments and other service oriented
employers. And we tried to stay very specific with that strategy;
and task force was, I think, admirable in making sure that we
stayed on point with them.
So we conducted a survey of the labor market. The way we
did this was really two-pronged: We created a private survey for
Collier County, and I think the results of that have been provided
to you in two appendices.
Page 32
April t 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me interrupt just for a
second. I appreciate you trying to lay the groundwork of how we
got where we're going. However~ I think each of us, anyway~
have gone through the report and have some idea on that. MS. GAFFIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's try to focus our time on
the results.
MS. GAFFIN: Absolutely.
I think it's important -- if I can step back~ though. I think it's
important to understand what we do with the labor market
information. So if I can take just a moment with that.
The data is trended forward. Because when you survey
organizations, you're surveying them at a point in time. So we
have trended that data forward to October 1st. We have~ from
the private survey information~ removed Collier data so you're
not comparing yourselves to yourselves. So that's extracted.
We've also provided geographic differentials~ because we
have -- we're surveying organizations around Florida that may
have different geograph -- there are different geographical
differences on how people pay people. Not cost of living
adjustments but wage differentials. And so the data was
equalized by applying differentials.
From that we did develop the structure recommendation~
implementation analysis~ and prepared the draft report.
Briefly, 122 jobs were surveyed across the organization.
You have in your appendices who responded to the survey, and
also in the report the other sources that we used for the private
survey -- or for the other published survey information.
Cutting to the chase~ you are below market. And we wanted
to give you sort of a picture of this. We chose just two of the
larger structures: The Collier County Board of County
Commissioners exempt employees~ and the blue line would be
the minimum of what other organizations~ your labor market~ is
paying. And the yellow line would be your minimum across the
different pay grades, which shows obviously the gap. I believe
the average off-market on the exempt employees for the BCC
was about three percent.
A little bit more stark differential was in the sheriff's
structure for the certified employees. And again~ the blue line is
the market, the yellow line is the Collier County. And I think that
Page 33
April 11, 2000
differential was about 24 percent off market.
Now, on this page, these are the actual structure
recommendations, once we've completed the analysis in terms
of how far you were off market, both at market plus five percent
and plus 10 percent.
Now, I want to make note for you all, and I believe the
county manager has copies of this report to pass out to you.
There are changes in one of the lines here from what you had
previously been given. For the EMS firefighters, on that line, we
are -- our information shows that they were one percent actually
above market. So for the percent adjustment at market, we had
recommended a zero percent adjustment. Unfortunately that
zero got carried across for the plus five percent and the plus 10
percent. So that error has been taken out. And since they were
one percent above market plus five percent would take them four
percent and plus 10 percent to nine percent.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, that clears that rate up.
MS. GAFFIN: You sure?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: When we're looking at this, that
percent adjustment, where it says non-exempt, is that six what?
Six percent? Six '-
MS. GAFFIN: Six percent, yes. Those are percent
adjustments. Six percent. In other words, you would take the
entire structure and adjust it six percent up for the non-exempt
BCC. And if you wanted to be five percent above market, it
would be adjusted 11 percent; 10 percent above market, 16
percent.
Now, we -- the BCC has separate structures for the
non-exempt and their exempt employees. For the IT, information
technology and engineering folks, basically we looked at them
separately because their pay structure is separate.
They -- and you'll find this in most organizations now as
they're starting to study what's going on with the pay rates with
this very hot labor market we have for engineers and information
technology, that if you compare an IT person that's in pay grade
20 with an IT person -- or non-IT person in pay grade 20, the labor
market's just simply higher.
So we have graded a separate structure, have recommended
a separate structure for the IT and engineers, and thus the
Page 34
April 11, 2000
slightly different numbers~ somewhat different numbers there.
EMS firefighters. We were asked to look at them separately
because they have a different work hour schedule. And the rest
of it simply represents the different schedules that currently
exist within the county.
On the tax collector~ you'll see a footnote there. We were
asked only look at the Clerks I~ II and III. We did not look at the
rest of the structure at their request.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, one question I have. When
you looked at the constitutional officers -- and this becomes a
real difficult situation~ I think~ from the -- for the Board of County
Commissioners to discuss this item~ because we allocate the
dollars. But from that point on, the individuals who are in those
positions~ as the sheriff~ the county clerk~ the property appraiser~
the tax collector~ supervisor of elections~ they allocate those
dollars. At least that is my understanding as I have sat here for --
it's up to them to spend the money and spread the dollars
however they choose.
This I think becomes very, very difficult from a -- the
perspective of being a commissionerr that we allocate dollars.
And then what they do with them, I don't have any jurisdiction
over how they spend that money. But yet~ I believe the Board of
County Commissioners comes off looking like we're not doing our
job because we're not allocating the money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom~ is that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And so this -- I mean~ I just feel
like I'm in a catch-22 here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I think that's not -- correct
me, because between the two of us~ there's a slight difference in
what I understand is the way it works. If we allocate -- let's
make it little dollars so I can understand -- we allocate $1 ~000 to
the Sheriff's Office and $100 of that in his budget is lined for
personnel, certified personnel, can he decide to spend that $100
on new office equipment instead~ or does it have to stay in the
category we've approved?
MR. OLLIFF: He can spend the budget how he sees fit. But I
will --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what is the relevance? So
you're exactly right, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is what I'm concerned about.
Page 35
April 11, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: But I will tell you that -- and to try and
summarize this whole item, I think we have put together a
committee of representatives from each of the agencies,
including every one of the constitutional officers and the County
Attorney's Office, and I think to a person and to an agency, they
will tell you that this is a shared problem, and it is one where I
firmly believe that if the board commits the funding to this
through the budget process, that there's no doubt in my mind
that those funds are going to be going to the salary related
problems that they have in each of those agencies. Because they
simply are having the same type problems that our agency is in
terms of recruiting and retaining employees.
So I think there is a firm commitment, I believe, from each
of the agency managers to do just what this plan indicates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So in this case, they-- in all
cases they don't have to spend the money the way we suggest.
But in this case you have the commitment of each of the
constitutional officers that if we approve this change, they will
spend this money on certified law enforcement. If we say 19
percent, that's what they're going to get; civilian, they'll get four
percent. I mean, whatever the number is that we approve, they
have agreed that they're going to spend it in accordance with the
chart.
MR. OLI. IFF: I'm not telling you that they say that they are
going to spend it to the exact percentage that has been
recommended by the consultant. But I will tell you that I think
that they are going to spend it in terms of adjustments to salary
ranges for their employees in order to make it -- make their
agencies competitive.
And I will tell you we've also had the discussion because we
had very similar and shared type positions that we want our
ranges to be the same from agency to agency so that you don't
have a person leaving one agency to move to another simply for
a five or 10 percent --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you, I spoke with a
couple of the constitutional officers this week, and realistically,
they don't have any choice but to do that if they're going to
maintain their people and be able to do what their job is, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to be blunt here.
Page 36
April 11, 2000
What I'm talking -- I'm not -- I'm not -- my primary concern here is
not whether or not a secretary in Dwight's office is going to
make what a secretary in Tom's office makes. Because the
market -- if we all adjust together, the market will control those
things.
I guess the one that I am primarily concerned about is if our
certified law enforcement officers' going to get a raise or not.
Because I get phone calls and letters and E-mails about people
who are concerned, and appropriately so, about what we're
paying certified law enforcement officers in this county. And I
want to know if they're going to get raises out of this or not.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, in my meeting with the
Sheriff, I -- my understanding, yes, they will. I don't know if the
Sheriff's here this morning, but I think he can go on public record
and tell you exactly what his plan is, based on the meeting I had
with him and the Clerk of Courts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, he is here.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, and I -- Jim, Commissioner, I
don't disagree with you, and I think they are intending to do it.
My point is you still -- I mean, there is no guarantee, if '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll trust his word, if he says he's
going to do it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, you know, I learned a long
time ago '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And just to clarify, Mr. Olliff,
we're not making a final budget decision today. You're giving us
this report, we're setting a general direction, but the specific
numbers will be put in place during our budget hearings, not
today on April 1 l th; is that correct? We need to give our budget
people some idea what numbers to plug in. But '-
MR. OLLIFF: Exactly. And this is part of and will feed and
tie into your budget policy. So we are asking in terms of general
percentages, adjustments to gross payroll, what is it that we as
an agency need to plug in. So that's the purpose of this whole
exercise.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And you're going to have some
Or I understand it's not as simple as
We may phase some stuff in over a
specific recommendations.
just plugging this chart in.
couple of years and so on.
MR. OLLIFF: Exactly.
Page 37
April 11, 2000
MR. BROCK: Dwight Brock, the Clerk of Courts.
To answer Commissioner Berry's question from the
perspective of what knowledge I can share, let's take the tax
collector. The tax collector's budget is approved by the
Department of Revenue, a state agency. And I think they hold
him to the constraints -- what we budget for personnel services,
you spend for personnel services.
The clerk of the circuit court has taken the position that
what we budget for personnel services, we spend for personnel
services. We do not dip into personnel services to pay for
operating expenses. That's what it is budgeted for and that is
what we will spend it for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's your policy.
MR. BROCK: That is my policy.
The approach that I have taken with this salary survey that
has been performed is I have instructed my staff that we are to
work with Tom's employees, Tom's staff people, to coordinate
what we do to as closely align the activities that we engage in
with our adjustment to what they're doing.
And we have taken the position that we are going to work in
more or less a symbiotic relationship with the county
administrator's staff, because we're tired -- I mean, to be honest
with you, we are tired of you drawing from our work pool to staff
your people, and us drawing from our work pool to staff ours -- or
your work pool to staff ours. We've got to get out of that. That's
the position that we have taken, and I think that's the position
that the people that worked in this task force have taken.
And we have come to an agreement that that is where we're
going from the perspective that I can identify our direction.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've sat here for four years, and I
have never heard from any -- particularly your office or property
appraiser, tax collector. I've never heard any of the employees,
there's been a concern. I've never received a letter saying that
so and so needs to receive a different salary. In all fairness,
have not done that.
But I will tell you that consistently since I have sat in this
seat, there isn't a year goes by that we do not have concerns
raised over the payment for sheriff's deputies. That has been an
ongoing concern since I have been on this commission. And the
Page 38
April 1 t, 2000
bottom line is that any five of us up here, any one of us, we have
no control over that.
And I don't begrudge -- I don't begrudge employees proper
compensation. No way. Because I expect a good deal out of the
employees. But at the same time~ I think we're taking a rap up
here for something that we have no control over. And we can sit
up here and allocate the dollars, and I have no assurance -- I
have no assurance~ Dwight~ how that money's going to be spent.
MR. BROCK: And if you're taking a rap for the payment to
the sheriff's employees~ I will be the first one to stand in line and
say that you are taking that rap when you should not be. And
that's something that should be addressed by the voters~ if it is
objected to by the --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: How many times has that
happened? Any one of you up here have never received a letter?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Welcome, Sheriff Hunter.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Good morning. Don Hunter, Sheriff,
Collier County.
Would you please clarify that, Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah~ I'd be happy to~ Don. I can
sit here and tell you right here~ I have a letter in front of me as I
speak~ an E-mail that came that said they want us to approve
this new budget policy because they know deputies~ and they
know that they are not being compensated as well as they could
be, and they feel like they should have more money.
And Don~ I can tell you that four years I've sat up here~ we've
approved your budget for the most part pretty well, I think~ every
year. And why do I continue to get these letters? I mean~ I'm not
going to tell you how to spend the money, I'm not the sheriff.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well~ that--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You know? And what you do with
that money~ I don't know, because I don't run your agency. But
the only person I can point to -- because I don't say I'm going to
give you "X" percentage in their budget and this is going to go
towards salaries~ and I don't allocate those salaries, you do.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I think what the letter is merely
demonstrating to the board is some support for the study~ as it's
been proposed to you this morning~ that we believe we needy as
can be supported by the consultant~ an adjustment to salary~ to
the wages. And we have fit our policies to board policies year
Page 39
April 11, 2000
after year after year after year for the 12 years I've been here.
For the 20 years that I've worked in the Collier County Sheriff's
Office, we have fit our policies to the board's policies.
And we have always granted members of the agency wage
adjustments. We sometimes had large movements, based upon
studies that have been conducted under the board's auspices,
and independent studies conducted by the agency. But we are
not shortchanging or misappropriating or in any way confounding
the monies.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not accusing you of that.
SHERIFF HUNTER: They have been -- they have been
applied to -- actually, members of the agency at the lower levels
of the agency have been doing better than members of the top of
the agency, as can be further supported by the statements of the
consultant this morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don, my question --
SHERIFF HUNTER: You will see that the upper levels of the
agency are far -- they're far greater disparities in the upper levels
of the agency in terms of the competitiveness with market than
there are at the lower levels of the agency.
And what that should say to you is that the deputy sheriffs
have been taken care of. We're just asking to you move in that
direction again this morning, because we are aware now that we
need to make those movements based upon the market.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sheriff Hunter, you and I have
had the conversation, and you have with our staff in some detail
following this study, but assuming the board grants some sort of
reasonable increase to make sure that you can maintain your
deputies, we can all safely assume, I hope, that -- and from what
you've said we can -- that that money will indeed go toward the
employees in trying to maintain them in a fair rate of pay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We have never had a difficulty making
those kinds of representations to the board. You grant us wage
adjustment money, and we make it go as far as it can go with
personnel services. We've never paid less in personnel services
than we thought we would, except to the extent that we've had
attrition and vacancy factor. And sometimes we will apply
monies from personnel services towards known future expense
such as fleet adjustments for the next year to try to help the
board out with the new proposed budget for the next cycle. But
Page 40
April 11, 2000
that's only if we're carrying large vacancies.
And as you have accurately notedr Commissioner Berryr yes,
constitutional officers have that autonomy to do sol but that is to
help defray expenses for the next year. That's not some -- that's
not something we do mindlessly~ it's something we do in a
calculated way to try to reduce the expense to the taxpayer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
SHERIFF HUNTER: But you can -- I'm guaranteeing you that
monies allocated or suggested for allocation for a wage
adjustment this morning are going to be spent on a wage
adjustment for sheriff's members.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all I needed. I wanted to
hear you say that. And I appreciate that.
I -- I'll tell you, I don't -- it comes with the territory that
people are going to call me and complain that deputies are
underpaid. But I want to communicate to you that there's a great
outcry -- I don't think is an overstatement -- in the public for our
deputies who are so respected and appreciated, for that to be
reflected in their paychecks better than it is.
And remind us of this conversation when we're having our
budget workshops.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Specific--
SHERIFF HUNTER: I will do so. As I did last year and the
year before.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We -- we appreciate your support.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Sheriff~ I understand this is
really -- if this is approved, and by the recommendation that Mr.
Olliff is going to make to usr that this is a two-stage process.
You already have a plan in place~ if this is approvedr so that you
can get your deputies up to a level where we're not going to '-
we're going to stop the hemorrhaging, because it's not only
what's going on here~ but you know what the state highway
patrol is already proposing that is going to even make this a
worse situation for us if we don't make these adjustments.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let me echo some of the comments
already made. Yes, Commissioner Carter, we have a plan in
place. We work very carefully and thoroughly with your county
manager, who's been very cooperative in pointing out some ways
Page 41
April 1 I, 2000
that we might offset some future expected events, along with
the FHP adjustments that are occurring now and will be in place
in July.
I think with the proposals that have been made on paper by
your manager, that we can probably offset some of the future
impact that we are expecting near term, and keep pace better
with market conditions in the years ahead.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, do you have specific
recommendation for us?
Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: One comment I'd just like to make.
I don't want you to leave the podium, you or Mr. Brock, thinking
that I am opposed, okay? Because every year it's one of these
kind of situations, it's like if you talk about it, then you must be
opposed to what's going on here. I don't think -- I can say from
my standpoint, I'm not in opposition, I just want some
commitments. Okay? That's all.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Oh, you have my commitment, as I have
been committed for 12 years to bettering the position '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But it's one of those things, I think
it's healthy to talk about this and try and look at all of these
aspects. I think the public needs to know all of these different
little things that go on in terms of the Board of County
Commissioners and dealing with constitutional officers and how
all this works.
Because to this day, I will guarantee you, if you went out on
the street, most of the people in the public think that the Board
of County Commissioners pays -- and we set the pay scale for
your office and Mr. Brock's office and everyone else's office. And
that really is not true.
SHERIFF HUNTER: No.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Two things in summary: I think when the
committee got together, we had worked hard to try and find a
way to implement this that would be as fiscally responsible as
we possibly could. So the recommendation before you today is
actually that the board approve the pay plan study, which has
three options in it, but we are recommending the market
minimum plus five, but that it be adopted over a two-year period
Page 42
April 11, 2000
so that it can be managed into the county's overall budget.
In addition to that, we're indicating that the
recommendations for our play plan adjustments would apply only
to employees that are not covered by an employment agreement,
as those issues are negotiated separately.
And finally~ I think in looking at the numbers that you've
seen, I think there are some issues in terms of law enforcement
agency and with the Clerk of Courts that are frankly more drastic
than they are with our own agencies. So we are going to
actually be recommending and supporting implementation early
for those two agencies of the pay plan adjustments. And with
that, I'm available to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the
recommendation just outlined by our county manager.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A couple of things. When you say
you want to implement it over a two-year period -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- are you saying that~ well, in the
case of -- well~ in the case of the BCC non-exempt~ it's 11
percent. So one year you're going to put in five and a half
percent~ and the next year five and a half percent? MR. OLLIFF: Yes~ sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that what you're saying?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well~ won't you then be two years
behind again?
MR. OLLIFF: Well~ that's why we selected the option that we
did, which was the market minimum plus five. We're assuming at
the end of the second year, if we went to the market minimum
plus five and implemented it over two years~ we would probably
be at about market minimum at the end of the second year.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, are you saying that this
particular rate adjustment is going to be in lieu of an annual rate
adjustment, an annual pay plan adjustment?
MR. OLLIFF: What we're saying is this is the pay plan
adjustment. Now, we will be again looking at some pay for
performance issues, but you will talk about those at terms on
their budget workshops.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One last thing. Did the supervisor
Page 43
April 11, 2000
of elections elect not -- elect not to participate in the study?
MR. OLLIFF: I believe that the positions that are there are
like and similar enough that without being part of the survey, she
is included in terms of the financial impact that you see.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So they'll just piggyback?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So it's five percent over what
the current minimum -- what the study shows current minimum to
be, we spread that over two years? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And question, Tom, if you'd been
able to calculate how that would affect the ad valorem tax rate.
MR. OLLIFF: We haven't at this point, but I can tell you that
if that were the only thing that you were looking at in isolation
and in a box, you would -- it would not affect the current millage
rate whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion from
Commissioner Mac'Kie. Is there a second for that '-
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- motion?
Second from Commissioner Carter. Is there further
discussion? Are there speakers on the item? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion,
please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. It's 10:28.
We'll take a 10-minute break for the stenographer, and we'll be
back.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, we're back.
Item #8E3
FY 2001 BUDGET POLICY - APPROVED; BUDGET WORKSHOPS
TO BE HELD JUNE 14, 16 & 19, 2000
Mr. Smykowski, I understand you're going to lead us in
8(E)(3), which is discussion and approval of the fiscal year 2001
Page 44
April 1 t, 2000
budget policy.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, board
members. For the record, Michael Smykowski, county budget
director. I'm here today to present the proposed fiscal year 2001
budget policy.
The purpose is twofold: One, to receive policy direction
from the board on budget issues to allow us to begin preparation
of the fiscal year 2001 budget; and two, to understand the
financial implications of those policy decisions.
There are three principal elements of the budget policy.
Your executive summary was broken out this way, into new
proposed budget policies requiring board action for fiscal year
2001; the three-year analysis of the general and unincorporated
area general funds; and the third element is the standard budget
policies that the board has adopted and endorsed for a number of
years.
First of all, let's start with the recommended budget
calendar. The board does have to select some dates for June
budget workshops, the proposed millage adoption and
September public hearing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to Wednesday,
June 14th, Friday June 16 and Monday June 197
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: None.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have our mid-summer
meeting August 1. Wednesday, September 6 and Wednesday,
September 20th would be the final meetings. Everybody okay
with that? Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Very good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just make sure we get a copy of
all those dates.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's right.
Ms. Filson, you'll keep us straight on that?
MS. FILSON: Yes, but I just want to also point out that on
the Wednesday night, you also have an LDC meeting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, it will be a long day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A long day.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sleep in that morning.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next item is constitutional officer
Page 45
April 11, 2000
budget submission dates. The board had previously adopted
Resolution 96.123, which required a May I budget submittal date
for the Sheriff, the Clerk of Courts and the Supervisor of Election.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to giving the
constitutional officers June 1 date this year?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: None.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you, sir.
Next item, salary administration. As Mr. Olliff indicated, this
is his highest priority with the upcoming year's budget, as
service delivery begins with the ability to attract and retain high
quality employees. We want to certainly be competitive in the
current job market, and this will enable us to retain experienced,
qualified staff.
Salary administration is broken into two principal
components: Pay plan maintenance, and merit pay. Pay plan
maintenance, the Arthur Andersen study again included
representatives from the county manager's agency as well as the
constitutional officers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We just went with the market
plus five. Is there any objection to also having a 1.5 percent
merit pay program?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not on my part. I think that that
is the discretionary amount of monies that reward exceptional
effort, and that should be kept in place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only question is, is it
adequate? If it is, then I'll support it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff says yes.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask this question again
that I asked before, and I'm not sure I understand it just yet.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we phase this in over two years,
this is based on today's rates '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Plus five percent.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Plus five percent. So if we
phased it in over two years, won't we be at that point two years
behind?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir, because the consultant had -- the
Page 46
April t 1, 2000
cost figures were forward weighted until October 1st '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all I '-
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- so that we would not immediately fall
behind.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
Yeah, I missed that point before.
And I understand also that you're
recommending that every two years that we do this study and
not get behind the scene as we have in the past; is that correct?
MR. OLLIFF: That's the other policy issue that goes sort of
without inclusion here. But we do want every two to three years,
so that you're not faced with this large of an issue every seven to
eight years. And I think if we do this on a more regular basis, it
becomes budget palatable.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I certainly support that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Health plan.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Health plan and prescription drug
benefits. It is a self insurance plan with coverage extending to
all the board plan participants. The SherifFs Office does
administer its own individual health and prescription drug plan.
First slide identifies the number of enrolled employees.
Obviously as Collier County government has grown to meet the
service demand of our growing population, the number of
enrolled employees in the health plan has grown in FY '99 to
1,493 employees. Health claims incurred provides one measure
of planned utilization.
You'll see in 1998 there were 19,360 claims, which actually
decreased slightly to 19,186 claims in 1999. So we don't -- this is
demonstrative that there is not necessarily a utilization problem
within the plan.
The number of claims per employee also reflects the similar
trend. The '96, '97 and '99 data are all roughly the same. A
slight decrease as well from the 1998 level of 13.73 claims per
employee.
However, on the cost side, in spite of the fact that the
number of claims actually went down approximately 180 claims
in 1999, the cost of said claims actually increased almost 1.2
million dollars. The reason for that is twofold: One, catastrophic
or shock claims for things like heart attacks and cancer patients.
Page 47
April 11, 2000
In addition, on the prescription drug program, the cost increase
was approximately one-half million dollars in t 999 alone.
Correspondingly, the annual claims cost per employee,
again, in spite of the number of claims decreasing went up
markedly, approximately $570 from t998 levels to 1999.
Existing health plan options requiring employee
contributions are outlined in the slide here. Currently there are
three deductible options available to employees: A $200
deductible, a $300 deductible and a $500 deductible, with
employee contributions varying, based on the deductible level
selected.
The projected fiscal year '01 budget health premiums
increase, assuming no change in the existing health plan
program as it exists today, would have amounted to
approximately 1.4 million for the board plan and 2.3 million for all
agencies, inclusive of the Sheriff.
Recommendations in this area include the following:
Elimination of the $200 deductible option, which will reduce the
board's plan expenses by approximately $217,000.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Excuse me, Mike, meaning that
you will then go to the 300 deductible?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. That would no longer be an
option. That would force -- of the total county workforce, the
smallest percentage of total employees are actually enrolled in
that $200 deductible plan; 10.8 percent or 160 of the
approximately 1,500.
So we thought that was A, good, because it eliminates one
of the plans and makes plan administration a little easier,
reduces your cost, and also impacts the smallest number of
county employees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we save $217,000, but we
affect 10 percent of the employees by 100 bucks a year? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am.
Additional plan design changes currently under review by
Risk Management include incentives or disincentives for
utilization of doctors in or outside of the network, and changes in
deductible levels for those remaining two plans, evaluating the
cost of those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Possibly raising them from the
three and the five to something else?
Page 48
April 11 ~ 2000
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we'll hear about that in
budget time, but we're not -- are we adopting -- you're not making
a specific recommendation today.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, not today. That would be included I
guess in the Risk Management. We talk about that in June, as
we talk about the Risk Management, or an executive summary in
the intermittent period.
Unfortunately, when you make plan design changes, it's not
as simple as A times B in terms of the impact. And Mr. Walker
would like an actuary to evaluate --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess obviously you already
know this, but there's no sense in us giving somebody a pay raise
and then taking it right back in a benefit package. People aren't
stupid.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As long as we are very, very, very
careful of what we do here, that we don't have one offsetting the
other.
MR. OLLIFF: This is very much a tightrope we were trying to
walk here, understanding that there was an increase in your
healthcare cost. And in meeting -- again, this was one of those
items that we worked with all the constitutional officers, where
we were trying to make sure that the current contribution that
employees make to the plan continues to be made for the
additional cost that we see. But trying to do that in such a way
that it's not a direct out-of-pocket cash expense to the
employees.
It's -- again, you're correct, in a market where it's very
difficult to recruit and retain, you don't want to put another
disincentive in place. But we're also, through some of these plan
design changes, trying to effect and deal with those people who
are actually planned users. So what you're going to see is a
certain amount of disincentive for plan use and forcing people
into the plan and increasing deductibles and those sort of things
as a way to have the employees make their contribution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess what I'm saying is I
understand we're going to vote on these recommendations, and I
want to support your recommendations, but I don't -- I would
understand if when we see the budget we see that there is an
increase in healthcare expenses; because otherwise, you're
Page 49
April t 1, 2000
taking money out of employees' pockets.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's cross that bridge when we
get to the budget, though. They get our point, that we don't
really want to know see that if we don't have to. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, thank you.
The third area that -- we'd like to further develop a wellness
program~ with a focus on preventive care and early intervention~
an emphasis on reducing those catastrophic or shock plans.
Catching them early~ hopefully making lifestyle changes that
would minimize the number of certainly heart attack cases that
we have to deal with.
MR. OLLIFF: And I'll tell you, just as a quick example, we
held our first real serious wellness fair last -- about a month ago.
We had expected 250 employees. We ended up with almost 500
participating.
We ended up~ as a result of that wellhess program~ sending
three employees directly to the hospital. So it's catching
employees and preventing some of these catastrophic illnesses
that will save us some money.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And some employees.
MR. OLLIFF: And some employees as well.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In summary~ of a projected 1.4 million
dollar increase in budget health premiums on the board plan~ the
board employees will absorb roughly one-third of those
expenses, or $46t ,000, through the plan design changes~ et
cetera.
Under the prescription drug program~ as I indicated earlier~
the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I know Mr. Chairman's
trying to get us moving~ but before we leave that last slide, if we
adopt the policy recommendations that you have today, we will
have already decided that a third of that increase should be paid
for by staff.
MR. OLLIFF: You will see that. We will break it out
separately for you, as is each of those plan design changes,
when Jeff's budget is presented. And should the board want to
go with some alternate plan~ you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: -- certainly have that right and ability.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- I just wanted to be sure.
Page 50
April I l, 2000
Thanks.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The difference again is that it is through
plan design change, as opposed to a biweekly cash deduction
from your paycheck.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Moving right along.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Prescription drugs. As I indicated earlier,
in 1999, the number of prescriptions filled increased 32 percent
from FY 1998 levels to almost 29,000 from approximately 22,000,
with a corresponding cost increase, as I alluded to earlier,
approximately a half a million dollars.
Cost issues within the prescription drug program, annual
prescription inflation is running at approximately 15 percent.
Prescription drugs again represented 41.3 percent of the 1.2
million dollar health plan claims increase that the board saw in
1999. Employee co-payments have not increased in the six years
since the program inception.
Our staff recommendations in this area include the
following: Institution of a formulary program which establishes a
list of medications with preferential price advantages, and
establishes three co-payment levels from the current two that
are in existence. And I'll have a slide that will show that
breakout a little more clearly.
Increase the employee co-payment, with an implementation
date of May of this year that would result in cost shifting of
$150,000 to employees. Again, though, this is analogous to a
user fee in that those who use will incur the cost.
This slide identifies the co-payment structure under the
current system for network drugs. Generics are $5 co-pay, brand
name, $10. For mail order drug program, generic is also $5, brand
name, 10. That's for a 90-day supply of drugs for maintenance
type drugs.
Under the proposed formulary program, the co-payments
would be $7 for generic, 15 for preferred brand, and $25 for a
non-preferred brand. And mail order, again for the 90-day supply,
would be $14 for generic, 30 for preferred brand and $50 for a
non-preferred brand.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I know the knee-jerk
reaction would be oh, gosh, we don't want to increase this, we're
trying to take you. But this is still a bargain. I chuckle when I go
and pay five bucks as a co-pay for a thing. So if that's $7
Page 5t
April t 1, 2000
instead, I don't think--
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is true. And again --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- we're going to lose anybody
on that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: They're really trying to get people
to use generic drugs. You're trying to get -- educate a workforce
or employee base into using the least expensive effective drug
that is out there. And --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
MR. OLLIFF: And I'll tell you, across -- comparing yourself to
other agencies~ we would be still extremely competitive in terms
of our prescription drug plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No objection from the board?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. SMYKOWSKh The next area that we had discussed at
the budget policy workshop~ maximization of impact fees.
Capital projects attributable to growth would be, to the extent
possible~ funded by impact fees. The staff recommendation
would be to assess the maximum impact fees allowed by law, as
supported by impact fee studies.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a place where we are
currently not doing that?
MR. OLLIFF: The only places I'm aware of are the ones that
are currently under study by your consultant and should be in
front of you, I believe, in the month of May. So that's EMS and
libraries~ and you'll see both of those.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection from the board to
using the maximum amount the law allows?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Revenue diversification on a number of
instances. The board had talked about broadening the general
fund revenue base, reducing the reliance on ad valorera taxes.
That could come in the form of either -- an electric utility
franchisee fee. Again~ we had talked about a maximum fee of up
to six percent allowed by law from our previous research in this
area would generate approximately 1.4 million dollars per every
Page 52
April t 1, 2000
one percent fee imposed.
Unfortunately, recent court decisions have put this in a very
tenuous position. The privilege fee in Alachua County was
overturned. Leon County, as a result of that suit, instead of
paying Leon County their franchise fee payments, are paying
them into an escrow account.
As a result, staff recommendation is not to implement at
this time, given the tenuous nature of these fees. That opinion
was shared by the county attorney.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a Supreme Court
decision? Florida Supreme Court? MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we know if it's gone any
further?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We probably don't want to take
any action while it's pending.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no. No, Just curious.
MR. WEIGEL.' Supreme Court's decision was in regard to the
privilege fee. The franchise fee is assailed right now in Leon
County by contract. The contracts are not being paid out in the
normal way, as Mr. McNees indicated. And that is in court. We
don't know if that will get to the Supreme Court. Probably will.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just quickly, some of the opinions that '-
without question this opinion is now going to be used to
challenge every franchise fee agreement in existence. We also
believe that many utilities will now refuse to enter into new
franchise agreements, and this source of revenue to local
government entities will in effect be eliminated by this opinion.
So that was a fairly strongly worded court opinion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody want the utility fee this
year?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Streetscape master plan funding. Last
year, the board, as part of the budget policy, adopted a financing
mechanism of the road MSTD's as the appropriate dedicated
funding source for maintenance of streetscape master plan.
Unfortunately, that policy did not address the issue of where
would we fund the actual improvements themselves. So the
Page 53
April t 4, 2000
public works staff developed a three-tiered approach that -- or
county-wide or gateway improvements to be funded by gas
taxes. Regional improvements on major arterial roads to be
funded by the road MSTD's. And localized improvements would
be funded by MSTU, such as we have some existing ones up. For
example, Lely beautification.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Looks like the way to go.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Community development's proposing a
development fee waiver policy. This would apply to items such
as temporary use permits, special event permits, right-of-way
permits, land use petition applications, site development, site
improvement plan applications, limited use of county-owned
property; would allow for multiple recurring events, 12 annually.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That proposal is in request as a
result of our request from this board to come up with a policy
like that?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. Because I believe at one point
you were asked to waive some of the actual hard construction
building permit fees, the inspection fees, et cetera. And this
policy proposal developed by Community Development Staff I
believe adequately addresses -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
policy?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
It just says what it applies to.
Any objection to the waiver
No.
Well, I don't see the policy itself.
I'm going to be hard pressed to
waive fees for site development improvement plan applications.
For example, in land use petition applications. Those are a
couple of things that I'm going to be hard pressed to want to
waive fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even if it's like a Habitat for
Humanity?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Even if it's like a Habitat for
Humanity, which we didn't do before.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The beauty of the policy is it
allows us on a case-by-case basis to vote yea or nay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
On Page 11, the board will consider request for a waiver of
fees in the following instances, and gives you that discretion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ad valorem capital funding?
Page 54
April 1 t, 2000
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. General funds supported capital
projects. This area provides funding for non-impact fee eligible
projects. For example, the Immokalee Jail construction.
Typically used for replacement or repair of aging infrastructure
such as -- one example comes to mind, replacement park
equipment, playground equipment, that would not be impact fee
eligible.
Capital funding had been eroded by decreased annual
allocations. And we have a few slides identifying that. Capital
dollars we used to support operations. In addition, construction
inflation eats away at your purchasing power of your dollars
dedicated to general fund capital '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're asking us to vacate a
specific percentage '-
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- of capital?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: This slide shows the history from FY '91
where there was a one mill dedicated tax for capital projects
specifically. Over time it's -- based on various policy decisions
the boards have made over time was reduced to slightly below a
quarter of a mill in FY2000. You see there the staff
recommendation showing a leveling off of that. And by
addressing it from a millage with a minimum millage over time as
the taxable value within the county gross, that would generate
additional dollars, as exemplified in the current chart before you.
Again, in history, one mill in 1991 generated 12.8 million
dollars. At this point, had that one mill remained in place, it
would generate almost 25 million dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we don't need that much, so
we can '-
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Exactly. The staff recommendation is a
third of a mill, which based on estimates of taxable value of 10
percent in '01, nine percent in '02, eight percent, '03, would
generate 9.8 and 10.5 million dollars '-
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And the key here is for repair and
replacement. This is not new projects. And I think the public
always needs to differentiate what we're doing.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: But in certain instances, though, like the
Immokalee Jail, that is not -- would be -- well, no, that's
replacement.
Page 55
April 11, 2000
An example of the tax collector building the Golden Gate
annex. That's a building that is not impact -- there's no
government facilities impact fee. You have to come up for a
funding mechanism. That was a policy decision the board made
last year and an appropriate use of that general fund capital.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which could actually be
replacement as well, because they're leasing space right now
that is grossly overused. But I understand the point.
Any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are (sic) there anything there
you're not clear on? I think we polled the board on each one of
them.
Thank
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir, you've been very clear.
you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Let's go to 8(E)
you, Mike -- 8(E)(4).
-- thank
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we going to talk any more
about any of the other policies, or are we just going to -- because
they've been standard enough that '-
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The standard I kind of was treating as
analogous to a consent agenda. If the board had no questions, I
didn't feel the need to walk through those.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are there any items the board
members would like to bring up from that standard packet we've
done year after year?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. It's questions I bring up
year after year. And I expect that we will have to continue to
discuss these at budget time. But when -- every year when we
get the budget, those of us who get comments from people in the
private sector hear over and over again that we are
over-budgeting for reserves. And if you remember last year in
budget, we even went so far as to get the clerk in over here to
say would it effect our bond rating. Because Mr. Fernandez had
suggested that it might if we reduced our taxes by collecting
less in reserves.
I question -- continue to question that our reserve policy is
too conservative, and requires us to tax at a rate higher than we
Page 56
April t 1, 2000
otherwise would. And also, that our carryforward policy, even
though carryforward eventually becomes -- is carryforwarded as
revenue and, therefore, offsets taxes.
What I've asked Mr. Olliff and Mike to do on the break is as
we saw -- we all knew that in capital, for example, in road
capital, there was about 40 million dollars' worth of carryforward
projects that because there were four big projects out there that
aren't -- that have been delayed.
Now I think the commitments -- the contracts are signed on
all 40 million dollars worth, or in the neighborhood of, for those
projects. But that leaves another about 10 million dollars in road
impact fee carryforward money that's out there that I don't know
exactly what projects have not been built that we budgeted.
And if you understand that that means is there's about 10
million dollars sitting in the bank somewhere that we gave
direction go and build something, and it hasn't been built
because it's still sitting in the bank.
I'd like to know what that 10 million dollars is and '-
whatever the number is. But I'd also like to know where else,
particularly in ad valorem related funds, is there a significant
carryforward. We've had these standard budget policies every
year. I'd like to know what the result of them is with regard to
carryforward. Do we have a lot of money besides this capital
money that we know, and apparently you've identified there's
some beach renourishment money that's also -- or some TDC
money that's also accumulated. Where else is there an
accumulation as a result of our carryforward policy?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are there specific policies you
want to '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Carryforward.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- alter as they read here, other
than carryforward?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Carryforward and reserves. I just
want to give a heads up that we'll watch for that, and hopefully
that we can get it lower. But I don't think we could set that as a
policy today. But carryforward, I think unless we get some
report on what's been the result of our previous year policy in
carryforward, we're never going to know if it was the right policy.
And I'm concerned with having seen that there's a significant
carryforward in the transportation capital, are there others?
Page 57
April 11, 2000
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think we can address that as we lead
into the budget workshops when we present the proposed
budget and identify those areas. And certainly, while there is
significant carryforward, there's a lot of logical explanations,
such as debt service reserves that are required by bond
covenants.
In the utilities area, certainly you build a plant expansion,
then you may be accumulating impact fees for four or five years
for the next eventual plant expansion.
In some of your smaller ad valorem taxing districts, Radio
Road beautification, they've been accumulating cash for three or
four years now, and this year are finally going to be able to do
their construction project.
What I think we can do is identify those items that are
somewhat, quote, discretionary carryforward versus
non-discretion -- obviously in a case -- in a bond fund, you cannot
just say, well, we're not going to budget that debt service
reserve, all right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But where there's a discretionary
carryforward amount, I'd like to know, and I'd like to know why it
has been carryforwarded. And it's probably a perfectly good
reason, but it would -- but it's a real good yardstick for the board
to be able to measure whether or not our policies are being
implemented.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
direction?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. SMYKOWSKI:
Do you understand the
Great.
Thank you.
Item #8E4
REQUEST FROM THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD
REGARDING FACILITATION OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE
IMMOKALEE FARMWORKERS AND THE GROWERS - DENIED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 8(E)(4), request from the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board regarding facilitation of a
communication between the Immokalee farmworkers and the
growers.
Page 58
April 11, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Hispanic
Advisory Board Committee, David Correa, is here to speak on the
item. And Victor Valdes is the only other registered speaker on
that item.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: David, how are you?
MR. CORREA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, honored
members of the commission. My name is David Correa, and I am
the chairman of the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board of Collier
County.
As you may know, the board was established approximately
10 years ago in order to be the liaison to the Hispanic community
for the commission.
As part of our mission statement, we were directed to bring
to the commission information which may be utilized to assist
the Hispanic community. This presentation may then be
considered our report to the commission.
Recently our meetings have taken place in Immokalee, and
for the past six months we have met and discussed with
residents and professionals numerous issues as they relate to
the Immokalee community. Education, health and farmworkers
are some of the subjects we have covered.
In education, Dr. White and his administrative staff are to be
congratulated for increasing the educational level by hiring
additional language specialists for the younger students and the
higher number of students graduating and going on to college;
although we still have a long road to complete and there is still a
great disparity between the Immokalee community and the
Naples Community.
Healthcare is a serious problem. There are not enough
medical personnel to administer to the community needs. Health
insurance is difficult to obtain, as I hear you discussing now, and
it's almost nonexistent. Volunteers in the medical field help to
relieve the shortage and are angels to the community.
On a different note, we recently completed a survey
comparing the cost of groceries in Immokalee with Naples. We
selected 20 items that residents of the Immokalee community
would purchase at the Winn-Dixie in Immokalee and compared
the prices at the Winn-Dixie at Pine Ridge and Airport, and found
the prices to be equal.
On the other hand, I entered a convenient store in
Page 59
April 1 t, 2000
Immokalee, found the prices to be outrageous, and I was not
allowed to do any comparison shopping. A nervous owner stood
nearby watching me. A clipboard and a pad have a strange
effect on certain people.
The general consensus was that prices in Immokalee would
be much higher than Naples, due to the lack of competition and
other costs incurred by the supermarkets there. That was not
the case. But as an unintended consequence, I came upon some
disturbing facts. The prices are equal in both areas, except,
according to the Economic Development Council of Collier
County, the median family income is 59,000. The average annual
wage is 26,000. In Immokalee, the farmworker averages
between 6 to $9,000 a year. Most of the time they cannot afford
to purchase all of the food necessary to sustain themselves or
their families.
Shopping in the business district is almost nonexistent.
Movies, theaters, recreational opportunities are unheard of. Is it
any wonder that drugs, crime, school dropouts and out of
wedlock pregnancies are so prevalent there?
Transportation is usually a five-year automobile with
120,000 miles on it.
If it were not for the private charitable organizations, the
nonprofit social agencies and the government apparatus,
schools, parks and libraries, Immokalee would indeed be a living
hell for all of its residents.
Immokalee's dependency on farmworkers' meager income,
which has remained stagnant and fixed for so many years, is a
primary cause for so much sadness and suffering. The shame
and stigma of Collier County is upon all of us who have remained
silent. We knew and sat quietly while despair and deplorable
conditions increased. When asked to intercede, the official reply
from the administration has been to let the market set its own
price.
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board of Collier County
believe if we do not take action, we would be guilty of dereliction
in our duties to the Immokalee community.
We therefore formally request the Collier County
Commission to use its full power and influence and authority to
seek the Governor's involvement with the farm growers in order
to bring about a dialogue with the farmworkers and a possible
Page 60
April 11, 2000
solution to their grievance. Immokalee has suffered for so long,
we cannot close our eyes to the poverty and desperation. We
who can't speak must stand tall and speak. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I had Ms. Filson pull the minutes of
the January 13th, 1998 meeting, at which this item was
discussed. I believe Commissioner Mac'Kie brought this item
forward at that time. And the situation was a little different. It
was different circumstances. It involved the same concerns, but
the circumstances were a little different. There was a hunger
strike going on at that time. And Commissioner Mac'Kie brought
this forward to see if the Board of County Commissioners would
issue some kind of a letter or a resolution, I believe --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or to urge you to.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- to urge discussion.
Since I saw this item on the agenda last week, I've tried to
be in touch with the Governor's Office. Because I'm sure if
you've followed any of this at all, you know that the Governor has
had individuals involved in this issue, and at this point in time,
they more or less have backed away because it is a labor
dispute. And I believe they have chosen not to intervene in this
particular situation.
My concern is, I'm a little concerned when I hear them say
that the Board of County Commissioners, we have not done
anything in the Immokalee area. Just recently we're working on
a grant, I believe. The Collier County Housing Authority, along
with the Friendship House over in Immokalee, is trying to get a
grant for dormitory style housing for workers, which has been a
huge concern.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They got it, didn't they?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe they did get the grant.
And they're going to be building a dormitory over there for the
individual male farmworkers. At least it will be an opportunity or
an option for them to have a place to live over there.
And again, that is free choice. It will be up to them to avail
themselves of this opportunity when that dormitory comes on
line. So there's going to be an availability. There will be an
option so they don't have to live in some of the dilapidated
trailers that have been evident over in that area.
So I believe that the Board of County Commissioners -- I
Page 61
April 11, 2000
certainly supported that -- wrote a letter in that behalf. I don't
know if the rest of the commissioners did or not. But I know that
I was asked to write a letter, and I certainly did, supporting that
grant.
There have been other efforts that are taking place over in
Immokalee to do some things. And so I'm a little concerned
when things are said that perhaps we haven't intervened enough
or perhaps done enough. I take exception to that. I think that
we are '-
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- working in that community and I
think we're doing a lot of things.
I would be very reluctant, in light of what the Governor's
action has been at this point, to come along and write another
letter, because I think he may well come back and say have you
not been following this? You know, I just don't know that we
have -- first off, I personally view it as a labor dispute, and I -- I
just don't believe that the Board of County Commissioners has
any standing in this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Supporting what Commissioner
Berry is saying, it wasn't too long ago that we worked with the
private sector group out there in a whole community
development effort '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- for housing.
Secondly, we had an emergency board meeting here a week
ago where we helped John Drury maximize some funds for the
Immokalee Airport, up to -- for two or $300,000 and ending up
with I think about two million. So I think the Board of County
Commissioners has made a major effort in trying to support
what's going on in the Immokalee community.
And when it gets down to private sector and labor, I've
always been an advocate that it is not the government's role to
be involved. This is a dispute between growers and their
employee group in which they need to get resolution. And I don't
think it's a role of government to be involved in that. I think that
we need to step back and let them resolve those issues.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Page 62
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, while we continue to step
back and let them resolve those issues, people in our county rely
on charity to feed their children at an alarming rate. You know,
we -- it's sort of like the budget policy, we can keep on
implementing the same policies we've always implemented, and
meanwhile, people in our county who we have responsibility for
health, safety and welfare are not healthy, not safe, and their
welfare is less than it certainly should be.
So I commend you, and I thank the Hispanic Advisory Board
for you -- your being here today is exactly what your job is, and
that is to come and report to this board on what the issues are. I
supported whatever that date was in January that we would ask
the Governor's Office to mediate. I continue to think that's an
appropriate role.
I understand what Commissioner Berry's saying, is that the
Governor has frankly already declined to serve that role at this
moment. I mean, he has been active in it and hopefully he's
monitoring it and continuing to.
I wonder if the board might support some letter to the
Governor saying could you please let us know what your efforts
are in this regard, or how can we work with you as a partner to
support some resolution, or what role could we jointly play, just
some inquiry to the Governor's Office to sort of remind them that
this issue is out there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There certainly is poverty in
Immokalee, there's poverty in Golden Gate, there's poverty in the
City of Naples. But somewhere along the line personal
responsibility has to become a part of that. There is a choice to
work in agriculture. There is a choice what community to live in
and what job you take and what you do with that. And to
suggest that the government is going to correct that is just
apparently a different belief on what the role of government is.
I don't think it's the government's role to make sure that
every individual's life is A-okay. It's to make sure they have an
opportunity. But what they choose to do with that opportunity is
up to them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you think that farmworkers
are choosing to work for the rate they're working for?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They certainly have an option to
do -- I mean, we're talking about --
Page 63
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What option?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll answer, if you don't
interrupt.
You look down here at our little Subway out here in the
middle of the plaza. There's a sign out there that says eight
bucks an hour to go in there and make sandwiches. That is not
unique in this government complex.
And so if you're only making -- you can't only be making
$9,000 a year if you're working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a
year. That isn't possible. Because there's a minimum wage law
in this country. So if they're not working all those weeks, do they
have other options on things to do in their off weeks?
But whether it's McDonald's or Subway or all those, there is
an opportunity to do things that you and I normally think boy,
that's minimum wage, in today's economy it is not. At eight
bucks an hour, you're going to be up considerably above the
numbers that were quoted there. You're not going to be making
$9,000 a year, even if you're only making sandwiches.
But there is a personal responsibility there. That's not
government's role.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And many of the people who have
come here originally to work in agriculture have now gone into
construction.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: They can make far more as a
laborer than they can picking tomatoes or other vegetables. And
that again is a choice and there's an opportunity.
I don't believe in government interference in the private
sector. I just believe that the private sector needs to work out
these issues. It's no different than if the nurses went on strike at
Naples Community Hospital, would we be sending a resolution
over there telling them that well, we think we ought be involved
in that. It has to be resolved between the parties. Usually if they
keep talking, they resolve the issue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Government's role is to try to
improve the overall economy of Immokalee and of Collier County.
Government's role is not to dictate exactly what price any
individual job is going to pay.
Let's go to the public speakers. Victor?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my request was not that we
Page 64
April 11, 2000
try to dictate the price but that we ask if the Governor could -- in
his efforts, if we could coordinate, and as a county government
coordinate with the Governor's Office in whatever efforts he is
making. Because he feels that he has a role to play in this issue,
because he has played it.
My question is, it seems odd that the Governor thinks he has
a role, but we think -- the Republican Governor, God bless him,
Jeb Bush, thinks he has a role to play. If it's nothing but
facilitating in some way, he's trying to help facilitate. I wish '- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What role is the Governor
playing right now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He has a liaison. He has a
designated person who meets with the farmworkers, who meets
with the growers. As best I know at this moment, he's pulled
back.
My request -- Commissioner Berry -- you know, don't smirk at
me, Commissioner Berry just said the same thing; that is, the
Governor's Office is playing a role in this dispute.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, Pam, he did play a role. And
he did. I think the man -- the gentleman was Mr. Lewis Rodriguez
who came. And after he heard both sides of the story, I think
after that, if you remember, when they did hear both sides of the
story, there was a different thought process that took place. And
at that point in time, I believe you saw the Governor back away
from this whole issue. Because it's not as clear cut.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's the point I understand
you'd like government on some level to have a role. You're not
sure what role the Governor is playing and so don't dictate that
gee, the Governor's doing this. I don't think he is. I don't think
they have '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so either.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- an active involvement at this
point.
Let's go to the public.
MR. OLLIFF: Victor Valdes.
MR. VALDES: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Victor Valdes, member of the public. Also I am a
journalist, publisher/director of LasNaciones and paginauno.com.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I didn't understand
you.
Page 65
April 44, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's Spanish.
MR. VALDES: Yes. I am publisher/director of Las Naciones,
L-A-S N-A-C-I-O-N-E-S News, and Paginauno.com., like Page 1, dot
com.
Okay. I was and I am here to support the Item No. (E)(4).
But also I learn today one more thing. I learn every day. And
today I have learned that we have a good opinion about the two
commissioners, Mrs. Berry and Mac'Kie about the issue. But I
am going with another new learn about Commissioner Carter and
Tim Constantine, that he don't pay attention to the poor of the
land. We need to pay attention not to rule against prevade
(phonetic) organization or business. I am for the prevade
(phonetic) business. But the government need to take care and
to take opinion and send the letter to the Governor, because the
poor need from you and from us. The poor is bad counseled. If
we don't help the poor, we have more drugs, more crime and
more bad thing.
Please, support the letter to the Governor. Pay attention to
the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Do we have any other public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One of the reasons why over the
year my nose has remained so big is because I try to keep it out
of other people's business where it doesn't belong.
We've done in Immokalee what is appropriate for the County
Commission to do. And we've done a lot for the community of
Immokalee. That is simply not appropriate for the county
commission to be involved in a dispute in private labor and
private business, and I make a motion that we do not honor this
request.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
further discussion?
aye.
Any
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
All those opposed?
Page 66
April 1 t, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries, 4-1.
Item #8E5
LEO OCHS, JR. APPOINTED AS PUBLIC SERVICES
ADMINISTRATOR AND TOM STORRAR APPOINTED AS
EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR - APPROVED
Item 8(E)(5), public services and emergency services
administrator position. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. As most of you know from information
that's been provided earlier, we have made two selections in
regards to the administrator positions for two of the divisions
that are currently vacant in the organization. The first is the
public services division, which I recently left. And we've
requested and asked Mr. Leo Ochs to step over and take charge
of what I think is one of the important functions of our
government, which is the public services division, which I think
has got the opportunity to put one of the best foots that
government has forward in the community. And I think Leo is a
very, very good and capable person in order to carry on a lot of
the good projects that we had started there.
You're very familiar with Mr. Ochs, and I think we've
attached a copy of his resume for your review.
In addition, we advertised and have selected for your
consideration Mr. Tom Storrar from the Sheriff's Department to
head up the emergency services division. Mr. Storrar is here,
and in the back of the room we've also attached a copy of his
resume for your review. I think Mr. Storrar is familiar to each and
every one of you. I think he is a great standing in the community
and certainly knows all the emergency management and
services players very, very well. I think he's the kind of
individual who can step in and hit the ground running, does not
need a lot of orientation time, if you will, and it is without any
hesitation that I would recommend both of those individuals be
considered for your confirmation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The law requires us to confirm
those. Any questions for the individuals, or do we want to move
on with a --
Page 67
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and second for both
positions. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those who are in favor of the motion, please
state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries, 5-0.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you very much.
Item #8E6
OPTIONS REGARDING HOLOCAUST MUSEUM - TABLED UNTIL
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 8(E)(6), the Holocaust
Museum.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Seems like we're touching on
items today that it almost appears that if you talk about them,
that you're against them. I'd like to dispel that thought, because
I am not opposed in this particular situation, but I just want to
offer perhaps another thought.
We had been asked several weeks ago by a gentleman --
actually a teacher in the Collier County public school system,
who had done some work with collecting some artifacts and
different items regarding Holocaust, which is all well and good at
the point in time that he came to us. They're looking for a site to
house those items.
And my thoughts, after I had a brief time -- I guess as one
gets older one needs a little time to kind of digest some of these
things and think about them a little bit. And the more I got to
thinking about it, that I wasn't sure that it was in the county's
purview to really be responsible for the housing of these
particular artifacts.
Not that I'm against this kind of thing. But the point
becomes at what time, if another individual comes forward and
they have a collection of items for any particular group, do we
say -- and we are asked to house those items and use taxpayer
Page 68
April 11, 2000
dollars to do so.
My thinking in this is we have a Jewish community here in
Collier County. They also happen to have a school. And though
it's an elementary -- at an elementary level at this point in time,
that perhaps they be asked, number one, for their input on how
they feel about this whole item. Because there are mixed
feelings in regards to these items, depending on -- a reformed
Jewish population may have a different thought process than an
Orthodox Jewish -- from what I have read and what I have been
told, there may be different thoughts in terms of maintaining
these kinds of items.
So I would ask that perhaps before we make a commitment
to expending funds that, number one, we contact the Jewish
community, probably through Rabbi Perman, and ask him if he
has any thoughts. Because they are doing some expansion at the
current time out at Temple Shalom in terms of their school, and
ask them perhaps if they are interested in housing these items.
The second thing that would be, would be instead of having
them on display at all times, but during a particular month of the
year, if they're willing -- if Mr. Bell, who is the teacher, is willing
to do so, that these items be stored but perhaps displayed at the
county library in a room as we do other displays from time to
time for, say, a month and have them out at that point in time.
But for us to maintain a permanent residence for these
items, I think we're on a slippery slope. Because I think you're
opening yourself up for future requests in terms of other
collections that people might come forward with.
So I would ask that -- two things: Contact the Temple
Shalom group, number one; and number two, establish a policy
for future requests, so we know how we're going to deal with this
in case others may come forward. Because I recall that Mr. Bell
indicated that he had set up two other museum type groupings
that he had put together, which is commendable. I'm sure it was
a great teaching thing as far as the children were concerned.
But we may well have been asked to take care of those items as
well.
So I would like to table this item until we can have some
further contact with those people and have some kind of a report
come back to us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think that's a good suggestion.
Page 69
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to table.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second to table
the item. All those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good idea.
Item #8E7
FUNDING OPTIONS REGARDING THE EVERGLADES RESTUDY-
NO ACTION TAKEN
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 16(E) -- I'm sorry, 8(E)(7) was
16(E)(3), funding options regarding the Everglades restudy.
MR. OLLIFF: I've asked Mr. Dunnuck to come.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dunnuck.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, my name is John Dunnuck, assistant to the county
manager.
The item before you is a follow-up to the resolution that was
proposed by Palm Beach County regarding funding options for
the Everglades funding resolution restudy. In that resolution,
they had requested that we look at using stamp taxes as an
alternative to the South Florida Water Management District.
We had done some research into that issue. And Clarence
Tears was here a couple weeks ago and had made a
presentation regarding what the impact of the South Florida
Water Management District would mean to us if they followed
this proposal.
And what the conclusion was, that it didn't impact Collier
County, per se. From the standpoint if you refer to the executive
summary, using a doc. stamp tax would have a greater impact on
Collier County residents who are doing real estate transactions
than it would if in fact they had gone with using the South Florida
Water Management District proposal that has come forward from
the Governor.
And in that case we had decided -- we're making the
recommendation that it would be probably better off for Collier
Page 70
April 11, 2000
County to follow the current proposal by the Governor and use
the South Florida Water Management District funding option as
opposed to following this resolution.
In that regards, Senate Bill 1694 follows along, presents 100
million dollar state share and 100 million dollar matching by the
local communities.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which is different than the
Governor?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, no, it's not different from the
Governor, only from the perspective that it outlines how that
state funding will come about. I think 70 -- you know, something
like 75 million will come from state stamp taxes, you know, as a
portion of that. But it isn't different from the Governor. The main
emphasis is to find a 100 million dollar state share and a 100
million dollar local share.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess the worry for me is the
state share is really coming from local. Because the 100 million
is from Swift/Mudd (phonetic), the second 100 is proposed by
Senator Saunders. Isn't from the state as a whole, it's from us.
And in my opinion, what the Governor was trying to achieve
here is saying the Water Management District, being
representative of this area, should pay half, and the state as a
whole, recognizing the value of the Everglades, should pay it.
That's not what this bill does. It makes us and the Water
Management District pay and then us through doc. stamps pay.
It does not have a state-wide share there.
And so I'm not going to support this and I would ask the
remainder of the board not either, unless we want to follow what
the Governor has suggested and that's that the state participate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So basically your objection is not
to the local issue but it's to the identification of the funding
source by the bill --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for the state's share.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because we end up paying --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we do pay more doc.
stamps than anybody else, there's no doubt about that, because
of our --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It just increases the burden on us
here, is what I'm hearing, versus --
Page 71
April 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- what the Governor is proposing.
And I want to state that what the Governor is proposing is that
we spread the cost.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well~ I think just to be accurate~
if we're going to -- and I hear you~ I think you're making a valid
point. My question is, the Governor proposed a generic the state
shall pay 100 million.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The legislation proposes~ from
what pot of state money shall that 100 million come. If we're
going to say we don't like it coming from stamp taxes~ where do
we want it to come from?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Truly from the state. Because
what this does is require a matching portion of that 100 million
out of the Water Management District by the counties. That's not
every county. I mean~ if you go to Leon County~ they're not going
to be paying this.
MR. DUNNUCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's the counties down here.
And that's the objection~ is the Governor has said the state will
pay 100 million. I think of the state as close to 15 million people~
not just those who live in Southwest Florida. And that's the
nature of my objection is when the Governor is vague, saying
where will that other 100 million will come from~ but he is clear
it's intended to be from the whole state. They should participate.
But this bill says Southwest Florida~ you've got to carry 100
percent of the bill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't understand the
legislation to say that~ so I'm confused about why -- how it comes
-- how do you read it that way? Because it says that 75 of their
100 million comes out of doc. stamps?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Out of the counties here in
Southwest Florida.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought it came out --
MR. DUNNUCK: It comes out state-wide.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: State-wide, not just Southwest
Florida.
MR. DUNNUCK: It's state-wide.
And I think~ you know~ from the proposal~ when we were
Page 72
April 11, 2000
putting this together, we had addressed it from the standpoint of
what legislation is out there right now. And there are two bills
out there currently: One is a House bill and one is a Senate bill
proposed by Senator Saunders, which does identify the state's
share as 75 million dollars in doc. stamps, which if we broke
down the percentage would show that Collier County pays a
greater percentage.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We pay a disproportionate
percentage. It's almost eight percent.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What's the House bill say?
MR. DUNNUCK: The House bill is a little bit more vague.
And they had -- at the time when we wrote this executive
summary, they didn't have it concluded. But it looks like that
House bill is headed towards some sort of bond -- it's looking like
some sort of bonding option on the state side of it. But it's still a
100 -- you know, it's still a matching type of a proposal where you
have the local share and you have an overall state share.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With doc. stamps, Collier
County pays a disproportionate percentage. We pay almost eight
percent of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you do -- you're clear, though,
that the doc. stamp is state matched, even though part of its
doc. stamps is from doc. stamps collected all over the state, not
just from -- I mean, when you said '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct. I'm sorry if I misspoke.
The point being if you have close to 15 million people in the
state, we have 226,092 of them living here, and yet somehow
we're going to pay close to eight percent of that, that just is way,
way out of whack.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so as an alternative to the
doc. stamps being a primary portion of the state's 100 million,
this county, you're urging us to support what?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I speak?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that so that you can think
about an answer to my question? Because I'd love to know an
answer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not in the Florida
legislature, so I don't have the opportunity to present a bill.
There is a Senate Bill 1694. We're being asked to support that
Page 73
April 11, 2000
bill. I don't support it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm just asking how you'd
like to pay for Everglades restoration.
MR. OLLIFF: As a suggestion, because a lot of these bills
are still working their way through the committee and being
amended as they work their way through the committee, it may
be appropriate for us just to wait until we have final bills in final
form so that the board can actually look and see what is being
recommended. And if there is an alternative Governor's plan,
then the board can consider that as well, and bring '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, first of all, I don't see any
linkage between doc. stamps and the Everglades, which is a
problem to me because, I mean, you're asking people who maybe
never even stepped foot in Florida before to pay -- you know,
singling them out to help pay to restore the Everglades
somehow. I mean, I just don't see the linkage.
And the other thing is that if the Governor meant that the
state's portion of the funds should come from the state general
fund, then that's where I would like to see it come from, because
that's the most appropriate than in the entire State of Florida on
a more equitable basis is going to be funded by '-
MR. DUNNUCK: Right. And from my understanding '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I want to see.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we need to clear up
something here. Are we talking about restudy or/restoration?
Now '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Inaudible.)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, it's not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's not.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If you're talking about the
Southwest Florida restudy, Pam, I thought this was the new one
that they came down -- when the Army Corps came recently, I
know I met with them and I'm sure they met with most every
commissioner. And that's to do Southwest Florida.
Now, the one, the Everglades restoration that most people
are thinking about, has to do with the East Coast, okay? So this
is -- the big eight million dollar deal is for southeast coast, which
Page 74
April 44, 2000
has -- basically covers Miami, Palm Beach, Broward and the
Florida Keys. And of course what, Lake Okeechobee and that
area up in there. And we're going to be paying there, too. That's
the eight million dollar price tag. This is up -- this is above the
eight million dollar price tag.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Billion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Billion. I'm sorry, billion. That's B
as in boy. Like big deal, okay?
So this is above that. And that's what I don't think people
understand, that you've got the eight million going on over on the
eastern side and you've got this restudy for Southwest Florida,
which eventually will probably be another cost connected onto
the eight billion that is already attributed to the East Coast of the
state.
I've got some real concerns over this whole thing. I don't
know if the Army Corps is trying to generate work or just what
the situation is, but I have some -- a big concern about what
they're doing.
I heard their presentation. I also heard them say this was
going to be a 50/50 match. Oh, the federal government's going to
pay the 50 percent and the state's going to pay the other 50
percent. Guess what, folks? You're paying 100 percent.
Because any way you want to look at it, you're going to be
paying the whole works.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are there three folks who would
like to approve this item?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would the board like to stay
informed on what the options are?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I think Tom Olliff's point was
well taken. This is working its way through the legislature. I
think this was a trial balloon to see who's going to bite, and
we're not biting.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the only thing I would say in
response to that is that if we wait until we have a final bill, we
Page 75
April 4 '1, 2000
may have waited too long and lost our opportunity to influence
the outcome of that final bill.
What we should be doing right now is making it known to
the legislature and to the Governor's Office that what we would
prefer is for this half of the money that's in question to come
from the general fund of the state.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you want to put that in form
of a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is the form of a motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any discussion on that suggestion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just don't know what the source
is again. Like you not being in the Florida legislature, I don't
know -- the source of funds in the general fund of the State of
Florida is what? Not doc. stamps?
MR. OLLIFF: I'm taking that motion '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, it is doc. stamps.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm taking that motion to be a state-wide
revenue source.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. You know, that's different
from saying general fund, because general fund's going to
include doc. stamps, sales tax; it's going to include a lot of
things. We don't want it to include doc. stamps? What -- you
know, I don't think '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, because doc. stamps are '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you better take Tom's
suggestion and say a general revenue source state-wide or
something, because general fund is not going to -- you could '-
your statement could be used in support of Senator Saunders'
bill.
COMMISSIONER
revenue.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
NORRIS: But doc. stamps are a general
MAC'KIE: Right. So you're fine with it?
NORRIS: No, I said general fund.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I think what '-
Commissioner Norris, what Tom Olliff is saying is we want to
change the verbiage to general revenue versus general fund, if
Page 76
April 11, 2000
that makes a difference.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How about we work on that
verbiage and we'll --
MR. OLLIFF: As long as the idea is it is a state-wide revenue
source. And I think if we can steer it away from doc. stamps
where Collier County is paying a disproportionate share of that,
that's the gist.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because there are many areas
where Collier County is a donor county, and -- MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- we'd like to actually see some
of that back as opposed to get hosed and pay that much more.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we maybe get staff to give
us a presentation on what the options are so that we know what
to support instead of just what to oppose?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Our next meeting is after the
conclusion of session, so --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So I think we need to get
something off that supports the state-wide revenue. Can we
frame that, and I will amend -- I will go whatever Commissioner
Norris's motion is to get that done so we get it on the record that
we want to get more in the framework of what the Governor had
proposed versus a disproportionate share or burden upon Collier
County.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me clarify my motion by
saying that what I intend is for a letter to be drafted, one to the
Governor's Office, one to the House, one to the Senate -- we have
appropriate committees on this -- letting our position be known
to them that we prefer to have this be a general funded effort.
And Commissioner Mac'Kie, I understand your point, that
doc. stamps are part of the general fund, but it's a very small
part, and there's a lot of blended funding in there. And that way
you will more -- you're more likely to level out and equalize your
funding sources.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry to say it, but I think
we're going to look awfully ignorant if we send a letter like that,
that doesn't have -- you know, we either -- the way the legislative
process works in the state is you support a bill or you propose a
compromise or an amendment.
Page 77
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think we are trying to do
that. That's the portion of my motion is to propose an
amendment or a compromise.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're looking for a more
broad-based '-
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
CARTER: Right.
BERRY: -- funding.
NORRIS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I think the words were
general blending of revenues versus a singular revenue source.
And I think if it's wordsmithed in that way, it communicates the
message.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What do you say we table this
item and bring it back immediately after lunch and see if we
can't kick some wording around, rather than fumble over
ourselves right now. Any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to table.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
We'll bring this back directly following the lunch break. All
those in favor, state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Item #9A
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION, PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION
NO. 95-632, REGARDING PROVIDING A LEGAL DEFENSE TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. Item 9(A), for the
Board of County Commissioners to make a determination
pursuant to Resolution 95-632 regarding providing legal defense
to county employees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We've got a couple of choices
here. Our policy has traditionally been let the legal system work.
If folks are cleared, then we pick up the tab, rather than put the
money up front, and if you're not cleared, try to recoup. MR. MANALICH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there any reason we don't
Page 78
April 11, 2000
want to continue doing that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
the right way to go.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
intended.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
item?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
on the record, Ramiro?
MR. MANALICH: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
I think what we've been doing is
Motion to approve that is what I
I'll second that.
Any public speakers on this
Anything else you need to get
You are?
MR. MANALICH: The chief assistant county attorney.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, who are you, though? Now
that you've got to work. No, Ramiro.
MR. MANALICH: I am a -- this item will need to come back
to you, depending on what transpires in the case.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2000-114 APPOINTING ALEXANDRA SANTORO AND
RE-APPOINTING THOMAS SANSBURY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
Board of County Commissioners' agenda, 10(A).
Appointment of members of the EAC.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to support Alexandra
Santoro. Not somebody I know or have met, but was very
impressed with her resume and the fact that she had experience
on an Environmental Advisory Council in another community. I
thought that looked like real positive as we start with the new
council.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to support Tom Sansbury
aS orle.
Page 79
April 1 t, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'd move those two members.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second those two.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second
for Santoro and Sansbury.
All those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2000-115 APPOINTING LAVERNE FRANKLIN,
MARlAN THOMPSON AND CATHERINE ASKEW QUITTO TO THE
BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
10(B), appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory
Board.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MS. FILSON: If I may make just one comment on this one,
just to bring it to the board's attention. Mr. Alstork Moore, just
so you're aware, his wife is currently serving on the board.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Same board?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any rules against that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which one is she?
MS. FILSON: No, there are no rules, but I just wanted to
make you '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's not on this list, she's
already on.
MS. FILSON: Yeah, it should be on Page 3 of the agenda.
Gerri Moore is her name.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a little problem with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a motion -- well, you made
a motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You have a Sunshine Law here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're absolutely right. I
withdraw my motion.
Page 80
April 11, 2000
I would make a motion that we approve Franklin, Thompson
and Quitto.
MS. FILSON: There are four vacancies.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And LaVerne Franklin?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. I'm sorry, Franklin,
Thompson and Quitto, but not Moore, because it would be a
Sunshine violation.
COMMISSIONER
about it.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
nevertheless.
MAC'KIE: Not unless -- only if they talk
CARTER: Well.
BERRY: Well.
CARTER: Hello.
BERRY: Well, I'm certain it's not --
MAC'KIE: I haven't been married that long.
BERRY: -- bedroom pillow talk, but
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for that
motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Discussion?
Speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: None.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion,
A weak 5-0.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2000-116 APPOINTING JOZSEF KELEMAN TO THE
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item is 10(C) to appoint one member, and there is one
applicant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The Golden Gate Estates Land
Page 81
April 11, 2000
Trust Committee. A motion and a second.
Discussion? Objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2000-117 APPOINTING ROBERT CUNNINGHAM TO
THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - APPROVED
10(D), appointment to members of the Forest Lakes
Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee. We have one
applying for reappointment.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I move that Mr. Somerville be
reappointed.
MS. FILSON: And if we--
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll have to waive.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, if Mr. Somerville is reappointed,
you'll have to waive Section B-2, because he served two full
terms.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would we not support the
alternative applicant, then, Mr. Cunningham? I don't have any
idea, just --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, actually in fairness, what
we have traditionally done is if there are other qualified
applicants --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- we do keep that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll withdraw my motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll move Mr. Cunningham.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second for Mr.
Cunningham for the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage
Advisory Committee.
Any discussion? Any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
Item #10E
Page 82
April 11, 2000
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE PUBLIC
HEARING ON APRIL 25, 2000 - ACCEPTED
Next item, 10(E), public announcement.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What do we do with this? I move
that we accept this public notice.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We had one of those when I was
on the board, Mr. Chair. They just want you to say that you got
it. We acknowledged it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We accepted is my motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Consider the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission announcement announced.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You can pick up a copy of that
in the hall, if you're interested.
Item #1 OF
RESOLUTION 2000-118 RE-APPOINTING DARLENE KOONTZ,
VANESSA FITZ AND DAVID CHILCOTE, II AND APPOINTING
KATHLEEN C. HERMANN TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK
FORCE - ADOPTED
Let's see.
Advisory Task Force.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
10(F), appointment of members to the Citizen
There are four --
Move the item.
-- move them -- second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have to pick who fills the
one odd vacancy, or do they figure that out on their own?
-- we're going -- we'll take care
MS. FILSON: I have already
of that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Any discussion?
There's a motion and a second.
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
aye.
Page 83
April 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10G
DISCUSSION REGARDING A REGIONAL APPROACH TO SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL - STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE LONG TERM
OPTIONS WITH LEE COUNTY AND PROVIDE A PRELIMINARY
REPORT PRIOR TO THE BOARD'S SUMMER RECESS
Music to my ears, 10(G), discussion regarding a regional
approach to solid waste. Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, we have to appoint county
health.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We've got another one here, Dr.
Colfer.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move the item.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Wait a minute.
10(H). I'm still on 10(G).
off--
That would be
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're right. Do you want to hold
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if we go in order
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- on this discussion until after
lunch --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- here, do you?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, that's all right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- or do you want to -- Mr.
Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, let's get it on. I think it's
great.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't think it's going to be that
controversial.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not saying that, it just may
take a while. I don't know. Sure, we'll talk about it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask a question before? Is
that we were trying to get that noise consultant out of here, and
that we're paying by the hour. Do we have time to do that before
lunch?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure, let's knock both of these
Page 84
April 11, 2000
out and then we'll do the noise consultant. 10(G) we're still on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 10(G) is garbage.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, there are a bunch of people in
the back for some public hearing items. You may want to make
an announcement that we will cover those after lunch, so that
they can go ahead and --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We will take a lunch break as
soon as we knock these next three items out, and then we'll be
back at roughly one o'clock.
For the fourth time, 10(G).
MR. FINN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Edward Finn,
public works administrator.
This item is a discussion item --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you would kindly exit quietly,
we still do need to try to get some work done here. Thank you.
MR. FINN: I'm going to essentially introduce this discussion
item and answer any questions. This is a discussion item to
consider utilizing the Lee County waste to energy facility as the
primary solid waste disposal facility for Collier County. There's
considerable give and take in that. There will be need for
agreements. There's some discussion of an authority. The Lee
County Solid Waste Department has prepared -- I don't know
when precisely, but they had prepared a proposal which carried
several alternatives within it, the need for general policy
direction from this board to move forward with negotiations and
several other specifics.
I'll be happy to entertain any questions you have.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I've always supported this
idea. I have no problem with it. Commissioner Berry and I have
both been there and seen the facility, understand the process. I
have no difficulty with them pursuing this direction.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: From what I read in
Commissioner Berry's press release in the news accounts, it's a
great idea. You take the waste to Lee. They incinerate it. They
bring the ash back here. It allows us to maximize the use which
has been Commissioner Mac'Kie's concerns of the existing
landfill. Yet, it gets rid of the odor and some of those things that,
obviously, have been a concern to Commissioner Berry and
Page 85
April I t, 2000
myself. I think it's a great idea.
Commissioner Berry, good leadership.
Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The one thing that I have concern
with is the formation of an authority, and I can just envision five
members from one county and us having four, and we'd simply be
out of luck in that sort of case.
I think we can operate this as -- if we go this direction, I
think it would be preferable, at least from my standpoint, to just
do it on a contract basis rather than having an authority.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That was -- the main reason I
placed this on the agenda, this -- I'm looking for today is
direction, but I wanted the board, not Commissioner Berry, to
give direction, but the board to give direction to staff to pursue
looking into this concept, and I'm looking not on a short-term
basis but something long-term for Collier County. In other words,
I'm not looking that this should happen next year or six months
from now, but we need to look at all the aspects connected with
it.
I did raise some questions that I had staff address in terms
of different questions that I had. One of them did happen to do
with the authority, just wanting to know if it had been done in the
state, and I'm sure all of you got those responses back as well as
I did. It was -- I'm not predisposed to an authority idea. I'm open
to any suggestions and anything that our staff, when they pursue
this further, that they can deem would be a responsible way to
deal with this situation.
I do have to say that one of the items I asked had to do '-
had to address the use of the railhead and -- where's John? I
guess John's not -- there's John.
John, I really didn't think -- I wasn't interested in building
railroad tracks. What I was -- what I was interested in is the
future, as Collier County grows, and it will grow, whether we're
sitting up here or a future board is sitting up here, Collier County
is going to grow, and what I was looking at is in future years,
possibly -- and before everybody jumps off the pier, perhaps a
transfer station in that area that may be for the coastal area that
refuse would be taken to that area and then transported '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- transported containerized on the
Page 86
April 1 t, 2000
current existing railroad to Lee County, okay, and, again, this is '-
it was just an idea. It was something that I thought may have
some merit. Who knows? I don't know, but these -- it has been
done in other areas, and I was just looking for long-term, not
something that is probably going to happen today, but just
looking at the viability of doing this in the future.
So, what I'm looking for, direction from the staff -- from the
board is to give our staff the direction to look further and start
getting some good numbers and working perhaps with Lee
County and so forth.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection from any
commissioner on that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None at all, but I would be simply
interested in the impact on the residential rates.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything on rates. Of course, in
Lee County, they pay considerably more. However, in Hendry
County where they have an agreement and they send their waste
over, take the ash back, they have an extremely low rate. So,
there may be an option to -- or an opportunity to get a reasonably
good rate and solve a long-term problem. I think Ms. Berry's got
a great idea.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think this is just going to be a
wonderful idea. I thank you, Commissioner Berry, for developing
it to the extent that you have so it could come to us in such an
organized way, and, again, like Commissioner Norris, my only
question is going to be the rates. Frankly, if this -- I hear
estimates this might double the rate, but '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we need to know.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One way to find out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One way to find out.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Consider that direction, Mr.
Finn.
Do you have any idea what kind of a time frame you need
before you can bring some of that information back to us? Can
we have that in June?
MR. FINN: I think that the recommendation that I've
prepared here, it's just in line with the board, and that is to do an
Page 87
April 11, 2000
initial thorough investigation. That dovetails nicely with the
efforts that we currently have underway. I'm going to tell you
that November would be the time frame for that.
I'm going to further ask for authority to commence
negotiations with Lee County and perhaps Hendry County.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think there's probably three of
us that have worked on this for years that would like it to appear
before November.
MR. FINN: I would endeavor to do that.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, from the discussion, I think
there's a couple of things that I'd like to go ahead and get some
direction for, if I could. I think the last action that the board had
in this regard was to hire a consultant, and so I'm taking from
your actions today that you would, at least initially, like for us to
cease the continued pursuit of a consultant to develop a full
blown report with options, which is what Mr. Finn was alluding to
was the Novemberish time frame.
Secondly, I think you're actually asking us to investigate a
number of different issues, including working with the Lee
County staff to come back and develop whatever different
partnership options there would be and recommendations.
Secondly (sic), that we ought to investigate permitting issues
regarding our existing landfill permits as well as any modification
to the landfill operations and agreements that might be
necessary. Fourth, to investigate and provide options regarding
waste transportation issues back and forth that you should
consider, and finally, a preliminary rate analysis.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perhaps I misunderstood, but I
thought what you had just outlined was what Commissioner
Berry was asking and not for some broad look at everything on
the planet idea. We've done that.
MR. OLLIFF: I think it is. I think you were looking for some
opportunity to provide some conceptual sort of step to direction,
and I think we can, at least, get you some preliminary
information.
I'll tell you late June, early July at the latest to try to get you
at least some decision --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Preferably before we take our
summer recess.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was going to say, I was also
Page 88
April 11, 2000
looking at maybe the first meeting in August, perhaps, because
we'll be gone in July, and I thought perhaps that would give them
some time to kind of -- you know, with us out of the way and not
having -- not having our regular meeting, that it would give them
a little more time to kind of pursue some of these.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's try to get some
preliminary things before we take our summer recess, and then '-
as you call them, step two, and that way, if that looks promising,
that gives them the summer while we are out of the way to do
some of the more detailed work.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I think too we need to know
the existing contracts that we have and all that information.
MR. OLLIFF: I may need to look for some outside assistance
on this project, only because there is -- your solid waste
department consists of one secretary and one individual at the
moment, so we may need to look for some outside help, but I'll
bring back a very quick agreement if I need to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I also would -- I would hope in
that, if you look at the total MPO picture, and the rail thing is not
out of that framework, because there might be some funding
available somewhere that would help us establish that network.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Directions '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I had an idea about that, but it's
probably so, kind of off the wall kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it's just -- please, don't
misunderstand, folks, but, you know, you think about these
things, but, you know, if you were to divide the County, say, into
two sections and the coastal area, so you're not transporting '-
having to transport the waste a distance, that, again, dividing the
county, perhaps, in a north-south or even a north -- kind of a
north-south meaning -- north-south, yeah, so that the group up in
the northern part of the county would be using, perhaps, the
railhead if that could be done, and the transportation to the
south, which would be going to the Golden Gate transfer area,
would go there rather than having to haul this all over. It -- it
was just a thought, and why not pursue it and see if it works. It
may not, but '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Staff has their direction,
Commissioner Berry.
Page 89
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
Item #1 OH
RESOLUTION 2000-119 APPOINTING DR. JOAN COLFER TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 10(H), appointment of member
to the Collier County Health Facilities Authority.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second.
Discussion?
Objection?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries five-oh.
What's the other item we wanted to do before we --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Noise.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Noise.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What item is that?
MS. FILSON: 12-(C)(3).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 12(C)(3), Collier County noise
ordinance. Anybody in particular handling this?
Item #11 B1 & 2
TY AGOSTON AND MARY DUNIVAN REGARDING SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
Ty Agoston is handling this one.
MR. AGOSTON: I thought you guys just allowed public
comment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, we'll do that in a minute, Ty.
We're going to get this one item out of the way, and then I will
come back to general comment before we go to break.
MR. AGOSTON: Actually, it wasn't a general comment. It
was a comment on the waste disposal.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We are done with that one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did you have a slip? Did I miss
Page 90
April t tl, 2000
that? I apologize.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, we did. I missed it as well. We actually
had two '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ty, I apologize. Do you want to
speak on that one? I didn't realize we had speakers there.
Sorry, the train got moving a little too fast.
MR. AGOSTON: Anxious to go to lunch.
My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and
I'm speaking for myself.
I have heard a very long saga of the waste management in
this county, and I have said this before, and I can only reiterate
it. Collier County is one of the largest counties in the country and
one of the wealthlest, and for us to sit here and make a decision
to put the burden on our children or grandchildren to deal with
this problem and put the authority of the disposition of waste in
the hands of a different political body, it's really unconscionable
as far as I could see. I believe that we should be able to take
care of our own waste. We should be able to educate our own
children, and we should be able to build our own roads.
Now, with the roads we have some problem, and I'm very
happy that you guys came over there and approached the
situation, because I almost got killed on Immokalee Road six
weeks ago, but going back to the waste disposal, as far as I can
see, it's imperative that you develop a method of dealing with
waste yourself, because while there are many noble advocates
of the County, eventually you will have people coming in here.
They are going to produce waste. We, by all good conscience,
should take care of that. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next and last speaker is Mary Dunavan.
MS. DUNAVAN: My name is Mary Dunavan, and -- it's been
quite a while since I spoke.
Commissioners, Chairman Constantine and you other
commissioners, I think we should build our own. We spent
enough money for this study that we should have been building
something of our own in the first place, and I think that we
should build our own. We have the land to build it on so we
would not be beholden to Lee County or the monies that they
would be charging, and if you do go into a contract, make sure
that we can get out of that contract immediately if we are not
Page 91
April t 1, 2000
satisfied with it, and I don't feel that we should have transfer
stations because all your transfer stations cause more smell and
more dumping, et cetera. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Any other speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: That's all your speakers, and on another note,
your noise consultants have already gone to lunch.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. We'll see you in an hour.
(Lunch break was held).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good afternoon. We are back.
Noise ordinance, first item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Who's leading us on that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I was wondering if we wanted
to keep our noise consultant off the clock and do the item that
all these people are packed in the room to see.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately, as much as we'd
like to, I think we can't keep them off the clock. At least that's
what we were told.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, too bad.
MR. PALMER: Commissioners, for the record, Tom Palmer,
assistant county attorney.
Actually, the consultants are on a fixed sum, and the clock
is not running per hour, but there is a debate about the amount of
money that's been agreed upon, but is not an hourly rate.
Last April '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that amount going to be
impacted in any way if we talk to somebody else first?
MR. PALMER: No, it's not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll talk to you shortly.
Item #1281
ORDINANCE 2000-20 RE: PETITION R-99-13, MICHAEL R.
FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INC.
REPRESENTING CARUSO CORP. AND BRIAN JONES, TRUSTEE,
Page 92
April t 1, 2000
REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A
PROPERTY FROM "RSF-3" RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO "C-
2" CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF PIPER BOULEVARD - ADOPTED WITH
STIPULATIONS
12(B)(1), Petition 99-13, Caruso Corp. and Brian Jones.
Dr. Badamtchian.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Swear them in.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, yeah, anybody who's going
to participate in this, either as a staff member or even if you're a
member of the public, if you're going to participate, or the
petitioner, for that matter, I need you to stand, raise your right
hand and be sworn.
(The speakers were sworn).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners.
Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff.
Mr. Michael Fernandez representing the owners of the
subject property is requesting a rezone from RSF-3, residential
single family, two units per acre, to C-2, convenience
commercial, for a property located on the north side of Piper
Boulevard. This is north of Immokalee Road at the end of Airport
Road across the street from Sam's Club. The property consists
of 7.61 acres. The property is vacant, and it is within an activity
center.
This is consistent with the growth management plan since it
is located within an activity center, and it's going to be adjacent
to commercial on one side and the church on the other side.
The traffic issue -- the traffic will be increased by 2,400 trips
a day compared to what the use -- the zoning allows today.
Immokalee Road functions at the level of service D. However,
this section of Immokalee Road is supposed to be six-laned in
the year 2001.
The planning commissioners reviewed this petition, by a
vote of eight to one recommended approval. However, they
requested, and the applicant agreed, to remove several -- two
uses. One is a gas station, and the other one is a convenience
store, and that concludes my --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me ask one quick question
Page 93
April 11, 2000
for clarification, just so I understand. It is currently residential
single family three?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And as RSF-3, it will generate X
trips per day?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if we change it to
commercial two, it will generate X plus 2,400 trips per day?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It will multiply the trip generation by at
least 12. RSF-3, you have 7.6 acres. That allows what; 22 to 23
residential homes, and in here, we are talking about something
like 60,000 square feet of commercial building.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So, it will be a substantial
increase.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It will be a substantial increase, but
having residential single families there may not be really
compatible with the surrounding land use and the Immokalee
Road fronting -- not fronting, but -- fronting on Piper Boulevard,
which is adjacent to Immokalee Road with the high traffic.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Across from Sam's?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Across from Sam's.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Beside a church.
Questions for staff?
Let's go to the petitioner.
MR. JONES: Good afternoon. My name is Brian Jones. I'm
one of the owners representing a group of families who own this
property.
As Chahram stated, it's 7.61 acres. We know where it's
located. We are asking for a C-2 change. This was suggested in
lieu of C-3 or C-4 because it provides a greater setback, and it's
the optimum setback that's provided for in the classifications of
zoning.
We envision a neighborhood center consistent with medical
uses as a best fit for this location in the Immokalee Road
corridor.
The property is accessed, as you're aware of, directly via
the bridge from Airport Road over the canal to Piper Boulevard
frontage road. Piper frontage road and protected lighted turn
access provide an optimum safe and direct access and egress to
this location.
Page 94
April t t, 2000
As Chahram also stated, at the planning commission
hearing, in response to neighboring concerns, we agreed to
eliminate gas stations and convenience stores as
non-appropriate uses for this site.
I have Mr. Fernandez who can assist with any questions that
you may have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Brian, how do we justify
approving 2,400 extra vehicle trips per day?
MR. JONES: As Chahram stated, I think it's -- the location of
this site is not conducive to a residential setting. It fronts
opposite -- directly opposite Sam's. It's in the activity center,
and it's consistent with the growth management plan, and I think
it would best serve the community there having -- reducing the
amount of traveling they would have to do in order to get medical
services or what have you that's -- that's located at this, would
maybe reduce some traffic by having conveniences closer to
them, which is the whole idea of neighborhood centers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Dr. Badamtchian, how does that
impact -- it's a valid point. If one of the things we have been
trying to encourage is interconnections in neighborhoods and
commercial properties and so on, if this provides particular
services, you said it increases the traffic on Immokalee Road,
but does it assist any in keeping some of the neighborhood from
having to go elsewhere?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It will increase the traffic -- I mean, it
will generate the traffic. This is basically 2,600 additional trips
that the site will generate because today it's vacant. However,
most of those trips will be made to go to other places. Having a
doctor's office in here, that doesn't mean that the traffic is going
to increase in town. Those people, they were going to other
doctors' offices. So, instead of going that way, they are going to
come this way. It will generate additional traffic '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Of course, under that theory, we
could never turn anything down, because if you build a new
grocery store, people will buy groceries somewhere. I don't
know if saying, gee, they'd go somewhere else in town is a valid
argument.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I'm not saying that's not going to
increase the traffic, but what I'm saying is when you hear 2,600
trip ends, that doesn't mean if we didn't have this center here,
Page 95
April 11, 2000
we would not have part of those -- some of those trips
somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. That makes sense.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I guess the question is inner-
connectivity. Mr. Kant, do you want to address that issue?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director.
I haven't seen a final site plan. When the applicant and I
spoke several months ago, we looked at a preliminary site plan.
Since this is a straight zoning issue as opposed to a PUD, it
would not be appropriate, I understand, to try to impose any
contractual arrangements on this zoning.
However, one of the things that we did make a
recommendation for, consideration at the site development plan
stage should you decide to approve this zoning, is to request that
for aid of future traffic circulation, that the way the buildings be
arranged on the site, if it were appropriate to extend or make
some kind of an extension for Airport Road, that we wouldn't
want to be buying buildings or any substantial parking or that
type of thing.
As far as the other accesses or inner-connections, frankly,
this does not lend itself readily because of the church to the east
and the medical center to the west. It is possible, I imagine, to
get an interconnection with the medical center, but that would
require some type of cross access, and, again, my understanding
is that we don't have that club yet, if you will, built into the land
development code.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me be more clear about my
question, because I don't mean inner-connection with the church
or the neighboring commercial property. I'm saying north of
there, there are several hundred, probably several thousand
residents. Would this in any way assist them in not having to go
out onto Immokalee Road and points beyond in order to get these
services?
MR. KANT: Yes, it would to some extent. I can't, at this
point, give you a quantitative answer, but qualitatively, I believe
it would.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You made -- you made a point
about the inner-connectivity, we don't have the club yet. I would
like to know what it would take to tie all this together would be
my first question.
Page 96
April 11, 2000
Second question, I would, I agree with you, if there's any
extension of Airport Road, I want to make sure that we are not
buying buildings. Have we preserved all of these rights in this
approval?
MR. KANT: Yeah, that's -- again, what I tried to do in
reviewing this was to at least get on our internal record that
when we do go -- assuming this is approved, when we do go to
site development plan, that these issues will have been brought
up and that the owner/developer is aware of some of our
concerns.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, is that something, Brian, that
you guys are willing to put on the record today that you're willing
to do to provide for a potential inner-connection with Airport?
Actually, I was just asking Brian something. He probably
didn't hear me.
MR. JONES: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay.
It sounds like it would be something that the county wants
to be sure we preserve is a potential inner-connection to Airport.
Will that work into your plans? Is that something you can offer,
because we can't require it, but is it something you can offer to
the board today?
MR. JONES: Yes, I think it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, that's a real positive.
That's a big positive.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What about the inner-connectivity
with the other medical center, is that -- as Mr. Kant was
discussing, can we put that in the record that we can do that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez for the record, Mr.
Carter.
The PUD that's adjacent to it is one that we processed years
ago. It does provide for a inner-connect, and we would accept
that inner- connect so that those two can function in that way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' So, we would have the medical
centers connecting, and we'd have a potential for Airport to
connect across.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We basically could put a six --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It always does.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We could put a 60 foot setback -- I guess
what Mr. Kant was saying -- so that no buildings are in the way,
Page 97
April t 1, 2000
require a 60 foot setback to any structures.
MR. KANT: Well, I'm not giving you a number, but I think any
setback that would be agreed to would have to take into account
a future roadway, the allowance for any landscaping or parking
circulation, that type of thing, but those are site plan issues.
Unfortunately, commissioners and Mr. Jones, I was just
informed -- I've got to go downstairs to EOC, so I'm going to have
to make my leave, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Kant.
Anything you would like to add, Brian, or anything the
petitioner would like to add?
MR. JONES: Other than we will cooperate to facilitate the
traffic flow in and out of that project, which is what Mr. Kant's '-
when a site development plan is prepared, we will cooperate to
that end with the board.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: You have one, Jack Pointer.
MR. POINTER: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is
Jack Pointer. I live in Willoughby Acres, the area which is
adjacent to this particular area. I'm rising to support this
particular petition.
It might be interesting to you to know that Piper Boulevard
is available to get the people to these medical facilities. Palm
River has about 3,000 houses, will be able to use Piper Boulevard
without going out on Immokalee. Willoughby Acres has about a
thousand houses, will be able to use Piper Boulevard without
going out on Immokalee, and Carlton Lakes has another 3,000 or
more houses that will be able to use Piper Boulevard to this
medical facility without going out on Immokalee.
At my particular age, when you go to a motel, you always
look for the closest exit, and I'm looking for one of the close
exits.
Thank you very much.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all your speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Close the public hearing.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to approve it
subject to the same stipulations that the planning commission
had.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
Page 98
April 1 t, 2000
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And would you like to add an additional
stipulation for the inner-connect and reserving land for future
Airport Road extension?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If it's appropriate to do it that
way, yes. They've made that commitment on the record, so yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I want that -- I want you to explain
that inner-connection to Immokalee Road, because you have the
bridge that comes over the canal there. What -- what else are
you talking about?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Not Immokalee Road, extend Airport
Road.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: To where?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's one of Mr. Kant's projects. I
don't know where -- to go further north.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not going to buy into that if
that's what you're talking about because, for one reason, when I
first came on the commission four years ago, there was talk
about Immokalee Road coming over the canal and then winding
its way up through Willoughby Acres and eventually connecting '-
or Airport Road, coming up and connecting into Livingston Road.
I understood that had been put to sleep because of the number
of residences that had been in place there.
Now, if we're doing something today that is opening up the
door for that, that's not going to give the residents in Willoughby
Acres much comfort.
MR. MULHERE: I can't speak to you about the intent down
the road in the future, but I do know that what Mr. Kant was
talking about was not precluding the opportunity in the future
because of placement of structures for extending Airport even
some distance north of Immokalee Road, and I don't know what
the long-range plans would be with respect to that. That really
hasn't been determined at this point in time, but I think what Ed
was talking about, I'm speaking for Ed, he's not here, was to not
preclude the opportunity at some point to extend that road
northward. To what distance and where to connect, I don't think
that's been determined at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a long, long range view that
in the event -- so that we don't find ourselves in a place that we
have in other cases where we wished that other commissions
Page 99
April t 'f , 2000
had more foresight.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I understand that, but I think
you kind of missed your opportunity on this some time back,
because unless you're going to follow that down the line, you've
got condos on one side, and you've got -- I'd want to know what's
beyond before I would say yes to that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We are not saying yes to that.
We're saying would they please, if we approve it, design their
site so that if the County ever wants it some day a hundred years
from now, there's not a building in the way. That's all we're
saying, and if that troubles you, I'm sure they're happy to take it
back out, because what Mr. Kant said is that we're kind of
jumping ahead anyway, and that we ought to be talking about
that STP. It's more of a staff concern than ours anyway. I saw it as a long range potential positive.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry~ what's
your pleasure? Do you want to take it out?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you want it out, I'll take it out
of my motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, because Ed's not here to
really answer the question, that's my concern, and he's not here
to answer the question. I don't feel comfortable on putting it in
there.
I certainly understand and approve the long range planning,
don't misunderstand, but I don't know exactly what -- where --
what the thinking is and where we're going from here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It was my understanding,
Commissioner Berry, it was just an option there if, a big if, we
ever did anything, and I think we're just reserving the right to
have the big if.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to take it -- I'm
going to take that -- the stipulation out of my motion and make
my motion just that it be approved subject to the conditions of
the planning commission and leave that to staff's later
consideration.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I withdraw my second~ because I
think it should stay there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Page 1 O0
April 1 t, 2000
Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please
state aye.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye.
Motion fails because it needs four votes.
Is there an alternative motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll go back that I believe the
original motion that was made to approve it with the, if we need
the right-of-way for the future, is where I would be on this issue,
and I can support it, but I'm concerned that we'll give up
something we may need in the future.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may, at this point, we are not
asking for any right-of-way or right-of-way reservation. All we are
asking is to please not build a building where we may require
right-of-way. Use it for green space or something that wouldn't
cost the County lots of money to buy and build their road if one
day we decide to do it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I can support that so that
there's green space there if the big if is there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my -- my -- my earlier motion
was that we approve it with the planning commission
stipulations~ but on the record is the property owner's
commitment that is enforceable that they will design it so that
there is not a building in that potential -- that portion of the
property that could some day potentially be right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If somebody remembers that
years from now, that it's on the record, which we've
unfortunately faced that more than once.
Is there an alternative motion or do we move on?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter made
another motion. I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What was the motion? Say it
again.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My motion is what Commissioner
Mac'Kie originally proposed~ and that is that we reserve the
green space so that if we need it in the future~ we have it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What does the petitioner think
about that?
MR. JONES: I think setback is more the issue rather than
Page 101
April 11, 2000
green space. He wants the space to be able to deal with future
access or road considerations, and we would be willing to grant
a greater setback to allow that, to allow any potential extension
to occur.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Setback from Piper or setback
from the property line on the western side?
MR. JONES: I believe -- I believe you're referring to the
western side so that Airport, a portion of Airport could perhaps
be extended to allow some '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. There's a motion and
a second. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries 4-1.
Item #1282
ORDINANCE 2000-21 RE: PETITION PUD 99-29, D. WAYNE
ARNOLD OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., AND
RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH, ESQ. OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN &
JOHNSON, P.A., REPRESENTING RAYMOND JAMES SMELA,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM ITS CURRENT ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF 'MH' MOBILE HOME AND 'RSF-t'
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO 'PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS CHAMPION LAKE RV RESORT
PUD, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SILVER LAKES RV
RESORT AND PELICAN LAKE RV RESORT, IMMEDIATELY SOUTH
OF FIDDLER'S CREEK - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
Petition PUD-99-29, Wayne Arnold. Everybody who's going
to participate in this one -- this is the mobile home park issue,
Champion Lake RV. Anybody who's going to participate in this,
including members of the public, need to stand and be sworn.
(The speakers were sworn).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Dr. Badamtchian.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning
services staff.
Mr. Wayne Arnold and Mr. Rich -- Richard Yovanovich
requesting a rezone from MH, mobile home, and RSF-1,
Page 102
April 1 t, 2000
residential single family one unit per acre to PUD to be known as
Champion Lake RV Resort.
The site consists of 101.5 acres. It is located on -- off 951 or
Collier Boulevard approximately half a mile, three-quarter of a
mile west -- east of Collier Boulevard, behind Pelican Lake RV
Resort.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is basically the same
thing?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically the same thing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would be east, actually,
wouldn't it?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: East, I'm sorry.
The site consists of, as I said, 101.15 acres. They are
requesting for 300 units, which brings the density to 2.97 units.
The growth management plan allows them to build up to 12 units
per acre.
The access to the site, they are proposing to have the
access from Championship Drive, which is an easement to the
east of Pelican Lake RV Resort, which they have a right to use it,
and they also have a 72 foot wide strip between those -- these
two trailer parks, and they are showing that as an ease -- as an
access also.
The planning commissioners reviewed this, and they
recommended that the only access be from the existing road,
Championship Drive, as opposed to that 70 foot wide strip,
because those two parks, they have trailers adjacent to that
strip, and right now, it serves as a buffer, and planning
commission recommended that they use that strip for passive
recreational uses.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did the planning commission
also take into account they're probably less enthusiastic about
having yet another right turn off Collier Boulevard?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is no median cut on Collier
Boulevard in front of that strip of land, so people, they have to
make a U-turn coming from north to use this road.
There is enough right-of-way on 9 -- Collier Boulevard to
provide for a left turn and right turn and acceleration lane and
deceleration lane. It is possible to make that a safe entrance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's not a good idea.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But it is not a good idea. It's not a
Page 103
April 11, 2000
wise idea when there's an existing road that leads nowhere
basically. It comes out to here and then dead ends, basically '-
to continue that road and use it.
It's in full compliance with all the requirements of the
growth management plan. However, there are some issues that
-- David Weeks is here at the request of Mr. Don Pick -- Don
Pickworth to discuss that, and I'm going to let him to explain
what those issues are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. As he's coming up, Mr.
Chairman, can I ask the attorney a question? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: David, has Mr. Pickworth made
his legal arguments to your office, because I don't want to get
into a legal debate here over whether I'm going to believe Mr.
Pickworth or I'm going to believe Mr. Yovanovich? I'd like for you
to tell us whether or not this is a legal -- if we have the legal
authority to approve this under our comprehensive plan.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, our office has been made aware
of legal issues relating to access to the proposed site here. I
think we are fully advised in regard to that.
We are also advised as to previous history, perhaps Mr.
Weeks will be addressing, concerning prior interpretation of the
County of the land development code on entrance matters such
as this. Previous -- previous review was done years ago on a
different project but is analogous arguably to this situation.
If you want the absolute answer as to what is proposed and
the legal answer to the objection -- I don't know if you have
enough on the record yet for us to give that, but we are prepared
to provide to you with an answer in that regards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my question is just despite
what's -- do we need to have a lot of stuff put on the record if you
can advise us yes or no, do we have the legal authority to
approve this under the comprehensive plan as it exists today?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, my understanding is that you may
have an alternative placed before you of an access through that
long corridor, undeveloped strip out to 951 or the use of
Championship Drive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sir, my question should be more
clear. Do we have the legal authority to approve this project
with the shared access plan, not access along that strip that Dr.
Page 104
April 11, 2000
Badamtchian just described as a bad idea?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess -- I'm just guessing,
while you-all are '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought I was shortening it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- you-all are attorneys and I'm
not, but I bet we've got to have a record one way or the other
before we can get a recommendation, and I know where you're
trying to go.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm trying to get there, but '-
MR. WEIGEL: And we will be there very soon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney.
There's a history here of an interpretation that's been made
of the provision in the growth management plan. That provision
in the plan may not fit in all circumstances. That's an issue that
you need to, as a board, need to address as to how you want to
interpret it and apply it. Be for that reason, you need to have the
facts developed for the record.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
This is how we're going to do this. Mr. Weeks, if you have
anything you want to add beforehand, you're more than welcome
to, but I assume you're here in response to a request from a
member of the public.
So, what we're going to do is let the petitioner go ahead and
make their case. Mr. Pickworth, you'll have an opportunity to do
what you need to do later.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, commissioners. For the
record, Rich Yovanovich with Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson
representing the petitioner. I have Ray Smela, the owner of the
property here with me as well, and -- and I have three, three
experts that I know you're familiar with; Wayne Arnold,
professional planner, Tim Hall is our environmental consultant,
and Dean Smith is from Grady Minor's office, our transportation
engineer, and I know you know their qualifications, so I would
just ask that you qualify these three individuals as experts in
their respective profession.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to recognizing
those three as experts in their fields?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
Page 105
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
As your executive summary states, this is an application to
rezone property currently zoned for mobile homes and RSF-I. It's
the -- the RSF portion is that long narrow strip between the two
RV resorts, and the rest of the property, the bulk of the property
is currently zoned mobile homes, which we could today, without
any further zoning action, go forward with 413 mobile homes.
Instead, we have asked for a PUD for 300 RV sites and with
the alternative of 30 percent of those sites being resort homes,
which would basically be a residence that would allow for a
carport or a garage to store the RV resort (sic) in. It would also
have the limitation that it could not be permanent occupancy.
So, 30 percent of those 300 sites could be a resort type home.
As you'll hear from both Wayne Arnold and Dean Smith, the
proposed RV park greatly reduces the traffic impacts of a mobile
home park or have a -- a -- you know, a residential community.
So, there's less traffic impacts with the RV resort than a mobile
home park or a residential complex.
Your comprehensive plan currently has two requirements for
the approval of an RV resort. The first is, is the site must be '-
have district access to a road classified as an arterial. That's
the interpretation you're going to have to make today based upon
the facts on whether or not our project has direct access to the
arterial. We currently have two access points to Collier
Boulevard. The first access point, if I can, is Championship
Drive, which has a full median opening on Collier Boulevard.
That's one access point. It is a private road, but it does lead
directly to the arterial. In our opinion, that is all you need under
your comprehensive plan, is Championship Drive.
You have a couple of-- I'll let Dean -- Dean Smith get into the
details of this road.
Also we have what we call the strip parcel, the 72 feet wide.
It has -- there's enough distance to create a good, safe access
onto Collier Boulevard, so we have two access points.
The PUD, we could revise the PUD to provide that we will
only build this access point, the strip access point if you ask us
to do that. There have been some objections from the residents
of Pelican Lake and Silver Lakes as to this -- using this as an
access point. Right now it's a nice buffer. They like having that
Page 106
April 11, 2000
strip between their projects. However, we could -- we could, if
you require it because it's your interpretation of the
comprehensive plan that we have to use this as our access
point.
We could put a buffer in there. It would basically be a 25
foot buffer from -- they already have 15 feet on each side, and we
can give them ten more feet and still build the road we need so
they would have a 25 foot buffer. That's not our first preference,
and we said that at the planning commission, but we had to have
that alternative in there in case it was your interpretation that
this is the access we need to be consistent with your
comprehensive plan.
I believe your staff agrees with our position that under your
current comprehensive plan and the EAR based amendments,
that Championship Drive is direct access. The intent is that you
don't use a local road that goes through a residential
neighborhood to get access to the arterial. We do not go through
a residential neighborhood.
You will probably hear the argument that Fiddler's Creek,
which has one of its five entrances on Championship Drive, it's
not one of its main entrances, and we'll get into the specifics of
that, is a residential neighborhood. I don't think your staff
intended that that would be the case. If it were, every one of
your streets is going to be a residential street because all of the
developments, basically, come out of one or two entrances onto
an arterial.
So, we think that we are consistent with the comprehensive
plan by just using Championship Drive, and I think that's what
your comprehensive plan meant when you required direct
access, but I believe that's your interpretation, and I think that's
why Mr. Weigel was not ready to give you advice. It's an
interpretation that this board has never made, so it's really a first
application where it's come to you directly to be considered.
As I said, you will probably hear an argument made that
there was another interpretation given regarding a different
project on Tower Road. First of all, there was never an
interpretation. It was an opinion of staff, and, secondly, if you
did apply that opinion of staff, the Pelican Lake project could not
have been built, because, basically, staff had given you -- given
the opinion that you cannot have -- you must have -- use your
Page 107
April t 1, 2000
frontage road as access to the arterial in order to be consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
As you can see from the Pelican Lake project, their access
is off Championship Drive. Staff had given the opinion that you
could only use like a -- use Championship Drive as an access if it
was an expansion to an existing use. Clearly, Pelican Lake was
a new project that was not an expansion of an existing use.
So, the opinion that has been referred to has never been
formally adopted by the board and has not even been applied by
the board in other examples. We are asking for the same use
that Pelican Lake -- we want to be treated like Pelican Lake. We
are similarly situated. We both have frontage on 951. We both
prefer to use a meaningful opening as our access to our project,
and we just want to be treated the same.
We are clearly compatible with the surrounding
development. Wayne Arnold will get into a little bit more detail,
but you have an RV resort, an RV resort and then our project. It's
kind of hard to argue that an RV resort is not compatible with an
RV resort.
I can tell you that we have met with the representatives of
Fiddler's Creek, have shared our plans with them, and they have
no objection to our project, so they must feel that we are not
incompatible with their plans for their project.
We believe that this board has the authority today to
approve this project with both access points under the current
and future comprehensive plan language that's caught up in the
EAR based amendments. We also believe you have the authority
to approve this project with just the Championship Lake (sic)
access point. It's your interpretation of your comprehensive
plan.
I know there are many residents here from Sabal Lake, and I
think there are some from Pelican Lake, and I hope I'm
paraphrasing what they stated earlier at the planning
commission that they had no objections to our project. They
only had an objection to using the strip parcel as access. Again,
I told them that was not our first choice. Our first choice would
be to use Championship Drive, but, again, I had to keep that in
the PUD until this board made its determination.
I also, you know, want the board to know that we did
attempt to speak to the developer of Pelican Lake, who is the
Page 108
April t 1, 2000
only one that I know of that is objecting, is the developer of
Pelican Lake, not the residents, about their concerns, and I have
not had any contact from the developer's representative about
their concerns, so I'll be listening anxiously to see what those
concerns may be.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for the petitioner?
MR. YOVANOVICH: With that, Wayne Arnold will come up.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. Wayne Arnold for your
record.
I think what I'd like to do is move off the discussion of
access if I could for a few moments and talk a little bit more
about compatibility, because I think it's a little bit more than just
a land use relationship that we're talking about when we look at
compatibility. I think on the surface, it's pretty easy to see that
an RV park adjacent to an RV park is a compatible land use
relationship, but there are a couple of things that I'd like to touch
on, and one of those is Championship Drive, for instance, that we
are looking at -- at that as our primary project access.
We went out, and we took some digital photographs of
what's in place today, and right now, if you drove down that, you
would find that the road terminates just past the Fiddler's Creek
guard gate entry that's there. There's a fence that's been
constructed across the easement, and what you'll find as you
look through these photographs that I'd like to at least enter into
your record is that both Pelican Lake and Fiddler's Creek have
both prepared themselves for the eventual construction of the
balance of Championship Drive to serve something. Maybe it
wasn't known that it was going to be an RV park, but certainly
something on these mobile home zoned properties, or whether or
not somebody came in for a conventional housing project, they
both prepared themselves. They both have berms. They both
have walls adjacent to those projects, and I think what you're
going to see from these is that certainly using Championship
Drive can't be seen as incompatible use to gain access to our
property, and I'd like to give those to Mr. Weigel or Mr. Olliff.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Arnold, could you show us on
the map where it terminates at this point in time, approximately?
MR. ARNOLD: Right now, Championship Drive is constructed
to just past Fiddler's Creek guard gate entrance. You can see on
our diagram, this was taken from plats of record in Fiddler's
Page109
April 11 ~ 2000
Creekl that their relocation of Championship Drivel as its known,
turns south just east of the Pelican Lake RV Resort's entrance.
That road becomes Championship Drive and serves Fiddler's
Creek primarilyl two multi-family residential pods here.
That access point also serves right now as the construction
entrance for Fiddler's Creek. It also serves the Marriot Golf Club.
If you're referred there from the Marriot Resort on Marco Island,
you come in through Championship Drive to gain access to the
country club.
So right nowl that's its primary purpose, and that's its
location. The road physically is constructed about to here. We
would be extending along the lime rock base that you'll see in
those photographs, the balance of that. You can see here that
we've picked up a fence that's been constructed along Fiddler's
Creek. We've also picked up a fence and berm that's been
constructed along these units that lie adjacent to that
right-of-way in Pelican Lake.
A couple of the other capability factors I think that need to
be mentioned is the density reduction that we're talking about,
and I thinkl as Mr. Badamtchian saidl we could ask for 12 units
per acre for an RV park. That certainly wouldn't allow us to
amenitize a great number of these unitsl because as a resortl
we're trying to offer people amenitized lots just like any master
planned communityl but what we do see is that when we look at
thisl the numbers we have -- both of these mobile home zoned
parcels -- I'll step back over here.
The two largest pieces of our property were both mobile
home zoned. This was part of an old Quail Roost platl and right
now, that went through zoning re-evaluation. It was .deemed to
be a vested property. That would permit 7.26 mobile home units
per acre on that parcel, and it's about 30 acres.
This parcell it's about 65 acres to the southl that was also
reviewed through zoning re-evaluationl the density was reduced
to three dwelling units per acre, but in totall both of those pieces
would yield 413 mobile home lots. We could go and apply for a
site development planl get it administratively approved by Collier
County and have those units on board or we could file a plat if we
intended to sell those lots, but there would no restriction on
building 413 units, of which we believe our access pointl again,
would be Championship Drive.
Page 110
April 11, 2000
One of the other issues that I think is critically important is
the fact that this property on the future land use map is
designated coastal branch. It is susceptible to flooding. It's
susceptible to coastal evacuation in the event of a storm hazard.
We have with mobile homes potentially 413 fixed permanent
structures there. I don't think it's anybody's choice to
necessarily build mobile homes there. You have evacuation
requirements in our code that we would have to build sheltering
or pay additional fees through Mr. Pineau's agreement to take
care of evacuation and housing needs for those residents.
We -- looking at that with the RV park, we are simply going
in, putting in roads, lakes and pads for the most part so people
can drive a motor coach resort there. We do have the provision
to build the resort home that we referred to, which is a single
family site built home. However, we've also restricted that to
non-permanent occupancy just as any other RV unit would be
restricted in Collier County, so we think from that perspective,
we've taken many people from an at risk situation, because we
know the characteristics of an RV resort are, people who come
to Collier County generally in the cooler months come to an RV
resort. They're not here during the summer months, and I think
that would play out. If you've been down toward Fiddler's Creek
in the summertime, it's pretty empty in both of those parks that
are existing today.
I think it's also important to point out that an RV park in the
way they operate, being designed primarily for a motor coach
type setup, people can trailer one vehicle, that's it. You're not
going to end up with two or three vehicles at a residence like you
would at typical homes around Collier County, so we know that
we offer one vehicle for travel. It reflects in the trip generation
rates that are low compared to other conventional housing for an
RV park. We think that's also a major advantage.
Also, by designing this as a resort community, we've
provided our own on-site amenities as a recreational parcel.
We'll be providing clubhouse, cafe, swimming pool, sundry shop,
et cetera, so that people can capture their convenience trips
on-site, not be required to go out Championship Drive and on 951,
either north or south, to get their daily essentials, if you will.
So, we think those factors alone also play into compatibility,
and, again, we're leaving more than 100 units on the table. We
Page 111
April 11, 2000
are asking for far less density than we could. Traffic generation
rates are greatly reduced, and both Fiddler's Creek and Pelican
Lake have provided their own buffering adjacent to
Championship Drive, which is the road that we primarily would
like to use, and I know that Mr. Yovanovich has touched on
access.
I know that we're going to hear from David Weeks here
shortly, but to offer just a couple minor points on access, if I can.
I think, as Mr. Yovanovich pointed out, we think we have two
direct access points to County Road 951, Collier Boulevard. We
also know that without the benefit of the same staff
interpretation, Pelican Lake would not be allowed to use the
Championship Drive access point, and I think what you may see
is a staff level determination, even at the time Pelican Lake
received its approval, that staff was not necessarily supportive
of that, but in the end, the county commission approved that for,
I think, good reason, because they do have -- Championship Drive
offers full median access to the arterial roadway. It would be a
future signalized intersection. We know that for a fact, so -- we
also think that in the event that we are required to use our
frontage to build that road, you're going to hear from Dean Smith
in a moment, that we can safely design and engineer a roadway
system to serve our project.
I think on that, I'd like to go ahead and turn it over to I guess
Dean Smith, unless Mr. Yovanovich wants to say a few more
words. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those,
or feel free to call on me if you have them later.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any questions for Mr. Arnold?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have two questions. One is
what will be the standard for the RV that goes into your park?
Otherwise, would these be the upper end motor coach homes
that go in there, or do we end up with the pick-up truck with the
box on the back buying a lot and pulling in there?
So, I mean, I think there needs to be some -- some
clarification if something is written in this PUD that establishes a
standard that is compatible with the park in front.
MR. ARNOLD: We don't have any problem committing to you
on the record or in the PUD document some comfort level that
we are designing a high end traditional motor coach resort. I
know that's what Pelican Lake has. Silver Lake has a full mix of
Page 1t2
April 11, 2000
units, RV units. They have park model units, which are affixed to
the ground, and those remain there permanently. The only
permanent structure that you'll find in Pelican Lake is a storage
shed that they permit on the pad site. That is the direction we
are heading.
The property owner is here, and we'll certainly work out
whatever language you feel, but we are looking for a class A
motor coach resort.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would like to see that in
the PUD.
Second question is, somewhere I believe in these
discussions, your petitioner made a commitment to add land to
Rookery Bay in regards to his part of the mitigation efforts?
MR. ARNOLD: What we have talked about, this property -- it
hasn't really been mentioned that we have Tim Hall here, Turrell
& Associates, if we need to discuss that, but we are in an area
known as the Deltona settlement area, and I don't know how
familiar each of you are with that, but what that essentially did,
the County, South Florida and the Army Corps at one time were
in agreement that for all the lands that were being set aside, and
I think Ron Nino knows the acreage number, but it's around
15,000 acres I think that were set aside from environmentally
sensitive lands in tradeoff that certain units of Marco Island
would be developed, and this is in the area that -- agreed that
those units could be developed without any environmental
standard.
However, we do still have to go and satisfy our good friends
at the Army Corps of Engineers, and to do that, we have
identified a parcel that is adjacent to Collier Seminole State Park
as the area we intend to use for our own on-site mitigation. We
don't intend to go to CREW or the Panther Island mitigation bank.
We intend to -- we have essentially, I think I can safely say,
acquired a piece of property that we intend to use, and it's
roughly 150 acres, I think, for our mitigation of impacts to the
site.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smith.
MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, commissioners. Dean Smith
for the record.
There are a few points that I would like to make evident for
Page 113
April 11, 2000
your consideration this afternoon. As Chahram and Wayne, Mr.
Yovanovich all mentioned, the property under its existing zoning
could legally be developed with 413 mobile home units at this
point, so we are going to be reducing the traffic impact of the
project by approximately 30 percent over that just by the
reduction in the number of units.
In addition to that, the community will be amenitized so that
there are on-site recreational facilities, on-site convenience
stores so that the residents are not -- do not have as many needs
to leave the site for those kinds of items.
As has been discussed, Championship Drive is what's been
considered and what's being proposed as the main access to the
project, so the traffic analysis that we have done at this point
has all centered around that. We've done the analysis
considering that all of the project traffic enters and leaves
through Championship drive.
In addition to that, we have also included the adjacent uses.
We've included traffic for the Pelican Lake RV Resort, for the
existing golf driving range that's out at Collier Boulevard.
There's also a small vacant parcel behind the golf course, which
we've included 8t PUD mixed use type residential units for, and
we've also included at build-out an equivalent amount of traffic
to 600 units coming and going from the Fiddler's Creek project.
The entrance on Championship Drive for Fiddler's Creek is
one of five access points and is not one of the major accesses.
It's directly north of what would be considered the main access
on Collier Boulevard at Fiddler's Creek Parkway.
And in addition to that, Championship Drive is not a through
street, so there are not other background traffic considerations
to make on that. So, the conflicting movements for entering and
exiting traffic from our project is very reduced in that case.
The analysis that we provided showed that at project
build-out with those other contributions from the adjacent
projects, our project traffic, that Championship Drive still operate
at a LOSC level at peak season conditions.
As has been mentioned so far, if Pelican Lake were coming
in under the same consideration, they would be in the same
situation as us, and if they had to have an access point directly
off of Collier, would need to make a U-turn movement on Collier
Boulevard in order to come to their access point.
Page 114
April t 1, 2000
If the access through the strip parcel that is owned by the
developer for Champion Lakes RV were needed to be
constructed, there is a median access about 200 feet north of
that location, which is only used for access to an FPL easement
that's east of Collier Boulevard at this point.
The proposed strip parcel from our project is actually
directly centered between the access at the north end of Silver
Lakes and Championship Boulevard. So, if that were
necessitated to construct an entrance through that area, the
developer would want to pursue relocation of that median
opening and a possible directional median opening into the new
entrance, so it would provide for a much safer operational
condition.
The strip parcel is 72 feet wide, which if an access were
required in that area, provides sufficient width for us to
construct a two lane entrance road with appropriate buffering
from the adjacent residential uses.
Unless you have any questions, I really don't have anything
further to add to that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Any questions of Mr. Smith?
Okay. Thank you.
Do we need to hear now from Mr. Yovanovich? Do you have
anything else?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We have nothing further to add.
Obviously, we would like to respond to anything that the public
may say.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, reserve that right.
Mr. Pickworth?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Carter, you have six registered speakers.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Six registered speakers before
that. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: The first speaker would be Julie Kindsvater,
and since we have six speakers, I'll go ahead and call the second
speaker, and if the second speaker could be ready to come to
the podium. The second speaker is John LeNoury.
MS. KINDSVATER: Hello. My name is Julie Kindsvater, and I
live at 1574 Diamond Lake Circle. That is one of the properties
that is bordered by that strip of land, 72 foot strip of land.
I represent some of the owners at Silver Lakes. There's
quite a few of us, if you could just raise your hand. We are all
Page 115
April t t, 2000
very concerned about having a road access to Champion Lake
RV Resort via that 72 strip -- 72 foot strip of land. We are
concerned about the safety issue with the RVs turning into that
property to get to the park, and we are also concerned about our
privacy issues. A 25 foot buffer may seem a lot, but it doesn't
when it borders right up to the back of your RV.
We are not opposed to the rezoning for the RV park, but we
do oppose having that 72 foot strip of land used as access. We
would prefer to have Championship Drive used. It seems more
sensible to us and more logical that that would be the road used
to access the park. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
Next speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: John LeNoury. Following Mr. LeNoury would be
H. Harney Davey.
MR. LENOURY: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name
is John LeNoury, and I live at 1635 Silver Lakes -- or Diamond
Lakes Boulevard, sorry, in Silver Lakes Park.
It's interesting to see that we have many of the same
problems and solutions when it comes to planning and
developing. In my own hometown, I served nine years in that
capacity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God bless you.
MR. LENOURY: Thank you. At least somebody will.
I have a couple of addendure points. I won't make the points
that have already been made. We certainly are not opposed to
the project as such. My concern is with the turning facility if
they used -- had to use Championship Lake and turn back to get
into the park. With a 50 foot rig, as someone said, or a square
box, which I have, I attempted that my first night down here, and
it was quite an escapade to cross two lanes of Highway 951
where the speed limit is 55 miles per hour, supposedly, 60 to 70
is more like it most of the time, to get straightened around to go
back up because I missed the Silver Lakes entrance.
I'm also concerned about the width that would be available
on the roadway between the two parks. After making that
corner, if a person had to come back with a rig, you certainly
wouldn't get up to any kind of speed in order to -- in the flow of
traffic on the highway, and I would be concerned that as you
Page 116
April t 'l, 2000
came out to move around there to pull into that entranceway,
that you would not be able to get in from one lane. You would
have to pull your rig out more into the other lane as well to
straighten it to get into that two lane road.
When we are talking about car trips per day~ if we take the
500 sites at Silver Lakes~ the 400 I'm hearing now at Champion
Lakes~ and I'm not sure how many at Pelican~ but approximately
let's say 300~ we'd be looking at a thousand sites there. Even
though they have, for instance, the bus type vehicles~ many of
those vehicles do carry a car or another vehicle behind themr so
they are not limited to one vehicle per site. Many times there are
two. That could, with one trip per day, account for more than
2,000 car trips per day from three exits in less than a mile~ let
alone the traffic on 951.
It would appear to me from what I've seen and gone down
and driven around the area that Championship Boulevard would
be the best possible site. There may be future recommendations
that a light be put at Championship Boulevard to help that
turning and also to slow the traffic down on 951. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MR. DAVEY: Good afternoon, commissioners. Harney
Davey. I'm a resident of Pelican Lake RV Resort, and our
property abuts the proposal to use Championship Drive. There
are 38 other lot owners that abut that proposed entrance also.
We are not opposed to the rezoning of the area. I have two,
really three suggestions; one~ that if Championship Drive is
approved for extension, that the -- if overhead lines are to be
installed rather than -- for power, phone and cable~ that
consideration be given to placing those underground; second~
that the road would be paved prior to construction to eliminate
dust and noise; and third~ that a traffic light be considered to be
recommended to the state for the access onto 951. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
The next speaker.
MR. WEIGEL: The next speaker is Don Pickworth followed
by, I believe, Norm Wilder.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good afternoon~ commissioners. I'm Don
Page 117
April 11, 2000
Pickworth.
I have spoken with some of you about this project already,
and I appreciate you giving me adequate time to present our
concerns. I think in order for us to adequately present our
concerns about the comprehensive plan, we will have to,
perhaps, go through some things in a little bit more detail than
what was presented by the petitioner, so I beg your forgiveness.
I will try to handle this as quickly and expeditiously as possible.
I have also two witnesses here who signed up, but they're
speaking for me. Mr. Wilder and Mr. Pollack (phonetic) are here
to testify on a couple of issues here just on our side of this, so --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We still need to disclose our--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point, yeah.
I need to disclose that I spoke with both the petitioner and
his representatives and with Mr. Pickworth on this item.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Likewise.
NORRIS: I have had some contact, limited,
COMMISSIONER
but some.
COMMISSIONER
BERRY: I've had contact --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And note that Commissioner
Constantine is absent from the room.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Vice-Chairman, it sounds like
Mr. Pickworth wants to hold a trial here. I don't think that's
appropriate for what we want.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, he will be allotted his five
minutes, I think, Commissioner Norris, like anybody else and the
other people to make a presentation.
MR. PICKWORTH: Excuse me, Commissioner, am I limited to
five minutes?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. PICKWORTH: Let me say right now, I cannot make my
presentation in five minutes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would encourage you to
make your points as quickly as you could in the time allotted, sir.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you, sir.
You just stop me whenever you feel I can't go any further.
I guess probably the first thing to deal with is this access
issue, and if we could have David Weeks come up here, because
we've been using his name in vain all afternoon.
One of the things I've done is made some copies of some
Page 118
April t 1 ~ 2000
relevant documents that I'm going to speak off of just to kind of --
I think you probably have this but --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Point of order~ Mr. Chairman~ can
I just ask who they are representing. I'm not sure who they are
representing.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you~ he's correct. I represent the
developer of Pelican Lake, and Mr. Wilder is the general partner
of the developer.
I do not speak for the residents of Pelican Lake, and I'm not
representing that I am.
I guess the first thing we need to look at is the 1989 Future
Land Use Element~ which we spoke of. This is where the direct
access requirement comes from, and Mr. Weeks, would you
agree that that first sheet there that says 1989 FLUE is where
that requirement is contained? MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MR. PICKWORTH: I notice~ Mr. Weeks, that this simply says
that a TT RV park has to have direct access. MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. PICKWORTH: It doesn't say anything about intervening
roads or access off of it; it just says that; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. PICKWORTH: Pelican Lake was approved after this
came into effect?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. PICKWORTH: All right. Now~ Pelican Lake, by the
drawing, accesses onto Championship Drive. Now, why did
Pelican -- why did Pelican Lake meet the direct access
requirement?
MR. WEEKS: Staff interpreted that direct access could
include access from a road that connects to an arterial if there
was no intervening access to that road connecting to the
arterial.
MR. PICKWORTH: Do you agree with me that the driving
range at the time Pelican Lake was approved wasn't there then?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. PICKWORTH: So~ in other words~ Pelican Lake, there
were no intervening users between Pelican Lake and the
arterial?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
Page 119
April t t, 2000
MR. PICKWORTH: Is that the same case with Champion
Lake?
MR. WEEKS: In my opinion~ it's not.
MR. PICKWORTH: And that is --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to give you about two
minutes to get to where you need to be. As Commissioner Norris
said~ this is not a trial. It is -- you get an opportunity to make
your points, and your other people have a right to make their
points~ but we would like to move on~ get those points made.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Vice-Chairman, in order~ I think~ to
give Mr. Pickworth an adequate opportunity and probably not
subject the County or my client to a challenge that he was not
given due process~ I'm willing to waive the five minute
requirement and give him an opportunity, as long as we are not
going to be here all day~ and I don't think Don is going to have us
here that much longer with his questions~ to obviously waive on
behalf of my client the five minute -- the five minute requirement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Pickworth, if I may, you, as a
prior county attorney are as familiar as anybody in the world with
what the process is here~ and I've never been to a county
commission hearing where there were questions from the
examination and cross-examination.
I -- when we met, I fully understood your legal argument and
thought you had a good legal argument, as I told you, but the
normal process here is that you would come up and you would
make your argument to us. If you had something you wanted on
the record to preserve it for an appeal, you would submit it in
writing. I assume you've done that. Do you -- I don't understand
why the process is so different this time.
MR. PICKWORTH: I'll have to defer to your attorneys on
some of this. I mean~ obviously~ I have to -- I mean~ I have to~
obviously, make a record if the board should conclude that the
access requirements are other than what we believe they are~
and some of making this record necessarily involves the
testimony of county employees.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me interrupt here. I'm the
last person that ever likes to drag a meeting out any longer than
it needs to be. We do need to give Mr. Pickworth opportunity to
ask questions of staff and create a record.
You may recall the APAC situation.
Page 120
April 1 t ~ 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Varnadoe got to stand
there, and we could put a reasonable limit on that~ but it's not
necessarily limited to five minutes, and we've been through this
before, and rather than discuss it and argue about whether or not
he can, let's let him do his questions, and if you can do it in
another five minutes or so --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Actually, expedite the process
and give it to us in ten minutes or 15 minutes and not --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I mean, we're not going
to give you 30 minutes~ but if you need another five minutes or
another eight minutes or ten minutes to go where you need to go
and get those questions on, let's --
MR. PICKWORTH: I think in ten minutes or so. Thank you
very much. I watched the APAC on television, and believe me, I
won't take even a fraction of that time.
Okay. We were discussing Pelican Lake~ and I believe~ Mr.
Weeks~ you testified~ Pelican Lake has direct access because
there were no intervening property owners. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
MR. PICKWORTH: Championship Lake~ in your view~ would
not have direct access under that definition because there are~
in fact, intervening users.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
The second document is the -- I've labeled it at the top EAR
amendment. It's Page 2 in the documents I've passed out to
everybody. You'll see I've highlighted down there on the bottom
the requirements of the FLUE~ of the EAR amendments.
To save time, I'll read it; the site has direct principal access
to a road classified as an arterial. Direct principal access
defined as driveway and/or roadway connection to the arterial
road with no access points from intervening properties.
Mr. Weeks, is that consistent with the interpretation that
you have applied in dealing with these issues ever since the
1989 FLUE?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
MR. PICKWORTH: The next document I would ask about is --
it's Page 4. It's a memorandum written by you.
I take it that in the process of reviewing PUDs, your
Page 121
April 1 t, 2000
department reviews PUD requests? MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. PICKWORTH: Do they review them for comp. plan
consistency?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
MR. PICKWORTH: Did you conclude that the RV uses in this
project were consistent?
MR. WEEKS: Based upon staff's interpretation, no, sir, I did
not.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
The next document I ask you about is -- there's a letter in
here dated July 26, 1990, and this, as you may recall, involved
some property on Tower Road.
Was Tower Road a residential street?
MR. WEEKS: It was considered that it was or could be
considered a residential street in the sense that there were
some intervening parcels that were either zoned for residential
uses or had the potential to be zoned for residential uses.
MR. PICKWORTH: Could be zoned for it?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. PICKWORTH: I call your attention to the sentence in
the last paragraph, the second sentence, a single local road
providing access to an arterial is not consistent with the intent
of direct access.
That was the case here in the KOA, right?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
Let me refer you to the staff report in this case, and I refer
to Page 3. This is not -- it is not in that. This is part of the staff
agenda package.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
MR. PICKWORTH: This was the memorandum to the
planning commission dated February 16th. I'll refer you to Page
3. The very top of the page starting at the third line where it
says direct access, if I could read that, if you'll permit me. Direct
access has previously -- has been previously interpreted to mean
connection through a private roadway or driveway and does not
require a physical connection to an arterial roadway.
Based on your previous interpretations, isn't there
something left out of that sentence?
Page 122
April t t, 2000
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MR. PICKWORTH: And what is it that was left out?
MR. WEEKS: That there be no intervening parcels.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
I call your attention to the next paragraph, in particular, the
last sentence. It is staff's opinion that the proposed Champion
Lake RV Resort PUD is also consistent with this revised text,
referring to the EAR amendment, as the project has access to an
arterial, and the proposed access to the site does not require
access via a residential street.
Now, Championship Drive is not a residential street; is that
correct?
MR. WEEKS: It could be argued that it is because it provides
access to a residential project, that being Fiddler's Creek.
MR. PICKWORTH: All right. On the other hand, if the
restriction that you through interpretation have applied since
1989, which is that there be no intervening property users, if this
is restricted only to residential streets, would you agree that that
would be an expansion of the area within which RV parks could
locate as opposed to the interpretation you have applied?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, I would.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, can I ask staff a question?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is Mr. Pickworth done?
MR. PICKWORTH: I just have a couple more points.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When you're done. I thought you
were.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
I guess by way of quick argument, because I think it's pretty
obvious where we're going here, the comp. plan has provided
since t 989 for a requirement of direct access. That has been
consistently interpreted as meaning there could be no
intervening property users, and I agree that that interpretation
has not been made by the board of county commissioners in a
land use petition up to this time, and I'm not arguing that it has
been.
However, in 1997, the board adopted the EAR amendments,
and you have a copy of them there, and I think it's pretty clear
that what it says is what Mr. Weeks just says it is, no intervening
users, and this project would not meet that standard.
Page 123
April 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pickworth, you don't argue
that the one 72 foot wide strip down the center meets that; your
only argument is Championship Drive; is that correct?
MR. PICKWORTH: That's correct. I mean, look, there's no
question whether it's a good idea, but no, it does meet that
standard and Championship Drive doesn't, that is correct, sir.
I have '-
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If the subject property was not
rezoned as an RV park with single family, multi-family use, you
would not be standing here making this argument?
MR. PICKWORTH: That is correct. That is correct because
that restriction in the comp. plan applies only to TT RV uses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weeks, if the board were to
disagree with your interpretation today, would that be the first
time it has happened in your career with Collier County? MR. WEEKS: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pickworth, you need to wrap
MR. PICKWORTH: Well, I don't think I have any more
comments at this time, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you for giving me time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have other speakers, Mr.
Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: The only two you had were also part of Mr.
Pickworth's team, Norm Wilder and Joe Pollack, but I think that
was part of their presentation there.
MR. PICKWORTH: They are not going to testify.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a couple of pertinent
questions I need to ask.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: According to Mr. Pickworth, the
comp. plan requires that this project have direct access with no
intervening parcels using the same roadway. Well, they have
that with that 72 foot access. MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That doesn't necessarily mean
that they are precluded from using Championship Drive, does it?
Page 124
April t t ~ 2000
MR. WEIGEL: No, but I think to be very correct here, the
comp. plan does not go to quite the detail concerning the
intervening -- no intervening users on the road. That was
adopted, made policy through the future land use designation
that came afterwards.
In the intervening timej it has been the staff interpretation
that there would not be any intervening residential properties
accessing the road.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And secondly to my questionj my
first question, my second question is~ do we as the board have
the right to waive the requirement in any case that there be no
intervening roadways~ parcels using the roadway?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that you can come to that
interpretation under the comp. plan. what Mr. --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How do we -- how do we define
access, must have access?
MR. WEIGEL: Well~ we're talking --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does it have to be paved?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't there a definition in the
comp. plan of the word access? I think there is.
MR. MULHERE: There is in the Collier County land
development code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is the reference into the
comp. plan.
MR. MULHERE: It's defined as the principal means of
ingress and egress with a public or private -- Chahram has an
LDC here. We can read it into the record if you wish, but it does
not have to be paved~ Commissioner Constantine.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because where I'm going is -- I
mean, we've pointed out there's an entrance into Fiddler's -- what
is it -- Fiddler's Creekj there are five different entrances. I
suspect this one isn't the main one, but if every car going into
Fiddler's Creek chose to use this one, that certainly would be
their option.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
prohibit that.
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
There wouldn't be anything to
It might be more convenient for
Page 125
April t t, 2000
some people than it is for others, that's why there's five different
entrances. If there are two entrances to -- what's this project
called?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Champion Lakes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- Champion Lakes, and one of
them is more convenient and one of them happens to be a dirt
road or just, you know, green or less convenient for traffic to go
on, it still meets the legal qualification of access, and if traffic '-
if 100 percent of the traffic chooses to go on Championship
Drive, then you've both met the legal requirement and the
convenience of the residents.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think technically, commissioners, but I
don't even think you have to go there, because I think what Mr.
Pickworth was saying is that there was a staff opinion as to what
the comprehensive plan meant. There was never a formal staff
interpretation nor was there ever a formal board interpretation
as to what the comprehensive plan means.
So, the argument of the intervening access has never come
to you. So, I think you could say it never -- staff may have that
opinion that a residential access point is intervening, but you
certainly haven't given that interpretation. If you did, 951 would
be a residential street.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There are two issues here. One
is the technical, have you met the letter of the law '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- and the scenario I described,
yes, you have.
The second is, shall we apply common sense, and common
sense clearly indicates you want to be by the curb cut and so on,
the median cut, and so I think you can meet both those hurdles.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I would argue that you -- the
common sense interpretation, if you give it that interpretation, is
the letter of the law, because you make the interpretation of the
comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I just have to
comment too that, you know, every now and then we get to do
something that just makes sense instead of it's technically
correct, and this seems to be one of those times where the legal
argument just is too technical, doesn't make sense.
It appears that the basis for the legal argument is
Page 126
April 11, 2000
competition. We see competition coming in. Is there a legal
basis by which we could stop it, and God bless you for making a
good, thorough legal examination and a good~ thorough legal
argument~ but common sense --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's close the public hearing,
and what's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: One question for the petitioner.
There was an issue raised about paving the road back there
before it's used. Are you in a position to go ahead and pave that
road so that we don't have the dust and --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely we are going to do that~ and~
Commissioner~ you also wanted us to assure you that it would be
class A motor coaches, we will do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Then there was a question
about putting utilities underground. I don't know whether that's
an issue that we can address or not. I don't think it is.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's up to the utility companies,
unfortunately, to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can we get the road paved, and it
can be a class A park.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mulhere~ you look like you
have something you'd like to add.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I forgot to mention my name
before when I spoke. I'm Bob Mulhere~ planning director, and I
did just want to put on the record that we wanted to provide the
opportunity for Mr. Pickworth to ask the questions of staff, and
that's why David Weeks is here.
I do want to indicate that as the planning director, it's my
responsibility to determine what the comprehensive plan
interpretation is at a staff level. I felt it was sufficiently
ambiguous, given this situation~ that it was an issue that really
needed to be brought before the board as part of this process for
your determination~ and I would also ask that if you would give
us direction~ we will go back in and look at that language and
make it clear so that we don't have another, sort of ambiguous
situation down the road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval subject
to the stipulations that Commissioner Carter just discussed with
the applicant and also with the direction to staff that they clarify
Page 127
April 1 t, 2000
the language in the appropriate ordinances. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Before we call the question too,
I know when I was being briefed in the back, you-all did
disclosure, and I did have contact with both parties on this as
well.
Further discuss?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
Motion carries five-oh.
Item #14A
UPDATE ON THE BRUSH FIRE IN SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES- PRESENTED
Time for an update from the fire, which apparently is not
improving at all, County Road 951, Collier Boulevard '-
COMMISSIONER CARTER: While they're coming up here,
Don Pickworth, I did not mean to cut you off but only trying to
stay in our framework that we give everybody equal time here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Back to the issue at hand. It
appears Collier Boulevard, County Road 951 -- if you could exit
quietly, please, we still need to conduct business -- 95t may be
closed. Mr. McNees, what's the latest?
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, Mike McNees from the county
administrator's office. I've just put in your hands about a 12:30
version of a map from the forestry department that shows the
burned area as of that time. As you can see, the head of the fire
is moving westward along the Sabal Palm Road area.
Captain Storrar from the sheriff's office is here to talk about
specifically some voluntary evacuations that have been ordered.
Most importantly, we are trying to alert people, anyone in the
951 corridor from the neighborhood of U.S. 41 north to Davis
Boulevard needs to stay tuned to the local media. We are putting
out continuous press releases. This fire is continuing to move to
the west-northwest, and it has -- is a serious fire. We want
people in that neighborhood to be aware, be concerned.
951 is closed as of this point except for all but evacuation
traffic, and Captain Storrar is going to talk to you some more
Page 128
April 11, 2000
about all that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What portion of 951 is closed?
MR. McNEES: From U.S. 41 to Davis due to smoke.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Tom Storrar for the Collier County
Sheriff's Office. As Mr. McNees said, we are in the process as
we speak of closing 951 between Davis Boulevard and U.S. 41.
We have a voluntary evacuation for those residences and
businesses east of 951. I would add that we are using very
strong language that those people need to leave, and they need
to leave now. We've coordinated with emergency management
that we're going to open the Golden Gate Community Center as
an emergency shelter. We have deputies standing by there as
we speak to receive people in to try to assist them in any way we
need to assist them, and also, the Red Cross will be notified for
their usual role in this situation.
Again, we are asking people to stay tuned to radio and
television. Both public information offices of the County and the
sheriff are putting up updates constantly. The command post is
moving so we can get closer to the fire and get an assessment
on it.
We have notified Lely Elementary and Edison Community
College. The Lely Elementary School is in the process of closing
right now as we speak so we can get those kids out of there and
get them out of harm's way.
We also have called in additional people to assist in the
voluntary evacuation and have put a number of people on
stand-by, should we need the additional law enforcement
resources, we are standing by, ready to respond in a moment's
notice.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are we on radio and TV, Tom?
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Yes, ma'am, we are. We've been on for
probably the past hour.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we using Channel 54, Tom?
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was asking if we're using
Channel 54.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're on it right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I mean, are we going to use
Page t 29
April t 1, 2000
it to roll? Can that be a place '-
MR. OLLIFF: We are, and I know they are -- in fact, I just
pulled them out of the middle of preparing some additional public
service announcements that we're not only going to blast fast to
all the media but will be running on 54 as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if they need to scroll
underneath this very interesting meeting, that's more important,
frankly, than just about anything else we're going to do.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is there any help that we need
from the governor's office at this point, National Guard or
anybody?
CAPTAIN STORRAR: We have the National Guard with us,
and I was just advised by field units there are two additional
National Guard helicopters inbound to assist with the present
resources that we've had responding to it.
Obviously, our concern is if it hits the 951 corridor, if it
jumps to the west, we are going to have some serious problems,
and they are going to set some back fires east of Sabal Palm to
try and slow this thing down, but right now, the reports I'm
getting from the field are that it's still burning out of control.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what kind of time -- I mean I
understand we'd just be basing it on the history of the fire so far,
how it has been moving, but if it is going to get to and jump 951,
is that tonight as a possibility, this afternoon, tomorrow
morning?
CAPTAIN STORRAR: I think later this afternoon or early this
evening that is a possibility if we can't slow this thing down.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that's why the urgency in
your voice when you say people in that area should be
evacuating now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right now.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Absolutely. Right now is the time to
leave.
MR. MCNEES: And people west of 951 stay tuned minute to
minute as to the development regarding the fire, because we
want those people to be alert also, not just those in this
evacuation area, because if it were to reach 951 by early this
evening, we've got concerns in that area.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're going to be here a short
while yet. Could we get another update before we adjourn?
Page 130
April i 1 ~ 2000
MR. OLLIFF: We will.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Mike.
Thank you very much.
Thanks,
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 2000-22 AMENDING ORDINANCE 90-111, AS
AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED
Item 12( C )( 1 ), recommendation on
hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
discussion?
There were no public speakers on this item?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
aye.
-- I'll close the public
Any
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor, please state
Motion carries five-oh.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 2000-23 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-69, AS
AMENDED, REGARDING INOCULATION OF COCONUT PALM
TREES AGAINST LETHAL YELLOWING DISEASE - ADOPTED
Item 12(C)(2).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Move for recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move for recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I did.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second
for the authorization to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance
89-69.
There was no public on this item?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
Page 131
April t 4, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
We'll call the question, all those
Motion carries five-oh.
Item #12C3
ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY'S
NOISE ORDINANCE, NO. 90-t7 - CONTINUED TO MAY 23, 2000
That takes us to the noise ordinance, 12(C)(3).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before we get into this, could
somebody give me some background to make me understand,
what's broken that we are fixing or that staff is proposing to fix
by this ordinance?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think Tom Palmer can address
that, because we gave direction to staff to take a look at
updating this ordinance and the equipment that -- necessary to
monitor noise, and I think that is what Tom Palmer is about to
tell us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll give you the extremely
boiled down version. Part of it is not just noise volume but also
the type of noise, because there are different frequencies that
may not be measured by simply a decibel meter.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sort of a technical amendment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MR. PALMER: Commissioners, Tom Palmer, assistant county
attorney.
Last spring, the board of county commissioners gave a
general commission to the county attorney's office to take a look
at the then existing noise ordinance and come back to you with
what would be perceived to be improvement subject to, of
course, your discretion. You have a wide discretion on this
matter. There's no compelling reason to do anything or even
adopt the ordinance as is or anything in between. This is a
matter of policy.
Page 132
April 11, 2000
There are some technical matters here, and, therefore, we
retained some consultants. They are known as Midwest
Environmental Assistance Center, and two of the consultants are
here, a Mr. Casey Caccavari and Mr. Howard Schechter. Mr.
Schechter drove down from the Chicago area and brought some
visual aids and some audio aids to try to give the effect of what
this ordinance will do.
There are some major changes to this ordinance. Number
one, it has a new table two which allows a more refined testing
known as octave band testing, which is more precise than
A-weighted level testing, which is the only testing in the now
existing ordinance. A-weighted leveling has a tendency to sort of
round off sounds, and it is not a real definitive measure. Octave
band testing cuts the life -- the loaf of bread into nine slices and
analyzes each slice from very low sounds to very high sounds
and everything in between, and they don't get rounded off.
The ordinance also has provisions in it for vibration. Now,
these are not noise standards. These can be airborne and
groundborne, but they are outside the parameter of noise
standards.
This ordinance has been analyzed in view of normal
ordinances, 117 like ordinances, but there has been local testing,
and the numbers in this ordinance are based on the local
ambient noise and the local circumstances, and our consultants
have told us that we have a remarkably unique situation in
Collier County by having low daytime and nighttime ambient
noise levels in general, they are remarkable, and this ordinance
is -- the numbers in table one and table two are based on a
detailed analysis of the existing situation.
The numbers between table one and table two logically
interrelate. There are some other material changes, number one
is that the ambient noise level is the controlling factor. Any
noise that violates this ordinance must violate the ambient noise
level by at least five decibels, and in the real world, it's seven
because if it's five, there's a two decibel factor in favor of the
violator because of imprecision of the equipment. So, really, the
numbers in here really have to exceed the ambient noise level at
the testing site by seven decibels at least.
So, the numbers are not static numbers. They are based on
the real world situation.
Page 133
April 11, 2000
Mr. Casey Caccavari wants to address the board and give
you a general overview of the efforts that are made by our
consultants, and Mr. Schechter would like to explain to you some
of the details of the local noise study, a few examples of the
testing sites from where the numbers arrive and an explanation
as to the merits and demerits of A-weighted testing and octave
band testing, and unless you have any questions, with that, I can
turn it over to our consultants.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's do that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Palmer, one last --just a
question. What did you say about the average -- something about
the community noise or something?
MR. PALMER: At the ambient noise level, that's the noise
that just -- the real world noise during the day where most of us
are oblivious to it, but at some times, for example, on a major
highway, it's quite high, but we get accustomed to it, and we
don't notice it.
He has some audio sounds here which I think may surprise
you as to what the ambient noise level really sounds like during
the day in a busy sector.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In other words -- and you said, I
believe, in Collier-- in this area, it's relatively low? MR. PALMER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Did I understand you correctly?
MR. PALMER: As a matter of fact, they described it to staff
as being unique in that regard.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You know, I've been wondering
all day why the finest speaker in the universe, Klipsch, was
sitting out here, and now I know.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it just brings to mind that
even with those noisy airplanes at the airport, we still have
relatively low noise.
MR. PALMER: They are a particular sound, and they are, of
course, exempt from the ordinance. They are under federal
regulations.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand, but nevertheless, the
overall noise level '-
MR. PALMER: The overall sort of background noise during
the day here in Collier County is remarkably unique.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Like a subway station.
Page 134
April 11, 2000
MR. PALMER: And one of the ideas behind the existing
ordinance is to work from there rather than work from some
higher, sort of generalized standard that may work well in, say,
Chicago, for example-- I have nothing against Chicago, but I
think you'll find that the ambient noise level in Chicago far
exceeds that of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are you going to show us what the
noise level might be in Chicago as opposed to what it is here?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Wonderful, I want to hear this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Especially at Buddy Guy's Blues
Club in Chicago.
MR. PALMER: I would like to point out one thing, because
the consultants -- and I want to apologize for the consultants.
We misunderstood that, in fact, this item was scheduled before
noon, and we actually said you could go to lunch, this matter will
be taken up in the afternoon, so we apologize for that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, well. Thank you.
MR. PALMER: I would like to -- they have made this -- the
consultants have made last minute changes, and I would like to
walk you through it because they feel that they're more
compatible, and these are relaxations of the standards in the
ordinance, and I'll point them out.
One of them is on table two on Page 3, this has to deal with
noise that is measured at residential sites. The time period for
daytime is presently 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The proposed
ordinance took that back to 7:00 p.m., but they would like to take
that back out to ten, subject to your approval, because they feel
that is more compatible with U.S. EPA standards. They consider
daytime to be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
So, those changes are on the residential line in table one,
and they are also on Lines 3 and 4 on Page 4, Line 17 on Page 4
and Line 35 on Page 5. They all do the same thing. They merely
make daytime 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
I wanted to get that on the record because that is their
recommendation before we might get into a debate about that
three hour time span.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Let's go to the presentation.
MR. CACCAVARI: Thank you. My name is Casey Caccavari.
Page 135
April 11, 2000
I'm the manager of the Southwest Florida office of MEAC. Mr.
Schechter is a director from the Chicago office.
Before I start, I would like to offer my thanks to the county
attorney's office, the code enforcement group and their
inspectors for all the help they gave us in setting up to do the
monitoring. Without their help, we couldn't have gotten very far.
We also want to extend our thanks to the citizens and some of
the commercial establishments who allowed us on their
premises, provided us with secure space for the expensive
equipment we had out there. So, we owe a lot to them.
I would like to start out and just give you a little background
about MEAC so you know who we represent and what we've
done. MEAC has been around for about 20 years. Between Mr.
Schechter and myself, we have about 75 years' experience in
industrial noise control and community noise control, and out of
that 75 years -- 70 is not mine. He shares part of that.
Anyway, my own personal background, I was a national
program manager for the U.S. EPA noise program. My
responsibility was to develop state and local noise programs. As
a matter of fact, I had grants for the State of Florida in
Tallahassee. I had one with Hillsborough County, and I have a
couple others here in this state; also, to set up test centers, one
in each of the ten regions, and the one for this region of EPA was
Florida State, and they provide assistance to state and local
government to set up their program, so it was a unique support
system for state and local government.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, sir, I'll make a motion
that we recognize you as an expert, and let's just move on with
the -- if somebody would like to '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to recognizing his
expertise?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Fine.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. CACCAVARI: We were called by Collier County to set up
a noise survey of the county. The instructions were to take a
look at all the different zoning areas, our residential tourist to
commercial, commercial to commercial, industrial to residential
and to select sites representative of those areas.
Well, in order to select the sites, what we did request from
the code enforcement staff is a list of all the complaints they've
Page 136
April 11, 2000
had over the last couple of years. This would give us a better
feel for what are the kinds of problems that currently exist in
Collier County. Going through that, we find that -- and I guess it's
something that occurs in all of Southwest Florida is noise from
karaoke out their bars. That seems to be the number one noise
problem. The other things we found were air conditioning
problems and industrial noise. So, we selected sites in those
areas from their complaint file and went out there to do our 24
hour study.
The types of measurements we did at each of these sites,
we did three different measurements. First, the 24 hour study,
and you'll be seeing -- Mr. Schechter will be presenting some of
the data and showing one hour -- hour-by-hour average over that
24 hour period. In actuality, those of you who have looked at the
report, we did put in a few of the charts that showed that during
that 24 hour period, we actually got a minute by minute readout,
1440 minutes -- 1440 measured points at each of those locations.
The second type of measurements we did were what we call
octave band, which is the way we're proposing that the
ordinance monitor noise, and we did it two ways; one, with a
real-time analyzer. We could set it out there for ten minutes and
then do the analysis right through the instrument itself.
The third method was what we called a handheld, which will
be very similar to the instrumentation that we are proposing, if
Collier County decides to adopt this ordinance, that they
purchase to do the enforcement. This has some little benefits
over the real time analyzer. It sits there and just takes in all the
noise, and the listener or the person who's doing the observing
and measuring can actually discern what sources are making
that needle move at any given time in each of the octave bands.
So, you can identify different sources just by looking at the
meter. The real time analyzer can't do that. And Mr. Schechter
will present all the data.
And as Tom mentioned, we were a little astounded by the
data we found in most of Collier County. It's a semi-pristine
environment. We have never been in an area where the low
frequency noise was so low, and it's just unique, and we sort of
banged our heads together and said, no, we've never seen this
before, and Mr. Schechter did a hundred site national noise
survey for EPA, and we never found that anywhere in the United
Page t37
April 1 t ~ 2000
States, so this was a unique situation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're the quietest place you've
ever been, but you think we might better amend our ordinance to
be more strict on enforcing noise violations.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No~ that's not what I'm hearing.
I'm hearing that we need more sophisticated equipment in a
basis for which we make our decisions.
MR. CACCAVARI: We'll cover that as we go.
At any rate, the low frequency noise is not present~ and as
Tom was starting to explain, the octave band~ it takes all the
noise you hear, and those of you who are musically inclined, it
measures 31 cycles per second, a tone, 63~ 125 -- it keeps
doubling for nine octaves~ and middle C~ for those of you who
play piano, is 250 cycles. So, you're taking three octaves below
and five octaves above~ and the beauty of the octave band is
every source has a signature, a noise signature. With the octave
band analyzer, a code enforcement officer can identify which
source is the culprit because he knows what pitches they're
generating~ and he can relate them back.
With dBA, a dBA meter~ if you take a look at the octave
bands that it's measuring~ at the very lows, it's cutting the noise
off 25 decibels~ and it's more shaped to how we hear
subjectively, and that's what the aid was designed for, but it's a
very poor tool for enforcement.
We also reviewed conflicts to other legislation or
regulations. We have been in clearance with the blasting and
vibration ordinance from that regulation, and there is no conflict
with this ordinance and that.
We also reviewed the preemptions by the federal
government. The federal government just preempts Collier
County from setting standards against railroads~ interstate
trucks and motorcycles; although you are allowed to enforce
their regulations if you so desire. They won't object to it.
Now, the benefits to this, of course, it's a much more
powerful tool for the code enforcement.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that's where we are headed
with this. What we have right now~ it's very difficult to enforce.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right~ and~ you know~ we are
using model T equipment in the 21st century, so --
MR. CACCAVARI: And another benefit from this is that the
Page 138
April 11, 2000
violator will now be able to get information from the code
enforcement officers on his source of noise that he can now
identify how he might go at it and approach solving the problem,
which will be more economical for him. For example, high
frequencies you can dissipate quickly with some absorbing
material, as a quick example. Low frequencies, you don't do so
well. You need massive structures to stop it, but given this kind
of information, they know where they can start.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm still working on the
ordinance to ban karaoke singing in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nobody can have any fun in Collier.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's right. It's not allowed.
MR. CACCAVARI: One of the only downsides of any
ordinance like -- but I don't think you'll have the problem here in
Collier County, because we've already met most of the code
enforcement officers, and they are well qualified to handle this.
Many enforcement officers are afraid to touch this new
sophisticated equipment. They are nervous about going into
court to defend it, and I don't think you're going to have that
problem here. Your code enforcement people are pretty well
trained up to this point with the EPA and understand what we're
doing, and they've been out with us while we were doing the
survey.
So, now what I'd like to do is turn it over to Mr. Schechter
and have him present some of the information we've collected
here in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Including some sounds on the
world's finest speakers, Klipsch.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's looking for an endorsement
contract.
MR. SCHECHTER: In view of the critical nature of the real
world phenomena that's going on out there this afternoon, which
is certainly a health and safety issue, I'm going to try to cut back
on some of the presentation that I wanted to give you. I'll leave
you the discretion of telling me how far I can go in view of the
fire conditions that are inherited of this afternoon's situation.
We did two types of, as Casey mentioned, types of surveys
in the Collier County area, and any type of community noise
program begins with a regulation that's molded to the
environment of which it has to operate, and in many instances,
Page 139
April 11, 2000
many communities throughout the country have made mistakes
in that they try to pass somebody else's noise numbers in order
to get a noise regulation, and it don't reflect their own acoustic
climate or environment. That mistake hasn't been made here in
Collier County.
Instead, we went around, we made recordings for an eight
day period in various different types of zoning districts. I have an
example of three of them that we are going to go over today, and
I'd like to start with the first, which is a high-rise district, and if
we could have someone zoom in on that display right now.
Someone should be doing that in the control room.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, Kady, take us there.
MR. SCHECHTER: And please leave it on the display so I
can quickly go through this, without scanning back to me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Quickly the operative word.
MR. SCHECHTER: Now, these 24 hour numbers were made
so that we could get an idea of how the sound changes from
daytime to nighttime in a particular area. These are done in
terms of the dBA. Now, you might wonder, well, you just said the
dBA is, you know, something that we should replace. Well, we
are not replacing the dBA. We are leaving the discretion of
A-weighted measurements to the inspectors. However, in
instances where there's a particular kind of frequency problem,
Collier County will now have the flexibility of this octave band
measurement technique.
Now, this -- this particular high-rise 24 hour contour, which
started at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ran for 24 hours -- each of
those little boxes represent one hour of data -- and ran for 24
hours to the following 5:30 p.m. -- shows how the levels go down
at night and rise up once again during the daytime.
There are two types of numbers that are up there, one's in
green and the other is in blue. The green number represents
what we call the LEQ. Now, there's somewhat of a misnomer
here about ambient and background, those two words, and to the
acousticjan, ambient could mean all the sounds including every
bird that chirped next to the microphone, every dog that barked,
every motorcycle that was idling, every plane that went over.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What about leaf blowers?
MR. SCHECHTER: Every leaf blower that's going on, which I
think in this regulation, it's exempted. That's a -- this includes all
Page t40
April 11, 2000
transitory events -- well, wait a minute now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait, so the things that people
are complaining about like leaf blowers, we are not going to
change?
MR. SCHECHTER: Not completely, but let me -- let me -- let
me just tell you that the way we set the numbers here is that we
know we had to be above the background sound which is in your
environment, and when we say we have to correct for ambient,
what we're really saying is we're correcting for that low blue
number that you see below the green line. That is your
background level.
When you walk outside in your environment and there isn't a
leaf blower going on or a dog barking or a bird chirping, when you
walk outside your house in the lanai at night and you listen to the
sound of what you consider your neighborhood, your acoustic
climate, that's the background soundy and it's that number that is
much lower than the ambient number.
The numbers that we've decided to use here in Collier
County are the green numbers in terms of octave bands. Soy
we've given industry and the commercial people a little bit of an
opportunity to continue to operate with more or less the way
they have so far except for the instance where the sound has
particular tonal characteristics.
In the case of karaoke barsy for example~ if you could show
that, Casey, we made measurements of -- at one of the
complainant areas, which is a commercial to commercial
districty which was the Red Roof Inn, and the Red Roof Inn was
complaining about a bar across the street that ran until one or
two o'clock in the morning. Before we got down here to make
the assessment, I believe a citation had already been issued to
the bary and the result was -- this is a very simple scenario. The
bar simply turned the volume downy and we are going to show
you an example of one of these octave band analyses so you can
see what the difference is when the volume is turned up and the
volume is turned downy and if you could put that upy Casey.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thisy againy was a problem that a
current ordinance was able to address?
MR. SCHECHTER: Unfortunatelyy this was a problem the
current ordinance was not able to addressy and the reason why it
couldn't is the actual problem~ the actual problem with this
Page 141
April 11, 2000
particular site is that this dBA number wasn't high enough above
the regulation, your current regulation to deal with the fact when
the karaoke music is very loud, it exceeds our recommended
numbers by as much as ten DB. However, when the karaoke '-
when the bar is still operating and they don't have the volume up,
you can plainly see from the green line here that they meet the
specifications of our proposed regulation. So, it isn't as if we're
trying to tell them to go out of business. What we're trying to say
is turn the volume down for those particular frequencies.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, the green line or-- I don't
know what color. There's a line here that says once they turn
the volume down, they would comply with the new ordinance as
proposed.
MR. SCHECHTER: Yes, in terms of octave bands.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Everybody still had a good time
and could sing and do everything they wanted to do, all they had
to do is turn the volume down a little bit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can live with that.
MR. SCHECHTER: Now, the next site we'd like to go to was
-- this was a commercial/commercial site. This one is an
industrial to residential site, and in this instance, we made the
measurements at the nearest complainant's property line, which
was actually 300 feet from the district boundary of the industrial
source. So we were quite far back, and this site shows where
we set the 24 hour mike, and this mike over here, this is where
we made our octave band measurements, which is this
frequency thing that we are proposing to amend.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wish I knew where Abbey on
the Lake is, but I don't.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's on Imperial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's there in the room, but it's
North Naples, Imperial -- north, north.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's right -- you go through the gate
into Imperial and '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got you. Thanks.
It's not hard to figure out what industrial user we are talking
about here.
MR. SCHECHTER: We also did a 24 hour study at this
location, and you'll please note that it started during a weekend
day, which is a Sunday, and moved to a weekday day. Now part
Page142
April 11, 2000
-- one of the provisions in this regulation deals with weekends
and weekdays and hours of operation in that regard, but notice
how much difference there is in this dBA data between daytime
during the weekend and during the weekday when a particular
industrial source starts up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you show us which is
weekend and -- because we can't read it well enough?
MR. SCHECHTER: Weekend is over here. This started at
110011.
~R. OLLIFF: You n~d to us~ th~ wall mike.
MR. SCHECHTER: This started at noon. During the evening,
until about midnight, until about midnight, the levels fell to as
low as 38 dBA here in this particular area, and then in this
particular instance, the industrial source turns on about 1:00
a.m. in the morning, and the levels, you can see, start to rise
until about 3:00 a.m. They are actually at daytime level before
it's daytime yet, but this is just a particular instance.
Many and most of the industrial sources that we found in
Collier County actually begin at 7:00 a.m. in the morning, which
are the numbers we are proposing for the start.
Now, that was the 24 hour survey. This -- this represents
the difference in daytime levels -- I mean nighttime levels for the
various octave band frequencies, and you'll please note that
even with the industrial source in operation, which is the reddish
purple line that you see here, most of the octave band
frequencies are within the standard as far as we are proposing it.
In this instance, there's only one particular tone that's causing a
problem to the community, and we've made provisions in the
regulation for this type of discrete tone, and I happen to have an
audio example of what this sounds like relative to that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm dying to hear it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I want to hear it. I want to hear
the noise.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think this will be the answer to
my why are we here question. I think it's coming right here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What -- what I think I'm hearing is
an opportunity to isolate particular problems so that corrective
action could be taken and not make it an overall punitive effect
on someone, and that's what makes an enormous amount of
sense to me.
Page 143
April '1 '1, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, under the new ordinance, you
would be notified there's a problem and you should correct it
instead of there's a problem and here's your fine.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Here's your fine, right. And
instead of being a broad base application, maybe it's a very
narrow, defined correction that needs to be taken in an issue.
MR. SCHECHTER: That's a really important point before I
play this, because in most instances, if you just have a dBA
regulation, you have to bring the overall level of the entire plant
down.
In this instance, all you have to do is the old one particular
source that's causing a problem, and that's very cost-effective.
Casey didn't mention it, but he was the head of the Chicago
noise program for a number of years, and I worked with him there
in the early '70s.
We had 2,000 complaints in a two year period. Of those
2,000 complaints that would include a large number of industrial
sources, there was only one industrial source on the south side
of Chicago that just decided it couldn't meet the standards. We
are talking about hundreds of industrial sources that met the
standards, and in reality, we've provided for you numbers that
are totally unique to Collier County. The lower frequencies, we
are ranking them a little bit more strict because you don't have a
lot of medium and heavy industry right now. The higher
frequency numbers are actually a bit higher than Chicago, and
the reason for this is you have winds that blow through palm
trees. Palm trees make a rattle in the high frequencies. If you
were to use the Chicago numbers, which are much lower, you'd
never reach those here. So, you'll notice that our numbers are a
bit higher at the high end and a little bit lower at the low end,
just so it meets the requirements of your particular acoustic
climate, not somebody else's.
Anyway, the first sound you're going to hear through these
speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The Klipsch speakers?
MR. SCHECHTER: Yes, the Klipsch speakers which I
brought from Chicago from our acoustics lab which we use for
our demonstration purposes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fine speakers.
MR. SCHECHTER: They are, indeed, very fine speakers; very
Page 144
April 11, 2000
good low frequency responses, I'm sure you're about to find out.
The first sound you're going to hear here is about a minute
of typical ambient noise, which is between this line and the
regulation. I'm going to turn it on right now. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that it?
MR. SCHECHTER: That's a typical weekday -- weekday
condition. On a weekend, this is at the Abbey on the Lake area.
This was done on a Sunday '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a problem right there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's got to go.
MR. SCHECHTER: -- in the parking lot -- in the parking lot, all
right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's one of our rare birds.
MR. SCHECHTER: And you can hear the birds, right.
I haven't changed the gain. This was just recorded the very
next day at the same time, twelve noon. That's this tone minus
the rattle which is because this thing is rattling. I haven't
changed the gain at all. I haven't played with this at all. It's the
exact same spot, exact same setting. The peak that you see
there, that's a typical industrial discrete tone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, when are we going to hear
the -- that's it?
MR. SCHECHTER: Now, the problem is that -- this can
propagate as many as a thousand, 2,000, 3,000 feet. The lower
the frequency, the longer the wavelength, the more energy
contained. You've heard enough of that.
Does anyone want to hear the ambient again?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, did you want to hear
more?
MR. WEIGEL: I've heard it personally, on-site.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You lucky dog.
MR. SCHECHTER: Any number of digital recordings could
have been made. We made them at the karaoke bar. We made
them of an HVAC unit at a high-rise, and in all instances, actual
enforcement is -- would -- using the octave band would narrow
the situation down to a particular area where it's much more
cost-effective to deal with solutions, and that's what we are
concerned about, because there are no noise regulations I've
Page 145
April 11, 2000
ever been involved with that were designed to put anyone out of
business. They're designed to provide clear cut guidelines to
industry, to commerce and to the residents so that once those
guidelines are met, everyone knows that this is the situation.
What it does is it prevents erratic and long-term chronic
complaints from occurring to bother industry and commerce, and
secondly, it preserves and protects your -- it would preserve and
protect your existing residential community noise conditions so
that people can come into Collier County and expect the kind of
environment that they've been used to in many other areas.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have five public speakers.
Let's go to them, and that way, if they have particular questions
that get raised, we can bring you back, and you can answer
specific questions.
MR. SCHECHTER: Yes. Thank you for allowing me to
address you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: First speaker is James Slattery followed by Mr.
Bruce Anderson.
MR. SLATTERY: Members of the commission, Chairperson,
my name is Jim Slattery from Abbey on the Lake, and I'm a
representative of that homeowners' association, and we're
directly south and west of the Krehling company, which is a
particular problem which you heard in some of these sounds over
here.
In the preamble to Ordinance Number 90-17 as amended,
you do not hear the factor of harmful and/or annoying
characteristics of special noises and may need to have means or
measures of frequency range with the octave band analysis,
which we talked about -- these gentlemen talked about here.
Again, going back to it, and in part, I'd like to refer to some
of the preamble from 90-17 ordinance, the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida finds and determines
that noise levels, emissions in access of the requirements
established in this ordinance are potentially harmful and
injurious to the public health, safety and welfare and reasonably
interfere with the enjoyment of life and property in Collier
County, Florida. It is, therefore, the purpose of this ordinance to
eliminate, regulate or restrict sources and occurrences of
Page 146
April 11, 2000
amplified sound or noise at decibel levels or frequencies and
intensities which are contrary to the public welfare, constitute a
nuisance to the public at large and degrade the quality of life. It
is declared that the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter
contained and enacted are for the purpose of securing and
promoting public safety, health, convenience and welfare and at
peace and quiet of Collier County and its inhabitants therein.
If this is the true spirit and the intent of the noise abatement
ordinance, then it must be amended from time to time to allow
new technologies and equipment to be utilized to improve the
quality of life.
Just thinking back 40 years ago when I went into the
military, I was taking a hearing test, and I was asked to enter a
doorway, which I did, and close the door behind me, and at the
corridor of about 30 feet, there was an individual sitting in a
chair, asked me to stand still and recite my name, and then he
gave me a few verbal comments, and that was the end of the
hearing test, and I don't think that's appropriate today in the
sense of maintaining that type of testing facility. That's what I
brought about here in regards to updating and maintaining
changes in sound testing abilities.
Our residents for the most part have moved here to paradise
to enjoy the good life they have worked long and hard for.
Instead, what they're getting is the opportunity to listen to never
ending screeching, beeping and banging constantly coming from
the plant nearby our residences. This has been going on now for
24 hours a day, six days a week since 19 -- since the fall of 1998.
During the evening hours, our residents cannot comfortably sit
in their lanais or in their living areas, in fact, peacefully, sleep in
their bedrooms with the lanai doors open because of this
constant, abusive and repetitive noise and vibration.
I would only hope -- I would only hope again that this
commission, you commissioners of Collier County with your
infinite wisdom regarding this amendment to Section 6,
Ordinance Number 90-17, see to its unanimous support and
passage, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
I've got to say, it's been a pretty good day. So far we've got
a pin that says I'm appreciated. We got something that says we
are worth a mint, and then we have infinite wisdom.
Page147
April 1 t, 2000
MR. SLATTERY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not for today, wait until tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, tomorrow is another day.
Tomorrow is another day.
Mr. Anderson will be followed by?
MR. OLLIFF: Ironically, Mr. Cuyler, Ken Cuyler.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How ironic.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name
is Bruce Anderson. I represent WCI Communities. They are --
have been working closely with your code enforcement
department to resolve the issues concerning the noise
complaints with the two high-rise condominiums, and my
purpose in speaking today is to ask that you include a statement
in the ordinance that expressly recognizes a statement that is
made in the consultant's report about the residential to
residential noise measurements, and that is a recognition that if
someone has installed at some point in time air conditioning
equipment that is in compliance with the County's noise
ordinance, that when you go to amend it, that the new ordinance
will not be applied retroactively, much like when you change
hurricane code standards, you don't require people to go back
and retrofit their homes.
I would offer the following sentence to be added to this
ordinance. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment
that met the Collier County noise ordinance at the time of
equipment installation shall not be deemed to be in violation of
the terms of this ordinance --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question.
MR. ANDERSON: -- period.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question, Mr. Anderson. What
would be the theoretical basis for exempting that particular
noise source and not all noise sources in existence? Is it just
because that's who you represent today, so that's why you're
here?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, that's the only reason I'm talking
about it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, if we agree with you,
conceptually we should be talking about a grandfather across
Page 148
April 1 t, 2000
the board?
MR. ANDERSON: No. I'll give you an example. If we're
talking about~ let's say~ karaoke music or music generated from
a commercial~ noise commercial -- generated from a commercial
establishment~ the commercial establishment, if they are
required to take some steps to ameliorate the noise problem~
they can simply do that and pass on the increased cost to their
customers in the form of higher prices.
A residential association would not have that same luxury.
They have a captive audience.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The three items you would like
to have exempted again were?
MR. ANDERSON: No, heating -- I'm using the generic term
heating~ ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: HVAC.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: HVAC.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: HVAC.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't get the theory behind it~
frankly~ because the fact of the matter is, just like -- the
commercial business has to pass on the cost to their customers~
your guys will pass it on in their special assessment in their
homeowners' association. It's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well~ let me give you an example.
Yesterday I met with AI Hoffman in regard to a particular case~
and Mr. Hoffman said, we are going to go beyond what the
current ordinance is. We are going to go the extra mile and meet
with the boards of these two condominiums to correct the
problem. He said $30,000 will fix the problem~ let's do it~ let's
make it happen.
Soy he was saying to me~ let's make it right regardless of the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your point being that good
developers are willing to spend the money to make it right?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's what he told me.
MR. ANDERSON: And he's willing to do --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else?
MR. ANDERSON: He's willing to do that for that one
condominium building. The concern is about an unlimited
number that may be in violation once you adopt this ordinance
Page 149
April 11, 2000
that weren't today, and my basis for my statement,
Commissioner Mac'Kie, is found on Page 5 of the consultant's
letter to Mr. Palmer dated March 31, 2000, item paragraph
number six. That's the factual basis for my request.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler will be followed by?
MR. OLLIFF: Karen Bishop.
MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler. Both Ms. Bishop
and I represent Krehling Industries, and as you know, they have
had a concrete plant in North Naples since 1974, and Mr.
Mulhere, as a matter of fact, is putting up an aerial, and you will
notice that -- I forgot the name of the Imperial lake that's '-
Abbey '-
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Abbey on the Lake.
MR. CUYLER: -- Abbey on the Lake, you'll notice that it's
conspicuous by its absence. That's a 1974 aerial when the plant
was put in.
You know that there has been a great deal of growth in
Collier County and North Naples. When I came in 1979, Pine
Ridge east of Airport was a dirt road, and North Naples was the
hinterlands, and Krehling moved up there for an obvious reason,
and that is to make sure it was not next to residences. A great
deal of residential development has taken place. I'm very much
in favor of controlled growth. It's going to happen, but a lot of
the complaints that we have heard with regard to Krehling have
come from people that have moved into that area, and whether
the sound waves were high level sound waves or low level sound
waves and whether they travel 2,000 feet or 5,000 feet, there
was nothing there when Krehling built its plant.
There was also a great deal of vegetation around the area
that's been removed for the residences, and in terms of a good
developer spending money, Mr. Krehling has spent approximately
$100,000 in cooperation with the local residents and Mr. Carter,
who was trying to address some of the concerns that were made
clear to him, and we've -- frankly, I'd like to know who we are
supposed to talk to to figure out where the next $100,000 is
supposed to be spent at. Mr. Krehling has done his part in terms
of trying to address the problem, and today we are being told
that apparently there's another issue that we need to address.
Page 150
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was this $100,000 within the last
five~ ten years or when?
MR. CUYLER: Within the last one year.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But let's -- let's address the issue.
How many machines do we have operating at the Krehling plant,
brick making machines?
MS. BISHOP: One brick making machine.
MR. CUYLER: I can't answer that. Mr. Krehling was going to
be here today. He couldn't make it. He's had a family illness and
was not able to show up today, but --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: How many machines that make
blocks or bricks? There's more than one. The one that was
causing major problems, it was insulated, and there's a
substantial difference in that, but it did not address the rest of
the operational issues at Krehling, and I think that is part of the
question I have continued to raise and has not been addressed.
This ordinance is not to pick on them. It just says, if you're
in a manufacturing situation, no matter what happens in your
community, you've got to continue to work with the community.
I'll give you one quick example. I worked for Abbott
Laboratories~ and we were great neighbors until we started
developing a product that stunk up the neighborhood, and for a
long time there was a lot of hell raised in North Chicago about
that~ and eventually~ we fixed the problem because we couldn't
say we were there first and we were developing a product for
society~ therefore, we've got a right to pollute the area. We had
to fix the problem~ and we did~ and that's the same challenge I
would take to any manufacturer in any community that as it
grows and develops, you've got to continue to have a dialogue
with that community to come up with solutions to the problem.
Krehling did fix the one problem. Evidently, there's other
issues to be addressed. How they are going to be addressed and
how they're going to be resolved, I don't know as I sit here today,
but at this point~ they are not being addressed~ and they're not
being resolved.
MR. CUYLER: Well~ I guess that leads to my next point~ and
that is this is a technical ordinance. I've read through it. I don't
understand it. I'm not sure how it works exactly. You heard the
presentation. It was a good presentation, but I still don't know
how it works exactly and how it's going to apply to the Krehling
Page 151
April 11, 2000
property.
The ordinance was just finalized last week. The backup
material I just received yesterday. I haven't even had a chance
to look at that. We have not had -- although we've dealt with
some sound experts to look at this issue for us, we haven't had
an opportunity to have them look at this ordinance and compare
it to what is on premises and what we are going to need to do to
take a look at that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, the problem with that
particular plant seems to be that spike in the low frequency area.
When did the operation of the plant start using the equipment
that causes that spike?
MR. CUYLER: I'm going to let Ms. Bishop address that, if she
can.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next will be Ms. Bishop.
MR. CUYLER: We're doing a tag team.
MS. BISHOP: I don't need five minutes.
Karen Bishop, for the record.
Hank has been running 24 hours a day pretty much from the
beginning except for a slowdown in the '80s. The paver block
plant part, which is the paver blocks, which is what's making
that noise, and which is where the $t 00,000 was spent '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The paver blocks?
MS. BISHOP: It's the paver blocks, the creation of the paver
blocks. It runs through a kiln and a cutter, and that sound that
you hear, that (makes noise) is as the blocks get pushed out.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What sound is that?
MS. BISHOP: (Makes noise). I can't spell that, but I can say
That was what we specifically hired last year -- when
Commissioner Carter came to us, we hired -- we searched the
Internet. We found a noise expert on the other coast, who pretty
much just measures sounds, to tell us what our problem was.
We then hired another consultant who marketed the fact that
they bring down noise levels in turbines and stuff.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Bishop, my question was,
when did that operation begin?
MS. BISHOP: About ten years ago at least, maybe longer.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Was that -- was that on this '82
Page152
April 1 t, 2000
PUD, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: They already had operations there. According
to our records, in '82, Krehling came in for an approximately 16
acre PUD, just over doubling the size of their previous
operations, December of '82.
MS. BISHOP: But that is a different PUD. He has an
industrial -- he has two pieces of property with two separate
zonings. The industrial plant is the concrete plant. The PUD is
the property adjacent to it that is not being utilized other than
storage and -- mostly block storage and for recycling of the
concrete materials.
So, that hasn't even been built on at all.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's no machinery on that
property?
MS. BISHOP: Not at all.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because what it says here in the
general provisions for that apparent piece of property is that all
uses, equipment and activities in this PUD shall be constructed,
maintained, operated and integrated in such manner as to
minimize to the extent practical noise, vibration and dust -- MS. BISHOP: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- but you're saying that there's
nothing there.
MS. BISHOP: We haven't even built on that property yet. So,
all that noise that comes from that area comes from the
industrial zoned property that's been there since 1974.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has anybody played this tape or
whatever it is for Mr. Krehling? Has anybody asked him to
address that sound, and has he said he's unwilling to?
MS. BISHOP: No. Actually, he knows which sound. We
hired people to address this sound. We hired -- we spent a
hundred thousand --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the status of that?
MS. BISHOP: We put -- we spent $100,000 putting a
container on this particular block where this sound comes from
in anticipation that it would alleviate this sound. It has brought
the numbers down, apparently not enough, but it has done that.
We have -- Hank is always trying to find ways to make the
neighbors happy. He is certainly not -- he's not totally oblivious
to what's going on around him. In fact, his son lives 200 feet
Page 153
April 1 t ~ 2000
from the plant himself, so -- and he has employees who live right
adjacent to the plant also.
So~ I'm assuming that, you know, he's willing to do more,
and we will certainly do that, but I'm concerned that we haven't
had enough time to address all this stuff.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My question would really be~ is
that spike coming from that particular machine or is it coming
from other parts of the operation?
MS. BISHOP: It's coming from that machine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about -- I mean~ is this a
rush today that we have to do this? Could we pause~ find a
source --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have one more speaker~ I
think.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of that particular sound and
see what might --
MR. CUYLER: Could I make two more quick points?
When I deal with a client~ I expect them~ if there's an issue~
to come to the table. If it costs them money~ to put some money
on the table to try to address issues, and Mr. Krehling has done
that~ and I think Commissioner Carter will acknowledge that he
has done that to the tune of six figures, and somebody
mentioned to us maybe a concrete wall around the premises -- I
mean~ he makes concrete. That would not be a particular issue
for him, but we want to be able to identify what the issue is, and
we haven't been able to do that yet because we haven't had time
to analyze this.
The second point is~ there is a grandfathering provision in
your ordinance that is being eliminated~ and what that basically
said was, where you have a commercial or industrial use and
people move to that industrial or commercial use and that
causes a problem, then that facility is looked at as a commercial
industrial facility. You don't use the residential numbers. You
use the commercial or industrial numbers~ and it's proposed that
you take that out~ and we -- you know, that is a fairness issue
that I would ask you to consider as well.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll wait to debate that with you.
We have one more speaker after Ms. Bishop.
MR. OLLIFF: David Ellis.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: He's the final speaker?
Page 154
April 11, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, he is.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, commissioners. Again, your
consultant probably identified our biggest problem, which is -- I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Name?
MR. ELLIS: I'm sorry, David Ellis with the Collier Building
Industry Association.
I was relieved to find that your consultant could identify that
it's actually the noisy palm trees in Collier County causing all
this trouble, but just real briefly, I really first came to understand
in full light what was going on with this ordinance at the
development service advisory committee meeting last
Wednesday, but there was a lot of confusion about what exactly
the ordinance meant. As a matter of fact, the DSAC committee
voted, I think, unanimously not to support this at this time, and it
really wasn't because they didn't want to have better technology
in looking at the sound or even that they wanted you to make
sure we had good standards in Collier County; it was just they
didn't understand it. I think that's probably the biggest challenge
today.
Since that day, my phone has started ringing off the hook
from people just concerned about what does this mean in
relation to Krehling. Naples Lumber is another company that's
also affected by this change and the grandlathering as it would
go away in the new ordinance, and again, the companies we're
talking about are really good corporate citizens of Collier County,
and I think they would fully intend to do their best to try to
adhere to whatever ordinance is passed, and the folks from
Krehling, in particular, I know, have made, you know, real great
strides towards that, but I guess my concern, to follow up with
what you said, Commissioner Mac'Kie, it might be better at this
point just to wait and give us a chance to look at it, make sure
we fully understand it before we implement it.
Again, to endorse better technology in relation to this, I
think we are all pretty much in agreement that's a good policy,
but we'd ask you to maybe set this back and let maybe your
DSAC and some other folks take a good look and make sure it
fits before you move ahead. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you say sign ordinance. I
Page 155
April 11, 2000
think we'd better ask the affected parties.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
We'll close the public hearing.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just add a little something
here that I've been playing with. Every once in a while we do
something that really works well and is really smart. We did that
a few years ago with our -- what I call our barking dog ordinance
where we allowed the animal control people to take care of that
if two affected neighbors signed affidavits.
I think we have an opportunity here when we are thinking
about amending our noise ordinance to do the same thing with
other nuisance noises. There's very little difference in pencil
between a barking dog and let's say someone who routinely
blares music out into a neighborhood or a television blaring away
on a patio or something like that at night.
I think we could do the right thing here, help code
enforcement by not basing it on decibel levels, but basing it on a
complaint like that in a residential neighborhood, let's say, for
example, as a suggestion, when three affected neighbors are
willing to sign affidavits, then the code enforcement would not
have to have decibel readings in order to notify the people that
they may be out of compliance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think you still have to have
some science though. I mean what's offensive to some people
may not be to others, and there has to be something. I think if
we're going to have any teeth to it and actually get somewhere
with it, we've got to have some quantifiable level.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The City of Naples is dealing with
that right now because '-
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I really -- I really -- the part that
I'm really -- that we need, I think, to address in my judgment is
the equipment. We need the updated equipment, and we need
the training of staff, and we need the people to do this, and
regardless of where we go with this, I think that piece, I hope
that, you know, supplies all this -- if we need to have some more
time for interested parties to look at this to see how this would
be applied, I don't object to that, but I think that staff has done a
Page 156
April 1 t, 2000
lot of hard work on this and have come up with a very proactive
program here, and I would hate to see us just put that aside and
not move forward.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'll tell you, I would like to
see this or something very close to it passed. I don't care if we
need to take another three weeks or another month to
accomplish that, and if that makes everybody happy, I don't have
any objection, but I think overall this goes a long way toward
helping us achieve -- because right now, you know, we are trying
to achieve this with one hand tied behind our back on just
general decibel measurements, so '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I would hate to rush into it
today as well, because let's be truthful here, this -- the impetus
for this is directed at one single operation, and when you're
going to amend a major ordinance like this to take care of one
particular problem, you're always going to run into some
unintended consequences somewhere else in the county, and so
let's just be a little cautious about going forward with it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion we continue the
item until when, Tom? What does our agenda look like?
I mean, I think it shouldn't be sooner than a month or six
weeks.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: During that period, maybe we can
get CBIA to sit with us. Maybe Krehling wants to sit with us,
maybe some other interested parties. I know Bob Naples is here
from Collier Reserve. I mean, we've got a number of people who
could make some real significant influence at looking at this and
discussing it before it comes back.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't mean to cut everybody
short, but I'm going to cut everybody short.
Is there a motion to continue this to a particular time?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 23rd of May.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor, please state
aye.
Thank you, five-oh.
Item #13A2
Page t 57
April 11, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-120, PETITION V-2000-01, MASTERCRAFT
HOMES, INC, REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF
0.6 FOOT FROM THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK
TO 6.9 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3871 15TM AVENUE SW
- ADOPTED
Next item is 13(A)(2), which is 7.2 inch variance. We could
open it up and swear everybody in, or we could close the public
hearing.
I guess we're going to have to swear everybody in who
might be involved in this 7.2 inch variance. Anybody who's going
to participate in this in any way, shape or manner, if you'd stand
and be sworn.
(The speakers were sworn).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anybody here besides staff?
All right. The tie threw me off.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to know why a major
construction company like Mastercraft Homes would not bother
to do a survey and know where they're supposed to build this and
why we should allow this rather than have them saw that piece
off.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. That was
the concern the planning commission -- I was just informed that
the petitioner will address that, but that was also the concern of
the planning commission when they voted to deny it. They said
it's a 60 foot house on a 75 foot lot, they should have paid more
attention --.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's cut to the chase and hear
from the petitioner and see if they can explain that to us.
MR. MORRIS: Mr. Chairman, board members, I'm Mike Morris
with Morris-DePew Associates. I'm representing Mastercraft
Homes, and basically we are here because there was a layout
error made, and it was made by a subcontractor who was acting
with good intentions but was performing during the period of
absence of the superintendent who normally hires my firm to
provide surveying services to stake buildings. In this case, for
some reason, the subcontractor did not follow the normal
procedures. An error was made which resulted in the building
overlapping the easement area by six-tenths of a foot or seven
inches, approximately that distance.
Page158
April 11, 2000
We've -- Mastercraft has looked at the problem, and,
basically, it's one of trying to determine whether the impact of
creating this error, which they readily admit is an error, justifies
the -- pretty large expense, something in excess of $25,00 to
remove the '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many?
MR. MORRIS: Approximately $25,000 to remove the
structure that's there and rebuild it, and it's seven -- seven
inches further to the east.
What -- what -- and let me just add that that's not been a
continuing problem that they've had. They build lots of homes.
They have problems. Every large contractor has problems of one
sort or another, but they've never had this particular kind of
problem in the past. They generally take steps to keep this
problem from happening.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't you buy seven inches from
the neighbor for less than $25,0007
MR. MORRIS: Well, the problem is that there's now a
structure in place that, to comply with the ordinance, would have
to be torn down and moved over.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, I think her point is '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not if you bought seven and a
half inches on the other side, buy it from the neighbor for less
than 25 grand, then you've solved your problem, and we don't
have a variance on the books forever.
MR. MORRIS: Yes, ma'am, they've tried to do that. There's
been no response from the adjoining owner.
What Mastercraft would -- would '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What dollar amount have they
tried to do that? I mean, 500 bucks, maybe no, but if you talk 20
grand, I bet you can get your seven inches.
MR. MORRIS: I don't know what dollar amount, but '-
Commissioner, but I can tell you that they're here to talk about
mitigation and '-
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I wouldn't go there.
MR. MORRIS: They are here to talk about mitigation and
mitigation in a fairly significant cost amount.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When you said you have tried to
buy from the neighbor, who has? Who made that offer, and was
it in writing and -- that was just kind of a flip, yeah, yeah, we
Page159
April 11, 2000
have.
MR. MORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know the details~ but '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you know for a fact that that
offer has been officially made or are you just guessing?
MR. MORRIS: I don't know for a fact, but Mr. Diamond, who
is an officer in Mastercraft is here with me who '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You want to be very -- you're
giving sworn testimony, so you don't want to guess and make
something up. Well, you said, yeah, gee, we tried to buy from the
neighbor, and it hasn't gone. Now you're telling me you haven't.
This is sworn testimony. You need to be very clear -- whatever
you tell me has to be the truth.
MR. MORRIS: Well, sir, I'm not used to having my credibility
challenged. I told you exactly '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll ask you to just tell me one or
the other. I'm not challenging your credibility, but you have told
me two distinctly different things. MR. MORRIS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Either there was an offer made
to the neighbor or there wasn't.
MR. MORRIS: No, sir, I told you what I had been told by my
client. My client -- I said my client is here to address that in
detail, which he is here to do, and if you'll give him a chance, I
think he'll do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Surer but about three minutes
ago, you did -- did I imagine that, or did he say yes, we did try to
buy it and that didn't happen?
MR. MORRIS: That is what I told you. I told you I didn't have
the details of that, but my client is here who can address that in
detail.
MR. DIAMOND: We've attempted to make contact '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Who are you?
MR. DIAMOND: I'm sorry. My name is Mike Diamond, Mr.
Chairman. I'm with Mastercraft Homes. I'm an officer with the
corporation.
The reason we're coming here in front of you and hopefully
not wasting your time, because we were rejected already, as you
know, was because there seems to be some circumstances here
that would -- I think suggest I should come in front of you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Quick question, did you make
Page 160
April 11, 2000
an offer to the neighbor for '- MR. DIAMOND: Yes, in writing and verbally, sir. We were
not responded to.
We made it -- we sent a certified letter, return receipt
requested, offering to buy a 7.2 inch strip for a thousand dollars.
We did not get a response. We made six phone calls. We did not
get one response, and we also knocked on the person's door and
the daughter said, he's not home. So, we've made many
attempts, and unfortunately, we're not getting anywhere, and we
certainly are a company that knows that we would buy certainly
7.2 inches for as much money as reasonably would be possible.
There are two circumstances here that I wanted to mention
to you. We made an error, certainly made an error. It was a
construction error. It was a regrettable error, one due to lack of
supervision at the time. It was an error made by the contractor.
We have two circumstances here that I want to bring to your
attention. There's only one opposing party, and that is the
abutter on the side that is not damaged by this, okay. In other
words, he would be worse off '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's benefiting.
MR. DIAMOND: He's benefiting from this. He wants us to
tear it down because he's upset with us. We will do so, and we
will build another home there, and we will be 7.2 inches closer to
him. So, if he's upset now, he'll be upset more in the future. So,
that's the only thing I can tell you.
The second thing is I have a proposal here that offers
landscaping mitigation. A woodcrete (phonetic) fence we
propose to put on the side that's damaged, and we will hedge
that with landscaping. I have it right here, and I have copies for
each of you if you'd like to see it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you, Mr. Diamond, why
would you not be able to just saw that seven inches off?
MR. DIAMOND: It's a structural concern, sir, Mr.
Commissioner. We would -- unfortunately, the walls are up right
now, the walls are up, so sawing off 7.8 inches at this point '- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My material says that the tie
beam has not been poured. Have you not '-
MR. DIAMOND: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is correct?
MR. DIAMOND: The tie beam was formed, not poured.
Page 161
April t 1, 2000
However, the walls are up on both the east and west side.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
wall.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
So--
You would have to take done the
I need a better reason to --
MR. DIAMOND: You would have to take down the wall, and
it would cut into the footer that is at the edge of the home. That
would be a concern for our engineer that we talked about, but
actually, I didn't pursue the sawing off 7.8 -- I haven't pursued
that suggestion as vigorously. I've pursued others, admittedly,
however, I do believe that this would pose a structural concern
for us.
Our other solution, if you deny me today, would be to tear
down this structure and either rebuild the home or sell the
property. Most likely, we will rebuild the home 7.2 inches closer
to the other lot line.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a spec house or is
somebody waiting to move in?
MR. DIAMOND: The person that was under contract, ma'am,
has terminated the contract with us. We let them out, of course,
and we have the home -- well, we will put the home up for sale
pending resolution of this issue.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, if we deny it today, maybe
there will be more door knocking. I mean, you still have that
option, to go back to that person who has not responded to you
and perhaps in another -- maybe after hearing this discussion
today, if he follows it and hears that there's money on the table,
he'd be knocking on your door.
MR. DIAMOND: With all due respect, Mr. Commissioner, I
think the only reason I think that might not work is because both
parties are angered by the delay. They're angered by the fact
that a company is building a large home on a 75 foot wide lot,
well within the county regulations, but to them, we shouldn't
have done that. Well, unfortunately, I can't change a 1973 law
that allowed construction on 75 foot wide lots.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
need to get on the record?
MR. DIAMOND: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
Do you have anything else you
Any other speakers?
Page 162
April 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Close the public hearing.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I know we've been pretty
careful to not approve these setbacks, but I'll tell you, for seven
inches --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make this motion. I'd like
to move approval of the variance, but I would also like to have
the responsible party for the error go before the contractor's
licensing board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The subcontractor, in other
words?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Whoever did it. I don't know who
did it, but whoever was negligent in not getting it staked properly
needs to go before the contractor's licensing board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the general contractor is
going to be ultimately liable. I guess my question is, do you
mean the G.C. or do you mean the sub, both?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean the responsible party.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's the G.C. That's the
general, because he's responsible for everything. So, do you
mean '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine, bring them in, but I think '-
these are the kinds of things '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That part of the motion is
direction to staff.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Huh?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That part of the motion is
direction to staff to bring '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That part of the motion is
direction to staff saying if you don't do something, then this will
happen again.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the
motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. Oops,
Commissioner Carter will second the motion.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
Page 163
April t t ~ 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries, only requires
three votes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, does it?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
Congratulations.
MR. DIAMOND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 2000-t21, PETITION V-2000-04, FAITH CAGRAN,
REPRESENTING FAITH FUEL CORPORATION REQUESTING AN 8-
FOOT VARIANCE TO 42 FEET FOR NEW FUEL PUMPS AND A 46-
FOOT VARIANCE TO 4 FEET TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CANOPY,
FROM THE REQUIRED 50-FOOT SETBACK FOR SERVICE
STATIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2068 DAVIS
BOULEVARD - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
Fuel
foot
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And final item of the day, Faith
Corporation requesting an eight foot variance to a 42 foot --
-- foot -- foot -- foot.
Anybody who's going to participate needs to be sworn.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't get it out.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Not today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not today.
(The speakers were sworn).
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, again, planning services.
This is a request for a variance for an existing gas station
along Davis Boulevard. You can see the Iocation~ and it's
probably easier for you to picture it --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can I try to jump to the chase
here? They actually want to dress this up and make it more
attractive and --
MR. REISCHL: Reduce the encroachment, correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and the reason this
requires a variance is what?
MR. REISCHL: There are new fuel islands which although --
these are the existing islands. These are the proposed islands,
which are well back, but they're still within that 50 feet; plus the
new canopy since he was going for a variance for that, we
Page 164
April 11, 2000
decided to make the new canopy legal also.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to say, thank you. I
apologize for you having to be here and doing this. We
appreciate your willingness to go to the trouble that it takes to
make something better but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unless there's anybody that's
going to oppose this --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't oppose it. I just have
a question. What about our sign ordinance? Will this now apply
to this facility where they will have to come into compliance with
a new signage?
MR. REISCHL: It's not changing ownership. You could make
that a condition, but -- according to the new sign code. It's not a
change in ownership right now.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it's a rebuild. Does that
count?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's a rebuild.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What kind of signage is there
now?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's make it go to the new one.
That's in your development area, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sure is.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Eventually, it's all going to be
affected, and I appreciate what the petitioner is doing. All I'd
just ask you to do to complete the job, and that is to bring all
signage into compliance with the new ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which is consistent with what
we've done. If you look at the Mobil on the corner of Airport and
Davis, they put new signage in when they --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It looks like it would comply to
me. Would it, Bob?
MR. REISCHL: No, I believe eight feet is the limit for a
service station.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shorter, yeah.
MR. MULHERE: I think -- excuse me, for the record, Bob
Mulhere. I think under the provisions of the sign code, depending
on the value of the reconstruction, they would have to do that
anyway. It seems to me they would likely have to do that
anyway in this case, but to be on the safe side, with that
condition in there, we'll make sure that it happens.
Page 165
April 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure would like to see that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As long as you're okay, we'll
close the public hearing and --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move we -- we approve the
variance with the condition that the new sign ordinance is
applied to this property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Seeing none~ all those in favor of the motion, state aye.
Motion carries five-oh. Thank you very much,
congratulations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that concludes today's
regular agenda.
Mr. McNees--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Emergency.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- what's going on?
MR. McNEES: Yes, sir~ Mr. Chairman. I wish I had some
good news. I'm not sure that I do.
This information is going to be somewhat imprecise. That's
the nature of the event. As of approximately 45 minutes ago~
there are two identifiable heads to this fire~ one between two
and three miles east of 951 headed in the direction of Sabal Palm
Road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two to three miles --
MR. McNEES: Moving two to three miles east of 951 headed
toward the Sabal Palm Road area moving west-northwest. The
other being the same distance from 951~ also moving
west-northwest, headed more towards the Florida Sports Park
area,
951 has been closed with the exception of anyone that's still
in the process of evacuating. The elementary school has been
closed, and everyone is now out of the elementary school there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same thing at the high school~
right? I mean, ECC.
MR. McNEES: ECC, we have notified them. Don't know that
they have -- made any announcement about closing classes, but
you can't get there. So~ we've closed at Davis Boulevard and
U.S. 41.
Page 166
April 1 t, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
there?
MR. McNEES: We've notified them to get people out.
follow up again.
I can verify that everyone is out at Lely Elementary.
verify that everyone is out at ECC.
What about getting them out of
We'll
I can't
I don't really have any more news for you than that other
than we're providing as many resources as we can. We've sent
your public information officer out there to relieve people at the
command center so we can help provide some of those
resources, and we are doing what we can. The fire departments
are all engaged, and considerable assets have been deployed,
both from the state and the National Guardr and they are working
it as hard as they can. That's all I can report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about permanent
structures?
MR. McNEES: There are a number of structures along Sabal
Palm Road running east of 951, and where the fire is precisely in
relation to thoser I can't say at this momentr but those people
have been evacuated.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the ETA for Collier
Boulevard?
MR. McNEES: We don't know that at this time. The one
thing I can't give you is any estimate of its forward progress. I
can tell you that it seems to have movedr from what we can tell~
in the neighborhood of three to four miles in the last three hours.
Sot if it continues at that pacer we're talking early this evening
sometime perhaps for it to reach 951r and we are not the
firefightersr and they are too busy right now fighting the fire to
give us exact up to the minute location information. We are
doing the best we can to keep track of thatr and we'll try to keep
you all informed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is reaching 951 a trigger for us to
take some additional evacuation kinds of action?
What is the trigger? When will we decide west of 951 should
be evacuatedr and when do mandatory evacuations -- is this
measurable like for hurricanes, there are --
MR. McNEES: My understanding is the only person that can
declare a mandatory evacuation is the governor of the State of
Florida.
Page 167
April t t, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we make a recommendation
to him.
MR. McNEES: We make recommendations. We have already
issued voluntary evacuation east of 951. I don't think
necessarily that 951 itself is a trigger. We'll probably be
evaluating that as the fire approaches 951. We'll make a
determination as to whether or not it appears to be getting either
under control, what's happening with the winds about that time --
hopefully, they will be weakening some -- how strong is the
seabreeze at that point, meaning the wind from the west, and
how far inland is it, if it's affected at that time. There's a lot of
variables, so it's not just a trigger of when it reaches 951.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perhaps the most important
part of all this is the unpredictable nature of it. So, when we are
saying voluntary evacuation, go, don't wait.
MR. McNEES: And we are encouraging, even most
importantly, everyone who lives in that corridor and in those
neighborhoods to please pay attention, stay tuned to the local
media. The TV stations are putting out bulletins regularly. We
are issuing press releases regularly. Stay tuned for information,
and as soon as we have any, we'll get it out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got to understand this
question though. At what point might you call us back, when will
you decide -- because -- will the governor independently order
evacuations if we don't make a recommendation to him? I don't
want to let something fall through the cracks and nothing happen
that needs to happen.
MR. OLLIFF: You don't have to. Because of your action this
morning, there are certain events that already automatically fall
into place with the chair, the vice-chair, and in their absence,
even I can make the call. It's going to be a decision that's going
to be made jointly between the sheriff, the fire chief in charge
and the fire chief association president, Chief Tobin. So, I think
those decisions will be made out on the field in the mobile
command post with recommendations coming through either
those three people and the governor.
MR. McNEES: And in talking to the sheriff's representatives,
you'll recall we often have this conversation at hurricane time, I
don't believe the sheriff is inclined to force people to leave their
homes but rather, when we get to evacuation point, whether we
Page 168
April t 1 ~ 2000
would strongly recommend. I'm not prepared to tell you at this
point that they are going to physically force people to leave their
home.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we could urgent -- we could
be as urgent as possible.
MR. McNEES: Absolutely~ and we certainly don't need any
more action from you to do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Olliff~ anything else?
MR. OLLIFF: I think we've got some language drafted that
will satisfy you. I don't know that you need to discuss it today~
but it does just go to that general revenue place where it seemed
like the board wanted to go.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everglades is what we're talking
about here?
MR. OLLIFF: Everglades~ and we've actually run that
through Senator Saunders' office as well~ and he felt like it was
workable language.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
discussion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER-' Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
seeing no objection.
We tabled it.
I move that we untable that for
It's back on the table,
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you going to show us the
language?
MR. OLLIFF: I can read it to you very quickly. It says the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners urge you to
consider amending senate bill 1694 and our house bill 221 to
provide the state funding portion of the Everglades restudy
through the State's general revenue budget rather than
specifically identifying document stamps as the revenue.
Utilization of a general revenue provides for a broad~ statewide
source of revenue that would highlight the importance of the
Everglades restoration project for the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can we be a little more
exclusive of doc. stamps, because that still leaves the door open
for doc. stamps~ which -- at which point we pay a
disproportionate amount still.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we happen to be aware of
Page 169
April 11, 2000
that particular place where we are a donor county. There are
many other situations in which we are a donor county.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right, and I don't want to do
that again here.
MR. OLLIFF: It would almost -- I don't know that you can get
there from here. It would almost be like saying~ we want it to
come from the general fund without it coming from sales tax. It
goes into that same pot, but I think by saying at least --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's diluted so much at that point
that it's really, I think~ where we're trying to get.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Although Senator Saunders
double-speak happens from time to time, I fear this will just --
will just be a way around it and say, yeah, see~ they support it
and doc. stamps is part of general fund, and so we'll just keep it
the same.
I would rather have no endorsement whatsoever than have
this there and run the risk of still having doc. stamps be the
source --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would support --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- unless we specifically --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- no endorsement.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, I think we have. We said through the
State's general revenue budget rather than specifically
identifying doc stamps as the revenue source.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No endorsement is better than an
ill-informed endorsement~ and I don't think we are prepared
adequately to say where the money should come from.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I concur.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, I move we take no action on
this item.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
Discussion?
All those in favor~ please state aye.
All those opposed?.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries three-two.
Commissioner Berry~ anything to add?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I have just one item. This is
in -- is relevant to the lawsuit that has been filed against Collier
Page 170
April 1 t, 2000
County, the Wildlife Association and the group in terms of the
NRPAs and those kinds of things. I would like to ask that the
board strongly recommend that we have our attorney, Linnan,
who has been involved in our other property issues '-
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Take a peek.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- she's our consultant. I would
ask that whatever is done through the county attorney's office,
that it be coordinated and she be involved with this lawsuit,
whatever that might be.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great idea.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because we have brought her on.
She is on board with us, and I think that we need to use her, to
make sure that we are all headed in the right direction here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: None.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, anything
to add?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing new.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just want to take this
opportunity to thank the community for all the support on my
upcoming surgery and transplant, and I duly appreciate all the
kind comments. Some thought I had been gone and back
already. I'm a quick recovery, but not that quick, but the surgery
is scheduled for the 19th, which is a week from tomorrow, and I
should be back here in three to four weeks, and thank you all for
your support.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just please know that our
prayers are with you and that you have our support.
I'm sorry, but on the item that Commissioner Berry raised, it
makes me remember a question that I have. Has this board
taken action yet -- Mr. Olliff and I discussed this, and I didn't get
an action -- didn't get an answer. Has this board taken action on
whether or not we're going to try to kick people off committees if
they file lawsuits against the County?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have not taken action.
MR. OLLIFF: There has been no action by this board.
Page 171
April 11 ~ 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to be sure. Thank
you. That's all I've got.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Our thoughts and prayers are
with you. Good luck. The whole community supports you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Tim.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We are adjourned.
*****Commissioner MacKie moved, seconded by
Commissioner Norris and carried unanimously, that the following
items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved
and/or adopted: * * * * *
Item #16A1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL
UTILITY AUTHORITY REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY'S
OVERSIGHT OF RATES, FEES AND CHARGES OF THE GOLDEN
GATE UTILITY SYSTEM
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2000-99, EXTENDING THE AD HOC SELECT
COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN
THROUGH APRIL 13, 2001 AND REAPPOINTING SALLY BARKER,
LAURA BURKE, MICHAEL DAVIS, ELLIN GOETZ, DAVID
GUGGENHEIM, TIM HANCOCK, CARL KUEHNER, JOE MC HARRIS,
SAMUEL NOE, JIM RIDDEOUTTE, NORM TREBILCOCK AND
SUSAN WATTS
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST, UNIT I AND RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2000-100, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -
Page 172
April t 1, 2000
UNIT ONE"
Item #16A5
FINAL PLAT OF "BRIDGEWATER BAY, UNIT ONE" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATIONS
Item #1681
RESOLUTION 2000-101, REDUCING THE SPEED LIMIT FROM 30
MILES PER HOUR (30 MPH) TO TWENTY FIVE MILES PER HOUR
(25 MPH) IN GOLDEN GATE CITY, BOUNDED BY SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD ON THE WEST, C.R. 951 ON THE EAST, GREEN
BOULEVARD ON THE NORTH, AND GOLDEN GATE CANAL ON
THE SOUTH
Item #1682
WORK ORDER NO. PHA-FT-00-03, WITH PITMAN-HARTENSTEIN &
ASSOCIATES, INC., TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICE FOR
THE PROPOSED SIX LANE IMPROVEMENTS OF AIRPORT-
PULLING ROAD FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD, PROJECT NO. 62031 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,448
Item #1683 - Moved to Item #887
Item #1684- Deleted
Item #1685 - Moved to Item #888
Item #1686
RESOLUTION 2000-102, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A JOINT
PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE S.R. 84 AND COLLIER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
Item #1687
Page 173
April 11, 2000
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 8 WITH CH2M HILL FOR THE
PINE RIDGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT, PROJECT NO. 60111, CIE 41 -
IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,291
Item #1688 - Deleted
Item #1689 - Moved to Item #886
Item #16810
WORK ORDER NO. WMBP-FT-00-05 WITH WILSON MILLER FOR
PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO SECURE A
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION TRUST, PROJECT
NO. 69081 - IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $35,560
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2000-103, APPOINTING TERRY WOLFSON,
RAYMOND HOLLAND, PAT COOKSON, JOHN YONKOSKY, MARY
LOU WEISS/MARY CUNNINGHAM, DUANE WHEELER, TONI
HORNE, JO SELVIA, AND JIM MANSBERGER AS OFFICERS TO
COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURE FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Item #16C2
FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM GRANT FOR IMMOKALEE AND NAPLES
SUMMER RECREATION PARTICIPANTS
Item #16C3
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE
NAPLES BEACH ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND THE
NAPLES LANDING IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16C4
WAIVER OF PARKING FEES FOR THE SILVER SLAM
TOURNAMENT AT BAREFOOT BEACH PARK
Page t 74
April 11,2000
Item #16C5 - Moved to Item #8C1
Item #16C6
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH THE
ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS OF THE REGISTRY HOTEL AT
PELICAN BAY, INC. (THE REGISTRY)
Item #16C7
AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO
UPGRADE AND IMPROVE RECREATION FIELDS AND FACILITIES
IN EXCHANGE FOR USAGE AS COUNTY RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 2000-104, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS
FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1993
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D2
RFP #00-3037, CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH NAPLES
LIBRARY - AWARDED TO KRAFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2000-105, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS
FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1994
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D4
ACCEPTANCE OF REVENUES FROM THE COUNTY AUCTION HELD
ON FEBRUARY 19, 2000; AUTHORIZATION OF REFUND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,272 TO BUYER OF A TRIPLE WIDE MOBILE HOME
Page 175
April 11, 2000
IN IMMOKALEE FROM THE MARCH, 1999 AUCTION; AND
PROPERTY CONDEMNED AND AUTHORIZATION OF DISPOSAL OF
SAME
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 00-107; 00-181-182; 00-185-186
Item #16E2 - Moved to Item #8E6
Item #16E3 - Moved to Item #8E7
Item #16E4 - Moved to Item #8E5
Item #16H1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR CASE NO. 96-97-CJA
Item #16H2
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 176
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
APRIL 11, 2000
FOR BOARD ACTION:
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign Satisfaction of
Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos.: 96-97-CJA
2. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
,
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter
136.06( 1 ), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period:
A. March 9 - 15, 2000
B. March 16 - 22, 2000
C. March 23 - 29, 2000
4. Districts:
A,
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Annual Financial Report (9/30/99);
Audit for Fiscal Year 1998-1999; and Management Letter from Wentzel, Berry,
Wentzel & Phillips, P.A., (12/10/99)
Bw
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District- Minutes of meeting held by
the Board of Supervisors (11/24/99)
5. Minutes:
A,
Immokalee Beauti~cation Advisory Committee - Agenda for March 15, 2000 and
minutes of February 16, 2000 meeting
B. Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for March 17, 2000
C,
Lely Golf Estates Beauti~cation Advisory Committee - Agenda for March 10,
2000 and minutes of February 11, 2000 meeting
Rural Fringe Assessment Area Oversight Committee - Agenda for March 8, 2000
and minutes of February 23, 2000 meeting
E. Library Advisory Board - Minutes of January 26, 2000 meeting
Fm
H:Data/Format
City/County Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee - Agenda for March 2,
2000 meeting
API~ 11 20,.q9
Pg. /
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board - Minutes of February 7, 2000
meeting
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Agenda for March 29, 2000
meeting
H:Data/Format
APR 112,,.g8~
April 11, 2000
Item #1 611
AUTHORIZATION OF AN EXTENSION OF THE DUE DATE FOR THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2001 UNTIL JUNE 1, 2000
Item #16J1
LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FIXEL & MAGUIRE AS
LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY RELATING TO
THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY ACQUISITION INTERESTS INCLUDING
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS, FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO
IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16J2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NOS. 137 AND 937 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MCALPINE BRIARWOOD, INC., ET
AL., CASE NO. 98-1635-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION -
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO RADIO ROAD) PROJECT; AND
STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $1,727.42 INTO THE REGISTRY
OF THE COURT
Item #16J3
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN IN-HOUSE
EMINENT DOMAIN ATTORNEY AND LEGAL ASSISTANT FOR THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2000-106, RE PETITION SNR-2000-01, MAUREEN S.
BONNESS, REPRESENTING SHADY HOLLOW LAND TRUST,
REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM A PORTION OF
43RD AVENUE NE TO SHADY HOLLOW BOULEVARD EAST AND
RD
43 AVENUE NW TO SHADY HOLLOW BOULEVARD WEST, IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Page 177
April 11, 2000
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2000-107, RE PETITION V-2000-02, JAMES H.
SIESKY, OF SIESKY, PILON & WOOD, REPRESENTING ALBERT
HUBSCHMAN, REQUESTING A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE OF 6
FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 6 FOOT MAXIMUM TO 12 FEET (7-
FOOT FENCE ATOP A 5-FOOT BERM) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 35, TRACT 115, IN SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2000-108, RE PETITION V-2000-05 MICHEL SAADEH
OF VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING A
VARIANCE TO A REAR-YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF TEN
(10) FEET TO ZERO (0) FEET FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 TERRACINA COURT, LOT 45,
TRACT L-22, UNIT 3A, VINEYARDS PUD
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2000-109, RE PETITION V-2000-06, MONTALVO,
INC., AND RH ENTERPRISES OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.,
REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 2.5 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED
FIFTEEN (15) FEET, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FEE SIMPLE
SEPARATION OF THE CHECKER'S RESTAURANT AND
VALVOLINE OIL CHANGE PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED UNDER A
UNIFIED PLAN LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE
ROAD AT TI IIZ I IOMC DEPOT PItOJIZCT SIT[:
Page 178
April 11, 2000
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
;"DWIGHT E. BR.o..cK, CLERK
A~tes~ "a's' 't'0' 'C/~a'iman's ' '
signature o~7. nut sToved by the Board on
as p or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING BY: Cherie R. Leone and Dawn Breehne
Page 179