BCC Minutes 05/23/2000 RMay 23, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, May 23, 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 I
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, May 23, 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
COLLIERCOUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENTDEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMITRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112,(941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING
DEVICESFOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1
May 23,2000
INVOCATION - Reverend Paul Jarrett, Naples Church of Christ
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVALOFAGENDAS
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA
APPROVAL OFREGULARAGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. May 2, 2000 - Regular Agenda
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1)
Proclamation proclaiming the week of May 20-26, 2000 as National Safe
Boating Week. To be accepted by Past Commander William J. Reid,
Naples Power Squadron
2)
Proclamation proclaiming the week of June 4-10, 2000 as Collier County
Homeownership Expansion Week. To be accepted by Ms. Christine
Chesser, Chairman, Collier County Affordable Housing Commission
3) Proclamation proclaiming the month of May as Civility Month.
4)
Proclamation proclaiming the week of May 21-27, 2000 as Fight Fraud in
Florida Week. To be accepted by Mr. Craig Kiser, Deputy Comptroller,
Mr. Robert Pappas, Regional Director and Mr. Michael Moore, Assistant
General Counsel, State of Florida, Office of Comptroller, Department of
Banking and Finance
B. SERVICE AWARDS
1)
2)
3)
4)
S)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Phyllis Human, Parks and Recreation - 5 Years
Harry Nevins, Inspection and Plan Review - 5 Years
Juan Molina, Jr., Security- 5 Years
Janet Hasso, Building Review- 5 Years
Bismar Naranjo, Parks and Recreation - 10 Years
Hans Schalt, PWED - 10 Years
Ernest Augustin, Road and Bridge - 10 Years
Raymond Smith, Pollution Control- 15 Years
Raymond Ognibene, Wastewater Collection - 15 Years
2
May 23, 2000
10)
11)
12)
Kathryn Nell, County Attorney - 15 Years
William Lorenz, Natural Resources - 15 Years
Lazaro Blanco, Aquatic Plant Control - 20 Years
C. PRESENTATIONS
1)
Presentation by Robert Geroy, Chairman, of the Collier Mosquito Control
District regarding survey to expand boundaries further into Golden Gate
Estates.
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) This item has been deleted.
2)
Third amendment to the 1999 Tourism Agreement between Collier County
and the Tourism Alliance of Collier County regarding advertising and
promotion of the Marco Island Film Festival.
3)
Approve Tourist Development Council funding for the Collier County
Historical Society, Inc., regarding paying off a portion of the Wilkinson
House over a three-year duration.
4)
Approve Tourist Development Council funding for the Marco Island
Historical Society, Inc. $13,900.
5)
Approve Tourist Development Council funding for the Collier County
Museums.
6)
Approve the 2000 Tourism Agreement between Collier County and the
Tourism Alliance of Collier County regarding advertising/promotion and
special events.
7)
Request by Joseph Sabatino for a waiver of application fees for a
variance request in Naples Park. (Companion to V-2000-08)
3
May 23, 2000
E.
F.
G.
8)
Approval of budget amendment to cover permitting costs for 35 units to be
built by the Collier County Housing Authority in Immokalee.
PUBLIC WORKS
1)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition of land by condemnation of
traffic signal easements for the installation and maintenance of the
County-wide Computerized Traffic System Signal Improvement Project
(Phase 1 ).
2)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by condemnation of non-
exclusive, perpetual utility and temporary construction interests by
easement for the construction of the thirty (30") inch parallel sewer force
main along Immokalee Road and within Creekside Commerce Center,
Project 73943.
3)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition of land by condemnation of
fee simple title interests for the construction of roadway improvements for
the Whippoorwill Lane Project between Pine Ridge Road to a point one
mile south, being the intersection of the future east/west connector road
connecting to Livingston Road (Phase 1).
4)
Discussion relating to 11 lth Avenue North with respect to the Area
Transportation Sub-Network.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Presentation of Interim Progress Report from the Collier County Health
Care Review Committee and Request for Time Extension for Submission
of Final Report.
2)
Request by Doug Schroeder representing the Cocohatchee Nature Center
regarding revisions to the Parks and Recreation Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
SUPPORT SERVICES
COUNTY MANAGER
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
A Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release between the Board of
County Commissioners and Naples Community Hospital.
4
May 23, 2000
9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a settlement
of Soverign Construction Group, Inc. v. Collier County, Case No. 97-4128-CA
DRM, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County,
Florida, pursuant to which the County would receive $528,000 and all claims
against the County would be dismissed with prejudice.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Office
of the County Attorney and the Risk Management Department to pursue any
legal remedies that may be available against National Union Fire Insurance
Company, American International Group, Inc. AIG Claims Services, Inc., or any
other potentially responsible entities to recover damages incurred as a result of a
refusal to honor a claim under the County's excess insurance policy.
Request for direction from the Board of County Commissioners concerning a
complaint filed with the Clerk to the Board alleging that the Champion Lakes RV
PUD Ordinance No. 2000-21 is inconsistent with the County's Growth
Management Plan.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item has been deleted.
B. Appointment of member to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee.
Resolutions regarding Commissioner Norris. (Commissioner Constantine and
Commissioner Mac'Kie)
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
5
May 23, 2000
ZONING AMENDMENTS
1)
Petition PUD-99-18(1), Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole, Montes &
Associates, Inc., representing the Olde Cypress Development
Corporation, requesting a fezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to "PUD" known as Olde Cypress PUD for the
purpose of adding 9.3+ acres of land for a golf course driving range, and
to revise the PUD to reflect changes brought on by the use of the added
land and other changes to the PUD document relative to setback
requirements, for property located on the north side of Immokalee Road,
1.3 miles east of 1-75, in Sections 21 & 22, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 538.1+ acres (Companion to
DOA-2000-02).
2)
Petition PUD-86-6(1), Mr. Kevin McVicker of Phoenix Planning and
Engineering representing the Jon& Sonya Laidig Foundation, requesting
an amendment to the Loch Ridge PUD to allow for an assisted living
facility (ALF) for property located on the southeast corner of Davis
Boulevard (SR-84) and Crown Point Boulevard West, in Section 7,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion
to CU-99-3).
3)
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 27, 2000 MEETING.
Petition PUD-2000-02 William Hoover of Hoover Planning and
Development, Inc. representing Mark L. Linder, Trustee, requesting a
rezone from its current zoning classification of "A" Rural Agricultural to
"PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Hibiscus Village PUD
for an affordable housing development. The subject property is an
undeveloped 18.76 acre parcel located on the west side of Collier
Boulevard approximately % of a mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road in
Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
OTHER
1)
Petition DOA-2000-02, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole, Montes &
Associates, Inc., representing the Olde Cypress Development
Corporation, for an amendment to the Olde Cypress Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order for the purpose of adding 9.3+
acres of land and making adjustments to the master plan to account for
the effect of the added land, for property located on the north side of
Immokalee Road, 1.3 miles east of 1-75 in Sections 21 & 22, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 538.1_+ acres.
(Companion to PUD-99-18(1)).
2)
To consider adoption of an Ordinance amending Collier County's Noise
Control Ordinance, No. 90-17, as amended; Lowers Table I Noise Levels
6
May 23, 2000
13.
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 allowable sounds within multi-family
units in residential use; amends parts of Section Six (F) related to
regulated music and amplified noise from unenclosed areas; deletes
Section Seven related to regulated music and amplified noise from
enclosed areas; 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 of July 1,2000.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1)
Petition CU-99-3, Mr. Kevin McVicker of Phoenix Planning and
Engineering, representing the Jon& Sonya Laidig Foundation, requesting
conditional use "16" of the "A" Agriculture Zoning District to allow for an
Assisted Living Facility (ALF) for property located on the southeast corner
of Davis Boulevard (SRo84) and Crown Point Boulevard West, in Section
7, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
{Companion item PUD-86-6(1)).
2)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 9, 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.
3)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 9, 2000 MEETING.
Petition CU-2000-01, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Goodlette, Coleman
& Johnson, PA, representing Barbara and Wilbur Crutchlay requesting a
Conditional Use for a boat dock as a permitted principal use in the "RSF-
4" residential single family zoning district for a property located on the
west side of West Avenue and is further described as part of Lot 1, Block
"E", Little Hickory Shores Unit #2, in Bonita Springs.
4)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 9, 2000 MEETING.
Petition CU-2000-03, George L. Varnadoe, Esq., of Young, Van
Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing La Playa LLC,
requesting Conditional Use "5" of the "RT" Resort Tourist Zoning District
for a private club per Section 2.2.8.3 for property known as the La Playa
Hotel and Beach Club, located on Gulfshore Boulevard, further described
as the Lots 25 through 30, inclusive, Block A, Unit No. 1, and Lots 24
7
May 23, 2000
14.
15.
through 28, inclusive, Block B, Unit No. 1, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach
Estates, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida. (Companion to V-2000-9)
s)
Petition CU-2000-05, R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. of Young, Van Assenderp,
Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A. representing Royal Palm Academy, Inc.
requesting a Conditional Use for private school in the "A" Rural
Agricultural zoning district for a property located on the east side of
Livingston Road approximately one and a half miles north of Immokalee
Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. This site consists of 9.5 acres.
6)
Petition V-2000-07, Miles L. Scofield representing Michael Zaccheo,
requesting a 12-foot variance to the required 15-foot west side yard
setback for dock facilities to 3 feet for property located at 63 Southport
Cove, further described as Southport of the Bay Unit 1, Lot 58, in Section
6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
7)
Petition V-2000-08 Joseph Sabatino requesting a variance of 7.5 feet
from the required 7.5 feet to 0 feet along the west side yard of lots 13 &
14 and along the east side yard of Lots 36 and 37; a variance of 0.7-foot
from the required 6-foot maximum to a 6.7-foot maximum for the height of
the courtyard walls; a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 7.5 feet to 0
feet for accessory structures along the side lot lines and within the
courtyard walls; and a variance of 10 feet from the required 10 feet to 0
feet for accessory structures along the rear lot lines and within the
courtyard walls for properties described as Lots 13, 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38,
Block 17, Naples Park, Unit 2, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to
Agenda Item 8(A)7).
8)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 9, 2000 MEETING.
Petition V-2000-9, George L. Varnadoe, Esquire, of Young, Van
Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, representing La Playa, LLC, for a
variance to the separation between building requirement from forty-nine
(49) feet to thirty-five (35) feet for property located at 9891 Gulfshore
Drive. (Companion to CU-2000-03)
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
8
May 23, 2000
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.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Approve a resolution that authorizes the County Manager to apply for a
$750,000 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant that is offered through the
Florida Department of Community Affairs.
2)
Adopt the Interlocal Agreement transferring jurisdiction of waterways
within the City of Marco Island to the City of Marco Island.
3)
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.738,
"Paul and Kelly Byrd Commercial Excavation TR 127 & 128, U 49" located
in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 27 East: bounded on the north,
south, east and west by vacant land zoned Estates, and also on the east
by 16th St. N.E. and on the north by a canal.
4)
Recommendation to approve Excavation Permit No. 59.737, Garro Lake
Commercial Excavation located in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range
28 East: bounded on the north, east, and west by vacant lot and on the
south by 62nd Ave. NE R/W.
5)
Final acceptance of water and/or sewer facilities connections for the
Pointe II at Pelican Bay.
6)
Final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Stonebridge, Tract
H.
7)
Request to accept an alternate security for Leawood Lakes, and enter into
a new construction and maintenance agreement with the new developer.
8)
Approval of an agreement with the South Florida Water Management
District to continue participating in the surface water quality monitoring of
Big Cypress Basin, Collier County.
9)
Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) and Resolution authorizing the Public
Transportation Manager to enter into, modify or terminate the Agreement.
(No. 405805)
10)
Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) and Resolution authorizing the Public
Transportation Manager to enter into, modify or terminate the Agreement.
(No. 204786)
9
May 23, 2000
11)
An application for a Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged
Trip Grant for FY 200-2001.
12)
Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) and Resolution authorizing the Public
Transportation Manager to enter into, modify or terminate the Agreement.
(No. 207212)
13)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Strand Commercial
Replat"
'14)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Carlton Lakes Unit No.
3"
Request to add five (5) permanent full-time positions in the Building
Review and Permitting Department.
PUBLIC WORKS
1) This item has been deleted.
2) This item has been deleted.
3)
Acceptance of an Utility Easement for the relocation of a water meter in
the Holiday Manor Subdivision.
4)
Acceptance of Utility Easement for the relocation of a watermain in the
Kings Lake Subdivision.
5)
Approval and Execution of Satisfactions of Notice of Promise to Pay and
Agreement to extend payment of Water and/or Sewer System Impact
Fees.
6)
Approval and Execution for Satisfactions of Claim of Liens for Water
and/or Sewer System Impact Fees.
7)
Approval and Execution of Cancellation of Notice of Promise to Pay and
Agreement to extend payment of Water and/or Sewer System Impact
Fees.
8)
Authorization to Execute Satisfaction of Lien documents filed against Real
Property for Abatement of Nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts to
record same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
9)
Convey County land to South Florida Water Management District to
provide off-site mitigation for the construction of Livingston Road
1o
May 23, 2000
10)
12)
13)
14)
15)
17)
19)
20)
21)
improvements.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of fee
simple title interest for the construction of the Immokalee Road/Randall
Boulevard Intersection Improvement Project, CIE No. 72.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition of land by gift or purchase
of traffic signal easements for the installation and maintenance of the
County-wide Computerized Traffic System Signal Improvement Project
(Phase 1 ).
Approve a 2-Party Agreement and accept an easement and temporary
construction easement from McAIpine (Briarwood), Inc.
Approve an Easement Agreement, accept a temporaw construction
easement and a drainage easement to provide flood relief for property
owners within the Kirkwood Avenue Drainage/Gateway Triangle area.
Approve Work Order #PW-MA-0011 with McGee and Associates to
provide landscape architectural services during construction for U.S. 41
Tamiami Trail East Streetscape Beautification Project, Project No. 60013.
Request to amend Ordinance No. 91-107 to allow for roadway lighting
improvements within in the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage
Municipal Service Taxing Unit (M.S.T.U.), Project No. 68062.
Award a Contract to Akerblom Contracting, Inc. to construct Manatee
pump station improvements, Bid 99-3028, Project 70052.
Approve a Donation Agreement and accept a special warranty deed from
Harvest for Humanity, Inc.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
#00-3069 for Clam Bay Interior Channel Construction Phase II to D.N.
Higgins, Inc. and approve the necessary budget amendment.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
#00-3073 for Pelican Bay street signs to Lykins Signtek, Inc.
Approval of a Lease Agreement with Horseshoe Square Development,
L.C. in order to relocate the Stormwater Management Department.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of fee
simple title interests and/or non-exclusive perpetual utility and temporaw
construction interests by easement for the construction of the thirty (30")
inch parallel sewer force main along Immokalee Road and within
11
May 23, 2000
Creekside Commerce Center, Project 73943.
22)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition of land by gift or purchase
of fee simple title interests for the construction of roadway improvements
for the Whippoorwill Lane Project between Pine Ridge Road to a point
one mile south, being the intersection of the future east/west connector
road connecting to Livingston Road (Phase 1).
23)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize two
(2) Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Committee Members to attend
the sustainable Florida Leadership Awards Banquet.
24) This item has been deleted.
25)
Approve staff ranking of firms for contract negotiations for construction
engineering inspections services for Pine Ridge Road widening from
Airport Road to Logan Boulevard, Project No. 60111, ClE No. 41.
26)
Approve Work Order No. PW-WM-0009 with WilsonMiller to provide
project management services for the East Tamiami Trail, Phase "B"
Streetscape Beautification Project, from Airport Road to Rattlesnake
Hammock Road, Project No. 60039.
27)
Approve Work Order No. PW-WM-0008 with WilsonMiller to provide
project management services for Goodlette-Frank Road Median
Beautification Project, from Solana Road to Pine Ridge Road, Project No.
60095.
28)
Approve Work Order # PW-WM-0010 with WilsonMiller to provide project
management services for the North Tamiami Trail Median Landscape,
from Seagate Drive to Gulf Park Drive.
29) This item has been deleted.
30)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
¢¢00-3052 for Pelican Bay streetlights, sign poles & luminaries to
Consolidated Electric Distribution, Inc. and approve the necessary budget
amendment.
31)
Approve contract negotiations for Task #1 for professional engineering
services by Malcolm Pirnie, for Solid Waste Characterization and Program
Analysis Study, RFP 00-3046.
PUBLIC SERVICES
~2
May 23,2000
Approve Contract ¢¢99-2947 "Implementation of a Master Plan for the
North Naples Regional Park".
2)
Authorize the Collier County School Board to prepare the food for the
Summer Food Service Grant Program.
3)
Award of Bid #00-3082 to G. A. Foods to prepare the food for the Summer
Food Service Grant Program while summer school is not in session.
4)
Approve an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Naples to collaborate on
obtaining a Florida Communities Trust Grant.
5)
Authorization to transfer temporary part-time position to permanent part-
time status.
6)
Approve an application to the Florida Department of State requesting
Historic Preservation Grant Funds to assist with the restoration of the
Roberts' Ranch in Immokalee.
SUPPORT SERVICES
l)
Approve Capital Equipment Repairs and Replacements for building,
plumbing and air conditioning systems.
2)
Approve and Execute an Agreement with the Golden Gate Fire Control &
Rescue District, which Provides for a Maximum Expenditure of $12,500
from the GAC Land Trust.
3)
Approve and Execute an Agreement to provide for a Maximum
Expenditure of $50,000 from the GAC Land Trust to Initiate the Design of
a Fire Control and Rescue Station to be Located with Golden Gate
Estates.
4)
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Canceling of Current Taxes Upon
Certain Oil Gas and Mineral Rights Obtained by Tax Deed Without
Monetary Compensation for Public Use.
5) Award Bid No. S00-2047 for the Sale of Surplus Mail Machine.
COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Resolution authorizing the County Manager to approve and execute
routine matters on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners during
designated commission vacations.
13
May 23,2000
2)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendments #00-231;
#00-240; ¢¢00-241.
3) Recommendation relating to Holocaust Museum.
F. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
G. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Recommendation to award Bid No. 00-3065, Installation of Hurricane
Shutters at Village Oaks Elementary and Pine Ridge Middle Schools.
H. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
I. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
l)
Resolution providing for the imposition and collection of a Local Option
Fee for provision enhanced Emergency "911" telephone service and
equipment.
J. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Recommendation that the Board approve Amendment Number 2 to Legal
Services Agreement with the law firm of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel,
Smith & Cutler, P.A.
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.
Petition PUD-91-05(1), Dwight Nadeau of McAnley Engineering and Design, Inc.,
representing Samuel J. Durso of Habitat for Humanity, requesting a rezone from
"PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development, for property known as Habitat Place
PUD, an affordable housing project located approximately three miles east of
14
May 23, 2000
S.R. 951 on the south side of U.S. 41 East, in Section 12, Township 51 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 20.20_+ acres.
Petition PUD~99-05(1), Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of Wilson Miller, Inc.,
representing Long Bay Partners, LLC, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural
Agriculture to "PUD" and "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as
Mediterra PUD having the effect of increasing acreage from 943_+ acres to 954_+
acres, for property located west of 1-75 along the Livingston Road East/West
Corridor in Sections 11 and 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Petition DOA-2000-01, William R. Vines of Vines and Associates, representing
Richard K. Bennett, Trustee, for an amendment to the Citygate Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order 88-2 as amended for the purpose of
extending dates for initiation of construction activities, amending phasing
schedule and the time the Development Order is to remain in effect.
Petition VAC-00~002 to vacate a portion of platted 20' wide Lake Maintenance
Access and Drainage Easement on Lot 11, Block B, "Wildcat Cove Two", as
recorded in Plat Book 30, Pages 1 through 3, Public Records of Collier County,
located in Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
Petition VAC-00-008 to vacate a portion of a Lake Maintenance Easement on
Tract B, "Crown Pointe Shores", as recorded in Plat Book 26, Pages 55 through
56, Public Records of Collier County located in Section 7, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
15
May 23,2000
May 23, 2000
Item #3A, 3B AND 3C
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, everybody. Good morning.
Welcome to the Board of County Commissioners' meeting for
Tuesday, May 23rd, the year 2000.
If you'd stand and join me in an invocation, we have
Reverend Paul Jarrett of the Naples Church of Christ. And if
you'd stay standing, we'll also say the pledge to the flag.
REVEREND JARRETT: Heavenly Father, we come before
your throne with much to be thankful for. We live in a nation that
has been richly blessed above every nation on this earth. We
enjoy great peace and prosperity in our times, and for that we
express our gratitude.
But we also acknowledge the fact that even in this great
nation, that there are times when the peace that is enjoyed by so
many of us is shattered for some, and we're made mindful of that
in the incident which occurred in our own community this past
week with the deaths of two fine young people. And we pray thy
blessings upon their family and friends, and we pray especially
that you would be with those co-workers of the one man who
was killed who help to protect us from violent acts such as this.
And we pray that you will help them to continue to persevere in
the work that they do.
We also recognize that many times the prosperity that we
enjoy is not shared unequally by all. And we pray that those of
us who are blessed will seek to be a blessing to others.
We also give you thanks for the fact that we live in a nation
where we can have meetings such as this, with a democratic
process that we enjoy. And we thank you for those who are
willing to give of their time and talents and exercise leadership
in this area. And we do not ask that they be perfect, because we
recognize that they will make mistakes. But we pray that when
mistakes are made, that they will be honest mistakes, and that
the honesty of those mistakes will be attested to by the manner
in which they are acknowledged and corrected and dealt with.
And we pray that in all things, that we might seek to be
honest in the evaluation of our blessings, to be caring in the
Page 2
May 23, 2000
administration of those blessings, and that your will might be
done in our lives. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, good morning. I
understand we have some changes to the agenda. And we're
also going to tinker with the order of the agenda a little bit this
morning.
MR. OLLIFF: We are. Thank you. Good morning. And
welcome back, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: I'll walk you through the changes that are on
your change list. The very first item is an addition to your
agenda, and it would be to add Item 8(G}(2), which is to obtain
board approval to amend Resolution 98-419. And I believe you
had some backup provided to you in your backup package.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 8(G)(2}?
MR. OLLIFF: 8(G)(2). That is a companion item for the NCH
Collier County settlement agreement. And it is actually an
agreement that provides for how these issues will be handled in
the future, as well as resolution of the past items.
We're also adding item 16(B)(32), and it's an approval on the
consent agenda to use a portion of a Pelican Bay water
management easement for a Registry Resort pool and overhang
addition. It's a very minor item. We're requesting that you add
that onto your consent agenda. It is subject to the final approval
of both the County Attorney's Office and the Pelican Bay
Advisory Board.
The reason we're putting it on as an add-on item, frankly, is
that just in scheduling and some issues there, there are some
staging requirements in the public beach parking lot that we're
trying to minimize as much as possible by putting it on the
agenda today.
We're also adding Item 16(G)(2}. Again, that's in addition to
your consent agenda. It is a very minor budget amendment from
the Ochopee Fire Control District for about $1,600. That provides
an opportunity for them to apply for a grant of in excess of about
$3,000. Again, a very minor item, so we've added it to your
consent agenda.
We are asking that you continue Item 12(C)(2}, which is the
noise control ordinance. We're asking that that be continued to
Page 3
May 23, 2000
a date specific, which would be your June 13th meeting. And all
of the parties have been notified that were involved in the
previous public hearing about that.
Next item is a continuance of Item 13(A)(2). This is at the
petitioner's request. It is Petition A-99-04. It is the Kensington
Park Master Association, and Yorktown Neighborhood
Association appeal request. That is -- has been requested that it
be continued to June 13th, again at the petitioner's request.
The next item is a withdrawal. We are asking that Item
t 6(B)(30), which was an award for some streetlights, poles and
luminaries, that that be withdrawn. There was a timely bid
protest filed on that item, and so we'll need to go through the bid
protest procedures.
The next items under your notes are some requested
changes in the schedule of the agenda in order to accommodate,
frankly, Commissioner Carter. The first item that we are
requesting be heard would be Item 8(B)(4), which would be the
111th Avenue North transportation sub-network item. Second
item then we would go to would be the public hearings items.
And thirdly, we would request that we hear the Tourist
Development Council related items, which would be Items
8(A)(2), 8(A)(3), 8(A)(4), 8(A)(5) and 8(A)(6).
The last note that you have there -- and if you will allow me
to just read an amendment to the backup agreement that is in
your consent agenda; if I could just read into the record two
minor changes to that, we can leave that item on the consent
agenda and not have to move it to the regular agenda. This was
an agreement between the City of Naples and Collier County
regarding a co-grant application for some communities trust
grant funds.
And if I can just read that paragraph six of that agreement,
will be amended to where it strikes the last section of the
paragraph and it simply strikes the words, "and the city accepts
this responsibility." And the rest of that paragraph will remain
the same.
Paragraph 7 will be amended so the last sentence will read:
"The restriction in this Paragraph 7 shall terminate at the end of
the 2001 and 2002 fiscal year."
And with those minor changes read into the record, we can
leave that item on the consent agenda.
Page 4
May 23, 2000
And with those changes, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, any changes?
MR. WEIGEL: None, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Welcome back.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have only one and that is I'd
like to hear Item 10(D) first. That seems to have gotten a lot of
attention and could potentially distract from other parts of the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there's no objection, we'll
entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda, summary
agenda and regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved -- second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any objection?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
MAY 23, 2000
ADD: ITEM 8(G)(2}; Obtain Board approval to amend Resolution 98-419. (Staff's request).
ADD: ITEM 16(B~(32}: Approve the Consent to Use Agreement between the Registry Resort and
Collier County for a portion of the water management easement adjacent to the hotel. (Staff's
request).
ADD: ITEM 16(G)(2): Approve the Ochopee Fire Control District's budget amendments for the
purchase of brush fire gear. (Staff's request).
CONTINUE: ITEM 12(C)f2) TO JUNE 1.~,. 2000 MEET!NG.~. Ordinance amen~in8 Noise Control
ordinance No. 90-17 as amended; lowers Table I noise levels applicable to reddecrial, tourist
residential and commercial property; etc. (Staff" request).
CONTINUE: ITEM 13(A)(2) TO THE JUNE 13, 2000 MEETING: Petition A-99-04, Kensington
Park Master Association and the Yorktown Neighborhood Association, requesting an ai~peai of the
CCPC that changes to the Carillon PUD Master Plan by adding new commercial buildin~ footprints
were insubstantial. (Petitioner's request).
WITHDRAW: ITEM 16(B)(30): Award Bid 000-3052 for Pelican
luminaries to Consolidated Electric Distribution, Inc. (Staff's request).
Bay streetlights, poles and
NOTES:
1. IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE COMMISSIONER CARTER, THE FOLLOWING
CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION ARE REQUESTED.
First item to be heard: Item 8(B)(4) - Illth Avenue No. with respect to the area transportation sub-
network.
Second items to be heard: Public hearings.
Third items to be heard: Items 8(A)(2), 8(A)(3), 8(A)(4), 8(A)(5) & 8(A)(6) - all are Tourist
Development items.
2. THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO ITEM 16(C)(4) HAVE RESULTED FROM THE
NAPLES CITY COUNCIL'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM AND ARE BEING
RECOMMENDED BY THE COUNTY STAFF:
Paragraph 6 of the agreement - Both parties acknowledge that the City shall have the sole right
and responsibility for the administration, programming, scheduling and supervision of all events
and activities conducted on the subject property ~.nd
Paragraph 7 of the agreement - During the effective term of this agreement, neither the City of
Naples, nor any person or entity on behalf of the City of Naples (including any department,
agency or sub-part thereo0 shall request that Collier County contribute any money or any other
tangible or intangible consideration toward the Fieischmann property, the Cambier Park band
shell or the Pulling Property Canoe Launch. This agreement shall terminat.e at the end of the
2000.2001 fiscal year:
May 23, 2000
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2000-154, REQUESTING RESIGNATION OR
SUSPENSION/REMOVAL OF COMMISSIONER NORRIS - ADOPTED
WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that motion carrying
unanimously, we'll go to Item 10(D).
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you want to lead this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, thank you.
I wasn't quite prepared to do that, so let me collect myself
for a second.
It has -- it is unfortunate that we find ourselves in the
position of having to deal with a resolution asking a member of
this board to either resign or in the absence of his resignation to
ask the Governor to remove him from office.
It's not a surprise to anybody that this is the same issue that
I have been asking, frankly, for three years, based on
Commissioner Norris's admissions in his statement, supposedly
in his defense. I think it's been a difficult black eye, a hard time
for this board to live through for the last three years. But now I
don't think anybody can argue that based on the admissions and
the statement made to the Ethics Commission itself, sworn to --
or attested to by Mr. Norris, that it's time, it past time, but that
this board has to take a stand and ask Mr. Norris please to
resign, and in the absence of that, to ask the Governor to begin
the process for removal.
I base that on -- there are a couple of-- a couple of ways
that can be done. One is through the Ethics Commission itself.
The other is a statutory constitutional scheme. So there are
legal avenues available to us with or without Mr. Norris's
continued plea agreement deal.
But I think it comes down to it's as simple as this: It's past
time but it is certainly time for the board to take a stand; that we
don't condone the action that Mr. Norris has admitted to doing,
and that we ask him please to resign, and in the absence of a
resignation, that we ask the Governor to remove him or suspend
him from office and that that procedure be instituted
immediately. The community needs to hear that from us.
They've needed it for a long time, but they definitely need to hear
Page 6
May 23, 2000
it today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have resolutions in more
than one form, and when we get to the conclusion of the item, I
think we need to try to hone in on one of those anyway.
Commissioner Norris, do you want to respond before we go
to the public?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Certainly.
Commissioner Mac'Kie is right, that it's been a long and
difficult process for three years. It's been especially hard on me,
of course, but it's been hard on the Commission as a whole
through the publicity and all. And for that, I sincerely apologize
to the Commission for causing that to happen, as well as to the
public at large.
Let me explain why I entered into a settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement of course was proposed by the state.
And my rationale for doing it really is primarily financial in that it
would be very expensive from this point forward to go ahead and
defend a hearing. And perhaps there would be some chance of
not being successful, of course, and then at that point that there
would be even more expenditures on top of that. So in order to
identify and limit my financial exposure, I entered into the
settlement agreement.
The second reason, of course, was to bring closure to the
item so that we can finally all get past it and move on with our
lives. But it seems there are some malicious elements in this
community that don't want this issue to die. And so I assume
that I have no choice now but to request the Commission on
Ethics reject this settlement agreement and go ahead and go
forward with the penalty.
I could sit here probably for several minutes and pick apart
the resolution that was brought forward by the Republican
Executive Committee. I don't know that I need to do that, other
than say as the basis for their resolution, they use, strangely
enough, some of the items that were dismissed as part of the
settlement agreement. So if anybody doubts that there's political
maneuvering behind this, I think that could put that to rest.
But it does say that the Commission on Ethics has the
power to -- in the statutes, the Commission shall recommend
appropriate action. A Commission on Ethics shall recommend
appropriate action to the agency or official having power to
Page 7
May 23, 2000
impose any penalty provided by statutes. It's their purview, not
ours, and not the Republican Executive Committee.
The other thing is, the process itself is that -- well, think
about the awkward position you're asking the Governor to be in.
His administration has offered a settlement agreement to me,
which I have accepted on the basis of what penalties were set
forth and what admissions were included in there and what
dismissals were in there. And now what you're asking the
Governor to do is to go beyond what his administration has
agreed to and invoke further penalties.
I can tell you, certainly if there was a penalty included in the
original agreement that said that I need to either resign or be
suspended, that I would not have entered into that agreement.
Now, in any case, it's my intention, to just shorten this
discussion up, to take this back to the Commission on June the
1st and ask them to reject the settlement agreement. And it
says right here, "In the event that it is not approved by the
Commission on Ethics, as written, this document shall be of no
purpose and effect and shall not be deemed an admission by the
respondent." And so that's exactly what I intend to do. That's
the only way that the truth is going to come out in this matter.
My antagonists here are all attorneys. They know very well
that a settlement agreement never gets at the truth. The only
way the truth is going to be found is to go ahead and have a full
hearing, get all the facts out on the table, let me at last have my
say, and say my side of the story.
It's very interesting that the Republican Executive
Committee brought this forward. And in the three years since
this issue first started, not one person from the Republican
Executive Committee or its membership has ever picked up -- so
much as picked up the phone and called me to ask me about any
of this.
Now, that's what I intend to do, and I just want to ask all of
you, and anybody out in the audience, is there anyone here that
would deny the opportunity to finally get at the truth? And is
there anybody here that's ready to stand up and to deny me of
my right to due process? And with that I'm --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I respond?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: John, my response is in two
Page 8
May 23, 2000
parts: One is I appreciate that due process is afforded you. I
had wished, though, that this board would take a position on the
facts as you read them to us in your statement. And I didn't
bring it with me this morning. But when you read a statement to
this board in your defense, it described circumstances that I
wish this board would take a stand against. And we do that by
virtue of passing a resolution asking you to resign. That's
separate from due process. That's based on your own
statement. I will propose a resolution asking you to resign.
Secondly, whether we like it or not, the effect of a pension
is at stake here that's worth probably a quarter of a million
dollars. And the fact is that if you continue to maneuver this
process until your term has ended, you will have received that
pension. And I don't think that's appropriate, considering the
facts that you have admitted to, whether-- you know, separate,
completely separate from this settlement agreement, but the
facts that you admitted to in your original statement.
As a result of that, what -- the resolution that I'm proposing
today, and it can certainly be worked in as an amendment to the
one that Commissioner Constantine is proposing, is that our -- is
that the following language be added: "Said suspension request
is contingent on the proposed settlement agreement either being
formally accepted by the Commission on Ethics or any of the
charges against Commissioner Norris being entered as findings
by the Ethics Commission through a hearing process." And that
that be delivered to the Governor with a request that the
possibility of your receiving a pension be told pending a final
outcome, whether it be through the hearing or through a
settlement agreement. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the public. How
many speakers do we have, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: We have one. And then you had -- Ms. Gina
Hahn submitted a speaker slip after the item had already begun,
but that's up to your discretion, Mr. Chairman.
The first speaker is Robert Jenkins, and followed by Ms.
Gina Hahn. And those are your only two.
MR. JENKINS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Robert Jenkins, and I rise as a member of the public.
Sir, I think a long time ago you should have resigned. I think
people look at this on the whole and say it isn't right.
Page 9
May 23, 2000
I am running for Collier County commissioner, Mr.
Constantine's seat, during a petition drive. I spoke to well over
300 people. And out of those people, not one has said they
thought you should remain in office.
I think it's as travesty that you think the public is ignorant of
the fact of what occurred, and I think today is the day that you
should look at the people of Collier County and say I'm very sorry
for what I did and I do resign today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Gina Hahn.
MS. HAHN: Good morning, Chairman, and members of the
Commission. I'm a proud member of the Collier County
Republican Executive Committee, and I do not recall, Mr.
Commissioner Norris, you ever coming to us and explaining your
situation. It was not up to us to come, but you as an elected
Republican member of the party, it would be up to you to come to
us and explain if you have been wronged in any way. And I would
like at this point to read the editorial in today's Naples Daily
News. It's quite appropriate.
Colleagues delayed outcry made action more difficult. Burt
Saunders makes a good point. The Florida senator, formally a
Collier County attorney and commissioner, says his successors
helped fuel the civic fire about John Norris's official conduct --
official conduct, I would like to repeat -- by failing to take it
seriously until now. Now. Not three years ago, but now.
The Stadium Naples/Norris debacle started three years ago
next month, and commissioners could have spoken out long
before on any number of occasions about Norris's multi million
dollar deal with none of his own money down. That sank in a sea
of public outcry later in 1997.
Today, with the Florida Commission on Ethics and Governor
Jeb Bush closing in on Norris, who has admitted his guilt on four
civil counts, the board considers motions asking for him to step
down or be thrown out of office. Making sure he does not collect
a pension of $1,000 a month for eight years of service is of
paramount importance.
Until now, most commissioners have chosen to defend
Norris, waive golf audits, dismiss the gravity of his actions, take
offense at calls for localized speedy or ethics rules, and even
propose that news media ethics be investigated instead. We all
Page 10
May 23, 2000
read that in the paper.
The public record is clear. For 1998, commissioners proudly
elevated him to the board's vice-chairmanship. The longer his
fellow elected officials waited to say something, the harder it got
to get him out of office.
And we stand here today asking you to resign. Thank you.
(Applause.}
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just would like to -- because
when I read the editorial this morning, it made me a little angry,
frankly. Because what am I, chopped liver? It says that the
Commission has not asked for this? Well, I've been on the
Commission for three years and I've been asking for this. So I
just, you know, wanted to bring that to the attention of the
public.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the point remains that
whether we liked it or not, the process did drag out at the state
level, over which this board has no control. But the Ethics
Commission has to go through their process, has to do their
investigation. And do we all wish that had taken six months
instead of 36 months? Absolutely.
But to suggest that anybody should have said something
three years ago the way we're saying it today, very easy 20/20
hindsight to say that. We didn't have all the information we have
today.
Senator Saunders is quoted in there. He didn't say anything
in the last three years about it. Republican Executive Committee
passed a resolution now because they have facts now that they
didn't have three years ago. So we are where we are. And today
we need to decide what action we think is appropriate on May
23rd, the year 2000.
Commissioner Berry, do you want to say something?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question. And I want
the record to reflect that I do not condone any unethical
behavior, fellow commissioners. Myself, my family, and frankly,
people that I associate with. But did you ever feel like you've
come to a public lynching? That's exactly what I feel like this
morning. And I have some concerns.
I'm sure all the commissioners received this little book. You
all got your financial disclosure thing that you have to get filed
before the end of June. And last night I was looking through
Page 11
May 23, 2000
here, and I read it -- frankly, read it from cover to cover.
But I got to the back page, and I've got some questions for
Mr. Weigel. It goes through -- actually, the name of this, it's The
Guide to the Sunshine Amendment and Code of Ethics For Public
Officers and Employees. We get these every year when we have
to file our financial disclosures.
And at the end of this book -- and they mention in this book
all of the different things, what you can do when you get out of
office, voting conflicts of interests, disclosures, all these kinds of
things. And when it gets to the end of the book, then it tells you
penalties for violating any of these issues.
And on Page 22 of this book, Mr. Weigel, it says there are no
criminal penalties for violation of the Sunshine Amendment and
the Code of Ethics. Is Mr. Norris -- is this a violation of the Code
of Ethics?
MR. WEIGEL: He is currently in a form of the Commission of
Ethics. It's the Code of Ethics laws under Chapter t 12, Part V.
Those are not criminal statutes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly my point.
And then it goes on and it says -- and it talks about penalties
for candidates, penalties for former officers and employees,
penalties for lobbyists and others. Felony conviction -- felony. Is
Mr. Norris' -- what he's done, is this considered a felony?
MR. WEIGEL: With the Commission of Ethics, it is separate
and apart from felony statutes. It is not a felony.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you understand there's a
criminal felonious investigation ongoing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, see, yeah, this is what I don't
understand, Pam. Because in here it states felony convictions,
forfeiture of retirement benefits. In other words, if you are -- and
it says public officers, employees. And these are the things that
we have to go by. And I'm just -- from what's in here, I'm just
trying to figure this out. Because I don't have your expertise,
Pam. You're the legal beagle, I'm not. I don't know the law.
But it says public officers and employees are subject to
forfeiture of all rights and benefits under the retirement system
to which they belong, if convicted of certain offenses prior to
their retirement. The offenses includes embezzlement -- and I
might add, thank God we don't have to deal with some of these
things -- embezzlement or theft of public funds, bribery, felonies
Page 12
May 23, 2000
specified in Chapter 838, Florida Statutes, impeachable offenses,
and felonies committed -- and they keep using this word felony --
felonies committed with intent to defraud the public or their
public agency.
Are these issues felonies? I mean, I'm just asking. I just
need to know, because I'm going to have to cast a vote here in
the next few minutes, and I need to know what I'm doing.
MR. WEIGEL: The issues before the Ethics Commission are
under civil statutes, not felony statutes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So -- and according to this then,
there are no criminal penalties for violation of the Sunshine
Amendment in the Code of Ethics.
MR. WEIGEL.- You're quoting from the book, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner, if I could help
you?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Help me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll just try to offer to help you.
And as a matter of fact, if nobody objects, I'm going to ask Mike
Carr, who's a criminal attorney, if he's willing to come and help
us with this, too. Because I know that's not Mr. Weigel's --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, can we get a second opinion,
too? I mean, all due respect, Mike, but if I'm going to go into
court, I want an attorney, too, you know?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know. I mean, that's fine.
But I think Mike's going to put him in a tough position, because
he sits on the Republican Executive Committee. I don't think
that's fair to you, Mike.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay? Well, have at it, I guess.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll take a shot at saying the
difference here is there are facts in question. If the facts as
alleged prove true, then they will be, number one, a violation of
the civil law, which is the Code of Ethics, for which there are
particular penalties.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Penalties.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, likewise, the identical
facts, if proved true, under the Criminal Code, which is under
investigation, and we have no information --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But that's still going on.
Page 13
May 23, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yet to be determined.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, so that's yet to be
determined. Okay. Is that called -- is that considered due
process?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' But those facts, again, if proved
true, and if passed a certain test under the proof of the criminal
courts -- which is much more difficult than a proof in civil courts
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- do rise to the level of felonies,
if proved true after due process. I think that's what you were
trying to ask.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. All right. But my question
is, according to what John has said and what we've all been told,
that on June 1st the Ethics Commission meets, that's eight days
from now. Is what we're doing now appropriate, or would it be
better to wait the day after June 1 ?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll tell you my opinion about that.
My opinion is that on June 1, based on what Commissioner
Norris has said, he's going to withdraw his settlement
agreement. At that point they will then schedule the, quote,
trial-like hearing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Assuming that that trial-like
hearing can come to a conclusion and a resolution can be had,
assuming a decision can be made prior to I guess it's November
15th or somewhere in there when the current term ends, then
that will be just fine.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
worked itself out --
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
been answered.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
to be answered.
COMMISSIONER
Because --
BERRY: Now wait, what will be -- go back.
MAC'KIE: Well, then the process will have
BERRY: Okay.
MAC'KIE: -- and the civil question will have
BERRY: Okay.
MAC'KIE: The criminal question will remain
NORRIS: And if I might say, it appears
Page 14
May 23, 2000
preliminarily that we can go back to a hearing probably before
our summer break's over.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's why in my proposed
resolution, I have language that says this is contingent on either
John continuing with his settlement agreement or there being a
finding by the Commission on Ethics that he has violated -- that
he has done one of those things that are alleged.
And the reason I -- and if you want to wait and do it in
August, you know, I've --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I'm not saying that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I know.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm just saying, you know, they're
going to meet next -- eight days from now. That's my only
concern, Pam, is are we getting out ahead of the process?
If you were in this situation, what would you want the Board
of County Commissioners -- would you want to have due process?
Would you want the Board of County Commissioners out in
front? What's the proper -- what's the proper thing to do here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The proper thing to do -- you
know, I'd love to answer the question if I were in this situation,
you know, because -- of course it wouldn't be number two. If I
had -- I hope and pray I wouldn't put this Commission, this
county, through -- I hope that I would make -- even if I were
innocent, I hope I'd make the personal sacrifice to put this
behind us as a community three years ago. I hope I would do
that for the good of the community. And for the good of my
family, frankly, so they wouldn't have had to live through this. I
hope that's what I would do. Nobody knows till they're there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have one legal question, and
then I have some comments.
From the book on ethics that Commissioner Berry read, it
talks about any felony convictions after retirement. When it
refers to retirement, Mr. Weigel, does that refer to completing
your term as commissioner, or does that refer to retirement age,
as in 62 or 65 years of age?
MR. WEIGEL: I can't answer that definitively. But my
thought would be that it's retirement in the terms of a public
officer being retired from office in the context of the statutes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So it would be after the eight
years?
Page 15
May 23, 2000
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which it takes, for people out
there in the public, if you're not aware, it takes eight years to be
vested in the retirement system.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why I ask that question is that
we don't know, and I don't want to suggest one way or the other,
but as long as there is an ongoing criminal investigation, that
specter hangs out there. I will tell that you just through all of our
knowledge of the court system, there's no way that will be
completed by November. Even if there were overwhelming
evidence that Commissioner Norris had done something wrong, a
trial would not be scheduled and completed before November.
If Mr. Weigel's reading is correct, then that would be after
retirement. I wonder if retirement isn't referred to instead as
when you start actually collecting your retirement. I don't know.
And that's kind of an important question for whatever this board
decides to do.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree, Commissioner
Constantine. I have some difficulties with this because I don't
for a moment condone John Norris's behavior or his decision.
And John knows that. But I am tremendously concerned about
process here. And Commissioner Mac'Kie reminded me twice,
process, process.
Is there in this, as Commissioner Constantine is raising, that
retirement is 62, 65? Is that when you begin to draw your
benefits? During this process, at any time if Commissioner Norris
is found guilty, does that mean that those benefits are taken
away? I would like to know the answer to that.
I don't want to jump the gun on this and interrupt process.
Because I believe anyone in a civil or criminal suit has right to
due process, no matter how much I disagree with what they've
done. And I will not condone their behavior, but if I step away
from process, what is the end result? Do I have anarchy, do I
have lynch mobs? I mean, we have laws in process, and that's
why we have it.
And so I am deeply concerned that we don't interrupt
process to get to the end point. And I'd also like to know, when
we're through with process, can benefits and all these things be
taken away if a person is found guilty?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As I said, I wanted to just make
Page 16
May 23, 2000
a couple of points as well before we go on, and that is it is
particularly easy, as an observer, to say gee, someone's done
something wrong, they should do something about it. It is more
difficult when you work side by side with that person to say not
nice things, shall we say, about them.
It's -- I don't think anybody condones any of the activity that
took place. I don't think anybody -- if John is indeed found guilty
and/or if the agreement is agreed to where you've acknowledged
that you did some of these things, I don't think anybody in this
room thinks any of that is appropriate. But I will tell you, it just
puts me as someone who was sworn in, in this very room in
November of 1992, same day as John Norris was, have come in
this building every day for eight years, said good morning, John,
how are you doing, how's the wife, how's the kids, it goes beyond
the simple step of he's a bad guy, he did something wrong. I also
see the personal side of hi, how are you, good to see you, what's
going on, boy, did you have a nice time in Oklahoma.
And when people say well, why didn't you jump on him and
crucify him three years ago, it's because when you see the
personal side of someone every day, sometimes you can assume
that perhaps there's more to the story. And you don't know. And
that's why we have, as Commissioner Carter said, due process.
That said, however, I think there are a couple of things we
can do here. I think it is important, in order to maintain civility
and maintain that process, that we allow that process to take its
course. I think we have to be very careful to interfere (sic) before
due process has had its chance.
It is very, very frustrating, believe me, sitting on this board
to have that due process take three years. We would all gladly
have had this all wrapped up two and a half years ago.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Probably more than anyone.
But the fact remains that the public is very, very concerned.
And I think there is an opportunity here. One of the things
Commissioner Norris has been accused of, among others over
the years, is putting himself before the community. And I think
there is an opportunity here, as difficult as it may be, for John
Norris to absolutely put the community first and to step aside,
and to step down.
And to realize there may be some sacrifice involved in that,
Page 17
May 23, 2000
but to step aside and then if you need to go and fight these
charges, absolutely do that. But I think there has to be some
recognition of the public's concern about the fitness to serve the
final six months. And that I think is perhaps the thing to do here
is for us not to tell the Governor what to do before we've gone
through due process, but to ask Commissioner Norris just to take
the community into consideration as a part of this.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I appreciate that. Let me
just offer this: As I said, I intend to go back to a hearing now.
What I would suggest to the board is that if I went to the hearing
and was completely exonerated, you would all look pretty
foolish, as will a number of people in this community. And that's
exactly what I expect the outcome to be going through a full
hearing. Of course, you never know when you go into litigation.
But I expect to be completely exonerated.
But let me just offer this: Why not table this measure for
now. If you don't like the outcome of the hearing, you certainly
can bring it off the table and do it at that time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand your comment that
people could potentially look foolish. I think you could be the
ultimate American hero if you stepped aside for the good of the
community and then were exonerated. It would be the ultimate
sacrifice. I understand the frustration or the difficulty in doing
that, but I think if -- well, I've said it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is there -- Mr. Chairman, is there
any opportunity that we could have a meeting, say the day after
the hearing, and go forward?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' We don't even know -- you're
talking about the trial-like hearing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: June 1st?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm talking about the June 1st. I
want to -- because I want to know what they're going to do with
this. Because I understand this is a rather unusual situation.
According to what I've read, it's a rather unusual situation. And
I'd like to know what they're going to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, the question
remains whether or not they will allow John to withdraw himself.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly. I don't know. I mean,
maybe you all have more information on this and have more
Page t8
May 23, 2000
connections with those people than I do. But I truly don't know,
and I'd like to know. I'd like to know what the situation's going
to be.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't think they know.
I think the only thing there, we stand the opportunity to
make this even more of a circus as it has been, hard as that
might be to imagine. If they do indeed grant a trial-like hearing,
then the day later or two days later all we know is they've
granted the hearing but we're no further along in the process.
And we sit down -- I understand where you're trying to go
with that, but I just wonder if we don't sit down, kick it all around
and say well, the process continues, they may or may not
schedule an actual date that day, and how many times do we
bring him back and talk about it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And again, the resolution that I'm
going to move in a few moments includes language that says
that the suspension request is contingent on either the
settlement agreement being formally accepted or any of the
charges being entered as findings by the Ethics Commission.
And then we don't have to discuss it again. It's contingent on -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't you put that in the
form of a motion, and we'll move this thing on.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me ask -- well, let me ask this
one question about that. Does that mean that if Commissioner
Norris steps down and goes into what I call suspension, leave of
absence -- you can call it anything you want -- until that thing is
over, then we have a definitive decision? And if he is
exonerated, what does that do to the process? Or does that
mean that he is -- he's through, they find out that he -- whatever
it is. I mean, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand the question.
If he's exonerated, what's the effect of our resolution?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. What is the effect on him
personally? I mean, if he's exonerated, from a financial
standpoint he's going to say well, I stepped down, I did the right
thing, I was exonerated, but I gave up my pension.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If he resigns, that is -- that's the
choice he's faced with. And Tim has asked him to do that. I
don't have -- don't hold out much hope for that. So that's not
what I'm asking.
Page 19
May 23, 2000
I'm asking that we pass a resolution that says in the event
his settlement agreement is accepted by the Ethics Commission
or in the event of a, quote, trial, there -- any of the charges are
entered as findings by the Ethics Commission, and in that event,
we ask that the Governor suspend or remove him from office in --
and I'd ask Mr. Weigel for some language here -- in such a
manner that will -- or in such a time that will not allow his
collection of his pension.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is the big issue here the collection
of the pension, Pam? I mean, other than the fact that -- you
know, we can censure John, which is a public statement to the
public where we pass a resolution up here and say we censure
John Norris for the activity that he has -- in a manner that he has
conducted his life as a member of the Board of County
Commissioners.
You know, there's a guy sitting in Washington that in my
opinion did some things far more horrible than what John Norris
has done. I don't like what John did, and I wish to God he'd have
never done it, because the last three years would have been a
whole lot simpler for me on this Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Amen.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Amen.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We all agree.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I will tell you that I really am
not excited about being a part of the lynch team. But I do not
condone -- and don't misunderstand that and don't sit there and
scratch your head and whoo and ha and all this other nonsense.
But I don't approve of this behavior. I truly do not. And I never
have. And I never have said that I did.
But I also respect, as Commissioner Carter has said, I
respect the process by which all of us are afforded our day in
court.
Now, I've had to sit up here and take all these shots through
the newspaper and through all the people speaking that think I
ought to come up here and slit John Norris's throat. I don't have
that right to do that, nor do you. That's not a right that's afforded
to you.
And I don't like some of the other behavior that I've had to
experience with some other people up here on this Commission,
but that's besides the point, you know.
Page 20
May 23, 2000
Ms. Mac'Kie sits over there with a coffee mug in front of her.
What's it say on that coffee mug, Pain?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Thanks for giving me a chance to
say that. It says, "What would Jesus do?"
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, you want me to tell you?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
BERRY: You remember the woman at the
COMMISSIONER
well?
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
MAC'KIE: I have a little --
BERRY: And what did he say? He said --
MAC'KIE: I have a little --
BERRY: -- repent --
MAC'KIE: Let me tell you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll tell you what he said. He said
repent and go forth and sin no more.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Barbara --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I have to tell you, I'm sure that
John Norris has got the message. And I don't mean to go into
this kind of thing, but I'm sorry. But I'm telling you, let's -- let's
get down to what it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I get to say something back to
that, Tim.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what, if somebody
has a motion on this, let's move that way. We're not going to get
into stone throwing at one another here.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand, but we're not
going to even start in that direction. Let's stay right on the
agenda item, and that is we've got some different resolutions
here and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval of the resolution
proposed by Commissioner Constantine with the addition at the
end of the now therefore, of the following language: Said
suspension request is contingent upon the proposed settlement
agreement either being formally accepted by the Florida
Commission on Ethics, or any of the charges against
Commissioner Norris being entered as findings by the Ethics
Commission through a hearing process.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where -- Pam, is this the handout,
the addition?
Page 21
May 23, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There was one in the agenda
packet. This just has some cleaned up legal version of it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This one is?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does it not bother anyone but me
that the last whereas on Page 1, which goes over to Page 2
references two allegations that were dismissed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have taken notice of that, John,
and I wondered if it might make more sense to -- because I
believe that the facts that support that settlement proposal have
to do with voting on the other projects of your partners, not on
the golf audit and the golf tournament. It has to do with the
voting on The Strand, or some other project. So it references
facts that may not exactly be correct.
So I would amend my motion to delete that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which portion, Pain?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: First paragraph on Page 2.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Starting on the bottom of Page 1,
right?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: "Whereas, according to State
Attorney Joseph D'Alessandro, Case No. 97-331," all the way
through "Naples once completed and."
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. So strike that whole thing?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I think those are the
incorrect facts; to correct them, to support the allegation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have discussion.
The -- nobody wants to be on a lynch team. This is as
unpleasant a circumstance as I could ever have found myself in.
But this is not about me and what I want and how bad I feel for
being here. This is about a responsibility to the public to try to
avoid an unjust enrichment by rewarding a public servant with a
pension on a technicality.
If John is eventually convicted of a felony, then the pension
Page 22
May 23, 2000
is gone. I think a pension is inappropriate based on the facts as
we know them, as admitted by John. I think that if we don't take
action to try to prevent the awarding of that pension, it will be
awarded as a result of timing in the civil matter and may be lost
if the criminal matter comes to the fore.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One final awkward question.
Because this asks for John's resignation and because
theoretically that enures or doesn't to his personal gain --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The answer is no, I can't vote.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- does he have a conflict of
interest, and is he required to abstain from voting?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I can't vote.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, yes, and we've had this discussion. The
answer is yes, in fact, under Section 112.3 and 4.3 (sic}, this
would be a conflict for Mr. Norris to vote on things that directly
affect him or his family. He can vote in procedural matters. For
instance, if there were motions concerning continuance or timing
or things of that nature. But that's the separation --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I wasn't quite finished with
my comments, and that was this, Commissioner Berry, Jesus
said repent and sin no more. If John repents and walks away --
repent means turn from it. Walk away from it. Don't do it
anymore. That's what's missing here. And in the action -- in the
absence of that, we have this horrible task faced to us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And for anybody, I realize you
all don't necessarily have the resolution in front of you. It
outlines different facts of the case, and it closes by
recommending that John C. Norris voluntarily resign from his
office as County Commissioner, or that Governor Jeb Bush
remove or suspend him, with your language --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Said suspension request is
contingent upon the proposed settlement agreement either being
formally accepted by the Florida Commission on Ethics, or any of
the charges against Commissioner Norris being entered as
findings in the Ethics Commission through a hearing process.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that addition is intended to
make sure that process still has its day.
If there's no further discussion, all those in favor of the
motion, please state aye.
All those opposed?
Page 23
May 23, 2000
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
We're going to take about a three-minute break. Wait,
Commissioner Norris is going to have a comment. We're going to
take about a four-minute break.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I just wanted to make sure that
Mr. Weigel understood that I did not vote on that. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 4-0, Commissioner Norris
abstaining.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're going to take about a
four-minute break. When we come back, we're going to hear
11 lth, but we're going to do our ceremonial type items first. But
then we'll hear 111th, public hearings and the TDC items in that
order.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there, we're back. If we
could quiet down, we'll come back to the agenda in its original
position.
Item #4A
MINUTES OF MAY 2, 2000 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
We need the approval of minutes for the May 2nd, 2000
regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
objection? Seeing none, motion carries 4-0, Commissioner Norris
absent.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF JUNE 4-t0 AS
COLLIER COUNTY HOMEOWNERSHIP EXPANSION WEEK -
ADOPTED
Page 24
May 23, 2000
Proclamations. We'll go to Commissioner Berry,
proclamation proclaiming the week of July 4th through 10 as
Collier County Homeownership Expansion Week. I just started
building my house, so I'm in on this.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is Ms. Christine Chesser here,
please?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Christine, come forward, please.
Come up here and stand in front and turn around so the people
can see you and they can see you at home on their TV screens.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: C-Span.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County supports homeownership opportunities for all citizens of
Collier County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County supports housing assistance to very low, low and
moderate income families; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County work cooperatively with other public and private sector
organizations to create an adequate supply of decent, safe,
sanitary and affordable housing for all citizens of Collier County;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County recognizes that the United States is one of the first
countries in the world to make homeownership a reality for a
majority of its people. Thanks to effective cooperation between
industry and government, the doors of homeownership have been
open to millions of families over the last six decades.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of June
4th through the 10th, 2000, be designated as Collier County
Homeownership Expansion Week.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 23rd day of May, 2000, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J.
Constantine, Chairman.
Page 25
May 23, 2000
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
All those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
MS. CHESSER: And may I say one thing?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: From the microphone, please.
MS. CHESSER: On June 10th we're going to have a housing
fair at the NCH Telford education building. The county will
receive little fliers in their checks, but we are going to each
business.
We had a small one last year that we just had for our
hospital staff to see how well we would do with it. And we did
qualify one person which -- I mean, one is better than none. And
a lot of people were educated. Lenders, builders, we will have
the city and county people there to educate people, we'll have
consumer crediting. We would love to have you all attend or just
walk through it to see it. We will have apartment communities.
As we all know, it's a serious issue here in Collier County.
Affordable housing is just ridiculous. But we would love for you
to come -- this is one of our first goals -- and hope to get to know
all of you as my -- as my -- you know, just to talk to you about
some of the issues that we have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. CHESSER: And we thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Christine Chesser.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 20-26, 2000
AS NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, National
Safe Boating Week.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's
have Past Commander William J. Reid from the Naples Power
Page 26
May 23, 2000
Squadron come right up here and turn around for television.
WHEREAS, each year more Americans are choosing
recreational boating as an ideal way to relax with their families
and friends. However, what starts out as a pleasant cruise often
ends in tragedy because boaters fail to teach their families to
swim, fail to properly equip their craft with personal flotation
devices and other protective equipment, or fail to instruct their
passengers in the use of such devices prior to a boating cruise;
and
WHEREAS, every year hundreds of lives are lost in boating
accidents. These fatalities can be reduced and boating made
more pleasurable if those who engage in it will emphasize
knowledge, care and the courtesy necessary for safe boating;
and
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States, having
recognized the need for such emphasis, has by a joint resolution
of June the 4th, t958 requested the President to annually
proclaim one week as National Safe Boating Week.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of May
20th to the 26th, 2000 be designated as National Safe Boating
Week.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 23rd day of May, 2000, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
Timothy J. Constantine, Chairman.
And, Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
Motion and a second. All those
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
(Applause.)
Motion carries 5-0.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners.
As I was up at the house this morning, I told my wife,
accepting a proclamation is nothing to it. I'll be back by 9:30.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whoops.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sorry, Mrs. Reid.
MR. REID: Didn't quite make it.
Safe boating is important. And how important is it? Let me
give you some facts. 90 percent of the boating fatalities take
Page 27
May 23, 2000
place on a boat operated by a person who never had a course in
boating. That's important. Power Squadron teaches safe
boating.
Florida is the third state in the country in registered boats.
Florida's first in fatalities, first in injuries, first in property
damage and first in something else, which I forget, it's been so
long.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But it's not good.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not a good thing.
MR. REID: It's not good. It's not good.
So far this year we've graduated 263 students in our boat
smart course. And we continue to do that, and hopefully Naples
will not be as unsafe as other places. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF MAY AS
CIVILITY MONTH - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, how appropriate that
Commissioner Carter has a proclamation proclaiming the month
of May as Civility Month.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. And as I read this, I think we all need to be reminded
that this great republic and democracy is founded on what I'm
about to share with you this morning. This proclamation says:
WHEREAS, the open exchange of public discourse is
essential to the democratic system of government; and
WHEREAS, as a cornerstone of democracy Americans have
observed certain rules of behavior generally known as civility;
and
WHEREAS, civility, derived from the Latin words civitas,
meaning city and civis, meaning citizen, is behavior worthy of
citizens living in a community or in common with others; and
WHEREAS, displays of anger, rudeness, ridicule, impatience,
and a lack of respect and personal attacks detract from the open
exchange of ideas, prevent fair discussion of the issues, and can
discourage individuals from participation in government; and
Page 28
May 23, 2000
WHEREAS, civility can assist in reaching the consensus of
diverse issues and allow for mutually respectful ongoing
relationships; and
WHEREAS, civility can uplift our daily life and make it more
pleasant to live in an organized society; and
WHEREAS, the city, county and local government law
section of the Florida Bar urges the adoption of a pledge of
civility by all citizens of the State of Florida.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the month of May
be designated as Civility Month, and calls upon all citizens to
exercise civility towards each other.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 23rd Day of May, 2000, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J.
Constantine, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I proudly recommend that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Everybody hug whoever's sitting two seats away from you.
Thanks, Jim.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 21-27, 2000,
AS FIGHT FRAUD IN FLORIDA WEEK - ADOPTED
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have a proclamation for the
week of May 21 through 27 as Fight Fraud in Florida Week. Say
that three times quick.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not going to be easy. But Mr.
Robert Pappas, who is the regional director of the Office of the
Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance is here to
accept this.
And we'd ask you please, sir, to come up and stand before
us as I read the proclamation.
WHEREAS, the crime of financial fraud costs the citizens of
Page 29
May 23, 2000
the United States of America more than $660 billion each year,
and more than 60 percent of America's citizens have
experienced financial fraud, with fraudulent acts costing the
consumers more than $250 million each year in additional
security measures, shoplifting expenses and other costs; and
WHEREAS, fraudulent behavior knows no bounds, and as
such, has no respect for its victims in terms of age, race, income
level, education or gender; and any citizen may become the
victim of fraud when he or she least expects it, since
perpetrators may be friends, family members, co-workers,
well-dressed executives, or street criminals; and
WHEREAS, law enforcement officials now label financial
fraud as a growth industry because of the increasing number of
cases they are asked to solve; and
WHEREAS, over 40,000 Floridians sought help from state
agencies for possible financial fraud, and the Florida Department
of Banking and Finance investigated $215 million in financial
fraud in one year; and
WHEREAS, in the State of Florida, an estimated $35 million
is lost each year due to fraudulent checks, with the Florida
Department of Banking and Finance investigating more than
$160 million in consumer losses in one year; and
WHEREAS, financial fraud is estimated to cost Floridians
approximately a billion dollars a year, and consumer awareness
is considered one of the best defenses against financial fraud.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May
21, through 27, 2000, be designated as Fight Fraud in Florida
Week, and urge all citizens to take heed and be on their guard
against those that would attempt to commit financial fraud
crimes in our community.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 23rd Day of May, 2000, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J.
Constantine, Chairman.
I move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Page 30
May 23, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
MR. KISER: Mr. Chairman, and commissioners, thank you
very much for the opportunity to receive this, and thank you very
much for issuing the proclamation.
It pretty well said everything that I would have said, but I
would just like to call attention to yourselves and to those
present that in Fort Myers, beginning at 1:00 this afternoon and
running until 8:00, we will have a financial fraud expo. We have
about 30 exhibitors of various law enforcement agencies,
including my own office, where we will have booths available,
material will be handed out. And I brought just a couple of
representative articles.
This little pamphlet contains the essential phone numbers
for virtually any kind of financial fraud that you might want to
report or if you believe you've become a victim. They're out on
the table and you're welcome to take them. They're limited
numbers.
There's also this little item right here, which may be a little
bit more popular. And I hope that I brought enough for everyone
here. If not, sorry. You can -- if you'll come up -- if you'll come up
to Fort Myers, there will be plenty more of these available. It's a
little purse for change and you can hang your keys on there and
then zip it up. And I'll just leave these here and see who would
like to come -- as a matter of fact, I'll make them available to the
commission.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Don't do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just toss them into the trash.
MR. KISER: As a part --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Don't do that. Not a good thing to
do. Thank you, but no thank you.
MR. KISER: Well, it's not a bribe. And as a matter of fact,
it's a return of your tax dollars. So please, feel free to take them.
In any event, thank you very much, commissioners, for
proclaiming today -- this week as Fight Financial Fraud in Florida
Week. And I wish you the very best in your continued
deliberations. Thank you. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know, Mr. Chairman, I think
Page 31
May 23, 2000
it might be a good idea if we took those numbers and had them
run on 54 on the screen so all our community would know.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough. Excellent idea.
We want to get that information out to local radio, too.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that, we move on to
service awards. We have a number of employees who are
celebrating different anniversaries with us. And I would invite
you to join in that celebration with us.
First celebrating five years currently with inspection and
plan review, Harry Nevins. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This morning seems like the
whole five years put together, I bet.
Also with five years, working with our security, Juan
Molena, Jr.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You can see why we feel safe.
From building review, celebrating five years, Janet Hasso.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Now with 10 years from parks
and recreation, Bismar Naranjo. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For t0 years with road and
bridge, Ernest Augustin. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
higher.
15 years in Collier County, Raymond Smith, with pollution
control. (Applause.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
collection, Raymond Ognibene.
(Applause.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
The numbers just keep getting
Fifteen years with wastewater
And what surely must seem like
Page 32
May 23, 2000
a lifetime, 15 years currently serving in the County Attorney's
Office, Kathryn Nell. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 15 years of changing direction
on the -- from the board on the environment, Bill Lorenz, with
natural resources. (Applause.)
Plays a mean guitar as well.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And our grand champion today
with 20 years, working for the county, currently with aquatic
plant control, Lazaro Blanco. (Applause.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which takes us to the
whacked-out order of today's agenda. I realize we've got some
different things. If you've come for other items and you're trying
to follow the agenda and you weren't here at 9:00, we actually
altered the order a little to accommodate Commissioner Carter.
Item #8B4
DISCUSSION RELATING TO 11 jTH AVENUE NORTH WITH
RESPECT TO THE AREA TRANSPORTATION SUB-NETWORK -
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR TWO-LANE ROADWAY
APPROVED
Next item up will be the discussion regarding 111th Avenue.
You may recall just before Commissioner Carter went in for some
replacement parts we had a discussion on 111th. Some new
information's come to light that I think's worth having another
discussion on and that's why we're here. Mr. Bibby?
MR. BIBBY: Jeff Bibby, public works engineering director.
Earlier this year, as you mentioned, we presented two
options to the board for 111th Avenue North, a four-lane road and
the two-lane enhanced road.
We recommended the four-lane road as the best alternative,
based on Engineering concurrency, calculations and traffic
volumes.
Concurrent with the board's decision, the select committee
on community character chose Naples Park as a prototype area
Page 33
May 23, 2000
for mature neighborhoods. Now with discussions with
Dover/Kohl, as outlined in their letter that's attached to the
executive summary, we now believe that a two-lane enhanced
road may provide greater community benefit than the four-lane
road.
Resident priorities through the study and previous
Dover/Kohl experience indicate that the neighborhood may be
more satisfied with a two-lane group road with median turn-offs,
better landscaping, improved amenities such as sidewalks,
bicycle pathways, greenways, at the cost of greater traffic
delays.
Should you redirect us to develop a plan based on this
two-lane enhanced road with the attributes provided in the
character study, it's not going to delay the project. We currently
have it in the program for construction in 2002. We would be
able to maintain that.
I do need to point out that while the two-lane enhancement
will improve traffic flow, the board will eventually need to policy
constrain this segment of roadway.
The absolute downside would be that a conclusion might be
made by a future board that a four-lane road is necessary, not
probable.
Design and construction of the two-lane enhanced road,
including the intersection improvements, will cost an estimated
2.7 million, as opposed to 3 million for the four-lane design that
we discussed earlier.
So it's based on that that we now recommend that you
direct us and redirect us to pursue the two-lane enhanced road
with our design. We'll work with Dover/Kohl to ensure that the
attributes in that letter are incorporated.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My hope is we'll follow both
staff and Dover/Kohl's recommendation, and that we might get
an indication on that, because I understand we have 11 people
signed up. However, I bet they're all here to convince us the
exact same thing that's just been recommended.
So I'm going to quickly poll the board, and then if it looks
like we're headed in the right direction -- you're not required to,
of course; God bless you if you want to speak -- but perhaps you
may waive.
So just what's the pleasure of the board on this?
Page 34
May 23, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I had a discussion with our county
manager, Mr. Olliff. He apprised me of this particular
development. I'm at the point that if staff thinks that this is
worthy of a try, and I told several people that I spoke with in
Naples Park that I was going to follow staff recommendation,
that's why I supported the four-lane. But if you're willing to try
this and think that it might work, then I'll support staff
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I had the same discussion with
Mr. Olliff and it's fine with me, I have no objection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, I bet you
like this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, I really like this. Because I
told everybody we may have lost the battle, but we didn't lose
the war. So I think this is a great, great direction. Gives us an
opportunity to pay attention to the people that we brought in
here to assist us in this process.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that, let's go to the public
speakers and see how many of them are here to talk us out of
that.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as further encouragement, I will
let you know there are 44 total speakers registered for the day.
So I just -- to let these 11 know.
The first speaker is AI Newman.
MR. NEWMAN: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Erica Lynne.
MS. LYNNE: Thank you, commissioners. Thank you to the
staff as well.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Edith Sadowski.
MS. SADOWSKI: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Followed by Mary Holobinko.
MS. HOLOBINKO: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Followed by Hank Fay.
MR. FAY: Thank you. And I have a couple of public policy
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you're going to speak, you
need to come to the microphone.
I want the neighborhood to get after Hank after this.
MR. FAY: Thank you. I do have a couple of
Page 35
May 23, 2000
recommendations for public policy on disclosure of conflict of
interest. And also, on accessibility of public documents, which
I'd like you to look over at your leisure. I have them available for
you here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you very much.
If there's any difficulty with that, obviously we want to
improve on both of those.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is R. Lynn Sauls. Following Mr.
Sauls will be Mary Ellen Rand.
MR. SAULS: Commissioners, I would like to reduce my
speech greatly but there was one part I wanted to make that -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would you be so kind as to
identify yourself for the record?
MR. SAULS: I am Lynn Sauls, year round resident of Naples
Park and owner of property on 11 lth.
I would like to request that whether your informal poll
becomes a legal vote and you go along with this new plan, or
whether you revert to the four-laning, that either way the
widening be done on the north side of 111th, rather than the
south side. There are 41 homes on the south side; some so close
to the street that if much widening encroaches upon them, their
doors will be right at the street.
On the north side, there are only five homes behind a wall in
the Casa DiVita complex, and they are at a much further distance
from the street. Widening on the north side would not be as
disruptive as widening on the south side, and therefore, I request
that you consider that and take or buy whatever footage is
necessary on the north side of 111th to put that plan into effect.
And I am so grateful to hear your informal poll, and I trust
that it will become legal when you really vote.
MR. OLLIFF: Mary Ellen Rand, followed by Dick Lydon.
MS. RAND: Hello. I'm probably crazy to take the option of
speaking, since I dreaded this intensely. I've never done this
before. But I do have some things I want to say.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you, too, Mary Ellen, would
identify yourself for the record.
MS. RAND: I'm Mary Ellen Rand. I'm a resident of Naples
Park.
I want to thank you for taking the time for us to get out and
to our residents, to our neighborhoods, and get information out
Page 36
May 23, 2000
and let people have a chance to speak, address you, write you,
those of you that were willing to meet with me to let me talk to
you.
Time is very important when you make decisions that affect
the community and how it conducts itself. And sometimes it
doesn't take a long time. Sometimes it's not certain events,
certain things, certain -- giving people time to do whatever they
need to inform their neighbors or consider data. But whatever
time it takes on a decision is very important in order to make the
right decision. And that's the case in this issue as well.
Let's see, oh, and I have a lot of things I was going to say,
but many of these -- I just got a copy of the report from staff that
includes the Dover/Kohl report. And in my seat I just read it. And
many of the things I was going to say are addressed very well in
this report. And I'd like you to take the time to read through it.
Because in the decision you are going to make, I want you to be
convinced that you are making the right decision. And I think
you may find a lot of your questions answered as you read
through this.
The other thing I wanted to say is again, on the issue of
time, and as a working single parent trying to follow issues and
respond to issues that affect my life, affect my home, it's very
difficult.
And I think that Hank raised an issue, I know it's a separate
issue from the one you're discussing right now, about how
difficult it is for citizens of the county, working citizens who
aren't full-time employed, to follow issues, to follow them. And I
don't have any specific ideas to give you, although I have thought
of some things.
I wish that you would take some further measures to make
information more accessible, to give people time between an
agenda being posted and an issue coming up. I think there are a
lot of things that you might could do that would make it easier
for people to be informed and be included in the process.
I think that's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I, Mr. Chairman, just thank
Ms. Rand, because she has been a very informed participant in
this process. You gave me information I didn't otherwise have. I
appreciate it. And you make some really good points about
Page 37
May 23, 2000
trying to get issues out to the public before they are officially on
our agenda. And I bet our county manager will take that to
heart.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And a couple things we're
doing, just so you know on that, one, we're doing more and more
via Internet. Information is available via Internet, and we can
continue to improve that. But also, our own Channel 54, we do
keep adding each year, thanks to Kady and everybody. But we're
certainly making efforts to realize that people can't necessarily
get to our records and minutes department between the hours of
9:00 and 5:00 or 8:00 and 5:00 every day. Appreciate it. Next speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Dick Lydon.
MR. LYDON: I pass.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Dick.
MR. OLLIFF: Followed by Rose Palumbo.
MS. PALUMBO: I pass.
MR. OLLIFF: Vera Fitz-Gerald.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I pass with gratitude.
MR. OLLIFF: We accept with gratitude.
And the last speaker is Carol Wright.
MS. WRIGHT: I pass.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I want to point
out for the record that we did come to this recommendation with
the consensus of our transportation engineers, based on a
couple of issues. And we want to point out the differences in
this particular case.
One, that it is a neighborhood collector type roadway as
opposed to a major arterial road.
Two, that this is being driven by a level of service issue that
we may have to address again in the future. But if there is an
opportunity for us to try and develop a roadway that can both
satisfy level of service issues and satisfy community character
issues, we thought it was worth taking a chance on that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to move staff's
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Is there
Page 38
May 23, 2000
anything else, Commissioner Berry?
We have a motion and a second. Seeing no further
discussion, all those in favor, please state aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 2000-37, PETITION PUD-99-18(1), ROBERT DUANE,
AICP, OF HOLE, MONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING
THE OLDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND
"PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO "PUD" KNOWN AS
OLDE CYPRESS PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING 9.3 +/-
ACRES OF LAND FOR A GOLF COURSE DRIVING RANGE, AND TO
REVISE THE PUD TO REFLECT CHANGES BROUGHT ON BY THE
USE OF THE ADDED LAND AND OTHER CHANGES TO THE PUD
DOCUMENT RELATIVE TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD, 1.3 MILES EAST OF 1-75 (COMPANION DOA-2000-02) -
ADOPTED
Let's go to the advertised public hearings. Item 12(B)(1),
Petition PUD-99-18. Mr. Duane, of Hole-Montes, representing
Olde Cypress Development Corporation. Mr. Nino, good morning.
MR. NINO: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Ron
Nino, for the record. I believe we need to be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, you are absolutely correct.
Thank you.
Anybody who intends to participate in this in any way, we
need you to stand and be sworn by our court reporter. Even if
you're a member of the public and want to comment on this, you
need to stand and be sworn by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. NINO: There is a companion issue, a companion
petition with this, Mr. Chairman, and I would appreciate if we
could chat about both of them concurrently. And that is
DOA-2000-02, I believe. It's -- I'm sorry, C on your agenda.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: CU-99-37
Page 39
May 23, 2000
MR. NINO: Yes.
The petition that's before you seeks to expand the Olde
Cypress Golf and Country Club by approximately 10 acres of land.
That land is situated immediately to the east of the entryway
configuration to the current Olde Cypress development, and it's
this parcel of land here.
That property will be used as a driving range and will allow
the relocation of the current driving range that is interior to the
Olde Cypress development. The driving range will be a private
driving range, used solely for the benefit of Olde Cypress
members.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can I ask you a question about
that, Mr. Nino? Are they planning to light that? MR. NINO: I don't know.
MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the record, from Hole,
Montes & Associates.
There are no plans for lighting.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
MR. DUANE: Thank you.
MR. NINO: The -- while adding nine acres or t0 acres of
land, there is no intention to -- there's nothing in this request that
would increase the density, so that in fact you are ending up with
a net reduction in density. Because this property otherwise
could have been used as an independent parcel for 40 additional
dwelling units.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else outstanding on
this item?
MR. NINO: No, there isn't. Except the reason why it's on
your agenda, it was unanimously approved by the Planning
Commission, but there were objections from property owners
who own these individual properties. As you'll see on your
visualizer, these individual properties were concerned that they
obtain access through Olde Cypress. And the Olde Cypress
development does afford an access from the -- from the east
going to the west through their entryway to the commercial
tract, which is in this area here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ron, if we can keep you near
the microphone. Thank you.
MR. NINO: However, it's their feeling -- and you have letters
in your agenda packet. It's their feeling that access from the
Page 40
May 23, 2000
east is not a likely possibility, because the Water Management
District has concerns about crossing a flowway, which is
generally in this area here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So that would not be their only
access.
MR. NINO: But that is not their only access. They argue
that they're landlocked. They are not in fact landlocked,
because had there not been an Olde Cypress development, they
would have had to rely on obtaining a permit to cross the
Immokalee Canal, like everybody else has done in that area. So
-- but we felt that it was necessary to put it on your regular
agenda, because there were official objections.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE= Let's hear from the petitioner.
MR. NINO: I don't know that any of those people are here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE= Thank you, let's hear from the
petitioner.
MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the record, from Hole-Montes
& Associates. I agree with staff summary and appreciate your
consideration today, and I'll answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for staff or the
petitioner?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: He answered my question.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just want to make sure. A
couple of things I see that seems to enhance the situation is one,
that you stop going through a preserve area, if I read that
correctly. And you eliminate the need for an additional canal
crossing and access point to Immokalee Road, which seems to
be safety issues to me and environmental issues, which seem to
be positive to me. Am I reading that correct?
MR. NINO: You're reading me correct. Provided -- provided
they're successful in extending the road from the east going
west. Because that is a drainage flowway, and the Water
Management District is expressing a negative position on it.
They don't want that flowway crossed with the road. And if a
road is to be crossed, it would have to be in a bridge-like
structure, which of course makes it a very economically
unfeasible situation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But isn't that a problem for the
people that own those lots and should not be borne by -- you
know, I mean, they knew that when they bought those lots.
Page 41
May 23, 2000
MR. NINO: In our opinion -- in staff's opinion, you're right on
the mark.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have no public speakers.
We'll close the public hearing.
Do we need to do disclosure here, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any commissioner have any
contact with anybody on this?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
petitioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
petitioner.
I've had contact with the
I've had contact with the
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't recall that I have, but I'll
just disclose that -- I'll disclose it anyhow. I mean, yeah, maybe I
did, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think I had any contact.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I believe I may have.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This is Petition PUD-99-18.
Motion and a second. Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12C1
DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2000-03/RESOLUTION 2000-155,
PETITION DOA-2000-02, ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE,
MONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING THE OLDE
CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FOR AN AMENDMENT
TO THE OLDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
(DRI) DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING 9.3+
ACRES OF LAND AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE MASTER
PLAN TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EFFECT OF THE ADDED LAND, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD, 1.3 MILES EAST OF 1-75 (COMPANION TO PUD-99-18(1)) -
ADOPTED
Page 42
May 23, 2000
Let's do the companion item, which is Petition DOA-2000-02.
We'll close that public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I assume the same --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- disclosure stands?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second disclosure. It's the
companion item.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And there's a motion and a
second. Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 2000-38, PETITION PUD-86-6(I), KEVIN MCVICKER
OF PHOENIX PLANNING AND ENGINEERING REPRESENTING THE
JON & SONYA LAIDIG FOUNDATION, REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LOCH RIDGE PUD TO ALLOW FOR AN
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY (ALF) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR-84) AND
CROWN POINT BOULEVARD WEST (COMPANION TO CU-99-3) -
ADOPTED
Let's go to Petition PUD-86-6. That's Item 12(B)(2). Mr.
Kevin McVicker of Phoenix Planning and Engineering.
We'll swear in all the participants. Anybody who plans to be
a part of this particular public hearing, please stand and be
sworn by our court report.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BELLOWS: Before I start, I'd like to point out, there's a
companion item with this petition.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which would be CU-99-37
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And for the record, you are?
MR. BELLOWS: Ray Bellows, with the planning services
staff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Page 43
May 23, 2000
MR. BELLOWS: The subject site is located, as you can see
on the visualizer, on the south side of Davis Boulevard, on the
east side of West Crown Pointe Boulevard. It's surrounded by the
east and west Crown Pointe PUD's to the south and the east.
And to the north is the Osprey Landing PUD and the Moon Lake
PUD.
The petitioner wants to convert the existing nursery garden
store facility on the eight-acre site which is presently the Green
Thumb Nursery, which is to develop an assisted living facility
that contains 185 units. 75 will be for assisted living units, 100
are nursing care units and 10 for independent living units.
On the master conceptual plan you can see there's smaller
one-story type structures around a cul-de-sac to the back,
adjacent to the residential structures, water management lake
and a three-story assisted living facility up towards Davis
Boulevard. There's Davis Boulevard.
During the Planning Commission hearing, the petitioner
agreed to eliminate the access point to West Crown Pointe
Boulevard. There was a citizen from West Crown Pointe
complaining about the access onto that road.
The Planning Commission approved this with one vote in
abstention. That vote was based on the height of the building.
There were some concerns that the three stories might be out of
place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you say one vote abstained
or one --
MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, one vote against.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The ALF will generate more,
less or the same traffic as what is currently allowed there with a
single-family use at a reduced density?
MR. BELLOWS: The traffic impact study indicates that the
ALF will generate less trips than a typical garden store type of--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that our traffic impact study
or the petitioner's traffic impact study?
MR. BELLOWS: It's a combination of staff's review and
information presented by the applicants, but staff agrees with
that information.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What is the height of the
three-story building?
Page 44
May 23, 2000
MR. BELLOWS: I believe Mr. McVicker can --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the petitioner.
MR. McVICKER: Kevin McVicker, Phoenix Planning &
Engineering.
The height of that three-story building will be 35 feet.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else you'd like to
share with us?
MR. McVICKER: If the Commission has no questions, I have
nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one that doesn't appear to
be clear on this map. Do we have a right turn lane on Davis?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Deceleration lane?
MR. BELLOWS: There will be a right and left turn lane.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A deceleration lane?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. It's just not clear on that
map.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the stipulations contained in the
agreement sheet on the conditional use will call for a turn lane.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else? Any public
speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
Any disclosure on this item? I have no recollection of
speaking with anybody.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have none at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't recall speaking with
anyone.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't recall it either.
I did have one question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You beat me to it with the closing
of the public hearing.
Do you have an elevation of what the proposed building is
going to look like?
MR. McVICKER: No, sir. They're planning a Mediterranean
type structure.
Page 45
May 23, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A what?
MR. McVICKER: Mediterranean.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mediterranean.
Can you commit to that today?
MR. McVICKER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a motion on the item?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I move staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 2000-156, PETITION CU-99-3, KEVIN MCVICKER OF
PHOENIX PLANNING AND ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING JON &
SONYA LAIDIG FOUNDATION, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE
"16" OF THE "A" AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW
FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY (ALF} FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DAVIS BOULEVARD
(SR-84} AND CROWN POINT BOULEVARD WEST (COMPANION TO
PUD-86-6(1} - ADOPTED
Companion item, CU-99-3. We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Both motions carry 5-0.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 2000-157, PETITION CU-2000-01, RICHARD D.
YOVANOVICH, ESQ. OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON,
PA, REPRESENTING BARBARA AND WILBUR CRUTCHLEY
Page 46
May 23, 2000
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A BOAT DOCK AS A
PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE IN THE "RSF-4" RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE WEST SIDE OF WEST AVENUE , LITTLE HICKORY
$HOR_F$ ~J~!T #_~ !_~_ _~ON!T~ $P~!~G$'ADOPT____n
Petition CU-2000-1. Richard D. Yovanovich.
Dr. Badamtchian, good morning.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This is, for those following on
the score card, 13(A)(3).
Would all participants in this public hearing please stand to
be sworn.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I have disclosure.
I met with some neighbors who oppose the petition.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other disclosure on this?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had contact with the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Boy, I -- I have no recollection of
having any--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Nor do I.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I met on one boat dock, but I don't
think this was the one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Dr. Badamtchian.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Thank you. Chahram Badamtchian
from planning services staff.
Mr. Richard Yovanovich, representing Mr. and Mrs.
Crutchley, request a conditional use for a boat dock on a
residential single-family lot as a permitted principal use.
This lot was created in 1970, and according to what we
could gather, the dock was built in the late Sixties.
The lot is a small lot, it is 30 by 40, and contains a real old
dock. Basically this is it. And one of the neighbors complained.
And we had a code enforcement case on it. We could not find
the building permit for it. However, in 1960's, we didn't have a
good recordkeeping system. We don't know if permit was issued
for it or not.
The owner of this dock is not original owner.
I have received 13 or 14 letters in favor of this. One from
Page 47
May 23, 2000
the -- from Mr. Haynes saying that he was personal friend of the
original owners, and in 1960's he helped build this dock.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are we aware of any complaints
that generated in the 1960's?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are we aware of any complaints
that generated in the Seventies or Eighties?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. I'm told that the next door
neighbor purchased the house.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the point being that the
same people owned the house until recently. And you'll hear
this. But when they purchased it, they were told it's an illegal
dock, start the code enforcement proceeding if you want to do
something about it.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Planning Commission reviewed this
and unanimously recommended approval. They are not asking to
build anything or add any additionals, they are just asking to
keep the dock that they have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's been there for 35 years.
Let's go to the petitioner, shall we?
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, commissioners, Chahram
has -- Rich Yovanovich, with Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson.
Chahram has basically given you the history of the property.
My client basically bought a house with the dock across the
street. The person who sold the small parcel to my client's
predecessor in title is actually the predecessor in title for the
person now complaining. The person now complaining bought
the house knowing that the person they bought the house from
somewhere in the chain actually created this lot and allowed the
boat dock to go forward.
We can't find the building permit. Doesn't mean one wasn't
issued, but in order--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's been there 30 some odd
years, and they're not looking to do anything except keep it
exactly the same way.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Exactly like it is.
So unless you have any specific questions of me --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dr. Badamtchian, you and I had a
brief conversation after I had met with some people who were
Page 48
May 23, 2000
opposing it. I assume it's these property owners we're referring
to and hopefully they're here and they'll speak.
But it occurs to me that if we approve this today, then this
becomes a standalone lot that could be sold separately, that this
dock could -- I could go lease this dock and I can put in a parking
place and I can -- you know, there -- this is different from
somehow tying it to your client's property, Mr. Yovanovich, so
that it runs with his land and therefore stays connected and can't
just become a separate entity on its own. That's my major
concern.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: After talking to you, I added some
stipulations. Stipulation number one is this lot cannot be sold. It
can be sold, but if they sell it to somebody other than
homeowner who owns it now, they have to remove the dock.
Number two, they cannot park a car on it.
Number three, they cannot rent it out.
And number four, this dock, they cannot basically use it for
anything else but their own personal water crafts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you've drafted those. Is that
a part of the staff recommendation?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's part of the staff
recommendation, and it's added to the resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And have you had the opportunity
to discuss that with the property owner who's most affected?
Because she needs to understand that.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I called and left a message on her
machine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is the petitioner aware and
agrees to all that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll agree to that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That makes it easy.
We'll close the public hearing, unless there are public
speakers. Oh, we do.
MR. OLLIFF.' You have two registered speakers, Mr.
Chairman. Elizabeth Fitzsimons, followed by Barbara Crutchley.
MS. FITZSIMONS: My name is Elizabeth Fitzsimons and I live
on the corner. I'm the one who's objecting to this dock.
This is the document that they submitted to the Planning
Commission. And on it, it says the dock was built in '69. And
Page 49
May 23, 2000
further down it says it was built with the help of the previous
owner. The previous owner didn't build the house until t979. So
therefore, the house could not -- I mean the dock could not
possibly have been built in the Sixties.
The property~ or the -- if you look at the block, it looks like it
is part of our land. Anybody who visits, relatives~ friends, they all
think that that dock belon9s to us. And nobody has questioned it
for this time, because everybody had assumed that it's part of
our property.
The house across the canalp their -- that little block -- I don't
know if I can -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you zoom in on that?
MS. FITZSIMONS: The house that's across the canal here,
their -- right here. They have a little block~ too~ that coincides on
our block. And this block, everyone has just assumed, and
nobody has questioned it~ it looks like it belongs to us, therefore~
nobody has questioned the dock.
The dock -- the pictures don't show, because of the angle of
the picture, but this dock extends about 25 feet. There's no
man's land, and their property ends -- their property ends here.
And then the dock extends out here to no man's land, and then
out into the canal, which our house is here and we're overlookin9
it~ so there's a priuacy issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ms. Fitzsimons~ do you want to
tell the board what you and I discussed about when you
purchased the home?
MS. FITZ$1MONS: When we purchased the home, we were
told that the dock was illegal and that we would simply have to
Iod9e a complaint. Which we did. We Iod9ed a complaint with
the code enforcement, who went out and told them that the dock
was ille9al and it must be remoued.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's how we come to be
here.
Is there a pending code enforcement action that --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, they're waiting what's going to
happen today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I mean. It's been
told, pending this decision.
MS. FITZ$1MON$: This dock extends 25 feet. The pictures
don't really show -- Give a 9ood show. We haue to put a canvas
Page 50
May 23, 2000
on our lanai to give us privacy, because we are -- when we're
sitting on our lanai, we just look right out onto this dock. There's
a real privacy issue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Second speaker.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's Mrs. Crutchley, and she doesn't need
to speak.
I'd just like to correct one thing: The code enforcement
people never told us this was illegal. They said either find the
building permit or get the conditional use to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Code enforcement's purpose is
compliance, and that's --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Compliance. And that's what we're
trying to do is, you know, correct the paper trail. MR. OLLIFF: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any questions for either our
staff or the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: How long did the prior owner
before this purchaser have that home and looked at that dock?
Anybody know?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 20, 30 years.
MR. YOVANOVICH.' Since 1979. But the predecessor to that
actually created the lot for the dock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I have a little trouble with this,
just because the fact that we don't know if it was legally
permitted in the first place. The fact that it's been sitting there
for a long time shouldn't make it permissible to stay if it
interferes with the property rights of the adjacent property
owner. I mean, the theory there would be that I can go build
something and if nobody notices or complains long enough, then
I can, you know, keep whatever I build.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, I'm going to paint a little
different picture, I guess. If it's been there at least 20 years and
perhaps 30 years or more, and now we have a new property
owner who moves in doesn't like it, and if we have a new
property owner who moves in and doesn't like it, I'm going to
say, you know, boy, this has been here all that time, nobody has
objected in all that time, and now they are trying to make sure
that it is legal, but they're not asking to change one thing. It's
been there for 30 years.
And so I apologize to the new owner who doesn't like the
Page 51
May 23, 2000
fact it's there, but it is there, and it has been there, and the home
that she's moved into was also there.
And so we're going to close the public hearing, and we'll see
what the pleasure of the board is.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to ask Dr. Badamtchian to
please talk with Ms. Fitzsimons and make her understand what
the nature of the conditions are. Because they do offer you some
significant protection over where you are today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor, please state
aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #13A4
RESOLUTION 2000-158, PETITION CU-2000-03, GEORGE L.
VARNADOE, ESQ., OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE &
ANDERSON, P.A., REPRESENTING LA PLAYA LLC, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "5" OF THE "RT" RESORT TOURIST ZONING
DISTRICT FOR A PRIVATE CLUB PER SECTION 2.2.8.3 FOR
PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE LA PLAYA HOTEL AND BEACH CLUB,
LOCATED ON GULFSHORE BOULEVARD (COMPANION TO V-2000-
9} - ADOPTED
Item 13(A)(4}. This item was continued since May 9.
Petition CU-2000-93. Mr. Varnadoe. And Mr. Nino, hi again.
MR. OLLIFF: You need to swear them in.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need to swear everybody in.
Anybody who's going to participate in this public hearing, please
stand to be sworn.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to disclose
communication with the petitioner.
Page 52
May 23, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: As would I.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I had a very thorough briefing
from the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As have I.
Mr. Nino, go ahead.
MR. NINO: Yes. This petition deals with the La Playa Beach
Hotel and Resort facility on Gulf Shore Drive. They own
properties, six lots on the Gulf side and a number of properties
on the bay side as well.
And this petition asks that a portion of the existing hotel be
used as a private club facility, and that is a conditional use in the
RT zoning district.
As you know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask Mr. Nino a question?
Because that's real important for me to understand --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: --just that one little bit.
When you say asks for a portion of the hotel to be used for a
private club, if the conditional use, or whatever it is, if this is
approved -- yeah, conditional use -- it will apply only to certain
floor space in the hotel?
MR. NINO: No, it will simply acknowledge that within the La
Playa, they have the ability to operate a private club.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if they wanted to adopt the
entire thing as a private club, they have the opportunity, once -- if
this conditional use is approved?
MR. NINO: I would say that they have the opportunity to
convert as much of the hotel as they want into a private club.
I'm not--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Within the limitations allowed
by parking and all the other--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. It's just a little misleading
-- you know, it's a little unclear when somebody says allows them
to convert a portion of the hotel into a private club, they may in
fact convert the entire hotel.
MR. NINO: Well, staff's position that two uses in any event
function in almost the same manner.
The -- there is no level of consistency issue here. Traffic
studies show that indeed the -- privatizing the hotel will in fact
result in a reduction in traffic over the --
Page 53
May 23, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
studies?
MR. NINO: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
studies?
Do you agree with those traffic
Do you agree with those traffic
MR. NINO: I -- those traffic studies have been reviewed by
our transportation department, and they have not advised us to
the contrary.
I don't have the expertise to deal with that issue, but we do
have experts and staff that do review the traffic study.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perhaps at the conclusion of
your presentation we can get response from our traffic
department on that.
MR. NINO: The -- all conditional uses are required to
withstand the findings of fact. Staff did analyze the petition
relative to those findings, and they support the recommendation
of staff to approve the conditional use.
The Planning Commission reviewed this petition and
unanimously recommended approval to this board.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Let's go to the
petitioner, and perhaps by the time petitioner is done, someone
from our transportation department will be on the scene.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When will we have questions for
staff?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You have questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know, Mr. Nino, if this is
your department, but I know that we have a level of service of
sorts for public beach access where we have adopted that --
well, I know it's not a level of service, but we have adopted a
standard of public beach access. We've counted the parking
spaces that we have. We know what limited amount of beach
access there is in this county.
My question is, is this facility counted in any way towards
public beach access?
MR. OLLIFF: The answer is no.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Varnadoe, good morning.
MR. VARNADOE: Morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
For the record, George Varnadoe with the law firm of Young, van
Page 54
May 23, 2000
Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson.
I'm here today on behalf of the Barron Collier interest and
Noble House, who jointly own La Playa Resort. Also here today
to answer questions that might arise is Steve Rossi of Rossi
Architecture. He's the architect for the project. Mark Gillis and
Ron Talone, of David Plummer & Associates, the traffic
consultants for the project.
As Mr. Nino has explained to you, the request is for a
conditional use for a private club in conjunction with the La
Playa Beach Resort. There's also a request for a variance for
building separation between buildings, and I assume we can
address that at the same time, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you.
The logical question I think is what are we trying to
accomplish. And the answer is pretty simple and yet I think
pretty exciting. We're trying to establish a four-star boutique
resort hotel. We say four-star because although we don't expect
to compete with the Ritz Carlton because of its size and nature,
we do want to come in just under that and maybe right at the
level or a little above The Registry. Obviously we won't be
competing with The Registry because of the difference in size,
but just trying to give you an estimation of the quality.
In order to accomplish this, there will need to be major
renovations and enhancements to upgrade and revitalize the
existing La Playa facilities. And I have an aerial photograph of
the property on the board. I think most of you are familiar with
it. You've been here long enough, as have I, to understand the
property. You've got the tower in this location, the Crescent
Building, which was the first building built in this location, and
across the street you've got lots on which you have surface
parking and a 5,000 square foot convention center.
I think upgrading the facilities is important, and perhaps
critical, not only from a financial feasibility perspective, but also
for a neighborhood perspective. Frankly, this property is
somewhat tired and dated and cannot successfully compete in
the market without renovation and rethinking. It could, frankly,
become a detriment to the area. The Crescent Building was built
in 1967. The tower was built in 1980, '81 era.
To digress just for a minute, but I think it's important, I know
Page 55
May 23, 2000
that all of the commissioners have been here long enough to
remember Fifth Avenue before the recent renovations, but I think
it's a good example to all of us that properties cannot remain
static. Properties decay and decline in value and appeal, and
they need retrofitting and revitalizing in order to make them
economically viable and attractive.
The type of amenities that we're talking about for four-star
resort spas, fitness facilities, expansive pools and decking,
pavilions, cabanas, lush landscape areas, are the same type of
amenities that appeal to private club members.
And I referred to him as Vanna White at the Planning
Commission. He said make it Van, anyway.
The combination of private club in conjunction with a hotel
is not a new concept in Naples. I know the beach -- Naples
Beach Hotel has private club members, as does The Registry
Resort with their Premier Club.
As far as the comprehensive plan consistency, I think Ron
has said that it is consistent. I would like to call your attention
to the Future Land Use Element which is important -- excuse me,
which encourages coordinated mixed use site to water
dependent and water related uses, and the inclusion of other
recreational uses which may benefit from the proximity to or
integration with those facilities.
I would suggest to you that we are put in that goal. But
also, Policy 3.t (F} of the Future Land Use Element says that
we're put in that policy by improving the safety and convenience
of on-site and off-site traffic flow and access to the property.
Let me walk you through some of the proposed upgrades
that we're talking about. And I'll start on the west side and then
proceed to the east. The west side's the Gulf side, of course,
and I'll kind of go back and forth. What you're looking at on the
lower tier down here is the proposed site plan.
Currently all of the rooms that we said are on the west side,
the renovations would take about 20 percent of the building out
in this area. That would allow it, and remove all the parking on
the west side. That would give us the ability to provide a lot of
surface amenities, expansive pools and cabanas, some decking,
extensive landscaping, Tiki bar; just the kind of things you
expect at a resort hotel or private club.
Also, of course, backing up just a minute, we'll be
Page 56
May 23, 2000
modernizing the buildings, incorporating architectural elements
on both buildings, such as exterior columns and beams, new roof
treatments, planters on the exterior corridors on the tower; all
things to try to unify the architecture of the project. Because of
the different time periods in which it was built, it really doesn't
have much unification in terms of architecture.
The -- we'll also be removing on the second floor our small
meeting rooms or breakout rooms, as they're called in the
industry. We'll be removing that function, and the second floor
will be devoted to the private club function. We're putting in a
private dining room, a private lounge and a private balcony out
off of that area.
I think very important for those who live in the area or who
visited, the access currently to the hotel for valet or entry to the
hotel is in this little area right here. Thanks, Bob.
In addition, there are a series of curb cuts along here, all
dating back to the way the hotel was built over a number of
years, being added onto. We intend to delete all of that and have
one combined and coordinated entry here.
One of the concerns we've heard from neighbors, and I'll get
to it a little bit more, is the ability to get on and off the road. This
will give us the ability to stack approximately 50 cars in here, or
about four times what is being accommodated now.
As you come in, you'll go to the right of the private club
entry, or go to the left to the hotel. As I said, we have a lot more
entrance and a lot more ability to get traffic off the road and
relieve congestion on Gulf Shore Drive. That's the benefit to not
only people visiting the facility but also those that live in the
neighborhood.
The other thing that this coordinated entry and the removing
the parking from the west side and going to this development
scheme does for us is give us a great ability to enhance the
streetscape along there. If you will bear with me, I'll just give
you a couple of examples.
This drawing is clever, but you need to get oriented. We're
looking south along Gulf Shore Drive. The top portion, this is a
property boundary on the west side, property boundary on the
east side. The top shows the current condition. You actually, as
you see, have parking out in the right-of-way, we have minimal
landscaping, we have a little sidewalk, we have a street on the
Page 57
May 23, 2000
other side, we have a little covered walkway, which you can see
here, minimal landscaping and then either parking on the lot or
the building.
With the -- and this is new for me. This is a computer
generated product. This is actually an aerial -- a photograph
looking north along the street with the La Playa Hotel on the
west side. And that parking -- I mean, that walkway we're
talking about, convention center here, before and then after we
do the renovations with the enhanced sidewalks. Let me see the other renderings, Mark.
This is kind of a planned view, an elevation of that same
area.
This is looking at the west side, what is now the parking lot.
Privacy wall, some water features, some benches to sit down,
extensive landscaping. And then down here in plan view here's
that same area, meandering sidewalk, more landscaping, except
where we -- obviously right at the entrance.
And then on the east side or the bay side, we're able to do a
lot more landscaping with the enhanced projects. We think
we're really going to -- the area's been talking about doing
streetscape out there and we think we can really jump start that
with this project.
On the east side, to get back to our site plan -- all right,
Vanna, get out of the way.
On the east side, we'll take the rooms that we have removed
from here, relocate them over here in a building that will be
attached to the conference center, and frankly, I think,
completes the architecture of that building which looks like to
me half a building now.
Also in that building will be the breakout or meeting rooms
that we removed from the second floor of the tower, and what
they call backup hotel, the offices, storage, those types of
facilities.
All parking will be valet parking and accommodate a parking
structure which will be carefully coordinated with the entry to
the access to the Gulf side so that the ease of back and forth
across for the valet, and also for pedestrians, will be
accommodated in that one place.
Currently, if you're standing in the low-rise and are going to
a convention over here, although there is a walkway over here,
Page 58
May 23, 2000
everybody cuts across wherever they want to. We think this will
coordinate, improve, be safer and also help the neighborhood.
I want to talk a minute about the variance. And let me put
the variance request in perspective. The variance is for the
building separations on the east side. The -- we could avoid the
variance request altogether by putting all facilities on the east or
bay side in one building and putting that closer to the waterway.
We looked at that. We think that that is not the best project
for us or for the neighborhood. We think to reduce the mass and
the looks of the build -- improve the looks by the separation,
having view corridors and having different heights of the
building, we think it provides for a better product and project for
the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question about that?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Staff will object if you're
misstated, but you could make that all one building without a
need for a variance?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In that case, it seems to me a
separation with a little more green is a lot better than a big
monolith there.
MR. VARNADOE: That was the architect's and our view, and
I think staff will concur with that.
I'm trying to go through this fairly quickly, but if you have
any questions, please stop me.
I would like to address a couple of things, Mr. Chairman, if
you'd allow me. Number one, in an attempt to apprise the
neighborhood and the neighbors of what we're doing, get their
input, try to address any concerns they might have, the owners
have had -- and owners' representatives have had I think 18 to 20
meetings with different neighbors, neighborhood association
groups, including more than one meeting with the Vanderbilt
Property Owners Association, the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay
Property Association, LeDauphin Condominium, which is our
immediate neighbor to the south on both sides, and single-family
residents. And we'd like to tell you about some changes we are
proposing in order to accommodate some of their concerns.
Dealing mainly with Dick Lydon, the president of the
Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, we learned that
Page 59
May 23, 2000
one of -- their main concern I think was the fact that we were
proposing to cut off public access to the La Playa Hotel.
Apparently some of their members use that facility as their local
place to go and watch the sunset, have some refreshments,
whether liquid or solid food, and they wanted to be able to
consider that access.
After several meetings with Mr. Lydon, we have agreed that
we would propose to the board that for a minimum of three years
we would provide public access to the facilities that are open to
the pub -- the hotel guests, excuse me, and thereafter, evaluate
what is a conflict between the private club and public using the
facilities. If not, public access would continue, and if there was,
then we would look to other avenues for meeting their needs.
The second issue we talked about with them was -- and
everyone who we apprised the project -- was traffic and traffic
congestion. And I use those as two separate issues. And I think
they are.
As we have discussed, under existing conditions, getting off
of Gulf Shore Drive to go to an event or to go to dinner or
anything else is somewhat problematic, not only because of the
limited access to the hotel, but also because of the number of
curb cuts. People tend to go out, try to park themselves, they
come in here, find they can't and they're back in here. It is not
the best situation.
The expanded entrance on the west side that we have
talked about with this coordinated access, improved entryway,
widened entryway, we think will go a long way towards solving
the congestion. In addition, of course eliminating the curb cuts
is also going to eliminate a lot of the congestion.
If we have an event with more attendance than the traffic
consultants have suggested that we do is -- you do for a lot of
events where you have a parking structure, and that is valet right
directly into the parking structure. Have people pull directly into
there. The valets could then very quickly move them to the
upper floors and out of the traffic flow.
So we think these kinds of improvements will go a long way
towards addressing the congestion facility.
In talking with the LeDauphin Condominium board, they
were also concerned about the number of people that might be
there at any one time. And we thought that probably the best
Page 60
May 23, 2000
way to direct that was just direct that right head-on and --
because that's what we know about congestion. At the time you
have congestion here is when you have an event, whether it's a
wedding or a reception or a dinner, that's when you have
congestion.
So we have agreed with them to a limitation on a conditional
use that we would have no more than 400 people at an event at
any one time. Or any event, I should say. We think those will go
-- will solve the traffic congestion issue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other highlights you need to
MR. VARNADOE-' I'm almost finished, sir, if you will.
Some of these I need -- I've told the neighbors I would get on
the record. If you'll let me. About three minutes.
Traffic consultants have done a Traffic Impact Statement,
which you've heard about. The Traffic Impact Statement shows
that there would be a slight reduction in the traffic as a result of
this change from public to private. That was discussed with Mr.
Kant. I don't know whether he's here today or not.
Going to issues of a neighborhood -- neighbors very quickly.
Currently the dumpster for the entire facility -- hang on, Mark -- is
located right here. And the service area for the hotel is located
in this area right here. So that all the delivery trucks have to
back into this area here. The LeDauphin people said that was a
problem, ongoing operational problem.
And we have tried to address that. And what we are -- have
agreed to do, number one, is to remove the dumpster area down
in this location. We're going to eliminate this little dropoff down
here. Move the dumpster location to down behind some
landscaping here, and then move the commissary and service
area to this area here so actually trucks are coming in back off
the road in this location.
So we're centralizing that to our operations. If it becomes a
problem for anybody, it's now a problem for us, no one else.
That does not come at inconsiderable cost, because now
everything that's delivered here has to be ferried over to this
through golf carts.
We've also agreed -- it's hard to see here, but we're going to
put a roof over approximately half of the service area, which will
then hide the ice machine and the garbage cans from view of
Page 61
May 23, 2000
neighbors in the adjoining condominium.
The -- and I'll summarize, Mr. Chairman. We think this is an
exciting project. Certainly an enhancement to the neighborhood.
Upgraded facilities. The CCPC unanimously recommended
approval of both the conditional use and the variance.
We have other professionals here to answer questions. I
know there's some public speakers, and I'd like to have a chance
to respond to issues they may raise. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just one public comment,
George. Would you say about how many meetings you have had
with neighborhood groups from the inception of this project until
the time you have come before us?
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Carter, I didn't count them, but I think
in talking with the representatives and owners~ because I wasn't
at all those, we think we counted somewhere between 18 and
20. Now, a lot of those were repetitious, meeting two or three
times with Mr. Lydon or the LeDauphin Condominium board.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But the fact of the matter is that
you have involved the neighborhood from the inception of this
project until you have come before us and the Planning
Commission.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. With this company, with Barron
Collier, they always have wanted to engage in give and take with
the neighborhood and try to reach consensus on issues, if
possible.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Any other questions? Did we get any report on who on our
transportation staff actually okayed the transportation study?
MR. NINO: Mr. Kant reviewed the report, did not make any
adverse comments to staff. Unfortunately, Mr. Kant is on
vacation. However, Ray Bellows of our staff also reviewed the
traffic study and Ray does have expertise in that field.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Olliff, just a question about
that. And again, we're all just kind of digging out from a problem
where we found there were no -- that the procedure was
inadequate.
Is the procedure in place here for an expert on our staff to
review the traffic impact to determine that the statement
produced by the petitioner is correct?
Page 62
May 23, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: Yes. And in this particular case, it was Ed
Kant, who's at the graduation of his daughter from medical
school. Congratulations to Ed. But yes, there is always a
transportation expert who reviews anything submitted by a
petitioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And who knows it's his job to
speak up if he sees some problem.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bellows, anything you want
to share with us on this?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows, principal
planner with the current planning staff.
I review all the Traffic Impact Statements and prepare
responses to staff for corporation into their reports and reviews.
Traffic Impact Statement in this case revolves around
existing uses versus what's being proposed. I also coordinate
with Mr. Kant. This proposal basically improves the traffic flow
situation in this area.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
How many public speakers do we have?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you have nine public speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What we're going to do is as we
call the first one, we'll also say who's next, and if who is next
will kindly come up to what we refer to as the on-deck circle, it
will move it along more rapidly.
MR. OLLIFF: Your first speaker is Mike Ashpole, followed by
Jim Allen.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is Mr. Allen here? If you'd
kindly come over, sir, right behind the podium. MR. ASHPOLE: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MR. ASHPOLE: My name is Mike Ashpole. I represent the
minority owners of the LeDauphin. And my comments are simply
that the acreage of the La Playa is nine -- excuse me, 5.94 acres.
And the present code for RT, residential tourist area, allows 26
units per acre.
Presently La Playa has 19t units, and this proposal would,
by doing it, the way I understand it, they would lose their
grandfather, so they would only be allowed to have 154 units.
Page 63
May 23, 2000
Now, it doesn't seem that the Collier County Plannin9
committee took that into consideration when they approved this
and passed it on to the commission here. To the Collier County
Commission. Correct?
There's currently, I understand, a 400-car parking garage
that is proposed being built on the south end of Lakeshore --
what am I thinking of?
MR. OLI. IFF: Gulf Shore.
MR. ASHPOLE: -- Gulf Shore Drive. And there's a parking lot
for 80 cars proposed on this -- on the north end. And this parking
garage, if they would be asking permission to build, would be
another 360. We think the traffic that would be generated by
that kind of construction would just overwhelm a avenue that
just is -- has no room for expansion.
The thing that is interesting is one of our property owners
was out in Vancouver, British Columbia a week -- a month or so
ago and picked up a booklet which clearly shows the number of
rooms that La Playa has, which says 187 rooms and four suites.
And I did go over to the La Playa --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just hand those to the county
attorney, and we'll --
MR. ASHPOLE: -- and picked up some brochures. On the
inside of this brochure, I've highlighted in yellow that the -- their
own advertising says that they have 191 rooms. Now, it's my
understanding they want to tear down about 42 on the Gulf side
and move them to the bay side, which I believe would make them
-- and I don't know all these legal terms, but they'd be in
noncompliance and they'd be non-consistent, and they just
should not be allowed to do this.
So based on that information, I'd just like you people to be
aware of the fact that by allowing them to do this, they'd just be
way out of code. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Allen will be followed by?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Allen will be followed by Mario Constantini.
MR. ALLEN: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Jim
Allen. I live at 9566 Gulf Shore Drive, which is approximately 600
feet south of the proposed renovations in a place called Mariatee
Resort. In our building, we're ecstatic. We believe the Barron
Page 64
May 23, 2000
Collier Company is a good family member, a good participant in
the community, and they're going to do a $25 million facelift on
Thank
the La Playa Hotel, so we're ecstatic about this project.
you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
by?
Mr. Constantini will be followed
MR. OLLIFF: Wayde Seidensticker.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't suppose I could convince
you to change that to Constantina?
MR. CONSTANTINI: My name is Mario Constantini, not
Constantino. Most people pronounce it Constantino.
But anyhow, I own and reside just north of the conventional
center adjacent single family on the bay side. I've been living
there now for about a year, and I've owned the property about
three years.
The concept the La Playa is planning, I find it very attractive
and appealing, and I think it's a major improvement in the area.
And I do plan to continue to reside there and some day hopefully
be built there.
But I have no objection whatsoever of what they're planning
to do, as I really like the idea. And I think it's very attractive and
has my full support so whatever that counts for. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Seidensticker would be Roger
Kluge.
MR. SElDENSTICKER: Good morning. My name is Wayde
Seldensticker. I've resided up on Channel Drive, which is about a
quarter of a mile north of La Playa. And I drive by La Playa every
day on the way home from work. And I was very impressed with
the Barron Collier Companies representatives contacting me
saying we know that you live in that area, can you tell us what
you think, and their sensitivity to the area, and give us some
input, what do you think.
My only concern at that time was regarding the traffic. And
I asked the question with regard to the traffic, because currently
one thing I notice driving home is in the area where they've got
the parking on the west side of the highway, there are -- there
are at least three different areas where cars constantly go in and
Page 65
May 23, 2000
exit. And based upon what they've indicated their plans are as
far as getting the traffic quickly off the highway, I think it would
be a tremendous improvement in the safety and driving along
that area, not to mention the aesthetic differences that they
propose. And I fully support it as a resident of the area.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Kluge would be Larry Gode.
MR. ALLEN: Mr. Kluge had to leave.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Gode would be Lloyd Bowein.
MR. GODE: Good morning. Larry Gode. I live at 9566 Gulf
Shore Drive, about 5, 600 feet south. I really anxiously anticipate
this. The facelift is really well needed and it should be a good
asset for the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Bowein would be David Rynders.
MR. BOWEIN: I'm Lloyd Bowein. I've lived north of the La
Playa since around '72. We purchased the house in '65, so we
were there before La Playa. In fact, I feel my mother had to give
some sort of approval for their initial building. Well, that's Fran
Core and that's another story.
But in any case, I don't see how they can say there would be
less traffic. They're doubling their parking places, okay, they're
going to be now private and public, from what I've just heard, so
that means you're going to have at least 1,000 more people
coming there, if they have 1,000 members.
And right now -- and like I say, I've lived there since '72, and
I've seen traffic backed up on 111th, Bluebill, as well as
Vanderbilt Beach Road almost to 4t. And that's just with the
Ritz Carlton, the Turtle Club and different condos. That's not
even taking into account the I don't know how many thousand
units for the Regatta and The Dunes. And it's already hard to get
in and out on Gulf Shore Drive as it is.
I just want to make sure I covered everything. But my main
concern is the traffic. Beaches, that -- plenty of beach for them
to get up and down on. But it's mainly the traffic and the
nonconformity.
I mean, as the initial gentleman brought up, that was
brought up at the Planning Commission meeting and I'd just like
to see the county attorney address that issue as the number of
units allowed on that property.
Page 66
May 23, 2000
And it's really incompatible with the residential areas north.
And they're saying well, it will improve the area. Well, if it's a
private club with an eight-foot wall, what good is it going to do
us as residents, that we won't be able to go there soon? Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Rynders will be your last
speaker, Dick Lydon.
MR. RYNDERS: Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here. I
haven't spoken to the board for some time. My name is David
Rynders. I'm representing Richard DuBois, who is the owner of
some units in the LeDauphin Condominium immediately to the
south, and also was the initial developer of the LeDauphin.
And one question I had is did anybody in that traffic study
ever ascertain what the level of service now on Gulf Shore
Boulevard is in that area?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bellows, do you have -- are
you able to answer that, what the current level of service is on
Vanderbilt?
MR. BELLOWS: 111th is not part of the county arterial road
system, so traffic counts aren't typically taken from there. But
as I recall from Mr. Kant's information, that the level of service is
for a local type road, and it's the -- I don't recall what that level
of service is offhand, but I can find out for you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. RYNDERS: I suspect that if it's treated as a local type
road, that the heavy traffic on there in that two-lane road's going
to make it a very poor level of service.
And you need to recall that you will not be able to expand
that. You can't add a lane or can't enlarge that road. You're
always gonna just have the two lanes.
Let me just quickly use my time to point out that you do
have a provision in your Land Development Code on
nonconformities. Now, if they've got 191 units they were
permitted to build 20 odd years ago, the county has reduced that
density now, and on their six acres they can only build 26 units
per acre. Works out to exactly 154 units. So they have 191 units,
but they can only have t54 units, so they are legally a
nonconformity.
They fall under Division 1.8 of your Land Development Code,
Page 67
May 23, 2000
which controls what you can do here with regard to this project.
And it says basically that the intent of this division to permit
these nonconformities to continue till they are voluntarily
renovated or removed as required by the code but not to
encourage their survival, it is the further intent of the Land
Development Code that nonconformities not be enlarged upon,
expanded, intensified or extended, nor be used as grounds for
adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same
district.
Section 1.8.1.2 says -- this is a declaration now --
nonconforming uses are declared by this division to be
incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved.
Well, one of the criteria this conditional use has to meet is it
has to be compatible with the permitted uses in the districts
involved. And because it's a nonconformity, by law you have
declared that it is incompatible, so it can't meet that test of the
conditional use requirements.
Fourth, the section under that same division, Section 1.8.3.1
says enlargement, increase, intensification or alteration. No
such nonconforming use shall be enlarged, intensified, increased
or extended to occupy an area -- greater area of land, structure
or water than was occupied at the effective date -- goes back to
1991 or so -- of the adoption of the relevant amendment.
So their proposal to put a parking structure and enlarge the
present facilities for conventions on the bay side violate that
provision and preclude that permission.
More important is Section 1.8.3.2 which says movement: No
such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to
any portion of the latter parcel other than that occupied by such
use at the effective date of the adoption of the reduction in
density. They propose to move 42 hotel rooms across the street.
So they are prevented from doing that by that section.
And my last two sections are 1.8.3.4, says structural
additions. No land in nonconforming uses shall be subdivided, nor
shall any structures be added on such land, except for the
purposes and in a manner conforming to the regulations for the
district in which the land is located.
They can't comply with that, because they have 42 odd units
more than they're permitted to have today and are a
nonconforming use.
Page 68
May 23, 2000
And the last section is your Section 1.8.4 saying any
nonconforming use which occupied a portion of a building not
originally designed or intended for such use shall not be
extended to any other part of the building. No nonconforming
use shall be extended to occupy any land outside the building or
any additional building on the same letter parcel not used for the
nonconforming use at the effective date. Which precludes the
construction of the parking garage. And these things are not
accidental. Florida statutes --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Rynders, I need you to wrap
up.
MR. RYNDERS: -- Section 163.3t77 provides the mandatory
element that you have to have in your comprehensive plan.
Subsection 6 says you have to have a Future Land Use Element,
and you certainly do. And Subsection 6 of that statute says that
your Future Land Use Element, and your comprehensive plan
does comply with this, has to provide for the elimination of
nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of
the community. All of which dictates that they can construct
their entire project here, except that they just have to eliminate
the 47 units of hotel rooms that they have --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Rynders, your time has
expired.
MR. RYNDERS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Lydon.
This is our final speaker?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
MR. LYDON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the
record, I'm Dick Lydon, I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach
Property Owners Association.
And as you've heard earlier, I've sort of spent more time
with Mr. Varnadoe and the people that are sitting here in the
front row than maybe I would have liked to, but it has been good,
because our board of directors have had several opportunities to
talk with these people, to look at all of these things that they've
shown you today.
Our first concern was that we're running out of places to buy
a drink on the beach. Just damn simple.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that certainly confirmed
Page 69
May 23, 2000
whether it was liquid or food.
MR. LYDON: And that was the reason why we went after a
moratorium.
The only other property that I know, and Mr. Varnadoe
mentioned The Registry and the Beach Club, but I can still go to
the Beach Club and The Registry and buy a drink in the bar. The
only other property I know of that you can't do that is Boca
Raton. And I won't fault them, they've been very successful with
it. But we are getting cut out of anyplace to go and watch the
sunset, have a drink, have dinner.
I frankly feel that they are making an economic mistake in
not permitting the public. Because Lord knows, they don't need
us in February, but they sure need us local folks in July and
August.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Amen.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Dick, isn't that why they said
they'd give and you three year trial to see --
MR. LYDON: Yeah, we do have the three years. And we'll
try and be nice people and not mess with those folks that are
paying the big bucks and keep that going on.
There are several other things that we liked about their
proposal. First of all, they missed a tremendous opportunity
economically. They are not going to put in boat docks. And boat
docks are worth $75,000 a pop up in our neck of the woods. So
we're happy about that.
Secondarily, we were concerned that a Hilton or a Sheraton
or one of those other folk would buy this property and build
another 15-story high-rise across on the beach. And we don't
need any more 15-story high-rises, would Signature Properties
please take note.
The other thing we like on the bay side, on Vanderbilt
Lagoon, we like the aesthetics. We are kind of tired of what
looks like a used car lot that's been there for along, long time.
So we like that aesthetics. We like the idea of the 400 people.
And while I do not propose to be a transportation expert, I will
tell you that at the moment, La Playa has a contract with Pelican
Marsh. Pelican Marsh has something in the neighborhood of
2,000 residents who are invited to go to La Playa to use the
beach, to use the facilities, and get a discount off the prices
while they're doing it. By eliminating those people, which I am
Page 70
May 23~ 2000
understanding that will be done, seems to me we may be
lessening rather than increasing the traffic effect.
One of the gentlemen was concerned about the beach
parking. You know, we got 400 folks that are -- cars that are
going to start in at the south end, another 80 on the north end.
Let me say this: We got a lot more notice from Barron Collier on
the La Playa changes than we did on the 400 parking lots on the
south end of Gulf Shore Drive.
I don't see how either one of those has any bearing on the
traffic on Gulf Shore Drive. It's going to have some bearing on
people going to our beach, but that's another matter we'll talk
about at another time.
I'd just like to say that we in Vanderbilt Beach believe that
we're getting some good neighbors, we're getting the best of
what we could have expected in this project. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have a question for Mr. Weigel?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just ask for his response, please,
to Mr. Rynders' assertions that if-- is it going to be Ms. Student --
that if he's right, we can't possibly approve this. So I imagine
that you wouldn't let it be before us if it were an illegal petition.
MR. WEIGEL: Go right ahead, staff.
MS. STUDENT: Staff -- for the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney.
Staff is going to address some of the issues regarding the
alleged nonconformity. However, what you have before you,
members of the board, is a conditional use. Some of the issues
raised by Mr. Rynders and others deal with site development plan
issues, and that's why staff is going to address them. But the
conditional use is for a private club in the hotel. It doesn't have
to do with the hotel as a whole or the number of rooms or
anything else. That's an SDP issue.
And again, this is a quasi judicial matter, and you are
constrained by the four requirements that exist in our Land Code
and that and you have in your executive summary as to the
considerations that are germane to your consideration of this
matter. And I will now allow staff to address the other issues.
MR. NINO: Thank you.
Ms. Student has indicated that technically the question of
density is really not on the table for discussion. That is a matter
Page 71
May 23, 2000
that is dealt with at subsequent permitting stages, it's an
administrative function. Certainly staff will assure you that the
provisions of the Land Development Code are adhered to rigidly,
and we do -- however, if you're -- if it's your wish to discuss
density specifically, we can speak to the representation that's
been made by Mr. Rynders; however, I thought that Mr. Varnadoe
perhaps would also be responding to that issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm confused about -- I
guess I do need to hear from Mr. Varnadoe about it, if the other
board members don't object, because I'm confused about how
density and expansion of nonconforming use is not a part of the
petition.
MR. NINO: This is not -- first of all, it's not a nonconforming
use,
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not a nonconforming use?
MR. NINO: Not a nonconforming use.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's a big important -- that
may settle the question right there. Maybe Mr. Nino ought to tell
me why he thinks --
MR. VARNADOE: Whatever you prefer, Ms. Mac'Kie. You
can look at either side, we both can give you an explanation.
MR. NINO: It's not a nonconforming use. Because in 1980, I
believe, there was a -- 1980 there was a variance granted for the
La Playa which, as you know, goes with the land, and that
variance acknowledged 137 units on the Gulf side of the
property. So we're dealing with 137 units that essentially are
vested by virtue of a variance approval.
Today we're dealing -- therefore, we take that out of the
equation, dealing with the bay side. The bay side has sufficient
land to accommodate an additional 53 units. So it's the opinion
of staff that in fact La Playa is vested, vested and capable of
adding additional rooms that would give them 190 units.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That makes perfect sense. I get
it.
MR. NINO: And that issue would have been taken up
administratively during the SDP --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why --
MR. NINO: -- process.
(Chairman Constantine exits boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Before -- and I'm going to move
Page 72
May 23, 2000
that we accept this. And I'm going to heartily move that -- I
would just like to read into the record attitudes of developers.
And you contrast what you've heard this morning with Barron
Collier Company who lives here, eats here, sleeps here, and is
part of our community, with another developer who is maxing a
C-5 piece of property in District 2. And when I asked them to
participate with the community, the letter I received from their
attorney said the following: Although some northern communities
do require input from neighborhood commissions with respect to
zoning and variance requests, Collier County has not adopted any
such requirements. These neighborhood forums do not in any
event extend to the permitting process. Your proposed
procedure would make the permitting process political instead of
administerial and could cause nightmares for applicants seeking
even the simplest permits.
They go on further to say that inquiries from county
commissioners directly to county staff are always taken the
wrong way, good or bad, supportive or not, and should be
avoided.
Now, if you want a developer like that to have purchased the
La Playa, can you imagine what we'd have ended up with?
So I raise that to this board, I raise it to the public, that we
do have quality developers in this community who have spent an
enormous amount of time with the community to come up with
the best possible outcome. So I am, therefore, going to
enthusiastically endorse and recommend to this board that we
accept this project.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
hearing?
COMMISSIONER
hearings?
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
BERRY: I'll second it.
MAC'KIE: Would you close the public
CARTER: Oh, I have to close the public
NORRIS:
CARTER:
MAC'KIE:
CARTER:
NORRIS:
BERRY:
Yes,
Excuse me, slip of the mind.
That's all right.
Close the public hearings.
Motion to approve.
Second it.
All in favor, say aye.
Page 73
May 23, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Note Commissioner Constantine
is absent.
Item #13A8
RESOLUTION 2000-159, PETITION V-2000-9, GEORGE L.
VARNADOE, ESQ., OF YOUNG~ VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE
AND ANDERSON, REPRESENTING LA PLAYA, LLC, FOR A
VARIANCE TO THE SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDING
REQUIREMENT FROM FORTY-NINE (49) FEET TO THIRTY-FIVE
(35) FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9891 GULFSHORE DRIVE
(COMPANION TO CU-2000-03) - ADOPTED
MR. VARNADOE: We prob -- excuse me, we probably need a
separate motion on the variance, if we could.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We do. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Close the public hearing.
(Chairman Constantine enters boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which one is it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The variance or the setbacks
from the buildings. I'll move approval.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 13(A)(8).
COMMISSIONER CARTER: All in favor, say aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Motion carries.
Mr. Chairman, it's yours.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what we're going to
do. For the court reporter, we're going to take about a
five-minute break, but we are going to come back and try to
finish the public hearings for the benefit of Commissioner Carter.
And then we'll probably do the TDC items, too, before we take a
break. So we'll see you in about five minutes. (Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, we're back.
Item #13A5
RESOLUTION 2000-160, PETITION CU-2000-05, R. BRUCE
Page 74
May 23, 2000
ANDERSON, ESQ. OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE AND
ANDERSON, P.A. REPRESENTING ROYAL PALM ACADEMY, INC.
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL IN
THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR A
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD
APPROXIMATELY ONE AND A HALF MILES NORTH OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD - ADOPTED
Let's go right back to the calendar. 13(A)(5) is petition
CU-2000-05. Mr. Anderson?
Dr. Badamtchian, hi again.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners.
Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff.
Mr. Bruce Anderson, representing Royal Palm Academy, is
requesting a conditional use for a private school.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Have you heard any objection
on this one anywhere along the line? By the way, I've got to
have everybody sworn again. I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that.
Anybody who's going to participate in this, please stand and
be sworn.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The reason why this is not on the
summary agenda is that staff has received a single letter of
objection from the homeowner who lives in Pelican Strand,
Strand development.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Pelican Strand?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Uh-hum. Which would be to the
back side of this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, let's hear that objection.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is basically the school side, and
there are homes along here. Probably it's hard to see, but there's
a large preserve in this area. The house is not going to be really
adjacent to the school, athletic field or anything, it's going to be
adjacent to a large preserve. That's the only reason why it's not
on the agenda.
Planning Commission has reviewed and unanimously
recommended approval. Staff recommendation -- Planning
Commission was for approval.
This is part of a larger parcel that they controlled. It's
Page 75
May 23, 2000
around 172 acres. And they are preparing a PUD, a large PUD,
for it. And -- but they want to have school open this coming
school season and they needed to do this conditional use in
order to have the school this year.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for staff?
Let's go to the petitioner, Mr. Anderson. Afternoon.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning -- good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson,
representing Royal Palm Academy, Inc. I'll be glad to make a
short presentation or simply answer any questions that you may
have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Anderson?
Public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: You have none.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please
state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries, 5-0.
They should all be that easy.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I needed to disclose that
somewhere back in the dim distant past I did have --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I have to do that, too. I did
have a meeting with the petitioner some time ago.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not sure that I -- I don't know
that I ever discussed this with the petitioner. If I did, well, chalk
it up to senility and --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: General confusion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- general confusion.
Item #13A6
RESOLUTION 2000-161, PETITION V-2000-07, MILES L. SCOFIELD
REPRESENTING MICHAEL ZACCHEO, REQUESTING A 12-FOOT
VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 15-FOOT WEST SIDE YARD
SETBACK FOR DOCK FACILITIES TO 3 FEET FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 63 SOUTHPORT COVE - ADOPTED
Page 76
May 23, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 13(A)(6), Petition V-2000-07,
Rocky Scofield. Hi there.
Oh, thank you. Anybody who's going to participate in this
needs to stand and be sworn.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. GOCHENAUR: Good afternoon, commissioners. For--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do we have disclosures on this?
MR. GOCHENAUR: -- the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning
services.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any public disclosure on this
one?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I had conversation with the
petitioner's representative.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So did I.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't believe I did.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think I did at one time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: These are overwhelmingly solid
disclosures today, aren't they?
All right, let's go to staff report. Thank you. Sorry for the
interruption.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Petitioner is requesting a 12-foot
after-the-fact variance from the required 15-foot side setback for
docks for property located at 63 Southport Cove, in Lely Barefoot
Beach.
An extension of the dock to 51 feet was approved by the
Planning Commission on May 4th. However, this variance would
have to be approved in order to construct the facility as
proposed.
We've received no objections to the project.
Although the proposed variance would not be injurious to
the community or impede use of the waterway, staff feels
constrained to recommend denial of this petition, since there is
no land-related hardship and since a viable dock with a single
deck could be built without resort to a variance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for staff?
Mr. Scofield?
MR. SCOFIELD: I can go in -- I guess I need to make --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the record?
Page 77
May 23, 2000
MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield, representing
the petitioner, Mike Zaccheo.
This is in the Southport subdivision of Lely Barefoot Beach.
As you can see on -- this is in a little closed in lagoon on the map
here. I can show you on an aerial where this is. But this whole
section to the west of this is a conservation area. From the
applicant's property all the way over. Nothing else can be built
in this area.
The multi-slip docking facility that shows you there is for
people on upland lots that are not on the waterfront, and they
can't have docks. So there's a 12-slip unit there that affords
docking for them.
We got letters from them. They have no objection from the
next door neighborhood and from the Southport Association --
Property Owners Association.
We don't feel this is precedent setting at all. We're not
going outside our riparian lines; we're only coming within three
feet of them. We're bringing two boats in, bow in. It's a very
shallow area. And we need to keep them on a lift because of the
tides in this area. At low tide the boats would be on the -- one of
the boats would be on the bottom. The other is a canoe type
boat.
But if you have any questions -- the Planning Commission
unanimously passed this, and there's no impact to anybody
around.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What are you currently doing?
MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What are you currently doing?
How are you docking today?
MR. SCOFIELD: Right now they can't dock. This -- the
applicant bought the house and the existing dock, and it's too
shallow to put a boat alongside the existing dock.
This is the existing dock as it sits. The only thing we're
going to do is bring boats into that existing dock bow in, stern
out. And then we're going to put a little walkway in between
them so we can get to them and put the lifts in.
Again, we're not going outside the riparian lines. And the
only one it affects is the property to the west which is the
multi-slip docking slip facility. And we're 100 feet away from
them. And there's just no impacts, so --
Page 78
May 23, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, I can understand why
staff had to technically say it's not a hardship, but I can't see
who this is going to hurt and why we shouldn't support it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're telling me you currently
can't use it?
MR. SCOFIELD: You can -- probably right now you can. It
wasn't used in the past by the previous owner. It's -- the dock
was only permitted to go out -- well, you're only allowed to go out
20 feet, and they did not get boat dock extension. Yeah, it
extended out past that. But there's only a couple of feet of water
right in front of the dock now, and so in order to get a boat there,
you have to bring them bow in and stick the stern out, which we
could do right now without even being here, but we need to get
them on lifts so they don't sit them on the bottom at low tide.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, I understand. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #13A7
RESOLUTION 2000-162, PETITION V-2000-08 JOSEPH SABATINO
REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 7.5 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED
7.5 FEET TO 0 FEET ALONG THE WEST SIDE YARD OF LOTS 13 &
t4 AND ALONG THE EAST SIDE YARD OF LOTS 36 AND 37; A
VARIANCE OF 0.7-FOOT FROM THE REQUIRED 6-FOOT
MAXIMUM TO A 6.7-FOOT MAXIMUM FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE
COURTYARD WALLS; A VARIANCE OF 7.5 FEET FROM THE
REQUIRED 7.5 FEET TO 0 FEET FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
ALONG THE SIDE LOT LINES AND WITHIN THE COURTYARD
WALLS; AND A VARIANCE OF 10 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 10
FEET TO 0 FEET FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ALONG THE
REAR LOT LINES AND WITHIN THE COURTYARD WALLS FOR
PROPERTIES DESCRIBED AS LOTS 13, 14, 15, 36, 37 AND 38,
Page 79
May 23, 2000
BLOCK 17, NAPLES PARK, UNIT 2, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM 8(A)?) - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Petition V-2000-08 is 13(A)(7), requesting a variance to zero
feet.
We need to swear in anybody who intends to participate in
this one.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, commissioners. Fred
Reischl, planning services.
This is a request for several variances in Naples Park.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt
Mr. Reischl.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commission Berry? Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Hey, that's my act, Tim.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hey, I flew in at 2:00 a.m. last
night. That's where that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: When I read this, and after looking
also at the 111th Avenue consideration -- or reconsideration, I
should say -- based on the Dover/Kohl study, I wondered if this
particular one did not fall within that same realm and is
something that should be referred to the whole study area.
Are we within our rights here to go ahead and ask that this
be considered in a study and what might best serve that
community legally? Or from an effective planning standpoint,
where does this enter into this particular project?
MR. REISCHL: That was brought up by several of the people
in the neighborhood, and it was brought up in front of the
Planning Commission as one of the considerations. Ms. Student
addressed it at the time. Hopefully I can summarize her
thoughts, is that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Would you, please?
MR. REISCHL: -- since it's not enacted at this time, that he
certainly has a right to come forward with the petition as it is
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I would venture to say -- and
Mr. Weigel, you'll correct me if I'm wrong -- that we can consider
that in the total totality of the circumstances, the existence of
the Dover/Kohl study, when we decide whether or not this is
compatible with the area.
Page 80
May 23, 2000
MR. WEIGEL: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We certainly don't have to ignore
the fact that that's out there. We know it's coming and we know
it's going to result in some significant changes and some real
improvements.
And unless somebody tells me it's not legal to do so, I'd very
much like to wait and deny this for today, or continue it,
whatever the petitioner would prefer.
MR. REISCHL: And if I can jump in, I also failed to mention,
this is also a companion item to a fee waiver request.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It is.
Mr. Weigel, we need to be pretty careful here not to
arbitrarily waive something off because it's something that might
happen in the future. I understand the concern here and the
desire here, but if the petitioner wants to go forward on this, we
can't just say we're not going to go forward, we need to hear it.
And if we deny it, it has to be based on the merits of the item,
not again because someone may.
MR. WEIGEL: That is -- your statement's correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, I just wanted to get that
clear. Because I know the others there, and I didn't know where
it all fit in with what we're doing here. Okay, thank you.
MR. REISCHL: And this petition is similar to one that you
heard in January. During the board's discussion on that, the
petitioner apparently saw that the sense of the board was to
deny. He withdrew the petition.
He has based this resubmission on what the sense of the
board seemed to be at the time, which is make all the
dimensional variances internal to the project. In other words, all
the external homes will be 15 feet from the existing homes in
Naples Park. And he reduced the size of the wall, which at the
time was seven feet, down to 6.7 feet.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So the impact would be on the
new structures, as opposed to existing homes. MR. REISCHL: Correct.
Again, you've got the letters of objection in your packet. But
some of the objections were still to the height of the wall at 6.7
feet. I don't recall objections to the internal variances, but to the
height of the wall, at 6.7 feet.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other details you want to
Page 81
May 23, 2000
share with us?
MR. REISCHL: The Planning Commission recommended
approval 4-2.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can we hear from the
petitioner?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you tell us what the two --
what were their reasons?
MR. REISCHL: They are in opposition to many variances,
based on the fact that you should have minimum separation.
Commissioner Rautio and Commissioner Abernathy are firmly
against most variances.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Has Mr. Abernathy ever voted in
favor of a variance?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. One that I did, too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had to speak to him about that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have anybody here for
the petitioner? Good afternoon.
MR. SABATINO: Good afternoon. I was just checking to see
if it was morning. My name is Joseph Sabatino, and I am the
applicant for the variance.
Based on our last meeting, I did create changes to the plan,
and I'll quickly show you the differences.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are you going to show us the old
and the new?
MR. SABATINO: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right.
MR. SABATINO: This is a Variance-99-25, where a house in
this location was proposed to be two feet from the property line
and a house in that location was proposed to be two feet from
the property line, with all other houses being a minimum of 15
foot between buildings.
What we had -- or what was suggested, and we have no
problem with it, is to take the house that adjoins an existing
property here and put it in the center of the lot so that they're
seven and a half feet to the property line, thus 15 feet between
buildings. And then likewise, with that one, with all others being
zero lot lines, so that there would be internal variances
requested.
The only other salient issue that I thought needed to be
addressed was the height of a wall. I'll give you -- basically
Page 82
May 23, 2000
that's the floor plan of one of the houses; my particular house
that I hope to build, if this is approved. There's a wall which is
very faintly drawn here virtually on the perimeter of the property,
at the property line.
I'd like to just read briefly in support of a higher wall than
six feet. Just some issues that I would -- I was addressing in my
letter to the commissioners. Regarding the unresolved issue of
courtyard wall height, courtyard dwellings generally should be
permitted on the typical Naples Park lots. They would serve to
enhance and improve a narrow lot condition that exists
throughout the park.
The purpose of the courtyard style dwelling is to internalize
views and create privacy and security that would normally not
exist in the absence of the wall.
This level of security and privacy would not be
accomplished if a tall person, over six foot, was able to peer over
or reach the top of a six-foot high wall. The solution to this
potential problem would be to allow for the higher wall not to
exceed seven feet.
This applicant would be willing to compromise the wall
height to six foot eight inches, or 6.7 feet, the height of a normal
door inside a house. And that height, in my opinion, is a
minimum height for adequate security and privacy.
If there's any other questions. It's a relatively simple
request, I mean, this whole variance issue.
One last thing I did want to -- because I'm anticipating there
being additional objections from perhaps some in Naples Park.
This project is really an effort to help to revitalize or rejuvenate a
small part of Naples Park, with the hopes that this type of
development will spread.
And unfortunately, like all redevelopment projects, no
matter where they are, they seem to be out of context with the
neighborhood. Well, it is out of context with the neighborhood in
that it's new construction. Naples Park obviously is very old.
And there are parts of Naples Park that do need to be
rejuvenated, I feel.
We've tried to be sensitive to the neighborhoods of --
sentiments. We've gone to a couple of area association
meetings and whatnot, and we've had some mixed review, so I'm
sure that some of those folks will be here to address this.
Page 83
May 23, 2000
If there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a question for you.
Suppose you did a six-foot wall -- MR. SABATINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- and just suppose, if I
understand code correctly, inside that wall you planted ficus
hedges. Now, to my knowledge, ficus hedges can grow I guess
as high as you want them, because to my knowledge, no one
ever objects.
So what if -- I mean, just what if that took place, would that
meet the needs of everybody concerned? Because it seems the
major objection I get is the wall. Now, if we don't make a
variance on the wall, I don't know how many other objections are
in there. But I'm just raising that question -- MR. SABATINO: Good point.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- if that's a way to accommodate
all concerned.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very good idea.
MR. SABATINO: That's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This guy never ceases to amaze
me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You would agree to do that?
MR. SABATINO: If I had to compromise on the wall height, I
suppose that's what I will do. It's a bit of a duplication and
creating privacy screens to have to plant the entire inside of the
wall. And we're not proposing to do that, but if that's the only
option, we will do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the public speakers.
How many do we have?
MR. OLLIFF: You have six public speakers. First being Vera
Fitz-Gerald, followed by AI Newman.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald, property owner of
Naples Park.
I don't know why some people think that Naples Park needs
this type of development. It's not in keeping with it. It's a
nice-looking thing. The wall is ridiculous. I don't know of any
internal doors that are six foot seven. Excuse me, but I just don't
know of any. I went around looking at doors --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Come to my house.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: -- when I heard that.
Page 84
May 23, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's the standard door. I'm
6-3. There needs to be a little bit of room for me to get through.
So that's --
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Well, my son's 6-4, and he always has to
duck when he goes through an average door.
So we do object to the wall. Very much so. The code calls
for six foot walls. There's no reason. We don't want walled
enclaves in Naples Park.
I object to this particular developer -- the last time I was
here and I spoke on this, after I got a very threatening phone call
from a friend of his. It was threatening enough that I phoned the
Sheriff after. He was going on about Naples Park being the wild,
wild west. And when I -- and that they needed this wall to
protect themselves from the other residents of Naples Park.
And when I informed him that there's almost nonexistent
crime in Naples Park, he was -- didn't quite know what to say.
But he went on to threaten me about how I was speaking on my
own, I was the only person who objected to it, they were going to
expose me. And oh, God, it was just ridiculous. I object to this
type of developer coming into our community, period.
Anyway, the main objection is the wall. And we -- I agree
with Barbara Berry, I wish we could wait for the Dover/Kohl
study, because we would really like to be ahead of this and do an
overall plan for Naples Park on the redevelopment, which we
know is going to come. But we don't want these little walled
enclaves, and especially high walled enclaves. So please do not
allow the six foot seven wall. Six feet is quite enough. I don't
know of anybody who's going to stand there and start peering
over. Do we really think they're that important that we're going
to stand around staring at them?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Vera, if it is a six-foot wall,
then you have no objection?
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Not the way it is. I know others do.
So please understand that it's the six foot wall, as far as I'm
concerned.
We don't like this zero lot line and things crammed in there.
Naples Park is about being open. Naples Park is about no
fences, no walls. Naples Park is about people can come in and
drop in whenever they want. We're not a secure community with
43 entrances, exits. Interesting that we don't have any crime,
Page 85
May 23, 2000
isn't it?
So we need to get ahead of this. We need to do something
about the redevelopment plan of Naples Park. And I would really,
as Commissioner Berry has suggested, I really would like to see
us wait for Dover/Kohl, to their final thing. But please, no walls
over six feet. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Newman will be followed by?
MR. OLLIFF: Erica Lynne.
MR. NEWMAN: I'm AI Newman, president of Naples Park
Area Association. Good afternoon, commissioners. Tom. Seen
you last night.
Our biggest objection was the seven-foot wall. And when I
was explained that this would be a six-foot wall with a cap on it,
I questioned the cap. Which sounds all right. And it is the size of
an average door, six foot seven. I mean -- and there's a lot of
six-foot teenagers around, believe me. I have them on my street.
And I've got a three-foot Florida glass around my pool, so I could
understand where he's coming from on a six foot seven.
The big item was that 10-foot setback on the rear lot lines in
our group. We were very, very upset about that, wondering what
was going to happen with that 10-foot setback in that rear lot
line. Well, he has since asked for a variance to a zero lot line on
the rear lot line -- property line, which will eliminate the alleyway
that I was foreseeing; alleyway full of junk and rubbish and
everything else. So that eliminated that.
The homes are beautiful. I've looked at them. Most of my
members have no objections to it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. OLLIFF: Erica Lynne, followed by Hank Fay.
MS. LYNNE: Good afternoon, commissioners. Welcome
back, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MS. LYNNE: I actually don't think it's that pretty a place.
And a lot of people in this community, Collier County in general,
would agree with me. I'm Erica Lynne, resident of Naples Park,
member of both the neighborhood associations.
Dover/Kohl, when they were here -- and what is still
available for people to participate in is a county-wide image
survey. And in this survey, 60 images were shown to county
Page 86
May 23, 2000
residents, and they rated them from -10, which is yucky, horrible,
I never want to see this, to +10, this is the most wonderful thing
that has ever happened.
Scenes like the Naples Pier and the 10,000 Islands got high
ratings of around 8, okay? Those were the highest ratings.
Things that got really low ratings were parking lots, congested
roadways, things like that.
If I can -- will this go -- can you get that so that it goes more
closer?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I need you to stay just on the
merits of this. And if you're leading to this, that's fine, but I need
you to stay on the merits of this specific project.
MS. LYNNE: This is on the merits of this specific project. It
is going to go there.
The commissioners have copies of these, if you want to turn
to that, so that you can see them up close.
Basically in the Dover/Kohl studies, the homes that got the
highest rating were single-family homes that had landscaping,
the garages were set back and there were no walls at all, okay?
Then -- those got ratings of 5.9, which is some of the highest
ratings of anything in the county, 5.7. There's even a 4.7 rating
for a multi-family home, based on the fact that it's got nice
landscaping and it's set back and done attractively.
By the time you get to the more modern architecture, you're
down to a 3.6, down to a 4.1. And the only image in the whole
survey that had a gate surrounding a house was rated -- I got a
negative rating, a 0.9 negative rating, okay? So this community
has voted that -- the entire Collier County has voted that gated
communities, gates around homes, are not things that they
consider attractive.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we should correct a point. I
don't think all of Collier County has voted. There have been
individuals who have voted, but this has not been put up to a
vote of the residents.
MS. LYNNE: It's a county-wide survey and it's open to
everybody.
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
MS. LYNNE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
MS. LYNNE:
It is, but--
-- not everyone --
No, not everyone has taken it.
Page 87
May 23, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- it's a kind of a --
MS. LYNNE: That's true.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- referendum kind of thing, that's
not correct.
MS. LYNNE: It's a county-wide survey. It's open for anybody
to take. Not everybody in the county has taken it, as with any
survey.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And just so you understand the
scientific nature of surveys, when you have voluntary
participation, that isn't necessarily a scientific response.
MS. LYNNE: Understood. I still thought that the results
were -- they were very interesting to me. If you're a resident of
Collier County, you see a huge amount of gated communities, you
assume that's what everybody likes. So this was just interesting
in that respect.
The other images that got ratings similar to that of a gated
house were bare roadways, intersections, garages and the
parking lot outside of Sears. There's a parking -- a parking lot
that actually got a higher rating than a home in a gated
community.
Okay, the photograph in the upper left is from the image
survey. It is in Naples Park, and it got a rating of 5.8. I disagree
with people who keep saying that Naples Park is a yucky place
to live or that we need to get in there and put in gated
communities. This got a very high rating.
The rest of the photographs on the street are t 10th Avenue,
near the location of Mr. Sabatino's property.
In the upper right-hand corner, this is 110th Avenue looking
east, okay, so this is a -- this is where Mr. Sabatino's talking
about putting in his walled courtyard villas, and that would be on
the left-hand side there where the large trees are.
Now, on the upper left-hand side, that's the home just east
of the variance. This owner, I've spoken to this owner and this
owner is opposed to the variances. He's opposed to the project.
He feels it changes Naples Park's character.
The home upper right --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I need you to wrap up.
MS. LYNNE: Okay, quickly. Upper right is -- the rest of
these homes are also the ones that are nearby. I wanted you to
see the neighborhood he's talking about putting these in.
Page 88
May 23~ 2000
Zoning regulations are supposed to protect neighborhood
character, and while zoning laws are not always perfect and we
can't -- they don't always work the way we want them to, he is
asking for variances that enhance the value of this property as a
developer, and the community shouldn't be sacrificed in that
regard.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. LYNNE: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Fay will be Carol Sabatino.
MR. FAY: Hank Fay, resident of Naples Park.
I appear a second time before you today in order to argue
against the granting of variances on the Sabatino development at
110th and 11 lth Avenues North.
I spoke with staff at Planning regarding this issue and was
amazed to learn the following: First, that this is being treated as
a single property, rather than as six separate homes, which is
how it is currently being marketed.
Second, that regulations regarding fence height are
meaningless. In the words of staff, they are dimensional
standards that are allowed to vary.
Third, that there is no difference between a fence and a
wall.
Regarding the first point, that these are separate homes and
not one property, five for sale signs appear on those properties
today. A call yesterday to a realtor brought the information that
the lots were not for sale, but rather homes to be built on them
were for sale. And yet there is only one variance request here.
Consider if there were six variance requests, adding up to the
total of what is now proposed, with a jiggering of buffers
between houses, would it be allowed? I think not.
Yet somehow this project has taken on a mini PUD status
that somehow relieves it of the obligation to meet planning
standards that apply to single homes.
Does that mean that any two homeowners can do the same?
If we want to have seven foot or 6.7 foot or whatever walls
around our houses and move them closer to each other with --
than policy permits? Can we bring in a joint application and have
it treated as a mini PUD? If not, then the same reasoning applies
here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think you can.
Page 89
May 23, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The answer would be yes, you
and a neighbor could bring in a joint application. MR. FAY: Okay, I'll address that later.
Regarding dimensional standards, is this really what is
meant by the planning laws, that six feet is only what one means
it to mean? Are we really peering through the looking glass when
it comes to anything having a measurement? If not, let the
standard be the standard and deny the variance. Why? Because
no good reason has been presented for the variance other than
blatant greed. It is a naked attempt to create Pelican mini Marsh
in Naples Park.
Regarding walls versus fences, Robert Cross, the poet
asserted that fences do good neighbors make. Walls of course
prevent neighbors, as Barbara Bova so tellingly described in her
column in yesterday's Daily News.
Unless given new information, I accept that at present there
is no difference in the planning laws between fences and walls.
There ought to be.
As Ms. Bova points out, makers of walled and gated
communities pander to uninformed fears of buyers. Safety
comes from having neighbors, not from preventing neighbors. If
someone is casing my house, my neighbors will notice. No one
will notice anything behind the ramparts of Fortress Sabatino.
Perhaps everything being requested is what you would grant
any variance requester, in which case I would not want you to
vote any differently than you would for any other requester, and
apparently that's the case.
There may be nothing that can be done about this issue.
Perhaps common sense, decency and regard for the character
and life of community have no backing in current policy. If so,
policy must change. If built, this malignant wart on the skin of
Naples Park will become an ugly icon on policy failure.
There is of course grace in all events that befall us. And
indeed, if built, this sad mistakes will surely galvanize
community involvement for working with county staff and
commissioners in formulating a policy that prevents this
cancerous growth from metastasizing into the body of our
community. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Ms. Sabatino will be your last
speaker, Castano Javier.
Page 90
May 23, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
way.
MR. REISCHL: If I could --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
book.
I've got to save that one, by the
I could put that in the scrap
MR. FAY: I write speeches for candidates I like.
MR. REISCHL: If I could address two of his concerns.
The resolution does list each lot individually, so it's not
being considered as a single property. And also, in the
resolution, one of the stipulations states that there must be a
site development plan associated with it, that not just one house
can do it and then the other houses will build something
different. It's got to be a site development plan on top of the
lots.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is this our final speaker?.
MR. OLLIFF: After Mr. Sabatino, one last speaker.
MS. SABATINO: Good afternoon. My name's Carol Sabatino.
I'm the wife of the applicant.
And before I begin, I would like to make a statement in
regard to Mrs. Fitz-Gerald's accusations, if I may, and that is to
state publicly that in no way did we encourage, condone,
suggest or in any way encourage the call, whatever it may be, to
Mrs. Fitz-Gerald. And I state this publicly again, we did not in
any way condone such an act. We do not engage in that
ourselves, nor would we encourage.
In fact, I think the gentleman that she's referring to had a
deposit on a home that -- in this neighborhood. And because of
objections by Mrs. Fitz-Gerald, what went on between them, I
can only guess, but I've no idea. It wasn't stated to me. I've no
idea. And I do believe that applies to my husband Joseph as
well. He did in fact walk away from our agreement because of
that situation, and he is in no way a friend, a relative or anything
else like that. So I hope that's very, very clear to everybody here
present.
And the second thing I would like to say, and I'll try to make
it brief, is that we -- when we embarked on this plan to live in
Naples Park, we did so with the idea that we would live close to
the beach in an affordable community. We like Naples Park's
proximity to the ocean, or the Gulf, as it's called. I like it
because I work very hard and it's a very easy route for me up and
Page 91
May 23, 2000
down Route 41. And on that basis, we selected an area in Naples
Park that we felt would be a very nice, easy access for me.
Joseph is retired.
We attempted to create for ourselves in that community a
very nice internal peaceful living environment for the two of us,
which included a swimming pool, a coy pond, which I -- is a very
tranquil environment, and to basically just have a quiet place to
come home to. We in no way intended ever to get the back of
the neighborhood up.
Before we finished design drawings, we contacted
neighborhoods associations. We spent several evenings meeting
with neighbors on a one-to-one basis. Some of them were kind
enough to come today and share their feelings. Some not so
kind. But in any case, we have no real averse involved here. We
simply want to create a nice place for ourselves to live. And I'm
sorry if the neighborhood is objecting to that. However, we do
have rights. One of those rights, I understand, is that we may
construct a home of some type with a wall around it. We may
construct a home of some type with a six-foot wall around the
perimeter. And I don't think we need to apply to you or appeal
before you for permission for that.
So that being said, if we're unable to put our coy pond in
because we don't have a wide enough courtyard, that might be
the case. We do intend to construct a house of some type. We
hope it will be very pretty house. We hope it will be very
attractive. And we certainly hope to become somewhat friendly
with the neighbors in the community. We'd very much like that.
But we're not going to back down from building the home that we
wish to build, and we're certainly not going to engage in any kind
of threats to anybody. And I -- that's something that will be
taken up with our lawyer because of the public statements. I'm
not going to address it further.
But just suffice it to say that we would very much like to
build a home here. And it will be our home. We plan to live
there. We're not trying to shut the neighborhood out. We're
actually trying to become part of a very nice location in Naples,
one that is currently affordable to us. Thank you so much.
Appreciate your time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Our final speaker?
Page 92
May 23, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Javier.
MR. JAVIER: For the record, Javier Castano. I am a
property owner in Naples Park, and I'd like to say that I'm in full
agreement with this petition. I do not know who Vera really
speaks for. She certainly does not speak for me. And in
listening to her comments, and I did catch the television show on
the last meeting that you had, and I kind of unfortunately would
like to relate that it's kind of like the pit bull at home bit biting its
owner. And she's really going at this I think wrongly. Because
this is a nice project. It can be built in Naples Park in a sense --
in the sense than it is proposed today. Of course without a
six-foot seven wall or a 6.7 foot wall. It can be build with a
six-foot wall.
And by state law, you have to have an enclosure, if you have
a swimming fool, so that would have to be afforded to that
property owner.
And I might want to say that courtyard style homes are
attractive homes in all areas. And maybe if we said it was
Mediterranean style, all of a sudden it would get approval. So,
you know, I'd like to encourage the board to go forward, not to
try to delay this with other things coming up. Simply because
someone has to own this property, someone has to pay for this
property, and if you say well, we're going to wait to see what
happens, I think you're hurting a lot of other people. So once
again, I'd like to encourage you to go forward and approve this.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. SABATINO: May I make just one short comment --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
MR. SABATINO: -- regarding the height of the wall in support
of a little bit higher wall. And just simply that the Planning
Commission, Collier County Planning Commission did discuss
that issue and approved the 6.7 foot wall.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
We'll close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the
board?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would move approval of all
variances with the exception of the wall height variance.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, I could support that if we
stay at six foot. I realize that there's some options around that,
Page 93
May 23, 2000
but that does remove a variance and keeps us consistent.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I think considering the
alternative you've suggested, that still allows you to do what you
want to do.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's a pliable suggestion, that
they relieve the problem.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the
motion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I second it.
I would also support the motion as the petitioner made it,
but also suggest that I'd go out and find some darn good ficus
plants or other shrubbery, and let the wall -- personally, I don't
know why people really want to fool around with a wall. I
happen to live in a community that has a wall, and I know that
it's a constant maintenance problem. At the same time, I think
it's very attractive to drive down Goodlette, the extension of
Goodlette Road that backs up to Pelican Marsh, I believe it is,
where they have put in a dark chain link fence and then they
have shrubbery around it. You don't even see the fence. All you
see is the shrubbery. And I think basically it accomplishes the
same type of thing.
I know perhaps with a Mediterranean style house, however,
the wall probably lends itself. But there might be something that
you might want to do with that, but I will support your petition on
this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mediterranean chain link?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mediterranean chain link, how's
that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let's see you do a six-foot wall
with some shrubbery around it. I'm not really crazy about chain
link fences.
But anyway, I think you've got some alternatives here, if you
agree to keep it as a six-foot wall.
I have not received, you know, horrendous opposition to it.
In fact, I've got as many people coming to me saying they're in
favor of the project as they are against it. The only sticking
point that I really saw was the height of the wall.
MR. SABATINO: That's fine. We'll accept that decision.
MS. SABATINO: I think it should be noted too that --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, the public hearing is
Page 94
May 23, 2000
closed. Unless there's a specific question from Commissioner
Carter for -- we're not going to have continuing dialogue.
There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8A2
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE 1999 TOURISM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE TOURISM ALLIANCE OF
COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION
OF THE MARCO ISLAND FILM FESTIVAL - CONTINUED TO JUNE
13, 2000
Takes us to 8(A)(2), third amendment to the 1999 tourism
agreement between Collier County and the Tourism Alliance of
Collier County, regarding advertising and promotion of the Marco
Island Film Festival.
MR. MIHALIC: Good afternoon, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there.
MR. MIHALIC: For the record, I'm Greg Mihalic from housing
and urban improvement. And before you we have five separate
issues relating to tourist development funds and the
recommendation of the Tourist Development Council in their
funding.
And the first one is an amendment increasing the tourism
alliance contract with Collier County by the amount of $42,000 to
fund the Marco Island Film Festival, which will occur in the early
part of October, at the beginning of the fiscal year. So basically
it's an increase of this year's contract.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And the TDC said?
MR. MIHALIC: They recommended it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just a side note here, this is I
think the only special events that has gone through the new
process. They haven't got other applications. I would encourage
each commissioner to look at the Tourism Alliance's form. If you
happen to be a special event type person, it is extraordinarily
Page 95
May 23, 2000
cumbersome, and I'm not the least bit surprised that there aren't
special event requests, because it is not user friendly in that
manner.
And we ought to make a decision at some point, either we
want to have them and make it readily available so that people
can actually fill out an application, or rule out special events.
And I don't want to do that, but that's just a side note.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to also make one more
comment on that, Commissioner Constantine, and that is I
understand that the people who petition are not invited to the
hearing for that discussion. And that seems very strange to me,
because I think if you're going through that process, they would
encourage you to be there to answer questions.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I just don't think that's
proper.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think there are some flaws in
the way the system is working right now. In fairness, we'll
assume that's because it's the first full year of the Tourism
Alliance doing its thing, and make those notes and hopefully
have some corrections in the coming year. But you're absolutely
right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would like to make a comment,
but I don't -- you want to deal with this first?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'll deal --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I do want to make a comment
along the line here about what I would like to see how I think the
board -- some direction we need to give to the tourist business
here that we have to deal with.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Put that under BCC today.
Mr. Olliff, do we have public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: You do. You have four on this item. And you
have two other registered speakers that registered for every
single one of these items, so I'm not sure whether it's a
particular issue that they want to talk about, but it's -- we'll just
start with the first one. It's Maury Dailey, followed by Fred Shinn.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good afternoon. I keep wanting
to say good morning, but it's just not working anymore. MR. DAILEY: I know, it's time for launch, isn't it?
My name is Maury Dailey, and -- president of the Marco
Page 96
May 23, 2000
Island Film Festival. I live on Marco Island. And I thank you very
much for your endurance and your patience here.
The Film Festival appreciates the recommendation for the
$42,000 through the Alliance and the TDC, and we do applaud the
Alliance approach. And as was mentioned, there are some fine
tuning. We've met with most of you individually to talk about
some of our feedback with that process.
As you know, we originally requested $100,000. And we do
feel that based on some discussion that we had, that we know
that for the success of this event and to the success of the
county, that we need to have an aggressive public relations
program. And that was -- that we propose $45,000 to go towards,
in addition to the 42.
If I could ask that this be passed out. It's just a single sheet
to you, addressing $45,000 that would go in the form of a PR
campaign for the Film Festival.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Was that part of your original
request?
MR. DAILEY: No, it is not. It was a part of-- the $100,000
was our original request.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. DAILEY: And then what -- where we got in the process,
we saw 42,000.
The beginning of the benefits are just starting to happen
with the Film Festival. We have a lot of national attention now
that we're beginning to get. We really want to capitalize on that.
It would really be a stumbling if you've invested the money that
you've invested for this event and then for us not go forward and
make this a -- capitalize on this investment.
We've already seen a couple things happen. An organization
here in state called the FIFE. It's about 30 members. They've
already said that because of the Film Festival, the participation
last year, there's a group of 30 people, they want to book into for
special events on Marco Island or in Collier County. We have
another group of 20 film makers said they want to come in. This
is aside from the Film Festival. Just one of the benefits starting
to spin off the Film Festival publicity.
We also know the FMPTA is deciding that they want to hold
their state convention down here in 2001.
So we know there are a lot of other benefits that are going
Page 97
May 23, 2000
to start to spin off of this, and we would like for you to consider
this in your deliberation today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's the state-wide
organization you referred to? MR. DAILEY: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What did we approve last year?
MR. MIHALIC: $106,000.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Have all bills been paid to
outstanding vendors?
MR. DAILEY: I could bring up our treasurer for that. Fred
Shinn here.
MR. SHINN: Thank you. My name is Fred Shinn. I'm a
resident of Marco Island.
I appreciate you asking that question, Commissioner Carter,
because we have been subject to newspaper accounts of our
financial festival. And the exact answer to that is have all
vendors been paid? The answer is no. However, if you know, the
Film Festival is not an equity type operation, it's a cash flow.
We started the end of the first festival with the an $89,000
deficit. We reduced it to 29,000, reflecting at $60,000 profit last
year, which we were very, very proud of. And the newspaper
seemed to lose that in its editorial comments.
But to answer your question, of that 29 that was left, there
was 16,000 -- a little over 16,000 that was in dispute.
But to answer your question, no, not everyone has been
paid. And that is why the third year, we're hoping if we make
another 60,000, as we did last year, that will be accomplished.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Looking at the one that is in
dispute, taking that away, what about the remainder? If my
math's right, you're looking at what 7, 8, 9,000? Are those
people willing to wait, are they giving -- you know, are they
willing to continue to support this? How are you working that
out with them?
MR. SHINN: Well, yes, they are -- part of that difference is
also in a quasi dispute because of some discussions on some of
the services.
One of the people quoted in the newspaper, which I know
you're all familiar with, is one of those.
But we have -- at the end of last year we had nearly all of
them in compliance with what we wanted to do. Were they
Page 98
May 23, 2000
happy? Probably not. But we were trying. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a process question, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am just confused by this,
because I thought Tom, we were going to see these items in
budget and that this wasn't going to happen this way again. That
was the purpose of going through this whole Tourism Alliance
controller advice of the money.
Because I -- the only way I can vote on these -- this -- in
particular, this petition, that has 42,000, I have one line. I have
no backup. I have one line that says $42,000 for Marco Island
Film Festival. I don't know what their budget is.
Now, they submitted this one other piece of paper. I don't
have any basis except for that it's what the TDC recommended
to cast a vote. And I'm uncomfortable with that. I don't know
how I can adequately judge whether or not -- I mean, I don't like
to rubber stamp it. It feels like that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We had more backup than this
at the TDC level. Is there any reason why that isn't included in
the BCC packet?
MR. MIHALIC: No. We could have included it in the packet.
It basically was submitted by the Tourism Alliance.
The reason why you're seeing this as a budget amendment
is because there was no special events money in their last year's
budget, so this is an increase of that amount to reflect this
special event which is going to be funded in this fiscal year, the
advertising for it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Explain that again, Greg. You said
there's no money--
MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- in the special events?
MR. MIHALIC: Well, there is no special events category any
more, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
MR. MIHALIC: It's been amalgamated together into one
Category B from some of the ordinance amendments in the past.
So both special events and advertising and marketing are all
part of Category B.
Page 99
May 23, 2000
And from the direction of the commission last year, all this
has to be focused together so that all special events really
highlight the advertising and marketing that goes on. And the
Tourism Alliance is working in that vein.
But there was no money that they had set aside for special
events, and that's why you're seeing --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The theory, Commissioner
Berry, was, and I think we're going the same place here, is that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think so, too.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- rather than have specific
dollar amounts set each year, specific percentage set each year,
was that some years the marketing plan might warrant more
special events than others. My concern is that the Tourism
Alliance is just going to simply take all the money and
discourage special events.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we will have that
discussion later today probably under BCC.
But I think that's where we come from. I don't think it's a
coincidence that we don't have all the information here. I don't
think that's the fault of the people that made the application,
that is so very cumbersome, I might add again yet again.
I think it's a good event. I think they have built this. I think
this is one of those things that builds a reputation over the years.
I have watched similar ones grow in other places in the country,
and while I don't know that we'll be rivaling Sundance right
away, I do think we are building a good reputation, and it's a
good opportunity here for us.
So I'd like to see us go ahead. And that's where the TDC
was coming from, too. I'm sorry we don't have more in your
packet. I'll tell you, we did have a substantial packet at TDC that
was quite impressive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, then why at TDC did you --
how did you come to this $42,000 number?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That was the number brought
forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You never even had that
discussion at TDC.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That was Tourism Alliance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that just won't do. That's
Page 100
May 23, 2000
just not okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And again, the unfortunate thing
is some of what we were not aware of, I'm guessing, is a result
of you all weren't at the Tourism Alliance meeting, because you
didn't know what was going on.
MR. DAILEY: Right. We were not -- we did not know that
there was a meeting. We were not invited to that meeting. And
inadvertently we found out accidentally basically about the TDC
meeting, that it was on the agenda item a couple of days before.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have been there at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I feel like that we need to
continue these and get some backup information. I don't know
what the downside of that would be.
I even worry, Mr. Weigel, if we're going so far as to -- I can't
think of the right word right now, but to pass off the authority to
some other board, to TDC or to even this Tourism Alliance,
because we don't have enough information here to make a
decision. I don't.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not comfortable with this at all.
In fact, I'm very upset over what is appearing here and what has
happened.
I did hear that they were not invited. And I was very
concerned when I heard that they were not invited. I cannot
imagine. That's the same if we sat here and have land use
discussions and we don't allow the public to come in and
participate. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same kind of a
situation, and that's wrong.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I've got the same concerns
on the film office --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -. there's some confusion about
that. All of it makes me very uncomfortable.
Item #8A3
APPROVE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FUNDING FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC., REGARDING
PAYING OFF A PORTION OF THE WILKINSON HOUSE OVER A
THREE-YEAR DURATION - CONTINUED TO JUNE 13, 2000
Page 101
May 23, 2000
Item #8A4
APPROVE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FUNDING FOR THE
MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC. $13,900-
CONTINUED TO JUNE 13, 2000
Item #8A5
APPROVE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FUNDING FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUMS - CONTINUED TO JUNE 13~ 2000
Item #8A6
APPROVE THE 2000 TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE TOURISM ALLIANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY
REGARDING ADVERTISING/PROMOTION AND SPECIAL EVENTS -
CONTINUED TO JUNE 13, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, why don't I make a motion
that we continue 8(A)(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), and then at our next
meeting we'll get better backup material. And assuming, Greg,
that that doesn't cause any problem for any of these applicants.
MR. MIHALIC: Not to the best of my knowledge.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it's three weeks before our
next meeting, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. MIHALIC: Commissioner, this one is for an amendment
to this year's budget. The rest are for next year's budget, so
there should be no issue with that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So that's not going to cause any
problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then if I -- I'll second that
motion.
And I have a question for Mr. Olliff. On the items that have
to do with next year's budget, why are we hearing them in this
forum instead of in the budget process?
MR. OLLIFF: Greg, I'm not sure that there was ever any
indication when we changed the process that we were going to
change how they actually got presented to the board. Because I
had the same question. And staff was under the impression that
Page 102
May 23, 2000
the process at this level was going to be the same.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the idea, though, was to
have it all at a similar time, as opposed to -- which I think you are
doing --
MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -. as opposed to spreading these
out. Because what happened before is we'd have an event come
up now, something else come up in September. You had no way
to compare and contrast.
MR. MIHALIC: We wanted all the decisions made before the
first public hearing so you knew what was going to be in next
year's budget.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I completely agree with that.
But I don't understand why-- I wonder if the board wants to give
some direction today that we would want to hear those in budget
workshops so that we see this with the rest of our financial
questions.
MR. OLLIFF'- Well, the other thing you need to keep in mind
is that this is a whole lot -- this process at the County
Commission level provides a lot more opportunity for public input
as well. Your budget workshops are workshops. And then the
opportunity for public input wouldn't be had until you have your
public hearings for the budget in late September, which is
awkward.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that it's all right to hear it
separately from the budget. But what I don't like is again, we're
getting these items -- I'm not seeing, and Jim, I think you can
appreciate this, I'm not seeing the overall plan here. In other
words, what is the overall marketing plan for the tourism, and
how does the film industry -- how does this fit into their overall
marketing plan? If they're going to have this event, how does
this fit?
Same thing with the film office. I think you can see that that
has been beneficial to Collier County, but how does it fit into the
total scheme of things? And we're not seeing this.
Again, we're dealing with individual items that are coming
before us. I don't think it's right and I think that this board gave
clear direction that we didn't want to do that anymore.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, and I'll tell you, you
mentioned the film office. The unfortunate thing there is it goes
Page 103
May 23, 2000
even further to what we were discussing there. The suggestion,
from some anyway, at the Tourism Alliance is to eliminate any
individual or any office, any point and just put that same amount
of money toward PR, which just doesn't work in that regard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So I'm concerned about where
the Tourism Alliance is going.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I am, too. And I'll tell you, to that
end, and we might as well deal with it right now, I really would
like to ask our auditor, Mr. Brock, to take a look at our -- not
necessarily Greg's operation, but I would like to see them take a
look at the Tourist Alliance -- Tourism Alliance group of Collier
County. And I want to know financially how money has been
spent and the overall compliance with direction and all those
kinds of things. And I think we need to know. I think this board
needs to know that and the public needs to be assured of how
that money is being spent.
I don't know. But I've heard concerns over applications, I
have heard concerns over RFP's. I am very concerned about it.
And I think the best way to get an answer is to let the Clerk audit
this particular establishment.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, and I think we need -- we
need the plan, we need the big picture from the Tourist
Development Alliance group and so that we understand what
their thought process is --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- so that we can, as the
eventually policy makers here, can say yea or nay, but we're not
getting that. And I too am uncomfortable with this until we get
that brought forward.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion on the floor to
continue till the next meeting three weeks from now?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If that's acceptable.
MR. MIHALIC: That would be fine.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). 8(A)(2),
(3), (4), (5) and (6). It has been seconded.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed? Aye.
Page 104
May 23, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-1.
It's not required under this, but thank you for chairing the
meeting.
MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 8(A)(7), request by Joe -- let's
just knock these two last ones out and we'll go grab a bite.
I apologize -- and I didn't support that. I apologize, for those
of you who are here for the tourism items. I understand
completely your frustration, if you've spent three or four hours
here or longer. However, the packets we have here are
incomplete, and that is a procedural mistake. I don't know that
that's necessarily our staff's fault, but that is -- the commission, I
happen to have seen them just as the chairman of the TDC, but
the other commissioners do not have complete packets here. So
I apologize to you for sitting here and we don't get to hear those
items.
Why don't we just, unless there's objection from the board,
when this comes back in three weeks set a time specific so that
you know it will be 11:00 a.m. exactly when we hear the items,
so you don't have to sit. Or whatever time. We can decide what
that is. If you want to contact my office or the county manager's
office just a couple days beforehand, we'll give you the exact
time. But we'll set a time specific so you do not have to sit for
hours again. Thank you very much.
Item #8A7
REQUEST BY JOSEPH SABATINO FOR WAIVER OF APPLICATION
FEES FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST IN NAPLES PARK (COMPANION
TO V-2000-08) - APPROVED
8(A)(7), request for a waiver of application fees by Mr.
Sabatino.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear the item.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record.
Commissioners, basically the executive summary is
self-explanatory in that Mr. Sabatino, since he applied previously,
felt that the information was not significantly new and felt that
the application process was -- or the fee was onerous and felt
Page 105
May 23, 2000
that a waiver was in order.
We make no recommendation, since they're made on a
case-by-case basis.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When he withdrew the last one
-- did he withdraw or did he get turned down? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Withdrew.
MR. CAUTERO: I believe he withdrew at the very last
minute.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Has it been more than six
months? Doesn't -- can he tinker with the old one, or--
MR. CAUTERO: I don't believe it's been more than six
months.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's been four months.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can he tinker with the old
application?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, since he withdrew it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seems to me we're hitting the
guy twice for going back and doing exactly what we asked him
to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to agree with that, frankly.
I mean, what we did was ask him to go back and make these --
make it so it doesn't affect anybody. It was for his buyers and
his property owners. He did that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And changed that side yard
setback, I believe, instead of being right up against the other
property. And that, you know, was certainly advantageous to
that neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I guess if we'd have said it was a
continuation, we wouldn't have been in this -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: --situation. But I suggested he
withdraw, not realizing he'd be penalized twice. So I feel kind of
-- I feel responsible for maybe giving him bad advice, and I don't
want to see him hit again for something that I think he already
paid for once.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
waiver.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
I'll make a motion to approve the
Second.
Should I withdraw mine?
I'm sorry.
Page 106
May 23, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't think yours was
recognized, or it certainly died for lack of a second.
There's a motion, there's a second. Further discussion?
Any speakers on that item?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I said aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, I didn't hear anything from --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Quietly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- the quiet one.
Item #8A8
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER PERMITTING
COSTS FOR 35 UNITS TO BE BUILT BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY IN IMMOKALEE - APPROVED
8(A)(8}, approval of budget amendment to cover permitting
cost for 35 units to be built by Housing Authority in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
Public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: None.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Let's just take about a 30-minute break and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's left?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Couple things?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Two pages, right?
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we need to take a break.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll take a 30-minute break.
We'll come back at 1:35 and knock out the rest of it.
Page 107
May 23, 2000
(Recess.)
(Commissioner Carter did not attend remainder of meeting.)
Item #5C1
RESOLUTION 2000-163, PRESENTATION BY ROBERT GEROY,
CHAIRMAN, OF THE COLLIER MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT
REGARDING SURVEY TO EXPAND BOUNDARIES FURTHER INTO
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll move on to the first item
of the day, which is 5 (C) (1), a presentation by Bob Geroy,
Chairman of the Collier County Mosquito Control District
regarding survey to expand boundary lines further into Golden
Gate Estates.
Good morning.
MR. GEROY: Greetings, Board members.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is second day, Bob.
MR. GEROY: Okay. We understand. We appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today. I bring also greetings
from my fellow Board members, Commissioners; Rob Boyer,
Jeanne Brooker, Frank Blanchard and Jack Winters.
Accompanying me today is our executive director, Dr. Frank Van
Essen, whom I think most of you probably already know.
The purpose of our appearing before you today is to request
your approval on a resolution that our Board approved last week
on the 16th of May to expand our service area for our district.
The expansion, which we will be showing you on the chart here
today, increases our district by about 27 percent, 66 some
square miles.
And I would like to start, if I may, by just showing you the
chart. Dr. Van Essen, would you help me with this, please. It will
tell you what the boundaries are. And you have similar
information in your packets and it's also on the display.
The area that we're talking about is bounded on the north
essentially by the Lee County line and by the CREW area of
Corkscrew and moves eastward then to a vertical line of 14th
Street Northwest -- is it northeast and southeast or northwest --
DR. VAN ESSEN: Northwest and southwest.
MR. GEROY: Northwest and southwest. It's 14th Street
running north and south and then on the bottom that's 1-75 down
Page 108
May 23, 2000
there. And on the west side of -- we're one mile east of the --
what is State Road 951 or Collier Boulevard, which is our present
district line.
So why did we choose this area to expand into? Primarily
because the residents there are asking us to, as well as you
folks who asked us to run a survey. We performed a survey
during the last two-month period and the results were very
strong. Almost 80 percent of the people who responded to our
survey are asking for us to provide this service to them.
To conduct the survey we divided the area under question
into six vertical areas there. Each one 11 miles in length and
approximately a mile wide. So that's where we get the 66 square
miles. I would point out that population-wise Orange Tree, as
you know, is quite populous and that's up there near the
northeast corner of this expansion area.
We sent out over 3,700 requests for responses and we got
over 50 percent back, which I think is extremely good for any
kind of survey of this nature. And of those, as I mentioned
before, almost 80 percent of the people responded positively that
they would like to have this service.
As you are also aware, under Section 388 -- Chapter 388 of
the Florida statutes, even though we are an independent taxing
district, it's still required by law that we come before the County
Commission to get your approval on any expansion. That's the
same way for all mosquito control districts throughout the State.
They have to get County Commission's approval.
So this is why we are here before you today. We have also
provided you with some other facts and statistics. And anything
that I can do to try and answer your questions, Dr. Van Essen and
I will try to stand ready to do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Geroy, have you run an
economic analysis to see how this will affect the -- is this going
to be a positive cash flow or a negative cash flow operation?
MR. GEROY: Like other expansions that we have had in the
past, it's not going to pay its way for awhile initially and probably
for quite some time. It depends on how rapidly that area grows.
So the rest of the residents and the taxpayers in our existing
district will have to subsidize this expansion, as they've had to in
the past.
Page 109
May 23, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was the point I was trying to
get into. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Although when you look at -- I
don't really have a problem with that though. Commissioner
Berry, I'm sure, knows the numbers better than I do, but if you
look at the numbers going up out there -- and while they're
individual homeowners much more than developments, there are
more individual, single-family permits being yanked there than
anywhere in the County.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That fairly and accurately
describes even the fastest growing area in the County or one of
the fastest.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One of the fastest growing
areas of the County.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question has to do with the
fact that the property is adjacent to CREW and it's outside -- am I
right that this is all outside of the urban boundary? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Some portion of it is within the
urban boundary? I want to make sure I know where that is.
I have two questions. One is environmental in nature. And
that is -- I can probably be educated, but -- I can be educated.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All in agreement say aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. We don't have to vote on
that.
But I'm concerned about the environmental impact to CREW
and otherwise, unless somebody tells me I'm wrong that this is
not environmentally detrimental.
And the other is just -- the further encouragement of
development outside of the urban boundary -- if somebody could
show me the line, I'd appreciate it. Because this is an urban kind
of service that concerns me to be providing outside the urban
boundary.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's
focused on the Estates where people are living and are building
and are -- I mean, all the rest of that is fine and I don't want to
damage CREW or any of that, but if we have people who are at
risk for encephalitis and other things, that is a much higher
Page 110
May 23, 2000
priority to me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But is it an environmental
concern?
MR. GEROY: I would like to ask Dr. Van Essen to speak on
that.
DR. VAN ESSEN: I will try to address that. First of all, the
urban boundary, I believe, is where our present district is.
I thought so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
DR. VAN ESSEN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
boundary, guys.
All of this is outside of the urban
DR. VAN ESSEN: Right. We use materials that break down
rapidly. We do most of our spraying at night when most activity
does not occur, except for mosquitoes. People aren't active.
We use a material that's at less than an ounce per acre. I
think by using a material that breaks down rapidly, a low dosage
rate and spraying mostly at night, the potential effects are going
to be minimized. I'm not going to say it's zero.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How is it -- what I'm concerned
about is from an environmental standpoint is not going to be
affected by whether it's night or day. I mean, the flora and fauna
DR. VAN ESSEN: I'm not quite sure -- what are you
concerned about?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does the material that you use to
spray have a detrimental effect on the environmental systems on
which it lands?
DR. VAN ESSEN: Well, see, mosquito control is different
than maybe what you're thinking of agricultural work. We are not
-- we do not spray to try to make the material land on trees or
houses or whatever. The idea is to create a fine mist that the
adult mosquitoes fly through. It's not designed to deposit. It is
designed to be a cloud that travels through the area and
mosquitoes contact it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does it have a detrimental effect
on animals or other plants, other than mosquitoes?
DR. VAN ESSEN: It should not. I can't say it's completely
innocuous. As I said, we try to minimize the impact by the
method that we use and the materials that we use.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does it have a positive effect on
Page 111
May 23, 2000
human beings that live in the area?
DR. VAN ESSEN: Well, I would think so if you're concerned
about possible disease transmission.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Pam, I would be happy to share --
in fact, I would encourage the residents out there that live in that
area to call you and tell you of their concerns during mosquito
season because I certainly have heard their concerns and
understand their frustration. But I fully understand that living out
in that area --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You kind of take that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You have these kinds of things.
However, that could have well been said awhile back when there
wasn't much of a population perhaps in that area. That area now
has got multiple people living out there.
When I hear from them that not only are they affected, but
even their animals are affected because of the high mosquito
population -- they talk about their pets and their animals that are
out. I would guess that this has some kind of a -- it presents a
problem.
And I can tell you personally that you can go off of Golden
Gate Boulevard I would say in the month of June -- and there are
several model homes out there, Pam. From the time you walk
from your car to the house, you are covered with mosquitoes.
Well, people are living out there.
I mean, they are there. So this idea that there is nobody
living out there and -- it comes down to, you know, yes, I am sure
you can say that all things have some kind of an effect on the
environment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does the value of it offset it
though?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. I mean, there are
thousands and thousands of people living out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the population -- I am
sorry I don't know. But does anybody have any idea what the
population is in that area?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Pam, not only that, it's not a static
population. This is -- it is -- I don't know. They can probably tell
you in planning how many permits --
Page 1t2
May 23, 2000
DR. VAN ESSEN: The population numbers are listed there.
So starting from the first one it's 1,400, then 2,200, 1,500, 1,600,
1,500 and -- I can't read the last one. Almost t,700.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a well-populated area.
MR. OLLIFF: I just ballpark totaled it up and it's over 10,000
people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that sounds like important.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You know, I think one of the
things, too, that I think needs to be made a point -- I think Dr. Van
Essen made this point back another time when you came before
us. That in this spraying out there that perhaps people are going
to accept or expect the same type of success rate, should we
say, with getting rid of the mosquitoes as you might have within
the urban area where there is less trees and those kinds of
things.
Could you just address that briefly?
DR. VAN ESSEN: Well, I think there is two concerns we have
with that. One, is that the area is very wooded.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
DR. VAN ESSEN: And the density of the population is not as
much as in other areas of Naples. So that it's difficult to
penetrate the vegetation at times.
Also, the whole area is low and it's going -- when it floods in
the middle of the summer there is going to be water everywhere.
Mosquitoes are going to be constantly coming off and we can't
go back there every other day. So the level of control might not
be as great as it is in the more developed areas.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I think we can do something.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something is better than nothing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's where I'm at.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm convinced. I appreciate you
answering my questions.
DR. VAN ESSEN: I might also mention that with any of the
materials we use have to be approved by EPA. Of course, there's
a number of tests that have to be done before that occurs. We're
very careful about that and very careful about the dosage rate.
The material is expensive, so we want to put the minimal amount
out.
MR. GEROY: Okay. I want to say that the resolution that
you have in your package shows that we're planning to do this in
Page 113
May 23, 2000
two phases. That's why we have two different colors up here.
We don't want to extend ourselves beyond the capabilities
of the resources that we have. So our plan is to take the part in
orange up here -- start treating that in the year 2001. It's too late
this season to get it on the tax rolls, collect the taxes, be able to
serve it.
It's our plan 2001 in the orange area and then the blue-green
area would be the following year in the year 2002. This gives us
a time to make sure that we have marshalled the resources, the
aircraft, the chemicals to be able to do the light trap, the things
we have in red -- those little red dots are where we have traps
set all around the district right now.
We need to set new ones out there in those areas and make
sure they are attended to properly. Surveillance is a very
important thing because it tells us when we're going to spray and
how we're going to spray and for what type of mosquito.
So that's the two-phase operation and the -- what I would
suggest is that if you would consider this to approve -- add your
approval, I guess, is the right terminology to our resolution
number three dated on May 16th.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Do you want to make that
motion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. I would support that motion --
a motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Make the motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just dragged the motion out of
Commissioner Berry, seconded by Commissioner Norris. And
that's to support the resolution as it appears in the packet as the
Mosquito Control District has laid out before us.
Any further discussion or speakers on the item?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion -- pause. Mr.
Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: I would just add that the County Attorney
Office would be happy to provide any resolution for record
keeping purposes that would assist mosquito control with the
property appraiser.
Page 114
May 23, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
All those in favor state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. GEROY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
today.
MR. GEROY: You're welcome.
Thank you very much.
Motion carries 4-0.
Thank you for your patience
DR. VAN ESSEN: I have to take a minute to take this down.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go right ahead.
Item #8B1
RESOLUTION 2000-164, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
LAND BY CONDEMNATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENTS FOR
THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE COUNTY-WIDE
COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC SYSTEM SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT (PHASE 1}- ADOPTED
8 (B) (1), adopt resolution authorizing the acquisition of land
by condemnation of traffic signal easements -- blah, blah, blah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second. All
those in favor of the motion -- pause while we hear from Mr.
Bibby.
MR. BIBBY: By the attorney's office, we do need to get a
minimal amount of information --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does that information appear in
our packet?
MR. BIBBY: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, I guess, it's on the record
then. All those in favor of the motion please say aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries four zero.
Page 1t5
May 23, 2000
Item #8B2
RESOLUTION 2000-165, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
CONDEMNATION OF NON-EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL UTILITY AND
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE THIRTY (30") INCH PARALLEL
SEWER FORCE MAIN ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD AND WITHIN
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE CENTER, PROJECT 73943 - ADOPTED
Item 8 (B) (2), adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Is there anything that isn't in the packet that you want to be
sure to get on the record?
MR. BIBBY: Not a thing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Motion carries 4-0.
All those in favor please state
Item #8B3
RESOLUTION 2000-166, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
LAND BY CONDEMNATION 'OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE WHIPPOORWILL LANE PROJECT BETWEEN PINE RIDGE
ROAD TO A POINT ONE MILE SOUTH, BEING THE INTERSECTION
OF THE FUTURE EAST/WEST CONNECTOR ROAD CONNECTING
TO LIVINGSTON ROAD (PHASE 1) -ADOPTED
8 (B) (3).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
Any discussion on this one?
Any public speakers on this one?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor please state in
Page 116
May 23, 2000
the affirmative.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the affirmative.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. You guys are pretty
quick.
4-0. Thank you, Mr. Bibby. Great presentation.
Item #8Cl
RESOLUTION 2000-170, PRESENTATION OF INTERIM PROGRESS
REPORT FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH CARE REVIEW
COMMITTEE AND REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR
SUBMISSION OF FINAL REPORT
8 (C) (1), presentation of interim progress report from the
Collier County Health Care Review Committee.
MR. OLLIFF: I believe Mr. Tom Schneider is here from the
committee to make the presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While he's coming up here, let
me just take the opportunity to thank him. What -- how lucky
Collier County is to have this gentleman serving in this capacity.
He is more than capable and has served so well. We just really
appreciate your hard, hard, hard work that you put in on it.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you. You embarrass me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What did he say?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: He called you a name. Don't
worry about it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to read the record later.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my
name is Tom Schneider and I'm the vice-chair of the Health Care
Review Committee that you formed last year. You gave us one
year to complete our study and report back to you after
examining our existing health care systems and determining
whether there is adequate access and care for all segments of
our population.
Even though you started that process of forming a
committee in May, it wasn't until late July that we had our first
meeting. Since that time our full committee has been meeting
every month on a monthly basis since July. We also formed
Page 117
May 23, 2000
working groups to address simultaneously each of the major
segments in smaller, more workable groups. Those segments
include the children, the elderly, the uninsured, the dental, and
mental health and drug abuse. Each of these groups has been
meeting regularly often several times a month studying related
documents, meeting with experts, such as Burt Saunders, Chuck
Mohlke, the president of the dental association, and recently
Scott Hopes, the new director of health policy for the State of
Florida.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I am just curious what Burt
Saunders' interest in this is.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Our children's group invited him to come
in and talk to us about the Healthy Kids programs and why
specifically they were not getting all of the matching local
funding that they needed and encouraging him to work with his
local boards to try to raise that money from the private sector,
which ultimately Healthy Kids was able to get one-time grants
from the Community Foundation and the United Way to cover -- to
enable another 1,000 kids to be enrolled that were already
eligible.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. SCHNEIDER: We also later formed a group to study
other successful models both in Florida and outside of the state.
And, among other things, this group met with the president of
one of the other models and' members made a site visit to a
Hillsborough health care group in Tampa.
We have provided you with an interim report in December of
last year and, at your request, last month submitted you a
second interim report, which we delivered to you about eleven
days ago on May 12th. To date, most of these efforts of our
group have been focused on identifying existing gaps in the
access to health care. And all of them have been reported in both
of these interim reports.
Some of the more glaring examples that are described by
our working groups that struck me as an individual was, for
example, we found that only nine percent of County residents
have incomes less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty
guideline saw a dentist in 1998. Nine percent. And only one
dentist in entire Collier County we are told accept Medicaid
patients. And, in fact, most of the needy and the indigents and
Page 118
May 23, 2000
the uninsured have to drive all the way to Immokalee to the
Marion Fether Institute for their needed dental care.
Another finding is that only two of our schools in Collier
County have full-time school nurses. The rest of the schools
average one nurse ten hours a week. We have one school nurse
for every 2,500 students compared with the national goals of one
for every 750.
And even more important is there was a recent State study
that was just released within the last month on health insurance
in the State of Florida. And they found that nearly 20 percent of
our residents are uninsured. This is based on an extensive
telephone survey that they did throughout the State.
This shows us to be the third worst district in the entire
State of Florida. And, more importantly, that it ignores the
results of a person-to-person survey that they conducted in
Immokalee because of the lack of home phones there. That
survey showed that 50 percent of the citizens in Immokalee or
the residents of Immokalee are uninsured.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you say that we are among
the -- what?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Third worst.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That means of the districts in
Florida.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Now, this study only breaks it by district
and there is like 14 or 16 districts in Florida. We are part of
District 14, which includes Lee and Charlotte. But when he
spoke with us -- even though the statistics aren't shown
separately here, he said there was no real discernible difference
in the numbers that came from each of the counties within that
district. The only two worse districts was Dade County -- Miami
and Dade County and the other one is the district just above
ours, which includes about seven counties, like Hendry and some
of the other ones.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that was measuring who has
access to health care?
MR. SCHNEIDER: That's the uninsured population.
Percentage of the people that are uninsured.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Did they give any reasons why they
were uninsured?
MR. SCHNEIDER: They do cover that in some length in this
Page 119
May 23, 2000
report. And they don't distinguish Collier versus anyplace else,
but just the kinds of -- and cost was the extremely major factor.
There are some pie charts here that I could look for, if you want
me to find those for you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Continue with --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let's go ahead.
MR. SCHNEIDER: By my calculations, that means that we
could have more than 50,000 people in Collier County that are
uninsured. Twenty percent of 220 -- if you start out with 220,
take out the 30,000 in Immokalee, that's 190. Multiply the 190
times 20 percent and then add 15,000 for 50 percent of the 30 --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't think that's fair to say
it's necessarily 20 percent everywhere else and then lump
Immokalee in. I mean, you could go door to door in Port Royal
and find zero percent and it wouldn't be fair to carve them out
and apply that number elsewhere in the County.
So I don't think you would want to use a fair calculation by
saying, "Well, we'll take Immokalee out of the scenario that
shows 20 percent of the County is uninsured," because that may
or may not apply to the rest of Collier County. I'm sure you could
find parts of Collier County where that number would be
ridiculously low. It doesn't mean it's overall.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I understand what you're saying. It's
possible. But I really think that the estimate, whether it's
entirely accurate or not -- I think my calculation is a reasonable
way to look at it because they didn't segregate their phone calls
within Collier County and then summarize them by district.
They're just saying they didn't call anybody in the Immokalee
exchanges because they knew they were going to do a
face-to-face.
So, other than that, if other parts of the County match up
with Lee and Charlotte and in the entire district, other than
Immokalee, it's 19.8 or 20 percent. And he made a special point
to say -- they didn't just pick Immokalee. They picked other
areas in the State that had a transient population, that had a
dearth of phone service in the home.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If they're a transient population,
are they actually residents of Collier County?
MR. SCHNEIDER: These people, I think, are considered
residents of Collier County.
Page 120
May 23, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're not property owners, but
they're residents. They're not taxpayers, but, nevertheless,
residents.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I am just -- if it's transient that
would indicate they come and they go, which would not be a
resident.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, in effect, they said that all of
Immokalee they could not get a fair sample by doing a telephone
survey because they didn't feel there was adequate telephone
coverage.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand. You understand
my point, I suspect though, that if somebody is here eight weeks
during picking season and then moves on to the next place, they
aren't necessarily reflective of the residential population of
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In taking out the Immokalee
numbers -- let's just set aside for a second those Immokalee
numbers. Then the math tells us that there are 30,000 --
MR. SCHNEIDER: I get 190,000 times 20 percent or roughly
38,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So even taking into account your
point on the Immokalee math, it's still 40,000 people in Collier
County who have no health insurance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How many households did they
talk to in Collier County?
MR. SCHNEIDER: I don't know. They talked to 14,000
households throughout the State and interviewed 37,000 people
or covered 37,000 lives, I believe.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. SCHNEIDER: And when he made his presentation to us
last month, he did not have the separate Collier County figures,
but he did promise that he would get those for us and we expect
to get those in the next few weeks.
So, needless to say, we found this to be a very complex
issue. In as early as January we became concerned that we
might need more time to finish our work. In the last month we
asked for a nine-month extension. The committee needs this
time to integrate the findings and the possible solutions that
have been identified by each of our five working groups and to
seek outside funding sources for the availability of those for at
Page 12t
May 23, 2000
least some of these.
We also need more time to fully absorb this recent State
report on the uninsured and to work with the State's director of
health care policy and his group. And that would include
attending an upcoming seminar that they are sponsoring on the
uninsured in Florida.
Mr. Scott Hopes, the director of health care policy, indicated
to us that one of his goals for his group is to work with
communities like ourselves that are trying to deal with the
issues of the uninsured. And we would like to explore that in
more depth with him, as well.
Finally, we need more time to prepare a final report that will
clearly communicate our findings and possible solutions in a way
that will trigge~ the needed actions to solve the problems. There
should be no doubt that we have found and documented
widespread gaps in access to health care for many who live
here.
Our health care delivery to the indigent and the uninsured is
fragmented with little access available for follow-up care. We
strongly believe that this is a community-wide problem that
needs a community-wide solution. Finding workable solutions
will be a challenge for the entire community, in our view,
requiring a broad-based community health planning process.
It appears to us at this time that any meaningful solution
will likely be more expensive than any one constituency can
afford. It will most likely require a public-private partnership to
maximize the use of available State and Federal and private
funds and to allocate the remaining local costs in some fashion
to the entire community.
However, we don't believe that this committee, as it's
presently constituted, is capable of the intense financial and
economic analysis or business expertise required to identify the
best solution to quantify the cost and to determine how best to
allocate them. One of our first recommendations in our final
report will be for the Board to appoint a new committee to take
our findings to the next level and lead the required community
health planning process.
I am pleased today to represent all of the members and
advisors that you appointed to this committee. We have worked
diligently and many of us have spent well in excess of 100 hours
Page 122
May 23, 2000
on this project. And we certainly see the extent of the issue and
very much want the Board to initiate whatever action is
necessary to find and implement the best solution.
Believe me, we have no interest in seeing our efforts merely
producing another report that gathers dust. We wanted to take
this time to applaud Tom Olliff and others for possessing the
insight to recognize the potential problem and for encouraging
you to appoint this committee and we applaud you for following
through on their recommendation.
It's my understanding that similar efforts have been
undertaken several times before, but that this is the first time
that it has been done under your auspices. And, finally, we are
confident that we can complete our mission over the next nine
months and produce a valuable report for the Board and for all of
Collier County. I would be happy to try to answer any questions
that you have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just one. I don't know the
answer to it and that's bad lawyering. When you started this
process, Mr. Schneider, did you expect to find out about Collier
County what you did discover?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, I was fairly new and really -- other
than working with health care institutions throughout my
professional career as a CPA, I really didn't have any basis for
knowing what I was going to find.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just had heard from other
members of the committee that they came into this sort of rolling
their eyes with, "There goes Mac'Kie again with one of those
softy, fluffy things," but they were flabbergasted to find out how
great the need is.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I am sure there are members of our
committee who spend their entire career in health care who
would and have recognized some of those problems. Some of us,
like myself, did not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're asking for an extension
of the committee. What do you hope to achieve in that time
frame?
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think in that time frame we need to -- we
want to make at least one more site visit to a successful model.
We want to spend some time with the new State director of
health care policy. We do want to attend the conference that
Page 123
May 23, 2000
they're having in September on the uninsured.
And we need to find a way in order to meet one of your
charges, which was to try to identify funding for these
suggestions and possible solutions. That is one thing that --
we've been spending most of our time identifying the gaps. We
have not yet had the time to do the proper job and to look for
outside grant funding and that type of thing.
At our last meeting, it was discussed that the new State
legislation -- the recent legislation at the State level has
generated additional opportunities for grants. And we're in the
process of trying to organize ourselves so we can borrow some
of these knowledgeable people from various institutions that are
represented on this committee to try to help the various
sub-working groups identify the likelihood of getting outside
funding from State grants.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I may have misunderstood you,
but I thought you said this group isn't necessarily the right group
to do the business end of this or to figure the costs and to put
the actual -- how do we accomplish that money end in place.
And some of what you've just described you hope to do in
the coming months sounds like the beginnings of that business
group or the business end. I think I'm wondering if the point not
be better spent -- when you say your recommendations will be to
appoint a group specifically for that, I am wondering if it might
not be time best spent to move ahead to that portion now, rather
than delay that.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, that's always a possibility, but our
view is that the most important single resource that this
committee is going to have to be able to use is going to be our
report. And our report is not complete because of the lack of
time.
We do have -- we have five committees that have
independently viewed the existing gaps and who have made
recommendations. We have not had the opportunity to bring
those groups together to sort out if there is disparate facts,
contradictions, unanimity and to be able to put a report together
that is easily readable and communicates the results of our
findings.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would rather -- for me, I would
rather see you focus your effort on that, print a report and have
Page 124
May 23, 2000
us, in the meantime, looking at appointing people to a committee
to specifically delve into the cost and the business end and so
on,
MR. SCHNEIDER: That would be fine with us. That would be
fine with us. I think it's -- you know, our view is that it's a
completely different set of skills and expertise that is needed to
do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I am just wondering --
MR. SCHNEIDER: It's probably going to take time for you to
identify all of those types of people and give them a charge. And
there's no reason why that process can't parallel finishing the
report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you need the time to finish
the report that you have?
CHAIRWOMAN CONSTANTINE: I still have the floor. That's
what I was going to ask is along that line. If you have a specific
time frame -- I am picking this time at random. Let's say 90 days
to bring that all together. I am wondering if within that same 90
days we advertise, lay out, through some of your preliminary
things at least, the framework for what that business end
committee would do, have them in place and ready to take the
baton literally as soon as you finish that report and be able to run
with it, rather than having a delay at the end of that if that makes
senses.
And it sets some specific time frame for your committee to
come up with that. It may be 90 days, 120 days. We have the
other committee literally already appointed and ready to go at
the conclusion.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I don't have any problem with your
recommendation. My only concern is that -- if I understand your
recommendation, there is nothing left for us to do than what we
plan, which we thought we needed nine months. There is
nothing necessarily magic about that nine months. We may be
able to do it in six or seven. I don't know.
I don't know if that 90 days would be sufficient. That would
-- with summer breaks coming and everything else that would --
again, I have no problem in -- in fact, I think it might be very good
to develop this second committee on a parallel track.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it the committee's opinion that
it's going to take nine months to get ready to appoint -- to make a
Page 125
May 23, 2000
recommendation to the Board such that we will be ready to
appoint the second committee?
How did you come to nine months? Where did that come
from?
MR. SCHNEIDER: We just anticipated what we had left to do
and the time frame it was going to take. And I don't think there
is anything sacred about nine months. It's just in view of the
effort that we put in already and looking at getting these other
groups together and be able to hash through what they have
done.
I think the biggest issue is going to be trying to find the --
some of the independent financing for these suggestions, which
was part of the -- again, by the way, your original charge to us
was to look at existing systems, identify the gaps, and then try
to come up with recommendations that would solve some of
those problems using the existing health care resources and
using all kinds of -- or any other kind of financing before we ever
talked about tax dollars -- local tax dollars.
And it may be that -- you know, that the original charge of
identifying whether or not we have an issue and to be able to
describe that issue in clear, uncertain terms for everybody to
absorb and grasp -- maybe that's the most important thing. To
get that far would not take us nine months. It's the other pieces,
which we're actually, quite frankly, less qualified in some
regards than we are to do the first one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just having seen -- not
necessarily in health care, but in any number of other
committees, we have people kind of having to re-cover the same
ground again and we lose time. When you describe financing
questions or looking at models in other communities, those are
all things, I would assume, we would want a group who is looking
at what the alternatives are to do.
So if we're going to have a separate or similar group doing
that component, I would think we would want to give them an
opportunity to do those things, rather than do them and handle
them after the fact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you think maybe in six
months you could have a report that accurately quantifies the
problem that could then be passed on to committee "B" to begin
to seek a solution; do you think you could do that in six months?
Page126
May 23, 2000
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. I think so. Yes.
If we weren't required to seek all of the outside financing
sources. That would probably be one of the biggest parts of our
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would like to shoot, I guess -- I
don't know that you're necessarily going to do all those other
things. If at this point what you're doing is putting together the
information you gathered and getting the various committees
together and all that, surely in the next three or four months you
can achieve that. I would think by Labor Day we would be able
to have that accomplished.
MR. SCHNEIDER: The one thing is that I would think it
would be very important for this committee to include what we
learn at this conference on the uninsured being held by the State
in Miami. I think it's September 21st and 22rid.
So I think that would be very helpful to have that latest
thought from basically a national conference that is being
sponsored by the State to bring people together that are trying to
tackle the issue of uninsured. I think that kind of information
would be very helpful.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would it be helpful if we had our
new committee formed roughly by then so that perhaps a
member or two of that could attend with the members of the
existing committee?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That might be the best of all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that. Maybe the two
committees would overlap.
MR. SCHNEIDER: You may want to have some overlap.
There are probably some people in this committee that could do
that, but certainly not the majority.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Tom, can we look at what time
frame we need to advertise that in the next month or two and
make appointments shortly by our August meeting -- August 3rd
meeting?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes. I will work with Sue on the advertising
and creation of the ordinance. I'm assuming you need a separate
ordinance for a separate committee ordinance. And there would
be an ad hoc committee, as well, similar to this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
Page 127
May 23, 2000
Okay. Other questions?
Thank you very much.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That takes us to 8 (C) (2),
request by Doug Schroeder representing the Cocohatchee Nature
Center. I understand we have some good news on where we have
come in the last three or four weeks on this.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: On the item just heard, the request to the
Board was to extend their group for some period of time. And by
resolution, they have a finite time. We think it's June off the top
of our heads here.
Is the Board going to take an action to extend them through
September or something of that nature?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 90 days, I think.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 90 days or 1207
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we just continue the
request and doesn't the ordinance operate to keep them alive as
long as they're functioning? No. It dies on its own.
MR. OLLIFF: It's an ad hoc resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just hate to say 90 days when
they told us that's not enough time. And now they're out of the
room,
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't think that it wasn't
enough time, other than they want to attend the September
conference.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May, June makes it --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: June, July, August, September.
What about 120 days?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 120.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will make a motion that we
extend their committee life -- to extend it 120 days.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
4-0.
Page 128
May 23, 2000
Item #8C2
REQUEST BY DOUG SCHROEDER REPRESENTING THE
COCOHATCHEE NATURE CENTER REGARDING REVISIONS TO
THE PARKS AND RECREATION FIVE YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TO BE DISCUSSED DURING BUDGET
WORKSHOPS
Great. Now we go to 8 (C) (2), a request by Doug Schroeder.
Maria, hi.
MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon. Maria Ramsey, Parks and
Recreation Director. Before you this morning, a petitioner came
to you at the last Board meeting requesting that we move our
boardwalk into Barefoot Beach up on our CIP plan. I thought I
would take a moment to show you a little bit about what that
boardwalk is intended to be before we let Doug talk a little bit
about his request.
First of all, on the imager here, if you can -- it is hard to see.
It has got a reflection on it. But there is our concession building
currently at Barefoot Beach in the first parking lot. The thought
is to bring a boardwalk out into the bay in here that would be
able to be accessed by boat vessels for ferry service,
interpretive programs and also by interpretive mangrove walks
through that area.
One of the plans that we have designed is the boardwalk
would be about 1,000 feet or so depending on what the depth is
that we see in that back bay area coming out into the bay itself
and would allow shuttle service from Cocohatchee River Park
and a number of other areas, such as Doug's facility, the Nature
Center, as well as at Wiggins Pass Road.
We have on our plan right now currently to provide this
service in the year 2004. Knowing that we'll probably have a
good year of permitting from DEP, we'd probably be looking at
starting the project somewhere in the year 2002 to give us
enough time to permit and have this built. This is one of the
items that we are looking at in our five-year plan for beach
access as an alternative. It's a way of getting people to beaches
that aren't being utilized to their fullest capabilities currently.
I know that Doug had some information that he wanted to
Page 129
May 23, 2000
share as to why he wanted to bring the project up. And I'd turn it
over to him at this point, unless you have questions of me.
MR. SCHROEDER: While we are interested in --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the record, you are.
MR. SCHROEDER: Doug Schroeder with the Cocohatchee
Nature Center. We are interested in getting the boardwalk built
sooner, rather than later, because we'll have about 90 parking
spaces at the nature center. And in addition to educational
programs, there are field trips for kids and boat tours, we could
also operate a shuttle to the beaches and provide some relief for
the problem in North Naples of the lack of beach parking.
And so, I guess, this project is now on -- is it 2004 and 2005?
And so what we're proposing, I guess, is if permitting could get
underway in October, there could be some funds in the 2001
budget. It would take about a year to permit it and then the
construction would occur in 2002, rather than in 2004 or 2005.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Ramsey, I assume one of
the reasons this appears a few years out is there are other things
being funded in the meantime.
MS. RAMSEY: Like I said, it's part of a total plan that we're
looking at. One of which is the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage
that we would like to put up over by the Ritz-Carlton. We also
have the opportunity to add 75 parking spaces at this location at
Barefoot.
We're looking at some additional parking facilities and
purchasing some land in the area, as well as some land maybe
down in the Marco area to help with parking issues for access
just to the beaches themselves.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So money is not readily
available even if we, in our best effort, wanted to move this up
without delaying something else?
MS. RAMSEY: There is a possibility that we could fund this
particular one. What it would mean is that staff is recommending
that we put some of your impact fees kind of into storage, so to
speak, so that when we're doing the North Naples Regional Park
project, we will have some money so we won't have to borrow all
of that funding source for that development.
And if you wish to go ahead and borrow more, we can do
this project sooner. So it's a question of--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's a shell game. In essence,
Page 130
May 23, 2000
we would be borrowing money to do this? Not literally, but in a --
MS. RAMSEY: Net, net.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Kind of like I would have liked
to build my house a year ago, but I could only afford to do it this
year. I think it would be a great project. I guess, it's just a
question of whether -- I don't know that it's realistic for us to do
it sooner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' You could do it and donate it to
the County.
MR. SCHROEDER: Well, we have some funding on our end,
but not enough to build the boardwalk. I don't know about the
priority.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have enough money to
get that engineering portion done?
MR. SCHROEDER: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have enough money to
get the engineering portion done?
MR. SCHROEDER: Well, we thought we would chip in as a
motivator to try to push it forward. I don't know about the
process. There's obviously other priorities for funding. You
know, the idea would be that with Cocohatchee River Park and
the Nature Center there would be about 170 parking spaces that
would be an immediate pick up in beach parking availability, not
to mention the other developments nearby.
And just by virtue of having the boardwalk there would be --
especially in peak months in the season when the parks fill up,
then there would be a big benefit there. But when you compare
it with other projects that are in the pipeline, I don't know that
end of it. You know, if it's appropriate to move this forward
because there is something better that could get funded.
But we are thinking if it's on the five-year plan and beach
parking is really becoming a problem, that -- just for you to give
the matter a consideration and see where it goes from there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How big a chip were you planning
to chip in?
MR. SCHROEDER: Well, we are in the early stages of our--
we are going to open year-round. And we're issuing bonds to
finance our project. And so we could add an amount to that.
Basically people are buying these bonds to fund the environment.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What would the dollar amount of
Page 131
May 23, 2000
that be?
MR. SCHROEDER: Well, the boardwalk, I guess, is at a half a
million dollars roughly to build it?
MS. RAMSEY: Our estimate currently is about half a million.
About 515,000 currently.
MR. SCHROEDER: So, I guess, it would be, you know, how
much would we have to chip in to move it forward? Would that
make a difference?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You don't have any particular
number in mind?
MR. SCHROEDER: Well, maybe 50 or $100,000.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: $100,000 might help move this
along. A small amount, I think, would help move it along.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, why don't we submit to
staff and have them see -- it's kind of hard to have this
discussion right here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, one of the things to weigh
out is if we have to borrow money elsewhere, does that turn out
to cost 20,000 and we gain an $80,000 benefit out of $100,000
share? There may be some way to balance out.
I think you're right. Why don't we send it off to staff?
MR. OLLIFF-' If, prior to your review of the capital budget,
Mr. Schroeder wants to come forward and have a number that
he's comfortable in producing, then you could consider that as
you look at the entire parks capital budget then.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. And I, frankly, would look
at it like you do on the landscaping projects. When somebody
shows up and says, "We'll build it, if you'll maintain it," or, '~/e'11
pay for half of it," then that accelerates it for me because we
want to accept that gift.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's do it that way.
MR. SCHROEDER: In any case, it would be October before it
all goes into that budget for the next year. So you're in the
process now of figuring out where to prioritize and allocate the
money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We do that next month.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need to have some idea
next month what kind of number you would be looking at. MR. SCHROEDER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Middle of June. When is our
Page 132
May 23, 2000
first budget hearing; 16th?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something like that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 15th or 16th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somewhere in there.
MR. SCHROEDER: Sounds good. Thanks.
Item #8G1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND NAPLES
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL - ACCEPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That takes us to 8 (G) (1), if I
am not mistaken. And as far as the way today's agenda is going,
I could be.
A settlement agreement and mutual release between the
Board of County Commissioners and Naples Community Hospital.
MR. MCNEES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. Mike McNees from the County Manager's Office.
I stand here in what I hope is the end of what has been a long
and protracted negotiation over the issue of how we will bill for
inter-facility, non-emergency medical transports primarily as
provided to Naples Community Hospital.
We made what was, at the staff level, a unilateral change in
July of 1997 to change our method of billing for those services.
The hospital paid those as we were billing them for a number of
months 'til they discovered the change that we had made. They
stopped paying and have not paid since. In good faith we've
continued to provide those transports and in good faith the
hospital has continued to negotiate over just exactly how this
works.
We have accumulated as of this time just over $1 million
worth of these transports that have, as of yet, been unpaid. We
are recommending to you today that we settle all the
outstanding issues on the old bills by the hospital agreeing to
pay all of the Medicare eligible -- it would be technically Part "A"
interfacility transports. They would pay that in full.
We would agree then to bill to the patients the non-Medicare
interfacility transports that have already been provided. And the
hospital has agreed to pay a portion of whatever we do not
Page 133
May 23, 2000
collect from those people to a maximum of, I believe, $164,970.
The potential uncollected, if no one pays for the
non-Medicare interfacility transports, would be $392,000 of the
$1,018,000 that we would essentially write off at that point.
Your typical write-off rate is about 28 to 30 percent for
ambulance rides in the system today.
We expect to collect a fair portion of that $392,000. I
wouldn't even begin to guess a number. It could be anywhere
from 10 to 50 percent. It could be higher than that. I just -- some
of these are pretty old and the likelihood of collecting is not that
good for the old ones.
We believe this is an equitable settlement. As soon as we
finish talking about the settlement, I'm going to talk to you about
the item that we added about a prospective agreement and how
we're going to deal with these in the future and would be happy
to answer any questions that you have in terms of the proposed
settlement, which is the first item before you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question, Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to hear what it is that
we are going to do in the future to not allow this to happen again.
What are we going to change in our system?
MR. MCNEES: The hospital has agreed to pay for the
Medicare Part "A" interfacility transport. We will continue to
send those bills to the hospital. They have agreed to pay.
We, as the County, will bill either the patient or the
third-party provider; be it an insurance company or whoever it
might be that we have to get for the non-Medicare interfacility
transports. That's the simple answer as to how we propose to do
this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Saunders, here for NCH.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Commission. I'm Burt Saunders representing Naples Community
Hospital.
The agreement that was just outlined, there are a couple -- I
want to make sure some changes got into the final document. I
got a copy of the executive summary that doesn't have those two
changes.
MR. MCNEES: It would be now (G) (2) that we are talking
about, not to confuse the two.
MR. SAUNDERS: The other change that we were going to
Page 134
May 23, 2000
make that is not included in (G) (2) was changing the date in
paragraph five for the $461,000 payment from June t, 2000 to
July 1, 2000.
This agreement has to go to the hospital board. There is not
going to be any problem with that, but it just technically -- that's
what they have to do. So they can't meet that date. I have
spoken with the County Manager and the County Attorney's
Office, there doesn't seem to be any problem with that change.
Also, I want to thank staff. This has been a rather difficult
issue. It was described as a protracted negotiation and that is
the case. The reason it was protracted, quite frankly, is that
we're dealing with Medicare. Medicare Part "A" and Medicare
Part "B" regulations are extremely confusing. I don't think
there's anyone in this room that understands them and, quite
frankly, I don't think there is anyone who works for Medicare that
understands them.
But we have come to a solution that solves the problems for
the past billings, as well as the future billings. I want to thank
your entire staff for their diligence and patience as we work
through some rather difficult regulations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Likewise, if you would tell NCH
for me anyway how much we appreciate their working with us as
hard as they did because this has been very difficult, very hard to
figure out. It started with our unilateral change and I'm sure that
was a shock when they figured it out.
They've worked well with us and I think we've come to a
good settlement. I propose that we accept it. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: We do not.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. This is on
8 (G) 1. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor please say aye. Motion
carries -- oops.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I said aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I didn't hear you. Sorry.
Motion carries 4-0.
Page 135
May 23, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: Just for the record, that included that one
amended date change.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That will be on 8 (G) (2}. The
July I payment is on --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As opposed to the June.
Item #8G2
RESOLUTION 2000-167, STAFF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO
AMEND RESOLUTION 98-419 -ADOPTED WITH CHANGES-
AGREEMENT APPROVED WITH CHANGES
8 (G) 2 is--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to accept the staff
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees.
MR. MCNEES.' I do need to clarify because your executive
summary -- this was added on, frankly, at the last minute
because we weren't expecting this to be resolved by today, but
we thought if we could kill both of these birds we ought to do
them on the same day. This was pulled together by the attorneys
and staff.
The two things that we need from you on this item are, one,
the adoption of the agreement that was attached that Mr.
Saunders referred to with the change to July 1st, which
memorializes the arrangement respectively regarding these
interfacilities. The other is to approve a resolution actually
establishing a separate fee category for the interfacility
transports and defining the rate.
My understanding is that the resolution that was included in
your package may not be precisely correct. We would ask you to
reserve a resolution number. The dollar number of that transport
rate is the same, but there may be some housecleaning to do
that the attorneys will do on the actual resolution if you reserve
a number and approve the resolution to memorialize that dollar
amount for that transport category, as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All those
Page 136
May 23, 2000
in favor state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commission.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While we're thankin9 people, I
would like to thank Mr. McNees, too. We talk about a thankless
job. This is a very tou9h one. As much as I don't want to lose
him, I hope people in Bonita are not watchin9. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you for that thought.
Item #9A
SETTLEMENT OF SOVERIGN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. V.
COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 97-4128- CA DRM - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the County
Attorney's report. 9 (A), Sovereign Construction Group.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Pettit
from the County Attorney. We provided the executive summary
on a proposed settlement with Sovereign Construction. I am
here to answer any questions you may have of that proposed
settlement.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
4-0.
Item #9B
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
AND RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TO PURSUE ANY LEGAL
REMEDIES THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE AGAINST NATIONAL
UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
GROUP, INC., AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, INC., OR ANY OTHER
Page 137
May 23, 2000
POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE ENTITIES TO RECOVER DAMAGES
INCURRED AS A RESULT OF A REFUSAL TO HONOR A CLAIM
UNDER THE COUNTY'S EXCESS INSURANCE POLICY -
APPROVED
9 (B).
MR. PETTIT.' 9 (B). Little bit unique. We are seeking leave
for the Board to authorize the County Attorney Office and Risk
Management Department to seek legal remedies and, if
necessary, file suit against one of our --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
further discussion?
aye.
Any
Anything else you need to get on the record, Mr. Pettit?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion please state
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Motion carries 4-0.
Item #9C
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION CONCERNING A COMPLAINT FILED
WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ALLEGING THAT THE
CHAMPION LAKES RV PUD ORDINANCE NO. 2000-21 IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN - ORIGINAL PASSAGE REAFFIRMED
9(C).
MR. PETTIT.' 9 (C) is a challenge --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Permission to reaffirm our
original passage of the Champion Lakes RV PUD ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I will second that.
MR. PETTIT: I have now been directed. That's the request
that I have.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any discussion on that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nope.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Everybody is fine with that?
Page t38
May 23, 2000
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Motion carries 4-0.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2000-168, APPOINTING ERIC N. HYDE TO THE
PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
10 (A) has been deleted. 10 (B), appoint a member to the
Public Vehicle Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have more experience with
them, Commissioner, than I certainly do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will defer to -- I don't know any
of these people personally. I will defer to somebody who
perhaps might.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am afraid I don't either.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I am going to suggest Eric N.
Hyde.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
Public speakers on the item?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor please state
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Motion carries 4-0.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2000-169, APPOINTING ROY SELANDERS TO THE
GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
Appointment of a member to the Beautification Committee
in Golden Gate.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we got one applicant and
one appointment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Works out pretty well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
Page 139
May 23, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Roy C. Landers. Commissioner
Berry motion and a second from Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Motion is -- anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Carries 4-0.
Item #11 B
MR. KEN THOMPSON SPOKE REGARDING VARIOUS TOPICS
As best I can tell, that wraps everything up, except for
public comment on general comments.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Ken Thompson is here and registered to
speak under general.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: God bless you for hanging in all
day, Ken.
MR. THOMPSON: I come over here -- my name is Ken
Thompson. I live at 2831 Becca Avenue. I come over here all day
long and I'll stay all night. I want you people to leave Mr. Norris
alone. Let him serve his term out. Let him get his money and let
him fight his own battles. Because I'm telling you this man is a
good person. All of you are good person -- people.
And it's amazing. I didn't know there was two of us in
Collier County. I've been picked on ever since I got here. And,
Mr. Norris, I've been fined up to $2,000, man. And it don't bother
me. But -- I went in --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And to ease up on you --
MR. THOMPSON: This Judge told me a long time ago -- you
know, they couldn't find me guilty, so he just said, "1 will give it
to you."
So I took it and give it back to him. So it don't really make
no difference what they do to you. You're doing a good job and
you're holding him up.
There is another thing I wanted to tell you about. I need
some help on Becca Avenue. I'm telling you, these people go
through there and it's 25 miles an hour and they go through there
night and day all night long. And yet you stand over here last
week and you're giving this Sheriff more money and more money.
And the only thing he's doing with it that I can figure out is --
I am for the deputies. I'm all for them. These people need a
Page140
May 23, 2000
raise. They need to quit being promised and not getting
anything. I had one the other day that tell me it took 95 to $100
million a year to run that Sheriff's Department. Hell, my lawn
mower liked to blowed it up on that one. I never heard such a
mess.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Actually, it's a paltry $60
million.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, let me tell you, man, somehow or
another somebody going to have to -- Mr. Norris, just quit and
we'll get rid of Hunter and you take the job. God damn, we need
somebody fighting him.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: John has got enough problems,
Ken.
MR. THOMPSON: I'll guarantee you them people would like
you. Because there are some powerful, good deputies out there,
man. They're quitting.
And I called a dispatcher and she'll tell me, '"Well, I can
dispatch them, but they don't really have to come out there."
What kind of business is that? You call them and I live a
half mile from the Sheriff's Department. It takes them two and a
half hours to get there. I want to know which way you went.
Here lately I'm going around taking their pictures of what
they're doing. You know, you find them in restaurants. You find
them sitting over here at the place in Gulf Gate Shopping Center.
I won't tell you what that is. I'm pretty sure you know what that
is.
I am getting told they"re taking the cop cars and driving
them to Fort Myers. They're our cars. They don't drive them to
Fort Myers. I am sick of it. I want him to get his deputies what
they need coming. And last week I think you told him that.
It just -- something about that fellow. I see him on TV, he's
just -- he just ain't the man. They had him on a gas station when
he was first running. He come out of Airport Road and 41. They
should have filled him up and let him run right down. I tell you,
what you people see in this fellow I don't know.
And I tried to tell him that out here one day, but he -- you
had Aubrey Rogers and he"d talk to you. You had Doug Hendry --
there ain't never going to be no other Doug Hendry, brother. That
was one good officer.
What makes him so special he's got to have an airplane?
Page 141
May 23, 2000
What makes him so special? All these deputies -- if you take all
these telephones away from them, these cell phones -- I mean,
how many beepers do you need?
I can't believe it. If you take all that away from them and
give them the radio in the car -- and this shoulder radio here they
got, that's a disaster. As long as you're outside here talking
you're all right. If you go under a carport or something to arrest
this booger, it will shut off on him and his buddy is down there --
he's taking a beating and the guy up here can't hear him.
So you need to get them a shoulder thing here -- shoulder
radio and you need to get them a boss because he don't know
how to put them in place. He's the only man I ever seen take a
felon out of jail and take him over to Golden Gate and rob it and
hold his own and hold the Sheriff's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. You know, this is sort of
enough I think of--
MR. THOMPSON: No. It's the truth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it is not the place for--
MR. THOMPSON: And you don't care. You comment on
everything. You disaster everybody. What you need to do is -- as
soon as you can is retire. Because the rest of these people here
are very, very good. And I wanted to see Mr. Carter, but I didn't
get to talk to him. If he needs another kidney, I'm willing to give
it to him.
Mr. Norris, don't you quit. Don't quit.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Ken.
Mr. Oilill, do you have anything else for us today?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
Item #15
DISCUSSION RE: REMOVAL OF EXOTICS - COUNTY MANAGER
TO REPORT BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I wouldn't pass up the opportunity.
No. It was brought to my attention -- and I did bring it to Mr.
Page t42
May 23, 2000
Olliff's attention, but I think we should give Board direction.
There is a constituent who happens to live in Willoughby Acres
whose property backs up to a preserve area. And in that
preserve area happens to be some exotics, like Brazilian Pepper,
to be specific.
I happen to have pictures which they graciously took. And
what is happening is this Brazilian Pepper that is in this preserve
is coming out over onto their property and they are expending
and have expended a great deal of money in removing this to get
it so that it is not impinging on their property.
And I somehow or another -- if we need to address this -- and
I am hoping we can give direction to staff as a Board to look into
this particular problem and see if there is something we can do
to address this. If this is the only instance, well, we're lucky, but
I suspect there are others. It is quite an infringement onto their
property. And they are bearing the expense of having to cut this
back. I don't think it's right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's the dry season. Maybe we
can get the park service from out west to take care of that forest
with a controlled burn.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' The question ought to be a code
enforcement one. That is, who has the obligation to maintain the
preserve. They don't just establish preserves without it being
somebody's job to maintain them.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We know who the owner is of the
property, I guess, but it has been designated as a preserved
area. But this is a -- a concern.
And, apparently, there has been some discussion about it
with code enforcement and something about they can't touch
this. Now, I don't know, but I just brought this to you because I
think this is something that the Board needs to give direction as
opposed to me going in and saying --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It may be that it's the South
Florida Water Management purview, which Mr. Olliff knows
something.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Tom, why don't you work on
that.
MR. OLLIFF: I will take that as Board direction to find out
who the underlying property owner and responsibility for exotics
Page 143
May 23, 2000
removal is. And we will report back as part of the -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I
understand you have a written statement for us.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have anything. As you're
looking into that, Tom --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't have anything, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As you're looking -- I just hadn't
finished. It was following up with Barbara.
As you're looking into that, would you please see if there's a
policy loophole here and if there's a problem that nobody is
watching that -- minding that store. So that we don't just check
on this one particular one, but we check --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's what I said. I don't know if
there are others properties that might be affected.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I am just marveling at the fact
that all the folks in the film industry were so entertained by the
first half of today's meeting that they decided to stay just for the
heck of it for the second half. There must be a script in this
somewhere. We shall see.
UNKNOWN VOICE: I want to get this gentleman's name and
cast him.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Filson, may we be excused?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. But you have another agenda item.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. We do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have another meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Our first meeting of the E --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You do need to adjourn this one
and open.
Commissioner Berry moved, seconded by Commissioner
Mac'Kie, and carried unanimously, that the following items under
the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2000-138, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A
$750,000 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2000
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION GRANT
Page t44
May 23, 2000
Item #t 6A2
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION OF
WATERWAYS WITHIN THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND TO THE CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND
Item #16A3
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.738, TO "PAUL &
KELLY BYRD COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION TR 127 & t28, U 49"
FOR PROPERTY BOUNDED ON THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND
WEST BY VACANT LAND ZONED ESTATES, AND ALSO ON THE
EAST BY 16 TM ST. N.E. AND ON THE NORTH BY A CANAL, WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.737, TO GARRO LAKE
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION, FOR PROPERTY BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH, EAST, AND WEST BY VACANT LOT AND ON THE SOUTH
BY 62ND AVE. NE R/W, WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND/OR SEWER FACILITIES
CONNECTIONS FOR THE POINTE II AT PELICAN BAY
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR
STONEBRIDGE~ TRACT H
Item #16A7
ACCEPTANCE OF AN ALTERNATE SECURITY FOR LEAWOOD
LAKES, AND ENTERED INTO A NEW CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH GF & MF~ INC.
Item #16A8
Page 145
May 23, 2000
AGREEMENT C-11752 WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WHICH WILL PROVIDE THE COUNTY
WITH FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $50,000, TO CONTINUE
PARTICIPATING IN THE SURFACE WATER QUALITY
MONITORING OF BIG CYPRESS BASIN
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2000-139, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION MANAGER TO ENTER INTO, MODIFY OR
TERMINATE JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT NO. 405805
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2000-140, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION MANAGER TO ENTER INTO, MODIFY OR
TERMINATE JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT NO. 204786
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Item #16A11
RESOLUTION 2000-141, APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FOR AN ESTIMATED
$358,284 GRANT, WITH A LOCAL MATCH IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $38,809
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2000-142, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION MANAGER TO ENTER INTO, MODIFY OR
TERMINATE JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT NO. 207212
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Item #16A13
FINAL PLAT OF "STRAND COMMERCIAL REPLAT"
Item #16A14
Page 146
May 23, 2000
FINAL PLAT OF "CARLTON LAKES UNIT NO. 3"
Item #16A15
ADDITION OF FIVE NEW PERMANENT FULL-TIME POSITIONS TO
THE BUILDING REVIEW AND PERMITTING DEPARTMENT
Item #16B1 - Deleted
Item #16B2 - Deleted
Item #16B3
ACCEPTANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE RELOCATION
OF A WATER METER IN THE HOLIDAY MANOR SUBDIVISION
Item #16B4
ACCEPTANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE RELOCATION
OF A WATERMAIN IN THE KINGS LAKE SUBDIVISION
Item #16B5
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE OT PAY AND
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND/OR SEWER
SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16B6
SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR WATER AND/OR SEWER
SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16B7
CANCELLATION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND/OR SEWER
SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16B8
Page147
May 23, 2000
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL
PROPERTY ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
Item #16B9
RESOLUTION 2000-143, CONVEYANCE OF COUNTY LAND TO
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO PROVIDE
OFF-SITE MITIGATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16B10
RESOLUTION 2000-144, ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF
FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTEREST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
IMMOKALEE ROAD/RANDALL BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT~ CIE NO. 72
Item #16B11
RESOLUTION 2000-145, ACQUISITION OF LAND BY GIFT OR
PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENTS FOR THE
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE COUNTY-WIDE
COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC SYSTEM SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT (PHASE I)
Item #16B12
2-PARTY AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF AN EASEMENT AND
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FROM MCALPINE
(BRIARWOOD), INC. FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LIVINGSTON ROAD
Item #16B13
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF A TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND A DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO
PROVIDE FLOOD RELIEF FOR PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE
KIRKWOOD AVENUE DRAINAGE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE STORMWATER
MASTER PLAN
Page t48
May 23, 2000
Item #16B14
WORK ORDER #PW-MA-0011 WITH MCGEE AND ASSOCIATES TO
PROVIDE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES DURING
CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. 41 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 60013,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,040
Item #16B15
STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE
91-107 THAT PROVIDES FOR ROADWAY LIGHTING
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE M.S.T.U., PROJECT NO. 68062
Item #16B16
AWARD A CONTRACT TO AKERBLOM CONTRACTING INC. TO
CONSTRUCT MANATEE PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS, BID 99-
3028, PROJECT 70052, IN THE AMOUNT OF $914,390.01
Item #16B17
DONATION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF A SPECIAL
WARRANTY DEED FROM HARVEST FOR HUMANITY, INC.
ESTABLISHING CLEAR TITLE FOR THE CARSON ROAD RIGHT-OF-
WAY AND HARVEST FOR HUMANITY PUD
Item #16B18
AWARD BID #00-3069 FOR CLAM BAY INTERIOR CHANNEL
CONSTRUCTION PHASE II TO D.N. HIGGINS, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $86,723
Item #16B19
AWARD BID #00-3073 FOR PELICAN BAY STREET SIGNS TO
LYKINS SIGNTEK~ INC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $221,821
Page 149
May 23~ 2000
Item #16B20
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HORSESHOE SQUARE DEVELOPMENT,
L.C. IN ORDER TO RELOCATE THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT, IN THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $61,998.78 FOR
RENT AND COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE
Item #16B21
RESOLUTION 2000-146, AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR
PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS AND/OR NON-
EXCLUSIVE PERPETUAL UTILITY AND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE THIRTY INCH PARALLEL SEWER FORCE
MAIN ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD AND WITHIN CREEKSIDE
COMMERCE CENTER, PROJECT 73943
Item #16B22
RESOLUTION 2000-147, AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF LAND
BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
WHIPPOORWILL LANE PROJECT BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD TO
A POINT ONE MILE SOUTH, BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE
FUTURE EAST/WEST CONNECTOR ROAD CONNECTING
LIVINGSTON ROAD (PHASE I)
Item #16B23
AUTHORIZATION FOR TWO PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE
SUSTAINABLE FLORIDA LEADERSHIP AWARDS BANQUET, AS
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16B24 -Deleted
Item #16B25
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRMS, BEGINNING WITH THE NUMBER
Page 150
May 23, 2000
ONE RANKED FIRM OF WILSONMILLER, INC., FOR
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS SERVICES FOR
PINE RIDGE ROAD WIDENING FROM AIRPORT ROAD TO LOGAN
BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 60111, CIE NO. 41
Item #16B26
WORK ORDER NO. PW-WM-0009, WITH WILSONMILLER TO
PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, PHASE "B" STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION
PROJECT, FROM AIRPORT ROAD TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK
ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60039, IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,900
Item #16B27
WORK ORDER NO. PW-WM-0008, WITH WILSONMILLER TO
PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR GOODLETTE-
FRANK ROAD MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT, FROM
SOLANA ROAD TO PINE RIDGE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60095, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $54,700
Item #16B28
WORK ORDER NO. PW-WM-0010, WITH WILSONMILLER TO
PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE NORTH
TAMIAMI TRAIL MEDIAN LANDSCAPE, FROM SEAGATE DRIVE TO
GULF PARK DRIVE PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,100
Item #16B29 - Deleted
Item #16B30 - Withdrawn
BID #00-3052 FOR PELICAN BAY STREETLIGHTS, SIGN POLES &
LUMINARIES
Item #16B31
AWARD CONTRACT FOR TASK #1 FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES TO MALCOLM PIRNIE FOR SOLID
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS STUDY,
Page 151
May 23, 2000
RFP 00-3046, IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,500
Item #16B32 - Added
CONSENT TO USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REGISTRY
RESORT AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR A PORTION OF THE WATER
MANAGEMENT EASEMENT ADJACENT TO THE HOTEL
Item #16Cl
CONTRACT #99-2947 "IMPLEMENTATION OF A MASTER PLAN
FOR THE NORTH NAPLES REGIONAL PARK", FOR SURVEYING,
ENVIRONMENTAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING AND
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $1,195,190
Item #16C2
AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO
PREPARE THE FOOD FOR THE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE GRANT
PROGRAM
Item #16C3
AWARD BID #00-3082 TO G.A. FOODS TO PREPARE THE FOOD
FOR THE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM WHILE
SUMMER SCHOOL IS NOT IN SESSION
Item #16C4
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES TO
COLLABORATE ON OBTAINING A FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST
GRANT TO HELP DEFRAY THE COST OF THE PURCHASE OF THE
FLEISCHMANN PROPERTY WITH CHANGES
Item #16C5
AUTHORIZING A POSITION STATUS CHANGE FROM TEMPORARY
TO PERMANENT PART-TIME FOR THE EXTENSION SERVICE
Page 152
May 23, 2000
PERSONNEL ROSTER
Item #16C6
APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
REQUESTING SPECIAL CATEGORY HISTORIC PRESERVATION
GRANT FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000, TO ASSIST WITH
THE RESTORATION OF THE ROBERTS' RANCH IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16D1
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS FOR
BUILDING, PLUMBING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $130,704
Item #16D2
AGREEMENT WITH THE GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL &
RESCUE DISTRICT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A MAXIMUM
EXPENDITURE OF $12,500 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST, FOR
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR THE
COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM
Item #16D3
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR A MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE OF
$50,000 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST TO INITIATE THE DESIGN
AND ENGINEERING OF THE BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE AND
RESCUE DISTRICT'S STATION #12, TO BE LOCATED WITHIN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 2000-148, AUTHORIZING THE CANCELING OF
CURRENT TAXES UPON CERTAIN OIL GAS & MINERAL RIGHTS
OBTAINED BY TAX DEED WITHOUT MONETARY COMPENSATION
FOR PUBLIC USE
Item #16D5
Page153
May 23, 2000
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DURING DESIGNATED
COMMISSION VACATIONS
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS #00-231, #00-240, AND #00-241
Item #16E3
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO WORK WITH MR. DAVE BELL AND MR.
ELHANON COMBS TO SUBMIT A TWO-YEAR NON-CONFORMING
USE PERMIT RELATING TO A HOLOCAUST MUSEUM
Item #16G1
AWARD BID #00-3065, INSTALLATION OF HURRICANE SHUTTERS
AT VILLAGE OAKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO BRESCITT CORP.,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $7',063, AND TO SUNMASTER FOR PINE
RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL, IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,180
Item #16G2 - Added
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT'S BUDGET AMENDMENTS
FOR THE PURCHASE OF BRUSH FIRE GEAR
Item #16H1
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 154
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
MAY 23, 2000
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. 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. April 5 - 11, 2000
B. April 12 - 18, 2000
C. April 19 - 25, 2000
D. April 26 - May 2, 2000
E. May 3 - 9, 2000
Minutes:
A. Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for April 21, 2000
meeting and minutes of April 21, 2000 meeting
B. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for April 26, 2000 meeting and
minutes of March 22, 2000 meeting
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for May 3, 2000 meeting and minutes
of April 5, 2000 meeting
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Informal minutes of March 29,
2000 meeting
Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for May 3, 2000 meeting
and minutes of March 1, 2000 meeting
F. Collier County Planning Commission - Agendas for April 20 and May 4, 2000
meetings and minutes of March 16 and April 6, 2000 meetings
G. City/County Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee - Agenda for May 4,
2000 meeting
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agendas for April 11, and
May 9, 2000 meetings and minutes of March 14 and April 11, 2000 meetings
Lo
Mo
No
Po
Rural Lands Oversight Committee - Agenda for May 15, 2000 meeting and
minutes of January 10, 2000 meeting
Utility Authority - Minutes of the February 28, 2000 meeting
Bayshore Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for May 3, 2000 meeting
and minutes of April 5, 2000 meeting
Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Agenda for May 3, 2000
meeting and minutes of March 22, 2000 meeting
Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Agenda for April 19, 2000
meeting and minutes of April 5, 2000 meeting
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for April 5, 2000 meeting and
minutes of March 1, 2000 meeting
County Government Productivity Committee - Minutes of March 15, 2000
meeting
Collier County Community Health Care Ad Hoc Committee - Agenda for April
12, 2000 meeting
Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee - Minutes of January 24, 2000
meeting
Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for April 10, 2000
meeting and minutes of March 13, 2000 meeting
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee- Minutes of March 6, 2000
meeting
May 23, 2000
Item #1611
RESOLUTION 2000-150, WITH SPRINT/UNITED TELEPHONE
COMPANY OF FLORIDA FOR CONTINUATION OF THE EXISTING
E-911 SYSTEM
Item #16J1
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
THE LAW FIRM OF CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL, SMITH
& CUTLER, P.A., FOR SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES ON AN AS-
NEEDED BASIS
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2000-35, PETITION PUD-91-05(1), DWIGHT NADEAU
OF MCANLEY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC., REPRESENTING
SAMUEL J. DURSO OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS HABITAT PLACE PUD, AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
THREE MILES EAST OF S.R. 951 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 41
EAST, CONSISTING OF 20.20+ ACRES
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2000-36, PETITION PUD-99-05(1), ANITA L.
JENKINS, AICP, OF WILSON MILLER, INC., REPRESENTING LONG
BAY PARTNERS, LLC, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" AND "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS MEDITERRA PUD HAVING THE
EFFECT OF INCREASING ACREAGE FROM 943+ ACRES TO 954+
ACRES, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF 1-75 ALONG THE
LIVINGSTON ROAD EAST/WEST CORRIDOR
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2000-151/DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2000-02,
PETITION DOA-2000-01, WILLIAM R. VINES OF VINES AND
ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING RICHARD K. BENNETT, TRUSTEE,
Page 155
May 23, 2000
FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITYGATE DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) DEVELOPMENT ORDER 88-2 AS
AMENDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING DATES FOR
INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, AMENDING
PHASING SCHEDULE AND THE TIME THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER
IS TO REMAIN IN EFFECT
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2000-152, PETITION VAC-00-002 TO VACATE A
PORTION OF PLATTED 20' WIDE LAKE MAINTENANCE ACCESS
AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 11, BLOCK B, "WILDCAT
COVE TWO"
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2000-153, PETITION VAC-00-008 TO VACATE A
PORTION OF A LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ON TRACT B,
"CROWN POINTE SHORES"
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're adjourned. There being no
further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:59 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
TI ~~/~~Hy CO~)~STANTINE, CHAIRMAN
Page 156
May 23, 2000
ATTEST:
owIGHYi E.'" BROCK, CLERK
~ffl~'r~i~tes'approved by the Board on
presented~'~ ~',~ ~ or as corrected
as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING BY: Cherie R. Leone, Kelley Marie Blecha, RPR
Page 157