BCC Minutes 08/01/2000 RAugust 1, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, August 1, 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
David E. Brandt
ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page I
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, August 1, 2000
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER
PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR
TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,
BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA
MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT
LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER
"PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS
PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN
ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU,
TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING
IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION - Reverend Donna Bartleson, Golden Gate United Methodist Church
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1
August 1, 2000
A. June 13, 2000 - Regular Meeting
B. June 14, 2000- LDC Meeting
C. June 14, 2000- Budget Workshop
D. June 16, 2000 - Budget Workshop
E. June 27, 2000- Regular Meeting
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1) Proclamation proclaiming August 1-7, 2000 as National Clown Week.
Dixiebelle, Melody Merrymaker and Espranza the clowns.
To be accepted by
B. SERVICE AWARDS
1. Linda Gedye, Building Review and Permitting Dept. - 5 yrs
2. Lionel Grode, Building Review and Permitting Dept. - 5 yrs
3. Marcia Kendall, Planning Services - 5yrs
4. Gavin Jones, Transportation Planning- 5 yrs
5. John Dimartino, Planning Services - 10 yrs
6. Lloyd Gift, Transportation Road and Bridge - 15 yrs
7. Jose Mc Gee, Transportation Road and Bridge - 15 yrs
8. David Weeks, Planning Services- 15 yrs
9. William Spencer, Planning Services - 25 yrs.
C. PRESENTATIONS
1) Recommendation to recognize Frank Pugh, Senior Utility Technician, Water Distribution
Department, as Employee of the Month for June 2000.
2) Recommendation to recognize Judith Scribner, Case Manager, Social Services/Services for
Seniors, as Employee of the Month for July 2000.
3)
Presentation by the United States Census Bureau to Collier County for its Outstanding
Efforts to Encourage a Fair and Complete Count of all its Citizens During the 2000 Census.
(Presentation will be made by Mickey Rosado of the Fort Myers Office).
4)
Presentation to the United Way of Collier County and the Community Foundation of Collier
County for exemplary community service in support of the State of Florida Healthy Kids
Program.
2
August 1, 2000
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Edward J. Fullmer, Vice President of the Goodland Civic Association regarding a Goodland
building moratorium.
B. Request by Everglades City Mayor Hamilton for funding to designate City Hall as an historical
preservation site.
8. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the budget and work plan for implementing the Immokalee
Housing Initiative Program.
2) CONTINUED FROM THE 6/27/00 MEETING: Presentation on status of fire plan review
function.
3) This item has been deleted.
4) THIS ITEM TO BE HEARD WITH ITEM 12(C)(1). Amendment to the Impact Fee Update
Agreement with Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc (No. 98-2843).
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to solicit proposals
for Contract Manager Services for the Pelican Bay Services Division.
2)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by condemnation of non-exclusive, perpetual
sidewalk, landscape and maintenance interests by easement for the construction of
improvements for the Vanderbilt Beach Road sidewalk relocation and landscaping project
between Hammock Oak Drive and U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail North), Project 67021, CIE No.
23.
3
August 1, 2000
3)
4)
Staff Report on the Traffic Analysis for the proposed alignment for a roadway from Radio
Road to Davis Boulevard as a proposed extension of Livingston Road, Project No. 60135.
Authorize the purchase of transit vehicles to be used for the Collier County Deviated Fixed
Route service.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Approve three (3) Advance Construction Agreements required to expedite the construction
of a thirty (30") inch parallel sewer force main along Immokalee Road, Project 73943.
2) Summary of the County's Solid Waste Disposal Considerations.
3) Amend the Collier County Wastewater Master Plan and Approve the LB/P Groveway
Utility Facilities Reimbursement Agreement.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1) To adopt proposed FY 2001 Millage Rates.
2) Recommendation to approve Norman Feder
Administrator.
to the position
of Transportation Services
4
August 1, 2000
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Ao
Request for direction from the Board of County Commissioners concerning a complaint filed
with the Clerk to the Board alleging that the Ordinance No. 2000-43, amending Ordinance No.
91-102, the Land Development Code, is Inconsistent with the County's Growth Management
Plan.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Health Planning Council.
B. Appointment of Commissioners to serve on the Value Adjustment Board and set tentative
hearing dates.
C. Appointment of member(s) to the Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee.
D. Appointment of member(s) to the Rural Lands Oversight Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
F. Discussion regarding Police Athletic League's use of 300 acres of surplus property.
(Commissioner Constantine).
11. OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency Board authorize staff to
waive the purchasing policy and contract with Holland and Knight to provide legal services
to the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and to direct staff to prepare a
budget amendment.
5
August 1, 2000
C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1)
Petition PUD-2000-09 Brad Hedrich, P.E., of Hedrich Engineering Inc., representing
Meridian Land Co. requesting a rezoning for the property currently zoned "A" Rural
Agricultural, "RSF-3" Residential Single Family and "ST" overlay to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as Madeira PUD for a maximum of 438 residential dwelling units
for property located on the west side of Livingston Road, approximately ~A miles north of
Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Sections 13 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 145.93 +/- acres.
Co
OTHER
1) Adopt an ordinance to amend the Collier County Road Impact Fee Ordinance by clarifying
provisions and guidelines that apply to golf course road impact fees; also to amend
provisions that will apply prospectively.
13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. OTHER
14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
6
August 1, 2000
15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will
be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member
of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Authorization of a 100% waiver of impact fees for one house to be built by Crescencio Lopez
at 671 12th Avenue NE, in Golden Gate Estates, Collier County, Florida.
2) Authorization of a 100% waiver of impact fees for thirty houses to be built by Habitat for
Humanity in Carson Lakes Subdivision in Collier County, Florida.
3) 2000 Tourism Agreement between Collier County and the Marco Island Film Festival
regarding advertising and promotion.
4) Approve transfer of the cable television franchise from Florida Cablevision Management
Corporation, D/B/A Time Warner Cable, to A.O.L. Time Warner Incorporated.
7
August 1, 2000
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to waive the
purchasing policy and contract with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council to
implement a portion of the Enterprise Community Strategic Plan of Immokalee and direct
staff to prepare a budget amendment.
6) Approval of interim policy to prohibit blasting in new subdivision and site development plan
construction within 350 feet of existing structures.
7) Recommendation to approve commercial excavation permit No. 59.745, "Jim Weeks
Commercial Excavation Desoto & 29th" located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 28
East: bounded on the north by vacant land zoned Estates, on the west by Desoto Boulevard,
on the south by 29th Avenue NW, and on the east by vacant land zoned agriculture.
8) Final acceptance of water and sewer connections for Marine national bank at Vanderbilt
Galleria.
9) Final acceptance of water and sewer connections for North Naples Storage.
10) Assignment Agreement for easement for Pelican Marsh, Unit 22 (Galleria Drive).
11) Request to terminate the existing construction maintenance and escrow agreement for
subdivision improvements for Glen Eden, Phase Two, and enter into a Construction
Maintenance and Security Agreement with the developer.
12) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, and water sewer improvements
for the final plat of"Pelican Lake RV Resort, Phase Three".
13) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, and water sewer improvements
for the final plat of"Pelican Lake RV Resort, Phase Four".
14) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Capistrano at Grey Oaks", and approval
of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security.
15) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Flamingo Fairways".
16) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Shady Hollow Trust".
17) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Saratoga at Lely Resort".
18) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Cedar Hammock, Unit 2", and approval
of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the Performance Security.
19) Request to approve the Activity Center #9 Interchange Master Plan Vision Statement.
8
August 1, 2000
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to terminate the contract with Environmental Care, Inc., Bid #99-2964 for
Lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U. Roadway Grounds Maintenance.
2) This item has been deleted.
3) This item has been deleted.
4) This item has been deleted.
5) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Budget for Public Transportation Planning
Activities.
6) Commitment to maintain selected Transportation enhancement projects.
7) To approve a Budget Amendment for the transfer of funds for the Immokalee Beautification
Municipal Services Taxing Unit.
8)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid #00-3111 for the
entrance signs to Lykins Signtek, Inc., approve the necessary budget amendment and
authorize the Chairman to execute the contract documents upon County Attorney review.
9)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a Resolution fixing the
date, time and place for Public Hearing for approving the special assessment (Non-Ad
Valorem Assessment) to be levied against the properties within the Pelican Bay Municipal
Service Taxing and Benefit Unit for maintenance of the water management system,
beautification of recreational facilities and median areas, and maintenance of conservation
or preserve areas, and establishment of Captial Reserve Funds for the maintenance of
conservation or preserve areas, U.S. 41 berms, street signage replacements within the
median areas and landscaping improvements to U.S. 41 entrances, all within the Pelican Bay
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit.
10) This item has been deleted.
11)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the necessary Budget
Amendment to transfer funds from the Street Lighting Reserve Fund to Street Lighting
Capital Outlay.
12) Approve Petition TM 96-07 for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Project on
Granada Boulevard between Goodlette-Frank Road and US 41.
13) Reject Bid #00-3071, Bayshore Drive Beautification and authorize staff to re-bid and use
annual contracts.
14) Update the Board on the status of the Goodlette-Frank Road Median Beautification Project
from Solana Road to Northgate Drive, Project No. 60095.
15) Follow up presentation to Transportation workshop.
16) Reject Bid #00-3071, Bayshore Drive Beautification, authorize staff to re-bid and use annual
contracts and authorize the County Manager to execute formal contracts.
17) Approve a Budget Amendment for the Construction of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) Intersection improvements, Project #66065D.
9
August 1, 2000
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Approve standardization and purchase of four replacement booster pumps through Bid #00-
3100.
2) Approve work order to Mitchell & Stark Construction Company, Inc. for services to
construct a raw water main across the Cocohatchee canal east of Livingston Road.
3) Approval and execution authorizing recording of Notices of Delinquent Special Assessments
for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Service for the 1995 service year.
4) Approval and execution authorizing recording of Notices of Delinquent Special Assessments
for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Service for the 1996 service year.
5) Waive requirement for formal bid process utilizing underground utilities contractors work
order system and award work order for the replacement of an 8 inch wastewater force main.
6)
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.
7)
Authorization to execute Satisfaction of Liens for certain residential accounts wherein the
County has received payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
8)
A Resolution approving the Satisfaction
County has received payment and said
Collection and Disposal Services Special
of Liens for certain residential accounts wherein the
liens are satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid Waste
Assessments.
9) Approval and execution for Satisfaction of Claim of Liens for Water and/or Sewer System
impact fees.
Authorization to execute Satisfaction of Lien Document 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.
11)
Authorization by the Board of County Commissioners as the Governing Body of Collier
County, Florida, and as Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer
District, the Goodland Water District, and the Marco Water and Sewer District, approving
the Special Assessment hardship deferrals for certain sewer assessments for the 2000 tax
year.
12)
A Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for certain residential accounts wherein the
County has received payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1991 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
10
August 1, 2000
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
A Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for certain residential accounts wherein the
County has received payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Approval and execution of Satisfactions of Notice of Promise to Pay and Agreement to
extend payment of Water and/or Sewer System Impact Fees.
Approval of an Agreement with Phillips & Jordan to provide Disaster Recovery Services,
RFP #00-3038.
Approve the Conveyance of a Right-of-Way and Utility Easement to Albertson's Inc.
Approve a Property Exchange and Design/Construction Agreement related to the South
County Regional Water Treatment Plant Expansion, White Lake Boulevard, and the
Citygate PUD, Project 70054.
Do
PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Approve the Medicaid Waiver Continuation Contract and authorize the chairman to sign
the contract between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Area Agency on
Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. D/B/A Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida.
2) This item has been deleted.
3) Approve a revised Collier County Public Library Fines and Fees Schedule.
4) Award of Bid 00-3104 to install sports lighting at Eagle Lakes Park and Immokalee Aquatic
Facility.
5) Approve budget amendment to recognize tower lease revenue.
6) Approve agreements with performers for Country Jamboree.
7) Award of Bid 00-3097 for the purchase of a mobile performance platform.
8) Approve a resolution establishing an ad hoc committee to be known as the Collier County
Community Health Care Planning and Finance Committee, and to extend the term of the
Collier County Community Health Care Committee.
9) Approval of a lease agreement between Collier County and Billy Boy Carryout, Inc. for
space to be utilized by the Collier County Health Department.
10) Approval of a lease agreement between Collier County and Task Force for the Homeless,
and execute a resolution regarding same.
11
August 1, 2000
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
1) Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Canceling of Current Taxes Upon Certain Oil Gas &
Mineral Rights Obtained by Tax Deed Without Monetary Compensation for Public Use.
2)
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Cancellation of Current Taxes Upon a Fee-Simple Interest
Collier County Acquired by Special Warranty Deed, for Public Use and Without Monetary
Compensation.
3) This item has been deleted.
4) Authorization for Staff to Amend Section 5 of Ordinance No. 87-25 Pertaining to Surplus
Property Alternative Procedures.
5) Approval of Budget Amendments to Fund 517, Group Health Insurance.
6) Award of Bid No. 00-3091 - "Fleet Vehicles."
7) Approval of Changes to the Collier County Group Benefit Plan.
8) Approval of Lease Agreements between Collier County and Roger Carvallo for the
Continued Use of Office Space for the Clerk of Courts.
9) Accept Grants of Easement for the Installation of Directional and/or Identification Signs,
Landscaping Lighting, and Maintenance.
10) Approve a Budget Amendment to Increase Appropriations for Personnel and Operating
Costs in Fleet Management Fund (521).
11)
Waive Requirements for Formal Bid Process Utilizing General Contractor's Services Work
Order System and Award Work Order for the Construction of the Golden Gate Government
Service Center.
12) Recommendation to Accept Staff's Short List for Architectural Services for the Development
Services Building Addition & Parking Garage, RFP #00~3070.
13) Approve Contracts for Construction Manager at Risk for the Proposed Development
Services Building Addition and Parking Garage, RFP #00-3064.
14) Amend Consulting Services Agreement (96-2470) for Additional Training and Support
Services.
15) Approval of a Budget Amendment for Emergency and Unanticipated Expenditures for
Building Maintenance.
12
August 1, 2000
Fo
EMERGENCY SERVICES
COUNTY MANAGER
1) Ratification by the Board of County Commissioners of consent/emergency items approved
by the County Manager during the Board's absence.
(a) Acceptance of monies from 951 Land Holdings, Ltd. For the purpose of off-site shelter
mitigation.
(b)
Approve a budget amendment to transfer funds to cover real property cost, street
lighting, mitigation, and contingency expenses for Livingston Road North-South MSTU,
Project #65041.
(c) Award a construction contract to Zep Construction, Inc. for the Palm River Boulevard
bridge replacement and utility work, Project #69133, Bid No. 00-3075.
(d) Approval of budget amendment report - BA #00-355, #00-360, #00-373.
(e)
Approve Work Order No. ABB-FT-00-07 with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc. for
the engineering design and environmental permitting of the Wiggins Pass road outfall
(Project No. 31212).
(f) Request to waive formal competition and approve emergency replacement of east scale
at Naples Landfill.
(g) Approval of budget amendment report - Budget Amendments #00-387, #00-390, #00-
394, #00-396, #00-397.
(h) Approve a budget amendment to purchase a 1981 Chevrolet Scottsdale rescue/pumper
truck.
(i) Approve a budget amendment for expenses incurred for the North Naples Regional Park
project for recording, title searches and appraisals of additional acreage purchased.
(j) Authorize a budget amendment for the Pine Ridge Road Project.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Collier County
Government Staff responses to the Florida Association of Counties State Legislative Survey.
13
August 1, 2000
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners designate the Sheriff as the official
applicant for the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, accept the grant when awarded and approve
applicable budget amendments.
2)
Request Board authorization and expenditure of Budgeted 301 Funds for the purchase of a
telephone system for the SherifFs Office Training Facility at the James Lorenzo Walker
Vocational Technical Center.
3) Request Board authorization and expenditure of Budgeted 301 Funds for the purchase of
telecommunications equipment to integrate Buildings "J", "J-l", and remote locations.
4) Resolution amending the legal descriptions for precinct boundary adjustments.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Final Judgment
relative to the easement acquisition on Parcel No. 131 I the lawsuit entitled Collier County v.
R.,4.K. Development Company, inc., et al., Case No. 92-2791-CA-01-HDH (widening of
Immokalee Road).
2)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stipulated Final
Judgment relative to the easement acquisition on Parcel No. 105 in the lawsuit entitled
Collier County v. Radio Road Joint Venture, eta!., Case No. 98-1396-CA (Livingston Road
Extension - Golden Gate Boulevard to Radio Road project).
14
August 1, 2000
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stipulated Final
Judgment relative to the easement acquisition on Parcel Nos. 103, 104-OT, 107, 122, 822,
908, 913, 918 and 922 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Radio Road Joint Venture, et al,
Case No. 98-1396-CA (Livingston Road Extension - Golden Gate Boulevard to Radio Road
project).
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stipulated Final
Judgment relative to the easement acquisition on Parcel No. 129 in the lawsuit entitled
Collier County v. Radio Road joint Venture, et aL, Case No. 98-1396-CA (Livingston Road
Extension - Golden Gate Boulevard to Radio Road project).
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stipulated Final
Judgment relative to the fee simple acquisition of parcel no. 119B in the lawsuit entitled
Collier County v. Gerald ,4. McHale, Jr., Successor-Trustee under Recorded Land Trust
,4greement dated 12/10/92, et aL, Case No. 00-0487-CA (Pine Ridge Road between CR 31 and
Logan Boulevard).
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stipulated Final
Judgment relative to the easement acquisition on parcels no. 172 and 172T in the lawsuit
entitled Collier County v. Christopher Danielson, et aL, Case No. 99-3690-CA (Golden Gate
Boulevard between C.R. 951 and Wilson Boulevard).
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stipulated Final
Judgment relative to the Easement acquisition on parcel nos. 184 and 184T in the lawsuit
entitled Collier County v. George Peralta, et aL, Case No. 00-0937-CA (Golden Gate
Boulevard between C.R. 951 and Wilson Boulevard).
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the making of an Offer
of Judgment to Defendant, H.A. Street, for parcels 910 & 911 in the amount of $1,100.00 in
the lawsuit styled Collier County v. William Kinsley, et aL, Case No. 96-1315-CA.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stipulated Final
Judgment relative to the easement acquisition on Parcel Nos. 139 and 839 in the lawsuit
entitled Collier County v. Ronald G. Bender and Michele J. Bender, Trustees under that
certain Declaration of Trust dated the 17~n Day of May, 1991, et aL, Case No. 98-1394-CA
(Livingston Road Extension - Golden Gate Boulevard to Radio Road) Project.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stipulated Final
Judgment relative the fee simple acquisition of parcel no. 141 in the lawsuit entitled Collier
County v. ,4nthony C. Purpero, et aL, Case No. 00-0141-CA (Pine Ridge Road between CR 31
and Logan Boulevard).
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners allow the Office of the County
Attorney and Risk Management Department to make an Offer of Judgment in Poppv.
Collier County, Case No. 99-3286-CA, pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit for Collier County, Florida.
15
August 1, 2000
M. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Authorize Chairman to execute perpetual and unobstructed utility easement to Florida
Water Services Corporation, a Florida Corporation at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
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-00-03, Ms. Karen Bishop, of Planning Management Services, Inc., representing
Barton and Wendy Mcintyre, requesting a rezoue from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as Nicaea Academy PUD for property located on the
northeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Tree Farm Road in Section 26, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 119 acres.
Petition CU-2000-06 David W. Rynders, representing James K. Keiser, requesting Conditional
Use" 14" of the "A" zoning district for a social club per Section 2.2.2.3. for outdoor sunbathing
for property located at 1311 Pet Ranch Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida consisting of 8.71 +/- acres.
Ce
Petition CCSL-93-3, NB Hotel Limited, representing the La Playa Resort beach concession,
requesting a Coastal Construction Setback Line variance to allow for construction of
shower/deck, cabana storage boxes, waverunners/sailboat/kayaks /chairs storage area and
volleyball net posts at the La Playa Resort Hotel at Lots 25 through 30 inclusive, Block B, Unit 1,
Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Do
Petition CCSL-2000-1, Gulf Sea Adventures, requesting a Coastal Construction Setback Line
variance to allow for storage area for waverunners and other associated beach concession
equipment at the Vanderbilt Inn on the Gulf Hotel at Lot 6 and the north portion of Lot 5,
Baker-Carroll Point, Unit 2, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
go
Petition CCSL-2000-2, Brett D. Moore of Humiston & Moore Engineers representing the
Halstatt Partnership and Westgroup La Playa, LLC, requesting a Coastal Construction Setback
Line variance to allow for construction of a pool, covered walkway, fitness facility, tiki bar and
grill, second floor balcony and other associated improvements to the La Playa Resort Hotel at
Lots 25 through 30 inclusive, Block B, Unit 1, Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Section 29,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition CCSL-2000-3, Annis Mitchell Cockney Edwards & Roehn, representing the Ritz
Carlton, requesting a Coastal Construction Setback Line variance to identify storage areas for
16
August 1, 2000
Go
Jo
beach furniture, water craft and associated beach concession equipment, and to construct
storage boxes, concession stands, and a massage tent at the Ritz Carlton Hotel site and annex
park site located in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition CCSL-2000-4A, Brett D. Moore, P.E., of Humiston and Moore Engineers, representing
the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., requesting a Coastal Construction Setback Line variance to
allow for construction of umbrella box platforms and associated dune walkovers, and designated
areas for beach concession storage, located at the Pelican Bay North Beach facilities, Pelican Bay
Planned Unit Development (see exhibit A for legal description), Section 4, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition CCSL-2000-4B, Brett D. Moore, P.E., of Humiston and Moore Engineers, representing
the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., requesting a Coastal Construction Setback Line variance to
allow for construction of umbrella box platforms and associated dune walkovers and designated
areas for beach concession storage located at the Pelican Bay South Beach facilities, Pelican Bay
Planned Unit Development (see exhibit A for legal description), Section 8, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition V-2000-11, J.D. Allen representing Bill Chapin requesting a 10 foot variance from the
required combined side yards of 20 percent of the lot width not to exceed 50 feet, to allow for 40
foot combined side yards for a property located on Business Lane and is further described as
Lots 12 and 13, North Collier Industrial Center, Collier County, Florida.
Petition ¥-2000-13, J.D. Allen representing Bill Chapin requesting a 10 foot variance from the
required combined side yards of 20 percent of the lot width not to exceed 50 feet, to allow for 40
foot combined side yards for a property located at Collier Center Way and is further described
as Lot 7 and the east 60 feet of Lot 6, North Collier Industrial Center, Collier County, Florida.
Petition SNR-2000-03, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, representing WCI Communities, Incorporated,
requesting a street name change from Pelican Marsh Boulevard to Tiburon Boulevard East,
located in the Pelican Marsh PUD, in Section 36, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
Petition VAC 00-012 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the publics interest in
road right of way, utility and drainage easements located within the San Marino PUD project
which was conveyed to the County by O.R. Book 306, Page 530, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.
Petition VAC-00-013 to vacate a 15' wide drainage easement along the tract line common to
Tracts "P" and "Q", according to the plat of "Northbrooke Plaza", as recorded in Plat Book 31,
pages 65 through 66, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 19, Township
48 South, Range 26 East.
18. ADJOURN
17
August 1, 2000
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
18
August 1, 2000
August 1, 2000
Item #3
REGULAR AGENDA, CONSENT AGENDA, AND SUMMARY AGENDA
- APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning and welcome to
the Tuesday, August 1st, 2000, meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners. If you would loin me in standing, the Reverend
Donna Bartleson, from Golden Gate United Methodist, will lead
us in a prayer and then we'll say the pledge to the flag.
MS. BARTLESON: Thank you. Would you pray with me,
please? Gracious God, we bow before you this morning,
acknowledging your presence in our lives and the many
blessings that you have given to us. We are blessed to live in a
city such as this. We are blessed to have the financial abilities
that we all have.
And we come before you this morning acknowledging your
equality and your justice in life. And we ask that as we make
decisions this morning, that they will consider all the people in
our county, the poor and the disenfranchised as well as the rich
and the powerful.
And now we ask that you guide and direct us, make us
mindful of your love, that we may pass it on to others. For we
pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
I understand we have a number of changes to the agenda,
Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: We do. Good morning, Board, and welcome
back.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: On your change list, I'll walk you through
what's there and I believe we're going to have one additional
change in addition to what you see on your change list.
To begin with, the first item is an addition. We're asking the
Board to add Item 16(B)(18). It is a resolution regarding the
acquisition gift purchase of some sidewalk landscape and
maintenance easements for the Vanderbilt Beach Road sidewalk
relocation. That is being added at staff's request.
Also adding Item 16(G)(1)(K). It is actually in your backup
Page 2
August 1, 2000
material. But unfortunately the index didn't reflect it as a title,
so I'll read that title into the record. It's approved Budget
Amendment Report Number 00-405.
Asking for a continuance of Item 12(C) to the meeting of
9-12-2000. That is a request to adopt an ordinance to amend the
Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the reason for that, Tom?
MR. OLLIFF: Frankly, we, in some meetings with the clerk's
office after we actually advertised this ordinance, have some
additional questions about some of the points in time, frankly, in
what was proposed in the ordinance and when we can collect.
And I think he had some suggestions of some, perhaps,
better methods than we had proposed. So I think we'd prefer to
delay it and bring back something better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Improvement is worth the delay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I was advised down by the court
this morning -- and congratulations to David Weigel for the
cooperation between the two groups that worked on this
ordinance, that it would come up with the best of the best so
that we don't have any difficulties later on.
So David, I want to publicly congratulate you for working
with the clerk so that we stay out of any confrontations in the
future.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's wonderful. Thanks.
MR. OLLIFF: The next item is a request again to continue
Item 17(C) to the meeting of September 12th. That is a petition
for a coastal construction setback line variance for the La Playa
Resort Hotel.
The next item is a companion to that. It's also a
continuance of Item 17(E}, again, off your summary agenda.
Again, it's a petition for a coastal construction setback line
variance for a pool and covered walkway, again associated with
the La Playa Hotel.
The next item is a request for a deletion, Item 16(B}(13}. It
is regarding the Bayshore Drive beautification. We're going to
delete that item off the agenda.
Requesting to move Item 16(B)(15) to 8(B)(5} on your regular
agenda. It is actually a presentation and follow-up to your
original transportation workshop. Mr. McNees is here and is
prepared to give you a presentation and update on that particular
Page 3
August 1, 2000
project.
One last item that is not on your change list, there is a
request from the petitioner on Item 12(B)(1), which is the
Madeira PUD, to continue that item to the meeting of September
12th, 2000. So that item has been requested to be continued.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Would you do that again, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Item 12(B)(1), which is the Madeira PUD, the
petitioner has requested that the item be continued to the
meeting of September 12, 2000.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So there will be no discussion on
that item today at all?
MR. OLLIFF: There will not be. Again, for the record, if
anybody is here to discuss the Madeira PUD in North Naples off
of Livingston Road in the Immokalee Road corridor area, that
item will not be heard today, but will be continued to the meeting
of September 12th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In fairness to the people who are
going to come back now on September 12th to hear this again, I
don't understand why the petitioner is going to continue it to a
date when apparently we don't have enough commissioners who
can vote on it to even pass it because we have some conflict
issues.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think they're trying to answer
that question. I suspect if we find that that's the case, we
probably won't spend a whole lot of time discussing it that day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But why make people show back
up? It seems --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's ask the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. SALVATORI: I'll take the cue. My name is Leo
Salvatori, for the record, with the law firm of Quarles & Brady.
We are the attorneys for the petitioner.
The reason for the continuance, as you've heard, is that we
have two commissioners that have a conflict; and thus, they
cannot vote on the issue. And we heard about this at the
eleventh and a half hour and there really wasn't enough time.
Even though we have suggested a couple of possibilities
that make it around the conflict with Dave, there hasn't been
enough time for Dave to take a look at it or staff to look at it or
frankly for to us analyze it.
Page 4
August 1, 2000
So the request for the extension is to give us the possibility
of perhaps amending our plans so as to eliminate there being any
conflicts. If we can't eliminate any conflicts, we won't go on
September 12th.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can we find a way to make sure
well in advance of September 12th that we get the word out,
particularly to the neighborhood and the community that is
concerned, whether we're going to have a hearing or not?
I don't want people, particularly if they're trying to take time
off from work or other things, to come down here and then find
out again, okay, it's not going to go. So can we make a point
that by, say, Labor Day we have all those questions answered
and we can distribute word and get it out?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we'll maybe put it on
Channel 54 or somehow inform people broadly. There is a lot of
interest in this one and I hate for people to keep, like you said,
Tim, taking off work and showing up.
MR. SALVATORI: We informed as many people as we could
last night. But unfortunately there are so many residents, it's
hard to--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm one of the
commissioners that has a conflict. And I have e-mailed everyone
who has e-mailed me to tell them that and I have phoned people.
So I need to know that to go back to those same people to
keep them from missing this other communication. Because as
far as I know at this point, I will continue to have a conflict as
long as you bring that to this Board unless something changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have another concern about it,
in that the staff has put a lot of time and effort into this,
preparing the commissioners to be able to do an evaluation of
this issue. And we, as individuals, have spent a lot of time on it
and I don't want to waste my time.
There are other things that this county needs to have done
and I'd rather put my time on things like that. And so like the
Chairman said, I want to know that early enough so I don't waste
any more time on something like this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I said Labor Day, which is
September 4th. Can we try by the 1st of September, which is the
end of the previous week, so that at least we can get that out as
Page 5
August 1, 2000
early as we can and these folks have at least ten days' notice?
MR. OLLIFF: We'll try and make sure that that decision is
made at least prior to when the agenda definitely is distributed
and submitted so the public is aware both through the agenda
and we'll do it on Channel 54. There are some points of contact
we have in that community as well that we'll make sure are
notified.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Any other changes
to the agenda, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Under staff communication there is simply
going to be a discussion on our part regarding the closing of the
G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital.
We have been requested by another neighboring county to
the north to consider some legal action that I want to at least
broach that subject with the Board.
There are several notes. Item 8(B)(3), there is simply a title
change there. That is a consultant's report on the traffic
analysis for the proposed alignment of a roadway from Radio
Road to Davis Boulevard as a proposed extension of Livingston
Road. It is Project Number 60135.
Item 16(A)(8), there was a typographical error in the
executive summary that indicated that the preliminary
acceptance for that item was made on August of 2000, August
19th of 2000. It should have read August 19th of 1999, not 2000.
Item 16(D)(6), approving agreements with performers for
Country Jamboree. I believe a note has been provided to you
from the county attorneys on that item of a very minor, but an
amendment to the actual agreement that was in your package.
And lastly, Item 8(G)(2), which is the recommendation to
approve a transportation services administrator. For that
person's schedule's sake, I'm asking that the Board hear that
item directly after the presentations and proclamations portion
of our agenda.
Mr. Chairman, with that, that's all the changes that I have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, any changes?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have one question regarding Item
16(B)(9), which has to do with the Pelican Bay Foundation
meeting. The time that is set -- and looking at the calendar, I
Page 6
August 1, 2000
guess we need to talk about that particular date and time
because there is another event at approximately the same time
which some of us may be involved in.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you want to put that on the
regular agenda, then?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I guess we're going to have to
unless we can do it any other way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That will become?
MR. OLLIFF: 8(B)(5).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. OLLIFF: So again, for the record, we're moving Item
16(B)(9) to the regular agenda and that would become Item
8(B)(S).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six.
MR. OI. LIFF: Six. I'm sorry. 8(B)(6). We've already got an
added 8(B)(5).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt, any
changes?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. One, it's not a change, just
a request. Under C(2), it's in regards to, we're going to put a pipe
across the waterway versus being under it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which one is this, again?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: C(2).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But which --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 16(C)2. It's under the consent
agenda. It's under public utilities.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Got you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: All I'm going to ask is that we
paint this pipe something that blends into the environment. I
don't care what color it is, but let's not do something sky blue or
pink out there that becomes an eyesore.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, we've got purple and some
other colors out there. It makes for an interesting roadside
attraction.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My only request is that we do
something that is blendable to the environment. There certainly
must be a way to do that, if we're going to start putting stuff over
the water versus under the water.
Page 7
August 1, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: Those pipes are actually color coded so that
the utility and emergency crews know what kind of a pipe it is, to
make sure it's not an effluent line versus a raw water line versus
a potable water line.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Maybe that's a bigger item that
will have to be discussed later where they could band these
pipes so that people could look and have a small band that tells
you what it is versus painting the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We have purple dinosaurs.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Purple dinosaurs and all that.
MR. OLLIFF: We'll make this commitment. Prior to actually
painting that pipe, we'll at least bring back an item on your
agenda so you can see by memo so that you know what that
system is about.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The other one is under summary
agenda. I would like to pull 17(B}.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 17(B} will now become 13(B)(1);
is that right? That's the social club?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's the social club.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What number does that go under?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 13(B}(t}.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, any changes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have just a comment on one
item and that is -- I spoke to the manager this morning. 8(C)2 is
the summary of Collier County's solid waste disposal
consideration. I still want to have that discussion as far as what
we're going to do in September.
I have found a number of factual errors and I want to be very
careful. I don't mean things that we have disagreed on over the
years. There are a number of factual errors in that summary.
And so what I have asked Mr. Olliff to do is -- that we not
spend a whole lot of time on the summary today, still look at all
our options, have that summary presented in its corrected form
in September so we still do it, but rather than try to go through
item by item today. That could be kind of--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we just continue it,
then? I'd rather have a complete, accurate background.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We may have a very brief
discussion because there may be some assistance in where we
Page 8
August 1, 2000
want to go in September just for direction's sake. But I agree, I
don't want to spend a whole lot of time with info that isn't
correct. Other than that, I have no other changes.
Do we have a motion on the consent agenda, summary
agenda and regular agenda?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I assume that is as amended.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: As amended.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Motion and a second. All those
Motion carries 5/0.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMXSSIiONERS' MEETXNG
AUGUST 1, 2000
ADD: ITEM 16fB)fI8): ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORt_-_7~NG THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR
PURCHASE, OF NON-EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL SIDEWALK, LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE
INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD SIDEWALK RELOCATION AND
LANDSCAPING PROJECT BETWEEN HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE AND US 41 - PROJECT NO. 67021, CIE NO.
23. (STAFF'S REQUEST).
ADD: ITEM 16(G~(IX!O; APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT - #00-405. (ITEM INCLUDED IN
AGENDA PACKAGE BUT NOT LISTED ON AGENDA INDEX - STAFF'S REQUEST).
CONTINUE ITEM 12fC~ TO TH!~ MEET~G OF 9/12/00: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ROAD
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE (STAFF'S REQUEST).
CONTINUE ITEM 17fC] TO TIiE IM~T~; 0}~ 9~!2/00: PETITION CCSL-93-3, NB HOTEL LTD,
REPRESENTING THE LA PLAYA RESORT BEACH CONCESSION, REQUESTING A COASTAL
CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE. (PETITIONER'S REQUEST).
CONTINUE ITEM l?fE~ TO THE MEETIN(~ OF 9/12/00: PETITION CCSL-2000-2 -REQUEST A COASTAL
CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL, COVERED
WALKWAY, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LA PLAYA RESORT HOTEL. (PETITIONER'S
REQUEST).
DELETE: IF~!~M 16~B~f!3~ - REJECT BID #00=3071, BAYSHORE DRIVE BEAUTIFICATION AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RE-BID AND USE ANNUAL CONTRACTS. (STAFF'S REQUEST).
MOVE: ITEM 16~Bll!~ TO 8fnlf~: FOLLOW UP PRESENTATION TO TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP.
(~AFF'S REQUEST).
~I'AFF COMMI~!CAT!ONS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CLOSING OF G. PIERCE WOOD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. (COUNTY
MANAGER'S REQUEST)
NOTES:
ITEM 8fB~f3} - CHANGE TITLE TO READ: CONSULTANTS REPORT ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT FOR A ROADWAY FROM RADIO ROAD TO DAVIS BOULEVARD
AS A PROPOSED EXTENSION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60135. (STAFF'S REQUEST).
ITEM 16fA~¢8) SHOULD RE~+0? (UNDER CONSIDERATIONS - ITEM 2) - PRELIMINARY
ACCEPTANCE WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES STAFF ON AUGUST 19, 1999. (STAFF'S REQUEST).
~ APPROVE AGREEMENTS WITH PERFORMERS FOR COUNTRY JAMBOREE - THE
CONTRACT HAS BEEN AMENDED TO READ THAT PAYMENT WILL BE MADE AT THE TIME OF THE
PERFORMANCE RATHER THAN IN ADVANCE OF THE EVENT. (COUN'I~ ATTORNEY'S OFFICE).
ITEM $fG~¢2~ - REOUEST TH!~ ITEM BE HF-~i~I) IMMEDIATelY FOLLOW PRESENTATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE NORMAN FEDER TO THE POSITION OF TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR. (STAFF'S REQUEST).
August t, 2000
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 13; LDC MEETING OF
JUNE 14; BUDGET WORKSHOPS JUNE t4 &16; AND REGULAR
MEETING OF JUNE 27~ 2000 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We need a motion approving the minutes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion approving the minutes
under Item 4 of the agenda.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: June 13 and 14, and June 16,
and June 27, we have a motion from Commissioner Mac'Kie,
second from Commissioner Carter. Any objection? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, all those -- that's a
5/0 vote. We're out of practice after five weeks.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF AUGUST t-7, 2000
AS "NATIONAL CLOWN WEEK"-ADOPTED
Proclamations. And this is a good way to kick off any
county commission meeting. We have a proclamation
proclaiming August I through 7, 2000 as National Clown Week.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to ask Dixiebelle, Melody
Merrymaker and Espranza the clown to come forward. And then I
will read this proclamation. And I'm going to do it without
making any jokes about where the actual clowns are seated
today.
This proclamation reads: Whereas, through the ages clowns
have used their talents of drama, music, dance, wit, acrobatics,
juggling, balloon sculpting and makeup to provide laughter and
entertainment;
And whereas, being a clown requires physical skills,
dramatic ability and a firm understanding of human nature;
And whereas the familiar comic character known as a clown
encourages laughter in the young, the old, the rich and the poor
and makes people forget their troubles, afflictions, handicaps
Page 10
August t, 2000
and depression.
And whereas clowns give a part of themselves to delight
and bring moments of quiet splendor and hope to those in
orphanages, children's hospitals, homes for the elderly and the
retarded.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of
August I through 7, 2000 be designated as National Clown Week.
And urge all citizens to recognize the many charitable
activities performed by clowns and to enjoy the wholesome
entertainment they provide for all citizens.
So ordered this 1st day of August, 2000, Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Timothy J.
Constantine, Chairman. I'd like to move acceptance of this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All those
in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's 5/0.
DIXIEBELLE: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, this
morning I'm a little like a pony. I was out in the rain yesterday
and this morning I'm a little hoarse. I really am.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the record, of course, you
have to identify yourself.
DIXIEBELLE: I am Dixiebelle, president of the Paradise
Clown Alley, which is the local affiliate of the National
Organization of Clowns of America, International.
This little opening deal of mine is true. I am a little hoarse.
But it's also an example of the things that people expect of
clowns. We act silly. We do crazy things. But we are very
serious about National Clown Week. And for this, we thank you
very much for this proclamation.
I really can't express the feeling that I get when I see
someone who is in a nursing home or in a hospital break into a
smile when I'm doing some silly thing, or a child breaks out in a
great big ha, ha, ha.
But we hope that maybe our efforts will show you what we
can do and do do in your -- our community and that maybe some
Page 1t
August t, 2000
others will care to join us. After our others speak, I'd like to give
you a bumper sticker that we hope, that maybe you will display it
this week.
Now I'd like to introduce Espranza, who is the chaplain for
our local chapter.
ESPRANZA: I usually talk much longer, so I'm going to keep
this very brief. I just have a few tips for the Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. We could use all the help
we can get.
ESPRANZA: These are magic tips to help you in your job.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It looks like we can erase all our
mistakes.
ESPRANZA: If you need more, you know where to get them.
MELODY MERRYMAKER: I'm Melody Merrymaker and for
National Clown Week I have prepared a special song. Oh good,
it's going to work.
Me, me, me. It's National Clown Week all the week through.
Let me tell you some of the things we do. We're here to share
some laughter, but that's not all we're after. We'd like folks to
know they can join our show and become part of our group. We
need you. Young blood.
Thank you, commissioners, for allowing us this time to tell
about clown week in this little rhyme. We take our clowning
serious. At times we appear delirious. But nonetheless, as you
might guess, we're looking for new recruits. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. To tell you the
truth, I'm tempted to just adjourn the meeting. It doesn't get any
better than that.
DIXIEBELLE: Commissioner, one more thing. When I come
in here, I feel stress. You people need to lighten up. Don't take
life too seriously because you're not about to get out of it alive.
See you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, some of us have a lot of
experience. I wonder if they have any application forms.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Some may be overqualified.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Page 12
August t, 2000
5(B). Commissioner Berry, we have a number of service
awards this morning.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I do. It is my privilege to
present the following awards. Linda Gedye would be our first
one. And Linda is in the Building Review and Permitting
Department, five years. Linda.
Our next recipient is Lionel Grode, in the Building Review
and Permitting Department, five years. Lionel.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And our last five-year recipient
whom all of us get to see on a regular basis, Mr. Gavin Jones.
Gavin is in the Transportation Planning and we all see him as Mr.
MPO.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He just plans them. He can't
build them.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Our next recipient, Jose Mc Gee,
15 years, Transportation, Road and Bridge. Thank you so much.
That's a hot job that you have to do out there.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir, very much.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Our next 15 years, David Weeks.
And David is in Planning Services, another very popular
department. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need a close-up of the tie,
David. What's on that tie?
MR. WEEKS: It's a turkey.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A turkey, of course.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That could have a lot of
meaning here.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Page 13
August t, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And our grand prize winner today,
and an individual that I've known for probably most of these 25
years in various capacities, Bill Spencer, 25 years and Bill is in
our Planning Services Department. Thank you so much, Bill.
MR. SPENCER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We sure appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thanks a lot.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that concludes our recipients.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Commissioner Berry.
Item #5Cl
FRANK PUGH, SENIOR UTILITY TECHNICIAN, WATER
DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH FOR JUNE 2000
Commissioner Carter has a recommendation to recognize
our employee of the month for June of 2000.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: For June, is Mr. Frank Pugh here
this morning? If you'll come up here, we're going to put you in
the spotlight, Frank.
Frank is a senior utility technician in the Water Distribution
Department. He's really done some great things. He's been with
us since 1994. He's displayed above-average initiative, serving
on a daily basis to improve his performance.
Frank was recently promoted -- and we congratulate you --
to the senior utility technician position, overseeing the
maintenance section. And because of his knowledge of systems
and repairs, he was called in one night at 11 p.m. and until the
wee hours of the morning.
And we got the water back in service in an area. But
through his creativity, it saved an awful lot of time and got us
back in service. And that's the kind of thing we're so proud of.
So we congratulate you, Frank. And as a token of our
appreciation, we'd like to give you this plaque that says: Board
of County Commissioners employee of the month June 2000.
Official recognition and appreciation is tendered to Mr. Frank
Page 14
August t, 2000
Pugh.
And along with that, just to have a little fun, there is a check
that might help you do something. Thank you so much, Frank.
Item #5C2
JUDITIH SCRIBNER, CASE MANAGER, SOCIAL
SERVICES/SERVICES FOR SENIORS RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE
OF THE MONTH FOR JULY 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The nice thing, with our little
summer recess, we get to do two of these. We also have our
employee of the month for July of 2000. And if Judy Scribner is
here, we'd ask her to come up. Please turn and face television
land.
Judy has been with Collier County since 1987 and ongoing
personal development continues her skills as a case manager.
Actually, she most recently accepted a new job heading up
assisting -- I'm sorry -- assisted living facility Medicaid waiver
program.
But the thing -- I think she's probably the single most
popular employee we have with the other employees right now
because she inquired earlier this year about why extended
vacation leave wasn't provided to the long-term employees.
Commissioner Berry just did some of the service awards for
people that have been with us for a long time. And other county
governments around the state did offer that program. We didn't.
So she did a little digging and did a lot of research on that
and passed the information on to our employee advisory
committee. Long story short, it's because of her initiative that
all county employees who have worked here at least ten years
will now be shown appreciation by an extra five days of vacation
leave. So I'm sure all the employees thank you very, very much.
And it's certainly my honor to present you with this plaque
and also a $50 check and a letter that reads as follows: Dear
Judith, it's indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection
as Collier County's employee of the month for July.
This well-deserved recognition is for your valuable
contributions to the county through your work in the Social
Services Department. The honor includes an exceptional
Page t5
August 1, 2000
performance plaque, as well as a $50 cash award.
On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I offer our
sincere congratulations and also our gratitude for your
dependability and dedication. Judy, thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Congratulations. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you, Judy.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
Item #5C3
PRESENTATION BY THE UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU TO
COLLIER COUNTY FOR ITS OUTSTANDING EFFORTS TO
ENCOURAGE A FAIR AND COMPLETE COUNT FOR ALL ITS
CITIZENS DURING THE 2000 CENSUS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The Board may remember, some
of the public may remember this, but last year we spent a lot of
time -- some of our staff members spent a lot of time preparing
for the census.
Collier County faces kind of a unique thing in making sure
we get counted appropriately because we have so many
seasonal residents who may think that Ohio is home or
somewhere else is. And also, we have a number of minorities in
the Immokalee community that we feared if they did not speak
English might not get counted.
So we have a presentation of the United States Census
Bureau, from them to Collier County for its outstanding efforts to
encourage a fair and complete count of all citizens. Good
morning.
MR. ROSADO: Good morning. My name is Mickey Rosado.
I'm the community census specialist for Southwest.Florida.
Collier County is one of my counties. I have with me today my
team leader, Ms. Juanita Minster.
Today we'd like to recognize your county for your great
efforts in outreaching to those who they mentioned; particularly
the hard to enumerate communities. And I would like Juanita to
mention a couple of words about that. And I have some bags and
a nice award that we'd like to present today.
MS. MINSTER: Good morning. It's a pleasure for me to be
Page t6
August t, 2000
here with you this morning. I am not from your county. I am
based in Miami, but it's always a pleasure to come into Collier
County.
This morning we just want to thank you very much for your
great efforts, outstanding efforts that you have put into the
Census 2000 for the entire area of Collier County.
We had exceptional people working with us from day one,
working with your Planning Department. Some of the people
from Transportation. I recognized a few of the people that were
up here this morning receiving recognition.
So we wanted to thank those people and all of your
residents in this county that participated in this very important
census. And this morning we would like to present a small token
of our appreciation to the county.
And we would like to have a couple people that worked with
us very closely -- and that is Amy Taylor, if she is in the room,
and Greg Mihalic. These two people, I think, towards the end of
this were like really tired of hearing from us. All of our phone
calls, Amy this, Amy that. Can we do this? Can we do that?
But I can tell you that you had an exceptional group of
people that really worked with the bureau to accomplish the
count that we wanted to accomplish. So this morning, on behalf
of the bureau, we would like to present this little award. Amy.
MS. TAYLOR: There were many people that worked together
on the executive complete count committee. I would just like to
acknowledge them now. Tom Conrecode was our chairman.
Chuck Mohlke. Jean Merit, from public information. Kelsey Ward
from the purchasing department. Stan Litsinger, from
comprehensive planning. Greg Mihalic, of course. And David
Weeks.
And we are very, very glad that we had the opportunity to
coordinate with the Census Bureau and maximize the efforts that
were made here. And we greatly appreciate that we had the
opportunity.
MR. MIHALIC.' We certainly appreciate all the cooperation
with the U.S. Census Bureau to try to achieve a complete count
in Collier County. And thank you, Commissioners, for your
financial support to try to maximize that count.
MR. ROSADO: We have some goodie bags for the Chairman
and the commissioners for providing those efforts through
Page 17
August t, 2000
outreach in the communities. Without your support, you know,
we would not have the bridge to get to those communities.
So please continue to deliver the word of the importance of
the census and we'll definitely be there for you along the way.
Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #5C4
PRESENTATION TO THE UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR
EXEMPLARY COMMUNITY SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE
OF FLORIDA HEALTHY KIDS PROGRAM
Commissioner Brandt, you have a presentation of the United
Way of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, I do. And with your
permission, I want to do it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It's my pleasure to make a
presentation to the United Way of Collier County to two people
I've known for a very long while. And I would like to read what
this has to say.
It says: United Way of Collier County, in grateful
appreciation for your exemplary service and support of the
Healthy Kids Program. And this is from the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, August 1, year 2000.
And Pat, thank you. I've known you a long while and you've
done a great job. Thank you. Ernie, keep doing the good job you
do. And we thank you very much.
And Dr. Joan -- there you are.
DR. COLFER: I'm Dr. Joan Colfer. I'm the director of the
Collier County Health Department. The Board of County
Commissioners is recognizing both of these wonderful
organizations today for their efforts to provide health insurance
through the Healthy Kids Program to children ineligible for
Medicaid.
We had a terrible problem this year. Senator Saunders
introduced legislation to try and reduce the 20 percent county
match that was required for this program. And when we got to
Page 18
August t, 2000
July -- almost to July 1st, we were still $26,000 short.
In spite of the fact that both of these organizations had
already given generously to this program, when we presented the
problem to both of them, they split the difference and provided
us with the $26,000. This is a major accomplishment for Collier
County.
Not only does it give us the match for this year that we
need, it allows us to continue 3,500 children in the health
insurance program. But it also allows us to enroll many
additional children, as many as we can find, without having to
come up with yet more match money. So what they did was a
wonderful thing and we sincerely thank you for your kind and
generous support.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: We have another award to
present to the Community Foundation of Collier County. And I,
too, have had an opportunity to work with the Community
Foundation in the past.
I've also had an opportunity to work in the past with the
Collier County Public Health Unit when there was an advisory
board and I had an opportunity to work with that. And Tom Olliff,
the county manager now, was a big assist to us.
So this is to the Community Foundation of Collier County.
And for those of you who don't know about the Community
Foundation, it does a lot of good work here in the county. And I
don't know that you get the press that you really deserve. And
I've known some of your board members in the past.
And so in grateful appreciation for your exemplary service in
support of the Healthy Kids Program, this is from the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, August 1, 2000.
So we thank you very much.
MS. TAYLOR: I promise you I won't sing anything. On behalf
of the United Way and also the Community Foundation, I'd like to
thank the Board for this generous award.
And one of the things I'd like to mention on behalf of the
United Way is that the county has over the past several years
greatly increased its participation and support of the United Way
and our annual campaign.
And the -- Leo, of course, was past president of the United
Way. He was my predecessor and certainly did a phenomenal job
and left me very big shoes to fill.
Page 19
August 1, 2000
And we look forward to the support of the county once again
this year and the citizens of Collier County. And we have our
kickoff on October the 2nd for this year's annual campaign.
We have a substantially increased goal over last year. And
we look forward to the support and look forward to being able to
support Collier County and the citizens of Collier County. So
thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #8G2
NORMAN FEDER SELECTED TO THE POSITION OF
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR- APPROVED
We had a request at the beginning of the agenda that
we after presentations go to 8(G)(2), which is a recommendation
to approve Norm Feder to the position of transportation services
administrator. Mr. Olliff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm just going to add one
comment -- and I'm glad it's going as quickly as it is. I've known
Norm, as we all have, for a long time with his work for FDOT.
You have all heard me compliment FDOT many, many times
over the years. I'm not so complimentary of all state agencies.
But they have been remarkably cooperative and Norm Feder is a
big reason why. This is a tremendous gain for Collier County.
Unfortunately a loss for FDOT.
But I'll tell you the thing that impressed me the most about
Norm is that he knows his stuff and he knows the information
and he knows transportation, all of which we need right now.
But equally, if not more important, is that he has never lost
track of the fact that we are customer based. We are trying to
serve the public and Norm always gets information out to people,
always gets back with people and just is tremendously efficient
at customer service. And that's what we're in the business of.
So I'm kind of excited about having him on board.
Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I too am excited to have Norm on
board because while I was on the city council at Marco Island, I
Page 20
August t, 2000
had an opportunity to talk with him several times about some
issues on Marco.
He was always very helpful, very quickly getting information
back to me that I could share with other city council members.
And the bridge to Marco happened to be one of those items.
So I appreciate all of the fine work that you did and the
follow-up you did. And as the Chairman has said, service seemed
to be what you were after there and you certainly provided it.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of
the MPO, I have to say that Norm has been absolutely fantastic.
I also served with him on the subcommittee in transportation for
the Southwest regional area.
And you are a gem for us to have on our staff. And I hope
that we will profile him on 54. The community needs to know
what kind of talent that we are bringing to this job and how
fortunate we are to have you come and be with us in Collier
County. So Norm, thank you for being on board with us.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Now you have to live up to all
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. No pressure.
MS. TAYLOR: Just for the record, I wanted to indicate to
you that while I think transportation was clearly, from your
perspective, the highest priority and required somebody who had
just an incredible variety and array of experience and skills to be
able to step in and fill the shoes of that administrator's position, I
cannot tell you how pleased we are to recommend Norm and
could not think of a single individual in this area that we thought
would better fit our perfect mold of someone who could lead your
transportation division into what is going to be the most
aggressive road construction campaign in this county's history.
We recommend him highly. We think he's going to be a
great addition to your management team here. But in addition, I
need to turn around and thank Mike McNees, who has done a
tremendous job over the last four months.
And in making sure that not only has Ed Kant and the rest of
the staff got the resources that were necessary to meet the
challenges that you laid down for them, but I think has put an
organization in place that is in good shape to be able to hand off
to Norm and then carry out your task. So with that, I don't have
Page 21
August t, 2000
anything else to add, but to ask that you would go ahead and
vote.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have any speakers?
MS. TAYLOR: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We already have a motion and
second. Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The county manager used a word
that I like and it has to do with lead the organization. We've had
some discussions, Mr. Olliff and I, about the difference between
leadership and management.
And leadership is totally different. I don't know that a lot of
people fully understand that. But you have to develop a vision, a
set of goals that the organization shoots for.
But it has to be one that people can relate to. It has to be
practical. It has to have the endorsement of not only the
organization that you lead, but those who are on the outside of
that organization. The community needs leadership.
And so I oftentimes am in environments where that
leadership is lacking. And I don't find that here and I'm looking
forward to seeing leadership more and more. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll call the question. All
those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The motion carries 5/0. Mr.
Feder, congratulations and welcome.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another good hire, Mr. Olliff.
Item # 7A
EDWARD J. FULLMER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE GOODLAND
CIVIC ASSOCIATION REGARDING A GOODLAND BUILDING
MORATORIUM - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW AND RENDER
LEGAL OPINION
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That will take us to public
petitions. 7(A) is Ed Fullmer, vice president of the Goodland
Civic Association regarding a Goodland building moratorium.
MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I think Ms. Connie Fullmer is
actually here representing the Goodland Civic Association. And
Page 22
August 1, 2000
you also have two public speakers registered after that on that
item.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That isn't necessarily how
petitions work. Just so people understand, what public petitions
are is, you have a ten-minute opportunity to make your case as
to why the Board should consider something.
And then we decide whether to put that on a regular agenda
item, full-blown item, so that people can have an opportunity to
do that. So the petitions often don't get the same attention that
a regularly advertised agenda item does, so we do that two-step
process.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And Mr. Chairman, on this item I
have a couple of questions that I will address for the county
manager and perhaps even the county attorney.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough. Ms. Fullruer, you
get up to ten minutes.
MS. FULLMER: We really just have myself, a speaker, and if
we have a little bit of time left out of that ten minutes, an
additional speaker from the civic association. We have some
handouts that we do have prepared to hand out to you just so
that you can look at it through the presentation, if you care to.
They're right here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
the record.
MS. FULLMER: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
the record.
MS. FULLMER: Connie Stegal Fullmer. I'm here today
representing the Goodland Civic Association and representing
the Goodland property owners who responded to the zoning
overlay survey mailed to owners in May of 2000.
My purpose before you today is to publicly petition for an
emergency LDC moratorium on issuance of site plans and
building permits for any multihousing development in the areas
of the Village of Goodland, zoned village residential, until the
zoning overlay process is complete.
The Goodland Civic Association Board has nine members;
four are present here today, one is out of the country, two out of
the state and two unable to attend for work reasons. Eight of the
nine board members voted to request this moratorium on behalf
If you would identify yourself for
If you would identify yourself for
Page 23
August 1, 2000
of the community.
A total of nine residents are here today on behalf of the
community. Many of our residents are on vacation in the summer
and many are at their northern residences.
I'd like to take a moment to please have you commissioners
take a look at the map that is over here on the board. This map
represents the geographic area that we're talking about today.
The map represents on the left Marco Island and to the
lower right, Goodland. As you see, in comparison we are a very,
very small area; approximately I mile by I mile.
The issues that we're concerned about today and that we
have been concerned about over the last year and a half are the
areas that are zoned village residential.
The areas that you see here in the light tan on the left-hand
side where it says VR, this is an undeveloped piece of property in
Goodland. The lower area, much larger geographic area, it's 5
acres, is VR; also undeveloped as of today. These two areas are
what we're most concerned about with regard to the moratorium.
The other areas in the community that are also VR are the
darker brown. Those are -- we are concerned about in the
overlay with regard to redevelopment.
As you recall, we came before you last spring to request a
zoning amendment to allow only two habitable floors over one
level of parking in the VR districts. Our concerns were density,
height of buildings, an impact to our community to result from
post development.
You voted to amend the wording of the VR zoning to allow
only three floors over one of parking and directed staff to
conduct a zoning overlay-- to do a survey in Goodland to
determine if the community wants an overlay and what kinds of
issues should be addressed.
The issuance of a site plan and building permit for a 76-unit
condominium development of four five-story buildings on a 5 acre
tract of land prompted the community's request for the change in
zoning.
If the Commissioners would look at the additional
presentation or rendering of the proposed development, you'll
see that it's quite large.
That particular development has not progressed. The
principal investor passed away. Test pilings were done early in
Page 24
August t, 2000
1999. Mountains of dirt and pools of stagnant water are what
have graced that land for over 16 months.
County Parks and Recreation submitted a contract offer to
the owner in late April. Parks and Recreation wanted to put a
park and boat ramp on that land.
Three years ago Goodland asked our district's commissioner
to represent us in our request for a park on that property. He
said the parcel of land was too small.
The current owner of the land attended all of our overlay
meetings, joined the Goodland Civic Association and attended
our meetings over the past year. The owner said she wanted to
be Goodland friendly.
The owner entertained another contract also in April. The
contract, however, is from an investor from Venezuela who
wants to build condominiums on that land.
The original building permits have expired, however, the site
plan is still alive until November the 12th. And it could be used
by the new owner. That contract is scheduled for closing
sometime in September.
The buyer and project manager say they are Goodland
friendly. We don't understand what they all mean when they say
they are Goodland friendly when they know Goodland does not
want that size of development in the community.
Last June we asked County Attorney Weigel to give us a
legal position on the legality of the site plan issue for that
property. The purpose and intent statement in the opening
paragraph of the village residential classification of zoning
states that: The purpose is to provide a mixture of residential
uses. Additionally, the uses are located and designed to
maintain the village residential character.
I hope each of you have taken the time to drive around
Goodland this past year to familiarize yourselves with the
community over which you are making ever-reaching decisions.
If you have, you then know that the look of VR today is low
rise, low density, low impact on the community. Planning
Services, in their issuance of the site plan and building permits,
made certain that the project met the statistical requirements
such as height, setbacks and green space.
They could not have taken notice of the purpose and intent
statement. There is nothing about that development that fits in
Page 25
August 1, 2000
the character of a village. That development changes the
character of the village.
This, in our opinion, is not a legal site plan. We have again
requested that County Attorney Weigel issue a legal rendering on
this issue. He indicates he would need a direction from staff or
the commissioners to make that rendering. We ask that either
staff or you make that request.
We are not against development on that property. We are
not against development in Goodland. We are against this
development because it does not fit the character of the village.
This development can double our population. These units
will be marketed at price points that will attract investors and
this will become rental property.
The new project manager said, and I quote: We know
Goodland doesn't want a gated luxury condominium
development. We plan on making them compatible with
Goodland. We want to make them so Goodland residents can
buy them. I plan to buy a unit myself. End quote.
This again iljustrates that they don't know what we want;
but more probably, don't care what we want. We want
development that will have higher price points, lower heights,
lower density.
Developments that will attract buyers who themselves plan
to reside this. Buyers who will become part of the community,
not buyers who will just be collecting their rent checks.
You allocated funds to be spent on the zoning process. The
community attended eight public meetings. We completed the
surveys. And people have told you that they want building
heights lowered. They do not want large-scale development.
They do not want multihousing. They want the village character
retained.
Bob Mulhere says our request is called an emergency LDC
moratorium. This, commissioners, is a state of emergency for
Goodland. Don't doubt it. We need this moratorium to allow the
completion of the overlay so Goodland can protect itself from
large-scale development.
This is about the Dolphin Cove Project, but it's also about an
additional tract of VR land also owned by the Goodland friendly
Fisk family. That ground could be issued a building permit before
the overlay is done and we'll have two large-scale condos in
Page 26
August 1, 2000
Goodland.
We heard often last spring that you have to protect owners'
property rights. And I have heard this again this week that
Florida is a strong defender of private property rights. That is
good.
We want you to protect private property rights. We want
you to protect the private property rights of the owners and
residents of Goodland.
We have the right to anticipate that the interpretation of the
zoning and permits issued will fall within the specifications and
purpose and intent of the zoning; that new development will
maintain the character of the village, not change it beyond
recognition.
The development you see here, commissioners, does not in
any way fit the purpose and intent of the zoning. This
development does not belong in Goodland. The property owners
redeemed rights to the property through issuance of that site
plan that, in our opinion, are not legal rights.
I understand this is not an action committee today; that at
this time you would usually ask staff to study this request and
come back to you with a recommendation.
I ask staff, please don't fail to remember that we are not just
talking about Dolphin Cove. At risk is the other large tract of
land that can become condos.
Your next Board meeting is scheduled for September 12th.
We ask that you call a special Board meeting prior to the end of
August to vote on the moratorium. This vote is needed before
the sale is concluded sometime in September. Questions?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt, did you
have a question?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, I do. I'd like to find out
when the overlay is expected to be finished. Mr. Olliff, can
someone help us with that?
MS. FULLMER: I can tell you what I know, but --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'd like to hear from the county
staff.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows, and I'm coordinating the zoning overlay for
Goodland. We took a little vacation time between our last
meeting and the next one due to seasonal residents. We should
Page 27
August t, 2000
be starting up in October. And I think we'll finish the zoning
overlay, I anticipate, in December.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else to be added about
that?
Then my next question has to do with, what are the criteria
that the county has to abide by in setting up a moratorium of this
nature? What are the legal issues?
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, there are a few criteria to be in
place.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Could you get closer to the
mike, please?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. The criteria for a moratorium is that we
first must recognize that the county has by ordinance and state
statute, we have two regular Land Development Code
amendment cycles.
And the concept of a moratorium is to preserve the status
quo prior to a legislative action being taken by the Board of
County Commissioners.
In this particular case, it's concerning -- I'll restate the
obvious -- an overlay pertaining particularly to Goodland, but also
specifically the VR zoning in the Goodland area. Although I
know, for the record, there is VR zoning in other areas than
Goodland.
To declare a moratorium would require that -- outside of the
normal Land Development Code amendment cycle would require
the Board to declare an emergency. And the specifics for
declaring an emergency are provided for in the Land
Development Code.
And I think it's probably more important for me to read it
briefly rather than paraphrase. Because arguably one person's
emergency, although very valid, may not necessarily compute
with the statutory definition or the legislative definition that you
have to deal with.
For emergency it says: In the case of an emergency,
amendments to this code may be made more than -- more often
than twice during the calendar year if the additional code
amendment receives the approval of all of the members of the
Board. Absolute majority.
For this purpose, quote, emergency, close quote, means any
Page 28
August 1, 2000
occurrence or threat thereof, whether accidental or natural,
caused by man in war or peace which results or may result in
substantial injury or harm to the population or substantial
damage to or loss of property or public funds.
It's a fairly high bar for a declaration of emergency to come
outside of the twice-a-year Land Development Code amendment
cycle.
Now, if you have a moratorium, once you get to that point to
have the moratorium, what does that do? Briefly, that stops
something. It preserves the status quo and stops certain things
from occurring. In this case we're talking about the change of
status of private property.
The moratorium can take the context of the staff no longer
approving building permits. A moratorium could go earlier than
that and even prevent the approval of site development plans.
With Dolphin Cove, the site development plan that was long
ago approved -- and parenthetically I'll note that although
certainly from the Goodland Civic Association request and
discussion has been had with me and my office concerning a
definition of purpose and intent, as Ms. Fullmer stated, the fact is
that the county staff in the normal operation of its business
determined in the application and approval process for Dolphin
Cove that the purpose and intent had been met.
That can be readdressed through the official opinion request
that is made to Bob Mulhere. And then obviously the County
Attorney's Office always works in conjunction with him in that
regard. Or upon direction, we can again dive in and address that
directly ourselves; that is, the County Attorney's Office.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I need to understand
that. You have opined previously that the --
MR. WEIGEL: No, I have not opined anything. But I have
mentioned to Ms. Fullmer that, in fact, I typically don't provide
legal opinions to outside parties except for my clients except
with the direction of staff once we get into an item such as this,
which today provided us an opportunity for her to make the
request and of course the Board to make any kind of direction
that they make to staff or to the County Attorney's Office.
But part of my discussion with Ms. Fullmer and of course
with us all right now is that if you got past the hurdle of declaring
an emergency-- and again, it's a pretty high definitional bar--
Page 29
August 1, 2000
what you are being asked to do in this particular case applying to
Dolphin Cove is, we've already had their site plan approved.
So unless somehow that gets nixed by a new interpretation
coming from development services staff, then what you're left
with with Dolphin Cove is that no building permit should be
issued during the period of moratorium.
Moratorium, by definition, is temporary until the Board has
the opportunity to act. And by declaring an emergency, it is
stating that the need to act is very, very quickly.
In regard to other parcels potentially developable under
current VR zoning, apart from the Dolphin Cove, which already
has the site development permit, to state that that is an
emergency, again, would certainly require very careful, I think,
discussion by the Board.
Because, one, we don't know if deals are specifically in the
works. But two, we also never lose sight of the Burt Harris Act,
which talks about reasonable based investment backed
expectations.
Obviously, if you're in the process -- I don't want to go too
far with this. But if you're in the process of potentially
developing something or in the potential sale of property that has
already received some developmental approvals from the local
government, you're further along potentially to making the
argument of investment backed expectancies a la Burt Harris.
That's a bit of background.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One just for clarification. Staff,
however, has opined that the SDP conforms with the intent of the
village residential?
MR. Mulhere.- Well, I would say -- excuse me. For the
record, Bob Mulhere, planning director. I would say, de facto
we've opined by the approval of the SDP --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But no specific request has been
MR. Mulhere.' There has been no request made. If there is a
formal request, then I'm given certain time to respond. And
certainly I would do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that has not happened yet?
MR. Mulhere: That's correct.
Page 30
August 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let me just say how I feel
about this. I would like to go as far as we legally can go to
prevent the ruination of Goodland, which is what we're talking
about here.
Goodland is one of the very few little places left where you
can go and have a fishing village experience, where there is just
not much left. If this happens, it will change it forever and it's a
shame that is indescribable.
So I hear you saying two things, David. One is that the
emergency is a high bar. MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I might be willing to test
that.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The second one is that even if
we declare a moratorium on the village residential, this
particular project may already have some vested rights.
MR. WEIGEL: It may. I'm certainly not going that far myself.
I don't think it bears further discussion at this point.
MS. FULLMER: May I make one point just quickly?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's up to the chair.
MS. FULLMER: May I, quickly?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
MS. FULLMER: VR is only in Immokalee, Copeland,
Chokoloskee and Goodland. We're addressing VR in Goodland.
But throughout all of those areas in the county where there is
VR, there are no developments like this.
So this site plan is a brand-new issue. The planning
services issued a site plan for something that had never been
issued in that area before, that type of zoning.
The purpose and intent should have been looked at in more
detail with regard to the purpose and intent. Because the reason
for the creation of that category of zoning to begin with was so
that it would maintain the character of the village or the
community it was in. It should have been looked at more clearly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with you.
MS. FULLMER: It meets the statistical requirements, but not
the purpose and intent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's another question that
I have for Mr. Weigel. That is, is there another way to
Page 31
August 1, 2000
accomplish the goal here, and that is perhaps what the Goodland
Civic Association should be doing, is asking for that formal
interpretation by Mr. Mulhere, which I assume would toll any kind
of building permit issuance while that determination is made;
and then it perhaps would be appealed to the Board. Would it
have that effect?
MR. WEIGEL: There is a great logic to what you say. In
regard to absolute tolling, maybe Bob can respond a little bit
better than that. But here is another thing.
And that is, obviously, people are human. I'm not saying a
mistake was made one whit here, but I am saying that another
review looking more concertedly to a particular aspect, like in
this case purpose and intent, should never prevent government
from functioning better and making the decisions that need to be
made.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In my former life as a developer's
attorney, I often had waved in front of me by staff that there is a
lot of law on the side of government, that if you made a mistake,
you don't have to live with it. You can stop. MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this appears to me to be one
of those cases where maybe a whole global moratorium isn't
necessary, but this particular site plan, I can't imagine how
anybody could say it comports with the intent of village
residential.
This is not a village. This is not a village. I don't know how
anybody could say it's a village. So maybe that is the approach.
I'd like to help stop this project.
Now, let me go ahead and say something else I feel like I've
got to get on the record. I'm concerned about my desire to stop
this protect because the county has shown some interest in this
property for a park.
And if that makes it start looking like we're trying to do
something to the property value to get it low so we can buy it for
cheap, I'm willing -- as much as I'd love to have this as a park,
I'm willing to walk away from it as a park if that's what it takes
to stop this legally. So I mean, that's my vote.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I met with Goodland Civic, I
don't know, late '98, early '99, talking about some of the
concerns with the specific project, but also long term here; and
Page 32
August l, 2000
that's when we first started the discussions about an overlay.
So that has been going on 12 or 18 months and only has, by
the sound of our staff description, a few months left to go. I
don't think that's a big request to be careful, make sure we take
care of the community while that process completes itself.
One of the things we talked about last year -- and then I
think is the whole point here -- is our legal description of VR, the
intent of VR; and that is to preserve the character as it is.
And as Commissioner Mac'Kie has said and as the drawing
showed, this does not preserve the character. I'm sure it's a
wonderful project in other parts of the county, but it is a whole
different feel than what we have in Goodland and what the
Goodland community clearly would like to preserve.
What I'd like to do today and what I'd like to ask the Board
to do is on a petition -- we don't make any final decisions usually,
but we can give some direction. And I think your idea that
Goodland should make that request of staff, I think that's a good
idea.
I think concurrently, just because there are time issues
here, we ought to give Mr. Weigel the direction. Let's look at the
legal issues here. Let's look at the definition of VR. Let's look at
the legal request that the Goodland Civic Association has made.
Do those concurrently, so that we don't have one answer come
back in September and then start again with the second
question.
Let Mr. Weigel and his staff render an opinion and then pick
this up, whether that's the end of August or early September and
see where we need to be.
But I think that gives us some direction that allows folks
who have the property time to do whatever they need to do in the
meantime and that we can hear it with all the information in a
public hearing here.
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Other deferral mechanisms
where you don't have to go to the extreme of a moratorium so
that you can buy the time to get the overlay in place to evaluate
everything against it. Are there mechanisms in there to
accomplish that?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, other than the burdens that staff has and
Page 33
August t, 2000
prioritization that it must do and the order of things that come
into it, I can't come up with anything else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Mulhere.
MR. Mulhere: I would like to just make a response to a
couple of issues that I think are important. Obviously I haven't
rendered an official interpretation because I haven't been
requested to.
However, I have looked into this matter. And without
tipping my hand, knowing that a request for an interpretation is
forthcoming, I think I'd like to say, however, for the record that
as we establish and adopt standards within the district, the
presumption is that those standards reflect the purpose and
intent of that district.
It would only make sense. Otherwise we would have to
check every single project against some proposed lack of
meeting the character intent of the district.
Having said that, however, we understand that in this case
we may not have succeeded. That's why I think the Board
directed that we at an overlay and also why the Board changed
the height restriction in the last LDC round.
I will look at those issues very carefully through the
interpretation process, but I wanted to respond to your question
about tolling any future improvements on that property.
I think that technically while a request for an interpretation
is in place, the tolling does not come into play until there is an
appeal of that interpretation. However, I will look at that as well
and determine whether or not it does.
There is one other option, I think, that the Goodland Civic
Association and the property owners down there, having
submitted an appeal, may have the ability to request an
injunction on any -- and I'm not an attorney, so I'll defer to
somebody who has a better legal mind than mine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it sounds like that the
instruction to staff-- and that's where we're supposed to be
today on a public petition -- is to get the mind of the Board. It
sounds to me like the mind of the Board is, we want to go as far
as we legally can to help preserve the village character of
Goodland.
I think -- and somebody will, always do, correct me when I'm
wrong. I think we agree that this is something we would like not
Page 34
August 1, 2000
to see, while we're not willing to do a taking of the property to
keep that from happening.
So our instructions to our staff and lawyers are to be
creative and tell us how we can -- how can we accomplish our
goal?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would say, I think what we're
looking at is direction to the County Attorney's Office from the
Board. A request for interpretation to our staff needs to come
from the Goodland Civic Association, which I'm sure you'll do
today.
MS. FULLMER: We have done. I did do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think you have to pay a fee.
MS. FULLMER: Oh.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There is a mechanism. It's called
a check.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If Mr. Weigel feels in order to
meet a legal burden we need to have a special meeting at the
end of August as opposed to waiting until the second week in
September, we can certainly do that.
We don't want to interfere with the private property rights in
the meantime of the owner. So whatever time burden we need to
meet, I don't have any objection to meeting whenever we need to
meet to make sure we do that. I assume the rest of the Board -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I won't be here, but does that
require a formal vote or majority --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if there were to be a declaration of
emergency, it requires an absolute.majority. I don't know that
we've reached that particular--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A unanimous vote.
MR. WEIGEL: Unanimous vote, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We may have to participate
telephonically, some of us.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's going to be very, very, very
long distance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's -- we don't know that,
whether we're going to have to do that early or not. Let's
address that issue if it comes about.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I know that the county manager
brought to your attention that in kind of an untoward situation, a
couple of other persons signed on to speak on a public petition,
Page 35
August 1, 2000
which obviously is contrary to the norm.
But what I'll just say that may provide some assurance to
them is, I see nothing that you've directed in regard to staff and
its investigation, its reporting back, its interpretation that affects
the private property rights of any parcel down there at the
present time.
And so from that standpoint, it's purely investigative. We're
going to come back and report back to our client, the Board.
Work with whoever comes to us from the public or homeowner
associations, what have you, civic association.
But I see nothing that has been directed from the Board
today that affects any person's property rights down there that
are already in the process or subject to being in the process in
the future. The Board has taken no action in that regard.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there are any timing issues,
Ms. Giovanovich, please share that with staff and we'll deal with
that appropriately as well. We're not going to get into a long
debate.
Commissioner Brandt, and then we'll wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have just one comment to make
in total support of what has been said up here, preserve the
character of the Goodland area.
And as requested earlier, and I would like to re-emphasize,
don't miss any opportunity -- and I expect you to be creative and
exhaustive in looking for ways to preserve this.
If it requires a moratorium and if we can reach that higher
bar, then I'm prepared to do that. But again, as we have
requested, let us know what we can legally do and what is
practicable to preserve this character of the community. Thank
you.
GHAIRMAN GONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, are you clear on the
direction from the Board?
MR. WEIGEL: I certainly am.
GHAIRMAN GONSTANTINE: Mr. Mulhere, you're clear where
we're headed? Obviously you're still going to need to get a
request from Goodland, but you're clear on where the Board is on
this?
MR. Mulhere: Yes, sir.
MS. FULLMER: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I
Page 36
August 1, 2000
too would like to preserve the character of Goodland. And also,
I've also been interested in some other areas in the county which
we have spoken about at other meetings regarding the
Chokoloskee area and certainly out in the Immokalee area.
Having said that, I would come up short of wanting to
impose the seriousness of a moratorium in Collier County. I think
that's a very, very serious action. I don't think it's one to be
taken lightly.
I know that term is thrown around quite loosely by people
who dislike something regarding whether it's traffic or what
other issues from time to time.
But a moratorium is extremely serious business and you
don't go into that lightly, just saying, "1 just don't like a project. I
think you ought to declare a moratorium." CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You just don't do that because
there are some very, very serious consequences when you do
that. So I just caution the Board that whatever else we can do,
I'm all for it, but I think that's an extremely serious step to take.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the issue here is the
legal definition of VR and that's going to be the crux of the whole
thing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
Item #7B
STAFF REQUESTED TO REVIEW REQUEST AND PLACE ON
FUTURE AGENDA REGARDING FUNDING TO DESIGNATE
EVERGLADES CITY HALL AS A HISTORICAL PRESERVATION SITE
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Speaking of communities with
great character, we have Mayor Sam Hamilton joining us from
Everglades City this morning with a petition as well. Good
morning.
MR. HAMILTON: Thank you. For the record, my name is
Sammy Hamilton, mayor of Everglades City. I want to thank you,
Chairman and the Board here, for inviting me here this morning.
Also Tom Olliff, the county manager. I haven't had a chance to
meet with you, but I have something here for you. I think you
have a letter from me, probably a packet, as to why I'm here.
Page 37
August 1, 2000
Also, I'd like to introduce Chuck Mohlke, our city consultant.
We can't do without him. I have to carry him around with me to
help me out and bail me out here.
But you know what we're here for is, I've been working with
Senator Geller and Jennifer James, who worked very hard as an
aide and found us a grant like a matching grant, 30/30, and that
would kind of help us to help kind of save the foundation of the
city hall.
Which Tom Olliff, the manager here, will have a couple disks
to show all underneath and a letter also how the foundation
looks. And by the way, part of the building, which the county is
using -- it has the library and all in there -- part of that is in pretty
good shape.
The other part is what is really in real bad shape, which
would overall hurt the whole building. So we're here asking for
all the help that we can get in matching funds.
I'd like to let Chuck Mohlke come in and help out a little bit.
MR. MOHLKE: If it please this honorable commission, thank
you, Chairman, for recognizing us. What we're talking about
here, members of the Board, is an opportunity for Everglades City
to make a forthcoming application for what the Florida
Department of State refers to as an acquisition and development
grant.
Essentially the modest amount of money, $60,000, that we'll
be requesting is to make an assessment of the integrity of the
building.
As Mayor Hamilton has already cited, four of your
constitutional officers, in addition to your Public Services
Department, are housed in a part of the building that Mayor
Hamilton alluded to just briefly.
Your clerk of courts provides three basic functions at the
facility that is now also the county library extension. Your tax
collector provides two basic functions. The property appraiser,
one basic function. And the supervisor of elections another.
To protect the integrity of the entire building built 75 years
ago and added to, in terms of the component that the Board and
the constitutional officers utilize, added 50 years ago. A
fundamental reassessment has to be made of the building itself.
I need to emphasize to the Board, there are no plans for that
building that are extant, thanks to Hurricane Donna 40 years ago.
Page 38
August t, 2000
And the transition carefully covering the existing archives that
have been conducted by both the Barron Collier family and
Collier Enterprises, they cannot discover any extant plans.
So we have to work under a certain set of assumptions that
absent of the ability to assess the integrity of the building and to
determine how functional the shell remains, along with the very
basic problem of flood proofing the base, something that Mayor
Hamilton has brought to the community's attention for several
years, we need to find a way to -- using the grant funds that are
available to begin this process.
I'm going to divert the discussion just very briefly, members
of the Board, if I may. Since Hurricane Andrew in August of
1992, Everglades City, we are pleased to report, has been the
recipient of, when all the dollars flow for the last phase of the
underground collection system for wastewater, will have been
the recipient of $13.2 million.
These are all state and federal dollars -- no county dollars --
that have gone into completely rehabilitating the infrastructure
of the community.
And with many thanks to Commissioner Berry and her
predecessors, there has always been that support on behalf of
you as Board members indicating county commitment to redoing
the roadway system, providing storm water management, to
completely rehabilitating a wastewater treatment plan, to
putting in a potable water system, complete with telemetry so
that we can manage the flow of water to the community; and
finally to rebuild the underground collection system.
In every one of these there has been some form of a match
required from Everglades City. Either an in-kind grant or in the
case of the water conservation system phase two, which we just
have completed, it required an $87,000 local match.
The city's ability to provide $30,000 in terms of a match is
limited. But we are now in the process of looking at phases two
and three of the building's rehabilitation that may permit us to
commingle some dollars from state and federal agencies in a
rather creative way, which will help with basically renovating the
building, improving the shell, stabilizing and flood proofing the
base.
But we are hopeful that in the presentation which we will
present in more detailed form to Manager Olliff, we are hopeful
Page 39
August 1, 2000
that you will be informed by the materials which he now has in
his possession and will be able to give favorable consideration to
assisting Everglades City in this regard.
$30,000 for the maintenance and the care of an important
facility that provides services for four constitutional officers and
your public services library division seems to me to be a modest
commitment on the part of the Board to preserve what is Collier
County's second oldest historic structure.
So we're very hopeful that you'll give consideration to this
and we will -- we stand here available to provide any information
to staff and to give you whatever documentation you need.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mohlke, is there a time line
on the grant application process?
MR. MOHLKE: We will begin the grant application process,
as the mayor will tell you, on the 31st of August. Basically what
we're doing is making an initial submission. We have that
submission in hand. There is no need for any action by the
Board, in our view, prior to the time that you meet on September
12th.
We would like to, if we have your agreement, and in
cooperation with staff, to be agendaed in whatever manner the
manager tells us we need to be agendaed and to provide
whatever level of information you believe you need.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think that's a fair request. If
we can have our staff look at this in detail and get all the
information you have and have it presented as a regular agenda
item, I can't see a downside of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a wonderful idea.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have any problem with it.
I just always think that when we do something with a city, a city,
we've got three cities that we must consider in Collier County so
we have to have a uniform policy.
So that where all those wanting to do something for a
particular group don't say -- two other cities are going to be in
here and saying, "Well, if you did it for this one, we want this."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, I think--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Whatever we need to do, we need
to do that in a way that's uniform.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This could be an example of
where we do that for Everglades City, as we have done, we
Page 40
August 1, 2000
approved two historical site grants of tourist tax money for the
two other cities in the county just this year with matching
requirements; Wilkinson House and Marco's Historic Preservation
Group.
I don't see how anybody can come close to having a building
as important as this one in this county that needs to be
preserved. I'm going to be fighting to see that happen all along
the way. I support it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Don't misinterpret me. I want it
to happen.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We just want to have a
consistent policy.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want to have a consistent policy
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: In addition to that, I would like to
look a little farther downstream once this is taken care of, what
is the ongoing care and feeding that is going to be needed and
what might you come back to the county for beyond that? So I'd
like to understand what that is.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, do you understand the
direction?
MS. TAYLOR: I do. We'll bring back -- in each of these cases
we generally develop a funding agreement between -- an
interlocal agreement between the city and the county. And I
think we probably have enough direction to develop a similar
type funding agreement for the September 12th meeting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mayor.
MR. HAMILTON: Thank you. I just want to say one other
thing. When you're talking about Hurricane Donna, I don't want
to say how old I am or anything, but I was there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You and the building survived
Hurricane Donna.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's 10:31.
seven-minute break for the court reporter.
in ten minutes.
(Brief recess.}
We'll take our
We'll come right back
Item #8A1
Page
August 1, 2000
BUDGET AND WORK PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING THE IMMOKALEE
HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're back.
The next item will be item 8-A-1, recommendation to approve
the budget and work plan for implementing the Immokalee
housing initiative program.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Commissioners. Vince
Cautero for the record.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a motion to approve this
item?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would make that motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Some people fight to get to make
the motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion from
Commissioner Berry, there's a second from Commissioner Carter.
Do we have speakers on this item?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. I'm sorry, you do, one speaker, Barbara
Cacchione.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do they want to talk us out of it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's waiving.
MR. OLLIFF: She's waiving.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Miss Cacchione has waived her
speaking on that. We will go with the motion.
All those in favor, please state aye.
(Aye.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody opposed?
Motion carries 5/0.
Item #8A2
REPORT ACCEPTED ON STATUS OF FIRE PLAN REVIEW
FUNCTION
A fire plan review function, do we have a motion to accept that
report?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I make a motion we accept the
report.
Page 42
August 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
Discussion on that?
Do we have public speakers on that?
MR. OLLIFF: You do. You have one public speaker. It's David
Ellis.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: While David's coming up, just to go
back to the one we just approved for Immokalee. The only thing I
would request is if we could have quarterly reports on that.
MR. CAUTERO: Certainly. Vince Cautero for the record. Yes,
sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ellis, hi.
MR. ELLIS: I'm David Ellis with the Collier Building Industry
Association.
Just real briefly as it relates to this and I appreciate -- sounds
like you're going to move ahead with the approval. We have been
working, the CBIA and the folks from the fire district as well as
the folks from Vince's office, we have been working together
really looking at the issues, taking apart the fire review process
and trying to find some improvements. We've already found
some internal things that can be done -- as well as now we have
really moved from the fire review process. Of course, one of the
things we have recommended in the fire district is moving ahead
with the -- with real expediency is hiring a new plan reviewer for
that. They actually had an empty position, which will solve a lot
of the problems and they're actually looking at some ways
creatively with funding to even fund a third plan reviewer, which
will solve a lot of issues.
Also, we're now looking at the inspection process and how
the inspections are done and looking at ways to unify some of
the -- the interpretations in the field. And we're coming up with
some creative things as well we may be back to you with in the
future.
Again, I just wanted to say that as an industry I guess we're
not where we want to be yet, but we're getting there and we feel
comfortable with the process. Anyway, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Only comment I have, I am glad that
Page 43
August t, 2000
everyone's working together, but I will tell you, I am hearing the
nightmare stories of individuals who are waiting and waiting and
waiting in terms of getting the necessary approvemerits that
they need based on -- and the big -- the big one has to do with
this fire inspection is part of it and then, of course, the review of
the plans is the other part of it.
But it seems like there is a -- there's a -- it's not coordinated
from the standpoint of the fire districts or the fire departments
are looking at one thing and the plans, apparently what we're
requiring is another.
And the frustration that the individuals are going through,
they're jumping all the hoops to meet one group, and yet when it
comes time for the fire inspection, the fire departments or
whoever are doing this are coming in, they're requiring
something else.
And there's a great deal of frustration out there plus just the
lack of time to get the things done in a timely manner.
So I hope that this can be addressed and I hope that we can
expedite this in some way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion and a second
to accept the status report on the fire plan review. Any further
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Aye.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody opposed?
Motion carries 5/0.
Item #8A4
AMENDMENT TO THE IMPACT FEE UPDATE AGREEMENT WITH
TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC - APPROVED
That takes us to item 8-A-4. This item is to be heard with
12-C-1. Do we want to do both of those now or both of those
under 12-C-17
Has 12-C-1 been continued?
MR. OLLIFF: 12-C-1 was continued to the 12th.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are we still going to hear this
item?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
Page 44
August t, 2000
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this item will no longer
be heard in conjunction with 12-C-17 MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve item 8-A-4 to
amend, in effect, the agreement with Tindale-Oliver. You're just
going -- I mean all this is doing is letting them hire Tindale-Oliver
to go forward and do some research that we've asked them to
do.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. That's correct,
Commissioner and Mr. Chairman. This is part and parcel with an
executive summary Mr. Olliff brought to you on June 13th asking
for a management audit of our impact fee collection and
procedure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
please state aye. (Aye.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Motion carries 5/0.
Public speakers?
All those in favor of the motion,
Anybody opposed?
Item #8Bt
STAFF DIRECTED TO SOLICIT COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS FOR
CONTRACT MANAGER SERVICES FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION AND AGREEMENT WITH SEVERN TRENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIXTY
DAY PERIOD TO BE EXTENDED
8-B-1 is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners direct staff to solicit proposals for contract
manager services for Pelican Bay Services Division.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I might quickly on the record
note that I have to abstain on this matter because I do some
work in Lee County for the current contract manager, so just in
an abundance of caution I'm going to abstain from voting on this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like to move the item.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
Page 45
August 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir, there are no speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye.
(Aye.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody opposed?
Motion carries 4/0 with one abstention.
Thank you, Mr. Parnell, excellent presentation.
Mr. Olliff, we had another item that related to Pelican Bay.
Item #8B6
RESOLUTION 2000/259 SETTING THE DATE FOR SEPTEMBER 13,
2000 AT 7:00 P.M. AT PELICAN BAY FOR APPROVING THE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT) TO BE
LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR
MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM,
BEAUTIFICATION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND MEDIAN
AREAS, AND MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE
AREAS, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE
AREAS, U.S. 41 BERMS, STREET SIGNAGE REPLACEMENTS
WITHIN THE MEDIAN AREAS AND LANDSCAPING
IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 41 ENTRANCES, ALL WITHIN THE
PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT-
ADOPTED
MR. OLLIFF: We did. To accommodate Mr. Ward, who is with
Pelican Bay Services District, he has requested that the item
that was added to your agenda regarding -- the regular agenda,
from 16-B-9, which became 8-B-6, the Pelican Bay budget hearing
date, be heard now, and it's really just a decision on the part of
the board. The current schedule for that, what is typically a
county commission budget hearing for the specific Pelican Bay
Services District is scheduled for September 14th. And there is
apparently some conflicts with some of the commissioners'
calendars and perhaps we're just trying to pick a better date.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, you had
Page 46
August 1, 2000
raised a question.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I did. And I think this might
concern Mr. Olliff because I believe he is a member of the New
Leadership Collier class.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe that night is the kickoff for
the Leadership Collier. MR. OLLIFF: It is.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And as a former Leadership Collier
person, I will be attending that kickoff as I try to do every year
for the new class. And I am wondering --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What time in the evening is this
regularly scheduled, is it seven?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, it's usually at six o'clock. Well,
this particular thing is usually six. I think they're an item down --
now there's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you think we'll be done by six
forty-five and we can all go on over to the leadership fire
function? Isn't this usually a short meeting at Pelican Bay?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Traditionally, if I remember, this is
a very short meeting. Although last year we did the -- we were
out in each district doing a town hall, that's why it was longer.
But the actual meeting for the budget approval for Pelican Bay is
like a fifteen minute situation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion. If
Commissioner Berry is not comfortable, I don't care if we do it a
different day. It can't really make that big of a difference.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's why I looked on the calendar
and said what about the day before, is there a big hassle with
that?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What about either one of-- the
day before. Let me ask if we can do it at 7:00 p.m. as opposed to
6:00 p.m.?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, that would help.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've always wondered why it's six.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're meeting --we're meeting
September 12th anyways as a board. We can either do it the
night of the t2th or we can do it the night of the 13th. Does
anybody have a conflict --
Page 47
August t, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't care.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Either one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it a problem for the foundation?
MR. WARD: The 13th actually would be a better night for me
personally. I will be in Miami the night of the 12th. For your
record, Jim Ward, Pelican Bay Services.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to making it the
13th at 7:00 p.m.?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Not here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Consider it done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big decisions made today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That ranks right up there with
National Clown Week. Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Item #8B2
RESOLUTION 2000-260 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISTION BY
CONDEMNATION OF NON-EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL SIDEWALK,
LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD SIDEWALK RELOCATION AND LANDSCAPING
PROJECT BETWEEN HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE AND U.S 41 -
ADOPTED
That takes us back to 8-B-2, adopt a resolution authorizing
the acquisition of Vanderbilt Beach Road sidewalks. Hi, Mr. Kant.
MR. KANT: Good morning, commissioners, Edward Kant,
transportation services division.
This is a request for an eminent domain resolution. This is for
some sidewalk easements in the Vanderbilt Beach Road
segment. We have reviewed alternative locations including the
environmental factors, cost variables, safety and welfare
considerations as they relate to the project and we are advising
you that based on these factors and after reviewing these
factors, that the most feasible location for the project is as
described in the attached Exhibit A of the resolution.
So we request that you approve the resolution for --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
Page 48
August 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Mr. Olliff, do we have any speakers on this item?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We do not. Is there any further
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Aye.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody opposed?
Motion carries 5/0. Thank you.
Item #8B3
CONSULTANT'S REPORT ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THE
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT FOR A ROADWAY FROM RADIO ROAD TO
DAVIS BOULEVARD - STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH
CONSULTANT TO DETERMINE LONG-RANGE EFFECT OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION ON AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD; TO
BE BROUGHT TO THE MPO AND BACK TO THE BCC
8-B-3, consultant's report on the traffic analysis for proposed
alignment for the roadway from Radio Road to Davis.
I'm just going to preface the discussion here. This is either
the Moonlight Road, the Foxfire Road, the no road, whatever the
variables will be.
We had talked about the FPL easement as one opportunity
earlier, and I will say the board had kind of lukewarm support for
that after we found certain things out. It appears, and we're
going to hear this in a minute if this is the case, but while the
roadway itself wouldn't require the taking of any property, the
FPL lines and all that go with that would.
I for one, if we have to take one home, don't have any interest
in that. And that's consistent with what they have said on any
number of projects. I'm not comfortable doing that just to
accommodate another neighborhood. We don't want to destroy
one neighborhood for the benefit of another.
So I know we have talked about that as an option. I think our
discussions in the past on that FPL option anyway have been, for
me anyway, have been contingent on the fact we weren't going
to be taking homes in order to do it.
Page 49
August 1, 2000
So let's go ahead and get the staff report on it, but I wanted to
preface it with that one comment.
MR. KANT: Thank you, commissioners. Again, Edward Kant
for the record.
In March we entered into agreement with Tindale-Oliver and
Associates to perform a traffic analysis on the proposed, what
we're calling I guess for lack of a better term the FP&L road
between Radio Road and Davis Boulevard. And as part of that
analysis and pursuant to further board direction, we looked at a
total of four alternatives which I am going to ask our consultant
to present to you.
We looked at a no-build alternative. We looked at the
so-called FP&L alternative. We also had to look, in order to fully
analyze the traffic impacts, at an alternative which would extend
the existing Livingston Road corridor due south along what might
be called the old or former alignment of the Livingston Road
corridor. We looked at that as both a two-lane and a four-lane,
because the FP&L road would have been constrained to a
two-lane whereas the -- a proposed Livingston Road extension
would have an opportunity to go to two, four, or potentially even
a six-lane if necessary.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have any pictures? I just
have trouble keeping --
MR. KANT: Without any further discussion on my part, I would
like to present Mr. William Oliver from Tindale-Oliver and
Associates and he's going to walk you through the analysis and
the recommendations and conclusions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And he's got pictures?
MR. KANT: He has pictures.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the good news. It's hard
keeping these routes in my head.
MR. OLIVER: Thank you very much. My name's Bill Oliver.
I'm senior vice-president with Tindale-Oliver and Associates in
Tampa. As Mr. Kant indicated, we were retained to review traffic
circulation issues related to alternative corridors.
We basically looked at a study area in southern Collier
County, highlighted there by -- or highlighted there in green. You
can see there on the map the heavily emphasized east/west
roads. To the north is Radio Road and to the south is Davis
Boulevard, State Road 84.
Page 50
August 1, 2000
Traffic circulation in this area in the near future will be
somewhat influenced by significant roadway improvements or
roadway improvements we perceive as significant. Included in
that are the construction of the new Livingston Road corridor,
which will begin at Radio Road, continue northward throughout
Collier County and link with roads in Lee County.
The second improvement that's coming down the line in the
near future is the new interchange on Golden Gate Parkway at
1-75.
These two road improvements will cause some serious
changes in traffic patterns in the area. And so to address -- to be
able to address those changes in patterns, we applied the MPO's
transportation planning model to our study to help us with our
traffic forecasts.
This graphic is a more -- a closer look at the study area. The
roads that are -- the roads that are shown in green there include
Airport Road on the western side, Santa Barbara Boulevard at
the far eastern side of the screen. North is upwards, east is
right, sorry.
Again, the two major east/west roads you see there, Radio
Road and Davis Boulevard. The airport you can see on the west
edge, the government center down at the -- toward the south at
the intersection of Airport Road and U.S. 41, which is that
diagonal road in the bottom left corner.
The FP&L corridor, I guess as you can tell by that graphic,
there are no really viable connections between Davis Boulevard
and Radio Road, between Airport Road on the west and Santa
Barbara on the east, no existing viable corridors.
The FP&L corridor is located almost exactly in between,
which is that line that I just displayed in yellow.
Livingston Road, the Livingston Road corridor is there
iljustrated in red. We tested the Livingston Road corridor both as
a two-lane road and as a four-lane road. The FP&L corridor we
tested in the model in process as a two-lane road.
To give a little bit of background on traffic growth trends, this
graph iljustrates the historical traffic counts on Airport Road just
north of Davis Boulevard. The red -- the red dots basically
represent counts, and I can't see the years because it's too small
and I don't have a display here, but basically for about the past
ten to twelve years you can see that traffic growth has grown at
Page 5t
August t, 2000
a fairly steady pace over those years. If you were to continue
the historical trend line, which is the green line, traffic volumes
will continue to increase and somewhere in the future, after the
range of that graph, which I believe goes to about 2007, 2008,
the capacity of this section of Airport Road will be exceeded.
In other words, right now the capacity of the section of
Airport Road between Davis Boulevard and Radio Road is not
exceeded. It operates fairly well. More severe congestion you
know exists in the section north of Radio Road, between Radio
and Golden Gate Parkway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you, when you're talking
about the past year, are you talking about the adopted LOS
capacity?
MR. OLIVER: This actually -- this -- the horizontal line is
actually the physical capacity of the road. The level of service
capacity is fairly close to that line. I haven't tested that, but I
believe it's fairly close to that line. You can maintain a pretty
good level of service almost out to physical capacity.
The -- the blue triangle, however, represents the traffic growth
that would be forecasted by the traffic model. You can see that
in 2004, it is just above that physical capacity line. The
implication or the explanation for a substantial part of that I
believe is the introduction of the new roadways, the Livingston
corridor, the Golden Gate Parkway interchange, which we
believe will introduce additional traffic into this network thus
causing that faster than historical rate of growth. Now, whether
that actually happens in 2004 or maybe a few years after that is
yet to be seen. But I think it indicates that not imminently but in
the foreseeable future the capacity of this section of Airport
Road will probably be tested if not exceeded.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm sorry, but I want to be sure
I understand. What this graph tells us is that even though the
green line of historical traffic increases, you're telling us that
modeling indicates that's not accurate, that the blue triangle is
what we should really expect in 2004 because of other changes
in the traffic system?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct, because of the highway network
changes.
As a matter of personal opinion, it may happen by 2004, that
quickly, it may take a few more years for those traffic patterns to
Page 52
August 1, 2000
develop after those roads come on line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just if you have questions along
the way, I would ask that each commissioner jot them down and
we'll try to do those at the conclusion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do that as much as I can, but if I
need to understand it to get it to the next point.
MR. OLIVER: This graphic iljustrates the future year projected
daily traffic volumes on the various roads. And there's a whole
lot of numbers there to absorb.
Let me just point a couple -- well, there's two trends. The first
trend is basically that as we tested each alternative, the first
alternative being the FP&L corridor, the second alternative being
Livingston as a two-lane road and the last alternative being
Livingston as a four-lane road, as we progressed through -- as we
moved through that progression, the degree of relief provided to
Airport Road increases.
In other words, in the first -- in the first alternative tested, the
FP&L corridor is further east. It's not as attractive an alternative
route. As you move that corridor back to the west, it's more
attractive to that same corridor of travel. And as you improve it
to a four-lane road, even more benefit occurs for Airport Road.
The second thing is that if you were to draw a cordon line or a
cut line from east to west all the way from Airport Road across
to Santa Barbara Boulevard, as -- the total traffic volume seeking
to move between the two roads also increases as you progress
through those alternatives. And the reason for that is that as you
make the area -- I guess as you make the areas off of Airport
Road -- I'm sorry, off of Radio Road more accessible to areas off
of Davis Boulevard, it becomes more attractive for travel.
In other words, if I lived in a subdivision off of Lakewood
Boulevard to the south of Davis Boulevard, I might do most of my
grocery shopping along U.S. 4t. However, with a more attractive
corridor connecting Davis Boulevard to Radio Road, I might find
it preferable now to go to the north to find places to shop.
So as the quality of that access improves, the travel demand
also increases through that corridor.
This next graphic portrays levels of service or the speed on
each arterial road segment. Again, a lot of numbers there to
absorb, however, the trend is similar to the trend we saw in the
Page 53
August t, 2000
traffic volumes. As we progress through the different
alternatives, if you look on the western side of the graphic, the
speeds on the section of Airport Road between Davis Boulevard
and Radio Road increase as you progress through those
alternatives, thus indicating better and better levels of service
being provided. This is essentially the same trend that we saw in
the traffic volumes, which is comforting to us.
We also reviewed where each of these corridors might
connect to Davis Boulevard. The upper graphic iljustrates the
location where the Livingston corridor would connect and the
lower graphic here iljustrates the location where the FP&L
corridor might connect.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To what?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: To what?
MR. OLIVER: To Davis Boulevard. What this -- what the
graphic iljustrates is the presence of adjacent driveways and
median cuts within Davis Boulevard.
In the graphic in the upper half of your screen, which is the
Livingston corridor connection, you can see that there are no --
virtually no driveway connections on the north side of Davis
Boulevard for upwards of a thousand feet in each direction.
On the south side there are connections, however, these
connections serve relatively small developments. In the case of
Livingston Boulevard, the corridor would connect almost directly
opposite the East Naples Fire and Rescue station. That driveway
is currently served by a traffic signal. It could continue to be
served and probably benefit from a fully functioning traffic signal.
The other driveway -- the other driveway immediately to the
east of East Naples Fire and Rescue is the Florida maintenance
office, which again is an individual parcel user, not an entire
subdivision. Again, they would probably be affected in terms of
losing left turn in and left turn out, and some alternative means
of access might need to be provided to them through perhaps the
East Naples Fire and Rescue station.
In contrast, the FP&L corridor connects immediately adjacent
to several subdivisions. Traffic signal -- existing traffic signal at
King's Way Boulevard is within about nine hundred feet of the
proposed connection, which would be in conflict with the Florida
DOT's access management standards, and access to existing
subdivisions immediately east of that connection would also be
Page 54
August 1, 2000
significantly affected, losing left turns in or out of each of those
parcels.
So the FP&L corridor has more significant impacts on existing
access at least to existing subdivisions.
We also looked at how traffic might flow perhaps from a
longer term perspective. Right now as you're developing the
Livingston Road corridor, traffic which travels south and comes
down to Radio Road, if their intention is to come around the
south side of the airport and head towards downtown Naples,
they must use Airport Road. There's really no alternative.
So you're -- in the current configuration of roads, you're
forcing a lot of reliance on the section of Airport Road between
Davis Boulevard and Radio Road.
The FP&L corridor and either the two or four-lane -- I'm sorry,
the Livingston Road extension in either a two or four-lane
configuration would provide an alternative route, again relieving
Airport -- Airport Road.
The FP&L corridor would introduce some out of direction
travel, which involves more turning movements at various
intersections. Again, it would result in less convenience to the
traveling public.
Our recommendation in light of what we have seen in this
area is to construct the Livingston Road extension, construct it
either initially as a two-lane road or a four-lane road. They will
both serve effectively. We think inevitably in the longer term
future four lanes at least will be required.
There's -- we have listed the advantages in this slide which
you can read. There's one disadvantage, and I neglected to
mention that earlier. Lakewood Boulevard to the south of Davis
Boulevard is a road that is potentially affected. It's a two-lane
collector roadway which is fronted primarily by residential uses,
links from Davis Boulevard down to U.S. 41. The county has
taken measures to manage traffic along that corridor by putting
up traffic management devices, speed bumps, that type of
treatment, however, these corridors -- extending these corridors
has the potential to increase traffic on Lakewood Boulevard.
We tested it by applying the transportation planning model.
That planning model suggests that the FP&L corridor has the
potential to increase traffic volumes on Lakewood Boulevard --
on Lakewood Boulevard by about five hundred cars a day. The
Page 55
August 1, 2000
Livingston Road corridor has the potential to increase traffic
volumes as a -- in a four-lane configuration on Livingston up to
about thirteen hundred cars a day. Current traffic volumes are
about seventy-five hundred cars a day, so you would see
increases from seventy-five hundred up to perhaps eighty-eight
hundred cars a day.
But our recommendation is I think from a long-term value
perspective to Collier County that the Livingston corridor be
extended to promote the regional continuity of the network,
relieve Airport Road and still provide effective circulation for
local travel needs as well.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Couple of questions for you. One,
has any conversation taken place with the East Naples Fire and
Rescue on what impact having a major intersection in front of
their facility would have? Is that a good thing, a bad thing?
MR. KANT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's probably an important
piece of the puzzle, that we would have a negative impact, it
might not, but if it had a negative impact, that would be a part of
it.
Second one is, as part of this study, I know the city of Naples
is entertaining the idea of a Gordon River bridge, access to North
Road and then dead-ending on Airport Road. The county has had
conversations repeatedly that that doesn't make a whole lot of
sense from a transportation standpoint to just let traffic onto
Airport Road and let it go north and south, for some of the
reasons that have been outlined here as far as straining Airport
Road. We talked, not in any detail, but about the potential of
longer term connecting Livingston with a potential Gordon River
bridge/North Road access.
Was that considered as part of this study at all?
MR. KANT: No, sir, that was not part of this assignment. This
was very specific, based on the Board's specific direction.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And where I'm going with that is
is this something we probably should be looking at, because if --
one of the most important points I thought made out of that is if
somebody is trying to get into the City of Naples right now, they
have to use Airport Road, they have no choice, but it does put
the demand. If they're coming and going on Livingston, they still
need to get over there.
Page 56
August 1, 2000
If there is another Gordon River bridge five years from now,
some relatively short time frame, that changes the formula here
dramatically because you don't have to go down to go to Davis or
go to 41 to get into the city. It may be a third alternative, still not
necessarily a pleasant one, but a third alternative where you're
going to connect the south end of Livingston or the Radio Road
intersection of Livingston over to North Road in some way, shape
or manner to get traffic across. That may prove ultimately to be
a more effective tool, getting traffic off Airport Road.
I don't know, and until we have somebody look at it, we
probably won't know, but that seems like that would be an
important piece of this puzzle.
MR. KANT: Yeah, I think you're correct, Commissioner, and I
might remind the Board that right now as you look at the
long-range plan, that connector from Livingston, the long-range
plan, there's nothing I don't think in your packet today that
shows that, but if you go back to the long-range transportation
plan, there is a connector shown with a potential future Gordon
River bridge as part of the long-range network. And obviously if
there are any changes to that network, that would require us to
revisit those issues.
And I might also point out to you that if you look at the
recommendation staff is making today, we are not suggesting
that we go into a construction program here. We're merely
suggesting that the long-range plan be amended. If you see fit to
do so, to take this link that the consultant is recommending,
which is the southerly extension of Livingston, and put it back on
the network as a potential future roadway.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think clearly, from the
information we have, that Livingston is the more reasonable
extension. I didn't hear anything about its impact on residences.
Are there any?
MR. KANT: Yes, there are. I would like to let Mr. Oliver finish.
He had one more slide. He's going to talk about residences and
some basic costs.
Before he does, I want to reiterate that the cost figures that
you're going to see do not necessarily include the universe of
costs. They include what we believe are reasonable costs to
compare alternatives. There are obviously -- depending on
Page 57
August t, 2000
routing, there are other considerations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- Then I have another question, but
after this slide.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
MR. OLIVER: Perhaps the best thing to do is to display this
slide which compares various costs of each alternative, the
FP&L corridor in the first column, the Livingston Road corridor.
This comparison looks both at costs and also kind of summarizes
some of the impacts on residential properties there in terms of
the number of parcels affected.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The line that says residences
affected, nine homes on one, twenty-four condos, seven homes,
which would be thirty-one homes on the other, are those costs
reflected in the land acquisition or not?
MR. KANT: Yes, they are, but what is not reflected as is
pointed out at the bottom of the slide is that there may be a
number of other cost issues such as severance damages,
relocation expenses. There -- as I said, there's an entire universe
of costs which are very, very difficult to quantify given the
limited scope of this study. But in terms of trying to determine is
it -- are these relatively speaking comparable alternatives, and I
think if you look at the bottom line that we have presented where
one shows about not quite ten million and the other one shows
not quite ten million, then you add in these other costs, it's still a
significant cost, but the basic project in either -- either way
would have similar effects.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, follow-up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a general question, and I
don't even know to whom to address it. I guess Mr. Olliff. We
find ourselves in this discussion because of the closure of
Foxfire. That was the instigator for this discussion. (Applause from the audience.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This may be a very good -- well, let
me finish what I've got to say. We find ourselves there -- this is
the instigator. Still -- Livingston extension may still be a good
road to build. It may still be something that the system needs.
But I find myself looking at two things. One is we're talking
about with this solution to a problem increasing to eighty-eight
hundred cars on Lakewood. And my question was what was the
number in Foxfire that caused us to think that ought to be gated
Page 58
August 1, 2000
and closed? Was it in the neighborhood of eighty-eight hundred?
MR. KANT: I don't remember.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I can tell you numbers. It was -- it
was measuring now at close to seven thousand. It was projected
(Voices from the audience.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I tell you I have heard this several
times. I don't mind if you-all have signed up. You'll have an
opportunity to speak, but we're not going to have heckling from
the crowd.
The number was in the six to seven thousand -- I think it was
-- sixty-seven hundred was roughly the number. There were
projections through upon the opening of Livingston that that
could go as high as ten thousand and beyond. And that's where
some of the concerns came in. Obviously, we don't want to turn
around and do that to another neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To Lakewood, right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The concern here also becomes --
I'm sure where you're going with this, but the suggestion is we'll
take the gates down, then when Livingston opens, you are going
to increase that number right back up again. So it doesn't solve
the problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no. Let me finish -- I
appreciate you knowing the answer to the question, but let me
just finish asking my -- my question and that is, again, Livingston
-- Livingston essentially may be the right thing to do for an
overall transportation system, but if this is, in fact, a solution to
a problem that we caused by the closing of Foxfire, has anybody
done the math on what it would cost to, as you say, Tim, take
the gates down, which essentially I guess at this point would
require taking of that road to revert it to public ownership?
MR. KANT: That was not part of the scope of this study nor
was that the Board's direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wonder if there's any interest on
the Board in finding out the cost of taking down the gates?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, may I --
because I have a thought in regard to this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Having looked at these numbers and
to go back and criticize years ago previous commissions, that's
Page 59
August 1, 2000
not the intent of what I am going to say, because at the time
when they approved the additional holes at Foxfire for the golf
course, perhaps they didn't have the information that we have
today because this is some, what, ten years later, twelve years
later than when that was approved or whatever.
I would like to -- I, first off, if somebody said today which one
-- you have to vote on one, which one would you vote on? And I
would probably vote on the Foxfire -- or the Livingston Road
corridor because number one, I think it makes sense. It probably
years ago should have been -- somebody should have had the
political will to say this is what we're going to do and did it. But
they didn't have the information that we have today.
We have that information today and I think that we ought to
step up to the plate and say put this on the long-range plan, with
the one consideration that when we go talk to the folks at
Foxfire, we can say to them this is what our plan is, would you
rather we proceed with this plan or would you rather take your
gates down? Would you rather lose the certain number of golf
holes or would you rather the gates come down?
But having said that, I still believe regardless of whether the
gates go or stay, I believe this roadway ought to be constructed.
I don't think it's a case of either or, but I think it does give the
residents in Foxfire, who we did listen to their concerns and took
those into consideration when we made the decision that we
made, that perhaps we give them a choice.
But at the same time I still think that this is the better way to
go. And I think somewhere along the line, if it's not -- it obviously
won't be this commission, but future commissions are going to
have to have the political will to do these and make these kinds
of decisions. This is just the beginning.
And, Tim, I know, and we all feel the same way that you do,
nobody wants to take anybody's home. When we started talking
about the extension of Santa Barbara, nobody wants to go in and
take those homes. But I am going to tell you that this is part of
the problems that future commissions are going to have to deal
with in Collier County. And it is going to take the political will, if
you're going to improve the overall transportation plan in Collier
County, somebody is going to have to have the political will to
make these kinds of decisions.
(Applause from the audience.)
Page 60
August 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I want to -- hang on for just a
minute. I want to correct some misinformation that we appear to
be pushing here. I would differ with you that the problem started
when the Foxfire issue came up. In the nineteen eighties -- in the
nineteen eighties the Timber Lake project was approved by the
then county commission, mid to late nineteen eighties, which
allowed that to be built in what had been proposed for this
Livingston Road corridor. When we talk about those condos,
those twenty-four condos, that's Timber Lake. The Board of
Commissioners from the nineteen eighties approved a project
that was in a space projected for that Livingston Road corridor.
That's when the problem began, not a year ago when some
changes were made at Foxfire.
Second, before nineteen -- I think it was 1991, and I will verify
that, but I'm reasonably sure it was 1991, was the year that that
Livingston Road extension was removed from the county plans
and did not show, in recognition of what they had done in the
eighties, putting those homes in there. Again, had nothing to do
with golf holes or anything else.
Nineteen ninety-four, and I think it actually was a couple of
hearings that may have gone into early '95, when Foxfire came
and requested a rezone to golf, that property at the time was
zoned multi-family. And that's important to remember here, one,
it no longer showed on maps as a roadway; two, the northern
portion of that already had condos; and three, if that rezone
hadn't been granted, considering the way our community has
grown, particularly the Davis Road corridor, I bet that would be
full of multi-family either apartments or condos right now.
And so that rezone was done after all those other things
happened, and the appeal to the Board of Commissioners at the
time was gee, wouldn't you rather have open green space here
instead of three hundred more homes or whatever the amount
that was allowed on that particular piece of property.
So let's keep the facts in order here. How we got to where we
are stems all the way back, almost fifteen years, I think about
thirteen years.
I think you're right. I mean, if you had to choose between
two, one of those two, clearly that Livingston Road straight down
corridor is the preferred one despite the thirty-one homes it's
going to impact. It serves the transportation public the best.
Page 6t
August 1, 2000
What I would like to see us do before we formally put that
back in, and I don't know that this would take a particularly long
time, but is put the North Road access to another Gordon River
bridge into the mix. I don't know if we need to -- and if we do,
fine, tell us, but I don't know if we need to hire an outsider to do
that or have our own MPO staff to do that, but have some sort of
analysis of how that impacts and how an alternative road
connecting to a future Gordon River bridge is going to impact
this, because if that is passed, if the city decides to go ahead or
if the city and county together decide to go ahead, that is going
to make a huge impact on what's going north and south and
whether this would be necessary at all.
It still may be, but I think that's a valid question to get the
information on before we say yes, this is absolutely it.
MR. KANT: Yes, Commissioners, as I said before, that
particular link is on the long-range plan. I would have to check
with the MPO staff. We could certainly come back to you at
some future date and give you an update on what the effect of
that is. I don't know whether they could do that or whether
again we'd have to hire that out as a work order, but we can
certainly do at least -- at least do that investigation and give you
some information and come back at perhaps one of the
September meetings.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because the real impetus for this
thing is the impact on Airport Road and how quickly it reaches
capacity if we don't do something here, but if the connection to
the proposed Gordon River bridge alters that, then we need to
have that information in front of us when we make the decision.
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think from strategic planning
purposes both of these need to be put back into the plan. And
it's not unique to Collier County. A lot of communities, it's not
the lack of planning, it's the lack of having the political will to
implement the plans that's the difficulty.
Foxfire was never a collector road. There are others that
were never designed to be collector roads. So I am not going to
sit here and flip-flop in decisions, but we've got to look at
strategic plans, long-range, and at some point in time, a
commission will have to have the political will to make some
very tough decisions on collector roads. Now why it ever got
Page 62
August 1, 2000
dropped out of there, we could say it's the sins of our fathers,
that's not the issue here.
If we take the direction today to put it back into a strategic
plan, that says we have options based on the studies, based on
what develops, that at some point in time, whether I'm a
commissioner here or whether there's other commissioners here,
they can't fault this commission for not incorporating it into a
strategic long-range plan that says at some point in time we
must do this.
And all communities have faced this. No one escapes from
not having to make some changes. No one escapes from saying
well, we're going to have to take some houses somewhere here
because the community has grown and developed to the point
that we have to make some adjustments.
The less of that we have to do, the better. I for one never
would like to have to do that. But if we have to, we have to. And
I'm not afraid to make that decision if it comes a point in time
that says this is what is good for the overall betterment of the
community. I will go on the record and say I will make that
decision because it would be the right thing to do for the good of
everything that has to do in the total development of the
community. It may not be a popular decision, but it may have to
be a right decision.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Along the same line, I too agree
that we have to look long range. And as a preference, I would
like to see the FP&L corridor just dropped out and not spend any
more time on it. And I would rather see us focus on the
Livingston Road. And it would seem to me in looking at the long
term, planning ahead, it may be better if we just bite the bullet
and make it four lane rather than start out with two lanes,
because you know in time you're going to have to get to the four
lanes.
And I too agree that we need to look at the Gordon River
bridge and the impact it has, and not the least of which are
issues associated with Lakewood Boulevard. And I don't know
how you will ultimately have to treat that, but that certainly has
to be looked at very carefully and to minimize the impact on that
community and that road as a result of what we do here.
I agree with Commissioner Carter that you have to at some
Page 63
August t, 2000
point in time make the decisions that are -- may not be popular,
but you have to bite the bullet and just do it for the betterment of
the community. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I know we will hear from
Commissioner Mac'Kie, Commissioner Berry, and then we have
one public speaker on this as well.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: One question that I have is in regard
-- oh, I'm sorry, did you say --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- I think we're all saying what
we've got to do is if we have to do one or the other, we are
looking at Livingston. The question that I'm going to continue to
dog, and I guess I'm probably not going to have to worry too
much about it because I hear about -- in the political campaign
trails all the folks who are trying to come sit up here are all
talking a lot about whether the decision was right at Foxfire and
what we ought to do about it. But this is the piece we have got
to watch and that is, if we can see that the Livingston extension
is a better choice but we see that there is fallout to a street that
was not designed to serve as a collector, just like Foxfire wasn't
designed to serve as a collector, but Lakewood is going to have
the impact of this extension, just like Foxfire was going to have
the impact of the extension of Livingston, the -- we can talk
about the mistake or however you want to characterize the
decision on Foxfire, but when you look at what you said,
Commissioner Carter, about equal treatment for cities in the
county, likewise equal treatment for communities in the county.
If we're going to do something to Lakewood, we have got to treat
them the same way that we treated Foxfire. And in my mind that
was a mistake, because even though it's not an arterial, it
provided some relief. I don't want to gate Lakewood just
because we gated Foxfire, because it does provide some relief
for the person who is willing to travel slowly and meander.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Maybe in the future when we do all
of this and we have a long -- we have a total plan on the table for
the community. And you go to them and you say look, this is
what needs to be done, and get the community involvement. You
end up having -- none of them are gated and that becomes the
Page 64
August 1, 2000
collector, and we use people like Bill Racoll (phonetic) and we
use people like Norm Feder, who's just come to us, and say here
are ways that we can do it the best ways for the community in
terms of protecting those communities and yet having this
collector going through it and the interconnectivity to it, but we
will need a lot of participation, we will need a lot of thinking, we
will need a lot of planning in that process. But if we don't make
the decision today to do a long-range strategic plan, then we're
going to get a lot of people who can be on a campaign trail, and
God love them, I've been there and I've done it, they come in, I've
got the short-term solution to this. Short-term solutions end up
burying you into long-term difficulties. And they will find as they
get here that they're going to be confronted with you better look
at the big picture or you're going to be in major trouble.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to finish the thought I'm
having because it goes right along with that, Commissioner
Carter, is we see this one today, which is the Lakewood impact,
we saw earlier the Foxfire impact, we had a hearing for a PUD at
Medeira today that has some interconnection issues that are
going to result, have an impact to neighboring communities.
We have recognized that we have got to let roads other than
just the major arterials serve as transportation throughways.
So what I think we need to be doing is asking our staff,
because I don't have the creative idea for it, is what is the
solution. If as a board we have decided that we want to have
some traffic, Foxfire decision aside, but maybe we learn from
that lesson, but if what we're saying is we want to have some
traffic along roads that aren't eight-lane slabs of asphalt, that
existing neighborhoods, Palm River, others are going to have
impacts from that. How are we going to attenuate them? How
are we going to mitigate them?
And we need to have transportation planning policies in place
for those concerns. Lakewood, hopefully Foxfire some day as
you say, Commissioner, we will be having that discussion with
them.
MR. KANT: If I may remind -- if you will permit me, that link,
as I pointed out earlier, between the existing southern end of the
Livingston Road -- roadway and the second Gordon River bridge,
when or if it may come to be, is shown on the long-range plan.
And we have also, as was pointed out earlier, we have already
Page 65
August t, 2000
instituted some traffic calming with the cooperation of the
community. And I think it's important to recognize that what
occurs on the south side of Davis Boulevard is much different
from what has occurred on the north side of Davis Boulevard. If
you think about all of the communities that are down there,
there's a much greater degree of interconnectivity, there's a
much greater degree of freedom in terms of being able to move
through and among those communities. That's much closer to
that ideal that we're looking for. There are still some areas
where there's a cutoff that could have been made.
So I think staff is very sensitive to that, and depending upon
your action, we will institute your direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I didn't quite finish. My
last little bit is that as the Board continues to move in this
direction, we may even find that we have to make really difficult
political decisions that are good for the transportation network.
If you guys can give us ways to reduce the impacts on neighbors,
to even force retroactive interconnectivity, and that would mean
taking a house or two, but if you can show us the transportation
benefits to the overall system, that we end up with less of a
giant slab of asphalt in this county, which is what we're going
towards with these major arterials that are eight lanes wide,
maybe we even have to look at interconnecting existing
neighborhoods. If you can show us that we're not going to ruin
the character of communities by doing that, if you can give us
some creative ways to do it, I'm going to be looking for that.
MR. KANT: That's certainly a challenge that I think staff
would -- would welcome. I might point out that even if nothing is
done at this point, regardless, if nothing else is done with
respect to any of these roadway segments that we have been
discussing, there's going to be some change in traffic on
Lakewood Boulevard, King's Lake Boulevard, Hawaii -- pick a --
pick a name, merely because Collier County is growing and the
traffic patterns are changing to meet the changes in our
commercial improvements and those types of things. So there is
going to be some effect over time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we need to anticipate that and
provide something for the citizens to mitigate the negatives of
that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
Page 66
August t, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just a question, is there an
amendment on the ballot this September in the City of Naples
regarding -- did they get that on the ballot --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have one.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- for disturbing the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Green space.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, no, no, not the preserve. They
already did that. This has to do with the -- that they couldn't
destroy any mangroves or any of those kinds of things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that on the ballot?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Before you do an intensive study in
terms of the Gordon River bridge, you might want to wait until
you see the outcome of that ballot question. There's no sense in
expending a great deal of time until that decision is arrived at.
Depending on how that comes out, that could have a great effect
on the terms of a new or a second bridge.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is what you're saying,
Commissioner Berry, that if they vote to pass that amendment, it
could prohibit the construction of a second Gordon River bridge?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's exactly what I am saying.
Because if you can't touch or can't go in and touch vegetation,
which would be mangroves in this case, and that's what they
seem to have in mind, I would like to know what -- if you want to
look at anything, I'd like to know what effect this would have on
a proposed second Gordon River bridge. And, again, this bridge,
you know, has been talked about at least twenty-six years or
more that I'm aware of and nobody again -- talking about political
will, nobody's had the political will to move it off square one.
So -- but I would certainly like to check and see, and, again,
don't spend a whole lot of effort until that ballot question is
decided.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have a public speaker
signed up?
MR. OLLIFF: We do. Rick Miller.
MR. MILLER: Good morning. My name's Rick Miller. I am
president of the Moon Lake Homeowners' Association. I'll keep it
real brief.
The FPL easement as a roadway alternative is potentially
Page 67
August 1, 2000
devastating to our community. I think when the process started
it looked like a wide open area that might have some potential
for a road. The power line movement too close to our community
and Foxfire is going to require the taking of many homes. We will
lose our entire amenity package, our tennis courts, our pool, our
bathhouse, which affects all hundred and forty residents, not just
a few. And, you know, we're just not too sure about the ancillary
effects of that, what that could have on other residents within
the community.
I think the traffic consultant has -- has clearly shown that it's
probably not a great long-term solution for the county, and we
appreciate that input. And I guess we would just implore the
Board today to do as Commissioner Brandt suggested, to
eliminate the FPL as an alternative.
And please don't hold our community hostage by hanging that
-- having that hang over our heads for any period of time
because it will hurt all of us. And I appreciate your time this
morning and your thoughtful consideration. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Let me try to summarize a couple thoughts and see if we can't
bring this to closure.
I think Commissioner Brandt's suggestion is a good one at
this point with the information we have. I don't think anybody at
the front end was too enthusiastic about taking homes,
particularly back here. I think the appeal of the FP&L thing was
we saw a wide open space and thought golly, can we go through
there without doing that. I haven't heard anybody on the Board
suggest that they want to keep that, so I would like to see us
drop that as the first part of this, look at the -- continue the
Livingston straight and set that aside as our most likely and
most viable alternative.
I would prefer not to vote today to put that in the plan, only
until we do the impact on the Gordon River bridge item, because
the crux of this whole thing is the amount of traffic on Airport
Road and what's forced on Airport Road. If we look, this is not
going to be particularly appealing to yet another neighborhood,
but if we look at the alternative of connecting the
Radio/Livingston intersection over to North Road, how does that
impact all of that, because it may take even more of the burden
off Airport Road.
Page 68
August 1, 2000
Secondly, is it even realistic to be looking at a Gordon River
bridge or a number of other tangential issues to look at as part of
that. But I think that absolutely has to be part of this argument
because it's not completely farfetched, twenty-six years of
history notwithstanding, that that could appear on the radar
screen again very shortly.
So I just would feel more comfortable. I think this may be the
way we have to go, but I'd feel more comfortable making that
decision fully informed on what that one other alternative is.
MR. KANT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to
reiterate so I know clearly what the Board's direction is. That
we're going to work with our consultant to determine what the,
shall we say the long-range link would have as an effect on
Airport Road and we are not at this time going to move forward
to ask the MPO to change the Livingston Road corridor and add
that other section in.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Until we get that information. I
think we may very well still ask our MPO to do that within a
meeting or two, but at least if we can get that other information
so when we make that request and when these five people sit as
the MPO, we have that extra piece of information as well. I think
we want to get to that point of making the decision. We want to
get to that point of the MPO making the decision, we just want to
make it fully informed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want that -- strategically, I want
to see it in the plan. I don't want it to fall out of there and
somebody say well, why are you still considering that? It has to
be there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you need direction or a motion
from the Board to drop the FP&L decision, the FP&L option or
have you gotten sufficient direction on that?
MR. KANT: I think staff direction, but if it's the pleasure of
the Board, we'll --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You got direction, that's all that
matters. Just so it gets dropped.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Drop it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Drop it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to that other
direction, that we still move this ahead to MPO to consider, but
that as part of that, we have the information on what the
Page 69
August 1, 2000
potential connection to a Gordon River bridge would have? Still
have this as -- when's our next MPO meeting? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Friday.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Obviously, we won't have it have
on Friday's agenda, but perhaps the following MPO agenda we
could have all of that information gathered. Is that acceptable to
everybody?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think as long as we have some
time line in there, we will be bringing that closure and we could
incorporate it. So I would even go with as long as it's in by the
end of, you know, October or something, we have a couple
meetings. When is the issue on the ballot in Naples?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's on the September ballot.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's November.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, is it November? Oh that's right,
yes, it is. For that issue it is November.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we would have that information
probably for an MPO meeting in September.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Kant, whenever you can have
that to us. The first MPO meeting we can reasonably have that
information.
MR. KANT: Thank you very much, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. OLLIFF: In the interim, because there's probably going to
need to be some consulting work done, I will take that also as
direction to authorize whatever amendment is necessary to that
Tindale-Oliver contract within reason in order to be able to
generate the information you need prior to the next MPO
meeting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Very good.
Item #8B4
PURCHASE OF TRANSIT VEHICLES TO BE USED FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY DEVIATED FIXED ROUTE SERVICE - TABLED
UNTIL AFTER LUNCH
That moves us to on 8-B-4, authorize the purchase of transit
vehicles to be used in the Collier County deviated fixed route
service.
Page 70
August t, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tiny little complaint. Why couldn't
we have any of this information, you know, some nice little
pictures of the buses in our packet? Why couldn't we have had
them in our packet? Why couldn't we have had them in our
packet?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Jones, hi.
MR. JONES: Good morning. Gavin Jones, for the record,
transportation planning manager.
You could have had them in your packet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would have been nice, for future
reference.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, what do they look like?
MR. JONES: It's on the visualizer. I don't know if you have
that on your --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what other choices were
available?
MR. JONES: The --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we just going to rubber stamp
their recommendation or are we going to look at the
alternatives?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't we hear a little brief
presentation from Mr. Jones and then we will ask him questions?
MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The MPO staff contracted with Tindale-Oliver and Associates
of Tampa to do a public transportation operation plan. And as
part of that they examined the availability and the merits of
different field sources for the transit vehicles.
We understood at the conclusion of the public transportation
development plan that we would be looking at a midsize bus, and
there's an example on the visualizer. The consultant brought to
a recent meeting of the transit review advisory committee the
recommendation that the fuel source be diesel and that the
alternate fuel sources are less desirable for a number of reasons,
a mixture of reasons, extra cost being one, the extra time
necessary to actually get them on the road being another and
less reliability being the third.
So the consultant has recommended purchasing diesel buses.
The transit review advisory committee endorsed that
recommendation. The technical and citizens advisory committee
met last Wednesday. They endorsed that recommendation.
Page 71
August 1, 2000
These buses, the diesel buses that are being recommended
can be purchased under an existing state contract and be
delivered in approximately six months from the date of order.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have to tell you I am a little
concerned. This was -- my two years of chairing the MPO, one of
my pet projects was trying to get our deviated fixed route into
place and I'm excited that we have the potential to still do that
in time for the majority of season next year. However, my
recollection is that the MPO, when we decided to go ahead, had
some discussions about what type of vehicles, and that we were
fairly clear-- and my recollection is flawed from time to time, but
my recollection is that we were fairly clear we did not want
diesel buses. And I understand, you're getting some information
from a consultant here, but I think we were pretty emphatic
actually that we did not want diesel buses and that we were
actually looking at something -- I know you're trying to have a
mid-sized look here, but something that was even a little bit
smaller than this perhaps. I remember -- sorry, I don't recall her
name, but a young woman from Tampa who came down as part
of Cutter (phonetic}, who had laid out a number of examples, and
the MPO actually choosing from those examples kind of what
they liked. And it really didn't resemble anything even close to
this.
And I am wondering .- I would still like to get back to where
the MPO had gone with this. One of the selling points, we
realized the need for public transportation, but we also realized
the public's aversion to diesel-belching buses and weren't
particularly enthusiastic about that option.
And I'm wondering what happened to the direction of the
MPO? And b, how quickly -- if this -- if the balance of the Board's
recollection is like mine, how quickly we could get back to and
still maintain our schedule for providing service in season next
year by opting for our original choice?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto, for what it's worth.
MR. JONES: I remember the -- I remember the comments
against diesel and I know there's a perception on the part of the
public against diesel. And I would submit to you that that is due
in large part to the experience with diesel that people have had
in larger urban areas, one, where buses are more numerous on
the road than they are going to be in this county. There are two
Page 72
August 1, 2000
hundred and seventy diesel school buses on the road every day
during the school season. Staff and the consultant and the
committees are proposing to add seven to the mix. And most
people's perceptions of diesel are with older fleets, older
technology and older fleets.
These buses will be new. They will be the newest technology.
The committee has had a chance to actually look at the
emissions coming out of a bus. At the transit review advisory
committee there was one parked in front of the building. We can
buy an alternate fuel source. It will cost more and it will delay
the start of service by a year.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perhaps you can answer, I don't
believe that. I don't believe that you can't buy a vehicle for
another eighteen months, you can't have a delivery for another
eighteen months. I just don't believe it.
And you still -- I still have two questions that were
unanswered. One, what happened to the direction of the MPO
which was contrary to this?
MR. JONES: I don't recall -- I don't recall the direction that --
consider only other fuel sources, my recollection.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think -- I think the question,
Gavin, is that I recollect that, is the design of the bus itself.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That, too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Maybe it was a smaller vehicle, I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was supposed to look like a
trolley.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It was - it had more appeal. Let's
say it had more aesthetic appeal, some of the buses that were
shown versus this one. Although I for one am not going to
micro-manage this, but I think that there were probably some
other designs, and were those presented to the various
committees?
MR. JONES: The transit review advisory committee saw an
alternative that was a bus that looks -- looks exactly like one of
the existing trollies. It costs more. It will take longer to deliver.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did the transit advisory
committee see the ones that we saw at our MPO meetings
presented by Cutter, which looked neither like a trolley nor like
this, and were the ones that the MPO generally agreed was the
Page 73
August 1, 2000
look they were interested in?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was sort of like a van, a larger
van,
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It was not dissimilar to the Good
Wheels type vehicle, only a little bit bigger.
MR. JONES: It's probably hard to see from that photo, and I
have a brochure and I can get the photo out quickly, that shows
that bus standing beside maybe a vehicle that's closer to your
recollection which looks more like an over-sized van, and they
are, in fact, very similar in length.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Respectfully here, what I think's
broken about this process --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second because I
didn't get an answer to my question again. Did the committee see those?
MR. JONES: I'll say yes, because it's the same committee
members that reviewed the public transportation development
plan. It's the same committee members that were assembled to
review the consultant product from the public transportation
operation plan.
So they saw it as part of their review of the public
transportation development plan and these are the same people
who when presented with this as the recommended alternative
agreed that that was what they would like to see.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And God bless them and
appreciate their advice, but we still have to make the final
decision. And what's broken here is we don't have any choices.
We should have had presented to us, here's their
recommendation and here's what the available choices are,
including what we saw from Cutter and those guys. I mean, we
can't just rubber stamp. This isn't micro-managing. If you think
people care about the color of a pipe, this is controversial in this
community. We've got to do this right or we're going to blow it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great slides, and I appreciate the
fact they're the same size. I also appreciate the fact that
aesthetically I find the white one far more pleasing and far more
fitting with the look of our community. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I find it very hard to imagine that
we can't have one of these delivered until September of 2002.
Page 74
August 1, 2000
MR. JONES: We will look into it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You don't have any idea right
now?
MR. JONES: No. I have the recommendations from the
consultant that it will take longer, that the buses that we're
recommending are available on a state contract that is the
fastest method available to getting the buses on the road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We want fast, but.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that's fine, but we don't have
-- I mean, what I heard you say a minute ago is that it would take
up to eighteen months longer to do it the other way. That's
based on what, the information the consultant provided you?
MR. JONES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Nowhere in the planet are these
available?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the consultant here?
MR. JONES: Yes. Sure, I can introduce Mr. Bill Ball from
Tindale-Oliver.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My
name is Bill Ball. I'm with Tindale-Oliver and Associates.
There's two reasons for the delay. Let me just clarify that to
start with. There is a procurement program through the Florida
Department of Transportation that really expedites the purchase
of diesel buses. And by getting buses within six months, that's
very fast in the industry. It usually takes a full year to order
buses without having a contract in place. And that's not the only
reason for the delay though. The -- perhaps a more important
reason is that there's not enough funding available to buy the
more expensive buses with the money that's available from state
and federal sources.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even with the three year -- even
with the second plan where we loan money based on a future
grant?
MR. BALL: It would then go into another year of funding. So
whether that could be worked out, we can check into that with
the Florida DOT. Right now if you advance money, it would be for
the two years. That would push it into a third year of funding to
get those more expensive vehicles and that funding was already
being used for other capital needs for the transit system.
So the question is whether there is actual money available to
Page 75
August 1, 2000
fund the more expensive alternative fueled vehicles.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And the white one we see here on
our viewer is how much more expensive? What's the price tag
on each one of these?
MR. BALL: Which vehicle is that?
MR. HOPE: David Hope, public transportation. That's not a
gas vehicle, that's just an example.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you understand my question?
We're looking at--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is a white bus available in diesel?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on, one commissioner at a
time, please.
We're looking at a large twenty-five foot diesel bus. You're
telling us that's cheaper than the white one or a like vehicle.
MR. BALL: No, no. These are both diesel buses. They would
be similarly priced.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, good Lord.
MR. BALL: There's no problem with that. It's just a diesel
bus, it's not an alternative fuel.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The alternative fuel, am I really
being -- is my question that hard to understand? You have said
that the diesel is considerably less expensive. MR. BALL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How much? Is it a thousand
bucks, is it a hundred thousand bucks per vehicle?
MR. BALL: Thirty to forty percent for an alternative fuel. If
you go to electric, it's twice as much.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, it's clear that --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would somebody please answer
my question?
MR. OLLIFF: It's clear to me that you want to make the
decision in terms of diesel and cost and you want to make the
decision in terms of the look of the vehicle. We provided you a
single option.
Can we continue this until the 12th and bring you back those
decisions so you can make them?
What I hear from the Board is they may be willing to pay more
in order to have the look and the aesthetics and the community
acceptance of the type of vehicle because it's that important for
this transit system to get off to a good start.
Page 76
August 1, 2000
So we would be happy to bring you back some options for you
to consider
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm upset on a number of levels.
And I realize you're brought in to hire information. I'm not upset
with you personally. I'm just upset in general because the MPO
said it really didn't want diesel. It said that from day one. We'll
go back and dig out the minutes if we want. I don't know why
then we went and studied diesel.
Two, we went with a particular look, which is of these two
certainly closer to the front one, the white one. And that wasn't
what was presented to us today.
Three, we were on a short time line. When this Board
approved, about a year ago, this action plan, we said look, we've
got to do some very special things to meet the time line and
actually have the vehicles in time for season 2001.
I am curious what we have done in the last year that we're
just getting to this now? And by delaying, is that going to delay
our ability to provide the public service in time for season 2001 ?
And finally, when we're told well, it's more expensive and you
can't get them as fast and then we ask the specifics, how much
more expensive and how much longer, nobody can tell us. I
assume that information is based on some factual data. And I
am terribly frustrated that we can't hear that now.
MR. BALL: You asked -- this mentioned that it's thirty to forty
percent more costly. I have detailed numbers if you'd like to look
at them now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're going to need some pictures
to tell us --
MR. BALL: Sure. Be glad to bring any number of vehicles that
you would like to look at. My concern was trying to implement it
before season. And that's why we made this recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But see that's been our -- you-all
told us a year ago that you could do that within the restraints
that we gave you at MPO. So that's very frustrating to hear that
if we decide to do what we said we wanted to do a year ago, that
change is going to result in a delay. That's not okay. You got to
find a way to fix that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the expected life of one of
Page 77
August 1, 2000
these vehicles?
MR. BALL: Ten years.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So we're really only looking at
like nine thousand dollars a year per vehicle to go from diesel to
some of these alternatives? MR. BALL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Besides electric.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right, excluding electric,
excluding the most expensive here.
MR. BALL: There's some question -- it's the experience in the
industry that some of the alternative fuels are not as durable as
the diesel vehicle, but it's becoming -- at least compressed
natural gas is becoming more common.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if I can add, if this committee
got to see the emissions of a diesel bus and see that, in fact,
with the 2000 technology there aren't any emissions, I'm willing
to be educated because maybe I am looking at New York City
buses. I'm willing to listen if diesel is the way to go, but you
can't just come in here and say it's not going to be what you
think it is so go ahead and spend a zillion bucks.
MR. BALL: We will be happy to provide those details at the
September 12th meeting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can you not provide those details
today?.
MR. BALL: I am not prepared to talk about emissions levels
in detail. I can give you cost information. We can talk about
that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we can't hear that for another
six weeks, does that mean we're not going to have -- and if it
does, it does. That means we lose the February 1st date for
sure?
MR. BALL: I think -- if you give us a month, we can determine
whether there is another avenue we can pursue to meet the six
month deadline. I can't promise anything right now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think when we discussed this at
MPO and we talked about diesel buses, every one of us pictured
the big city buses where they take off from the curb with the big
belch of black smoke and all this kind of thing. I believe if you
follow a school bus today, for the most part you don't see a big
Page 78
August 1, 2000
belch of black smoke. And I remember my tenure on the school
board, that we did go to a diesel fleet and there was good reason
for it. Cost, fuel costs, etc., not that it was any cheaper for the
buses, but the fuel cost and so forth, these things, plus some
overall maintenance issues and what have you. And it was
better to have all of one than it was to have some of one kind
and some of something else at that particular time. But to the
best of my knowledge, I am not sure now, that the entire bus
fleet for the school district is diesel. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm almost assured that it is. And
there's a reason -- there's a reason for that. But I think we
should also have that presentation. I don't think that we were
ever given the presentation. I think for the most part what we
were looking at was aesthetically. We were thinking in terms of
the black belching smoke from the bus and also the appearance
of the bus, which we all did say that we didn't want this
appearance of this flat snub-nosed type bus going down our
streets because that was portraying more of the big city kind of
thing which we did not want to portray. So there's got to be
something in terms of the appearance of that vehicle that we can
get back. And I would hope we can do that, but at the same time
I say to the rest of the commission I don't think that we should
ignore diesel.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I just wish we had the whole
presentation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. I understand. I know
what you're saying, Tim, and understand your frustration.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I was sitting here trying to figure
why diesel was not an appropriate vehicle to use, because in my
experience with diesels, and I have some, much of the belching
that you see, the black smoke that you see comes from
two-cycle diesels and the lack of maintenance to keep the
injectors clean. Four cycles have a much better capability of
keeping the emissions down, and I will use emissions as smoke.
There are a lot of other emissions, but I will just talk about
smoke. And that's the offensive part. Nobody likes to be behind
a bus or a truck that's belching black smoke all over you. And
the technology of today allows you to have a clean burning,
Page 79
August 1, 2000
non-smoking diesel engine to power a vehicle. They do it in
boats as well. And it's a matter of maintenance to a large
degree. If injectors are clean and pumps are clean and are
working properly, you can keep the black smoke from happening.
So I would like not to see diesel ruled out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a matter of fact, I mean, your
consultant's check is in the mail there, Commissioner Brandt,
because I mean that's the kind of information I am looking for,
not percentages of emissions and stuff.
And, Mike, I know you've heard this stuff already. If you can
tell me that the diesel is clean and that we're talking about
old-timey buses with the black smoke, then I'm willing to look at
diesel.
And I am anxious to make a decision today to avoid losing the
start date. So let me just say, here's what I'm wanting to hear.
Somebody who I trust, and you're it, Mike, to tell me that there's
not -- there's not --
MR. McNEES: Let me write down what you want to hear.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell me whether or not there are
problems with the diesel emissions on the current buses. And
the -- secondly, somebody show us some alternatives to that
rectangle and see if we can't make a selection today instead of
delaying again.
Do you have pictures?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can we just table this and bring it
back after -- because we're going to be here this afternoon. Is
there any way to table this issue right now and get back any
information for later on in this meeting?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Regroup after lunch. I would love
to do that, because my frustration is not with specifically diesel.
My frustration is, you know, we're given virtually no information
in the package and no pictures, no anything, no alternatives. It
just says here's a bus, this is your one choice, yea or nay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm with you, Tim. I really would
have liked to have seen the pictures that we had given to us at
the MPO. What's the availability? I agree, I don't think diesel is
the major issue here, but the look of the bus is an issue. And if
we can find the right look and if diesel works, then we can make
that decision today.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I could --
Page 80
August 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES.' We can do that. There's two items I'd like to
clarify before we -- before we put this off. One is in terms of staff
following the MPO and through the MPO the Board's direction. I
think it's been, and you-all will probably agree, that the
discussion of the objection has been to not diesel but, quote, big
diesel buses and that same picture that's been painted every
time of the black smoke-spewing ugly city bus.
Staff clearly did not consider big diesel buses, which was the
objection. I don't think anybody ever directed staff to exclude
diesel as a fuel. You-all have made the case for me that diesel is
a perfectly acceptable fuel.
Now we're down really I think to the cosmetic issue of what
should the buses look like. I think staff's presumption, and if it
was presumptuous to have made it, then we will apologize, was
that given the amount of discussion there's already been on this
issue and given the number of advisory steps, that we were
probably at a point where a rubber stamp was appropriate.
We perhaps misjudged that. If we can bring you later this
afternoon a little bit more information, we would like to see you
make a decision today. We'd like to move forward. We will put
our heads together and see what we can come up with.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's do that. As a matter of fact,
let's take our lunch break now and come back in sixty minutes.
(Recess.)
Item #8B5
FOLLOW UP PRESENTATION TO TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP
- PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, we're back. We will come
back, I understand, a little later in the meeting to the fixed
service.
MR. OLLIFF: If we can, I think we can have better information
for you then.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. 16(B)(15) is now 8(B)(5),
and that's the follow-up presentation to the transportation
workshop we had. Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, Mike McNees from your County
Page 81
August 1, 2000
Manager's office. When we last spoke about road capital
projects a few weeks ago, the Board expressed some concern
that, if anything, I think you wanted to be certain that we were
maintaining a certain amount of momentum. If I could use a
nautical analogy, I think you wanted to make sure we were
actually making headway and not just churning up water while
we were still tied to the dock. It's a legitimate concern, and you
asked us to come back with some follow-up information on a
routine basis on where we stand.
The context that I'm going to use, which is I think what you
asked for is in terms of the items that you sent us off to work on
at your March the 7th workshop, how are we doing, and where
are we going. The first thing I would like to point out is, since
your March 7th workshop until today, you will all agree, I'm sure,
the traffic congestion has improved markedly. I just wanted you
to know that we were on top of that situation.
Action items from the March agenda. I'm going to go through
this kind of quickly, but you talked about signalization
management. You talked about deputy assisted traffic control.
You talked about some improvements to our procurement
processes. We talked to you about intersection improvements
we felt we could make. You asked us to look at improvements to
the way we improve our right of way and the speed at which we
do. You asked us for ways to increase the speed with which we
actually construct a project. You asked us to look at moving
things up in the schedule, and not waiting as long and not being
completely dependent upon the money stream to build our roads,
but rather to advance them in the project. Finally, you talked
about bringing all transportation related functions under a
common manager. What we in slang refer to as the creation of a
transportation tsar position.
I'm going to talk to you today briefly about each one of those
items. In terms of signalization management, you approved on
March 14th the joint participation agreement to advance funding
of the Intelligent Transportation Project with the State of Florida.
That approval of that agreement moved this project forward by
two years. So we advanced the completion of the Intelligent
Transportation by two years.
You asked us to look at deputy assisted traffic control in
some urgent situations. You approved a budget amendment to
Page 82
August 1, 2000
make that possible on March the 14th. We placed deputies on
selected intersections during the season and the school year
with some good success, and in some cases, with some not so
good success. It is our intention to reevaluate the effectiveness
of those intersections in that effort before the new school year
starts and come at it again where it is effective and perhaps not
do it where it's not effective. So, that's one --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will we hear about that, Michael,
or will that be a decision made by the administration?
MR. McNEES: You can hear about it if you wish. I would
prefer for that to be a decision made administratively. We can
tell you, it's very difficult to stand up here on a Tuesday and
make decisions about where that's going to be effective because
it's really a engineering question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was just so positively received
that you'll keep us informed, so that we can respond to the calls?
MR. McNEES: I don't think you're going to let us not keep you
informed on this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. McNEES: You asked us to improve our procurement
processes. You asked that we perhaps prequalify design firms,
so that we have people ready to go. I can tell you that we issued
an RFP to put an additional number of firms on what we call an
annual contract, so that we would have more flexibility, if we
need someone quickly to do a design or do project management
services for us, given whatever our level of staffing might be,
those proposals have been received and are actually already
being reviewed by staff. So we've got that effort already under
way.
You asked us to consider the design-build concept for roads,
something that we've done for a couple buildings. We sent two
staff members to a national conference on design-build concepts
specifically for roads and how that applies to roads. We haven't
done any of that yet, but we're building our expertise so we'll
know the variables when we begin to make those decisions as to
when that's appropriate.
You asked us to aggregate projects to achieve economies of
staff. I can tell you that we are doing that with certain segments
of Livingston Road. We're also doing that already with certain
segments of the Santa Barbara/Logan corridor, so that those will
Page 83
August t, 2000
be bid on an aggregated basis, both for speed and for economy of
scale.
We talked to you about intersection improvements. What I
mean by that, we talked to you about some things that staff
could do with our resources to make immediate improvements to
some of our intersections to improve traffic flow and circulation.
Let's talk about some specific intersections. The Davis and
Collier Boulevard intersection, you approved a staff item a few
weeks ago to allow us to proceed with improvements to add turn
lanes. That project will begin in 2001. It will add two turn lanes
from southbound Davis Boulevard, one eastbound, one
westbound, to allow better stacking from the 1-75 exit and clear
that intersection more quickly.
At the intersection of Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard,
there was a contract on today's agenda, I believe on the consent
agenda, for intersection improvements that we will begin this
year that will not only add some increased turn lanes, but to a
degree will revise the geometry of that intersection to make for
better traffic flow through there.
Davis Boulevard and Shadowlawn Drive, you approved
construction of additional turn lanes, both northbound and
southbound off Davis Boulevard. Those were completed in May
of 2000. We've already done that one.
Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, we have
completed the installation of not only two turn lanes, but a traffic
signal, as well, to aid circulation in that neighborhood. That's a
critical one. We have heard from many, many, many people in
Golden Gate Estates, very glad to have those improvements.
This is a small one, but it's the kind of one that makes a big
difference. At the intersection of Shirley Street and Pine Ridge
Road, we added a turn lane to make right-hand access onto Pine
Ridge Road simpler and quicker. The turn lanes are right there,
and that has been a very successful project. I think the asphalt
was probably laid on that one before we even finished the
workshop on the 7th, they got that one done so quickly.
The next one would be Immokalee Road and Wilson
Boulevard. Again, the traffic signal and turn lanes, in this case,
turn lanes in three different directions, making that intersection
flow much more smoothly, making for better stacking and a lot
less waiting for those people, with the addition of the traffic
Page 84
August 1, 2000
signal.
You asked us to be quicker with our right-of-way acquisition.
You adopted a resolution on March the 14th establishing
standard road cross-sections which allows us to identify
corridors better in advance and better identify right-of-way needs
so we can get the ball rolling sooner on road projects. In
addition to that, the county attorney has added an eminent
domain attorney to his staff to give us a much greater capability
in that regard.
You asked to look at how can we speed up our road projects.
Immokalee Road, we've built an incentive bonus into that
contract that will, if the contractor meets it, pay him to cut that
project schedule by 27 percent. That's 110 days that we
hopefully will cut that project schedule.
For the Golden Gate Boulevard project -- and again, these
were projects that were already way down the pipeline before
your workshop, so I think staff's to be commended for getting
these things built in. We have bid alternates on Golden Gate
Boulevard that compressed that schedule when you let that
contract by 20 percent. That was 170 days that we cut from that
contract schedule.
The Pine Ridge Road project that's coming, there's an
incentive bonus built into that to cut that schedule by 23
percent. That would be a 90-day saving, three months cut off
that project. The important thing is, we want to continue to use
these methods in the future and develop whatever further ones
we can. We certainly haven't abandoned the concept of 24- or
18-hour construction. That's something that we need to continue
to look at as we go forward.
You talked about compressing the project schedule so that
we weren't just paying as we had cash, but we were paying for
everything we could fund in the short term. I can tell you that
your fiscal year 2001 budget includes 46 million dollars' worth of
projects that would not have been there had you not given that
direction.
I can tell you also that there are 54 million dollars' worth of
projects currently under way. We gave you quite a bit of detail
and showed you some photographs of those projects. And the
last report, I'm not going to talk a lot about those, but it's
Immokalee Road, segments of Livingston Road, Golden Gate
Page 85
August t, 2000
Boulevard, the next big one on the horizon is the six laning of
Pine Ridge Road from Airport about to the 1-75 interchange, I
believe.
In some other ways, we have moved projects up on the
schedule. Just to give you a sampling of one of the big ones,
Golden Gate Parkway from Airport to Santa Barbara has been
moved up five years in your schedule from where it was before
the workshop. Immokalee Road from Collier to 47 has been
moved up two years. Immokalee Road from Airport to 1-75 has
been moved up one year. We have some different Livingston
Road corridors. We talk about the north/south corridor that's
already being two laned. The four laning of that has been
advanced via some developer effort in conjunction with the
county, where we've entered into an agreement to do that more
quickly. It was advanced several years, and I believe that design
is already under way.
The Livingston Road east/west segment, something that I
don't even think was on the radar screen not that long ago, in
terms of actually happening, we are negotiating currently with
the developer to enter into an agreement to have them go ahead
and design and construct that more quickly. I believe that's
going to happen. It may even happen in the next few months.
That will have advanced that road by several years. Vanderbilt
Beach Road from Airport Road to Collier Boulevard, the project's
been advanced by a year, and the Goodlette Road expansion
from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road was advanced by
nearly a year. I would say that given how quickly your staff
responded to concerns up there from the Pine Ridge residents
and the other people, that by no sidetracking that project, we
may have saved two or three years on that one by keeping that
one moving.
You asked us to look at bringing everything under one roof.
As you know, the county manager's reorganization that you
approved on May 2nd, 2000, created a division of transportation
to bring all these functions under one head. You also note that
earlier today you hired him.
What is the prognosis? I think the prognosis for your ability to
keep up with the road capital projects looks bright. How bright?
I think it looks very bright. And I use my puppy metaphor here
not as a means to get my dog on television, but I picked that
Page 86
August t, 2000
picture for a reason because that picture was taken not long
before you had your March 7th workshop, and I can tell you that
that little puppy there eats a lot more today than she did before
your transportation workshop. And the message is, this road
system is going to eat a lot more money than it did prior to your
actions on the 7th. And next for us is to bring to you, for the long
term, the impacts of that and these policy changes, and we still
have some funding bullets to bite. So it's a sweet little puppy,
and the future's bright, but the future's hungry, too. We need to
never forget that as we have these conversations.
My only other, call it a caveat, would be -- and the way I'll
describe it is, we're in the omelet business here, and if you're a
diner walking into the restaurant and you're hungry, that's a
really good idea. But if you're an egg, it's not so good. I'm going
to tell you, we've got a lot of hungry diners driving around Collier
County trying to get from point A to point B, but there's an awful
lot of eggs out there in their homes who don't want to be shaken
up while we build this omelet.
We will have a continuing saga week after week after week
with these issues, and it's for the privilege of making those
decisions on the margin that you all run for office and get
elected, and I appreciate your willingness to do that, but your
commitment and your will to do those things is going to be sorely
tested in the next few years. And I think that's another thing you
all need to be aware of as we go forward, as if you're already not.
That concludes my presentation. I hope the message you're
getting is that we are establishing momentum. We are not just
churning the water. And I'm real excited about Norm coming
aboard to help us continue to move forward, and I have to thank
your existing staff, Ed Kant, Gavin, the project managers in
transportation engineering. Those people are carrying double
and triple workloads because of the number of vacancies and the
pressure that's been put on them, and they are producing day in
and day out like you wouldn't believe. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a comment that we would
believe it because the proof is in the pudding. You know, you
showed up last time with photographs of ongoing work and this
time with this real clear report. This is one of those areas where
you guys are already doing more than people could possibly
expect, and it doesn't happen as fast as the public would like,
Page 87
August 1, 2000
and we can't just blink our eyes and make asphalt appear, but
we're getting as close to that as we can do, and I know the
whole Board wants to thank you, but I certainly do, Mike. You've
done an incredible job and accomplished more than could
possibly be done.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just wanted to thank you, Mike,
and whoever else was responsible for this report. I think this is
the kind of thing that this Board needs to see from time to time,
although I know it requires a lot of time to produce these things,
but I think it's great. One last comment, Mr. Future here, I would
like to see, just as our roads have grown this past few months,
changes that have taken place, I would like to see how Mr.
Future here has changed and if he's still as bright looking as he
appears to be here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the next report, we need to see
him.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In an advanced stage.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You want to see him as he grows.
Right? Like everyone else, Mike, I would like to thank you for
your effort and your staff for what they've done. I think our job
now is to communicate to the community what we're doing, how
we're doing it. This is the progress. It's not that we don't have
the plans. We now have the political will to implement the plans,
and like everything else, there's a price tag. It costs to do this.
People will tell me, well, if you build those roads, more people
will come. Time out. That's a myth. The people are already
here. They need to use the roads. So let's not kid ourselves.
What we're doing is the right thing to do, and we need to
continue on this direction to stay ahead of the curve, eventually,
at some point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the translation for not
giving up -- not having political will is, don't quit your day job.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Don't give up your day job. Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what it means to me.
MR. MCNEES: But this is my day job, so --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: No. And I'll say thank you on behalf of the
staff. I'll take absolute full credit only for this presentation.
Every lick of work that was done to make the things happen was
Page 88
August 1, 2000
done by staff, again, doing two and three jobs, due to the
vacancies we've got. They really deserve a lot of credit.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Thank you.
Item #8Cl
THREE ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS AND SIX
AGREEMENTS TO CONVEY EASEMENTS, REQUIRED TO
EXPEDITE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRTY (30") INCH
PARALLEL SEWER FORCE MAIN ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD WITH
OCEAN BOULEVARD PARTNERSHIP AND CREEKSIDE WEST, INC.
- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to 8(C)(1}. Approve three
advance construction agreements required to expedite the
construction of a sewer force main.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Discussion? Public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Objection? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The motion carries 5/0.
Item #8C2
SUMMARY OF THE COUNTY'S SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
CONSIDERATIONS - STAFF TO PREPARE RFP AND COME BACK
TO THE BOARD IN OCTOBER
Next item is summary of the County's Solid Waste Disposal
Considerations. Again, rather than go through the factual
information and try to correct each of those item by item, I
wonder if we might look at what we hope to achieve in the short
term, as far as looking at some alternative proposals. I know we
had floated that idea when we talked about this six weeks ago,
and perhaps we can do that in September, and at the same time,
bring back the corrected history, if you will.
MR. FINN: Certainly. I would be more than happy to meet
Page 89
August 1, 2000
with you and see what we need to straighten out on that. The
summary we have prepared pretty much outlines the
conventional technologies that we've looked at over time. Those
are pretty clearly outlined in executive summary having to do
with the existing landfill, nominal discussion of the proposed
adjacent expansion of the landfill. The hauling and disposal of
solid waste outside of the county, and of course the waste
energy options that we looked at most recently. And I failed to
identify myself for the record, and I'm Edward Finn from Public
Works, and I apologize.
The Board had expressed some interest, last time we spoke,
on looking at or considering some of the complementary or
alternative technologies that are available. We have taken a
quick look at those. In general, those alternatives tend to be
kind of just an extension of the theme.
For the most part, we talk about gasification. Gasification is
simply a heat -- a system of heating the solid waste to create
essentially a useful gas, a methane gas, if you will, or a natural
gas that can subsequently be burned to create electricity or heat
or whatever it is.
Another alternative technology that's outlined here is called
"plasma reduction." And essentially, plasma reduction is nothing
more than a high end incinerator that decreases the amount of
ash and actually creates a slag, rather than an ash. It actually
breaks down the solid waste into more of its constituent
components.
COMMISSION MAC'KIE: Is that the same one that's described
in -- as having previously been described, anyway, as being --
nuclear fission would necessary to --
MR. FINN: No. It's a little more realistic, uses high --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same company, though.
MR. FINN: It's a little more realistic than the one you're
referring to.
Some of the other alternative technologies that are kind of
thrown into that heap include landfill gas utilization, and really,
that isn't an alternative technology. It's simply a matter of
taking the landfill gas that's produced and using that to create
electricity and/or again, use it directly for producing heat. That
is actually fairly conventional in nature. It's something that has
been looked at a couple of times in the past, and because of the
Page 90
August t, 2000
economics of it, it really hasn't proven to be viable. FPL is
reluctant to paying up to make it go. Frankly, from my
perspective, I think maybe staff should simply look at that again
and kind of see what the market looks like today. See if perhaps
it could be used to power the south water plant, which is quite
adjacent, and maybe take a look at that. That's something we
could certainly do in the short run, and it doesn't really impact on
what we're going to do with our solid waste, ultimate solution.
Just to kind of round out the discussion, some of the
alternatives that we have looked at in the past that we haven't
actually kind of got our hands around recently include reducing
the waste stream, reducing the waste stream through the
construction of a materials recycling facility to actually reduce
the amount of solid waste that has to be disposed of, either
through landfill process, hauling process, or some form of
incineration. Those are discussed in terms of dirty MRFs, clean
MRFs, and basically they increase the amount of recyclables,
they decrease the waste stream, they extend the life of perhaps
the existing landfill and/or decrease the cost of hauling it out of
the county. Along those same lines, a concept such as bailing
the solid waste. If you bail the solid waste for a given amount of
tonnage, it takes up less air space. That also would serve to
extend the life of the landfill.
And finally, some of the -- you've heard the thought of
composting facilities or bioreactors, as they're called.
Bioreactors are really nothing more than a landfill that
essentially accelerates the breakdown process, so that perhaps
instead of at 50 years, you could reuse the site, it might well be
20, 25 years. But essentially it is a form of landfilling. In fact, at
one point in time, we were actually recirculating leachate at our
own landfill, and that is essentially how a bioreactor works.
So that kind of rounds out our discussion, not only of the
conventional technologies we've looked at over the years, but
also those kind of leading edge things. I think in wrapping this
discussion up, probably, if I can use the visualizer, we need to
consider kind of a cross between them. At this point, our
existing landfill is arguably -- this might look familiar. This
actually was produced by Malcomb Pirnie as part of the waste
energy alternative analysis, and you'll see in the cost continuum,
over on this side is kind of our golden handcuff to our existing
Page 91
August 1, 2000
landfill. And I say that because this is far and away the lowest
cost alternative, and as you move out, you'll see the next one is
the re-siting concept. The next one out is hauling and disposing
of solid waste outside of the county, followed by waste to energy
alternatives, with the highest cost ones being the concept of
constructing it within the county. I will wrap up this concept of a
continuum by saying the high tech alternatives, the plasma
reduction or the gasification process, probably are going to be
even further out on this continuum and be higher cost than the
alternatives we're looking at here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Couple of different points. One, I
realize Malcomb Pirnie is using an industry guess here, and
actually, we did two years of study and we came back and
Commissioner Mac'Kie I remember I said it's going to be six or
seven bucks a year more on your single family homes, and by
golly it was 6.58 or something. It was right in the middle of that.
So when it says it will jump from 17 to possibly $50, after a
two-year million dollar study, we know better than that. That is
not the case to cite a new landfill. Whether you cite expanding
or current place, but you have to add extra cells, or you go to a
completely new location, we were actually looking at less than
seven bucks a year per residential household extra. So I don't
want to get into the meat of that this time around, but that is an
inaccurate number, based on some very, very, very detailed work
we did here. Malcomb Pirnie is doing an overall industry-wide
guess here with this, and they're not --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tim, did that take into consideration
any litigation?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes, it did.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm just asking because I don't
remember.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm pretty sure. The concern
there was, oh, golly, it will cost to litigate. Again, when you're
looking at tens of millions of dollars, actually over the life of the
landfill, hundreds of millions of dollars, the idea that you may
have to spend $30,000 or $50,000 to litigate is absolutely
negligible. So, yes, it did take that into consideration.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just for the alternate point of
view, on that particular point, there was a lot of controversy over
Page 92
August 1, 2000
the accuracy of those numbers and whether or not they had
adequately included things like the lost business for the orange
groves, the going concern, a lot of other issues that might have
raised that number higher than seven bucks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I will tell you -- no offense,
but I guarantee I know the information in that report better than
you all because I spent two years digging through it. We did
address all that, and there was complete substance to back up
the numbers in there. That wasn't just somebody's guess, that
was using real life situations all over the State of Florida. That
set aside, I'm sure each of us over the years has seen any
number of proposals for wunderkind ways of getting rid of solid
waste, and many of them are wonderful in concept but have
never actually been tried anywhere, and we don't necessarily
want to be the guinea pig. There are a couple that have come in
the last couple years, and Mr. Olliff and I have talked about this,
that are operating. One in particular was operating in Europe,
not here, had talked in very broad terms, very vague terms, but
about they would like Collier County to be their pilot project in
the United States because everybody is hesitant about spending
a lot of money on the front end of being the first. They would
absorb a lot of the cost to make that happen. I don't know
enough about it to say yes it's a great idea or no, it's not, now.
But what I wondered if the board might entertain is having them
come to the Board, give a presentation, look what are they doing
in Europe, what are they willing to do in the way of investment in
our community, and if it doesn't pose a risk either
environmentally or financially to Collier County, and they are
actually doing it effectively elsewhere, it might be something we
want to explore. And that was the one item I just wanted to
discuss today. We may want to schedule that for September, at
the same time this comes back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got no problem with hearing
that. The only hesitation I'd have is whether having them make a
presentation to the Board initially is the right thing. I'd rather
have them make a presentation to the staff, let people with some
expertise evaluate it and see where the holes are. Because
sometimes, you know, when we're sitting up here, it all sounds
really good.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
Page 93
August 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe their presentation to the
staff and then back to us.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's what I would prefer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And perhaps we can schedule
something with staff, and if it's not feasible, obviously we don't
need to waste our time, but if it is at all, then we schedule later
in September or October, something on an appropriate timeline
to get it back.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: After November, I will volunteer to
make a trip to check out anything they might want to show us.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I think it's a good idea to get a
two-step process, the staff evaluation and then back to us. And
I'm not objecting to looking at alternatives. I think probably
shorter term, we're going to have to look at what are some
measures that we could do to extend the life of this landfill
through increasing the height and some other things that we've
seen, which takes you out 30 or 40 years, and then you have
ample time to look at all the new technology to find out long
term what you're going to do with any and all of this, but I am
open to all kinds of proposals to work in that frame.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And all I would ask there is if you
can site the landfill elsewhere at the same cost as expanding on
that 300 acres to the north, I would hope you would consider
taking it away from the center of the population because we
have not corrected the odor problem there yet.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I guess the jury is still out on
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: December t. Isn't that the magic
date on the PEP?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that the new date?
MR. OLLIFF: My suggestion would be, if that's the direction
the Board wants to have the staff pursue, that in order to have a
level playing field on those kind of proposals, that we probably
put together some sort of an alternative technology RFP, send it
out, that would allow us to short list at least all competitive
proposers who might have some sort of technology you'd want to
consider, and then include as part of that RFP process some
presentation requirements for the staff, and then from that level
we can also bring it in here to the Board.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can we put that RFP together
Page 94
August 1, 2000
in-house so we don't expend a bunch of money? Any objection
from the Board to doing that?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: How long would it take to put an
RFP together like that?
MR. OLLIFF: If I may? An RFP would suggest that we're
prepared to spend money on it. We're probably looking more for
a request for information, more of a formalized mechanism for
gaining or gathering information. I imagine that could be done
in-house or with some of the assistance of our consultant that
we have on board presently to help us in analyzing alternative
technologies, and that would be Malcomb. So we can get that
done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Timing?
MR. OLLIFF: It's too early to tell. I'm kind of stymied.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To get out the request for
information?
MR. OLLIFF: I would say probably three weeks or more to get
that out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Reasonable.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: If you put out a request for
information and were able to get responses within a short time,
what kind of timing would you request that to be back to you?
MR. OLLIFF: Typically that would be a 90-day minimum to get
information back, but I can try to expedite that if you'd like. If
you give me a time table you'd like to shoot for, we'll try to --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yesterday. Some reasonable time,
but I think 90 days is a bit far out.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sometime like the first meeting in
October, would that be reasonable? That would give you 60
days, a little better.
MR. OLLIFF: Let's try to do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. Clear, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No speakers?
Item #8B4
IMMEDIATE PURCHASE OF SEVEN TRANSIT VECHILES TO BE
USED FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVIATED FIXED ROUTE
SERVICE - APPROVED
Page 95
August t, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: No speakers, and I believe your MPO and
transportation planning staff is back, if you want to try and wrap
up discussion on a magic bus.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE. Sure.
MR. MCNEES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mike McNees, again,
from the county manager's office.
Just to put this into a context, before I turn things back over
to Gavin, we're going to proceed with the presumption that we're
not talking about alternatives that include alternative fuels, and
in terms of the jargon of the MPO, alternative fuels means
compressed natural gas, electricity, propane, those types of
things because you've already seen some cost numbers on those
which make this type of bus service, given the parameters of the
grants that are available, cost prohibitive. Now we can certainly
flesh that out some more and revisit it again, if you wish.
We're going to proceed right now to show you the options
regarding some specific types of diesel buses. The best example
that's come to me, I wish I'd thought of it earlier, is that your
ambulance fleet runs entirely on diesel engines. Those are fine,
clean running vehicles I don't think anybody would object to. So
if you're looking for an assurance --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, then, you're answering
another question for me, if we've got the capability to maintain a
diesel engine so that we don't end up, as Commissioner Brandt
was talking about, the injectors being dirty and belching dirty
smoke and everything. If we have people who can do it, and
we're already using it with our EMS vehicles, then I can accept
that.
MR. MCNEES: No question about it, which is another reason
why things like compressed natural gas don't get us as excited
as some others because we don't have the capability to maintain
them like we do a diesel engine. It's a known technology. So
what we're going to focus in on, the staff has done a great job of
pulling together some information and some options for you, the
pictures are in your hands. I'll turn things over to Gavin.
MR. JONES: Thank you. Gavin Jones, for the record,
transportation planning manager. I brought back the photos that
you alluded to. These are from the executive summary of the
public transportation development plan, and in the lower left and
Page 96
August 1, 2000
upper right corner of the screen are a pair of cutaway buses.
Both of these vehicles are similar in price and similar in life span.
They're approximately half the price of the mid-sized bus that
we showed you this morning and have approximately half the life
span. And the experience with these buses are that they are not
as rugged, not as sturdy, not as reliable as the larger vehicles.
They will approach the end of their useful life span and move into
a period of higher repair frequency sooner than the mid-sized, the
25-foot bus, we showed you this morning. But they can be
purchased.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I'm confused. The top right corner
on the screen is the 25-foot.
MR. JONES: Twenty-five foot, right. It's just a slightly
different shape.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But I thought 25-foot was
what has a ten-year life span.
MR. JONES: The different model. The one in the upper left.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a different warranty
period on different vehicles?
MR. JONES: I don't know about the warranty period, just the
experience with the useful life span is shorter.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they cost half as much?
MR. JONES: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Top right costs half as much as top
left and has half the useful life. So it's a wash.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The warranty questions come
from my aviation background, and the different aircraft had
different expectations for performance, but if an aircraft had, you
know, a two-year warranty instead of a one-year warranty, it
could make literally millions of dollars difference, so I think it's a
legitimate question. If you've got one that we're saying only has
a five-year life span but it has the same warranty period, dollar
for dollar, you could actually save money there. I don't know.
MR. JONES: I don't know, either, and we can look into that.
The experience in the industry is that the lighter duty
construction, regardless of length, is more prone to repair.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before you -- go ahead.
MR. MCNEES: The simple answer to your question, I think,
probably is, back to the cost and the useful life, it does about
wash. You replace them about twice as often but they cost half
Page 97
August 1, 2000
as much. But the issue is with the lighter duty vehicle, you're
going to be out of service a lot more often. You're going to need
more -- we're talking about one backup vehicle, I believe, in the
current scenario. I think staff will probably tell you one is not
enough, at least in the second year, for this type vehicle. So
there are a lot of other variables that come into play, other than
just the purchase dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to go back to the picture
because I've got to get my apples and oranges straight here. If
you could back it up so the whole thing is on the screen, that
would be helpful.
MR. JONES: The bottom two are the trolley and an electric
bus which wasn't a viable option.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So we're eliminating the
bottom two because one's a trolley, one's an electric bus. So
we're only looking at the top four. MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the top left corner is the one
that you recommended this morning? MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So these other three are the
choices available, and all of them -- all of the other three are in
the category of lasting half as long and costing half as much?
MR. JONES: We weren't considering the one in the mid -- in
the middle right, which is an alternative fuel vehicle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So we really only have three
choices, then.
MR. JONES: Correct. We've looked most closely at the 25
foot in the upper left corner and the two that you would call the
cutaway, regardless of their size, 22 foot or 25 foot, and found
that it's -- that you could purchase them for half as much, you
would need to purchase them twice as often, and they will be
more prone to breakdown and repair.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The next line you had said a
seven to ten year life, as opposed to a ten year expected life, so
-- that's a big difference. If it's a difference between we can
expect these to go five and the others to go seven, you know, I
have more interest in the five-year bus. If it's five to ten, I
understand your point, and I'm wondering how confident are we
that this is a --
Page 98
August t, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go on to your next slide, Gavin.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- ten-year viable life instead of a
seven year.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's the difference between those
two buses on the top? They're both -- they both say medium
duty. One says fixed route. Well, that's not -- I wouldn't think
that has anything to do with the bus itself, as opposed to demand
response.
MR. MCNEES: The fixed route bus is designed for constant
duty. It's running a route all day, every day, whereas the demand
bus is not made for that quite as heavy -- they're both called
medium duty, I guess, in that picture, but the on-demand bus is
not meant for a constant type of high mileage duty, as is the
fixed route bus, which is designed to run constantly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: May I get an answer to my
question, please?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next slide.
MR. MCNEES: The question is how confident are you in those
useful life numbers? Where do they come from?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put it back on. Thank you.
MR. BALL: For the record, my name is Bill Ball with
Tindale-Oliver Associates. Your question -- my belief is that
there would be approximately eight years useful life, based on
the estimated mileage that we've come up with for these buses.
So eight would be my -- would be the number.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask him -- identify these
buses on the picture before as A, B, and C. Okay? A is top left, B
is top right, C is --
MR. BALL: Okay. A--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is A, which is B, which is C
on here? A, B, and C, then on your next list, which is A, which is
B, which is C? Now forget -- we've eliminated D, E, F, because
you guys told us to forget it.
MR. BALL: So the first one on the bullet list would be C.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Frankly, I'm ready to eliminate C
because for $5,000, you get extra space on --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but how did --
MR. BALL: The second one on the left is 22 feet or 25 feet,
they're both C, they're just a different length.
MR. MCNEES: So we've eliminated the 22 footer. We're down
Page 99
August 1, 2000
to the 25-foot diesel cutaway or a 25 diesel medium duty.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But then all you've got on here for
my list is you've got A and we've eliminated C. So where are my
numbers for B and for - for B?
MR. BALL: That would be the 25 foot -- it's similar to the 25
foot, which is 55,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Is the second one there B? MR. BALL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then put it down, so I know what
we're talking about.
MR. MCNEES: What precisely that is is a vehicle that looks
like the 22 footer, it's just 25 feet long. The photograph that
they're showing you is not exactly the same. It's the one that
you showed up next to, if you will show them that picture, those
are the two alternatives you're talking about, the one where
they're next to each other.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what happened to the 25-foot,
medium-duty, demand-response bus? Where is it on the list?
MR. BALL: We were not able to get that information in the
last hour.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I like that one. The top
right. What I would say, B. A, B, and C. That ice cream truck
look. Yeah, that's it. You got any numbers on B?
MR. MCNEES: Correct me if I'm wrong, staff, but aren't those
the numbers that we're -- the options that we're looking at right
now?
MR. BALL: For that specific vehicle, we did not get a price,
but I would expect it to be the same as the 25-foot four seat. It
would be in the same range, so in that 55 to $60,000 range.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And its life expectancy?
MR. BALL: Would be about five years. The same as C, just
not been able to contact that manufacturer for that price.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Do you know of any cities that are
currently utilizing these kinds of buses and what their history
might be?
MR. BALL: Any transit system that has used these smaller
cutaway buses for traditional fixed-route service has
experienced --
Okay. So put it back on there, guy.
Page 100
August 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Let's do item B. Is that the
cutaway?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go back to the picture.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah. Is that item B?
MR. BALL: Item B or C, they've experienced problems with
using those buses for traditional fixed-route service, running six
days a week.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Who is "they"?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Any cities in Florida doing that?
MR. BALL: Currently, I know Pascoe County originally started
with those cutaways and have since converted over to the more
heavier duty bus. I'm not aware of anybody that's using
cutaways for traditional fixed-route service in the State of
Florida.
MR. MCNEES: Let me throw one more soft issue in just to
confuse things a bit more, and I thank a gentlemen named Bill
Hansen, who was home watching this meeting on television
earlier, and he ran down to catch me coming out of Subway to
say he's a bus driver for a living and that the staff recommended
alternative -- I'd be telling you this, even if he didn't agree with us
-- that one of the big factors from his point of view as a driver
would be that the recommended alternative is much, much
better visibility for the driver from a safety standpoint. When you
look at that van configuration, it's not hard to understand that
there might be some severe blind spots, which is the word he
used, blind spots on that vehicle. He says in the other vehicle,
with the driver further forward, better mirrors and better glass
configuration, there is nowhere around that vehicle that you
can't see, and in our traffic environment, trying to run a bus
route, I think that's a very legitimate concern, and it's not hard to
see from that -- I admit that's anecdotal. I don't have statistics
to tell you the big bus is safer, but you can look at those pictures
and at least grasp that there's probably some truth in that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you get the green light for A
today, February 1, we have a fleet of seven of those?
MR. BALL: Yes.
MR. MCNEES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And could you put the picture up
that shows the comparison of A to the cutaway bus for size
because 25 feet, it's hard to picture. What's 25 feet in here?
Page 101
August 1, 2000
How long is it? Would it fit in the room? I know it would fit in the
room, but can somebody show me 25 feet? Are you walking it
off, Mike?
MR. MCNEES: From here to the end of that podium is 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So it's not huge. It's not
like what we're thinking of as a giant diesel bus. It just has sort
of the same shape as one.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, how much is our typical school
bus? How long are they? I'm not talking about the big
snub-nosed ones, I'm talking about the --
MR. MCNEES: Thirty-five feet.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thirty-five?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So 10 feet shorter than a typical
school bus? Okay. That helps.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think if you get a snazzy paint job
on these and go for the big ones.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm starting to think that, too.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I have a question. Will they be
ADA capable?
MR. BALL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion is seconded. Any further
discussion? Seeing none, and the absolute that we will have
that fleet delivered and ready to go February 1, all those in favor
say aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5/0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, you knew you were right. We
just had to go --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can we go with a nice paint job?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Snazzy paint job.
MR. MCNEES: We apologize for making you work so hard.
We'll do a better job next time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we can work on that
design between now and November 1st.
MR. OLLIFF: We will do that. We will have a softer, friendlier
paint job on that.
Page t02
August 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just so long as they're no prison
gray.
Item #8C3
COLLIER COUNTY WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN AND THE LB/P
GROVEWAY UTILITY FACILITIES REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That moves us right along.
Amend the Collier County waste water master plan and approve
the Groveway utility facilities reimbursement agreement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're just expanding service in an
area where we would normally expand service. We're doing it
because of demand.
MR. OLLIFF: We're actually having an agreement with the
developer in upsize some of the lines in order for us to have
some public benefit from those lines later down the road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They're going to pay the private
benefit, we're going to pay the public if there's a need for it.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
speakers on this, Mr. Oilill? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything we need to get on the
record? That looks like a no. All those in favor, please state
aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5/0.
Item #8G1
RESOLUTION 2000-261 APPROVING THE PROPOSED FY 2001
MILLAGE RATES - ADOPTED; PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE HELD
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 6 AND WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 20,
2000 AT 5:05 P.M.
Adopt proposed fiscal year 01 millage rates, which would be
Page 103
August 1, 2000
8(G)(,i).
Mr. Smykowski, good day.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, budget director.
We are here today to adopt the proposed millage rates as
the maximum property tax rates to be levied for fiscal year '01,
which begins in October. The tax rates adopting must be
provided to the property appraiser by August 4th, who then
prepares the notice of proposed taxes that goes to each property
owner in Collier County.
During the September public hearings, the Board has the
option of lowering the millages, but with -- unless you went
through an onerous public notification process, you could not
increase the millages beyond the level in which you approve
them today. There is -- there are attachments that identify the
proposed millage rates for the upcoming year as identified in the
executive summary, the general fund, is a decrease of thirty
cents per $100,000 of taxable value. The proposed
unincorporated area millage rate is an increase of $32.22 per
100,000 of taxable value, but again, that -- there is an offset
because we are collapsing the road maintenance districts that
we talked about during the June budget workshops, and taxing
for those on a general basis, as we feel that's a more equitable
means of taxing for road resurfacing and medians within the
unincorporated area of the county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's an increase in that fund, but
it's not a real dollar increase in that amount to the taxpayer
because they would otherwise have been paying it through an
MSTBU.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. The public hearings are
scheduled for September 6th and September 20th. The official
policy action we need from the Board today is to adopt by
resolution the proposed tax rates for fiscal year one, as detailed
in the attachments. Prior to that, I will be happy to answer any
questions if there are any.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So move.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have one question. My only
concern is that you have a date here of Tuesday, September 6th.
Should that not read Wednesday, September 6th.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, that's true.
Page t 04
August 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll amend my motion to reflect
that correction.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes. I have a question with regard
to the second sentence under the proposed general fund. It
says, proposed county-wide millage rate of so and so is 60 cents
per thousand greater than the adopted fiscal year 2000 rate. And
Mr. Olliff, does that have to do with the pollution control budget
going up or the millage rate going up?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. I'm sorry. That was for Mr. Olliff.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: As I recall from our discussion, but
I just wanted to verify that that's the case.
MR. OLLIFF.' Yes. On Page 3 of your executive summary, it
identifies the millages themselves, and you see there is a
subtotal right near the top, after the general fund and water
pollution control. Those two millages combined comprise the
total county-wide millage rate, the sum of which is an increase of
60 cents per 100,000 taxable value, and that is a function of two
expanded services that are required by the growth management
plan.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT.' And can you help elaborate on
those two expanded services?
MR. OLLIFF: Sure. There's $75,000 to update well field
protection zones. That is mandated by your management plan as
well as required by your own ground water protection ordinance,
and there's $88,000 for water quality monitoring in the estuarine
areas of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So the total impact is about
$150,000, 160, in that range?
MR. OLLIFF: One sixty three, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I apologize for jumping in. Obviously I'm
not Mr. Oilill.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion from
Commissioner Mac'Kie, a second from Commissioner Carter. Any
further discussion? I'm seeing none.
Any objection?
(No response.)
Page 105
August 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 5/0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #9A
COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ALLEGING
THAT ORDINANCE NO. 2000-43, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.91-
102, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - ORIGINAL
POSITION REAFFIRMED
Let's go to the county attorney's report, item 9(A}. Is that it?
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Mike Pettit from the county attorney's office.
As you know, Item 9(A) is a matter involving potential
litigation. It concerns certain aspects of the Board's legislative
action in amending the plan development code on 6-14-2000.
Specifically, an entity known as American Tower has filed a
verified complaint, pursuant to a statutory scheme, Section
163.3215, claiming that the recent amendment, especially that
part that relates to communication towers in the county's growth
management plan. Our office has conferred with staff.
At this point in time, we have no reason to believe that there's
any basis for this challenge. We're here today simply to alert you
of the challenge. The government has 30 days to respond or
ignore, and we wanted to bring it to your attention. If you
reaffirm your decision today, they will have an opportunity to file
a lawsuit in Circuit Court, and we'll respond to that accordingly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to reaffirm our earlier
decision.
MR. BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: We have three. The first speaker is Deborah,
and I believe it's Martohue? MS. MARTOHUE: Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: Followed by Dale Perryman.
MS. MARTOHUE: Deborah Martohue with the firm of Burke,
Howe and Widdow (phonetic}, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard,
Suite 850, Miami, Florida, representing American Tower in the
Page 106
August t, 2000
verified complaint.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're their attorney?
MS. MARTOHUE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. MARTOHUE: We're just here simply to stand by our
verified complaint and answer any questions the commissioners
might have concerning your decision and our concerns with the
amendment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions? Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Dale Perryman. Mr. Perryman
will be followed by the last speaker, Gerald Knight.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Perryman indicated he waives.
MR. OLLIFF: Gerald Knight?
MR. KNIGHT: My name is Gerry Knight. I'm an attorney, and I
represent Lode Star Tower, and we're just here in a supportive
position with respect to the county attorney's statement, and if
you have any questions of us, we'll be glad to try to answer them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any questions? Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all your speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor please state aye.
Any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. KNIGHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
you, Mr. Pettit.
Motion carries 5/0.
Thank you, Mr. Weigel. Thank
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2000-262 REAPPOINTING MICHAEL DOUGLAS
JERNIGAN AND APPOINTING SUSAN CASEY TO THE HEALTH
PLANNING COUNCIL - ADOPTED
10(A}, appointment of member to the Health Planning Council.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the two
applicants for the two positions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
Page 107
August 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
speakers on this, Mr. Olliff?
Any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Wildly controversial. Any
Motion carries 5/0.
Item #10B
COMMISSIONER BRANDT, COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE AND
COMMISSIONER CARTER - TO SERVE ON THE VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD ON OCTOBER 2"D, 3;bAND 4T"
10(B), appointment of commissioners to serve on the Value
Adjustment Board and set tentative hearing dates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't you think it would be a nice
outgoing gift for the three who won't be back next year to
volunteer to serve?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I served last year.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I tell you what.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's a great idea, but I'm not going
to be here, so you do what you want to do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to be here --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait, let me guess. You're going
to be here the last day.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I am going to be here Wednesday.
I'm not going to be here Monday and Tuesday. I'm coming back
during the day Wednesday and I'd be happy to fill in.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have served on this Value
Adjustment Board many times. I think last year, Jim, we stuck
you with this, as I recall.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
usually am. I'll do it again.
Yes.
I think I was on it last year. I
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Brandt, you've never had the --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's no choice if she's gone,
he's gone. We need two commissioners and two alternates.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think it looks like, Mac'Kie,
Carter, and Brandt are going to get stuck with this.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I tell you what. If something
Page t08
August 1, 2000
happens and our plans change, I will be glad to fill in for one of
you. I'll be happy to do that, but right now I'm not going to be
here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll give you that opportunity,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is not the most fun service.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's not that bad.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Filson, you have all you need?
MS. FILSON: Yes. I have Commissioner Carter, Commissioner
Mac'Kie, Commissioner Brandt, with Commissioners Constantine
and Berry as alternates and directions to contact the School
Board.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2000-263 APPOINTING STEPHEN BORTONE TO THE
RURAL FRINGE AREA ASSESSMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right, 10(C), appointment of
members to the Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight
Committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, only it's just one.
This one's just one. And I'd like to move Mr. Bortone, if I'm
saying his name correctly. We have Mr. Guggenheim leaving and
being replaced by a Conservancy staffer who seems to me to be
a nice match.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that. I was impressed
by his resume, and I haven't had a chance to meet him yet, but it
seems like he would bring interesting discussion to that
situation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt, question?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I wanted to ask a question, and I
want to see whether I can legally do this. The very next one,
10(D), can I ask a question there about whether somebody would
be willing -- be interested in doing that one? For instance, would
it be legal for me to ask whether Commissioner Berry would be
interested in serving on that for two years, after she leaves.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure. I don't know that we can
appoint that vacancy now, but I'd love to hear her answer.
Page t09
August 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So would I.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I knew that the institutional
knowledge that would go there would benefit the community.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The only reason -- let me tell you
why. It's not that maybe I'm the greatest committee member,
but we've had a great number of changes on this committee
since we started out, and I think, as the chairman, it's basically
making sure that everybody gets a right and the proper timing to
speak and so on and gets the opportunity, and for consistency
and continuity is the only reason that I think it's important that
perhaps some of us stay there that have been there from day
one.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: .Well, you would be the historian.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have any speakers? No?
Then we have a motion for Mr. Bortone --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this is on the rural fringe.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct. Item 10(C). And we
also have a second for that. All those in favor, please state aye.
Anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carried 5/0.
That will take us to the Rural Lands Oversight, which is 10(D).
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2000-264 APPOINTING COMMISSIONER BERRY
AND STEPHEN BORTONE TO THE RURAL LANDS OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to recommend Mr.
Bortone again and Michael Bower because of his particular
expertise with regard to the preservation of the western
Everglades, and that's basically what the Rural Lands Oversight
Committee's concerns are going to be.
And then also, I just thought that the Conservancy
representative would be the best to fill the open slot.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a question on Mr. Bower,
and he's with the National Wildlife Federation. Are they engaged
in any lawsuits against us?
Page t t 0
August 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. WEIGEL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So he can do that objectively
without being influenced by his position.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is this National Wildlife
Federation or is this the National Wildlife Everglades project?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because it's different.
MR. WEIGEL: Concerning the Florida Wildlife Federation, is
the one that we contend with from time to time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, I'm asking what he's
affiliated with. I think -- is that --
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Wildlife Federation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
Well, maybe I'm mistaken.
Here's his letterhead, National
National Wildlife Federation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I will tell you I'm not comfortable
with that. I would rather have Mr. Reebus, particularly
considering Jim Rideoutte was a citizen at large. He's here. He
can serve again as a citizen at large. I'm not comfortable
doubling up that way, particularly with the adversarial nature of
the National Wildlife Federation.
The Conservancy has always been a group that worked with
the community for the community, and even when we disagree, I
have complete confidence that they are looking to do what's in
the best -- I don't have that same confidence with the National
Wildlife Federation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, maybe we have to take them
one at a time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I would like to propose that -- and
make a motion -- that Commissioner Berry be one of those
members to fill that vacant term.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
at large representative?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
She could serve as the community
Whatever.
Can we do that?
I don't have a second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we can do that, I'd like -- I think
Page 111
August 1, 2000
that would be great.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. WEIGEL: You may.
Bortone and Berry?
Bortone and Berry.
Sounds good to me.
Can we do that legally, Mr. Weigel?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's your motion, Bortone and
Berry?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have a second for that?
Second from Commissioner Carter.
Discussion, public speakers, objections?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, 5/0.
Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And sincerely, thank you, because,
you know, you're going to continue to do a job for free that you
have been getting paid for. I think that's real public service.
Thank you very much.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2000-265 APPOINTING BRYAN L.S. PEASE AND
WILLIAM J. CSOGI TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 10(E), appointment of
members to the Public Vehicle Advisory Board, two openings,
two applicants.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move the applicants.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion from Commissioner
Carter, second from Commissioner Mac'kie. Any speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none.
Any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Seeing none, motion carries 5/0.
Page t12
August 1, 2000
Item # 10F
POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE'S USE OF 300 ACRES OF SURPLUS
PROPERTY- DISCUSSED
Discussion regarding the Police Athletic League's use of :300
acres at the north landfill right now. That 300 acres is surplus
property. Mr. Carpenter is here, and I think he has some
specifics.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What do they want to do with it, is
my first question.
MR. CARPENTER: For the record, Dave Carpenter, president
of the Collier County Police Athletic League, a Florida nonprofit
corporation. I don't know -- Tim, have they been distributed, that
proposed plan that we have?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, not yet. I don't believe that
has been distributed to everybody.
MR. CARPENTER: Okay. Basically, what we'd like to do is,
you know, we gained permission to do a test, a trial, out at that
acreage last November. It was very successful. We learned a
lot. We learned where noise problems would be. We learned
how to control them. We learned what we were looking at in that
acreage environmentally.
What we're asking for is for you to direct staff to work with
us, so that we can engage in some form of a lease with Collier
County for use of that property for our ATV program. And our
ATV program is designed for kids, and it's a trail-riding program
that's not racing like you see on ESPN. It's a recreational trail
riding with heavily mufflered ATVs, to be supervised by members
of the Collier County PAL, primarily the deputies who are
volunteer members of PAL.
What we're talking about is no permanent structures, no
permanent change to the property, no single user use of the
property. We know that property right now, although it's
declared it's surplus, its future is yet to be determined. We know
whatever you do out there, it will probably be several or possibly
many years off. What we're saying is we'd like to be able to go in
there and be able to run a program for kids, cut a few more trails
through, and have use of that while the final determination for
that property is considered.
Page 113
August t, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have no problem with the
concept, if you can work it out with maybe public services, parks
and rec or something to get some kind of oversight with regard
to -- I don't want to cause another problem out there, and I'm
sure you wouldn't be proposing something in Golden Gate that
would cause them another problem. They've got a smell
problem, we don't need a noise problem. If it can be drafted, Mr.
Weigel, with all the appropriate, you have to leave if we tell you
to, you know, with very little notice, et cetera.
MR. CARPENTER: That's not a problem. What we're asking is
that we get staff told to work with us, as far as how they would
like us to enter the property because there's some questions of
which road that we can legally transit out in that area. Work on
those types of things.
We're not looking for single use. There could be other
alternatives for these trails. If someone wants to get into a
mountain bike program out there, these trails that we'll put
through will be suitable for that. When I talk about trails, the
trails that we did for last November, we cut around the trees. We
don't go through them. I know there's been a lot of negative
publicity in the paper about that, and I want to make certain that
what we're talking about, they're narrow, they're twisty. You can
get totally lost out there within a 150 yards. It's kind of scrub
growth out in there, but it's very heavy. It's quiet out in there,
and it would be a great place for the skids to ride.
We're trying to move to get them off of the streets. There
really is no legal place now in Collier County for them to use
these vehicles.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get them out of Big Cypress.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would hope that before we get too
far -- I'm supportive of what you're doing, Dave, I really -- I think
this is a good plan because I've got kids up in my area that are
riding illegally on the right of ways of the roads, down the
streets, doing all those kinds of things, but secondly, before you
go forward, I would request that you go meet with the Golden
Gate Estates Civic Association, if you haven't done so already,
and also, the Golden Gate Civic Association. Let them know
what you're talking about and planning, if you haven't done that.
If you have, that's a good deal, but go talk to them and at least
Page t t 4
August 1, 2000
let them know what you're thinking about because I suspect
you're going to get their wholehearted support, but I think they
need to be informed.
MR. CARPENTER: We have had -- received a lot of support
from Golden Gate. Actually, the prime mover behind this is a
Sheriff's Deputy. She had a problem being here speaking today.
Because of the nature of her undercover work, she can't be
televised right now. We will certainly be in communication with
them.
Like I say, on our tests last November, one of the things we
did learn were which bikes caused noise, which types, and
where they are that causes noise problems for neighbors. So we
certainly plan to work with all the Golden Gate groups, and we
certainly will on it.
What we're asking for you today is direct staff to go ahead
and try to work with us to accomplish something.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: With regard to noise attenuation,
would you be coming to the county to help with any kind of
plantings or anything that would cause a cost to appear, all of a
sudden?
MR. CARPENTER: No, not really. The only thing we might --
number one, as far as planting goes, that acreage, you really
couldn't get one more plant into most of that acreage. I mean,
this is so thick that you really can't see more than about 15
yards in that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I always think about sound
buffering.
MR. CARPENTER: Yeah. We discovered by the location within
that 300 acres, there was a question of where we locate the
trails. We found there was one spot on the west side where we
had one that came relatively near to some housing. We
experimented by running a couple of different types of vehicles
through there. We discovered the only thing we had problems
with, we let a couple people out on the full bore motor cross
bikes, and those created a noise problem. But they were the
only ones in that area that created a noise problem. We did have
noise monitoring out there. I know Commissioner Constantine
received calls. We had people from code enforcement out
helping with the monitoring and deputies out helping with the
Page t 15
August 1, 2000
monitoring.
So we're very confident we can avoid the noise problem. We
want to be a good neighbor out there because if we're not, we'll
get thrown off in an instant by this Board or whatever Board
continues to oversee that property.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm totally supportive of your
program, and I think what you'll find is that once you institute it
and get some experience, people will want to expand and
expand, and over the next five, ten years, before anybody
decides whether that's really surplus property or not, you'll grow
considerably, so I think the parks and recs people, if they're the
ones who are going to be working on this, need to have that in
mind. Things grow, and that's great.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would just like to say I totally
support your program. What I don't want is community problems,
I don't want noise problems, I don't want environmental
problems. So if you can work with staff in that framework and
make that happen, I think it's a great idea.
MR. CARPENTER: That's our commitment, Commissioner
Carter. And another problem, like I say, what we don't want is,
we are not asking for an exclusive use. We would like there to
be a vehicle written into the lease where some division of the
county can determine fair and other usage of that acreage as it
becomes necessary on it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, it sounds like you have
five commissioners all on the same page here. Are you clear, or
do we need to repeat any direction?
MR. OLLIFF: No, I think we're clear. Just so the Board's
aware, you know, in preliminary discussions on this particular
item, there are issues that will come up regarding liability
insurance and who is going to be the entity that's going to hold
the bag, if you will, on how this place is operated and run. We'll
try and work all of that out into something that frankly I think is
in the county's best interest and bring an agreement back for you
to consider.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It has to be, or we can't do it. I
mean, we want to do it, but we can't do it at cost.
MR. CARPENTER: Can I make a quick closing comment? We
understand that this isn't going to solve the ATV problem in
Page t 16
August 1, 2000
Collier County. There are many adults who enjoy riding them.
What we are going to be -- a part of the effort to get the county to
look into putting pressure on the State to include motorized
vehicle recreation in their recreation plan for Picayune State
Forest. Because that's probably the key to resolving the ATV
issue in this county. What we're talking about, basically, are
starting to work with the kids, but there are a lot of people over
t8, over 21 that want a place to ride. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. CARPENTER: Thank you.
Item #11 B1
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AUTHORIZED
STAFF TO WAIVE THE PURCHASING POLICY AND CONTRACT
WITH HOLLAND AND KNIGHT IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,500 TO
PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 11(B)(1), recommendation of the
Community Redevelopment Agency Board to authorize staff to
waive the purchasing policy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any speakers on the item? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's a generally agreeable Board
today. Passes 5/0.
Item #11C1
GLEN BLACKWELDER RE COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE'S
CONDUCT AND DEALINGS WITH MR. MOBLEY
That takes us to the advertised public hearings. I'm sorry.
Public comment on general topics. Do we have any speakers?
Page 117
August t, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: You actually have four speakers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And one really anxious one.
MR. OLLIFF: One anxious one. First one is Glen Blackwelder.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We can also announce whomever
is on next.
MR. OLLIFF: Shannon Chesser will follow Mr. Blackwelder.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Shannon, if you could just come
up and stand by the doors so we'll move along as each speaker
comes.
MR. BLACKWELDER: Good afternoon. I'm Glen Blackwelder,
live in Naples, Florida. I took a vacation day off today to be here.
I'm glad I did. I got to see clowns and puppy dogs.
Just to let you know that I have had a brief discussion with
Commissioner Brandt to let him know my feelings regarding
Commissioner Constantine's involvement with the very people
that Commissioner Norris was involved with, as well.
Commissioner Constantine, you sat in silence regarding your
involvement with the very investor that John Norris is involved
with. You voted and possibly helped draft the resolution to oust
Mr. Norris from office, knowing that the main investor in Mr.
Norris' investment also was your main investor. To me, this
reeks of conflict of interest. You, as a sworn deputy of county
government, should have received -- recused yourself from this
vote, yet did not.
The public had no idea about your dealings with Mr. Mobley
until the Naples Daily News reported it. Did you think we would
not find out about this? What did you think the public outcry
would be? We, as a constituency, feel as if we were deceived.
I care not what the State Attorney's Office finds. The bottom
line is, you deliberately, knowingly, did not reveal your express
interest in these dealings. If Mr. Norris is guilty, you are as
much, if not more, of deceiving the voters of this county.
I strive to get new voters to vote every day, yet we need to
send a message that this type of conduct will not be tolerated. If
you do not voluntarily resign, Mr. Constantine, I call the other
council members to draft a resolution for your ouster. I thank
you.
Item #11C2
Page t18
August 1, 2000
SHANNON CHESSER RE ETHICS GUIDELINES
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Shannon Chesser. Following Ms.
Chesser would be Jeff Popick.
MS. CHESSER: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Shannon
Chesser, a candidate for District 3 County Commission. I'm
going to make this as brief as possible, and, Mr. Chairman, the
timeliness of this has nothing to do with the current situation.
It's something I had planned on talking to you about for a while.
You know~ I have an article here from '98 where Mr. Hart had
asked that a committee or a citizens' advisory board be
established to address ethics, and a lot of talk has been
mentioned today about the term "political will." And I know as a
candidate I'm working really hard to try to get my position on the
issues out there, and I know the county faces some real serious
issues right now.
The only thing is, I just keep getting asked about my position
on ethics, not about growth or transportation or water or solid
waste, and this is kind of monopolizing, you know, all of these
forms that are coming up. So what I'd like to ask is if on your
own initiative you could set a goal for yourselves that between
now and November 20th -- that's probably a Sunday, but between
now and November 20th, if you could establish the citizens'
advisory board on ethics and using -- I'd like to see the Naples
City Council Code of Ethics used as a minimum guideline
standards for this Board to work from. It will change the entire
way this county does business, but I think it's a long time
coming.
It's going to make it harder to fill these advisory board
seats. It's going to make us harder -- you know, our procurement
process is going to be a little more challenging and difficult. But
I'd really like to leave here or after September 12th, and the next
person that says, Shannon, what's your position on ethics, I'd
like to tell them that I accept the Naples City Council Code of
Ethics as my minimum guidelines and that I agree with the
current Board's position on a January I deadline for a new code
of ethics and to have the entire county come into compliance by
March 2001 with that new code. So, I mean, that's all I really
have to say.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: First, I'd like to comment, Ms.
Page t t 9
August t, 2000
Chesser, that we did have a Citizens' Advisory Committee to
establish the guideline for a code of ethics for Collier County,
and they worked for many months and came back essentially
with some ideas. We eventually did establish a code of ethics,
one that Commissioner Mac'Kie and I would have liked to have
seen a zero gift policy to did not happen at that time. But that's
the one that's currently in place. Whether or not that could be
changed before the sun setting on this Board is probably
questionable because some people feel very differently than I do.
It does not mean that a new Board seated could not go to the
one that is established by the City of Naples and say, this is the
one that we want to adopt for Collier County. I think I've already
put our county attorney on alert that I think that's an issue that
will come up after the new Board is seated, and one that we
should be prepared to address.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll just comment, just to
follow up, too, that I can absolutely commit to you that if there is
support on the Board today to go to a zero gifts, I will absolutely
make the motion and do whatever I can. I don't have any idea
because we can't talk to each other, and frankly, we don't know
where Mr. Brandt stands. We know where his predecessor stood
on that issue.
I am more hopeful that when we get a new Board, I promise
I'm going to bring it up the first meeting.
MS. CHESSER: I'll hold you to that on November 21st.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I stand on a zero gift tolerance
basis. That's the way it was in the City of Marco Island. That's
where I am now. I won't accept this, no matter what it is. I
haven't looked at it. I saw something red in there, I think I did.
But I will not accept it. I will not accept it. And I don't allow
people to pay for my breakfast if I give a talk to a group. I pay
my own way. I will not accept gifts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Based on that, I'd like to ask for
the zero gift, that on our next meeting agenda, there be an item
to amend our current ethics ordinance to prohibit gifts from
lobbyists in any amount to elected officials, and we can go
farther than that, hopefully, with the new Board, but we can get
that done right away.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let me just say -- may I say
Page 120
August t, 2000
something? Everybody else got to, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Shannon, because I haven't gone
along with the no gifts does not mean that I am on the take and
that I am taking gifts. And you didn't say that. Okay? You didn't
even hint at that. But that has been hinted at by various people.
And that's a bunch of baloney because I think people that know
me, and I have done the speaking engagement, and the same as
Mr. Brandt, I have paid to go and speak, after I have been asked
to go and speak. Should you become a county commissioner,
you will be asked to go and speak many times.
When you put in policy some of these kinds of decisions, you
have to be very careful as to what you decide to put down on a
piece of paper. You can do something that you wouldn't even
think about, but because someone may have witnessed it from
afar, you're going to get nailed on it, and you will be totally
oblivious to the fact that you did something wrong.
The reason I did not go with the no gifts thing, and again, I
can tell you that I have gone to speak and I am paying for it. I
was asked to go install officers recently for a group here in town
that ended up costing me $60 to go pay for it. I'm not
complaining about that. I just -- but that's the kind of thing you
run into because as a public official, you are asked, and you're
expected, to go do those kinds of things.
Had I taken that particular event and said, gee, they're asking
me, somebody could have misconstrued it if I had taken their
offer that they would pay. In fact, they offered. They said, now
you understand if you'll come and do this, your dinner will be on
us. They don't mean that they're buying me off. The fact is that
they're asking me to come and do something, they have to pay
somebody to provide a meal for me. But I wrote them a check. I
have the check. I can prove that. And I think it's well known
that when I go and meet with people, if it is a breakfast or lunch,
I don't take any money for it. I don't take the cost of the meal. It
doesn't make any difference to me. I will pay it. And I was doing
that long before this discussion ever came up on ethics. But I
have been portrayed, because I will not put this down on a piece
of paper because I think the state statute speaks to these kinds
of issues, was brought about by people who spent a great deal of
time looking at this, and Shannon, we can write volumes bigger
Page 121
August 1, 2000
than the book that we have in front of us today, and if you
choose to go out and violate that, this book isn't going to stop
you from doing it.
I don't care whether it's you or anybody else. You can do this
until the cows come home. If you want to take a stand on the
ethics position, it doesn't have to be written down in this book,
or it doesn't have to be written down in any other book.
Now, if you want to play the political game, then play the
political game and put it in writing because that's exactly what
you're doing. And I guess it comes down to a stubbornness on
my part, and people don't like me for this, but if you don't want to
know how I feel about something, don't ask me because I'm
going to tell you how I feel about it, and I'm very strong about it.
And it comes down to this ethics issue.
You can't legislate ethics. You either have it or you don't
have it. And if it's your will to go out and be on the take, and
that's what they're all going to say -- they all think we are. And I
have to tell you, as long as I have been in public office, I have not
been offered anything for a vote, even asked remotely, as long as
I have sat in this seat and 10 years prior to this, no one has ever
asked me to do anything that was not aboveboard. And I was
resentful, and I have gotten chastised up one side and down the
other for that position, but no one has asked me to do anything.
And I -- frankly, if -- is this what we're coming to in this
community? Is it going to make people happier because we have
a piece of paper that says, I won't take anything?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the sad --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Does that mean --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. You're absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Does that mean that Shannon
Chesser is going to be a more ethical person? Of course it
doesn't. But they're going to find out who Shannon Chesser is by
your actions. Okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But because you put it on a piece of
paper is not going to make you an ethical person, and that was
my whole point, of which I have been chastised up one side and
down the other. And I will guarantee you that after this little
discussion we're having here today, I will guarantee you that
within the next week, there will be a letter to the editor from one
Page t22
August t, 2000
infamous individual in this town that Barbara Berry and her little
diatribe at the table on ethics, and he will just go on and on and
on about this. I guarantee it. I will be really shocked if it doesn't
happen.
But I am telling you here that putting it on a paper does not
make you ethical.
MS. CHESSER: I couldn't agree with you more that you can't
legislate for this.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's in here and how you operate
your life. Okay? And I don't have to have it written down
because if I write it down, I guarantee you somebody is going to
see you, and even if you pay for your cup of coffee and they don't
see you hand the money, the next thing you know, Shannon, they
can write you up for anything.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They will anyway.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And this piece of paper isn't going to
stop it. You understand? And that's my problem with the whole
deal. I'm not out taking cups of coffee. I don't know of any of
these other commissioners that are. I don't follow them around
every day. That's the reason I have been where I'm at on it. And
I'm sorry, you're a candidate for public office just as we all were,
and I hate to say it, but you know what? You're on your own.
You get out there and you establish where you're going to be on
a particular issue. Don't come and ask the current seated
elected Board to bail you out. That's up to you.
MS. CHESSER: I appreciate your -- go ahead.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, go ahead. I was going to ask
Mr. Olliff for the next speaker, so go ahead.
MS. CHESSER: Okay. No, I just wanted to say, I can certainly
sympathize with your position, and I'm not asking for the current
commission to bail me out. I'm simply asking them to give the
people what they want. And I agree that you can't legislate
ethics. But if it makes the voters in this county more
comfortable to have a more stringent code of ethics -- and I don't
understand why it's so difficult. If everything you're saying is
true, which I do believe you've represented this county well, and
the School Board before that. It's just the way it is.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, Shannon, it's because they have
been goaded into thinking this by the local media. They have
been goaded into thinking that you're going to have a more
Page t23
August 1, 2000
ethical elected Board, Boards, whether it's this one, the City
Councils, whoever it may be, if you have something written down
on paper, they're all going to be more ethical. Do you know how
ridiculous that is? It makes absolutely no sense. Putting it on a
piece of paper -- they don't even listen. Putting it on a piece of
paper doesn't make you ethical. That's not what makes you
ethical. We could sit up here and pass these things from now
until next year. We could have volumes lining this room. Would
we be more ethical?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, Commissioner Berry, I'm
asking for that to be put on the next agenda, and I guess we'll
have this same discussion again, if there are three members who
want to have the amendment to the gift limitation put on our
agenda for September because I would like to see that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All it requires is one
commissioner to request it to be on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So requested.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So I guess we are talking about
September 12th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we'll get to have this discussion
again then. And I just want to take the chance, though, because
of what Commissioner Berry just said, to say publicly, I've never
met a straighter arrow than Barbara Berry. So, if you think she's
doing something she shouldn't be doing, guess again.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've gotten chewed up more than
anybody else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it ain't right.
Item #11 C3
JEFF POPICK RE SEWER BILL THAT STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO
REVIEW
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Is Jeff Popick.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Before that, just one quick
comment, if I might, Mr. Chairman.
When you go to a zero gifts policy, then you also have an
obligation to establish a line item budget when commissioners
are asked to come and participate in certain events, because
Page t24
August 1, 2000
you do not want to establish, to be a commissioner is an elitist,
that you have to have a certain income level to be a
commissioner. Because if it gets expensive, does that mean the
person that doesn't have the resources can't go to those things
because they don't feel that they can afford to pay those things?
So you have to have a line item budget with the qualification of
certain events that says, a commissioner will represent the
commission, the county if you please, at those events. So when
we go back through this discussion, I will bring those points up
again. I'm an advocate of a zero gift ordinance with the
qualification that says you have a line item to take care of
representation to the community. If a commissioner opts to
waive that, that is his or her personal decision to make, and
there's not a person sitting up here that I think can be bought off
for a $25 lunch or a $10 this or that. You can't do that. We are
not here for that. That would be absolute stupidity on our part.
MR. POPICK.' My name is Jeff Popick. I'm half asleep. I'm
stark raving angry. I was here over a month ago to address a
situation regarding my sewer bill. Mr. Finn is here. I'm glad
because he may want to address this as well.
As I understand it, the Board asked Mr. Finn to do whatever
studies he needed to do to determine the fairness of my sewer
bill. Right now, I pay on average $17 a month for my water
usage. My sewer bill is -- this is just one month, and it's very
typical -- $71.50, but $54 and change of that is just the base
facility charge. Under $20 for water. My monthly sewer bill is
$524.88 a month.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We talked about this.
MR. POPICK: They've done nothing. All they've done is
postpone it and postpone it in bad faith because they want to
push it off onto Marco Island. Because Marco Island is
supposedly, and the operative word is supposedly, taking over
October 1st, but they don't want to bother with it. And this is --
it's bad faith. you know, if I'm selling a house, if there was a
house in -- I'm a seller, and you're the buyer, while it's in escrow,
I have to administer to that house. I have to take care of it, and I
have to do everything in good faith to transfer that house in
proper condition as it were when it went into escrow. They're not administering to this bill properly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, I think the direction of
Page 125
August t, 2000
the Board was fairly clear last time. What happened, why we're
not addressing Mr. Popick's --
MR. OLLIFF: It's very easy. I think the direction was to look
at it, and the Board understood clearly from the discussion we
had last time that this was a system-wide issue. You cannot
look at Mr. Popick's specific bill because he is billed per toilet,
and he has that many toilets within the building that he
manages, and that's why the bill is what it is. I think the Board
did tell us to go look at, from a rate structure standpoint, is there
something that we can do for a situation like Mr. Popick's so that
perhaps in a case like this where there's not that kind of usage,
that perhaps the bill, the system, ought to not recognize that.
We discussed previously a billing system that talked about
sewage usage with this Board, and the Board decided not to go
that route because of a number of different reasons. I think in
this particular case, we were given a period of time which was
less than two months from the time that this utility is being
turned over to the City of Marco. Frankly, our ability to do
something specifically for Mr. Popick is very, very limited
because of the rate structure that we deal with.
I think Mr. Finn has got some options that we are looking at,
and he can maybe give you an update on that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Two questions. One, I do want to
get the update, but two, have we communicated what Mr. Olliff
just said to you? Have we communicated with Mr. Popick so that
at least he's not --
MR. POPICK: They told me several things. I speak with Mr.
Finn, and they've told me several things. One of those things is
timing, again. But again, in the meantime, I have clearly pointed
out that there is an inequity. Mr. Finn admitted that last time.
He's admitted it to me many times on the phone.
On the phone prior to the last time I was here, he told me my
sewer bill should be 60 bucks a month, looking at my water
usage. Sixty dollars a month is what he told me. So I think I've
demonstrated that there is a gross, a gross inequity here. And
they're the ones who created the burden on me.
Therefore, while they're doing a rate study, or while they're
doing whatever they want to do, perhaps they should suspend my
bill because why am I the one who has to bear the burden? They
don't want to go through the burden of doing anything because
Page 126
August 1, 2000
it's a timing issue. In the meantime, I have to pay $524.88 a
month, month in and month out. It's not fair.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you understand you're not the
only one.
MR. POPICK: I am the only one. I am the only one who has
this -- who has -- in fact, timing was one -- they have three issues
that they've conveyed to me. One was timing, which we've
spoken about and we can talk about a lot more. The second one
is the integrity of their billing policy. They're very, very
concerned about that. Mr. Finn has told me that so many times, I
hear it in my sleep. Their integrity of their billing policy, they're
concerned that if they change my bill, the ripple effect, other
people are going to come.
Firstly, there's two things to that. Mr. Finn has told me that
this is a very unique situation, and I am in a very unique situation
because I have so many toilets in my building. Therefore, if it is
truly unique, there's no worry of a ripple effect. Secondly, if
there is a ripple effect, the integrity of the billing policy is
nonexistent. There is no integrity of the billing policy if people
are going to say, we're being overcharged for our sewer. So in
that case, in the latter case, there is total -- it's almost criminal
because then they're actually covering up -- they're calling it
integrity of their billing policy, but the billing policy has no
integrity to begin with.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Finn, where are we in this
process now?
MR. FINN: Well, I pretty much concluded that Mr. Popick feels
very strongly about this issue --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Can't hear you.
MR. FINN: I'm sorry. Mr. Popick clearly feels very strongly
about this, and we have tried to communicate to him. Actually,
he was here on 6-28. On 6-17, I sent the Board a memo report,
and essentially the report outlined that all of the customers, not
just Mr. Popick, are based on a per toilet charge. That includes
residential customers as well as nonresidential customers.
Mr. Popick is a nonresidential customer. He happens to have
12 toilets. The rate is such that it ends up being $525. Because
that's the basis of the charge, I cannot evaluate whether he's
being undercharged or overcharged without looking at all of the
customers on the entire island. Generally, by his rate of usage, I
Page 127
August 1, 2000
would say the 525 seems to be -- seems to have a poor
correlation to usage, perhaps disproportionate, but in the
absence of doing a full study, it's impossible to say how
disproportionate and what the appropriate rate should be.
MR. OLLIFF: But that is also the way the fee structure for our
sewer system is based. From system-wide, that is how our
sewer fees are based, and it is a luxury in this particular case
because it is a commercial office building where each individual
office, the way I understand it, has its own separate bathroom.
And I believe that we have offered Mr. Popick some opportunity
to be able to sit down and let's talk about closing down some of
those toilets. Let's shut them off, and we'll lower the rate that
way. There are some options, but I think, frankly, each individual
office unit is paying for having the luxury of having its own rest
room as part of its own office suite.
MR. POPICK: Mr. Finn has conveyed to me several things of
what you're alluding to, many of them are, in my opinion,
unethical, immoral, and perhaps illegal, in worst scenario. Best
case scenario, it's a game. He told me I should take some toilets
out, and then they'll readjust it, and then I put the toilets back in.
We've been through that. That's a game. I'm here asking for
some type of fairness, just some type of fairness, and if it needs
to be an interim fairness, make it an interim fairness, but the
burden should be on Collier County Utilities because I have
clearly elucidated this gross inequity. And it is a gross inequity,
and Ed Finn admitted it's a gross inequity.
MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, if I may finish?
MR. POPICK: And it's double talk. Everything is double talk.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on a second. I think we're
going to need to wrap this because we don't normally take action
under public comment. Your point is well taken, and your
frustration is understood. If you want to comment on that, that's
fine, and then we need to close up this particular discussion.
And if we need to take some action outside of here, we can see
where we go.
MR. FINN: The memo I prepared indicated that there
appeared to be adequate justification to warrant going to a rate
study. To that end, I sent the Board a report on that, sent Mr.
Olliff a report on that, sent Mr. Popick a report on that. You'll
note in that report that I say that I will inform Mr. Moss, the City
Page 128
August 1, 2000
of Marco Island's manager, of that fact, and ask him to consider
that, in fact, recommend that the city may want to do a rate
study as early as possible. I've subsequently followed up on that
and asked Mr. Moss if he would be interested in me initiating a
rate study so as to expedite that process. I haven't heard back.
Finally, in addition to speaking to Mr. Popick on a couple of
occasions since then, I've spoken to our rate consultant that
prepared the rates for this, and has been our rate consultant for
some time. He indicated that the standardized approach to
billing, while perhaps not perfect for every single customer, is
certainly a lawful and an approach that is typically used in many
utilities. He indicated that switching to a volume metric billing
approach certainly is going to create a little more equity in it, but
there's still the third party meter reading to overcome and the
whole billing issue associated with that. That's why we were
unable to switch to this method to begin with.
Finally, in the event that we were to adopt new rates, the
validity of those rates as it turns over to Marco Island, is
somewhat in question. And finally, my understanding is that Mr.
Popick actually hasn't been billed for the last several months,
and that may well be based on the fact that he had his toilets
removed at one point, and there was some site inspection. And
that's a matter that I'm still looking into, and if there's some
accommodations that can be made in that regard, I will attempt
to make those, if they're fair and equitable to all the customers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need to do the following -- I
want to wrap up the item. But too, if we can get a written formal
update on this in fairly short order, and then you and I make a
point, if you want to talk to the other commissioners as well,
that's fine, but why don't you and I make a point just to sit down
sometime in the next 10 days or so at your convenience.
MR. POPICK: I would appreciate that. Can I just say one
more thing? But putting -- by having them do a rate -- do
whatever they want to do while I'm paying the bill, there's no
motivation for them to do anything. If you put the burden on
them and suspend my bill, then watch how fast they move. And I
think that really is something that you should consider. I mean,
the burden should be on them. They've created a policy that
clearly has some, at least one, inequity, and the burden should
be on them to correct it, not on me to weather it while they get
Page t29
August 1, 2000
around to it, if ever.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have to say, I understand,
but this is not the private sector where their income is based on
how much the collections are. They have no motivation to drag
this out and collect money from you. It doesn't affect their
salaries.
MR. POPICK: But it affects me. The burden is on me. They
don't -- if you were to say, okay, we're going to direct the public
utilities to suspend Mr. Popick's bill, then the motivation is going
to be on them because they--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it's not.
MR. POPICK: Sure it is because then they have to find
another way to fund the money that I'm putting in. He's told me
that. Ed Finn has told me that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it's not. That's my point. It's
not going to motivate them any differently. Their motivation --
MR. POPICK: Let's see. We've already clearly seen they
haven't done anything in over a month. Now let's go the other
way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Popick, let's take the course
of action I outlined. Let's -- we've got a little bit of direction from
where they're telling us they're heading today. We'll have that
hopefully back in written form in short order, and then why don't
we schedule a sit down.
MR. POPICK: How do I get in touch with --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As a matter of fact, if you want to
poke your head through the door right out here at the end of the
hall and just see Valerie, my assistant, and tell her a time that
works for you, and we'll get together on it.
MR. POPICK: Excellent. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #11 C4
RICHARD YOVANOVICH RE BUILDING MORATORIUM ON HIS
CLIENT'S GOODLAND PROPERTY - STAFF TO MEET WITH
SELLER OF PROPERTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER COUNTY CAN
PURCHASE SAME
We have one more public speaker.
Page 130
August 1, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: You do. Rich Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Rich Yovanovich, representing Aqua Circle, Inc. Earlier
this morning, there was a discussion regarding Goodland, and a
potential moratorium on building permits, as well as specifically
discussion regarding the Dolphin Cove project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Rich, can I interrupt you?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to just say because this is a
little unusual, but it's the only real forum we have for this
discussion that I asked Rich to talk to us about this in this public
comment because it may be that we have a small window of
opportunity to do something that in the real world is very simple,
but in public sector is very complicated, and that is to buy a
piece of property that we would like to have for a park if we can
do it within -- we'd have to waive some -- a purchasing policy.
We'd have to waive a second or delay a second appraisal. And I
know this is kind of unusual, but I just wanted to tell you that
that's what I've asked Rich to talk to us about, and if the Board
has any interest in it, maybe you could explain to the Board,
Rich, what the length of the window of opportunity might be.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me, let me, let me -- I tried to get up
and speak during the public petition part because it went a little
bit beyond what the agenda item discussed. The agenda item
discussed the moratorium, and then we got into specifics about
a specific project, and there were some comments out that
certainly could be read to the point that this is not a very popular
project, and there certainly may have been some motivation to
stop this project.
I tried to get up and say that and that there's an apparent
closing that's coming up, and one thing this Board needs to know
is there is a closing coming up. It's September 5th of the year
2000. You are not meeting again until September 12th. The
action that you took today effectively killed my contract because
no -- and you can ask Commissioner Mac'Kie this -- no purchaser
is going to go forward with this hanging over their head, whether
or not the county commission is going to reverse a site
development plan that is almost two years old. It is almost two
years old, and in fact it was discussed during a rezoning hearing
almost a year and a half ago, where this specific project was
Page 131
August 1, 2000
discussed, and the representatives of the civic association
acknowledged on the record that that site plan was vested and
there was nothing that the new regulations would do, including
the overlay to stop that site development plan from going
forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know you've got a lot of dogs in
that fight, but this -- where we find ourselves now is not where
you want us to be because you want that site development plan
to be vested, and you want it to be clearly vested, and you want
your buyer to be happy and confident and go ahead and close.
But let's assume for a minute that they're not going to be happy
and confident.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I have -- I went and I called the buyer and
said, you're not going to believe what happened. There's mow a
discussion regarding your site development plan. I don't want to
have a closing issue table discussion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The one other item that's
important that we've left out from this morning's discussion is
we said, if we need to have a special meeting sometime toward
the end of August for this specific purpose, we can. And that
would still leave any question -- or that would answer any
question prior to your September 5 date.
MR. YOVANOVICH: One of the answers may be an answer
that you totally destroy the closing. Another of the answers may
be you may be interested in buying the property. But at least
two of the commissioners will not be here. I know they're going
to be out of town, and they said that earlier on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to be out of town.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So the reason I'm bringing it up now is
because Commissioner Mac'Kie asked me, you know, what do
you think the buyer's going to do? And I said, I don't know. And
I've got the buyer who said, I need some time to evaluate my
options. And one of those things would be is for direction to your
county manager.
My client, candidly, doesn't care who pays her for the
property. It can be the current buyer, or it can be the county.
The county has expressed some interest in the property in the
past. Because of timing issues that you had regarding needing
to get certain appraisals, we could not reach an agreement with
the county in time to let another offer, albeit a much higher offer
Page t32
August t, 2000
than the county's offer go away. So we did what the natural
person would do is accept an offer and we moved along. And
now things have changed.
I think the buyer should be given some assurances that there
will be a discussion with the county manager to see what her
options are regarding whether or not the county now has an
interest in taking out her position. Our closing is September 5th.
My client has a reasonable expectation that she will be selling
the property on September 5th. We'll be happy -- we just want to
sit down at the table and get our check. I've told the county
manager, we'll sell it to them for the same net price if that's the
way it works out.
I need direction from this Board to empower your county
manager to do what is necessary to meet with the buyer and see
if that's a viable option.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Let me just say, too, the same net
price -- we have an appraisal for 2.8 million or something. Is that
right?
MR. OLLIFF'. I believe, and don't hold me to this because this
is just strictly from memory. I believe we also have a second
appraisal in hand, so I'm not sure your first issue is even an
issue, and I think somewhere between 2.8 and 2.9, was what the
two appraisals were.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's a couple hundred
thousand dollars away from the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's something you have to deal
with the buyer on, on what, you know, naturally the buyer's spent
money on this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. But if this is an
accomplishable goal, and I'm just hoping that we could give
direction to the manager to work with Mr. Yovanovich and his
client and his buyer to see if there's something that we could do
to avoid, you know, just getting us in such a mire that we can't
dig out of it after September 4th or whatever the date is.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's give that direction, including
the ability to ask, if need be, that we gather the Board. If a
couple are travelling, we can do our phone routine. We can do --
it's not as though we can't do what we need to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. OLLIFF: And rather than that, frankly, I would like to
Page 133
August 1, 2000
simply ask Mr. Yovanovich to ask his client and the buyer to go
ahead and delay the closing for a period of time and give us a
sufficient period of time to sit down and see if we can't work it
out.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me tell you why I can't. I've got a site
development plan that expires November 12th. I've got to pull
building permits, and I've got to start construction, not to lose
my site development plan. Now, if the buyer takes a walk, you've
significantly impaired my property, which -- the value of my
property, my client's property, I wish it were my property, my
client's property to the extent where now I can't even get fair
market value. The fair market value is now changed by the
actions of this Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It really is a time crunch that's real
that I wish we could try to work within. I mean, I know --
MR. OLLIFF: If that's the Board's direction, it was originally a
piece of property that the parks department had looked for years
for a reasonable site for a boat launch and park facility. I think
it's one the community would like to see as a boat launch and
park, so we clearly have a county interest. If the Board's having
us pursue that, I'd be happy to sit down with Mr. Yovanovich and
I believe the buyer's representatives as well and see if we can't
work something out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if you need to call us back,
call us back because it's important enough. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I've talked to the county manager
about long-range planning and looking ahead to county needs.
And one of the things that I am very much supportive of is
acquiring space for parks and recreational activity. And if we
don't do that, in a far-looking manner, looking out into the future,
we're going to lose opportunities to do this sort of thing, and I am
totally supportive of acquiring this kind of capability in various
parts of the county, and particularly down in the Goodland area,
and I would like to see it happen. I don't know what it takes to
make it happen. That sounds like a lot of money to me. I'm not
used to that kind of money being spent for a park and rec ground.
But in the interest of the community, and I mean Collier County
community, and certainly others from other parts of the world
will come and enjoy it, and that may not be a great thing for the
Page 134
August 1, 2000
people in Goodland, but in any event, I don't want to see an
opportunity lost. So I would like to see something like that
explored.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think you brought up an interesting
point. I think Collier County is at a point -- when you start
obtaining these lands for recreational types of activities, there
was a time perhaps 20 years ago when this would have been
most advantageous. The cost of land isn't what it is today, and it
also is another point, when it comes into people start talking
about a public golf course, and you start looking at the cost of
acquiring land to either build one or to buy an existing one,
you're going to see the land cost that is going to be out of sight,
as compared to other communities, and we always get, well Ft.
Myers has got one, so and so has one, but you have to look at the
point in time when that land was purchased and what was paid
for it compared to going out and buying that same piece of
property today. And you've got some extremely high costs. And
when you start looking at costs for -- in that particular area,
which is on the water, I definitely can understand it, but is
delaying, if we definitely need something, and I certainly -- that
doesn't happen to be in my particular district, but I can tell you
that there has been a lot of concern over the years about boat
launch facilities. And if we have any interest in getting any kind
of property, putting it off in this particular case, it's not going to
get any cheaper. But yes, it is a tremendous amount of money, I
think, for a quote recreational -- the other question that I have is,
and I guess Mr. Weigel and Ms. Student will be looking at this in
terms of just how much vesting does this site development plan
have, and would something like this trigger the Burt Harris Act.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I brought this up because I needed -- the
buyer and the seller need time to think, evaluate their options,
and meet with your staff to discuss what option is the best for
everybody. And I appreciate Commissioner Mac'Kie giving me
the opportunity to do that, but I feel I can assure you in my
humble legal opinion, I've got a signed contract that pretty much
tells you my investment back expectations. I feel pretty good
about that Burt Harris claim. So I don't -- I mean, I want this to
work out, but we need time, and I appreciate the commitment
from the commission to call a special meeting if we can work it
Page t35
August t, 2000
out with Mr. Olliff, and I had concern because two of you were
going to be gone, that we needed to -- we needed a commitment
to have that meeting.
I know the buyer can breathe a little easier if she's getting a
few days to figure out what happened, I'm given a few days to
figure out what happened, and so is your staff, I believe.
MR. OLLIFF: I don't mind adding this to the list of things for
me to do. I'll tell you, there's not at lot of room left at the bottom
of that list. It's getting a little full, but I would also appreciate a
motion on this particular one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A motion? Let's see. A motion to
direct staff to over the next 21 days meet with -- oh no, no, no,
no, no. It's got to be really fast, doesn't it? As soon as possible.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just think it's unreasonable.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To as soon as possible work with
the seller and the buyer of this property with an eye toward
determining whether or not the county can purchase the property
through taking out, as we would say in the private sector, the
position of the buyer and making the seller whole and the buyer
whole for their out of pocket, whether or not it's possible to do
that within the county's restraints for purchasing property.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Further
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor state aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I am from the standpoint of I think
the time frame is unreasonable.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4/1. For the sake
of the court reporter, let's just take about a five-minute break,
and let's try to keep it really to five minutes.
(Recess.)
Item #13B1
Page 136
August 1, 2000
PETITION CU-2000-06 DAVID W. RYNDERS, REPRESENTING
JAMES K. KEISER, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "14" OF THE
"A" ZONING DISTRICT FOR A SOCIAL CLUB PER SECTION 2.2,2.3
FOR OUTDOOR SUNBATHING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1311
PET RANCH ROAD - CONTINUED AND STAFF TO SEND OUT NEW
NOTICES RE NUDE SUNBATHING
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Back. Next item is 12(B)(1).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nope. 12(B)(1)? No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 12(B)(1), petition PUD-2000-97
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's continued.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I thought 12(C)(t) was continued.
12(B)(1), that's Madeira.
I'm sorry. Well, then we're down to the social club. The old
17(B) is now 13(B)(1). Anybody who's going to participate in this
in any way, shape or manner, please stand to be sworn. Madam
Court Reporter, if you would swear them in. (Speakers sworn.)
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray with current planning staff. If
you'd like, I'd make a presentation, or Commissioner Carter, I
know --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure. Just quickly, any
disclosure from any members of the Board?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've had no contact on this one.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No, no contact.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've had no contact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No contact.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I can go specifically to page 6
of your presentation to us. Compatibility with adjacent
properties and other properties, this pro is very short. It would
be page -- it would be number 17(B), page 12, or page 6 on staff's
summary. It's Item D, as in David. The cons on this, is the
subject property at one time was located in what could be
considered a relatively remote location in the county, relative to
the nature of the use of -- in relationship to its surroundings and
the need of the club members for privacy, compatibility should
also be evaluated in terms of the potential for visual and physical
intrusion by nonclub members. A significant number of planned
projects in the area have been approved, and several projects in
Page 137
August 1, 2000
the area are pending approval, with rezoning, et cetera. We're
talking about 2500 dwelling units, multifamily. My question is a
compatibility issue here in terms of a developing area for this
type of social club. I'm not against the social club. I am
questioning the location in which they would choose to do this.
Maybe it needs to be in a more secluded environment versus a
developing multifamily community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could add to that,
Commissioner Carter, what I -- where I see that the technical
problem for staff, I guess, arose here, is if they -- what we have
here is a piece of property that's still zoned ag, and under ag,
there is a conditional use, number 14, for social club. But this is
property that may be zoned ag, but it's certainly not an
agricultural area. It happens to still be zoned agricultural,
although on the future land use map, I'm sure, it has a residential
designation because it's in the middle of a developed area. If
this were agricultural in usage, then the conditional use could
well be appropriate. But instead, we're talking about -- this is
that whole Whippoorwill area where we have had all these
discussions about how we're going to do the roads, and we know
there's going to be a significant transportation impact because
of all of the development coming in.
This kind of gets in under a technicality of still being zoned A,
and therefore able to apply under the conditional use number 14,
but in the real world on the ground, it's not being used, that area
is no longer agricultural in nature, and that causes it to be
inappropriate, to me, that is.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And the summary points to that. If
you're looking for privacy, it could be significantly diminished
because of the nature of all the developing area, so that's why
I'm bringing it forward for discussion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And honestly, I don't care if it was
a Kiwanis Club, an Elks Club, or what kind of club it is, it's the
nature of a social club in the middle of a residential area. It's
almost like a commercial use in a residential area, and that
makes me think it's not compatible.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Petitioner want to make a
presentation?
MR. KAISER: My name is James Kaiser. I'm a director of
Southern Exposure of Naples, Inc., and Southern Exposure is a
Page t38
August 1, 2000
not-for-profit club, has been for the past seven years. Before
that, we were a nudist club, part of a group of nudists from Ft.
Myers for three years prior to that.
We have been very active in the community. We are a part of
the Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce. We have been very
active with them. We were instrumental in getting their visitors'
center moved in one weekend, and that was because our people
were involved. There were electricians and various other
personnel -- had brought in the equipment to do this in one day,
something that was estimated would take at least three weeks
of volunteer labor. That's one of the things.
We also -- you talk about compatible. We're very compatible
with our neighbors. We've gotten involved in the neighborhood
watch, and the Sheriff's Department can attest that we have
been very instrumental in getting a lot of the garbage and trash
and rowdiness out of that community. Any one of our neighbors
will testify to that. We are also very active in Hospice House,
and they consider us a very good neighbor. We've been -- we
have kind a running joke. If the media is on the commissioners,
then they're not on Southern Exposure. We've been very, very
active in that, too. We have won the respect of the media, I
believe, because they put a three-page article in the Naples Daily
News, 1998, fall of 1998, about the naturist organization and how
they were involved with the family, and it is a family
organization. We have people of all ages.
So I think that we are very compatible. We've done a lot for
that community. We're working with the planning department
now as far as screening, and we'd be willing to do anything
within reason to screen that, and I really believe that we could
be a very, very good neighbor to the future development and
what the future development is right in our area is probably two
to three years off. They're in the planning stages now, and in the
immediate area, nothing has been approved for that.
Then in closing, we weren't really prepared to do this because
it was on the summary agenda, and we thought it was going to
go through. If we would have known this, we have people from
our organization in Kissimmee that would have come down, and
we have a professional display to give to county commissioners
and city council members and anybody else that's interested in it
to give the background on the American Association for Nude
Page 139
August t, 2000
Recreation to show just what kind of organization it is, how big it
is, and all that. It's a very impressive display.
So that way, we weren't prepared for it, but that's about the
extent of it. Like I said, we do have a lot of people that can
testify that we have not had any problems out there. I mean, we
were there for ten years, and when we started in on this, the
zoning and code compliance, everybody was amazed that we've
been there ten years without having anybody say anything about
it. So we have really been more or less low key, but still a very
active group. That's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Kaiser?
MR. RYNDERS: If I could address the Board, I'm the attorney
for Mr. Kaiser and the Southern Exposure Group. My name is
David Rynders. I'm a resident of the City of Naples. The
compatibility issue was raised and discussed and resolved in the
con section of the staff's report where it said, for that reason,
security of the site by way of a fence and gated entrance is
necessary, and they've also required barriers that are 100
percent opaque be planted and drawn to a minimum height of 12
feet. Your planners have driven past this site on 1-75, or they've
testified that they've driven past it for many years, five or six
years, and never noticed any problem. There's never been any
complaints, and I -- unless you've all received complaints we
don't know about, then nobody has yet complained about the use
of the property. It's actually a very slight use of the property,
outdoor sunbathing, which is considerably less demanding than
for instance Fraternal Order of Elks location, which is a little
more commercial and generally has a late-night clientele with
drinking and restaurant and issues like that.
This is a -- these people don't want to improve the site. They
don't want lights. They don't want neon lights advertising
Budweiser, and they don't want to have to put in a parking lot to
accommodate that. It's a very passive use of a site much like
bird-watcher or other people who just come and want to be on
the land, and that's all these people do. They just want to be on
the land in its relatively natural state. Been there for nearly a
decade without any problems, and we're going through this
process because I couldn't persuade the Federal Court that they
should give me any relief until we went through the process.
So here we are, and without any complaints, and with a
Page t40
August t, 2000
solution for the compatibility being recommended in the staff
report, and our acquiescence and agreement in that, we think it
becomes compatible, unless there is some aspect of this that
you feel or want to announce for the record that makes it
incompatible.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: When I looked at this item on the
agenda, I was brought back to the time when we had another
group in here and had requested approval for a site, and one of
the things that I talked about at that time had to do with who's
there first. And in this particular case, Commissioner Mac'Kie is
right. There's a lot of developments that we have approved that
are around this particular site.
However, in this case, this group was here first, and I, for one,
as a commissioner, I have not -- now maybe you have,
Commissioner Carter. I have not received any complaints about
the group, but one thing that I would add and suggest, and I think
it was written in here in terms of the gate and any kind of
buffering and those kinds of things, I would hope that you would
make sure that the buffering areas around -- just for the sake of
the group --
MR. RYNDERS: Believe me, they want buffering more than
you want buffering.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Would always be well
maintained and that kind of thing, and I'm sure that they would
because they certainly don't want the intrusion of adjacent
development and so forth.
MR. RYNDERS: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But that would be the only concern,
and frankly, to -- my only suggestion to the group is if they might
want to improve the landscaping along 1-75, only from the
standpoint of it just might look better if they had a more opaque
buffer along 1-75 than what they have right now. That's my only
comment about the parcel of land itself.
MR. RYNDERS: If the State will let us do that, we would be
happy to do that, too. The State took the land out into the lake.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
MR. RYNDERS: And I can tell you when I was the county
attorney for Pascoe County a generation ago, they had three or
four of these groups, of these clubs. They were extremely
Page 141
August 1, 2000
compatible with residential areas. They're still up there in
Pascoe County, surrounded by residents, and they -- the county
used to giggle every now and then about the nudist clubs that
were in the county, but all those clubs were in the southern end
of the county, on the north side of the Tampa, City of Tampa
urban area, and well within that urban area, and completely
surrounded by the typical, you know, what you might see
between Airport Road and 1-75 and what's going in there right
now. And I mean, they're right out on the main highways, but
they have big fences, and you know, signs, and they get along
fine. And they always did get along fine with the county. And in
fact, the two and a half years I was the county attorney, I never
heard a single complaint about any of them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wasn't kidding when I said it
doesn't have to do with whether people have clothes on when
they're sunbathing. What I am concerned about, and maybe I
misunderstand, but if we approve this, it's a conditional use
number t4 for a social club. You guys are going to be good
neighbors, you're going to have no construction, you're going to
do nothing on the property. You don't want to build anything.
You don't want roads. You don't want a parking lot. That all
sounds fine and good, but once we approve a conditional use for
a social club, doesn't that mean that the Elks can come in there
and buy this property, and then we've got a real social club?
MR. RYNDERS: Any change, if you read that staff report, it
says -- in fact I think it's the very first condition, saying that the
Planning Services Department director may approve minor
changes in the location of the use within the building or
structure, but expansion of the use identified within this
conditional use application or major changes to the site plan,
which is what your Elks Club would require, require them to
come back and go through this whole process again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've had this discussion before in
other issues, and if it can be addressed, then I'm okay. But we
talked about the zoning map in other matters where -- if I can
just finish my question -- where we had to put that this is zoned
commercial one with a star. How do we -- because you guys,
again, are going to be good neighbors, but how do we flag this on
the zoning map or somehow indicate that if this is approved, it's
Page 142
August 1, 2000
a conditional use for the existing use. Because like
Commissioner Berry says, they were there first. A conditional
use for the existing use is one thing. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' A conditional use for a social club
is another. Tell me how to get there.
MR. RYNDERS: Because it is there, and it's been used for ten
years without any problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I know, and I'm asking them or
him, how do I know that when I approve this, I am approving only
the existing use and no further expansion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In other words, you don't turn
around and sell it. In other words, once you get the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You get -- then somebody else
wants to --
MR. RYNDERS: The nonprofit corporation could get an offer
from the Fraternal Order or Elks, and it's just too good to turn
down. Well, the staff recommendation conditions require
submittal of a new conditional use application in that event.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how will that be flagged or how
will that be addressed on the zoning map, Bob or Susan or
elsewhere or Mr. Weigel, how do we address that?
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning
director. We have in the past conditioned other conditional uses.
I don't believe in the past we have ever tied a conditional use
approval to one user, but we have made it very specific that it
was for a very specific use. An example of a private school,
certain number of students, only that private school use. Any
variation thereof would not be -- would require a new conditional
use. And that's really the way the staff would look at this
situation. But we can clarify that in a stipulation by saying the
maximum numbers that we've talked about and also that any
other use, whether for a social club, different type of social club,
would require a new conditional use hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I'm willing to support is a
conditional use for the existing use of the property. MR. RYNDERS: That is all we want.
MR. MULHERE: And that's our intent is to limit it to that as
well.
MR. RYNDERS: That's all we want.
Page 143
August 1, 2000
MR. MULHERE: Any expansion would require a new --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' You're going to have to be really
careful in how you draft it, and I don't think what's here is quite
adequate for that, so --
MR. RYNDERS: What does the resolution say, it can simply be
-- you can simply add to the resolution a statement that this
conditional use is only approved for the existing social use on
the property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As it exists on the date of August
1st, 2000.
MR. RYNDERS: As it exists on this date.
MR. MULHERE: I believe to the extent that it exists on that
date.
MR. RYNDERS: Yeah, to the extent -- the type of use and to
the extent it exists on the date of this resolution. That would be
perfect for us.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. In A, the language that we
provided, which expansion of the use is identified and approved
within this conditional use application, it says or major changes.
I think we can just add that sentence prior to that, and that will
further clarify that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' And I have just one other question,
and that is I am, frankly, surprised that the room's not packed by
the people who either own the property in the area or live in the
area. What kind of notice requirements -- I mean, who was
noticed about this application?
MS. MURRAY: It's the same standard requirements, the 300
feet from the subject property by mail, signs posted on the
property, and a notice in the newspaper.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how many - the mailing
required how many letters? One or two? Zero? I think it's fair to
find out.
MR. RYNDERS: Oh, I agree. If they didn't notify the people as
the ordinance requires, but if they did notify everyone that the
ordinance requires --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: While they're researching that, the
other question -- it's my understanding that you have a six-foot
fence.
MR. RYNDERS: That's what the staff recommended.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would suggest that a six-foot
Page 144
August t, 2000
fence will not give you the privacy that you're looking for, and
would suggest that you look at some way to even buffer that
higher, so that curious people would not intrude upon your
privacy.
MR. RYNDERS: I sort of expected Susan to step in. The fence
is for the security. The opaque plantings up to 12 feet in height
are for the privacy, and the gate is for the security. There's two
issues, security and --
MS. MURRAY: If I could clarify that, and I have the answer to
your question. There was five people notified by mail.
Mr. Rynders is correct. The gate and fence are mostly for the
security of the property. The landscaping stipulations are to
create the buffer and opacity between the properties. And I do
want to put on the record because I've heard this a couple times
and I think it's being misstated is the planting requirement is for,
and it says a minimum of 12 feet, a minimum height of 12 feet at
installation. And that is for the trees, and that is at installation.
That does not mean that the trees remain at 12 feet in height.
That is the height at which they are planted at, and they are
allowed to grow and mature and fill in and create that opacity.
MR. RYNDERS: Right.
MS. MURRAY: So I wanted to make that very clear.
MR. RYNDERS: Yes. We understand that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I want to go over here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can you grab the microphone
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe from the empty chair, the
mike might work better.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Can you hear that all right? It's
okay? Privacy.
We are going to put a fence around this portion. I don't
know if there's going to be a fence around this portion or not,
which is over toward 1-75. But when this property is developed,
and when this property is developed, how do you maintain a
privacy when people are going to be out on the lake over here
doing whatever they do, and how is the privacy maintained in
that event?
MR. RYNDERS: Okay. That drawing is not a bona fide
rendition, and I don't--
Page 145
August t, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's all I have to work with.
MR. RYNDERS: There are actually points of land on the north
and the south side of this site, which I think appear a little more
plainly in the staff report and the site plan, which is a part of
your package, if I could take a moment to look. No. It doesn't
appear there, either. The land and -- it's been inspected by the
county staff. They can describe it. The land actually curves
outward on each end, the north and south ends, so you do have a
poke out here. And those are --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Excuse me. I wasn't speaking into
the mike. Sorry about that.
MR. RYNDERS: And those stick out into the lake to some
degree, and they will --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Move it back over this way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on. We have to be very
careful, one speaker at a time.
MR. RYNDERS: And they will be fenced and planted, as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. David, instead of telling us,
it would be so much more helpful if somebody would point it out
on the map because it's hard to follow.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes. That's what I need.
MR. RYNDERS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Over here. If you'll come to Bob
and Susan's map, you can point to it.
MR. RYNDERS: I'm a lawyer, and I'm not trained in all this
technical stuff. Here. Okay. There's a shoreline here that
actually comes out to a point that probably extends out 25 to 30
feet, and then the same is true on the south end but to a lesser
degree. It actually curves out, and we will fence for security and
our own privacy. And the planting, actually, there's very thick
plantings right now on the north end, and I'm not sure how many
of those are exotics. But after removing the exotics, we're going
to have to replace them along the south end. They provide most
of the buffering now. But on the north end, it's already fairly
thickly planted, and also along the western side. If any of you
have driven out there by it to personally look at it, which might
have been helpful if those are serious concerns --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I -- if I understand your
question, Mr. Brandt, what you're saying is immediately to the
north and the south of this property are lots where somebody's
Page 146
August 1, 2000
going to be on a boat --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's my concern.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' -- and they're going to say, oh, my
goodness, you didn't shield me from naked sunbathers.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And that's my concern. Even
though this comes out 25 feet or so, you still have visibility into
here, no matter which direction you come from.
MR. RYNDERS: Well, I defy any of you to stand across that
lake and tell whether anybody --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the lake. I'm on the lake.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: There's nothing that prevents me --
I have access to the lake. Right? Are you going to fence it
across here so I can't come into this area?
MR. RYNDERS: There's been some debate about it in the
legislature, but we contend that it's private property, and --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And so you're going to police it to
make sure that my boat or somebody else's boat doesn't venture
into here?
MR. RYNDERS.' Actually, we have a system of buoys out here
in the lake that keep people out of the swimming area and
generally away from this property.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have a concern about the whole
thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and the other -- obviously, the
adjacent property owners would have gotten a letter of
notification. Did the letter identify the nature of the use?
MS. MURRAY: It said a social club for outdoor sunbathing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it didn't say they would be
naked.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Outdoor sunbathing is different from having outdoor swimming
and other -- all kinds of other activities. I mean, outdoor
sunbathing says to me a group of people in an area that nobody
can see, who choose to do it in nude, is fine. I have no problem
with it. But I don't think that clearly defines what's going on
here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right, hang on. Let's -- if the
petitioner -- hang on. If the petitioner has other points you want
to make, this would be the time to make them. Otherwise, we're
going to see if there are other public speakers, and try to come
Page t47
August 1, 2000
to some conclusion.
MR. RYNDERS: I think I've answered the questions about
compatibility adequately.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Final comments?
MR. RYNDERS: What Mr. Brandt was talking about is
concerns on the lake at lakeside. We realize that that could be a
problem, too, and we're willing to go ahead and screen that
portion of the lake at a lower level because the lake stays down,
you know, so that your angle coming up into our front yard would
not be visible from the lake. That is something that we are
working on. I don't think it needs to be done now because we
don't have a problem with developers, and it's going to be
several years down the road or some time, we'll put it that way,
down the road, so that we wouldn't have to go to the expense of
doing that. But if they were developed, you know, and the
property was developed on either side of us, then we would
consider that screen so that our three acre tract right in there
would be completely surrounded by a buffer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have another question. I will be
honest with you, I did not understand that that lake -- I thought
that lake actually belonged to you guys, the whole thing. It does,
or--
MR. RYNDERS: No.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just that one section. The question
is, how can you -- if I go to the north, go to the upper part of that
map, if I own a lot, how can you stop me from transversing and
going through that entire lake?
MS. MURRAY: Not unless it's policed. And I'm not even sure
that -- I will tell you a little bit of history. That lake is a manmade
lake that was dug. At one time, obviously it was land, and it's
not platted out there, but it is described by metes and bounds
type of ownership, so that would imply that there is some
ownership of the lake. Now, I'm not sure, and perhaps you
should defer to your attorney as to whether or not that means
that there is restrictions on use of the lake or all the lake owners
are entitled to utilize the entire lake.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd sure like to have that clarified
because If someone buys the property, more so the north, the
south is a very -- I don't know what that side would be. I can't
Page 148
August 1, 2000
determine that here, but it appears that on the north side of that
lake that there would be a parcel or several parcels of land that
people could buy. What's the zoning on that, Susan, offhand?
MS. MURRAY: Well, as you can see from this map, the north
side of the lake in the purple outline is all PUD, Whippoorwill
Lakes PUD, recently approved, and in fact we do have a site
development plan in house for some multifamily development up
here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They got specific written notice of
this petition?
MS. MURRAY: Yes. Property owner of that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it didn't -- it just said
sunbathing. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think it's a real important
point. If I represent the property owners who got that written
notification of a club for sunbathing, I'm going to complain that I
didn't get due process if I didn't get notice that said nude
sunbathing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was going to say, outdoor
sunbathing isn't going to cut it because you can't sunbathe
inside.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I sunbathe.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One at a time, please.
MR. RYNDERS: I can assure you, no one bought property
anywhere around there because I represented some of the
purchasers. No one bought property anywhere around that
property without being fully aware of what went on on Mr.
Kaiser's property. Every purchaser and developer of land around
there knows exactly what that property has been used for for
years. Every single one of them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, we have no public
speakers on this?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're going to close the public
hearing. This requires four votes in the affirmative to pass.
MR. RYNDERS: I just want to make one other point. If people
bring boats onto Mr. Kaiser's wetlands, on his lake, they have,
first of all, very little to complain about what they might see, and
second of all, if he puts an opaque planting along his beach, then
they won't even be bothered by their boat.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the Board?
Page 149
August t, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I have difficulties, Mr.
Chairman, with the way it was announced. I have difficulties
with the fact that a developer may not object, but what about all
the people who come in there and purchase property in the
future? I am not against what these folks want to do. I'm just
questioning whether we have really done due process and public
notice so that everybody clearly understands it. I cannot go
there today. I will have to vote for denial, or the petitioner can
withdraw this for a period of time until there's a clearer
direction. But I have to vote for denial.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I comment first?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I would like to consider is
continuing it with instruction to staff to send out the same five
letters but with the word "nude" before sunbathing. Because if
we don't, we're going to hear about it. And we're going to hear
about it justifiably by people who didn't know. We won't have
provided adequate legal notice.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question
because if that is the only issue, I'll agree with that, but if we
have at least two commissioners here who are thinking it's not a
compatible use anyway or have some other hurdle that they
think the petitioner has not passed, we probably don't need to
put either the petitioner nor staff through that exercise. And if
that is the only concern, then we ought to do that. But we
probably all ought to give some indication if there are other
concerns.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The reason I think that addresses
Commissioner Brandt's concern is that if the people within the
purple lines on this map have been advised adequately, then they
don't have a right to complain about what they see if they ride
their boat on the lake.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: My concern is the actual information
that was provided in the letter that was sent out. Outdoor
sunbathing certainly is a whole lot different than outdoor
sunbathing in the nude. Okay?. I mean, it's just going to mean
different things. So let's redo that part of it, and again, I think
the burden falls on the developer of that property to inform, and
Page 150
August 1, 2000
this is going to be on record right here and now, it falls on the
developer to inform any future purchasers of property in there
about the adjacent property and what's located there. And I
don't think we can require him to do it, but the burden will fall on
him. So when future commissions do get any complaints, it's
going to be said that the commission at the time they approved
this, if that is indeed what happens after we get this other
information back, then the proper record has been made to
indicate that they should have all been noticed, and if they were
not, it doesn't fall to the Board of County Commissioners, but the
problem -- the burden falls on the developer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Just one final thing, and I support
what is being said here. With regard to the ultimate staff
recommendations, it would seem to me, that based on the
discussions we've had about screening, that should be factored
into any ultimate recommendations that we received from the
staff, including going out into the lake, if necessary, for proper
screening.
MS. MURRAY: May I get some clarification on that? You
would like to add the stipulation that a buffer or screening be
proposed along the lake frontage as offered by the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That would be a minimum.
MS. MURRAY: A minimum, and then you're suggesting that
somehow we screen the lake.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that -- so that the people who
are using boats in here also have a right to privacy and not have
something out there that they're exposed to, in many instances
unexpectedly, but other times, as the petitioner has indicated,
people like to just come look, and you know, people will look,
and that violates the privacy of the people here.
I don't know what's going to be done over here on this small
strip. There are certainly some exotics in there that will have to
be removed and some plantings that will have to go, and with
their own boating, they'll probably go over here and have some
kind of a beach. I don't know, but that has to be taken into
account.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's already -- Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's already -- as far as that eastern
Page 151
August t, 2000
portion, it's already there, and that goes back to what I had
stated earlier that I think it would be in the best interest of the
group to make sure that if there are exotics in there, take them
out, but put in some kind of a buffer that will provide the opacity
on the 1-75 side, which gives you the privacy in that particular
area you're looking for, anyway.
MR. RYNDERS: May I address that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I make a motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
MR. RYNDERS: Our idea on that would be to work with the
developers that are going to be on either side of us, and
whatever type of berm they put in there, like Windemere has got
one type farther up north, but we would work with them so that
ours was compatible with theirs. We would work with anything
to be compatible with whoever's around there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to continue to
give staff -- and give staff direction to send out a new notice to
the affected property owners within the 300 feet, the legal notice
requirement, but that it be amended to include the word "nude"
before sunbathing, and that that happen on the signs that are
posted on the property and on the written notices that are
required. All required legal notice.
MS. MURRAY: Would "clothing optional" instead of "nude" be
acceptable to you? I think that's probably a more politically
correct term and would still --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that's what they use.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Is that all right? Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: In addition, I will take some direction that we
will notify every property owner who has access to that water
body, whether they be within the 300-foot range of the ordinance
requirement or not.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's only fair.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt, did you
second that motion?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. I have a motion and a
second to continue the item with those notification issues. All
those in favor state aye.
Page 152
August 1, 2000
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Motion carries 5/0.
Item #14(t)
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CLOSING OF G. PIERCE WOOD
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
That takes us to Staff Communications, discussion regarding
the closing of the G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital.
MR. OLLIFF: I had provided to you earlier under separate
cover a memo, a letter that had been received from Jim Lay
(phonetic), who's the county manager up in Sarasota County.
Their county is apparently considering or at least investigating
the possibility of some legal action that would enjoin the State
from closing the G. Pierce Wood Memorial Center in Arcadia, and
they have sent a letter to several of the counties up and down
the west coast to determine if there would be any interest in
some of the other counties in the area whose population is
served by G. Pierce Wood, in joining with Sarasota County. And
so I'm providing that to you for discussion, and then if you would
like, I can at least, with David Weigel's assistance, maybe
contact their county attorney and get some more information,
time frames, exactly what kind of a case they're looking at filing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd encourage you to do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Do we have to have a motion?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection from anybody on
the Board for that?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
Item #15A
COUNTY ATTORNEY RE AMENDMENTS TO ETHICS ORDINANCE
TO BE DISCUSSED AT 9/t2/00 MEETING
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, anything?
Page 153
August 1, 2000
MR. WEIGEL: Just one clarification. Earlier under public
comment, they talked about a commissioner having the county
attorney bring back something for -- concerning the code, the
ethics code concerning gifts, and I wanted to make sure I was
clear. We can prepare something for advertisement, even, to
bring back as quickly as September 12th, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'm asking.
MR. WEIGEL: An actual amendment?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. An actual amendment.
MR. WEIGEL: All right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What I'm saying in that is I would
like to revisit the City of Naples ordinance, ethics code
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, at this point in time, though,
with regard to the zero gifts from lobbyists, I'm ready to look at --
I mean, I'm willing to look at the whole City of Naples Ethics
Code and adopt it at the county level, but that's not what I asked
be put on the agenda because it's not what we discussed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You wanted just that one factor?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that one factor.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I can live with that if you
want to wait. It doesn't make any difference to me at this point.
But whether it's done now or whether it's done in November or
December, I think it needs to be brought back and revisited.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My intention was to get what I
could get now, and then to come back with the new Board and
propose that we look at the City of Naples ordinance at that
point in time.
MR. WEIGEL: If it's September 12th, that's what I need to
know, and it sounds like it is. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, anything?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I wouldn't think of it, Mr. Chairman.
Item #15B
COMMISSIONER BRANDT REGARDING A PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
FOR A NAVIGABLE CHANNEL IN CAXAMBAS PASS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I do have one, and it has to do with
Page 154
August 1, 2000
Caxambas Pass. Back in 1995, there was a resolution passed by
the Board at that time to -- and it was associated with the -- with
the modification of the Pass to stabilize the shoreline, and I'd
like to read that resolution, which Chairman Constantine signed
now, somehow or other, Chairman Matthews didn't get a chance
to sign it way back in t995. But it has to do with not only
navigation aids in Caxambas Pass, but monitoring to make sure
that it has a specific depth, and I would like to just read this.
Also, another associated comment with it.
Resolution to -- a resolution of commitment to maintain a
navigable channel in Caxambas Pass, and it was resolution
95-536. Whereas approval has been granted for the installation
of a segmented breakwater system along the Marco Island
shoreline adjacent to Caxambas Pass; and whereas the entrance
to Caxambas Pass is a large, naturally occurring inlet with broad
shoals, and whereas there are currently no aids to navigation in
Caxambas Pass; and whereas the installation of the segmented
breakwater system may obstruct passage from a commonly used
unmarked channel, the Board of County Commissioners granted
authorization to mark an alternate channel of comparable depth;
and whereas the hydrogeographic survey performed in July 1,
1995 indicated that the aforementioned natural channel had a
minimum depth of approximately eight feet, which is equivalent
to 6.8 feet at mean low water, prior to the placement of the
breakwater system; and whereas, if natural forces cause the
Pass to become unnavigable, it will be necessary to implement
contingent procedures to restore a navigable channel of
comparable depth. Now therefore, it be resolved by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the county
deems it necessary to maintain a navigable channel in Caxambas
Pass at all times, and to that effect, further resolves to establish
a dedicated fund for the purpose of keeping the Pass open for
navigation and to submit an application for a permit to do
whatever necessary to maintain a navigable channel in
Caxambas Pass. And that was signed back in September of
1995.
Currently, in our budget, there is a portion where on B(19},
within the budget, appears. However, it is buried in another area
and not highlighted and is currently covered under beach
maintenance. What I've asked the county manager to do is to
Page t55
August 1, 2000
bring it out, identify it in a similar manner as Doctors Pass
monitoring, and so on, so that it is highlighted. And he's agreed
to do that. And I would like -- I just wanted to make sure that the
Board was aware of that, of my request and I thank Chairman
Constantine for signing this after all this time lying there
somewhere. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Only one quick comment, and that
is after our discussion we just had on the recent social club, I
would hope in the future when PUDs are brought forward that
that would be an inclusionary item that I would have been aware
of, that this type of, they were there first kind of thing, were
there, I think that might be helpful to us in assessing how we end
up correcting a developer in terms of what has to be provided to
go on record because I had no knowledge of that until this came
forward under the consent agenda.
Item #15C
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE REGARDING RECENT ISSUES ABOUT
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, unfortunately. I find myself in
the position, for consistency's sake, when we looked at the
problem that we had with Commissioner Norris, and when we
waited until he had admitted some specific facts, to ask
Commissioner Norris to resign, and when those specific facts, as
admitted, constituted a violation of the law. Based on that,
based on my understanding of the facts that you've admitted,
Commissioner Constantine, as I understand it, the facts admitted
are that --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Before you say your
understanding of the facts, what is your source of information for
the facts?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My source of information is the
Naples Daily News at this point.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I'm specifically relying on a
quote from you that was not retracted or requested for
Page t56
August 1, 2000
correction the next day, and that quote was that banks required
a personal guarantee, and that Mr. Mobley did not. And when you
look at the Statute, it's 112.3148, it says, a reporting individual,
that's us, can't accept a gift with a value of over a hundred
bucks. Then you look at the definition of a gift, and it says
specifically, a preferential term on a loan. There is no more
preferential term on a loan than for there to be no personal
liability. That's as preferential as it gets. I can't get a loan
without pledging my house or at least signing individually, and
people in this county can't. And I think that unless that quote
was absolutely false, you have admitted to accepting a loan with
a preferential term of a value of more than $100, that being the
lack of any personal liability. If that's not true, please correct
the record right this minute.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I will. That quote was
incomplete.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you give us more
information than that?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You say whatever you have to
say, and then I'll respond in whole.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Based on the fact -- well,
assuming that the quote is correct, and that you have in fact
accepted a loan from a lobbyist without any personal liability, if
that is true, I think that's clearly a violation of the Statute, and
I'd have to ask you to resign. And I would bring a resolution for
the Board to ask you to resign at our next meeting. That's it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: First quote was on -- incomplete.
Obviously, I understand the concern. I don't know that each of
you have been copied. I will make sure you get a copy of the
statement I made at my press conference last week.
I understand the concern of the public and of each of my
fellow commissioners, particularly because of the name involved,
being Mobley. If the Naples Daily News was my only source of
information, I would be very concerned as well. So I understand
that. And not because I think Gina's intentionally trying to harm
me in any way. But the information she has, while news, is not
complete, and so I think we need to take that as a part.
I have done what I think is absolutely the right thing to do,
and that is turn everything over to the State Attorney. I am
asking them for a complete and objective opinion based on all
Page t57
August t, 2000
the facts. With that in mind, I would ask you to reserve
judgment. There are some letters to the editor making
comments like yours, many of them using erroneous information.
Our purpose here, I hope, is to get to the truth, and let's let the
State Attorney do exactly that, rather than try to take this piece
by piece and so on.
So I'm not asking for anything inappropriate at all. I have
done nothing inappropriate, and if you read that into there, again,
you're not dealing with all the information. I am -- you know, it's
unfortunate that we all thought we had turned a corner here.
Questions have been raised, and if people have those questions,
we want to do everything in our power to answer those. But
again, I would ask you to reserve judgment. Give me a fair shake
here. We have opened everything up to the State Attorney's
Office.
One of the things we have agreed to with them is not to go
out and play in the media with this and try to spin it. Let them do
their job. I will tell you it is not particularly complex. I don't
anticipate it being more than a few weeks at the longest, but let
them do their job, and I really believe, I am confident, that we're
going to come out on the other end so that everybody's happy.
And so I would ask you just to let the State Attorney do their job.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is my only hesitation about
that, Tim, is that we waited for so long for the State Attorney to
do their job with Commissioner Norris, and then (a} they didn't do
it, but (b}, it took them so long, and again, I apologize, you know,
but it's difficult. When we were talking about Commissioner
Norris, I heard you talk about that it's personally difficult, and I
didn't share that feeling at the time. But I have that problem
because you and I are friends. But this is, if true, infuriating
beyond description.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you for that qualification,
"if true."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If true, infuriating. Now, is the
State Attorney going to give us an answer to this question soon
enough that if you have violated the law, you will not complete
your eight-year term and therefore get your pension. I'm going to
become the queen of who gets their pensions, and I don't want to
be, but I have got to ask the question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure. As I said -- sure, as I said. I
Page t58
August 1, 2000
really think -- I mean, Norris' case was very complex and was
very different than mine. When all the facts come out, it's night
and day. And it's a little frustrating to have the heading Stadium
Naples over every story because this is in no way attached to
Stadium Naples.
And again, it's no fun for me, but when we get to the end of
the process, I am very comfortable everything's going to come
out fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm more concerned with
what's the timing on it. Do you have any indication from them?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You'll have to ask the State
Attorney that question. I will tell you, my understanding of the
state law is, should you have done something wrong during your
term of office, they can actually come back and take that perk
away from you, so I don't know that that's a viable concern.
Again, I haven't done anything wrong, so I don't think that's going
to be the issue anyway, but I understand. You know, we've
heard that line before, and so I completely understand the
concern, and that is why literally within 24 hours of the article, I
announced, great, we'll give everything, we'll turn it all over. And
I don't know what else I can do, Pam, and still make sure that
everything is done, you know, appropriately in an objective
manner.
So I understand the concern. I understand your wanting to
express that concern, but I would hope you would let the State
Attorney go through it all. Everything they have, by the way,
once they render some comment, becomes public record. So
then not only will we have their thoughts, their comments, but
everybody will have the opportunity to peruse through there as
well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And why do we have to wait for
their opinion before we can see the documents themselves?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Partially because that's what I
agreed with them, but again because I want them to be able to
be complete and be objective, and that doesn't happen, you and I
both know politics, if you're reading little details here and there
in the newspaper every day.
And so, again, the bottom line is, let's get to the truth here,
and if that takes two weeks instead of two days, that's okay. I
don't anticipate it taking, you know, two years, the way our last
Page t59
August t, 2000
one did. I just don't. I really don't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it sounds like a simple
transaction. My concern is, as I said, if the facts as quoted were
true, then you had made an admission that we could not ignore.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The facts in the newspaper are
not complete, and I appreciate the concern, but I assure you,
when all is said and done here, I think we're all going to be
happy.
I have nothing to add under Communications.
Ms. Filson, may we be excused?
MS. FILSON: You may.
***** Commissioner Berry moved, seconded by Commissioner
Carter and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the Consent and Summary Agenda be approved
and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2000-200 AND AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING 100%
WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE
CONSTRUCTED BY CRESCENCIO LOPEZ AT 671 12TH AVENUE
NE., GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16A2
RESOLUTIONS 2000-201 THROUGH 2000-230 AND AGREEMENTS
AUTHORIZING 100% WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR THIRTY
HOUSES TO BE BUILT BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AT LOTS 10
THROUGH 40, EXCEPT LOT 26, CARSON LAKES SUBDIVISION
Item #16A3
2000 TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE MARCO ISLAND FILM FESTIVAL REGARDING ADVERTISING
AND PROMOTION
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2000-231 TRANSFERRING THE CONTROL OF THE
Page t60
August 1, 2000
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM FLORIDA CABLEVISION
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION D/B/A TIME WARNER CABLE TO
AOL TIME WARNER INCORPORATED
Item #16A5
PURCHASING POLICY WAIVED; CONTRACT WITH THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL TO
IMPLEMENT A PORTION OF THE ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR IMMOKALEE
Item #16A6
INTERIM POLICY TO PROHIBIT BLASTING IN NEW SUBDIVISION
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 350
FEET OF EXISTING STRUCTURES
Item #16A7
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.745, "JIM WEEKS
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION DESOTO & 29TH", BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH BY VACANT LAND ZONED ESTATES, ON THE WEST BY
DESOTO BOULEVARD, ON THE SOUTH BY 29TH AVENUE NW, AND
ON THE EAST BY VACANT LAND ZONED AGRICULTURE - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
CONNECTIONS FOR MARINE NATIONAL BANK @ VANDERBILT
GALLERIA
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
CONNECTIONS FOR NORTH NAPLES STORAGE
Item #16A10
ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT FOR PELICAN
Page 16t
August 1, 2000
MARSH, UNIT 22 (GALLERIA DRIVE)
Item #t6All
TERMINATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
AND ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS
FOR GLEN EDEN, PHASE TWO AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER
INTO A CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY
AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2000-232, AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN LAKE RV
RESORT, PHASE THREE"
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2000-233, AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN LAKE RV
RESORT, PHASE FOUR"
Item #16A14
FINAL PLAT OF "CAPISTRANO AT GREY OAKS" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A15
FINAL PLAT OF "FLAMINGO FAIRWAYS"
Item #16A16
FINAL PLAT OF "SHADY HOLLOW TRUST"
Item #16A17
Page 162
August 1, 2000
FINAL PLAT OF "SARATOGA AT LELY RESORT"
Item #16A18
FINAL PLAT OF "CEDAR HAMMOCK UNIT 2", - SUBJECT TO
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A19
ACTIVITY CENTER #9 INTERCHANGE MASTER PLAN VISION
STATEMENT
Item #16B1
BID #99-2964 CONTRACT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CARE, INC.
FOR LELY GOLF ESTATES M.S.T.U TERMINATED; STAFF TO RE-
BID ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
Item #16B2 - Deleted
Item #16B3 - Deleted
Item #16B4 - Deleted
Item #16B5
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING ACTIVITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION (MPO) PROGRAM FOR FY 2000-01
Item #16B6
RESOLUTION 2000-234, ADVANCED COMMITMENT TO MAINTAIN
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
Item #16B7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FOR THE
Page t63
August 1, 2000
IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING
UNIT
Item #16B8
BID #00-3111 FOR PELICAN BAY ENTRANCE SIGNS - AWARDED
TO LYKINS SIGNTEK, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $202,880
Item #16B9 - Moved to Item #8B6
Item #16B10 - Deleted
Item #16B11
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM THE
STREET LIGHTING RESERVE FUND TO STREET LIGHTING
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Item #16B12
PETITION TM-96-07 FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT ON GRANADA BOULEVARD
BETWEEN GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND U.S. 41
Item #16B13 - Deleted
Item #16B14
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT
FROM SOLANA ROAD TO NORTHGATE DRIVE - STAFF TO PLACE
THE PROJECT ON HOLD AT THE COMPLETION OF THE 30%
DESIGN PHASE AND RETURN FOR FUTURE DIRECTION UPON
CONFIRMATION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF ALL PRIVATE
FUNDING COMMITMENTS
Item #16B15 - Moved to Item #8B5
Item #16B16
BID #00-3071, BAYSHORE DRIVE BEAUTIFICATION - REJECTED;
Page 164
August 1, 2000
STAFF TO RE-BID AND USE ANNUAL CONTRACTS TO COMPLETE
THE PROJECT
Item #16B17
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD (SR 84} AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951}
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16B18 - Added
RESOLUTION 2000-235, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
GIFT, OR PURCHASE, OF NON-EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL,
SIDEWALK, LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE INTERESTS BY
EASEMENT FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD SIDEWALK
RELOCATION AND LANDSCAPING PROJECT BETWEEN
HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE AND U.S. 41
Item #16Cl
STANDARDIZATION OF THE AURORA HSC 12X14X18
HORIZONTAL SPLIT CASE PUMP FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT
BOOSTER STATION AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FOUR
(4) REPLACEMENT PUMPS FROM HUGHES SUPPLY INC. - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $63,840
Item #16C2
WORK ORDER WD 141 TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. FOR SERVICES TO CONSTRUCT A RAW WATER
MAIN ACROSS THE COCOHATCHEE CANAL EAST OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD - IN THE AMOUNT OF $107,522
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2000-236, AUTHORIZING RECORDING OF NOTICES
OF DELINQUENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICE FOR THE 1995 SERVICE
YEAR
Page 165
August 1, 2000
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2000-237, AUTHORIZING RECORDING OF NOTICES
OF DELINQUENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICE FOR THE 1996 SERVICE
YEAR
Item #16C5
FORMAL BID PROCESS UTILIZING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
CONTRACTORS WORK ORDER SYSTEM WAIVED; WORK ORDER
UNDER BID #97-2783 AWARDED TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $247~900
Item #16C6
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FOR ABATEMENT OF
NUISANCES FOR PROPERTIES OWNED BY JAMES BRUSKAY, LOT
3, BLOCK 12, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION; DONNA DICKSON,
LOTS 8, 9, 10 AND WEST 15 FEET OF LOT 11, BLOCK D, BAY
PARK SUBDIVISION; JULIUS M. MORODAN, LOT 4, BLOCK "F",
SABAL SHORES; AND JULIUS M. MORODAN, LOT 4, BLOCK "F",
SABAL SHORES
Item #16C7
RESOLUTION 2000-238, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS
RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2000-239, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS
RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C9
Page t66
August 1, 2000
SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR WATER AND/OR
SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16C10
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE FOR
PROPERTY OWNED BY THOMAS COMBS, LOT 2, BLOCK 221,
UNIT 5, MARCO BEACH SUBDIVISION
Item #16C11
RESOLUTION 2000-240, CWS-2000-01, MWS-2000-01, GWD-2000-1
APPROVING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR
CERTAIN SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2000 TAX
YEAR
Item #16C12
RESOLUTION 2000-241, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS BEEN
PAID IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C13
RESOLUTION 2000-242, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS BEEN
PAID IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C14
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND
AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND/OR SEWER
SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16C15
AGREEMENT WITH PHILLIPS & JORDAN TO PROVIDE DISASTER
RECOVERY SERVICES, AS PER RFP #00-3038
Page 167
August 1, 2000
Item #16C16
CONVEYANCE OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT TO
ALBERTSON'S, INC.
Item #16C17
RESOLUTION 2000-243, AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF
PROPERTY AND DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT RELATED
TO THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION, WHITE LAKE BOULEVARD AND THE CITYGATE PUD
Item #t6D1
MEDICAID WAIVER CONTINUATION CONTRACT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC, D/B/A SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
Item #16D2 - Deleted
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2000-244, MODIFYING COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
LIBRARY POLICY REGARDING FINES AND FEES
Item #16D4
BID #00-3104, TO INSTALL SPORTS LIGHTING AT THE SOCCER
FIELDS AT EAGLE LAKES PARK AND IMMOKALEE AQUATIC
FACILITY - AWARDED TO GULF STATES ELECTRIC IN THE
AMOUNT OF $202,470
Item #16D5
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING TOWER LEASE REVENUE
FROM PRIMECO PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR A SITE
AT VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK
Page t68
August 1, 2000
Item #16D6
AGREEMENTS WITH PERFORMERS FOR COUNTRY JAMBOREE
ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2000 - CONTRACT TO JOHN
ANDERSON IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 AND STAFF TO SELECT
ADDITIONAL ENTERTAINER/ENTERTAINERS, AND NEGOTIATE
ASSOCIATED CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Item #16D7
BID #00-3097, FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 24 FOOT BY 24 FOOT
MOBILE PERFORMANCE PLATFORM/STAGE - AWARDED TO
CENTURY INDUSTRIES, LLC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,519
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 2000-245, ESTABLISHING AN AD HOC COMMITTEE
TO BE KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH
CARE PLANNING AND FINANCE COMMITTEE; AND RESOLUTION
2000-246, EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE AND TO EXTEND THE
TERMS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Item #16D9
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND BILLY
BOY CARRY OUT, INC., FOR OFFICE AND CLINIC SPACE TO BE
UTILIZED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR
THE MONTHLY RENT AMOUNT OF $673.33 AND A MONTHLY FEE
FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $168.33
Item #16D10
RESOLUTION 2000-247 AND LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND TASK FORCE FOR THE HOMELESS FOR
USE OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR VISITORS TO ST.
MATTHEW'S HOUSE
Item #16E1
Page t69
August 1, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-248, CANCELING CURRENT TAXES UPON
CERTAIN OIL GAS & MINERAL RIGHTS OBTAINED BY TAX DEED
Item #16E2
RESOLUTION 2000-249, CANCELING CURRENT TAXES UPON A
FEE SIMPLE INTEREST OBTAINED BY SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
FOR THE CARSON ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Item #16E3 - Deleted
Item #16E4
AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 5 OF ORDINANCE NO. 87-25 PERTAINING TO SURPLUS
PROPERTY ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES
Item #16E5
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND HEALTH INSURANCE CLAIMS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $450~000
Item #16E6
BID #00-3091, "FLEET VEHICLES" - AWARDED TO TAMIAMI FORD,
INC. FOR APPROXIMATELY 200 VEHICLES TO BE PURCHASED
DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF
$3,800,000
Item #16E7
CHANGES TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROUP BENEFIT PLAN
Item #16E8
LEASE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND ROGER
CARVALLO FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF OFFICE SPACE IN
UNITS 102 AND 104 AT COURT PLAZA III FOR THE CLERK OF
COURTS - IN THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $16,190.80 FOR UNIT
Page 170
August 1, 2000
102 AND $17,472 FOR UNIT 104
Item #16E9
ACCEPTANCE OF GRANTS OF EASEMENT GRANTED BY
UCCELLO IMMOBILIEN, GMBH, A GERMAN CORPORATION AND
NPB LIMITED. L.L.C., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF DIRECTIONAL AND/OR
IDENTIFICATIONS SIGNS, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND
MAINTENANCE FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES
Item #16E10
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS FOR
PERSONNEL AND OPERATING COSTS IN FLEET MANAGEMENT
FUND (521)
Item #16E11
FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED FOR UTILIZING GENERAL
CONTRACTOR'S SERVICES WORK ORDER SYSTEM FOR THE
GOLDEN GATE GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER; WORK ORDER
TO BE AWARDED TO THE LOWEST, QUALIFIED AND RESPONSIVE
GENERAL CONTRACTOR AFTER REVIEW BY THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Item #16E12
ACCEPTANCE OF SHORT LIST FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING ADDITION &
PARKING GARAGE, AS PER RFP #00-3070; STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
A CONTRACT WITH BARANY SCHMITT SUMMERS WEAVER AND
PARTNERSt INC.
Item #16E13
RFP #00-3064, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING ADDITION
AND PARKING GARAGE - AWARDED TO KRAFT CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK
SERVICES
Page 171
August 1, 2000
Item #16E14
AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT 96-2470 WITH PDS SERVICES,
INC. FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR
THE VISTA APPLICATION - IN THE AMOUNT OF $28~704.80
Item #16E15
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EMERGENCY AND UNANTICIPATED
EXPENDITURES FOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE INCURRED IN
THE THIRD QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
CONSENT/EMERGENCY ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S ABSENCE:
Item #16GIA
BUDGET AMENDMENT ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF $15,000
FROM 951 LAND HOLDINGS, LTD FOR THE PURPOSE OF OFF-
SITE SHELTER MITIGATION
Item #16GIB
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO COVER REAL
PROPERTY COST~ STREET LIGHTING~ MITIGATION, AND
CONTINGENCY EXPENSES FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD NORTH-
SOUTH MSTU~ PROJECT #65041
Item #16GIC
BID #00-3075, PALM RIVER BOULEVARD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
AND UTILITY WORK - AWARDED TO ZEP CONSTRUCTION, INC.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1~324~957.17
Item #16GID
BUDGET AMENDMENTS #00-355~ #00-360 AND #00-373
Page 172
August 1, 2000
Item #16GIE
WORK ORDER #ABB-FT-00-07, WITH AGNOLI, BARBER AND
BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING OF THE WIGGINS PASS ROAD
OUTFALL (PROJECT NO. 31212) - IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT
OF $49,000
Item #16G1F
FORMAL COMPETITION PROCESS WAIVED; EMERGENCY
REPLACEMENT OF EAST SCALE AT NAPLES LANDFILL BY
METRO SCALE & SYSTEMS CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$38,046
Item #16GIG
BUDGET AMENDMENTS #00-387, #00-390, #00-394, #00-396, AND
#0O-397
Item #16G1H
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE A 1981 CHEVROLET
SCOTTSDALE RESCUE/PUMPER TRUCK FROM ISLE OF CAPRI
FIRE DEPARTMENT BY THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
Item #16Gll
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE
NORTH NAPLES REGIONAL PARK PROJECT TO OPEN A
PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE CONTRACT WITH BELLOMO-
HERBERT AND COMPANY
Item #16GIJ
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE PINE RIDGE ROAD PROJECT
Item #16G1K - Added
BUDGET AMENDMENT #00-405
Page 173
August 1, 2000
Item #16G2
RESPONSES TO THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
STATE LEGISLATIVE SURVEY
Item #16J1
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 t74
FOR BOARD ACTION:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
August 1, 2000
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
o
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. June 14 - 20, 2000
B. June 21 - 27, 2000
C. June 28 - July 4, 2000
3. Districts:
Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes of November 24,
1999, December 13, 1999, December 29, 1999 and April 26, 2000 meetings and
minutes of December 20, 1999 meeting and descriptions of Outstanding Bonds
go
Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Minutes of May 8, 2000
meeting and proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2001
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Minutes of February 23,
2000 meeting
The Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water Management District -
Agenda for June 30, 2000 meeting
E. Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Agenda for July 12, 2000 meeting
Fo
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes of May 8, 2000
meeting and Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 with Resolution for Approval
Go
Heritage Greens Community Development District - Minutes of May 8, 2000
meeting and Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 with Resolution for Approval
mo
H:Data/Format
Collier Soil and Water Conservation District - Agenda for July 13, 2000 meeting,
Agenda for June 14, 2000 meeting and minutes of June 14, 2000 meeting, minutes
of May 3, 2000 meeting and summary report of the Mobile Irrigation Laboratory
evaluations for the Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2000 -'-AGENDA ITEM
AUG O1 2OOO
4. Minutes:
A. Citizens Advisory Task Force Committee - Minutes of April 20, 2000 meeting
B. Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for June 14, 2000
Rural Fringe Assessment Area Oversight Committee - Agenda for June 21, 2000
meeting and minutes of May 17 and 31, 2000 meetings, Notice of a June 28, 2000
meeting, Agenda for June 28, 2000 meeting
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for June 12, 2000 meeting, minutes of
May 8, 2000 meeting
Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force Distribution List -Agenda for Revised
meeting date of July 14, 2000
Fo
Historical & Archaeological Preservation Board - Minutes of June 16, 2000
meeting
The Ronald McDonald House of S.W. Florida Executive Directors - Agenda for
June 21, 2000 meeting and minutes of May 17, 2000 meeting
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for July 5, 2000 meeting, minutes of
June 7, 2000 meeting
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for August 11,
2000 meeting and minutes of June 9, 2000 meeting
Jo
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for July 20, 2000 meeting and
minutes of June 1, 2000 meeting, Agenda for June 15, 2000 meeting and minutes
of June 15 meeting, and minutes of May 17, 2000 meeting
H:Data/Format
AGENDA ITEM
AUG 0 1 2001}
August 1, 2000
Item #16K1
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF DESIGNATED AS THE OFFICIAL
APPLICANT FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND ACCEPTANCE OF
GRANT WHEN AWARDED
Item #16K2
EXPENDITURE OF BUDGETED 301 FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE
OF A TELEPHONE SYSTEM FROM AVAYA COMMUNICATIONS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $13,325 FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TRAINING
FACILITY AT THE JAMES LORENZO WALKER VOCATIONAL
TECHNICAL CENTER
Item #16K3
EXPENDITURE OF BUDGETED 301 FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE
OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$151,303 FROM AVAYA COMMUNICATIONS TO UPGRADE THE
CURRENT BUILDING "J" TELEPHONE SYSTEM
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2000-250, AMENDING BOUNDARIES OF PRECINCTS
WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY BY DIVIDING PRECINCT 552 INTO 552
AND 555
Item #16L1
FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION
ON PARCEL NO. 131 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. R.A.K. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL., CASE
NO. 92-2791-CA-01-HDH (WIDENING OF IMMOKALEE ROAD) -
STAFF TO DEPOSIT AN ADDITIONAL $7,300 INTO THE REGISTRY
OF THE COURT
Item #16L2
Page 175
August 1, 2000
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NO. 105 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 98-1396-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION - GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY TO RADIO ROAD PROJECT) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT
$2,926 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NOS. 103, 104-OT, 107, 122, 822, 908,
913, 918 AND 922 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE , ET AL., CASE NO. 98-1396-CA
(LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION - GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO
RADIO ROAD PROJECT) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT $2,926 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L4
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NO. 129 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 98-1396-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION - GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY TO RADIO ROAD PROJECT) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT
$2,865 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL NO. 119B IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. GERALD A. MCHALE, JR., SUCCESSOR-
TRUSTEE UNDER RECORDED LAND TRUST AGREEMENT DATED
12/10/92, ET AL., CASE NO. 00-0487-CA (PINE RIDGE ROAD
BETWEEN CR :31 AND LOGAN BOULEVARD) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT
$2,296 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L6
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCELS NO. 172 AND 172T IN THE LAWSUIT
Page 176
August 1, 2000
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. CHRISTOPHER DANIELSON, ET
AL., CASE NO. 99-3690-CA (GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
BETWEEN C.R. 951 AND WILSON BOULEVARD) - STAFF TO
DEPOSIT $1,300 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L7
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NOS. 184 AND 184T IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. GEORGE PERALTA, ET AL., CASE
NO. 00-0937-CA (GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD BETWEEN C.R. 951
AND WILSON BOULEVARD) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT $1,000 INTO
THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L8
AUTHORIZE THE MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO
DEFENDANT, H.A. STREET, FOR PARCELS 910 & 911 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,100 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. WILLIAM KINSLEY, ET AL., CASE NO. 96-1315-CA - WITH
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND $700 TO BE PAID INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN THE EVENT THE OFFER OF
JUDGMENT IS ACCEPTED
Item #16L9
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NOS. 139 AND 839 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. RONALD G. BENDER AND
MICHELE J. BENDER, TRUSTEES, UNDER THAT CERTAIN
DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED THE 17 TM DAY OF MAY, 1991,
ET AL., CASE NO. 98-1394-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION -
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO RADIO ROAD PROJECT) - STAFF TO
DEPOSIT $10,150 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L10
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL NO. 141 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. ANTHONY C. PURPERO, ET AL., CASE NO.
Page 177
August 1, 2000
00-0141-CA (PINE RIDGE ROAD BETWEEN CR 31 AND LOGAN
BOULEVARD) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT $900 INTO THE REGISTRY OF
THE COURT
Item #16L11
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT MR. POPP'S SETTLEMENT
OFFER OF $17,000 RELATIVE TO CASE NO. 99-3286-CA AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
AND RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TO MAKE AN OFFER OF
JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 IN POPP V. COLLIER
COUNTY, CASE NO. 99-3286-CA, PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16M1
PERPETUAL AND UNOBSTRUCTED UTILITY EASEMENT TO
FLORIDA WATER SERVICES CORPORATION AT THE MARCO
ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2000-52, RE PETITION PUD-00-3, MS. KAREN
BISHOP, OF PLANNING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
REPRESENTING BARTON AND WENDY MCINTYRE, REQUESTING
A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS NICEA ACADEMY PUD
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD AND TREE FARM ROAD, CONSISTING OF
119+/- ACRES
Item #17B - Moved to Item #13B1
Item #17C - Continued to the meeting of 9/12/00
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2000-251, RE PETITION CCSL-2000-1, GULF SEA
ADVENTURES, REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION
Page 178
August 1, 2000
SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR STORAGE AREA FOR
WAVERUNNERS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED BEACH CONCESSION
AT THE VANDERBILT INN ON THE GULF HOTEL AT LOT 6 AND
THE NORTH PORTION OF LOT 5, BAKER-CARROLL POINT, UNIT 2
Item #17E - Continued to the meeting of 9/12/00
Item #17F
RESOLUTION 2000-252, RE PETITION CCSL-2000-3, ANNIS
MITCHELL COCKNEY EDWARDS & ROEHN, REPRESENTING THE
RITZ CARLTON, REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION
SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO IDENTIFY STORAGE AREAS FOR
BEACH FURNITURE, WATER CRAFT AND ASSOCIATED BEACH
CONCESSION EQUIPMENT, AND TO CONSTRUCT STORAGE
BOXES, CONCESSION STANDS, AND A MASSAGE TENT AT THE
RITZ CARLTON HOTEL SITE AND ANNEX PARK SITE
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2000-253, RE PETITION CCSL-2000-4A, BRETT D.
MORRE, P.E., OF HUMISTON AND MOORE ENGINEERS,
REPRESENTING THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION, INC.,
REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF UMBRELLA BOX
PLATFORMS AND ASSOCIATED DUNE WALKOVERS, AND
DESIGNATED AREAS FOR BEACH CONCESSION STORAGE,
LOCATED AT THE PELICAN BAY NORTH BEACH FACILITIES,
PELICAN BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Item #17H
RESOLUTION 2000-254, RE PETITION CCSL-2000-4B, BRETT D.
MOORE, P.E., OF HUMISTON AND MOORE ENGINEERS,
REPRESENTING THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION, INC.,
REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF UMBRELLA BOX
PLATFORMS AND ASSOCIATED DUNE WALKOVERS, AND
DESIGNATED AREAS FOR BEACH CONCESSION STORAGE,
LOCATED AT THE PELICAN BAY SOUTH BEACH FACILITIES,
Page
August 1, 2000
PELICAN BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Item #171
RESOLUTION 2000-255, RE PETITION V-2000-t 1, J.D. ALLEN,
REPRESENTING BILL CHAPIN REQUESTING A 10 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED COMBINED SIDE YARDS OF 20
PERCENT OF THE LOT WIDTH NOT TO EXCEED 50 FEET, TO
ALLOW FOR 40 FOOT COMBINED SIDE YARDS FOR A PROPERTY
LOCATED ON BUSINESS LANE , LOTS 12 AND 13, NORTH
COLLIER INDUSTRIAL CENTER
Item #17J
RESOLUTION 2000-256, RE PETITION V-2000-13, J.D. ALLEN,
REPRESENTING BILL CHAPIN REQUESTING A 10 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED COMBINED SIDE YARDS OF 20
PERCENT OF THE LOT WIDTH NOT TO EXCEED 50 FEET, TO
ALLOW FOR 40 FOOT COMBINED SIDE YARDS FOR A PROPERTY
LOCATED ON COLLIER CENTER WAY, LOT 7 AND THE EAST 60
FOOT OF LOT 6, NORTH COLLIER INDUSTRIAL CENTER
Item #17K
RESOLUTION 2000-257, RE PETITION SNR-2000-3, WAYNE
ARNOLD, AICP, REPRESENTING WCI COMMUNITIES,
INCORPORATED REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM
PELICAN MARSH BOULEVARD TO TIBURON BOULEVARD EAST,
LOCATED IN THE PELICAN MARSH PUD
Item #17L
PETITION VAC-00-012, VACATING THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, UTILITY AND
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE SAN MARINO
PUD PROJECT, WHICH WAS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY BY O.R.
BOOK 306, PAGE 530, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY~
FLORIDA
Item #17M
Page 180
August 1, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-258, RE PETITION VAC-00-013, VACATING A
15' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE TRACT LINE
COMMON TO TRACTS "P" AND "Q", ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
"NORTHBROOKE PLAZA"
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONT~
TIM0~'HY COI~STANTINE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST: ~
DWIGHT.E:*':BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on ~. /A/~
as presented / or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING BY: TRACIE MOUNTAIN, RPR, DEBORAH DELAP
AND TONI SHEARER
Page 181