BCC Minutes 01/22/2002 RJanuary 22, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
NAPLES, FLORIDA, JANUARY 22, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. In
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Jim Coletta
Tom Henning
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
ALSO PRESENT:
Tom Olliff, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
January 22, 2002
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
1
January 22, 2002
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.
e
e
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Marty Green, East Naples United Methodist Church
AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended.
(Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary
agenda.)
PROCLAMATIONS
e
Ae
Proclamation to recognize RSVP Volunteer Organization. To be accepted
by Ms. Sharon Downey, RSVP Project Director.
Be
Proclamation for the Celtic Festival Weekend. To be accepted by Joseph
Stude, Mike Ward and Mike Joynt.
Proclamation for the National Jaycee Recognition Week. To be accepted by
Angela Robinson, Naples Jaycees Chairman of the Board and Daniel
Malinowski, Naples Jaycees President.
SERVICE AWARDS
Five-Year Attendees:
1)
2)
3)
Jane Martin, Library
Edward Sturgis, Parks and Recreation
John Clements, Building Review
2
January 22, 2002
4) Keith Wilt, Wastewater
Ten-Year Attendees:
5) Gail Bonham, County Attorney
Fifteen-Year Attendees:
6) Adelaide Duffy, Solid Waste
Twenty-Year Attendees:
7) Sue Filson, Board of County Commissioners
PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the EMS Phoenix Awards.
Presentation to the Transportation Division to award Sponsor of the Year
Awards for the Adopt-A-Road Program administered by the Road and
Bridge Section of the Transportation Operations Department.
PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Public Comments on General Topics
Public Petition request by Ms. Charlotte Byers to discuss reopening of 108th
Avenue North.
Public Petition request by Ms. Vera Fitz-Gerald to discuss configuration of
107th and 108th Avenue North.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 12~ 2002
BCC MEETING. Petition PUDA-2001-AR-1494, Cindy A. Penney, of
PMS, Inc., of Naples, representing Kenco Development Inc., requesting a
rezone from PUD to PUD to be known as the Richland PUD for the purpose
3
January 22, 2002
of reducing the maximum number of dwelling units from 650 to 400 and
increasing the commercial acreage from 21.8 acres to 25 acres for property
located on the southeast comer of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard
(CR 951) in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 46 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Staff's Request)
Bo
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 12~ 2002
BCC MEETING. Petition PUDA-2001 AR-431, Tim Hancock, AICP,
representing Park East Development Ltd., requesting an amendment to the
Founders Plaza PUD by updating the existing PUD for the purpose of
including language that permits additional retail and commercial uses on
parcels that exceed 150' in depth for property located on both sides of
Golden Gate Parkway at the Santa Barbara Canal Crossing in Golden Gate
City, Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. (Petitioner's Request)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Be
Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee.
Ce
Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
De
Appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
E. Resolution regarding anti-terrorism legislation. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
Approval of modified 2002 Tourism Agreement with the Naples Botanical
Gardens Inc. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
B. This item has been deleted.
C. This item has been deleted.
4
January 22, 2002
Do
Approve request to authorize the Settlement Agreement between Collier
County and the Engineering Firm of Hole Montes, Inc., for costs related to
the design and construction of Immokalee Road. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
te
Resolution opposing continued diversion and/or reduction of funds by the
Legislature from the Florida Forever Program and calling for the timely
replacement of funds diverted in the 2001 Regular Legislative Session.
(Ramiro Manalich, County Attorney)
Fe
Response to Board request for additional information related to the North
County Water Reclamation Facility Flow Equalization Tanks, Project
73077. (Tom Wides, Interim Administrator, Public Utilities)
Go
Create an Advisory Committee to assist with the hiring of the Hearing
Examiner Position. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
He
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 8~ 2002 BCC
MEETING. Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Olde
Cypress Tract 12". (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
11. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Ae
Request for Board direction regarding a letter purportedly sent pursuant to
Section 163.3215, Fla. Stat., complaining that the Bucks Run PUD
(Ordinance No. 2001-67) is not consistent with Policy 5.4 of the Future Lane
Use Element of the County's Growth Management Plan. (County Attorney)
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. FUTURE AGENDAS
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
5
January22,2002
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)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Sabal Lake Unit Two".
2) This item was deleted.
3) This item was deleted.
4)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Quail Walk Phase Four".
5)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Longshore Lake Unit 4".
6)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Longshore Lake Unit 5C".
7)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Longshore Lake Unit 5D".
8)
Approval of a sub-recipient agreement with David Lawrence Mental
Health Center, Inc., to undertake a rehabilitation project at five (5)
Collier Housing Alternatives Residences using $47,000 of the
County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding.
The Board of County Commissioners approved this project as a part
of the County's consolidated plan FY01-02 One-Year Action Plan on
May 8, 2001.
9) Adopt Resolutions enforcing liens on properties for code violations.
10)
Approve funds from development fees in the amount of $220,000 to
develop and implement handheld PC wireless technology with the
6
January 22, 2002
required hardware purchases for use by our building inspectors.
]1)
A Resolution supporting F.N.B. Corporation as a qualified applicant
pursuant to s.288.106, Florida Statutes; and providing an
appropriation of $45,000 as local participation in the qualified Target
Industry Tax Refund Program for Fiscal Year (s) 2003 through 2007,
and providing for an effective date.
]2)
A Resolution supporting Arthrex Metal Works Inc., as a qualified
applicant pursuant to s.288.106, Florida Statutes; and providing an
appropriation of $48,000 as local participation in the qualified Target
Industry Tax Refund Program for Fiscal Year (s) 2003 through 2006,
and providing for an effective date.
13)
A Resolution supporting Arthrex Inc. as a qualified applicant pursuant
to s.288.106, Florida Statutes; and providing an appropriation of
$44,800 as local participation in the qualified Target Industry Tax
Refund Program for Fiscal Year (s) 2004 though 2011, and providing
for an effective date.
14)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the Final Plat of "Silver Lakes Phase Two-
15)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Silver Lakes Phase Two-D".
16)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Silver Lakes Phase Two-E".
]7)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Silver Lakes Phase Two-F".
18)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Majorca Unit Two
at Fiddler's Creek".
19)
CARNY-2001-AR-1905, Raymond Holland, President, Collier
County Agricultural Fair and Exposition Inc., requesting a carnival
permit to conduct the Collier County Annual Fair on February 1
7
January 22, 2002
through 9, 2002, at the Fair Grounds located on Immokalee Road.
20)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
staff to prepare a Scope of Services and issue a request for proposal
for the development of the Naples Park Community Plan.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Status report to the Board on the Davis Boulevard Phase II Median
Landscaping Project (Airport Pulling Road to Heritage Trail) and to
request direction to proceed with the refurbishment.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve the piggybacking of a Hillsborough County Contract for
liquid sludge management services with Azurix North American for
the estimated amount of $138,500.
2)
Adopt a Resolution and approve a Declaration of Easement for three
water well house sites to be located within a portion of right-of-way
acquired for the future extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road.
3)
Amend Work Order HAA-FT-00-02 for Professional Engineering
Services related to noise issues at the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant, Project 70063, in the additional amount of $104,500,
payable to Hartman and Associates Inc.
4)
Approve a change order to professional engineering services work
order with Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. for new test wells related to the
North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis Raw
Water Supply in the amount of $330,000, Project 70075. (This is a
shift of funds from one phase of the total project to facilitate fast-
tracking.)
5)
Approve Disaster Relief Funding Agreement between Florida
Department of Community Affairs and Collier County for
reimbursement of Tropical Storm Gabrielle Beach Recovery Costs.
6)
Award Bid #01-3297 to furnish and deliver emulsion polymer for
sludge dewatering for the Water Reclamation Facility, estimated
8
danuar¥ 22, 2002
amount $108,000.
7)
Approve committee selection of firms for contract negotiations for
RFP 02-3313 "Professional GIS Services for Collier County".
8)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste 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.
9)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
10)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste 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.
il)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
i2)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
13)
Approve the 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.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
9
January 22, 2002
1)
Approval of a contract for professional lobbyist services with Amold
and Blair, L.C.
2)
Approval of the attached three Resolutions outlining Operational
Guidelines for the County's Land Rights Acquisition Program and
authorizing the Board of County Commissioners' Chairman, during
the 2002 Calendar Year, to execute certain documents required in
connection therewith.
3)
Approval of a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, during the 2002
Calendar Year to execute agreements, deeds and other documents
required for the sale of GAC Land Trust Property.
4)
Approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners to execute limited use Bare (limited use)
License Agreements during the 2002 Calendar Year.
5)
Reject Bid received on Bid #02-3300 "Pre-Employment Physicals and
Drug Testing".
6)
Approval of a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, to execute deeds and
agreements for Deed to Right of Interment for the purchase of burial
lots at Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery during the 2002
Calendar Year.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Award Contracts (RFP #02-3317) "Consultant Services for the
Preparation of a new Law Enforcement Impact Fee and an update to
the existing Correctional Facilities Impact Fee" in the amount of
$60,000.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10
January22,2002
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to be filed for record with action as directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners amend Resolution 95-552, the Investment Policy to
Recognize Changes in the Market and Revisions to Florida Statute
218.415 "Local Government Investment Policies", since the adoption
of the Resolution.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners enter into
a stipulated judgment in the Case of Hanson v. Caxambas Equity Co.,
Ltd., Case No. 00-2238-CA-TB, in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, Naples, Florida.
2)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the easement
acquisition of Parcels 169 and 769 in the Lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Fred R. Sutherland, et al, Case No. 01-0756-CA. Project
No. 60071.
3)
Approve the agreed order awarding expert fees as to Parcels 247 and
247T in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Tony Barry, et al,
(Golden Gate Boulevard, Project No. 63041).
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. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
January 22, 2002
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
Ae
This item requires that ali participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2001-AR-1411,
Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of Wilson Miller, requesting conditional use for a
fire station, per Section 2.6.9.2 Essential Services of the Collier County
Land Development Code, on property located on the east side of the
Livingston Road right-of-way and approximately 1.75 miles north of
Immokalee Road and .25 miles south of future Livingston Road E/W right-
of-way in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
Bo
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition
AVPLAT2001-AR1559 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the county's and
the public's interest in a portion of thc 10' wide drainage easement located
along the west line of Lots 218 and 219, according to the plat of
"Stonebridge Unit 5" as recorded in Plat Book 30, Page 76 through 77,
Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in Section 26, Township
48 South, Range 25 East.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2001-AR-1420,
William L. Hoover, AICP, Hoover Planning and Development,
Incorporated, representing Pastor Colin Rampton of thc Seventh Day
Adventist Church, requesting conditional uses "7" and "11" of the "A-
MHO" Rural Agricultural Zoning District/Mobile Home Zoning Overlay,
for a church and child care center on property located at the northwest comer
of Lilac Lane and Immokalce Road in Section 23, Township 47 South,
Range 27 East.
D. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 12~ 2002
BCC MEETING. Petition CU-2001-AR-1620, James Weeks, requesting
Conditional Use "7" of the "E" Estates zoning district for an earthmining per
Section 2.2.3.3.7 of the Land Development Code for property located on
Desoto Boulevard North, between 29th Avenue NE and 31 st Avenue NE on
eastside of Desoto, further described as Tract 143, Golden Gate Estates, Unit
67, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 6.62+ acres.
12
January 22, 2002
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
13
January 22, 2002
January 22, 2002
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT, & SUMMARY AGENDA- APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
take their seats, please. We're live.
fellow Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
Good morning. Would everyone
Good morning. Good morning,
Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a lively audience out there
today. Let's see if we can move them along at a quick pace so we
don't take up too much of their day.
Let's start the day off with the invocation.
Pastor Marty Green, please. Please stand.
PASTOR GREEN: Would you bow with me for a moment.
Heavenly Father, thank you, Lord, for this day that you've brought us
here to this place, and we invite you, Lord, into this meeting. And we
pray, Lord, for your wisdom and your strength and your presence to
be evident. You are welcome here, Lord, and we thank you.
Lord, we pray your special blessing and anointing over the
leadership of this county, and we pray, Lord, in this meeting that
you're anointing would bring a presence that brings respect and love
and that you would guide and direct our leadership.
I bless those persons who work for the county and who serve,
and we just pray, Lord, that you will continue to be our strength and
our inspiration. We thank you, Lord, for all the many blessings that
you give us, and we give you all the praise and the glory, and we ask
it in the precious name of Jesus. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Approval of today's regular consent
Page 2
January 22, 2002
agenda and summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We need to get input from the
county manager.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go first with
Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. We have a fairly short change list for you, and I'll
just walk you straight through that. The first item on your change list
is an addition. It is Item 9-F to your agenda. That's F as in "Frank."
It is a time-certain request. It's requested this item be heard at one
o'clock. It is a request for the board to direct the staff to negotiate an
agreement with a Dr. Leonard Ferenz and International College to
conduct an ethics audit, and that's being added at the request of
Commissioner Coletta.
The next item is an addition to your consent agenda. It's Item
16-A-21. It is Petition Carny-2001-AR-1852. It is a request from the
Rotary Club of Immokalee for a permit to conduct a carnival on
January 24th through 27th at the county-owned property at the
Immokalee Regional Airport. That is a staff request. It was actually
a mistake on the part of the original petition which didn't include the
last weekends dates. This was a petition that was actually already
reviewed and approved by the board at your previous board meeting
in the late-- in early January.
The next item is a continuance off of your summary agenda. It
is Item 7-C. The petitioner has requested that the item be continued
to your meeting of February 26. That is conditional use 2001-AR-
1420. That was Bill Hoover representing the Seventh Day Adventist
Church requesting conditional uses for property located on the
northwest comer of Lilac Lane and Immokalee Road.
Mr. Chairman, I will make a note for the record that I believe
that item, because of the length of the continuance, will require it to
Page 3
January 22, 2002
be readvertised at the petitioner's expense because it was the
petitioner's request that the item be continued.
Mr. Chairman, with that, that's all the changes that I have this
morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start with Mr. Carter.
Anything --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, you may want to
go to Mr. Weigel and see if he has any changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to
add to this?
MR. WEIGEL: No changes at this time. We will be responding
to items as they come up that we're not shown on but will be there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And now, Mr. Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
don't necessarily want to pull items on the Consent Agenda 16-A, 11,
12 and 13, but I would like to address them to the board and to our
listening audience because of the significant economic impact that it's
going to have on this community. And this is all good news, and I
put that in capital letters with a bracket, good news.
There are three companies who are working with Collier
County. It's a part of a state program on what we call tax incentives.
The State of Florida has a program, and essentially what it says is that
80 percent of those incentives are funded by the State of Florida and
20 percent by the local community. And what this does is enable
businesses that are here or new businesses to get some relief over a
designated period of time so that they will establish themselves or
expand their operations in a given community. And for Collier
County what that means is Item 16-A-11, F.N.B. Corp is a financial
services group, and they have their corporate offices in Collier and
are considering locating a centralized tech center to support existing
customer service here in -- in Naples, and that will -- and they have
Page 4
January 22, 2002
156 offices throughout Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Tennessee.
So it's great that they selected this to be their place. They're going to
add 75 new employees, and they will be paying 115 percent of the
average wage in Collier County.
And the good news; what that means to us as a community is we
will have another additional $189,950 in ad valorem taxes -- property
taxes. What we're trying to do is diversify this economy so that you
get the burden pulled from the homeowners on property taxes and
have a bigger percentage paid by corporations, and the only way you
do that is to draw the corporations here to provide the tax base. So
that's good news.
One of our existing companies here, Arthrex, who is a-- is a
medical services company who -- who is a maker of artificial limbs,
they're going to do two things. One, they are going to bring a new
company here called Arthrex Metal, Inc., which makes the materials
that go to the parent operation. And, secondly, they're going to
expand their existing operations. Those two moves will give us 136
additional new jobs at 115 percent above the average wage in Collier
County. So these are high-wage jobs, and that, again, will add to our
ad valorem tax base.
Collectively, these three moves will provide close to $400,000
in additional ad valorem tax revenue to Collier County over the next
few years. So it's a very, very positive thing to happen, and I
congratulate the Economic Development Council and our own
internal operations who have worked diligently to bring this forward.
So, Commissioners, and to our audience in the community, this is
what I call the good news, and I just wanted to mention that this
morning, Mr. Chairman, without pulling those items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was good news. I have
nothing. Thank you.
Page 5
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
please. And--
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
And I have nothing. Commissioner
I would like to pull Item 16-B-1,
B-l?
B-l, yes. And I would like to add
to Commissioner Carter's comments. This tax incentive program is
an excellent way to diversify our economy so we're not so dependent
upon the tourist business. I would like to ask that the staff begin to
track the number of new jobs that are attracted by those kinds of
grants. And that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that Item 16-B-1 will become 10-
I on your regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which -- which item is 16-B-1 ?
What's the heading?
MR. OLLIFF: 16-B-1 is the Davis Boulevard landscaping.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I'd like to
piggyback on Commissioner Carter's comments. I think it's a great
way to get that clean industry here in Collier County. I would like to
add something to the resolution, and I don't know if we need to pull it
or not, and that's 15-A-11 with the F.N.B. To -- they're building the
tech center, just to tie it with the funding. If the tech center's not built
then -- I mean, the contingency's on the funding with the tech center
built, so I don't know if I need to pull that or not, just add that to the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think you could make that an
add-on, it would seem to me. I would defer to the Chair to ask Mr.
Weigel and Mr. Olliff.
Page 6
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And will do so. Start off with you,
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, thank you. If you wish to leave it on a
consent agenda but want to amend what's in the package, it will take
a vote of the commission to do so, just that simply.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then the other item I'd like to
pull from the consent is 16-E-1 which is the professional lobby
service of Arnold and Blair.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that would become 10-J on your
regular agenda, 16-E- 1 moving to 10-J.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that it, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. And if that's it for
everybody I'd like to make a motion to approve the --
MS. FILSON: Excuse me. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry. I have two speakers for 17-A on the
summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you go ahead and call
them up at this time, please.
MR. WEIGEL: The question is if you want them to speak,
typically this would move it off the summary agenda and make it a
regular agenda item which, of course, still comes up at an expedited
style here. There is--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, just move it to the
summary agenda right to the regular?
MR. WEIGEL: Move it to the regular agenda so if they speak --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we do that.
MR. WEIGEL: -- you may have to make a decision, and so
from that standpoint it moves it from the summary agenda typically.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that was Item 17 what?
MS. FILSON: Pardon me?
Page 7
January 22, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: What item?
MR. OLLIFF: 17-A.
MS. FILSON: 17-A. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's going to move to what,
Mr. Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF: That would become Item 8-C under your regular
agenda under the advertised public hearings.
MS. FILSON: And we'll call the speakers at that time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Filson.
Okay. Go to -- wait. We didn't get a second to your motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Does that incorporate your
changes under -- that we just mentioned under 17 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sixteen --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 16-A- 11. Okay. I'd second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a second from
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Carter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're going fine this
morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's foggy outside and foggy inside.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It is. We have a motion. We have a
second. Is there any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Passed unanimously.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
January 22, 2002
ADD ITEM 9(F): This item will be heard at 1:00 p.m. Request Board
direction for staff to negotiate an agreement with Dr. Leonard Ferenz, Ph.D
and International College to conduct an ethics audit. (Commissioner
Coletta.)
ADD ITEM 16(A)21: Petition Carny-2001-AR-1852, Duane Wheeler, Carnival
Chairman, Rotary Club of Immokalee, requesting a permit to conduct a
carnival on January 24, 2002 through January 27, 2002 on County-owned
property at the Immokalee Regional Airport. (Staff request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 17C TO FEBRUARY 26, 2002 MEETING: CU-2001-AR-
1420, William L. Hoover AICCP, Hoover Planning and Development,
Incorporated, representing Pastor Colin Rampton of the Seventh Day
Adventist Church, requesting conditional uses "7" and "11" of the "A-
MHO" Rural Agricultural Zoning District/Mobile Home Zoning Overlay, for a
church and child care center on property located at the northwest corner of
Lilac Lane and Immokalee Road in Section 23, Township 47 South, Range
27 East. (Petitioner request.)
January 22, 2002
Item #3A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE RETIRED SENIORS
VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) AND THEIR SERVICES TO
THE COMMUNITY- ADOPTED
Moving on to proclamations. Let's see, Donna, you're the first
one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have the real pleasure here
of reading a proclamation to the RSVP Volunteer Organization. Is
there a representative in the audience? Great. If you would come up
and maybe you could stand here for a moment. I'll give you this,
then you can make a little speech, if you like. Thank you. This is a
beauty. Believe it or not, in the years past in my former life, I dealt a
lot with the RSVP people. Boy, did they do a lot of good work in our
community, so I really feel proud to be reading this to you. Thank
you.
Whereas, the RSVP, Retired Seniors Volunteer Program, is a
premier volunteer program -- you can turn around if you like -- and
the recipient of numerous awards; and,
Whereas, approximately 1,000 volunteers participate in this
program; and,
Whereas, volunteer hours totaled 101,425 hours equating to
more than $1,560,000 in services to Collier County and the
community during one year, the year 2001; and,
Whereas, volunteers assist in community events, county
government, they aid the Habitat for Humanity, Naples Community
Hospital, David Lawrence Center, Help for Haiti, Collier County
Public Schools, the Public Health Unit, flu shots, the Immokalee
school project in conjunction with the Collier County Public School
System, and the Seminole Casino, naming just a few; and,
Page 9
January 22, 2002
Whereas, the program is funded by the Corporation for National
and Community Services, which is federal, and sponsored locally
with matched funds approved by the Board of County
Commissioners; and,
Whereas, these individuals provide an invaluable service to the
community.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Collier County
recognize the RSVP volunteers and their services to this community.
Done and ordered the 22nd day of January 2002.
Commissioners, I would like to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All in favor?
(Unanimous response.)
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you would like to give us a little
speech.
MS. DOWNEY: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Sharon
Downey, the project director for the Retired and Senior Volunteer
Program. Currently 1,000 dedicated and committed senior volunteers
are serving Collier County's nonprofit community agencies, and as
you had mentioned, have donated over 100,000 hours of their time.
It is on their behalf that I proudly accept this honorable proclamation.
We know that every day somewhere in Collier County a senior
volunteer is making a difference in someone's life. We appreciate the
recognition of our program and of the work that we do, and we thank
you for being an active and concerned sponsor.
We look forward to continued sponsorship in the many years to
come. Again, it is with gratitude and pride that I accept this and
Page 10
January 22, 2002
express our sincere thanks to you. Thank you. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. You know, our
seniors play a very important role in this community, and that's what
makes Collier County such a great community is people like our
seniors donating to many different services in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well said, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Item #3B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 16 AND 17, 2002
AS CELTIC FESTIVAL WEEKEND - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE' Would Joe Studie, Mike Ward,
and Mike Joint, if he's here, step forward.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know, mm around and face
TV land. They'd love to see you out there, Joe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas, the Irish American Club
of Naples, Incorporated, a Florida corporation established to promote
Irish culture and education in Collier County, has recently established
high school scholarships and is now working to support other
charities in Collier County; and,
Whereas, over the past 11 years the Irish American Club of
Naples, Incorporated, has provided entertainment concerts each year
at our local high schools with proceeds distributed to "Concern," a
national organization that works with emergency victims in Honduras
and other parts of the world; and,
Whereas, this new year the Irish American Club of Naples,
Page 11
January 22, 2002
Incorporated, has decided it will do a lot more for our community by
bringing a Celtic Festival to Collier County, raising larger funds for
charities in need in our local area; and,
Whereas, the Irish American Club of Naples, Incorporated, will
truly make a difference -- unselfish community involvement.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that February 16th and
17th, 2002, be designated as Celtic Festival Weekend.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of January 2002.
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James M.
Coletta, Chairman, and all the commissioners who are clearly also
Irish.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: O'Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion and a second. All
those in favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe a little jig, please.
MR. WARD: Good morning, Commissioners. For those who
don't know me, my name is Michael Ward. I'm with the Irish
American Club of Naples, and this is our second attempt at the Celtic
Festival. And, by the way, Fred, it is Celtic, not Celtic. Okay. But
we're doing it this year February 16th and 17th hoping that the
weather will be much better than it was last year.
We've got a great weekend of continuous entertainment, both
Scottish and Irish. We've got the bagpipe -- the Dunedin Bagpiper
Page 12
January 22, 2002
Band coming in, Irish-type dancers, great entertainment throughout
the weekend, crafts of all sorts and, of course, great food and great
beverage.
We all hope that you-all will be there. We're going to have the
opening ceremonies at 10:30 on Saturday morning with flag raising,
and you're all welcome. It's at the Celebration Gardens at Florida
Sports Park. We'll be running from eleven o'clock in the morning to
seven on Saturday the 16th and from eleven to six on Sunday the
17th. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Rain or shine; correct?
MR. WARD: Rain or shine, we'll be there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MR. STUDIE: And I never talk very much.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I know, Joe, you'll leave it to a
drinking contest between the Irish and the Scots.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Brings in a little humor this
morning. Who would ever think? Celtics up in New York and
Celtics down here.
Item #3C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 20
TO 26, 2002 AS NATIONAL JAYCEE RECOGNITION WEEK -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's my honor at this time to read a
proclamation recognizing National Jaycee Week, and is Angela
Robinson and Daniel Minowski (phonetic) in the audience today?
Would they step forward, please? Come on Daniel, Angela.
MR. MINOWSKI: She's not here. I have someone here in her
place.
Page 13
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And who would that be, please.
MR. MINOWSKI: Judy Pile.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome. Mr. Douglas, we have
dealt many times on many matters, and it's always been a pleasure to
be able to work with you.
Whereas, the Naples Junior Chamber has been a vital part of the
development of young leaders in our community for over the past 40
years; and,
Whereas, the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce serves and
continues to serve the under-privileged citizen in our community;
and,
Whereas, the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce supports the
enhancement for professional and business enhancement; and,
Whereas, the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce promotes
and fosters the individual growth and development of young persons
across their community; and,
Whereas, the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce teaches and
impresses upon their individual membership a spirit of genuine
Americanism and civic interest; and,
Whereas, the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce provides the
opportunity for personal development and achievement and avenue
for participation in the affairs of the community, state, and nation;
and,
Whereas, the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce develops
true friendship and understanding among young persons of all
nations.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that January 20 to 26, 2002,
be designated as National Jaycee Recognition Week.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of January 2002, James M.
Coletta, Chairman. And I so move.
Page 14
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stand gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Retrain this board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Flashing sign in the background,
stand.
MR. MINOWSKI: I'd just like to take this opportunity--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For the record, your name first,
please.
MR. MINOWSKI: For the record, I'm Daniel Minowski,
President-elect 2002, Naples Jaycees. I would like to take the
opportunity to thank the county commissioners and everyone in the
community who has been so generous with us in the past. Last year
we raised tens of thousands of dollars in our several fund raisers
throughout the year, and we've managed to put it all back into the
community. We're off on a good start this year, and we're hoping to
become the No. 1 Naples Chapter, No. 1 in the state for 2002.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wonderful.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's really fantastic. I think
the Jaycees are just a phenomenal organization, and you are a real
credit to our community. To you, sir, I congratulate you on being a
state president and, believe me, as a former Jaycee and president of
my own organization in Illinois, that is no small achievement. He is
now positioned to run for national president. I hope he goes for all of
it. It is truly, truly a pleasure to see this kind of leadership coming
forward out of Collier County.
MR. DOUGLAS: I want to thank you very much. I appreciate
Page 15
January 22, 2002
that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I am now under a classification
because of age known as an exhausted rooster.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That just happened last year right,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's right. That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What is the cutoff age for the
Jaycees?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to let them answer.
used to be 36, but they may have changed that.
MR. DOUGLAS: Today it's 21 to 40.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forty.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There's hope for all of us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe Commissioner Henning
might still be in that league.
It
Item #4
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Now we're going to do the service awards, which is a very
special time for us, especially today.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as the board members are making
their way down to the floor, I'll take the opportunity to call up first
two awardees this morning which would be Jane Martin of the
Library Department and John Clements of the Building Review
Department who've been employees with us here now for five years.
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, also this morning receiving an
award for ten years of continuous service would be Gail Bonham of
the County Attorney's Office.
Page 16
January 22, 2002
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, this morning we have the unique
opportunity to provide a 15-year service award, and that one goes to
Adelaide Duffy of the Solid Waste Department. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: And, Mr. Chairman, this morning I have the
distinct honor of being able to present to you a 20-year awardee in
Sue Filson of the Board of County Commissioners' own office.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we introduce -- can we bring
the gals from the office over?
MR. OLLIFF: Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you, if you can
work in the Board of County Commissioners' office for 20 years, you
deserve a special award of merit. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's all our service awards this
morning. Thank you very much.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
PHOENIX AWARDS - PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The next item on the agenda is
the Phoenix Awards, and Tom Storrar and Jeff Page will be
presenting those this morning. The Phoenix Awards are the
Academy Award when it comes to providing emergency services in
any community. These -- these ladies and gentlemen train. They
train, and they train. They're like the Special Forces. There's not a
day that doesn't go by that they're not involved in training and getting
ready to provide the best of the best service to this community. So,
Page 17
January 22, 2002
Mr. Storrar, if you and Mr. Page will go forward, we have all of the
awards here to be handed out this morning.
MR. STORRAR: Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
For the record, my name is Tom Storrar, your emergency services
administrator. One quick point I'd like to add to kind of buttress what
Commissioner Carter has said. Your paramedics here in Collier
County have achieved a standard that I feel is worthy of mentioning.
We have about a 29 percent success ratio on our cardiac saves, and
we consider a cardiac save as a person who is brought back to life
and exits the hospital to continue on their life. The national average,
I would like to point out, is about 5 percent. So our first-quarter
performance reports we're about six times the national average here
in Collier County. I think that's a remarkable goal, and my hat's off to
all of these folks, both paramedics, firefighters, and deputy sheriffs
for the service they give us in our community.
The Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department
has adopted the Phoenix Award to recognize those EMS paramedics
who through their skills and knowledge have successfully brought
back to life individuals who have died. The Phoenix Award was a
mythological bird who died and rose reknown, renewed from its own
ashes.
Over the past few months, the Emergency Medical Services
colleagues using their skills, knowledge, and expertise brought back
to life members of our community. We are proud to recognize the
following medics. And as I call your name, if you would please
approach the commissioners and shake their hands, Commissioner
Carter will hand out your certificate.
Paramedic Kelli Renton, Flight Medic Paul Passaretti -- if you
would hold your applause till we get done, folks, it will move along a
little quicker than that -- Paramedic Desirae Havens, Lieutenant
Paramedic A1 Pitts, Paramedic Jorge Gonzalez, EMT Isabelle Favier,
Page 18
January 22, 2002
Lieutenant Paramedic Mark Willis.
At this time we would also like to recognize and present the
Phoenix awards to the following firefighters and sheriff's officers for
their immense help in saving of these lives. From North Naples
Deputy firefighter James Cunningham, Deputy Carlos Llorca from
the sheriff's office, Firefighter Rick Green. From the Ochopee Fire
Department Firefighter Robbie Mayberry, Firefighter Caleb Morris.
And from the City of Naples Firefighter EMT Gifford Kline.
Folks, let's give these people a nice round of applause.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF PLAQUES FOR THE 2001 ADOPT THE
ROAD PROGRAM- PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, Board of
Commissioners, it's my honor, and it's a true honor to present
presentation of plaques for Adopt the Road Program for 2002 -- or
2001. We have many organizations and private businesses that have
dedicated their own personal time to make sure that our roadways are
clean, and I would like to call up the David Lawrence Center, and
Geralyn Wagner is here to represent the David Lawrence Center.
David Lawrence Center has dedicated to clean up parts of Golden
Gate Parkway, and I travel that road on a regular basis, and you do a
fine job, so I want to thank you with this presentation of a plaque.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you like to say a few
words?
MS. WAGNER: Just we feel very fortunate to live in Naples,
Page 19
January 22, 2002
and we want to help to maintain the beauty.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. The next award is
a Neighbors of Sunset Estates, and to accept this award is Robin
Buckley, Jr. There we are. And the road is Thompson -- Thompson
-- Polly Avenue. I see. Okay.
MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. BUCKLEY: I -- well, I just wanted to say I want to thank
all the volunteers I drag out every Sunday morning once a month to
do this, and my wife's probably more deserving of this award than
myself. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. The next -- next
award is the Church of Resurrection, and I think we have Reverend
Mary Ann Donner here, and it's an honor to present this --
REVEREND DONNER: And Sally Lee Adams.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and Ms. Adams -- and it's a
pleasure to present this award to you, and it's Thomasson Drive that
you-all volunteer to take care of that, and I was just down there the
other day, and it was quite a honor to see how beautiful that you keep
that area. So thank you. (Applause.)
MS. ADAMS: County Manager, Commissioners, and members
of the audience, not only is the American bald eagle crying for the
September 11 events, but he's also crying for the litter that lines our
roads, highways, and streets of Collier County and America. I hope
that you will stop and get friends and neighbors and relatives to stop
throwing garbage from their car windows and littering our streets. As
the crying Indian and the crying American bald eagle say, "Keep
America Beautiful. Please do not litter." Thank you. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And last but not least is the top
Page 20
January 22, 2002
sponsor of the year award and is so richly deserving by Precision
Cleaning, Incorporated. They adopted a road in 1995, parts of U.S.
41 and from Pine Ridge to Airport Road. I'm sorry. It's Pine Ridge
Road from U.S. 41 to Airport Road. So I would like to call up David
Fisher, president of the group, and Chris Greenberg, the group's --
and who's me?
MR. FISHER: Dave Fisher.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, and we have this
plaque for you, and we want to thank you for taking time out of a
busy schedule to make sure that roadway is clean.
MR. FISHER: Thank you. Appreciate it.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Kant.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioner. I would like to just
take a moment and introduce to you and to the public the lady --
while you're making your way back up to the dais -- the lady who is
responsible for administering this program through our road and
bridge section. Barbara Lee has been with us almost ten years and
picked this particular program up from the start as just one of those
other duties as assigned and has made it what it is today. She has
increased the sponsorship immensely.
We started out with 30 or 40 sponsors. I believe we have almost
90 now, and we still have a few roadway segments available for
adoption, and those are -- of course, all it takes is a call to the road
and bridge section at 774-8925, and she'll be very pleased to set you
up.
I'd like to ask Barbara to come up for a moment and give you
some background and just a couple of statistics to put all of this into
perspective, because this is one of those government programs that
actually saves us a significant amount of money. Barbara, would you
come up for a moment, please.
Page 21
January 22, 2002
(Applause.)
MS. LEE: Commissioners, in 1989 the Pilot Club of Naples set
out picking up litter along Goodlette-Frank Road. That was the start
of the Adopt a Road Program. The program itself was initiated in the
State of Texas, and it eventually swept across the country from state
to state eventually reaching Florida. It was the state that Collier
County acquired its primary program setup, and from its earliest
beginnings has steadily grown in the interim years. We now have
307 miles of county roadway. That's 578 lane miles because they
pick up both sides of the road adopted by 80-odd sponsors.
Volunteer participation averages from two to ten individuals per
sponsor and using an average of, say, six volunteers for each sponsor,
12 pickups a year means that these volunteers give 12,000 annual
volunteer hours. Combined they pick up a total of 50 tons of litter
which shouldn't have been there in the first place and produced a
savings to the county taxpayers of a quarter of a million dollars.
Now, that could be much better utilized in maintaining our
roads. So the next time you spot an orange-vested volunteer out
picking up along the roadway, give them a toot on the horn. They
really deserve it.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Kant. I know what
you're talking about. It is quite an effort. I have numerous times
been on the crew for Golden Gate Civic Association doing Golden
Gate Boulevard. I tell you it's no easy task out there in the dust and
the dirt and the insects. You find everything under the sun you could
ever imagine when you're doing that, and I'm sure my fellow
commissioners at one time or another have had similar experiences.
Item #6Al- 6C
Page 22
January 22, 2002
PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
But let's move on to the agenda to public petitions, public
comments on general topics. How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: I have ten on that, but just to be sure I have
registered speaker for 5-B, the item we just finished with, Sally Lee
Adams.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She spoke.
MS. FILSON: She did. Okay. Good. Public comment we have
ten speakers, the first being Vera Fitz-Gerald, and she will be
followed by A1 Newman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to be prepared
to come up. When the second person's name is called if they could
be up on the "ready" deck it will be most helpful.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Hi. I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald. I actually got
another box too. I know that none of you -- well, Commissioner
Carter was at the vote, but none of you were here when this road was
107th and 108th was horseshoed, and so I would like to give you a
little background, and I'll try and do it fast because I really want to
withdraw my public petition and save time.
This was part of the Naples Park traffic plan that we worked on
with the property owners of Naples Park. We did this for three years
with George Archibald plus numerous other people. There was about
six of us, and we spent a lot of time studying manuals from other
communities, and I kept telling George Archibald that I wanted an
honorary engineer's degree after I finished this. Anyway, so it's part
of our long-range plan, one of our -- lots of planning for traffic
calming throughout Naples Park, and this just happened to come up
because the Grenada Shops wanted to build and -- Sally Barker I
know is going to speak. She'll give you a little more background on
it, but they were going to line up the road all the way from Goodlette
Page 23
January 22, 2002
down to Vanderbilt Drive via 107th, and that would have been a
disaster. It would have been another Hickory Boulevard through
Pine Ridge.
So Grenada Shops agreed they would pay for this bit of traffic
calming, and this seemed to be a win-win. It meant the county didn't
have to pay. The residents of Naples Park never had to pay so it was
really a win-win, and so that was why that got a little ahead of the
rest of the big plan.
This thing was very well publicized. I know there's a lady
coming forth with a petition to reopen 108th. They have phoned me
and said, "We didn't know anything about it." Wrong. This was in
the newspaper when the Grenada Shops was being developed. It was
-- there were two advertised public hearings. If you keep your head
in the sand, you're not going to know what's going on in this county,
and it's too late.
And we did a petition. We went up and down 107th and 108th,
and we spoke to every property owner we could find. We wrote to
those we couldn't find. Some faxed it to us. That's our petition just
from the people on 107th and 108th. We had overwhelming support.
So there was a gentleman, a Mr. LeClaire, who has gone name by
name on this petition that has been presented to you or will be
presented to you. A great many of those names are bogus, and if he's
here I know he was going to speak on it. For instance, there's teen-
age kids come up and signed it where their parents had signed the
petition to close. He can rip this thing apart name by name, but I
don't know what happened to him. He doesn't seem to have made it.
One of the reasons that 108th was included in the horseshoe
configuration was because they have had an awful lot of traffic.
There's a serious safety issue on 108th. Pauline Moser who lives in
the 800 block was standing on her front lawn and because our streets
are very narrow and substandard, maybe 17 feet, a lot of people don't
Page 24
January 22, 2002
think there's room for two vehicles, and the guy who was meeting an
oncoming car didn't think there was enough room. He drove on to
Pauline Moser's front yard, knocked her down, and broke some
bones. So we do have a problem on that street, and our streets can't
take 2,000 vehicle trips a day. We just don't have the width to
accommodate it. We need to calm that stuff down.
So because of the high traffic counts that's why that came out.
When FDOT outlined plans for 41, I personally wrote and circulated
a -- a fact sheet to every business along U.S. 41. My husband and I
personally walked that whole mile and delivered them. Not one
person replied, not one business owner came forward to support it,
not one business owner came to any of the meetings with FDOT. Get
your head out of the sand.
Now, the daycare center, I visited that daycare center when we
were doing our petition, and I said, "Where do your children come
from?" I didn't speak to the owner. She was busy. They said, "The
vast majority of our children are from Fort Myers. Their parents
work in Naples. They drive down and they're near their children."
This makes sense. Then they said the next highest was from Bonita
Springs, and less than 10 percent were from Naples Park. One of the
things I heard is, "Oh, my, the children don't have access from Naples
Park." Wrong. That's what that pullout is designed for. People can
just drive out, pull out safely, park, just take their children in -- and
rats, I'm out of time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap
it up, please.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I know, and I don't want to go on the
other one. Anyway, all right, I'll wrap it up.
Finally, we want to progress. We don't want to redress. As you
know we have a big neighborhood plan coming. We want to
progress, and so when that petition comes up we ask you not to show
Page 25
January 22, 2002
any interest in it whatever because it's bogus. I thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker--
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask the audience to
please refrain from clapping.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Mr. A1 Newman who will
be followed by Lue Newman.
MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. She took the
wind right out of my sails. That 108th Street (sic) used to be one of
the roughest roads that we have due to the trucks going up and down,
up and down. Now at least we got the trucks off that street, and the
kids can play out there safely. Thank you very much. A1 Newman,
Naples Park resident.
MS. FILSON: He is followed by Lue Newman --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When you come up to the podium, if
you would be so kind to identify yourself for the record.
MS. FILSON: -- who will be followed by Corye McNutt.
MS. NEWMAN: My name is Lue Newman, and I'm with all
three organizations in the Park, and I'm all for keeping it closed.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Corye McNutt followed by George LaBanca.
MS. McNUTT: Hi, my name is Corye McNutt. I live at 846
108th Avenue. I'm 28 years old. I bought my house about five and a
half years ago. I'm on the 800 block. I'm a single parent. I have a
nine-year-old daughter. When I moved in, she was three years old.
It wasn't as big of a deal, although the traffic was significant to 7-
Eleven to 41. Since they've closed the road, my daughter is now
nine. She can cross the street to get the mail. She can walk the dog
around the circle without me having to worry about her. She can
Page 26
January 22, 2002
rollerblade. She can ride her bike over to 107th to play with her
friends. Since the first of the year I've let her start riding her bike to
school. If you open that road back up, all of those things will cease.
It is not a safe place. My lanai happens to be on the front of my
home, so when I go outside to sit and relax it's out in the front. Seven
o'clock, eight o'clock, nine o'clock, ten o'clock at night prior to the
road being closed there was traffic on that road consistently with no
regard for the families and the people that live there. Thirty-five,
forty, forty-five miles an hour people tearing down that road.
7-Eleven sells beer until two o'clock in the morning. Last-
minute beer run, down the street, midnight, one o'clock. 41 is a busy,
busy road. I know that all of these business owners is going to say
it's cut down on their business. How is that possible on the
intersection of Immokalee Road and 41 ? There's got to be enough
business there that those of us that live there and that is our safe
place, our home, don't have to worry about our children crossing the
street to get the mail. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. McNutt --
MS. McNUTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- before you leave I have a
question.
MS. McNUTT: Certainly, sir. I'm sorry. I'm nervous.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's your badge say? What's it
stand for, PONP?
MS. McNUTT: Property Owners of Naples Park.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I can understand, you
know, the 7-Eleven that you spoke about selling beer late at night.
We have the same example in Golden Gate and which county staff is
helping me address. A couple years ago a child was killed because
somebody was making a beer run, and so I understand your concern
about your child.
Page 27
January 22, 2002
MS. McNUTT: I guess it's just that I've -- personally speaking,
I don't mean -- I know that there is all of us. The thing of closing
107th and 108th is also done is if you need to get to 41 and you live
on 103rd, you drive down 103rd instead of all of the traffic funnelling
from 98th, 99th, and 102nd all the way down to 108th and then
shooting straight down that street. It has evened the traffic out so that
everybody drives down their own street to get to 41. I don't think
that's a bad thing. I think that's a good thing. That's all I have to --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I know--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I know the rest of the
commissioners were not seated at the time we went through this, I
actually believe, with the community of Naples Park going through a
community character study that that's the appropriate time for this
issue to go forward and be discussed. I have great reservation about a
board reversing that which was already decided by a prior board,
unless there's some overwhelming evidence that says the conditions
have radically changed. I don't see this, and we've got to hear the
other petitioner, but I think the real place for all this discussion takes
place within the community in the community character study plan
for Naples Park, and that would be my thoughts on this this morning.
You may proceed if you choose, Mr. Chairman. I know you
have to hear the other petition, but I would hope we don't have to
listen to a lot of people telling us about what I already think we need
to do. And I really value your comments.
MS. McNUTT: And I appreciate the time to be able to come up
here and speak.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know Commissioner Carter has the
best interests of that area in mind when he's saying what he's saying.
These community character plans involve the whole community to
make these decisions, and I'm sure when we get through with it we'll
Page 28
January 22, 2002
be able to provide for your needs and everyone else's needs too.
MS. McNUTT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much for coming
today.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is George LaBanca followed
by Brenda Kaiser. Brenda, if you would please come forward to be
ready.
MR. LABANCA: Good morning, everybody. That includes the
gentlemen and lady of the board. My name is George LaBanca. I
live at 858 108th Avenue. If I may read from this, this is in reference
to the 7-Eleven store at U.S. 41 and 108th Avenue and its petition to
reopen 108th Avenue to through traffic for convenience sake. The
seven stores and the strip mall opposite also join in this request for
reopening.
I am retired and live with my son at a property I own at 858
108th Avenue, end of block and close to the 7-Eleven. I have lived at
this address continuously since 1998, so I'm well aware and honestly
-- and honestly -- gee, my own handwriting -- I'm well aware and
honestly aware of conditions here before and after the reconfiguration
of 108th to 178th -- 107th Street (sic) the past year.
Because I'm a walker I've been able to observe what goes on
over there. Okay. The streets are too narrow, much too narrow.
There are no sidewalks there, by the way. Everybody has the idea
that because you have a street you automatically have a sidewalk.
People think that unconsciously, and it's not so. Children over there
play very close to the edge of the road. They may not be on the road,
and I've seen-- time and time again I've seen cars, in order to pass a
car that was going in the opposite direction, they've gone on the grass
of a property there to get past that car.
And, by the way, you spoke so much here about litter. I'm the
guy who's -- was always cleaning up that area. I don't have to clean it
Page 29
January 22, 2002
up as much as I used to before, but the place is too narrow for trucks
and cars. It's not a place for that. It's a place -- it's a residence. It's
there for people who live there. It's not there for the convenience of
people who want to rip through the streets, and they used to do that
by the way. And I always used to -- had to pick up stuff from the 7-
Eleven on my property and on the opposite side, beer bottles
whatever it was, all sorts of debris.
The petition of the store -- 7-Eleven store to reopen 108th
Avenue for their convenience should be denied on the basis that it is
an unhealthy, unnecessary, and ignores the welfare, health, and safety
of the inhabitants of these streets which were not suitable for
anything opposite to human residents. If you like to ask me any
questions -- I don't know, but it shouldn't be -- we shouldn't go back
to how things were. It would be a retrogression.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a comment. I want to
thank you for being here this morning. MR. LABANCA: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a comment. I want to
thank you for being here this morning.
MR. LABANCA: Oh, I'm trying to be. I'm still in my 80s. I
thought I would lose something by coming here. I didn't read the
whole thing anyway. The place as it is now is for human beings.
Before it was not when they had the through traffic. They used to go
through there like anything, fast by the way.
They would throw everything over there. You'd have cardboard
on the floor from trucks that were going by there and especially at
night, by the way. You'd try to sleep with the windows open when
the weather is cool, you couldn't really sleep without hearing trucks
and cars passing by there. This is the middle of the night. Traffic
there was constant always. And that's it. I hope you understood
everything I tried to say, and if possible -- may I leave now, or do I
Page 30
January 22, 2002
have to stay here?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: George, you've got another minute.
You can't leave. No, I'm just kidding, George. MR. LABANCA: Huh?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: George, I personally want to thank
you too. Mr. Henning brought up a very good point. And I want to
thank everyone that's participating here today. That's what this is all
about. We're your representatives, but this is where we get to hear
you in an official capacity.
MR. LABANCA: Oh, it's important. When I was in New York,
I always used to go to these places, you know. In fact, you know
what happened to me this morning? When I came with my bag, I
was surprised that the police in front didn't ask to open it, because
when I went to Mayor Guiliani's office -- this was before the attack --
I always had to take stuff out of my pockets, put it through
something, and they wanted to see inside there. So I don't think that
would apply here but, I mean, that's just a side comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. LABANCA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Thank you, George.
I can leave now; right?
You may leave.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brenda Kaiser who will be
followed by Loretta LeLeux.
MS. KAISER: Good morning. I'm here
representing --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Brenda, for the record, you have to --
MS. KAISER: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Brenda Kaiser. I'm
the owner of the Learning Tree Preschool. I'm here representing the
business owners along the stretch of 108th and 41, also 612
petitioners, 220 of them being from the streets that are in question
from 105th to 111 th.
For two and a half years we, the business owners, of Naples
Page 31
January 22, 2002
Park have tried to adjust and try to compensate the impact
construction of the Grenada Shops and the widening of U.S. 41
which would have on our businesses and community we serve. Last
year the construction of the barriers on 107th and 108th Avenue were
also something we needed to adjust to, and for that we were not
prepared for the negative impact it would have on the community of
Naples Park.
Upon completion of all these projects, we were promised better
access to our business from outside the area and safer more efficient
access from the residents of Naples Park. Now that the dust has
settled we find ourselves without northbound U.S. 41 traffic and
difficult access from our community customers. We realize that we
had nothing to do -- we had nothing to do with the U.S. 41 access but
were prepared to do something constructive for the community and
our businesses regarding the barrier at 108th Avenue.
Recently I spoke to Ms. Fitz-Gerald of PONP and asked her the
purpose of the barriers. As she told you, 107th was for the lights
between Grenada and Naples Park, and 108th was for traffic calming
purposes. And I asked her also what the possibility was of
modification or removal of the barrier, and she told me slim to none
because the property owners of those streets were unanimous in its
support.
We applaud Ms. Fitz-Gerald and the PONP for their civic-
minded concern for our safety in the area, but we feel that the
decision to install the barrier was not extended beyond its
completion. The community we're speaking of is not limited to
property owners but also those who rent the homes, and there are
several in Naples Park, the businesses that serve the community and
those who come to Naples Park from outside areas.
We feel we were not adequately represented in this decision.
We would like to detail the negative impact of the barrier from the
Page 32
January 22, 2002
viewpoint of the real Naples Park community, not just the property
owners.
In the minutes of the Collier County commission
meeting that voted for the barrier, it was stated that businesses on the
west side of 41 would be served by 41 with admittedly difficult
access from the community to those businesses. I have the minutes
of that meeting and a consultant's report on other options to the
barrier. With 41 now complete, we find we're cut off from
northbound traffic because we were given no turns into the Park after
105th Avenue. Our clients now must make a U-turn at Immokalee
Road intersection or U-turn at 107th loop, back to 106th, take 8th
Street, go up to 109th or 110th, come back onto 41 to access these
businesses.
The residents have a equally difficult time as they must use
similar routes and come on 41. I personally must now take a daycare
van out onto 41 down to 106, down to 8th to Naples Park Elementary
School, come back up 11 lth, back on 41 twice daily.
The fan company down the road from me is having difficulty
getting their delivery vans in because the trucks are large trucks.
There's nowhere to turn around. Turning on 41 is a very dangerous
situation. The business owners have already had to leave the plaza
some of them because of the access to the road and the dangerous
situation their clients are put into.
It seems the PONP did not realize that the end result of the
barrier and what it would be. They have taken a problem that was
limited to one small area, and they now spread it to surrounding
areas. They were not thinking about the rest of the community, only
107th and 108th, and they haven't -- I don't think they understand
what the added traffic to 41 for a short term would be.
An executive summary was prepared by Edward Kant,
transportation services director, and approved by Ed Ilschner, public
Page 33
January 22, 2002
works administrator, which gave two other options in addition to the
proposed barrier. In the opinion of the study, the barrier was not the
best option. The other options were recommended by the consultant
who conducted the study and a county staff team. I'm quoting from
the executive summary (as read): "The consultant's recommendation
established a closure on 8th Court East north of 107th and a closure
on 107th Avenue west of 8th Court East." This plan required the
least amount of construction and would represent the least intrusion
into the community. The second recommendation which was deemed
to be the best in the interests of the community was to establish a
closure at 107th and 8th Court East, monitor traffic on 108th Avenue.
This plan would require a small portion of the area in the vicinity of
the intersection of 107th Avenue and 8th Court East to be modified to
permit continued use of the off-site parking facility for the cafe and
the park restaurant which is now called Heidelberg.
Ideally the monitoring should continue until after the completion
of the construction work on U.S. 41 to determine the traffic patterns
resulting from the six-lane improvements to U.S. 41. If after a
reasonable period of monitoring beyond the completion of the six-
lane project, 6 to 12 months, traffic volumes on 108th Avenue have
increased or remained at present levels then establish a closure on
108th Avenue East at 8th Court East.
On a side note, this location became an error. The playground
that was then next to my preschool was considered part of my
property. It is not. It belongs to Lloyd Boem (phonetic), and the
berm is now blocking his access to develop his property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Kaiser, I'm going to have to ask
you to wrap it up. Actually--
MS. KAISER: I'm almost there. It seems in hindsight that there
are now more reasons to remove the barrier and revisit the situation
than there are to leave it as it is. The only purpose of the barrier was
Page 34
January 22, 2002
to slow down traffic, but in practice the barrier increases the
possibility of accidents due to the following; increased traffic within
Naples Park with speeding on other streets, increased short-distance
traffic on U.S. 41, U-tums being made at U.S. 41 and Immokalee
Road, one of the most dangerous roads in our county and 107th, daily
turnaround traffic in the parking lots and the shopping center, 7-
Eleven and my preschool. I've had several accidents. I can't keep my
mailbox up now. I'm almost there.
Recently there have been two accidents in the area, and in both
incidents emergency vehicles and the sheriffs deputies have had
difficulty reaching the accident scenes. In one accident before
Christmas, a fire engine actually had to go against traffic on 41 to
access the access in front of 108th.
Last but not least our businesses are continuing to suffer because
of the shortsightedness of the planning of this barrier. We're having a
difficult time drawing in new business and keeping the business we
already have there from searching something more convenient.
We invite you to come to Naples Park, drive these areas, see for
yourself the difficulties the residents and businesses are having now.
It's time to listen to majority of the area and try to work alternatives
to a barrier. Speed bumps have been mentioned and are effective in
slowing traffic. Lake Park, some areas of old Naples have
roundabouts. They are landscaped. They are lovely, and I think
they're in keeping with the new ideas of what Naples Park wants.
We ask -- we, the business owners, have responsibility to our
customers and our community to find a better way. Help us revisit
this unfriendly, unsightly, and unsafe situation. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Kaiser--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, again, that's the
purpose of the community study to readdress all of these issues, and
Page 35
January 22, 2002
while that's taking place I believe the business community as well as
everyone else in Naples Park will have an opportunity for discussion
on this issue. All your points -- are very well articulated this morning
-- would be taken into consideration by the study that goes in the
Park. I think that's where it'll need to be, ma'am, because as I said
earlier, I'm very concerned when a board starts reversing decisions
piecemeal without the big-picture study.
MS. KAISER: We're not looking at-- traffic calming is
required. We're looking at modification. The berm is incredibly
intrusive into the community and in emergency situations -- I've had
one next to my preschool. In September, the storm, we had a power
line was down. The fire department came onto 108th. They couldn't
get there to where they needed to access water. They had to go
around back onto 41 and come in the back way.
We're worried about safety and, yes, I understand speeding. I
used to back my van out on there, but there's also other
considerations to speeding.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Kaiser, one suggestion I make --
it was an excellent presentation, by the way. MS. KAISER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But when you're going to be running
a length over three minutes it might behoove you to please send the
presentation in to the commissioners well beforehand. We can read it
and you can shorten your presentation to three minutes in fairness to
everyone else.
MS. KAISER: I had understood that we had ten minutes --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. You were under the
public petition, was it? I don't see your name down here for that.
You were under public comments.
MS. KAISER: We're all pretty new at this when we got our
letter.
Page 36
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's quite all right.
MS. KAISER: And we thought we had ten minutes, so when I
was preparing my presentation I came under.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll try never to cut anyone off short,
'cause you were making some very good points, but I would still go
ahead and send your presentation in to us commissioners so we can at
our leisure be able to consider all the options that are on there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I think there is
some confusion here, because there were two public petitions under
this -- this item, and I believe Ms. Kaiser presented the other points
of view under Item B, and that's why she assumed she had ten
minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think that's where the confusion
is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now, we've had both positions
presented, and I think you're still on public comments from either
side.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: From what I understand, we're still
under public comments, and public petitions will be following. How
many more for public comments?
Thank you, Ms. Kaiser.
MS. KAISER: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Six; however, you do have speakers registered to
speak for 6-B and C. Do you want me to include those in public
comments?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just for a reference here, public
petitions and public comments, is there a difference in time element?
MS. FILSON: Yes, public comments is five minutes; public
petitions is ten.
Page 37
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And that's one person under
petitions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. They registered, what
was it, a week beforehand or two weeks before?
MS. FILSON: They signed a letter of interest to the county
manager, and he responds on the date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public petition, the -- the outline
petitions is presented to us well in advance so we can give it
consideration before we even reach the dais and go forward from
there. Please, go ahead. I don't mean to be taking your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Loretta LeLeux, and she will
be followed by Sally Barker.
MS. LeLEUX: For the record, Loretta LeLeux. I'm a resident of
Naples Park, and I'm the treasurer of the PONP. They are referred to
Mr. LeClaire, and I'd like to submit this for the record. He made it
too late to sign up for the public comment, so his report is there.
I would like to put forth, as Commissioner Carter has, that
Naples Park is in the process of a community plan under the
community character, and one of the areas that we're primarily
focusing on in the immediate future is traffic calming. We realize the
situation at 107th and 108th is not ideal; however, it serves the
purpose at this time.
It's unfortunate that 7-Eleven lost their turn on 41; that was all in
the planning when the state was doing this and, like Vera said, we
didn't have any business owners that participated; however, we're just
starting the process for the community plan, and we would like to
encourage the business owners on 41 and in the Park to perhaps form
an association of their own so that they can have representation when
we do the workshops for the plan and everything, so that they won't
feel like they were left out. It takes participation, which is why we
have been pushing for this, and if the businesses would like to have
Page 38
January 22, 2002
things slanted towards them, they need to participate and to be active,
and that's what we would ask.
I mean, we're a community, and we want to pull together and
not pull apart, and we realize the businesses are important, and we
would like to have better access to the businesses on 41 from the Park
without having to go on 41.
I ask your consideration to please leave 107th and 108th as it is,
and let us plan and take care of it in a proper manner. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, ma'am.
MR. WEIGEL: Next speaker is Sally Barker and will be
followed by Kara Laufer.
MS. BARKER: Good morning, Commissioners. How are you?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. How are you?
MS. BARKER: For the record, my name is Sally Barker, and
four years later we're back here on the same subject. This is a four-
year-old issue. It came up first during the Grenada Shops PUD in
1998, discussed ad nauseam during that process. There were several
articles in the newspaper about it. The county went so far as to hire
David Plumber and Associates to do a study to come up with design
alternatives. There was a public hearing on that and then, of course,
there was the process before the BCC. So this issue has been really
discussed, and while I sympathize with the owners of the businesses,
I do wish they had come forth years ago. It might be saving us all a
lot of headaches now.
The primary reason I'm here this morning is that during the
creation of the community character study by Dover, Kohl, Dover,
Kohl came up with some alternate scenarios which are not in the
study itself but which might be worth incorporating into the current
study that's being done for Naples Park. And one of the alternative
scenarios they came up with was the creation of a commercial
Page 39
January 22, 2002
alleyway running behind the commercial properties that would serve
those commercial entities and make their access easier.
Now, it's very difficult to retrofit a built-out community like
Naples Park, but I think it is something that the time has come we
very seriously need to take a look at and solve the problems, not only
for the businesses, but to protect the safety and the interests of the
residents as well. Thank you.
The next speaker is Kara Laufer followed by Sal
MS. FILSON:
Pucciarelli.
MS. LAUFER:
Good morning. My name is Kara Laufer, and
my husband and I live on 108th Avenue. We're in the 800 block. We
bought our house in 1996 when the road was open, and we fought
hard to close the road, and I'm just here to encourage you to please
keep the road closed. It's not just for our sake but for all the children
in the community who, you know, can now ride their bike, can check
the mail, feel safe. And my husband and I don't have children yet but
we have a small dog, and I now feel safe when I walk my dog. I can,
you know, cross the street to get to the mailbox.
And the point about the community character study that really
made an impact on me was, you know, we're working to make this
more of a community instead ofjust a grid of streets where people
zoom in and zoom out leaving to go to the store, leaving to go to
work, coming home. You know, let's make it a community where we
know our neighbors and walk together and walk to the store, and it's
-- we have that feeling on 108th now. You know I know all my
neighbors now, and it's a wonderful feeling. It is more of a
community, and I think if we reverse the decision to open 108th
versus taking a step back and we're -- you know, taking a step right
against that community character plan which you-all voted for, so I'm
just here to encourage you to consider that when you're looking at
this issue. Thank you.
Page 40
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Laufer.
MS. FILSON: Sal Pucciarelli who will be followed by Bob
Krasowski.
MR. PUCCIARELLI: Hi. My name is Sal Pucciarelli. I live on
108th, and I just agree with all the speakers to keep the streets closed.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski followed by Ty--
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi, Commissioners. My name is Bob
Krasowski. I signed up to speak under public comment on general
topic 6-A, not 6-B, 6-C. I don't want to make my comments on the
solid-waste issues in the middle of this discussion regarding Naples
Park, so I'd like to defer my comments until after all these other
people have their say and you decide what you want to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll grant you that, sir.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: There is only one other speaker, Ty Agoston.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine.
MR. AGOSTON: I have a couple other comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I guess we're at the public comment
section now on whatever subject. We wanted to bunch them
together, that mix and --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I think we need
to deal with this issue and then take the other two separate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you give us just a minute, Mr.
Agoston?
MR. AGOSTON: I'll give you all the time you need, sir.
Somebody lost a pen over here.
MS. FILSON: I have two other public speakers, but they are
registered for the public petition, and you don't normally take
Page 41
January 22, 2002
speakers. Do you want to take them now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the public petition ties in to the
-- what we're working towards at this time, if I'm not mistaken, both
of them do. So I would -- I would recommend that we continue with
that, and then as Mr. Carter -- Dr. Carter suggested, bring this
resolution we have before us to a conclusion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I thought we heard both
petitions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't believe so. We just heard the
comments.
MS. FILSON: We heard the public comments.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We had one person who spoke
for ten minutes on the subject.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That person was misunderstood.
They misunderstood and thought that's what they had to speak on.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Then we need to hear the
second petition then. I would suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that seems where we are. Let's -- let's finish this and
then go to the--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you, Dr. Carter.
MS. FILSON: Then do you want--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go to the public petition since
it's on the same subject matter.
MS. FILSON: I have two additional public speakers --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, two additional.
MS. FILSON: -- on the same subject.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On the same subject. Yes, go ahead
and bring them up.
MS. FILSON:
registered for both.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Then we'll go to public petition.
A1 Newman who will followed by -- oh, he's
Waive?
Page 42
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's waiving.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I
believe Commissioner Carter made a great statement is this is a study
area of redevelopment in Naples Park, and that is the time that it
should be addressed. The only thing that I'm concerned about in the
Dover, Kohl Community Character Plan is it calls for
interconnectivity and not road closure, but again they're going to be
looking at the neighborhood study area. And I also don't think it's
one of our policies -- if you remember Coconut Creek issue with a
barrier-- and that's exactly what it is -- I was there yesterday and
surmised the situation, and actually got a haircut up there when I was
there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Looks good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. But I can
understand some of the frustration from the business, but it also is a
safety issue when a community does not have sidewalks such as
Naples Park. So those -- I believe those issues need to be addressed
at that time. So I support Commissioner Carter's suggestion is wait.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If that's true, before we go to you,
Commissioner Fiala, I want to remind you that we still have two
public petitions on this subject, but we can go ahead and try to get a
consensus on the board, but let's hear from Commissioner Fiala first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead. Go to the public
petitions. Well, okay, I'll just finish real quickly. I'm really in a spot
where I can understand both sides of this thing, because I live on a
street called Lakewood Boulevard, and when I moved onto that street
there was no connecting to Davis. It was a wonderful, quiet peaceful
street and, of course, now it's a thoroughfare leading to everything.
And we just had some work done on our street, and they had to shut
the street down in order to do it. Oh, it was heavenly being back to a
Page 43
January 22, 2002
private street again.
But, again, interconnectivity is the rule of the day. I think,
though, that before we -- well, I'm going to give you my conclusion.
I think before we decided what interconnectivity is going to be taking
place, the feel that the community -- not only the residents but the
business community as well should be working with this study group
to make sure that they all come to a compromise so everybody
benefits, and they find how to connect to the main streets and at the
same time protect their neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And together, not as a separate
organization.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not a business organization.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. That's what I said, together.
Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The business community has not
been organized in the past, and this gives them an opportunity to do
that. It gives everybody an opportunity to address these issues, and
that's what I'm trying to say here for the last half hour is that we're
going to have a community character study that involves all elements,
all subjects, so at the end of the day you come back with a plan that
reasonably addresses everyone's concerns. I've been through this
many times in my life. You're never going to get everything you
want, but you at least can walk away with saying I feel fairly
comfortable that I was able to achieve certain parts of the thing that I
want. So I think that's where the community is at this point, and to
me that's where the deliberation needs to take place.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, I agree with
you. Let's see how the consensus of the board goes on this. Is there
agreement with Commissioner Carter that we're best off-- with
Commissioner Henning also -- to wait for the study to take place?
Page 44
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and they're pushing the study
to get right on track now and to include all of the segments of the
neighborhood, and they hope to push this thing through with the six-
month study. So I would--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm in agreement with that also.
How about you, Commissioner Henning? I did hear you correctly the
first time?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think everybody's brains are
rattling in their heads. I think we're okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then let's go on to the public
petition, if they'd still like to make their presentation.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'll withdraw.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's who now?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Vera Fitz-Gerald.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Vera.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What about Charlotte Byers?
MS. BYERS: Withdraw.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, so much for that. Now
we can move onto to --
MS. FILSON: The two public-comment speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public comments? Oh, that's right.
Two comments -- public. Would you like to go ahead, Mr. Agoston?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just add while Ty is getting
up there. Vera, would you make sure that you work with these
business owners to get them all involved?
MS. FITZ-GERALD: God knows we've tried.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm sure that want to now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. No comments from the
audience. There's no way we can record it from that point. We will
-- you can take it up with the individual commissioners afterwards.
Page 45
January 22, 2002
We're here to work for everybody.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Ty Agoston. He will be followed by your
last speaker, Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Ty Agoston, and I'm speaking for Tax Watch of Collier
County. Just an addendum to my remarks at the last meeting, there
was a discussion on the legacy of the last county commission. I need
to impart something that happened to me where one of your workers
walked up to me in the hall and knowing that I was actively fighting
the sales tax increase, she says, "I can't say this in public, but you
give 'em hell."
Some of you know that I came from a communist country, and
there if you disagreed with the government they kind of drag you in
the hall -- in the alley and you never disagreed again. And it gives
me an absolute shudder to think that you have some workers working
for you who are afraid to express their opinion, and this was a young
lady, very eloquent, but let me go on.
I see on your schedule that you-all -- you're still working on a
resolution for Florida Forever, and I have mentioned before that I
didn't believe that Florida was going anywhere, and it's still not. And
for you to consider a resolution in favor of keeping the funding for
Florida Forever and not make a similar or a more emphatic resolution
supporting education funding and supporting the health funding
which was substantially cut would make us look absolutely ludicrous
that our priorities are absolutely backwards. So I would urge you not
to make any resolutions in favor of Florida Forever.
Going down to your agenda, I see that you are considering
funding the establishment of an office for a land-use king. What I
might suggest and I probably agree, one of the few times, with
Naples Daily News that you should consider going back to your
Page 46
January 22, 2002
weekly meeting which would give you sufficient time to do your job
which is one of the major ones is to make decisions as far as the land-
use code goes in the county rather than hiding behind a hired hand
and pointing fingers at him as being responsible. He is not; you are.
And for you to -- you know, look for a ball works, so to speak. It is
not fair. It's obvious, and I don't think that should be done.
There was some discussion here, last I was here about the sales
tax restructuring and that you are communicating with your lobbiest
in Tallahassee in a positive manner. Well, you know, to be honest
with you, I have yet to see a political body dealing with taxes that did
not result in a tax increase for the taxpayer, and there is no question a
number of people have written on the subject in a technical manner
denoting just exactly where the increases would come in. And while
the increases would not be immediate, it sure would be felt by all of
US.
And, finally, you might consider making public comments at a
time certain. When you have important people coming in here to
speak to you, you have no problem granting them the privilege of
having a time certain starting point. So people like me or other
people who are not working for a developer or legal firm with a
heavy salary who are actually being paid to speak to you -- these are
your constituents, and I believe that you should honor their time as
well.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The last speaker is Mr. Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. So nice
to see you today. Boy, I was writing some notes, I look up, and it's a
smaller group. Hello to the staff as well. My name's Bob Krasowski.
I am here to speak on my own, also representing the interests of Zero
Waste Collier County. It's a collection of citizens interested in solid-
waste issues.
Page 47
January 22, 2002
There are -- I race -- rise today to address a number of issues
that have continued to develop over the recent time, primarily the
RFP process and the non -- nonresidential recycling ordinance. I've
attended the three meetings that were held regarding the RFP process
and would like to just make the points -- which I'll make again in the
future when you discuss this as an agenda item -- but the design of
the RFPs is -- request for proposals -- are very important. I've
mentioned to you before and I continue to point out that the request
for proposals have as part of them being combined -- the collection of
recyclables and organics is combined with the processing. This
somewhat limits our ability to evaluate what individual process might
be best to serve Collier County. I suggest you pay attention to that
and be careful and notice whether or not we've been impacted
negatively at all as a result of that.
I'd like to mention that we -- that we at Zero Waste still continue
to have meetings with the Solid Waste Department and appreciate
their cooperation and help in developing our -- our understanding on
this issue. We -- I would like to have you consider-- now I know
you don't take actions on what's said here under public comments, but
I'd like for you to consider that we need an RFP for waste reduction
process. There's a void in our process when we're not considering an
effort -- a concerted effort to reduce the waste as much as possible so
that we don't even have to worry about processing it.
Then when I attended the RFP process, one of the interested
vendors who has a process that can handle organic waste, which is a
big problem at the landfill and in the waste stream because it creates
odor. Now the organic waste in some ways can be handled very
simply. When it's mixed in with other garage, it can be more
complicated, but as far as the commercial organic waste
management, many businesses already separate out their organic
waste. And this interested party can come in and process the organic
Page 48
January 22, 2002
waste for us, but without an identifiable dedicated waste stream it's
hard for this company to make a proposal.
So that kind of segue into the nonresidential recycling ordinance
that's being developed. All these things are in developmental stage,
and I'd like to think, but -- but we would suggest you also consider an
ordinance that would forbid the disposal of recyclables or organic
waste at the Collier County Landfill. The Collier County Landfill is
a finite resource. We only have so much space, and to allow material
to go into that landfill that doesn't have to go into that landfill is -- is
-- could be described as being foolish.
There is a preliminary report-- and I won't go into this too much
at the time because it is a rough draft, and I don't want to violate my
-- the fact that somebody is engaged -- has allowed me to see this.
But this report which studied the economics of recycling shows what
we had believed before -- but I'll wait for it to come out -- but this is
something you might want to be aware of-- that in businesses that do
choose to transfer the recyclables and separate them out have a
recyclable collection company pick them up. When you compare the
cost of just throwing all the garbage in one bin, there's a lot of money
to be saved. So not only do we have the incentive of saving space in
the landfill, removing odor from the landfill, but we also have the
incentive to save money for the businesses.
Now, it's suggested that the businesses only -- and this is along
the lines of the nonresidential recycling ordinance that suggests that
those businesses may only be committed to recycling one item in
their waste stream. We suggest that the businesses be required to
recycle most of if not all of. Okay? So is that five minutes, or was
that three again?
MS. FILSON: Five.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Five, okay. Well, good to speak to you,
and we'll be back again.
Page 49
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. Before we go
onto the next item, we're going to take a five-minute break.
(Short recess was taken.)
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2002-44, REGARDING CU-2001-AR- 1411, ANITA
L. JENKINS, AICP, OF WILSON MILLER, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE FOR A FIRE STATION, PER SECTION
2.6.9.2 ESSENTIAL SERVICES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD'S RIGHT-OF-WAY
AND APPROXIMATELY 1.75 MILES NORTH OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD AND .25 MILES SOUTH OF FUTURE LIVINGSTON
ROAD E/W'S RIGHT-OF-WAY
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seats, please. The next
item is 17-A. Before we get into that, I'd like to get disclosures on
the part of the commission before we swear in the people who will
participate in 17-A.
Commissioner Henning, is there anything on the summary
agenda that you wish to declare at this time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On 17-A I spoke to a
gentleman just briefly out in the hall. I didn't catch his name, and
he's going to be one of the speakers, but that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Now, there's two other items
on there too. The county attorney wanted to make sure that we made
disclosures on them also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which items are those?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Open your book to Section 17, and
that would B and C.
Page 50
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay, no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing to disclose at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have nothing to disclose. How
about you, Commissioner Fiala? This is on the Summary Agenda 17-
A, B and C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No disclosure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And if I can get the court
reporter here to swear in anyone that cares to participate in this
hearing.
(The oath was administered.)
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with current
planning staff. As you stated, this is a summary agenda item that was
pulled to offer some public comment. If you like, I can give you a
general overview of the project or if you would like to go directly to
the public comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go to the public
comments and then come backwards and work it from there forward.
Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: We have two registered speakers, and I believe
the first initial is "A" Zafiris followed by Frank Pitt.
MR. ZAFIRIS: My name is Zafiris. I come from Miami, and I
didn't have no notification about what it would be today, the agenda,
but Mr. Frank Pitt is here to represent me also in case he can speak
for me. I don't know why nothing came in the mail for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't answer that, sir, but possibly
somebody from staff will be able to answer your question.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, after the meeting if you would like to
come and speak with me, I'll go over the advertising requirements
Page 51
January 22, 2002
with you and find out what happened.
MR. ZAFIRIS: Sure, okay. Thank you. Can
Mr. Frank Pitts represent me? He's the same, just like me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
MR. ZAFIRIS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. PITT: Good morning. My name is -- my name is Frank
Pitt, and I'm a property owner here for about 30 years, and most of
the people in there have owned the property for 20 or 30 years will
also -- including my brother, the First Southeast Investment
Corporation that I'm involved with, Father Neil Flemming who asked
me to speak on behalf of him, and the Diocese of Venice who I sold
the comer piece to up there where Livingston Road north, southeast,
west intersect, Henry Bezold who has a piece behind us that will be
basically landlocked if the school board takes the piece right behind
me this week at their meeting. So there's a lot of people that are
concerned with interconnectivity with getting locked out of this
whole comer section which I understand from talking to Dover, Kohl
in their plan yesterday was in South Miami that they're trying to
provide some type of interconnectivity between property owners
there and in the whole plans that are being done.
Besides the interconnectivity I wasn't really sure on this right of
eminent domain between the county and the school board and who
has which rights and how those rights then would affect any -- you
know, connectivity back to the road and across the road which is
being addressed, I believe, in this petition here today. So there's a
number of things that kind of all tie together here.
Also we were wondering about the fire station, the size of the
fire trucks getting on the -- if you go to the plan that Dover, Kohl has
said, they seem to say that they like smaller fire trucks involved in
this, too, because of coming in and the design of the roads and other
things and the density and how it's structured. And they also were
Page 52
January 22, 2002
concerned with the right going back and forth going across
Livingston Road north/south to connect up to any of these
commercial pods and things that would be designed in the corner
there too.
I just spoke with Tom Taylor. He was saying that he was
wondering -- from Hole Montes because he did all the original
studies back in 1983, '84 when we were all as property owners going
to develop this road. He was wondering if there is a plan right now
for an access mitigation or -- excuse me, access management --
excuse me, I can't read my own writing this morning -- access
management plan, because one of the things the church was wanting
-- their property comes down a quarter of a mile from the
intersection; mine starts there. If we allow the fire station to go in
there and the design that apparently staff has recommended for that, it
doesn't allow for any median cut.
When I originally sold this to the county, I was under the
understanding that we would have access and have a median cut in
there. I understand you're supposed to have, like, a quarter of a mile,
but we got precluded possibly if we have just a directional for the fire
station, and we can't get in or out, then going -- as we're coming
heading north going into our property and as we leave our property
and the people in that section try to go north on Livingston Road
north-south.
So those are a bunch of our concerns, and we're trying to see
how this all would be handled based on your plan to just -- just
approve now for -- you know, that Dover, Kohl did and how we can
all work together as property owners to try to get something that
would be acceptable to the county and give us the proper accesses
that we need and not have people be landlocked again for another ten
years, because I understand east-west isn't funded now for another ten
years in here. So all the people on the western side of the property --
Page 53
January 22, 2002
of this fire station could be affected by your decisions today on this.
Any questions about it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioners, any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question for staff. Do we have
an access management plan for that roadway, Livingston Road?
MS. WOLFE: For the record, Dawn Wolfe, transportation
planning department director. That section of road, per board
direction it has been identified as a controlled access facility which
may permit directionals at quarter-mile spacing, signal spacings at
full -- at half-mile spacings.
The issues being raised by Mr. Pitt are not necessarily specific to
this project, but generally overall and the issues in regards to access
for the fire department are specifically in regards to providing full
and uninhibited access for the health, safety, and welfare of this area,
and the signal which is identified for there is an emergency signal
only and would be operational only for those purposes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dawn, wouldn't this be the
opportune time to address interconnectivity, because it is an access --
limited access on Livingston?
MS. WOLFE: Since the only parcel we're dealing with at this
time is that for the fire station, and none of the other parcels have
come forward with any level of a development plan, we don't have
any type of a sector or quarter plan out in this area at this time. I
would say no, because we don't know what they want to do, and if we
go forward and say this is what you'll have, we may be setting
ourselves up for other issues down the road. What we're doing is
looking at the projects as they're coming forward and looking at how
best to serve public needs and maintaining the integrity of our access
controlled policy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: These other parcels around the
future fire station, is there a site plan, or has it been approved for
Page 54
January 22, 2002
development?
MS. WOLFE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's just "ag" land at this
point?
MS. WOLFE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But does it landlock that other
area? I mean, this is what he's saying.
MR. PITT: The parcels behind would wind up being
landlocked. All these parcels back in through here (indicating) would
all be landlocked. In fact, I just had a meeting with Tiny Ashen
(phonetic), the Catholic church, ourselves, in mediation on the taking
of the right-of-way since I still own the easements on this, and that
was one of the points that was brought up as far as even this parcel
here. But I have a letter from this person and from this person that I
can submit into the minutes here asking that they not be, in effect,
landlocked and that they provide access from north-south from these
other property owners. I don't know who I have to give this to, but
they signed this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's my question, is that true?
MS. WOLFE: Not directly. The issues in regards to -- to
landlocking, these parcels have been out here for decades with no
more south Livingston Road, no east-west Livingston Road. The
county has come through in participation with some of the
development community to push this project forward as a --
specifically as a major reliever to U.S. 41 and 1-75 with the growing
demand for north-south travel.
The issue that we would landlock them is, in my mind,
irrelevant because these roads did not exist prior to the past few
years. We are going through a procuring the right-of-way to ensure
the viability of a east-west Livingston corridor. We do not have
plans to construct it based on the current project priorities and needs
Page 55
January 22, 2002
of the county, but we are not landlocked. We are not relandlocking
them. Whatever access these parcels had in the past is what access
that they had. We, by virtue of putting Livingston Road in and saying
we are controlling the how and when you can access the road,
reasonable access shall be provided to all parcels adjacent to it.
Parcels that lie beyond the direct access should have had other
provisions upon their splitting in regards to access easements. That is
-- that is a private issue. That is not something that the county has
been landlocking them by virtue of putting either the north-south
Livingston Road actually into existence or for planning for the east-
west right-of way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me see if I understood what
you just said. I'm going to try and break it down to a small increment
here. What you said was, even though they've not used this land and
it hasn't needed any access, now that the county is putting in
Livingston Road, yes, they can have access once they want to
develop their property, but it will be limited access. Is that what I
heard you say?
MS. WOLFE: It will be limited to our access criteria which
may mean right-in, right-out access only, or where opportunities
allow we will as they move through the process, depending upon how
they intend to develop through rezoning straight or through the PUD
process, we will look for interconnections to limit the number of
connection points to preserve the capacity of the north-south
Livingston roadway between Lee and Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words, they will have
access at limited points, and you'll work with them to provide that?
MS. WOLFE: We will meet the requirements of the statutes to
provide reasonable access to these parcels as they are adjacent to
Livingston Road either east-west or north-south as they come into
existence.
Page 56
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that answer your question,
sir?
MR. PITT: My understanding is when I spoke with you -- and I
didn't have a chance till last Friday to actually meet with you, even
though I called a few times. But my understanding was that you
couldn't have another access point within a quarter of a mile of any
access point. Does this fire station -- would that be considered, then,
a quarter of a mile, would you have to have an access point a quarter
of a mile from that site then?
MS. WOLFE: You could have -- not have a median.
MR. PITT: A median, that's what I meant, a median cut. That's
what I meant. So basically you're saying if you allow this today that
whole half a mile of land, because this is about a quarter of a mile
down from the intersection north-south and a quarter mile down from
where the school board wants to now put in -- from what I understand
-- their access point. And that, from what I understand, could also be
a private road, and I don't know whether the county has any input on
making that a public road instead of a private road that the school
board is putting in there, so it would help this whole access point out
now if we came in there. My understanding, then, is there could not
be any access point then, any of the section that the church owns
coming down to where my property is, on my property or on the
other properties down to that half-a-mile section. Is that correct or
incorrect?
MS. WOLFE: Access will be permitted according to statute
which is reasonable access which may constitute a right-in, right-out
anywhere along that corridor.
MR. PITT: But no median cuts you're saying.
MS. WOLFE: The median cuts are a characteristic of the
roadway and are set to maintain the capacity and integrity and the
safe operations of that primary facility. Those are subject to
Page 57
January 22, 2002
individual site development plan applications as they come forward,
and it is premature at this time to make any recommendations in
regards to those parcels since they are not before us today, nor do we
even have a conceptual layout of what potentially could be there.
MR. PITT: But don't we have a conceptual layout from the
Dover, Kohl study which says they wanted to have some of these
access points come across? That was my plan originally on this, and
also couldn't you also put access on this site at the south end instead
of right across from where I had mine, which I understood we would
have a median cut when I first negotiated this with the county going
back when we sold it to the county --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could I interject here, please?
MR. PITT: -- that's all we could do. I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir? Right here. That's really
not in the Dover, Kohl about median cuts. It's about
interconnectivity.
MR. PITT: Interconnectivity, yeah. But that shows all the roads
going across there. If you look it shows a couple of median cuts in
their study if you look at the plan here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if I could, I don't think it's
proper planning to have a bunch of access next to a fire station,
emergency vehicles, one access with other connections, but I think if
there is an opportunity -- and we'll wait for somebody from the North
Naples Fire Department to see if there is an opportunity for
connectivity, but you will have access onto the Livingston -- the
future Livingston.
MR. PITT: I have that now. That's not my concern personally.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And whether you --
MR. PITTS: It's a concern for the other property owners behind
me, and it's also a concern for anybody wanting to go from our
Page 58
January 22, 2002
property and go -- you know, head north from the property, or as I
said originally, come into the property from the north. The same
thing you were just discussing a minute ago with the other people
where people have to go up to the traffic light, make a U-turn, and
come back and whether that's the most effective way to get people in
and out a safe way into the property now in that whole half-a-mile
section. I think that's really --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman-- and I direct this
to staff and also the petitioner-- we're involved in the strategic
planning process of which transportation is a key element. In the past
growth has driven us. We have reversed that. We are managing the
growth. We will have a transportation plan which gives people the
right of access, but it's not going to be based on who or -- it's not
going to be based on what somebody wants that will particularly best
suit them. It will be a master plan for the area which will provide you
access as it is developed. Right now it is ag that has never been in
front of us. This seems to be a logical way to go, and we cannot
landlock anyone, but we will be the ones that really drive the access
points versus developers telling us where the access points are going
to be. We're going to do what we think is right in a growth
management process incorporating the Dover, Kohl study, but that
was not a plan that was cast in concrete. Much of what they put in
that plan was suggestions, not actual facts. So I think that's where we
are, Mr. Bellows and Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows, would you wrap this
up, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I'd like to wrap this up with just one
final comment, and it pertains to the comments of Mr. Pitt concerning
the agricultural land. The access to his land and to the surrounding
agricultural lands will be determined at the time of rezoning of those
Page 59
January 22, 2002
properties. This is conditional use for existing ags on site which is
predominantly STs, so the access to this site is restricted as proposed
today. There is no landlocking issue with this project and, therefore,
I recommend that the Board of County Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And concurrency will prevail;
right?
MR. BELLOWS: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions from the
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Comment by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think if there are opportunities
for a interconnection on the -- on the fire department -- but again, we
need to consider that they are emergency vehicles so -- and I know
Ken Rogers from the North Naples Fire Department is here, and if he
can just come up and state is there constraint in the area for that
interconnectivity or if there are some opportunities out there on
parcels.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, we do
appreciate your experience with being a fire commissioner, lending
us your years of background giving us what we need to be able to
move this forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not Kenny Rogers.
MS. JENKINS: I'm not Kenny Rogers, and I don't sing that well
either. I'm Anita Jenkins. I'm the project planner representing North
Naples for WilsonMiller. Let me clarify that the -- Mr. Pitt who is
addressing you this morning, his property is located on the other side
Page 60
January 22, 2002
of Livingston Road. It is not adjacent or abutting the fire station
property at all. There has been no property owner that has contacted
us that abuts the fire station property that has requested access
through this property. And I'd just like to clarify that, again, Mr.
Pitt's property is on the other side of the road of Livingston and not
adjacent to our property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm glad you clarified that. I
didn't understand that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Commissioner Carter
was going to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter made
the motion, seconded by Commissioner Henning. Any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
All those in favor indicate aye.
5 to 0. Thank you very much.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2002-45 APPOINTING CHARLES M.
MCMAHON, SR TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
And move on to the next item which is the appointment of a
member to Parks and Rec Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make the motion to approve
the one member.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
Page 61
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor-- I'm sorry,
Commissioner Henning, did you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2002-46 APPOINTING ROBERT DUCHARME
AND ANN WARD TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES MASTER
PLAN AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Moving on to the next one, the appointment of members to the
Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. I'm
quite amazed the number of people who've shown an interest in this.
I think it's absolutely wonderful the people that I see on here that are
listed and would like to be considered. I wish there were ten
openings, but there isn't.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to hear from
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The committee has
recommended Robert Gershmeir (sic) and Ann Ward. I'll make a
motion on that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning endorsing the two individuals recommended
Page 62
January 22, 2002
by the advisory committee, seconded by Commissioner Carter. Any
discussion, comments? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would just like to further comment
that, once again, I'm truly amazed at the quality of people on this, and
I would love to have the opportunity to appoint two other people, two
or three other people, but I will stay within the recommendation of
this committee and cast my vote in favor of that.
All those in favor at this point in time say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Any opposed?
Ayes have it 5-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2002-47 APPOINTING DEXTER R. GROOSE
AND REAPPOINTING JAMES R. GIBSON, JR., JANET VASEY,
JAMES HORNER AND JEAN ROSS-FRANKLIN TO THE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
Next item, appointment of members -- appointment of members
to the County Government Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. On this item I
inadvertently left out the paragraph that if you do vote for Ms. Vasey
-- she has served two terms, so you will need to waive Section 7-B of
Ordinance --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll include that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 63
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Carter for
approval, second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Item # 9D
RESOLUTION 2002-48 APPOINTING HUGO C. SIMS AND
COUNCILMAN DAVID LOVING AND REAPPOINTING JOHN
L. PENNELL TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item, appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire Control
District Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter for approval, second from Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any discussion at this time? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it 5-0.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2002-49 REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE
Page 64
January 22, 2002
UNITED STATES, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA AND THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AS
WELL AS THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO TAKE ALL
NECESSARY ACTION, INCLUDING CHANGES TO
APPLICABLE LAWS, AS APPROPRIATE, IN THE SHARING OF
IMMIGRATION INFORMATION BETWEEN THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND
TO PERMIT THE DEPUTIZING OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION
LAWS - ADOPTED
And moving on, resolution regarding Anti-terrorism legislation.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, members of the
board, this particular resolution came about because of Sheriff Don
Hunter's inability to get information and, in fact, corporation from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service for the purpose of identifying
those people who might have been arrested for another offense but
also might be in violation of their immigration status.
In today's security environment, this is probably one of the most
important issues confronting our local and state law enforcement
officers. At Sheriff Hunter's request, I have introduced this
legislation or this resolution for the purpose of encouraging the
president and the governor to require the establishment of appropriate
information exchanges between the INS and local and state law
enforcement officials and to permit local and state law enforcement
officials to arrest or detain persons who are in violation of their
immigrant status -- immigration status, and -- and we're further
proposing that this particular project be a pilot project to be
conducted in the State of Florida hopefully with expansion to the
Page 65
January 22, 2002
other states throughout the nation. Is it necessary that I read this
resolution?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not -- not really. I think the
commissioners have already read it, but I would like to have Don
Hunter come up to the podium and make comments on it if he would
care to at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the meantime while he's
coming up, I would like to say to Commissioner Coyle thank you for
bringing this forward, and I want to thank the sheriff for taking a
proactive role in home security here in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if I could just -- just quickly
add -- and I'm sure Sheriff Hunter is going to expand upon this.
Since this issue has been under discussion over the past few weeks,
there has been some substantial improvement in the process, so I
hope he'll update us on the status.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Don Hunter, Sheriff of Collier County,
and first I'd like to thank Commissioner Coyle who came -- the
background -- I have a little different impression of the background
on this. It all arose as a result of a discussion that Commissioner
Coyle initiated. He spent about two hours at the office, and we went
over a wide variety of topics, one of them and not the least of which
was domestic security, and he wanted to know if there was anything
that might be done through the board or through himself as a
commissioner that could perhaps provide greater assurance that we're
doing all that we can do. And the one area that I recall making
Commissioner Coyle aware of was the very serious and difficult
situation we're having with INS, Immigration and Naturalization
Service, particularly as discussed in the resolution, access to all the
names of the people who are currently out of status on their visas.
And there are something like 64 different types of visas. I
always thought there were only three; tourist, student, and work. But
Page 66
January 22, 2002
there are something like 64 of them. Very difficult area of law I'm
told, but we don't have access to the people who are out of status on
their visa, which is a federal misdemeanor. And we're told that there
are at least 314,000 of these folks who are out there who've already
been through their INS hearings and probable cause has been found
for their deportation, and 314,000-plus people have received their
notices to appear to deportation centers, and they have run instead.
They have disappeared. Many of these folks, as you know, are
Middle Easterners, and right now we're in a crisis pertaining to
Middle Eastern influence, and we suspect that some of the people
who are fleeing, who are eluding us have evil intentions.
So we believe it's in our best interest to be able to be part of this
system of identifying the 314,000 people. Right now we don't have a
database either in INS or in the State of Florida that we can make an
inquiry. If we stop a person on the road and we have a driver's
license and we run that name, it's not going to tell us if this person is
out of status on their nonimmigrant visa. We would have to discover
that by making direct contact to INS. INS would do a hand search,
sometimes takes a day, sometimes takes two days, and they'll let us
know if that person was, in fact, out of status. But, of course, by then
that person is on their way. They could have been an 1-75 stop. It
could have been a stop along any of our roadways, that person
disappears. We have one opportunity.
The sheriffs of the State of Florida, all the task force chairs, the
governor of the State of Florida agree that this is something that
absolutely needs to be done. There are another two to eight million
nonimmigrants who are out of status on their visa we are told who
have not yet been through their probable-cause hearings for
deportation. So we're talking about anywhere from 2,314,000 to
8,314,000 people that we're looking for, and INS complains that they
do not have sufficient staff to do it. Under the proposed resolution,
Page 67
January 22, 2002
we are asking for two things; access to the information, meaning the
names of the people who are out of status, and No. 2, asking for
delegated authority to assist INS in detaining people for review of
their INS status when their name is brought to our attention.
So I think this will go a long way in furthering the governor's
intention. We do have a pilot program that has been proposed in
concept, not yet adopted formally by Commissioner James Zeigler of
the Immigration Naturalization Service. It was worked out in a
conversation between Commissioner Zeigler, Governor Bush, and
Commissioner Tim War (phonetic) of the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement which simply says -- primarily says three parts; one,
that Commissioner Zeigler will assign a top ski -- top key staff
member to be located at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
Tallahassee, Florida, headquarters to be advisor to the Commissioner
of Florida Department of Law Enforcement and, therefore, to task
forces. That the commissioner, Commissioner Zeigler will assign
one special agent, senior special agent each to the seven task forces --
domestic security task forces, and that he, Commissioner Zeigler,
would permit five to seven members of the task forces' investigators
to be designated as having delegated authority to assist INS in
carrying out their mission.
We believe this pilot will extend to other states. It will be a first,
and the State of Florida will be the pilot state.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The thing that most impresses me
is INS being so short staffed. This should augment their program
tremendously, and I'm glad you saw it and went over and talked with
Don -- yeah, knowing him, he's always on it anyway, but it's great
that you went over there and are pushing this. I can't see why
anybody wouldn't support this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there are 40,000 state and
Page 68
January 22, 2002
local law enforcement officers in the State of Florida, so what we
would be doing is augmenting the INS staff by 40,000 people just in
the State of Florida alone. I think that's a tremendous improvement,
and I think INS would jump at the opportunity.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We -- we have been told just to punctuate
that, yes, 40,000 is the number of law enforcement officers. There
are only 150 INS agents in the State of Florida. The real working
arm of the INS, the border patrol who comes out and actually picks
people up, there are only seven border patrol officers from Palm
Beach County to South Carolina along the Eastern Seaboard, seven.
We need, we believe, to do something about this. You know that
there have been a number of hearings held in Washington with INS
on the spot, and we are attempting to get them back into better stead
and assist them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just one question for the sheriff.
I hear the administrative moves. I congratulate you. I commend
Commissioner Coyle for bringing this forward. The question is,
when will we get action in your judgment? How long is it going to
take to get this pilot moving?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, that's the other problem. The access
to information we're told by Commissioner Ziegler may take as much
as a year for them to input the names of the people who are currently
out of status into a database that would be central and provide
interface to the State of Florida. I have offered Commissioner
Ziegler in a letter I wrote to him that the sheriffs of the State of
Florida, I'm sure, will assist in providing some staffing to input
names. You break that list down for us, Commissioner Zeigler, give
us access, we will begin inputting. Then all that we need is our lines
-- drop a line so we'll have the interface with your database, and we
will make sure that the names are inputted. But, yes, that is going to
Page 69
January 22, 2002
be up to a year to have access to the 314,000 names and then, of
course, we have to build on that, because there are two to eight
million others out there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But until we start that first day, we're
still a year away.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just to -- just to emphasize how
important this is, I believe I'm correct, Sheriff Hunter, at least two of
the people who were involved in the September the 11 th attacks were
stopped on traffic violations prior to those attacks, and that did not
occur in Florida. That occurred up in the northeast, but it's my
understanding that they were stopped and -- and the local
enforcement agencies had no way of knowing whether they were or
were not in violation of visas.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. Fifteen of the nineteen lived here
in the State of Florida just before boarding aircraft. Three of them,
including Mr. Otta (phonetic), within this region. Mr. Otta landed a
plane not far from here, Miami, and walked away from it. He was
out of status on his visa, should have been picked up and deported.
Certainly wouldn't have had an opportunity had he not been living
here.
We had -- we have an individual right now who is living in
Collier County attached to a business that we believe to be un-
American, anti-American sentiment who has been out of status on his
visa since 1984 verified, and we still haven't been able to deport him.
But that gives you a sense of it. Of course, this is a very big issue.
We believe it's a reasonable and just thing to do for our own
protection, and I support the commission moving forward. Thank
you for your support.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Don Hunter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. I add to that, Mr.
Page 70
January 22, 2002
Chairman, and go to you to ask Mr. Coyle to make the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle for approval and second from Commissioner
Fiala. And is there any comments or questions at this time?
I'd just like to say one thing. A lot of the information you've
been receiving from myself comes through the results of research
done by a close friend, Dr. Luney from Edison College, who has
done quite a bit of research, and there's a very extensive package that
just recently was sent out to the commissioners, and we'll make it
available to the public if they so desire to receive it. It lists all sorts
of web sites that covers many of these different subjects, and it gives
you a summary of what he sees some of the needs to be also, and I
advise you to read it. It's very interesting.
With that I'll call the question. All those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 5-0. Thank you very much.
Go ahead here, Mr. Weigel, you've got a comment.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I will. I'll just note for the record that the
resolution adopted by the board is the resolution revised from that
which appears in the agenda packet itself, and we'll make sure our
court reporter has a copy of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So noted.
Item # 10A
MODIFIED 2002 TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH THE NAPLES
BOTANICAL GARDENS, INC. BASED ON A PROJECTED
SHORTFALL IN TOURIST TAX REVENUES IN FY 2002 -
Page 71
January 22, 2002
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. On the next item is on
the ethics audit, but that's for a time certain at one o'clock, so we'll
hold it off until that time.
We'll go to the county manager's report, approval of modified
2002 tourist agreement. Mr. Wallace.
MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
Blue Wallace, director of community development operations. This
is a follow-up item to the action the board took on November 27th in
approving the county manager's budget reduction and expenditure
control plan. Part of that was a reduction in the museum's budget and
reduction in the Naples Botanical Garden budget.
As a result of the board's approval of that plan, county manager
directed that -- that staff go to Botanical Gardens, negotiate a
modified agreement changing the sum from $500,000 to $377,400.
Staff has done that. Then staff took this agreement to the Tourist
Development Council on January the 14th at which time they voted
three to two for the board not to reduce Botanical Garden budget.
Staff still recommends that the board approve this as part of the
budget reduction plan as the board executed on November the 27th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Blue, at that Tourist Development
Council meeting -- I was watching it -- the two that voted with staff
suggested that maybe they could revisit this if the tourism dollars
come in, and it looks like that program is in place and tourism dollars
are coming in a lot better than we thought; is that correct? Or at least
that's the way I understood it.
MR. OLLIFF: I don't know -- I'm sorry. For the record, Tom
Olliff. I don't know if the discussion -- how the discussion went at
the TDC, but I can tell you that there is always an opportunity for the
Page 72
January 22, 2002
board to be able to do budget amendments and amend budgets, and
we have committed to provide for you much more regular updates,
especially on TDC revenues because of reductions that we had
recommended that you made. And then should the board in the
middle of the year or the third quarter wish to revisit and replenish
the money back to the Botanical Gardens, if the revenues have come
in based on what we thought that they might have originally in the
budget, you have the ability and the right to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may add to that, since I sit
on that board as its chair, I was one that voted against it for the
simple reason that when due consideration does come up and we start
to restore our budget and tourist tax development budget back to
some semblance of order, we need to consider everything. Likewise,
we have some desperate needs throughout the county and museum as
far as Roberts Ranch go and certain grants that may be in jeopardy.
We made promises to the family, the Roberts family, that certain
things would be done, and we haven't been living up to those
promises. So when the time does come, we want to be very careful
that we don't pick one item out and try to advance it over everything
else.
We need to consider everything equally and maybe be able to
try to get back to the original numbers in a proportion to everything
else that's there.
That was one of the reasons I voted against it at the time.
Obviously, there is three members of the TDC who are very pro
Botanical Garden. Regardless of whatever else comes up, they're
very pro for it, and that's just fine. We ask them to speak their
thoughts and their mind, and they do so, and I kind of hope that we'll
be able to keep this balance so that we can meet all our needs.
Commissioner Caner first, and then we'll come back to you,
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 73
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree with your vote,
Commissioner. I think it's too early to begin to change a budget
when we don't have the numbers. I think we did the right thing back
in the fall. I think we're on target. We need to stay with it even if we
get a little blip. I am not convinced we change our commitments at
this point; therefore, I would support what you did. I am going to
support where we were originally. I am not in favor of adjusting for
anybody's, quote, pet project at this time. It's where I am. So you
can count on my vote this morning that I'm not going to change our
earlier commitment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: IfI could add to that. I agree with
Commissioner Carter. It's just too early yet. I -- I personally don't
feel we have really felt the economic impacts that we're going to feel,
perhaps because the federal and state budget reductions haven't quite
reached us yet. I think we will be the last ones to be affected, and I
think it could be a lot more severe than we'd like to think. So I agree
that it's much too early to begin tinkering with this, and we should err
on the side of caution if we're going to make any mistakes at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to say I have a passion
for the Botanical Garden. I've been a part of it for so long, and it's
also in East Naples which is another passion for me and in the
Bayshore Redevelopment Area which is the third thing. I want to see
it succeed, but I don't want to see our budget go on the back fire
either. I think as much as I want to see it succeed, I'm hoping that
our tourism dollars come in, just rolling in and we can readdress it,
but I don't think this is the time now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think so too. I remind you
what we're voting on here today is to revise the contract with them to
reflect the decrease in revenues.
Page 74
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think you have --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Two speakers before that.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me try to grasp where the
rest of the board is going. You're not in favor of amending the
amendment of the budget, or is it just the opposite.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we're -- what we're asked to do
here, Commissioner Henning, is to revise the contract with the
Botanical Gardens to bring down their $500,000 to $377,400.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I read all that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm asking my colleagues are
they going along with this amendment or--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, we are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Going along with it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Reducing the budget at least
temporarily. I think we all understand this is all temporarily.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right to be readdressed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to go to speakers now.
We'll have time for further comments in a moment.
MS. FILSON: You have two public speakers, Sondra Quinn,
and she will be followed by Tom Berger.
MS. QUINN: Good morning. Sondra Quinn, President, CEO of
Naples Botanical Garden. I wanted to take a brief moment just to
update you on what progress we have made with Tourist
Development Council funds to date. At this moment in time, the
funds have allowed us to complete the world garden room and the lab
classrooms in the administration building, and we were able to launch
our preview phase of the Botanical Garden and currently have 50
program offerings, including adult and family classes and also some
survival expeditions on site that we are offering to both community
Page 75
January 22, 2002
members as well as to tourists that come to Naples.
Our brochure is in all of the major hotels. We've met with the
guest services' managers to promote program offerings to tourists and
to spouses and business travelers and also to promote rental of the
garden room for convention groups that want to do special events
outside. And people are quite excited about having the opportunity
for this venue which is 4,000 square feet, the garden room that is,
with 12,000 square feet -- or 1,200 square feet of garden. So it's quite
a lovely space. We have an event planned also for the concierges to
invite them to come down so that they are able to familiarize
themselves with the facility as well as our programming so they're
able to make really good recommendations.
Due to the proposed cuts based on the projections which I
understand were only based on October which was one month after
September 11, I hear what you're all saying, and I am requesting that
you consider the TDC recommendation to reinstate the one hundred
and twenty-two or $122,600 when, in fact, it does look like you're
able to do that and it doesn't cause any difficulties with the budget,
because what that will allow us to do is to build both the gardens that
we had originally projected which was approximately one and a half
acres. We had to cut back to three-quarters of an acre at this point in
time, but that's an opportunity for people to learn more about
Florida's native -- native habitat and Florida gardens. And just to let
you know, we have been receiving a lot of calls and requests for
information from people outside of Naples, so word is starting to
spread. So I thank you very much for what you've allowed us to be
able to accomplish at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Quinn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have a question.
Ms. Quinn, I just -- just need to find out something.
I had the opportunity to meet with two representatives of the
Page 76
January 22, 2002
Smithsonian Institute some time back, maybe a month or so ago, and
they indicated that they would like to talk with you about providing
support for participating in Botanical Garden, and I thought that they
had said they had already been in touch with you. Is this true?
MS. QUINN: Well, we are working on an affiliation with the
Smithsonian Institution. I think if we could be a formal affiliation, it
will allow us to bring exhibitions and speakers, et cetera. Perhaps I
don't know exactly who these people are because we have had, you
know, discussions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you having ongoing
discussions with him, or do you need additional support to get
them --
MS. QUINN: No. I'm having ongoing discussions in
Washington with them, and for your information as a new
commissioner, we also have a partnership right now that is becoming
formalized with a Field Museum in Chicago. So a number of these
places where we can borrow collections and exhibitions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Good. Okay, so you really
don't need any -- any support in that.
MS. QUINN: I'd like any help I can get. I'd be more than happy
to talk with you about that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I shouldn't have asked that
question.
MS. QUINN: Yeah, it's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other questions;
comments?
MS. FILSON: We have one other speaker.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for staff approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 77
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have a approval from
Dr. Carter and second from -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: From all of us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: From everyone, but Commissioner
Fiala was a little bit quicker than--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You've elevated me to a place
where I don't think I want to be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give her credit for that. Any other
comments on this before we proceed with a vote?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Okay. All those in favor indicate by
Opposed?
The ayes have it 5-0.
Item # 1 OD
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ENGINEERING FIRM
OF HOLE MONTES, INC. FOR COSTS RELATED TO THE
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD -
APPROVED
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
The next item is the settlement agreement
between Collier County and Hole Montes on Immokalee Road. Mr.
Feder.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. I'll be fairly brief, and I'm going to turn it over also to
Page 78
January 22, 2002
Mr. Mudd for some other comments.
As you know, we stood here before you -- I had to stand here
before you last summer and note that we had a problem on the
Immokalee project from 1-75 to 951. We had to go and stabilize the
slope on the south side of the canal. We have gone back along with
your legal staff to the designer of record, raised the issue with them
because what we found was after we found we led it to construction
at the end of'99 that, in fact, the erosion of the slope hadn't been
taken into account in their updated design. They did design the
improvements for stabilization, that approximately $26,000 redesign
we did not pay for, and through the efforts in a voluntary mediation
with Hole Montes, Incorporated, and the county they have agreed to
another $200,000, 175,000 in dollars and another 25,000 in work on
another project as compensation for the issues that we faced and the
other hard costs and pretty much all of the hard costs that we
experienced because of the faulty work on the design.
What I want to do is point that out to you and let Jim cover some
of that mediation issue. The other thing I want to point out to you is
through this process we found some very specific areas and have
already gone well towards it-- need to tighten up our contracting
processes. We're working with your legal staff. We've already made
the bulk of the changes and others underway to make sure that, in
fact, the county gets what it pays for in our design processes and our
contracting processes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is why we have our Norm Feder
to look after us.
MR. FEDER: And your legal staff and others here in the
county, and Jim's going to cover the specifics.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you for it,
Mr. Feder. Before he gets too far away, is there any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No.
Page 79
January 22, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before you go on, since I had to
represent the county in the mediation, four things basically came out
-- that lessons learned from this particular mediation. Number one,
we came to the board -- before Christmas was the first meeting and
first and last meeting in December and asked for approval to go up to
$50,000 to get a construction expert to help us solidify the costs. We
needed that because we don't have that expertise in house. The -- and
that construction firm is represented in the -- in the audience today.
Without that firm's expertise, the mediation would not have been
successful, and we would still -- we would probably be in court right
now fighting over the legitimacy of some of the demands or claims.
That's first.
Second, as Norm mentioned or alluded to, we are taking a very,
very hard look at all contracts that we have with outside consultants
and construction firms within the county, and I would-- I would be
remiss if I didn't re-enforce that statement by Norm for all of Collier
County including utilities and in facility management within the --
within the county. Any contract we have out there we are taking a
good hard look at to make sure that the taxpayers of this county get
what they pay for.
Number three in things learned -- and this is to say in Hole
Montes' defense, the -- first of all, Tom Taylor represents not only his
firm but he is a -- he is an up-front reputable citizen of this county,
and his firm basically in the settlement paid for any outstanding hard
costs that the county had to incur because of the design that was
presented. And he paid every penny of that within this mediation,
and that says a lot for his firm, a lot for himself, and he's willing to
stand behind his firm and their reputation.
The fourth thing that we have to learn is we have to do a better
job internally with staff communications, with firms, and partnership
relationships to make sure if something is going awry in that
Page 80
January 22, 2002
particular project that the firm is -- is -- is basically called and told
about it in no uncertain terms, and it's just not fluffed off or sat
around. I will tell you in this mediation I had about six internal
communicas within staff to the firm, and they talked around the issue
of slope stabilization, but they never hit it -- they never hit that nail
on the head and told them, "Hey, it has to be addressed." Boy, there
were a lot of people talking around it, so as far as Hole Montes, the
staff wasn't straightforward with them either over a period of ten
years. I think the mediation is a just settlement, and I think Tom
Taylor stands behind his firm. They are a reputable firm, and he is a
good citizen of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I'd like to tell you, I think
your tutorship in the Army Corps of Engineers has done you well. I
would hate to be across the table from you on negotiations. You're a
very fair person, but you know how to go for what we need to make
Collier County whole. And I tell you something, I think we're
proving one thing; it's not business as usual, not with the professional
staff we have that are leading us forward. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'd like to add to that. As Jim
Mudd has told me, this was not a failed project, and in cases in the
past we found ourselves trying to recover from something after it
failed. In this case the staff recognized the problem, the staff took the
appropriate action, it was a successful project, and we recovered the
costs of making it right. And that's the way we should proceed in
situations like this. So you're to be commended, all of you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very much so.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval from
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Fiala. Any
Page 81
other questions or discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
item.
January 22, 2002
All those in favor indicate by saying
Five ayes have it. Thank you. Next
Item # 10E
RESOLUTION 2002-50 OPPOSING THE CONTINUED
DIVERSION AND/OR REDUCTION OF FUNDS FROM THE
FLORIDA FOREVER PROGRAM AND CALLING FOR TIMELY
REPLACEMENT OF FUNDS DIVERTED IN THE 2001
REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION- ADOPTED W/CHANGES
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's an odd number of ayes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, God.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. We're
getting close to lunch, so hang on there. I am aiming for a twelve
o'clock lunch so we can perform our other duties.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coletta, I think
with the speed that we are moving, I was wondering why we would
break for lunch.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just in case you don't know it, Sue
Filson has a little --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand. I understand there
is a party time but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, apart from party time, it's due
recognition, but in any case what we'll do is we'll keep moving
forward. We'll see where we are, and if we have enough of an
Page 82
January 22, 2002
agenda to carry through after lunch, we will. But don't forget we
have a one o'clock certain that we have to come back for.
Okay. The next item is a resolution proposing the continued
eversion and/or reduction of funds by legislator for the Florida
Forever Program and who is --
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We have a motion for approval,
and I would second it.
MR. MANALICH: Before you vote on that, I would like to
make a couple of comments. I appreciate board's zeal to act, but I
think you need to know a couple of things first. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
MR. MANALICH: Okay. Anyway, for the record, Ramiro
Manalich, Chief Assistant County Attorney. This is an item that was
last heard by you on public petition two weeks ago brought forth by
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Their representatives are here
today. What I wanted to make you aware of is that this is the
resolution in your package that the Conservancy has proposed with
some minor alterations, not of substance, that we change. Your
direction to us two weeks ago was to analyze this issue and report
back to you.
We have attempted to contact the different state legislators
involved, and although we don't have an exact official position from
any of them at this point, we did find that there is a senate bill as well
as a house bill pending in this session of the legislature which at this
point in my reading appeared to mirror the statement made by the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida in this resolution. Now, the
question becomes if that legislative position or legislation were to be
amended or changed, this resolution obviously will put you with a
very specific position on the issue, and that is that you oppose any
Page 83
January 22, 2002
legislation that diverts funding from the Florida Forever Program,
and you specifically request the 75 million that was diverted to the
Everglades Restoration last year be replaced.
Now, the legislation which is pending under Senator Saunder's
sponsorship is basically applying a bonding approach to raising these
monies. It is our understanding in conversation with some of our
people in Tallahassee that the governor may or may not be consistent
with that particular approach. So certainly at this point in time the
resolution as brought forth by the Conservancy appears to be
consistent with Senator Saunder's bill. The question becomes we
don't know how the legislature is going to deal with this and the
governor in the coming session. It's possible you might be consistent,
or it's possible if they take a different route you would be actually
inconsistent with them. I just wanted to make you aware of that.
You may want to hear, obviously, from the Conservancy
representatives. They felt that it's very important for them to have
this concept be approved as opposed to specifically endorsing
Senator Saunder's bill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll amend my motion to
incorporate that to make it fit.
MR. MANALICH: Like I said, I think you'll want to hear from
their representatives as to their opinion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, first we have an amendment to
a motion. I'm looking to see if there is a second to amend it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will incorporate my second into
the motioner's motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Dr. Carter. Let's go to
the speakers.
MS. HORTON: Nora Horton, the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida. Basically the idea for this resolution was not to support a
specific bill before the session started, which it starts today. We were
Page 84
January 22, 2002
just scared that if we supported a specific bill, I mean, it could change
before the -- before it's actually voted on and before the sessions over
with, and so that's the reason why we did not want to specifically
support Senator Saunder's bill, although the idea behind it is
contained in this resolution.
And basically this resolution opposes any legislation that might
divert or reallocate money from Florida Forever. As you may know,
in the regular 2001 legislative session, 75 million was diverted from
Florida Forever to Everglades Restoration, a separate and
independent program.
Florida Forever is the state's willing-seller land acquisition
program which was overwhelmingly passed by the voters in 1998. It
encompasses several goals, including preservation of environmental
areas, restoration of damaged environmental systems, water resource
development and supply, public recreation, and protection of
endangered species. As I mentioned before at the last meeting, we
have four A-list projects in Collier County, and those include Belle
Meade, CREW, South Golden Gate Estates and, Fakahatchee. So
these do receive bonding very important to Collier County. I believe
only two other counties in the State of Florida have five A-list
projects, and very few have even four.
These projects are extremely important for us. They provide
recreational areas for the residents of Collier County, provide untold
benefits for ecotourism, protect important wildlife habitat and
wildlife corridors for many species. They protect historical flow-
ways that span over several counties and empty into the 10,000
Islands and Rookery Bay. They also protect water quality in the
10,000 Islands and Rookery Bay, both areas heavy -- heavily utilized
by boaters and fishermen. These areas also store excess stormwater
reducing the impacts of future floods.
Given the current economic crisis, it is likely that funds will
Page 85
January 22, 2002
once more be siphoned from Florida Forever for other purposes. In
addition, in the 2001 legislative session, many legislators promised
not to take any more money from Florida Forever and to return the
money that was taken last year. The Lee County Board of County
Commissioners has also unanimously passed a similar resolution to
the one that we are presenting to you today.
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida strongly believes that the
continued diversion of funds from Florida Forever compromises the
validity and original purpose of the Florida Forever Act. So we are
asking for your support in opposing any legislation that might divert,
reduce, or reallocate money from Florida Forever. In addition, we
are asking for your support in calling for the timely replacement of
the $75 million taken last year. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How did you amend your motion,
please, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Basically, I think that Ramiro
knows what the wishes of the board is, and I think that he's worked
with the senators office to make sure that it is -- that it happens in
Tallahassee that the money is not diverted or taken out of Florida
Forever.
MR. MANALICH: The problem right now is that we're not sure
how this is going to unfold with our legislative delegation before the
legislature. At this point in time, based on Senator Saunders' senate
bill and based on the house bill, this resolution, as I read it, is
consistent with what those bills seek to do, but I don't know if they
made the amendments to those bills that would cause a divergence
between what you are being asked to endorse today and what the
legislative delegation wished to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, none of us would know
whether there's going to be an amendment but -- so, in other words,
Page 86
January 22, 2002
what we want to do is -- is go on record as saying that we want to
preserve these funds and we -- we would like to encourage the
repayment of them. I wouldn't want to amend it at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's Commissioner Henning's motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, again, I think that
everybody here, the Board of Commissioners, do not want to see that
happen, but we don't know what's going to happen with the
amendment in Tallahassee. That's what Ramiro's saying, and I think
from the county attorney's perspective working with the bill that we
can craft an amendment and get it up to Senator Saunders.
MR. MANALICH: Obviously, one choice you would have
would be to specifically say, well, we support Senator Saunders' bill.
That is not what is being requested by the Conservancy
representatives because they feel the concept is important as
expressed in their resolution, because we don't know if there may be
amendments that change Senator Saunders' bill in some significant
way. And think that's essentially the choice. If you were to vote on
this resolution as it is today, it appears to me to be consistent with
what our state senator is doing; however, will that change? That's
what we don't know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, it seems to me that
what we're looking for is a way to preserve these funds and to restore
the funds that have been withdrawn. And the question before the
commission, I think, is whether there is a greater success in achieving
that goal by supporting our elected representatives and their
proposals or in proposing something else. And -- and I would
suggest that we probably would stand a greater chance of success if
we provided support to Senator Saunders' proposal. Now, there is
every likelihood that it could be modified in the future, and at that
Page 87
January 22, 2002
point in time we would have a chance to respond to that modification
and proceed from there. But I think it's -- at least based upon what
I'm hearing, that it's the board's intention that these funds be
preserved and, in fact, restored. So I -- I would support the resolution
that Mr. Henning has put forward.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner, just -- Commissioner
Henning, for clarification, is the intent of your motion to have a
resolution approved by the board that supports Commissioner
Saunders' legislation as opposed to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Former Commissioner
Saunders.
MR. MANALICH: I'm sorry. State senator.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Senator Saunders' legislation.
You can try to wordsmith this to death, I to believe that the senator is
not going to let his bill be amended to the point where he feels that it
is not accomplishing the objective, and if it is he's going to withdraw
or not support it. So I'm with Commissioner Coyle. I think you have
to take a framework, you support it, you take it forward, and your
elected representatives, you have to have the confidence that they're
going to -- if they're bringing forth legislation, it's going to embrace
this resolution and if it doesn't, you know, we're not supporting it,
because we just said we won't support it so ...
MS. HORTON: Maybe -- Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may speak.
MS. HORTON: A recommendation from us would be maybe
say that we support this -- Senator Saunders' bill as it currently exists
as of this date. That way if it is changed within the session somehow
even -- I mean, you never know what's going to happen -- then you
have this specific date and the bill as it exists on today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Little bit of concern here in that
we're trying to support something that we don't know the wording
Page 88
January 22, 2002
for, and I think what we're trying to do here -- and maybe you won't
agree, but we're trying to guide Senator Saunders to help him with the
direction he's going. I think we can do it in a user-friendly way.
Rather than just say whatever you want to do is fine by us, possibly a
little guidance from us wouldn't hurt. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I was going to
say. We have to stand firm on this. We can't just say whatever
somebody approves is what we're going to endorse. What we're
doing is trying to give them direction. We're trying to say, this is
what we believe here in Collier County. This also supports Senator
Saunders' bill, but we want it to stay as is.
I like it the way it is.
MS. HORTON: Right. And it opposes any other legislation
that might divert Florida Forever money, not just supporting one bill.
That way it -- it's kind of blanket for any legislation that might divert
or reduce.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, perhaps we need another
clause that supports Senator Saunders' bill and/or other legislation
that is compatible with a resolution passed by the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, why don't we deal with the
resolution we have before us first, and then we can make that as a
separate one. Whatever makes you happy. What's your thoughts on
this, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I made a motion. I have
all the confidence in the world in Senator Saunders. This is very
important to him, just as it to the Conservancy. My motion stands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. And we have some
speakers, and we'll come back to further discussion after we hear
from our speakers.
Page 89
January 22, 2002
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. You have three speakers. Nancy
Payton. She will be followed by Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Ms. Payton is quite an expert on
this subject matter, so don't hesitate to ask her questions.
MS. PAYTON: No, I would say this is not one of my strong
areas, but I do have some working knowledge. I wanted to -- Nancy
Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. In November
1998 when the State of Florida voted upon the extension of
preservation 2000, P-2000 into the Florida Forever Program that we
currently have and we're discussing today, three out of four Collier
County voters voted in support of continuing the program, and we
had one of the highest rates of voter approval for that particular
program.
In addition to the projects that are currently on the list, Southern
Golden Gate Estates, Fakahatchee through Rookery Bay, it's a source
of future monies. For instance, I understand that Collier County is
going back to this funding source to receive 60 percent of the money
that we spent for Barefoot Beach, and that's roughly $3 million. This
is the funding source that we're going to. It's the funding source that
we're going to be going back to hopefully for those lands that were
identified in the rural assessment as environmentally significant
lands, North Belle Meade hopefully, and Camp Key Strand, which is
currently on the Florida Forever list, but we don't have willing sellers
at this point, but we hope through the assessment process that we can
work this out, and they will be willing sellers, but that's another
source of money.
We are not in support of siphoning off the money for reservoirs,
water retention areas, filter marshes, and underground storage wells
on the East Coast. We want those monies to be used for conservation
lands, and in Southwest Florida we're truly buying conservation lands
that are remnants, quite frankly, of the Greater Everglades system.
Page 90
January 22, 2002
Therefore, we urge you to support the concept of this resolution, not a
specific piece of legislation which may morph very quickly. But we
urge you to support a concept of position, a message through the
resolution that our elected officials will hopefully carry through as
they work in Tallahassee to protect this funding source. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Payton.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brad Cornell and Ms. Nicole
Ryan registered if you have any questions of her.
MR. CORNELL: Hi, Brad Cornell on behalf of Collier County
Audobon Society. I just want to say that we support the
Conservancy's resolution that they're offering to you this morning,
and we wholeheartedly support the concept of protecting Florida
Forever funds and not going to those even when those funds are used
for such laudable projects as Everglades Restoration. Those are two
very important projects, Florida Forever and Everglades Restoration,
that the people of Florida and the United States support very strongly.
But that doesn't mean that we should raid one to support the other.
We should do both, and I think we can. People in Florida certainly
can, and that was the commitment on both of those programs. So
Collier County Audobon does support the Conservancy's resolution
as it is. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: And your final speaker will be Nicole Ryan.
MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan here
on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I just
wanted to reiterate the point of why we support the concept and not
the bill. When session started last year, I don't think anyone thought
that the Florida Forever Preservation 2000 trust fund monies were
going to be raided. It was not an idea in anyone's head, and yet all of
a sudden it materialized, and throughout session we found that, yes,
this money was going to be taken. That's why we think it's a little bit
Page 91
January 22, 2002
dangerous to support any legislation as it stands. Session is just
starting today. We don't know what's going to happen two months
down the line. That's why we think the concept that we are
proposing here isn't going to change. The Senate Bill 588 may
change, and that's why we really hope that you will support the
concept. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Nicole. That's the last
speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion or questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, one more. Ramiro, by
changing this you're adding an amendment to it, does that water it
down?
MR. MANALICH: Well, if-- if we're talking about linking it to
a particular bill, it would marry it to the success or failure of that bill
as far as our support. I think what the representatives of the
Conservancy are saying they would prefer that a concept be endorsed
without being linked to specific legislation that may or may not
change.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And by -- by voting it as is or by --
which way does Senator Saunders feel --
MR. MANALICH: Well, at the present -- at the present time,
we had feedback from his aide which indicated that at the present
time there is no opposition by the senator to this proposal by the
Conservancy. My reading of the bill is that the two are consistent.
The only thing I wanted to make the board aware of is that there
could-- if something were to change in the legislature, our legislators
may be having to choose a direction different than what this
conceptual resolution proposed by the Conservancy. But that's just
merely bringing your attention to an unknown. At this point -- they
are consistent with one another at this point in time.
Page 92
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, and that's what I understood.
So -- so but I think with your comments the board felt that they ought
to amend something in order to -- but this is actually what Senator
Saunders is supporting and what the Conservancy is supporting, and
this would give us a firm stand; is that correct?
MR. MANALICH: Everything you've said is true at this point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I need to say anything
right now. I would like to clarify something. The way we get things
done in Tallahassee is we support the legislators who are trying to get
it done. And I think it's -- it's important that we -- we show support
for our representatives; however, perhaps we can achieve both goals
by modifying this to say that we support Senator Saunders' efforts to
preserve and restore these funds consistent with the following
principles, and which would essentially be a statement of the
principles that has been approved but also would-- would
demonstrate our support for Senator Saunders in trying to get those
principles approved in Tallahassee. That way it doesn't tie it to a
specific bill; it ties it to a concept, but it also expresses our support
for our elected representative.
MR. MANALICH: And I think that would be an easy change to
make to simply say we support the bill and it's in accordance with
these principles.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I think you
just brought up a very good point. In order for this to have some
meaning, there should be five commissioners to vote for it and in
favor of it. The way it was originally being amended I couldn't
support it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't understand what the
amendment really was.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: According to this.
Page 93
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll cut to the chase. I amend
my motion to say what Commissioner Coyle --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I believe Commissioner
Henning what he meant when he did that, well articulated by
Commissioner Coyle, and the fact is right on the head that
Commissioner Coyle said it, you better support the people from your
delegation, because this is not the only issue we take to Tallahassee.
So, you know, we just need to do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think we have a correction to
that or at least a clarification, and if Commissioner Henning will
accept that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm fine with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
MR. MANALICH: At this point just for clarification, I think
from the discussion was emerged basically an amendment whereby
under Commissioner Henning's motion the board would be
supporting Senator Saunders' bill or any other legislation that is in
accordance with these principles that are outlined in the resolution in
the package; is that a fair statement?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Further comments? Questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. And what
we're going to do at this point in time is break for a half hour for
lunch.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Half an hour or an hour?
Page 94
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about 45 minutes?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, 45 minutes. Okay.
We'll compromise. That's what we're all about here.
(Lunch recess was taken.)
Item #1 OF
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY FLOW
EQUALIZATION TANKS, PROJECT 73077 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome back. We're at Item 10-F
under County Manager's Report, response to the board request for
additional information regarding the North County Water
Reclamation.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good afternoon. Tom Wides,
Interim Public Utilities Administrator.
On January 8th at the last board meeting, Public Utilities
brought forth a budget amendment for the North County Reclamation
Facility for the flow equalization tanks, and at that time the amended
request was for an additional $2.5 million. The original intent was a
5 million-gallon tank at an estimated cost of $4.8 million. This was
an estimate that was put together approximately April of last year of
2001.
The revised request that we put in front of you is for $7.3
million for two, 1-1/2-million-gallon tanks. And at the last meeting
we went through a couple of discussions in terms of location and
cost, of course, and what we've done is we've evaluated this
expenditure from a number of different perspectives.
First off, based on a much more detailed design that we have
now that was not available when we did the original estimate, the
Page 95
January 22, 2002
4-gallon-tank alternative is likely to cost between $11 and $11.8
million. The reasons for these additional increases, okay, are that we
understood after the more detailed design and doing a sub-surface
sampling that we would have to use pilings to support the
infrastructure and, also, that those pilings would be sitting on a
heavier based support slab -- or excuse me, there would be a heavier
based support slab sitting on top of those pilings.
So bottom line, there's a lot more costs below ground than we
anticipated when we first did our estimate. In addition to that, just
the fact of mitigating the wetlands was going to be both a cost and a
timing issue in trying to meet the consent order time frames in putting
these equalization tanks in place.
Further, since the original estimate, we have had the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection Agency agree with us that it
would be sufficient to put a three-million-gallon tank in place or
three-million-gallon tanks. And so then as we looked at a single
three-million-gallon tank, we found that that would have to be oblong
in shape. That would be more costly than what we embarked on.
That would be approximately $1.2 to $1.5 million more costly than
what we're putting in front of you today.
Another alternative we looked at was to move into the Veteran's
Park area to see if that would be a possible place to locate at least part
or all of the tanks. Again, the issue we ran into there is that
technically, and we felt economically, that would be a much more
expensive alternative, not to mention the possibility of any permitting
and site issues that we might run into with using that land, because it
would require land use changes as we understand.
Lastly, what I would like to note to you is as we looked at the
cost per gallon with this most recent alterative that we put forward,
it's approximately $2.43 per gallon versus about $2.60 per gallon at
the south equalization plants. So just to give you some perspective,
Page 96
January 22, 2002
we looked at this from a number of different angles. Yes, our
original estimate could have been better, but it's -- I think this
alternative is the least costly alternative to meet the December
deadline.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Wides, my understanding
is the equalization tanks are to store the waste if we get a surge like
we did last year first thing in the morning -- is there to store it and
hold it until we can clean it up, so it's actually making the plant more
efficient?
MR. WIDES: I believe it would be fair to say it's making it
more efficient. It's allowing us the capability of holding that -- what
I'll call excess until the plant can catch up during the lower periods of
time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess this technology, the
way I'm looking at that, is that if we didn't utilize that, then we'd have
to build bigger-capacity plants.
MR. WIDES: You would have to do possibly a bigger plant,
maybe an alternative -- and, again, not being technically sound here,
but maybe another alternative is more storage lines, bigger storage
lines, but then you start to get into odor issues.
So, bottom line, by having these equalization tanks, it's a
relatively, relatively low cost alternative to additional production
capability.
And if I remember the last numbers that we had for production
capability increases, you're talking $5 to $6 ranges per gallon versus
$2.50.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. You talked
about the cost $6.5 million equates to $2.60 a gallon, and somehow
the cost was a million dollars equated to less per gallon, $2.43, and I
was wondering--
Page 97
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: More gallons.
MR. WIDES: There's more -- there's more flow going through
that north plant. You have more capacity going through there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. So that makes the cost less.
Okay. Thank you. I didn't understand that.
MR. WIDES: Your divisor's basically larger here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Gentlemen, I'd move
recommendations by -- that were presented by staff in regards to this
project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Dr. Carter and
a second from Commissioner Henning. Move for approval. Any
more discussion or questions? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners; thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Item #9F
STAFF TO DEVELOP PARTICULAR PLAN TO REVIEW
CURRENT MATERIALS AND WORK WITH DR. FERENZ AND
BRING BACK CLEAR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD
Page 98
January 22, 2002
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITHIN TWO TO FOUR
WEEKS REGARDING AN AGREEMENT TO CONDUCT AN
ETHICS AUDIT- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now we're going to go to our time
certain on the ethics audit, and since I'm the person that brought this
up, I'll go right into it.
This is, I think, a unique opportunity to help restore another
measure of confidence in Collier County government. We've made
tremendous headway over the past year. Some people have
recognized it, and some haven't. However, there's still people out
there that have reservations, and they're under the misapprehension
for the most part that we are not conducting ourselves in an ethical
manner. And that's how we do business with each other and how we
do business with our staff, the public in general.
An ethics audit is a process that you can go through that's quite
common in the business world where you have an actual audit done
by an outside firm, an audit that would take no sides on it and report
back to you with recommendations. And what I'd like to do to give
you a little bit more of an overview on this is to call forth
Dr. Leonard Ferenz.
DR. FERENZ: Ferenz.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you give us a little bit of an
idea where we would head with this particular audit?
DR. FERENZ: Absolutely. I'll explain it in a general sense --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: For the record, sir, you have to
state your name.
DR. FERENZ: Leonard Ferenz, F-e-r-e-n-z.
Yes, if-- analogously what would happen in the corporate
world is an ethics audit which would consist of doing something
which I would like to explain by giving you a word that would serve
Page 99
January 22, 2002
as an acronym. I found this these are far more memorable ways to
learn about something that may be somewhat new. So I'm going to
use the word "RATING," an ethics rating.
I'd like to begin by suggesting that "R" is for "review" and "A"
for "assessment," but the ethics audit will consist of a team of
individuals coming into a facility and reviewing and assessing ethics
ordinances, ethics policies, any policy that relates to the
organizational values expressed by that facility. So, consequently,
the first and most important component of an ethics audit is going to
be review and assessment; everything that's written, everything that's
expressed in the organization.
Then "T" I'm using to actually stand for "teamworking" or
"teamwork" and "team teaching" because I want to -- in doing an
assessment, we would want to see what the accessibility is between
higher and lower levels of the organization; that is to say that we
would want to see how the organizational values are taught to other
members of the organization and whether there's actual team
participation in the constructing of these values, so in the teaching
and in the constructing of the values that are expressed through their
codes of ethics and practices.
'T' is really for "interviews" because we would need to conduct
interviews at all levels of the organization to try to establish just what
people know about the ethics and the existence of those ethical
practices within the organization. There are ethical rules one wants
to know how well informed people are with regard to those rules, so
we would want to conduct interviews.
"N" is going to stand for our purposes for "networking" because
we are -- that is the International College Center for Ethics in
Moorings Park-- are a networking facilitator. And there are many
ways in which an academic resource like our own can help
organizations network with other organizations to resolve and polish
Page 100
January 22, 2002
and address ethical issues and concerns.
And, finally, "G" of the word "RATING" is "give." We are
going to give you a report. And the word "give" is very important
because the report that we would give you is something that you will
not be paying for. The college -- International College in Moorings
Park have co-sponsored the creation of the center for ethics that
would be your auditor. And I have been afforded release time from
the college, as part of their contribution to the community, to devote
this time to these types of projects. So the work I will do for you and
the report I will give you is really by the graciousness of both the
college and Moorings Park. So it's a gift.
Hence the word "RATING," an ethics rating. So now you'll
remember that, R-A-T-I-N-G.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Professor, we won't forget.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to know what the "A" was
DR. FERENZ: "Assessment."
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Absolution.
DR. FERENZ: Review and assessment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions on behalf of the
commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for
Commissioner Carter -- or Commissioner Coletta. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You say that for the most part
what I understand is people are satisfied with the ethical way that this
board is carried out, but it sounds like not a supe majority. What are
the concerns that you're hearing?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sure it's the same concerns that
you're hearing through your e-mail that everything from the gift
ordinance to how we are relating to our employees as far as
Page 101
January 22, 2002
dismissals or promotions or pay raises, on many different issues. Just
how employees conduct themselves out there in public. And lots of
times, you know, it's one person's view over another.
I think staff has done a wonderful job of bringing us to a certain
point, but still we still have the stigma that hangs over us. God
forgive me for using this phrase again, but I don't know how to get to
it any other way, three indicted commissioners and a county manager.
And it's a stigma that's well passed, but it's every day in the news.
And the assumption by some people out there -- and I'm sure
you've run into these people occasionally -- is that it's business as
usual, and those people are still in office. The clarification is it's
always given out with the news reports that these people are no
longer in office. I think it would go a long way to involve a private
institution as well as do this at no charge to be able to take a look at
our ethics ordinances and be able to make recommendations to it if
they do need improvement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you really believe that if we
do everything possible that you're going to satisfy this small group?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I don't think you'll ever satisfy
everybody 100 percent. But it's not the small group alone. It's
myself. I am not entirely happy with what we have. I think it could
be polished a little bit to bring it around to have more meaning.
But where do I jump in on something like this? Why not bring
in a person that's an expert on this particular subject to be able to
guide us to that.
Let me finish up with Commissioner Henning, and I'll be right
to you. I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning, anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before this board took over,
Mr. Carter voted for it, and he had the ordinance changed for the
Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-huh.
Page 102
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it was because of the
previous board that it was amended --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what you're saying is that
you think that needs to be tweaked?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think there's any part of this
government that couldn't use a little bit of polishing, redefinition to
be able to bring things -- and suppose we do the complete audit, we
find that everything is 100 percent perfect, wouldn't that be a
reassuring thing to be able to find out, although I doubt seriously
that's going to happen. I don't think you can talk an audit of this
magnitude and find everything is exactly perfect. This will give us
some direction to be able to focus on what the real problems are.
Once again, this will cost us nothing. It's an outside firm, so
we'll get the results without -- through, like, a consultant for paying
them a fee, and you can expect pretty much favorable results at that
end.
And the part about this right now -- what I'm looking for today
is to be able to direct staff within some scope that we come up with
here to be able to go back and come up with something to present to
us at another meeting along with the good doctor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're not only asking for
the county commission ethics ordinance to be looked at--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As far as --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: County business in general.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The employees' ethic
ordinance and how we interact with our staff?.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would say it would cover the whole
gamut from one to the other. How we act with our vendors out there
too; that would be another part. How we act with the customers that
Page 103
January 22, 2002
go through developmental services.
The scope of it is pretty inclusive. It will hopefully include just
about everything we have to be concerned with now and in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What kind of role play do you
think the county manager should have in this?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next to zero except for providing
staff to be able to provide documentation or assistance in pulling
together records. I don't think staff-- it shouldn't be staff directed.
Something of this nature should come from an outside source without
staff direction or interference or our own interference as far as it
goes, once it takes on a life of its own and keeps going. You're going
to make me lose my train of thought, Fred.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess you did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my concern is I don't
mind going through this exercise, and we probably could gain some
amendments, but my concern is we hire a county manager, and that is
part of his duty is to make sure that the employees we're dealing with
the ethicalness (sic) and, you know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this is what you might say an
outside audit that's being done to give us an appraisal from another
direction, and it will be up to you at the time that appraisal comes
back to take appropriate actions. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Certainly, I believe my ethics are
unquestionable. I'm sure each one of you do or you wouldn't be
sitting here. I feel that all of our employees do a fine job and are
proud of the job that they do. We've had some weeding out to do, but
that's good.
Having said that, we're also working so hard sometimes we can't
see the forest for the trees. You think that the perception that other
people would see is the same as what you're seeing.
Page 104
January 22, 2002
So you need some fresh eyes to come in and take a good look. I
for one would love to -- anything that could be pointed out to me that
I could improve, and the day that I think I can't improve is the day
they'll be folding me into the ground.
So I think it's a great idea. I think that it will also maybe relieve
Tom and some of the other employees -- yes, we are never going to
please that faction. No matter what we do, they are always going to
criticize; they're never going to praise. But for everyone else, if they
can give us a heads-up in ways that we can change the perception of
those that still question, I don't see anything wrong with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dr. Ferenz, can you tell me what
your area of expertise is, in what field?
DR. FERENZ: My area of expertise is applied ethics. I did my
doctoral work at Georgetown University and was affiliated with the
Kennedy Institute of Ethics there. The Kennedy Institute of Ethics,
as you might know, is a bioethics and business ethics think tank.
They do a great deal of research and studies in the areas of applied
ethics.
My background, then, is both theoretical insofar as I study moral
philosophy and ethics and then its applications within the community
in all professions and areas with regard to the community. Now, I
have a great deal of activity in the healthcare industry on a number of
ethics committees here locally and have been involved in the training
of local hospital ethics committees.
My business ethics expertise is really based upon activities that
-- from the University of North Carolina Charlotte where we have a
center for professional and applied ethics, and the ethics audit idea
didn't originate there, but we did ethics audits for the business
community. So it's the sense of applied ethics in which I have an
expertise.
Page 105
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have you ever audited a
governmental organization?
DR. FERENZ: No, I have not. And this is why I described the
corporate model of an ethics audit. How it might have to be tweaked
and modified in order to work for a governmental organization is
something I would both want to research in the coming weeks, but
also what I imagine, since I don't know of any precedent for this, I
might find that we have to invent as we go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reason I'm raising that
question is that there are things that are considered acceptable
practice in ethical corporations throughout the United States that
would land each one of us in jail if we did them. And there are things
that our politicians do in Washington and even Tallahassee that
would land us in jail if we did them too.
It is very different from a corporation or from the state or federal
government. But we have very, very tight constraints on what we do
here, and I'm just wondering to what extent that the people you would
bring in to perform the audit would understand all of those, and how
long it would take you to read and apply the laws of the state and the
local laws of ethics to this organization.
The inclination is, I think, to -- is to never decline an offer to
review someone's ethics, particularly if you're not paying for it. But
there is, of course, a cost, and it's a cost of time and staff. And I am
only apprehensive -- not about a review of ethics because I with Mr.
Ken Cuyler directed the toughest ethics ordinance in the State of
Florida to apply to the City of Naples. And I'm always welcome to
an audit.
But I always expect a productive outcome, and in my estimation
I feel that a productive outcome is likely accomplished by a review of
people who have had a lot of experience in governmental ethics and
governmental structures and are familiar with the ethics laws and
Page 106
January 22, 2002
ordinances of other cities and states. And I find that that would be
extremely valuable to us to be able to do that. But with that, I'll turn
this over to somebody else.
I'll say one other thing. I'm relatively new here, and after having
some experience on the city council and with this ethics ordinance
that Mr. Cuyler and I directed and after working with this board for
about three months, I'll say to you that I'm proud to serve with you. I
think you're among the most ethical people I have seen, and I don't
perceive an ethics problem. But I do know that there will always be
people who assume that governmental representatives are inherently
evil and dishonest. And I don't know if we'll ever change their
minds, but, nevertheless, that's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
As you know, Commissioner Henning alluded to this, when I
came to this board, I initiated with Commissioner Mac'Kie to
establish one of the toughest ethics ordinances in the State of Florida.
I believe that set the framework.
I also have some concerns that all the laws and all the
ordinances and all the studies do not create perfect people. You have
a certain element in any group -- no matter how ethical we are, no
matter how diligent we are -- find some ways to bend the rules. We
ferret them out, and we get them out of the organization. There's no
perfect group.
I share the same concerns as Commissioner Coyle. I can
understand, Professor, where you're coming from. This is a research
opportunity, and it's a nice opportunity, and you tell me it's free. But
there is staff costs, and there's some other costs, because I don't know
if all the studies and all the audits -- no matter what you come up
Page 107
January 22, 2002
with -- will ever eliminate the pesky little thing called "facts" that
those who have preconceived opinions -- it will make no difference.
No matter what you do, as Commissioner Coyle said, there are
people who believe empirically that government and government
officials are born to corrupt us. And I have great concerns about
becoming a center focus when the expertise that you so well have
earned is in the private sector. And as Commissioner Coyle said, we
live by far tougher standards in this county than in other counties,
than in the state legislature, or in the national government. And I'm
questioning at this point, while all things are good, to get additional
input. Is this where we want to focus staff time and energy at this
particular time that we're confronted by. So I raise that question to
the board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's a good question and an
honest question, and you speak with great sincerity; however, we
can't put blinders on and say that there is no problems unless we can
have a true assessment. I know in your heart you believe we solved
all the problems that there are within the system, but I think that a
review of this sort could do us absolutely no harm.
It will undoubtedly focus attention on us as this thing
progresses, probably as reports come up, and that's a good thing.
There's no problem with criticism. Usually, will help to cure the
problems that are out there. I don't think we are ever going to have a
perfect situation here, but this would be a step in the direction to be
able to offer the public assurance that what we're doing -- and also
ourselves as commissioners -- to be able to say that we went through
an audit back in 2002, and the results of that audit were this, this, and
this; and we made a minor change to these particular things. We met
the direction of the audit, and five years from now we'll do another
one to revise it. This is what we can stand on in saying that we are an
ethical group of people, and we're doing business in an ethical way.
Page 108
January 22, 2002
What I would like to hear from the good doctor is what would
you propose in the way of this study as far as the resources you
would need from the county, as far as staff, as far as the length of
time that we need to go forward with, and the scope that we would be
able to cover. Or is this something that would have to be determined
at another date.
DR. FERENZ: I think to begin with, I would want to look at the
materials that are in print, clearly your ordinance and policies and
procedures as are understood by the staff as well. This is, as I said, a
very important part of the assessment as far as I'm concerned is how
people learn about the ethics ordinance and how that training and
information exchange take places.
Then there would be the question of interviewing enough people
to assess how and how well understood these ethics ordinances and
policies are. So I'm not really -- I'm not saying that it is a
tremendously time-consuming process. In fact, when you talk about
the commitment for staff, I like to mention the commitment on my
own part. This will be far more time than teaching a class that I
would need to devote to something like this. So I am not in a hurry
to rush out here and sell you a bill of goods for my own benefit.
This will be time consuming because I intend to read as much as
you've got for me to read. And I am not on the witch hunt either.
This is not something where one's on a fault-finding mission. I am as
interested in pointing out the strengths as the weaknesses of your
policies and procedure and your ethics ordinance. So that will, in
effect, be rather time consuming.
Now, as for conducting interviews, again, I don't see that as
being -- I would hope not to have to spend a lot of time at something
like that, because there's certainly just the need to understand how
people recognize and understand the process itself.
It's a very much process-oriented task that's ahead of us, because
Page 109
January 22, 2002
I intend fully to exchange with the commissioners, and those who
would communicate to you, what our observations and concerns are
as we conduct this work.
I am not anxious to point out fault. I'm not on a fault-finding
mission. If the fault is there -- let me put it this way. I'm an ethics
advocate. I advocate ethics, and I would argue, of course, as well
that ethics is not exclusive of per viewer domain of any one
individual. I'm not an ethics guru. And I don't believe that by the
same token that I am limited because my area of expertise is in
healthcare ethics, per se. But it's certainly -- because I don't believe
that there's such a thing as an expert in governmental ethics and an
expert in business ethics and an expert in healthcare ethics.
One of most prolific writers in the field of ethics today was
Aristotle in that sense. And certainly there are people from many of
these institutions who are well-informed with regard to all the various
dimensions of practice. So I would suggest, then, that it's not a major
commitment with regard to the interviewing process, but it certainly
will be one -- if I know how much literature there is for me to review.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Doctor. I'd like to make
a motion at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chairman Coletta, I have an
idea that might work out, because I think that we're all concerned
about our staff's time, and we have a lot of issues dealing with
concurrency -- is to provide the good doctor all the information that
we can.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was going to be a part of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And report back to the
commissioners, meet with us individually, and give us some ideas
that maybe we can tweak, and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're losing the purpose of
Page 110
January 22, 2002
what this is all about. By the word "tweak" it means that we are
going to be a part of the study to the point where we can direct the
outcome of it, and I can't agree to that. That's losing the whole
objective of what I was hoping to accomplish here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not saying that the
recommendations from the doctor is something that we can take a
look at.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you've got to start with the first
thing. The first thing would be directing staff to come up with a plan
working with the doctor to be able to bring back to us and present to
us the scope of it. I think we're giving him a pretty good idea of what
we'd like to look at, and by that time, we'll have an idea of the
commitment from what staffs doing if that's the biggest concern here,
what staff time is going to be involved. The doctor just said that
there's going to be minimal amount of staff time.
Why don't we do this? I'm making a motion at this point in time
that we direct staff to work with Dr. Ferenz on coming up with a
particular plan how this audit can be put together and run and bring it
back to us at a future meeting possibly two weeks or a month from
now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do this now before we go on to
further discussion. We do have some speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't. Okay, then. We'll go to
further discussion. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I didn't have any. I just
seconded it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll just make one observation.
not going to vote against having an ethical procedures audited here.
That's foolish. It leaves the impression that we're trying to hide
IIm
Page 111
January 22, 2002
something.
I would only make the observation that we are audited very
regularly, all the time, every day. And I don't want anyone to get
their hopes up with respect to what this is likely to produce. But,
nevertheless, I certainly won't oppose anybody who wants to take a
look at my ethics.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't think that's the issue here,
and I'm not against it either. But I think it's a step process. I think
you have to look at everything that's in writing and get an assessment.
And then you meet with our administration and find out how you
scope the project. I don't want to do -- I'd like to see this unfold with
a very logical scenario where we get the best of your knowledge and
looking and reviewing what we do, and as you say, Commissioner
Coyle, we're not doing this because we think that we are unethical.
We're doing this because we want a chance to be better. And I think
that's what I want to make sure, that we do it in a positive framework
where we have a chance to see how it's going to unfold.
COMMISSIONER COYLE' Does the motion provide the steps
for the process? It seems to me that--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, it would. I'm trying to decipher
what Mr. Carter just said. In other words, you want to be appraised
of the situation as it moves forward?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, the first step really is to
have him review the written materials, and the second step, to me, is
then based on those findings -- and sit down and meet with county
administration and say, "Well, here's what I see," and perhaps come
back with, "Here's the following framework in which we move
forward."
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I didn't say that clearly in my
motion, I would expect that we'd file some sort of procedure that
would bring us to the end results.
Page 112
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we'd like to see the work
program before you give final approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yeah. Today we're just directing
staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Directing staff-- my experience
to make sure that it's a clear direction so they are not confused and go
off and embrace something beyond what our intentions are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, wait. I want to make sure that
we're not saying something as far as the limited scope of this, that it's
just going to touch on one or two issues.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, no, no. Please hear me.
You need to review what you have in writing so that the professor
becomes knowledgeable about what we're all about. You've got to
give him an opportunity to say, "All right. Let me see what you have
in writing; practices, policies, ordinances," and then he can sit with
the administrators and say, "All right. Based on this here are
recommendations in terms of scoping the project."
Then you can definitely know what you're going to approve. At
this point you throw a blanket out there, that means anything can be
approved. And I'm not sure any of us really want that to happen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Doctor?
DR. FERENZ: Can I make a quick comment?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
DR. FERENZ: In keeping with that observation, what I was
saying is that I wouldn't know who I need to talk to until I find out
what the procedures are. So, for example, when you ask me who I
would need to interview and what kind of commitment there would
be of your staff to interviewing, I wouldn't know until I feel -- I need
to make some examinations in some area.
So I think that's what you're saying --
Page 113
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: (Overlapping) together based
on -- I can understand where you're coming from and what you want
to do. I do understand.
DR. FERENZ: I'm suggesting that that's when I come to you
and tell you that I need to talk to this many people in your areas of
your organization. Then you might feel a little bit better about my
having access to those individuals.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It also gives us an opportunity to
communicate with the community to say that this is what we know,
and this is where we're going, versus people beginning to make a lot
of assumptions and reaching conclusions before we ever did a study.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And any reports --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's called rash to judgment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any reports that are generated from
this -- any parts of the study that come to a point, any way we reach a
conclusion is the direction we're going to go. Public information that
will be made available to the public so no one can say, "Well, okay,
they cut this off at this point because this is where they do not want to
tread."
I want to make sure that we go into this, not only with open
eyes, but open arms and that we are ready to embrace this to the
betterment of Collier County and government and the place we work.
I know I will feel much better about myself, my community, and my
government if I have something like this behind me, something I can
refer to to be able to make future decisions on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jim, you're doing a good job,
and I would just say that I enjoy working with you. You are -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're not quitting, are you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just kidding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I quit (Overlapping) -- I'm
Page 114
January 22, 2002
just saying I think you're an ethical person.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, and I believe that every
commissioner here is ethical also. But there's also room to be able to
polish the general scope of what we're trying to portray to the public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what's the direction?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the motion that I made
incorporating the scope of activity that Dr. Carter came up with. Of
course, Donna Fiala would have to include that too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, in my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion and a second.
Is there any other discussion on this? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
very much, Doctor.
DR. FERENZ:
The ayes have it 5 to 0. Thank you
Thank you.
Item # 10G
RESOLUTION 2002-51 CREATING AN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO ASSIST WITH THE HIRING OF THE
HEARING EXAMINER POSITION- ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Page 115
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's see where we are here.
10-G, create an advisory committee -- am I right?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Create an advisory committee to
assist with the hiring of the hearing examiner position.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion approved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we have to choose members
for the-- and I was --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ms. Filson has her hand in the
air, and you want to say something, Commissioner, so...
MS. FILSON: Just before you call the question, I have a
speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we can still call the -- not call
the question, but we have a motion, and we have a second at this
point in time -- do we?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a second?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me -- does your motion include
the recommended--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Create an advisory committee.
It's not recommending any certain person --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's recommending this composition
for the committee. Is this what you want to go with?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have some questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got a motion. Do we
have a second, or did you want to wait on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second it so we can
discuss it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, very good. Discussion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a few questions,
Page 116
January 22, 2002
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: First of all, I believe whatever
this committee is constituted of, you need at least one employment
professional who understands interviewing and processing of
applications. This is a very serious business, and you don't want to
go through a few good exercises to come up with recommendations
for a hearing examiner. So that is a concern of mine. I don't see it
specifically mentioned.
Second thing is I'm questioning whether a member of the Board
of County Commissioners could even sit on this advisory committee.
It's my judgment it's a hands-off process. We hear from professionals
and people from walks of life, hear from interest groups on what their
expectations are of a hearing examiner.
We get our day up here on the dais to talk about what we think
and how we react to the proposal being made. So I question whether
or not a member of the board can sit on this committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good point. Any suggestions on this
or other thoughts? Anyone else have another thought on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what you're saying is you
want a scope to start out with of what this advisory committee is all
about.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, they're going to be going
through the process, as I read this, to qualify applicants, rank them,
and recommend candidates to the commission for final interviews
and approval. I have trouble with one of us sitting in that process.
Secondly, I would rather see a real professional who understands
that process, at least one of those people who are experienced with
search and questions and processes of this who can make sure that we
are taking a hard look at each application and coming out with --
Page 117
January 22, 2002
asking the right questions of the committee, because I've had concern
where right-meaning committees sometimes don't ask the right
questions. And they get -- I want to say baffled by baloney on some
of these resumes, and it can happen. So --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So if there was a commissioner to do
this, it would be you, Commissioner Carter, with your background -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I would decline to serve in
that position because I don't believe a commissioner should sit there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In that case there, would you care to
incorporate that in your motion, or would you carry it forward?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask the county
manager, would you in your appointment from county manager's
staff-- would that be something from human resources?
MR. OLLIFF: I hadn't given it a lot of thought, but it certainly
could be. I think it would, obviously, be somebody from outside the
development services organization. But whether or not it was
specifically going to be somebody with HR background or not I
hadn't come to a conclusion about that yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, would
you be satisfied to -- instead of one of the commissioners -- as
somebody from human resources to let Tom Olliff decide who he's
going to appoint to --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I don't even want to limit it
there. I'll tell you my ultimate comfort level would be a professional
search person, and there are several in this community if we could get
one of them to volunteer to sit there. And that really takes us out of
the mix and puts total objectivity to the process so that we don't -- so
we're not haunted later on that, "Yeah, but guys directed through a
staff person," of which people would like to infer that we influence in
their decision-making.
MR. OLLIFF: So based on that, I think I would just suggest to
Page 118
January 22, 2002
you that if you were to replace the Board of County Commissioners'
representative on this committee with someone who would be either
an HR professional from outside of this agency or somebody who has
background in professional search, that would probably answer both
of those questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did Joe have something to say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'll amend my motion to
incorporate that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments on this particular
direction?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development and Environmental Services.
You've already discussed the entire amendment. I would -- and
I'm going from past experience. I would think an HR person would
serve as an advisor on this panel but not really be a voting member.
If we were to use someone on the staff from the county in an HR
perspective, that person would advise only and steer and direct. But
what's shown here are the actual voting members, the ones that would
actually vote, rank order the candidates, and bring those candidates
forward to the county commissioner, the staff, or the county
commission.
So that's why we recommended the way it's composed as shown.
And, also, through discussions we included two members at-large
who certainly have the best interest of the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who selects them?
MR. SCHMITT: The intent of this, the way it was written, the
selection of those members at-large would be the member of the
board. The county commissioner who sits on this board would be the
person to select those two individuals at-large. And we did not
describe or develop any criteria for how those folks would be
selected. That would really be up to you -all on how -- who those
Page 119
January 22, 2002
folks are.
I am sure that they are going to campaign. There are folks in
the community that will campaign to be a member of this selection
panel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And on my list I had Fred Coyle as
the person that would be representing us -- don't pass out -- because I
felt that you would be very good at that with your background and
experience. But how do you feel about it, Fred?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think Commissioner Carter
makes a very persuasive argument. We are going to be subjected to
substantial scrutiny with respect to this entire concept of a hearing
officer. And I believe we must be very careful about making sure
that we as the commissioners don't do anything that might bias the
selection one way or the other.
And I would like to see additional representatives from the
community, and I would be very much supportive of having that
particular position replaced by someone in the community.
MR. SCHMITT: So still remaining with that, a seven-person
panel. We get more than that, and it becomes overwhelming.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like the idea of having some
human resource person on that voting panel, primarily because the
panel itself will be interviewing these candidates -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and it's always good if you've
got someone who's going to be voting on them who has had
experience in interviewing and selecting personnel. And I'm not at
all sure that the people who will be selected from the other
committees will have that kind of background. So I find
Commissioner Carter's suggestion to be very compelling, and I would
recommend we proceed with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So at this point in time we still don't
Page 120
January 22, 2002
know where we're going -- we're not going to have members of the
committee. Is that what you just said, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wouldn't have members of the
county commission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, the county commission. Okay.
I understand now.
But one thought that I have is one of the reasons why we're
looking to put this into place is not only to be able to keep the system
moving forward and make it equal, but also to protect the
environment.
I see where we got a position here for a member of the
environmental committee, but I would like to see us pick an
environmentalist from within the community to be one of the
representatives for the-- at-large.
MR. SCHMITT: And I am sure that those members will come
forward and make it known that they want to be a member of that
committee. I've already spoken to one member of the community
that certainly has interest in this, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hope so.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And, in fact, what had happened is we
had this at five. And after some discussion we opened it up to
consider two members from the community at-large as the best
option to ensure that this did not come across as being the
development community supporting it and no other special interest
groups, if there were any, that wanted to participate. So that's why
we had the two members at-large.
And, in fact, that's why I would defer to your judgment as to
who those are, because they are certainly going to make it known
they want to be part of this selection committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would it be two now or three since
we're --
Page 121
January 22, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: Well, if you're going the change it-- and that's
where I need clarification. Are we not going to have three, but that
one person is actually a professional recruitment individual rather
than three at-large?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that was the effect of
Commissioner Henning's motion is that you'd retain two at-large, but
then have one other member of the public who would have a human
resources background.
MR. SCHMITT: And our intent also was that the board would
lead this panel. Now, of course, you're stepping back and not going
to do that as far as a member of the board. So who would you
recommend actually take the responsibility of organizing this and
heading this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, not quite. How about when
this board convenes that they select their own leader?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, as the county manager said, it would not
be a member of the community development environmental services.
I guess we would be there -- and I would be there -- to assist at least
from a standpoint of the staff to steer, direct, and guide, and certainly
have a lot of experience in this, but the standpoint that it does not
appear CDS in the process, then I would not be a voting member.
But myself and my staff would help put this together and get it in the
right direction, and then let the members choose whom they think
should be kind of the lead panel member of this committee.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's the way all other
committees operate, Mr. Schmitt, and I have complete confidence
that the people gathered will select their chair, as they did in
Community Character and others that would effectively guide the
process. Your professional staff is there to keep them on track if
they're drifting away from scope and objectives.
Page 122
January 22, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions, comments, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Just to say that if you vote to go forward the
county attorney will prepare the appropriate resolution in accordance
with advisory committee policy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Speak a little closer to the mike,
please.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you.
That if you vote to go forward, the county attorney's office,
working with Ms. Filson, will craft the appropriate resolution for
chairman's signature to carry this forward.
MR. SCHMITT: The only clarification we'll need is the
mechanism for these persons deemed at-large, how they would
campaign to be a part of this committee. We left it that they would
approach members of county commissioners, any members of the
board to campaign to be one of those persons on the panel, and we'll
just leave it at that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we would make the selection for
the three at-large is what you're saying? MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That sounds like it would be a --
what do you think, Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Traditionally, Mr. Olliffbrings
that list. You know, if they want to serve, they lobby us, we get the
list, it comes to the board, we have a discussion, and at the end of the
day three people are approved by this board to serve on the
committee.
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to advertise for those three at-
large positions like I do for normal advisory committees?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see how we can do it any
Page 123
January 22, 2002
other way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how are the members from
these different Planning Commission, DSAC, and so forth selected?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: They do their own thing.
MR. OLLIFF: I think it's intended that the Planning
Commission would select their own representation, the EAC would
select their own representative, and likewise.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And then they'll provide me with those
names to put in the executive summary? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning and second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any other
discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No speakers. Oh, wait a minute.
Nancy Payton.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive, okay.
Thank you, Nancy.
aye.
I'm sorry,
Nancy Payton waives.
If there's no other discussion, I'll call the question.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Five ayes have it.
Item # 1 OH
Page 124
January 22, 2002
THE FINAL PLAT OF "OLDE CYPRESS TRACT 12"-
APPROVED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We're at 10 -H.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 10 -H.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10 -H. No, 10 -H has been
continued.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Was continued.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was from January 8th to now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. It was continued
from -- request to approve for re-recording (sic) the final plat of Olde
Cypress Tract 12.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development and Environmental Services.
This has been -- being brought again for review. The staff
reviewed the plat and deemed that it meets county standards. This
plat is part of the Olde Cypress PUD, which the county is attempting
to collect $105,000 for commitment to improve a master weir out in
-- part of the South Florida Water Development District -- or
Management District.
This tract is owned by a party different than the original
developer, and that was part of the complication. Nevertheless, it's
part of the PUD. Staff has recently received correspondence from the
original developer to place $105,000 into a county escrow account
until an agreement is reached by the developer.
The Big Cypress Basin, as I stated, is part of the South Florida
Water Management District, and the county regarding the
methodology used for determining how the fair share contributions
(sic). So our bottom line is as a result the staff is recommending
approval of the plat subject to receiving the money in escrow, which
we received the letter early this morning, and resolution of the
Page 125
January 22, 2002
monies owed and by whom, which we'll proceed with very shortly
once we get this approved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions of Mr. Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MS. FILSON: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
We have one speaker?
We do have a motion from
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Henning.
MS. FILSON: Speaker is William Dempsey.
MR. DEMPSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Will Dempsey. I'm from Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, and
I'm here on behalf of Florida Bay Partners, Inc., that's the owner of
the platted property. I have to apologize in advance if I make any
mistakes in protocol or procedure. It's my first time here in front of
the board.
And I'm here to oppose Mr. Schmitt's and the planner's
recommendation that the plat be approved but not recorded. At the
foot of that recommendation or underlying that recommendation is
the fact that there's a dispute between the county and the master
property developer; that's Olde Cypress Development Limited.
Our client, again, owns the property that's subject to the plat. It's
not a subsidiary of Olde Cypress Development, Limited, and no way
connected to Olde Cypress. In fact, in an arm's-length transaction
last year, our client purchased this property with the intent to replat
an existing plat, develop eight single-family lots on the property, and
market those lots for ultimate sale to the public.
Of course, if the planner's recommendation is followed, the plat
will be approved and not recorded. Our client has a substantial
mortgage in place, and, of course, the money clock is ticking for our
Page 126
January 22, 2002
client, and until that plat's recorded, they have no cash inflow.
I think the board should consider a couple of facts. Again, the
fact that our client, Florida Bay, the property owner, is in no way
affiliated with Olde Cypress. Our client, Florida Bay, did not assume
any of Olde Cypress's obligations under the PUD, and, in fact, I don't
think under any other reasonable interpretation of the PUD language
those obligations could be construed as having passed to Florida Bay.
And Florida Bay is simply an innocent bystander that's been caught
in the crossfire in this dispute between Collier County and Olde
Cypress. We have no ability at all to compel Olde Cypress to come
to the table and reach some sort of an agreement with the county on
this dispute.
This issue has also been outstanding for quite a while. If the
board today votes to approve the plat but not go forward with
recording the plat, we have no guarantees that the dispute is not going
to drag out for some period of time, again, leaving our client with the
interest clock running, no income from this property. And I would
also point out to the board, again, that as Mr. Schmitt pointed out,
that Olde Cypress has agreed to escrow the full amount of monies
subject to this dispute subject to, I suppose, an agreed-upon escrow
agreement.
Again, I point out to commissioners our client, Florida Bay,
simply has no authority or no ability to compel Olde Cypress to come
to the bargaining table here. I'll give you irrefutable evidence that the
planner's recommendation here is misguided. I'm sure you don't hear
that very often here in chambers. And that is the fact that there is no
one here from Olde Cypress today arguing in opposition of this
recommendation.
This is simply a recommendation that's going to injure our
client, again, an innocent bystander that's caught in the crossfire
between the county and Olde Cypress.
Page 127
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I understand where
you're coming from. The reason I keep pulling this and addressing it
is this is one of the old -- if I may just say right out -- one of old
Hardy projects that didn't get paid. If I bought your property
innocently, for instance, and here I found out after I started building
my house that there was a lien on it from previous owners; I had
nothing to do with it; I was the innocent bystander; yet that lien is
going to say they want the money.
I realize you don't have anything to do with it, but maybe you
should have researched that a little bit, you know, before getting into
it. It's just that we -- we need to get our money.
MR. DEMPSEY: And respectfully, Commissioner Fiala, at
closing on our client's purchase of this property, and with every
commercial or residential closing, our office as the title agent and as
the office that represents the property buyer sends what's called an
estoppel letter to Collier County.
That estoppel letter is intended to do a couple of things. First,
it's intended to give the county the opportunity to advise the buyer of
any liens or any, I guess, monies owed to the county due with respect
to that property. Our estoppel letter came back showing absolutely
no evidence of this dispute between Collier County and Olde Cypress
Development Limited.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have any comments --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. DEMPSEY: In other words, again, we had -- our client
had no notice at all that this dispute was ongoing. Again, the client is
not in any way affiliated with Olde Cypress. Certainly, Olde Cypress
would not have advised our client of this because it makes the
property all that much less marketable. Again, I would just
emphasize -- innocent bystander.
Page 128
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's give Mr. Schmitt a chance to
reply to that.
MR. SCHMITT: Joe Schmitt again. We -- the county, the staff,
we have no objection to recording the plat. We're going to have a
signed agreement. We have a commitment from the developers of
Olde Cypress. The money's going to be placed in escrow. We'll have
a signed agreement; so we have no objection at all of recording this.
That was -- the intent of the proposal is to accept it, and we will
record it. We've got the mechanism now to deal with the rest of the
issue.
Patrick, I don't know if you want to -- from a legal perspective.
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White.
Commissioners, as you all know, every time we, quote, approve
a plat, we do not immediately approve it for recording. It is
approved, if you will, subject to certain other conditions being met
that make it appropriate for that plat to be recorded. This is similar to
any one of those in the sense that the county's merely looking to have
a signed escrow agreement with the funds on deposit with the county,
which we were not able to accomplish due to the day off yesterday.
I believe that we're in a position where we'll be able to meet
what I understand to be the deadline that the property owners have by
the end of the month. We should be able to wrap this thing up in
about two or three days, I guess, at best. And, certainly, I think that
your staff's recommendation is a reasonable one, although I
understand Mr. Dempsey's point, and he and I have communicated
over the past two days, that the perspective from the county is that
although they may have had certain aspects of title that they looked
at, they certainly took title subject to zoning regulations, one of them,
of course, being that this commitment was still outstanding. The idea
is that we're trying to be as accommodating as possible and yet still
protect your interests. Thank you.
Page 129
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions? Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that solve your problem,
Mr. Dempsey, the recording of the title?
MR. DEMPSEY: If the plat will be approved and recorded, I'd
be more than happy to go have some lunch.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go have some lunch.
MR. DEMPSEY: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion; we have a
second. Is there any other discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Opposed.
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item # 10I
STATUS REPORT ACCEPTED AND STAFF TO PROCEED
WITH THE DAVIS BOULEVARD, PHASE II, LANDSCAPE
PROJECT (AIRPORT PULLING ROAD TO HERITAGE
TRAIL)USING EARMARKED FUNDS INFUND 111 AND
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM FUND 111 RESERVES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're moving on to I, 10-I,
which was originally 16-B-1. Commissioner Henning, I believe you
Page 130
January 22, 2002
pulled this one on the Davis Boulevard Phase II Landscape Project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was me. You're only one
person off.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I was close; that's all that
counts.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Chocolate cake is filling. Go
ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Keep it up. I'm going to send you to
your room.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reason I pulled this one is
primarily because a few weeks ago we sat in a workshop, and we
established some priorities as to what we were going to do with what
little money we really had. And we have also had a discussion
concerning landscaping, and I believe we reached the conclusion that
landscaping was not the top priority on our list and that we were
going to look at the entire concept of landscaping, not only how we
did it, but when we did it and what materials we used for
landscaping.
My only concern here is that we are asking for a transfer of
what, I believe, $100,000 --
MR. FEDER: That's correct, out of reserves.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- from reserves to do this. And
I'm only concerned that if we start nibbling away at the money we've
got on things that are not top priority, that we're going to keep doing
that a little bit at a time.
So I just bring it up because I'm concerned about the priority of
expenditures, and I wonder if the landscaping is such a critical issue
that we need to spend $100,000 on that right now. And that's my
Page 131
January 22, 2002
entire problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
some effect?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
into a motion.
The fund, 111 --
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
the county...
Did you want to make a motion to
No. Hang on before we get
That is for the landscaping that
MR. FEDER: First of all, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
Ah, yes. Fund 111 is the MSTD, the county-wide fund that is
utilized for a number of things. In the area of transportation, it's been
basically for resurfacing, preservation, as well as maintenance,
including landscape maintenance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what was the commitment
to the residents or the people that-- I'm sorry.
MR. FEDER: This issue is brought to you today, if you will,
based on prior board action, which was for us to come in and make
some alterations to the original landscaping concept. We had gotten
a grant from the state -- this is a state road -- to landscape and then
committed to maintaining that.
Under that concept the state asked that we use drip irrigation.
They have just found out the problems associated with that, as have
we. There were significant problems with that drip irrigation. It also
had overspray problems and other issues, basically, at subsurface,
most of it.
We had significant problems, and in that sense we were
directed -- at least previously by the board -- to go after, first of all,
the other 700 feet that wasn't included, which we did, and them to
come back to refurbish this area, in particular to replace the irrigation
Page 132
January 22, 2002
system which is ineffective and inefficient, and then to do some other
improvements to bring it in like kind to the other.
As the commissioner points out, though, of course that direction
was prior to our discussions of where we stood in our priority efforts
in transportation. And so we do have those issues to discuss here. It
is Fund 111, which I said is predominantly maintenance and
preservation of the system, not out of gas tax or impact fees.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
And one of other problems -- I go way back with this street, so
this is near and dear to my heart.
Not only did the state require that we use drip irrigation, which
we then found to be ineffective and it was breaking apart underneath
the surface, but, you know, when you use drip irrigation, you have to
use a certain type of plantings and a certain type of grass, which, of
course, will not work with spray irrigation, No. 1.
Number 2, being that the irrigation system broke repeatedly,
these things died. Now, not much maintenance has been offered to
this area because they knew that the irrigation system needed to be
changed, hence the money had been set aside. They also knew that
the plants, when the irrigation system was changed, must be changed
because the things that are there now will not work with the proper
irrigation.
So, hence, we are moving forward with this, and as you can see,
I'm all for it. And I know we have the money that's allocated from
our taxes for this specific purpose, and being that this has been
languishing on for five years now, I would like to get that road taken
care of.
So I'd like to make a motion that we accept this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 133
January 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval and a
second from Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I have a question on--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have a speaker too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I have a question. How
much have we already invested?
MR. FEDER: We've already invested some work to restudy and
analyze what to do to move to the new irrigation system. That study
has already been done. Plus you have a lot of plant material that
would be maintained, some that would have to be altered, as the
commissioner pointed out.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. So this proposal really,
even though under tight budget constraints, is making sure that we
don't lose what we already invested. So, therefore, I support your
position, Commissioner Fiala, because even though I understand
where Commissioner Coyle's coming from on this issue, I think long
term I want to make sure I don't lose my investment I've already
made.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And our speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. You have one speaker, Pat Merten.
MS. MERTEN: For the record, Pat Merten. And I live in the
Glen Eagle community that abuts -- runs along Davis Boulevard.
I am asking that you provide the funds needed to finalize Phase
II of the David Boulevard beautification project.
I first came here with this same request in 1999, and that was
even late, because the project was ongoing for about two years prior
to that, but that was when most of us living along Davis Boulevard
realized that there was a marked difference in quality between Phase
I, which ran from Airport Road to Route 41, and Phase II, which ran
from Airport Road east.
On paper the plans called for both of those phases to be equal
Page 134
January 22, 2002
and compatible with each other. We discovered that the Phase II
irrigation system had serious problems, and you've heard about those.
The plantings and the trees were sparse and not compatible with the
form of irrigation that was put in, so we either had to remove the
irrigation and change that or replace all of the plantings.
It is now 2002, and I've heard this project described as a learning
experience for both the state and the county. It was a plan that
looked good on paper, but something happened during the execution.
Davis Boulevard is a major artery, and I'm asking that you allow the
funds that are needed to finish Phase II so that the whole thing can be
finished and finished well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to pursue any
recovery of funds as a result of the mistakes made on this project?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director.
Yes, Commissioner, I have just received last week a book about
that thick (indicating) that the purchasing department, my staff have
been putting together to review what went wrong and what we can do
to make ourselves not whole but to get some recovery.
I don't have a time line on that, but we will be coming back to
you with that information as soon as we can assemble it in some
order that makes sense.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion or questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Great question, Commissioner
Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good job.
All those in favor of this motion indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 135
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Opposed?
The ayes have it 5 to 0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, everyone.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, yes.
Item #10J
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL LOBBYIST SERVICES
WITH ARNOLD & BLAIR, L.C. IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 -
CONTINUED TO JANUARY 29TM PRIOR TO THE STRATEGIC
PLANNING MEETING
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item is 10-J, which was
formerly 16-E-1, and this is the one you pulled, Commissioner
Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- approval for a contract for
professional lobbyist service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. The reason I pulled this, I
had the opportunity to sit down with Representative Dudley
Goodlette who is kind of perplexed of why the Board of
Commissioners hired a lobbyist for two reasons. One -- and I guess
this should be a concern of all -- Keith Arnold was a candidate for
governor and ran against the now present Governor Bush. And I
didn't realize that.
The second thing that I didn't realize, I thought the legislation
and our servants in Tallahassee was under the same constraints in the
Sunshine Law as we are. I can't talk to Fred Coyle about anything
Page 136
January 22, 2002
that comes before the Board of Commissioners. It's just the opposite
with legislation is they're able to talk to their counterpart whether it's
in the House or Senate.
And like Keith Arnold said is that "Commissioners, I am not
you, therefore, I encourage you, if you so desire to support a certain
issue, to go up there yourself." So what I'm asking for is if the board
is willing to reconsider on drawing back on hiring a lobbyist. One
thing that we want to do is we do want the governor's support of
anything that comes back to Tallahassee -- or come to Collier
County, and I would hate to see putting any of that in jeopardy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I listened to
what you have to say about Dudley Goodlette. I wished he would
have expressed some concern early on, but I never heard of any in the
discussions I had with him. But this business with Mr. Arnold and
the office he ran for at one time, it sort of sounds like petty politics to
me. I hope we're all above that, including the governor, and I'm sure
he is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope so, too, but I
would hate to jeopardize any (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coletta, I believe
in having a lobbyist, and I'll tell you why. No one legislator, no
matter how good he or she is, when they're in session could possibly
represent all the issues that we're taking to the state legislature. You
need someone like a lobbyist to take your primary pieces of
legislation, tracks them, follows them, and guides and directs us
when we are called to be there at a moment's notice.
I think Dudley Goodlette is one of the best of the best. He can't
possibly look at everything that he has on his plate and what we
specifically want, and for us to turn it over and say, "Representative
Goodlette, delegation, here's what we want. You go do it, and we're
going to stay at home." It doesn't work. You need a quarterback up
Page 137
January 22, 2002
there, and that's why you use a lobbyist.
Mr. Arnold has served in both parties, that's true. But when you
get to horse trading in the state legislature, you've got to work both
sides of the aisle because sometimes your own party because of their
own bickering may spin off a piece of legislation that you want, and
you go to the other side to get what you want because they see the
same interest. It's a strange world up there.
I believe in lobbyists, and I believe Keith Arnold at this point is
a person that we designated to take us to where we need to go. And
we are in session. And for us to say we're going to pull back on this
now I think is a very, very big mistake.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please go ahead, Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I also got an education this
weekend after being called by some of our current and past
representatives. I think the reason there's some concern is that they
didn't realize we had done this, that we had hired a lobbyist, at least
that's the way it was portrayed to me. And I can tell you that that
they were -- were upset and offended when they found out about it.
And I believe that's not the kind of message that we need to send
to our elected representatives. I understand your interest in lobbying
Tallahassee, and if I had some data that demonstrated that the
lobbyist's effort had actually or was actually producing the desired
results, I would feel differently. But when people we elect from this
area tell me that they are offended that we don't have enough
confidence in them to get their job done in Tallahassee, it has an
effect on me, and I'm a little worried about it.
I would like to take a closer look at this, but I'm relatively new
on this commission, and I don't understand necessarily the
background or the history of this, but I did think it was appropriate
that I express to you my concerns and the conversations I had --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is interesting. What you're
Page 138
January 22, 2002
saying is you got a call from Mr. Goodlette's office expressing
concerns.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Mary Ellen Hawkins.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mary Ellen Hawkins is no longer
in the state legislature, and bless her, she was a great representative.
I'm talking about today, and I can understand -- in my mind I know
that our legislature delegation knows that we have hired a lobbyist.
That is no secret. In fact, Lee County knows, Southwest Regional
Planning Council knows. And Lee County uses a lobbyist, and I've
never heard the delegation from either county say to me, "I'm
offended because we have lobbyists up here that are working for your
best interest."
Times have changed. This county's grown up, and we're getting
bigger. And I believe to my core you need all the arms and legs you
can get in any government capital when they're in session if you want
to get what you want for your area. And we slept on our rights too
long down here.
The effort by lobbyists paid off for us big time with the TOPS
program. Now, we got our heads handed to us by the governor, but
people woke up. Southwest Florida is alive. Southwest Florida is a
growing population. Southwest Florida is going to make some
demands up here, and the people who have always had their way like
a walk in the park at the state legislature said, "Oh, wait a minute.
We didn't get what we wanted. Southwest Florida got something,
and we are upset." Well, tough. You better get used to being upset,
because we are going to be heard from.
And that's why I am so adamant about staying the course of
what we have, working up our delegation, and in all due respect to
former legislatures, I think this is what we need to do at that point in
time to make sure our agenda is heard in Tallahassee, particularly in
this session, redistricting for the state and all the key issues that are in
Page 139
January 22, 2002
front of us in Tallahassee in the next 90 days.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you. I am starting to
have some reservations with Dudley Goodlette weighing into this.
And the phone call that he made, was it specifically designed in this
direction to alert you to this problem?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. And I think Mary Ellen
Hawkins, the number of years that she's been up there, obviously, she
knows a little about politics within Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You talked to her also?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I did. I talked with her for about
an hour and a half. Her comments to me essentially were this: The
lobbyist doesn't vote for any of the legislators up there. And they
certainly talk with the lobbyists, but her feeling is that the only
person who is really going to provide us the kind of support we want
is the person that gets the financial support and the votes from
districts. And if we send lobbyists up there who go around them, in
some cases, and try to cut deals, that it is going to undercut them.
Now, I don't know whether that's true or not, okay? I don't
know how it affects people up there. I haven't been up there as an
elected official to experience that. But when I hear them express
concerns about it, it gets my attention. And, once again, I am not
going to pretend to be an expert here, because I haven't had the
experience that you other members have had concerning over the past
several years lobbying for things. But I'm just relating to you the
concerns that have been expressed to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll be honest with you. Your
assessment in what they told you is absolutely correct. They do not
run by the same rules that we do, and I know in our lobbying efforts
last year we were hooked up to a lobbyist who did not meet the favor
of some of our local representatives. We were asked to steer clear of
Page 140
January 22, 2002
that.
We're dealing with a different world, that's for sure. Now,
where we proceed at this -- we understand, Mr. Carter and myself,
that the absolute necessity of a presence in Tallahassee and to go
beyond what our legislative body comes from here. We also know
that there are some very effective lobbyists that get a lot done. If this
is the wrong one, then possibly we should look at it.
Those calls that you received, they were made in good faith, and
they give great reservation -- I have great reservations on moving
forward on this at this point in time. I really do. Not on effort,
Mr. Carter, but on the particular lobbyist.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't share that. That
lobbyist is on our guidance and direction. He works with our staff.
He didn't do after agenda items. That's why he stood in front of this
board and said he wanted specificity in what we were going to do.
He is alerting us already to what happened. I found out early
Friday what the governor's action was and that Representative
Goodlette and Senator Saunders had filed bills to get us under the
deadline because of what happened in the transportation operations
opportunity program. I was immediately able to call both and thank
them for their effort. So it improves the communications. He's not
going to run around and make end runs on us without coming to us
and saying that we're checking and Leo is the administrator who is
guiding us.
I think it would be a big mistake to change horses in the middle
of the stream. I think at the end of the period you evaluate. How
successful was this? Did we get what we were looking for? Did he,
in effect, carry out what we intended to have happen? Do you want
to change next year? Fine.
But he enjoys a favorable track record in Tallahassee and is
spoken highly of by other commissioners in the neighboring county.
Page 141
January 22, 2002
So I dofft know -- I just can't support changing something that --
where we've already made a decision to get it done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, I think I know
what you're going to say, but go ahead and say it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Normally, on an issue of this
magnitude, I need to do a lot more research. I need to make a lot of
phone calls. I just can't make up my mind willy-nilly without at least
doing my homework.
In this particular case, we're caught up against a time limit
because legislation began today. And when we put Mr. Arnold into
this position, when we voted on it, the only reservation I had was that
if being from Lee County he might have a problem with allegiance if
Lee County or Collier County were fighting for, say, road dollars and
we were both coming out of the same pot, I think it would be kind of
tough for him. That was the only reservation I had.
No one called me this weekend --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No one called me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never heard from anyone, but I
truly believe we need somebody up there fighting for our cause,
especially at this very tough time of the year -- of the year when
we're trying to decide where we're going. I think a helping hand to
our legislators up there as they try and work out this redistricting and
as we try and get some of the tax dollars back down into our area
wouldn't hurt at all, unless of course that helping hand would alienate
people.
And I don't know if there are other people that feel alienated,
and I don't know if both of our legislator-- I shouldn't say both;
there's five of them up there -- feel that this is a helping hand or not.
You know, it's hard without being able to talk with anyone.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about a continuance. I know
we're getting into the legislative session, but if we had two weeks,
Page 142
January 22, 2002
and I can make some phone calls also.
The last thing I want to do is to alienate the people that are
supportive of us. That's my big concern.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioners, think about this
for a minute.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It was on the agenda to have a
discussion whether we'd ever have a lobbyist. We had it on the
agenda and discussed it. Now, these are all publicly noticed. The
lobbyist came and spoke to the county commission and worked with
us. Now, if there was a legislator that was alive and awake during
this period, if they had a bone of contention with us -- they are too
good a people and too smart not to have made phone calls to us and
said, "You know, I think you're not doing the right thing, and this is
not the right person."
I really can't believe that when this has been in front of this
commission for more than two months and discussion thereof that
suddenly at the ninth hour somebody runs in and says, "You know, I
don't think you've got the right lobbyist."
I'm sorry. Continuing, postponing this discussion -- either we
do it or we don't do it, but if we don't do it, I think it's a big mistake.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion was to vote against this.
I think we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
I'd like to make a motion that we continue it for two weeks. I'll
make some phone calls. We're not dealing with a world that's
realistic here. We're dealing with a political world.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion
with no offense to Commissioner Carter, obviously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But while we are continuing
this, don't we need him to be working up there? Don't you think we
-- I mean, I think we need somebody up there right now working until
Page 143
January 22, 2002
we decide what we're doing as far as -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: We didn't have anybody last
year, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we did. On some issues we
did. We had a fellow by the time of Tumi (phonetic) who was doing
work for your Bleu Wallace and the franchise fees. And even though
he wasn't under contract, he walked us through quite a bit of the
process, got us into see everyone from the Secretary of State right on
down.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what is happening up
there, bills are being filed to the committee.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Bills are all filed.
COMMISSIONER
working on the bills, the
COMMISSIONER
HENNING: And now they are going to be
committees?
CARTER: That's right. And -- okay. I'm
your lobbyist. Suddenly I get a call, you know, people that hired you
are not sure they want you. Boy, am I going to work hard for you in
the next two weeks. Boy, I'm really just going to be dedicated.
Come on. You're going to support what you did, or you're
going to waffle on it and walk away from it. So, you know, suck up
to the plate, board, and make a decision one way or the other, because
either we have a person or we don't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second in the same thought --
Dudley Goodlette. And I hear that in spite of the fact that came up
and we were forewarned and we still went forward. Now, how are
my sentiments toward the commission that wouldn't follow my
advice?
I understand. I hear where you're coming from, and believe me,
I absolutely know that we have to have a lobbyist. I'm just
questioning whether this person's the right one. I don't know what
went wrong, but if they took the time to call two of our
Page 144
January 22, 2002
commissioners and they are sharing their thoughts -- and I believe
everything they're saying.
In fact, even though they haven't been to Tallahassee, they're
putting it together just the way we've seen it before.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, we were just with
Dudley Goodlette, Burt Saunders, and a few others at that SWFTI
lunch --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nobody mentioned a thing to me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not a thing, and Steve Hart's
known this forever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Steve's never said anything --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And he's never said anything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe it never clicked.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Never clicked. Jesus, I don't
know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know either, but I do think we
have a real problem here, and that's why I made the motion to
continue it for two weeks. I am personally willing to make several
phone calls. I'm sure that Commissioner Carter will make several
phone calls similar in nature. And in two weeks we can come back
and bring this thing to a conclusion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we have a workshop in
between now and then? Do we have any time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have PG planning, right,
next week?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: LDC?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: LDC tomorrow night.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, by tomorrow night I can
sure get everything answered that I need to know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There you go, Commissioner Carter,
Page 145
January 22, 2002
I think we've got it.
So my motion is to continue this until tomorrow night -- how
about then, Mr. Olliff, can we do that?
MR. OLLIFF: The only problem is that I don't think we have an
LDC tomorrow night. I think that meeting was cancelled, and your
first LDC meeting is not until the first week of February.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I was looking forward to it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When's the next meeting? When
are we all being together (sic)?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When's the next time we'll be
together?
MR. OLLIFF: The next time would be the workshop meeting,
which is your strategic planning meeting, which is the 29th of
January, a week from today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At that time we'd like to bring this
one item back, if we could.
MR. OLLIFF: David, I'm assuming since that's a workshop
format that they would have to continue this item -- MR. WEIGEL: Right.
MR. OLLIFF: -- to that meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: If you were to choose, you would continue this
item. You would have a board item -- I presume the initiation of the
workshop, and then you would move over into the workshop mode
with the procedures that you use for your typical workshop thereafter.
This item would be the same procedures that you have here with
the ability for speakers to sign up --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't hear you, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm sorry. If you continue this to the workshop,
it is actually a meeting and a workshop. The meeting is for this
action item, and it would have the procedures that a regular meeting
has in regard to sign-up, speakers, things of that nature for this item.
Page 146
January 22, 2002
And then you would move over to the workshop where you have a
little bit different protocol and procedures, as you know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I incorporate that into my
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I'll do the same.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion. We've
got a second. Is there any other discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have four positive, and
Commissioner Carter was opposed to it.
Item # 12A
PREVIOUS ACTION REGARDING BUCKS RUN PUD,
ORDINANCE 2001-67, DETERMINED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH POLICY 5.4 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF
THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
here
Run
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Where are we going from
now? Attorney's report.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
It's time now for the county attorney report regarding the Bucks
PUD. Mr. Pettit will address you briefly. I believe there are
Page 147
January 22, 2002
some speakers.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, assistant
county attorney, Mike Pettit.
Before you today as I explained in the executive summary in
your package, is a purported challenge under Section 163.3215 of
Florida Statutes to the Bucks Run planned unit development, and the
ground that is asserted in this purported challenge is that that PUD is
incompatible or not complimentary to surrounding land uses
therefore in violation of 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element.
A couple points I want to make. First, the planning staff,
obviously at the time the PUD was approved and prior to that before
the Planning Commission, found expressly that the Bucks Run PUD
was compatible and complimentary to the surrounding land uses, and
we have Ray Bellows here from the planning staff who I think would
be happy to answer any questions you have on that compatibility
determination.
Second, I think this is important. If you read the letter we
received from the challengers and their attorney on this matter, they
have expressed concern about the four-laning of 951 and Collier
Boulevard between Immokalee and Vanderbilt and have asked as an
-- and I'm not quite sure how this would relate, and I don't, in fact,
believe it does relate to the claim that there's a violation of 5.4 -- but
they've asked that that phasing be postponed so that the PUD Phase II
would be postponed until that four-laning takes place.
I thought Dawn Wolfe was going to be here, but Mr. Feder's
here and will address the fact that on December 18th at your AUI,
you made a determination that this would be within the three-year
scope of planning anyway. And my understanding from Ms. Wolfe
was that it would be in the fiscal year 2003 that that four-laning
would begin or be projected to begin. So it may be -- and I suspect
there may be somebody here from the group that's brought this
Page 148
January 22, 2002
challenge. Their lawyer contacted me and said he would not be here
but felt that the president of the not-for-profit corporation would be
here.
It may be that some of their concerns have been mooted by what
occurred on December 18. With that, if you have any questions for
planning staff, I would turn it over to Mr. Bellows. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This particular issue here, at the
time, though, we did have it built into a couple of segments. The
second segment was going to take place when we figured the road
was going to be built; is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, we understand that the road
may be built even sooner than that; is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: To defer to the transportation--
MR. FEDER: Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator.
Yes, Commissioner, that's correct. On the 18th we took action
to go to a four-lane with an existing right-of-way on a design build in
fiscal year 2003, seven-and-a-half million, and then subsequently out
in 2005 to stop buying right-a-way for the future six-laning. So
action to four lane was taken on the 18th of fiscal year 2003.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then the question would be,
since we're going to probably meet the objective that needs to be
there, rather than being a moot point, why don't we grant them what
they want and be done with it as far as the agreement that we won't
allow the second phase to take place until the four lane is in place?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe that that PUD document contains
language -- phases the project along those lines.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What I'm trying to say is what would
be the harm of just going along with what they are requesting even
Page 149
January 22, 2002
though it's a moot point at this time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it has nothing to do
with the transportation of it. They are saying is that it's not
compatible or complimentary under the Growth Management Plan,
5.4. That is what we need to answer.
MR. BELLOWS: And, basically, that section deals with land
use compatibility. And I put up on the visualizer for you an aerial
photo of the adjacent land uses. To the east is the approved
Vanderbilt Country Club PUD. It has three-story condominium
structures. This is the footprint of another tower or complex of
buildings being built. This is the proposed footprint of the
multifamily development of Bucks Run. These are similar types of
structures, multifamily type of condominium structures. However,
these would be for affordable housing project and rental units.
To the south is the PUD known as Saint Agnes PUD. It allows
for a church and part of a school. On the western end of this project
is also approved for a church and school. So from a compatibility
standpoint, these are very similar in uses and in density.
Across the street west of 951 is approved for commercial
development, and there are petitions that have just been submitted to
turn that into commercial PUD zone at this time staff is reviewing.
So this particular petition is compatible with those proposed uses, and
to the north is vacant agricultural plan.
So as Policy 5.4 goes, this project is consistent with the adjacent
land uses. Now, the transportation review with the traffic element of
the Comprehensive Plan has also been determined to be consistent.
We do have phasing the project to be consistent with the road
improvements.
MR. FEDER: And if I could, again, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
A clarification: As I understand it, the wording and the action
Page 150
January 22, 2002
taken by the board even before the 18th action was to say that their
Phase II could not move until 2005 unless the project was in the
adopted budget of the county. And I do want to point out that while
it's in fiscal year '03 in the work program this board took action on,
you only budget one year at a time.
So one point of clarification and one that I think would be
possibly something the board may want to consider is understanding
what we meant by that just so that there's no question later, and that
is, from that wording, that, in fact, while it's in 2003 in the five-year
work program, it does not become a budgeted phase until next year,
because you only budget one year at a time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, if it's a moot point, do we have
to take action on it?
MR. OLLIFF: You do have a number of speakers, Mr.
Chairman. You may want to go to the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Richard Calabrese. He will be
followed by William Cooper.
MR. CALABRESE: I'll defer to Mr. Cooper to speak first, and
I'll speak second, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine.
MR. COOPER: My name is William Cooper. I live at
Vanderbilt Country Club, and I am president of a nonprofit
corporation called CRASH. CRASH is Collier Residents Advocate
Safe Highways.
I have some things that I could say here, but I like the
commissioner's viewpoint of a moot point before we get caught up
into a lot of mythology on language of the plan. We found that in the
November 1 st meeting and the November 27 meeting it was rather
Page 151
January 22, 2002
frustrating between the transportation committees, the planning
committees, the planners, the staff, and the board members as to the
true meaning of what the plan really said.
It became frustrating, and as far as we were concerned, common
sense should have been applied. We have never objected to the
building of the PUD Bucks Run, which was approved in 1999. In
fact, the developers could have proceeded immediately with that
development without ever coming before this board again.
When they increased the density, we felt that there was adding
incompatibility and inconsistency by increasing the traffic impact.
The moot point is valid. We will accept Phase II immediately today
with your affirmative yes vote to delay the building of Phase II until
Collier Boulevard is widened to four lanes. We have no problem
with that whatsoever. That can be ruled upon right now, and there'll
be no further discussion. We'll accept that procedure.
However, if you do not wish to do that, then I will say a couple
more things.
One, at your meetings on November 27, you said that the
developer was owed some certainty. And if I were a developer I, too,
would be requesting certainty. And what you granted him was that
his additional 88 units could be built along Collier Boulevard by the
year 2005 on prior if the road was widened. That made him feel
comfortable with that certainty.
Certainty goes two ways. The thousands of people who live
along Collier Boulevard certainly are owed some certainty; certainty
that the road will be safe, that it can accept the traffic, and that we as
voting residents also would like to know that in the next two years,
three years, four years, or six years, which ever comes first, that this
road will not be adversely impacted.
We are dealing with common sense, not mythology of words,
laws, and regulations. That's why we requested that our attorney not
Page 152
January 22, 2002
be here today, so all -- we would not get all wrapped up into that.
One other thing we requested, at the last two meetings, we had
200 people in attendance. We requested that they also not be here
today, but we are represented by our steering committee. I liked
Commissioner Carter's words today when he said, "It's about time
that we manage growth and not let growth manage us." Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Cooper?
MR. COOPER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may ask you a question. I want
to make sure that I understand, because for some reason I don't seem
to have a complete answer to this yet.
You're looking not to try to limit the number of units. You're
not addressing the problems of egress and ingress. The only thing
you're caring about at this point in time is the fact that Project II, the
second phase of this project, does not happen till after the road is four
lane.
MR. COOPER: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more time explain to me why
this is a bad idea. I don't understand. I'm really lost on this.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
I did not say it's a bad idea, so let me clarify for a minute. If, in
fact, you had already taken action to put this in fiscal year '03 in the
work program prior to your action on the PUD to, say, Phase -- okay,
then they could have relied on the first three years of the work
program, and they would not have been stopped from proceeding
forward.
However, you took action to say that Phase II could not move
until, basically, 2005 or until the four-laning was in the approved
budget -- county's approved budget. That's what I understand the
wording of the PUD is. With that in mind, what I am clarifying --
Page 153
January 22, 2002
and I wish I could make it very simple, but what I will clarify just by
our rules is that technically, while they could rely on the first three
years, that part has specific language that says not until it is an
adopted phase. And being in '03, that is the second year, and you
only have an adopted budget -- if that's the exact wording, as I'm told
it is -- for one year at a time.
So, in effect, what you have today, unless this board takes some
other different action -- as I understand it in that PUD is they cannot
move until 2005 unless it goes into your approved budget as is
planned in the five-year work program next fiscal year, '03. At that
time they would be able to go forward.
Would the £our-laning be completed? No. The four lane would
have been budgeted under a design build that year, and that is a
distinction from what the gentleman's saying and one that the board
has to address.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I come back to you with a
question one more time a different way. If I make a motion at this
point in time and it gets a second and is approved that we honor the
request that Phase II does not come -- isn't completed or isn't started
until the road is in place, what harm am I doing to this whole
process?
MR. FEDER: I would say that I would defer to your legal
advice, but you took action on a PUD that had specific language, and
so you probably have a process -- in spite of the desire for quick,
intelligent, reasonable thinking -- that you have to follow to make
sufficient a change, which, in effect, that would be to my
understanding the original language. But having said that, I would
defer to legal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what's before us today.
Page 154
January 22, 2002
What's before us today is to give the legal staff guidance as to how
you're supposed to respond to a potential lawsuit. If we're going to
go back and change the PUD itself and make any changes to our
discussion in the past, we can't do that today. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pettit.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Coyle, I agree with you, and I
think Ms. Student and Mr. Weigel and I are on the same page on this,
that I think to enter into an agreement as suggested by Chairman
Coletta would require -- first of all, to go back and reopen a hearing
on a PUD and have advertisement and allow a speaker and a lot of
the quasi-judicial process to work. I don't think we can come to that
conclusion today and, again, would point out that although the
concern in the body of the letter is the traffic situation, which I think
in measure, based on what I understand from Mr. F eder and
Ms. Wolfe has been addressed. The claim is based on 5.4, the Future
Land Use Element, and I am not seeing the link between the two.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But the issue is one that I
think we can understand, but we just can't address it today. As I see
it, the basis for the claim has no direct link to the issue of the road. Is
that correct?
MR. PETTIT: At least as the way it was presented in that letter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if what we're going to
be asked to do is to revisit the issue of what comes first, the road or
the development of Phase II, then we're going to have another
hearing on that.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner Coyle, this is Mr. Weigel, but
you are absolutely correct. Now, the question before you today based
upon the way the statute reads where people exercise their right to
bring this back before you, this is protocol perforatory to a potential
lawsuit.
So it comes before you today, and you either acknowledge and
Page 155
January 22, 2002
approve that your previous action, which was at a regularly noticed
and advertised hearing affecting land rights and uses, or if today you
determine that your previous action was not what you wished to have
stand -- I'm not saying the word "error," but something that you
believe must be revisited, then it is as you indicated; it must be
revisited with all the protocol of advertisement and full hearing that
will be had. And you will hash it out and potentially come to a
different determination at that time. And that is necessary if, in fact,
you make a determination today that you don't want to stay with the
prior determination that you had in the full advertised hearing
scenario that you had previously.
In terms of whether there's a moot point or not, the letter filed by
the counsel for this group, CRASH, states and relates to a Section 5.4
claiming that it is not compatible or complimentary, but also has
raised the issue about traffic and the roads and when the roads will be
completed. And I think, particularly, that what the record is
reflecting, based on the statement of Mr. Bellows and particularly
Mr. Feder, is that barring a change in the direction you have indicated
that you're going to take and that staff is relying on at that point, the
road will be, in fact, part of the program to be funded next year and
then to be under construction at a fixed point in the future totally
compliant with the PUD language that you've already approved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly the point. It seems
to me that we can solve this problem -- and I'd appreciate your
reaction -- by dealing merely with the road construction schedule
rather than reopen the issue with the PUD. In other words, all the
developer wants to know is when they can go about developing Phase
II. All the residents want is to make sure the road is capable of
handling the additional traffic.
Now, if we left the PUD as it is now but took action to approve
the schedule for construction of the road so that it is complete in less
Page 156
January 22, 2002
than five years, it seems to me that we have solved the problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One of the problems -- and
we're not stepping up the construction of Collier Boulevard because
of this project. We're doing it because there is need out there. And
the direction that I would like to give in response is that staff and the
Board of Commissioners find that it is consistent with Growth
Management Plan 5.4 and explain, respond to them the action that the
board took on December 18th as far as the road schedule on Collier
Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have one more speaker-- two
more.
MS. FILSON: Yes. We have two more speakers, Mr. Richard
Calabrese, and he will be followed by Kenneth Cuyler.
MR. CALABRESE: Excuse me. With your permission I have
a map that I think might help you follow along as I speak. Can I
place that up here?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You certainly may.
MR. CALABRESE: Good morning. My name is Richard
Calabrese, and I live at Vanderbilt Country Club.
It seems incredible and illogical that we keep approving one
development after another without looking at the big picture. Eight
new developments have been approved on Route 95 ! between
Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, which will change the
character and complexion of our community. The traffic going north
and south on 951 is bumper to bumper. The new Publix anticipates
between 16,000 and 20,000 cars per week. Then we have
Pebblebrook development with 348 units; Oakridge Middle School
with 1,266 students, and there are plans for portable classrooms.
Next, we have Indigo Lake with 430 housing units; then
Brittany Bay is under construction; then a development like
Waterways, which will have 250 houses; and on the corner,
Page 157
January 22, 2002
Arrowhead Shopping Center will bring even more cars.
On the east side of the road, U.S. Homes plans to build 3,000
units. Crystal Lake RV Park has 490 units. Nicaea Academy will
build in two stages. The first stage will bring 400 children, and the
second will be 1,000 children with no provision for busing, which
means that at the start 400 cars will be bringing children to and from
school at peak hours.
Now Bucks Run wants to increase its density to 348 units. They
will need a bridge over the drainage ditch. School buses will not
enter the development unless there's room to turn around. If not, the
buses will stop on 951. The children will have to stand on the
bridge on the edge of 951. Now, if you think the children will stand
like statues and not behave like kids, I would think again.
And now Saint Agnes with a church, another school and day-
care center. Has anyone given any consideration to the safety, health,
density, and welfare of the citizens of our community with all this
construction being done in this one corridor? Have we forgotten that
951 is a two-lane road?
This road cannot absorb the traffic, and there are no plans to
improve the road. What will we do with all these people and all these
cars? What will it take for the commissioners to pause and say, "My
God, what have we done?" Would it be enough for a mother and
child to be killed on the way to nursery school, or would it take a
school bus filled with children to be turned over in the ditch before
the commissioners will declare a building moratorium? Or must our
fair city sink from the weight of concrete to appease builders?
Commissioners, I implore you, put a moratorium on the building
until 951 is made safe. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Final speaker, Mr. Kenneth Cuyler.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does anybody support me on
what I stated as far as direction to the county attorney how to respond
Page 158
January 22, 2002
to this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Was that a motion and a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't think -- I think
they just need direction, correct, Mike?
MR. PETTIT: Yes. That was the purpose of the item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And it does say that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And your direction was...
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That it is consistent with the
Growth Management Plan and language of the steps that we did take
of saying December 18th that we have stepped up the improvement
of Collier Boulevard for the 2003 budget.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which would then -- once we have
the road in place to accommodate these other 88 units, we would also
be compliant with concurrency; correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could raise the question, I am
confused. I just -- the president of this organization got up here and
told us that if we improve this road, things would be okay.
AUDIENCE: Do you want me to answer that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes or no?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. You can't from the audience.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have to be up here.
AUDIENCE: I don't know. He addressed me, so I don't know
whether he wants me to answer it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Up to the podium, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The microphone, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your name, please, again.
MR. COOPER: William Cooper.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: William Cooper, and as I understand
your question, we would say we will accept this ruling that you did
Page 159
January 22, 2002
on November 27, provided the Collier County road, 951, can
accommodate the traffic. We would to -- and that is still true.
It can only accommodate the traffic if it is built, not
accommodate the traffic if it is budgeted, not accommodate the traffic
if it's in the plan, not accommodate the traffic if it's being planned
for; it has to be built. And if it is built, as far as we're concerned, he
can build 1,000 -- 2,000 units in Bucks Run. That is not the issue.
We are stating regardless of what the good planners are doing,
it's not a budget item; it is as built. And when it is as built then we
have no objection to anything else that you want to build along that
corridor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to understand this
clearly so if we get to the point of voting on a solution I know what
I'm voting on.
You said that it would be okay for them to proceed with Phase II
-- in fact, you said it's okay for them to proceed right now with what
they've got.
MR. COOPER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's okay for them to proceed
with Phase II if the road is widened to accommodate the traffic.
MR. COOPER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got the staff here who says
they have plans to do that before the year 2005, completed before the
year 2005.
MR. COOPER: They said "plan." They didn't say completed,
built. I have seen -- Commissioner, with due respect, I have seen
plans developed for years, things budgeted for many, many years, but
the actual construction not being completed. You can plan for years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that. But that's
something we're going to deal with, but I get a little confused when
we make the jump from a road that isn't planned and completed to
Page 160
January 22, 2002
declaring a moratorium on the entire area -- MR. COOPER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that's what Mr. Calabrese was
talking --
MR. COOPER: Well, he was talking in generalities of
moratoriums and construction, which maybe you would like to
address for the whole county at some future date. We're not
addressing that. What we're addressing is that this road should be
constructed and in place before Phase II can proceed; very simple as
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that was what I thought we
were working toward.
MR. COOPER: And I don't want to get all wrapped up into
mythology and legalese, if I can avoid that, because I'm not an expert
in that field; just common sense.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Cuyler hasn't spoken yet.
MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler.
I appreciate the gentleman not wanting to get into legalese, but it
is a legal issue that they have raised. Apparently they didn't want
their attorney here because they don't have a legal argument. So he's
argued some practical things to you.
I'll note that Mr. Calabrese didn't mention to you their
development's approved for 799 units as well, so we're all part of the
issues, and the commission is going to be part of the solution.
I would suggest to you that we had an in-depth hearing; it was
three to four hours at the planning board; it was three to four hours at
this commission. You listened to a number of experts. You listened
to the objectors' side, and in my opinion, you made the correct
decision.
And today, what is happening is it's not your staff coming to
Page 161
January 22, 2002
you and saying, "It tums out we're never going to build that road.
You were wrong to do that." They are telling you that you're taking
action to be consistent even sooner that I thought you would be with
regard to this road. So you're doing exactly what you said you would
do; you'd take care of the need and still give the developer some
certainty with regard to this matter.
And I would ask you to simply uphold your prior decision. You
have found that it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
only thing I disagree with Mr. Weigel on is you'd have to basically
find you were in error before, and I don't think you were. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have one comment. This is one
of the few times I think that a board has phased the approval of a
PUD to the capability of the road to accommodate the traffic. I think
the board did the right thing. We approved it with the requirement
that Phase II not be done until 2005, and then we took the action to
assure that we started widening the road three years before the year
2000 (sic).
So I think the board did the right thing here, and I don't -- I'm
not swayed by the arguments I've heard so far that we were in error.
And I would certainly suggest that we proceed and just keep our
commitment to building that road. And I think if we do that, then
we're going to be making all of residents happy and upholding our
prior decision to permit the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's poll the commission up here to
see where we stand. Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: First of all, we spent hours on
this subject. We phased it; we planned for it; and what this board
needs to remember, we made a commitment. We made a
commitment to a road, and it's in that schedule, and when the funding
requests come back and people want to shift things, never lose sight
Page 162
January 22, 2002
of what we committed to in a phased development and the
infrastructure that goes with it.
So I support what we need to do here, keeping in mind this is a
commitment that we go forward. And we can't waffle around on
these land development kind of commitments, because if we do we're
going to be in enormous trouble.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree with Commissioner Coyle
completely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, we know
where you are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with me completely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm glad to hear that, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm in favor of the direction
that I gave originally.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what we're looking for. The
only reservation that I had is the fact that we couldn't put together the
words that would have guaranteed it. But I see the advantage of
going along with Commissioner Coyle's recommendation is that if we
were to fall back and say, "When the road's completed," that might
give someone credence down the road to be able to change it as far as
the schedule for completion. We might not be held to that obligation
that we made to four-lane the road.
Now, we're on the record saying that we are going to four-lane
that road within a certain prescribed time. If we release ourselves
from that obligation by saying, "not until the road is done," then we
might lose our ability to be able to function in that time date.
And also, too, if we did go along with the idea of trying to make
a restraint about the building, what about all the other projects up and
down there that are going to impact the road? So better that we keep
Page 163
January 22, 2002
things the way they are and the road on schedule then to tempt fate at
this time. So once again I'm in agreement with you, too, and I just
said it the long way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a good--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And I-- I think that's the
end of that, isn't it? It's the direction you're looking for?
MR. PETTIT: Yes. And just to make it absolutely clear -- I
think it is to everyone -- we are operating on the PUD language
which says -- as Mr. Feder and I interpret it at least -- that it will be
(as read): Phase II may be commenced once a budget has been
approved," which would be next year based on the time table we
know now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you need a motion or we
just --
MR. WEIGEL: If you want to make the record -- we have all
five of you on the record. If you want to make a motion that the
previous decision stands for the reasons stated today, I think that
would be a fine motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's make a motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion. We've got a
second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion from Carter, second from
Commissioner Coyle. I think we've had our discussion, but if anyone
wants to throw another one in, go ahead. (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In that case, all those in favor
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 164
January 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The ayes have it 5 to 0.
Item # 15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. PETTIT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Now we go to that part of the agenda that we all love very much,
and that's the staff and commissioner general comments. Start with you, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have absolutely
nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I bet you, Mr. Weigel, will.
MR. WEIGEL: I will. It's nice to note that there is a distinction
between mythology and legalese.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
mythology and legalese.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
There is no distinction between
Anything else?
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a legislative update, and if
I had known what we decided a little bit ago -- should have learned
from this even though this took place on Friday, I would have gotten
it to you, and perhaps it would have assisted in your decision today.
As you know, last Friday -- perhaps it started Thursday in
Page 165
January 22, 2002
Tallahassee -- Governor Bush eliminated the funding for the
Transportation Outreach Program, which funds our Golden Gate
Parkway. We saw $9 million go down the drain. Now what the
governor wants -- and the reason he defeated it -- so it says in the
paper, is because he didn't think he got the funding that would --
sources for other programs, which essentially got seaports,
connecting ports, and moving freight in the state of Florida.
Also, translated that says District 4, who had gotten all the pie
last time we went through this process or a lot of it, were pretty
happy with what they got. I wouldn't say they got all of it, but they
got an awful lot of stuff out of it.
It's disturbing to me because we just got downdrafted in the
process, and that's probably politics, but perhaps it is worse.
However, immediately, first part of the e-mail came from our
lobbyist and then from Norman Feder and our Representative
Goodlette and Senator Saunders, that within a very short period of
time, each in the respective -- the House and the Senate, filed a bill to
try to recapture those funds through the legislative process.
Now, that's going to be a lot more difficult than the way it was
going. See, we were approved for the TOPS program. We had it.
We played by the rules. And when people find out what we had
achieved by playing by the rules, it started raising a lot of questions
in the legislature and questioning the process, which it never
questioned before because they got what they wanted. And,
therefore, this unraveled in front of us, and I don't know what's going
to happen to it. But I do know that we need to contact our legislator
on an ongoing basis to keep supporting them in the efforts of the two
bills, one filed by Senator Goodlette (sic) the other by Senator
Saunders.
Secondly, there was a Transportation Disadvantaged Program
that was filed, and that's legislation House Bill 141 by Representative
Page 166
January 22, 2002
Greenstein and a Senate Bill 100 by Senator Mitchell for the 2002
session. And, again, these bills are supporting funds for the
Transportation Disadvantaged Program, which is a part of the FAC
agenda, which is a part of the overall Southwest Florida Planning
Council agenda.
All of this came from our lobbyist updating and letting us know
what was taking place on a timely basis, to try to communicate here
is the first time as a commissioner have we ever gotten that much
information that quickly in terms of a situation that was unfolding
right in front of us in the legislature. And before we usually found
out after the fact. We missed the filing deadlines, and there we sat
wringing our hands, moaning and groaning, and ain't it awful, and
what can we do in the future.
So, again, I'm going to recommend that we work the total
system hand-in-hand, which took place with our lobbyist, our own
staff, and with our legislators in this particular situation.
We lost the funding; we turn around and file bills to get it back.
And if we wouldn't have had a team working on this, it wouldn't have
happened. So I commend Norman Feder. I commend our legislators.
And I hope that we will stay the course to keep doing what we need
to do here, because this was the first shot fired. There's going to be
more going on up there in this session and particularly when we get
into redistricting of the state. Watch, watch, watch, and it's going to
happen fast and furious. So we need all the eyes and ears we have up
there, and we need to be on call to get there when we need to be.
So that's the update as I know this week, and in between
meetings if I get updates I will e-mail those to you around the office
so that you're constantly appraised of what's unfolding as quickly as
we can track it.
Now, if you want to track legislation in Tallahassee, you can go
to a web site and take a look and take a peek, and they will tell you
Page 167
January 22, 2002
exactly what's going on as these bills get filed. And I believe that
web site is www.lobbyflorida, all one word, dot corn, for an instant
update on the bills you are tracking. So if anybody up there wants to
track bills, that's where you go. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Dr. Carter.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice meeting. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Glad to be here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that leaves me with two things.
Congratulations for Commissioner Fiala for getting nominated for the
chair of the local MPO board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you did an excellent job with
the first meeting. And congratulations also to Dr. Carter for being
appointed the chair of the Southwest Regional Planning Commission.
That is quite a distinction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, that's great.
Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got to do something to
stop all this development down here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's what I've been told. I hear
that here, and I here it up there -- probably hear it in Washington.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Look at Dave Ellis.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you do something about the fog
in the morning, Dr. Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, we've been working on
Page 168
January 22, 2002
that. We're going to get a defogging machine for the county, and stay
tuned for that theoretical process that's going to be unfolded.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll spare you from any more.
Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Carter and carried unanimously that the following item under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2002-11, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SABAL LAKE
UNIT TWO"
Item #16A2 - Deleted
Item #16A3 - Deleted
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2002-12, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS IN "QUAIL WALK PHASE FOUR"
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2002-13, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LONGSHORE
LAKE UNIT 4"
Page 169
January 22, 2002
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2002-14, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LONGSHORE
LAKE UNIT 5C"
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2002-15, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LONGSHORE
LAKE UNIT 5D"
Item # 16A8
AGREEMENT WITH DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH
CENTER, INC. TO UNDERTAKE A REHABILITATION
PROJECT AT FIVE (5) COLLIER HOUSING ALTERNATIVE
RESIDENCES USING $47,000 OF THE COUNTY'S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDING
Item #16A9
RESOLUTIONS 2002-16 THROUGH 2002-22, ENFORCING
LIENS ON PROPERTIES FOR CODE VIOLATIONS
Item # 16A 10
Page 170
January 22, 2002
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE PURCHASE
OF WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY AND HARDWARE FOR USE BY
THE COUNTY'S BUILDING INSPECTORS - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $22O,OOO
Item #16Al 1
RESOLUTION 2002-23, SUPPORTING F.N.B. CORPORATION
AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT PURSUANT TO s.288.106,
FLORIDA STATUTES; AND PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATION
OF $45,000 AS LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALIFIED
TARGET INDUSTRY TAX REFUND PROGRAM FOR FISCAL
YEAR(S) 2003 THROUGH 2007 - WITH CHANGES
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2002-24, SUPPORTING ARTHREX METAL
WORKS, INC. AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT PURSUANT TO
s.288.106, FLORIDA STATUTES; AND PROVIDING AN
APPROPRIATION OF $48,000 AS LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN
THE QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY TAX REFUND
PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR(S) 2003 THROUGH 2006
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2002-25, SUPPORTING ARTHREX, INC. AS A
QUALIFIED APPLICANT PURSUANT TO s.288.106, FLORIDA
STATUTES; AND PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATION OF
$44,800 AS LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALIFIED
TARGET INDUSTRY TAX REFUND PROGRAM FOR FISCAL
YEAR(S) 2004 THROUGH 2011
Page 171
January 22, 2002
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 2002-26, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SILVER LAKES
PHASE TWO-B"
Item #16A15
RESOLUTION 2002-27, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SILVER LAKES
PHASE TWO-D"
Item #16Al 6
RESOLUTION 2002-28, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SILVER LAKES
PHASE TWO-E"
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 2002-29, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SILVER LAKES
PHASE TWO-F"
Item # 16A 18
Page 172
January 22, 2002
FINAL PLAT OF "MAJORCA UNIT TWO AT FIDDLER'S
CREEK"
Item gl6A19
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2002-02, RE PETITION CARNY-2001-1905,
COLLIER COUNTY FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC., PERMIT TO
CONDUCT A FAIR FROM FEBRUARY 1 ST THROUGH 9TM, 2001,
ON COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY AT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FAIR GROUNDS ON IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), NORTH
GOLDEN GATE
Item #16A20
STAFF TO PREPARE A SCOPE OF SERVICES AND ISSUE A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
NAPLES PARK COMMUNITY PLAN
Item # 16A21 - ADDED
CARNIVAL PERMIT CP-2002-03 REGARDING CARNY-2001-
AR-1852, DUANE WHEELER, CARNIVAL CHAIRMAN,
ROTARY CLUB OF IMMOKALEE, REQUESTING PERMIT TO
CONDUCT A CARNIVAL ON JANUARY 24, 2002 THROUGH
JANUARY 27, 2002 ON COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT
Item gl 6B 1 - Moved to Item gl 0I
Item # 16C 1
Page 173
January 22, 2002
PIGGYBACKING OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S
CONTRACT S- 1356-01 WITH AZURIX TO TRANSPORT
LIQUID SLUDGE FROM THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF) - IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $138,500
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2002-30, AUTHORIZING THE DECLARATION
OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THREE WATER WELL
HOUSE SITES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A PORTION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUIRED FOR THE FUTURE EXTENSION
OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
Item #16C3
AMENDMENT TO WORK ORDER HAA-FT-00-02 FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TOO NOISE ISSUES AT
THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT, PROJECT 70063, IN THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF
$104,550, PAYABLE TO HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Item #16C4
CHANGE ORDER TO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES WORK ORDER WITH METCALF & EDDY, INC.,
FOR NEW TEST WELLS RELATED TO THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT REVERSE OSMOSIS
RAW WATER SUPPLY IN THE AMOUNT OF $330,000
Item #16C5
Page 174
January 22, 2002
DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND
COLLIER COUNTY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TROPICAL
STORM GABRIELLE BEACH RECOVERY COSTS
Item #16C6
BID #01-3297 TO FURNISH AND DELIVER EMULSION
POLYMER FOR SLUDGE DEWATERING FOR THE WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY- AWARDED TO FORT BEND
SERVICES - IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $108,000
Item # 16C7
RFP-02-3313, "PROFESSIONAL GIS SERVICES FOR COLLIER
COUNTY"- STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
WITH WILSON MILLER, INC., MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.,
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., AND 3001, INC.
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2002-31, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN PAID IN
FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item # 16C9
RESOLUTION 2002-32, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN PAID IN
Page 175
January 22, 2002
FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item # 16C 10
RESOLUTION 2002-33, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN PAID IN
FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C 11
RESOLUTION 2002-34, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN PAID IN
FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C12
RESOLUTION 2002-35, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN PAID IN
FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C13
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FOR THE
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES
Item # 16E 1 - Moved to Item # 10J
Page 176
January 22, 2002
Item # 16E2
RESOLUTIONS 2002-36 THROUGH 2002-38, OUTLINING
OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE COUNTY'S LAND
RIGHT ACQUISITION PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' CHAIRMAN,
DURING THE 2002 CALENDAR YEAR, TO EXECUTE
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH
Item # 16E3
RESOLUTION 2002-39, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
THE REAL ESTATE SALES AGREEMENTS AND STATUTORY
DEEDS FOR THE G.A.C. LAND TRUST PROPERTY BY THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR THE 2002 CALENDAR
YEAR
Item # 16E4
RESOLUTION 2002-40, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO
EXECUTE LIMITED USE BARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
DURING THE 2002 CALENDAR YEAR
Item #16E5
BID #02-3300, "PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS & DRUG
TESTING"-SINGLE BID RECEIVED FROM COLLIER BLVD.
MEDICAL CENTER REJECTED
Page 177
January 22, 2002
Item # 16E6
RESOLUTION 2002-41, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
DEEDS AND AGREEMENTS FOR THE LAKE TRAFFORD
MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY, BY THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD FOR THE 2002 CALENDAR YEAR
Item # 16G 1
RFP #02-2317, "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE
PREPARATION OF A NEW LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT
FEE AND UPDATE TO THE EXISTING CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES IMPACT FEE - AWARDED TO HENDERSON,
YOUNG & CO., IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000
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 178
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for December 26, 2001- January 3, 2002
B. Districts:
1. Immokalee Fire Control District- Notice to Vote for Monthly Meeting
Lely Community Development District - Minutes of January 17, 2001,
February 21, 2001, March 21, 2001, April 18, 2001, May 16, 2001, June
20, 2001, July 18, 2001, August 15, 2001, September 19, 2001, October
17, 2001, and November 28, 2001 and a list of proposed future meeting
dates for 2002
C. Minutes,
1. Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Minutes of September 27, 2001
Environmental Advisory Council - Minutes of October 3, 2001, Minutes
of December 5, 2001, Minutes of November 7, 2001
Value Adjustment Board- Minutes of October 3,2001, Minutes of
October 8, 2001
Collier County Planning Commission - Minutes of October 4, 2001,
Minutes of October 18, 2001, November 1, 2001, Minutes of November
15, 2001
Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for December 5,
2001, for January 2, 2002, Minutes of November 7, 2001 2001, Minutes
of December 5, 2001.
a) Clam Bay Sub-Committee -Minutes of November 28, 2001
H:Data/Format
b)
Organization Structure Review Sub-Committee
Minutes of December 17, 2001
JAN 2 2 2062
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for December 6, 2001.
Rural Fringe Assessment Area Oversight Committee -Minutes of October
1.2, 2001, October 24, 2001 and November 7, 2001 Minutes of December
5, 2001 and December 12, 2001, Minutes of September 26, 2001, October
10, 2001, October 15, 2001, October 22, 2001
Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for December
19, 2001, October 17, 2001
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee -Agenda for
December 14, 2001 Minutes of August 10, 2001.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee
Minutes for .' _ ', November 9, 2001
Enterprise Zone Development Agency - Draft Minutes of September 20,
2001, Minutes of November 29, 2001.
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee -, Minutes of October 4,
2001
Bayshore Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for January 9,
2002, Minutes, Minutes of November 7, 2001.
Environmental Advisory Counoil - Agenda for October 3,2001,
November 21,2001, Minutes of August 7, 2001. Minutes of September
5, 2001
1-75/Golden Gate Interchange Advisory Committee - Minutes of
November 14, 2001
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Minutes of November 19, 2001
December 17, 2001
Collier County Library Advisory Board -Agenda for December 12, 2001.
Park and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for November 20, 2001,
December 19, 2001, Minutes of October 24, 2001November 20, 2001
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board -
Agenda for December 13, 2001, Minutes of January 3, 02, 12-6-01
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for November 19, 2001,
December 10, 2001, Minutes of November 19, 2001, Minutes of October
22, 2001.
H:Data/Format
21.
Immokalee Local Redevelopmem Advisory - Minutes of August 16,
2001, September 20, 2001 and October 25, 2001.
22.
Health and Human Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for December
20, 2001.
23.
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for
December 11,2001, Minutes of November 13, 2001.
24.
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Agenda for January 9,
2002.
25.
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Agenda for December 13,
2001
H:Data/Format
Other:
l) Letter from Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - Tax Collector's
Recapitulation of the 2000 Tax Roll for Collier County, Florida.
H:Data/Format
January 22, 2002
Item # 16K1
RESOLUTION 2002-42, AMENDING RESOLUTION 95-552, THE
INVESTMENT POLICY, TO RECOGNIZE CHANGES IN THE
MARKET AND REVISIONS TO FLORIDA STATUTE 218.415,
"LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POLICIES" SINCE
THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION
Item # 16L 1
STIPULATED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HANSON V.
CAXAMBAS EQUITY CO., LTD., CASE NO. 99-2238-CA-TB
Item #16L2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 169 AND 769 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FRED R.
SUTHERLAND, ET AL, CASE NO. 01-0756-CA- STAFF TO
DEPOSIT $8,501.50 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item # 16L3
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AS TO PARCELS
247 AND 247T IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. TONY BARRY, ET AL., (GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 63041) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT AN
ADDITIONAL $13,793.93 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE
COURT
Item #17A- Moved to Item #8C
Page 179
January 22, 2002
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2002-43, RE PETITION AV-PLAT-2001-AR1559,
VACATING A PORTION OF THE 10' WIDE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 218
AND 219, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "STONEBRIDGE
UNIT 5"
Item #17C- Continued to February 26, 2002
PETITION CU-2001-AR- 1420, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP,
HOOVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
REPRESENTING PASTOR COLIN RAMPTON OF THE
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USES "7" AND "11" OF THE "A-MHO" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT/MOBILE HOME ZONING
OVERLAY, FOR A CHURCH AND CHILD CARE CENTER ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
LILAC LAND AND IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #17D- Continued to February 12, 2002
PETITION CU-2002-AR-1620, JAMES WEEKS, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "7" OF THE "E" ESTATES ZONING
DISTRICT FOR EARTHMINING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON DESOTO BOULEVARD NORTH, BETWEEN 29TM AVENUE
NE AND 31 ST AVENUE NE ON THE EAST SIDE OF DESOTO,
CONSISTING OF 6.62+/- ACRES
Page 180
January 22, 2002
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:05 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
J~AIRMAN
ATTEST:
present'eft'"'""
OCK, CLERK
~a~ved by the Board on or as corrected
z_ ,as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY PAMELA HOLDEN AND CAROLYN
FORD, COURT REPORTERS
Page 181