BCC Minutes 06/11/2002 RJune 11, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 11, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having Conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., at County Commission
Meeting Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: JIM COLETTA
TOM HENNING
JAMES D. CARTER
FRED COYLE
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
June 11, 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
June 11,2002
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.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary
agenda.)
B. May 15, 2002 - Workshop
C. May 30, 2002 - Workshop
3. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing Ted Tawney for his heroic efforts on January 25,
2002. To be accepted by Bob Herrington, MPO Manager.
4. SERVICE AWARDS
FIVE-YEAR ATTENDEES:
1) Juanita Paniaqua, Parks and Recreation
2) Anthony Verlotti, Building Review and Permitting
3) Maria Rodriguez, Parks and Recreation
4) Donald Blalock, Information Technology
5) Margaret Bush, Water Treatment
FIFTEEN-YEAR ATTENDEES:
6) Ramiro Ponce, Transportation Operations
7) Richard Noonan, Building Review and Permitting
2
June 11, 2002
8) Barbara Pitts, Library
TWENTY-FIVE YEAR ATTENDEES:
9) Pablo Salinas, Parks and Recreation
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Award for Exemplary Food Service Program for the Summer Food Services
Program. Presented by Senator Saunders.
B. Award to Jim Thomas, Parks and Recreation, for Outstanding Support of the
Summer Food Program Food and Nutrition Services. Presented by Senator
Saunders.
C. To accept the designation of Collier County as a "Stormready Community"
from the National Weather Service.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Vera Fitz-Gerald to discuss Land Development
Code issues.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition PUDA-2001-AR- 1404; Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc., representing
Conquest Development USA, L.C., requesting an amendment to the Silver
Lakes PUD to allow modification to the land use distribution table of the
PUD. The subject property is located on the East side of Collier Boulevard
approximately one and three quarter miles South of Tamiami Trail East and
Collier Boulevard Intersection in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 146 acres.
B. Approve a Resolution adopting the County's Consolidated Plan amended
one-year Action Plan FY2001-2002 as required by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and provide an effective date.
C. Authorize Staff to establish interim development controls (moratorium) on
the backlogged and constrained roadway segments of US 4 l, Vanderbilt
Beach Road and Davis Boulevard (SR 84).
3
June 11, 2002
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
B. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Collier County Water and Wastewater
Authority.
D. Appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
E. Appointment of member to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
F. Appointment of member to the Immokalee EZDA/CRA Advisory Board.
G. Discussion regarding impact fee updates. (Commissioner Coyle)
H. Funding a Modified Summer Camp Program in Everglades City.
(Commissioner Coletta)
I. Discussion regarding commercial property maintenance and Code
Enforcement authority. (Commissioner Fiala)
J. Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board request for the County Commission to
support a "Living Wage"/Farm Worker/Agricultural Issues Forum and
Dialogue.
K. Request to eliminate $700,000 FY02 Budget for Indigent Care Program.
(Commissioner Coletta)
L. Authorize staff to prepare grant application (s) requesting State and Federal
funds to fund 100% of a local Primary Care Facility. (Commissioner
Coletta)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item has been deleted.
4
June 11,2002
B. Presentation of the revised Transportation 5-Year Road Plan and request the
approval of an additional Senior Project Manager position to the
Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Department,
Fiscal Year 03 Cost $85,300. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
C. Request Board provide staff with direction in regard to landscape
maintenance on Devonshire Boulevard. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
D. THIS ITEM HAS A TIME CERTAIN OF 10:30 A.M. Update the Board
of County Commissioners on the Southern Golden Gate Estates Hydrologic
Restoration Plan. Presented by Carol Senne, Service Center Director, South
Florida Water Management District. (James V. Mudd, Deputy County
Manager)
E. Request that the Board enter into a fifty-year lease agreement with the State
of Florida for the use of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
maintenance facility on Davis Boulevard for the purpose of transferring all
Collier County Road and Bridge, Landscape and Roadway Drainage
Maintenance Operations from the County Barn Road facility and to request
the Board enter into an Interlocal Agreement for Asset Management with the
FDOT for maintenance of all FDOT roadway within Collier County for an
annual reimbursement of approximately $1,396,000 for services rendered.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
F. Authorize the County Attorney to amend County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, Section 66-116, creating stricter enforcement of public
swimming pools currently exempt under Florida Statutes. (Dr. Joan Colfer,
Director, Health Department)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. THIS ITEM HAS A TIME CERTAIN OF 1:30 P.M. Approve
Resolution 2002- to place on the November 5, 2002 General Election
Ballot a question for the electors to approve the issuance of up to
$75,000,000.00 in General Obligation Bonds payable from a levy of up to
0.25 Mill of Ad Valorem Taxes for a period of 10 years to fund the
5
June 11,2002
acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Amendment to an existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus
Agreement for Saddlebrook Village PUD.
2) Approve the release of Code Enforcement Board Lien Documents
established in Collier County, Florida v. Bruce G. Wood/Bruce G.
Wood Tr.
3) This item has been deleted.
4) Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Satumia Lakes Plat
Two", and approval of the standard form construction and
maintenance agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
5) Approve the release of Code Enforcement Board Lien Documents
established in Collier County, Florida v. Wendall L. Kramer,
Salvatore F. Angileri, and Salvatore C. Grech.
6) Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No.
59.810 "Hideout Fishing Lake", located in Section 24 and 25,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East; bounded on the North by
Brantley Boulevard, Hideout Golf Club and Land Zoned Agricultural,
on the West by Land Zoned Estates, on the East by Hideout Golf
6
June 11, 2002
Club, and on the South by Land Zoned Agricultural.
7) Approve the release of an easement no longer required recognizing
the County has already received an equivalent permanent easement so
as to accommodate the construction of residential dwelling units on
platted lots in Carlton Lakes.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Approve an Easement Agreement and accept a drainage easement for
the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project at a cost not to exceed
$1,900.00.
2) Approve Change Order No. 2 for $225,815.89 with Florida State
Underground, Inc., for additional construction services for the Radio
Road/Davis Boulevard Intersection Realignment, Project No. 65031.
3) Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to the Professional Services
Agreement in the amount of $435,650 with CH2MHill, Inc., for the
design of Vanderbilt Beach Road improvements between Airport-
Pulling Road and Collier Boulevard, Project No. 63051.
4) Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to the Professional Services
Agreement in the amount of $136,196 with CH2MHill, Inc., for the
design of Vanderbilt Beach Road improvements between Airport-
Pulling Road and Collier Boulevard, Project No. 63051.
5) This item has been deleted.
6) Request approval of $250,000 for the CR 951 Project Development
and Environment Study being conducted by Lee County from
Immokalee Road in Collier County to Alico Road in Lee County.
7) Approve Work Order No. BRC-FT-02-03 for Better Roads Inc., to
modify Radio Road Median Opening between Industrial Boulevard
and Commercial Boulevard in the amount of $56,827, Project No.
60016.
7
June 11, 2002
8) Request the Board of County Commissioners approve change of name
for a portion of former Radio Road to Radio Lane. Project No. 65031.
9) Approve Amendment No. 2 for $213,490.20 to the contract for
Professional Engineering Services by CH2Mhill for Immokalee Road
(CR 951 to 43rd Avenue NE) Four Lane Design, Project No. 60018.
10) Approve the reassignment of county-owned property for use by the
Transportation Division and the Emergency Services Division.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Authorize amendment to Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., Golden Gate
Wellfield Reliability Improvements Design Contract in the amount of
$20,000.
2) Approve amendments to agreements with Florida Power and Light
Company permitting the construction of a 16-inch reclaimed water
main within FPL Power-Line Right-of-Way between Radio Road and
Davis Boulevard. Transaction Cost should not exceed $30.00.
3) Approve a Resolution identifying the pledged revenues and
authorizing the Public Utilities Administrator to submit an application
for an estimated loan of $8,258,000; execute all documents related to
the State Revolving Fund Number WWG 120597160 for the North
County Water Reclamation Facility, Flow Equalization System,
(Project No. 73077).
4) Approve Change Order to Construction Manager-At-Risk Contract for
South County Water Reclamation Facility Expansion in the amount of
$139,241, Contract 00-3171, Project 73949.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Approve changes to Collier County Parks and Recreation
Neighborhood Park and Tot Lot Policy Application and Criteria.
2) Authorization to approve an Extension of an Agreement with the
Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET) in the amount of $35,000
8
June 11, 2002
and permission for Chairman to sign agreement.
3) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
utilization of four assisted living facilities and two home health care
agencies for providing emergency respite for caregivers of elder
clients, in an amount not to exceed $53,106.
4) Approve Summer Food Service Program Grant for Immokalee and
Naples in the amount of $461,900.
5) Approve a license agreement with the Isles of Capri Civic Association
to designate land for a future tennis court on Isles of Capri.
6) This item has been deleted.
7) Review a proposed agreement with the State of Department of
Environmental Protection for Property to be utilized as boat ramp
parking in exchange for maintenance of Shell Island Road.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Award agreements for general contractors services, pursuant to RFP
02-3349, at an estimated annual cost of $1,500,000 to Surety
Construction Co., The Chris-Tel Co., William J. Varian Construction
Co., Inc., Professional Building Systems and Brooks and Freund,
LLC.
2) Award Annual Standardization of Biofilter Odor Control Units
pursuant to RFP #02-3350, in the estimated amount of $400,000.
3) Approval of Budget Amendments for continued security staffing for
the remainder of Fiscal Year 2001-02 in the amount of $59,000.
4) Recommendation to award annual contract for the purchase of
Laboratory Chemicals and Supplies, Bid No. 02-3357, to Fisher
Scientific Company, LLC and VWR International for the estimated
amount of $40,000.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
9
June 11, 2002
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Request authorization for the County Manager and/or the Acting
County Manager to approve Consent and Emergency Agenda Items
during the Board's scheduled recess. (Tom Olliff, County Manager)
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners designate the
Sheriff as the official applicant and program point-of-contact for the
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, accept the Grant when
awarded and approve applicable budget amendments.
2) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners serve as the
local coordinating unit of government in the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement's T.H.U.G.S. (Taking Hoodlums Using Guns
Seriously) Byme Grant Program, approve the Sheriff's Office Grant
Application, accept the Grant, and approve Associated Budget
Amendments.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for
approval of resolution authorizing the Authority to issue multi-family
housing revenue bonds to be used to finance qualifying aPartment
project.
2) Request for funding to pay arbitrator fees and costs in the Lely
Barefoot Beach Guardhouse Case, in the amount of $20,000.
10
June 11, 2002
3) Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Lee County Housing Finance
Authority to issue single-family mortgage revenue bonds to assist
qualified buyers of single family homes in participating counties,
including Collier County, and authorizing the Collier Authority to
enter into an interlocal agreement with the Lee Authority.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Petition CU-00-22, William Hoover, of Hoover Planning and Development,
Inc., representing Yahl Mulching Inc., & Washburn Realty, LLC, requesting
Conditional Use "2" of the "A" Rural Agricultural Zoning District to allow
for the expansion of an existing horticultural mulching facility for property
located on the South side of Washburn Avenue and approximately 2 miles
East of Collier Boulevard (CR-951), in Section 31, Township 49 South,
Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 95-67; also being a
Resolution of Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
adopting Rules and Regulations of the Collier County Airport Authority;
trespasses; carrying concealed weapons or concealed firearms; penalties;
referrals within Collier County Government; authorizing Airport Authority
employees to refer suspected violations for investigation or enforcement to
outside law enforcement agencies; providing for inclusion of this ordinance
into the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for
inclusion of this Ordinance into the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; providing for an
11
June 11, 2002
effective date.
C. Petition CCSL-2002-1-AR-2343, Annis Mitchell Cockney Edwards and
Roehn, representing the Ritz Carlton, requesting a Coastal Construction
Setback Line Variance to construct two (2) gazebos and a storage box for
storage of beach equipment at the Ritz Carlton, Naples "Hotel Site" as
described in O.R. Book 1073 Page 1474 and Annex Park Site as described in
O.R. Book 1181 Page 1660, all located in Section 32, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
12
June 11, 2002
June 11, 2002
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
(Pledge of Allegiance.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, would you please lead us
in the invocation?
(Invocation was given by Mr. Olliff at this time.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. And to start
the meeting off, Commissioner Fiala will not be with us today. She'll
be out because of a family emergency. Mr. Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mudd is going to walk you
through changes on your agenda, and I'm going to try and get with
some petitioners real quickly and see which, if any, additional
changes there may be.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, to address the
change list, first item. Continue Item 10(B) to the 25th of June
meeting, and that had to do with the 5-Year Road Plan and additions
to that. We're going to continue Item 10(E) to the 25th of June
meeting, and that has to do with the Florida Department of
Transportation lease agreement for their facility on Davis, plus the
transfer of some of their employees to us in return for their dollars as
we do their maintenance. It's an efficiency thing, but there are some
things that we have to work out on the lease agreement. One change
that changed, it is on your list. It says, "Move Item 16(C)1." Staff is
asked to continue that until the 25th of June, and at staff request. So
again, we're going to continue Item 16(C)1 to the 25th of June
meeting.
Page 2
June 11, 2002
Continue Item 16(D)1 to the 25th of June, and that had to do
with the Collier County Parks and Recreation, the Neighborhood
Park and Tot Lot Policy application. And there were some concerns
about the plan to make sure that we had all the contingencies in case
the grant money was something less than what we had asked for.
Move Item 16(D)5 to Item 10(H), and that's, "Approve a license
agreement with the Isles of Capri Civic Association to designate land
for a future tennis court on the Isles of Capri." That's Commissioner
Coyle's request. Delete Item 16(G)1 because it's basically redundant.
The resolution basically covers that process.
Move Item 17(A) to Item 8(D) which is a petition from William
Hoover of Hoover Planning and Development representing Yahl
Mulching. That's an area on the other side of the landfill and some
items that Commissioner Coletta had as far as neighborhood policies
and advertisement notices. And lastly, to move Item 17(C) to Item
8(E) which is a petition for some storage sheds and a gazebo -- or two
gazebos and a storage box from the Ritz-Carlton. Again, that's moved
from 17(C) to Item 8(E). Of general note, during County Manager's
communications, Mr. Dunnuck will give the commission an update
on the Special Events Ad Hoc Committee to develop and recommend
community-wide events. He will also give you an update on the
Domestic Animal Services practices relating to dangerous dogs.
That's all I have on our list at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, did you--
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that item that was 17(A) that
moved to 8(D) should actually show up under 7, the Board of Zoning
Appeals. Conditional uses get heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
So that would actually be Item 7(A) on your agenda as opposed to
8(D).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8(C) it was originally?
Page 3
June 11, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: It was on your changed list to be moved to 8(D)
as in "David." It is now going to be Item 7(A) as in "alpha."
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The original number was,
more one time?
MR. OLLIFF: 17(A) will become 7(A).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's start with you,
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For clarification, Item 10(E) to
be continued at the next meeting, the FDOT transportation building.
Wasn't there a companion item on the consent agenda? MR. OLLIFF: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just got that
clarification. So, Commissioner Coletta, I'm okay with the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. When were making the
changes, did we touch on 16(A)67 1 know I made some questions to
staff about it, and I'm not too sure if we pulled that yet or not. It has
to do with excavations.
MR. MUDD: No, sir, we didn't pull that one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to have that one pulled,
please.
MR. MUDD: And that would go to Item 10(I).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything for
us that we should be aware of?.
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle
first and then we'll go to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to verify two items --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
Page 4
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to make sure. 16(C) -- Sorry.
16D(1) was pulled; right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make sure of that,
and 16D(5)?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. That's it.
MR. MUDD: I want to go -- You said 16(B)1 ?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: D as in "David."
MR. MUDD: That's been pulled.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16(D)57 1 don't see that.
MR. OLLIFF: D as in "David" 5 was moved to 10(H) from our
regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything for
us?
MR. WEIGEL: No. No, changes. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval of the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion for approval from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Henning. All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye. The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMZSSTONERS' MEE'I'ZNG
3une 11, 2002
CONTZNUE 1'1'EM 10(B) TO 5/25/02 BCC MEETING: Presentation of the
revised Transportation 5-Year Road Plan and request the approval of an
additional Senior Project Manager position to the Transportation Engineering
and Construction Management Department, Fiscal Year 03, Cost $85,300.
(Commissioner Coyle request.)
CONT:[NUE 1'rEM 10(E} TO 6/25/02 BCC MEE'r/NG: Request that the Board
enter into a fifty-year lease agreement with the State of Florida for the use of
the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) maintenance facility on
Davis Boulevard for the purpose of transferring all Collier County Road and
Bridge, Landscape and Roadway Drainage Maintenance Operations from the
County Barn Road facility and to request the Board enter into an :[nterlocal
Agreement for Asset Management with the FDOT for maintenance of all FDOT
roadway within Collier County for an annual reimbursement of approximately
$1,396,000 for services rendered. (Staff request.)
MOVE TI'EM 16¢C}1 TO 10(G}: Authorize amendment to Camp Dresser and
McKee, :[nc., Golden Gate Wellfield Reliability :[mprovements Design Contract
in the amount of $20,000. (Commissioner Carter request.)
CONTZNUE :ITEM 15(D)1 TO 6/25/02 BCC MEETZNG: Approve changes to
Collier County Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Park and Tot Lot Policy
Application and Criteria. (Commissioner Coyle request.)
MOVE 16(D}5 TO 10(H}: Approve a license agreement with the :[sles of Capri
Civic Association to designate land for a future tennis court on :[sles of Capri.
(Commissioner Coyle request.)
DELETE ZTEM 1~((~)1: Request authorization for the County Manager and/or
the Acting County Manager to approve Consent and Emergency Agenda items
during the Board's scheduled recess. (Staff request.)
MOVE 1'rEM 17(A} TO 8(_D}: Petition CU-00-22, William Hoover, of Hoover
Planning and Development, :[nc., representing Yahl Mulching, :[nc., &
Washburn Realty, LLC, requesting Conditional Use "2" of the "A" Rural
Agricultural Zoning District to allow for the expansion of an existing
horticultural mulching facility for property located on the south side of
Washburn Avenue and approximately 2 miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR-
951), in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Commissioner Coletta request.)
MOVE 1TEM 17(CI TO 8(E!: Petition CCSL-2002-1-AR-2343, Annis Mitchell
Cockney Edwards and Roehn, representing the Ritz Carlton, requesting a
Coastal Construction Setback Line Variance to construct two (2) gazebos and
a storage box for storage of beach equipment at the Ritz Carlton, Naples
"Hotel Site" as described in O.R. Book 1073, Page 1474 and Annex Park Site
as described in O.R. Book 1181, Page 1660, all located in Section 32,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner
Carter and Commissioner Fiala request.)
NOTE: Staff General Communications:
Discussion to develop a Special Events Ad Hoc Committee to develop and
recommend community-wide events. (3ohn Dunnuck, Public Services
Administrator.)
Update of Domestic Animal Services practices relating to dangerous dogs.
(3ohn Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator.)
June 11, 2002
Item #2B&C
MINUTES OF MAY 15, 2002 WORKSHOP MEETING AND MAY
30, 2002 WORKSHOP MEETING- APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval of May 15th
workshop, May 20th workshop.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that with the May
30th workshop.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sorry about that. May 15, May
30, but you have a speaker on the consent agenda?
MS. FILSON: Yes, I have three speakers on the consent that you
just referred.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we'll get to them in just
one second. On the workshops there for approval, we have a motion
by Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Henning. All
those in favor indicate by saying aye. The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
And why don't we go ahead at this point in time and get the
speakers on the consent agenda.
MS. FILSON: The first is Jeffrey Boyd, who would like to
speak on 16(A)1. He will be followed by Brenda Turner. Ms. Turner, if you would like to come up.
MR. BOYD: Hi, my name is Jeffrey Boyd. Thanks for allowing
me to speak today.
My wife and I recently moved into the Palm Springs
subdivision, and we moved there because it was a nice, quiet,
Page 6
June 11, 2002
secluded little neighborhood back there. And recently, I became
aware of this.
I really -- I mean, I don't really know exactly what they're
planning on doing, but I've gotten word that the new Saddlebrook
apartment complex is going to eventually be put behind their other
apartment complex, and they're wanting to do an adjoining road to
our subdivision.
I don't know if this is correct or not, but we just don't want -- We
really don't want the traffic coming through there. I mean, if you put
another apartment complex, we're going to get two or three hundred
more people living back here. And we have a lot of children that live
in the streets. And we just really don't want the high traffic coming
through there.
And if it's not -- If they're not going to be putting a street to
connect to our community, then we would kind of like a private -- if
we could, just try to get a privacy fence or something put up to kind
of keep it just a quiet, little community back there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looking through the ordinance,
I didn't see any changes as far as inner connectivity to any other
community, if somebody can verify that. Maybe we can just leave
that on the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't see him. Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me.
MR. OLLIFF: There is nothing in the ordinance that I can find
either that relates to inner connectivity with the adjoining project, but
what I can do is ask that Cormack, Gibble and/or Denny Baker, who
are the staff people responsible for putting this together, schedule a
Page 7
June 11,2002
meeting with the nearby residents to be able to go through this project
and explain exactly what it is. And if there is a subsequent issue to
this, we would bring this back to your attention on the June 25th
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Does that satisfy you, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brenda Turner. She will also
be speaking on Item 16(A)1, and she will be followed by Don
DeBerry, who will be speaking on 16(B)6.
MS. TURNER: Good morning. I want to thank you for allowing
me to speak. I also live in Palm Springs subdivision. I have been
there for 31 years. It is a quiet neighborhood. (Interruption.)
Sorry. My name is Brenda Turner. I also live in Palms Springs. I
have been there for 31 years. It is a quiet neighborhood. In the
location of where I live, I live directly across from the park. It is a
county park that the county does upkeep.
I am also concerned about Saddlebrook building down by us
facing the interstate. I would like to see a privacy fence. I do not want
to see a road. The part that I'm talking about that I live in front of and
that would adjoin Saddlebrook, we've had problems with them
before.
There's been several arrests out there. There's drug dealing going
on out there. The young teenagers go out there. They do drugs in the
park. There's -- They, put to it bluntly, have sex in the park. You can
see it all times of the day or night.
Page 8
June 11, 2002
The sheriff's department who live on that street, we have the
sheriff's department on speed dial to keep down things like that. The
park is finally beginning to get cleared up, cleaned up. I'd like to see
it that way.
Again, I would like to see no adjoining roads, connecting roads
from one to the other, and I would like to see the privacy wall built
between the two locations. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Don DeBerry. Again, he will
be speaking on Item 16(B)6. Mr. DeBerry?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, he waives. And that is the final
speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Filson.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to modify that
recommendation a little bit, that we actually continue that 16(A)1 as
an item until the June 25th meeting, because if there are some
amendments that you want to make, you won't have the opportunity
once you approve it today. So I'd ask that you continue 16(A) 1 until
June 25th, and we'll sit down with the residents. And if there are
some issues that we need to bring to your attention on the 25th, we'll
do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue 16(A) 1.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion from Commissioner Henning,
a second from Commissioner Coyle. All those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I think
we have one more speaker on the agenda.
Page 9
June 11,2002
Is that correct?
MS. FILSON: No, that was the only speaker. We had someone
sign up for 17(A), but that's been moved to 7(A). So he'll speak at
that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Item #3A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING TED TAWNEY FOR HIS
HEROIC AFFORTS ON JANUARY 25, 2002 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this point, I would like to read an
proclamation recognizing Ted Tawney.
Is Bob Herrington here in the audience?
I believe Mr. Tawney isn't available today.
MR. HERRINGTON: He had a conflict this morning and asked
me to please receive this for him.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. If I may.
"Whereas, on the morning of January 25, 2002, a catastrophic
crash involving 27 vehicles over a half-mile area occurred on a fog-
troddened portion of Alligator Alley; and
Whereas, on that morning, Mr. Ted Tawney, a Collier area
transit driver, began his route from Lorenzo-Walker Institute to
Immokalee via Alligator Alley; and
Whereas, Mr. Tawney suddenly encountered the traffic disaster
that already had claimed three lives, evacuated his passengers to
safety well off the road and with thought only for others used his
flashlight to flag down and warn oncoming traffic of the accident
blocking the roadway. He also checked the passengers of the other
vehicles for injuries and assisted them to safety; and
Page 10
June 11,2002
Whereas, Mr. Tawney's quick thinking and experience as a
Baltimore firefighter undoubtedly helped save lives and reduced the
number of serious injuries during this tragic event.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that Mr. Tawney be
applauded for his heroic efforts and unselfishness in the face of a
major traffic disaster.
Done and ordered this, the 11 th day of June, 2002. Jim Coletta,
Chairman."
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a move for approval from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Henning. All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Hey, Bob, if you'd move up and take that
proclamation from the Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. Take advantage of a photo
opportunity. We're going to have you turn and face the camera.
(Congratulations given.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, Bob, before you go, turn and face
the camera.
MR. MUDD: Bob, you want to turn around and show the
proclamation?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is for your great grandchildren.
MR. HERRINGTON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once more, a little piece of history
tucked away.
Page 11
June 11,2002
Item #4
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS- PRESENTED
We'll go right to the service awards.
And, Commissioner Henning, you are going to be the person
handing them out today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That'll be my pleasure.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, we have five 5-year attendees.
The first is Juanita Paniaqua and for five years from Parks and
Recreation.
The second person to receive an award for five years is Anthony
Verlotti who is in the Building Review and Permitting Department.
The third awardee is Maria Rodriguez from Parks and
Recreation.
Our fourth awardee for 5-year attendance is Donald Blalock
from Information Technology.
And our fifth 5-year awardee is Margaret Bush from Water
Treatment.
We have two 15-year awardees. The first is Ramiro Ponce from
Road and Bridge. And the second is Barbara Pitts from the library.
It's, indeed, a pleasure when you have a 25-year award, and we
are so fortunate today to have Pablo Salinas from Parks and
Recreation, a 25-year award for service to this county. (Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that completes our awardees for
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #5A
Page 12
June 11, 2002
AWARD FOR EXEMPLARY FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR
THE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM- PRESENTED
Okay. Next is a presentation.
Burt Saunders, I believe that you're up now. Senator Saunders.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the commission. This is a great honor for me because I'm
about to present some awards to the county and to a good friend of
mine, Jim Thomas.
Jim, if you'd come up here. Collier County is receiving an award
for the Summer Food Service Program. That program began in 1982,
and Mr. Thomas ran that program and he has continued to run the
program since 1982.
And a few statistics. He has served 1.3 million meals and snacks
to underprivileged children during summer vacation and other
vacation times when school is closed. He has provided a tremendous
service to the less fortunate and is being recognized for that. But
before I get to his award, let me present an award to the county, and I
want to read the award.
It says, "Summer Food Service Program, Region 3, Award of
Exemplary Performance," and it says, "for a large sponsor" -- and Mr.
Thomas certainly is fully capable (applause) and qualified to accept
the award for the large sponsor -- "presented to Collier County
Recreation and Parks for exemplary commitment, dedication and
involvement to the service of providing nutritious meals to the
children of Florida for fiscal year 2001. Presented by the Florida
Department of Education Summer Food Service Program."
So I will present this to the Chairman of the commission, but
this is because of the hard work of Jim Thomas.
Page 13
June 11, 2002
(Applause.)
Item #5B
AWARD TO JIM THOMAS FOR OUTSTANDING SUPPORT OF
THE SUMMER FOOD PROGRAM FOOD AND NUTRITION
SERVICES - PRESENTED
And now the man who really has made the program work. And
the reason that the county has been able to receive this, and what I
consider to be a very significant honor, is Jim Thomas. And this is an
award for him personally. And let me read this.
"Certificate of Appreciation. This is to recognize Jim Thomas,
Collier County Parks and Recreation, for outstanding support of the
Summer Food Service Program, Food and Nutrition Services,
whereby, your efforts to provide food service to the needy children in
your areas when schools are closed for vacation has contributed
significantly to the success of the program. Through dedication,
personal sacrifice and caring, your Summer Food Service Program
has excelled in performance."
Mr. Thomas, when he took over the program, was advised that if
the program ever started losing money, we would have to take money
out of his paycheck and, fortunately, that hasn't happened.
And I've been advised also that Mr. Thomas is going to be
running this program probably for the next 11 years. And so I want to
present this to Mr. Thomas. (Applause.)
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, as a citizen of Collier
County, I want to thank you for everything that you're doing with this
program. One of the things that makes Collier County such a
Page 14
June 11, 2002
wonderful place to be is people helping other people, people helping
the less fortunate. Mr. Thomas exemplifies the type of employee we
have in Collier County. He exemplifies the best in your county
employees. They get direction from the commission. They provide a
tremendous service. I just want to thank you as a resident of Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Thomas?
MR. THOMAS: I'd also like to thank the Board and for
everything that they've done and the support that they've given me the
past 20 years. Even though that comment was made 20 years ago and
it was done in jest, but I always took it to heart and took it serious,
because you never know. So that's why we've always tried to have a
real good program here and feed the kids, and the program has
grown.
The first year, we served 2,000 lunches. Last year, we were
104,000 lunches. So, you know, we're really -- we're getting large. As
the county gets large, this program is getting larger.
But there's a lot of other people who need to be thanked as well.
I mean, it's nice to receive this, you know. I'm just the one would who
gets my neck cut and not my head cut off if something goes wrong.
There's a lot of people underneath me, though, that really sacrificed a
lot, and they've done a lot for the program.
So it takes about a hundred people to run this a year, you know,
for us to get this going. So it's a big program, but it's a lot of fun. I've
enjoyed it. And we'll continue to operate the program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jim, you're a wonderful example of
what can be done by one person. Years ago, when I had my
equipment rental store, Jim approached me and asked me if I could
help him out with his food program. And I didn't know helping him
Page 15
June 11, 2002
out meant donating a tent for the summer, but it was a quite an
experience.
I went down there several times with Jim to see the program in
action, and that was truly amazing what they were doing. Some of the
interesting things was at one point the kids were using the tent for a
big slide, but that was another thing. We certainly had a lot of fun.
And I'll tell you, your work is very much appreciated. And here's
another example of something that's being done for Collier County
with money from the federal and state government, and we're maxing
it out to the very best advantages of our citizens. And you've been
doing a wonderful job, and I know you've done everything possible
to hold this budget down to a zero cost for Collier County residents.
And we thank you very much for that and the people you serve thank
you.
MR. THOMAS: I appreciate it. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
DESIGNATION OF COLLIER COUNTY AS A "STORMREADY
COMMUNITY" FROM THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE-
ACCEPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, I'm not too sure who
reads this next one on a "Stormready Community," the National
Weather Service.
Any information on that, Ms. Filson?
I think-- Here we go. Here's the presenters.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Here they come.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great.
Page 16
June 11, 2002
MR. LASHENE: Good morning, and nice tobe here. I'm Jim
Lashene (phonetic) representing the National Weather Service in
Miami, Florida, and it's my privilege here, today, to present a plaque
that represents the fact that Collier County is now stormready. The
fact is that Collier County is the very first county in South Florida to
receive this recognition, and so we're very happy to be here today to
present this.
It's a testimony to your Emergency Management people here,
Rick Zyvoloski, Ken Pineau and to a colleague who departed us over
a year ago, Gary Arnold, who helped get a lot of the groundwork
ready for this particular type of ceremony and for the type of things
that need to be done for this to happen.
It will have a tangible impact on the residents of Collier County.
It will add to your CRS rating and, therefore, in the future hopefully
reduce your insurance premiums. So it does have that as a tangible
benefit also.
The fact that, you know, you've met these criteria is certainly a
great thing. We're very happy to, you know, have had the opportunity
to work with you and make these things happen to make Collier
County stormready. However, it does not make Collier County
stormproof, just like we're seeing with the terrorist activities
nowadays. We can get ourselves ready for those types of things, but
yet there's no guarantee that this is going to prevent everything from
happening.
But being ready is certainly much better than not being ready.
And so there are a lot things that can happen here that help save lives
in Collier County and also people's property also.
Hurricanes, of course, are the biggest potential threat here in
Southwest Florida. But besides that, there are many other weather-
related things that can happen. We know of the wildfires, tornadoes,
Page 17
June 11, 2002
lightning, extreme heat and a lot of other things that also play a part
in everybody's daily lives. Of course, hurricanes get the big press but,
actually, there are many other factors that do cause a lot of things to
happen and people that get killed and the property be damaged. And
so the better you can be prepared for that, certainly, you know, the
better everybody is here in Collier County.
Just briefly, the recognition criteria here for being stormready,
the first thing is that you must have preparedness, information out
there, do preparedness talks throughout the year. The recognition
criteria is for at least four public safety talks during the year.
In the year 2001, Emergency Management people here in Collier
County did 109 presentations for weather safety during that time. So
they far way exceeded that criteria.
They also needed a 24-hour warning point, an established
emergency operation center, which they certainly have here, very
well staffed.
And there are communication requirements The fact that they
need to be able to get the information from the National Weather
Service before they can put it out to the public.
And there are four ways, minimum, that that is required to be
done, and there are actually eight ways to receive the warnings here
in Collier County. So far, exceeding that standard.
And then there are four ways that we need to make sure that the
public can get the information from the Emergency Management
people here, and you have exceeded that by having seven different
ways of getting the warnings out to the people.
One of the most important ways of getting the warnings out is
the NOAA weather radio program, which is a 24-hour-a-day radio
broadcast from the National Weather Service.
Page 18
June 11, 2002
Gary Arnold was instrumental in putting out-- in getting a
weather radio transmitter here in Collier County that can warn the
people of Collier County against weather, because it also can be used
in other ways. It's actually an all-hazards radio. In case there should
be a terrorist attack, or whatever, that would be immediately
broadcast over the NOAA weather radio to alert everybody in the
area if certain conditions were happening. And so it's a great thing to
have that weather radio program, and Gary was the one who helped
get that started.
So without any further talk here, I'd like to present the plaques to
Mr. Rick Zyvoloski.
Actually, just as a side-bar here, the original program was
started for stormready in parts of Kansas and Oklahoma where they
have a tornado threat, and they have very small communities there.
So the recognition here is actually two street signs, one for the street
going in and one for the street going out. Well, obviously, you have
more than one street in and out of Collier County here, but this is just
a, you know, recognition that you have completed the requirements,
and we're very happy to present this to you now.
This is the plaque and the road sign that we hope can be
replicated here and put at various locations around Collier County
showing that people here in Collier County are, indeed, stormready.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to accept.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from myself, Jim
Coletta, a second from Commissioner Carter. All those in favor
indicate by saying aye.
Thank you very much.
Page 19
June 11,2002
MR. Zyvoloski: Thank you.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And next on the agenda would be
6(A), Public Petition by Vera Fitz-Gerald.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Good morning. I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald from
Naples Park.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Vera, pull the microphone down
towards you a little bit. Thank you.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: My arm's short.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just so we can get your voice across
to everyone.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Okay. I've passed -- I did these up for you
so you could see what I'm talking about, the problem I'm going to
talk about. And if you look in the pictures, there's no maximum that
you can pour a slab at. So if you want to be six feet above your
neighbor, you can do that.
And this problem came to light recently when someone bought
the house next door on a 100-foot lot, 220,000, bulldozed a newly
renovated house, another 15, is throwing up a mega house, about a
half-a-million-dollar house.
Then the trucks started to come in, about 20 or so, with tons and
tons of fill. And the original house was at about the same level as our
home. It might have been slightly higher because there's a slight ridge
there. And that house was the same heighth as the house on the east
side of the lot.
Page 20
June 11, 2002
Now, the newly poured slab was several feet above the level of
our house. It's feet, as you can see, because it was only seven and a
half feet from our lot line, and there's more about that later.
We became -- the angle was almost at 45 degrees down to our
level. And we became very alarmed about the drainage and attempted
to contact someone at Horseshoe Drive. Planning said to speak to
Permitting, and Permitting said to speak to Planning and on and on.
No one actually answers the phone anymore. One must leave a
message and wait for a call back. So I did a sensible thing. I phoned
Ed Perico (phonetic) because he knows the building department
inside out. And he said, "Leave it with me," bless his heart.
And I guess he must have talked to Tom Kuck in Engineering.
And he sent out an engineer who told the builder of this house that
they had to put up a black plastic barrier and then told him how he
had to handle a drainage. And the Engineering Department really
took a lot of abuse from these owners of this house.
It was really a wise move to have put that black plastic up,
because during the recent rains, a lot of that fill has rolled down and
would have been on our lawn.
Now, I found out from Tom Kuck that there is no limit on how
high you can build up a lot to pour a slab. And Tom said this has
become a real problem in Collier, and he gets at least one call a week
like mine.
So it's time we did something about this deficiency in our land
development code. A house should have to be built to the minimum
standard only if the abutting houses are at the minimum or lower. No
one should be allowed to build a house so much higher that it looms
over the neighboring houses. And this house looms.
Now, the second item is when and how where the side yard
setbacks were lots over 80 feet reduced from 15 feet to 7 1/2 half feet
Page 21
June 11, 2002
in Naples Park. This is a mystery. The reasoning for the 15 feet was
to leave a little space for greenery. A 50-foot lot would have a total of
15 feet in side yard setbacks; 7 1/2 on each side. If one combined two
lots, such as my house, and built a house across it, then the last 15
feet had to be added to the sides; thus, preserving the small amount of
green space that exists in our very dense neighborhood.
With only a 7 1/2-foot setback for this place, the way is being
paved for monster houses, 85-feet wide, which is what has happened
right next door to me. I got this -- oh! And who did this to Naples
Park and why?
This type of construction would never happen in a PUD or a
newer subdivision with deed restrictions. Their green space is
preserved and they have their own set of rules about setbacks and the
result is leaving space between houses. We had this until Ron Nino
(phonetic) made it his business to change it. Why and who
benefitted?
I ran into Ron a couple of years ago, and he said, au passons,
that he was working on standardizing lot setbacks in the county. I
thought this was rather odd because neighborhoods are so diverse.
One can hardly have the same setbacks in Pine Ridge as in
Willoughby Acres or in Golden Gate Estates. So why did he do this?
Did it come before the Board and did you vote on it? Did the County
Commission vote on it? Why wasn't Naples Park consulted?
This is very detrimental to our community. So I'm here today to
ask you to restore our setbacks and help us keep some green space.
This is one item that we will likely address in our community
character study, but that will be at least a year away.
We were supposed to come before the Board with this study
back in March, but now it's mid-June and we aren't here yet. So,
please, I beg of you, direct your staff to restore that 15-foot setback in
Page 22
June 11, 2002
the interim. It won't help me because the damage has been done, but
at least maybe no one else will suffer this terrible reduction in the
value of their property.
We had hoped to be ahead of the curve with our plan, and we
should have asked for a moratorium. The bulldozing has begun and
the monster houses have started to replace our once affordable
ordinary homes, which is what Naples Park was all about, the place
where a deputy sheriff could buy or a school teacher could buy. But
this is way out of line now.
You'll notice in Item 3 that the houses in the photo, and this is
the third problem, are being built with a rear lot line of only 10 feet. I
don't know who made this decision or why, but I picked up a copy of
the setback requirements from the planner at Horseshoe Drive. And it
said improvements, including accessory structures, have to be set
back 25 feet from the rear lot line. So why were these houses
permitted with only a 1 O-foot setback? The houses almost cover the
entire lot. They really do. It's not very nice.
So number 4, which there is no photos, the answer to the above
may be that they are mostly being built on comer lots. So the
question is: Why are the comer lots given so many more privileges
than regular lots? It's ridiculous.
While these houses in the photos are fairly nice, comer-lot
owners can park a large RV in plain sight, as well as a boat, but
nobody else can do this. And it's really: What fractured reasoning
gave rise to this inequity?
The problem -- It's a problem for Code Enforcement, because
people drive by and see these big RV's on comers. They see boats
parked all over the place, and they think that this is okay throughout
the rest of the community or the neighborhood. So it is a problem for
Page 23
June 11, 2002
Code Enforcement, and it's something I would like to see changed, so
would a few comer lot owners.
Now -- and when you get to item 5, that's the neighbor behind
me. And did you know that this county does not have a noxious weed
ordinance? Nothing. I didn't. And when the property behind us
became a weed-infested mess with poison ivy spilling over into our
yard and torpedo grass tunneling in, it's goes down 18 inches at least,
and all sorts of noxious weeds, I called Code Enforcement.
And this is when I found out that unless the weeds were at least
18 inches high, there was nothing that could be done, and I couldn't
believe it. You can grow a whole yard full of ragweed and/or poison
ivy, but as long as you go out and trim it to 17 and 11/12ths inches,
it's perfectly legal.
We need a noxious weed ordinance. The thing is that when
someone builds a house on a property, the code requires that they go
out and they have to clean all the exotics off it. But there's nothing
that says you have to keep the exotics off it. And as soon as it's
improved, they can grow right back. And you'll notice that there's a
lot of Brazilian peppers growing on this yard. Well, fortunately, Code
Enforcement did manage to tell them to clean the place up. We really
need to correct that.
And item 6, well, you can see what happened. The bottom
picture was a beautiful oak tree. This is early spring where it has just
lost its leaves, so you don't get the effect of a canopy.
I didn't plant this tree. This was a gift from mother nature. It was
there -- it's probably 50 years old. It was there when we arrived 27
years ago. It had a nice canopy at that time. It sits close to the lot line,
and it's just been always full of birds.
Page 24
June 11, 2002
Well, I don't know what I did to anger the gods that they sent me
a neighbor from hell. The first thing he did was, he said, "The tree's
got to go.
And I said, "Why would anybody cut down a live oak? This is a
fabulous tree."
Well, he hacked at it and he hacked at it and he hacked at it, and
you can see what happened. That's all that's left of that beautiful
shade tree. I could cry talking about it. But we don't have any tree
preservation laws here, nothing that says you can't hack down a
native, that you have to get a permit.
And we had an English friend staying with us at the time, and
she said that in her City of Salisbury, if she wanted to trim a tree, she
would first have to go to the local government and find out if it was a
preservation order on the tree. And if there was, they would tell her
how much she could cut or couldn't cut. She would have to pay for a
permit.
I think this is a very good idea. The cost of the permit would pay
for the horticulturist who would have to come out and say this is what
you can do or this is what you can't do.
This exists in many places. For instance, some friends of ours
from Washington have a lovely -- Oh, I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead and wrap it up.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Okay. Well, anyway, they have this
gorgeous house sitting up on a hill but there's trees all around it. They
can't see Lake Ontario. When I said, "Why don't you trim these
trees?" They said, "Can't. There's a law against cutting trees in the
Province of Ontario." And I think if you tried to cut down a Royal
Palm along McGregor Boulevard in Lee County, you might find out
that you were in trouble.
Page 25
June 11, 2002
So I'm wondering if you could, please, look into having tree
preservation. You wouldn't want to see that big oak outside of Sam's
hacked down because it obscured Sam's, and that's a possibility, but
not if there was a tree preservation.
So these are the items I brought before you because I, as one
citizen in this county, have encountered all of these things in two
months.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we thank you very much for an
excellent presentation.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Vera, do you represent yourself
today or is it the civic association?
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Basically, I'm representing myself, but
some of these items were property owners of Naples Park. Like the
comer lot treatment is for the property owners of Naples Park.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going through your
study. Where are you at with the redevelopment?
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Nowhere. It hasn't co forward yet. I know
the Planning Department is thin on the ground, and I understand that
they're really overloaded because they're short of planners. But here it
is June, and we had hoped that we would maybe be here today, but
we're not. And we were originally going to be here in mid-March,
and so we've got at least another year ago to go. And I hate to see
these setbacks continue at 7 1/2 feet for a 100-foot lot. That's
ridiculous.
Page 26
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understood. And I heard that,
but have you been convening at all, the neighbors getting together to
kind of have a development plan for Naples Park?
MS. FITZ-GERALD: We talk about it a lot, but we have to wait
until Dover Cole and Amy Taylor get the presentation finished so we
can bring it to the Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there's no meetings that were
done to say, okay, this is what we want to have it look like and --
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Oh, we've had lots of discussions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: And a lot of-- Many of these things are
going to be addressed, the setbacks, the comer lots and all this sort --
and boats and RVs. This is going to be discussed and probably would
be included in our overlay, but we've got a year from now for this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I ask, is it possible to
address the setbacks, because what Dover Cole recommended for
Naples Park, they had zero line setbacks in some cases.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Not from the residents, it didn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: They must have been talking about
putting some town houses in certain locations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: And that may happen. But I'm just here
today to ask you to sort of put a stop to this 7 1/2-foot -- 85-feet
houses with a 7 1/2-foot setback.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what you're asking is that -
- I mean, we have to do that county-wide, unless you want to create a
deed restriction for Naples Park.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: But we had 15 feet, and I don't know how
it got changed or when. We were never told. And this was just within
Page 27
June 11, 2002
the last two or three years ago that this happened, and we weren't
even aware of it. And, believe me, we keep our ears to the ground.
We watch that Planning Department like hawks because they're
always pulling things off on Naples Park, and so we have to keep our
eyes on them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Vera, I have known you for a
long time. I understand your passion for the park, and I recognize
your concerns. I think a lot -- And you have said it. Commissioner
Henning is saying it. It will be addressed through your community
plan. That's where you can effect the changes particularly for your
neighborhood. And a land development code is applied county-wide,
as you know and I know.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: When it was changed, whatever
the reasons were, it did not single out Naples Park to say we want to
make it more difficult for Naples Park. But whatever the rationale, it
was reduced.
Some of the issues that you're raising need to be clarified, and I
would ask the Board and staff to look at the setbacks and how it
applies and give you assistance, I'm sure, through the planning as you
develop your plan for Naples Park.
Like you, I am greatly concerned about tree preservation. There
are people who do have no respect for trees. They would kill them
just because they don't like that they shed leaves, which is probably a
normal process for mother nature. That, I think, can be addressed at
least through your own community plan. If I had my way personally,
I would be an advocate that you can't cut down nature's real trees.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Go for it.
Page 28
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think I'm running out of time,
Vera.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But I think all of these things that
you addressed this morning are appreciated by this Board. We'll work
along, as I know the other commissioners will work to get this plan
moving as fast as we can for the park.
And the issues you raised are very legitimate. Particularly, I
know there has to be a certain height before you can pour a slab
because of flood elevation.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I was not aware that you could
bring this up further at your discretion. That's an interesting one but
perhaps that will get to the whole heighth limitation on a home in the
park, which can be addressed by your --
MS. FITZ-GERALD: That isn't just in the park, a problem. Tom
Kuck says it's a problem all over the county now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then, you know, that may be
addressed county-wide, but at least you can address it in your own
community.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have a couple of questions of
staff. First, do we know when these setbacks were changed and by
whom? Was it the commission making -- the commission made a
change?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development Environmental Services.
Page 29
June 11, 2002
Commissioner, I do not have a date. The setbacks in the county
have been 7 1/2 for quite a while. That's the setbacks in-between
single-family homes.
Multifamily homes are 10 feet. And I think that's probably
where some of the confusion is. Actually, duplexes are 10 feet, and
multifamily homes go up to 15 feet in the setback. But setback
through the county is 7 1/2 feet, and it is the minimum. And, of
course, with the value of land, most builders are building to 7 1/2
feet.
The issue with the height, as Commissioner Carter pointed out,
it's 15 inches from the highest elevation on the crown of the road in
order to maintain the FEMA requirements for elevation above the
floodplain or at least somewhat above it. And then they can build the
three-stories in the RMF 6 zoning, but there is no criteria established.
They can go higher than the 15 inches. They can go 36 inches to get
the house up above a threat of any type of tidal surge.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to address that question just
briefly. But before I do that, I recall, we just cited a business for
cutting down some trees.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We must have some kind of tree
ordinance.
MR. SCHMITT: You have to come in and get a permit to even
trim a tree. If you want to do some serious pruning of a tree, you have
to come in and get a permit.
The picture I was just shown is definitely illegal, and we'll have
Code Enforcement check that out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: But that you cannot do, and we'll have our
folks go out and check that.
Page 30
June 11,2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, Vera, I would say one
thing about the building elevation, and I'll tell you why some people
want to build a little higher than the minimum required level, and
that's because FEMA frequently comes in and changes their
floodplain elevations.
And so no one wants to put a lot of money into building a home
and then find out next year FEMA has changed the floodplain
elevation to a foot higher and find their home is not in compliance.
That has a very major impact upon insurance rates and, in fact, resale
value.
So there would have to be some kind of opportunity for
flexibility there, and I think there's good reason for that. All of the
problems you're addressing have been faced by the City of Naples for
some time, and there are things that can be done to mitigate those
kinds of circumstances and particularly with respect to retaining
water on site.
And that tends to keep people from building too high, because if
they do, they have berms that force water off into adjoining property,
and that is illegal. So there are all kinds of restrictions that can be
placed on buildings that give people some flexibility but make sure
they do not adversely impact adjacent property owners. And I would
hope that's one of the things that would come out of the plan for your
neighborhood.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Well, I hope so, too, because this house is
not inches. It's feet. And we're not in a floodplain. Anyway, I thank
you very much.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
Item #7A
Page 31
June 11, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-263 REGARDING PETITION CU-00-22,
BILL HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTING YAHL MULCHING INC., & WASHBURN
REALTY, LLC, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF THE
"A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW
FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING HORTICULTURAL
MULCHING FACILITY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF WASHBURN AVENUE AND
APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(CR-951), IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move on. We're under
7A, which was formerly 17(A). And that's going to require those
people wishing to participate to stand at this time to be sworn in.
MR. MUDD: That has to do with the re-zoning of Yahl
Mulching.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll start with the disclosures.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSION CARTER: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I myself have talked to the petitioner
and staff numerous times on this issue and watched the -- viewed the
tape from the Planning Commission on this issue. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have talked with petitioner on this
issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
Page 32
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to an attorney, Mimi
Woolich, and some guy from Soil and Water District. His name
escapes me right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Ramsey, would it be?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ramsey. Mike Ramsey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mike Ramsey. Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows. This petition is a summary agenda item that
was pulled. It's basically an extension of an existing conditional use
for a mulching facility. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject
site is located on the north side of Alligator Alley and south of
Washburn Avenue.
It's proposing to add 12.92 acres, and the total site area will
become 27.9 acres. It's located in the rural fringe area that's been
designated as the sending area.
However, that has not been adopted yet, so we're operating
under the currently approved Growth Management Plan where this is
a permitted use. And the Planning Commission has reviewed this
item and it's recommended unanimously for approval. And EAC also
has also recommended approval. And I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. I thank you, Mr. Bellows, and
I'm the one that pulled it for reasons that I do have questions, and I
just was not satisfied with the answers I had at that point in time.
One is the sawmill that would be introduced. This is something
new to what the use is out there at this point in time. And what is the
noise level for a sawmill? How far will it go? Will it be disruptive to
people way past the immediate area? Will you be able to hear it miles
away? Is it going to disrupt the wildlife in the area? I mean, this is
supposed to be designated for a receiving area for the rural fringe.
Page 33
June 11,2002
And I kind of question, you know, the intent of what we're
trying to do here. I understand you're -- we have certain rules and
everything but, also, I'm concerned about -- Well, I'll let you take
care of the sawmill. I've got about six different issues I want to go
through.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's a tub grinder, and it's been operating
on the site for at least five or six years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. There's two items. One
is a tub grinder and one is a sawmill. It says that they're going to be
placing a sawmill on there. It's meant as a separate item from what I
can see in the material that's been supplied to me. Can you
categorically state that the tub mill and the sawmill are one and the
same item?
MR. BELLOWS: I think I'll leave that up to the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, it's a tub grinder.
MR. HOOVER: Good morning, Commissioners. Bill Hoover of
Hoover Planning representing the petitioners, Yahl Mulching and
Recycling.
There was an interpretation on this. Susan Murray was actually
the planner on this originally, let's say, about four years ago, when
the first 5-acre parcel came in.
Staff made an interpretation that the closest land use to a
mulching and recycling operation was a sawmill; in essence, that they
acted very similar. So we were instructed to apply for a Conditional
Use Number 2 Sawmill when we initially came in.
And so the tug grinder's been on site and we've expanded that.
They expanded it to the west, 5 acres. But why they were doing that,
there was an abandoned house 5 acres further to the west that they
were buying from Collier County because the people hadn't paid their
Page 34
June 11,2002
taxes. But they had trouble getting the -- they only had a quitclaim
deed. And so their attorney said until the county gets the tax and the
deed issue straightened out, we can't add that petition -- that 5 acres
in. So later on, we came in and added that third piece.
What we're really trying to do on this petition is we're not
adding very much intensity. I think it's 25 percent intensity, but we're
pulling the uses further away from the homes in this area. So we're
taking them to the west where there's a 175-foot cellular tower and
also to the south towards 75.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Hoover, I don't mean to interrupt
you, but I still haven't had my questions answered on the sawmill,
because it mentioned the fact that they're now sending suitable
lumber off site to be turned-- suitable trees off site to be turned into
lumber. Now they're talking about a sawmill. The sawmill is not the
same as the grinder; is that correct?
MR. HOOVER: No, there's not going to be a sawmill operating
on site, just that grinder operation that's already --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then why is there a reference --
MR. HOOVER: -- been there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to the sawmill on site?
MR. HOOVER: Because that's what the staff required us to
apply for the conditional use under--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we can clear this up real quick just
by saying, for the record, there will be not, per se, a sawmill on that
site.
MR. HOOVER: Correct. We still will haul those trees off site
for lumber.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the use of the tub grinder, which
has been there for some period of time with little or no complaint, is
Page 35
June 11, 2002
the only thing that's going to be mechanical and nothing else in
addition to that?
MR. HOOVER: Well, we have an inloader on site, you know, to
move --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's been there. That's been
there.
MR. HOOVER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nothing new is going to be
introduced by this particular expansion? MR. HOOVER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. A couple more questions while
I have you right there. I am curious how the environmental
community and how the crafters, the people that crafted the rural
fringe amendments that are coming before us, how they feel about
that. But I'm going to have to wait until that point in time to see if
they're going to be speaking to us on this.
Another question is the tub grinder. There was reference in there
to the distance that it had to be from the border of 150 feet,
manufacturer's recommendations. And it shows in there that we're
only going for 100 feet. Why the difference in the 50 feet?
MR. BELLOWS: The petitioner has requested the 100 feet. It
was discussed during the Planning Commission that we did have
concerns about safety. And the petitioner originally wanted to go
closer than the 100, but we felt that 100 feet would still be an optimal
safety.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. But what about the
manufacturer's recommendations? Usually when you get
recommendations from a manufacturer, they're assuming certain
liabilities with the recommendations that they make. Why are we
cutting it to 100 feet from 150? Is this thing going to impose another
Page 36
June 11, 2002
landowner that may wish to build closer to that end? Is it going to
impose upon them sometime in the future?
MR. BELLOWS: No. I think during the Planning Commission,
the discussion was that it felt that it was still a safe distance. But staff
would still be supportive if the Board wishes to go back to the 150-
foot setback. I have no problems with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what about the petitioner --
MR. HOOVER: They went to a new type of tub grinder from
the original one that we came in and showed the Planning
Commission four or five years ago. They went to more -- that was a
vertical-type tub grinder where with you loaded stuff in the top, and it
has like a cap on the top so the stuff wouldn't fly out. And I believe
the 150 feet was if you didn't have the cap on there. They went to
more of a horizontal-type grinder that doesn't put the stuff out very
far at all. So the 100 feet is way more than sufficient with the new
state-of-the-art grinder that they have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So the 150 is not the present
recommendations. It was the past recommendations of the
manufacturer?
MR. HOOVER: Yes, for that-- for the earliest one we had on
site.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. A question on the roads going
to the site. Washburn Avenue; is that a county road?
MR. HOOVER: These are all --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Private roads.
MR. HOOVER: These are private roads out there, and the
petitioner, after the first conditional use was approved about, oh, six
months or a year later, he paved all of Washburn, all the way across
and past the single-family home to the east. So after he did that, he
made a lot of good friends. And so that's also helped keep dust and
Page 37
June 11, 2002
stuff like that down. But all he was required to do was to grade the
road once a week to make sure there was sufficient gravel. So that
took care of a lot of problems right there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And, of course, they're
accepting the responsibility for the repair of the road and the upkeep?
MR. HOOVER: Yes. Yeah, he --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Because one of the biggest problems
people have in these rural areas is when they have operations like pit
mines, and the trucks that go across these private roads, they all
collectively take care of them in one form or another, do tremendous
amount of damage. And since their trucks are elevated quite high,
they're not impacted as much by the potholes that they produce as
much as a passenger car would be. So that's always a concern. That's
why I wanted to bring that up and have it on the record where we
were, but they're willing to accept the responsibility for all the
damage that they do.
MR. HOOVER: Right. Now, we're coming into the site more in
this southwest area. So that keeps the trucks from driving clear
around the front where we were before. But I'm sure the petitioners
are happy to maintain the road adjacent to their property, let's say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can they state that to the fact that
they're willing to do that so we can have it on the record?
MR. HOOVER: He's nodding his head yes, so I can put on the
record that they will agree to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I do appreciate it. And
I'm sorry if I seem to be making you jump through the hoops, but this
is something I just couldn't let go by until we had some questions
answered. And we went through all the community meetings that are
required?
Page 38
June 11, 2002
MR. HOOVER: We went through all the meetings that were
required on this. This petition was submitted sometime ago. And they
were doing their environmental permitting while they were doing a
TIS and while the petition was progressing. So it didn't go to EAC till
more recently, but it was unanimously approved.
One of the things that came out was this project does a lot of
good for the county landfill, because if all this junk was going --
debris from trees and stuff was going to the landfill, it would be
filling up a lot quicker than taking it over here and turning it into
mulch that developers can use back on their properties. Plus, they
have a lot of trees, pine trees they take off site to make lumber. So it
really compliments our Growth Management Plan in quite a few
ways.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I understand what you're saying.
I also realize that there's competition for this raw material from
several sources. So it is a business venture that benefits -- MR. HOOVER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- the county in certain ways.
Do we have any speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any questions for the
petitioner at this time?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think you did a good job
of beating that one up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm not sure too sure if that's a
compliment or an insult. But in any case, I appreciate your
comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you should take it as a
compliment.
Page 39
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Please call the speakers.
MS. FILSON: The only speaker we have is John Vasseur.
MR. VASSEUR: Good morning. I'm very glad you did your
homework. I've been living out there with my wife. And we've been
building a tree farm for 18 years, so I know the history. That sawmill
is gone.
Mr. Miller, who lived on a comer, had that sawmill and he built
his own house with it. But before he died, he sold it. And they carried
that zoning business forward because there was nothing on the books
for the chips.
Now, this chipping company, I'm very much against any
expansion they do, because they are a sloppy company. They're not a
very good neighbor. And I don't know if this map shows the fact that
there are four houses right across -- three across the street and one
right next to the chipping company on the west side (indicating).
Mr. Coletta, you said something about, they have a way to sell
their product? Well, it doesn't seem to be. They're moving it. They
have mountains of the stuff there. Then they started dumping it all
over the neighborhood. Anybody that was willing to take some, they
took it.
There is a state right-of-way on the north side of the Alley. They
were dumping it all along the side of there from Smith Road East,
almost up to my farm. We've got 8 1/2 acres right on the Alley, and
we have to drive past that place every day, in and out.
Not only are they messy, the walls have been knocked down.
There's garbage on the streets. And I'm very upset over this idea; they
just added another name to their trucks there. It says something about
recycling.
Page 40
June 11, 2002
That one lot, the new one that they want to take over. And the
lake that they show you up here, the lake had been pretty well filled
in, and they're filling it in. And they said the county sent-- gave them
a letter that you could fill it in because it's illegal. That was dug 19,
20 years ago. I don't even know if you needed permits.
Right now, they have a rock crusher on there, and they've been
using it. They've got a big pile of cement. And they fill in the lake
with broken cement and other junk like that.
Also, there's two or three of these big dumpsters that roll on and
off their trucks full of all kinds of other junk. There's some plastic
that's blowing all over the place. So there's construction trash there.
Now, right on their property -- And the house, by the way, that
they took over for their office when they moved out of Mr. Miller's
house, that was built for a man for gardens and plants and stuff. The
Army Corps of Engineers went after him. And he had to get lawyers
and he had to get federal government help to get away from them.
In '95, we were flooded. We were flooded all the way from
Immokalee Road down to 75. They promised that we'd never flood.
We did. There was 10 inches of water on Washburn.
The west end of Washburn is a lot lower. The east end is where I
live, 1540. That house was completely surrounded with water. He
lost a lot of his plants because of-- trying to build up the same
business. And I took cement blocks and planks and tried to help the
guy. Well, we lasted through one other flood and a freeze. So that's
when he sold.
They've got that house surrounded in the back with dumpsters,
these big ones. Too high. The property there is fenced. The chipping
yard is fenced. And by the way, they move that chipper. It goes all
over the lot. And I live a quarter of a mile away. I can hear it if the
wind is right.
Page 41
June 11, 2002
There is no fencing for where they repair their trucks. Now,
when they're repairing these trucks, they do major rearrangements on
it. So there's spilled hydraulic fluid. They've spilled other fluids.
There's no fencing there.
Now, the kids that go to school -- and remember, this is 42
families, roughly, out there. The kids get their bus stopped in front of
the landfill which, by the way, that's pretty. That landfill is good-
looking as far as us driving along the street, and they maintain it too.
A perfect example of what these people are not doing has been done
by other people.
So these poor kids have to walk around and the kids in the
neighborhood, and here's all this construction, trucks and stuff,
parked in an open field. It's a hazard. I don't want them to move into
the new part.
The whole back of Yahl's property were held back because of
water, flooding. All right. You heard about -- You mentioned this
new stuff. Well, even the landfill is in the new stuff. Can you imagine
the landfill being called wetlands and a habitat for animals? Not--
Yeah, the bald eagles like it.
So one last thing is just to say is that my wife and I are sick and
tired of seeing all this danger and this pollution. And I don't want to
see them get bigger. Maybe if they clean up their act, then I would
agree with them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you just hit on an important
point, and I'd like to have Mr. Bellows come up to the podium again,
please. Thank you very much.
You've heard of these complaints before?
MR. BELLOWS: No, this is the first time I've heard of these
complaints. I just want to make it clear that a currently approved
mulching facility does not permit the grinding of concrete as a
Page 42
June 11, 2002
permitted use. If they are doing that, they are doing that illegally, and
that would be a Code Enforcement case just to prevent that from
occurring in the future.
I have not heard of any previous, even during the EAC review,
of them dumping materials into the lake. That would also have to be
taken through Code Enforcement action.
The only complaint that I had heard originally when the petition
was first submitted was debris. And the petitioner has taken action to
clean up the debris that blew across the street, but I have not been
aware of these other concerns.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So what I understand is we're
going to take something that's really a commercial enterprise and put
it out in the rural fringe area, in the sending area, and say it's okay
just because we haven't got the final plan by a week or so, that we're
imposing upon the neighbors in that area. We have a number of
issues here that we've got to get resolved before we can go on. Do
you want to comment on the cement operation, the crushing of the
cement for the filling of the lake?
MR. HOOVER: Okay. I wasn't aware there was any cement
crushing. If I'm not mistaken, we came in and met -- I believe it was
Stan Chrzanowski on that lake back when -- a year and a half ago or
so when we did the preapplication meeting, and they said that we
could come in and apply for a permit to fill that lake. The petitioner
said they've done that and they got permission to go in and fill that
lake with concrete.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They actually got a physical permit
that could be produced if we wanted to see it for the record and that is
the fact? That is legally permitted?
MR. HOOVER: The petitioner is nodding his head yes, that we
do have a legal permit from Collier County to fill that lake.
Page 43
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you comply with all the
requirements of wetlands?
MR. HOOVER: Right. We currently got environmental resource
permits on the 15 acres previously approved. We've applied for
permits on the last 12.9 acres that we're adding to this.
Mr. Miller, who was growing in this original, like, 10 acres of
this, he was growing plants on there. He filled some stuff in and did
some things that Army Corps is not real happy about.
The petitioners hired Mike Ramsey, an environmentalist, and
they've been working on this for, I'm going to say, 15 or 18 months
on trying to work with our Army Corps. So when you purchase
property, if there's environmental -- if somebody cut down trees or
filled in wetlands illegally, you also are purchasing problems there.
So he's been working on that for, basically, all of 2001 and all of
2002 so far. And Mr. Ramsey is here if you want to talk to him about
that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't at this point.
Did you have any other speakers?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Are there any other questions
of the petitioner?
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hoover, the Yahls have
been in Collier County for a long time and has done several different
businesses, and I know they want to be a good neighbor. From one of
the neighbors, we heard a concern about litter blowing off site.
Would there or could there be any consideration of a possible "adopt
a road" by the company to just police that area off of Washburn?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only problem I have with that,
Commissioner Henning, it's a voluntary program. And I'd rather this
Page 44
June 11, 2002
be understood as a mandatory type of thing where, you know, if
they're going to be doing this as a matter of course as far as picking it
up, and Code Enforcement is going to have to be extremely proactive
to make sure the rights of other people aren't enthrusted upon and we
don't have the right-of-way used for a dumping ground for mulch.
That's my concern.
There were concerns from other people that aren't here today.
I'm not going to push this any farther. The environmental community
hasn't spoken up against it, which kind of surprised me, to be honest
with you. I thought there would be a couple of comments from them.
If they don't have a problem with it, I don't know why I should on the
environmental end, although I question how this is following on the
heels of the rural fringe.
Well, with what I've seen now and the fact that I'm going to tell
the neighbors out there that when it comes to problems, and as far as
Code Enforcement goes, I'm going to be very proactive in making
sure that they tow the letter of the law. I'm going to make a motion
for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval from
Commissioner Coletta, a second from Commissioner Henning. Any
other --
Oh, I'm sorry. I close the public hearing. I caught it. I caught
that, Mr. Weigel, just in time, didn't I -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- without you having to stand up and
say something.
And with that, I make a motion.
Commissioner Henning makes a second.
And is there any other discussion?
Page 45
June 11, 2002
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
Thank you very much.
MR. HOOVER: Could I ask a question? A clarification on --
Commissioner Henning made a comment about the "adopt a road"
and you asked that that be more stringent. Where does that leave us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It wasn't in the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, not to worry about it. Code
Enforcement will take care of it if there's any problems.
MR. HOOVER: Okay. All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #8A
PETITION PUDA-2001-AR-1404, DWIGHT NADEAU, RWA,
1NC., REPRESENTING CONQUEST DEVELOPMENT USA, L.C.,
REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SILVER LAKES PUD
TO ALLOW MODIFICATION TO THE LAND USE
DISTRIBUTION TABLE OF THE PUD- CONTINUED
INDEFINITELY TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS
Okay. Moving long, we're at 8(A).
MR. MUDD: Which is the Silver Lakes PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you need to swear them in?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Swear them in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Would all those people that wish
to participate please stand at this time to be sworn in?
(The oath was administered.)
Page 46
June 11,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And disclosures on the part of the
commissioners, starting with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was here for part of the
Planning Commission when that item came up. I talked to Mr. Pires
and two of the neighbors. I have reviewed the two meetings of the
Planning Commission and the two meetings of the Environmental
Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have talked with the
petitioner as well as members of the -- or owners, property owners in
the area and their lawyers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I met with petitioner and the
property owners and their legal counsel.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have done likewise.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
Planning Services. This is a request for a PUD amendment to the
Silver Lakes PUD, which it sounds like you know is located east of
Collier Boulevard and just north of Fiddlers Creek, south of U.S. 41.
And that is the current configuration of the site (indicating).
The amendment is to allow the PUD Master Plan to be more
consistent with the actual improvements that are on the ground. They
basically consist of changes in the acreages of the tracts. Most of
these changes are not controversial, I guess.
However, there have been discussions between the developer
and the residents of the community over the northern tract, which you
can see here is pretty much empty. It's a commons recreational tract,
and that does allow storage as a use, and that's where the discussions
come in.
Page 47
June 11, 2002
And you can see on the visualizer. This is the commons
recreational tract as it exists in the PUD Master Plan today. This is a
preserve area; two little preserve areas here (indicating).
And this is what's being proposed by the petitioner with
commons recreation being concentrated on the west side towards
Collier Boulevard and the rest of what was commons recreation being
converted into conservation or a preserve area.
The Environmental Advisory Council and the Planning
Commission heard the developer and the petitioner and the citizens of
the community and suggested that the commons recreation area be
moved to the eastern end of this strip. That was also reflected in the
Planning Commission motion.
Staff-- I have Steven Lenberger here if you have any
environmental questions, but staff has no preference either way this
preserve goes.
The petitioner has stated to me yesterday that in the South
Florida Water Management District permitting so far, the District is
showing the permit as this being the commons recreation area on the
western side (indicating).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A couple of questions if I may. At
this point in time where they want to locate is, what, it's about in the
middle -- It's at the end; correct?
MR. REISCHL: At the western side.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what they wish to do is to
relocate there without protest from our economic -- excuse me. Our
environmental committee had no problems with it?
MR. REISCHL: They had no problems with the size, but they
recommended that it be on the eastern end of the property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Closer to the road?
MR. REISCHL: No, farther from the road.
Page 48
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Farther from the road. Okay.
MR. REISCHL: Farther from the road. Here's Collier Boulevard
on this side (indicating). So the petitioner is proposing this be the
commons recreation area. The EAC and the Planning Commission
say that it should be a similar size but on the eastern side.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I understand correctly, the
residents of that area are supporting it to be at that far end. MR. REISCHL: On the eastern side, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I would like to make a motion
at this time and then hold back on the final approval of it until that
time that we've heard everybody through on it. But I'd like to make a
motion for approval to place it down at the far end on the --
MR. REISCHL: The eastern side?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- eastern side, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: In all due respect, Mr. Chairman,
we have to hear from the other side.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I would at least like to get to the
podium before you make your motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I withdraw the motion. I was
just trying to bring up the facts that are evident.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I have a question for staff
because it's one that's unresolved in my mind. South Florida Water
Management District originally permitted the western roadside, if I
can use that. I guess it's going to the west. And the EAC has reversed
itself on this and everybody wants to move it to the east. My question
is: Do you have to go back to the South Florida Water Management
District to get it relocated at the eastern end? And if so, who has to
take it back and who pays for it?
MR. REISCHL: It's my understanding that if the permit was
issued that way, the permit would have to be amended. It would be
Page 49
June 11, 2002
the developer's responsibility to take it back and get that permit
modified.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
What is common recreation? What kind of activities are going to
take place on this?
MR. REISCHL: There are several uses. Among them were
walking trails and recreational uses, but it also included storage, and
that's the concern of the residents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What kind of storage can take
place on this common recreation?
MR. REISCHL: It's storage as an accessory to the travel trailers
but it also included RV storage specifically listed in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Do we have a laundry list
of what can be stored there?
MR. REISCHL: I can get it for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. No further
questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go ahead and hear
from the petitioner.
MR. CUYLER: Good morning, Commissioners. I appreciate the
opportunity to get up to the podium and discuss this matter with you.
For the record, Ken Cuyler. I'm with the law firm of Goodlette,
Coleman and Johnson. My law firm represents the petitioner,
Conquest Development. With me today is Dwight Nadeau of RWA,
Ian Butler of Butler Environmental, Shane Parker of McAnly
Engineering, and one of the co-owners, Ted Bridgett.
Because of your schedule today and because, hopefully, some of
the issues that are going to be raised by the objectors can be answered
Page 50
June 11, 2002
fairly easily, we do not plan in our case in chief of having all of those
people speak, but they will be able for rebuttal should questions arise.
Prior to Mr. Nadeau's presentation of the planning and zoning
aspects, I'd like to just mention a few things to you. First of all, this
petition does not request any additional density or intensity for this
project. The petition does not request any additional permitted or
accessory uses for the project.
It does request the relocation of 38 lots from one area of the
development to another area of the development. It does add 23 acres
of conservation designated land to the project.
Other than the relocation of the 38 lots, the petition does not
request any development in an area where that development is not
already permitted today. And these things will become clear when
Mr. Nadeau goes through his presentation.
I can already sense a feeling on at least one board member's part
that I felt at a couple of the other hearings that we've come across,
and that is that I think some of the issues that are relevant and
important and critical to your zoning and planning decision may be
being mixed up, and in my opinion that's on purpose by the objectors,
with other issues that are not relevant to your zoning and planning
decision.
Now, I'm not going to cite those right now. What I'd like you to
do is to have all the information and then we can discuss that at the
end of presentation and at the end of the objectors' presentation as
well as to what really are relevant facts and what are not relevant
facts.
But I would ask you, as you go through this petition, if you will
look at the items that are raised by the objectors and just say to
yourself: Is that really something that's relevant to my planning and
zoning decision? Then I would appreciate that. And again, I'd like to
Page 51
June 11, 2002
save a little time to talk to you, perhaps, to summarize a little bit after
Mr. Nadeau's presentation and certainly in rebuttal. Thank you,
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Nadeau, before you start,
can I ask you a question?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This information that you just
handed to us, is this the same information that went through the EAC
and the Planning Commission?
MR. NADEAU: All of the information that I've given to you
was reviewed by EAC as well as Planning Commission, except for
the last alternative. The last two pages is another alternative.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you like to go back
through the EAC and the Planning Commission so we can get
recommendations on the alternative to the Board of Commissioners?
MR. NADEAU: I would not like to go back to EAC for this.
We've been in process here for almost two years now, 11-month
permitting with Water Management District, but certainly the Board
has discretion to give us direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And the reason I say
that is the recommendations is very important to me. I'm not sure --
I'm not going to speak for the rest of the Board of Commissioners,
but information like this might be prudent for the recommendations
that those two committees give to the Board of Commissioners.
MR. NADEAU: I understand your point, Commissioner. I will
tell you that both times that the project went before the EAC, there
were unanimous recommendations of approval as well as with the
Planning Commission, both unanimous recommendations of
approval.
Page 52
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you have an alternative that
those two advisory boards hasn't seen.
MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Henning, if I could address that
for just one second. I think that alternative that you're talking about is
more in line with what the EAC and the Planning Commission
recommended. So you may want to -- After Dwight makes his
presentation, you may want to take a look at that in light of those
recommendations that have already occurred, and it may be
something you may be more inclined to. But we understand at the
end of the proceeding, the Board certainly has the discretion to do as
it wishes with regard to that matter.
MR. NADEAU: Good morning, Commissioners For the record,
my name is Dwight Nadeau, RWA. I'm representing the applicant for
Silver Lakes, this PUD Amendment 2001-AR-1404. This is a minor
amendment, Commissioners. This is an amendment that wouldn't be
before you unless one page of the PUD document needed to be
changed to reflect the land use numbers that are on the proposed plan.
What we're proposing to do is to take the -- increase the
conservation area in the project from three acres to 26 acres. We're
proposing to reduce the RV development opportunity by two acres.
As Attorney Cuyler stated, there is no intensity increases or density
increases proposed in this PUD amendment.
If I may, you have the existing plan before you as that page 1
(indicating). And you can see in yellow that the entire area north of
this Deltona settlement line is commons recreation. Commons
recreation land uses can be built in anywhere above that Deltona
settlement agreement line, subject to permitting authority with both
the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
Page 53
June 11, 2002
There has been statements made that the original PUD Master
Plan shows a storage area on the east side, and that is true. That's
shown in a dashed line. But as staff recognizes and the county
recognizes, that a PUD master plan is conceptual in nature and land
uses would only go where they're shown on a plan, on a PUD master
plan, if you can get a permitting authority from those permitting
agencies, being the district and the Corps.
The engineer, McAnly Engineering, submitted an application in
cooperation with Butler Environmental for the proposed lot
movement. The 38 lots on the north here were picked up and moved
from the original plan from this area down in here (indicating).
The two nonjurisdictional conservation tracts had recreational
development constructed within. They were accepted by Collier
County. So it was all under the view of Collier County's permitting
authority.
The infrastructure to support those 38 lots are lying south of the
Deltona settlement agreement line and only the lots themselves fall
above the settlement agreement line. The extent of those 38 lots is
3.37 acres of impact to that "40-acre" parcel and 7 acres of impact for
the storage area that would be identified here. Again, I will reiterate
that the storage could be built anywhere right now. The developer is
entitled to do that subject to permits.
So they went in with their application and there was nothing
showing on the development plan on a portion of that area,
specifically on the west side. The agency came back with a request
for additional information saying, "Well, you can't piecemeal this.
You have to tell us what you're going to build."
Well, at that time the developer had no intention of doing
anything there. But at the bequest of the residents of the park, they
asked for a storage area. So McAnly Engineering was required to put
Page 54
June 11,2002
together a storage area plan. Nothing has been filed with Collier
County related to a storage application. It was to complete a permit
application. And they put the storage unit in this area slightly to the
east.
Through the permitting process over 11 months, the Water
Management District found that the wetland characteristics of that
north 40 acres have a higher wetland value on the west but a higher
functional value for habitat purposes on the east. And it was based on
that that the staff report and the governing board granted a permit for
putting the storage on the west where it would have a greater
continuity with conservation areas that would be coming forward to
you relatively soon. I know there's a petition in for a business park
there, I believe, and there would be a conservation area contiguous
with that.
In order to obtain this Water Management District permit --
which I have a picture, the actual exhibit from the permit. You can
see here from this Exhibit 13A from the staff report that went to the
governing board that this is the area, 3.37 acres for the lots, and this
7-acre tract would be for the storage unit.
You also find here to the north, a -- I believe it's a 50-foot wide
buffer along the north side that the district also imposed on the
permit. And after the permit was issued, it went into administrative
hearings, and we just concluded an administrative hearing process
which Mr. Cuyler can go into.
In an effort to appease or mitigate or ameliorate some of the
concerns of the intervening parties would be an offering to put a 50-
foot buffer, vegetative buffer, along the south side of that 7-acre
storage area, provided we can gain access to it. There's got to be
access across the buffer.
Page 55
June 11, 2002
The Water Management District found it appropriate to make
that a new limiting condition to the permit. So now, already, there's a
50-foot buffer on the south to protect any neighbors or any RV or
residential lot owners from the storage area.
And, understand, that this storage area in no way can be used as
a commercial storage area for anyone outside Silver Lakes itself. The
PUD document is very specific. It says "for the exclusive use of the
residents of the project and may show no visible evidence beyond the
property visible from public roadways." So there's not going to be a
big storage sign saying "storage" and somebody coming off the street
and renting. This is exclusive use for the residents of the park.
In our efforts to try and mitigate, ameliorate or appease the
concerns of the intervening parties, we offered up a scenario wherein
the entire 37 acres would go into conservation. And that would be
your alternative one, wherein your conservation area would go from
3 acres up to 34 acres. That was rejected by the intervenors and the
residents, because there was no storage up there.
In order to get the permit, as I'm showing you here, you have 31
acres of preserve in addition to $130,000 worth of payment for
further impacts to the Panther Island Mitigation Bank.
Of the 160 recreational residents permitted, 144 have been sold,
and there are 16 remaining to be sold. Of the 400 RV lots, 357 have
been sold with 16 remaining to be sold. All but the subject 38 lots, 29
RV lots and 9 residential lots, are yet to be improved. This project is
almost built out.
So we ask you today to take a look at the planning aspects of
this. From a planning perspective, we're doing something good for
the park. The debate is: Where is the storage going to go? The storage
is a desire of the residents of the park.
Page 56
June 11, 2002
My client has spent a great deal of time and a great deal of
money trying to get those 38 lots ready for this coming season, and
then everything will be done.
The district has mandated that the conservation area be located
in the east for very valid reasons, and it's part of their basis of
approval for this permit, which is still under challenge -- there has not
been a ruling come back from the administrative hearing officer--
and that the 7-acre storage be located in the west, subject to all of the
limiting conditions of the permit as well as the newest one for the
additional buffer.
With that Commissioners, I would open myself up for questions.
Oh, there is one important thing to mention, too, that your Executive
Summary, and I quote, "There are no unusual environmental issues
with this PUD amendment."
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions on behalf of the
commissioners?
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any storage on the site
now anywhere?
MR. NADEAU: Actually, there is, Commissioner. Currently on
the site, there's a small area of storage here on the far west, but that's
in an area designated for -- Currently on the master plan, that's in a
designated area that has some RV land uses proposed on it; the
existing Master Plan. So the storage there is really in noncompliance.
They have another small storage area here in the central-easterly
portion of the project, but it actually sits on lands designated for
residential development as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you point that out to me?
MR. NADEAU: Yes. This storage area here in the central
northeast is in the designation where those residential lots are
Page 57
June 11, 2002
supposed to be. So when the developer moves forward with those 38
lots, should we get your approval, that storage area would have to be
removed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Just a clarification. Did
you state that there is going to be no visual from Collier Boulevard?
You mentioned the road.
MR. NADEAU: I can read it to you verbatim. I won't go
through the whole thing, but it's part of the commons recreation area
in the PUD 8915. "Said accessory commercial uses shall be designed
and intended to serve the exclusive trade of the service needs of the
persons residing in the project and shall present no visible evidence
of their commercial character from any portion of any public street or
way outside the project."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what kind of screening are
you proposing to have to screen those, whatever is --
MR. NADEAU: Oh, it'll be a vegetative buffer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How high would it
MR. NADEAU: It would comply with the county standard. No,
actually, it would be a type D buffer because 951 has a wide right-of-
way. So it would have an 80 percent capacity requirement within -- I
believe it's two years -- one or two years of installation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Eighty percent; so we'd only see
20 percent storage; right?
MR. NADEAU: But no visible evidence. So I guess we'd have
to meet the hundred percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Reviewing the first
Planning Commission's minutes, early on, page 29, you stated,
"Actually, the residents and members of the transitional group do not
oppose the concept of what Conquest is applying for." Is that true?
Page 58
June 11, 2002
MR. NADEAU: It is our understanding, and it's been stated in
the record, that the intervening parties do not have any objection to
the land use changes proposed south of the Deltona settlement
agreement line. Including the 38 lots, it would go north of the
settlement agreement line. The only debate is where a commons
recreation/storage area would be located.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they do have some -- they
take issue with--
MR. NADEAU: They take issue with the location of the storage
area; yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the only thing that
we're discussing today; correct?
MR. NADEAU: Well, that's all we're -- Well, we can get into
the issues south of the line, but they're benign to staff and apparently
benign to the intervening parties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So there is some
opposition to what you're asking today and at the Planning
Commission?
MR. NADEAU: There is opposition to what the petition is
before you today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Before we get on to the location
of the storage area and the ruling by the Southwest Florida Water
Management District, and we're right back to that, you could approve
this today. If they get what they want, they've still got to go back to
the district and get an amendment. I mean, I don't know how -- and
maybe I'm seeing it too clearly, but it seems to me that's it at the end
of the day if both of these are benign issues. Other things are benign
issues.
Page 59
June 11,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may interrupt, we're about 20
minutes past what we agreed with the reporter as far as taking a
break. We're going to take a short break and come right back and
pick up from where we are.
MR. NADEAU: Very good.
(A short recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's continue where we left
off, and I appreciate your indulgencing us while we took our short
break.
MR. NADEAU: No worries, Mr. Chairman. I'm fielding
questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let me ask a couple myself, if
I may. And I understand that we have quite a few residents to speak
on this very issue and their concerns. And, of course, we're going to
be listening to them one more time.
Did I understand you correctly that you were willing in the
beginning to keep the total area conservation area, that the residents
in their desperate need for storage said that that wasn't acceptable?
MR. NADEAU: I cannot respond as to the reasons why. I am
only presuming that because the request was rejected.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, one, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead, Commissioner
Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you moved it to your
compromised area, the middle, would that still not necessitate going
back to the Water Management District for review?
MR. NADEAU: Are you speaking of alternative two that I
haven't discussed yet?
Page 60
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Maybe it's alternative 29. I don't
know. Somewhere you showed a picture when we met where you had
one in the middle, roughly.
MR. NADEAU: Yes. That would be in the last page of your
packet, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now, what happens with that?
Does that require also a review by the Water Management District?
MR. NADEAU: It would require a re-review by the Water --
You see, this alternative, which I haven't really entered into the
discussion but it may well enter into our deliberations, or your
deliberations, this would give the opportunity to put it on either side.
It originally was requested to be above the recreation area. It could go
in the east.
It could stay where it's proposed now, as directed by the Water
Management District. And that commons recreation area can be
there, and conservation easements with the district benefiting and
Collier County benefiting can go over the top of those zoning
designations.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So it still requires a review?
MR. NADEAU: It could require a review by the district again,
yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The only party we don't have
here to answer the questions is the district; right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we do have representatives
from the Southwest Florida Water District.
No? Would you care to come up and comment on this? I know
we're taking unfair advantage of you and that you're not totally
prepared but--
MR. NADEAU: She may have to be sworn.
Page 61
June 11, 2002
MS. SENNE: I believe right now we have 5,200 active permits.
So I need just a smidge of information. If it's procedural, I can --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the one in the middle.
MS. SENNE: But I'm happy to help. The one in the middle --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ma'am, could you hold off just
a minute, please?
MS. SENNE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going to have to be
sworn in. You're going to have to state your name for the record.
MS. SENNE: Yes, sir. My name is Carol Senne. I'm the director
of the Southwest Regional office for the South Florida Water
Management District. And your question is?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you look at the property, there's
a whole strip to the north. In the original 1991 review by your
agency, it is my understanding that the parcel to the west side which
borders 951, or Collier Boulevard, was approved. The discussion has
been taking place because the homeowners would like to move it to
the east side or perhaps, as Mr. Nadeau has presented, perhaps in the
middle.
My question still is: If you only approved it in one area, it has to
come back for review by your agency before it's approved, again, no
matter what we decide here this morning, unless we go with the one
that's up on the west end.
MS. SENNE: This was approved in 1991 with a surface water
permit?
MR. NADEAU: No, no, no. This ERP was just approved.
MS. SENNE: Okay. This is a new ERP.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
Page 62
June 11, 2002
MS. SENNE: What's the permit from 19917 That would not
have been an ERP. We didn't have ERP.
MR. NADEAU: Excuse me. For the subdivision-- again this is
Dwight Nadeau of RWA -- the 1991 permit was strictly water
management south of the Deltona settlement agreement line. So there
was no proposed development shown on the north side. So that's the
original permit. So it was just a Water Management review, not an
Environmental review.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
MS. SENNE: So it was just for stormwater, a surface water
management system. That would have been just a stormwater permit
back in 1991. So is your question the -- I believe there is an existing
permit on the site plan as shown on your screen. It is your question: If
there is a modification, does it have to go through an entire new
environmental resource permit? Is that your question?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Does it have to go through a
review?
MS. SENNE: It depends on what the changes are. If they're
minor to the wetland impacts and the surface water management
system, we can handle changes of that nature through a letter
modification which is handled by the staff in the service center.
If there are minor alterations that don't impact any wetlands or
any surface water permits, it would depend on whether or not you
need a modification.
We're mostly concerned with the stormwater, the conveyance
systems, the wetland impacts, the mitigation, not necessarily the size
of the lots and things like that. We're impervious services. I may have
confused you more.
MR. OLLIFF: No. Actually, and as you indicated earlier in this
hearing, regardless of that change, it's going to have to go back
Page 63
June 11, 2002
through South Florida Water Management District for a blessing of
one form or another, whether it's administrative or a full permit heard
by the governing board. So in any case, the water management issues
will be resolved back to the permitting agency which does that, not
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And there is a cost associated?
MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we know how much that is,
roughly?
MS. SENNE: Depending upon the extent of the changes,
engineering fees would be needed and then the cost of the permit.
And it depends on the extent, how extensive the changes are.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MS. SENNE: Sure.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, if there's no further questions for
Mr. Nadeau, I would just like to make a few points, and then you can
go to the other side.
First of all, our environmentalist tells us that this will be a major
modification. This is not a minor modification. We're moving this
entire area of development. It's going to go through an entire review
process again.
I would like to point out, your environmental staff recommended
approval, and Steve is here if there's any questions with regard to
that. Your planning staff recommended approval of this petition. The
storage that is on site is strictly temporary at this point. If there are
any comments to the contrary, then we'll have some testimony to the
fact that that storage is temporary and that the residents do want
additional storage.
Page 64
June 11, 2002
The real question here is after the developer went in to the Water
Management District Board and they indicated to him, which is a
matter of record, that they wanted to see the storage area on the
western side where it's is shown on the placard, whether the residents
-- and when I say the residents -- and Commissioner Coletta indicated
there are a number of people here.
I think they are the same two people here that have fought this
from the very beginning. But whether the residents can force the
developer to place the storage where they want it placed instead of
allowing the developer to put the storage where he thinks it should be
placed and, frankly, where he's been told by the Water Management
District that it should be placed.
Water Management District looked at environmental and habitat
and water quantity and water quality. The question is whether this
commission is going to force the developer to go back through that
entire process with a major modification, spend the time and money,
which is going to be probably worse than the first time. Because
when the Water Management District says this is where we think it
ought to be and the developer says, fine, I'll cooperate and that and go
through your process, and then the developer goes back and says,
well, the county won't let me do it there, I want to do it in a place
where you didn't want me to do it, it's going to be increased
mitigation costs and it's going to be a tougher process than it was the
first time.
So I think it boils down to a fairly simple issue. If there are some
planning considerations you need to take into account from the
objectors, then by all means, do that. But again, I would ask you:
How do their issues, how do their questions relate to the planning and
zoning decision that's in front of you today? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Cuyler?
Page 65
June 11, 2002
MR. CUYLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You say there's only two
residents here to speak against this?
MR. CUYLER: I believe -- The only ones I've seen are Mr.
Belanger and Mr. Strauss, who are the petitioners in the appeal of the
Water Management District, who were at the EAC, who were at the
CCPC and have continually opposed the developer's attempts to place
this on the western side. And I saw Mr. Strauss's wife. Maybe there
are more people here. I didn't see anyone else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But it's your
understanding that the majority of the people in the park are very
happy with what you're doing; is that your understanding?
MR. CUYLER: It's my understanding that -- And again, it's
going to have to be my feelings as opposed to, you know, anything
scientific. My understanding and my feelings are that the majority of
the residents want storage. The majority of the residents are going to
be extremely unhappy if there is not storage on this property.
And the developer's opinion is that unless there's some excellent
planning reasons why he should spend all of the money he spent all
over again, why he should provide storage at all.
And I think that if it occurs that he's not willing to make the
business decision to expend all those funds -- And let me make it
clear. I'm not -- This is not a threat or anything else. This is going to
be a business decision on the part of the developer as to whether he
can handle this if the board says we're not going to let you do it in the
west, we want you to put it over in the east, whether he's going to
have time, money and patience after a year of having to go back
through this whole process again and put storage in for the residents.
I mean, he may just say it's not worth it to me, I'm tired of
fighting, you know, I just don't want to do it. In my opinion, under
Page 66
June 11, 2002
those circumstances, you're going to have a lot of unhappy residents
and you're going to have two happy residents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner -- or, Mr.
Cuyler. I'm sorry.
MR. CUYLER: That's -- No offense taken whatsoever.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somebody has to do the job.
Sorry, lme rephrase it. Do you think the majority of the residents
in the park are happy with what is being proposed today as the
storage close to Collier Boulevard, and that's the reason they're not
here is because they're happy with that, in your opinion?
MR. CUYLER: It's kind of like voting for a tax. If you don't like
it, you tend to come out. And if you do like it, you tend to not make
the effort.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. You answered my
question. Thanks.
MR. CUYLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Brilliant answer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that the end of your presentation?
MR. CUYLER: We want time to rebut, and we do have some
statistics for you which I would like to, in rebuttal, present to you, but
we may have to have the owner indicate to you what the feelings of
the residents are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Cuyler, thank you very
much.
We'll go to the speakers at this point.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Anthony Pires.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: Six. And he will be followed by Jerry Strauss.
Mr. Strauss, if you would like to come up and stand on board.
Page 67
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pires, I hope you don't plan to
read from every one of those books to us.
MR. PIRES: No, sir. They're my booster seats so I can see over
the podium. I wasn't sworn in, so at the time I may have stepped out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you please.
(The oath was administered.)
MR. PIRES: Members of the Board, thank you for the
opportunity. And, Commissioner, I have these for reference but will
not be reading from all these documents.
My name is Anthony Pires. I represent a number of individuals
who are representing the property owners within Silver Lakes. What I
find, quite frankly, disingenuous is the argument that they're happy;
that's why they're not here.
I would ask the Chairman and the Council and the Commission
for an extended period of time other than five minutes. There are
number of issues that have been raised by this Board by the
presentation or lack of presentation, as well as, this particular issue is
more complex than the petitioner wishes to have it stated.
The reason why I say it's disingenuous, this item was scheduled
for consideration before this Board in January of this year. The
petitioner asked for no good reason to have it withdrawn and
continued indefinitely.
The petitioner by way of a memo to your planning staff, no
communication to the community, knowing that I was involved,
knowing two other attorneys were involved, never notified of this.
Fortunately, Fred Reischl in mid-May said, "Tony, they're asking that
this item be placed on June 11 th."
The people are not here. At the Planning Commission, 50 to 70
showed up because they were in town. It's now June. They are not in
town. And so any argument that it's disingenuous that the people are
Page 68
June 11, 2002
not here because they're happy is completely wrong and inaccurate.
And Mr. Belanger, who is one of the residents, will attest to that
during his presentation.
And Mr. Nadeau keeps calling these people intervenors. They
live in the park. They need, and they will be living with the legacy of
the decision made today.
The developer is out of there soon. You heard Dwight Nadeau
say that; 490 lots were sold. Very little is left. Whatever happens is
going to be left to the residents after that developer leaves, and he, in
my opinion, will do what's best for him, not for the members of the
park.
The two people, Joe Belanger and Jerry Strauss, who were
nominated as part of this ad hoc transition group, know what the
community wants, and they want the storage facility on the eastern
portion of this property, no ifs, ands, ors or buts about it.
Your Planning Commission heard that recommended
unanimously, 8 to 0, that the storage be, from planning purposes and
environmental reasons, be on the eastern portion. Like Mark Strange
said -- Commissioner Strange said, "Good planning does not put
storage areas at the entrance to a community." Good planning puts
storage in the back where you don't have the traffic issues that can
arise.
One of the issues is the location (indicating). There's a driveway
entrance here before the guardhouse, as currently planned. This is the
existing approved South Florida Water Management District permit
description. They show a driveway before the gatehouse. And you
may hear some of the residents testify about how difficult that it
would be to maneuver RVs and park models and backing up traffic
onto 951.
Page 69
June 11, 2002
The area in the east already has a paved road going to it, a paved
road that is in jurisdictional wetlands, and I have the graphics for that.
Mr. Nadeau said that nothing north of the Deltona settlement line had
been improved.
I would like to show you on the visualizer a graphic prepared by
the engineer. And I believe I've provided a copy to all the board
members of this particular graphic that's a survey prepared by
McAnly Engineering, December '01, after we brought to South
Florida Water Management District's attention the fact that there
were activities in the jurisdictional wetlands without permits, not
after Mr. Butler or Mr. Nadeau or anyone else for the consultant did.
The community had to do that.
This graphic is in the eastern portion where the proposed 38 lots
are to be located. This line is the Deltona settlement line. This
crosshatching here denotes disturbed area north of Deltona settlement
line, 1.65 acres. And also, interestingly enough, there's a county lift
station in that area. So there has been -- And there's a paved road
going into that area.
A deposition of Mr. Ted Bridgett, who was one of the principals,
said they planned on putting the storage. That's why they had that
paved road going in there.
I would like to make and I will make part of the record the
deposition of Mr. Bridgett, whose deposition was taken in this
particular case.
The developer today has come up with an alternate that he says
is something that they would propose. Number one, what I find also
disingenuous, we began appearing before the various boards in
November. We went to South Florida in November. Since between
November and today, the developer has not been willing to agree to a
Page 70
June 11, 2002
resolution of this matter by having the community and the developer
go hand and hand to South Florida and say --
(Interruption.)
Mr. Chairman, if I may with your indulgence?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue.
MR. PIRES: Thank you. I'll try -- One thing, I'll try to take up
another five minutes, if I may, but there are a number of issues here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I'll allow you five more
minutes because of the number of people you represent.
MR. PIRES: Thank you. And there are a number of complicated
issues involved in this. There was never any opportunity or
willingness to go to the district by the developer to go to the east.
They've had seven months to do that. We could have even, as part of
that administrative hearing, stipulated to it, gone through the details,
gone to the governing board and had this worked out in a relatively
short period of time. That's my position. That's my opinion. That's my
contention on this particular issue.
In this particular area, look at Planning Commission and what
the EAC recommended unanimously. They heard the community
since they were able to be here. And it's unfortunate that
Commissioner Fiala, whose district this is in, cannot be here today.
We would ask that this item not be heard until such time as the
community is back here so they can show up to counter what the
developer is contending is the position of the community and also
that Commissioner Fiala may hear this.
But if the Board decides to go ahead, this is what was
recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission and by your
Environmental Advisory Council, that the conservation tract be
increased. In fact, you get 4 more acres of conservation over what the
Page 71
June 11,2002
petitioner is proposing. You've got a storage of 3 acres be in the
eastern portion. You have a paved road that surfaces.
You don't have the intrusion into the community. You don't have
existing home sites that will be impacted by a storage area. You have
all the positive attributes. And the community is willing to go to the
district with that and it has been willing for the last seven or eight
months.
As far as any plans that were submitted to South Florida for
showing storage in this area, the developer's first plans -- and I would
have been terrified if I was South Florida also, quite frankly, because
the first plan the developer showed, which I saw for the first time at
the Planning Commission in December, had about 88,000 square feet
of building area, about 100 parking spaces and about 16 acres of
impact for the wetlands, both on the east and on the west.
And that's the plan that the developer will tell you the district
didn't like and made them go to the west. Get rid of this 2.5 in the
east. You have the lots here, and pare that down.
I call that the straw man and the red herring plan, because there
is no basis for it. In fact, the developer in his deposition was asked
whether or not they performed a survey for parking and storage
needs. The answer was no. They said it was based upon their
experience.
But the community will tell you, the community has told you in
the transcripts from the Planning Commission, the transcripts from
the EAC, that 3 acres in the east will satisfy their storage needs.
The question was raised on the alternate proposed by the
developer to have the whole 40 acres as conservation. That was an
effort, we believe, to just try to scare the community because the
community does need some storage, not the 7 acres. They need three.
Page 72
June 11, 2002
So to have a conservation easement over the whole 40 acres
would not do justice to the community. And, once again, we perceive
that as a threat by the developers.
As to quality of wetlands, even the environmental resource
permit persons for South Florida, although we disagree with their
ultimate findings, stated that the lowest quality wetlands is in the
east. And I would like to introduce his -- make part of the record his
deposition in this particular matter.
Now, as I said, I have copies I've provided previously to the
Board members of the EAC and the two CCPC hearings, which I'll
make part of the record in this matter, where this information was
heard, the biology was heard, and the planning concepts were heard
as to it being bad planning to have the storage area in the west.
The EAC and the CCPC and the community plan, they endorsed
the PUD change. That increases by 4 acres the amount of
conservation area by putting the conservation area -- I mean, the
storage area in the east, 3 acres. It provides an adequate storage area
in the location originally delineated on the PUD Master Plan. It
provides an adequate storage area with the least impact on the
community visually, operationally and compatibly. Those are
environmental and planning consideration, and it's just good
planning.
The original master plan has on the PUD, with regards to the
tract in the north, it says "storage area" in the northeastern comer.
That is the only portion of that PUD Master Plan that references
"storage" even though the text may reference it can be without the
whole CR tract.
As far as the developer's representations and record with
compliance, one of the reasons why we're here is the developer
engaged in activities in preserve and contrary to the PUD.
Page 73
June 11,2002
The developer has by his own admissions engaged in activities
in areas north of the Deltona settlement line, including the lots,
contrary to the PUD, contrary to the permitting requirements of the
agencies.
Several things have been done by the developer that don't match
what's on the ground. Once again, I would like to, before I finish,
make sure I have all these items in the record, and I'll hand them to
your manager. And we encourage this Board, request this Board to
approve this petition with the modification that the storage area be in
the eastern portion, as originally indicated on the PUD Master Plans,
and that it be 3 acres in size. That's the recommendation by your
Planning Commission. That's the recommendation by your EAC if
you all decide to go forward with this matter today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Pires. A question
from Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pires?
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it your understanding that the
residents are going to own the storage lot after it's handed over to the
homeowners association?
MR. PIRES: That's correct. In fact, Mr. Murrell, Bob Murrell of
Samouce, Murrell & Franceur, an attorney representing the property
owners in litigation currently pending against the developer, where
there's litigation about who controls the master association and
whether or not the title to this property should, in fact, be in the
master association that is the community right now.
The contention is that this property, which is the subject matter
of this application, should not even be controlled by the developer at
the present time. And once again, that's who will be left with the
Page 74
June 11, 2002
legacy of whatever happens today: The community. The developer
won't be around.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two more questions, please.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The site development plan that
you put up on the board, whose site development plan is that? Who
drew it up?
MR. PIRES: This is a concept by McAnly Design and
Engineering.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that for the owner of the
property?
MR. PIRES: That's for Conquest Development. That's who
Dwight Nadeau used to work for. That's who Shane Parker, their
engineer who Mr. Cuyler references as one of the consultants he
works for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So would you please point out
the access to the storage area for me?
MR. PIRES: On this conceptual plan, it's before the guardhouse.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's before the guardhouse?
MR. PIRES: Yes. It's also on -- And this is another part to make
part of the record, part of the permit application for South Florida
Water Management District. And, once again, here's the graphic
that's part of the permit that's in contention. We've had our
administrative hearing. We anticipate our, you know, recommended
order within about a month, and then we'll go to the governing board.
But there is -- Here's 951. There's the entry going east, Silver
Lakes Boulevard (indicating). The guardhouse is right in this
location. And the driveway is in purple. If you go to the orange area,
that's proposed for storage, which is about -- a building with about
200 parking spaces.
Page 75
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's kind of strange. I would
think it would be after the guardhouse if it's just for the residents.
MR. PIRES: Well, that's one of the issues and the concerns the
residents have, quite frankly, is: What is the real intended use?
Now, the developer will say and make representations that he
would intend to utilize -- I assume he would-- intend to utilize the
property solely for the purposes outlined in the PUD. That's one of
the concerns of the community, though, whether it would, in fact, be
used solely for those purposes. Then it becomes a massive Code
Enforcement problem that, again, the community has to live with.
By having a storage area in the east, where it was originally
indicated on the PUD Master Plan, where it's way behind the gate and
more easily accessible via the roadway system, if you look at
roadway system from the standpoint of pulling in an RV or a park
model or boats or dollies or trailers, you have a roadway system
already that can go right into that area, as opposed to trying to
negotiate before the guardhouse a very tight turn that would stack up
traffic and it's dangerous, or even afterwards where you have a curve
that currently exists, you have to cut across this area to try to
maneuver in there.
And once again, that gets back to a planning issue I think, like I
said, Mark Strange indicated. It's bad planning. Don't put that up
there. This is where it belongs. And that, once again, on the PUD
Master Plan shows in a dashed line, a storage area, in this area right
here (indicating).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one more question, please.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You stated that the lowest
quality lands are to the east of the project by the environmentalist.
Page 76
June 11, 2002
Can you tell me more about that? Who evaluated this as far as the
conservation lands?
MR. PIRES: Oh, Gary Beardsley was retained by the
community to evaluate it, and he made that determination that the
higher quality wetlands were on the west, the lowest quality on the
east.
Corey Pack, who is an environmental resource permit person at
South Florida, agreed with that concept, that the lowest quality
wetlands are on the east.
South Florida, because of other considerations they were
factoring into their permit application, indicated that they had a
preference for the western part. But again, they never had submitted
to them an application that was a stand-alone application to put a 3-
acre storage area in the east that would allow for -- One of the
concerns of South Florida was, they had an concept of conductivity
concerning other properties to the north. And I have another graphic
behind here, if I may. I know I have a lot of graphics, and I apologize
to the Board. And I thank for your indulgence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have those questions that I
need to get straightened before I --
MR. PIRES: This is an aerial photograph that was part of
another file, but it shows the entrance to the Silver Lakes community.
This was taken in January 2000, I believe. This is part of the property
appraiser's record.
The area in yellow is what we call the 40 acres, generally. The
area that was impacted by the developer, by the way, where they
engaged in dumping of materials is over here. It's in the jurisdiction
of wetlands.
The South Florida Water Management District has the concept
of wanting to have conductivity with a corridor for other animals to
Page 77
June 11, 2002
maneuver through this area. Our biologist believes that if an
application was to be submitted that would reduce acreage here as
opposed to blocking this area off, it could accommodate the needs of
the community for storage and accommodate the desires of the Water
Management District.
Additionally, behind the clubhouse -- and Dwight Nadeau said
that one of the plans was to put the recreational facility behind the
clubhouse -- the storage facility behind the clubhouse. Of the plans
I've seen, it was never really behind the clubhouse here. It was from
here, way over there (indicating).
But our biologist, the community's biologist, has indicated there
is 2.25 acres of upland, nonjurisdictional wetlands, in the area behind
the clubhouse that could be accessed through an existing parking
area, a driveway here, that, once again, the developer refused to even
consider going to South Water with that concept for the last seven
months.
So for them to now say that they would be put in a trick box,
that they would be put in a pickle by having to be delayed and go
back to South Florida for a permit modification, if this Board were to
grant the request to the community, if this Board were to follow the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and EAC, again, it's
disingenuous. They've had seven months to work that out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have two questions, one for our
legal counsel. Since the property owners and developers are involved
in litigation and if this becomes a player in that litigation, is the
Board at risk making any decision on land use on a property which is
currently involved in litigation?
MR. WEIGEL: A very good question, Commissioner. I believe,
based upon the statements of the parties of interest and their agents,
Page 78
June 11, 2002
their attorneys here today, that the Board can go forward and make its
decision.
The Court has before it, perhaps related, but certainly a separate
question before it, and I don't think that the litigation in and of itself
prevents the Board from making a decision today or put you at
additional risk to make that decision today. To not make the decision
today would probably put you at equal risk in regard to the ownership
aspects that have been brought before you in the context of this
hearing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. The second question I
have, and I think both legal counsels need to be at the microphones:
No matter how this is ruled today, is one party or the other going to
ask for a continuance just because there's an absence of one
commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good question, Commissioner Carter.
I'd hate to go through this whole exercise --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Damn right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- at the very endof it. If we're going
to do it, let's do it now.
MR. CUYLER: We would not be.
MR. PIRES: We would be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You would be?
MR. PIRES: Yes.
MR. CUYLER: He doesn't have a right to continue our petition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do.
MR. CUYLER: But the Board does, obviously.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, but you will not at the last
moment be asking for a continuance?
MR. CUYLER: You mean, even if I see somebody is going to
vote against me?
Page 79
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you know, you might want to
weigh it out.
MR. CUYLER: No, we're not going to be asking for a
continuance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If there's no other questions, we're
going to go on to the next speaker.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You've got a question --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One over here, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I thought
you already had your say but go at it again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't mind if I ask another
question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no. I hope you do. You're doing a
great job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we need a super majority
vote on this particular item?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you do. It requires four votes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of
the Board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Is Jerry Strauss. He will be followed by Joseph
Belanger.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask the people that come
up to speak that after you get through the first speaker, if that other
person made the point and made it entirely and you wish to waive, so
indicate from where you're seated. I'm not taking away anybody's
Page 80
June 11, 2002
right to speak. But if the point has already been made, there's no need
to repeat it. Usually we understand the first time. Sir, please.
MR. STRAUSS: Yes, sir. My name is Jerry Strauss, S-t-r-a-u-s-
s. It's Jerome M., really, but I go by Jerry since Jerome was a saint
and I can't live up to that.
My wife and I, and she's in the audience. So there's Mr.
Belanger and I and my wife, that'll make three, three of us at least
here, and there's also another gentleman from the park here, too.
Sothere's four of us in the room that didn't go home to the north part,
and stay here. We live here full-time.
We moved down here from Indiana in 1995 or so, and we
bought property before that down here from Conquest, and they
asked us to share a dream with them. The dream was that we were
RVers and we've been RVers for 25 years. And, in fact, we love to
travel in our RV and we still do.
So we wanted a place where we could park our RV and
participate in a community, but we also liked -- and I have always
liked nature, growing up in the hills of Southern Indiana, and we
liked the privacy that was afforded to us by us living at the area that
directly abuts, directly abuts, the 40 acres at the point at which this
88,000 square foot storage area, as designed, the first design they
submitted, is going to just terminate at the property immediately to
the left of mine.
We believe -- and I've lived in parks where storage areas have
been located. You must recognize in the storage areas of these parks -
- Someone here asked previously what was going to be there. It'll be
boats, RVs and so on. What do people do with those?
Page 81
June 11, 2002
They come down and they start them every two weeks or so,
maybe even more often. Those are diesel engines, most of them.
They have fumes. They smell. They leak oil.
They are noisy. The boats are high with masts. It's hard to screen
that out with almost anything because they're so high.
And our property is built up high because we live in
manufactured homes that are built up high anyway. They're not down
on the ground like the normal stick-built house is built. So we have
raised ability to see those properties.
They'll be fenced. They'll be lights on them probably, I would
suspect, for security. So it's not a very desirable thing to have in your
backyard. That's not what we were promised.
We were promised in that "Share Your Dream," when we
bought the property, we were promised that it would be a preserve,
the walking areas, walking paths. A lake was going to be behind my
house, a lake. In fact, I don't know if that map is still up here but it's
somewhere. And if you look at the original PUD, you'll see it.
And the storage area was going to be far distant from our
property, all the way over on the other end. And, you know, I think
the word "disingenuous" is very kind for kind for Mr. Pires to use
when speaking of what's been said here today.
I happen to also be an attorney. And I can tell you that from my
past courtroom experience, which has been over 40 years,
"disingenuous" is a very kind word in this hearing.
Mr. Cuyler knows, and he knows full well, and Mr. Belanger
and I were elected to serve on the transition committee, and that more
than 400 petitions are available, and that there are more than 400
people who are paying the legal fees for this particular process that's
going on before you today, but what he told you was is that there are
two people.
Page 82
June 11, 2002
I'm a member of a transition committee that was -- I received
more than 300 votes -- almost 300 votes to be on that committee. I
was on the board, voted on the board by more than 600 votes of the
POA at the last board, not this particular board.
I will tell you that that statement is far from disingenuous. It's
something that angered me. And I'm sorry, but candor is what is
needed here today, candor from everyone and fairness. We have seen
very little of that. And I hope that you four gentlemen will put things
straight. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cuyler, I'm going to ask to wait till we finish with all the
speakers before you make your rebuttal. MR. CUYLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't want to make it piecemeal,
please.
MR. CUYLER: I'm not going to make a rebuttal. I have a right
to, through the Chair, ask a question in a quasi-judicial proceeding of
Mr. Strauss, and I just have one question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is this correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please proceed.
MR. CUYLER: Just real quick, Mr. Strauss. Are you aware of a
survey that was just done in the community which you may have
responded to? One of the questions was, "Would you prefer to
support the ongoing lawsuit?" The tally was: Yes, 81; no, 135. Are
you aware of that?
MR. STRAUSS: I'm aware that Mr. --
MR. CUYLER: That's okay, Mr. Strauss. You--
MR. STRAUSS: -- in the depositions --
MR. CUYLER: -- can tell --
Page 83
June 11, 2002
MR. STRAUSS: -- in the depositions --
MR. CUYLER: You can tell the rest to the Board. That's all I
wanted to know.
MR. STRAUSS: I didn't say that I was aware of that. I said that
I'm aware that in the depositions Mr. Bridgett and Mr. Henuset, the
developers, stated there were no surveys made. That is what I recall
from the deposition. I didn't get a copy of the piece that you're talking
about.
MR. CUYLER: I'm not talking about the deposition, sir. Sir, are
you aware a survey was taken?
MR. STRAUSS: I'm aware there was a survey done.
MR. CUYLER: Thank you.
MR. FILSON: The next speaker is --
MR. STRAUSS: I would like to add one final thing. One of the
other things that compounds all of this is that a letter was sent to my
attorney, who is also in this courtroom, by Mr. Cuyler stating that as
a resident of the park, when I accepted my deed, I agreed that I would
not oppose anything that the developer did, and that if I would come
to this hearing, I would be sued for large damages for opposing
action taken by the developer.
MR. CUYLER: I'll respond later to that, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. Joseph Belanger, and he
will be followed by Susan Strauss.
MR. BELANGER: Good morning, gentlemen. My name is
Joseph Belanger. I'm only a resident with Silver Lakes. I'm not an
attorney. I'm just a resident. But I have a sincere concern for
approximately, well, well over 350 people that have asked me to
Page 84
June 11, 2002
stand here and represent them and talk for them because of the fact
that they're not able to be here.
One of the things that the residents are concerned about is the
safety factors, environmental factors, and the factors of the wildlife
and entering and exiting the 40 acres that adjoin us. We all enjoy
wildlife in that area. I do myself.
I'd like to enter into the record, and I'm getting a little bit
annoyed that the opposition keeps saying to these people that there's
only two of us opposing this whole thing. There's only two of us this
opposing this whole thing, yet they know very well, here are the
petitions from the people in the park opposing a storage area in the
west.
And I'm appalled that they stand here today and ask us if we
know about a survey when in both their depositions, under oath, for
Southwest Florida, they stated there was never a survey put out to
any of our people.
We knew there was a survey put out. I didn't return mine. But up
till today, I don't know what the results were. I don't know how many
they got back, how many went out. I would assume that at least 490
went out, but I don't know what the numbers were that came back. I
don't know how they got the results. Nobody else got the results, not
even the two people that we assigned to the committee that worked to
put that survey together. They don't know what the results are. So I'm
asking you today to please take everything into consideration,
especially the residents that aren't here today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, sir?
MR. BELANGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The petition that you got, does it
predate the survey or does it come after the survey?
MR. BELANGER: It predates the survey, sir.
Page 85
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And could you possibly share that
with us? And at this point in time, I would assume that it's part of the
MR. BELANGER: You can have every copy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- public record. Would you drop it
off to the commission here so we can pass it up and down?
(Speaker complies.)
MR. BELANGER: Also, back in March, as late as March, we
had meetings continuously from January until March with all of the
residents that were present in the park at that time. Up until March,
when the people started leaving, we were still being asked by the
majority of the people in the park to continue in our efforts and to
continue our lawsuit on the part of: Who owns the 40 acres? Was the
board of directors' election proper? And there was two other issues on
it that I'm not sure of.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions?
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Sir, when this hearing was going on before the Planning
Commission, I was in my office doing some homework and had the
speaker on listening to what was said. And it was your testimony that
compelled me to leave the office and come into the meeting room.
And if I could just read to my fellow commissioners what was
stated, your statements. "Good morning -- Good afternoon. My name
is Joe Belanger. I'm on the board of directors for the Silver Lakes
POA. I am also elected to -- as the co-chair of the ad hoc transition
committee as a voice of the homeowners of Silver Lakes. I'm
standing here before you today under threat of a law -- of a lawsuit
and I'm opening my arms to the lawsuit and welcoming the
Page 86
June 11, 2002
remainder, the lawyers that can get blood out of a stone, because I
have nothing. Sir, that--
MR. BELANGER: I have less now since I've lost my wife
recently.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sorry to hear that. And
I can just tell you, it was this board of commissioners demanding
changing the land development code so that we have more public
participation from the residents that are concerned about land uses,
petitions to come before the board of commissioners.
We all are a part of the community here, and I think that public
input is very near and dear. So I'm very concerned about approving
this without public participation.
So we're going to have to address that, Mr. Cuyler, when you
come up.
MR. CUYLER: Sure.
MR. BELANGER: If I may just two -- The issue about safety. If
you look at the entrance to the park at Silver Lakes, the majority of
the time when the storage area would be in use is when they arrive
and when they depart from Silver Lakes.
When they start arriving, you have a lot of congestion at that
main gate because they have to sign in. So you've got people waiting
on the side of the road waiting to sign in. You have people trying get
into that would be trying to get into that storage area, and that road is
very narrow. It's a divided road by an island, first of all, and you have
to go around the other side of the island to the left to try and swing
into that area. We feel that that traffic might -- presumably would be
backed up onto 951 at times because we do have a heavy load of
traffic coming in there at times. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
Page 87
June 11, 2002
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Susan Strauss, and she will
be followed by Gary Beardsley.
MS. STRAUSS: Good morning. My name is Susan Strauss, S-t-
r-a-u-s-s. And I'm the third person here, and I agree with my husband.
I don't have a lot to add. But when we bought where we are and built
our house, we were told that nothing would be built behind us. And I
think it's very unfair what they're doing. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gary Beardsley. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Ken Cuyler.
MR. BEARDSLEY: Good after-- not quite afternoon. Chairman
Coletta and Commissioners, I was retained by the ad hoc committee
to look at the site in September of last year. And they said, you know,
"Whatever you say, don't try to fudge it one way or the other." And I
agreed with the Water Management District. The most diverse plant
community was off in the west, along 951. It's a nice laurel oaks. It's
wax myrtle, primrose willow.
And the other thing, to give you some background, the entire
site has been cleared for farming in the past. So this is all regrowth
that's come back in. The east site is hybrid pine flatwoods. So I
agreed that the most appropriate place would be in the east.
The other issue was wildlife. This corridor is used by bears and
panthers, bobcats, fox, and the residents have indicated they spotted
these. And I said to myself, well, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
So I went to the Fish and Wildlife Service, Joe Baso (phonetic),
who is in charge of bear information, tracking, and also David Land
who's interested and is responsible for tracking panthers. They have
Collared panthers that have moved through this area. Bears have been
sighted. The prime outlets to the north, a bear was forced up a tree,
and it was in the newspaper a few years back. Two bears were
sighted on 951. Unfortunately, one bear was killed.
Page 88
June 11, 2002
The Water Management District has no concern for a wildlife
corridor. Directly to the opposite is public-owned Rookery Bay. And
this corridor is a very important corridor. There's another project
coming in that's going to do the same thing. It's going to put a
commercial area right along 951, completely locking up the corridor
for the animals.
This site during the latter part of the wet season is almost
inundated 6 to 8, 10 inches from the east to the west except for one
small, I think Mr. Perez indicated it, 2.25-acre pine, sawpalmetto
upland. And I don't know why that was never indicated that there was
an upland so the applicant could reduce the wetland impacts further
by siting on top of that upland. And I'll just point to where it is.
Again, I've been a biologist working in Collier, Lee and outside
the United States for 32 years. And I professionally believe that
putting it on the west and the blocking of the wildlife corridor and in
the most diverse is the appropriate place, and I hope you agree with
me. Thank you. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I guess I have one, and I
understand your analysis. But it seems to me, no matter what's done
in this area, wildlife is road-kill cafe special trying to get back at both
ends across the road, 951. I mean, it's a very dangerous corridor. And
I think development is going to diminish no matter what happens in
there, as an observation, unfortunately, but I think that's a reality.
There's no way for wildlife to get cross the dangerous corridor at this
point.
MR. BEARDSLEY: The reality of it is the wildlife use that
corridor. They cross 951. And it's very important because there's
estrene mango veg. and then an upland edge, and that's an ecotonal
edge. It's very important for wildlife.
Page 89
June 11, 2002
So if it all is built on 951, you're right. But that's why it's so
important to keep this corridor, which they are using, to keep it open.
Sure, they're going to -- some are going to get hit. But if you don't
have a corridor, they're not going to go across it, period.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make some points
in conclusion. We are not going to call any more witnesses. To a
large extent, I think I can rightfully rely on the issuance over the
decision of the Water Management District Board to issue the Water
Management District permit.
Everything Mr. Beardsley just stood at the podium and said, he
went and told the Water Management District staff prior to the
decision of the Water Management District Board. I've heard it from
Mr. Beardsley two or three times. Water Management District staff
heard it. They did not change any of their recommendations based on
anything that Mr. Beardsley said.
If you want to accept Mr. Beardsley testimony over Water
District staff and your own staff with regard to environmental issues,
then, you know, I can't do anything about that, but I would submit
that that is the lesser weight of the testimony that's been provided for
you.
Let me dispense with the "we delayed the project or delayed
coming to you." We would have been more than happy after issuance
of the Water Management District permit to come immediately to
you and to indicate to you we had our permit in hand.
We had an appeal filed by the objectors, and we wanted to see
how that went, what came out of that, what the deposition said, and
what the hearing -- what transpired at the hearing. So to look to us
Page 90
June 11, 2002
and say that we delayed the project, I think that is disingenuous, since
we seem to be using that word a lot.
Also, with regard to petitions this time of year, I've heard that
for 25 years. If you want to give your staff six months off and we all
shut down during the summer, I'm sure you would probably like that
as much as anybody, but, you know, that's not the way we work.
Things go along a certain path and there are a number of things that
may affect that, and lawsuits filed by other parties are one of those
things.
I honestly do not believe -- I don't have any documentation to
indicate how many people are in favor of this or were not in favor of
this. I haven't seen any documentation. I know that the lawsuits were
filed and the appeal was filed directly by those two gentlemen. They
were not filed by a class of people. They were not filed by an
association of people or a group of people. They were filed by
individuals. So that is what I know about that. With respect to the
petition, I'm not sure what those say.
I think that they can talk all they want about the Water
Management District permit, but the bottom line is the Water
Management District permit in the preapplication meetings did not
say you've asked for too much on the east, cut it down to three acres,
or here's another solution we think it should be in the east.
The Water Management District permit told the developer that it
needed to go in the west. They are the ones that control the permitting
process, and they're the ones that, if you are smart as a developer, you
listen to and try to cooperate with.
Again, with the highest quality wetlands, I've heard that term a
half a dozen times. The Water Management District Board and staff
has to take in, like you do, a number of different factors in coming to
Page 91
June 11, 2002
a conclusion, and they testified to that, that it wasn't any one thing
that they looked at. It was a large number of things.
In terms of bad planning, you haven't heard an expert planner
for the objectors stand up and say this is bad planning, as is Pires'
argument, but you haven't heard an expert planner. You've heard your
planners, who are expert, say that they recommend approval of this.
You've heard Mr. Nadeau explain to you the planning benefits of the
project, but you haven't heard anything from the objectors in terms of
expert testimony.
In terms of compromise, I do know this. I talked about
compromise several times. The objectors never wanted anything but
what they wanted. And if that's your idea of compromise, then it's not
my idea of compromise. They always wanted it off the west. They
were willing to talk about where and how much and that type of
thing, but they wanted what they wanted, and I know that for a fact.
In terms of public participation, that's correct. I did write that
letter. I didn't bring it up for the purpose of this meeting. So Mr.
Strauss in any way indicating that I did is incorrect.
Prior to one of the meetings, there are deed restrictions, and,
frankly, I didn't get into it and could have produced those today, as a
matter of fact. You might have found them interesting, but they're
deed restrictions, and your attorney is going to say you don't really
deal with deed restrictions. Those are private contractual rights
between the parties.
When each of these people took their deeds, they, in effect,
signed off on something that said, you know, "We understand the
project's not finished. The developer may make changes. We hereby
consent to those changes."
I wrote a letter to the objectors saying, you know, "I want you
to know the developers told me they're not happy with what's going
Page 92
June 11, 2002
on. You're hereby advised. And if you speak, you're at your own
risk." And I, as an attorney, I need to do that. I need to let them know
what my client indicates to me.
So we have since come off that. I also am a fan of public
participation. Hopefully, today, I will hold my faith in the public
hearing system to be correct.
Dwight reminds me. We did, in fact, go to the mobile home park
and have a big meeting with all the residents, and it was three or four
hours. We talked to them, explained to them what we were doing,
what we wanted to do.
But I hope that, you know, my faith in the public hearing system
and your identification of real planning issues versus just the wishes
of other people will come to fruition. I appreciate your time, and we
appreciate your courtesy in taking the time that you did take this
morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any questions of Mr. Cuyler?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we pretty much finished?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. We're going to, I guess --
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, is it possible for me --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three minutes max, okay?
MR. PIRES: Yes, I'll keep it less than that, quite frankly. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, and the Board's indulgence.
I think it's important that Mr. Cuyler mentioned that they're
waiting for discovery to decide to schedule this meeting. I find that
curious since the discovery and the administrative hearing process
did not start until May. We did depositions the second week in May.
The request by Dwight Nadeau to have this item heard by the
Board was made in April 11 th, I believe, by memo to Fred Reischl
when no discovery had been made, nothing had been done as far as
depositions. And so that, once again, is disingenuous.
Page 93
June 11, 2002
From the standpoint of planning, your expert advisory panel, the
Planning Commission, unanimously recommended this petition with
the modification that the storage be in the east, you know, a good
cross-section of the community that you all have proposed a certain
amount of-- you know, once again, it's advisory, but they know this
community and they are doing an excellent job with regard to that.
With the regards to any compromise, their compromise was 7
acres on the west or nothing at all, take that or leave that, as opposed
to even thinking about having storage on the east. So their
compromise was all the storage we want on the west or no storage at
all; once again, leaving the community with a bad legacy since they
will be the beneficiaries or inheritors of whatever occurs in this
particular location.
As to the meeting with the community, that was a long meeting.
After that, a vote was taken by the community as to whether to
continue forward. It was resoundingly yes, continue forward in
opposition to the developer's proposal for the storage on the west and
resoundingly continue forward with the storage on the east of 3 acres.
And with regards to the EAC vote, again, that was a unanimous
recommendation from your environmental council. So your planning
committee -- your environmental committee, once they heard the
facts, once they hear the community, unanimously recommended to
this Board that the storage be in the east of 3 acres in size.
As far as surveys taken, the deposition of Mr. Wayne Henuset, I
asked him a question. "Did you have any of the members of-- did
any members of the residents of the park come to you and tell you
how much storage they needed?"
"NO."
Page 94
June 11, 2002
"Okay. Did you ever have a survey conducted of the residents of
the park to try to ascertain what the storage needs were of the
residents?"
Answer by Mr. Wayne Henuset, a developer, "No."
This was taken May 20th, 2002, about three weeks ago.
Ted Bridgett's deposition, May 20th, 2002. "Did you ever
conduct a survey of the owners or residents of the lot within the RV
park as to whether or not they want the storage in the 40 acres?"
"ANSWER: We didn't conduct the survey. To answer your
question, we did not ask anybody if they wanted storage." Thank you very kindly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: As briefly as an attorney can respond --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I hope this is it.
MR. CUYLER: The developer is sitting in the audience, if you
want to hear from him. Mr. Perez took that, I wouldn't say out of
context, but he only read part of those depositions. The remaining
answer was, I've developed the property. I have been a developer. I
talk to residents every day, and I know how much they need. And,
frankly, the majority of the 40 acres probably wouldn't suffice for the
storage, and that's paraphrasing.
Again, I've never been involved in a petition with so much talk
over, you know, fairly straightforward planning issues. The question
is going to be whether the residents plan that storage area or the
developer does.
And, Commissioner Henning, if you listen to the CCPC and,
frankly, I think it's appropriate that the developer plan is on project,
and if you listen to the CCPC, you heard that the residents are,
basically, happy with the developer. They're happy with the way he
Page 95
June 11,2002
developed it. They're happy with the golf course. They're happy with
the water management system. And now the developer is trying to
develop another part of the project. And now, you know, two or more
are not happy. I don't know what that number is, and I don't want to
try to represent it.
Thank you very much again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Cuyler, don't go yet. What I'm
going to do is go down the line before I close the public hearing and
ask each commissioner for additional questions, and then we'll close
the public hearing and make a decision.
Let's start with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Cuyler, can you tell me how
many total acres are in tract CR on the west?
MR. CUYLER: Tract CR, the yellow portion on the placard?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. CUYLER: Approximately 7 acres.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seven acres. Okay. Does the
builder have any obligation to build storage? MR. CUYLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Any contractual obligation
whatsoever to build storage? MR. CUYLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So nothing has ever been specified
in a development order or agreement that requires that storage be
built?
MR. CUYLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you tell me how many units
are being transferred into Tract A?
Page 96
June 11, 2002
MR. CUYLER: There are 38 lots from the southwest comer that
are moving up to the northeast comer and are depicted in blue up on
the placard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Here's my question, I think--
MR. CUYLER: Let me correct that. There's only 29 going into
Tract A. The other ones are going into an adjacent parcel. There's
only 29 into what you're referring to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty-nine in Tract A?
MR. CUYLER: Thirty-eight total are transferring but only 29
into --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tract A?
MR. CUYLER: (Nodded affirmatively.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The rest go into Tract AA or do
they go somewhere else?
MR. NADEAU: For the record, Dwight Nadeau, Planning
Manager for RWA. I'd respond to that question that there are 38 lots
that are being proposed to be relocated. Twenty-nine of them are
going to be the RV lots, which has a smaller unit. And then the
remaining nine are going to be the recreational residents' lots that are
slightly larger units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And is the extent of that
transfer pretty much defined by Tract A as identified on these
documents you've given us? You've indicated the blue area as the
area that is going to be used for--
MR. NADEAU: Yes, the area in blue is those areas that would
be transferred from Tract A. And the area that is in white just slightly
to the west of that are where those nine lots for the AR residences
would be located.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, based upon the aerial
photographs that you have shown me and others have shown me,
Page 97
June 11, 2002
there exists right now a storage area to the east of the parking lot
which is adjacent to the club facility. And that's called a --
MR. NADEAU: Again, Dwight Nadeau. The temporary storage
that is here would be--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait. Hang on.
MR. NADEAU: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can't see that.
MR. OLLIFF: You're on the visualizer now.
MR. NADEAU: Oh, okay. The temporary storage that is located
here is in the area where some of those AR lots are proposed to be.
And the temporary storage that is down here in the southwest portion
of the property, those are partially in a designation for the RV lots. So
the changes today would pick up the tier of lots that was on the
original PUD Master Plan for the RVs, and they'd be moved to the
north.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, but that doesn't mean that
there will be more RV lots in the southwestern portion where the
current temporary storage is located. MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When you're asking to make that
change, your essentially abandoning those lots. MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, it appears to me, just
based upon rough approximations, having made that transfer, that
there is sufficient space in the southwestern portion of that property
and in the area which would still be available adjacent to, that is, east
of the parking lot near the club facility, which would very closely
approximate 3 acres. And that's what the residents are asking for, 3
acres.
Page 98
June 11, 2002
What I don't understand is why would the developer even want
to go to the additional expense of doing this when you have adequate
-- what I think is adequate storage space in existence right now. Why
would you pay mitigation costs for building in a wetland area and
why would you want to build 7 acres rather than 3 acres, which is
what the residents say they want?
I can understand a developer might say, well, I know from my
experience that they will require more than 3 acres, but my concern is
I have seldom heard such anger about anything that has come before
us and charges flowing back and forth about the intention of people.
If I were in the developer's position, I would take those two
temporary areas and say that's your storage area. And I'd put some
buffers in there to make it reasonably happy, make people reasonably
happy, and I wouldn't spend that money in here.
Now, if, in fact, the storage area is to be used by the residents, I
would consider that to be adequate. And if the residents didn't think
that was enough, then there is nothing that requires a developer to do
anything more, and it would almost require some sort of compromise
here. And I guess what I don't -- I don't understand why we're doing
this.
MR. NADEAU: All right. I'll have to respond to several of your
issues hopefully in the order that you asked them. The temporary
storage is near or about -- the current temporary storage is near or
about 2 1/2, 2, 3 acres maybe. As I stated, some of this temporary
storage is in an area that is designated for Tract AR, which is for the
residential units.
Now, where the 3 acres came from that was imported into the
EAC's decision and then carried over to the Planning Commission,
that was grabbed out of the air. Three acres is not enough storage for
Page 99
June 11, 2002
this RV subdivision. It was estimated that not even 7 acres was going
to be sufficient.
Now, the reason why we spent all the money to come forward to
you with this petition is to relocate the 38 lots and bring the PUD
Master Plan into compliance with the way Collier County has
permitted the subdivision. That's why we're here before you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess I would say to you that I'm
perfectly happy to consider transferring those lots and giving you
permission to do that. I don't have a problem with that at all. The big
controversy seems to be over the storage area, and I don't know why
we want to get into a big argument with the residents over whether
they need 3 acres, as they say they need, or 7 acres, as the developer
says they need. The developer isn't under any obligation to do
anything.
MR. NADEAU: That's absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so if were the developer, I
would transfer my lots up to the other place which we'd be willing to
-- I would be willing to support and just take those two temporary
areas, turn them into permanent storage areas, provide some
buffering and we'd all be happy and could go home.
MR. NADEAU: And it potentially could save some mitigation
costs by not having a 7-acre storage area in the north. I can't make
that decision. Only my client can.
MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Coyle, I think that the one
alternative that you have in your package where it has a smaller
conservation area, that there is some conservation area that needs to
be designated as a part of the transfer to make up for some of those
areas that the golf course ultimately took up.
Page 1 O0
June 11, 2002
So if you have an inclination to leave both the west open and the
east open and put the conservation area in the middle, then my
understanding is we would be willing to accept that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're talking about alternative
two?
MR. NADEAU: Yes. Alternative two would allow for the
storage to be located in the east or in the west.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Wait a minute. My proposal is leave the storage right where it is right
now.
MR. NADEAU: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay?
MR. NADEAU: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if that's not acceptable to the
developer, I need to know why, because he's not obligated to provide
any more storage. Why go through the expense of providing the
storage?
MR. CUYLER: That's okay with the developer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. CUYLER: I think the people may come knock on your
door, the residents. But from the developer's perspective, if you want
to use the temporary storage where it is, just leave that as storage, put
the open east, open west conservation in the middle in terms of
approving the lots, then we'll accept that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that doesn't open up any
more area for development. Only for those 38 tracts or the 39 sites. In
other words, I'm saying if you adopt alternative two --
MR. CUYLER: Those areas would have -- Let me talk to
Dwight real quick.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
Page 101
June 11, 2002
MR. NADEAU: Commissioner Coyle, is this what you'd like to
see (indicating)?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Exactly.
MR. NADEAU: Our alternative --
MR. CUYLER: One.
MR. NADEAU: -- which provided for 34 acres of conservation
area to the north?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah; that's it. And leave that
storage area for--
MR. NADEAU: I would have to ask the developer whether we
can bring that back to the Board for your consideration. One moment, please.
MR. CUYLER: And let me mention something else, too, just to
clarify that. That was proposed for the purpose of not -- not having
storage in the east and not having it in the west. That was to leave
open the furore possibility of having it in the west or the east,
depending on whether the residents ultimately purchased the property
and wanted to put it in the east and go deal with the Water
Management District, permitting and such, just so you know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A question on that very thing same
thing. If it was made into a continuous conservation area, you could
never change it back; is that correct?
MR. CUYLER: If you give an easement to the Water
Management District, you have to go get their permission to get it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the reason I'm saying is that I
don't want to completely prevent the owners of the development to be
able to some day come back and bargain for their own hunk of land
for storage.
MR. CUYLER: What we had contemplated with that proposal
that Commissioner Coyle was talking about was that it would leave
Page 102
June 11, 2002
open the availability from the planning/zoning point of view in the
west and from the planning/zoning point of view in the east.
We have a permit that would require us to put a conservation
easement on everything but the parcel in the west.
But if the property owners purchased the 40 acres and went back
into the Water Management District and said from the
planning/zoning perspective, we can do it in the east, that is where we
would like to do it. And if they want to modify a permit which they
have, that would leave them the ability to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we don't have an answer to my
question yet.
MR. NADEAU: I spoke with the co-owner of the property, and
he will enter in alternative one for your consideration, but it's
important for to you understand, Commissioner Coyle, that where the
temporary storage is now in this area, it may remain. But where it
may come out in this small triangular area, that is for AR and that's
for residential lots (indicating).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand, and I can't scale that
off, but it looked to me like you didn't need that much additional
space for those lots, but I'm not going to get into that debate right
now.
MR. NADEAU: Yeah, this is a designed plan. So that boundary
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But remember also that there is the
opportunity to extend slightly to the north from that particular parcel
and thereby gain any lost lots in order to accumulate the 3 acres, a
total of 3 acres; right?
MR. NADEAU: I--
Page 103
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're asking us to redesignate an
area for the transfer at the north end of that property for the transfer
of additional sites. Now, if you ask us to extend that further to the
west -- no, I'm sorry, further to the west -- MR. NADEAU: Further to the east?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, further to the west, yeah, to
just across the settlement boundary, you see, right behind to the north
of the existing storage area.
MR. NADEAU: To the north of the existing -- where my pen is?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Go north from that up to a
line that is equal to the area that we are approving for you to move
into with your--
MR. NADEAU: Ah, in there (indicating).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. NADEAU: You want this squared off in that fashion
(indicating)?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. It gives you additional storage
capacity to make sure you get at least the 3 acres but doesn't get
anybody into the argument about whether it goes on the east end or
west end or whatever.
MR. NADEAU: And that would ameliorate - it would somewhat
reduce the cost of going back to the district should we proceed with
the storage with Collier County for that approval, site development
plan approval. And it very well could be done a letter mod,
modification, because with foregoing the 7 acres here and adding
some small acreage, to follow your scenario --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Extending tract AR a little bit to
the west.
MR. NADEAU: -- would -- I don't think i would be problematic.
Page 104
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we'd get more conservation
area, more preserved area.
MR. NADEAU: Yeah, more conservation area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We get the adequate storage space.
MR. NADEAU: I can't tell you that it's adequate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we get 3 acre right?
MR. NADEAU: You get 3 acres.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's a determination that the
owners will have to make. And then once they get control of the
development, if the 3 acres is not sufficient, then they can petition for
additional space.
MR. NADEAU: They can go ahead and pursue. Now,
understand that under the existing permit, we would have a
conservation area over the easterly portion of the project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
Now, if you wanted to leave the opportunity open for-- We
would forego the opportunity to do the 7 acres. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. NADEAU: But we could have those 7 acres remain up
front should the ultimate property owners, the association, if it's
turned over, all the land turned over, they would have that
opportunity.
If we put it over green, if we turn it green as a conservation area
in a zoning document, they would have to come back to you again to
open that area up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That doesn't bother me. I don't
know about the owners. How do the owners feel about this?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that we need to
have any more talk today, because I don't see it going anywhere. I'm
Page 105
June 11, 2002
not going to move on anything. And the reason is Mr. Cuyler was
directed by his client to write a letter stating if you oppose this
through the county agencies, you're opening yourself up for a lawsuit.
So, I don't know, how do people in that area feel? That park is
just about built out. And I think there's opportunities here that I heard
when Mr. Pires was up here of a way to work things out close to the
area that, Commissioner, where you're working at.
What I would like to see is for Mr. Cuyler, with the direction of
his client, to write a letter to the people in the park, asking for public
input, stating that there will be no lawsuits if they oppose it, and work
together to come to a common ground, because the ultimate is going
to benefit, I think, everybody. So you don't have enough votes here
tonight, and I would like to continue it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know, in all due respect,
Commissioner, I don't really understand that. I can never stop
anybody from filing litigation anywhere, and that is legal posturing,
stancing, in all due respect to the legal counsels. We're talking about
a land use decision.
If we agree on a land use decision, if we follow what we're
charged to do, and, that is, make a decision on a land use decision,
and once we do it, we're absolved from this discussion because,
therefore, the property owners in the future can have these
discussions. In fact, they're in discussion under litigation currently
with the developer. So they've got to go settle their own business.
We're going to make a land use decision. And we could
postpone this. We could send letters. We could look at this a long
time from now. I don't think you're going to be any further than you
are this morning. I think Commissioner Coyle has given us a
solution. I hear the developer say yea. I haven't heard the
Page 106
June 11, 2002
representatives of the property owners say nay. It seems like it's time
to do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Before, Commissioner
Henning, before we act on your motion, could we hear from the
property owners to see if they feel this is a reasonable resolution?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. But I can tell you
because of a letter that was sent out, are we really hearing from the
residents in the area? And I think that's what we want to hear. That's
my concern. Is it just two residents that would agree to it or would
other residents in the area not agree with the changes that were made?
That's my concern.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, Commissioner Henning,
I've got to agree with you to a point on this. We're trying to develop a
working relationship between developers in the community, and I
think it failed in this case, I really do.
When I see these petitions and I hear about the lawsuit, I'm
turned off by the whole process. And I kind of wonder if due process
has been served.
I'm willing to come to a reasonable agreement. But I kind of
wonder, without having the feedback from the property owners, if it's
going to affect them forever, whatever is done. Once this land is
placed into a conservation easement, I don't know if we're ever going
to get it changed again, and it might be to their detriment.
So do we -- I think Commissioner Coyle's plan is an excellent
one, but the property owners haven't had a just say on the whole thing
to see what they thought.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let's hear from Mr. Pires
and maybe he'll have some idea.
Page 107
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pires, did you want to make any
comments on this? I think we're getting close to a--
MR. PIRES: For the record, Anthony Pires. I was having
difficulty trying to consult with my clients and understand the
dialogue at the same time. But I guess one part that I'm baffled about,
if I can make a statement, is that if the developer is so willing go to
this plan which has conservation over everything -- which you're
correct, Commissioner Coletta; that causes substantial problems for
the community down the road because we have to go back to South
Florida, try to get that revised, come back and do some other actions
with this Board.
But any storage up in the northem area, I guess why I'm baffled
is why that is a problem. If the developer has to go back to the district
to achieve that plan -- now, they're saying it's just a permit
modification, a simple letter mod. We don't know that. That was
never brought up in discussions as a possible settlement with the
South Water Management District to resolve that administrative
hearing process. We don't know what South Florida will do.
I can tell you that if South Florida's staff, the developer and
property owners go hand in hand to the governing board, I'm sure the
governing board will listen to all those parties and resolve it. But I
think that if we all go hand and hand with that concept which does
what the community wishes, it keeps the storage, as you indicated, in
its existing areas.
This is a commons recreation tract now (indicating). This is AR.
This is used for storage right now. Part of this tract is used for storage
right now. And there's problems with theft and vandalism. That's why
it's best to have it in the back.
So to keep that a commons recreation tract and not have a
conservation easement over that is all we've been asking all along,
Page 108
June 11, 2002
and that achieves what the community wants. And I think, quite
frankly, it's less impact on wetlands, because as opposed to 7 acres
here, you have 3 acres there. That's 4 acres less wetlands impact.
And I followed the formula utilized by the developer's
consultants in coming up with a mitigation plan. I came up with less
credits for mitigation required, less money to be spent. That's why I'm
baffled again.
You know, if the Board wishes for me to have a discussion with
my clients about this latest proposal, we will. But I think this will
cause problems in the future. It locks us out. And this, I think, as I
said, I'm baffled why the developer doesn't wish to go that route.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think your clients that are here
today really represent everyone that's missing. This is a whole new
proposal that we're talking about with Commissioner Coyle. I have
some serious problems with it. I could go with it being at the far end,
but I really can't agree to anything else at this point in time.
Commissioner Coyle, maybe you've got some new ideas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, just a question. First of all, as I
understand it, the developer doesn't have any obligation to build any
more storage anywhere. So why would they go to the expense of
applying for storage on the east at all? Why don't they just stop?
MR. PIRES: The difficulty is, though, if this application puts
that whole 40-acre tract in conservation, then the community at some
point is going to try to come back to this Board and undo that,
number one.
Number two, if it's in a conservation easement with South
Florida, the community at some point, if they want to have the
additional storage, will have to go back to South Florida as opposed
to leaving that opening.
Page 109
June 11, 2002
Have the applicant, developer, withdraw this part from South
Florida completely and negotiate with them by merely putting a
conservation easement over this area (indicating). Leave 3 acres
open. I don't see what the difficulty is with that, because they aren't
even asking for a permit to develop this thing. So they modify the
permit merely to withdraw the 7 acres and have a conservation
easement only over this part and keep 3 acres open here (indicating).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How would you do that without
going through substantial additional expense?
MR. PIRES: We may have an opportunity now. Once again, the
administrative law judge will get the transcript probably next week.
After that, the parties have 15 days to file proposed recommended
orders. After that, the administrative law judge indicated he will issue
a recommended order within 15 days. I think there's still time for the
parties to negotiate that and come to an agreement, to walk hand and
hand to the governing board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, then let's wait till it's
finished. Let's wait for the administrative law judge to make some
decision.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, let me make this easy for you, I
guess. I can see the votes are not there to approve this project today. I
told you I would not ask for a continuance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did.
MR. CUYLER: If you will allow me to take that back. You
know, you're either going to have to vote it up or down or continue it.
I would suggest you continue it to a date not certain for it to be
readvertised.
I mean, Mr. Pires' last presentation was a welcome-to-our-world
presentation. You know, they want to plan the project. They want the
developer to carry the expense. They want the developer to go
Page 110
June 11, 2002
through the process and then hand it over for the residents to exactly
what they want.
I will try to work through those issues with my client, talk to
him again. I don't want it said that we did not do our best to try to do
something that this Board will be very comfortable with. So even
having said I wouldn't request a continuance, I don't object if you do
continue it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. Hold on. We've got to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let's close it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Close the public hearing.
Now, did you want to say something, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to put conditions
on that motion to continue. I think what I heard from Mr. Pires was,
and I'm not sure if this is what the community wants, the Alternative
A that we were speaking about, there was an opening of the door
there. So if there's communication between the residents and the
developer, I think that something could be worked out. That's just
what I observed.
So communication and participation so that the Board of
Commissioners understand -- or I feel comfortable that this is what is
agreeable by everybody, and that's the whole thing about the public
participation. Meet with the residents. You know, residents and the
petitioner come before the Board of Commissioners and say, We love
this plan. I think that's what we're looking for all along when they
amend that. So if we can give that direction as part of the --
Page 111
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, can I add that to that, if I may,
too? It's going to take, I guess, four votes to even continue it; am I
correct?
MR. CUYLER: No. Three--
MR. WEIGEL: No.
MR. CUYLER: Oops!
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, okay. Come back here. I'll tell
you what I want to see happen. I'm not at all happy with the way the
process has been handled on your end, I'll be honest with you. I've
seen some amazing things done by development -- by attorneys
representing the developer and bringing the people, the residents,
together along with the developer. We've had them come in and give
glowing reports many times over.
You're going to have to go into this with a different attitude and
looking at this in a different direction and drop even the thought of a
lawsuit to be able to reach to the residents, because these residents
are going to have to come back. I mean, I can't tell you to drop the
lawsuit. But if you don't drop it--
MR. CUYLER: It's their lawsuit. They filed two lawsuits. It's
not our lawsuit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I heard them say they've been
threatened with a lawsuit.
MR. CUYLER: They are referring to a letter, which I'll be
happy to show it to you. I even said at the Planning Commission, I
don't get to write these letters very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you refute the letter so that -- I
mean, not this -- I'm telling you, when they come back, they've got to
be happy campers.
Page 112
June 11, 2002
MR. CUYLER: I'll tell you right now, we're not going to sue
anybody for showing up at a public hearing. If that is what you want
to hear--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that doesn't go far enough.
MR. CUYLER: Well, if I may put it in writing --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's falling short.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Showing up, they could sit there
and still be stifled.
MR. CUYLER: They can show up and say whatever they want
to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Also, too--
MR. CUYLER: That's not an issue for us. I don't want it to be an
issue for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, I think if you send a
letter out there, just the opposite of the first letter you sent out there,
they would probably feel comfortable.
MR. CUYLER: I hope to get a name and a vote from every
resident in the park, frankly. We're going to do our best to find out
what is really going out there and who thinks what. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I just need to urge you to be a
little careful about recognizing this as a zoning issue, and we
probably need to stay in terms of the motion back on where we are
with the Board of County Commissioners making a zoning decision.
And I need to clarify because I think I heard two things, and I
need to make sure. Even though I'm not going to be here, there is a
staff who's going to have to try and decipher what the motion is. And
I think it is an indefinite period of time, a continuance, that the
developer will be required to pay for any and all advertising,
readvertising that's required for the hearing.
Page 113
June 11, 2002
And secondly, I think with Commissioner Henning I heard that
we're going to require the developer to have at least one public
meeting in the development prior to the item coming back before the
Board.
MR. CUYLER: And, Mr. Olliff, we're going to request that you
be here for the next hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And I know that most
of those residents are gone right now. So you if we can get letters out
to them up north, or wherever they're at, of whatever proposal, I think
you really could work it out to the best interest of all.
MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Henning, I fully expect you to
say to me, "Good job, Mr. Cuyler. You did everything I want. I'm
prepared to make a decision."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we've got a new era of
cooperation taking place from what I understand.
So we have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second by
Commissioner Henning. Any other discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
Now we're going to go to one more item.
Mr. Cuyler, last remark?
MR. CUYLER: No. Thanks again for your time again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'd recommend that you try and
squeeze two items in. You had a 10:30 time certain, and I think you
have a large number of people here for an item that I don't think is
going to take but a second, and that is your Community Development
Block Grant Award. They are all here from St. Matthews House.
Page 114
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll be more than happy to
accommodate them.
Item # 1 OD
UPDATE ON THE SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
HYDROLIGIC RESTORATION PLAN- PRESENTED
Let's go on to 10(D).
MR. MUDD: That's a presentation by Carol Senne, Service
Center Director for the South Florida Water Management District.
MS. SENNE: I have like a 15-page presentation. I'm going to
shrink it for you. I think you all had a tough morning with interesting
issues.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is nothing. Stick around.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, we haven't gotten to the
tough ones yet.
MS. SENNE: Well, I can appreciate it. When I was here before,
I shared with you that I was a county commissioner in Brevard. And
zoning issues are so emotional and they are so important to deal with,
and it was interesting to listen.
So I will share with you. I did give my card to each of the
attorneys. And if there's anything we can do in the interim, I'm happy
to work with both parties.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much.
MS. SENNE: Sure, no problem. We're in this together
hopefully.
And I am going to apologize before I start. I was under the
impression that along with Golden Gates, I was going to do a very
brief update on all the projects that the South Florida Water
Page 115
June 11,2002
Management District was working on with Collier County and in
Collier County.
If you would like me to stick strictly to Golden Gates, I can do
that, or I can do a real brief run-through and then open it up for
questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we appreciate you being here
today.
MS. SENNE: No problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to hear a brief run-
through on what we're dealing with. MS. SENNE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that's up to the other
commissioners here.
MS. SENNE: Okay. We'll do it quickly.
And I do want to talk a little bit about the Corps projects in the
Corps. In Collier County, we have many issues that we're working
on, major restoration projects, with Water Resource Planning.
Obviously we do regulation, which we talked about a little bit with
the previous issue. We have construction in major projects, operation
and maintenance, and government affairs and outreach.
And we work through two entities, the South Florida Water
Management District, as a whole, and you all have the Big Cypress
Basin Board that, for us, assumes the responsibility or works in
conjunction with us on many of these together.
On restoration projects, there are three major restoration projects
in this area, the southern Golden Gates, Lake Trafford and Tamiami
Trail flow enhancements. And just so you can understand kind of like
the relationships of all of us, the South Florida Water Management
District is the local sponsor on these projects.
Page 116
June 11, 2002
I'm going to digress just for about a minute and make a
statement about the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of
Engineers is an interesting partner to have on projects.
If you're looking at a major restoration project, that's going to
cost many millions of dollars. As slow as the bureaucracy of the
Corps may be, they're the only game in town. And so for the CERP
which is the acronym for the Everglades restoration projects of which
several are on the west coast, they're the major federal interest.
They're the major federal partner. They're the ones that we work with.
And whenever the Army Corps of Engineers does a project, it
needs a local sponsor. Well, what does a local sponsor mean? A local
sponsor is the government entity that guarantees that the match will
come to the table. You mean, dollars. It means that you're the one
that's going to assume the responsibility that all of the regulations and
all the bureaucracy and everything that goes along with doing a
Corps project, you're going to agree that that is met on the other side
of the table.
We have project managers for each of the individual projects on
the CERP side. And some of these projects, we have employees that
work with the Big Cypress Basin Board as the project managers.
I do sometime want to come and talk to you about other federal
funding opportunities I think that we could partner on that are outside
of the Everglades process because it is so large and so onerous.
Southern Golden Gates Estates, hydrologic restoration. This is
one of the Everglades project. In 1996, there was a recommended
plan to have three pump stations, spreader canals in the Faka Union,
Miller and Merritt Canals just south of 1-75, so on and so forth. There
are other alternatives that are being looked at.
Let's cut to the bottom line of what you probably want to know
about southern Golden Gates. One of the reasons, I think, that we're
Page 117
June 11, 2002
here is because there is some issues that we're dealing with in terms
of getting the project approved and getting the money in place in
order to meet the schedule that's on the table.
There is something called WRDA, the Water Resources
Development Act, that's passed by Congress. Theoretically, the goal
is that there is a bill every two years that passes Congress. The Water
Resources Development Act is the body of legislation that authorizes
the Army Corps of Engineers to do projects.
It's kind of interesting when you're dealing with these projects.
I'm going to give you the generic go-through. There's a
reconnaissance study. Then there's a feasibility study. Then there's a
design phase. Then there's an implementation phase. Each one of
those needs separate authorization. And once you get that
authorization, then each one of those gets a separate appropriation. So
this is a very complicated process that we're going through. We're
working on it to the best of our ability.
In order for the Water Resources Development Act to authorize
a project, you have to generate a report. The Corps is behind schedule
on the report for Golden Gates. There are several scenarios that we're
working with the Corps.
And I will say that we would love to come back in September.
We think we'll have answers not only on Golden Gate but also on the
Lake Trafford issue in September. And I will have the Army Corps of
Engineers with me so that you can ask them, because they're the ones
that are kind of controlling this process.
There is a chance that the Water Resources Development Act
will not pass this year. You all are probably very aware that the
House and the Senate aren't necessarily coming to closure on all
issues.
Page 118
June 11, 2002
Right now there is a major issue that has nothing to do with the
Everglades, and it has to do with de-authorization of projects. The
House and the Senate are not coming anywhere near closure on that
particular issue.
So there is a chance there will not be a Water Resources
Development Act. If that is the case, we have to wait till 2003;
nothing we can do about it. Politics are going to play that one out.
If there is a Water Resources Development Act and if the project
report is finished, we're fine. If the project report isn't finished, there
is an opportunity to get what we call provisional acceptance, where
the Congress delegates to the head of the Corps the authority to
approve the project outside the cycle.
So while we are behind on the project, there are several
alternatives that we have to make sure that we do stay on a schedule.
We're working with the Army Corps of Engineers from the
Jacksonville office to do that. So that's where we're at.
On Lake Trafford, the bids went out. They're too high. We're
working with the Army Corps of Engineers right now to come up
with alternatives to make the cost of that project lower so we can
move forward with it. You want to hear the bottom line; right? That's
where we are with that project. I will be in Jacksonville in July, the
first week of July, meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers.
I think one of the reasons -- and we talked a little bit about this
before, that I think Henry Dean asked me to come and get involved in
the west coast, is because I do have a lot of years dealing with the
Army Corps of Engineers.
One of the largest restoration projects to-date in the country is
the restoration of the headwaters of the St. Johns River. We restored
200,000 acres of floodplain back, and it's been extremely successful.
Page 119
June 11, 2002
I've lobbied Congress. I have worked with Jacksonville. I have
hand-carried reports to Atlanta to get them approved and hand-
carried to Washington, D.C. and met in the Pentagon.
I promise you that I'm going to get involved in your projects.
My reason for doing that is to make sure this process isn't slowed
down. And I'm going to commit everything that I have in my little
tool box and all the experience and relationships I have with the
Corps to ensure that these projects are moving forward and also to
help facilitate communication.
I think it's extremely important for the Corps to hear from the
local sponsors and the local community. That's why I'm inviting the
Corps here, whichever meeting works best for the commission, to
come and talk to the county commission.
I've worked for many years with Richard Bonner. He's the
civilian head of the Corps; Jacksonville. He is coming in August to
address the Big Cypress Basin Board so they understand the issues
surrounding Golden Gates and also Lake Trafford and Tamiami.
And they're going to be here personally. I would love, when we
come to closure on these issues, to have them come sometime in
September to one of your board meetings.
The other thing I wanted to let you know about is the Lower
West Coast Water Supply Plan. We are required by statute to update
it every five years. We adopted it in 2000. We're coming up on 2005.
We're working on refining the models to do water supply projections.
I have to just compliment you on your Utility Department. They
are there. They're cooperative. They're a partner with us. We're going
to ensure that we have good public open meetings. We disseminate as
much information as we possibly can, not only to you but to the
public, involve them in the decision-making process and make sure
that you're part of the update of the Water Supply Plan.
Page 120
June 11, 2002
Once again, your utility group has just been really great to work
with, and we look forward to them being a good partner in the plan
process.
I think you're all familiar with the works of the Big Cypress
Basin Board and the canals and all their issues. Great relationship
with Collier County. We have no reason to believe that that isn't
going to continue.
Our regulatory -- You know, it's amazing. In this particular, the
permits are still increasing. And I know that there's a lot of talk about
a recession and things like that. But if you were in our office on a
daily basis, you wouldn't know it, a huge permitting load, lots of
development in the area. We want to make sure that we're
communicating and partnering with you. And I heard your
comments, and I hear your issues. And we will try to be as good a
partner as possible with your projects.
Technical Assistant to Local Government, something that's been
mandated by the State legislature, but it's something we embrace
seriously. We spend an incredible amount of money at the water
management district, be it ad valorem taxes or state revenue or
federal, to do a lot of water quality sampling, monitoring, get GIS
databases. We share all of that at no cost with all of the local
governments. There's no sense in paying for things twice. And we try
to make sure that everybody has the most up-to-date data in order for
you all, your planning departments, whatever it may be, to make the
best decision possible. And that is a service that we provide to the
local governments.
I hope I consolidated it quickly. I know you all are -- And
anything, anything you need to ask.
I would like to introduce two folks that are here today. Vickie
Lair is here. She's come over from West Palm Beach. Vickie oversees
Page 121
June 11, 2002
all of the Everglades projects for the water management district, and
she's here in case you have any questions. And Clarence Teres
(phonetic) is here. You all know Clarence, in case you had any
questions on the activities of Big Cypress.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I do have a couple of questions,
if I may.
MS. SENNE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One, I want to compliment Clarence
Teres for all the work he put into Lake Trafford. Now I'm hearing
about alternatives because it's too expensive, and that scares the
daylights out of me. Does alternatives mean something other than
demucking the lake?
MS. SENNE: No. Alternatives have to do with methods of
construction and things of that nature. And before any decisions are
made, we're going to come and do a presentation to you so that you
know exactly what's being considered.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In the best scenario that we can come
up with, how soon will we be making this final decision so we can
proceed?
MS. SENNE: We'll be making it within the next couple of
months. And the alternatives, when the Corps comes up with them,
we're going to bring them to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the other question that I have has
to do with the Golden Gate Estates. MS. SENNE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And south Golden Gate Estates, I
understand that we're well underway to be able to purchase the last
parcels of land, and there's only a couple of pieces left from what I
understand. So I am correct on that. And I congratulate you for
Page 122
June 11, 2002
pulling it off. And coming to the end part, you're doing a wonderful
job on what you're paying the people for that land.
But my question is and the question that keeps getting asked
from me is what kind of assurances do we have in the northern
Golden Gate Estates on the other side of 75, that what's going to take
place on the other side will impact it with flooding? Somehow we
need something in the way of reasonable guarantees that this will not
happen.
MS. SENNE: And that's exactly why, this plan, we're evaluating
the different alternatives now. Obviously when the yellow book was
put together, that's basically the start of the comprehensive
Everglades restoration plan. It was a very conceptual plan and design,
and there wasn't a lot of engineering and detailed analysis that went
into the creation of that plan.
Now as we moved forward and we were getting into more
detailed design, we did a much more detailed modeling, hydrologic
modeling analysis of that, and that was where the impacts were noted
to the people north of 1-75. That's what we're trying to address within
the plan. We're trying to do it in the most efficient, cost-effective
method possible, because the first alternative that was created, the
cost really skyrocketed it on the project. We're trying to bring the
costs down and still provide the same level of flood protection to
those people. They should be not adversely impacted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So their situation won't be any worse
than it was before --
MS. SENNE: No, it should.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- or it will be better?
MS. SENNE: And as a matter of fact, that's one of the
requirements of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. You
can't adversely impact flood protection.
Page 123
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We are all concerned about the
condition of our aquifers. What can you tell us about whether our
aquifers are declining in water supply or are they remaining relatively
stable?
MS. SENNE: I'll say this. I believe, and I think your utility folks
will agree, that if you're looking for a long-term sustainable source of
water that does not have a negative harm to the environment, we're
looking at the deeper aquifers. And that's going to cost a little bit
more money because you're going to be looking at reverse osmosis
treatment. And those are probably the most stable, the most plentiful
and least environmentally harmful sources of water supply that we
have here.
We're looking at stressed Tamiami and had this question come
up with your Planning and your Environmental Advisory Committee.
We were talking about the exemption with the wells. And they
had a lot of great concerns and a lot of great questions. And that was
one of them. Are you going to be permitting any more shallow wells?
And my answer is this. It's going to take an incredible permit
with some incredible protections in it to be considered by the South
Florida Water Management District. We're looking at the deeper
aquifers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As you probably know, we're
having some difficulty with some of the deeper aquifers and increases
in salinity.
MS. SENNE: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not sure what's caused that.
And I'd appreciate any insight you might be able to provide us there.
But the second part of the question is: Do you monitor the actual
levels of the aquifer? I know that we're concerned about the
Page 124
June 11, 2002
freshwater supply, but do we actually monitor the levels of those
aquifers?
MS. SENNE: We monitor both the levels and the water quality,
and we do that with the USGS, who's a great resource throughout the
country. They provide great scientific information.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any indicate that the levels
are decreasing, and if so, at what rate?
MS. SENNE: I can provide the rate and the actual report to you.
I can tell you that in some areas like, for example, the Mid-
Hawthorne, those levels are decreasing. They're at levels that are
fairly low and are recent, like, say, in the last 20 years.
Part of the reason for that is this. There are a lot of irrigation
wells that are in that particular aquifer. And it has been dry. We
thought we were going to see rain well before now. And we've had
several drought years. And what happens is the aquifer level comes
down, and then we get some rain like we did last summer, but it
doesn't fully recover. And then you have another drought and it
comes down even lower.
And during this period of time right now, people are pumping a
lot more than they usually do for irrigation purposes, and we're
having some problems with the people that are on self-supply wells,
especially out in Hendry County and some in East Lee; yeah,
definitely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, what action is being taken, if
any, to restrict or ration that supply of water for irrigation purposes?
Anything?
MS. SENNE: I think this year we're looking at what the
recovery rate is going to be because it's an E1 Nino year. And we're
anticipating that we're going to have some major rains. And if the
Page 125
June 11, 2002
aquifer levels don't come up, I believe the governing board is going
to take some serious action on withdrawal rates.
We're also looking at the minimum flow and level that's been for
that aquifer, and there may be some adjustments that need to be made
there as well.
We're also working very aggressively with the utilities to go to
more reuse. This coast needs to be commended. We have more reuse,
percentage of reuse, than any other area in the whole State of Florida,
especially your county. And we're looking at a regional irrigation
system. Hopefully we can get some federal funding for that project.
That would be great.
So we are looking to the future. We're also looking at
transferring some water sources where you're pumping shallow and
encouraging them to go deeper and then abandoning that use so that
you have less stress on the aquifer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the last question is if you
could just give me those repons or send them to the -- MS. SENNE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- county manager and he can get
them to us.
MS. SENNE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. SENNE: I do want to share this with you. Henry Dean has
been here a year. You're going to find I'm a huge cheerleader. I didn't
follow him down for nothing. But Henry is in the process of
reorganizing in West Palm Beach and looking at doing it in such a
way that the resources are more available to the individual areas.
There's going to be a group that's dedicated to the west coast now in
West Palm Beach. He's moving more folks over to Fort Myers, the
Page 126
June 11, 2002
regional service center, so that the people that are working on the
projects are closer.
All of the major meetings that we're going to have on the
restoration projects, the Everglades projects, are not going to be held
in West Palm Beach. They're going to be held here in the community
so that it's much more accessible to the public.
This is his commitment. That's his form of management. He
believes in being close to the people. He believes in being as
accessible as possible, and I wanted to share that with you. We
already have some new folks, some water quality folks, some
modeling folks in the office that are going to be here and available
for the projects. And I hope you consider that a positive and a plus
and Henry's commitment to bringing as many services as you all need
here to bear.
And I'll get you that report. It's really interesting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. SENNE: Sure. No problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
We thank you very much for your report.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll see about that other issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
We have one more item before we go to lunch. And our county
manager, Mr. Olliff, promised this would be a short item.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2002-264 REGARDING THE COUNTY'S
CONSOLIDATED PLAN AMENDED ONE-YEAR ACTION
PLAN FY2001-02 AS REQUIRED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
Page 127
June 11, 2002
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM - ADOPTED
MR. BAKER: That's Item 8-B, and it's, basically, to approve a
resolution adopting the county's consolidated plan amended one- year
action plan FY2001-2002, as required by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to cut Mr. Baker a little
short because I think you've had a chance to read that executive
summary. It's a pretty straightforward recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: And I think outside of the Board, questions or
comments and we have a couple of registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see Commissioner Henning, here,
raised his hand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
Okay. We have speakers.
MR. MUDD: We have three speakers now.
MS. FILSON: Yes, we do have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. If they'd like to talk us out of it,
that's fine. We've got two of them waiving.
MS. FILSON: Paul Midney, John Wood, and Fran Meehan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Midney is going to come up and
speak, and that's fine. Just cut back another thousand dollars off each
one of the recipients. Just kidding, Paul.
MR. MIDNEY: For the record, Paul Midney. I've been a nurse
at the Collier Health Services for the last 18 years, and I'm definitely
in favor of this proposal.
Page 128
June 11,2002
When you're in very low income, you have to try to do the best
with what you can, and there's a lot of people who can't afford
medicines, some people who have chronic diseases and acute
diseases. This program is a lifesaver for many people.
I had a lady last week who came up and she said, "Please help
me. I need my high blood pressure medicine." And it was just a water
pill, hydrochlorothiazide, which is at five dollars a month.
And I said, "You mean you can't even get five dollars a month?"
And she said, "Well, no. The packinghouse closed and I really
don't have it."
By giving people with chronic diseases the medicines that they
need to be able to continue to live, this is really a lifesaving thing,
and I'm definitely in favor of it. So I hope you folks will approve it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Is there any questions?
We have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by
myself; is that correct?
Okay. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 4 to 0.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. We're going to
break for lunch.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, what time are we returning?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to return in 45 minutes.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
MR. OLLIFF: Ladies and gentlemen, if I Could get you to take
your seat.
Item # 12A
Page 129
June 11,2002
RESOLUTION 2002-265 REGARDING PLACING ON THE
NOVEMBER 5, 2002 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT A
QUESTION FOR THE ELECTORS TO APPROVE THE
ISSUANCE OF UP TO $75,000,000.00 1N GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS PAYABLE FORM A LEVY OF UP TO
0.25 MILL OF AD VALOREM TAXES FOR A PERIOD OF 10
YEARS TO FUND THE ACQUISITION OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats. We're going
on to Item 12(A) for the general ballot question. And who's the
presenter? Don't all fight over it.
MS. GOETZ: Good afternoon. My name is Ellen Goetz. I'm
appearing before you today as a volunteer representing Vote
Conservation 2002. You are familiar with us. We are a grass roots
initiative working on the item before you today which is asking you
to place on the ballot in November an issue to acquire land for Collier
County.
The members of this initiative are in the audience today. Would
you all raise your hands?
Thank you very much. I thank you for coming.
They're listed up on the screen, representatives of all the major
environmental organizations: Audubon of Florida, Big Cypress
Basin, Collier County Audubon Society, the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida, Florida Wildlife Federation, the Crew Trust, the
Nature Conservancy, The League of Women Voters, CBIA and
citizens, last but not least, citizens like me. I am not going to occupy
a great deal of your time today. I just want to hit some of the
highlights of this land acquisition program that you have before you.
Number one, it is a county-wide program. Land that would meet the
Page 130
June 11, 2002
criteria of eligibility for such an acquisition program is located in all
parts of Collier County.
Two, it is a willing seller program only.
Three, public access is an important component of any acquired
parcel of land, as you can see in the material in front of you, that
dependent on the characteristics of the land, the natural carrying
capacity of the parcels, public access will be allowed in all cases,
unless some issue with the land; for example, it's completely wet. It
precludes that. And we covered that, I think, in our workshop with
you a month ago.
Ownership of parcels is in perpetuity which equals complete
protection in our opinion. And this is really the only way to Control
land is to own land. That's why we feel so strongly that this program
is important for Collier County at this point.
Management costs are included in the program, both immediate
management at the time of acquisition of the parcels and the future
management costs would all be borne by this taxing issue in front of
you. Matching funds will be available in certain cases for acquiring
this land from other -- whether they're state or federal entities which
can sometimes almost double the amount of money that would be
raised in Collier County can be matched by another entity to buy land
in Collier County.
And very importantly, water supply and water quality are
inextricably linked to land preservation. We know that that is a very
important issue for us in Collier County and will continue to be so.
And I think maybe one of the most important reasons that this
program, we feel, is so powerful is that it is an initiative that was
brought to you by citizens of Collier County. We were not appointed
by any governmental body. We do not represent that. We are
Page 131
June 11, 2002
volunteers coming forward because we believe very strongly that this
is an issue that is important for the future of Collier County.
We are asking today that you allow this issue to be voted upon
by the citizens of Collier County in November. And a program, if this
issue is successful at the polls, the program would be controlled by a
citizens advisory committee. So throughout the history of this citizen
involvement is key.
We recognize that this is merely one tool in the so-called tool
box for good Community planning. It is not a fix-all for every
problem that we face as a community as we look at growth, but it is
merely one tool. And we hope that by reading the report that the staff
has prepared for you, that you are inclined to vote in the positive
today to get this on the ballot. And I want to thank you all very much
for the time that you have invested in hearing us in the various times
in the past. And also, I want to thank the very professional staff that
helped us, especially Jacqueline Robinson, Mr. Smykowski's office
and Bill Lorenz. And again, they provided information to us only,
which was very key in doing research and coming up with some of
the information you have before you today.
Now I'm not sure. Does the staff make a presentation to you as
well?
No, okay. Great. That's the end of my --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, how many speakers do we have
on this subject?
MS. FILSON: Four.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Four.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be happy to make a motion to
approve this. And if the public speakers are not opposing it, perhaps
they don't need to voice their concerns.
Page 132
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second your motion,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I only have one comment, going
back to our discussion about where we were going to purchase lands.
And it was my understanding that we were going to make within the
urban boundary line priority in this. So I'm suggesting that under
screening criteria Item 2, that lands offering -- if you want to go to
your resolution, that's on our page 10 -- that lands within the urban
boundary line offering the best human social skills such as those that
include actual geographical description, appropriate public access,
and capacity of recreational, educational and compatible uses and
enhancement of the aesthetic setting in Collier County will receive
first priority. And the reason I'm asking for that is that we have a lot
of programs working in the urban or in the rural and urban -- the rural
areas and the rural fringe. And I'm highly concerned about what's
going on within the urban area and where we do have lands that
could be purchased for all the stated purposes, but there is not
funding available for those.
And I think the City of Naples in which you did, Commissioner
Coyle, was an excellent example. So I would like to offer that as an
amendment to the resolution under criteria.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Under discussion, if I may. I do have
some reservations. I know where you're coming from with that. But if
we make it a criteria and we word it in such a way, what we're saying
is that we don't trust the selections that will come from the committee
that will be sending us the recommendations and we don't trust future
commissions to do the right thing, that we're going to saddle them
with a requirement way in advance before they can even look at the
decisions.
Page 133
June 11, 2002
And I, frankly, think that this is waited so to be unfair for
District 5. I mean, we're saying the rural fringe and the Immokalee
plan is going to meet all the needs out there. But we're talking about
taxpayers' dollars from one fifth of the county's population that will
be going towards this, and they deserve consideration just as much as
anyone else.
These moneys -- or these lands that are being put into some sort
of reserves are being done at the expense and the efforts of the people
that live in the area District 5, And I respectfully request that we
leave this for some future commission to look at.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: With all due respect to Mr.
Chairman, if you pay one fifth, that means everybody else is paying
four fifths. And I will tell you, District 4 and 2 contribute far more to
this process than the remainder of the county and 1.
So I think, do I trust? I learned a long time ago that trust is in the
eyes of beholder. This is an insurance, that it's considered. It does not
mean that they will do it.
But I want to make a statement here that if we ignore the urban
areas, then you are not going to achieve what you're looking for out
of community character and balance. And I have a lot of concern
about that in terms of supporting -- I'm not against a referendum. I
am not against putting this out for voters' approval. But I'm going to
state again, I have a high concern for that aspect.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand, but I still have
reservations about what we're asking to do. I think that the wording
of the document that exists now meets the needs and I do have trust
in the future process to be able to take care of that need.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ellen, tell me, what is your
interpretation of the phrase in paragraph two, "land such as those that
Page 134
June 11, 2002
include equitable geographic distribution?" I believe that you
modified that from your prior language to address our concern with
respect to where this land was going to be. Is that intended to address
this particular issue?
MS. GOETZ: Yes, it is, absolutely. And could I ask Brad
Carnell who crafted this with us to speak? Could he speak directly to
that point only?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, is it okay if he
speaks?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. Go ahead.
MR. CARNELL: As far as putting some emphasis in the criteria
on urban selection, we have considered that, to a great extent, all of
number two, that Commissioner Carter points out, is directed towards
such lands.
Also, if you look at number one, "land with the most rare,
unique or endangered habitats," well, I offer to you that some of the
most rare, unique and endangered habitats are actually in the urban
area. We're talking about scrub and some of the riverine systems that
goes through like Cocohatchee River along Naples Bay, Gordon
River. These areas are quickly disappearing. So they are among the
most endangered. So there you've got two of the criteria that are
emphasizing that.
And then when you go down to the secondary ranking criteria,
there's a preference for parcels that are vulnerable to destruction. This
means parcels that are being threatened with development. So there's
another preference for lands that are in the urban area.
So, you know, the intent was not to put it all in the urban area,
but it was definitely not to ignore the urban area. It was to equally
balance this program so that we've got an adequate selection. And to
be quite honest, there's not much left in the urban area.
Page 135
June 11, 2002
And, you know, we're working on a map that is putting some
target areas for everyone's benefit. We're not finished with that, but it
definitely shows that the urban areas is quite developed. And so our
opportunities are less so in the urban area. So we're going to use these
criteria as they're written for those sort of selections, and I believe
that those will float up.
MS. GOETZ: And they were designed with the utmost in
flexibility in mind, again, recognizing that part of the power of a
program like this is that there is negotiation that occurs on these
parcels. And the more parcels that are eligible, the greater the
negotiating capacity of the entity purchasing them. But we were very
focused on making sure the criteria flushes out urban lands.
MR. CARNELL: There's one other component I forgot to
mention, and that is the matching fund aspect of criteria number six.
There are, unfortunately, examples of opportunities missed here in
Collier County where if we had had a local matching amount of
money to bring to the table, we could have gotten some state grants
from an agency called the Florida Communities Trust, which
More or less focuses on urban areas, you know, rather than rural
areas.
And we didn't have any local match, and we lost out, I believe,
in the past. And I think because of this match capability with the
monies that we would be raising through this issue, we would be in a
better position to acquire some of those grants and those lands
associated.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to make the
observation that I share Commissioner Carter's concerns, and we
discussed this at length last time. We do have some programs that are
making a lot of progress with respect to the rural areas. I think we're
Page 136
June 11, 2002
preserving a lot of land in the rural areas. And I believe that the
chances of acceptance by the voters of this particular program are
greatest if they can see the benefits of this. And they can see the
benefits of it when they can see that land is taken out of the
development cycle.
If it is your belief that this language expresses that kind of
commitment, and if that would be part of your public advertising
program, then I would be willing to accept your interpretation of this
language, unless you think there's something more specific that you
would like to put in here to make sure there's no misunderstanding.
MS. GOETZ: Brad?
MR. CARNELL: I believe this is -- We have spent I can't tell
you how many hours, and it's not crafted by me. I mean, this was a
group effort. We have input from biologists, from people with lots of
experience in other programs in other Counties. We've talked to Lee
County and we put that information from -- and talked with people
from Sarasota County and Hillsborough County. We've gotten
examples of documents of criteria from Dade and Broward and
Alachua.
We have spent a lot of time deciding how to express what it is
we want to see bought by this program. So we do believe that this
does provide for protection that Commissioner Carter and yourself
are looking for.
MS. GOETZ: And one other point is that ultimately the Board of
Commissioners approves the parcels of land that are purchased. So
right there you have, I think, another level protection to not -- I mean,
urban land is going to be a priority for this County obviously.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I can understand.
I want to apologize if I seem to come on defensive,
Commissioner Carter, on the defense. But at the previous meeting we
Page 137
June 11,2002
were at, it was suggested by someone that we eliminate District 5
from its consideration because of the lands acquired out there. And
that does make me a little bit edgy.
I still realize that this is waited for good reasons in favor of the
urban area. And when you have land that's eligible for development,
it's going to be in the urban area, number one. And so you're going to
want to move on those types of lands first before you will in the rural
area. But when the opportunity presents itself to put together
something in the way of a flowway or a parcel of land that allows a
corridor for animals to able to migrate back and forth, I don't want
your hands to be tied to the point you can't move at that point in time.
I do realize, dollar-wise, we're going to spend the majority of the
money in the urban area just for the very simple reason that the land
cost is 10, 20, 30 times what it is in the urban area. That I can accept.
But I just want to be able to make sure I protect the rights of the
people that I represent. And I apologize, Commissioner Carter, if I
seem to come on a little strong.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's all right. I won't let you get
away, if anything, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I was trying.
MS. GOETZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay. Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. A question for the
author of the ordinance for the resolution. On page 8 of the
ordinance, it's "Notice of tax and bond referendum of Collier County,
Florida, November 5th, 2002." There is on the first paragraph, last
sentence -- it's quite a lengthy sentence. I can't find the period in it.
But on the last part, it's saying you could spend the monies "for
purposes for incidental thereof or thereto." What does that mean?
Page 138
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was written by a lawyer. Nobody
knows what it means.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So they can do what they want.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's a lawyer.
MS. ROBINSON: The bond -- the monies that are secured --
Oh, I'm sorry. Jacqueline Hubbard Robinson, Assistant County
Attorney, and I worked with the citizens group to help draft the
resolution. But that really is a limiting -- Those are words of
limitation. And it says that, basically, "purposes incidental to the
acquisition in management of environmentally sensitive lands or
protection of water resources, wildlife, habitat, and public open
space." The funds can only be spent for those purposes.
And there may be things that are done that are incidental to
those purposes, perhaps paying for an appraisals or perhaps paying
property taxes and things of that nature. They can't use that money,
really, for anything that is not related to the acquisition and
maintenance of these properties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. I understand
that and your clarification, but there's going to be opponents of this
initiative, so if we could just put somewhere a definition of that, the
incidentals for appraisals.
MS. ROBINSON: We can certainly tighten that language up
before this ad goes into the paper.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. The more information that
we can give to the public, I think it would be better. And just a
question for Commissioner Carter. I concur with your concerns, and I
feel very comfortable with what Mr. Carnell has said. And I just want
to ask you if you feel comfortable or --
Page 139
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Totally? No. Will I support it?
Yes. I'm just going on public record that I have a high expectation
that the most vulnerable lands with the greatest population can utilize
them, will be a very high priority in this process. And that's where I'll
always be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this point in time, do you have any
other questions for the petitioner or should we go to public speakers?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We still have a motion on the
floor, and I think we've got general interest in supporting it. So if the
public speakers would like to waive, unless they want to change our
minds, they're more than welcome to come up in any case. Who's the first speaker?
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Jim Kramer. He will be
followed by--
MR. KRAMER: I am in support. I waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He waives.
MS. FILSON: He will be followed by Arlyne Goodwin --
MS. GOODWIN: I waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Arlyne waived.
MS. FILSON: -- who will be followed by Jan Eschauzier.
MS. ESCHAUZIER: Well, it's Eschauzier. Jan Eschausier. I'm
in support. I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive.
MS. FILSON: -- sorry, who will be followed by Leonore Reich.
MS. REICH: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that was record time in going
through five speakers. We do have someone coming up to the
Page 140
June 11, 2002
podium. The name was in the wrong slot, I take it. We'll correct that
right now.
MS. FILSON: This is Martha Dykman, and she put her slip in
the pile that I've already called.
MS. DYKMAN: I'm sorry. I'm representing the Homeowners
Association of Greater Naples. And we had people at our meeting last
week, and they gave us a great presentation. And we represent 23
homeowners associations, which represents about 24,000 residents,
and we had a unanimous that we would like this on the ballot. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for sharing that with us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's very important, too,
for the residents and the voters of Collier County to have the
opportunity to vote on this initiative.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think so too.
And if there's no other comments, I'll call for the question. All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
Thank you very much. (Applause.) And by the way, you're
welcome to stay for the rest of the agenda. Fat chance of that, I think,
huh?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think so.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think they have a life,
Commissioner.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2002-29 TO ESTABLISH INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS (MOROTORIUM) ON THE
BACKLOGGED AND CONSTRAINED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Page 141
June 11,2002
OF US 41, VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND DAVIS
BOULEVARD (SR84) - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe 8(C) will be our next item,
the moratorium issue.
Please, on your way out, if you could hold your conversation till
you get out the door, it would be very helpful so we can continue the
meeting. Thank you so much for coming.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman and members of the
commission, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, for the
record. And I just had a couple of preliminary matters before Mr.
Feder does his part of the presentation of the ordinance.
First of all, there were some changes occasioned by our office
working in coordination with Nancy Lenan's (phonetic) office and
Planning Commission changes that emanated from their vote on the
matter on Friday.
The revised ordinance was delivered to your office yesterday.
And before we proceed, I wanted to make sure that you all have the
correct ordinance. It has a color map on the back of it. And I realize
you may have gotten an earlier ordinance as part of your packet and,
also, on page 12, the third line is Section 5, which is the standard
language of that inclusion in the Collier County Land Development
Code. I once had a professor in law school say even though you
thought all these things were done before you get started, you better
Make sure they are because if anything could happen, it might.
So that's why I wanted to make sure you had the correct ordinance
that was brought to your offices yesterday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a copy of the
revised? I don't believe the one I have is the latest and the greatest.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. I have --
Page 142
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one. Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: I'll give one to everyone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got one. Don't give me another
one.
MS. STUDENT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is this the current one?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, it should be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CARTER: I have the new one.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. We came to you, it was May 14th at
your Board meeting, requesting that we look at establishment of
limitations for an interim period of time of development within three
corridors. That emanated from work that we brought you from our
annual update and inventory, or AURI report, December 18th of last
year.
At that time, we identified a program to address the needs
consistent with our processes under the current, yet unchanged, land
development code and growth management plan, and that we
identified six segments that, in fact, could not be addressed either by
the first two items, which is either modifications of level of service,
which we didn't take any actions on that appreciably, or programming
of projects for construction within the first three years which we did
on some projects.
We had six that we could not address in that manner. Three of
them we were able to address by actions to recapture capacity, to
Modify medians, remove signals, extend turn lanes and the like.
As a matter of fact, one of those that was on the consent agenda
today, Radio Road, we're taking that action. We'll have the
construction crews out soon.
Page 143
June 11, 2002
Another one we're getting ready for a public meeting to get
further input on a section of Airport south of Golden Gate. And the
third, we're working on our strategies and we'll proceed with that one,
which is Pine Ridge to the west of Airport over to 41.
But three segments we weren't able to identify the direct
solution at that time but, rather, identified them as constrained and
backlogged. Those three segments, we felt that we could then make
the land development code changes to establish what would be the
metering of the controlled growth within those three segments, only
to find out that we needed to change our growth management plan to
be able to proceed with those land development code changes.
With that in mind, we went back and looked at the three
segments, identified that, in fact, as we suspected, we're continuing to
see growth pressures. We're seeing accident issues related to them
and, therefore, came to you, as I mentioned, and got your direction at
May 14th to bring to you today, after public notice, an ordinance to,
in fact, establish interim growth controls or a moratorium, if you will,
on these three segments.
I won't take a lot of time since you're very aware of the issues,
only to point out a couple of quick things and then let Marjorie, if she
needs to, to cover a little more on the specifics of the ordinance.
I do want to point out to you, first of all, the segments involved.
What we're addressing is the first segment, Vanderbilt Beach Road
west of U.S. 41, shown here on the red (indicating). And that segment
is what we would call the, in definition, the "immediately adjacent
segment." As well, we're dealing with what would be contiguous
segments that are affecting that, which would be the next link within
the major roadway network in each direction. So those are identified,
if you will, in yellow there.
Page 144
June 11, 2002
And there we're looking at control measures, where if we have
any impact that is more than one percent, then we would have some
control over growth that's occurring there if it impacts that red
segment, the moratorium segment, by more than one percent, or the
peak-hour traffic.
There are a number of exemptions, and I'll let Marjorie go
through those, most notable of which is single-family residents on a
single-family lot, anything that is already vested in development
authority, and we'll get that refined and discuss it in more detail
shortly, as well as anything that's needed for the public, health, safety
and welfare in the way of public facilities and the like. But generally,
the idea is that if you are directly abutting one of the moratorium
segments, the red segments, that, in fact, growth controls will be in
place under this planning moratorium until the growth Management
plan changes can be brought about. And the land development code
changes, all of which are in process, in cycle right now, will be
brought to you on the growth Management plan changes on the 25th
for sending to the Department of Community Affairs.
And we're looking in September and October for actual
adoption, hopefully, of those changes to the growth management plan
and the land development code at that time. Then this moratorium
would be superceded, the planning moratorium no longer needed, and
the new concurrency management, or checkbook system as it's been
dubbed, would be in force and effect and, therefore, address the
issues that we have within these or any other segments of the system.
With that as a quick overview, I will call your attention, though, to
definitions on page 6 and 7 to give a little further clarification. On the
bottom of page 6(2): "The term 'immediately adjacent' means any
development that obtains through direct connection or use of a non-
major public or private roadway access to the county's major
Page 145
June 11, 2002
roadway system via an interim development control moratorium
segment as depicted above." A lot of words. What I'm trying to point
out to you -- As a matter of fact, one of the second segments is U.S.
41. What we're saying there is if you get your access directly off of
U.S. 41, then it's falling in that definition.
But, also, if you get your access off of another roadway that's
not shown here in green, that's not part of the major roadway network
which is defined and shown by the map in green, then, in fact, if you
are on the side street or smaller street but your major connection to
the major roadway system would be that segment of 41, that's
included as well.
So somebody, let's say, on Solana, just off that side street down
a little bit but their major connection to the major roadway system
would be on Solana, they're considered as having direct access to that
roadway segment.
That clarification is also made for the yellow segments on page
7, relative to adjacent contiguous, and I wanted to make sure you
understood that clarification. It's one of the issues that came up at the
Planning Commission and it's one to give clarification as to exactly
what we're dealing with so people have some surety of what to
respond to over this period of time or this interim planning
moratorium for the three segments.
I'll open up to any questions you have of me. I understand
Majorie is going to walk you through some of the exemption issues
and Maybe a couple of others. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One question, Mr. Feder, if I may.
The yellow are, it's going to require -- they can build commercials as
long as it doesn't impact more than one percent? Is that what it is?
Page 146
June 11, 2002
MR. FEDER: Correct, and any type of development as long as it
doesn't impact the Moratoria segment, that red segment of Vanderbilt
Beach Road, 41 or Davis. If it doesn't impact those segments more
than one percent, they can proceed under all of our other normal
regulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And can you help me with what one
percent is? Let's take an example, the road down there at Davis where
it abuts up against 941. That one segment in there, what is the
capacity of that road? What is that road taking now?
MR. FEDER: About 60 (sic) peak-hour trips would be the
equivalent of one percent on a section of Davis.
SPEAKER: Sixteen. You said 60.
MR. FEDER: Sixteen; 16.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 16; sixteen peak-hour trips?
SPEAKER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, peak-hour trips would
be anything like seven in the morning until six in the afternoon or
evening?
MR. FEDER: What the peak hour of the day is: A peak-hour
trip, for instance, on a residence, a single-family residence, basically
generates one peak-hour trip, to give you a perspective of what 16
means.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a problem with the
definition of a couple of terms. MR. FEDER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On the map, you refer to the
yellow segments as analysis segments.
MR. FEDER: Mm-hm.
Page 147
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have the impression that they are
also adjacent and contiguous.
MR. FEDER: That is correct, sir. And correctly noted on the
map should be "adjacent contiguous." That's where we will analyze
development as to whether or not it has more than that one percent
impact.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wasn't the area north on U.S. 41
south of Immokalee just recently redone?
MR. FEDER: Yes. The issue is not the roadway that you're
seeing in yellow. It's its impact to the roadway in red. So
development along U.S. 41 in that segment that you're noting, the
only thing we're looking at is: Would development there likely have
or can something be done to minimize it if we find it does, but would
it likely have more than a one percent impact on the segment of
Vanderbilt Beach Road? If it would not have more than a one percent
impact on Vanderbilt Beach Road, if it's meets all of our other
conditions, then it's not affected by this moratorium.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know from our past
discussions, and there's no need to get into a discussion of it, and I'll
tell you all now, I have some serious concerns about the way we
measure traffic. And we're talking about that --
MR. FEDER: We'll continue to discuss that to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, we'll continue to work on
that. I just have some concerns that segments that, I believe, just
driving on them are more congested than the ones that we're talking
about here. But I --
MR. FEDER: And again, I need to make the point for the
purposes of this. We're still under AUIR by our annual update and
inventory report, under our current land development regulations and
code. Under those, I have areas that may have, and I agree with you,
Page 148
June 11, 2002
more serious conditions. But because I have a construction project
within the first three years, they, under our prior process, before we
get into our checkbook process, were deemed, therefore, as addressed
by AUIR. So I think that's part of the issue that we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm also concerned about things
like new roads, like Livingston Road, that are coming on line and
their positive impact about relieving traffic on U.S. 41, Goodlette and
Airport Road.
MR. FEDER: We agree, and we're taking that into account.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's not in the -- It wasn't taken
into account during the last AUIR.
MR. FEDER: Portions of Livingston was but, of course, the
only portion we had was a very narrow, short segment between
Golden Gate and Radio Road, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what we're doing is we're
dealing with an issue going from this point forward largely based not
on current data but based on data from last year. That's my only
concern. I understand why you want to do this. I'm in support of it,
but I just want to be reassured that we're going to go through the
calculations of these road segments in a way that gives us a current --
current -- up-to-date indication of just what conditions --
MR. FEDER: We agree fully. That's why we're trying to get
more permanent consignations in working towards that system, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And one final question. Is
there a duration, a time limit on these things? Must we revisit them at
some future point?
MR. FEDER: The duration on this is structured, at least the way
it's written right now. And I'll defer it to legal on it. But until your
new growth management plan and land development code changes to
new concurrency management real-time - concurrency management
Page 149
June 11, 2002
comes into effect, which is right now planned for September,
October.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. STUDENT: And I just wanted to amplify on that comment
a little bit -- again, Majorie Student, Assistant County Attorney for
the record -- that it would be when the Comp plan and the
implementing land development regulations become legally effective.
If there's any kind of challenge to the Comp plan amendments,
basically what happens after we adopt, DCA effectively has, let's see,
about -- 76 minus 21. We've got 55 days. By the time we get it up
there, it's 45. Plus we have ! 0 days to get up there to review and issue
their finding of compliance.
And then party intervenor, if they have a problem and want to
challenge it, they have 21 days after that. So we like to look at that 45
plus, 10 plus 21 as 76 days. And then, of course, if it went to an
administrative hearing, that would prolong it. But I just wanted to
clarify that for the record.
And also, before I begin, because what I plan to do is explain
what clarifications were made by my office in consultation with Ms.
Lenan (phonetic) and also Planning Commission recommendations.
But I also want to put in the record that this ordinance to pass
requires a four super majority vote. And with that, I will go into the
changes.
Just in the whereases on pages 2 and 3, there were references to
Golden Gate Parkway, and that's been changed to Creech Road
because that other portion was in the city. And when the whereases
were first done, it was early on in the process, and then Mr. Feder
clarified what was in the city and what was in the county. The next is
in the definitions of "immediately adjacent." We just added some
language on page 7 that says, "These immediately adjacent roadway
Page 150
June 11, 2002
segments" -- it's at the top of the page -- "are depicted on the map as
interim development control or moratorium segments," and that
would be for the red.
And then at the bottom in paragraph 4 of the same page, we
added the clarification that, "These adjacent contiguous roadway
segments are depicted on the map as analysis segments," and those
would be the yellow. Moving on to page 9, under the "exemptions,"
paragraph 3. The new language takes out a date about a lot or parcel
being in existence prior to January of 1989, and it just makes it clear
that if it's a single-family home, it's exempt.
Number 5 had a clarification from our office that accepted
"development pursuant to final site plan or final subdivision plat for
which no waiver and release has been executed pursuant to 315.7 of
the code."
And to explain that a bit, Mr. Litzinger (phonetic) is here, but
you have to understand our adequate public facility and development
process. And there's a provision in the adequate public facilities
ordinance that you could proceed with final plat and a site plan
without the necessity of paying your impact fees. But you can go
forward and not necessarily get a certificate if you waived and
released the county, as it were, from a claim of vested rights later on
if you came in to get a certificate and it was found that there wasn't
capacity.
Mr. Litzinger is here and he could explain that process, I think, a
little better than myself because he's been involved in it and if you
have questions on that.
And then paragraph 6 has to do with an amplification of vested
projects. And the language set forth for the developments of regional
impact are what you usually find for vested developments of regional
impact, and this is pursuant to some declaratory statements that the
Page 151
June 11, 2002
Department of Community Affairs issued way back when the comp
planning process in its enhanced state started in the late 1980s.
And DRIs are not necessarily vested just because they are a
DRI. There are other conditions that could change that. So that's what
this language attempts to do here, and I think you'll hear a comment
from Mr. Pickworth on that.
And also, the last sentence there contemplates a project that --
and not necessarily DR -- it's not DRI necessarily but any
development that could claim vested status pursuant to the Florida
Law of Equitable Estoppel.
The next change was a Planning Commission-directed one, and
the Planning Commission also approved the change to six. And the
additional language is "redevelopment structures that have the same
or lesser was an addition, a lesser impact on public facilities as the
original structure."
Paragraph 24 had a change the Planning Commission voted on,
and that was the addition of the word "accessory" in front of "uses"
and "structures."
And paragraph 26 was also changed in consultation with Ms.
Lenan and by our office to put the same exception language in it for
the waivers and releases.
And I want to point out that as part of the Planning Commission
recommendation, it was felt that paragraphs 26 and 5, because there's
a reference in paragraph 4 to having obtained and completed -- or
having obtained a certificate of public facility adequacy were
redundant. So they recommended just taking them out and going with
paragraph 4. I had spoken with Ms. Lenan about this, and it was our
feeling that perhaps by removing that language, there might be an
unintended consequence. And it's always better to have more than
less. So that's why it remains in here.
Page 152
June 11, 2002
And also, as the result of the removal of those two paragraphs
Mr. Yovanovich submitted in concept, and Ms. Filson is going to
pass his language out to you that the Planning Commission approved,
this is a policy decision for the Board to make.
And my recollection of what my notes are from their motion,
Mr. Yvonovich's language is a little different. You will note, on the
fourth line, it utilizes the words "shall be entitled to apply for a
certificate of public facility adequacy by June 30th, 2002." My notes
indicated that it was to obtain a certificate.
There's a difference between applying and obtaining. And in the
scheme of the way our adequate public facilities ordinance is set up,
you can apply. Then you have to have your application determined
complete. And then it could issue, and then you could pick it up,
depending on what's in there and what development order you're
under. So there are different stages in this. And aside from that, I
don't believe I have any other changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A question.
There's a proposed fire station on Davis Boulevard. Is there any
exemptions for essential services?
MS. STUDENT: I believe there are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I couldn't find it myself.
MS. STUDENT: No, I believed that I thought it might be where
the switching stations and so forth were, but if the Board wishes, we
could add essential facilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I think that we need
to recognize certain things as being a public benefit, one being a fire
station or a police substation or things to that nature. I don't know
how my other colleagues feel about it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would agree.
Page 153
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I don't believe there's any way
we can exclude schools by a moratorium either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Essential services do
include the schools?
MR. LITZINGER: Yes. Excuse me. Stan Litzinger,
Comprehensive Planning Manager. Your existing Land
Development Code, Division 3.15, provides for an exemption for
construction of public facilities that are consistent with the Collier
County Growth Management Plan. And your specific example
certainly is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management
Plan.
Generally, the concurrency issue does not apply to facilities that
provide the very facilities to which we are trying to provide service
for a growing community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Referencing the Growth
Management Plan, can you expound about that a little bit?
MR. LITZINGER: In your Growth management Plan, as it
currently exists, you obviously, based on your AUIR, plan for the
revenues and facilities needed to provide the adoptive level of service
standard for all your category A facilities, which are the ones related
to concurrency.
The fact that today is not a concurrency moratorium, we can
deal with that shortly, but water, sewer, solid waste, parks, drainage,
and transportation, of course, of your category A, we are bound
under the state statutes to provide a concurrent level of service
standard as provided for under our own ordinances. We also provide
what we call category B facilities, currently, which are generally
binding in your budget process but are not concurrency driven of
which emergency services are one.
Page 154
June 11, 2002
So in answering your question, I think by conclusion, obviously,
essential services would not be affected by this moratorium.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Emergency services we're
recognizing as EMS, fire and police? MR. LITZINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. While you're up there,
why don't you explain to us about -- Was it Item Number 5?
MR. LITZINGER: Number 5 of the proposed ordinance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Marjorie said -- I think it
was Marjorie who said that you can explain that to us better than she
could.
MR. LITZINGER: Okay. The issue of a waiver and release.
since the adoption of your land development code, otherwise known
as the adequate public facilities ordinance almost 12 years ago now,
we have had a process in place, generally, under normal times, if you
will, under a concurrency management system that you currently
have in place, which is a once-a-year annual review and decision-
making process on projects and revenues.
Ninety-nine percent of those applicants for the entry-level
development order approval, which is site development plan in most
cases or final plat, have opted for and as opposed to paying impact
fees at the site development plan for what is known as a waiver and
release, which essentially provides for the infrastructure
improvements that are provided for and permitted under a site
development plan to be constructed on the proposed development
prior to building permit.
And at building permit, of course, the concurrency issue is again
raised, and the waiver and release becomes moot, and all impact fees
are due at that time to be paid into the impact fee funds.
Page 155
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying this gives an
opportunity to collect the impact fees sooner?
MR. LITZINGER: What we have interpreted the land
development code as it currently exists, today, about a week or so
ago, based on a request from applicants and people in the community,
we made a determination that an application would consist of and
does consist of a request for an issuance of a certificate of adequate
public facilities in conjunction with an SDP or one that has been
approved prior with a waiver and release upon application and
deposit of the estimated impact fees due at building permit into the
escrow trust fund.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A couple of questions with respect
to that one. How does that impact our recent change that prohibited
developers from purchasing certificates of public facilities
availability in advance?
MR. LITZINGER: On February the 6th, as I recall, you adopted
a change to your land development code that, essentially, eliminated
the provision that had been in place for about 12 years, that from a
practical application standpoint permitted anyone with zoned land not
in the development review process to come in and indemnify
themselves for concurrency for three to five years, depending on the
intensity and level of development proposed by merely escrowing
impact fees.
That process has been closed, and we have not issued any of
those certificates since January. You wanted to eliminate all
concurrency review and COA issuance outside of the development
review process, which has been done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Page 156
June 11, 2002
A question for you, Marjorie. I don't understand this proposed
change from Mr. Yovanovich. I don't understand where this is
supposed to go. I don't know what the recommendation of staff is.
MS. STUDENT: I can explain that, and that was if paragraphs 5
and 26 went away; because I think paragraph 26, as it's written, could
cover his situation because it has a provision for filed applications for
public facility that are filed with or approved by Collier County prior
to the adoption of this ordinance, along with some other things.
But if that had gone away and we only would have been left
with paragraph 4, which is "any development for which a valid
certificate of public facility adequacy has been issued and remains in
effect as the adoption date of this ordinance," that's where his
language would come in, because they wouldn't have gotten their
certificate yet and the "filed for" language would have gone away,
and, also, it would have given them time to come in, pay their money
and get their certificate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is staffs recommendation.9
MS. STUDENT: Our recommendation, again, is if we left it as it
was without the removal of paragraph 26, I believe that the language
or certificates of public facility adequacy filed with or approved by
Collier County prior to the adoption, the date of the ordinance would
cover it because they would have already filed. And this is my
recollection of what the Planning Commission recommended,
because Mr. Yvonovich's language, he wants additional time to file.
My understanding of the language and the recommendation of the
Planning Commission was to obtain by June 30th, and the language
in here would cover that and allow them to obtain the certificate by
June 30th. His language with the filing goes even beyond the
language of paragraph 26.
Page 157
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to have to help me a
little bit. It's been a long day.
MS. STUDENT: For me too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Do you support or oppose
the language submitted by Mr. Yovanovich?
MS. STUDENT: That is a policy decision for the Board of
Commissioners to make. Legally, the exceptions --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't make any
recommendations?
MS. STUDENT: -- are up to the Board. I would have to ask our
planning staff. Legally, it's a policy decision for the Board to make.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, staff's recommendation is the
ordinance that you received for you, the Board, to approve the
ordinance that we gave you this morning with all the updates, with 5
and 26 added back again, based on consultation with our Tallahassee
lawyer, Nancy Lenan, in order to cover and make sure that we were
very specific, instead of just going with paragraph 4.
It's also staff's expert opinion that our 5 and 26 cover that
particular piece of paper that you have in your hand that was given to
us by Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? Does that
conclude the presentation and we can go on to speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have an even dozen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Proceed.
MS. FILSON: The first one is Ron Talone, and he will be
followed by Rich Yovanovich.
Page 158
June 11, 2002
MR. TALONE: Good afternoon. My name is Ron Talone. I'm
with the transportation consulting firm, David Plummer and
Associates.
I wanted to address one specific aspect of the proposed
moratorium ordinance, and that is a moratorium is not supposed to be
indefinite. In other words, it is supposed to be a temporary measure
imposed until an improvement can be implemented.
For some segments, it will be very costly and time-consuming to
provide the ultimate long-term improvement that's needed. For those
segments, we encourage the county to identify low to moderate cost
interim improvements to provide short-term relief until the ultimate
long-term improvement can be implemented. A case in point is the
section of Davis Boulevard between Radio Road and Collier
Boulevard, which has been identified as one of the three segments
that is currently a problem.
Now, I understand that the moratorium that's being proposed is
being described as a planning moratorium that would only last until
the full system is adopted in the fall. But unless there's a change or
some improvement to the segment, we have every reason to believe
that that moratorium may continue beyond the implementation of a
full system in the fall.
The staff report indicates that the ultimate long-term
improvement for Davis Boulevard will cost about $57 million. Well,
it's our understanding that the $57 million would include the 4-1aning
of Davis from Santa Barbara to Radio, the 6-1aning of Davis from
Radio Road to 951, and all the right-of-way that would be needed for
the ultimate long-term improvement on that section and at the
intersection. It could take many years to fund all those improvements.
For that reason, rather than wait several years for the ultimate
improvement, we would encourage the County to identify and make
Page 159
June 11, 2002
low to moderate cost improvements on that problem segment to
provide fast and short-term relief. Now, when I said that to the
Planning Commission, one of the members of the commission said,
"Like what?" So I'll give you one example. And I should mention that
our firm has identified three different sets of improvements that
would range from lower cost to higher cost, depending on what
would be chosen.
But, for example, eastbound on the section of Davis as you
approach the 95 ! intersection, you have two lanes. The inside lane is
a left-mm lane only, but the outside of the two lanes is a left-mm
through and right-mm lane. So all three of those movements are
handled by that right lane.
If the County were to construct a third eastbound lane to take the
throughs and the rights out of that traffic stream, then you'd have two
full lanes handling the left, and that would help move those lefts
which, of course, is the heaviest movement that we find at that
location.
Then there's several other improvements like northbound dual
lefts that could be considered. Those interim improvements would be
very beneficial to the motorists who drive the section every day and
may allow the moratorium to be lifted.
One last point. To the extent practical, the interim improvements
should be compatible with the ultimate long-term improvement.
That's so that those improvements can be retained for the long term
as well as providing short-term relief.
However, even if some portion of the interim improvements
would eventually have to be replaced, the motorists will have had
much better driving conditions for several years. So again, our
recommendation is to give strong consideration to interim
Page 160
June 11, 2002
improvements when the long-term improvement is very costly and
time-consuming to implement. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rich Yovanovich, and he will
be followed by Garrett Beyrent.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I don't
believe -- I think Marjorie has a different take on what my language
was intended to do. The language that the Planning Commission
considered was, basically, a grace period. It was for projects that had
applied for a site development plan, applied for a final plat or had an
approved site plan for an approved plat but had also executed a
waiver and release.
If you were in that state on the date the Board adopts this
ordinance, you would be given until the end of this month to apply
for your certificate of public facility and exchange it for the waiver
and release you've already executed.
What happened is your current adequate public facilities
ordinance says the only thing you have to do to apply for a certificate
is to fill out a piece of paper with some information. Staff would then
review it. Once staff says it's been complete, you would have 30 days
to pay for the impact fees, to deposit those, and then you would get
your certificate.
Staff has changed the reading of the code to mean that they no
longer-- They are now requiring as part of a, quote, completed
application that you tender payment of the impact fees at the time you
apply instead of paying them within 30 days after you're getting your
answer.
What this was intended to do, taking into consideration that now
a completed application includes paying at the time you apply, it
would give people in that situation who have, or are in the process
right now, an opportunity to come up with the cash to fund the impact
Page 161
June 11, 2002
fees so that they can tender the check at the time they tender their
application.
Now, if you want to change it to "theymust obtain their
certificate of adequate public facilities by June 30th," we can live
with that. It's the grace period we need. The reason for the grace
period is the ordinance that the Planning Commission considered,
that was in their packet, had a blanket exception for any SDP or final
plat application that had been filed with the county. So you are
exempt as long as you filed a completed SDP application or a
completed plat. And it also said, and if it had been approved, you
were exempt.
Friday afternoon, around 1'30 in the afternoon, additional
language was added to paragraphs 5 and 26. And that additional
language says -- and it's consistent of both. I'll read from number 5. It
says, "any development pursuant to a final site plan or final
subdivision plat for which no waiver and release has been executed
pursuant to Section 3.15.7."
So if you've ever filed a waiver and release, you're no longer
exempt. So the only way to be exempt is to obtain a certificate. So in
reality, number 5 means nothing. Unless you have a certificate in
hand, you don't have an exemption under number 5, because you
have to submit a waiver and release at the time you apply for your
final site plant or you have to pay your impact fees.
And as Mr. Litzinger will tell you, the standard course of
business you signed your waiver and release, because we've never
been placed in a potential moratorium situation before.
Paragraph 26 does the same thing. If you've ever executed a
waiver and release, you no longer qualify for this application. So
what I had requested on behalf of some of my clients was if they
were in the process with the completed site plan, application was
Page 162
June 11, 2002
completed, subdivision application, since there was this last-minute
change, give them until the end of the month to come up with the
cash to pay for the certificate. That is consistent with the 30-day
period to pay the impact fees that currently exist in the code.
That is what the Planning Commission voted on. They voted to
have that grace period for people to exchange their waiver and
release by the end of the month for the payment of impact fees to get
their certificate. This additional exemption is needed even if you keep
exemption 5 in the ordinance and even if you keep exemption 26 in
the ordinance. This is the grace period that the Planning Commission
recommended to the Board of the County Commissioners that it
include.
It's a fairness thing. I have an example of a client. I only need a
couple of seconds to wind up, Commissioner Coletta, if you'll allow
me. I have an example of a client that, basically, found out on Friday,
when the language changed, that the blanket exception for a
completed application is gone. He had to come up a million dollars
by yesterday to apply for his certificate. This particular client didn't
have a spare million dollars sitting around to get his certificate. He
could raise the money by the end of the month, but he couldn't raise it
by yesterday. So that's what the purpose of the grace period was.
With that, I would hope that the Board, if it decides to go
forward with the moratorium, can accommodate those applications
that are in the process, are complete as of today, and give them that
grace period till the end of the month to exchange their waiver and
release for a certificate.
If you have any questions regarding that exemption, I'll be
happy to answer those questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 163
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question of staff. It's my
understanding, at least at this point in the discussion, that what we
have before us now is not what was reviewed and recommended by
the Planning Advisory Commission. Is that a correct statement?
MS. STUDENT: Again, for the record, Marjorie Student. What
you have was reviewed by the Planning Commission. And the
additional language, as Mr. Yovanovich says, was brought to the
language. We had a very short time to prepare this ordinance. So
there were some revisions, some unintended consequences when
Nancy Lenan had read the exemptions that were brought to her by
staff. And in consultation with her, the changes were made and
brought to the Planning Commission. And it was not the intent to
vest any projects that had gotten a waiver and release.
And it's my take on the exemption - I mean, I know that you
don't want to spend time listening to lawyers argue, but there is a
provision in that paragraph 26 if you have applied for the certificate.
And when people got wind that the process was changing and got
wind that there might be a moratorium, they started to come in and
apply for those without paying the estimated impact fees.
I think what Mr. Yovanovich is talking about is a situation
where if you had the waiver and release, the county attempted to
exclude them from the exemption. And so he's talking about a
circumstance where these guys did the waiver and release and they
didn't apply yet and they want time, add some extra time beyond the
adoption date of this ordinance to come in and apply and get it. And I
believe he did say that they could live with 15. So that was my take
on it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development Environmental Services. Commissioner
Page 164
June 11, 2002
Coyle, to answer your question, the Planning Commission approved
the amendment. And when they approved it, they approved it for that
interim period for those who had applications in process.
So you cannot walk in the door tomorrow and apply. That's what
the Planning Commission said. But if you currently had a plan in
review for a platted subdivision or an SDP, then we would allow till
the end of the month to come up with the funds, as Mr. Yovanovich
expressed, to come up with the money to pay for the certificate of
adequate public facilities. So that is what the Planning Commission
voted on and that's what they approved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So does that mean that what Mr.
Yovanovich is asking for was approved by the Planning
Commission?
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coyle, that's what
I understand.
MR. FEDER: The answer is yes. "Obtained," sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's what I understand.
MR. FEDER: With the language "obtained," yes. That is what
they voted on.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So what's the difficulty of
incorporating that into what we're looking at under the revision? For
a matter of three weeks the people have already submitted, and all
they have to do is get the paperwork done and pay their money. I
mean, it seems -- The logic of not doing that escapes me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the thing that concerns me is
that I respect the Planning Commission's decision on most of these
things, and I like to make sure that whatever we're making a decision
on they've had a shot at so they can properly advise us. And if they
Page 165
June 11, 2002
have, if they've advised us that that kind of opportunity exists, then I
think --
MR. SCHMITT: I think what they -- And I'm putting myself in
probably their thought pattern right now, but what they were really
trying to do was level the playing field.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: As Marjorie said, this thing is happening, and
it was evolving so quickly. As you well know, on Friday, we were
amending the language up until one o'clock in the afternoon, and that
was a Friday afternoon decision.
When we finally finished the actual ordinance with the Planning
Commission, it was introduced at that time to allow this interim
period for those folks who between Friday afternoon and, of course,
today, that they would have had to.
And now we've had several come in since Friday afternoon;
probably about seven and a half million dollars worth we collected
to-date of folks paying into the escrow or into the account. But what
this was meant to do was to just level the playing field so that others
could apply. Now, that, again, as Marjorie said, it's a policy decision.
If you all want to choose to continue with that, what I would call the
grace period, is what Mr. Yovanovich referred to it as, that, no, they
could not come in the door tomorrow and apply. But those who are in
the process, we do have projects that are currently being reviewed
right now, and this would give them the opportunity to at least make
an attempt to receive their certificate of adequate public facilities.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's consistent with the
position we adopted when we declared the moratorium on Vanderbilt
Beach.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, on Vanderbilt Beach, a little bit different.
I will have to defer to lawyers on that. I think we put a line in the
Page 166
June 11, 2002
sand as the date that it was actually recorded with the Secretary of
State in Tallahassee was the actual date.
We were a little bit -- We tried to craft, and I'll turn that over to
legal staff because we wanted to be very specific with this so there
would not be an argument of the date of actual -- the beginning of the
moratorium.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me see if I understand. This
originally was in the approval that came down to us from the
Planning Commission; correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it's been, since then, been
modified or moved out?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it -- What you have in front of you is
what the Planning Commission got. But when we ended up voting,
that was what they voted on was the verbiage that was added by Mr.
Yovanovich, and that's what they approved. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me add one more thing. The
Planning Commission from what I understand also deleted
paragraphs 5 and--
MR. SCHMITT: 5 and 26.
MR. MUDD: -- 26, okay?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. MUDD: So 5 and 26 in your manual were deleted by the
Planning Commission.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: And Rich's language- and maybe he had a word
added or whatever -- was added to their approval document. Since
that time, our conference call with Nancy Lenan up in Tallahassee,
our counsel that helps us with these processes with concurrency, said
Page 167
June 11, 2002
that paragraphs 5 and 26 needed to be in there because there were
some actions that could be negatively impacted if they weren't, okay,
and so she said to add those back in.
Our legal staff is of the opinion, as I said before, that by having
5 and 26 back in again, that it would cover Mr. Yovanovich. Mr.
Yovanovich is disagreeing with that fact.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to give you a minute to say
it, Mr. Yovanovich, and then I want to go to my counsel.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. What Mr. Mudd just said is
correct. I do not believe that by putting 5 and 26 you have created the
grace period that the Planning Commission voted to include. I think
my language needs to be included in the ordinance to appropriately
craft the grace period specifically voted on by the Planning
Commission and recommended that it be transmitted to you, which is
not in the ordinance in front of you today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, I'm going to go Ms.
Student.
Ms. Student, do we already have this crafted in there that we
afford them the same amount of the grace period that was originally
allowed by the Planning Commission?
MS. STUDENT: The reason that I -- and I have no problem with
adding his additional language. But the reason that I say what I have
said is because there's a provision in here that allows -- that
grandfathers in the filing for certificates of public facility adequacy.
And the types of development that Mr. Yovanovich alluded to, that
being plats and site plans in the process, when they got wind of this,
it's my understanding that they started to come in and change it, if
you will, and not do the waiver and release but go for filing.
If that's wrong, then -- That's just based on my factual
understanding, and that's the predicate for my opinion. If that's not
Page 168
June 11, 2002
correct and that's not what they're doing, then Mr. Yovanovich's
language would achieve that, because it only says "filed with or
approved by the county." It doesn't say anything in here about paying
any fees yet or actual issuance yet. So that would still give them time
to pay the fees and have the certificate issued.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to move off this subject
and resolve it and be able to --
MS. STUDENT: But if you want to include the other in
abundance of caution, I have no problem with that.
MR. LITZINGER: Mr. Chairman, I had some information about
the staffs position on this particular recommendation.
As Mr. Schmitt told you, the Planning Commission did
recommend that we add the 20-day grace period, which I would
assume would include the usual 1 O-day recording period with the
Secretary of State. So, essentially, it would be an additional 10 days.
From a standpoint of the process that your staff is implementing up
on Horseshoe Drive, a practical application is that we have a very
extensive list of exemptions for this ordinance should you adopt this
ordinance today as it exists.
You would, by this action, be creating a new list of exemptions,
and it's an issue of: Is this an equality matter? Who has the money
and who doesn't? And I think that you should take that into
consideration, and we will apply whichever standards that you adopt
should you adopt this ordinance.
And I think we need to make it clear. The fact of the matter is
that we're accepting applications today as complete when we have a
request for COA, we have their waiver and release that's previously
been issued or not, a formal application is filed for a COA, and the
monies are tendered into the escrow trust fund.
Page 169
June 11, 2002
So if in the event that you do adopt this ordinance with a 20-day
grace period, I just hope that it's very clear that we define who would
be covered by this grace period, because I do not feel, from a staff
implementation standpoint, this is an equality matter. It's a health,
safety and welfare matter, and it's not specifically related to
concurrency. It's because of the conditions on these roadways.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would the Commission like to
entertain this particular subject further or should we come back to it
towards the end? I feel the staff has done an adequate job of
explaining it and covering it, but that's up to you. How do you feel?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's move on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Garrett Beyrent. He will be
followed by Carol Wright.
MR. BEYRENT: For the record, my name is Garrett F.X.
Beyrent. I've been appearing before this commission for 31 years. It's
hard to believe, 31 years of my life. I was trying to figure out whether
I spent more time on this floor or in the jail across the street. I still
haven't figured it out.
The reason I'm here is because I've got a PUD that's going to be
major-league affected by the reduction of the use of Collier
Boulevard. Specifically, you see on that map -- What does it say on
the top there? "I'm a one trick pony." I am a one trick pony.
All I've ever done in this county for 31 years is develop cheap
condos in East Naples. That's all I've done. And I thought, you know
what? People ask me, "What do you for a living?"
"I just develop cheap condos." It cuts it short. And this is what
I'm trying to do right now in East Naples again. But then again, the
princess of affordable housing is not here. I hope she's not at John
Gotti's funeral. That's what I'm hoping.
Page 170
June 11,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm going to ask you to reframe
from that. She's at a --
MR. BEYRENT: That was just a joke.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:-- family emergency.
MR. BEYRENT: I was just joking anyway.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, well, please keep this--
MR. BEYRENT: She has done a--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- as a serious nature --
MR. BEYRENT: Okay. All right. I know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- would you? This is your time we're
dealing with.
MR. BEYRENT: Okay. I've got four and a half minutes left;
right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you've got about two minutes.
Keep going.
MR. BEYRENT: All right. That's okay. Anyhow, I've been
working with the school board, Mr. Kirk, in particular, for the
purpose of extending a road from Collier Boulevard, which is now a
paper road. It's actually lime rock. Then there's power and stuff out
there, but it's not an improved road, except for the first, probably,
quarter of it which is presently facilitating the NOAA's Landing
Development, which is an affordable housing project, 244 units.
And we're going to extend the road further out. That red block
up in the comer there, it's orange on my thing. It's red up there. That's
Golden Gate High School.
While I was away on vacation at the Hunter's Hotel over there,
they bought up all the land from the park system, and they're going
to do this big 60-acre high school. Pretty good. But they can't get into
it because of all the easements. Those are 5-acre tracts, and they've
got easement problems, whatever.
Page 171
June 11, 2002
And they want to go through my project, which is that dark
black hole there. It's a black hole. And it's already approved as a
Multifamily subdivision. It's called Magnolia Pond. It's 5.5 units to
the acre. I requested seven, but people told me that was high density
at the time.
Anyhow, I've been working with them to build this road in there.
And I discover, all of sudden, out in nowhere that I've got a road
going to a road that goes nowhere, because the Benderson (phonetic)
group that owns all the property in front of me -- that's that big white
space out there -- has purchased in advance all of the rights that I
have to Collier Boulevard.
From what I understand, they went out and they bought this and
bought that. Now they've basically covered themselves, okay, but
now I can't access this roadway and develop my project. And I kind
of-- I don't know whether or not the school board has got a
representative here, but I understand that they won't be able to access
Collier Boulevard based on what's going to occur today, which is not
a construction Moratorium. It's maybe a planning Moratorium,
whatever. And they're in the process of working with me to build this
road to nowhere. So I've been out of the loop a while, a long time.
What I'm going to basically propose to you is that that blue area
in the lower part there -- I lost my Mont Blanc pen. Actually, I have a
really cheap pen. I dropped it over there. I'll be right back. What have
I got? Thirty seconds left?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got over a minute.
MR. BEYRENT: Oh, thank you for your help. It's that blue area.
As I understand, that's a Super Wal-Mart. And my family sold the
property to Wal-Mart that's right next to this courthouse here. And I
thought, "Well, what do we need more in Collier County?" We've
got Wal-Mart on the East Trail next to the courthouse and we've got
Page 172
June 11, 2002
the one on the north end of town. Then we've got Sam's wholesale
warehouse. That's three Wal-Marts, as I look at it.
And we definitely do need one out there. I mean, the Golden
Gate Estates people needsomething. I mean, just going to that G's
store there and getting what they need to live on is not a good idea.
We have to have something out there, but that's as unlikely based on
what I understand today. So what I'd like to propose in my last 30
seconds -- That is because Benderson has entered into an agreement
with Wal-Mart. As I understand it, Wal-Mart has paid up everything.
So they're in already. And the rest of us are just out in the cold taking
care of the school board, you know. My ex-wife is the one that put
those shade things over all the playgrounds. She's crazier than I am.
No kidding. Ask her. She cost the school board $2 million.
Well, anyhow, getting back to the subject. What I'm going to
propose is that if you want to have a moratorium, have a moratorium
on what you like, except eliminate school boards -- or school
sites,okay? Eliminate that and affordable housing projects. Is that
okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about cheap condos?
MR. BEYRENT: Ah, no. Well, cheap condos are for housing
projects. Winter Park wasn't that bad; right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we thank you very much for
your --
MR. BEYRENT: And I appreciate your acceptance of my
insanity. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Carol Wright. And she will
be followed by Diane Ketchem.
SPEAKER: Neither one of them are here at the present time
though.
Page 173
June 11, 2002
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Keep going.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next one is Frank Halas, and he will
be followed by Tom Conrecode.
MR. HALAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Frank Halas. I live at 45 Flamingo Avenue. I'm here to represent the
property owners of Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association.
I'm the president. And we embraced the moratorium of Vanderbilt
Beach Road, and we want to thank the staff for working diligently on
that. As you know, we have a lot of impact on that area. There's been
some additional requests for additional traffic on that road. And the
auspices of Carol Wright, Diane Ketchem and myself and John
Hickey, we're trying to work with other people to eliminate the heavy
traffic on that area.
And we appreciate that the County realized the impact in that
area, and we also would like to include that moratorium, if it's
possible, to be tied in with the Moratorium that's presently on
Vanderbilt Beach Road. And at this time I want to thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tom Conrecode, and he will
be followed by Jeff Perry.
MR. CONRECODE: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and
thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'd like to speak first
about the issue of a planning Moratorium and put it in perspective of
a Moratorium. We can call it whatever we want but, in fact, it is a
moratorium.
And if you look at the fact that, in 1996, this county commission
finished its evaluation of an appraisal report and transmitted it to
DCA. It was found in noncompliance, went through a challenge and
Page 174
June 11, 2002
went through the resulting administrative procedures and so on and
so on and so on. That very short, time frame item, in fact, it has lasted
now going into the seventh year.
So when you consider this a temporary Moratorium, keep in
mind that temporary may be different for different observers. The
next thing I'd like to mention is that this temporary planning
moratorium will be replaced by real-time concurrency, which if we
rely on what was defined at your May 13th meeting, is a very
cumbersome and difficult thing, and it's actually going to continue
these moratoriums far into the future as well as create additional
Moratoriums on other roads if you apply it as it was written and
presented to this county commission on those dates.
We hope to work with staff to refine the process and the
procedures and the language a little bit between now and the 20th,
when the Planning Commission hears it, and the 25th, when it comes
back to you, to come up with a more realistic checkbook
concurrency, real-time concurrency program.
So keeping all that in mind and that it is moratorium, it's far
more permanent than we really are thinking about today as a
temporary solution to some congested roads.
I'd like to speak specifically to thethree segments. Regarding
Davis, I feel that it's irresponsible to simply place that segment and
adjacent contiguous segments under a moratorium without
identifying interim or and/or long-term fixes. It'sequally irresponsible
to shrug and say it's the State's responsibility because it's astate road
and it's in their funding program.
We don't have the money currently identified to fix that, and we
have other county roads, in fact, that could qualify for the
moratorium using the same criteria that wasused in this particular
case. Regarding theU.S. 41 segment, it's currently considered to
Page 175
June 11, 2002
operate at level of service C in the city but level of service F in the
county. And you county commissioners, as well as members of the
city council, sit on the same Metropolitan planning organization to
establish what that level of service is, and yet we're all looking at the
same road. So there are some issues, I think, that require some
additional analysisand additional consideration before we simply
declare a moratorium on that particular stretch of road.
Regarding Vanderbilt Beach Road, I consider Vanderbilt Beach
Road, first and foremost, a freebie for you because it was declared by
a previous commission to be a constrained segment. And the
definition that is used on page 80 of your amendment package -- I
don't know if that's the same as the package you have, the same page
numbering -- in essence, allows you to declare constraint facilities for
a number of reasons, one of which is aesthetics, another which is
local community character and some of those sort of issues.
Well, to declare it a moratorium, you are actually taking a road
that is not creating a problem for you today and creating a problem
with that particular road. That's not to say that there aren't
improvements that need to made up there. Accidents have been
increasing. Traffic has been increasing, particularly close to 41, and
in the commercial areas.
However, there are other measures. And again, in declaring the
moratorium, we need to identify those measures which will get us out
of the moratorium that can go in place to fix that particular road
segment turn lanes, to signal timing issues and some of those sort of
issues.
So I'd ask you to consider that and make those improvements as
well and not necessarily ignore the interests of the community up
there that it, in fact, in the past has asked you to consider that road
constrained and not necessarily make it any worse.
Page 176
June 11, 2002
With that being said, I would ask you to exclude Vanderbilt
Beach Road, give additional analysis to U.S. 41 before declaring a
moratorium and then certainly put the onus on all of us, the
community, staff, and yourselves to identify solutions, not just
identify problems, and work towards solving them. Thank you very
much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jeff Perry, and he will be
followed by Ross McIntosh.
MR. PERRY: Thank you. And good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry. I'm a
transportation planner with the firm of Wilson Miller.
Just a couple of corrections and/or clarifications, if you wouldn't
mind. On page 8 under geographic areas 2.237.3, the first one says
that "the segment of length of the U.S. 41 situate lying and being in
the unincorporated area of Collier County running direction from
Pine Ridge Road to Creech Road." That road, in fact, is not entirely
correctly described.
The only part that is actually in the unincorporated area is the
first 2,300 feet. That 2-mile length from Pine Ridge Road to Creech
Road, everything south, basically, of Neapolitan Way is within the
city limits. And although there is unincorporated land abutting that
particular roadway, the jurisdiction of that roadway, at least south of
Neapolitan Way is the city's jurisdiction.
And I would suggest to you that it's bad policy for this county
commission to be voluntarily imposing a moratorium on
unincorporated land with regard to a road that is within the city
limits. The City doesn't think it's a problem. They rated the level of
service as C.
To suggest that the county should voluntarily impose a
moratorium on itself for land that is adjacent to that particular
Page 177
June 11, 2002
portion of the roadway, quite frankly, I think is bad policy or setting a
bad precedent. Because if the city should decide that some other
roadway within the city limits is a problem, all of a sudden they're
now suggesting that the county should stop development in some
other area of the county because it impacts their city roads.
In this particular instance, it's ironic because the city is not even
asking for this that the county is imposing. But at the very least, I
think you should change the description of that deficient roadway
segment that the county has jurisdiction over technically, even though
it's a state highway, from Pine Ridge Road to 200 feet north of the
Neapolitan Way. That is the deficient roadway segment that is
technically under the jurisdiction of the county. Below that in
2.237.4, I just want to make sure I understand correctly. It's always
been my understanding that this does not apply to rezonings and
variances and conditional uses. This particular section says -- which
is the limitations on development section -- "except for exemptions
listed below, no development order, including building permits," et
cetera.
A development order defined by the Land Development Code,
in this case, 3.153.18 -- or excuse me, 3.153.15, as it's currently
written, is a huge list of just about everything, including
developments of regional impact, rezonings, conditional uses,
variances and the like. They are all considered development owners.
So if you read that in its entirety, the only time you would be
exempt is if you have an exemption. And the problem with the
exemption for that is number 27. It says that "completed applications
filed prior to the adoption of the ordinance for rezonings, conditional
uses and variances are exempt." It's understood that the building
permits would not be issued but you could continue with your
applications.
Page 178
June 11, 2002
I would suggest to you that this is, in fact, a building
moratorium. It has nothing to do with rezonings. We have a client
that has property and that will be filing a conditional use. It's
understood that they're probably not going to get building permits,
but at least they should have the right to submit their application, go
through the conditional use process or rezoning process or variance,
or whatever it happens to be, before they get to a point where they are
stopped by a moratorium, such as this, at their building permit stage.
So I just want to make sure that my understanding is correct, that it
was really never intended to apply to variances. And I think if you
correct the number 27 there to indicate that applications for
rezonings, conditional uses and variances may be approved, however,
no building permits and so forth would be issued, just strike out the
first part about completed applications filed prior to the ordinance
and I think we would be all set.
Is there any questions?
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ross Mclntosh, and he will
be followed by David Ellis.
MR. MCINTOSH: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission,
good afternoon. For the record, my name is Ross Mclntosh.
Which of you has the courage to put a stop to this pointless and
painful charade? You previously requested that staff come back to
you with a list of road segments impacted by sudden and
unanticipated growth. And in need of the immediate attention of this
Board, staff has hurriedly caballed together three crises based upon
arbitrary, flawed and self-serving criteria.
Page 179
June 11, 2002
As you consider the ordinance before you today, you are about
to drop your bombs where Osama Bin Laden was, not where he is.
Will you then declare the heroic victory for the citizens of Collier
County? As with any other misguided bomb, the casualties will be
innocent civilians. As with any other propaganda victory, you will
not advance towards your objective one iota.
The ordinance which you are considering today will have no
discernible positive effect on public health, welfare or quality of life,
but it will cause anguish and financial hardship for a few random
innocent bystanders.
Take a deep breath. Pull the plug on this selectively punitive
ordinance and focus your efforts upon an equitable county-wide
concurrency management plan that actually works.
Let's talk about Vanderbilt Beach Road. The Planning
Commission heard evidence that the county's traffic counting station
is located near the intersection of U.S. 41 where it's significantly
impacted by vehicles frequenting the groceries stores and movie
theater at the intersection. While private studies have shown that a
few hundred yards to the west, beyond the influence of the shopping
centers, Vanderbilt Beach Road may be operating at levels of service
C.
Relocate the traffic counting station a few hundred yards west
and, presto, crisis averted. But the Vanderbilt Beach Road
moratorium will make no difference anyway and, therefore, makes no
sense. I know of no project, planned or contemplated, on that subject
road segment.
U.S. 41 north. Now that the 90,000 square-foot, layered cake,
office building on the corner of Cypress Woods and 41 has been
permitted, only the 1.25-acre lot north of Thomasville Furnishings
remains to be developed.
Page 180
June 11, 2002
The owners of that parcel may reasonably wonder how the
development of this last small track became such a menace to society.
The real irony is, of course, that there will be no moratorium on the
Naples side of U.S. 41. And, in fact, the city is encouraging
intensification of development on U.S. 41 in the 41-10 district, which
will increase traffic through the county's 41 moratorium corridor.
Again, the proposed U.S. 41 moratorium will make no difference
and, therefore, makes no sense.
Davis Boulevard. We are told that one of the criteria for the
selection of areas in need of the moratorium is intolerable escalation
in the number of car crashes. Yet, according to Collier County's own
traffic crash statistics, accident totals at Davis and 951 actually have
trended down, not up, 30 percent since 1997. How many accidents
occurred at Davis and 951 in 2001 ? Not one a day but one per week.
Six accidents per one million vehicles moving through the
intersection; six per million. You have a better chance of winning the
lottery than you do of getting into an accident in this intersection.
As for expanding available road capacity, it is as if the
transportation department has said, "We can fix it but we don't have
to. So we're not gonna." When did shrugging your shoulders and
throwing up your hands become the appropriate response to the
challenges we face? Of course, once again, the horse is out of the
barn. The traffic associated with the recently approved 250,000
square-foot, 600- employees Super Wal-Mart at Davis and 951 will
dwarf traffic that may be generated by any other source.
And what about collateral damage from the Davis Boulevard
moratorium bomb? Say good-bye to further job formation in the
improved business parks at 1-75 and 951. And consider the example
of the 270-acre Twelve Lakes property.
Page 181
June 11, 2002
In conclusion, put a stop to this pointless and painful charade.
Take a deep breath. Pull the plug on this selectively punitive
ordinance and focus your efforts upon an equitable county-wide
concurrency management plan that actually works. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. FILSON: The next speaker is David Ellis, and he will be
followed by Don Pickworth.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
David Ellis, and I'm the director of the Collier Building Industry
Association.
Just to address a few of the issues, and we've talked about some
of these before in past meetings. Just the idea of moratoria for us
should be one of the most somber things we discuss. It is certainly
without precedent in its dramatic effect it's going to have on people's
property values. And we should consider it a very extraordinary
effort that we're undertaking and even discussing today and linked
with that maybe in some ways connected to what Mr. McIntosh just
said. As we discuss this extraordinary act, it seems like we aren't
really discussing extraordinary solutions. What will we do as a
community to face these things?
We've been talking a lot about the planning aspects of it and
certainly an important aspect. We had a planning process to identify
the three road segments that we're talking about today as deficient.
It's really not a planning issue. Our planning processes have done
that. What it hasn't adequately done is triggered the execution and the
follow-through to complete and to upgrade those road segments. Just
a couple of comments about the process in terms of fairness and what
we've been involved with in the past couple of weeks. There has been
a great deal of uncertainty. And I don't get to beg to speech the hour.
Page 182
June 11,2002
I don't say, "In the industry that I represent, we crave certainty as part
of our process.
I don't know if you got a chance to see the Planning
Commission meetings on Thursday and Friday. There was a great
deal of confusion. Some of it spilled into this meeting in terms of:
"Am I in? Am I out?" I wish you could listen to some of the
voicemails. You probably got them too.
Just in my office, they don't know how they're being affected.
What's happening? You know, even in the definition, even if we
wanted to say, okay, it's going to happen, nobody can tell everybody
exactly what's going on. And again, your staff is scrambled. Even
today, I know your transportation people, in trying to sort things out
with your legal folks, have had not issues but confusion in terms of
what the process is and how we should address it. It's been a problem.
I'll tell you that notification has been an issue. This has come up
fairly quickly. And if you saw the notification in the paper of the
change, it didn't really tell the whole story. I'll tell you, quite frankly,
when we go at a drive-up to a convenient store or to a -- you have to
send letters to all the local people and say, "Your property is being
affected." And that's for a minor zoning change.
We take away people's rights to use their land, and I think you're
going to get some calls later on with people going, "What happened?
I didn't even realize I was even affected." There have been some
significant things. And again, I mention those as policy and fairness
issues that we should consider philosophically just for a moment.
Where is the new threat? And I think this may have been some of the
things that Mr. McIntosh was alluding to.
Our present system actually did identify these segments as
deficient. And, really, the roads that are failed and are deficient are
determined to be so under our current plan. How are they at such a
Page 183
June 11, 2002
risk until the end of the year when we have our new concurrency
management system? Can't we wait until then and see what happens
and rely -- Hang on. I wrote this down so I wouldn't mess it up. Are
we under such a risk until December of 2002 that the concurrency
system will not work as it planned to work and as citizens and
investors relied upon in their investment decisions? No new
comprehensive planning or zoning is taking place that justifies these
short-term moratoriums. Gentlemen, we're working towards a
solution. We've got a plan that's in the works. Let's get there together.
But I'll tell you, realistically, we know you're looking at these
changes today.
And the things that I would say to you, Cormnissioners, in
closing, is let's dedicate ourselves to that extraordinary resolution of
these issues. Let's talk about where we're going to get the funds to do
these things. It's been mentioned, new construction as a great deal
and a new dividend that comes to our community every year in new
construction. Let's take some of that money. Let's take all of it. Let's
take half of it. And instead of just letting it disappear into the general
revenue, let's dedicate that to new road construction. Last year, it
would have been quite an extraordinary number. And if you look
over the past 5 years, if we had implemented a policy along those
lines, we'd have a lot of the money we need to move forward right
now on these projects.
Let's look at the impact fees. We talked about that. I know we
are. We're going to be hearing that here directly. But let's move ahead
and let's do the right thing so that we're making sure that a fair share
is being collected.
Let's set up special impact fee districts in these areas where the
effects are being done so that we make sure that the money that has
been caught in those areas is immediately reinvested in those areas to
Page 184
June 11, 2002
solve these issues. Let's look at all the interim solutions that are
available.
Mr. Talone mentioned just a few things that could be done that
could perhaps dramatically address these issues. While we're in here
talking about them, we could be out there doing some of these
interim things and resolving some of these issues in the short run.
And as we enter into this process, and I think many of them have
alludeded to what Mr. Conrecode did, realistically, this is the
beginning of a challenging process, short-term, with these
moratoriums. And then into the checkbook. We need to create a
system that's fair. That's honest. And it gives people a reasonable
expectation of where they stand and what they'll be able to expect
into the future.
And again, I think the biggest deficiency we've had in our
system hasn't been planning. It's been the execution of that plan. Let's
concentrate our efforts on that.
I will tell you again, as I've said in the past, the new
reorganization process you've done in your transportation department
has helped dramatically. They're bringing in new people. There's two
new staff people even in the last week in that department that are
going to be very important in resolving those issues. Let's work hard.
Let's dedicate ourselves in earnest to solving those issues.
Today, if you implement these moratoriums, it truly is an
admission of failure on behalf of the county, and it's nothing that I
think we should be gratified by that we've done something.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Can you wrap it up?
MR. ELLIS: Oh, I'm sorry. Last line. But let's again join
together. We can work together to make this go. But please,
Commissioners, consider the gravity and what we're doing today as
part of your decisions. Thank you.
Page 185
June 11,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
And we're going to take a 1 O-minute recess to give the reporter
here a chance to be able to take a break. (A short recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When we started the break, we had
several speakers left to go. Who is the next speaker, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Don Pickworth, and he will
followed by John Hickey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pickworth, go ahead.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Don
Pickworth. I'm here speaking on behalf of Pat Papineau (phonetic),
the developer of the Tollgate Commercial Center at 951 and Davis, as
he's over on Beck Boulevard on the other side.
Tollgate is probably a little bit different than a lot of the projects
that kind of, I think, form the factual basis for what got us here today
because most of these projects are relatively new, i.e., in the last five,
six, seven years or even newer than that.
Tollgate, on the other hand, is a little different. Tollgate was
originally approved and started back in 1987, and it was, if not the
first one, one of the very first developments out there. In fact, in the
process of doing the -- And Tollgate is a development of regional
impact; the DRI.
In the process of doing Tollgate, Mr. Papineau not only had to
install all the infrastructure within the Tollgate project itself, but he
had to install infrastructure which was of general benefit to the
county. In particular, he put a 14-inch sewer main all the way from
Santa Barbara Boulevard out Davis to the Tollgate project.
And an awful lot of the development that came subsequent to
that, in fact, tapped into that sewer main. Under the county's
formulas, you get back some of the money for that but not all of it.
The fact of the Matter is, there was a fairly substantial oversizing, if
Page 186
June 11, 2002
you will, of infrastructure. In addition to that, on the south side of
what is now Beck Boulevard, which at that time was 84, going up to
the toll booth, he installed -- he put in 4,600 feet of canal along there
for the Water Management District, including culverts that are now
being used by, for instance, Forest Glen for their -- you know, how
they get their entrance road over to the canal there. So there's been a
fairly substantial infrastructure commitment out there over the years.
And Marjorie Student and I have gone back and forth over ho
we recognize this as being vested. The first cut of the ordinance
simply said "any development that's deemed vested," as vested is
defined in Chapter 163. I'm quoting a subsection. I didn't think that
was too clear, as for something more, to clarify. And what came back
was what you see in Number 6, which basically would, in fact,
remove that vesting intent for a project such as Tollgate.
But in discussions here today with Miss Student, if this is
acceptable, I think one thing that would do it is at the bottom of your
-- This is subparagraph 6 on page 9. Down at the bottom, you'll see
some language that says, "also any development or project that is
deemed to be vested according to the common laws established by
the Florida Courts." And I guess the only thing I would ask there to
clarify in the ordinance -- because, obviously, the term "deemed
vested," I don't know who deems it. How do we get it deemed? That
becomes rather complicated. I would simply ask if we could insert
language that would say something to the effect of "including, but not
limited to, a DRI that has installed all its infrastructure and where the
actual development has commenced is continuing in good faith." And
that may be another way of saying vested anyway, but it gives us
some comfort.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Marjorie, could you comment on that,
please?
Page 187
June 11, 2002
MS. STUDENT: Certainly. Yes. The original language just had
a general reference to vesting in Chapter 163.31.67(8). And what that
statutory section says is that DRIs and any final local development
order that is commenced and continuing in good faith is vested, and
that was vesting for comp plan purposes.
Now, as I was explaining in the presentation, the Department of
Community Affairs has several declaratory statements on what
vesting means, not only for the DRIs, but what a final local
development order is. That's statutory vesting and, again, it was for a
comp plan.
What travels with that and a DCA said in a declaratory
statement was "common law vesting or equitable estoppel" that we've
talked about in other places, and that, basically, is when a person has,
in good faith, relied upon an act or omission ofgovernment. That
simpled stated what thedoctrine is.
And the case law tells us that when an individual has put in
infrastructure to serve an entire development, even though it may be
phased, if regulations are changed in the middle of the development
and they're not done with all of their phasing yet, because the
infrastructure is there to serve the entire development, that under that
common law, that development is vested.
And so what Mr. Pickworth is saying, it's exemplary language
because that meets his situation under the second part of this that
deals with common law vesting, and that would apply, you know, to
anything, a DRI or otherwise.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in simpler terms, let me make sure
I understand.
MS. STUDENT: I'm sorry. I tried to --
Page 188
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, and that's fine. I understand
that that's the way you lawyers talk, and that's all right. We'll get over
this. You're talking to four Commissioners, you know. (Laughter.)
MS. STUDENT: I tried to make it simple. It basically means,
look, if the government says, okay, you can do it, and you spent some
money in good faith because nobody --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand all that.
MS. STUDENT: You spent the money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand all that. Does it say now
within this thing that he is vested or he isn't vested?
MS. STUDENT: I believe that under the second paragraph
there, utilizing the case law, he would be. To give him some comfort
level, I told him I didn't have a problem if he wanted to put in
exemplary language. You know, an example would be in the case
where you put in oversizing infrastructure to serve the whole
development. And I don't have a problem with that, to show us an
example.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And now this will take in
people that have already put the infrastructure in and are totally
prepared to be able to go on with what they're doing? It isn't someone
that's coming in from scratch and they're going to be building
something?
MS. STUDENT: No, this--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this is infrastructure that's in
place.
MS. STUDENT: -- infrastructure is in place and ready to be
connected in case of water and sewer, ready to be connected up to.
And in case of drainage culverts, you know, it's there.
Page 189
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what words would have to be
changed to make this work, in as simple terms as possible?
MS. STUDENT: All we would have to say -- And Don read
some language in conceming the DRIs. But I just think that we would
say something to the effect, "such as a project where all the
infrastructure needed to serve the entire project is in place,"
something like that.
Mr. Feder, is there anything in this that you can see as a problem
that we're looking at?
MR. FEDER: As I understand it, the situation is already
covered. This is just a desire for more surety. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, it's just--
MR. FEDER: And my question would be: If it's truly covered,
how far are we going to go on surety and what does that open up?
What I just heard said was it not only had to be all of the
infrastructure in but also continuing progression towards
development. And so, all of sudden, I didn't hear this in this
language, and that's what worries me is you already have that
definition in here. It is specific. If you are truly vested, you're vested
by law. If you can prove you're vested, nobody is going to stop you.
If you're vested by the definitions that, in effect, equal what
we're being told is desired language, why craft language that is
already out there and provided for, would be my observation.
MS. STUDENT: I had already said to Mr. Pickworth, too, if you
want to put it on the record, without putting it in the document that it
covers that, that's something where the record could be referred back
to. And it would -- It's part of the Board's consideration and that it
covers this circumstance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excellent job of explaining that.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 190
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Gentlemen, I would just say it's
duly noted for the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And we don't want to
put, like Mr. Feder said, too much language in there, because we do
have some DRIs out there that have deviated, not in this court order
that I realized. So we don't want to have a catchall for everybody to
continue impacting if they have deviated from their DRI. I feel
comfortable with the language that's in there. And like Commissioner
Carter said, duly noted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move on.
Thank you, sir.
Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. John Hickey, and he will
be followed by Dwight Nadeau.
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm here
today representing Beachwalk Residents Association, which is on the
north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road in the area between Rome 41
and the beach. And I'd like to say that our 356 owners strongly
support a moratorium on that road.
The previous speaker alluded to the traffic situation, which is
very bad, and we have one entrance exit which is on Vanderbilt
Beach Road in the center of the area where the moratorium would
apply. So we are hopeful that the moratorium would diminish or
delay or possibly discourage further construction or planning on that
area to enable us to get in and out of our entrance and exit more facile
than we are able to do now.
Page 191
June 11, 2002
So we strongly support the recommendation by your staff that
the moratorium, at least as far as Vanderbilt Beach Road is
concerned, please vote yes. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dwight Nadeau. And then as
a courtesy, I'm going to call the two speakers who weren't here prior
to this, Carol Wright and Diane Ketchem -- Okay. He's the final speaker.
MR. NADEAU: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, Planning Manager for RWA. I'm
representing several clients on this moratorium issue. I'm really only
here for claritive (sic) purposes. I have some of my Clients' properties
that are apparently outside the boundaries of the adjacent and
contiguous lands. I have talked with Mr. Feder. And if it would
please the Chairman, I would just like to have some fingers pointed
on a map saying who might be affected and who might not.
I would also voice my support for the addition of Mr.
Yovanovich's language as an augmented condition to supplement
those conditions or exceptions -- exemptions 5 and 26 that are
currently drafted in the ordinance, that this would be a proper
addition to it. It probably is number 28.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who did you want to address your
questions to?
MR. NADEAU: I will address the question to you, Mr.
Chairman, and then possibly Mr. Feder can respond to your inquiry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's fine. Go ahead.
MR. NADEAU: This is the moratorium map. We have now
identified that developments which may be not adjacent and
contiguous to the yellow roadways which are adjacent and
contiguous would be affected by an only link to the major public
Page 192
June 11, 2002
roadway system. That would be similar to the Magnolia Pond issue.
We understand that.
It is those projects that would be maybe north or south of an
adjacent, contiguous segment such that traffic potentially could have
a diminimus impact on the moratorium segment. So, therefore, my
question to you, Mr. Chairman, is if I am north of the adjacent and
contiguous segment, I am not affected by the moratorium?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, if you're outside of the
yellow line, are you affected?
MR. FEDER: No, you are not. You're assumed to have other
access to the major roadway network and other options other than
impacting the immediately impacted area of the moratorium.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And did you want to elaborate on
what the yellow line is or aren't you affected by that?
MR. NADEAU: Oh, no. I understand where the yellow line is. I
just wanted to make absolutely clear that if you're outside the yellow
line, that you're not affected. Thank you, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's it?
MS. FILSON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Gentlemen, let's close the
public hearing and proceed with our deliberation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, talking with our
legal counsel and Mr. Yovanovich, they're both comfortable if we
add his recommendation by changing the word "apply" to "attain,"
kind of like you shalt be entitled to obtain certificate of public facility
adequacy certificate by June 30th of 2002.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go back to our counsel and also
Mr. Feder, who's been very instrumental in crafting this ordinance.
The one word change.
Page 193
June 11, 2002
MS. STUDENT: I have no problem. Again, it's a policy
decision. Legally, there's not a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Feder, I really do want you
to comment on this. You did a remarkable job on what you pulled
together.
MR. FEDER: If my understanding is clear that you already have
to have had your final subdivision plat or your final SDP, or your
subdivision plat, before implementation here, the only issue is, at that
time, you may have taken a waiver waiting until the time of your
building permit to pay your impact fee, and we are giving a period of
time for somebody to take away that waiver and pay the impact fee.
Then, therefore, it changes nothing relative to what can develop.
Then I would not have a problem if that's being fair to allow someone
to come in.
If it allows, in fact, somebody then to have time to come in and
be exempted under this by then establishing themselves as meeting
the criteria to apply for or obtaining their final approval of
subdivision plat or SDP, then I do have a concern. If my
understanding is that, first, if Marjorie can confirm that, then I
wouldn't have a problem, especially with the word "obtained" added
into it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Carter, does that satisfy you?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm satisfied if Miss Student is
satisfied, and I saw Mr. Yovanovich nodding his head. I would guess
we have an agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And did you want to make that part
of a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want it included in the motion,
whoever the person is that ends up crafting this motion, because I'm
not sure we're ready do that.
Page 194
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, for discussion purposes?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you're making the motion with
that included in it. For discussion purposes, I'll go ahead and I'll
second it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then we'll take it from there.
Now, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A question concerning date of
applicability. The date is currently written as the date of submission
to the state for approval. We are not obligated to wait for the state to
approve it.9
MS. STUDENT: It says "of the adoption date of the ordinance,"
and that would be today as the adoption date of the ordinance. It
doesn't say "effective date." Effective date is when you have the
situation of-- Maybe you need to do this. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, go forward.
MR. WEIGEL: Sure. "Effective date," under the law, is the date
received by the Department of State, meaning the Secretary of State's
Office. And I think Stan mentioned earlier that, you know, it could
take up to 10 days to get there, or words to that effect. But the
effective date is different from --
MS. STUDENT: The adoption --
MR. WEIGEL: -- the adoption date which has a --
MS. STUDENT: Today.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, which is today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yes, I understand that. I was
concerned with the effective date.
Page 195
June 11, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: And this is an ordinance that we will Federal
Express to the Department of State. So if it doesn't go out tomorrow,
it would certainly be the next day, and they would have it by the next
day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so filing with the Department
of State means the receipt and acknowledgment by the Department of
State?
MR. WEIGEL: We don't have to wait for acknowledgment. It's
just the receipt by the Department of State. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: But what I want to point out, the trigger date in
here is the adoption date of this ordinance, not the effective date, the
adoption date, which is today. So that's the trigger date is the
adoption date.
MR. WEIGEL: And we had this same kind of discussion when
we talked about the interim development controls or moratorium on
the Vanderbilt RT district back in December and January.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Other questions?
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Margie - or Miss Student. I'm
sorry.
MS. STUDENT: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does this mean that if
somebody comes in tomorrow with an application to Community
Development that is in these three areas, they could not apply or there
wouldn't be any exemption for those?
MS. STUDENT: They already have to have their development
approval application in. It's just a matter of whether prior to the
adoption date of the ordinance. So if they were to file for something
Page 196
June 11, 2002
after the adoption date of the ordinance, you know, they wouldn't be
able to do that, like subdivision or site plan approval.
And this language that Rich wants to have added is the
circumstance where the people who are already in the process for the
site plan or final plat, as the case may be, but they have not filed for -
- and, I mean, there's a debate over what "filed for" means because
they elect -- they just didn't file prior to the adoption date. So what
that would allow them to do, if we added Rich's language, would be
so long as they obtained their certificate by June 30th, they would be
okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, the bottom line here, it's got to be
deemed complete and sufficient. And if they haven't done that
already --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And completed?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, it's complete.
MR. SCHMITT: -- and we pass this today, nobody can come in
tomorrow and apply.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whether they have a site
development plan or a plat?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, if we currently have one in house and
were going for--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- review, yes, they've already applied.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: They've already applied. All they're doing is
waiting for the approval. And from what the language we're adding
here, then, yes, they can come in and apply for their certificate of
adequate public facility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So there's no rush on the
bank then?
Page 197
June 11, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: If, in fact, you add that language that Rich had
asked for, which I understand that's where we're going. Since I'm up
here, I'll make sure -- We had another one, Number 27, where we
talked about -- I know that was debated, but I want clarification, at
least from my operations. Do we continue to at least accept
applications for rezoning, conditional uses and variances? Because
the ordinance has listed those are null and void right now as well, and
we had a plea to accept those. And I just want to make sure that when
we shut the door, we shut the door on the right things.
MS. STUDENT: Well, the language originally said as long as
there was a completed application filed prior to the adoption date of
the ordinance for rezoning.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
MS. STUDENT: And I believe the idea was suggested to take
that out and just say "applications for rezonings, conditional uses and
variances" may be processed so they could continue to be processed.
So they just wouldn't be able to go forward and get the building
permit.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, and that's a policy decision.
That's at your level as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish my question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is not going to set up a
scenario where there's going to be a rush on the bank; correct or
incorrect?
MS. STUDENT: Well--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. This is still the last day;
correct?
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. As long as the people are already in the
development process, it's just a matter about what filing means for
Page 198
June 11,2002
purposes of getting the certificate. It's not going to create a rush for
more people to come in and file for a site plans or a subdivision.
But those that have already filed and, say, gotten a waiver and
release and didn't yet file for a public facility adequacy, they are
already in the process. So all they have to do is this extra step. So a
rush on the bank for more site plans and plats, no. But those that are
in the process that haven't filed yet for a certificate, yes, they will
have until June 30th to get their certificate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. STUDENT: It's like a filing within a filing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand.
MR. WEIGEL: If I can add a little bit, and I thank Joe for
stepping up for the clarification on the completeness and sufficiency
if that's filed.
To put it bluntly, if there's been a rush, it's already occurred.
This is not creating an opportunity for a rush. And additionally, in
regard to those things which will still be filed, what Joe has told you,
and I'll say it a little more bluntly, is insufficient slop is not
appropriate as far as something that's filed with the county to provide
any new rights or provide for ability of exemptions under this
ordinance as drafted. Filing merely to beat a deadline with an
insufficient document will not be sufficient. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good.
One more question for Norm Feder. These segments have been
deemed constraints or backlog or -- MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you know, messed up for
quite a while. So what I hear what's happening today is we'll
recognize that within an ordinance and now we're going to go out and
find solutions to get those roads out of moratoriums.
Page 199
June 11, 2002
MR. FEDER: What I will tell you, sir, is we are going to set up
our overall system for concurrency management. We will probably
have issues on some roads like these. And we will work through a
process of how we resolve them.
In some cases there may be development controls, but the
opportunity, as was noted here today, to make improvements.
Development, if, in fact, it wants to come forward, may be able to
add the turn lanes, do some minor improvements, add access
connections to other roadway facilities, to open them up and in
connection with other things that could be done along with what we
do in a very aggressive work program, as you are well aware of and
are funding through all the taxpayers' money.
The only thing I'll throw out to you -- if I've answered your
question, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. FEDER: In consideration on 27, that's another substantial
change. You've got a number of exemptions here. And the only thing
I'll ask you is if you exempt everything that is -- allow things to
continue in the process up to the point of final subdivision plat, SDP,
allow that process of rezoning to continue and those things to happen,
what you're establishing is a huge backlog waiting for the
moratorium to be polled and the dike to open.
And given that we know that we are dealing with three segments
that are at least constrained from added lanes in two of those cases
and one that we and you as a Board, in spite some of the discussion
today, took a very strong commitment to provide funding in the work
program to advance those phases, to allow us to go forward with the
ultimate and/or interim improvements, we have to have right-of-way
for those things. And you've committed right-of-way to get paid back
with, somewhat, DOT's programmed already. But,first, you have to
Page 200
June 11, 2002
have design on other issues. That if we, in fact, take two of those
sections we know are constrained, one we know is backlogged for a
period of time, and continue everything working its way into the
process into the pipe, the minute we come with our new process, we,
in fact, are going to have issues to address that may be very difficult
for us to address. So the question is: What do we do at this point?
Twenty-seven is an interesting policy decision. I just want to make
sure you know the full ramifications if we are going to change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How I read Number 27 is you
can apply for a rezone. You can apply for conditional use or variance,
but it says, "however, no building permit shall be issued until these
interim development controls moratoria have expired or otherwise
terminated."
MR. FEDER: And that's the definition that's being asked for you
to read. And what that would say is: I can come in and get my
property rezoned, do everything, get my preliminary site approval, all
of which would take me time to do, but then I can be ready for as
soon as anything changes. Now, some of that, if I'm starting at the
beginning of the parcel, it'll take me a longer than appears in the
interim moratorium.
But I just raise that to make sure you understand the
implications of whether or not we apply it only to final site plats,
which 27 would apply it to, as was pointed out to all development
orders, and a rezoning is a development order. You may or may not
want to go to that extreme on this moratorium. But I just want to
make sure you understand that as you consider either alteration or
keeping it the way it is in the final decision.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And the alternative?
MR. FEDER: The alternative would be to keep it the way it's
worded, at least the way folks have come and defined, and I will
Page 201
June 11, 2002
defer to legal staff, would be that you wouldn't entertain during the
period of this interim moratorium even the rezoning of land in that
area at that time. That may or may not be a policy decision that's
viable to the Board. And I will defer to legal if that's, in fact, what it
means if you did not change the wording. That's what was at least
purported in my understanding.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me see if I understand. The
problem would be is that with the backlog there, it would be already,
like, vested, to be able to go in the minute a moratorium ended. And,
in fact, they could almost throw us into another moratorium if they all
hit at the same time.
MR. FEDER: Exactly. That's my fear.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand.
Is there anything from legal you want on that.'?
Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: I just want to make one more clarification. If
we do adopt--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. We're getting out of
the habit of stating our name. I know I stated it for you, but if you
could, please.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. For the record, Joe Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development Environmental Services.
Just for the record, I want to make sure that it is noted that if the
adoption does include this grace period, that when they do come in, it
means tender and submit with the money in hand. It's not going to be
an IOU. It will be an actual: They will pay at the application, and that
will go into the escrow fund. So just for a matter record so we have a
legal record of that, that they will have the money with them when, in
fact, they come in and apply for their certificate of adequate public
facilities.
Page 202
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Duly noted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Here we are, gentlemen. So
far, we have a motion. We have a second. Is there any other
discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a question. Did the
Planning Council approve 27.9
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, they did. The only thing that they
pulled was 5 and 26, and they approved to minus those two with Mr.
Yovanovich's wording.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
MR. MUDD: So 27 they did approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have one remaining question
about 41. The Naples City council has the understanding that this
does not apply to any of the property in the city limits.
MR. FEDER: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. FEDER: And even with the clarification or the question
raised, when I met with the mayor, I was told that Creech Road
would be the limit even if it is 200 feet south of Neapolitan. If you
read the wording, it says from Pine Ridge South to creech in this
case. But again, the land on the west side of U.S. 41, the land north of
those limits are what we're regulating, not the roadway itself, not the
center line. It is a land development decision.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. It says "lying and being in the
unincorporated area."
MR. FEDER: In the unincorporated area. So I'm comfortable
with the wording as it is, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Thank you.
Page 203
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, and then
we'll go to Commissioner Carter, and hopefully we'll be there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sorry. Number 27, as
we look at the Land Development Code, is says that concurrency,
everything, level of service on the roads, water, sewer, blah, blah,
blah, are all -- that growth management consideration. So can staff
make a recommendation that under a rezone or a conditional use that
we do have adequate public facilities? The answer is no.
So should we even put anybody through that process of asking
for a rezone when we can't get a recommendation of yes from staff?.
So I'm more in favor of removing 27 of rezone and conditional uses.
Besides, there are two other issues: The public perception of there
they go again approving something else in a failed roadway.
And the item that Norm Feder brought up about somebody that's
been in the works for a long time that has a subdivision but not a plat,
they can't go forward until we improve that section or take it out of
an interim moratorium and have somebody that comes in like two
years later that wanted a rezone and they can take up that capacity. So
I'm more in favor removing those two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Two. What's the other one? Twenty-
seven and--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, 27; rezone and conditional
uses.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Comment on that? Questions?
Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder. A clarification here
because I don't want to confuse the matter. On 27, we're okay with
the language as worded, because what it says is that if they've
completed these items prior.
Page 204
June 11, 2002
So if they've done a PD -- or rezoning prior, they can continue,
although they can't get their building permit if they're impacted in this
area. What we were trying to prevent, what I understood, was a
modification of the language requested and was raised initially,
which would have allowed people to continue to apply for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. FEDER: So those that -- I think the language in 27, as
worded, would seek to get at what I was asking you for.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. And that would be -- Just for
clarification, that would be if the completed application was filed
prior to the adoption of the ordinance, which would be today.
And I have one other point of clarification. It was mentioned
early on in a discussion about public facilities such as sheriff's
stations and substations and fire, any EMS facilities as being as was
that considered, and I looked through and it said that it was not listed
in exemptions. So would the Board want to have those types of
facilities necessary for public, health, safety and welfare included in
the exemptions? Would that be part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's part of the motion,
Dr. Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll make it part of the second.
Okay. So, Commissioner Carter, I guess we're up to you. Are
you through, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Carter,
any final comments?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, sir.
Page 205
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it has not exactly been an easy
process, but it's something we've made a promise to the community
to do and get it underway. I see this as a catalyst myself. I'm sorry, Marjorie. Just one second.
MS. STUDENT: One other thing, and if you'll just make a
finding of consistency with the comp plan. You know, it's an LDR
and we're supposed to do that. So thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Include all the above in your
statements.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And likewise, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: With all that's been said, it's not
above anything, I don't think.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me make sure, because we've
gone over-- This is Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager. Let's make
sure we've got this tight, okay, because it's gone around and around a
little bit. And let's make sure the staff has got direction.
We talked about sufficiency with the Growth Management Plan.
We talked about putting an exemption in there for government
facilities for health, welfare and safety into the exemption.
We've said that we're going to have number 5 and number 26 in
the plan, okay, even though the Planning Commission said to take it
out, okay. I want to make sure that that's specified. We are going to
put in Mr. Yovanovich's language, and we're going to leave
paragraph 27 alone.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understood it was one word we
were changing.
MR. MUDD: Is there one word in Mr. Yovanovich's --
MS. STUDENT: Yes. It wasn't "applied for." It was "to obtain"
by June 30th.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
Page 206
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that was the extent of what we
were doing with that particular end of it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Those are the only changes to this
ordinance that we've got on the table right now in this motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As I understand it, sir, is staff
clear on where we're going with this? And I hope everybody
understands that when you talk moratorium, it's not a solution. A
moratorium is to give you an opportunity to find the solution. I think
everybody needs to understand that, the listening audience and our
staff. We're trying to work through wherever possible. If it's a
physically constrained road, it's a different issue because it's done.
There's not anything you can do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may piggyback on that. I see
this as a catalyst. And we're now forced to take action, to take action
as soon as possible to try to alleviate the problem that we have
identified which has been there for a long time.
Hopefully, the action is going to be fast and swift. And I'm sure
we're going to have the support of the building community; and, in
fact, they're going to want to see this resolved in short order also, and
they'll be aiding us in every way to get over this in the shortest
possible period of time.
And with that, if there's nothing else, I'm going to call for a vote.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have
it, 4 to 0. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would take us to 8-B, and that
was change. Because it was a zoning issue, that was going to be 17-
A. So we moved that to 7-A, and it's already been heard.
Item #8E
Page 207
June 11, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-266 RE PETITION CCSL-2002-1-AR-2343,
ANNIS MITCHELL COCKNEY EDWARDS AND ROEHN,
REPRESENTING THE RITZ CARLTON REQUESTING A
COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT TWO (2) GAZEBOS AND A STORAGE BOX FOR
STORAGE OF BEACH EQUIPMENT AT THE RITZ CARLTON-
ADOPTED W/STAFF STIPULATIONS
So that takes us to 8-E, which is a move forward for 17-C, and
that's gazebo, storage sheds at the Ritz-Carlton. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got to swear them in.
MR. MUDD: They have to be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yes, please. Thank you very
much.
Please stand, all that wish to participate and be sworn in.
(The oath was duly administered.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
And now, disclosure on the part of the Commissioners.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A brief discussion with Matt
Hudson (phonetic) yesterday.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I haven't talked with anyone about
this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have I?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've had a brief discussion with
Matt Grabinski representing that famous hotel, the Ritz. And I've had
e-mail correspondence with members of the communities.
Page 208
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I had none. And I apologize to Mr.
Grabinski for the fact that I was unable to get back to him by phone. I
tried several times. I was unsuccessful. And I just should have timed
it or tried a little harder, but I promise to pay attention to what you
have to say today.
MR. GRABINSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue.
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger,
Planning Services Department. I'm here to present a construction
setback line variance for the Ritz-Carlton. I have an exhibit I'd like
to put on the visualizer.
The proposal is for the Ritz-Carlton to add two gazebos and a
storage box seaward of the coastal construction setback line. If you
look at the visualizer, the coastal construction setback line is this line
right here where my thumb is (indicating).
There are several structures already approved by variances in the
past for the Ritz-Carlton. And as you can see, there are several dune
walkovers. They're indicated in black, four of them.
In order for staff to recommend approval of a coastal
construction setback line, there has to be a line established seaward of
the coastal construction setback line for the county that existing
structures already protrude out into. And those structures have to not
be affected by erosion, things of this nature.
We have taken the second southernmost boardwalk, which is
this one right here. And this line here represents that line seaward of a
coastal construction setback line, which is this one (indicating).
Petitioner would like to add a gazebo at this location. And they'd
like to add a gazebo at this location and storage box next to this
gazebo at the southernmost portion of the property (indicating). If
you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
Page 209
June 11, 2002
The petitioner is here. And, also, I believe there are several
registered speakers.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: A question I have. This is a
replacement, as I understand it, as a result of Tropical Storm
Gabrielle that took out facilities that already were there and approved
by variance by the Board of County Commissioners in the past?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, that is true. It has gone to replace
some structures. The existing variance that they have -- and I'll put it
on the visualizer. It's a little more difficult to see, but at this location,
there was a towel area, a rack approved by the previous variance.
And also at this location, there was also another towel area, a rack,
and also a smaller storage box at this location (indicating).
And what the present variance will do is replace these towel
racks and that smaller storage area with two gazebos and a larger
storage facility. It will also store their chairs and cabanas behind the
proposed gazebo and a storage bin at this location, at the southern
property line.
So, yes, the tropical storm did take out those structures, and the
petitioner could go in today and apply for a building permit and build
those structures, but they wish to put in gazebos and a larger storage
facility. And that's why they're here for the variance.
MR. GRABINSKI: If I may, Matthew Grabinski, for the record,
representing the Ritz-Carlton. I thank you for your time today,
Commissioners. I'll try to keep this brief.
I have handed out to you a copy of our existing variance that Mr.
Lenberger referred to that was approved in August of 2000. This
diagram that I have over here is also an enlargement of the diagram
that was included on our 2000 variance. And as explained, just off of
the secondmost northerly boardwalk and then the southerly
boardwalk were two L-shaped towel stands and service counters, as
Page 210
June 11, 2002
well as, at the southern end, a long storage box facility that were
destroyed.
The hotel noticed last fall that some of the other hotels and
beach concessionaires were starting to use cabanas or tiki-type huts;
namely, The La Playa, which has a tiki-type hut or cabana out on
their beach. And I'll enter this as an exhibit, and you can look at that.
And then I also was able to obtain a picture of what the 12 x 12
foot cabana would probably look like if this variance was approved
for the Ritz-Carlton. And I'll admit that as well.
This was originally on the consent agenda, and so I apologize
for not being able to speak with all of you individually sooner. I just
found out yesterday morning that it had been pulled.
The Ritz-Carlton would like to replace the L-shaped counters
with the gazebos for two main reasons. First of all, aesthetically,
they look a like lot better and nicer is why I think some of the other
beach concessionaires in Collier County and The La Playa have
decided to use them instead and, also, just to provide better service to
their guests.
The former L-shaped counter that was located at the northerly
end of their beach was never used, really, as a towel stand. All of the
towels were provided for the guests at the south end of the beach. The
Ritz-Carlton's beach has got significantly more busy, particularly
with the opening of the golf resort.
I've learned that approximately 75 percent of the guests staying
at the golf resort will take the shuttle into the beach and access the
beach through the Ritz-Carlton's property. And so they would like to
have a larger stand or facility at that north end to keep towels there
and hopefully cut the trips that their towel runners and towel carts
have to make from the northern service boardwalk all the way down
to the south in half.
Page 211
June 11,2002
Again, we feel that this is a very minimal increase in area and in
some cases merely a change in shape. We're not asking to encroach
any further closer to the water's edge. We would respect the current
line that is established. And the only other comment that I have other
than to answering questions you may for me are regards to the first
stipulation and the current variance that's before you and just, I think,
a clarification that I would like made to the language, because the
currently states that the structures will be located landward up the
seaward edge of the dune walkovers. And if you notice on the
diagram, the dune walkover directly in front of Gumbo Limbo is
probably 8 to 10 feet longer than the rest of the dune walkovers. And
that was the dune walkover that was originally used to establish the
seaward line that needed to be respected. And our structures were
able to be placed in front of the other dune walkovers but behind the
line created by the end of the longest one. And we would just like
that clarified in the language of that stipulation if this variance is
approved.
And that's all I have right now other than I would like to reserve
some time to respond to any comments or issues raised by the public.
And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I also
have Mr. Aref Sayegh of the Ritz-Carlton and Ms. Monica Cardwell
would also be available to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions?
Hearing none, why don't we proceed with the speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Doug Fee, and he will be
followed by John Hickey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And how many speakers are there?
MS. FILSON: Eight.
Page 212
June 11,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, if you think somebody
has made the point adequately and you wish to waive, that'll be fine.
If you want to speak, we welcome you.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee, and I live at 921 Carrick Bend circle. And I'm
here representing the board of directors, and it's a 33-member
association of the Second District Association. Sally Barker was
unable to attend today. I'm also the president of a newly formed
North Bay Civic Association. Because this is my first time standing
before you, because we live in such a great nation with all of its
freedoms being offered, I'm thankful for this privilege.
Today, Commissioners, you have in front of you what appears to
be a simple variance petition, a petition that if you approve, will
allow the petitioner the ability to construct two gazebos and storage
boxes beyond the coastal setback line. But what may appear to be a
simple variance, in reality what you in front of you is an issue that
affects the future of all Collier citizens for generations to come. This
petition in front of you, if approved, may set the standards for future
requests from individuals that might argue for the same rights. These
standards were set and recorded in the public records back in October
of 1974 as established by the Department of National Resources of
the State of Florida.
Our beaches are one of Collier citizens' most treasured
resources. Many of us, including myself, moved to the Naples area
because of our beaches, and I enjoy taking walks and value all that
they have to offer.
North Bay, the area in which I live, is blessed in that we have
approximately four miles of beaches that are, today, in preserve.
Delnor-Wiggins State Park and, of course, Collier County Barefoot
Beach, they are still pristine. Having said this, I could go on and list
Page 213
June 11, 2002
the many reasons why I would encourage you as commissioners to
mm down this variance request. The list in my opinion is lengthy.
The underlying reason why I'm standing here before you today,
and I am speaking as a representative for the Second District and
North Bay Civic Association, is to ask you to table the item today
and move this agenda item to the June 25th meeting.
As commissioners, only you are able to grant this variance for
the CCSL. Although I have read the land development code sections
and the notice and hearing requirements, and I believe I understand
them, we feel that we have not had enough time to understand what
the petition is asking for.
After you posted your required notice in the newspaper, we
requested the information from the county and in just the past few
days received this information. A week in the summer is not enough
time to prepare and be able to present the citizens' side of the
equation.
We are not arguing that the petitioner does not have a right to
submit their application and seek a variance. And the county may
have followed all the notification requirements, but the Second
District and the North Bay ask that you please allow citizens an
additional two weeks to be heard on this most important issue.
Having said that, I have just two more things. I was at the beach
the other day, and the Parks and Recreation Department has posted
on the walkways something I found very interesting. And it says that
the sand dunes found along the coast protect the coastline from storm
waves and winds. Dunes are formed as waves carry sand to the beach
where the wind picks it up and blows it inland. Gradually, the sand
piles up or plants such as sea oats begin to grow.
Sea oats are one of the few plants that can live in dry, salty and
constantly moving conditions of a dune. The roots of sea oats grow
Page 214
June 11, 2002
deep into the sand in search of water. These long roots help to hold
the sand and protect the dune from wind and wave erosion. Dunes
will grow larger as sea oats catch windblown sand. Walking and
playing on the dunes will destroy the sea oats. If this happens, the
dunes might be blown across the park, and the beach may be washed
away. You will have lost your park and your beach.
The Collier County Division of Public Services through the
Parks and Recreation Department are restoring and protecting dunes
on our county beaches. Please help us to protect this valuable
resource.
Now, having said all this, I've waited all day, and I appreciate
your time. What I really want to encourage you to do in this variance
process is to somehow have a different process put in place where the
average citizen can know ahead of time what the petitioner is going
to say so then, in fact, we have all the facts and are not speaking on
something that is irrelevant to their situation. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Hickey, and he will be
followed by Diane Ketchem. Is she still gone? Carol Wright is gone.9
SPEAKER: Yes.
MS. FILSON: And the next one would be Frank Halas.
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, I'm wearing a
different hat here. I'm also on the board of directors for the Second
District Association which represents 33 associations in North
Naples.
I would like to request the same as Doug has requested, that
there be a continuance on this request so that, number one, a public
hearing could be held so that we can be better prepared to understand
the request and either oppose it or go along with it.
Page 215
June 11, 2002
Secondly, I'd just like to pose the question to you. Why would
you approve this variance for new construction that is to be placed in
exactly the same place that it was wiped out by a storm? We're going
to have storms all the time on our beaches, and we're going to be --
Does the Ritz continually ask for variances to reconstruct this? I just
don't see much of a sense to continuing to approve variances for
construction of material that's going to disappear. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hickey, a question, because
I guess this is something that the topic might come up during the
recommendations from the Vanderbilt Beach moratorium in that area.
You stated a very interesting point. Any structure that is destroyed
by a hurricane, should we allow that? So the same question might be
opposed to a condo, 5-story or whatever stow condo on the beach.
Should we allow that to rebuild? Do you see what I mean?
MR. HICKEY: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. HICKEY: I don't understand. You're saying that if these
minor structures that the Ritz wants to put up can get wiped away,
then also a condominium building could get wiped out and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: During a storm.
MR. HICKEY: Please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: During a storm --
MR. HICKF. Y: Yes, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if a structure is destroyed,
should we allow any rebuilding of a structure on the beach? And I'm
just throwing out there a condo building of five stories. Should we
allow that to be rebuilt?
MR. HICKEY: A condominium building. The only difference I
see between the two, Commissioner Henning, is that the
Page 216
June 11, 2002
condominium building would not have been built beyond the
construction line that's set.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Coastal construction.
MR. HICKEY: Coastal construction line, whatever the technical
term for that is. The buildings that the Ritz wants to put up are being
constructed way out beyond that line. So the point I'm making is why
should you as commissioners continue to approve something that
could be wiped out in even a minor storm, never mind a hurricane.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see your point. Thank you.
MR. HICKEY: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker?
MR. HICKEY: Are there any other questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Halas.
MR. HALAS: I pass. Mr. Hickey covered all the points that I
was going to bring up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next one is -- and I'm going to mess
this one up -- Aref Sayegh.
MR. SAYEGH: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next one is Matthew Grabinski. Oh,
and he's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He waives.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And the last one is Monica Cardwell.
MS. CARDWELL: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question of staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead, commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm interested in the statement that
there are no homes, condos or other structures built seaward of the
Page 217
June 11, 2002
coastal construction line. It's my recollection that that is common,
that there are a lot of homes built seaward of the coastal construction
line.
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, there are in developed coastal barriers
like Vanderbilt Beach. Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not unusual to find a private
home or even a condo that's built seaward of the coastal construction
control line.
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may comment on that, every once
in a while all this training I got in hurricane preparedness helps out.
I understand that if they receive a damage from a storm, that it
can't be replaced if there's more than 60 percent damage, something
of that nature, the ones that are past that line. Maybe I'm wrong on it,
but this is what I can recall in some of the deliberations. It didn't
affect Collier County, but in other places this is what the calling was,
and it came, I believe, from the federal government.
MR. LENBERGER: A couple of issues. One, the structure has a
CCSL variance. There's no expiration date on that. So they can
rebuild a structure. I think what you're referring to is once it's
damaged beyond a certain point, I think it can't be rebuilt. It has to
have a whole new structure built --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. That's a dwelling that people
live in and are placed in immediate danger if they were to stay in
such a dwelling.
Well, we have something here now. The rest of the boardwalk
and everything else that's been out there from day one, if we were to
say that this was totally out of line, then the rest of it would be out of
Page 218
June 11, 2002
line, too, I would imagine, anything to the seaward side of that line.
So this is a pretty hard decision to make, I mean.
Now, at this point in time, do we have other beaches that have
built past this line and have also applied for variances for such things
or does the Ritz-Carlton stand out alone on this?
MR. LENBERGER: No. There are quite a few variances on
Vanderbilt Beach, Pelican Bay beach facilities and, obviously, Marco
Island.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does the county itself have some for
their parks and rec?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, to my knowledge, I know they have
boardwalks, but I'm not sure what else they have.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I see Mr. Dunnuck approaching.
He probably can answer that.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator.
To answer your question, yes, we do have facilities where we
have required a coastal variance setback, Tiger Tail Beach
specifically, and we work in concert with the Registry Resort on our
facility there at Clam Pass.
And I believe from the standpoint of the concessionaires, while
I'm speculating on that, I believe we required some coastal setbacks
even at the end of Vanderbilt Beach for our concession facility there
even though it is portable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So this is an intricate part of what
we're trying to do to provide for tourism, but then again, too, we've
got the rights of residents and what's going to make it difficult for
them to access the beach or to utilize the beach. But I don't see
where this is going to be in any way raising any difficulty for our
residents as far as the use of the beach.
Page 219
June 11, 2002
I don't know. How do you feel?
Well, I guess it's the three of us right at the moment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Mr. Hickey brought up a
very good point. You know, should we consider anything once it's
destroyed by storm on the high hazard coastal line? And, you know,
may be we give the beach back to the people, but maybe that's a
discussion that we should get into at the -- talking about the
development of Vanderbilt Beach when that comes up.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I hate to be a strict constitutional
lawyer here, but I think that's out of the framework of the CCSL.
And if I'm right, Counselor, I would stay with that just for
discussion purposes?
MR. WEIGEL: Stay with it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Like I say, I want to stay within
the framework of the cCSL, the process, the procedures to deal with
this subject.
MR. GRABINSKI: And ifI could just add a little thought and
point out some characteristics with the Collier County CCSL and
how it's applied, because I think that we're sort of starting to compare
apples and oranges when we talk about, well, a wooden storage box
that is not an occupied structure, that doesn't have utilities running to
it, gets washed out when, you know, it's contemplated by a beach-
front property owner that if they want to put something out there to
service guests, if it's a commercial facility, that they're going to
assume the risk that once in a while we have hurricanes in Florida
and that's going to be washed away.
And to compare that and suddenly start getting philosophical
and saying, well, if there's a house or a condominium that's destroyed
by a hurricane, should we let that, you know -- or should we just
consider that process of natural selection so-to-speak in where
Page 220
June 11, 2002
development should and shouldn't occur. I mean, keep in mind, the
way that the county applies the CCSL law. If the Ritz-Carlton
wanted to put an extra garbage can out on its beach because it felt
that it needed more garbage cans out there, I don't think anyone
would really have a problem with that. We'd need a CCSL. And if
we're in here saying one of the things that got washed away was a
garbage can and, in addition to replacing that, now we want two,
would you be sitting up there saying, well, should we really have
garbage cans out on the beach? They got washed away during the
storm.
I mean, I just think that's an important -- and issues are getting
raised here, but we're starting to mix apples with oranges and we're
talking about wooden countertops that don't have electrical facilities
or water or sewer running to them that are not occupied during a
storm, that could be removed if the hotel had enough warning, but
that if they were destroyed, the property damage and value is
minimal. And it's a risk that is readily apparent and the hotel is taking
with anything that it puts out on the beach. And so I'd just ask that
you not let our request with this variance that was initially and still
is, I hope, supported by your staff and was placed on the consent
agenda and in listening to several members of the public that have
spoken up in what I thought would be in opposition to this but sounds
more like they're frustrated with our notice procedures, I'd ask you to
please not penalize us here today. The notice procedures were
followed for this variance.
If anyone had any questions, this is the public hearing and
meeting. They can hear what we have to say, and I hope that we've
done a good job explaining to you the history of this variance and
what we're trying to do. It's not new construction. It's not building a
facility that has electrical and water and sewer. It's replacing an L-
Page 221
June 11, 2002
shaped counter with a rectangular-shaped counter and another L-
shaped counter with an octagon.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, Mr. Grabinski, you and I have
had some go-arounds when it came to sea turtles and parking and
beach access, but in this case here, I can see where you're coming
from. And I think if we were going to address this past this point, we
would doing it in the land development code or through something
that would deal with it universally rather than --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know, Commissioner. I
think --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- by the situation itself.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think you're right. You would
address it in a different forum. And I think whatever governs the
CCSL, the -- quit using the terms and say the coastal construction
setback line variance. That direction may be coming out of the DEP
or even the Corps of Engineers in terms of how you deal with this.
And there are some administrative guidelines and terms in which
counties and cities can make to make decisions through planning
departments. And I think if that is an issue with the public, that is the
one that is even beyond our level but that conceivably could be
revisited, but it is not the particular situation today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And are we at this point in time going
to take everything that's wrong in the world out on the Ritz-Carlton
with what they intend to do and still allow everything else to
continue? So in that case --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What are you looking at me for?
I'm not --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion that we approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Did the rest of the commissioners
hear that? He had a motion to --
Page 222
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. COYLE: I heard.
MR. LENBERGER: May I interject? Is that motion with staff's
stipulations?
MS. FILSON: Close the public hearing.
MR. LENBERGER: Matt brought up a point that he was -- one
of the changes to the stipulation. So just for clarification, was that
motion for staff's stipulations or to amend the stipulations?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With staff's stipulations.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Which are acceptable to the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, but-- Yeah, go ahead. We'll
allow you speak, sir.
MR. GRABINSKI: There's an ambiguity in staff's stipulation
that I think needs to just be clarified, and I have that change in black,
I've prepared it for you. Again, it currently states that, "The structures
will be located landward of the seaward edge of the dune walkovers."
I would prefer for it to read, "the structures will be located landward
of the seaward edge of the secondmost-southerly dune walkovers."
Again, otherwise, if you look at the northernmost L-shaped
counter that was destroyed and where it is located, it is forward of the
seaward edge of that dune walkover. That dune walkover ends at the
vegetation line. You can't put anything behind the dune walkover.
You'd be in the sea oats. And we met with Mr. Lenberger yesterday
evening at the Ritz-Carlton on site to make him aware of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not really prepared to give you
any more than I already have, but let's hear from staff and what they
have to say.
Can you respond to that?
Page 223
June 11,2002
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, I can. I did go out to the property
yesterday. From the size of the structures that they've indicated on the
site plan, it would be tight to put them behind the seaward point of
the walkover.
So I would agree that we would probably -- can go with the site
plan showing the location with the line that was drawn from the
walkover that protrudes the furthest distance, the secondmost one. So
I would say that we keep the language in stipulation one the same for
the first sentence, and Matt's language for the second sentence would
be fine. Staff would agree with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And there's no problem from legal?
MR. WEIGEL: No problem.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, since this was approved
and on a summary agenda and no one would have been here unless it
would have been polled, I would be careful how much you want to
tinker with language.
MR. GRABINSKI: Commissioner Carter, is this on?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's on.
MR. GRABINSKI: The purpose of my language and I think this
diagram illustrates it a lot better than words. The current variance
established this line right here, which is at the seaward terminus of
this center boardwalk in front of Gumbo Limbo, as the line that had
to be respected for the countertops and the counter footprints. That's
what our current variance is.
This boardwalk does not extend out to this line (indicating). This
is a shorter boardwalk. The vegetation line is even with the end of the
boardwalk. If we had to follow stipulation number one of the
variance and put the structures behind the seaward end of the
boardwalk in this case, we'd have to put the structures up in the sand
dune on the sea oats.
Page 224
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you're looking to go farther
inland?
MR. GRAB1NSKI: No, we're looking to go exactly where the
destroyed structure was, forward of the edge of the boardwalk but
behind the seaward line established by the longest boardwalk at the -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want us to give you the okay to
be able to go on the other side of the line?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, he's -- to protect the sand
dune.
MR. GRABINSKI: And that keeps it out of the dunes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have that authorization?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How far are we talking about? Now
we're talking about public property.
MR. GRABINSKI: No, we're talking about to comply with the
existing variance. If we replaced the counters that were destroyed
with L-shaped counters and did not come in and seek this variance,
we could set them pursuant to the diagram and our approved variance
right here (indicating).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What was to happen if you moved it
15 or 20 feet inland?
MR. GRABINSKI: We move it inland?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MR. GRABINSKI: Well, we wouldn't be complying with the
variance.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then they'd be into the sand
dunes.
MR. WEIGEL: They might be on the sea oats.
MR. GRABINSKI: And we might be on the sea oats.
Page 225
June 11,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that can't be permitted in any
case. No matter where this line is, wherever you're going to go, you
can't be on top of the sea oats. We understand that.
MR. GRABINSKI: Right. But if you look at the language or
stipulation one, it says, "Structures will be located landward of the
seaward edge of the dune walkovers." The dune walkovers are
different lengths.
When we got our first variance and we had county staff come
out for a site visit to establish where everything should be, they
looked at the boardwalk that was in front of Gumbo Limbo, because
it's about 8 to 10 feet longer. And they said, "Okay. This is your most
seawardly structure." Everything on the--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I hear you. Now we're starting
to repeat ourselves. Let me go back to staff. Anything further you
wish to elaborate on this?
MR. LENBERGER: I have no further comments, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm willing to include it in such
a way that we don't impose upon public land and, two, we do nothing
to damage the sea oats. But my motion may fail because it does not
have a second at this time. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I thought Commissioner Coyle --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: He nodded his head.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: IfI did, I wasn't aware of it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I thought that meant a second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have a second from
Commissioner Coyle. Is there any other discussion? Okay. Hearing
none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
Page 226
June 11, 2002
Thank you very much. Now, if I'm not mistaken, we're moving
onto -
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2002-267 APPOINTING MICHAEL SORRELL TO
THE ENVIROMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL- ADOPTED
MS. FILSON: 9-A.
MR. MUDD: 9-A, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 9-A. And with that, I'd like to
nominate Michael Sorrell.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hold on.
MS. FILSON: Did we do the second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't move quite so fast.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, sorry about that. I'll talk slower.
COMMISSIONER COLYE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 9-A.
MS. FILSON: Who seconded that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Coyle for Mike
Sorrell.
Is there any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
The motion passed, 4 to 0.
Item #9B
Page 227
June 11,2002
RESOLUTION 2002-268 APPOINTING JAMES STREETER TO
THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AD HOC
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
The next item is appointment of member to the Golden Gate
Master Plan Ad Hoc committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
We have a motion from Commissioner Henning and a second
from myself, Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it, 4 to 0. moving on to the next one, number-
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2002-269 APPOINTING ROBERT C. BENNETT
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
MS. FILSON: Who made the motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Henning made the
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're a little bit faster. Okay.
Commissioner Henning is making the motion on -- Where are we? 9-
C?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
Page 228
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- on 9-C, and Commission Carter
seconded it.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2002-270 RE-APPOINTING DAVID CORREA
AND ROBERT J. PINA TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS
ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, we're up to 9-D for the
Hispanic Affairs Committee.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move to reappoint David Correa
and Robert J. Pina.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: These are reappointments.
MS. FILSON: If I may just mention something, please?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: If you appoint Mr. Correa, you have to waive
Section 7.B of Ordinance 2001-55.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: And that takes a unanimous vote. And so I will
ask the attorney if four commissioners is considered a unanimous
vote.
MR. WEIGEL: And the answer is yes, a unanimous vote of the
commissioners sitting as a quorum.
Page 229
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have a problem with it. I
nominated it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Carter and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2002-271 APPOINTING VALERIE STOLTS TO
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY
COUNCIL- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 9-E for the medical committee.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We had a motion by Commissioner
Carter, a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2002-272 APPOINTING BENNIE STARLING TO
THE IMMOKALEE EZDA/CRA ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
Page 230
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next is 9-F, and I would like to
nominate Bennie Starling for that position who's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:-- from Immokalee.
We have a motion by myself, Commissioner Coletta, a second
by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it 4 to 0.
Item #9G
STAFF TO FORMULATE METHODS OF CALCULATION TO
ALLOW IMPACT FEES TO BE UPDATED ON A CURRENT
BASIS WITHOUT HIRING CONSULTANTS TO ACHIEVE THIS
And now we're up to Item G.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is it?
MR. MUDD: It's a discussion regarding impact fee updates, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The fee update.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My discussion wasn't included in
my packet; but, nevertheless, I'll talk about it anyway. Yeah, I've got
it now.
We have gone through a fairly extensive process of updating
impact fees over the past year or so, and it's been very costly. We're
getting into another cycle of reevaluating impact fees. And the way
we're doing this virtually guarantees that we're always going to stay
Page 231
June 11, 2002
behind with respect to valuing impact fees with respect to the current
construction costs of facilities.
By the time the consultants that we hire produce the results and
they're approved by the Board, we're just about back at the point
where we have to complete the cycle again and, consequently, we're
seeing it in some cases.
We are already looking at two to three years between an update
up impact fees. And with current rates of inflation within the county
and the associated construction costs, we simply can't wait that long.
And I believe that it is important that we establish a procedure
which helps us establish impact fees that will, in fact, assure that
growth pays for growth. And what I would propose to the
commissioners is that we direct the staff to produce some -- Is anybody listening?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I'm listening. Keep talking.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we still have a quorum?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They're all listening to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We should direct the staff to
formulate methods of calculation that will permit us to update these
impact fees on a current basis without having to spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars on consultants to do it over and over and over
again every year or so.
Now, there's some people who say that, "Well, you know, this is
too complex, and it can't be done." Well, I would like to remind those
people that we have micro and macro economic formulas which help
us predict the economic health of our nation and help us determine
what interest rates should be and lots of other kinds of things.
And this is not rocket science. I believe that it is fairly simple to
take all the components of construction over the past six months or a
Page 232
June 11, 2002
year and determine a calculation procedure that will help us update
impact fees on a very current basis.
Secondly, I believe we could enhance support from the
development community because we will have something that is, in
fact, predictable. They know what their pricing is going to be two
years or three years from now, because they know what the formula
is that we're using.
And I think it makes it easier on everybody and we don't get into
a situation where we're having to make major increases in impact fees
and worrying about whether or not we can defend those if someone
wishes to challenge us on them.
So if we reach agreement on the formula during the public
hearing process, then it seems to me that we solidify our position
with respect to the rational nexus concept; that if we've gone through
the public hearing process and we've gathered input from everybody
and we've reached agreement on the formula, then there's less chance
that we're going to get challenged on it, because the formula is not as
nearly as subjective as what we're doing right now with the
consultants.
The other thing is that we can have an inflator which
automatically takes into consideration things like the cost of
purchasing property for right-of-way for roads. We have millions and
millions of dollars in this packet being added to our budget because
we underestimated the cost of buying right-of-ways to build roads
and provide for utilities.
This formula process would, in my estimation, solve that
problem because it would assure that we are current with existing
costs for construction of roads. And so I would ask that the Board
join me in instructing the staff to begin this process and establish
Page 233
June 11, 2002
formulas for each of the impact fees that can then be used to assure
that we collect the fees at a proper level at the proper time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A couple of thoughts that come to
mind is that I know one of the reasons why it costs so much to have
our impact fees adjusted is the fact that we have to bring an outside
counsel to make sure we can justify it if we ever get challenged
legally.
So what you're saying is you take at that point in time what has
already been accepted to be legal and then build in economic
indicators that follow the cost of real estate, that follow the cost of the
materials to be able to build with, to be able to work it from one end
to the other, to include all of the services such as the jails and the
schools and whatever. And this would be something that would be
amended every so many months, or whatever, just by the indicators
that are supplied by -- Well, actually, most of the indicators are
already available in the outside world.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I mean, you'd have property
rate increases. You've got labor rate increases. You've got cost of
materials. I think we have a lot of the data which is necessary to
determine the cost of construction of most of the facilities we
construct.
And all we have to do is take the last six months or a year of all
of our road construction budgets -- or all of our road construction
projects, take a look at the components and determine what makes up
the total cost of doing these things, and it's labor, equipment,
materials, everything else, and develop a formula that will help us
inflate impact fees on a reasonable basis in accordance with the
actual cost of construction. And it's verifiable merely by looking at
what our rates of construction were for the last year.
Page 234
June 11, 2002
You can even reduce that to costs per mile for construction of a
certain kind of a road, and that way you can test whether or not your
formula is producing the appropriate result merely by comparing it
with what we have just spent on a per-mile cost for roads. And the
same thing can be true of utilities. So I, quite frankly, don't see the
difficulty here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're looking for us to give staff
direction to do that, Commissioner Coyle? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't have any problem with giving
them direction. I think legal counsel will weigh in on if you are
challenged and you call an expert witness, and you are your own
expert witness. You'd probably be out of business, because the other
side will have expert witnesses that will parade in front of the tribunal
to present their case. So I want to caution, as we go forward, that we
make sure that it is legally defensible.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I agree with you. But what
I'm proposing is, in my estimation, far more legally defensible than
the testimony of somebody we pay.
First of all, I don't know that we've ever been challenged on an
impact fee. I don't know that we've ever been sued over an impact
fee. I believe that a formula that has been agreed upon in the public
process is far more defensible than the opinion of some consultant
that we've hired to tell us what they think we ought to be charging.
And it's far less subjective. I believe it put us in a much better
position to defend our impact fees, particularly if the Development
Services Advisory Board has been involved in working on the
formula itself, and they have a lot of knowledge concerning this, I
would guess.
Page 235
June 11, 2002
And I believe we'd get broader public support for it and we
guarantee that we get money when we should be getting it. And that
money, we could mm into building roads and other facilities.
Otherwise, we'd just give hundreds of thousands of dollars of funds
to a consultant to come in and do a calculation every year and work
their magic, which I suspect is nothing more than working it through
a formula. So if they can do it in a formula, why can't we do it in a
formula?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the only thing I'll say is there's
some areas that are probably going to be easier than others.
I will tell you that I watched our firm in utilities come up with
their impact fees for water and waste water. And I watched that firm
and their three people, and I watched them work hours and hours
with us in their spreadsheet. And they worked through all kinds of
contortions in that process. I wouldn't have called what they did easy.
And I will tell you that their spreadsheets that they put together in
order to capture all those costs and stuff throughout Florida and
through the nation are proprietary as far as their company is
concerned. So they're not going to be forthcoming and say, "Here you
go. Here's the spreadsheet."
I will also tell you that the DSAC (phonetic) represents a
development community that really doesn't like impact fees, because
it raises the prices of their product and it doesn't sell as well. But they
do run that off to the person that buys that particular home or
whatever, so it's really their cost. It's something that's paid for by the
buyer ultimately.
The staff can go do that, and we'll look at those areas. And I
would ask the board that we start with the low-hanging fruits first,
not do the most complicated one to get us so that we get totally
frustrated in that process. And let us take a look at it and see if it's
Page 236
June 11, 2002
doable, come back to you and let you know what we come up with
from the DSAC and that process. But there are some impact fees that
aren't simple.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do not propose that these things
are all simple, but I propose that they're doable. And certainly, if we
don't have the capability to classify our costs by component with any
of the major construction projects, we have a serious internal
problem.
We should know how much it costs us for labor and for travel
and materials and equipment and land acquisition for every project
that we've got going on. I believe that information exists right now. I
believe that our financial department should be able to produce that
information. And I can't think of a better way of substantiating an
impact fee than using actual costs over the past six months or a year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we've got enough interest here
that we're directing staff. The only concern I've got is because of the
budget coming up, that we do find this realistic, as far as timing goes
and staffs time, and possibly look at something, maybe coming back
in September or October, some realistic date where we can get back a
report of some meaning that we can proceed with.
And possibly, too, while staff is working on this, they may be
able to consult with Commissioner Coyle, give him some idea of the
direction that they're going through and see if it is what Mr. Coyle is
thinking of. I like the idea he's coming up with.
I had businesses in the past that were quite involved and had to
have committee factors into it. And back then it was Vizacal
(phonetic) where today it's -- What do they call it? Whatever the
progression is to that. And it required complicated formulas, and it
was quite progressive for that point in time.
Page 237
June 11, 2002
And I'd plug in all the numbers, and it would give me cutting
tests according to the people that did it, according to the merchandise
that was produced. And if one item changed as far as cost, everything
was adjusted through the whole process. It was quite simple.
Now, I assume that this doesn't have quite the simplicity of what
I was dealing with, but I know it was very successful for me. And
once it was in place, it was nothing more than my staff plugging in
the numbers to be able to come up with the pricing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm not proposing that we
just wholesale -- start a wholesale project to do all these at once. I'm
not trying to get the staff more overloaded than they are right now.
I'm more concerned with the concept, and I would merely ask that the
Board direct the staff to pick one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Pick an impact fee and suggest to
us sometime over the next several months how they might proceed
with doing this, and then we can take a look at it, and then we can
proceed. But I am not at all convinced by the argument that you have
to have a hired gun to show a rational nexus; I just am not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's see if we can get a third nod.
I don't know, it doesn't look too favorable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was interrupted. Can you start
over?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to give you the third
nod.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, okay. That worked, Henning.
You got it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Over the past year, we've been
spending a lot of money on impact fees.
Page 238
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have four nods looking
for something in that direction. I wouldn't do something that's going
to involve a tremendous amount of time to get us the basis of how
the whole thing would work. And Mr. Coyle will work very closely
with you on that.
MR. MUDD: Your first one will be Parks and Rec.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the budget, of course, is top
priority.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
Item #9H
FUNDING A MODIFIED SUMMER CAMP PROGRAM IN
EVERGLADES CITY- WITHDRAWN
The next item on our agenda has been withdrawn. That's the one
there with the--
MS. FILSON: No, it wasn't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- funding of a modified summer
camp program in Everglades City. MR. WEIGEL: Was it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Forgive me. What's that,
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I don't think that one has been withdrawn.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: It has?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, it is.
MR. OCHS: And Mr. Dunnuck, indicating yes, has by the --
Page 239
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There was a misconception that they
were looking for funds to do this and they're not. MS. FILSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's refreshing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Unless we can talk him to come back
and ask for funds.
Item #91
DISCUSSION REGARDING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY-
CONTINUED TO JUNE 25, 2002
The next one there is Commissioner Fiala, and I think we might
want to continue that with your permission. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now we're getting to -- Oh, also, too,
Item J. I've been asked to continue that till next week if that's no
problem with any of the commissioners here. Do I have to put that to
a vote, that particular one?
MS. FILSON: Do we?
MR. WEIGEL: I beg your pardon. This is J?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's J.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you should if you're going to continue it to
the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion to continue it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A question.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if we could, let's work I first and
then go to J, because you continued I because Commissioner Fiala
Page 240
June 11,2002
wasn't here and you just kind of glossed that. I think you're going to
need to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I vote a Motion --
MR. MUDD: -- for that one too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to continue 9-I.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any discussion? All those in
favor, indicate by saying aye.
Item # 10J
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD REQUEST TO
SUPPORT A LIVING WAGE/FARM
WORKER/AGRICULTURAL ISSUES FORUM AND DIALOGUE
-CONTINUED TO JULY 30, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why are we continuing --
MS. FILSON: Is it going to be continued to the 25th?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what they're asking for.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's because of the lateness in the day,
and they do want to have enough time to be able to make a
presentation of some meaning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Correa was just here and he
left.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- could you go ahead and elaborate
on that?
Page 241
June 11, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: You're exactly right, Mr. Chairman. For the
record, Tom Olliff, County Manager. The request came at the request
of the committee members. And they had a couple of committee
members who were here and couldn't stay due to the lateness and
asked that the item be continued till the 25th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if you would agree to that, they
have also asked me to sit down and help them work the language,
which I think was probably offensive to some of our Commissioners,
to something that might be a little bit more in line and acceptable. I
would like the opportunity to do that with them.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have some concerns about
what's going to the 25th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think that puppy's growing. And
I think we better take a hard look at whether we can even do it on the
25th. It may come in the middle of summer. It may even come in the
fall.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's be realistic and get staff to
recommend what they think we should do. I don't want to load us
down to the point where we can't function at the next meeting. I
know we have some other items that have been moved forward. Any
comments on that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have the concurrency GMP
amendment as part of the 25th, and you also have spillover from the
budget workshops on that day, too, plus everything that we've
already postponed today. It's going to be a pretty hefty agenda item,
and we might want to consider it going to this one till the 30th of
July.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is the 30th of July going to be top
heavy?
Page 242
June 11, 2002
MR. MUDD: Sir, I don't know that one yet, okay. I hope not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go ahead. If it's all
agreeable to you, we'll move it to the 30th of July. I'll make a notion
to that effect.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. The ayes have it, 4 to
0. Okay.
Item # 1 OK
$700,000 TO BE RETURNED TO THE GENERAL FUND FROM
THE INDIGENT CARE PROGRAM
The next one, I would like to give back $700,000 that I have no need
for. Will you take it back, please? I make a motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The Board of County
Commissioners approved putting $700,000 in reserve to the health
care discussions until June 30th. And if you're tending a motion that
the Board of County Commissioners return $700,000 to the general
fund, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion?
Hearing none, I'll call for the motion. All those in favor, indicate
by saying aye. Opposed?
The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have been going so fast, we
had a speaker for 10-C.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. I apologize for that,
and better late than never. Please call him up.
Page 243
June 11, 2002
MS. FILSON: Is Grant Grimm still here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not done. We're not there
yet.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We're not there. 10-C?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Exactly. No, we're not.
MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm thinking 9.
MR. OCHS: We're in 9.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
Item # 10L
STAFF TO PREPARE GRANT APPLICATION REQUESTING
STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS TO FUND 100% OF A LOCAL
PRIMARY CARE FACILITY- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. It's getting late.
So we just gave back $700,000. So now let's go on to Item L:
Authorize staff to prepare a grant application. Mr. Dunnuck?
MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, my name is John Dunnuck,
Public Services Administrator. I would like to introduce Ernie
Bretsmann, who is Vice Chairman of the Health and Human Services
Advisory Committee, to make a presentation on the committee's
recommendation at this time.
MR. BRETSMANN: Good afternoon. My name is Ernie
Bretsmann. And, Commissioners, I wish to commend you on your
endurance. I'm pretty tired out myself just sitting back there watching
all he goings on.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You ought to be up here.
Page 244
June 11, 2002
MR. BRETSMANN: I appreciate the opportunity to be here
today.
Last year, I and a number of other local volunteers was invited
to serve on a new health and human services advisory committee,
which was formed in response to Ordinance Number 2001-40, to
establish an ad hoc advisory committee to assist staff in developing a
comprehensive health and human services plan.
It quickly became evident that a key issue would be primary
health care for the underinsured and uninsured residing in our county.
The need for this was documented by the Health Care Review
Committee. Our role is to create a plan to address the issue and, of
course, to figure out how to pay for it.
Sometimes when you say yes to volunteering for something, you
really don't know what you're getting into. We've taken our task very
seriously, not only in regard to enhancing the quality of life for many
but also to be good stewards of our resources. We were not looking
for a quick solution but the right solution.
Before discussing our committee's recommendation to the
Board, I wish to thank the staff for their professional and timely
support in providing research and answers to our many questions and
requests.
Thank you, Mr. Ochs, Mr. Dunnuck, Mr. Williams, Dr. Colfer,
and Mr. Manalich and many others whom we called upon for
information and advice.
Our recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners is
to pursue funding through the intergovernmental transfer program.
Here's how it works. Local refundable match funds are provided to
the state. The state provides additional funds based upon a grant
award. The combined funds are utilitized to leverage federal funds.
Funds are disbursed back through a local, qualified hospital, then to
Page 245
June 11, 2002
the Federally Qualified Health Center, which in Collier County is
Collier Health Services, Inc.
The center then distributes 100 percent of the original local
matched back to the county. One of my associates at work always
said, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."
Well, we checked out this program and it's for real. It has been
in existence for a number of years at the federal level and is now in
its third year in the State of Florida. So it's not some new, unproven
entity.
The good news is that Collier County qualifies. More good news
is that Collier Health Services, Inc. is a proven agency already
running a successful clinic in Immokalee, the Marion Fether Clinic,
and a dental clinic in Golden Gate. More good news. Federal
guidelines will require patients who use these services to pay for the
service based upon a sliding scale of their ability to pay. So they will
have to buy into the program and provide some revenue. And even
more good news. We all pay a lot of taxes to the federal government,
some of which trickles back down to the state level. We would like to
see more of our money trickle all the way down to Collier County
rather than end up somewhere else.
We believe we have found a way to provide needed services
without any increased burden on the taxpayers of Collier County.
Our committee recommends to the Board of County
Commissioners to empower the staff to apply for a state and federal
grant match through the Intergovernmental Transfer Program in the
amount of $2,417,211, leveraging a refundable county match in the
amount of $500,000. This level of funding would provide for a clinic
staffed with five doctors and three nurses, which would be sufficient
to address the primary health care needs previously identified. Thank
you.
Page 246
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. That was a wonderful
presentation.
Mr. Dunnuck?
MR. DUNNUCK: At this time, we'd open it up for any
questions that the Board may have. One summary point I'd like to
make is this is a grant funding request at this point in time. The Board
will have a second opportunity once we find out if we are awarded
the grant. Then we can go through all the options as far as if the
Board wants to pursue it or develop the agreements in place so we
can continue that discussion.
But I think at this point it was important for the committee to
ask the Board for the grant funding. Recognizing that the money was
just approved through the governor's office last week and will be
available July 1st, we thought it would be important to jump on this
opportunity as early as possible.
I also wanted to point out that we have representatives here from
the Collier Health Services. We also have representatives from the
state to answer any questions that you may have regarding this
program.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, how many
speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: None.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: None?
Then I'm going to move the recommendation by the Health and
Human Services Advisory Committee, that the Board authorize staff
to apply for a grant from the state to fund a Federally Qualified
Health center utilizing a budget based upon five doctors and three
nurses.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Discussion?
Page 247
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. That's what we were coming
to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The original health care
committee recognized the need for -- I think it was $1.4 million for
funding a shortfall of the needs here in Collier County. Now I see this
is quite substantially more of an increase. You know, what is
different?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I could help with that a little bit. The
original plan was an increment plan to try to build up to a point in
time that we're approaching with this particular program. This is a
little bit more ambitious. I'll grant you that. You're looking at what
we were originally planning to do about three to five years out. That's
what we wanted to arrive at.
But now, mind you, my one thing that I've always wanted to do,
and I stated this before in this very room, I wanted to come up with a
program that would be free from Collier County as far as funds go
from ad valorem taxes, number one; number two, that it would
simplified to the point where it's understandable by a nonprofit
agency that dealt in this particular realm before. And we have that
with Collier Medical. They have a successful clinic in Immokalee
that's been going for close to 10 years now. And at no point in time
have they used Collier County funds. That I want to point out.
This clinic would serve as not only a safety net for some of our
less fortunate individuals in this county, but it also could be used by
you and me and anyone else that lives in that area.
Keep in mind that our hospitals are overtasked, especially during
tourist season. You get in to see your own physician, if you have one.
You may have a wait of a week or two, and you're talking primary
care. This isn't emergency care, which is completely different. This is
going to meet some very basic needs.
Page 248
June 11, 2002
In Immokalee, the clinic is utilized by the general population,
and they charge full price for individuals that have full income. You
can pay for it with your insurance. If you're not quite that fortunate,
you've got Medicare and Medicare, they take that where a lot of your
local doctors don't. They'll take such things as Blue Cross and Blue
Shield, which they will not take over here to the Clinic, Cleveland
Clinic.
They're going to meet the needs of a lot of people within that
core area of Golden Gate and East Naples that haven't been met
before. And the nicest part of it is that every year, you get to review
what you want to do with this federal money and where you want to
go to the next step. You're not locked in at any one point in time with
a long marriage that's going to be lasting more than one year at a
time.
And clinics aren't carved into stone. There's been several
instances where we have had clinics in Collier County that have not
been financed by the federal government and state government but by
local tax dollars. And when certain budget restraints came into place,
they disappeared. They went away. But keep in mind that even
though the certainty of this thing lasting forever isn't always there,
that if it lasted three to five years even, or I suppose 10 years, during
that period of time, the net results is going to be healthy people. And
these healthy people are going to be in place with money that comes
from the state and the federal government, that if this community
refuses to accept will go on to other communities and be utilized by
them. That was pretty long of an answer for which you asked.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think you answered my
question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I started to sound like the attorneys;
right.9
Page 249
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more time. As the question one
more time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. Maybe if I can ask
from staff. Originally, the health care committee was looking at a
program of $1.4 million, and they came in with half of that,
$700,000, because they said they could not implement it until
halfway into the year. So the question is: This is a difference of a
million dollars that we're requesting. Why?
MR. DUNNUCK: From the standpoint-- the distinction that
Commissioner Coletta was making is that the previous committee
had recommended a specific target group as part of that study. They
had recommended an age group of 19 to 64. With a Federally
Qualified Health Clinic, you cannot discriminate between who
exactly attends this clinic.
So if we were trying to meet the 7,000 that they were trying to
target in the previous health study, we asked the expert who runs the
current clinic here locally, you know, what's it going to take. And he
came back to the committee and said it's going to take a five-doctor,
three-nurse program, and it's going to take, you know, $2.4. million
to run. You know, to get it up and running, I think, actually, the
budget is higher because you get a percentage back through the third-
party reimbursements, Medicaid and actual fees that you collect from
the patients themselves, because as it was pointed out, this is a sliding
scale where everybody does pay.
What I would offer to each commissioner is that maybe, one of
my recommendations would be as part of this, while we're bringing
forward the grant application, trying to find out how much we may
receive from the state and federal through this program, that you all
individually take a tour of that facility so you get an opportunity to
Page 250
June 11, 2002
see how well it's run. I think one of the things the committee stood
behind was that Richard Atkins facility was very well managed and
that he has a proven track record at the state level.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So let me give this scenario.
Before it was age 16 to 64. That's the targeted area. You're saying
that we cannot discriminate. Let's say that we had a senior citizen on
Medicaid, or is it Medicare? I always get those mixed up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Medicaid.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there always has to be a
supplement to the charges. Does that mean that they could benefit
financially of their just taking care of the Medicaid or Medicare and
the senior citizen can benefit?
MR. DUNNUCK: Probably the best person to help answer that
question would be Mr. Dillon, who's here from the Collier Health
Services, to answer any of those questions you may have, because
there may be some technical questions about who would be served
and who wouldn't.
MR. DILLON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Bill Dillon. I'm the Director of Operations with Collier
Health Services.
As Mr. Dunnuck indicated, Commissioner Henning, yes, it
would help out senior citizens. We as a Federally Qualified Health
center are required to treat all comers.
One of the problems that we had with the prior plan is that, quite
frankly, there were a lot of limitations that were being placed on there
that had it come to finality, we may not have been able to actually
carry out that plan and would have had to withdraw.
And, in fact, we were the only organization that was going to
submit an RFP to the county to do that. And there are certain things
with regard to accessibility that we have to treat everyone.
Page 251
June 11, 2002
And we've got strict regulations that we have to abide by with
regard to the sliding fee scale. And again, that's something that's done
based on the person's ability to pay. And that's done on a formula
based on the federal poverty guidelines; that we break it down from
the people that are at 100 percent of federal poverty and below, the
poorest of the poor, pay at least the minimum fee of $20 for any of
the services they receive from us up to -- and then that's kind of a
graduated scale up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line.
Anybody that comes to our facility that we call self-pay, that's
200 percent of the federal poverty guideline or higher, is going to pay
the full fee the same as you or I or anyone else would pay.
But to answer your question, yes, it would benefit senior
citizens. It would benefit pretty much anybody that needed a medical
home in that area and that's having trouble with access. That's what
we do is, traditionally, we provide services in underserved areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me give you this scenario.
I'm a senior citizen with no supplemental insurance, health insurance.
MR. DILLON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my income is $800 a
month. I come to your door and ask you for services. What are you
going to do for me?
MR. DILLON: Well, the first thing we're going to do, we've got
financial counselors that look at you. We don't just -- Before we put
someone on our sliding fee scale, we verify their income. We don't
just take your word for it that you're poor. We have to have three or
four pieces of verification. And we have to go through ranging from
pay stubs to tax returns to anything like that. We verify that you are
only going to make $800 a month, if that's your income. We then
check to see if you have another form of payment or another payer
Page 252
June 11, 2002
that's out there. You indicated if it's senior citizen, that senior citizen
is probably going to have Medicare.
In your case, probably what they would probably end up being
what's called a crossover beneficiary. They probably qualify for
Medicare for 80 percent and Medicaid, which is for poor people, for
the remaining 20 percent.
However, if they didn't, that remaining 20 percent that they owe,
we would put that on our sliding fee. Again, we still apply the sliding
fee to whatever their bill is. And again, you know, that's pretty much
a complicated formula but, fortunately, we've got pretty good
software and computer systems, and we can enter that in there and
find out what they're supposed to pay as long as the income is
verified.
And if I can just clarify one more time, it's just a term of art. The
plan that Mr. Dunnuck is recommending, it's five physicians and
three nurse practitioners. I just don't want people to get confused and
think nurse, because there is a difference between a nurse and a nurse
practitioner.
A nurse practitioner actually works under the supervision of a
physician and can provide medical services to a lesser extent than a
physician can but can handle a lot of the minor things like colds and
flus and things like that while the physicians handle the more serious
cases. So it's kind of a step up from a nurse. And again, that's just for
a term of art just so that we have some clarification.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're not using any more
taxpayers' money on this. We're already using some existing --
$700,000 is gone, back to put into the general fund, and we're
claiming some of the services that we do existing?
MR. DUNNUCK: Correct. The way the program would work is
we would take some of the money that we use currently in our social
Page 253
June 11, 2002
services or through the transfer to the health department funding. We
would use that as the local match, send it up through the state and get
their match to the federal. It would come back through the hospital
through the clinic, and then we would get that same amount back as a
reimbursement from the clinic. And we continue to operate our same
services that we offer right now and still add on to this primary care
facility.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you say there were some state
representatives here who could answer some questions?
MR. DUNNUCK: That's correct. We have Mr. James Estes and
Mr. John Owens.
MR. OWENS: Yes, my name is John Owens. I'm a consultant
with Medicaid with the state.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. John, how much money
total is the state and federal government -- or no. How much money
is the state allocating this year for this kind of a program?
MR. OWENS: Total appropriation for the Federally Qualified
Health Centers was 4.8 Million. That's to be used statewide. That's
state and federal and local money in total.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're asking for half of the
entire state allocation?
MR. OWENS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What do you think is the
probability we will get that?
MR. OWENS: Right now it's hard to say because, as John had
mentioned earlier, the governor signed the budget last week. It is a
competitive nature, these funds. There are 27 additional FQHCs in
the State of Florida. Now, some of those have already expressed that
Page 254
June 11, 2002
they're not going to participate for whatever reasons, local funding or
they have no affiliation with a hospital.
So it's not clear as to how of those will be coming up making
application for this to know exactly how many dollars are there. But
saying that, I think the 2.4 million is what they would like to see in a
clinic. And they're asking for as much as -- well, for what they
thought they would need in the clinic and then rather than trying to
ask for lower amount.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to see 4.8 in the clinic.
MR. OWENS: That'd be great.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I don't think I'd get it.
MR. OWENS: If they needed it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. What happens if you
proceed with five doctors and three nurses and you don't get the $2.4
Million from the state? What do we do then?
MR. OWENS: Well, I think Bill may be in better position to
answer that from Collier Health Services point of view.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DILLON: And John could correct me if I'm wrong. Again,
Bill Dillon for the record. We'll know ahead of time before this clinic
ever gets up and running prior to hiring that. I mean, right now this is
the absolute worst time in the world to hire physicians, because you
have recruitment problems during the summer, and this all deals with
when they get out of their residencies and things like that.
So we know ahead of time whether or not how much we were
going to get. And then obviously there are plans scaled back that we
could fall back on if it was the commission's purview that they
wanted to offer a lesser product.
The reason that I believe the advisory committee went with this
model when we presented five different models to them ranging from
Page 255
June 11, 2002
a very small, three-doctor model up to this model was, as Mr. Owens
just alluded to, once you get it, there probably will be other people
over time that will maybe want to participate in the program. So you
probably want to get all that you can get right now, because there's
probably not going to be second shot in getting this money from the
state. And again, he did allude to it. There are only 27 Federally
Qualified Health Centers in the state that could potentially apply for
this money based on the way the legislation is written. And they have
to be working with a hospital that has not reached its upper payment
limit in the Medicaid system. Well, that kind of takes a lot of people
out of the mix. That takes like your Dade counties and Broward and a
lot of them, and it kind of puts them at a disadvantage because they're
already getting as much as they can get because they've got a much
higher Medicaid population than what we have in Collier County.
So again, I think that the idea of committee was to go ahead and
based on Mr. Owens' recommendations and move forward and try to
get as much as you can get at this point in time.
But again, to answer your question, should we not get it all, we
can obviously scale the plan back so that something would fit the
money that you were going to receive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think this is a very imaginative
program. I think you've done a good job putting this thing together.
It's far superior to the last one, I believe. But I still have a lot of
concerns about sustainability.
I think it's a good goal to provide health care for people who
need it and can't afford it. I think it's really bad to promise it to them
and then not to be able to provide it and remove the funding. And my
preference would be, quite frankly, is to try to find a way to sustain
this program. I am worried that what will happen here is the same
thing that happens to us with respect to the sheriff. The federal
Page 256
June 11, 2002
government provides us grants to fund the hiring of additional
sheriffs officers. But then after a few years, the funding expires and
we pick up the entire thing. I think that it is an absolute pipe dream
that we will ever, ever have a program such as this that is not funded
from ad valorem property taxes. I mean, we've got to be smoking
something strange to believe that you can do it without committing
ad valorem property taxes to it. And I wish we could find a way to do
that. I'd feel much more comfortable if we could find a way to sustain
it rather than going out on a limb saying, yes, we're going to do this,
giving people hope that we're going to do it, and then find out that we
really can't afford to do it.
Because right now, I don't know where we'll get another half
million dollars or so out of ad valorem taxes and do the things that
we've been trying to do. But do I think it's a very interesting program.
And I hope -- I wish you the best of the luck in getting $2.4 million,
but I don't have much belief that you'll get it.
MR. DUNNUCK: Commissioners, you know, recognizing your
points, we agree with you. You know, we understand that, you know,
when you're asking for half amount of money that's available at that
level. The one issue I'd point out is that from the federal standpoint
and where their funds have been available, this program has been
going on for 13 years over several administrations.
Florida is just now getting into the program and becoming more
and more active. The upper payment level program which this is a
part of has been, you know, very successful, I believe, at the state
level from the standpoint of some of the bigger hospitals across the
state in your Tampa and Miami-Dade's.
But still recogning that, my recommendation, as it was earlier, is
that we would apply for this grant money, see what funding is
available, and we would bring back you the scenarios of where we
Page 257
June 11, 2002
could come up with alternative grant funding or where it should be
cut back so we would be minimizing any board risk at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I'm--
Oh, go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just have a couple more
questions. We're talking about $500,000 as our community match.
That's not the current health services budget, is it?
MR. DUNNUCK: No. No, it's not. It would only be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the current budget?
MR. DUNNUCK: -- peeling off a portion of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DUNNUCK: And if I can put on the visualizer, here's what
we've identified as funds that we believe would be available to utilize
for this primary care program.
As you can see, using our existing current FY01-02 budget, we
feel that we have $1.9 million available should the board want to
pursue this program within our inventory of existing funding.
At our proposed budget, we're looking at a 2.3 that you'll be
reviewing in the coming weeks and deciding over. But I think this is
as much to point out that the money is available within these budgets
currently.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there's a difference between
a proposed budget and an actual allocation. You're asking for
$400,000 more for next year than you had this past year. But all of
these categories are eligible for use for the matching funds? In other
words, let's presume you came in with a budget at the same level as
last year, 1.973. You can still allocate 500,000 of that for this
particular program; right?
MR. DUNNUCK: That's correct.
Page 258
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In looking at some of these,
these programs should go into this new program. So we actually
should lower what is being allocated for what we're doing and have
been doing for a long period of time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Why don't we just give you
$500,000, and then you get to 1.473 from the state, and then you
cover this entire budget?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You get the money back. You're not
actually spending a penny. The money is good faith money put in,
and it comes right back through the system.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to work on this during
the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, budget hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- budget time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In the meantime, I would like to ask a
couple of questions. The Medical, I'm sorry, Collier-- MR. DILLON: Health Services.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Health. How long have they been
in Immokalee?
MR. DILLON: Actually, Collier Health Services has been in
Immokalee since 1977.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 1977. And how much money have
you got from Collier County as far as ad valorem taxes?
MR. DILLON: We don't get anything from Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you get something in the way of
rent? Free rent?
MR. DILLON: No, I can't assure you --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You get free bus care; right? I mean,
bus transportation back and forth?
Page 259
June 11, 2002
MR. DILLON: No, we don't get anything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And you've survived all these
years without it.
MR. DILLON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And right now, when yo get all
through, how many dollars are you going to be getting from Collier
County with this particular proposal?
MR. DILLON: We're not going to be getting any.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're going to getting zero.
MR. DILLON: It's going back to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. DILLON: We have to send it back to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And at any point in time, is the clinic
because of its lack of use or its cost to the local taxpayers gone out of
business, been put out of business?
MR. DILLON: Has our clinic been put out of business?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, no. I'm talking about clinics
in general.
MR. DILLON: For lack of use, no. The need is there, at least we
feel --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I mean for funding.
MR. DILLON: Not that I know of.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we had a couple of cases here
in Collier County where they have --
MR. DILLON: Well, we've scaled back operations before in the
past. I mean, again -- I mean, let me make it perfectly clear, and I
think Commissioner Coyle brought this up. I mean, it has to be
physically sound. We're a not-for-profit organization, and we feel that
that's our mission, to care for these individuals. However, at the same
time, we have to be good stewards of the money that we get and good
Page 260
June 11, 2002
stewards of our organization, and it's got to work. And we share some
of the same concerns. We have a variety of reasons based on the
length and the life of the program, as Mr. Dunnuck had alluded to, to
feel as though this is going to go on. But we don't have any interest in
starting up a clinic and shutting it down either. I mean, we want to
make sure that everything runs, you know, in the best manner that it
can.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If federal funds or state funds were
cut back, with your knowledge of what's going on out there, what do
you think about other grants being available?
MR. DILLON: There's always funding opportunities available.
Again, those would be things that we would have to look at.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
I do have the concern about starting a program and then pulling
it out from under the people's feet when the grants don't come
forward from the state and federal.
Then we get a lot of pressure from who we service here, the
7,000 people as being identified, and it's going to be a lot more than
that. So I would like to see some kind of an agreement between the
provider or the commission and the public of: If these funds go away,
that we're going to have to get some kind of approval from the
taxpayers, either through a straw ballot or something like that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got it. I wouldn't have a problem
with that at all.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think you're getting way out
ahead of yourselves, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Possibly we are, but I hear where
Commissioner Henning is coming from.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can understand that.
Page 261
June 11,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And my goal was to reach this point
eventually, and I didn't want to take money from the taxpayers. And
this is the reason why I didn't see the need for going to --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't want to take money from
the ad valorem taxes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm saying you're getting ahead of
yourself. Federal funding can go up and down. Clinics can expand
and retract. It's like saying, well, the federal government can take
away Medicare. No. Are they going to reduce Social Security? No.
Are they going to reduce Medicaid? No. They're going to dance all
over that puppy forever, but they're not going to take it away. It's so
ingrained in our society. Whether it's right, wrong, I'm not here to
debate that.
I'm a realist. I say, you ask for as much as you can get. You take
what you can get. You end up with a program. And you immediately
have established yourself within the network. And I think that's what
these gentlemen from the state have been trying to tell us. Once
you're established, you get a better opportunity to continue to get it
funded. But if you don't start, you're never going to get there. So it's
your call.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're nothing more than a catalyst,
but I do hear what you're saying. Would you have any comfort in the
fact that -- I basically agree with what you're saying, and this has got
to come back to us. What we're looking at, to see if we can get the
funding. If we can't get the funding, this goes away. You don't have a
problem at all. We need the opportunity just to be able to give it. Can
you live that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm talking about the future
because: Does grants go away? Yes. And does it happen every day?
Page 262
June 11, 2002
Yes. So I think that we need some reassurance that it's not going to be
a property tax supplement unless we have approval from the people.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, you want to put the
federal and state funds up to a vote?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm talking about later on, down
the line is--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand what you're saying, and
I don't have a problem with it in the world. And at that point in time
that we would have to supplement this -- and I'm saying we won't --
that we have to supplement it, that we put it up to a vote to the
people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we could take it -- Could you live
with that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Commissioner Coyle, I don't think we changed your mind on it,
did we?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't mean to belabor this. I
apologize if I seem to be so uptight about it but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all right. We're talking about
one clinic and one area of the county. We really have deserving
people in other places in the county. What can we do with respect to
that?
MR. DILLON: Well, again, I mean, that's a loaded question.
Obviously, at this point in time, based on the analysis of the previous
committees that were empowered by the Board, the plan is to put the
Page 263
June 11, 2002
clinic somewhere in the East Naples-Golden Gate area because that's
the area where the biggest need is. And, of course, I think that's
probably wise to try to meet that need first. Again, you know, it all
depends if funding is available. Maybe the north and then the county
develops a need at some point in time. I don't know that I can answer
those questions for you right now, because I just don't know. Right
now we know there is a need in those particular areas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does Dr. Colfer have something to
say about that?
DR. COLFER: For the record, I'm Dr. Joan Colfer, Director of
Collier County Health Department.
Please don't forget that some of our existing partners aren't
going to go away. Senior Friendship Center sees people, granted, in
town. It's not an answer for North Naples. We believe Senior
Friendship center sees about a thousand people that need services and
they're catenary in their age group, and that's 50 to 64.
In addition, Dr. Lascheid's Neighborhood Health Center is also
not going away. They currently see, we believe, about 5,000 and are
just about to expand into their new building and will see
approximately 7,000 people, they've told us. So, you know, we do
have others players that will continue to help us serve this particular
patient population.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me a little about the flow of
the funds. I'd like to understand that a little bit better. We will
commit, in this example, $500,000 in matching funds. Now, we don't
have to pay that to anybody, do we?
MR. OWENS: The 500,000 in matching funds would actually
have to be transferred to the agency for health care administration to
administer to the Medicaid program for the state.
Page 264
June 11, 2002
At that point in time, whatever state revenue is available or was
appropriated would be put with that. The federal dollars would be
drawn out from the Medicaid program. And then total payment
would go back to the hospital which, I believe, in this situation is
Naples Community Hospital.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So I'll get through real fast,
okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Real fast, because I really do have to
give the lady a break. She's a half an hour past due.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the state will give us $2.9
million, roughly, under this example; $2.4 million matching grant,
plus the $500,000 that we put into the program?
MR. OWENS: It would be the 500,000 plus whatever amount
the state -- if they matched it 50/50 with state dollars, that would be
another 500,000. Then there would be 1.4 in federal funds for a total
of 2.4 which would come as a payment to the hospital. And then the
hospital would, in turn, pay the FQHC that 2.4. And then the county's
money would then come back from the FQHC.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I need to pursue that the
break.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We will. We'll continue right after the
break.
I apologize about the length of the one item.
(A short recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where did we leave off,
Commissioner Coyle? I think you were in the middle of a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was just trying to
understand the Florida dollars.
When you say some of it -- at least 500,000 comes back to
Collier County, who does it come back to in Collier County?
Page 265
June 11, 2002
MR. OWENS: It comes back to the hos --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. OWENS: First -- Okay. As I said, once Collier would send
up the 500,000 to the state, they put whatever state dollars is there.
Then they draw it on the federal match. Then the total payment
would come into Naples Community Hospital, say for 2.4 Million,
and they would then distribute that to FQHC, the full 2.4. Now, the
FQHC would then take and pay back Collier County for their
500,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And who do they pay? Does it go
back into Dr. Colfer's budget -- MR. OWENS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or does it come back to general
funds? Where does the money go?
MR. DUNNUCK: That would be a financing mechanism and
me, frankly, I'd recommend you'd have that discussion during the
budget workshop next year. That's no different than how we do other
grant money where we're reimbursed. Finance sets up, you know, a
cash flow account so-to-speak to cover the shortfall until that money
comes back in.
But that's also what I alluded to earlier, is the second part of this
is we would have to establish all of those agreements between the
hospital and through the clinic to ensure that that money did come
back and the process at which that would come back at. Those are the
details that we'd be bringing back in the second phase of this
program.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But my question really is, if we're
using Dr. Colfer's budget in a way to provide that local match, does
she get it back?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes.
Page 266
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It goes back to her?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It doesn't come back into the
general fund; the county's general fund?
MR. DUNNUCK: No. And I think, you know, part of-- Yeah, I
mean, to answer your question: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DUNNUCK: It would go back to her.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, that's where it should
go. All right. I just want to make sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, you
brought up a point that I'm still very interested in, and I'd like to talk
about it a little bit more, about making sure that this stayed where it
belongs in the federal and state realm as far as the funding goes.
And the idea being that if we ever wanted to go back to using ad
valorem taxes like the original plan was a long time ago, that we'd
have to take it to the voters. You made that suggestion, and I thought
that was an excellent suggestion. I can see that as holding people's
feet to the fire to make sure that we get exactly what we need in the
future. I don't have a problem in the world with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if you could put into your
motion, if we use any increased ad valorem taxes, that we'll have to
go to the voters of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I'm talking about using
anything in ad valorem taxes to finance this particular venture.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we need to use the ad
valorem taxes dollars for the matching.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes and no. We're parking in there
for a moment to get them back again. We're not spending them.
Page 267
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think you're mixing apples and
oranges. Number one, you want to move forward for a grant
application. Do that, up or down. Number two, if you want to talk
about future, if this fails at some time and you want to make a motion
to that effect to do something, fine.
But I think when you try to put the two together, I'm a receiving
agency. I look at this one. I don't know what they're talking about.
Keep it clean and simple.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, you're saying, don't
combine the two motions --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I wouldn't. I'll defer to counsel
but--
MR. WEIGEL: I concur with Dr. Carter's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, I attempt, at this point, to
withdraw my second so that we can entertain a first motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You just made a first motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We made the first Motion, but I
withdraw my second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You don't want us to go after the
grant?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I didn't say that. I just withdraw
my motion to support what we're doing there until we entertain the
first motion from the other end.
I'd like to see the -- I want to give the two other people that --
I'm sure that Commissioner Henning is very justified with what he's
looking for. And I agree with him on it, and I'm sure Commissioner
Coyle feels the same way.
I'd like to see us come out with four votes in favor of going for
the grant. If we have to put a motion in first, then any future money
that will go into this program over and above what we get
Page 268
June 11, 2002
reimbursed, you know, ad valorem tax dollars that are dedicated to
the program.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand where you're going.
You want to do that one first, then come back and make this motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fine. I withdraw my motion. You
make the other one. We'll do that and then we'll go to this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you like to make that
motion since you so eloquently put it together in the beginning,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that if these
grants, federal and state fail, that we will not use any ad valorem tax
dollars unless we go to the voters of Collier county.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Dunnuck, you've got a comment?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. Commissioners, the only comment I
would make is, you know, while that's a policy decision of the Board,
that may be more appropriate when we bring back the funding levels
at the state level with discussion through the program. You know,
and we're giving you your full amount of options. So if you want to
continue from there to support the program, then you can establish
that decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only reason I'm bringing it
up is I think I got a lot of leverage today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You do. And the problem is I do
agree with you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you can make this motion.
This Board can approve it. Another board can come in here and say,
"We don't buy that. They can reverse it." So it'll be binding as long as
the current Commission is seated. And you can't bind the future
commissions by that motion.
Page 269
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the same holds true with the next
motion we would make.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's true.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can't combine -- But in any case,
I see where Commissioner Henning is coming from, and I'll second
his motion.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I really hesitate to do this, but I've
got to ask a couple more questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, don't hesitate. Please do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're being asked -- And I've just
seen this for the first time. We're being asked for an additional
$400,000 for the health services budget.
MR. DUNNUCK: This budget is, frankly, from my perspective,
independent of that discussion. Those we'll be discussing with you in
the next week as we go through the program general fund budget,
and we can do the justifications of physician costs and the reasons
why we're proposing that budget.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand, but you're asking for
$400,000 more, okay, even though you're likely to get $2.4 million
more from this particular program.
Now, what I'm concerned about is that can Dr. Colfer get her
hands on part of this $2.4 million that's coming back or must it go
specifically through this clinic in Immokalee? Must it be used 100
percent by this clinic in Immokalee? Or can Dr. Colfer --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, the clinic is in Naples.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. But can Dr.
Colfer use it for some of the services she is providing; the federal and
state grant?
Page 270
June 11, 2002
MR. DUNNUCK: I think the answer to your question, if I
understand what you're asking for, is once we establish how much
money that can be granted through the program, you know, through
an application process, will Collier Health Services agree to distribute
additional money beyond the match that was provided? You know, if
we had put up $500,000 and they got the money to operate the clinic,
could more money come back than the 500,000 to supplement this
budget, if that's what I'm understanding your question.
The answer to that question is yes. But that's establishing that
they agree to do that and that the hospital agrees to do that through
the agreement process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They who? The health clinic?
MR. DUNNUCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Collier Health Clinic. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we still have the motion
by Commissioner Henning, the second by myself on the limit of
future funding. Is there any other discussion on that?
In hearing none, all those in favor of that motion, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No -- Yes and no.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm opposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need to explain why. Until I can
get these details worked out about where the money goes, who can
use it, how much can they use, I'm very reluctant to commit to this
program.
I'd feel a lot more certain if we had those questions all wrapped
up and the agreements all wrapped up, but I understand why you can't
do that.
Page 271
June 11, 2002
But you understand that one can argue that your approval of a
program which requires $500,000 in local match money can be very
directly related to a request for a budget increase of 400,000 plus
dollars for the Health Services people. And it looks as if you're taking
money directly out of ad valorem property taxes. You're transferring
it to the Health Services budget, and then using that for the purpose
of getting the matching funds from the state and federal level.
Now, if there was a way to say we're going to put a cap, we're
going to freeze the Health Services budget exactly where it was this
past year, then I think that begins to undermine that potential negative
argument, because that would demonstrate there is no additional
money going anywhere to do anything. And that way if Dr. Colfer
can get some money back from the federal and state funds that will
make up for the fact that she didn't get the increase she wanted, then
everybody winds up fairly happy in this process and we have saved
the taxpayers $400,000 rather than --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I may interject. Jim Mudd,
Deputy County Manager. In this budget process, one of the things
that we did that's a little bit different than last year is we went in there
and put in expenditures and we put in a revenue column. So you'll see
them both.
And in this particular case, you'd see a $400,000 increase to Dr.
Colfer's budget. But at the same time, you'd see a $400,000 revenue
come in that would offset that based on your budget sheet.
And when I say her expenditures would be up for her but her
revenue would be coming in, so it would offset on those two sheets.
DR. COLFER: First of all -- I'm Dr. Colfer again for the record.
I didn't ask for an increase in $400,000 in my budget. I think it's like
70,000 maybe, once for a clerical person to help with us a disaster
planning, which in no way could be construed as primary care.
Page 272
June 11, 2002
This money has to go back to a Federally Qualified Health
Center. I'm not a Federally Qualified Health Center. The only own
way I could get it would be if we then carve yet another agreement
with CHSI, the Federally Qualified Health Center, to give it to me,
and they'd have to give it to me to do primary care. Please remember,
I do very little primary care in the health department, very little. And
that's why we're doing this primary care program for folks that need it
through this other agency. Does that help a little bit?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It does, and it does answer one of
my questions, and I appreciate it, Dr. Colfer. But you don't
understand how the budgeting process works. You asked for $70,000.
The staff asked for $400,000, and then that way they've got $330,000
to play with, okay.
MR. DUNNUCK: Just for point of clarification, that amount
that you saw was the increase was mostly in the Social Services
Department, and it was specific to two areas. One was physician fees
and pharmaceutical costs, which was really to take place not serving
additional people but to subsidize the additional cost it is.
I mean, as we've gone through and shown you through our own
health plan as county employees, consistently you've seen a 20
percent increase come across in those two categories. That budget
line item was to throw that out to the Board saying if you want to
continue servicing the same level of service, this is the cost it's going
to take and the increase.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And during the budget process, we
have the right to accept or refuse it? MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So why do we want to belabor that
point? Now, I'd like to really try to wrap this one issue up rather than
Page 273
June 11, 2002
take on the whole Social Services budget from end to the other. And I
think maybe we've reached an impasse already.
I didn't hear your vote, Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I voted no, because I'm not going
to make a decision tonight on what that discussion --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a failed motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- because we don't have a budget
yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to reinstate your
original motion? Then we'll take it from there. And --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I'm not too sure on how to deal
with making everybody happy on this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I recommend the Health and
Human Services Advisory Committee -- No, they recommend to us. I
support the recommendation that the Board authorize staff to apply
for a grant from the state to fund a Federally Qualified Health center
utilizing a budget based upon five doctors and three nurses. And that
amount is $2,417,211.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Once more I'll second it and
open it up for discussion.
Hearing none, I'll call for the question. All those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So what we have here is an
undecided vote.
Page 274
June 11,2002
Okay. I'd like to make a motion to bring this back at the next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Weigel, at that point, can
we bring it back to the next meeting since we're totally undecided?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Yes. You have --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's a right of recall.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're enjoying this too much, you
know that.
MR. WEIGEL: Because you have not had a decision one way or
the other by the tie vote, it may be placed on the agenda by any
individual commissioner at whatever upcoming meeting you choose.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will place it on the agenda right
now for the next meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that is, in fact, then a direction to the
county manager to place it on the June 25th agenda for the Board of
County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, why are we
belaboring this? We know where Commissioner Fiala stands. So I
ask for a revote on this item, if we could do that.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. If you want to do a reconsideration, Mr.
Henning's motion is a reconsideration on the vote just taken or
Page 275
June 11,2002
identify the vote you wish to reconsider. The last vote was for a
continuance. The prior vote was on the issue, the motion of Dr.
Colfer.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll withdraw my motion on the
continuance to get Commissioner Henning's --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that was already voted on. The vote to be
taken now is a reconsideration of one of those two votes that's just
occurred.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The vote to move forward with
this program. Although I do have concerns about that, the whole
program, and I think that we have opportunities to take a good look
at it when this comes back up again and especially about the budget,
and I know it's a different process. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second your motion,
Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
I just want to say that when it does come up for discussion
again, I am going to be supportive of what I originally said as far as
ad valorem taxes ending up in the final budget for the future uses.
And with that, if there's no other discussion, I'll call the
question. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And show Commissioner Coyle as
the dissenting vote.
Thank you very much. I appreciate very much you all coming
and --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, wait a minute.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner? Commissioner, I just want to
make sure --
Page 276
June 11, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: That's the motion to reconsider.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That was a motion to reconsider,
sir?
MR. WEIGEL: That was the motion to reconsider.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. So I have to make the
motion all over again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. WEIGEL: And then you make the motion. Yeah. We've
identified what motion was to be reconsidered. The motion to
reconsider was done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Parenthetically, I'm going to make a ruling from
the bench so-to-speak in regard to the ordinance of reconsideration. It
talks in terms of someone who voted with the majority. We have no
majority here. But in the same context, by lack of home -- or I should
say by lack of specificity preventing this and the idea of home rule,
that that which is not prohibited may be done, I am telling you as a
legal opinion that, in fact, by virtue of the 2/2 vote, you can, in fact,
entertain a motion to reconsider, as has been done here. And you are
now about to enter on a revote of the matter at chief.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. It's the top of the ninth.
The bases are loaded. The count is 3/2.
I recommend the recommendation of Health and Human
Services Advisory Committee, that the Board authorize staff to apply
for a grant from the state to fund a Federally Qualified Health Center
utilizing a budget based upon five doctors and three nurses, the grant
total to be $2,417,211.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second that.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Page 277
June 11, 2002
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And show Commissioner Coyle as
the dissenting vote.
Thank you very much. I think this time we got through it. And
we'll be moving onto the next step, and we'll be looking forward to
seeing what we can come up with.
MR. DUNNUCK: Before we move on, real quick, I'd just like to
thank Mr. Owens, Mr. Estes and Mr. Dillon and Mr. Bretsmann for
attending today. It's been a long day. You know, Mr. Owens
cancelled a couple of flights from Tallahassee to stay here for this
item. And I just want to show my appreciation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And thank you, Dr. Colfer.
Item #10C
STAFF TO ASSUME LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITY ON DEVONSHIRE BOULEVARD-
APPROVED
Okay. Where are we now?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we are now under the County
Manager's report, and we're going to Item -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10-C?
MR. MUDD: -- 10-C, sir, and that's Devonshire Boulevard.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record,
Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. Given the late hour,
I'm going to try and be brief, but I want to make sure I get a
reasonable coverage of this. You have people that have been waiting
here from Berkshire Lakes throughout the day as well. It is an
important issue to them. What I want to point out is Berkshire Lakes,
Page 278
June 11, 2002
when it was developed, there was a 100-foot internal roadway
between the residential and the commercial section, basically,
between Santa Barbara and Radio established. That 100-foot internal
roadway we now know as Devonshire Boulevard, as it was later
named.
It provided for, essentially, opportunities for some planning and
some work at both Santa Barbara and Radio as part of that original
PUD. That original PUD also said that the primary access for the
commercial would be onto Devonshire with only secondary access
onto Santa Barbara and Radio.
As the area was developed, however, first of all, the roadway
was landscaped with no permit, not just the two quadrant sections I
mentioned at Santa Barbara and at Radio but the median itself under
no permit provision for either the plantings and/or the subsequent
maintenance, as well, the primary access from the commercials
established onto Santa Barbara and onto Radio. Subsequent to that,
there was problems and accidents being experienced particularly at
the full median opening on Santa Barbara. We had Power
Corporation come to the county noting that they understood that we
had a study experiencing accident problems or looking at possibly
closing off that access point at Santa Barbara. That's about the time I
first came on board and was told that they would develop an access to
Devonshire if we would contribute.
We looked at it and saw that the PUD actually required that one
access they already had down by Radio, but, also, the other secondary
one up near Santa Barbara was to have originally been the original
access point.
When they went to put that in, they eliminated some of that
median landscaping. I then found out that for about, well, over a
dozen years, Berkshire Lakes' homeowners, when the transfer was
Page 279
June 11, 2002
over from Power corporation to the homeowners had been
maintaining, again without permit, but nonetheless maintaining over
a dozen years that landscaping that was interrupted as that median
modification was made.
Unfortunately, as you are aware, that new access to Devonshire
has been blocked off and never opened, which is another issue that
we're still dealing with. But the issue at hand is the homeowners who
ended up taking over the maintenance of Devonshire landscaping, not
in the PUD, not by permit, have had that opportunity all these years.
As the issue has been raised from the commercial area in establishing
access there, they've noted that, in fact, this roadway is servicing as a
part of the county's roadway system, a collector road, if you will, and
are here to ask that, in fact, the county take on maintenance,
recognizing there's been some precedent in the past where the county
is doing the maintenance, different roadway sections.
However, also noting, as we've explained to them, that the
Board took a position that given the urgency for capacity
improvements, that we are no longer doing landscaping as a policy of
the Board.
So, obviously, what you have in front of you today is a request
to reconsider that policy and to consider whether or not to allow
county staff to budget and to make some modifications to the existing
planning for site distance and then to take on maintenance as is
provided for in your executive summary. And what I'll do is let them
present to you and then answer any questions that you may have on
it.
I think you've got them.
MS. FILSON: I have one public speaker, Grant Grimm.
MR. GRIMM: Good evening. Mr. Chairman, commissioners,
thank you for this opportunity. A good part of what I've had to say,
Page 280
June 11, 2002
Mr. Feder has already covered. But I will run through this. It's brief.
We are a mixed dwelling homeowner community of 1,639 units
bounded on the north by 1-75, on the east by Santa Barbara
Boulevard and on the south by Radio Road.
Devonshire Boulevard is a county collector road, approximately
a quarter mile long, connecting Radio Road and Santa Barbara and is
designated as the primary access road to a commercial tract known as
Bershire Commons, which consists of 27.67 acres.
The developer being in control of the Berkshire Lakes Master
Association and, incidentally, still has a part ownership of the
commercial tract, we're the vested interest in the development. And
sale of the property assumed the maintenance of Devonshire
Boulevard landscaping and lighting, and one must assume that the
landscaping and lighting met county standards as they existed at that
time. In November of 1996, control of Bershire Lakes Master
Association was turned over to the homeowners who continue
currently to pay the cost of landscaping and lighting maintenance.
Money was placed in the county budget for this year but
subsequently removed, as a cost-cutting process took effect following
failure of the sales tax referendum.
Implicit in this action is the acknowledgment that this
maintenance should properly be the responsibility of the county.
Now, there are other examples where the county is, indeed,
maintaining similar collector roads. Vineyards Boulevard will be
another.
With the development springing up along Radio Road, east of
Santa Barbara Boulevard, and the opening of The Shores
development, traffic on Devonshire has increased tremendously and
all the hazards that go with it. Now, this situation has also been
influenced by the county closing the median in Santa Barbara at an
Page 281
June 11, 2002
exit for Berkshire commons which previously allowed exiting traffic
to turn north on Santa Barbara. Also, we are informed that further
median closures in the area are planned which will further exacerbate
the traffic problem.
I want to conclude by stating that we are very grateful and
appreciative of the assistance we've enjoyed from Commissioner
Henning and also with the personnel of the transportation staff as
well.
And we request commission approval for the county to take over
the maintenance, all the landscaping and street lighting costs on
Devonshire Boulevard. I thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, Commissioners, we're
trying to work out some other alternative to take over the
maintenance. The homeowners association and myself went to the
Radio Road MSTU for them to expand their boundaries. They were
reluctant to do that. They felt that it was the county's responsibility.
I know the mission is to build the roads, but I feel that these
citizens were really short-changed by the developer during the
control. And, actually, you're saying that you have done maintenance
on this road since '96, the homeowners themselves.
During the time when the developer was in control, those costs
were still passed onto the homeowners. So it's been a lot of years that
they've been maintaining it and lighting it. So I hope the Board would
support taking over the maintenance of Devonshire Boulevard. And I
make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second yourMotion,
Commissioner Henning. Now, that's just to take over the
maintenance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staff's recommendations.
Page 282
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, there's an 85,000, capital
costs. Has there been any possibility that the MSTUs and the county
could collectively work out the capital side of it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As far as that -- No, the capital
side of it, we really don't have to make those improvements. We just
need to accept it the way it is. But it's staff's recommendation to do
the improvements to the standards of the county?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we hear from Mr. Feder
and then maybe we can move forward on this.
MR. FEDER: Very quickly, what I will tell you is I've asked
staff to look at it. The amount that you see here is for bringing
everything up to county spec. But at the same time, there are site
distance problems, some other issues relative to the plantings. When
you say probably develop the spec, with all due respect, it was not
permitted. There is no right-of-way permit even for the landscaping
when it was put out there by the developer, nor it's ongoing
maintenance.
So we do have some problems with the landscaping out there
was the only reason we showed that capital item, that if the county is
going in to end up maintaining it, that we need to modify some of
what's planted there for that purpose. And the other is that some site
distance problems are on hand out there as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this median irrigated?
MR. GRIMM: Yes, it is.
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir, I think so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. FEDER: I'm told that it is and I was under that
understanding as well.
Page 283
June 11,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion? Any
more questions?
I'll call the question. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
Thank you, sir.
MR. GRIMM: Thank you.
Item #10I
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.810 HIDEOUT
FISHING LAKE; BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY BRANTLEY
BOULEVARD, HIDEOUT GOLF CLUB AND LAND ZONED
AGRICULTURAL, ON THE WEST BY LAND ZONED ESTATES,
ON THE EAST BY HIDEOUT COLF CLUB, AND ON THE
SOUTH BY LAND ZONED AGRICULTURAL - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to take one minute just to
move something off the agenda, one, two, three, so I can send
somebody home.
I pulled the, what was it, 16-A(6) having to do with pit mining,
and the reason that was is because I couldn't get any answers on
Monday. I got those answers and I'd like to make a motion for
approval. I have no problem with it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You seconded it?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, you moved for approval. I'll
second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion from
myself, Commissioner Coletta, a second from Commissioner Carter.
Page 284
June 11, 2002
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stan, thank you very much. Sorry
about the delay. I wished I got rid of this sooner for you.
MR. MUDD: For the record, that was 10-I.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 10-I?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it was moved to 10-I.
MR. MUDD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 16-A moved to 10-I.
Item # 1 OF
STAFF TO AMEND SECTION 66-116 OF THE COUNTY CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CREATING STRICTER
ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC SWIMMING POOLS
CURRENTLY EXEMPT UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So now we're moving to 10-F;
is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
MS. FILSON: H -- Oh, F.
MR. MUDD: 10-F.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about B?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What about E?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: B as in Baker.
MR. MUDD: Okay. 10-B was continued to 6/25.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
Page 285
June 11, 2002
MR. MUDD: 10-C was just approved. 10-D, we've already
heard. 10-E was continued to 6/25. And so we're on 10-F.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's really neat when I'm right about
one of these things.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When is that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 10-F, I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion for
approval by Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner
Henning.
Any discussion?
There's no one to speak on that, I presume?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Thank you. And now the next
one there which was G--
MR. MUDD: 10-G was continued to 6/25.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
Item #1 OH
LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE ISLES OF CAPRI CIVIC
ASSOCIATION TO DESIGNATE LAND FOR A FUTURE
TENNIS COURT ON ISLES OF CAPRI- CONTINUED TO JUNE
25, 2002
MR. MUDD: So we're on 10-H --
Page 286
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's correct, license agreement.
MR. MUDD: -- which was 16-D(5).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In all honesty, I would ask this
commission to continue that until Commissioner Fiala is here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I asked it to be pulled. I understand a
number of other ones did too. So I make a motion for a continuance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by myself, a
second by Commissioner Coyle.
MS. FILSON: That was Commissioner Coyle that asked for that
one to be pulled off.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all right. I'll give him--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I came right behind him then.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I think we all had some
reservations, but Commissioner Fiala should be here to defend it.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. The ayes have it, 4 to
0.
The next one is the license agreement for-- What is the next
one? No, it isn't.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, this is the one we just
continued.
MR. MUDD: At this juncture, we've got -- Well, public
comment is the next item, number 11.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought 16-D(1) was pulled. Was
it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't have it down here.
Page 287
June 11, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have it either.
MS. FILSON: It was continued.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was continued, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was continued. All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Public comment.'?
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAl, TOPICS
MS. FILSON: Public comment. We have two people for public
comment, Robert McConnell, and he will be followed by Bob
Krasowski.
MR. MCCONNELL: Good evening, gentlemen. Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to state your name for the
record one more time?
MR. MCCONNELL: I am Robert McConnell, Collier Reserve.
I'm the president of the homeowners association. We have a minor
problem compared to the weighty matters that you have discussed
today, but it's with regard to a sidewalk. There's a sidewalk
requirement for the Citizens National Bank. And I would like to
request the Board to direct staff to give the bank a conditional CO
without the sidewalk. And this would enable the bank to come
forward with a permanent request to eliminate the sidewalk and
preserve the environment.
To describe the situation, we have a 275-foot easement running
from the entrance of Collier's Reserve to Immokalee Drive. In that
easement, we have lots of schrubs, trees, pine trees, palm trees, and
there is no sidewalk.
Page 288
June 11, 2002
But the bank is going in on lot 10 and 11 to the west of us and
then going to place -- They're required by your land development
code to place a sidewalk. No one is going to use it. It's going to
disrupt the environment and all the other sidewalks around. We
would like to see a permanent waiver of that requirement but the
bank would have to request it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, how would you get to the
bank by traffic then if we don't have --
MR. MCCONNELL: There's a sidewalk on Immokalee Road to
the south of the bank. There's a sidewalk on the road to the north, to
the west of the bank. And there's a sidewalk going across Point Drive
from Collier's Reserve's drive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So foot traffic from Collier's
Reserve still can get there?
MR. MCCONNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can help you a little with that,
Commissioner Henning, because I've visited this site. I don't know,
who owns the easement?
MR. MUDD: The easement is owned by the bank, okay, and the
homeowners association have a permanent landscaping easement on
that particular property.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. So what I have visited is
that that sidewalk runs north and south to connect up with Immokalee
back down to the one that runs into Collier's Reserve --
MR. MCCONNELL: Across Point Drive.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- and the bank. So Mr.
McConnell is right. You can come out of Collier's Reserve and you
could walk through the parking lot to the bank. Would people on
Immokalee Road's sidewalk come down that sidewalk and walk into
Page 289
June 11, 2002
Collier's Reserve? I suppose it's possible, but I don't think it's
probable.
The question before this Board is granting a CO while the bank
applies for a variance, which becomes a policy decision by the Board,
as I understand it.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development and Environmental Services Administrator. Actually,
what's been requested, yes, it would be -- It's something that I could
approve and issue a conditional CO pending the bank's request for a
variance.
They have not come in and asked for a variance. As far as I
understand, this was a petition that was raised by the homeowners
association in Collier's Reserve.
The facts are that the sidewalks are required. They're part of the
county ordinance to put in sidewalks. The contractor has already
started. And both -- My chief of engineering, Tom Kuck, has been
out there. Tom is here to speak if you want to get any of the
particulars about on site.
But the issue really is that the contractor has already started. The
sidewalk can fit in there. The issue is whether the Board wants to
waive this requirement and actually not have the sidewalk put in. I
mean, that's the issue --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But you do need--
MR. SCHMITT: -- because it's going to come --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Excuse me. But you do need the
bank to request the variance?
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
Page 290
June 11, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: The bank has to come in and request the
variance, and they would do that. They would have to come back to
you and request a variance for the sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. McConnell, do have an
assurance from the bank, in writing, that they will come and ask for
the variance, because then I would think that we were in difficulty
here?
MR. MCCONNELL: I have been in contact with Mr. John
Barber and also with Mr. Jeff Head and wrote them a letter back on
the 1 lth of April requesting that jointly could we proceed to request
this waiver.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, I heard
Joe Schmitt say that he can give a condition -- put a condition on the
CO for the bank to come back to the Board of Commissioners. So if
they don't come back to the Board of Commissioners, then their CO
goes away. Are you satisfied with that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have a problem with that,
but I will sit here as a commissioner, and I think I understand both
sides of the situation. But you will have established a policy that you
may get a lot of other requests along these lines. So I think you need
to think about that. And the sidewalk -- The dirt's been cut, if you
please, to put the sidewalk in. Now you've got a restoration situation.
So, you know, it's entirely up to the Board. And I understand
Mr. McConnell's concerns. I understand the position Joe Schmitt is
in. And then, you know, it's up to the Board on how you're going to
deal with this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I think the safest
way -- If Mr. Schmitt is willing to do a condition on the CO pending
on the Board's outcome, that is the safest way, and we're not, you
know, granting a variance.
Page 291
June 11, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: Right. We can issue the CO under a
conditional CO and with a guarantee or the stipulation if they're
going to come back and ask for a variance. And then that will be
before you as to whether or not you will grant the variance for the
sidewalk, which is a variance from our land development code.
And again, it's an issue. Are you establishing a precedence?
Because what we're looking at throughout the county is trying to put
sidewalks in to facilitate bicycle or foot traffic or other type of traffic
other than having to walk down the middle of the road. Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got the solution. Let's take the
sidewalk and put it out in Orange Tree. I could use it there. MR. SCHMITT: There you go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. See, we're done.
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, we'll get the developer to do that.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see- I mean, there is a
way for foot traffic or bicycles to get through here. I don't know
where the precedence is being set.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, where are we with this? We're
recommending staff to do something or are we going to let the
petitioner come back again? Direction.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, what Mr. McConnell is
requesting of the Board is that we give staff direction to issue a
conditional CO based on the bank coming in with an application for a
variance to a land development code for this Board to decide at some
near future date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. My head is nodding up and
down, and you said it out loud. Your head was moving. Now we've
got three. Is there anyone -- We've got four heads moving up and
down. So we've got direction.
Page 292
June 11, 2002
MR. MCCONNELL: All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MR. MCCONNELL: Okay. We'll issue the CO and with the
stipulation for the bank to come back with the variance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MCCONNELL: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: In the meantime, nothing
happens; right? It just sits there?
MR. MCCONNELL: Well, the problem is it's already been --
they've already started the work. And the issue really was going to be
the disruption of the landscaping into the approach into Collier's
Reserve, and there's already been some work done now. We'll have to
talk to the developer to see what he can do about what the initial
work -- we don't want to leave that open. Again, it's an open -- it's
probably 5 to 20 inches.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: When I had visited it, you had
already had done some cuts through there and-- MR. MCCONNELL: Yes. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- and I would say you would not
want to leave it in that condition.
MR. MCCONNELL: Right. So they'll probably be some
additional expense that's going to be borne by the developer in trying
to restore the area until such time as the variance is either approved
or disapproved.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And maybe a discussion with Mr.
McConnell and developer to work all that out. MR. MCCONNELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Page 293
June 11, 2002
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners and Staff.
My name is Bob Krasowski for the record. I'm here representing Zero
Waste of Collier County. At the last commission meeting, I asked a
couple of questions, and I'm here again to ask a few questions for
clarification. What I was curious to know the last time was what was
happening in regards to the letting of a contract for a waste
characterization study and for a study for a waste master plan.
I did some research on my own and downloaded off of the
county website the verbatim minutes of that meeting after reviewing
the --
MR. WEIGEL: Stop. Excuse me. You don't have a quorum right
now, so you need to stop the meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They're both out for-- They're
coming back in.
MR. WEIGEL: I know, but you're not taking official business
right now. For Sunshine purposes, you're in a meeting but you're not
for--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we've got to get one of
them back in here.
MR. WEIGEL: So if we could just take a moment pause, if we
could.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Leo, do you want to make sure that
their exit from here is very short. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
(There was a brief pause in the proceedings.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome back.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. We're back in session.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a quorum.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes. Thank you.
Page 294
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Start over again.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry about that, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: That's all right. But the last time I was
here, I mentioned that -- I had some questions regarding the process
for allotting the contract for a waste characterization study and a
waste composition study. And I did some research since my
questions and downloaded the verbatim minutes of the meeting of
June 26, '01 and also reviewed the videotape again.
And what I learned through this, and I'm sure you could all
review this for your own interpretation of what was said, but to me
it's pretty clear that it was stated in the discussion that the waste
characterization plan and the solid waste master plan would be at
least let for bid amongst the existing engineering contracts.
And part of the discussion also included and it could be inferred
that maybe that also consideration for sending it out for an RFP was
under consideration as well. And there's a particular exchange
between then Chairman Carter and Mr. Mudd in regards to that being
a good idea because we'd have the most input and that would be
good, to have a good diversity of input.
So I would like clarification on what the status is of that because
I talked to Mr. Mudd on the phone and a little bit today, and I
understand that something has been done along those lines. Although
in the past weeks, I haven't received any official statement.
One other point in the same minutes, towards the very end of the
meeting, something that slipped my attention -- I feel like a fool --
because after that meeting, we went on to work with the Solid Waste
Department, discussed the RFPs and identified how they might be
developed. But we stayed back a bit because we didn't want to be
Page 295
June 11, 2002
involved too much because for any concern about our having inside
information or something like that, but we progressed along there.
But right here in the minutes, Commissioner Mac'Kie at the time
moved that we seek RFPs for truck and rail hauling, for gasification,
for zero waste, for composting, excluding municipal solid waste
composting, and for, "How do I describe your proposal?" and pointed
to someone here, and it was for C & D (phonetic).
So there was some discussion, and that was the motion. And I
interrupted. I got up here and asked about the MURF (phonetic) and
stuff and I was -- explained, and then I went and sat down. And then
Chairman Carter said, "Are we all clear before I call a motion? Is
everybody clear on the vote?" which included those RFPs.
And then Commissioner Mac'Kie said, "Basically, we are
leaving everything in except waste energy and MSW composting."
And then Chairman Carter said, "All right. Thank you. We have
the motion. We have a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye."
There was a unanimous response.
"Chairman Carter: Opposed by the sign?"
No response.
"Chairman Carter: Outstanding job, Mr. Mudd. Mr. Krasowski,
thank you."
There was applause. Those applause came from over here, and it
was our little Zero Waste contingent that was very excited about
where we have gotten to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bob, you might want to ask the
question before you run out of time. I understand where you're going.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, okay. Well, I'm pretty much here just
to speak to you--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No problem.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- in a public format.
Page 296
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought there was a question.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- to bring these things up.
You started me over, so I have one minute; right? You started
me over.
MS. FILSON: I shut it off when the commissioners left.
MR. KRASOWSKI: It was four--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bob, I'll grant you a minute and a
closing, okay, but no more.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I appreciate it. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Maybe it's better to work at the end of the
day here. You've guys are all relaxed. MR. WEIGEL: Just go.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Just go. Okay, sorry. It's only tens of
millions of dollars.
My question is what is the status of the bidding for the stuff
going out for bid or RFPs on what I had mentioned earlier for the
solid waste master plan and the waste characterization study.
Then also, my statement is we at Zero Waste would like to think
that when you vote and give direction to the staff-- and I understand
there's all sorts of circumstances that are involved here -- that we can
rely on that action so we would expect a request for proposals to be
let for Zero Waste.
And I happen to know at least four or five consultants that are
experts in that field that could respond to that RFP.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Bob, we granted you an extra
minute and everything. Now I've got to allow Mr. Mudd to be able to
respond in the shortest possible way possible to your questions, but I
want you to sit down, because I don't want you to come back and --
It's not open for discussion. You can set up an appointment with him
Page 297
June 11, 2002
if you want to have a long, drawn-out discussion with Mr. Mudd. So
please sit down at this time.
And, Mr. Mudd, go answer the question.
MR. MUDD: Characterization of master plan. If we decide to do
them, we'll go out in an RFP. I checked the things to make sure that
we hadn't made a mistake on Friday after I talked to Bob on the
phone. And I'm the one that told him where the stuff was at and what
day and what page it was so he could pull it off.
I made calls to Solid Waste to figure out had been done. There
was a scope of work where a master plan was mentioned, and I killed
it at that particular juncture with Malcomb Perny (phonetic) to make
sure that that didn't go any farther. In that process, I'm waiting
George Yumez (phonetic) to come back to give me where we go
from here on that particular case, okay.
So, Bob, good catch on your part. Thank you very much for
your help.
Zero Waste. Zero Waste is a concept. Zero Waste is not a
technology, okay, and it's always been that. And we've gone out in a
series of RFPs in order to do that process.
And I will go little bit farther. If Zero Waste is a technology and
it's going to go out for an RFP, then I would say that Mr. Krasowski
at this particular juncture is a lobbyist, and I don't know if he's
registered or not.
So I don't think that's the case at all. I think Zero Waste is a
concept. It was described as a concept during that workshop in June.
And we have taken that concept to heart and sent it out to RFPs. And
if there's any part of that that I missed, Bob, you need to come
forward and tell me, and we'll go out and RFP in any part of your
piece that I missed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not tonight.
Page 298
June 11, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not here.
MR. MUDD: Not tonight. Off line.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I can't defend myself about it being
suggested that I'm a lobbyist? I'm not a lobbyist. Check the law with
Mr. Saunders about that. I have the law. I'm not a lobbyist.
What about your vote, 4 to 0, to put an RFP --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stop, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- out for Zero Waste?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: No, I didn't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, you have to respond to this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I remember correctly --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. I wished I could have
stopped him a little short myself, but, I mean, that's the end of that.
Okay, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I remember correctly, we
discounted all --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- anything in a hauling, hauling
out of county. So you might find a motion or a discussion and a
motion after that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if we failed, bring it back and
we'll address it real quick.
MR. MUDD: We are getting cost estimates for hauling out. I've
seen them come from in from -- BFI sent one here about two weeks
ago, and I sent it back down to Solid Waste.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're going to go on to Mr.
Dunnuck who's been waiting very patiently in the back of the room.
Page 299
June 11, 2002
You have two items, Mr. Dunnuck. I hope they're both short.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening, Commissioners. I think in lieu
of time, it would probably better to have these discussions during the
budget workshops so we can give you updates of the programs at that
time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What a sport.
And with that, is there any final comments from staff?.
Mr. Mudd, closing comments of any kind?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I wouldn't bring it up at 7 o'clock in the
evening.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, none. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have none.
Item #15A
COMMISSIONER HENNING REGARDING A LETTER FROM
CLERK OF COURTS RELATING TO WASTE WATER
TREATMENT PLANT EMPLOYEE OVERTIME
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
I received a letter from the Clerk of Courts about the north waste
water treatment plant. And to me it's kind of disturbing that what is --
what our staff is saying. Productivity loss was part of the over-time
which we approved back last year. It's my understanding that we
approved over-time and not lost productivity.
Page 300
June 11, 2002
MR. MUDD: Productivity loss, sir, was part of the contractor's
estimate that he gave us for his over-time in different sections. And
that's what we brought to the Board as far as his estimate of what it
would cost in order to the -- the over-time, in the over-time process.
And we made sure that when we brought it through to the Board, we
asked if-- when we made sure that they would voucher us as far as
time and his equipment is concerned.
We've taken a look at the productivity that -- and it's good to
have this audit by the clerk. The clerk has showed us where the
contractor has charged us for productivity loss on equipment. Now,
we have deemed that that is not a valid cost. We have sent a letter
back to the consultant and told them that we thought that was
inappropriate.
We have also talked to some of the subs, and they have not been
paid productivity loss for their hours. We've also mentioned that to
the contractor, and we're waiting for his response.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle, closing comment?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And myself. The only thing I want to
say is that I am very concerned about what we are doing to our court
stenographer who's taking the records here today and the length of
time she's been working. From what I know, it's been four to six
hours as standard, and this has been going on from nine o'clock until
seven.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ten hours.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's an awful long time, and hope
we make some arrangements so that we don't have to put someone
Page 301
June 11,2002
through this. I admire the fact you can hold up through this whole
process. God bless you.
THE REPORTER: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Just concerned.
And with that, we're adjourned.
(Adjourned at 7:05 p.m.)
***** Commissioner Carter moved, seconded by Commissioner
Henning, and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Fiala out), that the
following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be
approved and/or adopted:*****
Item #16Al -Continued to June 25, 2002
AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT FOR SADDLEBROOK
VILLAGE PUD.
Item # 16A2
RELEASE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD LIEN
DOCUMENTS ESTABLISHED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FL V.
BRUCE G. WOOD/BRUCE G. WOOD TR.
Item #16A3 - Deleted
Item # 16A4
REQUEST FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF
'SATURNIA LAKES PLAT TWO" AND MAINTENANCE
Page 302
June 11,2002
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A5
RELEASE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD LIEN
DOCUMENTS ESTABLISHED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FL V.
WENDALL L. KRAMER, SALVATORE F. ANGILERI, AND
SALVATORE C. GRECH
Item #16A6 - Moved to Item # 10I
Item # 16A7
RELEASE OF AN EASEMENT NO LONGER REQUIRED
RECOGNIZING THE COUNTY HAS ALREADY RECEIVED AN
EQUIVALENT PERMANENT EASMENT SO AS TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS ON PLATTED LOTS IN CARIJTON LAKES
Item #16B 1
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT A DRAINAGE
EASEMTN FOR THE LELY AREA STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$1,900.00 - AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B2
Page 303
June 11, 2002
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR $225,815.89 WITH FLORIDA
STATE UNDERGROUND, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE RADIO ROAD/DAVIS
BOULEVARD INTERSECTION REALIGNMENT, PROJECT
#65031
Item #16B3
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 2 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $435,650 WITH CH2MHILL, INC., FOR THE DESIGN OF
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD,
PROJECT NO. 63051
Item #16B4
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 3 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $136,196 WITH CH2MHILL, INC., FOR THE DESIGN OF
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD -
PROJECT #63051
Item #16B5 - Deleted
Item # 16B6
REQUEST OF $250,000 FOR THE CR 951 PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT STUDY BEING
Page 304
June 11,2002
CONDUCTED BY LEE COUNTY FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD
IN COLLIER COUNTY TO ALICO ROAD IN LEE COUNTY -
STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK W/LEE COUNTY TO PRODUCE
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Item #16B7
APPROVE WORK ORDER NO. BRC-FT-02-03 FOR BETTER
ROADS, INC. TO MODIFY RADIO ROAD MEDIAN OPENING
BETWEEN INDUSTIRAL BOULEVARD AND COMMERICAL
BOULEVARD- IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,827, PROJECT
#60016
Item #16B8
RESOLUTION 2002-258 REGARDING CHANGE OF NAME FOR
A PORTION OF FORMER RADIO ROAD TO RADIO LANE,
PROJECT #65031
Item # 16B9
AMENDMENT NO. 2 FOR $213,490.20 TO THE CONRACT FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BY CH2M HILL
FOR IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 951 TO 43P'I) AVE. NE) FOUR
LANE DESIGN, PROJECT #60018
Item #16B 10
Page 305
June 11, 2002
REASSIGNMENT OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR USE
BY THE TRANSPORATION DIVISION AND THE EMERGENCY
SERVICES DIVISION
Item #16C1 - Moved to Item #10G and Continued to June 25, 2002
Item #16C2
AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF 16-
INCH RECLAIMED WATER MAIN WITHIN FPL POWER-LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN RADIO ROAD AND DAVIS
BOULEVARD - NOT TO EXCEED $30.00.
Item #16C3
RESOLUTON 2002-259 INDENTIFYING THE PLEDGED
REVENUES AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
AMINISTRATOR TO SUBMIT AND APPLICATION FOR AN
ESTIMATED LOAN OF $8,258,000; EXCUTE ALL
DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE STATE REVOLVING FUND
NUMBER WWG 120597160 FOR THE NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, FLOW EQUALIZATION
SYSTEM, PROJECT #73077
Item #16C4
CHANGE ORDER TO CONSTRUCTION MANAGER-AT-RISK
CONTRACT FOR SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY EXPANSION IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,241.
Page 306
June 11,2002
CONTRACT 00-3171, PROJECT 73949 - TO MONTGOMERY
WATSON AMERICAS, INC.
Item g 16D 1 -Continued to June 25, 2002
Item gl 6D2
EXTENSION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
SOUTHEASTERN LIBRARY NETWORK (SOLINET) AND
PERMISSION FOR CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT- IN
AMOUNT OF $35,000.
Item g 16D3
UTILIZATION OF FOUR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AND
TWO HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCIES FOR PROVIDING
EMERGENCY RESPITE FOR CAREGIVERS OF ELDER
CLIENTS - AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $53,106.
Item g 16D4
SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM GRANT FOR
IMMOKALEE AND NAPLES - IN AMOUNT OF $461,900.
Item gl 6D5 - Moved to Item gl OH
Item g 16D6- Deleted
Item g 16D7
Page 307
June 11, 2002
AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION FOR PROPERTY TO BE
UTILIZED AS BOAT RAMP PARKING IN EXCHANGE FOR
MAINTENANCE OF SHELL ISLAND ROAD- STAFF TO
PREPARE AN AGREEMENT W/BOTH ROOKERY BAY AND
THE CONSERVANCY
Item # 16E 1
AGREEMENTS FOR GENERAL CONTRACTORS SERVICES,
PURSUANT TO RFP 02-3349, AT AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
COST OF $1,500,000 TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION, CO., THE
CHRIS-TEL. CO, WILLIAM J. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC., PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS AND BROOKS &
FREUND, LLC
Item #16E2
ANNUAL STANDARDIZATION OF BIOFILTER ODOR
CONTROL UNITS PURSUANT TO RFP #02-3350 - AWARDED
TO US FILTER IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $400,000.
Item #16E3
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR CONTINUED SECURITY
STAFFING FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2001-02
IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,000.
Item # 16E4
Page 308
June 11, 2002
AWARD ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF
LABORATORY CHEMICAL AND SUPPLIES, BID NO. 02-3357,
TO FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, LLC AND VWR
INTERNATIONAL- IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$40,000.
Item # 16G 1 - Deleted
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY MANAGER AND/OR
THE ACTING COUNTY MANAGER TO APPROVE CONSENT
AND EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS DURING THE BOARD'S
SCHEDULED RECESS
Item # 16J 1
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 309
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 May 18, 2002- May 25th, 2002.
B. Districts:
Immokalee Fire Control District - District Map and Public Facilities
Report
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Audit Letter, Public
Facilities Report, Financial Stmnt and Management Letter.
o
Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes for October
24, 2001 Meeting, Unaudited Financial Stmnt for September and
Description of' Outstanding Bonds, Minutes of November 28,2001
East Naples Fire Control District - Annual Financial Report, Auditors
Report and Management Letter.
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2002, Financial Stmnt Unaudited 12/31/01, 11/28/01,
10/31/01, Minutes of Meeting for January 23, 2002, Description of
Outstanding Bonds, Minutes of Meeting held March 27, 2002, District
Map, Annual Financial Report, Audit Letter and Schedule of Meetings,
Minutes of Meeting for February 25, 2002
o
Cow Slough Water Control District - Annual Financial Report, Auditors
Report, Management Letter and Response to Auditor's Letter.
o
Heritage Greens Community Development District - Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2002, Financial Stmnt Unaudited -June 30, 2001, Minutes of
Meets for July 16, 2001, and Minutes of Landowners for November 6,
2001, Minutes of November 19, 2001.
H:DataJFormat
Collier County Housing Finance Authority - Annual Financial Report,
Registered Office and Agent Information, Schedule 'of M. ~fi'ng/~G£tqr)^'
Description of Outstanding Bonds, Approved Budget and Aunt>Letter.
11
2O02
10.
11.
12.
Collier Mosquito Control District - Public Facilities Report and District
Map, Annual Financial Report, Financial Stmnt, Management Letter,
Acknowledgement and Auditors Letters.
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes of January
14, 2002, Financial Stmnt Unaudited December 31,2001, Minutes of
October 15, 2001, Financial Stmnt September 30, 2001, Minutes of July
16. 2001, Budget FY02 and Financial Stmnt Unaudited June 30, 2001;
Minutes for March 11, 2002, Audit, Management Ltr and Financial Stmnt
Collier Soil and Water Conservation District - Annual Financial Report,
Management Letter and Management Response Letter.
South Florida Water Management District - Annual Financial Report
Co
Minutes:
o
o
Environmental Advisory Board_- Minutes of April 3, 2002.
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Board - Agenda May 14, 2002;
Minutes of April 9, 2002.
10.
11.
Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee - Minutes of February 25,
2002
Collier County Planning Commission- Minutes of April 4, 2002,
Agenda for May 2, 2002
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agenda and
Minutes for March 27, 2002..
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Minutes of April 26,
2002.
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Minutes of March 28, 2002.
Rural Lands Area Assessment Area Oversight Committee - Agenda for
April 1, 15 & 29 2002, Minutes of April 1 and 15, 2002.
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee - Planning Options
Workshop Agenda for May 8, 2002.
Metropolitan Planning Organization - Agenda for May 10, 2002.
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for May 13, 2002.
H:Data/Format
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for May 21, 2002,
Minutes of April 16, 2002.
Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board - Agenda for May 15, 2002.
Livingston Road Phase II Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for April 24,
2002, Agenda for May 22, 2002.
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Agenda for May 6, 2002
Agenda for May 20, 2002, Minutes of April 1, 2002.
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for May
10, 2002, Minutes of April 12, 2002.
Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for May 8, 2002, Minutes of
April 10, 2002
Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for May 1, 2002, Minutes of April 3,
2002.
H:DatadFormat
June 11, 2002
Item # 16K1
DESIGNATE THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT
AND PROGRAM POINT-OF-CONTACT FOR THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE
ASSISTANCE, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM
Item #16K2
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
T.H.U.G.S. (TAKING HOODLUMS USING GUNS SERIOUSLY)
BYRNE GRANT PROGRAM
Item # 16L 1
RESOLUTION 2002-260 AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING
FINANCE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE BONDS, TO BE USED TO FINANCE QUALIFYING
APARTMENT PROJECT
Item # 16L2
REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO PAY ARBITRATOR FEES AND
COSTS IN THE LELY BAREFOOT BEACH GUARDHOUSE
CASE- IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000.
Item # 16L3
Page 310
June 11, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-261 AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING
FINANCE AUTHORITY OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO ISSUE
SINGLE - FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS TO ASSIST
QUALIFIED BUYERS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN
PARTICIPATING COUNTIES, INCLUDING COLLIER COUNTY
- INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE LEE AUTHORITY
Item # 17A - Moved to Item #8D and then to Item #7A
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2002-28 & RESOLUTION 2002-262 RE:
AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-67 ADOPTING RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
Item # 17C - Moved to Item #8E
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair- Time 7:00 p.m.
Page 311
June 11, 2002
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
JAMES COLETTA, CHAIRMAN
~?DWIGHT~E. BROCK, CLERK
A~l;est as ~,o Chalrean'$
*~"at~'~'l~l~e minutes approved by the Board
As presented t// or as corrected
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Sharon A. Sullivan, R.P.R.,
Certified Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized
to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings; that the
transcript is a tree record of the proceedings had. Dated this 23rd day
of July, 2002. Sharon A. Sullivan, R.P.R., C.S.R.
Page 312