BCC Minutes 06/25/2002 RJune 25, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING
Naples, Florida, June 25, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business therein, 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
DONNA FIALA
FRED COYLE
TOM HENNING
JAMES D. CARTER
ALSO PRESENT:
DAVID WEIGEL, County Attorney'
PATRICK WHITE, Assistant State Attorney
MARJORIE STUDENT, County Attorney
THOMAS OLLIFF, County Manager
JIM MUDD, Chief County Manager
LEO OCHS, JR., Assistant County Manager
JOE SCHMITT, Administrator, Community
Page 1
June 25, 2002
Development
NORMAN FEDER, Administrator,
Transportation Division
Page 2
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
June 25, 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,
1
June 25, 2002
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING 1MPAIRED 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
A. Reverend Susan Diamond, First Christian Church
AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as
amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members
for summary agenda.)
B. May 14, 2002 - Regular Meeting
PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Be
Proclamation observing July 7 - 13, 2002 as Parks and Recreation
Month. To be accepted by Marla Ramsey, Parks and Recreation
Director.
Proclamation to support and recognize Independence Day 2002. To
be accepted by Herb Luntz.
Proclamation recognizing Tom Olliff, County Manager, for his
leadership role in making Collier County a better place to live and
work. To be accepted by Tom Olliff.
4. SERVICE AWARDS
2
June 25, 2002
e
FIVE-YEAR ATTENDEES:
1) Elaine Ayres, Pollution Control
2) Maria Corzo, Community Development
3) Susan Alden, Housing and Urban Development
4) Susan Mason, Code Enforcement
5) Denise Kirk, Solid Waste
6) Susan Usher, Office of Management and Budget
FIFTEEN-YEAR ATTENDEES:
7) Patrick Webb, Facilities
8) Willie Bullard, Transportation Operations
TWENTY-YEAR ATTENDEES:
9) Joseph Chirico, Transportation Operations
TWENTY-FIVE YEAR ATTENDEES:
10) Robert D. Mayberry, Ochopee Fire Department
PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Lynn Clarke, Special Populations
Coordinator, Parks and Recreation, as Employee of the Month for
June 2002.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Dex Groose to discuss Pine Ridge Road
Landscaping from Airport Road to 1-75. See Note on Items 10C, 1 OF
June 25, 2002
and lOG.
Bo
Public Petition request by Calvin Etnoyer to discuss impact fee
assessed on mobile home.
Co
Public Petition request by Dawn Malburg to discuss Planned Roads in
Eastern Golden Gate Estates.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item has been deleted.
Bo
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Companion
Item: DOA-2002-AR-2299: Petition PUDA-2002-AR-2298, Alan
Reynolds of Wilson Miller, Inc. and George L. Varnadoe of Young,
Van Assenderp, Vamadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing Lamar
Gable of Barron Collier Company, Ltd., requesting an amendment to
the "Winding Cypress" Planned Unit Development (PUD), for the
purpose of reducing the total number of approved dwelling units
2,892 to 2,300 units; reducing the project density from 1.5 units per
acre to 1.2 units per acre; reducing the number of golf course holes
from 45-holes to 18-holes; increasing the preserve area from 713 acres
to 795 acres; revising the master plan to reflect these changes; and
revising the development standards to allow for adjustments to the
currently approved 30,000 square feet of floor area for the Village
Center to allow a 5,000 square foot increase to the amount of
recreation space while the amount of approved office space is
decreased by the same amount for property located at the Northeast
quadrant of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the Tamiami Trail (US
41) in Sections 26, 34, 35, 2 and 3, Township 50 and 51 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Co
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Companion
Item: PUDA-02-AR-2298: Petition DOA-2002-AR-2299, Alan
Reynolds of Wilson Miller, Inc., and George L. Varnadoe of Young,
Van Assenderp, Vamadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing Lamar
4
June 25, 2002
Gable of Barron Collier Company, Ltd., requesting an amendment to
the "Winding Cypress" Development of Regional Impact (DRI), for
the purpose of reducing the total number of approved dwelling units;
reducing the project density; reducing the number of golf course
holes; increasing the preserve area; revising the development
standards; and revising Section 2.0, Historical and Archaeological,
Paragraph D, of the Development Order to eliminate language
requiring that the developer seek registration of sites in the National
Register of Historic Places for property located at the Northeast
Quadrant of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the Tamiami Trail (US
41) in Sections 26, 34, 35, 2 & 3, Township 50 and 51 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ-2002-AR-
2487, Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of Wilkison and Associates,
representing The Gilbros Company, requesting a rezone from "A"
Rural Agricultural to "RSF-5 (3)" for a single-family subdivision
located on the west side of Greenway Road, approximately 1 mile
north of US 41 and approximately 3 ½ miles east of Collier Boulevard
(CR 951), in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 26.4 acres.
This item has been deleted.
e
Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners review proposed amendments to the Capital
Improvement Element; Transportation Element; and Future Land Use
Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and forward
transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Complete copy
of back-up material is available in the Community Development and
Environmental Services Department, Horseshoe Drive.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Appointment of member to the 1-75/Golden Gate Parkway Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee.
Bo
Appointment of member to the Radio Road Beautification Advisory
Committee.
Juno 25, 2002
Co
Appointment of member to the Bayshore/Avalon Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee.
Do
Appointment of members to the Collier County Housing Finance
Committee.
Eo
Discussion regarding commercial property maintenance and Code
Enforcement authority. (Commissioner Fiala)
Fo
This item has a time certain of 10:00 a.m. Report on the activities
of the Workforce Housing Advisory Committee. (Commissioner
Fiala)
Go
Request by the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee to appoint
a replacement member.
Ho
Request that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider its June
11 th action regarding Item 10C, "Request Board provide staff with
direction in regard to landscape maintenance on Devonshire
Boulevard." See Note on Items 10C, 1 OF and 10G. (Commissioner
Coyle)
Discussion regarding Contract Change Order Policy. (Commissioner
Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
This item has a time certain of 10:10 a.m. Report to the Board by
Keith Arnold regarding the 2002 Legislative Session.
B. 2002 Hurricane Update presentation.
Status report for the Board's review of the interchange enhancement
recommendations requested by the Golden Gate/I-75 Ad Hoc
Beautification Committee. Note: It is requested that this item be
continued and discussed at the follow-up discussions for Items 6A and
9H. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
6
June 25,2002
Do
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners enter into
an Agreement with DHR International in the amount of $15,000 to
obtain qualified candidates for the position of Collier County
Manager. (Jeff Walker, Director, Employee Services)
Eo
Adopt a Resolution giving priority to the acquisition of additional
right-of-way along the "951 Corridor". (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
That the Board consider a request from the Livingston Road Phase II
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee for support for the
beautification of Livingston Road Phase II. Note: It is requested that
this item be continued and discussed at the follow-up discussions for
Items 6A and 9H. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
Go
Approve an Addendum to the Landscaping Installation and
Maintenance Highway Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) within the Unincorporated Area of Collier
County, Florida; authorizing the Chairman to expand the boundaries
of the existing US 41 North Phase I Agreement to Vanderbilt Beach
Road. Note: It is requested that this item be continued and discussed
at the follow-up discussions for Items 6A and 9H. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
Ho
Appeal to Board of County Commissioners of Town Market Project
Administrative Sign Permit Revocation; Mr. George Chami/Kenneth
B. Cuyler, Esquire. (Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
To approve the Applied-for-Transfer of the Cable Television
Franchise from Comcast Corporation to AT&T Comcast Corporation.
(Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
7
June 25,2002
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Closed Attorney-Client Session pursuant to Section 286.011 (8), Fla.
Stat., to discuss settlement negotiations and/or strategy related to
Litigation Expenditures in Shader-Lombardo Investments, LLC v.
Collier County, Case No. 01-4135-CA-HDH, now pending in the
Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida.
Bo
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Settlement Proposal for Shader-Lombardo Investments, LLC v.
Collier County, Case No. 01-4135-CA-HDH, now pending in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
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.
Ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
1)
Approval of an agreement with City of Naples to undertake
construction of new River Park Community Center using
$750,000 ($250,000 per year for three years) of the County's
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. The
Board of County Commissioners approved this project as a part
of the County's Consolidated Plan FY01-05 on May 8, 2001.
8
duno 25, 2002
2)
3)
Approval of an agreement with City of Marco Island to
undertake construction of Tallwood Street Storm Water
Drainage System using $750,000 ($250,000 per year for three
years) of the County's Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding. The Board of County Commissioners
approved this project as a part of the County's Consolidated
Plan FY01-05 on May 8, 2001.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Pine Air
Lakes Unit Four".
4)
5)
7)
8)
9)
Approve a Budget Amendment recognizing the Fiscal Year
2003 State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program
Budget.
Final acceptance of sewer utility franchise for Westview Plaza.
Approve 2002 Tourism Agreement with Marco Island Film
Festival for Tourist Development Special Event Grant of
$96,000, as recommended by the Tourist Development Council.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Mediterra
Parcel 113", and approval of the Standard Form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
This item has been deleted.
Petition AVESMT2001-AR1147 to vacate, renounce and
disclaim a portion of the easement for public road right-of-way
recorded in Official Record Book 1319, Page 1638, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in Section 4,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit
No. 59.522 (MOD), "Quail West Offsite Hauling," located in
Section 8, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; bounded on the
North by Parkland West PUD (Lee County), on the South by
9
June 25, 2002
13)
14)
Terafina PUD on the West by Quail West PUD and on the East
by Mirasol PUD.
Petition AVESMT2002-AR1995 to disclaim, renounce, and
vacate the County's and the Public's interest in a parcel of land
conveyed to Collier County as a utility easement, recorded in
Official Record Book 2896, Pages 3146 through 3150, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in Section 27,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Requesting the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
Chairman to issue a Letter of Support for the current
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, to be
submitted to the U.S. Economic Development Administration
by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council on behalf
of their members.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Jellystone
Park".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Shores at
Berkshire Lakes Phase Two-A".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Shores at
Berkshire Lakes Phase Two-B".
17)
Approval of Contract #02-3317 in the amount of $39,575 with
Henderson, Young and Company for consultant services for an
Educational Facilities (School) Impact Fee Update Study.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Fiddler's
Creek Phase 3, Unit One", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the Performance Security.
18)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Mediterra
South Golf Course Phase Four".
10
June 25,2002
19)
Approve the Settlement Agreement to compromise lien
imposed in Code Enforcement Case entitled Collier County v.
Juan and Veronica Barnhart, CEB Case No. 99-030.
20)
22)
23)
24)
Resolution to extend the term of the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan Restudy Committee through June 26, 2003 and reappoint
members.
Ratify Emergency Purchase Order #Z02-008 issued to Naples
Dock and Marine Services in the amount of $22,000 in order
for the County to utilize grant funds for derelict vessel removal.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Sierra
Meadows", and approval of the Standard Form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
Petition AVESMT2002-AR2228 to disclaim, renounce and
vacate the County's and the Public's Interest in a parcel of land
conveyed to Collier County as a conservation easement and
recorded in Official Record Book 1973, Pages 1886 through
1870, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in
Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.
Approve a Budget Amendment to transfer $76,400 from Fund
# 113 Reserves to Community Development and Environmental
Services Administration Personal Services.
25)
26)
27)
Approval of an impact fee refund request in the amount of
$51,780.00.
This item continued from the June lit 2002 BCC Meeting.
Amendment to an existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus
Agreement for Saddlebrook Village PUD.
Staff review and recommendation relative to the attached list of
"PUD Sunsetting Projects'', which according to the required
PUD status report submitted by the property owners/agents,
have not commenced construction, as defined in Section 2.7.3.4
of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC),
June 25, 2002
resulting in staff direction from the Board of County
Commissioners to bring these products forward with a
recommendation to require the property owner(s) to submit an
amendment within six months.
Be
28)
Recommendation to allow removal of 191,000 cubic yards of
excess excavated material from the site of Classics Plantation
Estates, Phase One, located in Section 27, Township 50 S.,
Range 26 E. of the Lely PUD, Collier County, Florida.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) authorizing the filing of the Trip and
Equipment Grant Application with the Florida Commission for
the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD).
A Resolution confirming the terms of office of members to the
Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Advisory Committee.
Approve a Purchase Agreement and accept a warranty deed to
acquire a 1.03 acre parcel of land in the Lely Lakes Subdivision
at a cost of$8,110.50 for the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project which is located within the East Naples
Area. Project No. 31101.
Award RFP 02-3346 - Standardization of Decorative County
Street Lights to Consolidated Electric Distributors Inc.
Approve Bid #02-3366, "SR 84-Davis Boulevard, Phase II,
Project #60098, a Landscape Renovation for $631,423.35".
Approve Budget Amendment for Utility Impact Fees, Bid #02-
3366 for SR 84-Davis Boulevard Project #60098, in the amount
of $70,926 from Fund (111) Reserves.
This item has been deleted.
Approve Work Order Amendment No. ABB-FT-00-07-A01
and the associated Budget Amendment in the amount of
12
June 25, 2002
$29,679.00 for the Wiggins Pass Road Outfall Project. (Project
No. 31212)
9)
Approve Contract Agreement No. C- 12252-A 1 with the South
Florida Water Management District for a time extension of a
Funding Assistance Agreement for the Gateway Triangle
Stormwater Improvements. (Project No. 31803)
10) This item has been deleted.
11)
Approve Work Order Amendment No. NTI-FT-02-02-A01 in
the amount of $25,080 to Native Technologies Inc., for the
Gordon River Cleanout Project #31005.
12)
Approve Award of a Construction Contract to the lowest
bidder, Ajax Paving Industries Inc., for the 2001-2002
Pathways Program, Bid No. 02-3376 in the amount of
$613,797.75.
13)
Direction for the County Attorney to prepare a Written Notice
of Termination of the Interlocal Agreement between the Board
of County Commissioners of Collier County and the City
Council of the City of Marco Island, dated January 19, 1999,
which provides for the collection of County Impact Fees by the
City Government, the percentage distribution between the two
entities of road impact fees collected by the City, and
reimbursements from the County to the City for Administrative
Costs associated with the collection of County Impact Fees
other than those for roads; and authorization for the Chairman
to sign the Notice of Termination on behalf of the Board of
County Commissioners; and direction for staff to commence
negotiation of a new Interlocal Agreement.
14) This item has been deleted.
15)
Approve Agreement for the Design and Construction of Traffic
Signalization and Ramp Realignment for the Immokalee Road
and Tarpon Bay Intersection to be built with the Immokalee
Road/I-75 Interchange Improvements, Project No. 66042.
13
June 25, 2002
16)
17)
18)
19)
Approve the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Budget for Grant Year 2002-2003.
This item continued from the June 11, 2002 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.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing condemnation of right-of-way
and/or easements required for the construction of a four-lane
section of Immokalee Road between Wilson Boulevard and CR
951/Collier Boulevard (Capital Improvement Element No. 71,
Project No. 60018). Estimated Fiscal Impact: $5,732,106.
This item continued from the June 11~ 2002 BCC Meeting.
Request 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 segments within Collier County for an annual
reimbursement of approximately $1,396,000 for services
rendered.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
2)
Amend Professional Services Agreement with Hole Montes
RFP 93-2121 for engineering services and approve work order
to Youngquist Brothers RFP01-3139 to construct an injection
well at the South County Water Reclamation Facility, in the
amount of $3,257,780, Project 73154.
Approve the Satisfaction of Lien documents filed against Real
Property for Abatement of Nuisance and direct the Clerk of
Courts to record same in the Public Records of Collier County,
14
June 25, 2002
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Florida. Fiscal Impact is $240.00 to record the liens.
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid
Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are Satisfied in Full for the 1992 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment.
Fiscal Impact is $12.00 to record lien.
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid
Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are Satisfied in Full for the 1994 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment.
Fiscal Impact is $12.00 to record lien.
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid
Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment.
Fiscal Impact is $22.50 to record the lien.
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid
Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are Satisfied in Full for the 1996 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment.
Fiscal Impact is $40.50 to record the lien.
Recommendation to reject Bid No. 02-3325 for backflow
prevention assemblies and associated materials.
Declare surplus and donate pumping equipment to the Court
appointed receiver for the Lee Cypress Cooperative.
Approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of $355,000 to
fund unanticipated expenses within the Water Distribution Cost
Center.
10)
Approve the execution of a Revised (Utility) Easement
Modification Agreement with Imperial Golf Club, Inc., for the
installation of a re-use water line to accommodate the
15
June 25, 2002
constTuction of a new clubhouse facility.
11)
Award a Construction Contract to Hayward-Baker, Inc. for the
North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) expansion
to 30.6-million gallons per day (MGD) Maximum Month
Average Daily Flow (MMADF) Phase 1 A-Liquid Stream
Vibro-Replacement, Bid 02-3373, Project 73950, in the amount
of $464,000.
Approve a Work Order to Youngquist Brothers Inc., in the
amount of $650,000 to fund and complete the repair of deep
injection well #1 at the North Regional Water Treatment
Facility.
13)
Award a Contract to Florida State Underground Inc. to
construct five reliability wells in the Golden Gate Wellfield in
the amount of $1,566,064, Project 70066.
14)
Accept right of entry documents for the Port-Au-Prince
Subdivision Utility Replacement Project at a cost not to exceed
$500.
15)
Approve an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Naples
and Collier County for the County to accept Horticultural
Debris (Yard Waste) generated within the City of Naples.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
This item continued from the June Ill 2002 BCC Meeting.
Approve a Resolution and a License Agreement with the Isles
of Capri Civic Association to designate land for a future tennis
court on Isles of Capri.
2)
Approve a transfer of additional, uncommitted tourist tax
revenues collected in Category C (Museums) of $224,100 to
partially restore the Collier County Museum's Budget in Fiscal
Year 2003.
16
June 25,2002
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
0)
10)
Authorize the Collier County School Board to prepare the food
for the Summer Food Service Grant Program in the amount of
$250,000.
Approval of an assignment of Ground Lease Agreement
between Primeco Personal Communications, L.P., now known
as Verizon Wireless Communications and Clearshot
Communications, Inc., and secure approval of a first
amendment to Ground Lease Agreement with Clearshot
Communications, Inc., with an increase in annual rent in the
amount of $7,200.
Approval to secure a lease agreement with Park East
Development Ltd., for office space to be utilized by the WIC
Program at an annual rent of $20,460.
Amend the Parks and Recreation Department Facilities and
Outdoor Area License and Fee Policy (FY 03 Increased
Revenue of $577,000).
Approve the renewal and amendment of Contract #97-2623
"Skateboard Park Concession" with Sanctuary Skate Park-
Collier, Inc., formerly Sparrow Ventures Inc. (Projected Annual
Revenue of $1000)
Request to approve a Resolution extending the term of the
Collier County Health and Human Services Advisory
Committee, and appointing and extending the Terms of
Members of the Collier County Health and Human Services
Advisory Committee.
Approval of an agreement with the Collier County School
Board for Athletic Field Improvements at Osceola Elementary
in the amount of $391,559.
Approve an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Everglades
for the Community Center Skate Park Project for up to $25,000
in matching funds.
17
June 25, 2002
This item was continued from the June 11~ 2002 BCC
Meeting. Approve changes to the Collier County Parks and
Recreation Neighborhood Park and Tot Lot Policy Application
and Criteria.
12)
Approve the purchase of a 0.14-acre lot for a neighborhood
park in Isles of Capri at a total cost of approximately $81,700.
13) This item has been deleted.
14)
Award a Construction Management at Risk Contract #01-3189
to Kraft Construction for North Naples Regional Park, Project
No. 80602 and approving design phase fees in the amount
$175,000.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Approval to secure a Lease Agreement with Islands and
Highlands, LLC, for office and garage/warehouse space to be
utilized by the Sheriff's Office at an annual rent of $28,275.00.
2)
Approve Committee Selection of Firms for Contract
Negotiations for RFP01-3290 "Fixed Term Professional
Engineering Services" for an estimated annual amount of
$1,000,000.
3)
Approve the conveyance of a portion of the GAC Land Trust
Reserved List Property to Collier County for Immokalee Road
Widening Project (Project No. 60018) at its $161,700 appraised
value.
4)
Approve Budget Amendment to increase appropriations and
associated revenues for operating costs in Fleet Management
Administration Fund (521) in the amount of $99,200, decrease
appropriations and associated revenues for fuel in the amount of
$568,600, and recognize revenues for current and prior year
reimbursements in the amount of $11,600.
5)
Approve Amendment No. 5 to Professional Services
Agreement with AEC National Inc., for the design of the
18
June 25, 2002
Fe
Ge
expansion and renovation of the Naples Jail Center in the
amount of $758,380.
6)
Request Board approval to purchase equipment and services
necessary to add two (2) additional tower sites to the County's
800 MHz Radio System at a cost of $1,400,000 financed over
five (5) years.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Award Bid No. 02-3369 for the purchase of medical supplies
and equipment for the Emergency Medical Services
Department to: Aero Products Corporation, Emergency
Medical Products, Emergency Medical Supply, McKesson
Medical, MDS Matrix, Micro Bio-Medics, Moore Medical,
PMX Medical, Quadmed, Southeastern Emergency Equipment
and Tri-Anim Health Services at an estimated annual cost of
$179,000.
2)
Approval of an Agreement between Collier County and the City
of Marco Island for the provision of fire protection and rescue
services to the Unincorporated Areas of Goodland and Key
Marco at an annual cost of $56,564.00.
3)
Approve an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Naples
and Collier County for an Advanced Life Support (ALS)
Engine Partnership Program, One Time Equipment Cost of
$50,000 and annual Personnel Cost of $15,000.
4)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Acceptance of Modification
# 1 to a Hazard Mitigation Grant Agreement between the
Florida Department of Community Affairs and Collier County.
COUNTY MANAGER
1)
2)
Approve the Service Contract of the Acting County Manager.
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment
#02-361 (1981 Water Management CIP (Fund 325),
19
June 25, 2002
Stormwater Management) in the amount of $21,110.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1)
Approve the acceptance of $250,000 Grant from the US
Department of Agriculture.
2)
Approve modifications of budget for Capital Improvement
Projects.
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1)
Miscellaneous Items To File For Record With Action As
Directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) This item has been deleted.
2)
To present to the Board of County Commissioners the State
Revenue Sharing Application for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and to
obtain approval for the Chairman to sign the application.
3)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination
of whether the purchases of goods and services documented in
the detailed report of open purchase orders serve a valid public
purpose and authorize the expenditure of County funds to
satisfy said purchases.
4) New Precinct Lines to reflect the 2002 Reapportionment Lines.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve a Developer Contribution Agreement with G-4
Partnership, Juliet C. Sproul Testamentary Trust and Barron
Collier, III ("Developer") for the contribution of land to Collier
County for Goodlette Frank Road Right-of-Way.
20
June 25, 2002
17.
2)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a Separation Agreement, entitled "Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release" between Employee Charmaine
Steiner and the County.
3)
Approve the Agreed Order awarding Expert Fees relative to the
Easement Acquisition of Parcels 2.4T and 53-t in the Lawsuit
entitled Collier County v. John B. Fassett, Trustee of the Anne
M. Fassett Trust Dated June 5, 1986, et al, Case No. 99-3040-
CA (Livingston Road, Project No. 65041).
4)
Approve the Agreed Order awarding Attorney's Fees relative to
the Acquisition of Parcel 2.4T in the Lawsuit entitled Collier
County v. John B. Fassett, Trustee of the Anne M. Fassett Trust
Dated June 5, 1986, et al, Case No. 99-3040-CA (Livingston
Road, Project No. 65041).
5)
Approve Mediated Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Final
Judgment incorporating the same terms and conditions as the
Mediated Settlement Agreement relative to the acquisition of
Parcels 167, 767, 867A and 867B in the Lawsuit entitled
Collier County v. Wallace L. Lewis, Jr., et al, Case No. 01-
0711-CA, Project No. 60071.
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
21
June 25, 2002
MUST BE SWORN IN.
mo
RZ-2001-AR- 1934, Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of Wilkison and
Associates, Inc., representing Empowerment Alliance of SW Florida -
Community Development Corporation, requesting a rezone from C-4
and C-5 to RMF-6 for affordable housing and from RMF-6 to C-4,
located northeast of the intersection of East Eustis Avenue and South
First Street in Immokalee in Section 3, Township 47 South, Range 29
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 7.255+ acres.
Bo
Petition AVPLAT2001-AR1861 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in a portion of the 5 foot wide
utility easement and a portion of the drainage and golf course
easement located on Lot 415, of the plat of "Rivera Golf Estates Unit
2", as recorded in Plat Book 13, Pages 108 through 111, Public '
Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in Section 17, Township
50 South, Range 26 East.
Co
This item to be continued to the July 30, 2002 BCC Meeting. A
Resolution to approve the extension of the Geographic boundaries of
the Collier County Water-Sewer District to incorporate the receiving
and neutral areas within the Rural Fringe Area.
Do
Adoption of a Resolution amending the Parks and Recreational
Facilities Impact Fee Rate Schedule, which is Schedule Three of
Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and
Ordinances, as amended by the Collier County Consolidated Impact
Fee Ordinance, as amended.
Eo
Adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the County's Code
of Laws and Ordinances, as previously amended by Ordinance No.
2001-13 (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as
amended), incorporating changes to the Affordable Housing
Provisions to update the definitions of eligible income groups and to
extend waiver and deferral eligibility standards to include owner-
occupied residential condominiums and townhouses.
22
jUne 25, 2002
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
23
June 25, 2002
June 25, 2002
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Time Note: 9:00 a.m.
(The invocation was given by Reverend Susan Diamond, First
Christian Church.)
(Pledge of Allegiance)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, fellow
Commissioners. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
We'll start right off with the agenda and the minutes, and we'll
go over to you, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. We'll go over today's agenda changes. The first
item is a continuance for Item 6(B) to July 30th, 2002. That's,
basically, at the petitioner's request. And again, that's a continuance
to Item 6(B).
Move Item 16(A)19 to 10(J), which is the settlement agreement
to compromise lien imposed in code enforcement case entitled
Collier County versus Juan and Veronica Barnhart. Again, that's
16(A) 19 goes to 10(J).
We're going to move Item 16(B)4 to 10(K) and that's award RFP
for the standardization of decorative county street lights to
Consolidated Electric Distributors, and that's at staff's request. This
was a bid protest, and our director of contracts will talk to the Board
about that.
The next item is not a move item. It's been requested by
Commissioner Fiala that this be continued until the 30th of July, and
Page 3
June 25, 2002
that's the direction to the county attorney to give written notice to the
City of Marco about Marco Island, about their road impact fees.
I will let the Board know that this is the last day that you have, if
it continues to the 30th of July, the last day that you have in that
contract agreement to tell the city if you want to void the present
contract and go into negotiations. The contract specifies that they
must have written notice before 1 August. So this is a request by
Commissioner Fiala to continue this item until the 30th of July.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning has a
question.
MR. HENNING: Which item is that?
MR. MUDD: This is 16(B)13.
MR. CARTER: 16(B)13, we have a similar agreement, if I
understand, Mr. Mudd, with the City of Naples in this same subject
area?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. CARTER: And we were trying to get uniformity with the
cities, as I understood it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I would
respectfully request, in all due respect to Commissioner Fiala, is this
something the Board should vote on to continue because of the
importance of it and the need to, I think, to give the time for both
parties to negotiate?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I concur with that,
Commissioner Carter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I think in the interest of
expediency, what we'll do is allow it to come up, and at that time if
we wish to continue it, we will.
Page 4
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. I got mixed
messages here. What I understood you to say was to continue it --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
need to deal with it now
FIALA: -- so we can negotiate it?
CARTER: No, ma'am. I think that you
so that the negotiations can start now rather
than putting it off to the 11 th hour.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may suggest, what we can do is
since there's interest in discussing it now, bring it up for discussion.
And then, if necessary, we can continue it at that point in time --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- before we get into a long, drawn-
out discussion on this one item when we could probably take care of
it on the agenda. I don't think we're going to have enough support
just to continue it at this point. But when it comes up before us under
Item 10(L), we can get into a deep discussion on it then and weigh
all the advantages of continuing it or not continuing it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess I can't dispute --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that; right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, go head. Your comments are
always welcome.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to say that this is so
important to the City of Marco Island, and they've never had a chance
to discuss it since they -- In fact, it was a complete surprise to them.
When it came onto our agenda, they also got a note. And this is so
important to them. I think that we owe it to them to sit down.
Page 5
June 25, 2002
Apparently, when this first started, it took both governments
time to hammer this whole agreement out. And then to just send a
letter and tell them it's terminated, without any discussion at all, I
don't think is fair to them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
will be quite a bit of discussion.
No, there will be discussion. There
It's on the -- moved to the regular
agenda. At that point in time, you can also make a motion for a
continuance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. Yeah, because I don't
know even know the criteria that we're involved in preparing the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, if we could--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We can go on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- save that for that point --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that would really be most helpful.
Please continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: So, Commissioner, I want to make sure we have
it. We're going to move Item 16(B) to Item 10(L). CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mm-hm.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the understanding that I need
to fight this one; right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amen.
MR. MUDD: The next item is move Item 16(B)18 to 10(M),
and that is, adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation of right-of-
way for the four-lane section of Immokalee Road between Wilson
and County Road 951.
Page 6
June 25, 2002
The following three items are being moved from the consent
agenda to the regular agenda and are to be considered as companion
items at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Move Item 16(D)1 to 10(N), and this item was continued from
the June 11, 2002 BCC meeting, and that's, basically, a resolution and
a license agreement with the Isles of Capri Civic Association for a
future tennis court.
The second of the three items is move Item 16(D) 11 to 10(O).
This item was continued from the June 11, 2002 BCC meeting and its
approved changes to the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Neighborhood Parks and Tot Lot policy.
And the third item of the three is move Item 16(D)12 to 10(P),
and that's: Approve the purchase of a. 14-acre lot for a neighborhood
park on the Isles of Capri. And that's the three items to be considered
at one time at Commissioner Coyle's request.
We're going to add an item, 10 -- Quebec -- or 10(Q). And that
was a slip back in my previous life. It's an approval of the
recommended FY 03 budget adjustments. The staff, after we got
your direction at noon on Friday, worked to the hours of Friday
evening to get the cuts that you asked for. And we worked on it
yesterday and today, and we want to, basically, share that with the
Board this morning on Item 10(Q).
Move Item 16(D)6 to 10(R), which is to amend the Parks and
Recreation Department facilities and outdoor area license and fee
policy, and this is at staff's request. It's, basically, to increase revenue
to the amount of about $577,000.
The next item is to move Item 16(E)6 to 10(S), and that's to
request board approval to purchase equipment and services necessary
for two additional towers for 800 megahertz radio system.
Page 7
June 25, 2002
The next item is to move Item 17(D) to 8(G), and that's the
adoption of a resolution amending the Parks and Recreation's
facilities impact fee schedule. That's the update for their impact fees.
I'll make a note for the Board that Item 10(F) has a time certain
of 10 o'clock. And 10(A) has a time certain of 10:10 today.
There's one correction to the consent agenda. It is a scribner's
error. We have a road description on the five-year road plan that's in
error, and I'd like to correct that for the record. It's 16(B) 17. It states
in the agenda that it's Logan Boulevard from Pine Ridge to
Vanderbilt Beach Road, and it should read that it's Logan Boulevard
from Pine Ridge to Immokalee.
Items for the Board's edification. Item 16(A)25. Although the
title indicates a refund, this action will approve a deferral agreement
in accordance with Board policy, and full payment of the impact fees
will be required in the next six years.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I have this morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, that is enough. I see the
commission did a great job of doing their homework and exercising
due diligence and finding all these things to raise issues over.
Meanwhile, is there any public speakers on the consent agenda?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have one public speaker, Peter
Lyberg, who wants to speak on 16(B)17.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 16(B) 17. That item has not been
pulled.
Mr. Weigel.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You've got to go to the county
attorney too.
MR. WEIGEL: While, Mr. Lyberg is coming forward, I have
one comment for the record. No changes whatsoever.
Page 8
June 25, 2002
I'm pleased to report that Jennifer Edwards, the Supervisor of
Elections, has -- she and her office have worked very hard and
provided supplemental documentation to be recognized with Item
16(K) 14, the new precinct lines. And they have the legal descriptions
in great detail. And I'm very pleased with this of record. And if
you'd recognize a supplement to 16(K)4, we'll provide it to the
reporter. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Reverend Lyberg.
REVEREND LYBERG: This looks different than other times
I've been here. Am I supposed to speak on the item now or later on
as we --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no. The item, sir, you're
speaking on is on the consent agenda. To the best of my recollection,
it hasn't been pulled. So you need to speak about it now because it
won't be coming before us. If we approve the consent agenda as it
has been amended, then that would be it for the day.
Is that correct? I see you shaking your head.
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just haven't approved it yet.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. The matter has not been approved, so
you have an opportunity to discuss it now, and the Board will
determine whether to leave it on the consent agenda or to remove it
pursuant to any further information you provide them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. It's always great when an
attorney has to interpret what I said. MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's okay.
REVEREND LYBERG: Okay. Because what I say now will be
repeated again, so it's not probably -- It's simply a matter of the five-
year plan. I wish to comment on the prioritization of those items.
Page 9
June 25, 2002
Now, if you want me to discuss why I think it should be changed, I'd
be happy to if you want me to -- if it can be pulled, and I'll discuss it
later.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it hasn't been pulled. You have
to give us reason for pulling it from the consent agenda.
REVEREND LYBERG: Okay. I'll tell you now then you won't
need to hear it again. That's probably the easiest way to go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no. You can come back up
again if we do pull it to speak again too.
REVEREND LYBERG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's your right.
REVEREND LYBERG: Thank you. I get the five minutes, or
what do I get?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you get three minutes. Well, no.
It's five minutes. Forgive me.
REVEREND LYBERG: I'm not sure.
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to start him over?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
REVEREND LYBERG: Okay. As most of the board members
know, Santa Barbara Boulevard extension, Route A, along the Polly
Road alignment is my concern for a number of years, 20-some years.
In the mid-1990s, when Santa Barbara Boulevard was built, to
paraphrase a famous novel, "It was the best of times and the worst of
times." The best was to have a four-lane north/south road, but the
worst was the lack of a connection to Rattlesnake- Hammock Road.
It didn't happen.
And I've seen and been astounded since the mid-1990s that
there's been such a waste of time and money and repeated studies and
research and looking at options, so convoluted over that territory and
so twisted as to pretty much defy good sense. Staff and consultants
Page 10
June 25, 2002
have made a lot of money, but the residents and voters have gotten
the worst of the deal. It just goes on and go.
Now the proposal is to six-lane Santa Barbara Boulevard from
Logan to Davis and to four-lane County Barn Road. I'd suggest that,
first, there would be a phenomenal drop in traffic on County Barn
Road if drivers could use a four-lane Route A, the straight, one
extension of Santa Barbara.
County Barn Road would not need additional lanes for probably
many years if Route A were four-laned to Rattlesnake- Hammock
and Rattlesnake-Hammock four-laned to 951.
Second, Santa Barbara Boulevard already has four lanes, nice
lanes. Route A has none. There's no road, just a ditch there. Since
Santa Barbara Boulevard was built, money has again and again been
taken from what could have been used for Route A and shifted to all
kinds of other road construction projects.
From years of familiarity with this situation, I would urge you to
take action that I believe is right, fair and makes sense to the residents'
of that community; namely, and I would be very pointed about what I
suggest, postpone indefinitely the extra lanes on Santa Barbara
Boulevard and the four lanes on County Barn Road, and take that
money and shift it to Route A, to four-lane Route A within two years
and four-lane the rest of Rattlesnake-Hammock within the same two
years.
I say that because that means rather than putting frosting on the
cake for two roads that do exist right now, they're there, give a few
crumbs to bring Route A into existence and, in addition, t° give
emotional and financial relief to the residents endangered by Route
C. It just needs to be done.
I'm very sorry to say that this commission, for which I had very
high hopes, the irrational action to avoid harm to residents over the
Page 11
June 25, 2002
years has only made things worse by leaving Route C as the route to
be built. That's the one on the table. That's the one that is there.
Now, it is not just delay and proposal and study of other crazy
routes that's happened before you, and that happened a lot, but now
the residents who would lose their homes to Route C and the
residents at Lely Resort are held hostage like pawns and maneuvering
to achieve other road access. Nothing. Nothing done lately has
helped in the slightest.
Thus, I would ask you this morning, please do not any longer
endorse the actions way back of Norris, Constantine and Hancock
and others who have so messed up the southern end of Santa Barbara
Boulevard, but do what is right, fair, makes sense, and keep it
straight.
Every road in Collier County does not need to be six lanes. A
four-lane Route A extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard and a four-
lane Rattlesnake-Hammock Road will be great if it happens now.
So again, please postpone indefinitely the extra lanes on Santa
Barbara Boulevard and four lanes of County Barn Road and use that
money to four-lane Route A within two years and four-lane the rest
of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road within the same two years. There
are no homes, no structures on the route. It is open space saved for
years for this road. The time to build it is now. Now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Okay. I'm going to go down the line here and ask you four, do
you have any other changes to the consent agenda or any disclosures
that you want to make on the summary agenda?
And we'll start with you Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have any more
alphabets left?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we do.
Page 12
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got together with staff during
the week and prepared those. Some of the items will be on Item 10.
So I have no additional ones.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And no disclosures
under the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question. If we were to pull
the item that was just addressed for debate, would that be mean it
would really have to be postponed because the staff isn't prepared to
address it?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. We could-- The staff is prepared to
address it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when we get to the point of
possibly condemning people's homes, you know, that bothers me a
bit, and I want to understand the logic behind that. So I would
request that we pull this item and have it discussed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have, I think, plenty of
opportunities to discuss that when we go into design study or contract
build, and we're talking about postponing or delaying six-laning of
Santa Barbara. I have a real concern about that. I know we need to
get ready for Logan -- Santa Logan. That's going to be all way to
Bonita Beach Road. So we have opportunities to discuss it,
Commissioner. I'm just trying to change your mind for eminent
domain of people's homes further on down the line.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, it's your call,
whatever you'd like to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me ask a question.
Does this plan require the destruction of people's homes?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Feeder will answer that question, sir.
Page 13
June 25, 2002
MR. COYLE: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. I apologize today. I'm working on the left side only.
The right side is having some problems with a cold.
You've got a couple of things that have been raised here. First
of all, you've got a five-year work program that's being addressed
here that's been approved by you, the issue of Santa Barbara, its six-
laning, as well as County Barn and its four-laning, including its
completion of design, almost all the right-of-way in-hand, and it's
important. It's also for drainage in the area needing to proceed
consistent with a plan that calls not only for the four-laning of County
Barn, six-laning of Santa Barbara, but the extension as was noted in
A or C or some other alignment.
The issue being raised to you is to go away from a Board
position of A and C. And as you know, over a year and a half ago, I
came to this Board with a recommendation for an alternative and
we've been working with Lely Development Corporation since that
time to evaluate some of those issues. Most notably, we did
recommend, as was provided here, a six lane, not a four lane, Polly
Avenue, as an alternate to C.
However, until such time as I can tell you what the implications
of that are, this Board's direction was to retain current policy and
await that information. What I can tell you is, with the assistance of
Commissioner Henning, we finally have gotten a traffic report from
the Lely folks and are reviewing it now.
I will also tell you that on U.S. 41, I was shown that my service
volume can handle 96,000 vehicles, which would be approximately
on a six-lane facility, twice what I have on Airport today. So we
have some reservations but we're in the process of reviewing that
document and continuing in our discussions Lely.
Page 14
June 25, 2002
So I guess my observation to you, unless you want to take a
different position, is that the work program is consistent. It's
consistent with your needs plan, your costs, fees, of all the action that
you took at the Board's request that I bring this to the MPO and the
action taken at the MPO last Friday.
The issue being raised is a further indication of our need, and I
agree with that, to resolve the issue of: What is the extension of
Santa Barbara? How is that structured? And how do we move
forward in the future? But I'm not sure, as Board action today you
want to make that decision.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not going belabor this issue.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I make a recommendation to
kind of--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. MUDD: What we'll do is we'll get staff to come meet with
you separately and talk about the alignment issues. This has been
talked about by this Board four different times already. And we'll
bring you up to speed on the alignment issues.
And if you so wish after that particular meeting and if you still
have questions, then you can bring this particular item back up to the
Board, but I'm asking that you don't hold up the entire five-year work
plan for this one item. And we'll get with you. And if you still have
concerns in this process, we could bring them back to the Board and
we can have them addressed by the entire Board again. But I would
suggest that we meet with you separately and give you the different
alignments and let you know, bring you up to speed on this particular
right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think that's a perfect
solution. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 15
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, does that
conclude --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's it. Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. On the same subject, okay.
I agree, County Barn needs to be done, especially because of the
drainage problems. It's a great connection. I agree with Santa
Barbara, but we haven't done anything at all about the extension on
Polly. And what this group is trying to say is, they want it in writing.
They want it decided now to eliminate Route C, make a four-lane
Route A and get the job done so you can connect that traffic right
through.
And I would like to be included in that discussion, because I
want to press forward with that. I'm sick and tired of just
lollygagging around with this thing. We need to make a decision. So
we wouldn't belabor it at this meeting, but I expect -- I'm free all
summer long at your service. We can discuss it and get this matter
resolved.
Okay. Thank you. Other than that, I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: According to the last item, I have
listened to that debate for four years. We have given mixed signals to
staff so many times, I'm wondering how they ever keep it in a work
program.
I believe the direction was given, and that it would behoove
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle to have those private briefings. And
I think coming out of that you would feel much more comfortable
with the situation, including condemnation of homes. Because in that
discussion, it was said "if that happened." And the point to where it
Page 16
June 25, 2002
is in the work program that those properties would be taken, those
people would have rent free or for a dollar-a-year housing. They'd
have plenty of time to find another home. There were workable
solutions to all of that.
So just as your historian is about to that exit, I would share as
one of my parting comments, is have the private briefings. Let them
go forward with the work program.
I would not think of removing anything else from the consent
agenda, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to request that 10(Q), when
you begin to review the budget, things that we requested on Friday's
meeting, if we couldn't move that up after your time certain where
you hear your report from your lobbyist from the state legislature
situation where we might be able to deal with that sooner on the
agenda rather than later. So I don't know if that would be
appropriate, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to move that up after the
time certain.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, I think it
would be appropriate, but I have to remind this commission that we
have a very ambitious agenda today. In order to get through it, I'm
going to ask for your cooperation to the fullest and that we follow a
couple of points of order so that we can keep this thing moving
forward. One, that we wait for the presentation to be completed
before we interrupt a speaker, because we may have the answer in the
next sentence that we're looking for, that we clearly define what we're
going to ask them ahead of time.
After a reasonable amount of discussion, I'm going to go down
the line and have one final comment from each person. At any point
in time, if someone does not agree and they feel they must speak, I
will not hold them back.
Page 17
June 25,2002
got.
I serve at the pleasure of the commission as the chair, but I'm
going to remind you that if we're going to move forward, we're going
to have to continuously keep a reasonable control over our questions
and phrase them in such a way that they make sense and that we can
get the answers we need to keep going onto it.
And with that, I have nothing new to add to this agenda or
change from the consent agenda, and I have no disclosures from the
summary agenda.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I have one other correction I just
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: And it has to do with 16(B)19, and an that's the
FDOT agreement. They're asked us to take an additional road on
because the National Park Service doesn't want to extend their
contract with them. So the amount for reimbursement to the county
will be $1,511,000 per year for this particular item. It changes from
$1,396,000 to $1,511,000.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, maybe I didn't
receive it or didn't hear your answer to my request that 10(Q) be
moved to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I'm going to give -- I
did make that answer. And it's a reasonable request, and I'm going to
try and honor all these time certains.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But in that same juncture, if we're
right in the middle of something that's going to reach a conclusion
and we're going to be able to release a lot of people from this room,
I'm probably going to continue and be just a little bit late. But we're
going to try to honor all these request.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir.
Page 18
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A motion to approve the
regular agenda and the consent agenda and summary agenda, as
amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning and a second from Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by say aye.
Page 19
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY ~:OMMI'SS'[ONERS' MEETTNG
3une 25, 2002
CONTINUE ITEM 6(B) TO 3ulv 30, 2002 BCC MEETING: Public Petition request
by Calvin Etnoyer to discuss impact fee assessed on mobile home. (Petitioner
request.)
MOVE TFEM 16(A~19 TO 10(3~: Approve the Settlement Agreement to
compromise lien imposed in Code Enforcement Case entitled Collier County v.
.~uan and Veronica Barnhart, CEB Case No. 99-030. (Commissioner Coyle
request.)
MOVE ZTEM 16(B)4 tO 10(K}: Award RFP 02-3346 - Standardization of
Decorative County Street Lights to Consolidated Electric Distributors, Inc.
(Staff request.)
MOVE ITEM 16(B)13 TO 10(LI: Direction for the. County Attorney to prepare a
Written Notice of Termination of the Interlocal Agreement between the Board
of County Commissioners of Collier County and the City Council of the City of
Marco Island, dated 3anuary 19, 1999, which provides for the collection of
County Impact Fees by the City Government, the percentage distribution
between the two entities of road impact fees collected by the City, and
reimbursements from the County to the City for administrative costs
associated with the collection of County Impact Fees other than those for
roads; and authorization for the Chairman to sign the Notice of Termination
on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners; and direction for staff to
commence negotiation of a new Interlocal Agreement. (Commissioner Fiala
request.)
MOVE ITEM 16(B)1~ TO Z0(M~: Adopt a Resolution authorizing
condemnation of right-of-way and/or easements required for the
construction of a four-lane section of Immokalee Road between Wilson
Boulevard and CR 951/Collier Boulevard (Capital Improvement Element No.
71, Project No. 60018). Estimated Fiscal Impact: $5,732,106. (Staff
request.)
**THE FOLLOWING 3 ITEMS ARE BEING MOVED FROM THE CONSENT
AGENDA TO REGULAR AGENDA AND ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS COMPANION
ITEMS: (Commissioner Coyle request.)
**MOVE ITEM 16(D~1 TO 10(N~: This item c~)ntinued frQm the 3une 11, 2002
~ Approve a Resolution and a License Agreement with the Tsles
of Capri Civic Association to designate land for future tennis court on Tsles of
Capri.
**MOVE ITEM 16{D) 11 TO 10(O_}: This item continued from the 3une 11,
2002 BCC meetinq. Approve changes to the Collier County Parks and
Recreation Neighborhood Park and Tot Lot Policy Application and Criteria.
**MOVE 1'rEM 16(D}12 TO 10~P): Approve the purchase of an 0.14-acre lot
for a neighborhood park in Isles of Capri at a total cost of approximately
$81,700.
ADD I"TEM 10(0}: Approval of Recommended FY-03 Budget Adjustments.
(Staff request.)
MOVE 1'rEM 16(D)6 TO 10{rR}: Amend the Parks and Recreation Department
Facilities and Outdoor Areas License and Fee Policy, (FY 03 increased revenue
$577,000). (Staff request.)
MOVE ITEM 16(E}6 TO 10(S~: Request Board approval to purchase
equipment and services necessary to add two (2) additional tower sites to the
County's 800 MHz Radio System at a cost of $1,400,000 financed over five (5)
years. (Commissioner Coletta request)
MOVE ITEM 17D TO 8¢G~: Adoption of a Resolution amending the Parks and
Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Rate Schedule, which is Schedule Three of
Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier Code of Law and Ordinances, as
amended by the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as
amended. (Commissioner Coyle request.)
NOTE: Item 16(A)25 - Although the title indicates a refund, the action will
approve a deferral agreement in accordance with Board policy and full
payment of impact fees will be required in six years.
June 25, 2002
Item #2B
MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2002 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the May
14th, 2002 regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, a
second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
And the ayes had it. I believe we had a complete consensus
there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes had it on that particular
motion and the motion previous to that, too, and I didn't get a chance
to quite finish.
Item #3A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JULY 7-13,
2002 AS THERAPEUTIC RECREATION WEEK AND THE
MONTH OF JULY AS PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH-
ADOPTED
At this point, we'll go right on to proclamations.
And, Commissioner Henning, you're up first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's honor and a privilege
to call up for Sky Oskee (phonetic) from the Parks and Rec Advisory
Page 20
June 25, 2002
Board, along with Parks and Rec Director, Maria Ramsey, for this
proclamation.
Marla is here? Come on up.
Let me go ahead and get started.
"Whereas, the use of our parks and participation and rec
programs add more balance to life to provide care of latchkey
children, increase communication skills, build self-esteem, teach vital
life skills and provide safe places to play; and
Whereas, the benefits provided by parks and rec programs
serves to boost the economy, enhance the property values, attracts
new businesses, increase tourism, reduce crime, diminish gang
violence and curb employee absenteeism; and
Whereas, the productive use of leisure builds family unit,
strengthens neighborhood involvement, offers opportunity for social
interaction, creates a more education community, develops creativity
and promotes sensitivity to cultural diversity; and
Whereas, our parks and trails ensure ecological beauty, provides
space to enjoy nature, help maintain clear air and water and preserve
plant and animal and wildlife; and
Whereas, recreational activities build strong bodies, reduce
health care costs, decreases insurance premiums, make people
happier and residents live longer; and
Whereas, recreation, therapeutic recreation and leisure education
are essential to the rehabilitation of individuals who have become ill
or disabled or who have demonstrated antisocial behavior; and
Whereas, July 2002 has designated as Parks and Rec Month and
July 7th through 13th, 2002 has been reserved as National
Therapeutic Recreation Week by the National Parks and Recreation
Association and the Florida Recreation and Park Association as well
Page 21
June 25, 2002
as by the Governor of the State -- of the great State of Florida, I
might add.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that July 2002 be
observed as Parks and Rec Month and July 7th through the 13th,
2002, as Therapeutic Recreation Week which recognizes all benefits
derived from quality public and private recreation and parks
resources within Collier County.
Signed on this day by our Chairman, James Coletta."
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you disappear, we're going to
need both of you to turn around and face the camera for the records
for a hundred years from now and they look in and say, "Who in the
hell were they?"
MR. OSKEE: I'll tell you, without Marla and her staff, this
would have never happened. And we appreciate you, County
Commissioners, for your support in our parks, making them some of
the best in the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Ramsey, can we post that
activity schedule on our web?
Page 22
June 25, 2002
MS. RAMSEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Maria Ramsey.
copies for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
I've also got
Item #3C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING TOM OLLIFF, COUNTY
MANAGER, FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ROLE IN MAKING
COLLIER COUNTY A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK-
ADOPTED
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That'll be pleasure or do you
want to do the other one first, sir?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Chairman Coletta and I will step
down to this podium for the next proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In fact, the rest of the commissioners
can join us if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As I'm joined by my fellow
commissioners this morning, it is my honor to read this proclamation
from the Board of County Commissioners. It is truly a privilege to
read this proclamation to the community regarding our county
manager, Mr. Tom Olliff.
"Whereas, Thomas W. Olliff has worked for Collier County
Government for 18 years beginning in 1983; and
Page 23
June 25, 2002
Whereas, Mr. Olliff has served Collier County in management
of the Solid Waste Department as a Fleet Management Director, the
Purchasing Director of the Capital Projects Management Director, the
Community Development Administrator, the Public Service
Administrator and, most recently, the County Manager; and
Whereas, during this tenure, Mr. Olliff has worked for four
County Managers and 23 County Commissioners; and
Whereas, Mr. Olliff was instrumental in the negotiations that
resulted in the public acquisition of the Domestic Animal Services
Facility, and the Pelican Bay, Cocohatchee River, and Sugden
regional parks. He successfully managed the designed and
construction of Barefoot Beach Preserve, expanded the Central
Avenue, Vanderbilt, Marco Island and Golden Gate Libraries. He
oversaw the construction of the Estates Branch and the North Collier
regional libraries, Eagles Lakes and Max Hasse community parks,
and the Immokalee Gymnasium and Pool; and
Whereas, Mr. Olliff as County Manager, assumed the
leadership role in one of the county's most difficult times. He never
wavered in taking Collier County into the 21st Century. Major
organization changes were made, including the creation of a
transportation division; key executives were recruited for
Transportation, Utilities and Community Development Divisions.
Critical land use decision for the Rural Fringe and Rural Lands are
now coming to closure. The Land Development Code and the
Growth Management Plan are being overhauled; and Solid Waste
management programs are moving progressively forward. Mr. Olliff
can be proud of the title, "Turn Around Executive," richlY deserved
by a dedicated professional; and
Whereas, Mr. Olliff has always exhibited professional, a respect
for those he has worked for and with, the ability to remain calm
Page 24
June 25, 2002
through the most difficult of situations and the wisdom to succeed in
all facets of his life; and
Whereas, Mr. Olliffs leadership will be truly missed by the
Board of County Commissioners and staff alike.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we are grateful for
the long and exemplary services provided to us by Thomas W. Olliff,
and we recognize that Collier County, as a community, is a much
better place to live, work and raise families as a result of his efforts.
Done and ordered this 25th day of June, 2002, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. James Coletta, Chairman."
Mr. Chairman, I move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
All those in favor?
Unanimous, of course. (Applause.)
I think you're the first county manager in the history of Collier
County that got a standing ovation at the end of your tenure.
But, Thomas Olliff, Collier County Manager, a real leader
through action and words, has the ability to motivate others to their
highest level of achievement. Then gives them the opportunity and
freedom to grow. For dedicated service and inspirational leadership
to the employees and taxpayers of Collier County from 1983 to 2002,
a heartfelt thank you. You will truly be missed. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: A smart county manager won't say a lot
following that. I will tell you that you have, I think, one of the finest
staffs of government employees that you will find anywhere in the
county. It has been an honor. It's been a privilege. I have enjoyed it.
And, hopefully, when I look back, Collier County will be a little
Page 25
June 25, 2002
better place to live for the work that I and your staff have done here.
I thank you for your support, and I'll always be in touch. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The next one?
MR. MUDD: We didn't skip 3(B)?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. We just wanted to get right to
that before Tom tried to sneak out of the room.
Item #3B
PROCLAMATION SUPPORTING AND RECOGNIZING
INDEPENDENCE DAY 2000- ADOPTED
Okay. We have a proclamation in support of Herb Luntz.
Mr. Luntz, would you please come forward and any members of
your team that are present here. We'd like to also --
MR. LUNTZ: John Vight (phonetic), would you come up front?
Chuck McVann, would you come up front?
Chief Peterson, if you're back there, would you please come up
front?
And these young republicans, come on up here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And, Herb, first, let me read the
proclamation.
MR. LUNTZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: "Whereas, Collier County desires to
acknowledge the July 4th Independence Day celebration in a befitting
manner; and
Whereas, such a patriotic event should include representation by
our country's military; and
Page 26
June 25, 2002
Whereas, members of the County Commission wish to express
their personal gratitude and heartfelt thanks to each of those citizens
so generous with their service; and
Whereas, numerous members of the United States Military have
accepted an invitation from Collier County in the City of Naples to
perform during the 4th of July celebration; and
Whereas, the first Thursday in July 2002 has been designated as
Independence Day.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that it officially recognize
participation of members of the United States Military and urges all
citizens, community businesses, service clubs and schools to become
involved and support our men and women in the Armed Services and
celebrate Independence Day 2002.
Done and ordered this 25th day of June, 2002. James Coletta,
Chairman."
I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Unanimous.
MR. LUNTZ: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, thank
you very much. We'll take this proclamation, and then I have a
couple of words.
(Congratulations given.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to need an about face in
facing the camera.
Thank you.
Page 27
June 25, 2002
MR. LUNTZ: For the record, Mr. Chairman, Herb Luntz,
Chairman of the July 4th Committee.
Members of the Board, County Manager, County Attorney, this
is a very proud day for us. You know, I've spoken to you in the past
about the fact that we might not have much here this year, but we do
have them. But we have a special situation this year and we were
able to bring down and invite to be our guest members of the Armed
Forces that served in Afghanistan and have come back to us safely.
Just to give you an idea about some of these folks, because the
rest of the stuff will show up in the newspaper in terms of scheduling.
First, I have to tell you that we're doing something unique this year.
We're going to Immokalee the night of the 4th. I'm taking my band,
all of my folks, and we're going to go to Immokalee, and we're going
to do another jump at the Immokalee High School Stadium and do
another army band concert at the Immokalee High School. And,
hopefully, the Seminole Tribe will do a fireworks display after that.
Those feats deserve out there, they deserve this patriotism that's
going so importantly around this country. In addition to that, we
have members of the U.S.S. Philippines Sea.
And now, some folks don't know who that is, but the big
independence battle group, the Enterprise Battle Group is coming
back from the Persian Gulf. And while they were en route back here,
they were turned around right after 9/11 and they were sent back over
to the Persian Gulf area. And included in that battle group is a
guided missile cruiser, the U.S. Philippines Sea.
We were contacted by the captain of that ship when he was
crossing the Atlantic, so we understand you want some support from
the navy. And, of course, you don't have to ask me twice.
And they're sending a contingency of 38 people down here from
that cruiser. I had the honor to be on that cruiser a couple of weeks
Page 28
June 25, 2002
ago up Mayport after they were docked. They'll have their honor
guard and another group.
Central Command up in the Beale Air Force Base are sending
down five of their key enlisted personnel to share the reviewing stand
with some folks that wear stars on their uniforms.
We have an honorary grand marshall this year that happens to be
TET sergeant, Jeff Le Masters, who has worked with us for five years
getting Air Force support. He spent three months over there blowing
the tops off of the mountains before they blew back in their 130-gun
ship. He's bringing his family and a flight crew as well.
We're going to honor all of these folks, Central Command,
Southern Command. Fort Stewart, for those of you who have ever
seen that movie, "To Hell And Back," the Audi Murphy story, that's
the division. They had moved from Fort Louis, Washington to Port
Stewart, Georgia. We have them, their band, some MPs and some
other folks and avenger crew.
We're going to honor these men and women that are serving this
country so dramatically well, and it makes us happy that we were
able to do this. Without the support of this Board through TDC and
without our corporate sponsors, this could not be happening.
We thank you for this proclamation. These folks that are over
here with me are an integral part of what we do. John Vight has been
my number two, my XO, my right arm for 21 years in his patriotic
efforts. I couldn't do anything without him.
The young republicans are here because when they got the word,
they went out with posters all over town already to put these posters
up telling everybody about the 4th.
And Chief MacDonald and Chuck McVann and all these folks
and some of you are part of this. You know what's going on. We
look forward to an incredible 4th, and incredible 3rd.
Page 29
June 25, 2002
And this year there will be four parachute jumps, one of which
John Vight put together at Barron Collier High School on the 3rd, at
eleven, for the county's summer program for children. And we're
going to do a parachute jump there from a Black Hawk helicopter and
there will be three others.
So thank you very much for your support, and we look forward
to next year as well.
(Applause.)
Item #4
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS- PRESENTED
US.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now is the service awards.
And, Commissioner Fiala, I believe you're the one that's leading
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, we have five five-year awards.
The first is to Susan Usher from Budget Management, and she's so
glad that the budget is almost over.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So are we.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next recipient of the five-year award is Elaine
Ayres from Pollution Control. (Applause.)
Our next five-year awardee is Maria Corzo from Community
Development. (Applause.)
Our next five-year awardee is Susan Alden from Housing and
Urban Development. (Applause.)
Our next five-year awardee is Denise Kirk from Solid Waste.
She's your Recycling Coordinator. (Applause.)
Page 30
June 25, 2002
Our next awardee is a 15-year award to Patrick Webb from
Facilities Management. (Applause.)
Commissioners, our last awardee is a 20-year award to Joseph
Chirico from Road and Bridge. (Applause.)
Commissioners, that completes our awardees for today.
Item #5A
LYNN CLARKE, SPECIAL POPULATIONS COORDINATOR,
PARKS AND RECREATION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH FOR JUNE, 2002
Mr. Chairman, we're on number 5, presentations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're at 5(A).
Is Lynn Clarke available?
Lynn, please come up front.
Lynn has performed extraordinarily in a short time of one year
as Special Population Coordinator with the Parks and Recreation
Department. Lynn has a solid background in working with special-
needs participants and has wholeheartedly accepted the duty,
responsibility and challenge this position demands.
Lynn increased summer camp participation by 100 percent and
has introduced many new programs for special- needs youngsters,
including spring and winter break camps, kids nights out, parents
nights out-- I like that one -- adaptive aqua programs, no-school fun
days, kids shopping days, and a proposal for a special-needs softball
team.
It's truly remarkable, and we appreciate your accomplishments.
And we have for you today, if we can find it right here, a plaque and
Page 31
June 25, 2002
a check for $150 award for your efforts, and we appreciate it very
much.
(Applause.)
If you'd like say a couple of words, you're more than welcome
to.
Thank you so much.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY DEX GROOSE TO DISCUSS PINE
RIDGE ROAD LANDSCAPING FROM AIRPORT ROAD TO 1-75
- TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's see. We've got three
public petitions over the 10 o'clock certain. If we go with the public
petitions, we'll be about 10 minutes past that.
MS. FILSON: You have two public petitions, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The first public petition is by Dex
Groose?
MR. GROOSE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Dex Groose from Kensington community. I have a concern,
and I wanted to share it with you; and that is, that the county's main
gateway from the outside world is Pine Ridge Road. And I believe
this roadway is in need of some landscaping. Only a short stretch of
it is not landscaped to-date, basically, from 1-75 west to Airport
Road.
East of 1-75 is landscaped. West of Airport Road is landscaped.
All that remains is our new two-mile section and then Pine Ridge will
be landscaped from the Registry all way east to Santa Barbara
Boulevard.
Page 32
June 25, 2002
Our new six-lane Pine Ridge is already equipped with irrigation
stubs for this purpose. As a representative of the Kensington
community, I can tell you that there is support from residents and the
developer alike for an MSTU to help make this happen.
I would like your support to beautify our main gateway, Pine
Ridge Road, and to direct staff to initiate this process. I am
personally willing to give of my time to help make this happen and to
identify the MSTU boundaries and to elicit support from other
members of the community who might even live outside our
boundaries. But I look for to you help make this main gateway of
ours more beautiful. And if you'll help me, I'll do what I can to help
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
support Mr. Groose's request to place this on a future agenda. And if
the Board agrees with my request to have the Devonshire landscaping
reconsider, I'd to include all of these items at the same time so we
have some consistency in our policy. But I would strongly support
Mr. Grosse's request to put this on an agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, could you
wait just one second? Commissioner Fiala is next, and we'll come
right to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I would also like to agree. It's
a great safety feature. Everybody thinks it's just beautification. And
people do not realize that studies have shown that it's a great safety
feature as well as reducing speed. People don't even realize they're
reducing speed in an area that's beautified. So I would agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
Page 3 3
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to clarify Commissioner
Coyle's comments we're placing on the future agenda.
Are you saying that you -- Mr. Grosse's request or is there other
requests?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that there are Items 10(C),
(F) and (G); are they not, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. There's similar items to Mr. Grosse's
petition that would be his, which is 6(A).
Then there would be an item that Commissioner Coyle wanted
to bring back, which is 9(H), that talked about the Devonshire median
decision that was made at the last board meeting. And then there's
Items 10(C), 10(F) and 10(G).
And if you choose to Mr. Grosse's and the Devonshire back to
the next board meeting, then it would probably be appropriate if the
Board talked about those items from 10 at the next board meeting.
That equates to about a $750,000 request on those five items as
far as what the taxpayers are asking for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Item 9(H) on the Devonshire,
that was the item that the Board approved before. Commissioner
Coyle has asked to pull that. The residents really would like to know
today what are your concerns.
agenda for us to discuss.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
So I would like to leave that on the
Okay. Well, I'd like to have this
brought to some sort of conclusion in the form of a motion if we're
going to change it to continue it. If we're not going to change it to
continue it, then we can just leave it as it is.
So you wish to keep the status quo as it is at this moment; right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the Devonshire, you mean. I
would agree with Commissioner Henning. It's been put off already.
I would like it to be discussed.
Page 34
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So there is no motion to move
that or continue that particular one. But we are giving direction to
staff to -- I think we had the nods of at least two commissioners'
heads, three now, to bring back the petitioner's request for future
consideration, the next meeting; if at all possible, the next meeting.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure what needs to be in
there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Carter, I didn't
mean to ignore you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, that's all right. I'm used to
that. (Laughter.) It happens at home all the time.
We have a policy decision. That's where we are. And I think
there's two levels of policies here, and I would like to deal with all of
it. You know, you have 10(C), (F) and (G). And if you bring those
back and you bring the request here -- and I totally agree with what
you're asking for, because I see two levels of policy. One, you've got
gateways and then you have other arterials.
So as the Board considers this, they need to look at gateways
which have been addressed in the past, as well as now, as the
entrances to Naples, Collier County, need to be considered in one
light. The other, I think, needs to be considered in another. So it'll be
up to the Board to reach, I think, policy decisions in this area, Mr.
Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you very much for your
time.
And we have one speaker on that?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have one speaker, A1 Moore. He has
6(A) and 10(C). I'm not sure if this is the item he wants to speak on.
Page 35
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You can't speak on a public
petition.
MR. MOORE: For the record, my name is A1 Moore. Based on
your conversation and you're agenda today and your efforts to move
it to consolidate, I forego my opportunity to speak at this time and
will follow up with it at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir, for coming today.
We'll go on to the next public petition.
I'm sorry. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. A little further discussion in regard to
Item 9(H), which you just discussed in tandem with this public
petition, and, that is, 9(H), I believe, is a motion to reconsider, and
before the Board today, following the action of the Board on June
1 lth.
And under our reconsideration ordinance, and this may be
assuring, today's vote would be on the motion to reconsider, and it
does not entail going into substance behind the ultimate decision-
making process today.
And under our reconsideration ordinance, it then indicates that if
a motion to reconsider is adopted, the county administrator shall
place the item on the agenda for the second regular meeting
following the meeting at which this motion was adopted.
So if you should approve the motion to reconsider today, based
upon the regular meeting schedule that you have, I believe this could
come to the first meeting after the July 30th meeting, which is the
first week of September, I think.
MR. MUDD: September 1 lth.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that would still work out.
There's nothing about this --
Page 36
June 25, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: I think that probably works well for the process
generally, but just to let you know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. Well, we'll be coming to that
item shortly.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY DAWN MALBURG TO
DISCUSS PLANNED ROADS IN EASTERN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES - TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDA
Let's move on to the Dawn Malburg petition for planning the
roads in Golden Gate Estates.
MS. MALBURG: Good morning. I'm here --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you pull the microphone down
just a little bit. Thank you.
MS. MALBURG: I'm here to represent a few --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have to state your name too.
I'm sorry. I should have given this to you before you started.
MS. MALBURG: I'm Dawn Malburg, and I live out in Golden
Gate Estates, and I'm here to represent a few people that live in that
area. Golden Gate Boulevard is being widened from 951 to Wilson,
but we would like to have it widened from Wilson to De Soto.
The reasons that we're looking for this is that it's growing so
rapidly out there. I have to make it to work by 8 o'clock. I have to
leave my house at ten after six. And during the school season, it's
even earlier.
One of the other concerns that we have is there's a bridge that
says it's only 10 ton. And when you get a dump truck that's weighed
Page 37
June 25, 2002
down with a load or even a fire truck or a school bus, that bridge
shakes and it's very dangerous.
So we would like to ask that we can have the county attorneys
draw up a petition to get the people in that area to sign it, to have the
road widened to four lanes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may help you a little bit with this
is that, recently, a couple -- before this commission, the new
members who we see today -- passed a new ordinance as far as
petitions go, and it was quite restrictive and very difficult to be able
to reason it out to the point you come up with a legal petition.
I can't direct the county manager by myself to prepare a petition,
just the wording for it, for this group out there that would like to be
able to petition the county to get this into the work plan sometime in
the future so that this road will be four-laned all the way from where
it's ending now at Wilson to De Soto.
There's a major tie-up in traffic in that whole area, and that just
isn't on the plan at all. They want to bring it before us to be able to
get it on the scope for consideration.
I'll finish in a second, Commissioner Henning.
And what we're looking for is nothing more than just a simple
wording that will particularly state this one thing. And then from that
point forward, any other petitions that we need will have the legal
language that we need to be able to work with them, but I would need
the support of the commission to be able to direct the attorney's office
to be able to do it.
These people by themselves will come up with a petition, and
then somebody could challenge the legality of it, and I would like to
be able to avoid that, if we could, so all this effort will not be wasted.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 38
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a way to even avoid a
petition, Commissioner. And, you know, I recognized a long time
ago to four-laning the Boulevard to De Soto. And we do have a work
program. I think if we just remove the Immokalee Road to be four-
laned to Immokalee to take care of the need of a majority of the
people, that is the way to solve it. You don't even need a petition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I feel like I'm being baited, but I
realize that it's in -- I think you're serious. But in any case, the
Immokalee Road is something that's on the agenda and on the scope
of when it's going to be done. The need there is absolutely
tremendous.
I mean, but to say that these people shouldn't be given due
consideration would be a mistake. The only thing I'm asking for is
for them to be able to interact with their government in a way that
would be positive where they can feel that they got the message
across, clear and concise, that they feel they have a need for a road.
And it's just very fundamental of what government is about.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just suggest that in our
interest to proceed, this is a petition to place something on the
agenda, at which time we can debate it and reach a conclusion. I
don't think it's productive to try to debate it now. Can we just reach a
decision to put it on the agenda for future consideration?
MS. MALBURG: The other reason we're asking for this, too, is
we've heard that there's supposed to be a new school put out on our
four comers of the Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard. And with
the condition that this bridge is in right now, we just don't feel it's
safe to continue running the buses up and down that road, and there's
only one road besides Immokalee going in and out of this area, and
it's putting our children in danger.
Page 39
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the school would be an
impossibility without that road being four-laned. I don't know how
you could possibly make it work.
But once again, too, Commissioner Coyle is absolutely correct.
I would like to see it put on to a future agenda for discussion. We
have two commissioners. I've got three. So we have three
commissioners who are indicating they have an interest to putting
that on a future agenda. And we thank you very much for taking the
time to come out here today.
MS. MALBURG: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That would be great,
Commissioner Coletta, because is we get the school board to pay for
the road and the bridge, we'd really be in business. I mean, if they
want to build a school there, let them build a road and a bridge to care
of it. I'm happy. That sounds great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you what, Commissioner
Carter, that's an excellent idea, but they're still a little gun shy after
the nursing program.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, stay tuned.
Item #9F
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE WORKFORCE
HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE- PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're going to go with our
time certain, 9(F).
Okay. We'll be right with you, sir.
Recommendation that the Collier County Board of Collier
County Commissioners review proposed amendments to the capital
improvement -- No, wait.
Page 40
June 25, 2002
MR. MUDD: No, this is a report of activities of the Workforce
Housing Advisory Committee, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Am I getting ahead of myself here7
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It is 9(F).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 9(F). I was on 8(F). Okay. Here
we go.
Go ahead. Who's making this presentation?
Commissioner Fiala, I believe you're the one that requested it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Mark Strain (phonetic), the
chairman of this committee will be presenting today.
MR. STRAIN: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Mark Strain.
I've go to congratulate you today. The meeting is very positive
and upbeat, and I certainly it finishes the day that way for you all.
You've got some nice and interesting subjects today.
I was asked to give you an update on the Workforce Housing
Advisory Committee which you all appointed about eight months in
October. The first meeting was in November. And much to this
commission's credit, you appointed a very working group of
professionals who are making, I think, very good progress in regards
to the Workforce Housing and looking at ways to implement it in
Collier County.
In that group, you appointed housing developers, housing
operators, a land use attorney, housing builders, among others. Your
representative to the group is Commissioner Fiala. And with her
vision and tenacity, the group has been on course and moving
forward to which I think you saw last weak or the week before some
proposed LDC amendments that were the result of that group's
activities to-date.
Page 41
June 25, 2002
Also, I would like to thank Kathy Mayhood (phonetic),
Commissioner Fiala's secretary for following up so insistently the E-
mails and the paperwork and the additional correspondence needed to
keep everybody moving forward.
And Patrick White, without his legal expertise and assistance,
we may be off on tangents that we could never have gone on. And
also, especially Cormack Gibblem (phonetic). Cormack is an
unbevelled source of information. He knows more about workforce
housing and how to implement it than anybody I could imagine.
We've been meeting about eight months. The first four to five
months was an orientation. Every member had to get an
understanding of where we're at, what maybe our goals need to be
and how we need to get there.
We did a facilitative meeting. Through meeting, we came up
with a lot of brainstorming, a lot of ideas on what we could possibly
put together for implementation and suggestions to you all for either
growth management plan amendments LDC amendments or other
types of land use incentives, government incentives, as well, to get
workforce housing moving faster.
We sorted out the issues. We listed them priorities. We also
listed them as to expediency, how fast we can put them through. The
first batch, obviously, was get the LDC amendments to you as soon
as we could. And those came in a couple of weeks ago.
But besides those, there are a lot of other issues that involve
workforce housing. And one of the two most controversial that will
probably be coming up in the near future, one is linkage fees. And
that's more like an impact fee on commercial and other market rate
housing that has to -- there's a fee linked to how much labor they are
intensifying in the county. And that fee dictates like an impact fee,
Page 42
June 25, 2002
how much they should contribute to the kitty to, more or less, as a
pool for more workforce housing and an incentive to do so.
But then there's inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning is
nothing new. It's been used throughout the different parts of the
country. It's going to be a hybrid here. We have a unique situation.
We have very fragmented demographics in this county. We
have the extreme high end and the extreme low end. We have a lot
in-between, but what we're having here is missing the -- touching the
extreme low end. And not all inclusionary zoning addresses that is
exactly.
We need to reevaluate the criteria for what is affordable housing
and at what point affordable housing kicks in so that we can help
some of the needier families that seem to need this.
We're looking at targeted infilling. You all helped that when
you allocated TDRs for affordable housing in the urban area. That
was a big plus because now there's some more incentive to go with
higher densities then to put in affordable housing.
We're looking at and evaluating government-owned land sites.
If the county has a land bank, and that land bank can be used for
affordable housing, it's something we should be utilizing right now.
Looking also and suggesting a tiered impact fee system. This
will keep the county attorney busy trying to figure out how legally to
do that, but that is another one of our suggestions.
Trying find more incentive-based programs for the private
sector. Incentive basing is what makes it work.
Just recently, during the last growth management plan
amendment, you approved the -- I think the Economic Development
Council suggested the research and technology parks. Well, in those
parks was a component for mixed use in there, which included
affordable and workforce housing within the park. That was a very
Page 43
June 25, 2002
good concept. And if we started thinking like that in more of our
zoning, we can get a lot more incentives to put workforce housing in.
And then the last is what we've put forward is changing the LDC
where necessary. I would expect, there's going to be a lot more
suggestions coming forth to you, but you got a sampling of them last
week.
Of those four, we talked about fast-trackiing with a project
manager appointed in the county staff. It's one person that's
coordinating things and watching it through the system, which is vital
in getting anything done quickly anymore.
Using guest houses in the urban areas for rental. And the
Golden Gate Master Plan Committee will be considering that for the
Estates, which is outside the urban area, in this near future.
The further review of density bonuses, making sure they apply
to workforce housing so that the incentive is there. Some projects -- I
think the Buckner Plaza or Buckley Plaza, it's on Airport Road,
recently got approved with a residential density of 15 units per acre,
but it was approved for nonaffordable. I mean, the applicant stated
it's going to be high and multifamily. Those are the kind of things
that work against affordable housing. So we're encouraging that
maybe those limitations get redirected so workforce housing gets
addressed first.
And then we're also encouraging mixed uses when a workforce
housing is involved, such as the research and the technology parts.
And those are the four LDC amendments that went before you last
week.
But the bottom line in this whole thing is: How do we get the
single parent earning less than 25,000 a year in some place that they
can afford? Right now, at $750 a month, that's not affordable. We
need to get below 500. We need to get to 350 to 450, 500 dollars a
Page 44
June 25, 2002
month for some of the people in this county that are not in the level
of income that the county median income dictates. And with that, I
think that's all of my presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
First of all, I want to thank you personally and on behalf of the
committee for stepping up to the plate and assuming the role of
chairman of this committee.
MR. STRAIN: Well, it's an easy committee, Ms. Fiala. Thank
yOU.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It feels good because we're moving
forward. But, Mark, you keep us on target. You keep us focused.
And that's a wonderful thing.
This is the horizon committee that Tom Olliff, one of the wise
things that he's done, one of the many, many, many wise things that
he's done with this commission. He created horizon committees, and
there were many of them. I think you have the smart growth and the
community character committee. I can't remember what everybody
has, but I know that this was mine. And he asked that we give a
report once a year. And so this is what Mark is doing right now.
He's giving a report from this particular committee.
At the direction of the Board, they suggested we start to meet
every two weeks because we were making such great strides, but they
felt that they needed to be done a little more quickly. The committee
has taken hold of that suggestion, and they are meeting every two
weeks, and I'm very proud of them.
Mark suggested or talked about inclusionary zoning. That is
coming up very shortly at the July 15th meeting of our Workforce
Housing Committee.
Page 45
June 25, 2002
We have a special speaker who will be focused on inclusionary
zoning. She's from Tallahassee. She's a specialist in this field and
has been working at it for many, many years. Because it's such an
interesting topic that I think a lot of people in the community are
going to want to hear more about, we've asked that it be held here in
the board meeting and that it be televised. And I think we're working
on that right now. I don't know if we've gotten approval of the
televised portion or not.
MR. STRAIN: Not that I know of.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But Cormack Gibblem, he's
working at that.
So I just wanted you to know, first of all, thank you so much for
what you're doing.
MR. STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're moving forward. We're
going to accomplish some things with this committee. MR. STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't go yet, Mark. I want to give
all the commissioners a chance to respond if they'd like to.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mark, I just wanted to clarify one
thing. Perhaps I have the wrong subdivision, but you indicated the
Buckley subdivision was approved. I don't believe it was approved.
I think it was a growth management plan revision that was approved
but the subdivision itself was not.
MR. STRAIN: I think you're right; yes, sir. It was a mixed use
subdivision --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. STRAIN: -- with high densities.
Page 46
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So the subdivision has not
really come back before us for approval. And, consequently, that
density and the type of housing to be there is not yet certain.
MR. STRAIN: Good. Then we may have another shot at --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope so.
MR. STRAIN: -- working on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope so.
MR. STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, any
comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Always a pleasure to see you.
Thanks for your service.
MR. STRAIN: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mike, you guys are doing a great
job. I know members of your committee. I congratulate
Commissioner Fiala taking on this portfolio. And keep up the hard
work. I know you will find alternatives towards solutions that will
help this county move forward and address a very critical issue. So
just keep up the good work, sir.
MR. STRAIN: Thank you. We have a very good team, thanks
to you all. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, Mark. You do have a very
good team. And I just want to recognize Mark's efforts. He is the
perfect example of citizen involvement in government. And not only
is he on the affordable housing but he also serves on the Golden Gate
Master Plan as their chair. He also is on our Collier County Planning
Commission. And he has been a tremendous assistance with the
people in Copeland serving on the Copeland Task Force who's
coming up with all sorts of solutions for that community.
Page 47
June 25, 2002
Mark, thank you so much for taking -- and he's employed full-
time and he has a child in school. So, I mean, this man is totally
remarkable, two hours a sleep at night. That's how he does it; right?
MR. STRAIN: Well, it takes a little bit of reading, but I do
thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Mark.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
We have one speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir; we have one speaker, Garrett Beyrent.
MR. BEYRENT: For the record, my name is Garrett F.X.
Beyrent. You met my evil twin brother last time. In any case, I'm
here specifically to talk about affordable housing, and I want to thank
Mark Strain because he enlightened me as to the situation with some
of the roads relative to affordable housing.
In particular, you see that red line there? Mark Strain informed
me that most of the traffic that's generating and ending up on Davis
Boulevard is actually coming off the interstate. It's really not a traffic
situation north of the interstate where my project is proposed. It's
actually -- the black area is my project, Magnolia Pond. It's right
now zoned for multifamily, 5.5 units to the acre.
My intention is, and I've already spoken to staff about it, I'll
bring it back as an affordable housing project. It's kind of a big one.
It's 600 units on the south side of affordable housing rental units.
And then on the top side, which is on the Golden Gate Canal, is 100
units of entry-level condominiums, which the individuals would buy
the condominiums.
The only problem I have with this whole thing is that Norm
Feder changed the road classification out in front me. He included
the entire section from Golden Gate Parkway down to the interstate
Page 48
June 25, 2002
as being in the moratorium area. And that shouldn't be in the
moratorium area because that's not generating the traffic.
Another thing is that all these garbage trucks that come out of
the City of Naples and in the county actually go to Landfill Road,
which is directly across from Magnolia Pond Drive. That's that
yellow line there (indicating). And if, in fact, the county does
eliminate the dump in the future, that will eliminate quite a bit of that
traffic. And this isn't a petition for rezone, by the way. I'm just
trying to show you how it works as far as affordable housing goes.
So Donna Fiala -- I went to the workshop that Donna held last
Wednesday. I think it was last -- Was it last Wednesday?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. BEYRENT: Okay. And she had instructed one member of
the staff to come up with a workforce housing design, taking into
consideration all the existing places that people could live, and two of
the projects were my old projects I had sold years ago, the Glades and
Winter Park. I actually started doing this back in 1970. And for the
most part, the Glades is retired couples. They're not workforce
housing.
Winter Park, is about 20 percent German tourists living in there.
And probably closer to 50 percent workforce housing that are renting
units from people that own them that are too young to retire. It was a
great investment for a lot of people. And that's basically it.
I mean, if we're going to look retroactively at affordable
housing, that's not going to solve the problem we've got right now,
which is, we're cranking out, I think, 400 units a year, and we've got a
20,000-unit backlog, from what I understand. Is that right, Donna Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what they say, but what
we're trying to do is get a better hang on the numbers.
Page 49
June 25, 2002
MR. STRAIN: Okay. What I'm looking at here is a -- As of
3:15, yesterday, I called Norm Feder's office, and I was informed that
that stretch of roadway which was placed under a moratorium that
extends from Golden Gate Parkway down to the interchange, there's
no plans in the five-year program to make any improvements
whatsoever on that road. So I will be precluded, essentially, on any
moratorium for five years at a minimum on this particular project,
and this is a necessary project.
And, unfortunately, the commission didn't feel that affordable
housing should be added to the necessary public services, as hospitals
or schools, police stations, fire stations. But where are all these
people going to live? I mean, if you look at that Golden Gate High
School up there in the comer, that tentatively can be called Golden
Gate High School, unless they rename it after somebody, I don't
know. I saw that board meeting too. Interesting.
But the people that are going to attend that school and the
teachers that are going to be teaching in that school need a place to
live. And that's basically it. That's my argument. I need some kind
of support from Commissioner Fiala on affordable housing, if it's
possible.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it.
MR. STRAIN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then we have one more speaker.
May I ask a question, though? I'm a little bit lost. I can't
remember in the past that we were actually taking public speakers on
petitions. But if that's been the normal -- I mean, we're going to do it
this time, but has this been a normal thing we've been doing as a
matter of course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Since you've been chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Our next speaker?
Page 50
June 25, 2002
MS. FILSON: That was our last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
Possibly under "comments" we might want to address that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a time certain,
Commissioner?
Item # 10A
REPORT TO THE BOARD BY KEITH ARNOLD REGARDING
THE 2002 LEGISLATIVE SESSION- PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do. We have one more time
certain, and that is Item 10(A), Keith Arnold, regarding the 2002
legislative session.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Board. It's my pleasure to be here with you today and report from the
activities of the 2002 legislative session.
For the record, my name is Keith Arnold. I'm with Arnold and
Blair in Tallahassee, and I work with you, your staff and others on
your behalf in Tallahassee on issues of statewide implications.
You have before you a summary of some of the activities which
occurred in the legislative session this year in Tallahassee. I think at
the outset, I would like to say how much I enjoyed working with you,
your staff, your legislative liaison, Commissioner Carter, your staff
particularly from the administrative levels, as well as from your
transportation levels.
And each of you obviously has a very good working relationship
with the legislative delegation, Senator Saunders and Representative
Goodlette, and that makes my job so much easier. Both of them
advocate quite well on your behalf and are certainly interested in the
Page 51
June 25, 2002
issues which affect this county, and it was a pleasure working with
them as well.
The first page you have is really a codification of some of the
issues which you asked that I follow on your behalf in Tallahassee,
interact with you, interact with your staff in terms of some of your
priorities. And most of your priorities seem to fall in line of
transportation priorities.
Obviously, you've been very active in the transportation area
initiating policies on your own down here, having to deal with
moratoriums, et cetera, and transportation funding has been critical
for you.
Perhaps the biggest issue we worked on on your behalf this year
is the Transportation Outreach Program. And you'll see on the top of
page 2 where that was funded. The one project which we have
worked with together was funded for $7.45 million this year, which is
the Golden Gate corridor improvement which represents the bypass
at Airport-Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway.
Obviously, I'm aware of your discussions down here with
respect to moratoriums. I'm aware of your frustration in dealing with
infrastructure costs. Hopefully, this will help some albeit certainly
not enough to alleviate the greater transportation concerns that you
have here Collier County, but perhaps it's a start. And I do look
forward to working with you on this program in the future as it
evolves.
You can see there were two major work programs approved in
the five-year transportation work program totalling about $10.1
million. And we also followed some other issues that your staff had
identified with us dealing with Burdock Grants' historic preservation
facility, specifically, the Roberts' Ranch south of Immokalee and
your Juvenile Assessment Center.
Page 52
June 25,2002
On the following pages, you have, essentially, a summary, if you
will, of some of the state budget items which are more general in
nature. But, certainly, as we move forward in our relationship and
you identify particular areas you want us to work on, there's nearly
$50 billion of money spent in Tallahassee annually. And, certainly,
there are many programs which can benefit this community which
you may or may not be aware of.
And subsequent to this meeting we have today, we're beginning
some discussions on some park funds and some reimbursement
monies, specifically on Barefoot Beach. But I might remind you as
well, there are many park programs, land buying acquisition
programs in Tallahassee that have significant implications to Collier
County, and these are ones that I think staff has identified for us to
work on together in the upcoming year.
In terms of substantive legislation which begins on page 7, you
will see that House Bill 261 passed, which was a major transportation
recodification that dealt with the Florida High-Speed Rail Authority
Act, but it did allow for a significant amount of increased bonding for
bridges and highways. That will have local implications along with
the next bill, Senate Bill 671.
In essence, this bill puts counties which utilize the six cents of
local option gas tax at a higher priority and participating for state
transportation grants and those counties which do not. You have
enacted here as the local option to gas tax. Many counties have not.
And so, theoretically, this would push your priorities ahead of those
counties which do not participate in local option gas taxes. And
again, I recognize how sensitive transportation issues are to you as
policy makers.
Unfortunately, House Bill 715 did pass. This is the bill dealing
with billboard legislation. There's been an effort over the past
Page 53
June 25, 2002
decade, really, to effectively create property rights in the area of
billboards. You have opposed that. We opposed that. We fought
against that.
This, unfortunately, did pass with the advertising industry really
overcoming the Florida Association of Counties, and all of who are
working on behalf of cities and counties to try to postpone the
approval of that bill. The governor, unfortunately, did sign it into
law. There are some direct fiscal implications to you as policy
makers which you'll want to think about. But, essentially, the focus
of the bill is to require an arbitration process between you and sign
owners when you would, in fact, try to either remove a sign or not
allow for signs in particular cases.
It remains to be seen how the property rights case law will
develop, of course, in this area. Obviously, that will take a number of
years. But the clear implication is we're, unfortunately, as matter of
state law, now vesting in sign owners' property rights which will cost
cities and counties a fair amount of money to the extent that they
want to regulate more stringently the placement of billboards.
Senate Bill 1906 is a major rewrite of the Growth Management
Bill, but it's principle implication to you is a requirement that you and
school boards coordinate more comprehensively the growth
management process, that they participate in the growth management
process. A school board member will now be appointed to the
regional planning council.
And this is a requirement that you and school boards enter into
interlocal agreements with penalties attached, if you decided not to
do so, withholding of state funds for both school boards and counties.
But the requirement is such that it suggests a major coordination of
planning between schools and counties.
Page 54
June 25, 2002
This was the top priority of the governor this year. It's certainly
something that he pushed quite a bit through the legislative process
with the House supporting it particularly and the Senate offering a
variety of other suggestions.
Suffice it to say, the governor has felt very strongly that
planning and placement of local schools needs to be coordinated
more effectively with local governments. And, consequently, that's
the focus of this particular bill.
It will require some interaction with you and the other elected
officials who comprise your local school board. And the whole
purpose, of course, is to suggest and is to implement a process where
school infrastructure would be available with your infrastructure as
developments come on board.
A local bill of interest, I note to you, is one that was sponsored
by Senator Saunders, and it represents the initiative which would
allow a constituent of yours, Jennifer Knight, to receive an organ
transplant. I believe in this case it was a lung transplant, I believe.
And it provides for Medicaid services to be provided for that
constituent. And I know that you expressed a significant amount of
interest in that particular bill which did pass and was signed into the
law by the governor.
And then, finally, there is a rewrite of the solid waste bills which
allow for a little greater flexibility at the local level, a little less
reporting to Tallahassee, continues the requirements for recycling.
The bill is more administrative in nature but it certainly would
positively affect from a fiscal standpoint the county and not require
as much reporting as traditionally has been required in this particular
area of legislation.
In the final pages, you'll have the summaries of those attached
bills that I just spoke of and the bill analysis. And I think, suffice it
Page 55
June 25, 2002
to say, Mr. Chairman and members, that while we've only been
working together for a few months, it really was an enjoyable
experience for me. I know there's going to be changes on the
commission.
I don't know who your legislative liaison will be subsequent to
the November elections, but I certainly look forward to working with
Commissioner Carter as well as all of you in the next several months
to identify the legislative priorities for the next legislative session.
Obviously, both here and in Lee County, I see the tremendous
pressures of growth. You're struggling with that. I'm sensitive to it.
My family has been here for five generations. We certainly have
seen the impact. And I'm sensitive to those issues that you face as a
locally elected official is trying to balance between public need and
fiscal responsibility.
I think that these particular issues that we addressed on your
behalf went a long way to supplementing your efforts in Tallahassee,
not replacing them. And, certainly, I appreciate all that you have
done individually and look forward to working with you in the
months ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Arnold, your company has done
very well for Collier County and looking forward to reviewing your
contract in the coming months and seeing if we can continue this
profitable relationship.
I'd like to also recognize the Dr. Carter who has been the point
person for Collier County in making sure this would get done. His
contact with the legislative delegation has been endless. Many, many
meetings have taken place. He's made sure that this whole operation
was flawless from beginning to end. And with your guidance, it was
very successful.
Commissioner Carter.
Page 56
June 25, 2002
MR. CARTER: Thank you very much, Commissioner Coletta,
and Chairman.
It's the first time since I've been on this Board that we truly had
united effort by the Board of County Commissioners, with our staff,
working Representative Goodlette, Senator Saunders, and Keith
Arnold, our lobbyist, where we took all the resources and candidly
flexed our muscles in Tallahassee, and you're beginning to see the
results coming back to this county.
We are too big to leave it up to others to determine our destiny.
We must commit ourselves to working with the regional planning
council and the state legislators. And the next move, really, is
spending more time on the Washington side of it with our
representatives there, one yet to be determined and, of course, Porter
Goss, our mainstay for years and years.
But it is a total system of trying to get the most tax dollars back
into your county, because you are a donor county on the federal level
and the state level, and you're trying to get a portion of that back here
to meet the growing needs of this county.
So, Keith, it's been my pleasure to work with you. I know the
personal defeat for me was the billboards issue, which I have fought
ever since I've been a commissioner. But the good news is our
county attorney has already inventoried all the sites.
We have a very strong position at which those that are up, we
will continue to try to, because they've had the period of time to
amortize, to get those removed from our county. We do not need
visual pollution in Collier County for somebody selling whatever it
is. And we will continue to work on that and try to get those down.
And I will leave it to the future -- the county attorney to continue to
do due diligence for this Board to make sure that we exercise every
right that we have to determine the destiny of our county,
Page 57
June 25, 2002
particularly, in community character, along with all the other
elements in the growth management plan.
So Board of Commissioners, I thank you.
Staff, I thank you, Leo Ochs, the point person.
And you, Keith Arnold, for guiding us in this total process along
with our stallworth Representative Dudley Goodlette, who has been
awesome, and Senator Saunders, who has worked so diligently for us
to make all of this come together as one united plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I couldn't have said that
better. And although you've spoken everything I wanted to say, let
me just also add to that and say you have been a stallworth for us as
well as Commissioner Coletta. These guys go up there. I had no idea
how much you did at the Tallahassee end to work with the Senator,
with the Representative Goodlette and with Keith Arnold to make
these things happen and bring these millions of dollars back until I
actually witnessed it myself. So I just want to say thank you as well.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner. I
appreciate that. We've got a lot of miles on county plane. That is a
bladder challenge in itself.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are there any other comments or
questions from the commission?
Mr. Arnold, thank you so much. We're looking forward to the
coming months.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in closing, I
appreciate, number one, your compliments, but I want to reiterate.
Our effort in Tallahassee is not solely -- Certainly the success we had
is not solely due to our efforts as a firm. We work with some very,
very good public representatives.
Page 58
June 25, 2002
I've known Senator Saunders and Representative Goodlette well
before they were even elected to the legislature. They're great
advocates for this county. Each of you advocated as well on your
own behalf up there, and it was a good team effort, and I appreciate
the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
1 O-minute break at this time.
(A short recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
gentlemen.
Thank you, sir. We're going to take a
Take your seats, ladies and
Take your seats, please, and we'll continue.
Item # 10Q
FY-03 BUDGET AMENDMENTS -COUNTY MANAGER TO
BR1NG BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON JULY 30, 2002
The next item we're going to go to, and this was at
Commissioner Carter's request. I'm sorry. It was 10(Q), unless
there's something you have to share with us at this point in time, Mr.
Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm here to present 10(Q), Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Continue, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Tom Olliff, the
County Manager. The executive summary in front of you was
prepared and presented to as a result of the last budget workshop that
the Board had on Friday.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. 10(Q), does that require
anyone to be sworn in? I don't believe so. MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Continue.
Page 59
June 25, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: The Board's direction then, in the middle of the
last budget workshop that we had was to go back, review the budgets
along with the constitutional officers and to present to the Board of
County Commissioners a budget that would be a millage neutral
budget. It would also reduce the $1.6 million that the budget that you
were reviewing at the time was above millage neutral and would
provide a $2 million reserve for future road construction.
Because of the timing, we decided to try and get the reductions
back to you as quickly as we possibly could, in essence, because the
tentative budget will be prepared by July 15th. And on July 30th, the
Board will be asked to adopt the tentative millage rate. So we wanted
to make sure at the last formal opportunity that the Board had to meet
that we would present the list of reductions that the Board had asked
for.
In an effort to keep up with the agency's mission statement and
to exceed your expectations, I believe that you will note, first and
foremost, on the spreadsheet that we've provided for you, that rather
than a total three and a half million dollar reduction, which was what
would have been required to bring that budget to millage neutral and
provide a two million dollar reserve, we're actually proposing a $5.2
million total adjustment to the budget that was presented to you
which will not only reduce that $1.6 million necessary in order to get
you to millage neutral but will create at this point a $3.6 million
reserve for future road construction.
There are also some opportunities between now and your
September public hearings to actually increase that figure even larger
than that that will be on the revenue side, and I'll explain those at the
end.
I'll walk you quickly through this, and I'll go through the budget
reductions column first. The first item there is a motor pool capital
Page 60
June 25, 2002
recovery reserve. And if you recall, that was one of the major items
that was presented by your productivity committee. It was a reserve
that we were using to fund ongoing replacement vehicle purchases.
And should the Board want to remove that reserve, we were also
looking to, perhaps, use this as some seed money to build a new
centralized fleet garage. But given the circumstances, we will simply
wait and budget for your fleet garage at the time when the project is
up and ready to be built. And while this money would have been
nice to have been able to put towards that project, again, given the
environment, we think it's probably better put towards a reserve for
road construction.
There are a number of IT items. Two of them are SAP related.
SAP, if you recall, is your financial management system. There are
two different components in a time evaluation and a portals
component which we would really like to have had. But, frankly,
looking at the schedule, bringing on a new FMS system and all the
difficulties that that will entail, we've opted to pull those out of your
fiscal year '03 budget. Those would have been nice to have had in
'03, but again, given the circumstances, we'll sacrifice those and try
and put those in your '04 budget.
There were three items there following that. They were also
information technology related; $48,000, a $15,000 and a $32,000
item. All three of those were targeted to be consultant-done study
projects of your information technology system. We have cut those
out of your budget, and we will do our best to try and do those studies
in-house with your in-house staff, and we'll pull that money directly
out of your 001 budget.
We reduced your facilities management temporary labor object
code by $30,000, and we'll simply ask your fleet, your facilities
department, to do it with the staff that they have.
Page 61
June 25, 2002
Domestic Animal Services. We cut a customer service
representative that was requested. We left in what we felt were more
important to animal control officers in Ms. Morloch's request and
removed the customer service rep.
There were two part-time park ranger positions. We've removed
one of those and left one. That one position will be assigned to the
Barefoot Beach Park but will also be available for the system to be
able to use in their rotation.
Two transportation items. When we looked at them closer, we
felt we could justify and move those to your 111 fund, your
unincorporated general fund. There was a curbing sweeper and a
pavement marking machine. Both of those, we felt, are associated
with the county road construction projects. We don't do pavement
sweeping -- curb sweeping within the incorporated areas. So we felt
like those were justified-type expenditures for 111, and we could
move those to 111, effecting a reduction in your 001 budget.
The drainage crew, we consolidated. If you remember, there
was a quick response crew that we talked about. There was also a
drainage crew. We took those two crews and we combined them into
a single crew. And you have one crew now that you can go out and
respond to potholes, downed signs and our drainage and culvert
issues that need to be taken care of.
We crushed some of the equipment out of their request and we
saved you about $130,000 there. While, obviously, we would have
liked to have had the two crews, given the Board's direction, we
made the cut.
There was a contingency reserve that we also reduced by about
$73,000 from transportation. In the road system, if you will recall,
this was actually one of the moves that the Board made in the first
day of budget reviews, and that was to have the community
Page 62
June 25, 2002
development environmental services department pay for this
concurrency management system on the transportation side. Since it
was all development related, we felt like that was more an expense
that could be supported by building permit revenues. So that could
be taken out of your 313 fund.
The sheriff. We met with the sheriff, and then, frankly, he was
very cordial and understood the situation that the Board is in. And if
there's any agency out there in the constitutionals who understands
and probably appreciates the need to get some roads built, it's the
sheriffs department.
And the sheriff met with us, his budget staff did, on Friday, and
he and his budget staff met with us yesterday. He agreed to phase in
a certain number of his expanded service request positions so there
would be more later in the year additions to his staff.
Some small items, the Immokalee jail kitchen equipment he is
purchasing out of his budget this year. One of the items that
Commissioner Coyle and he talked about was a statutory ability that
he has to actually charge certain inmates for their time in the county
jail. He currently charges them a dollar for an evening stay. And the
statute allows him to charge as much as $10 for the privilege of being
in your county jail. And he has agreed that he can try and increase
that fee to the full statutory limit at $10, and he believes it would
generate another $200,000 in revenue.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We'll keep the light on for you.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we could get those rates up to
about 75 bucks a day, it'd be a lot better.
MR. OLLIFF: The next item on your list --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Work with reservations only.
Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Olliff.
Page 63
June 25, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: The next item on your list, and this is going to
require that I make a note for the Board. We generally do not do this.
We generally will only budget expenses in a fund where there is an
associated revenue to offset that. In this particular case, it's a
recognition that there are certain capital outlay items within the
sheriffs agency that can be funded out of a law enforcement impact
fee. You have not yet approved that law enforcement impact fee, but
we can show this budget this way. But the Board needs to be put on
notice that you will be reviewing that impact fee ordinance in July,
and July 30th meeting is scheduled for that.
So this $568,000 worth of savings is only effective if the Board
adopts the law enforcement impact fee and then has the offsetting
revenues to be able to support that expense.
We also worked with the property appraiser. And while he
provides us a tentative number on June 1 st, he is not required to
provide us a final number until July 1 of each year. We went down
and then met with his staff and then the property appraiser to see if
we could get a number that might be a little closer to what his July 1
number will be. He was comfortable in us including an additional
$500,000 on the revenue side in an estimated increase in the taxable
value of property in the county.
And the last thing on your list. We met with the Clerk of
Courts. And as you will recall, the clerk found a way for him to be
able to have access to and generate interest earnings that can be used
as general fund mm-back money from his agency. He and his staff
sharpened their pencils and they have provided what was probably a
fairly conservative estimate, the interest earnings to begin with. And
they, by working on those numbers a little bit, were able to squeeze
what they thought was a reasonable amount of additional interest
Page 64
June 25, 2002
earnings that you can realize in your general fund. And so we've
shown an additional $500,000 from that.
So, in total, you have budget reductions that equal $2.8 million.
You have additional revenue enhancements of $1.2 million. You
have funding shifts to funds that are other than the general fund of
$1.174 million for a grand total of positive impact to your general
fund of $5.2 million.
I need to point out that before your columns actually start, there
are a number of asterisks, and I need to give credit where credit is
due. We didn't come up with this list from scratch. There are a
number of items there that we just simply went to the productivity
committee list and used their recommendations.
And if you look at the bottom, the total of the recommendations
here is actually greater than half of what the total list is. So the
productivity committee's recommendations amount to almost $2.6
million of your total. And so I need to get give credit to where it's
due. And to Ms. Vassey and then the committee that made these
recommendations, we would say thank you.
Mr. Chairman, that's really all that we wanted to present. I don't
know that a motion is even necessary, but we wanted to make sure
that the Board knew what we were going to do to try and comply.
And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to you, Commissioner
Henning, I'm going to ask a question.
Is there any public speakers for this?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On July 30th, do we still have
the ability to do further cuts if we see opportunities to save some
money?
Page 65
June 25, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One of those that I hope you will
consider, because it hasn't been mentioned here so far, is the Country
Jam Festival. I know how popular it is, but it's not something that
should be funded from general fund revenues, and I'd hope that you'd
take a look at that for us, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Also, too, I want to remind you that
if we're going to delegate this authority to you, I think we need to
leave it there. And then, if we want to, on the meeting of-- What is
it? The 30th?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At that point in time, bring those
items for discussion. I personally do not want to see this list changed
until that point in time. But, also, I don't want to get into a discussion
that's going to run four hours long.
MR. OLLIFF: Point taken, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments?
MR. OLLIFF: I hope this complies with the Board's direction,
and we'll effect to provide you a tentative budget list. On July 15th
and on July 30th at your regular board meeting, you'll set the
tentative millage rate that will be presented to all the taxpayers by
way of mail notice.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Olliff, before you leave, I
would just like to congratulate you and the staff for the hard work
you did in finding these cuts. I can tell you that there are cuts in here
that we would probably never have identified if you went through the
process we were going through. So I congratulate you. Our trust and
confidence in you has been justified, and I appreciate this very major
reduction in expenditures.
Page 66
June 25, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you, sir. And as a parting shot, I would
suggest that the Board may consider that process for our next year's
budget. When you're dealing with a budget of this size trying to find
the nickels and the dimes, it's perhaps not the productive use of the
Board's time. And making sure you get what you want out of the
budget and get budget in terms of revenue and tax rates where you
want them is probably a level where the Board would like to be at in
the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only -- If I may, the only one
thing that I would ask that the Board consider next year is that we
make this an item on the agenda for consideration so we can have
some public input.
I can see the benefits of doing it this way. I can also see the
benefits of the other way. But I think it would be timely if we
brought it up to the community to help us make that decision.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just one quick question, Mr.
Olliff. The basic financial management plan that you are putting it,
that does not change. The whole revamping of that system, that is
there; correct?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. You have invested way too much time,
money and effort in that with your Clerk of Courts staff to try to
bring that about, and we still intend to go live October 1.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good. That's a critical piece and
I'm glad it's there. Like Commissioner Coyle, I compliment you on
what you and the staff have done in this effort. And I know that in
this process you did not jeopardize our reserves for bond ratings,
which is critical to this community, that this is an operational budget,
that, of course, eventually some of these things will have to be
integrated in the future budgeting when it's permissible.
Page 67
June 25, 2002
And whether you stay at the system next year or not will not be
my decision, but as a citizen I can come and address this Board as
one individual to encourage you to stay in a streamlined format and
to be macro managers and not micro managers, because the role of
the Board of the County Commissioners in my judgment is policy
stutters and staff direction. And if you want to be a micro-manager,
you're sitting in the wrong chair if you want to apply for a position in
county government.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I do need to thank Jim Mudd, Leo
Ochs, Mike Smykowski and all your division administrators who
worked awfully hard on Friday and Monday to get this done for you.
I also need to give credit to and, in particular, to Don Hunter, Dwight
Brock and Abe Skinner who worked with us as well in terms of
trying to put this together.
And I need not to slight Guy Carlton and Jennifer Edwards. But
because they are dealing with fairly significant expanded service
issues and issuing driver's licenses on the tax collector's side and a
brand new election system on the Supervisor of Elections' side,
frankly, we knew that their budgets were about where they had to be
and we didn't go bother trying to squeeze them any harder. But
thanks to all those people involved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we recognize your leadership in
this effort.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2002-35 RE PETITION PUDA-2002-AR-2298,
ALAN REYNOLDS OF WILSON, MILLER, INC. AND GEORGE
L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE,
Page 68
June 25, 2002
P.A. REPRESENTING LAMAR GABLE OF BARRON COLLIER
COMPANY, LTD., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
W1NDING CYPRESS PUD LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
QUADRANT OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI
TRAIL - (COMPANION ITEM DOA-2002-AR-2299) ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move on. Advertised
public hearings, 8(B), and it has a companion item.
Who's introducing this? And we have to have the participants
sworn in.
Would all the people that are going to participate in this
particular item and its companion item please stand and be sworn in.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And we'll start with
disclosures from Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to the petitioner and
the representative and I have some correspondence here, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have spoken with the petitioners,
the representatives of the petitioners, and I have some E-mail from
other people concerning this subject.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also fall in that same category.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And likewise with me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have spoken with the
petitioners. I have E-mail on the subject. Like everyone else, those
are my disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please continue.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Good morning. Susan Murray --
Page 69
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Ms. Murray, hold on just
one second.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Susan, before you get started, what I notice on this particular
petition and the next one is we're lowering density in the PUD. We're
increasing the preserved area in the PUD and we're removing 27
holes, golf course.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I understand that we have
a speaker, so why don't we address those speaker's concerns and
move this item.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, if we have a motion to'
approve, I will second that, and then we can go to speakers. I would
be happy to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second but
we'll hold off on the vote to wait till we hear from the speaker.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, you have one speaker, Tracey
Arder.
MR. ARDER:
MS. FILSON:
here, sorry.
MR. ARDER:
MS. FILSON:
8(F).
You marked 8(F)? Okay. You have 8(B) down
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. He wanted to speak on 8(F).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, at this point in time, we
have a motion, I believe, by Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And a second by Commissioner
Carter. And is there any discussion? Questions? Comments?
Page 70
June 25, 2002
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I think you have one legal thing at
the podium.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. Go ahead.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant
County Attorney. There's a companion item with that. It is a PUD
and also a development order amendment. I did not know if you
were moving just on the PUD or if you wanted to move both items, in
which case they will require two separate motions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the companion item is C;
correct?
MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Petition
Number DO2-2002-AR-2299.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
On both these items, any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, on the first item; right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're moving them both.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, at the same time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then I just have a question, if
I may.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, please. Continue with our
discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It mentioned here on 8(C) that the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was requiring some information with
regard to the Florida panther, wood stork, red-cockaded woodpecker
and so forth. And at the time that this is written, they hadn't received
Page 71
June 25, 2002
that yet. Is that part of this particular part of the PUD or does is that
come at a future time?
MS. MURRAY: That would come at a future time. It would be
part of the permitting requirements prior to further development
approval by the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Fine. I was very pleased to
see how they had decreased their density, and it seems like they've
really done a lot toward the environment. I just wanted to make sure
this was taken care of. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. And also, too, I'd like to close
the public hearing and still recognize the motions that are on the
floor. Is there anything else, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, only, you'll take one motion at a time. You
may want to identify the agenda item with each motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We just identified two of them
together. We shouldn't do that; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: As Ms. Student indicated, you'll need separate
motions but they are companion items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you care to restate
your motion, Commissioner Henning -- or Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the first motion would be
mine, and recommend approval of PUDA-2002-AR-2298, agenda
Item 8(B).
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it, 5 to 0.
Page 72
June 25, 2002
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2002-302/DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2002-01 RE
PETITION DOA-2002-AR-2299, ALAN REYNOLDS OF
WILSON, MILLER, INC., AND GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF
YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, AND ANDERSON, P.A.
REPRESENTING LAMAR GABLE OF BARRON COLLIER
COMPANY, LTD., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
WINDING CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
(DRI) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
QUADRANT OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI
TRAIL (COMPANION TO PETITION PUDA-02-AR-2298) -
ADOPTED
The next motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm restating my motion.
Approve Petition Number DOA-2002-AR- 2289, agenda Item 8(C)?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 8(C).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 8(C).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
And hold on. Opposition?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then the ayes have it, 5 to 0.
Page 73
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I just wanted to make a quick
remark to emphasize what this Board just did. It reduced the number
of building units by 592 units, reduced the gold course acreage by
194 acres, and increased the preserve area 83 acres.
I would like to congratulate the petitioner on their willingness to
do this. It definitely is, as Commissioner Henning and Commissioner
Fiala have said, something positive for the environment, and it helps
solve some of our density and potential traffic problems in Collier
County. Thank you very much.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2002-36- RZ-2002-AR-2487, VINCENT A.
CAUTERO, AICP OF WILKISON AND ASSOCIATES,
REPRESENTING THE GILBROS COMPANY, REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "RSF-5"(3)
FOR A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF GREENWAY ROAD, ONE MILE NORTH OF US
41 AND 3-1/2 MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The next item we're moving
to is 8(D), which will also require anyone that wishes to participate to
stand up and be sworn in.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any disclosures on the part of the
commission?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received E-mails that are in
my file, sir. That's all.
Page 74
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received E-mails also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I have met with the
petitioner. I have also had numerous E-mails from the residents
there, and that's about the end of my disclosure. How about you Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've received a few E-mails and a
few telephone calls, and I've spoken with Habitat for Humanity
representatives.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've received E-mails. And I
think somewhere back in my memory bank, that was Habitat for
Humanity. If there was anybody else that entered my office and
discussed this with me, I will put that on the record, and my record is
always open. You can come and look and see if you were there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioner. Fred Reischl,
Planning --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me one second, Mr. Reischl.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He was just asking to be excused.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. You may be excused,
Commissioner Henning. Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Have nice trip.
MR. REISCHL: This is a request for a rezone from agricultural
to residential single-family, and it's located off U.S. 41 east of Collier
Boulevard, more precisely, about a mile north of 41 on Greenway
Road. It's approximately a 26-acre parcel. And you can see from the
graphic, this is the parcel here (indicating). It's an old agricultural
Page 75
June 25, 2002
field with regrowth on it, and it's surrounded by parcels that are
zoned agricultural. Some are in agricultural use. And, in addition, is
the West Winds mobile home park to the southwest.
As you read in the executive summary, this parcel is within the
urban designated area. And I'll put the future land use map up here.
And you can see that it's located down here. And you can see -- the
bright yellow is the area that the subject parcel is in.
The boundary line to the east is Greenway Road. And across
Greenway Road to the east, the properties on the east side of
Greenway Road are in the blue, which is the rural fringe, and it's a
designated receiving area. So the parcel itself is within the urban
designated area, and the parcels across the street are within a
receiving area.
The density rating system for this parcel limits the parcel to
three units per acre. The base of four is reduced by one unit because
this parcel is within the traffic congestion area. So the maximum
number of units that could be placed in here are 79, which is why the
rezone is for RSF 5 capped at a density of three. The petitioner wants
the ability to use the size of a lot for RSF 5, but the density will be
capped at three units per acre, maximum of 79 for this project.
Also, this is a straight rezone. It's not a PUD. There is no site
plan or conceptual site plan associated with this. The petitioner has a
working plan, but that's not associated with this rezone at all.
Because of the workforce housing component of this project, it was
heard by the Planning Commission on June 10th and then scheduled
for today's meeting. The Planning Commission continued the
petition to the June 20th meeting, last Thursday, to have some
questions answered.
You read in your executive summary that the questions would
be -- that the result of that meeting would be presented here. I do
Page 76
June 25, 2002
have that result. I'll pass that out to you with one correction, I'm
embarrassed to say, I wrote at the bottom: "The Planning
Commission approved this rezoning." It should say "recommended
approval." I apologize for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fred, could you tell us what's on
this, because it's hard for us to read this when it's passed to us now.
MR. REISCHL: And the conditions besides the limitation of
three units per acre that staff had on there, the Planning Commission
also included -- I'll put it on the visualizer also. "The petitioner
agrees to pay impact fees and connection fees up to a maximum of
$6,000 per house for water and sewer connections or the homes in
existence on June 25th, 2002, which are required by county ordinance
to connect."
The next one. "The petitioner agrees that no building permits
shall be issued until June 25, 2004."
Three. "The subject parcel shall contain a maximum of 79
single-family homes. This condition may be modified if the Board
of County Commissioners approves affordable housing density
bonus."
Four. "The petitioner agrees that the maximum floor area of
each house shall be 1,100 square feet."
And the last one. "The petitioner agrees that in accordance with
the land development code and impact fee ordinance, the purchasers
of the subject homes shall qualify as low, very low, or very, very low
income buyers."
And with that, the Planning Commission approved the -- or
recommended approval of the rezone by a vote of 7 to 0.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any questions of staff,
starting with Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Coyle?
Page 77
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Yes, I have a few
questions, pretty simple ones. A woman of few words just wants to
know what the EAC recommended. That's my first question.
MR. REISCHL: Okay. The Environmental Advisory Council
usually does not hear straight rezones at the time of rezone. In this
case, they would be looking at a rectangle of land without any -- and
again, because this is not a PUD, it's a straight rezone -- there is no
master plan or site plan that would show where the lots would be,
where the preserve would be, roads, anything like that. So straight
rezones are usually heard at the time of primary plat.
Now, the petitioner has taken a risk in this case, because this
rezone is creating one lot that is zoned RSF 5, which means if there is
this huge wetland or habitat or something on the site, the max -- what
could build on the site would be one single-family homes. So they
are taking a risk in that sense, but they decided to go forward because
of the quicker processing time of a straight rezone verus a PUD.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So if I hear that correctly, sir, the
developer is at risk.
MR. REISCHL: The developer is, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. One at a time here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm still on my question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay, but you were getting
interrupted right and left.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
MR. REISCHL: Well, I don't think I answered it. The EAC
won't hear it until the preliminary plat comes forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was wondering, because I
got kind of confused. It said that there were a lot of environmental
issues and they wanted to do this.
Page 78
June 25, 2002
Okay. The second thing was, and it's just a comment. One of
the things that I liked so much about this particular PUD -- or rezone,
excuse me, is that they have taken into consideration the condition of
that road which is only a two-lane highway, which is something that
has bothered me a lot about other PUDs that have been requested.
They're not trying to impact the road. They've actually brought it
down to three units per acre, and I feel that that's exactly what we
need, plus, of course, it's owner occupied. That's my only comment.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have two questions. One is with
respect to the connections of the existing homes along that stretch of
road. The petitioner is very graciously willing to pay up to $6,000
per house for a connection. Do we have any idea of what the cost of
connection will be for those homes?
MR. REISCHL: I just talked to Mr. Wittis (phonetic). Well,
Mr. Cautero had gotten this $6,000 fee from talking to people in
utilities. Mr. Wittis, this morning, said that the total package,
including hiring the plumber to go from the house to the pump, et
cetera, would be approximately $7,800. If the petitioner pays 6,000,
that would be a difference of $1,800, which he said they would -- Mr.
Wittis said they would work with the homeowner and they can do
some time payment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we had to, would the Board of
County Commissioners still have the option of delaying the utility
tie-in for some of those residents?
MR. REISCHL: I believe you can. I would rather have Mr.
Weigel answer whether or not they can -- that you have that
authority. I think you do, but does the Board have the authority to
Page 79
June 25, 2002
delay a tie-in? Mr. Palmer from the County Attorney's Office said it
hadn't been done before, but I don't know whether or not you.
MR. PALMER: Tom Palmer, Assistant County Attorney. The
triggering date is 90 days after notice. And the ordinance does not
mandate expressly that the notice be sent out immediately. So there
is some exercise of discretion for good reason. It may be delaying a
notice to hook up. The ordinance does not say that as soon as the
facility becomes available, that 90-day notice letter must be sent to
the respective landowner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I was only concerned about
imposing some financial hardship upon those residents, and I would
just like to have some capability for delaying that.
MR. PALMER: Also, they can enter into an installment
payment contract where they can have their obligation financed over
an eight-year period of time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And my second question
is: We're going to limit this development to three units per acre.
Why don't we just rezone it to RMF 3 rather than going to RMF 5?
MR. REISCHL: Well, it's the lot size, basically. With the
house being at 1,100 square feet on an RSF 3 lot, you would have a
huge lot and a small house. And RSF 5 setbacks and lot size is a lot
more compatible.
And as Mr. Cautero will point out in his presentation, that's
more in keeping with what Habitat for Humanity builds.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, tell me about the setback
requirements then for RMF 5 and RMF 3? What are the differences
in feet?
MR. REISCHL: Versus a -- The front yard, basically, goes from
30 feet to 25 feet for the RSF 3 versus RSF 5. They're losing five
Page 80
June 25, 2002
feet in the front, but the lot size goes from approximately 10,000
square feet to 6,000 square feet. So it's a smaller lot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And side-yard setbacks?
MR. REISCHL: Seven and a half in both.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be seven and a half in
both cases?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to wait to hear from Mr.
Cautero on the arrangement on the hookup to sewer and water. I
raised concerns on this way back when it all came up, the fact that
these people may be saddled with that bill.
I want to know on the record exactly what it is for the payment
plan that's proposed. Is non-interest charged to them? Is it going to
have extending circumstances to it? If we have someone that is
severely impacted by this, there has to be something built in there to
give us some protection. I don't know what the economic situation of
all the residents on that is, but I'm sure there's some people that are
living on a marginal income. And I'd really like to know what these
numbers are.
Is there any other questions of staff before we go on to the
petitioner?
Mr. Cautero?
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Commissioners. Vince
Cautero, for the record, representing the property owner and the
contract purchaser. And as Mr. Reischl had indicated previously and
also was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, the situation
is somewhat unique in that my client has a verbal agreement with
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County.
Page 81
June 25, 2002
And if the zone change is approved, there will be a more formal
arrangement realized between those two entities to either donate the
property to Habitat, sell it, or a combination thereof. We want
everyone to have that information up front so you know what we're
doing.
I won't repeat what Mr. Reischl said, and I appreciate his
remarks. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I have a letter to
you with some graphics which essentially says the same thing as the
memorandum that Mr. Reischl handed out to you with the conditions.
But to focus on two issues, to not be redundant, Habitat's stance
-- and they have -- My clients have instructed me to work with
Habitat. So when these kinds of issues come up regarding lot size
and cost or other particulars, I've been talking with Dr. Dousseau. He
is willing to commit to the payment for the connection to the water
and the sewer in order to make the project a reality.
Additionally, as Mr. Reischl indicated when Commissioner
Coyle was questioning him about lot sizes, the RSF 5 lot size works
very well even though that's the not density. And we actually expect
that a cap will be placed on it. A 10,000 square foot lot size does not
work well with the Habitat houses, which are a little over 1,050
square feet, 1,064, plus or minus. So the 1,100 maximum here works
well with us.
Quite frankly, we would lose too much land, and there would be
less houses built on the property if the RSF 3 zoning were in place.
So that's why we request that zoning district, not for density purposes
but for lot dimensional purposes.
Dr. Dousseau would be happy to answer any other questions you
have about the commitment, but I am very convinced that they are
committed to the property and to building 79 more workforce
housing units in Collier County.
Page 82
June 25, 2002
I won't be redundant. I appreciate Mr. Reischl's remarks, and
we'll answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, I didn't get a -- I want it
stated clear for the record exactly what we're going to do on the
sewer and water hookup over the $6,000.
MR. CAUTERO: Okay. Can you give me two seconds. I'll be
(Brief pause.)
DR. DOUSSEAU: Dr. Sam Dousseau, President of Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County for the record. I guess what we'd like to
see you do as part of the zoning approval, put the requirement on that
whoever develops this property will pay for the water and sewer
hookups for the 24 people who are on that road, okay.
I just heard that it's going to be $7,800, and we'll try to figure
out a way to pay it, but it's going to be $700 per 24 -- - for each of 24
households.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
instead of the 6,000 -- I'm sorry.
So you want to raise the rate to --
I didn't quite follow you.
DR. DOUSSEAU: Yeah, we had agreed to 6,000 and now I'm
just hearing it's maybe $7,800. I mean, I'd love for you to say we're
only going to pay 6,000 and they can pay the rest, but you may not
agree to that. I'd like some data, something in-between. Worse case
scenario, we'll find a way to raise that money if we need the land.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we put a -- And I'm not trying
to beat you up, and Habitat is a wonderful project, but we're going
through some low-cost neighborhoods and I want to see if we an
accommodate them. Could we possibly come up with a cap of
$7,250?
DR. DOUSSEAU: That's perfect. But we just need something
to cap it.
Page 83
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then the balance of it could be
spread out over a number of years and it'll just be a small payment --
DR. DOUSSEAU: That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to show that they're buying into it?
DR. DOUSSEAU: That's fine. That would be excellent. Let's
do that. Let's put it on the record that the developer will pay $7,250
per hookup for the 24 hookups and the balance, whatever it is, can be
paid back to the developer over 10 years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if there's anything I can do to
help you with a fund-raiser to recap that money, I'll be there for you.
DR. DOUSSEAU: You know we'll be coming back to ask for
that. That's fine. Good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions?
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, if you need a further
breakdown on that, Mr. Wittis said he'll be happy to break down the
cost for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's fine. I think we're close
enough to it now, that I have that comfort level that I need.
DR. DOUSSEAU: We've also designated the 24 homes that are
there now. So they're on-- I guess they're in the record here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think I heard that correctly.
You're going to deal with the 24 existing homes, whether their homes
could be constructed in there. In the future, I think it is totally their
responsibility to do that, not the developers or Habitat or anyone else.
You're dealing with what's there today. And I can support that, but I
won't support somebody else going in there and quickly building a
home looking for somebody to hook up their water source.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you.
Page 84
June 25, 2002
We have three speakers. Why don't we hear them, and we'll
come --
Before we start, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I already said what I had to
say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll go to the three
speakers. You have to forgive me. Sometimes I see slight motion. I
think that's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- an indication you want to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're up on there. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your first speaker is Robert Bean. He will be
followed by A10'Donnell.
MR. BEAN: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
my name is Robert Bean. I've lived on Greenway Road for 15 years,
and I've operated Southwest Tropicals, which is tropical fish farm,
for the same period of time. I've also been an advisor for the
National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C. for water-related
issues throughout the country.
This is a request for straight rezoning, but it's also tied into the
whole habitat community. They are requesting five. One chairman
has talked about zoning to three. It's my understanding that they can
come back later and request an additional bonus, which is also my
understanding they intend to do. So we're talking 90 homes, not 70.
The biggest issue here is, which most of the people in the
community have, as well as the business interests, which are mainly
agriculture, is they're trying to put this high-density community at
the end of Greenway Road instead of down near 41. And it's creating
all kinds of problems as far as the road, in regards to safety, and as
far as also water discharge.
Page 85
June 25, 2002
The FlOrida Right To Farm Act and public policy with respect to
agriculture production statute give Florida agriculture protection from
this type of encroachment, of increased density. All three farms in the
area, which is Southwest Florida Tropical Synergy Seeds and
Southern Tree Farms, need to discharge water into the Greenway
Road system.
At this point in time, the whole system is at its maximum
discharge. Some attempt is being made by the county to clean out the
ditches, which are really not clogged up. The main issue is that the
size of culvert pipes are strictly around a flow that can be taken
down Greenway Road down into the 41 canal.
So in order to increase the ability of Greenway Road to
discharge more water, which is now at its maximum, you'd have to
literally tear up the entire road and replace all the culverts with larger
diameter-sized pipes. No one from staff and no one from petitioners
addressed this at all. That's one issue.
Sam has a very good project. My daughter even helps build
some of his houses. I'm all for it completely. Habitat community is
not the issue here. He's offered to pay for the sewer and hookup for
the 24 homes which we just discussed.
However, there's 48 homes within the system. And by
increasing the density, you're going to, in effect, create more flooding
that already does exist. It's not an "if" issue. It's a matter of fact
issue.
What about the other 48 homes in that area who are going to be
impacted by their own well and septic? What if their septic systems
don't work properly during the rainy system because of all the water
that's in the area, which is, if you talk to anybody in the area, a
serious consideration. So we're taking care of everybody on
Page 86
June 25, 2002
Greenway Road but we're short-circuiting, if you will, all the other
residents in this area.
Another dilemma is that the line between the receiving area and
the urban area is Greenway Road. In the first Planning Commission,
I think the assistant attorney made note of a statute that, in effect, the
county has to take into consideration what happens on both sides of
Greenway Road because it's an integral unit. You can't just say, well,
on one side this happens. On the other side, it's because it's a
receiving area or it's agriculture or something else happens. It's not
that way. It's one complete unit.
The road is very safe. There's a lot of trucks on it. We have
agriculture in the area. We have a lot of homeowners.
Unfortunately, I met with a couple who lost their son just a few years
ago on Greenway Road.
The neighborhood, their main issue really is the safety of their
homes as far as the water is concerned and the road itself. We had
suggested a sidewalk. That was, basically, turned down.
It's my understanding in this county that if you are going to have
a particular development come into the place, any of the impact that
they have on that area, they should, basically, pay for. Other citizens
shouldn't have to pay for it out of their-- in increased costs or taxes,
or in this particular case, their quality of life or their homes because
of the impact of the water and all the traffic and the safety issues with
the road.
Sam had put a nice article in the paper just before the second
Planning Commission. And at the end of the article, he, basically,
stated that if he didn't get this particular development, he'd be out of
business. He's got a very good, strong, well-funded organization.
Page 87
June 25, 2002
I even offered, after this whole process is resolved, to jump on
his bandwagon and try to help him and advise him as far as where to
get land and how to go about it. That's something I'm good at.
He doesn't need this piece of property to stay in business. It
does negatively affect 48 homes for a trade-off of 70, which they will
come in and apply for 90. So we're talking a density of 90 homes,
not 70.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need your closing comments.
DR. DOUSSEAU: About what? Sorry, I haven't done this very
often. I'd ask that you consider this proposal in its total aggregate of
four, not the affect that one particular piece of property will have but
what it does to the entire area, plus what's involved in area. The
agriculture is protected by the Florida rights, Florida statutes and
Florida Right to Farm Act.
In the end, there will be an issue. There will a problem with
water issues or safety issues with that area. Agriculture will be
protected, but the people who will take the brunt are going to be the
homeowners. And I ask you all to make sure you protect us so that
doesn't happen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
DR. DOUSSEAU: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is A10'Donnell, and he will
be followed by Dan Howard.
MR. O'DONNELL: Hello. My name is Dan O'Donnell. I have
a landscape contracting business in the Lee and Collier Counties. I
own a piece of property at the north end of Greenway Road which is
currently used as a nursery.
I support the goals and project of Habitat for Humanity. I'm
here today -- I'm interested in trying to see if the utility work could be
extended any farther up the road. I'm not primarily interested in the
Page 88
June 25, 2002
sewer portion but in the potable water portion. With employees and
doing nursery work, it's hard to get potable water in a rural area, and I
would hope that any assistance I can get in extending those lines
during this project would be very helpful.
I understand that some -- occasionally utility companies object
to resist putting in single and dead-end lines in, but I know there's
also a project just to the north of this current project which would be
to the west of my parcel.
I'm on the east side of Greenway Road, which is Naples
Reserve, or something, I think. It's the Perpocchio (phonetic)
Vineyards parcel. That's being currently developed, so I would
imagine there will be utility lines run through that. So I there is the
possibility of bringing a line up the road an looping through that
parcel so as not to have a dead-end utility line. Any assistance in
extending utilities north on Greenway Road while working with this
parcel will be appreciated.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: And your speaker is Mr. Dan Howard.
MR. HOWARD: I have a petition from some of the people on
the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your name, first, sir?
MR. HOWARD: My name is Dan Howard. I'm the manager at
Synganta Seeds. We're right next to the Lady Bug Farms, the
gentleman, Mr. O'Donnell, who just spoke. We're across the street
from the parcel. We have about 170 acres. It's a seed research farm,
and we develop new varieties of vegetables. We've been there since
1985.
Our attitude towards this project is very positive. We'd like to
see Habitat for Humanity to go ahead and be in this location. We
would benefit personally from the workers being across the street.
Page 89
June 25, 2002
The workforce people, we have three people in our facility that
currently live in Habitat for Humanity homes. So we're 100 percent
in favor of this.
Sam's offer to go forward towards paying the septic has been
very gratuitous, and I think that everybody on the road was very
satisfied. If you look at that petition, the first -- or one of the items
was the water and sewer hookup. At the time we thought it was
going to be $10,000. I've gone back to those residents and I told
them that he's willing to take care of that. And they're very happy.
Okay. So he satisfied one of the big items.
The other major item, and I don't know if it's as much his
concern as it would be a county concern, is the road. The road safety
was actually a larger concern of the residents than the water and
sewer. The road is very unsafe. The kids meet the school buses at
the end of three tributaries that meet Greenway Road. One kid, like
they said, was killed on this road riding his bicycle. It's the
respondent's only way of traveling up and down the road.
I don't feel that he should be solely responsible for taking care of
this road structure. However, the residents paid some of them
twenty-nine. We paid, ourselves, around 29,000 for paving this road
years ago. The shoulders of the road are poor. The road is narrow,
and I think that we need to do something. I suggested the sidewalk.
The reason I did suggest the sidewalk is because if something was --
if someone saw the amount of people that travel by foot up and down
this road, you would realize the problem.
That cars are traveling up and down this road, and there's dump
trucks coming up and down this road. O'Donnells have large semis
coming out with fruit. We have a lot of traffic from our facility. So
you're going to add another 100 plus cars to this system with this
Habitat for Humanity project.
Page 90
June 25, 2002
We need to really consider whether it be you, whether it be him,
whether it be a collective effort, we need to consider what we're
going to do about the road. We need a turning lane at the end of the
road. We need a turning lane coming from the east to turn onto
Greenway Road. We need to take care of the traffic issue, because
we're going to have more problems.
I believe that workforce people will use this road quite a bit as
well. There's a convenient store right past Greenway Road, about a
tenth of a mile or maybe a quarter of a mile from Greenway Road. I
believe that you'll have a lot of people walking up this road to the
convenient store. So I think this is a major concern of the people
still. That's pretty much all I want to say is that we need to consider
that issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
What I'm going to do now is close the public portion of the
meeting. And the commissioners can call on whoever they want to
answer their questions and concerns.
Commissioner Fiala, we'll start with you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I just wanted to ask
either Fred or Cormack if there might be any like CDBG funds or
shift funds or something that might build that sidewalk because of the
character of this development. I mean, it is affordable housing.
Maybe the funds would be available for the safety of the residents.
MR. GIBBLEM: Cormack Gibblem with the Housing Urban
Improvement Department. CDBG funds could be used for sidewalk
or roadway improvements in this area, provided that at least 51
percent of the overall neighborhood residents, including this
development but also the other residents that may be in the area that
are of low income. So that is a funding source that would be
available in the future funding year.
Page 91
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So if I understand you, that between
now and -- When is that? '04? When is it supposed to start, the
project?
SPEAKER: '04.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: --'04, that we might be able to
identify these funds to be able to move this sidewalk forward so that
while the construction is going on over the years, we can possibly
have the sidewalk complete.
MR. GIBBLEM: Sidewalks are an eligible expense in the
CDBG program, certainly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've heard the statement that
there's a possibility that the petitioner might come back in and get a
higher density approved if we take action on this one as it is currently
structured.
Density is a very important issue here in Collier County for all
of us, and I don't like to play games with us. I'd like to know up front
what I'm going to approve. So, Vince, what is it going to be?
MR. CAUTERO: It's 79 units today. However, if the applicant
did come in for an affordable housing density bonus at some point in
the future, they have to apply as a rezone for that. They just wanted
to leave the door open to do that. They have every intention of
developing. This is a 79-unit, single-family subdivision. But they
did ask on the record -- Habitat did ask on the record if there would
'be an opportunity to come in for that. They are not guaranteed that.
They would have to come back before you with a rezone package for
the additional density if they did it.
Dr. Dousseau, I'm sure, would be happy to address it. But the
answer we can give you now is that they want to leave the door open
for that but that you would tie this zone change at 79 units.
Page 92
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like the project. I'm not inclined
to do that, but I would support it if we eliminated that condition and
say that the subject parcel will contain a maximum of 79 single-
family homes. When I get involved in making these decisions, I like
to have some degree of certainty.
DR. DOUSSEAU: That's all we want you to say for now. I just
wanted to say that I don't want to give up our legal right to come back
for a rezone. So we don't have to put that down anyway. All you're
approving right now is 79 units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you're saying these are going
to be 79 low-income units.
DR. DOUSSEAU: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we know they're going to be
low income right now.
DR. DOUSSEAU: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then why aren't we asking for the
low-income density so that we'll know exactly what we're doing here
today?
DR. DOUSSEAU: The only -- the reason-- in an idea world--
And, remember, I try to be as honest as I can. We would have liked
90 units, okay. When we looked at this project, we thought we could
get 90 units without the density bonus.
There's a disagreement as far as the traffic area, okay. My
experts, including our traffic expert disagrees with the county
planners as far as whether this is within a zone where we have to give
up that one unit. We gave up and we're giving up that unit, and that
brings us down to 79.
Would we build on it if we only get it to 79? Yes. Okay. But
as we go through the financial implications -- and we've just
committed to pay about $200,000 for water and sewer -- a year from
Page 93
June 25, 2002
now, we may decide that we would still like to come back to you, but
it's a whole new process.
We still have to go to the planning board. We still have to go to
you few folks and you can no. And we may come in and ask for, you
know, another 11 units. I'm not saying we're going to. I don't know,
okay? But I don't know why I should give up the right to do that. It
shouldn't appear there anyway. It's a legal right that we have to try to
rezone the property a second -- another time. I can't give that right
up. You see what I'm saying?
MR. REISCHL: Commissioner Coyle, if I can help explain that.
This was also discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. And
by having that phrase in there, it's redundant, because the code says
they can come back for a rezone for, you know, any other purpose, to
remove -- The stipulation that says they're limited 1,100 square feet,
they could come back and remove that. But again, it has to go
through the public hearing process, the rezoning process.
So the Planning Commission felt comfortable to leave that
phrase in there because they had that right anyway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does this have anything to do with
the RMF 5 request; zoning request? DR. DOUSSEAU: No.
MR. REISCHL: Not to my knowledge, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand what you're
telling me. It's just that -- You see all these stuff here in these books?
It'd be nice if we could consider these things one time and know what
we had rather than having people keep coming back and coming back
and coming back and changing it and modifying it. I don't like
making decisions with the expectation that people are going to come
back and ask something else later on. But I understand it's a right. If
it's a right, let's eliminate it from the conditions.
Page 94
June 25, 2002
DR. DOUSSEAU: And that's all we're asking. And, obviously,
if we do come back, I would expect you to kind of have your back up
and be mad that we're coming back, and that's fine. It's going to be
my job to convince as to why we're coming back, and that's fine, sir.
I think that statement should not be in there. I don't think we have
the right to give up our right to come back, and that's what you're
asking us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
I make a motion for-- While we close the public portion, I'd like
to make a motion at this time that we approVe it with all the
stipulations that have been mentioned to this point, including the
assistance to be given to the homes that exist at this time for hookup
up to the amount of $7,250. And I'm going to miss some items here,
that --
MR. REISCHL: Did you want me to recap?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, would you, please.
MR. REISCHL: Okay. The petitioner agrees to pay impact fees
and construction fees up to a maximum of $7,250 per house for water
and sewer connections for the homes in existence on June 25th, 2002,
which are required by county ordinance to connect public utilities,
will work with homeowners for installment payments of the
remaining dollars, if any. The petitioner agrees that no building
permit shall be issued until June 25, 2004. The subject parcel shall
contain a maximum of 79 single-family homes. The petitioner agrees
that the maximum floor area of each house shall be 1,100 square feet.
And the petitioner agrees that in accordance with LDC and impact
fee ordinance, the purchasers shall qualify as low, very low, and very,
very low income buyers.
Page 95
June25,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I think that caps it pretty
well, and that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, a second by Commissioner Fiala. And we're going to open
up for discussion.
What we're going to do is if there is discussion, we're going to
go down the line, and everyone will have a chance for this.
We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have nothing further to add.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hearing none, I'll call the
motion. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it, 5 to 0.
Thank you very much.
And I think -- Mr. Mudd, would you agree with me, this might
be an opportune time to take lunch, and then we'll reconvene in our
special session with the county attorney? Did you want to make the
formal announcement that you need to make, because at the
conclusion of our lunch, we're going to want to have that client.
MR. WEIGEL: I can do that. I thought, perhaps, we were just
going to come up with the normal course of things a little later in the
afternoon, but we can make the calls to have people come in.
Page 96
June 25, 2002
As you know, we would go into special session, and then after
the closed session, come out and hear that item on the record. But it's
your pleasure, Mr. Chairman. We can make the calls and have the
people to come back to go to the closed session at 1 o'clock or very
shortly thereafter, if you like.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That sounds good. We'll have it at 1
o'clock.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, three is enough; isn't it?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Three is enough; that's the story.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three is good enough.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. Let's reconvene here and
Mr. Weigel-
Item # 12B
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL FOR SHADER-LOMBARDO
INVESTMENTS, LLC V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 01-
4135-CA-HDH, PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA-
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED
WITH CHANGES
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,Commissioners.
Um, as indicated prior to the lunch recess, um, this Board is coming
back into meeting following a lunch recess and moving to agenda
item 12-A under the county attorney agenda, which pertains to a
closed session meeting of this Board of County Commissioners.
Page 97
June 25, 2002
And I'm going to have Assistant County Attorney, Mike Pettit,
make a few remarks for the record before we adjourn and go to the
closed session in the Board of County Commissioner's conference
room. Mike?
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Pettit,
Assistant County Attorney. As you recall, this item was presented
last week at the, um, one of the land development code meetings and,
um, the Board voted to enter into Executive Session after we had
requested it with notice, um, because we're seeking advice on
litigation and settlement matters. As we go into Executive Session,
what I would say for you on the record is that the topics we can
discuss are limited to settlement negotiations and strategy-related
litigation expenses in connection with the lawsuit of Shader-
Lombardo Investments versus Collier County. And I also would say
to you that this is while an Executive Session, not- no action may be
taken with respect to that lawsuit. And with those limitations, the
only other thing I would add is that the persons in the Executive
Session with you will be me, Mike Pettit, David Weigel; County
Attorney and Tom Oliff, the County Manager.
MR. MUDD: Okay, Mike, Tom Oliff won't be going.
MR. PETTIT: I'm sorry, Mr. Mudd, but my interpretation of
statute is that it does have to be Mr. Oliff. what we have to do to be
able to-
MR. PETTIT: Yes. My recollection is that the Board voted to
go into Executive Session at that meeting and I don't think another
vote is necessary, unless you think so, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's correct. The record is complete for
you to adjourn so you will want to note adjournment to closed session
at the present time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Adjournment to closed session.
Page 98
June25,2002
Thereupon, (Proceedings adjourned to conference room at this
time.)
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, very much. As the County
Attorney, I will say that this closed session has adjourned. We are
going to move back into the Board room and reopen the Board of
County Commission Meeting in the Board room and indicate that on
the record with the Chairman and commence with Item 12.
Thereupon, (Proceedings adjourned to meeting room at this
time.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's reconvene.
MR. MUDD: You just finished 12-A, Commissioner. 12-A,
and 12-B will come out as a result of the discussion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ready?
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Pettit
here on Item 12-B. The recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve a settlement proposal for Shader-Lombardo
Investments versus Collier County. It's a lawsuit now pending in the
20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. Um, I believe
the Executive Summary before you sets forth the considerations and
the general terms, um, of the proposal. And if you have any
questions or directions, um, I'd be happy to hear them.
I also would note that the attorneys for the other parties to the
lawsuit, the attorney for Shader-Lombardo Investments, Mr. Vega, is
here and also the attorney for the Intervening Defendant, um, Phase
One, Building One Condominium Association, Pamela Stewart is
also here. And I don't know whether they plan to address any
remarks to you or not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is anybody signed up to speak?
MS. FILSON: Oh, yes, I do have one. I'm sorry.
Page 99
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't you bring that
person forward.
MS. FILSON: Pamela Stewart.
MS. STEWART: I would like to speak--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, ma'am. Up here at the
microphone there and speak. State your name for the record, please.
MS. STEWART: Pamela Stewart, I represent Vanderbilt Villas,
the Intervener in Shader-Lombardo versus Collier County. And the
only comment I wanted to make at this time was that my client is
pending their approval or disapproval on the settlement agreement.
Urn, it's pending the outcome of today's session. So I guess anything
that you do that concerns the Intervener would be a contingency. I
may want to speak again if Mr. Vega is going to speak. I don't know
that he's signed up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Vega, did you wish to speak,
also?
MR. VEGA: Yes, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll need you to fill out a slip.
I'll allow you to do it afterwards. No, after you finish speaking.
MR. VEGA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: State your name for the record.
MR. VEGA: My name is George Vega and I'm the attorney for
the Plaintiff in this case, Shader-Lombardo Enterprises, Inc. And
basically I'm here to answer any questions that may be phrased. If I
say something that's contradictory to what Mr. Pettit says, I would
take Mr. Pettit's word because that's your attorney and that's the
proper party to listen to. Um, I think that there are two points that I
wish to make that maybe, um, you're not familiar with. The
terminology in this case goes back to 1987 to an ordinance that was
Page 100
June 25, 2002
passed; that's a PUD ordinance. They measure the buildings from the
principal structure.
Our surveyor went out there and measured it from the base of
the building, the building being in quotes, "the principal structure";
adjective is principal. Afterwards, Mr. Kepple, (phonetic) an
engineer who worked for the County, he thought that was fine, and
we have his deposition and testimony. So we have two people who
thought that's how you measure it.
I filed this litigation to ask the Court to declare or decree, how
doyou measure it? During that, I obtained the expert testimony of
Mr. John Bothwell from Wilson Miller, who I guess is the dean of the
surveyors. And he said, "Yes, that's how you measure it, from the
principal building."
Then, as far as the engineers are concerned, I obtained Mr.
Stanley Holt, who I thought was a well-regarded engineer, very well-
regarded engineer, and he said principal is an adjective, if we go by
the dictionary, the principal building, the main substantial building,
therefore.
So I have four people who are not, you know, whatever, but, I
mean, they're very well-respected people who made, let's say a
judgment, but that's how you do it. Based on that judgment, I would
say to you that the terms, since it's not defined, at best is a term that's
unclear.
If it's a term that's unclear, it's somebody other than the
developers fault; so to speak. If you draft the contract -- you're the
person that drafted the contract, so that's a problem. So what we're
saying is that at this point there should be some method to resolve
this.
We're not at sore point with Ms. Stewart or with the County.
The problem is, of course, that the people who bought first in that
Page 101
June 25, 2002
building have been -- gotten used to looking out at open space and
now, all of a sudden, there's a three-story building in front of them.
So, obviously, they're upset. I can understand that.
However, we've done some studies that show that if you move
the building back another ten feet, you're still going to have a three-
story building in front of you. And when you look out the door,
you're going to look at the same building except that it's ten feet
farther away, so to speak, or 12 feet farther away.
We gave these studies to Mr. Pettit, and basically, they show a
line of sight and they show a vision. So what we're trying -- we came
and Mr. Pettit made -- offered a settlement, and we offered to pay
whatever the diminution in value was of those people's units and see
if we can resolve it.
We'll pay you the diminution in value of your unit, what it was
worth, with the building ten feet away farther, 12 feet away farther.
So we're trying to resolve it.
And, um, because Ms. Stewart represents several people, it's a
little difficult to get whatever it was, and they wanted an offer of
something, $250,000. At that point, after we fainted, we said, no.
And anyway, we say we're willing to do that.
So that's why we made an offer of settlement to the County and
to the other parties. And we'll settle with the County alone if the
other homeowner, so to speak, condo owners, do not wish to settle.
So basically, that's it, and that's what we're trying to do. And,
urn, there is a lot at stake. For us, it would be in the millions, because
we'd have to pay to take the building down; that's about a million and
we'd use level units; that's it, we lost.
If the County lost we've had about 22 sales that have fallen out
of bed. We've had all kinds of damages, as you can imagine you
Page 102
June 25, 2002
would. We can't sell the units, the bank will not refinance and the
bank is due now.
So if we go under, then the bank takes over the keys, basically.
Then you're going to be dealing with the bank. And the bank will
just fire sale those units; I presume it will be worse for the people. So
as a result of which -- I presume that means stop. Thank you. MS. FILSON: That was the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was the last speaker? We'll
close the public portion--
MS. STEWART: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, ma'am. I need you to
come up to the microphone, if you need to be recognized. But I'm
going to have to ask you to refrain from a lengthy comment; if you
would, please.
MS. STEWART: I'm not going to have a lengthy comment. I
just expected that I would be speaking after Mr. Vega originally, so
that's how I prepared my presentation.
Um, as far as my clients go, we had made an offer actually to
settle for $500,000, which we figured would be far below what it
would cost, as Mr. Vega has admitted, to tear the units down and go
forward from there. We were not met with the response.
We did fully air this issue in front of the, um, County
Commission, if you recall, last fall. So I'm not going to go into any
arguments concerning it. Um, we would prefer to see it torn down,
okay, moved back 12 feet, for various reasons.
And, um, I think what is at issue here is that they have indeed
violated the County Code. Now, I don't know how you settle with
the County when you violate their codes. But, um, anyway, we are --
we are not adverse to exploring, um, settlement opportunities with the
Page 103
June 25, 2002
Intervener, but I don't think you can actually get a settlement on this
issue without our cooperation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Vega, I'll allow you a
counterpoint, if you wish, to be fair. MR. VEGA: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I'll close the, um--
MR. PETTIT: Mr. Chairman, before you close, I just wanted to
make two real quick points so the record is clear. The County
disagrees that there's anything ambiguous or unclear about the code.
Um, and second, we disagree that the individuals Mr. Vega
referred to are in a position to offer the testimony he describes or that
they would even be allowed to by a Court under applicable rules of
evidence.
And I just think I need to say that because I don't want it left
hanging out there on the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And with that, we'll
close the public hearing and open it up for discussion or motion on
the part of this commission. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will make a motion that we, um -
- we approve the attorney's -- our attorney's recommendations with
the modification that the settlement offer be drafted in accordance
with the Court rule, which will provide us or preserve our rights to
seek, um, legal fees if we have to proceed with this issue.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion? You might want to
also, um, include the scope of who has to agree to this settlement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Um, I think -- I think that is in the
proposal. Um, I think it's clear that all parties will have to agree, um,
with the settlement and indemnify the County for the settlement to be
valid at all; is that not true?
Page 104
June 25, 2002
MR. PETTIT: Yes. As -- as I understand it, we would have to
have releases from the unit owners and the named parties in the
lawsuit, um, before we could enter into this -- into any kind of
agreement of this type.
And, of course, this particular code only affects these parties to
the lawsuit. It's not a -- it's not an ordinance of countywide
application, as I understand it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And is your motion also including an
amount, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Um, I thought that was in the
recommendation of the attorney. MR. PETTIT: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That concludes everything we
just said, Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, I think--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- Mr. Weigel--
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioners. Just to be sure that
we're clear on the recommendation as it appears in the Executive
Summary as adjusted by Commissioner Coyle, where we talked
about getting releases of all the parties, um, the Executive Summary,
I don't believe talks about indemnification. We're talking about an
absolute release, however--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: -- so that we would not be -- we, the County,
would not be involved in a lawsuit in any way, shape or form, should
this settlement agreement be approved by the parties.
MR. PETTIT: I also think-- and this is in the Executive
Summary, Commissioner Coyle, but as part of your motion, if you're
adopting that, I just want to make clear so everybody understands on
Page 105
June 25, 2002
the record that this would, I believe, um, also require an amendment
to the PUD and the cost of that amendment would have to be borne
by the developer slash building to the folks and the condominium
association slash Building One folks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I'll call the motion. All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it by
five to zero.
Item #8F
RESOLUTION 2002-303 RE AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT; TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT;
AND FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND TRANSMITTAL TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS- ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
Thank you. Now, we move on to 8-F.
MR. LITSINGER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. For the
record, Stan Litsinger, Competency Planning Manager. Before we
start the beginning of your public hearing for the transmittal of your
second Growth Management Plan amendment cycle amendments that
Page 106
June 25, 2002
we will go over with you this afternoon, I'd like to point out the
documents that we'll be working with.
Um, you'll be working from the white notebook that you folks
were provided along with your agenda packages. Also, during your
break, we handed out copies of planning commission changes that
occurred last Thursday evening. And also we had a copy of a
summary of some of the policy issues that we will be presenting to
you.
Those will be the items that we will be working from this
afternoon. If everyone has copies, I have additional, if they got lost
in the shuffle of papers up there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Um, Mr. Litsinger?
MR. LITSINGER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have three of these, is there
any revision?
MR. LITSINGER: I don't believe so, sir. They should all be the
same. The last page should be a page number 86, of transportation
element.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we need one more. We
need one more set of these.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, do you have one of them?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: I've got one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, everyone's got one set or is
there extra sets down there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here is an extra set.
Page 107
June 25, 2002
MR. LITSINGER: This pUblic hearing this afternoon is to begin
your second Growth Management Plan Amendment Cycle as
provided for under the growth management law.
Um, we will be asking you to transmit to the Department of
Community Affairs to begin the 60-day review period amendments to
your capital improvements element, your transportation element and
your future land use element.
The nature of these amendments has to do with your direction to
the County Manager at previous meetings; specifically, on May 14th,
to draft comprehensive planning amendments that were supportive of
the construction of land development code regulations, which
instituted realtime checkbook concurrency.
There also are some housecleaning and updates to the capital
improvement element based on your January -- excuse me, December
18th of 2001 AUIR meeting at which you gave specific direction to
staff and some of the updates and changes to the capital improvement
element in some of your level of service standards.
What I would like to do for you at this time is begin going
through the capital improvement element, highlights of the changes
that we're proposing for you today, which would begin on capital
improvement element page CIE-2.
What I will do is go through the pages with the changes based
on, um, your AUIR report and based on the directions you've given to
your staff, County Manager, Transportation Director and your
Planning Services Director.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What am I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it's your white notebook.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page CIE-2?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll be right with you. Go ahead.
Page 108
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you don't have to wait for
me, Stan. Just go ahead.
MR. LITSINGER: On page CIE-2, Capital Improvement
Element, the Goals, Objectives and Policies, um, we made a couple
of changes here. Um, Category B facilities, which are your facilities
that are not concurrency related to development order of issuance, but
generally your direction that you use in developing your county
budget based on your AUIR presentation, we have eliminated, um,
other government buildings and defend-- fire districts from the
capital improvement element as they are discretioned to the Board
policy and are not required by the Growth Management Statutes to be
in the comprehensive plan.
We've also -- staff is recommending that we delete Category C
facilities, which are advisory and informational only as they generally
are not -- the competency plan is not used for the policy decisions on
the funding or direction to adjoining governments relative to their
provision of these policies.
On page CIE-3, you'll see here that we have broken out the
rezone and Growth Management Plan threshold review of public
facilities provision to set up a separate category for transportation and
growth specifically.
Further, your staff is recommending that policy 1.1.2-C be
amended from five percent to one percent of the BEBR, Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, medium range population
projections and using the analytical methodology at the rezone and
Growth Management Plan amendment.
One note, that one percent of your BEBR medium range
population is about 2900 people. I'll keep going until someone stops
me with a question. On page CIE-4 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll stop you right there.
Page 109
June 25, 2002
MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me the impact of that change
from five to one percent.
MR. LITSINGER: Well, five--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Doesn't that create an additional
capital improvement demand when we lower that percentage?
MR. LITSINGER: No, sir. Not by the intent to review, rezone
and Growth Management Plan amendment petitions, um, at the --
prior to the development order of approval stage, it's merely a
planning guideline that says that the County will look at these and
make specific provisions in making the decision to approve these
rezones of Growth Management Plan amendments when the
population threshold that might be impacted by those amendments
that are rezoned is 2900 people or greater.
Previously, it was about 15,000 people, which was too high a
threshold to be looking at those at the initial planning stages. This is
a staff recommendation that we go from five percent to one percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have to do that one more time
for me. Let's say we're talking about libraries -- MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- are you telling me every time
the population goes up 2900 people, we have to take a look at the
level of service of libraries?
MR. LITSINGER: As part of a rezone or a competency plan
amendment, part of the analysis should review the impacts on the
library system as a result of the potential population increase that
could result from the approval of the rezone or comprehensive plan
amendment.
As a matter of practice, you will still be receiving an annual
update interim report on all facilities except roads, which is going to
Page 110
June 25, 2002
a realtime system where you will be given information on population
changes and projections that takes into account all of these decisions;
if that answers your question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It answers my question; it just
doesn't allay my fears, but that's okay.
MR. LITSINGER: Shall I go forward?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue.
MR. LITSINGER: Page CIE-4, which will be the first page in
your handout that had the red and blue notation on the front. Um,
here we went to the planning commission and you can see we have
broken out into a new policy, a policy 1.1.3, where we're proposing
the, um, implementation policies to establish a realtime checkbook
concurrency system.
Um,~ here initially, you can see that, um, staff had recommended
a one percent of the minimum level of service peak hour volume of
all impacted road segments. The planning commission here in this
particular case has recommended three percent as opposed to one
percent.
Also, we have done a clarification here relative to the, um,
definition of impact of deficient road segment. On page CIE-5 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell me -- I'm sorry to interrupt
you, what is the difference if it's one percent versus three percent?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Quite a difference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What does that do to our road?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. Right now you're using under the AUIR system a five
percent. What that does is, as development comes in, we require them
to look at any of the roadway link where they have a five percent
level of impact.
Page 111
June 25, 2002
Um, this Board told us that they thought that that took a lot of
development that didn't have a five percent impact on any segment of
a significant segment, urn, was too high. At your direction, we were
asked to lower that.
We've recommended one percent. Now, one percent will, urn,
require the truth be looked at throughout the system and will look at
different links even further remote from the project itself, if it's a very
large project.
First, we're looking at the sliding scale. Urn, your Planning
Commission has recommended three percent, but understand that's
the matter of what you look at relative to the impact. And in the case
of one percent, you look at more links in the system to see where that
impact was experienced. Did I answer your question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, somewhat. So in other
words, in your opinion, one percent is the way we should go in order
to -- to work with the checkbook concurrency; is that correct?
MR. LITSINGER: That's what we presented to your staff. I
know there's others that feel that going to three percent would be
more viable. I will tell you that if you have a large development, one
percent will send it across many links throughout the system. And so
it is much more exacting and demanding.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, this -- this really doesn't
have anything to do with actually approving the impact on the road;
this is merely a rezoning request?
MR. LITSINGER: This is only a rezoning and plan, urn,
amendment. It is not for your concurrency management where you're
looking at it realtime. This is rather at a PUD or rezone, as you
pointed out, Commissioner, or at a comp plan modifications.
Page 112
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if this were to happen in
accordance with the changes that you've recommended, um, this
particular development could not proceedif, um, they exceeded the
parameters of our concurrency management system.
So there's two levels of protection here, as I understand it. One
is it couldn't be rezoned if they exceeded this particular level. And
then beyond that, they couldn't begin construction if they exceeded
the guidelines of our concurrency management system; is that a fair
statement of what we're talking about?
MR. FEDER: That's a fair statement, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right at this point in time we have
the five-percent rule and it works simply by the fact that if we got
10,000 vehicles on the road at any one point in time, whatever
development is going in can only put 500 vehicles on that portion of
the road. And that's correct, that's what we have at this point in time.
MR. FEDER: That's when we look at them as being significant
and you consider the issue of their impact. If they come underneath
that, like we've come to you many times and you've expressed
concern and we said, well, they didn't impact any segments by five
percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. And we've always had a
problem with that five-percent rule because it had no end to it. Every
time a new development went in, the next one down the road could
have a larger number because the capacity of the road is built totally
on that.
MR. LITSINGER: And that's why we --
Page 113
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what we're saying is this is just a
reduction of that same way or is this applied differently?
MR. FEDER: No. This is applied basically the same way. But
what it does is, as you pointed out, your direction to us is that you
had concern about five percent --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-huh.
MR. FEDER: -- we recommend the one percent is really as
stringent as you can get, you really can't measure below that. Um, it
is a difficult measurement, I'll be very up-front with you on that. But
nonetheless, that is as strong as you've directed us to go out and do
and we've done it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, the other-- the question I got
then would be how would this globally affect us if this was put into
place immediately? What roads would immediately be cut off as far
as development goes?
MR. FEDER: Sir, I will get to the concurrency management --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry I interrupted.
MR. LITSINGER: -- and despite in and of itself would not, but
it would require that a development look at many different links and
it could bring that development into an area where it's being analyzed
on links for problematic where otherwise it might not at five percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Um, yeah, I just want a further
clarification, I guess, to make sure I understand this correctly, and
also for the public.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Um, this has nothing to do with
additional traffic on the road because this has something to do with
the time of rezone.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
Page 114
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The traffic on the road as a result
of the rezone might not occur for one, three, five, ten years.
MR. FEDER: Not only that, um, technically, if you pass
realtime concurrency, it wouldn't happen unless it was passe at that
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so that's right, we have two
protections here: Number one, we've tightened up the road impacts
for rezones, and then we've got the concurrency system for the point
in time when any of those things that have been rezoned begin to get
built or come in to ask for building permits, then the, um, provisions
of the concurrency system will apply at that point in time. So we've
got two layers of protection.
MR. FEDER: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas before we only had one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are we getting ahead of the
presentation with all these questions?
MR. FEDER: Not necessarily. If it's answering your questions,
that's not getting ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're very polite, Mr. Feder.
Possibly, we should continue with the presentation and save our
questions for the end, and maybe we should write them down.
MR. LITSINGER: Moving on to, um -- I need to point out each
of these amendments to you because in summary, they are fairly
significant. On CIE page 5, also which is included in your blue and
red handout, here the planning commission struck peak season under
Category A Public Facilities Al.1. And these references
recommended by them is peak hour.
You can also see that we've updated the schedule of level of
service standards for the roadways that we have designated as "E", all
others being levels of service "D" as defined by your system --
Page 115
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What page are we on?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Five.
MR. LITSINGER: CIE-5.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's in the handout.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I have it. I have it, paragraph
Al.l?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that 1.17 Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: Moving on to page CIE-6 as a continuation
of the updating your capital improvement element to record level of
service standards as had been proposed here in Collier County and
would also be reflected in your transportation element.
On CIE-7, um, we have updated your, um, level of service
standards in a number of areas based upon the AUIR presentation and
your direction to staff.
Um, specifically here you will note that we updated the level of
service standard for the South County service area from a 121 gallons
per day to a 100 gallons per day as directed at your AUIR
presentation based on the analysis presented by your utilities staff.
Clarification has also been made in A-7, in that we revalued
your facilities for parks facilities from 179 to $240 per capita
investment, which reflects the current cost.
Also down in Category B Facilities, um, we updated your level
of service standard for libraries based on your direction at the AUIR,
and the other is to provide additional information on the county jail
and emergency medical services.
Following pages, as you can see, we have deleted all the level of
service standards and references for Category C facilities as they
were advisory and non-policy related.
Page 116
June 25, 2002
The next significant change will be CIE page 13. Here, again,
you have a planning commission recommendation in your handout.
County staff had recommended that we delete policy 1.3.3, in that it
was a policy decision not related to Growth Management Act or the
requirements of rule 9J-5 relative to beach access and positive
proactive action by the Board of County Commissioners to both
retain it and require additional access.
The planning commission recommended that we leave this
policy and update it to reflect current timing. Okay. CIE-14 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait, excuse me --
MR. LITSINGER: -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- just one moment. So the planning
commission felt that we should still have access to the beaches, but
from what I got from the booklet was that we're not going to protect
the access to the beaches?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, ma'am, and, no, ma'am. The planning
commission felt that it rose to enough of a standard or a polished
level of decision-making process that we should recognize the intent
to provide these facilities in the capital improvement element of your
Growth Management Plan, the staff position being that it was a
policy decision and it's not related to any Growth Management Act
requirements.
It serves no harmful purpose to leave it in your capital
improvement element.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So staff is not recommending
opposing counsel's recommendation?
MR. LITSINGER: Staff recommended deleting it purely from,
um -- abbreviating the length of the document and for a simplicity
standpoint, it does not create any difficulties or obligations by the fact
Page 117
June 25, 2002
that the -- the policy statement is made in your comp plan one way or
another.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Makes me uncomfortable to have
that deleted.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, just to clarify, just another one, that the
staff deleted it because it had reference to within one year of adoption
of the 7th annual CIE updated amendment, and it basically, we've
already gone through the seventh and we're probably in the eighth or
ninth or tenth right now.
So the staff felt it was overcome by events. I mean, it's an old
clause, so it has no more meaning. But the planning commission
basically said it does have meaning and we want you to strike the last
sentence that -- or the last part of the sentence that says within one
year of the adoption.
So they're basically saying the County shall continue to ensure
the access to beaches, shores and waterways remain available to the
public and will develop a program to expand the availability of such
including funding options for acquisition period.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's important to me, too. I
agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad that they saw that.
MR. LITSINGER: On page CIE-14, I just want to point out in
general what we have done here is that we're updating your policies
that begin to lead in your concurrency policies later, you provide me
Capital Improvements on CIE 14.
To be specific in that we refer to site development plans,
building permits and all the functional equipments of-- equivalents
that we have in your Land Development Code, so that we have catch
development at the first to occur of any impacts of public facilities.
Page 118
June 25, 2002
And this, um, where you see final site development plan, final
plat, building permit or the functional equivalent of each will be
carried forward in policies as we go forward to essentially set a more
stringent standard.
CIE page 16, here is the beginning of where we outlined your
concurrency policies relative to the enabling legislation, if you will,
that will, um, provide for a transportation, realtime checkbook
concurrency system.
Um, here again the planning commission had recommendations
that differ from staff in the handout that I gave you, which are noted
in red, and I'll make one notation here so it isn't confusing.
Here we have outlined the -- the standards for determining
transportation concurrency, which very quickly summarize -- and Mr.
Feder can give you some more detail -- is that it will be a realtime
checkbook system based on the available capacity of the impacts of
the development as proposed as they come through the front door.
I will note to you that in policy 1.5.3-A, sentence number two,
improvements necessary to maintain adequate capacity will be under
construction, that's the staffs recommendation. The planning
commission had said, they would prefer, will be under construction
within one year.
And so there is no confusion, in number three you'll notice in
blue we have under construction within one year, and we had added
that based on the logical extension of policy 1.5.3-A-2 to 1.53.
Moving on to page CIE-17, here again we have the enabling
legislation 1.5.4. And I'll note the objective of the concurrency
management regulatory system for traffic is to ensure that the
adopted loss on any roadway segment is not exceeded by new
development.
Page 119
June 25, 2002
For roadway segments operating 75 percent -- over 75 percent of
the roadway service capacity, the concurrency management system
will address further impacts to the LOS on the segment until
additional capacity is provided.
Here again, these policies are your growth management GOP
level that set the stage for your transportation implementation land
development regulations and operations manual.
Beginning on page CIE-17 and carrying through page 47 is the
list of projects at a planning level that you directed to inclusion in
your capital improvements element at your last AUIR.
I'll notice -- note on page 47 that we have a summation at the
planning level of costs and revenues relative to the costs of the total
facilities provided and the revenue sources available to this County
Commission to fund those projects.
On CIE page 49, Programs to Ensure Implementation. Here
again, all of these are policies that are required in the Growth
Management Act to substantiate and be the basis of your
Concurrency Management System.
Under number one, we have changed it to Development Order
of Review. Here again, we're referring to final site development
plans, final plats, building permits or all their functional equipment --
equivalents.
And also you'll indicate here in the language that we're setting
up the level of service, Category A Facilities for the concurrent
impacts of development and the analysis at the time the proposed
development comes through the front door.
On CIE, page 50, here is a noteworthy addition of the planning
commission in the red, planning commission proposed, "There will
be a two-year phase-in of the realtime "checkbook" concurrency.
Page 120
June 25, 2002
The two-year period will provide for traffic and data collection
and analysis on the operating status of the road network measured
against the adopted level of service measurement methodology, and
the development of the Transportation Concurrency Management
System and Operations Manual. The realtime "checkbook" system
will be implemented by the end of the second year."
That is the recommendation of your planning commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I -- could I just mention
something here?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Um, we've got to get started on this
and we can't keep putting this off and putting this off. I think -- I
agree with staff, we need to start today, not two years and then in two
years prolong it again. Today is the day.
And I think, Commissioners, we all have to work together on
this. We have pledged our support to get a firm grip on growth and
this is the way to begin.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Litsinger, this is a
submittal to the DCA?
MR. LITSINGER: Transmittal for review.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
come back for adoption?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
effect?
Transmittal, and it still has to
There's still a comment period?
When does this, um, take
Page 121
June 25, 2002
MR. LITSINGER: Um, the days are not exact. Generally, we
would expect the objections, recommendations and comments report
from DCA around the end of August. And probably adoption by the
Board, um, the latter part of September.
Um, continuation of the review period for compliance and the
challenge period would end very close to the end of the calendar year
or January.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the one-year, when are we
going to start that implementation and that process?
MR. LITSINGER: Norm, do you want to address that?
MR. FEDER: Again, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. You cannot start implementing until
the land development code changes and the operating procedures
manual which we will work with that, as Stan has pointed out.
If you were to submit this to DCA, go through the process, DOS
would be the end of this calendar year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's -- that's -- and
then after that, the clock starts ticking?
MR. FEDER: Then you're into concurrency management and
all those things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. FEDER: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Um, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Feder, while you're still up
there, just for clarification on my part and our discussion, there was
an issue about technical data. Um, would it be, um, beneficial if you
had a year for technical data you put into the formula, which I've
heard anywhere from delay from one year to three years, but if you're
looking at a one-year process to do that, what assistance would that
be?
Page 122
June 25, 2002
MR. FEDER: I can tell you that we have data to be able to
respond to the issue today, but we have a lot of improvement that we
are going to recommend and based on your action and continued
action on the budget, you have two positions:
One of them is to be a data analyst. Um, we're also putting in
additional equipment account stations. Um, we would imagine that if
we move forward on this, then we will try to move on most quicker
than waiting until October 1 st or working to get an automated system
up and running since it wouldn't be before December.
If that's your direction, I will be ready and I will commit to
December to be ready in the system.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And if you had additional time it
would take us to what, October 2003?
MR. FEDER: That is obviously the choice of this Board. What
I will tell you is that while we do need to take the time that we'll
have, either to December or any other time, to continue to be refer --
or refine our data.
There's a lot of comments about not knowing what this will
result in and that can't be answered with no amount of time extension.
And that is, if I have 80,000 residential units already approved and
we're absorbing about 6,000 a year, nobody can tell me which 6,000
of those that come on line for me to know exactly what the impacts
would be as the rush comes in.
So what I can tell you is that wouldn't be known any better a
year from now or other extensions than that. As far as the technical
data collection, we're already starting to work refinement data that we
have. And I can show you where we stand, based on last years
AUIR.
We've added five roadway segments already. Urn, we're trying
to bring in more permanent account stations. We've four that we
Page 123
June 25, 2002
hadn't been analyzing from. We got four more that you approved; we
tried to get those on line quickly.
So, again, the earliest we'd feel comfortable going would be
December which is the earliest that you could if you took action and
continued to move forward on that. Um, beyond that, that's your
recommendation to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd just like to make a
statement here. I'm concerned about the delays, but let me, um -- I'll
address that at the end but, um, let me say something that I think
needs to be said. We have suspected that there are some problems
with the way we calculate traffic for some time.
Um, and Mr. Feder has talked with me about that, and let me tell
you that he is to be commended for bringing forward some of those
problems and identifying himself. Um, though some of these
problems, he hasn't tried to cover them up, that would be easy to do,
but he has brought forward some of the problems and deficiencies in
the way that this traffic has been, um, managed and, um, in the past,
the way it's been measured.
So I think he needs to be commended for having the courage to
come forward and -- and expose those inefficiencies and problems
and develop a plan to proceed with it.
I think that just demonstrates that the staff is making a sincere
effort to get this thing implemented properly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just make one more comment, if
I may. Um, you were very kind when you said that you suspected
that we've had road calculation problems. I mean, it's been beating us
over the head. People keep telling us all the time just say no.
Page 124
June 25, 2002
In this instance, we need to say, just say yes to the staffs
recommendations and go with it, take a firm stand. And that's my
opinion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's keep moving
forward. We still have the staffs presentation.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman, very briefly, you
will be hearing from Norman again very quickly. Um, the next
section is your transportation element, which I can tell you very much
parallels and is supportive policies relative to those policies we have
just reviewed in the Capital Improvement Element.
And a few cases, with some more detail, relative to the
transportation, um, process. I will tell you as you go into the review
and Norman will give you some more detail in the various changes to
the transportation element that the planning commission had
recommendations of differences, other than the staff recommendation
that are, again, contained in this handout on pages 78, 79, 80 and 86.
And with that, I'll let Norman touch on those for you.
MR. FEDER: Stan, thank you. Again, for the record, Norman
Feder, Transportation Administrator. Um, what I want to do is walk
you through, um-- as staff has done with the, um, transportation
element portion. And I'll -- there'll be a few things I'll highlight as
we go through that.
Um, basically, as you start into the table, the major thing that
we're doing, as you're well aware, is rather than going once a year
under AUIR for transportation and just saying once a year we'll
evaluate where we are and then utilize any construction that's within
the first three years as available capacity and move from there, we're
trying to go to realtime concurrency.
And so that's the nature of the changes that you have. Um, I'll
just call to your attention in general terms, and you tell me where you
Page 125
June 25, 2002
want to go in more detail. Um, you got some short rendition in page
37 that basically is talking about your MPO long range transportation
planning process, cleaning up some of that language.
Um, then on, um, page 38, traffic circulation constraints; most of
this kept the same. In need of what we're doing is moving away
from, um, some of the direct references again to the AUIR process
and some of the old language.
Um, you've got a series of maps and what I'll call your attention
to is the fifth map and tell you that that needs to be pulled from your
package. It reads -- and I'll put it on the overhead here so that
everybody is looking from the same --
It says Collier County Existing Level of Service. Obviously,
that's not something you should have in your Growth Management
Plan, especially with realtime concurrency, that is changing as you're
going forward, so that map is being pulled. If you'll pull it out of
your package, it's not going to be submitted as a map.
As you get past the maps, we get into the specific wording
changes that are being recommended, starting, um, on page 70. If
you've gone through -- and aviation made some reference here, um,
to the modifications and I'll let you look at those.
Um, not much changes until you get to the first substantive
change after public transportation, um, is on page 78. And if there's
anything before that, I will let you look through and tell me. I'm
trying be brief on this.
On page 78 is where we start the process of, um, going into the
particulars of the Concurrency Management System and I think it's
important to note on 78, um -- not anything that you just discussed on
CEI {sic} dash 16.
Um, and in the process that we're utilizing here that will become
part of the land development code, not part of your comprehensive
Page 126
June 25, 2002
plan, which is the matrix, urn, the provision there is for under
construction, not for within one year of construction.
So we're acknowledging something if it's already under
construction; however, as you have pointed out already under 16,
CEI-16 {sic} and also here on 78 is some of the proposal for
modified language to allow that to be with one year.
Um, the section here on actual traffic, um, as determined, the
peak hour service capacity is determined by engineering analyses,
capacity that will be used by new development, Certificate of
Adequate Public Facilities.
Urn, on page 79 -- I need to use both eyes here, urn, this is where
you have reference on 79 to the fact that, urn, we're going to look at
making sure that we're addressing the peak. As we look at the
system, we're working with your level of service determination.
But February or March, where we have the peak of the peak,
we're not trying to design the system for that, but rather for the ten
months in the year when we're applying the typical standards of our
highest and for industry standards.
Urn, on page 80, there is a modification, urn, basically to
constrain facilities, and this is an important one to note, and I will put
on the board here a modification that we're recommending to you
from what you saw before.
If you remember originally on the matrix, and again, this is not
part of the, urn, Growth Management Plan submittal, it will be part of
the Land Development Code in operating procedures.
But to put it in perspective, we originally had some segments
under 90 percent capacity under fifth year or not program, or in
fourth, fifth and not programmed under 95 percent where we're
talking about diminimus, where there's still capacity left, those are
Page 127
June 25, 2002
being modified to reflect a five-percent backlog and we don't go into
a moratorium or diminimus until you get past over full capacity.
The reason I raise that is we also had to acknowledge that you've
got some facilities that are fully six-laned today, your maximum lane
standard.
Um, and we need to recognize them as constrained, not only
facilities that may have exceeded 100 percent and are not yet
programmed to be brought forward as you have here with the ten or
five percent restriction on growth, but also those that are six lanes
like 41, Airport and other sections that are below 100 percent, but
may be over 75 percent. But there will be no other project
programmed specifically for it.
Now, if it does go over 100 percent then, as noted here, would
end up with restrictions applied to it and then no more than ten
percent -- or no more than 100 percent -- ten percent of capacity over
time.
So what basically you're looking at here is a definition of
constrained that acknowledges that once a facility gets to its
maximum standards, six lanes, or in the case of Vanderbilt Beach
Road where we have by policy or by physical situations; for instance,
Radio Road, gone to our four-lane capacity that, in fact, it goes into a
constraint status.
It doesn't allow it to just keep going forever, but it also
acknowledges that even if it goes past 75 percent, that doesn't stop
regulation on those roadways because they're already at their
maximum capacity, there's no project coming forward on. So that's
the nature of that change.
On page 81, you've got the recognition here, and this is a
primary item recognition of the fact that we have more partners in the
process than we've had in the past. There's Marco Island, lost City of
Page 128
June 25, 2002
Everglades City, um, recognizing the Florida Department of
Transportation was appropriate and those changes recommended
there.
Um, what I want to tell you is the nature of the system that
you're looking at, to give you a quick overview, is essentially to go
away from once a year annual AUIR determination to go to a process
that recognizes that we need to stop bringing projects forward as a
capacity on the facility it's consumed.
It doesn't stop development, it stops metering some of that
growth if, in fact, a project is not forthcoming. Um, as we get to the
point where we do exceed capacity, it puts us in the position where
we do, in fact, have to stop growth until improvements are made.
Again, what we've done is we've looked at it and we're saying
that we're using, under this system, the existing traffic that's out there
on the roadways today.
That's why, as the Commissioner pointed out and as I
mentioned, we're trying to expand our technical capability with
permanent count stations, a much more aggressive analysis program,
and even going beyond, um, our trans -- plan process to, um, more
sophisticated operational analysis where we find we have problematic
segments to make sure that we've a good solid technical base for
them.
In that mind, what we're doing is we're saying that the traffic
that's out there, if there is available capacity, as it comes on line, it's
evaluated. It is not given an adequate public facility at the time of
final subdivision plat, um, final SDP, unless there is available
capacity to grant to that segment.
If, in fact, that segment is over capacity, we'll have to wait until
improvements come forward or parallel improvements end up
Page 129
June 25, 2002
reducing that background traffic or the actual traffic counts out on the
road.
What I will give for illustrative purpose, not part of this comp
plan submittal but, obviously, everybody says what does this mean?
What can it mean? And I'll ask you particularly, I'll -- to highlight --
this is for analysis purposes.
What we have taken is last year's AUIR figures -- and please
understand that's year-old data. It doesn't have a lot of information
on five facilities we have recently opened up, um, new capacity
expansion, our computerized signal system, which is due to come in
place and therefore will change some of our green time analysis and a
number of other things.
In some respects, it's a worse case scenario if you applied the
system today. Now, of course, if you go to apply it and a whole
bunch of new development demand comes on any one of these
segments, that could change the equation.
But if you applied it today, what you've got is basically an
illustration of what that would mean. What you don't want is the red
segments, but red segments are basically three- or four-fold here and,
therefore, deserve pretty much immediate attention and discussion.
The first is the section of Immokalee from 41 over to Airport.
That's a segment that, in fact, is over 100 percent today. Um, it does
have a project scheduled to go to construction next year, which is the
good news. But if you applied it today, it wouldn't be under
construction.
However, if it's applied after December, that's in that fiscal year,
depending upon exactly when it would be under construction at that
point. That's true also for Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is over 100
percent today, has a project schedule that the capacity expansion is in
Page 130
June 25, 2002
the fiscal year '03, next fiscal year. But right now, applied today, it
would be over capacity and treated as such.
The other one is the one that you already have a moratorium on,
the planning moratorium, which is a section of Radio Road from -- I
mean, of Davis, excuse me, from Radio Road to 951, as well as the
section of 951, which is the fourth or related segment, 951 from
Davis up to 1-75.
And that segment, obviously, what we're looking at is, since you
have advanced the design that the State is going to pay for and we're
getting ready to try and stop that, once we get that -- we've already
committed our work program to advance to $7,000,000, the State has
programmed right-of-way -- is the opportunity to stop buying some
of that right-of-way to do some of the interim improvements.
Not immediate, but that's the answer to a lot of that unless other
improvements relieve that congestion and that segment. Those would
be the most critical. Obviously, the next, as you go down, would be
the backlog situation in the light green.
Again, the extension of Immokalee out to 75, which as I said, is
coming under construction, um, then the dark green, where you have
a ten-percent backlog -- and I won't belabor the point of going
through all of those. This is meant for illustration to give you an idea
of what the impacts would be if applied today.
What nobody can tell you is what the rush would be on and a lot
of folks have said, "Well, if you can't tell me exactly what would
happen at that time, then maybe you ought to wait." But the fact of
the matter is waiting will not answer that question, because nobody
can tell you if I have 80,000 units, as I said, 6,000 are being absorbed
annually, which 6,000 will be absorbed? So that's what you have as a
basic system.
Page 131
June 25, 2002
The changes that you have here, and I think this is the most
important point I can make to you, to your Growth Management
Plan, with those we had to make to stop the discussion, which will be
a lively discussion, I am sure, on the actual land development code
changes, are the public involvement and the completion of those.
This is to get the transmittal to, um, Tallahassee to get those
responses back to the basic system as we start developing it here and
as we start refining our data and getting ready for implementation and
a schedule directed by this Board.
MR. LITSINGER: I'm just going to brief a couple other
comments relative to your initial staff presentation. Um, we do have
two minor changes to the future land use element that we've
identified on blue page 11. Um, and here from a consistency
standpoint, we are amending policies 2.2 and 2.3 just from a
reference standpoint for internal consistency that we've identified at
this point.
And at this particular point in time, I would tell you we have
completed our initial staff presentation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COURT REPORTER: What was your name, sir?
MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this point in time, why don't we
open it up for the public speakers? How many do we have? MS. FILSON: Nine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you please begin?
MS. FILSON: The first one is David Ellis and he will be
followed by Rob Palmer, if would you like to come up and stand on
board.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
David Ellis, I'm with the Collier Building Industry Association. I
Page 132
June 25, 2002
want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and
really to go back just for a few moments and remember some of the
things we've been through together in relation to traffic and
transportation.
Three years ago, one of my first meetings, we came to you again
with a plan that said let's redefine how we look at transportation.
And more than anything, let's be about building roads. During that
same time frame, we've asked you to look how you fund roads.
We've been very aggressive, saying let's look at impact fees, let's
create those opportunities. And we've really tried as an industry to
deal responsibly with this issue.
During this actual discussion, we've worked hard with your
planning commission and with the staff to try to make this a more
workable product as it comes together.
Your staff will be the first to admit that we're all working to try
to create the best system we can, but there have been times when
we've looked at it -- and they've agreed with us, and said, "Hey, that's
a good idea. That will work better. We can see that working."
But more than anything, we understand the political realities of
where we stand today in this process and the pledges you've made to
the community and the things that we owe our community in terms of
what we need from our road network.
We agree, we need those good things from our road network,
too, but we need to be careful how we do them. When our industry
saw this coming, there's a lot of easy reaction to say no. Instead of
saying no, what we've said is, let's make this the best thing we can,
and we've worked with your staff to get to that place.
We think we've come up with some better and more reasonable
alternatives that can make this actually work. Some of those
alternatives were actually presented -- we presented to your planning
Page 13 3
June 25, 2002
commission. Some of them they accepted, some of them they didn't,
and some of them they modified. But they brought forward some of
those ideas.
Your staff is doing what it said it would do, it's sticking with its
original recommendation in terms of what they said, but your
planning commission came up with some good modification that will
create, I think, greater flexibility and an opportunity for your staff as
they really build this plan to do what they meant to do.
One of the other things we've done is we've brought together
some of the top planners and some of the top legal minds in our State
to really look at these issues that offer the recommendations. You're
going to hear from a few of them in a moment.
When we looked at our concerns with the plan, one of the things
we always said when we looked at comprehensive plan changes is we
don't need as much specificity or the specifics that perhaps are in
their plan.
We've really done -- we've gone far beyond what can be the
expectation of DCA in some places and really defining the specifics.
We've looked at that, and in some cases, your staff reacted and said,
"You're right, we probably can define that better in the LDR's and the
later processes. And in other cases, some of it has stayed in.
Another important aspect that you've already talked about was
when we came to the planning commission we talked about a phase-
in. We said, you know, as folks in the business community, when we
do a business plan, we don't think about next week and say, well, let's
plan for next week. We plan for years and years in advance.
And we -- my favorite quote, "We create certainty in that
process, we look for systems and things that we can follow." Even
today, as your staff looks at this, they -- they said today, they can't
tell us exactly what it looks like. And I realize there's variables that
Page 134
June 25, 2002
are out there that keep them from being able to show you the exact
plan.
But I have to tell you, Commissioners, even the measurement
mechanisms that they'll use to implement that plan aren't in place,
and many of the data collection and those types of things aren't here.
We don't even have the real plan.
We don't know-- we don't have the implementation that says
this is what checkbook concurrency is. We've got the first page in an
unwritten book about what we're going to do. And I'll tell you for
those that count on that certainty and that process, it's a very difficult
place to stand and look at the future.
But I'll tell you, the other things we haven't considered is the
community. It isn't so much are we ready, but are you ready? Do we
have the funding in place to set up the monitoring stations? The staff
that it's going to take to oversee and work with that process?
We'd have sat here for several days talking about where we're
going to have the money for the staff to do certain things. This is
going to take more staff time than we -- we really haven't talked
about the actual on-the-ground logistics, and we're talking about a
plan that could potentially go into place in December.
When we talked with the planning commission, we talked about
a three-year phased-in process. We basically said, year one, that we
would have a comprehensive assessment. We'd really figure out how
this thing would work. And we would operate under the three-year
funded plan.
Year two, we would actually try to workshop and test that plan
so we could use the real data, we could see it working, we'd have that
year of collection. And we'd move to the two-year funded plan.
Then, in the third year, would be the implementation year where we'd
actually work with the plan as it came into place.
Page 135
June 25, 2002
I thought that was a reasonable transitional phase into the plan,
and that's what we recommended to your planning commission.
Now, they looked at that and they said, "We can probably do that in
two years," and that's what they recommended to you.
And again, I'll tell you, two years is a short-planning window for
those folks that have a tremendous investment in land and in
development in the future. I'll be real quick.
Commissioners, one of the things that you said the other day,
you made a pledge and a pact with our community. For one part of
that, that I do want to remind you of, it says, "Whereas it is the
responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners to implement
this plan in a way which preserves the economic vitality of our
community and does not produce adverse unintended consequences."
Commissioners, I would -- I would say to you today that I'm not
sure we can still understand the full consequences of this plan for you
and for us. That's why when we say to phase-in, we're not looking to
shirk our responsibility of those opportunities, but we're trying to
ensure that we don't dislocate an important part of the economy of
Collier County in this process.
We said it before, Commissioners, that it's not the planning
mechanism that's important as it is the execution mechanism. We're
really looking at a new planning mechanism and we applaud you for
it. But let's continue to allocate our resources to the execution
mechanisms and remember the folks that came down here on May
14th.
Those working folks that said to you by the hundreds that came
here for the rally and then some that came up here and spoke to you,
protect them, remember them as you make your decision today. Let's
move ahead. Let's set in place and in motion the activity, but let's not
Page 136
June 25, 2002
get ahead of ourselves and do something that's irresponsible to the
economic phases of Collier County.
Thank you, very much, and I apologize for going over.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rob Palmer and he will be
followed by Reed Jarvey.
MR. PALMER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Rob Palmer,
RPA Group, Tallahassee, here on behalf of Collier Business Industry
Association. I appreciate the opportunity.
I was asked to take a look at what checkbook concurrency is and
what Collier County is wanting to move towards. And in doing that
review, I had to sort of reflect back on what is concurrency
management and what we have done in the past.
Well, essentially, what you're trying to do is institute a
concurrency system very much like many of the communities did in
the beginning of growth management, which was in '90 -- '89, '90,
'91; that period of time.
Um, most of the communities did implement a checkbook-type
concurrency system. The difference is they had a comp plan in front
of them. They had spent years developing a comp plan, adopting a
comp plan providing the information to back up necessary -- to
understand how they're going to build their concurrency system.
And then maybe in '91, '92, they adopted those concurrency
systems. So there was a couple of years of advance -- reconnaissance
advance information put together. Where you really find yourself,
now, I think, is more of a backlog of product.
You have a product called transportation system that you're
going to a backlog or back-order mode. Um, you've collected fees,
you've gone about trying to fund those projects, but it just hadn't
gotten done over some period of time.
Page 137
June 25, 2002
For the last 18 months, it appears you're back on track. You're
taking the time and the necessary -- putting the necessary resources to
getting those projects going.
What I think is being circulated to the -- to the Board members
now, um, is a couple of graphics. And the good news is I'm not
going to go through all of that, but I did want to bring your attention
to a couple of things. Does everyone have those yet?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: (Nodded head affirmatively.)
MR. PALMER: The first is the project time line. Essentially,
this diagram tries to illustrate -- if you want to put one up on the
screen, that would be fine as well, tries to illustrate that what it -- how
long it takes to build a road, how long it takes to build a project.
There's a reason why we look at a three-year funded plan and
that is because you don't build roads in a year, you don't build
projects in a year. Why do we need to maintain a three-year funded
plan? Why was it even put into place?
Well, back in the mid 90's, the State, having dealt with
concurrency for two or three years, saw that there was a recognition
that we -- one, could not rely on the full five-year improvement
programs, either from the State or from the local communities,
because the fourth and fifth year was always fairly fuzzy.
But they did understand that the reality is that these plans, in the
first two or three years, are very well-thought through. You've put
your money -- you've put your money where your mouth is. You've
said these are the projects we're going to build. We can't change our
mind every year, so you move forward with it. That's why a three-
year plan makes sense to maintain.
The State has blessed us. Most communities, over the 400 or
500 municipalities and counties we have are using this three-year
Page 138
June 25, 2002
plan because of that rational connection to when a project comes on-
line and the traffic hits the road.
In communities with impact fees, this is even more important.
Because what you're doing is you're collecting money towards the
improvement that you've laid out in your TIP. All of a sudden, if
you've decided that you're -- or I'm sorry, your CIE, if you decided
that your improvement program could only be worth one year, your
fees have essentially been collected for multi-year projects; how do
you reconcile those two? We think that's a -- that's a slippery slope to
be on.
The data is just not available to implement a system this quickly.
Again, checkbook concurrency is not new. It's been around, but it
took multiple years to put these systems together. The assessment of
what the capacity of your roadways are at right now has not even
been conducted yet, much less, what is the future traffic?
We know how many projects are in the hopper. You know that,
you can go back into your records and see what you've approved or
what you're getting ready to approve or what you've recently
approved.
You can start to put that together and understand what is the
future traffic going to be next year or the year after. It's not rocket
science. But you need to take the time to go through the process of
putting those in the hopper, not just relying on a traffic count you
might take.
The additional projects, the parallel roads that are being
constructed now, the projects that Norman mentioned that there's five
on-line and there's more coming, um, are important but you got to
wait until they're here before you know what they're going to do for
you. But you can go out and plan for those.
Page 139
June 25, 2002
Lastly, the funded plan has to be -- they have -- the funded plan
has to be in a workable relationship to how development comes on
line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, you're going to have to
wrap it up.
MR. PALMER: I will. The relationship is what this diagram
tries to -- tries to illustrate; that's what realtime is, the reality of when
it hits the road versus when the project is on line. You can't ask that a
road be built ahead of the impacts. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Reed Jarvi and he will be
followed by David Graham.
MR. JARVI: Commissioners, my name is Reed Jarvi. I am a
Professional Engineer with the firm of Vanasse Daylor and I do a fair
amount of work in Collier County and I've been in front of this Board
before talking about traffic issues.
I'm one that does the analysis so I have at least some, um,
background in this. And I'm going to talk about the same things that
Mr. Palmer just talked about and some others about the data.
We have an amount of data in Collier County, we do 203 sort of
odd-count stations. We count those data -- that data. We have one
permanent count station that we've been using for FDOT. We now
have several others, four I have heard. I've heard two that we have
the data from that hasn't been analyzed.
We need to get that data to see what the peak time is, to see what
the peak hours -- to see the factors that we use doing the analysis.
We don't have that data yet. We don't have that analysis yet.
The capacities we've projected that, um, the Transportation
Department did about eight or nine months ago were based on DOT -
- FDOT default value. They weren't based on Collier County specific
volumes. They weren't based on link specific characteristics.
Page 140
June 25, 2002
How can we say that this road is necessarily deficient or not
deficient if we're making guesses? We aren't using actual data. We
don't have that yet. It is coming on-line, but it's about a year off.
I think it is -- as a comparison, Lee County has had a
concurrency management system somewhat similar to what we're
proposing for several years, and they have 406 count stations, 50
permanent count stations and have collected data on that for as long
as I can remember in the ten-year-plus standpoint. So they have a lot
of data; we don't.
We need to go to get that data and proceed with getting it before
we implement a system that we don't -- don't know what the
implications are. Other things, the language, in my opinion, we have
two specific and several instances of this comprehensive plan.
We talked about the matrix, we talked about, um, volumes and
percentages. We don't know what the system is. That's going to be
developed over the next several months. The policies and procedure
manuals we talked about, the land development codes, I think we
should be talking about the concurrency management system.
We want to say realtime management system, that's fine, but we
shouldn't talk about the matrix, because we don't know that the
matrix is the answer. That's one -- that's a proposal at this time.
Um, in relation to the one percent, five percent, three percent,
the current theory that we use in traffic is not that precise. We aren't
talking about water in pipes that has had years and years of
calculations and that used as incompressible liquid and engineering
can measure that. We have things that change daily.
One percent of a four-lane road, one of the level of services is
1850 vehicles per hour. One percent is 19 vehicles. Day-to-day
fluctuations will account for 19 vehicles. One percent is too precise.
The systems we have in place at this point in time are not that precise
Page 141
June 25, 2002
from a measurement standpoint so it would be inappropriate to use
one percent.
Um, in relation to the concurrency management system, I don't
have a problem with the philosophy of it. I think it's a good idea and
we should have been doing it for years more than we have. But we
should not be passing the -- the issue or the -- we should not be
passing the concurrency management system into rezones.
Rezonings, there are many out there now, Norman Feder has
talked about, um, I remember 6,000 units per year and there's
thousands of units out there. We don't know what's out there. We
need to get a handle on that first.
The two last things that I want to talk about is we need to have a
connection with the Concurrency Management System to the Capital
Improvement Program. I've read it. I've read over the proposed
language.
I'm not a planner, but I don't see that there's a connection that
takes it full circle that if there's deficiencies noted in the concurrency
management system, that it causes it automatically to go into the
Capital Improvement Program. We can't have a deficiency forever,
we have to bring it back full circle that says it is an improvement
that's on schedule.
And the last thing I'm going to mention is that there is quickly
becoming a "sky is falling mentality." I have several -- I have a
developer that I've talked to who is already looking at buying
concurrency certificate. I have others that are talking to me and
there's a rush to the door at this time.
We talked about at the Planning Commission that it was coming.
It's not coming; it's here. Thank you, very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is David Graham and he will
be followed by A1 Zichella.
Page 142
June 25, 2002
MR. GRAHAM: Good afternoon. Thank you for having us
here. My name is David Graham. I am a Transportation Planner by
education. My first job out of school was, um, doing planning for
Broward County, Florida. And I'd like to share -- or the Ft.
Lauderdale area.
I'd like to share some of the stuff with you that we did and I also
would like to represent, in representing the Southwest Florida
Transportation Initiative, a group that we think that we've worked
with you in a very positive way and we'd like to continue as we move
forward.
Generally speaking, starting off with SWFTI, we've always tried
to build consensus and community support. Um, we've tried to be
positive. What we have found is that whenever we're in a contentious
setup, whether it be environmental matters or transportation matters,
we lose.
Whenever we are opposing each other and not working together
as a community, we lose. Transportation dollars go other places,
environmental dollars go other places. And very simply, we can't
handle the changes, the radical changes, that this kind of controversy
and contentiousness brings.
We get one commission, um, that is taking power that does
something that aggravates another. Um, you have a change in policy,
another group comes in and that's not good for our-- our business.
Um, we need stability; it's not good for our overall community.
And not at all saying that the different people that are taking
these actions don't feel that they've got the highest character, they're
doing -- the thing that they feel in their heart is correct.
I guess what I am saying very specifically about the process that
you have in front of you is that it is proceeding without consensus; it
is going exceedingly fast.
Page 143
June 25, 2002
As, um, -- and we -- we fear-- I fear, myself, to be very
straightforward with you, coming from me, that this has -- could have
drastic consequences for the entire community. And I mean that very
-- very seriously.
Looking at the compound effect of all the things that have been
done here, um, Norm's a great transportation professional.
What he has done here is going to have drastic effects on your
community. You can't take away a three-year road program -- if you
think -- if you think things are on the edge right now, you take away
your three-year road program, you take away 25 percent of your
capacity by going to the 75 percent that Norm has mentioned, you
take away the five percent significance and go to one percent. I think
you have to realize this is going to have a dramatic impact on the
community.
Now, you might say, good, that's -- that's what we're attempting
to do and I think in your heart that's where most of you are coming
from; I really believe you are.
But what I had learned on the east coast with some of the very
same feelings, as I was a planner there, is that we had equal and
opposite reactions for almost every policy that we took like this.
For example, I heard you being very positive this morning on
your comments on reducing density. Well, to me as a planner, what
that does is that forces growth further east.
If you reduce the density in the infield areas where we, as
professionals, all say to each other and believe in our-- in our
knowledge base that we want to have a growth in the infield areas,
not in the areas, Nancy, that we're trying to protect to the east.
Um, but by doing this, reducing the density and then having
moratoriums, as we're going to have in the western areas, if you look
at Norm's maps, we're going to exclude not only from reducing the
Page 144
June 25, 2002
density, but now prohibiting growth through a moratorium in these --
in these western areas.
Well, the growth is coming. That's what we found in Broward
County; it didn't stop. It kept coming and it just flowed out to our
hinterlands, to our environmentally sensitive lands. So I guess what
I'm saying to you is, you're doing what you feel is right in your heart,
but I think it's having an equal opposite effect on the community and
we just can't afford that as community leaders. We have to take a
mid-range approach.
I think a more thoughtful approach would be to change the
system carefully in order to understand the impact, and I don't think
that means you have bad character. I don't think it means that you're
weak.
I think right now, looking at the way this thing is going with the
pressure that is upon you, the easy thing is to move quickly. I firmly
believe that. I really -- I feel for the position you're in.
But I think the pressure, the press and everything else, is
pushing you to make the easy decision right now instead of the real
tough decision. The tough decision is to consider the consequences
on the community overall.
We think you need to consider a gradual phase, um -- phase-out
of the three-year road program, urn, which you've been counting in
the past as capacity. We think that's a severe change to say zero.
We think you need to phase in the checkbook system over the
three years, not immediately. And we think you need to look at some
of the recommendations of the Planning Commission to phase this in
-- in a responsible way as leaders that you are.
Radical changes very simply are not good for the community.
Urn, jobs and family welfares are at stake. And in closing, I simply,
um, support the changes, urn, proposed by the Collier BIA and we
Page 145
June 25, 2002
need very simply a soft landing here. Thank you, very much for your
time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is A1 Zu --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Zichella.
MS. FILSON: -- Zichella, thank you. And he'll be followed by
Tracy Arder.
MR. ZUKELLI: And for the record, it's Zichella. Good
afternoon. I'm speaking today as an employee of WCI Communities
and also as a chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee at CBIA.
All of you have been guests at our meetings, so I guess I know
all of you, obviously respect you. Okay. And thanks for the
opportunity to participate in this debate and to offer my remarks.
The issue before us today is as important an issue as I can recall
in the 16 years that I've been a resident. To that end, I must say that
the public and private sectors have been diligently working to help
define -- redefine the currency -- concurrency.
And we've done so in a remarkably positive environment and
have brought a great deal of collective thought and expertise to the
table to work out a document that we felt would be sensible, and
which would actually start to put us on the right path.
It doesn't seem that what we thought we had worked out would
be -- is being considered. You can see that we're relying on, I guess,
three different versions of the world here. Um, we felt we were very
constructively adding to the debate and it doesn't sound to me as if
we're going down that road right now.
For our part in the building community, CBIA has sought out
and hired experts that we felt were the best minds of transportation
concurrency, both law in practice here and statewide. You will hear
from -- or you've actually heard from Rob Palmer and eventually
Page 146
June 25, 2002
from Ron Weaver, who will speak to the legal aspects of the issue as
well as from others.
Um, Rob Palmer, he lectures on the topic of concurrency all
over the State. I believe that their background on this topic is based
on a broad set of experiences from all over the State in bringing
necessary and valuable perspective to the debate.
So I really urge you to -- to hear them and hear their message.
Locally, we're fortunate to have others; Jeff Perry, Wilson Miller,
Reed Jarvi, who already spoke, among others who are also extremely
well-versed and well-thought of statewide.
The building and development communities contributing to this
process by reaching out to these people help bring the issues to the
proper light and to keep them in the proper perspective.
We're exhibiting once again, as we think we always do, urn, our
willingness to be good neighbors, as well as our civic conscience, and
trust that you will consider our work on this subject in your
deliberations today. We really hope that you will.
With that being said, I would now like to appeal to you on
another side of this issue, that being the fairness issue, which may be
getting overlooked a little in this debate. Due to the highly technical
nature of the issue and the short time frame, we've all had to help deal
with it.
It occurs to me that this is a crucial topic and should not be
excluded from our discussions here today. Mr. Ellis of CBIA has
often described the transportation concurrency backlog as a delivery
problem by the County. He is entirely correct.
I submit to you that it is more than just a problem, it's a failure
to honor the responsibility the County has to its residents, as well as
to their future residents from whom we collect the impact fee. We
pretaxed them when they come in.
Page 147
June 25, 2002
We have an obligation to deliver the goods and services that we
promised them. And in this case, it happens to be roads. The County
collected some of the highest road impact fees in the State, per
residence, and promised to deliver the roads and nothing happened
for about four years; almost four years.
The City had nothing happen for four years. That's a delivery
problem. Casting the blame for this on -- solely on the development
community is unfortunate and unfair, and that's what will happen.
We're going to go into moratorium if this plan goes in unamended.
And we will be suffering. And I submit to you there's a lot of
people who will get hurt by that. Refrain we hear is a familiar one
and it really needs more imagination. This mantra by a no-growth
crowd and their cheerleaders in the press, use the same catch phrases
ad infinitum. Runaway growth, greedy developers, unbridled
development.
Of course, they've managed to forget a very important detail,
that the developers in our community have done their part and more.
We paid our fees. We met and exceeded every permitting burden
that has been put before us. We built and dedicated all the internal
community roadway.
And we built and developed communities that are renowned the
world over and that's not an exaggeration. Everybody knows about
our international clientele, for the quality of our communities and the
quality of life that we can produce.
We use all of the planning tools necessary, as developers, to
provide such world-class products and have delivered that product
efficiently. There are those in those debate -- or in this debate who'd
rather wring their hands and cast blame.
And you may be speaking about the press here and others, but I
think the position is shameful. There's a lot of people whose lives are
Page 148
June 25, 2002
going to be affected by this. And we're handling it way too lightly.
I'll wrap up, if I can.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, do.
MR. ZUKELLI: We will, of course, have to reserve all our
legal rights and remedies if necessary that we hope we will never
need to use them. And I do so on behalf of myself, our Executive
Director of CBIA and all our consultants; including Rob Palmer.
Many thousands of Collier residents are depending on our
ability to continue our work and they should not be disenfranchised,
but in this process, this is a process that appears to have been rushed
through.
Fortunately, we're here today to be contributors to the process
and not as antagonists. Please don't make the mistake of defining or
accepting a definition of realtime concurrency as one which means
the roads have to be in place and completed as a precondition to
improving development.
It's a ridiculous conclusion, given what we know about the time
line of road construction and the corresponding consecutive time line
for infrastructure placement, permitting and building construction.
And I think that's illustrated on Mr. Palmer's chart.
We should have the courage to define realtime concurrency as it
really is. Let's really define it and allow a narrowly crafted -- and not
allow a narrowly-crafted, poorly-worded definition to be transmitted
to DCA. That would be very harmful.
Be truthful about the three-year funded plan and accept the
honest truth that that is barely adequate and only marginally clear to
developers anyway. That's what's in order here today.
And, um, please don't defer to any language as damaging the
vibrancy of our community. Thank you, very much for the
opportunity to speak.
Page 149
June 25, 2002
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tracy Arder and he will be
followed by David Heart.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nobody stepped up. Why don't we
go to Mr. Heart.
MS. FILSON: David Heart? He will be followed by Ron
Weaver.
MR. HEART: Commissioners, I'm David Heart with WCI
Communities and I would really just like to make five points to you
today:
First and foremost is, um, something I think is really important
to consider here, and that is that your planning commission members,
last Thursday by a vote of five to one, submitted to you that you
should consider phasing this in over two years.
We believe that phase-in is critical to this County to allow for
time to do it right. Um, the staff has said that, um, there's no need to
wait for additional data because it cannot be collected. I don't think
that's true.
I think there are experts out there in the State that the County
could employ to get a grasp of what-all is possible to be developed
out there in the County and what kind of an impact it will have on our
roads. And I think it can be done in a fairly short period of time.
Our own proposal allows for that assessment period in the early
part of the phase-in. Third, please don't send an imperfect document
to DCA. DCA expects better than that from Collier County and the
people of Collier County deserve better from their government.
Fourth is the issue of economic vitality. I've lived in some
places in this State and other parts of the country that would give
anything to have the kind of economic vitality that we enjoy here in
Southwest Florida.
Page 150
June 25, 2002
I'm sad to say that the document that's before us now, if it
remains unamended, I believe will have some very adverse impacts
on our community in terms of jobs and, um -- and I don't think that
you-all want to have those kinds of adverse impacts.
In fact, your very own compact that you signed last month says
that you will do it in a way that doesn't adversely and unintendedly
{ sic } harm our economy.
Fifth, our recommendation to phase this in achieves your goal of
real concurrency, but it does so in a way that allows us altogether to
keep our eyes open as we move forward in checkbook concurrency
instead of on a set day, all jumping off the cliff and closing our eyes
together and hoping for the best.
So I urge you to consider our proposal and to accept our
amendment to phase it in and send it forward to DCA. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Ron Weaver and he will be
followed by Jeff Perry.
MR. WEAVER: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ron
Weaver and I am here on behalf of the CBIA. And as legal counsel, I
come not to discuss the many planning necessities for the two-year or
three-year phasing of the time period in which you figure out what
you're really getting at, but to look respectfully at the legal
vulnerability of any jurisdiction that rushes the judgment and
arrogation of its own planning commission's recommendation that it
please take a hard look at what it's getting.
I had an infection the Sunday before last so I rushed to the
antibiotic I had taken for the previous hurt. And I took it for a day
and the next day the doctor said, "I'm going to have to cleanse your
system with the wrong medicine for a few days, Ron, before I can get
you well on Wednesday. Why did you start on them yesterday?"
Page 151
June 25, 2002
I said, "Because I was hurting and you wouldn't see me on
Sunday." I know you're hurting, we're all hurting; the community is
hurting. But if we rush to the wrong medicine, here's what we use to
pay in the courts, where I'd rather not spend my time.
And that is to pay the legal vulnerability assistance -- in the
Needen (phonetic) case in 1976 it says you can't charge a developer
for somebody else's impact like you're doing with this rush to
judgment.
And secondly, the Morman (phonetic) case in the Keys, the
Court said, "When you stop development on US 1 because of the key
issue here, you have to put signs and fences up first before you just
stopping development on US 1. You have to study during the period
of two years the planning commission is begging you for, that we're
begging you for, to look at what the medicine is. Look at the lease
owner's alternative, like the Court's required.
The third is due process. This was noticed with the words
interim development'controls. Does that tell a victim out there he's
about to lose his job as bad as the folks that were here on May 14th?
No, interim development control is not a due process, nor are the
victims that are about to be victimized.
Fourth, data analysis is required by the State law to back up any
kind of proposal like this for a good reason: The State law says the
reason you have to have data and analysis is to justify the extreme
heavy-handedness that the police power moratorium; it's taken
without compensation, of course, is with data and analysis, to enable
the DCA and the public to gauge the compliance and consistency for
the rest of the plan.
This is not consistent with the rest of your comp plan. You have
to be told why by two or three speakers, let's take a sixth example: If
Page 152
June 25, 2002
you built rooftops the last couple of years, you're not going to allow
the retail to be built near them.
So those folks that have the rooftop to prove the sound of them
have to drive four, five, six, eight miles to where the retail still is with
long trips back and forth; totally contradictory of your comp plan.
Conservation element, don't build way out in the hinterlands,
build closer in for urban infield; affordable housing, economic
development, jobs. The economic development is your pledge, but
please don't get unintended (sic~ consequences which you familiarly
said in your pledge, we don't want unintended consequences.
Fifth, the failure in this plan legally includes a failure to keep
character with your plan and to be consistent with the rest of it.
Secondly, it lacks the required data and analysis to enable the DCA
and the public to gauge what we're getting here.
Your planning commission didn't ask for the two years just for
the fun of the two years. They asked for it so you could gauge what
are you about to do? What medicine are you about to take? There
will have to be plans so we can get to the real cure.
The continuing of the building of roads is commendable, but we
don't even know what the policy manual will be some day. When
asked where's the policy manual that implements that, we were told it
was in the works. We wouldn't even be able to see it. We don't
know what we're getting today, as a matter of due process.
We need the ability for the public to know that they're about to
face a serious interruption, they're facing a delivery problem in a way
that creates an unnecessary acronym when it should be a matter of
putting hands together, finding a way over the next two years to
figure out what are we getting into?
We can't fly blind into this. If we fly together into it with
funding, additional funding sources that will be exhausting by this
Page 153
June 25, 2002
quick rush to judgment. You need to find additional funding sources.
Find what works. Work with your community.
You have an existing concurrency management system.
Continue for two years to work with funding the sources, to work
with your staff, to work with the planning commission, to work with
the development of the community, to work with the consultants who
are being offered up on their dime, not yours, to find something that
works.
They may say just say that's not the right medicine on
Wednesday. Fine. Let's reject that medicine on Wednesday and
figure out what is the best cure the whole community can buy in.
After they legally noticed what it is, and after the DCA is noticed
what's required, the legally required data and analysis, what they are
and are not getting to review up there.
That which they receive up there does and does not entail by
what you eloquently called in your pledge the unintended
consequences we seek to avoid. Let's avoid unintended
consequences together. Let's find funding sources together.
Let's keep the lawyers at home or at their doctors instead of in
the courts and find some way that we can take the community's
willingness to solve the problem and get at it immediately; don't wait
until December 5th to get those funding sources together.
Don't wait until December 5th to get the community at each
others -- don't wait until December 5th to have this unbelievable
moratorium, when folks seem to be earning a living and feeding their
families, this is only counterproductive.
The community that Mr. Palmer referred to and -- and I'll sit
down, came together for one reason: They figured out that they had a
road problem and that they all needed to be involved in the solution.
Page 154
June 25, 2002
And that required they all figure out what was their part and
what was their victimization, because as your planning commission
so eloquently put it, "You can't turn a train on a dime," I quote. And
I would conclude -- and I'm-- I'm through. Thank you, very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, unless Mr. Tracy Arder has
come back into the room, is Jeff Perry.
MR. PERRY: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jeff
Perry, um, I'm Transportation Planner with the firm of Wilson Miller.
Um I have a couple of very specific requests, um, concerning the
definitions on page 80, um, and then I'll make just some general
comments that I feel are appropriate.
On page 80, the definition of constrained roadway and
backlogged roadways, my sense is that in the definition, um, we
won't need -- don't need and should not put the actual regulation or
restriction that might be associated with that definition.
Um, for instance, the constrained roadway is basically a
roadway that is for one reason or another just can't widen, can't fix,
can't improve. Um, and the last sentence says, "Constrained
roadways are subject to growth restrictions that only allow for
increases in annual daily traffic volumes ten percent above the
service volume," et cetera.
A similar sentence in the backlogged roadways, after defining
the term backlogged roadways, there is a sentence about midway
through the paragraph that says, "Backlogged roadways are subject to
five or ten percent growth restrictions annually based on the
percentage of capacity," et cetera.
Those restrictions bind you to something in your Growth
Management Plan that I think is better left in the Land Development
Page 155
June 25, 2002
Code. There's no question about needing a definition for constrained
and needing a definition for backlogged.
A constrained facility is one that can't be fixed for one reason or
another. A backlogged facility is one that over capacity, over 75
percent or something like that, I think is the threshold that Mr. Feder
is suggesting.
The restriction that goes along with those I think is better left for
the Land Development Code. And I'd like to argue at some later date
the merits of those restrictions, but I'll save that for another meeting.
I just don't think it's appropriate to put those kinds of restrictions
into the definitions. Definitions should clearly define what it is that
is a constrained roadway or is a backlogged facility. Leave it at that
and then leave the restrictions that apply to those particular standards
for some later debate, um, as part of your Land Development Code.
Um, I just wanted to make a few comments about the, um,
phase-in period. Um, this is an exceptionally complex system that is
being proposed. It is unlike anything this County has ever seen or
done.
I spent a lot of time, I would suspect over 100 hours, studying
the preliminary versions of this that came out in Land Development
Code amendments that were tracking along before they were stopped
because you couldn't get to them because of the Growth Management
Plan.
In fact, there was Growth Management Plan restrictions that
basically stopped you from implementing realtime concurrency.
Those are being changed as a result of these amendments.
This is an exceptionally complex system. As you've already
heard, it is data-hungry, it requires staff, it requires computer
software, it requires databases and research.
Page 156
June 25, 2002
There is an existing inventory of stuff that has to be accounted
for the day this goes into effect. I would be, honestly, I would be
very surprised if the staff can get this thing in place in mid-
December. I would really be surprised at that. If they can, God bless
them.
But I'm telling you this kind of system is such that the day the
amendment becomes enacted, the Land Development Code becomes
effective, this system has to be in place and working.
And as Mr. Feder demonstrated with his map, that particular
map, while I've got a different map that shows it a lot worse, and we
can debate whose map is right, I can tell you that what he -- what he's
not showing on there clearly is that those red, green and blue lines,
because of the way you calculate traffic, a single project may affect
any number of those roadways or may be affected by any number of
those roadways.
A project that is three miles away from a deficient roadway will
be stopped from getting a building permit. A roadway -- a project
that is three or four miles away, from a rationed roadway, where
you're rationing concurrency, will likely be stopped at some point
during the course of the year, when that capacity runs out.
And I think those details haven't really been clearly worked out
and I just don't believe that we have enough time. And I would urge
you in the -- I would also suggest that over the next three or four
months, as we work with staff to try to flush out these details, that we
have a workshop with the Board.
We can't explain to you in five minutes what this system will do.
I haven't heard anybody ask staff how was this system going to
work? I trust you know how it's going to work. I think I know how
it's going to work and it scares me.
Page 157
June 25, 2002
I am terrified that this is going to create fear and panic in the
community, in the financial industries, in th.e development industries,
in the real estate industries. People are not going to know whether or
not they have a comfort level to be able to investigate or to build in
their community.
And I would urge you over the next three or four months to hold
a public workshop, allow a free and open debate about the merits of,
the technical merits of what is being proposed in the Land
Development Code before we end up with something in December
that is just crippling to this community. Thank you, very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. And that concludes
the speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Okay. Then that will close the
public portion of this part of the hearing. And, um, you can go ahead
and you can recall back anyone that you wish to. Do you have any
reason to? How are we going to handle this, item-by-item?
MR. LITSINGER: Um, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest you
handle it based on any questions you have for the staff based on the
public speakers, and then we would like to phrase the alternative
transmittals that you had before you today; specifically, I would like
to make the -- point to differences between your staff's
recommendation, which was sent to you in your Executive Summary
Package and your Planning Commission recommendations and your
deliberations on any of the alternate proposals that you have today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I will allow
you to go first, and if I may, follow you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Um, page 80, um, the
definitions of constrained and backlog, if they are truly definitions, as
Page 158
June 25, 2002
I remember that all the definitions in the Land Development Code, is
this the proper place for these, in the GNP?
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. One of the reasons we couldn't move
forward is we didn't have the ability to define what was a backlogged
or constrained facility.
If you remember,' we came to you in December and we said on
three segments of roadway that right now under planning moratorium
that we were going to establish those as constrained and backlogged,
started to proceed to do so and then found that we did not have within
our Growth Management Plan a definition and an item that gave us
direction to be able to establish those as backlogged and constrained.
MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner, from the planning
perspective, we would very much recommend that you do transmit a
definition of constrained. You've heard a couple of different
alternatives but in the past, as you'll recall, if we look back at the
level of service standards, we actually had a roadway which had a
level of service as constrained. Where a level of service is more or
less a category such as A, B, C and D, which is defined quantitatively
within your comp plan whereas constrained or backlogged is a
condition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no. You were going to go
next, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no. Go ahead. I'm sure you have
some --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is to prohibit us from
including it in the LDC rather than the Growth Management Plan?
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Coyle, I would suggest that that's really
a policy decision. Um, we can transmit with or without the
definitions and then you can iron them out further in your LDC
Page 159
June 25, 2002
deliberations. Of course, we will have the benefit of a state level
review. I will get to that issue, also.
MR. FEDER: Again, I will go back to what I told you I was
told that I was unable to do constrained or backlogged on those
facilities because I did not have that defined in the Growth
Management Plan. Unless someone tells me differently now, at this
point in time, in this juncture, that is the reason that I will tell you
that I feel it needs to stay in the Growth Management Plan portion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Um, we've talked much --
we've had many presentations today about the data. Um, while I
would -- I would guess that data seems to say whatever the person
who is paying the bill wants it to say. And I think we've been
working at gathering the data for some time now. And, um, we need
to put that in order.
One of the things that we have -- we do know is we have been
suffering from the consequences of monumental growth and
inadequate infrastructure planning for quite some time. We need
some stability and we need some consistency.
Um, there are drastic effects on, um, whatever we're struggling
with now because of the lack of planning over the last, say, 20 years.
David Graham mentioned something about the, um -- um, the
family's that are at stake and the jobs that are at stake.
But actually, we wouldn't need to be building as much
affordable housing if we just level out and steady our course on
building. We're not saying to stop it, we're just saying let's level out
and get the infrastructure in place.
Let's get a firm grasp on this thing so that we can move forward.
We don't want to -- we don't want to do anything that would
Page 160
June 25, 2002
jeopardize our community in any way, but we have to get a firm hold
on this.
So I -- I would suggest that, um, that we take pieces of
everything that we've heard here today; for instance, the three percent
planning commission recommendation. I can see going with the
three percent planning recommendation and, um, while they say --
let's see, and under construction.
But I don't believe we should put this off any longer. Um, I -- I
believe that we need to move on it now. We've already got six
months before the end of he year, um, to do our planning and we
don't even know if it will actually be in place and if the system will
truly be prepared to move forward.
But I think we need to start now and, yes, a workshop would be
good along the way. Um, but we need to move forward now. We
can't put this off any longer.
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. LITSINGER: After the public input, I would propose to go
through where there is significant changes between staff and the
planning commission from what you've heard today. So that you're
very clear on what it is that you're transmitting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And -- and I think we can
find a compromise in some things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, never, ever fail to recognize
the strength and driving force of the building industry. When it
comes to the how's and why's, why our future planning for the
building -- our future planning that we do, the building industry is
always there and justly so. They've always played a big role.
Um, many of the leaders of our County have come from the
building industry. Um, the embryonce (phonetic) that we call Collier
Page 161
June 25, 2002
County is the direct result of the building industry meeting a public
demand.
I, as a Commissioner, a property owner and former businessman
with 16 years of history of working with the industry, have concerns
for the stability, financial stability of the building industry.
I also recognize the sentiments of the community in controlling
growth so that the infrastructure can catch up. Somewheres in
between all that, there's got to be the answer. And I think we're
heading in the right direction. The planning commission has made
some steps forward.
We just got to find a nexus that's going to be able to meet the
objectives that we want to do. And once we put it together, we need
to involve the building industry to it's fullest. We need to use them as
a catalyst to make sure we're going to get done what we're supposed
to do.
Being that their driving force, if there are certain objectives
down the road in a reasonable period of time that have to be met,
they'll be there to make sure we do it and to accompany whatever we
come up with today.
And I think we are getting pretty close to it, we need to have the
task force put together that can continuously be monitoring what's
taking place so they're always on top of roads and the infrastructure
out there, that has to be out there years away. So they know where
we have to be and be the driving force to make us do it when the time
comes.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Um, I'd like to have a couple of
clarifications. Um, in the past when we've done things like
implementing moratorium on roads, um, we have defined what
projects are vested and what projects are not vested.
Page 162
June 25, 2002
How -- how will we deal with projects that have been approved
in the past, either DRI's or others, um, that might be considered to
have some kind of vesting?
MR. FEDER: I think that's a good point. I think an example of
that would be what you just took action on and I will defer to legal.
But what I will tell you is the statement there where we did,
unfortunately, phase moratorium, was that anything that already had
its final subdivision plat had its final site plan.
Um, and in this case, that ate its fees, which, when we go into
LDC, we've got other issues like making those fees available at that
time for road improvement rather than waiting until building permit
time, that those are the issues beyond today.
I think the answer to your question is if somebody's gone
through the process, um, and has established themselves as vested
status, now referring to the attorneys, um, I don't think this process is
going to stop.
Even if I've gone to the point of exceeding capacity, if they
come forward and they're vested, they will be -- won't be stopped
much like moratorium so there is not a grinding complete - not a halt.
There's an awful lot of development already approved oUt there
that would continue to go forward. If I could defer to the attorneys
to, um --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd like to get an
interpretation as to what will and will not be permitted.
MS. STUDENT: Um, well, for the record, Marjorie Student,
Assistant County Attorney. I think that that probably remains to be
seen to be flushed out in the Land Development Code that will
implement this part of the comprehensive plan.
Page 163
June 25, 2002
But I think that you would be seeing something like what you
saw in the planning moratorium ordinance that we recently did,
where you have a list of exceptions.
And I can tell you that the current Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance is structured somewhat in that way along with a process
set forth in the current Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance where a
person could avail themselves of that process, um, to have a
determination made of vested rights.
So I think -- that will be flushed out, um, as a part of the new
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But when is that going to
be done?
MS. STUDENT: That should be done, um, staff has, I think,
perhaps has a better idea of, um, the work schedule on that. But I
think that's supposed to be done in late fall.
MR. SMITH: Commissioner Coyle, for the record, Joe Smith,
Administrator of Community Development Environmental Services.
You asked the right question and I think where you're going with on
that is what-- what can we expect?
And frankly, looking at community development, what would I
expect once understanding that this is the Growth Management Plan,
this is the over-arching document. We still have to develop Land
Development Code that would compliment this or -- and define the
implementation.
But, yes, I will probably have a run in the bank; meaning folks
are going to come in, make payment to get their Certificate of
Adequate Public Facilities just as they did before the moratorium was
implemented in order to secure a-- basically have a vested-- a vested
right to continue with a project. We haven't defined that yet.
Page 164
June 25, 2002
And, in fact, we're not at that point because this is just a
transmittal. But what the developers may do is try and get a project
into the system, because if you recall during the moratorium, we
defined it, if they had an SDP or a plot subdivision in for review, then
they, frankly, had their nose under their tent.
And then they came back in and paid their impact fees, or at
least they -- the estimated impact fees to secure a Certificate of
Adequate Public Facility, or which we call a COA.
And, um, yes, that will probably happen again before this is
implemented if, in fact, we're looking at implementation some time in
December or January when we're actually talking about throwing the
switch on this and making it operational.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would DRI's fall into this
category?
MR. SMITH: They're already vested. I mean, they're already
vested. We would ask that they validate that they do, in fact, have a
valid certificate or they validate that, in fact, they have a valid DRI.
But, yes, they're already vested.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what do they do to validate?
MR. SMITH: Go ahead, Stan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You say -- what I'm --
MR. LITSINGER: I will make a planning comment on that and
then I'll let--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let -- let me tell you where I'm
going on this and then maybe then maybe you can help me a little bit.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Um, we have made a decision
earlier today and we're going to make one -- well, perhaps we've
already made it, it was in the consent agenda, um, about reducing
density of-- of PUD's that have already been approved.
Page 165
June 25, 2002
Um, and what I'm -- where I'm going is, is there any way we can
build into this plan an opportunity, um, to reduce density that has
already been approved by -- by letting -- letting a DRI or other pre-
approved development come into this program without penalty?
And if they want to amend it, we can do so if they decrease the,
um -- the density. Is there a way to deal with that?
MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, for the record, that's very
complex. Um, it's something we can definitely look at. But about
DRI's, generally they are vested, but there is some circumstances
where they can divest themselves.
And for purposes of concurrency, one of the areas is if they are
phased and they've paid their way on part of the phasing but not the
others, they-- yes, they can be vested for density, intensity and land
use, the State law tells us that.
But they may not be able to go when they want to go; that is to
develop because of concurrency issues, unless they've already paid.
Also, if they do a substantial deviation, they wouldn't necessarily be
vested for that. That's when they come in and change an aspect of the
development order.
So it's not a simple black and white thing, it's complicated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that-- well, that-- that's my
question, if-- if someone wishes to -- to have a substantial deviation,
as long as there is a reduction, substantial reduction on density, is
there any way we can encourage that sort of thing so we can reduce
the outstanding density?
MS. STUDENT: Well, it's something that we could look at,
definitely. I wouldn't want to just make a, like, a nature of a decision
right here on the floor right now because it's complicated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
Page 166
June 25, 2002
MS. STUDENT: And, um, it's something I think, too, should go
in a -- if we're going to do that, should be considered in the
ordinance.
Um, we have been working with our outside counsel, Nancy
Lannan, of Carlton and Fields (phonetic) also on this matter. And
one of the things that she counseled us was to be more specific in the
ordinance and more general in the comp plan amendments.
Because the more specific you are here, the harder it is to
change. And you're going to have there a very cumbersome process.
And she can explain that many local governments have very general
comp plan provisions on their concurrency.
And then in their ordinance and their policy procedure manual is
where they flush out the specifics. And on something like that, it's
complicated. I didn't say we couldn't do it, but it's complicated and
it's something that we would have to look at.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that-- that's exactly my
point. Um, we recognize the need to move ahead as quickly as
possible with a plan that admittedly is not perfect. We don't even
have all the details worked out.
Urn, I -- I think it's in our best interest to keep the comp plan
sufficiently general to permit you to work out kinds of things you're
talking about. But because I can appreciate the -- the apprehension
with respect to a concurrency management system, but yet you don't
really know who it's going to apply to because we haven't developed
the land development provisions necessary to do that.
So -- so from that standpoint, I -- I would, um, agree that, urn, at
a minimum, the definitions be placed in the Land Development Code
so we can have some opportunity for public hearings on those things
and people would have a chance to, um-- to deal with them.
Um, let me just go through a couple other --
Page 167
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, can I make a comment on
that particular one?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're talking about decreasing the
density but now we're getting into an area that we're talking about
urban sprawl and that's something that we have to be considering,
too.
We don't want to encourage urban sprawl and we don't want to
start bumping over that urban boundary. So I think we have to be
very careful when we talk about decreasing density.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we pretty much have taken
care of urban sprawl through the rule of French study. There's a lot
of preserved land out there and I don't see us moving across that
boundary very easily, because that's going to be part of our Growth
Management Plan and it's got to be approved in Tallahassee if we do
that.
So I don't think that's going to be an easy -- easy thing to do. So
I think we have taken a big bite out of urban sprawl with our
decisions over the past couple of weeks.
Um -- um, I'm also concerned about the potential impact on
roadways that are not listed in the map as being constrained or, let's
say, um, reaching the point where they might go into moratorium,
um, is it -- is it true that some roads beyond the scope of that
particular segment might also be impacted?
MR. FEDER: Yes, it is. As you look at development much like
we explained to you, under the planning moratorium, um, as a project
is proposed, it's impact to segments that are, um, constrained or that
have metered growth, it's impact will be taken off of that under a
checkbook system as has been outlined. Otherwise, you wouldn't be
keeping up with the item.
Page 168
June 25, 2002
Urn, the proposal or the observation that you take everything off
today, you have so much speculation out there that you don't know
what's going to happen. Urn, promptly if you're ready to go back,
and I think gets to your point, sir, under Land Development Code a
good discussion.
If you want to go back and go through all the PUD's, all of what
we have on the system and be in a position that if you're not truly
ready to go forward, to back out of those commitments, then we've
got the opportunity to get that data into the system and have more
specificity.
Barring that and continuing the process allows people to propose
where they go with their land development and then reevaluate at the
time of impact. Urn, you're going to have those issues to be dealt
with.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't want to go there.
MR. FEDER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think that we made our
commitment fairly clear that we didn't want to have widespread
moratorium for the County.
MR. FEDER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We want to implement this thing
fairly but we want to get it in quickly. MR. FEDER: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Urn, so -- but I am also troubled,
urn, by the fact that we don't really have a good solid road traffic
measurement system that does -- doesn't have to be --
MR. FEDER.' We have the capability today and we're going to
further refine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Urn, so --
Page 169
June 25, 2002
MR. FEDER: And we're not -- we're not procras -- projecting,
um, with artificial data as was presented to you. It's real data, we just
need to refine it further.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then -- then just answer a
procedural question for me. Um, if this goes to, um, DCA, that is the
Concurrency Management System goes to DCA and it comes back to
us and it gets approved, um, and we are not ready, we don't have the
data, the database, the system to deal with this thing, what happens?
MR. FEDER: At that time, you would provide us direction to
implement once that data is available. Um, but in answer to your
question, as you're going through well before you get back that
information from DCA, we'll have gone through the process of
refining a lot of these questions and issues for the Land Development
Code.
And we do have the opportunity, in spite of what comes back
from DCA, to not only take their comments, decide what to do with
them, but also to make some further refinements in our proposal back
to them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just another question. When -
- when we ran for public office, the three of us, at the time they said
that there were 127,000 approved units before we even took office.
Now, those units -- that's a year and a half ago, those units, um, are
they already approved, period?
I mean, we're not talking about a morium {sic} -- moratorium
where everything stops, that's already out there, approved and ready
to go; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: Some of that has gone through the process and
would be at the final site plan and final plat. Some of it is still a PUD
Page 170
June 25, 2002
or rezoning that hasn't gone to that point. And then your Land
Development Code as noted, you would be treating, urn, the
determination of how you treat something and a process should --
should this be implemented.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I heard Commissioner Henning
earlier state that this will be coming back to us for a final look-see to
be able to see if we have to amend it to be able to make it work
within the system.
Urn, at what point in time does that come back to us and how --
how far could we amend it to make it work?
MR. LITSINGER: Urn, if you will indulge me a moment, Mr.
Chairman, I have a schedule, which is included in your package,
which essentially shows -- and I don't know if you can read it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page was that?
MR. LITSINGER: We expect the objections, recommendations
and comments report back approximately --
MR. MUDD: The last page of the Executive Summary.
MR. LITSINGER: Last page of Executive Summary?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go ahead and continue.
MR. LITSINGER: We expect the ORC Report about the 30th
of August, urn, and then we go through the adoption hearings of the
planning commission. And as you can note as an add-on to, urn, Mr.
Feder's comments, we will be in the process.
As you can see, we have a 60-day period where we will be
getting a review process of the Department of Community Affairs
and we're not going to be idle during that period of time.
We're going to be working on developing the data collection
methodology and installing those stations. Urn, on the transportation
end, we're going to be working at the Land Development Code, um,
drafts of that, which as you can see, begins the public hearing process
Page 171
June 25, 2002
in September to run parallel with the compliance determination of
your comprehensive plan.
So we can have something in effect depending on your policies
decisions today relative to effective dates and so forth by the end of
the calendar year; if that answers your question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. So whatever we send on today,
we can amend it--
MR. LITSINGER: That's -- that's correct, within reason, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I understand.
MS. STUDENT: And for the record, again, Marjorie Student,
again. I would recommend we put some kind of definition in for
constrained and backlogged so DCA knows what the County is
talking about.
Um, those terms are not defined in 9J-5, at least, and we may
want to put something, maybe a little more general. But we may get
work, which means an objection, recommendation or comment
simply because they don't understand the terminology.
MR. LITSINGER: I agree. From a planning perspective, I
believe that we should transmit a definition of constrained and
backlogged because of the fact that we rely on this definition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have that definition?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. And I will go over the two options
that we have proposed and you both, the staff recommendation and
the planning commission's recommendation, in a few moments.
One of the comments from the planning level relative to vesting,
um, under the Florida Statute, Chapter 163, there is a provision that,
um, DRI's as an existence on their surface subject to any pending,
um, major deviations or modifications that were in effect upon the
adoption of your comp plan back in 1989, are subject to a level --
certain level of vesting.
Page 172
June 25, 2002
Um, and we also have in our Land Development Code, which
still exists, a procedure set forth to establish vesting and at what
levels. And to answer, I believe Commissioner Fiala's question, um,
at last count in those potentially vested DRI's, there, again, leaving it
open to the determination, we had approximately 50,000 unbuilt
dwelling units within the urban area, should they ultimately be
determined to be vested.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me -- let me give everyone a
chance, Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Carter, did you want to
make some comments at this time or would you like to wait.'?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Urn, let me just say a couple of
things: One, I totally agree your comp plan process is supposed to be
the broadest picture that you can operate; it's the umbrella, it's your
goals. The others become strategies, ultimately your steps of your
Land Development Codes.
Urn, ! am sensing there is not much support for the planning
commissions extended time period for implementation. I will tell
you to a degree that bothers me and the reason it bothers me is that
the key here is you can collect data and you can think about all of
this, but you cannot determine what the marketplace is going to do.
The marketplace will do whatever the conditions are. And if
you set it up in a certain way, you will have the goals rushed, because
the people that own land will rush in to protect their vested interest.
I would prefer-- my preference would be some sort of a phase-
in period where all of this collectively could be discussed through,
um, not only CBIA, but other interests and not -- I would not go three
years.
I could live with a year for this to take place; I would feel more
comfortable with that. But I will support this Board because they got
to be here, they're the ones that are going to have to live with it.
Page 173
June 25, 2002
Urn, but that's from my perspective. I would rather see a rather
more inclusive phase-in period where I could minimize the rush to
get things approved because they feel, for whatever reasons, they
haven't had the opportunity to participate in the process.
That is no disrespect to a Transportation Department because
they are operating under the directions that the Board gave them to
hustle up and get it done. And I have some concerns.
COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, can I have
just a second?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I -- forgive me. We're going to
take a short break. We went past your time by about a half hour.
And I -- I get so carried away. Forgive me.
Thereupon, (A short recess was had at this time after which
proceedings continued as follows:)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, it's moving on
closer and closer to midnight. Please take your seats. Just a moment
ago -- Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your presence is needed.
Commissioner Coyle? A second ago --
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
corral your--
Yes, sir, I'm here.
If-- you mean you're trying to
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm trying to corral my children, get
them back in here so we can go forward. Great. Glad to see you. I'll
tell you what, for the sake of helping to move this thing along, I
would like to make a motion at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's-- let's Mr.-- I think Mr.
Litsinger needs to get some things on the record, and I still have some
comments.
Page 174
June 25, 2002
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, if I-- I don't mean to interrupt your
deliberations. But at some point, I would like to -- because of the
specificity that we want to transmit to Tallahassee, I would like to
very quickly go through the highlights where there are points of
diversions between your staff's recommendation, your planning
commission and in some cases the information you have heard from
the public today. So if we can take a moment to do that prior to your
motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, continue.
MR. LITSINGER: Um, and I'm going to start very briefly -- I'm
going to start on page CIE-4. And what I'm going to particularly do
is point out your planning commission's -- your local planning
agency recommendations, yes, sir, in the, urn, blue and, urn, red-face
document and, fortunately, I believe on page four, my printer didn't
put red and blue.
But it would be policy 1.1.3, B, specifically the difference
between the planning commission and the Board. Urn, here again,
your staff recommended a one-percent threshold at the rezone and
Growth Management Plan amendment for traffic impact and your
planning commission had recommended three percent.
Urn, moving on to page five, um, here again, we just eliminated
the reference to peak season, urn, at the recommendation of the
planning commission and we concur with using peak hour.
Urn, on CIE page, urn, 13, here, again, I believe your direction
was to leave the policy as recommended by the planning commission
on the beach access. On page 14, there, the planning commission--
commission had noticed some, um, errors in our reference in policy
1.4.3; we're correcting that there.
In your-- excuse me, on page CIE-16, in your concurrency
management policies, Policy 1.5.3, here the, urn, staff
Page 175
June 25, 2002
recommendation under 1.5.3 A-2 had been improvements necessary
to maintain adequate capacity are under construction or carrying
down into 3, necessary improvements are guaranteed and
enforceable.
An executed development agreement in which the
improvements are under construction, alternatives from your
planning commission will be under construction within one year.
This applies through the interpretation of those two.
Um, moving onto page CIE-17, here, again, it's really some
clarification language between your planning commission and your
staff. Um, we had added, address further impacts. And the planning
commission had recommended eliminating the significant negative
impacts, um, due to definitional problems.
MR. MUDD: Do you agree or disagree?
MR. LITSINGER: We agree with the planning commission's
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page was that? I'm sorry.
MR. LITSINGER: CIE-17.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: Moving on to page CIE-50, um, here being a
key point. Um, your staff did not make the reference to the two-year
phase-in period and the planning commission had recommended the
red language relative to a two-year phase-in period with
implementation at the end of the second year.
Um, very quickly, moving onto page 78 of your transportation
element, I'm going to find the planning commission's
recommendation. Here again, keeping at the top of the page under G,
inconsistency with the capital improvement element, though
reference to peak hour as opposed to peak season. Um, here again,
the planning commission preferring a two-year phase-in.
Page 176
June 25, 2002
On page 79 of your, um, transportation element, um, reference
to omitted as opposed to discounted in your traffic analysis of your
peak hour calculations, that also carried to the bottom of the page.
Going on to page 80 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What was your position
concerning that change?
MR. MUDD: Omitted versus discount.
MR. LITSINGER: Um, we agree with the omitted language.
Moving onto page 80, here again is your-- the issue of the definitions
of constrained and backlogged roadways.
Um, staff is very much in favor of transmitting definitions of
constrained and road -- constrained roadways and backlogged
roadways. Here again, the red identifies the difference in opinion
between the planning commission and your staff; policy decision.
Now, on page 86, I'd like to point out here at the top of Policy
5.2, we are back to the reference of the, um -- it's a very important
policy. Um, 5.2 had gone from five percent to a staff
recommendation of one percent.
Planning commission alternatively, proposing three percent of
the adopted service volumes. Um, the rest of this is we agree with
the planning commission's recommendations as far as interpretations,
um, and reference to the grade separated overpass Airport Pulling
Road. And you have your public input.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. What I'd like to start --
get a motion going forward so we can have discussion on it to try to
bring this thing to a conclusion.
What I would like to do under the concurrency amendment
recommendations, the realtime phase-in period, instead of none like
county staff has, or two years for the planning commission and three
years for the building industry, I'd like to have that as one year.
Page 177
June 25, 2002
Threshold facilities impacts analysis, one percent was
recommended by the county, I'd like to go with two percent. And
that splits it between the, um, planning commission and the building
industry and what county staff had.
Under reliance on road projects for system availability, rather
than under construction or going with one year or the three years as
recommended by the building industry, I would recommend six
months; make that part of my motion at this time.
Road improvement provided for and development agreement.
There also, too, I'd like to have that at six months, so that we have
something. And also to keep part of it that says 75 percent capacity
consumed.
And the various parts that you mentioned through there, the only
thing I'm not sure of is exactly how the constraint roadway and the
backlogged roadways should be handled in this to make it work. Um,
I agree mostly with staff on that.
MR. FEDER: Excuse me, based on your other
recommendations and what we're trying to do, I would ask that you
keep it as it's written there. Um, really the planning commission
didn't address that. That added wording is added language that we
presented to the planning commission at that time.
We do need the definition of constrained backlog and I would
ask that you keep it as worded.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then I make that part of the
motion as it is. And one of my, um--
MR. LITSINGER: Clarification, Mr. Chairman, is constrained
and backlogged with the red language added as was the
recommendation from the staff to the planning commission?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And that -- that, I would like
to include that in my motion.
Page 178
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clarification of your motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Um, you're -- you're talking
about a six months, can you tell me which policy you're talking
about, six months?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Urn, you're talking about for the, um,
road improvement provided for in development agreement or the
reliable --
MR. LITSINGER: On page -- if I can help, on page CIE-16,
relative to the development agreement and there are a number of
policies, um without--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. And what I'd like to see is the
recommendations from the Collier County Planning Commission
where it states one year. Their recommendation is picked up and for
one year it's submitted, we submit six months instead.
MR. LITSINGER: Can I ask for clarification? Would that be
one year from the effective date of these amendments or one year
from transmittal?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Six months.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Six months.
MR. MUDD: It will be under construction in six months.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: From the effective date; correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: From the date that-- whatever
they're using for mark-- for measuring--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: From the effective date?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, from the planning
commission, whatever they were using for that measurement. And,
of course, if I may also mention, that as we go through this and it's
transmitted and it comes back, there may be further negotiations
Page 179
June 25, 2002
where we'll tighten it up even more or we may be a little more liberal
in our thinking. But, hey, let's get the ball rolling.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to get the ball
rolling by the recommendations of one year. Of what you're talking
of ! -- Policy number 1.5.3. I would hope that you take that into
consideration in your motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What page is that, sir?
MR. LITSINGER: CIE- 16.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Henning, I
believe, is recommending you stay with the recommendation, I guess,
of planning council versus your six months, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And to be honest with you, I'd rather
keep my motion as is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And let me second that so -- for the
sake of discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For the sake of discussion, the reason
being is that if we start to expand this too far, we're going to get to
the point where it's going to be an ineffective piece of legislation that
will be nothing more than words on paper.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Um, I think that's your opinion,
for the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I certainly hope there's more
discussion on it than myself and you, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree with everything, that's why
I seconded.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I think the planning
commissioner's staff has worked on this for a long time to change it,
um, it could be -- could affect the community widely. I, um --
construction, you know. When we talk about road design and study,
Page 180
June 25, 2002
road design and contract implementations, um, you know a six-month
type limit is pretty tight, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree very much so, that it is tight.
But I see it as a point for negotiations, because I fully realize that if
we put one year in there now, that when it comes back for -- from our
transmittal back for reconsideration to us, that that one year could
grow.
I'd rather start with six months and see where we have to go
from there, according to what the building industry needs to make it
work, what we need to make it work. And it's a lot easier to go up
than it is to come back down. That's my own opinion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's six months from, like,
January; right? I mean, that isn't six months from today?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, presuming January is the date
we get this thing completed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There may be a possibility it may
draw out a lot longer. Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Feder has --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me clarify Commissioner
Fiala's question real fast.
MR. FEDER: From what I've heard on the proposal, what
you're telling us -- and make sure I have it correct as well, that at the
time we look at this item or whether development comes in with an
improvement, that that improvement would have to be under
construction within six months for it to be considered in that analysis.
Urn, we had under construction those proposals for one year,
two year, three year, you're providing for under six months.
The only thing I will tell you though is you have a program, you
know, what's under construction, you know what you have in the first
Page 181
June 25, 2002
year of the adoptive program and you should be able to rely on all
five, because we're holding to that on other equations.
The six months becomes a little bit harder because you have
lettings within a period of time by permit and other issues we hold to
that fiscal year, but sometimes it can move a month or two. That may
be a little bit difficult, more difficult to work with, but if that's the
pleasure of the Board, we'll find a way to deal with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, your recommendations
weigh very heavily on my decisions; would you suggest something
longer than six months; is that what you're saying?
MR. FEDER: I'm not necessarily encouraging length, I'm only
encouraging something that has, as was pointed out, some level of
reliance factor that we can all agree to and not have it change on us.
I think if you have it under construction, that's very clear. If you
want to say that it must be construction under the first year of the
adoptive work program, um, that's somewhat addressed by your six
months.
It would obviously have to be in there, but then we would have
to further clarify where within that one year, as I said we're working
real hard to get you really strong project management in this County
and delivery.
But down to the actual month is sometimes a little bit harder, as
far as when something will be let.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. FEDER: But having said that, again, if that's the will of
this Board, we'll try to work with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go back one more time, Mr.
Feder. What would your suggestion be for that wording?
MR. FEDER: My suggestion was under construction, but we
also acknowledge if the desire is six months, it might be more
Page 182
June 25, 2002
appropriate to word it that it's in the first year, which is not only in
the work program, but as a funded year of your five-year work
program within the first year of the work program, if you're truly
trying to give some additional, urn, leeway in there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about to have possibly, when it
comes back from transmittal, that we might want to give
consideration of having a sunset on that six months, so it could go --
under construction, it may be year four or five; just as a thought. But
my motion remains as is at this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: (No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That motion failed, so let's go ahead
and entertain a new one.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I make a motion that we adopt
staff's recommendations on the policy, the changes of implementation
of the Growth Management Plan. Um, and just to say that I'm very
sensitive to the economics of Collier County because I know what the
effects would be if we go too far.
I feel, um, I have a lot of reassurance that, um, we're going to
need and we're going to receive a lot of help on intersection
improvements, collect for road improvements, and et cetera, et cetera,
on our transportation network from the industry.
It is -- and the public has got to realize this is -- this is not the
fault of the industry, this is the fault of government not implementing
Page 183
June 25, 2002
its plan. And I think we -- we realize that and the industry realizes it,
but just the public needs to realize it.
The, um-- the Board of Commissioners last month or it was last
month, made a commitment to the community that we're going to
tighten it up so that -- that we have some reliability, urn, and
responsibility of the Board of Commissioners on the infrastructure
here in Collier County. And I'm not going to back down with that.
And I think that a, urn, one-year program of implementation is
very reasonable. And the goal is there. Urn, and we're going to need
the whole community to provide for building a great community that
it is here in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And for clarification, Mr.
Chairman, that was -- that was to accept the, urn, the staffs
recommendations except for the phase-in period, which would be one
year; was that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The phase-in period is for one
year.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So essentially your motion is the
same as Commissioner Coletta's except you went back to the
recommendation of one year versus six months; am I tracking with
you, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. LITSINGER: Um, maybe I can clarify-- um, the
recommendation was Commissioner Coletta's one-year phase-in of
this realtime checkbook concurrency reliance on projects being, um,
staff recommendation, as opposed to planning commission or the
other alternatives you've heard today.
Page 184
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you had some agreements
on -- on, um, planning commission's recommendations. One was a
one-year phase-in.
MR. LITSINGER: One-year phase-in for realtime concurrency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And one year for
Policy number 1.5.3, on page 167
MR. LITSINGER: No. That was related to reliance on projects
for support of development orders issued, which was under
construction, um, now, within one year, alternative having been
proposed of six months and several other proposals, also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll correct my motion of
planning commissions on 1.5.3.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask you to read back to us
what that means on this -- this little spreadsheet here?
MR. LITSINGER: Um, real-- the implementations of realtime
checkbook concurrency as it evolves through your land development
code process would be a one-year phase-in relative to the applications
of projects into the concurrency mechanism, um, management
system.
Um, the availability of projects would be based on under
construction within one year as we have defined under construction.
Um, that applies both to within a development agreement and your
schedule of capital improvements, and I would assume the reference
is to your adoptive schedule of capital improvements, which you
update each year.
And we're remaining with the 70 -- greater than 75 percent
capacity as the trigger mechanism for the concurrency application
system.
MR. MUDD: Which percentage, one percent?
Page 185
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And one -- excuse me, and one
percent is the threshold. That's the staff's recommendation, the
planning commission had been three percent; there's a number of
different --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was, too. I'm still confused.
Reliance on road projects for system availability, the staff
recommended it would be under construction.
MR. LITSINGER: Under construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Coletta
recommended that it be six months?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the current motion, is it
one year?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One year.
MR. LITSINGER: One year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's the CCPC recommendation?
MR. LITSINGER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For that part?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And road improvements provided
would be six months or that they will be completed before
development begins?
MR. LITSINGER: Completed as in under construction was the
staff recommendation, the planning commission was within one year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So what is the current
motion?
MR. LITSINGER: Within one year.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm still --
Page 186
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not under construction
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- not too sure, the threshold is going
to be one percent or two percent?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Um, --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One percent, the way it was just
explained.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm sorry. Three percent on
the threshold -- I don't have a cheat sheet, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, it's mostly the
planning commission's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's the planning commission's
recommendation, except for the two year, you're saying one year?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, implementation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But then -- there would be the three
percent that you're looking for and not the two?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three thresholds, yes. Three
percent and not one percent or two percent.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So, Commissioner, this is Jim Mudd, I just
want to make sure I've got this down. I'm just going to put your
initial there. And you're basically saying you want this one year up
here, and the motion you're making is realtime phase-in period is one
year.
Threshold for facilities impact analysis is three percent. Um, the
reliance on road projects for system availability is construction begun
within one year.
Road improvements provided for and development agreements
construction projects within one year of development, and the road
segment trigger is greater than 75 percent capacity consumed.
Page 187
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Correct. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion, and who
was the second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: (Indicating a wave of the hand.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter? Any other
discussion? Commissioner Coyle? I know you're deep in thought, I
figured you must have a question about now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, I do have
concern about, um, going too far away from the staff's
recommendations. Um, I tend to support staff's recommendation.
Um, the threshold for facility impact analysis to me is not a critical
issue, so I don't really much care where you go on that one.
But, um, I feel that, um, the delay in the construction and the
delay in implementation is excessive. But I will be guided by the
majority of the Board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. My own opinion is that we
have gone too far on the first round. I would expect that we might
arrive at something close to this at the very end is a balance between
all the forces out there.
My concern is, is that from this point, where do we go? We
have wadded this down quite a bit. Right now it's five percent out
there that we're allowing and we're going to three percent. Is there
that much of a difference that's it's going to have an impact? Is this
thing so structured that it still has some meaning?.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, it's my
understanding from the transportation staff that one percent is very
hard to determine, urn, to measure, and three percent is a lot easier to
measure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was talking about generally, how
we approach thiS thing with --
Page 188
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't think it's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're following the-- we're
following the planning commission's recommendations; of course,
they listen to it just as well as we have, it's just that we're all going to
come to different opinions and we're all going to come to different
conclusions on this.
I feel that this, in itself, at this point in time is a little too liberal.
And I kind of question where we're going to end up when this thing
comes back and we start negotiations over again.
So, you know, be it what it may, I had my piece and I do
appreciate the fact that I could express it. Commissioner Fiala, any
closing comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a couple of questions. How
many votes do we need to pass this?
MR. LITSINGER: You need a majority vote to transmit it. You
will ultimately need a super-majority or four votes to adopt it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. And actually, I agree with
you. I -- I felt that we cannot break the back of our construction
community, and that's stupid to do that, we're shooting ourselves in
the foot.
On the other hand, I think we need to be a little more
conservative and I liked your motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, my motion, of course, is done.
And a new motion is on the floor. We're only arguing over six
months and one percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where at the end of the day is that
going to take you? Somebody told me a one-percent differential in
the measurement process -- and I saw Norman, Mr. Feder, shake his
head. It's like, you know--
Page 189
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I got no problem with the
three percent, to be honest with you. I'm a little bit concerned about
the -- the phase-in time and I'm concerned about the rely -- the road
projects for system availability and also the, um, the one year that
we're going for the road improvements provided for in development
agreement.
Um, that -- that's where my concern at this moment in time is. I
can -- I can go with the three percent, I understand what we're talking
about there. The rest of it, the whole thing is, it's lined up in such a
way that it's a little too liberal.
But that's my own feelings. I don't want to drag this out. I think
we've got the ability to move this thing forward.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I like to hear a liberal tell me it's
too liberal. I love it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter,
for that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, it was time for everybody
to lighten up a little bit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I don't recognize Commissioner
Carter for the rest of the day, you'll know the reason why. I'm being
very tolerant because today is his birthday.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, not yet, but in celebration.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's only 75 years old.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, he's 74. Let's call the question,
if we may. All those in favor of Commissioner Henning's motion as
so stated, indicate by aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 190
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm opposed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have another failed
motion. This is getting interesting. What's the record? Never mind.
Maybe we can reach a compromise on this. Commissioner Coyle,
why don't you go ahead. You seem to have gone back and forth a
little bit and I think you got a pretty good idea. Would you like to
propose the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Um, I find it very difficult to
argue with the staff's recommendation. Um, but I also understand
that we made a commitment that we were not going to have, um, any
major adverse impacts on Collier County. Um, I believe we can do
this thing. I believe that as we go through the process of collecting
the data, we can get it done.
Um, but I'll tell you right now that if we were to go ahead with
the staff's recommendations and they did turn out to -- to have some
kind of a catastrophic impact on Collier County, um, I'd be the first
one to stand up and say let's stop it. But I understand that might take
time and the damage might already be done.
Um, so I can't emphasize too strongly how important it is that
we get this thing ready to go. We try to fill as many of the holes as
possible, we get the land development codes drafted. But, um, I'll tell
you the only position I can take is to go with the County staff's
recommendation at the present time. I don't see any other alternative
for me, um -- but, um, that's where I am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So you're looking to follow
right down the line then, the recommendations from the County staff?.
Page 191
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And do we have a second? For that,
I'll give you a second so we can get the discussion going on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think there's going to be
much discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, is there any discussion? Let's
call a motion. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. And we do have three now.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the two descending votes are
Commissioners Fiala and Commissioner Carter. I think we're at a
point where we can go back and work negotiations and tune this thing
to the point that it will work for everybody. Thank you, very much,
for your time and your indulgence.
Okay. Let's move on to -- what's the next item we're going to
cover? I know we got another one that we want to move forward so
we can help the --
MR. MUDD: 8-G, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Empty this room out a little bit.
Okay. I guess we're dealing with 9-H at this time.
MR. MUDD: 8-G, which is a move that used to be 17-D, and
it's the parks and recreation impact fee update.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's what we're going to go
forward first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it was what, 17 --
MR. MUDD: 8-G, it used to be 17-D.
Page 192
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That was pulled by staff, is that
correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Man, it's hard to peel these books
back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, it is.
Item #8G
RESOLUTION 2002-304 AMENDING THE PARKS AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE,
WHICH IS SCHEDULE THREE OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER
74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAW AND
ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: It was pulled by Commissioner Coyle.
MR. TINDLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Phil Tindle, Impact Fee Coordinator. I'd like to introduce this
item and, while the consultant is getting ready, I'd like to make a
couple introductory remarks about our impact fee update efforts in
general, um, at the direction of the Board.
This is one of a number of impact fee updates you'll be seeing
over the next several months. Um, in October of 2001, we put out an
RFP or a request for proposals for impact fee update studies that
would encompass parks and recreational facilities, schools, buyer,
correctional facilities.
And also, um, another look at a new law enforcement effect that
was actually previously, um, recommended in 1999 and was not
implemented, but we're going to be asking also again for the Board to
take a look at that for a possible adoption.
Page 193
June 25, 2002
This is the first of those you're going to be seeing in the next
several months, as I said. Urn, I'd like to introduce Clancy Mullins
(phonetic) from Duncan Associates which is a consulting firm out of
Austin, Texas. They're very well thought of and known across the
country in doing impact fee updates. They're very well-regarded
experts in this area.
And he's -- he, um -- I'd like to actually offer you an option of
how we can present this. He has a presentation that consists of about
ten slides that goes over the methodology and how we got to our new
numbers.
I know in the interest of time, you may have a desire to perhaps
just get to the bottom line and show a slide-by-slide comparison of
the current rates versus the proposed rates and the percentage change.
We can actually just go straight to that line.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to ask Commissioner
Coyle, he may have a specific question or reason and I think he's the
best one to go to this since he's the one that requested it be brought.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The, um, only reason I pulled it
from what is, I think, the summary agenda is that the development
services advisory committee had recommended against it. And I had
only asked that it be pulled so that their objection -- so the objections
are being--
MR. TINDLE: Yes, sir, you're absolutely right. That was a
miscommunication on the part of staff. If I had paid more attention
to the detail, I would have caught that myself. And I apologize, it
won't happen again. But it should-- that one should have be on the
correct agenda item for public hearing.
Page 194
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that's the only reason I
asked for it to be brought forward. Because there obviously were
people who had objection and it shouldn't be on the summary agenda.
MR. TINDLE: You're absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no particular questions
here, I just wanted to make sure the public had an opportunity to be
heard on this issue.
MR. TINDLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Don't we have speakers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I was just about ready to
ask, Commissioner Carter. Thank you, very much. Um, do we have
any speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have one speaker, David Ellis.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
just go straight to the rates?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
now and then we'll come back to it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
Anyway if you'd like, we could
No. We have a speaker right
Okay. No problem, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: David?
MR. ELLIS: This is my special day. Commissioners, my name
is David Ellis. I'm with the Collier County Building Industry
Association. And really, Commissioner, I appreciate you pulling this
off the summary agenda. When I realized that it was on the summary
agenda yesterday, it greatly disturbed me.
And I just want to take a moment and really not talk about the
fees directly, but about the process that these fees go through. We
seem to talk about this every time we review our impact fees.
This fee -- I guess, just to give you an overview of what has
happened, at the Development Services Advisory Committee the first
Wednesday of this month, the members of that committee, there were
Page 195
June 25, 2002
nine there that day, were given a copy when they walked into the
room of this study.
They were given an overview by the consultant who explained,
you know, in relative detail about it, and then said, "Gee, we need
you to vote on this because we're taking it to the County Commission
in a few weeks."
They -- they asked some questions, had some concerns. I wasn't
there that day, frankly, I was out of town, um, in a process planning
for today's meeting. Um, they voted five to four to deny it; they
didn't feel like they had enough information.
Typically, what's happened in these processes is the staff will
come back at the next meeting and say, "Hey, we got your questions,
we've given you a little more time to read it," and then they'll take it
forward to you.
It's somewhat of a process. It's, frankly, the only process we
have. It's disturbing today to know that only nine citizens outside of
the government process have really had a chance to review and
comment on these fees, and out of those nine, five didn't like it.
Now, I realize, Commissioners, that these fees will probably get
implemented today and that's, you know, part of the process. We
made a commitment, we agree with you. We need to make sure that
we're properly funding infrastructure and we're collecting the right
amounts.
It's just a little disconcerting to me to be in this process and see
that happen that way. It's something I hope will concern you
Commissioners, when they show these fees, when they show you the
tiering the first level -- and I will say, Commissioner Fiala, we talked
about this before, they tiered them in relative considerations to
affordability, by the size of the home.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Page 196
June 25, 2002
MR. ELLIS: I appreciate that and -- but even on the more
affordable homes, it will go to about $350. On the average size home
in Collier County, they go up -- and I don't have my notes in front of
me on that, but it's getting close to, um-- was it 800, $900? And over
1000 for the ones that are over $3,000.
It's -- it is a concern to me that an almost $1000 increase on
impact fees in Collier County was on our summary agenda with a --
with a negative recommendation from the advisory committee. We
need to look these things in the eye and talk about them when they
happen. I don't have a particular concern.
They followed, what I understand from talking to your staff, the
relative -- similar methodology they followed the last time they did
these, and it's how they're done. This is a fairly simple one to
calculate in terms of what you decide at your level of service and
what it costs and how it's delivered.
It is just a concern, Commissioners, and when you talk about
this, you talk about impacts on the building industry. Your staff
didn't recommend any time frame that it would go into. Originally,
there was discussion in making it effective August the 1st, which at
least is a little bit of a time for guys like Mario Valle (phonetic), who
come in here quite regularly, for him to consider the cost of a house.
We all acknowledge that what happens when you increase these
is that the cost of housing goes up in Collier County. The people that
will be affected by this increase don't even know it's happening
because, quite honestly, it was yesterday I was flipping through the
summary agenda and said, hey, wait a minute, I thought it was going
on to next month. And here it is now front of us.
It's just bad policy, it's a bad approach. And I've appealed for
this before, but we set up an impact fee ordinance that consolidated
Page 197
June 25, 2002
every impact fee we have in Collier County. It was a great move by
this Commission to make a more uniform process.
The only process we didn't make uniform was this part of the
deal, how we talk about it once we get the study, how it's reviewed,
who sees it, how their comments are weighed, how they're brought
forward, and then what process we go by to make them effective.
It -- I just see this somewhat as bad form in how this process
goes forward. And I realize Phil and what they're trying to do, they're
reacting to a time frame you set. Okay, let's get these things done.
We agree. We need to be consistent, we need to be steady, we need to
be regular so we know what's going on.
But I'll tell you once again, Commissioners, it is a concern--
and I would ask you to look at these fees and if you do decide to
increase them today, at lease set an effective date of August 1st, or
some time in the relative near future so that we can get it out to let
people know so they can adjust their rates. So the people in the
home-buying process know that there's going to be a little bit higher
bar to come over.
And I just really wanted to say that I didn't know exactly how
far to go because certainly, I don't even feel like I'm ready to talk
about the analysis and what your consultant is going to talk about. It
is a concern, though. Commissioners, I ask you to be sensitive to that
in this process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm glad you brought this up,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't know if anybody would be
here to speak about it. But, um, in view of the concern, I would
suggest that we put this on the next agenda, publicly advertised, and
let people have the opportunity to provide us recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I second that.
Page 198
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. David Ellis, thank you, very
much for that input.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Opposed?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have one -- one person in
opposition and that's Commissioner Henning. Forgive me,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I know John was trying to get the
podium here and that's why I was waiting before I cast a vote.
UNIDENITIFIED SPEAKER: Good afternoon,
Commissioners. I recognize your vote, but I just want to make a few
additional comments to what Mr. Ellis had stated earlier. Um, during
the setup for the discussions that we have with development services
advisory committee, um, prior to that meeting, I think about a month
before, we had actually even tentatively sent a follow-up date with
you on a special meeting, in case they wanted to have that meeting.
The presentation occurred, um, in, I believe, the latter part of
May and Mr. Tindall, correct me if I'm wrong, they had discussed the
issue thoroughly then, they went through a thorough presentation,
this was simply an update of the fees.
I don't believe there was any other discussion regarding the
implementation date. Certainly, the Board has the opportunity -- this
Page 199
June 25, 2002
was a publicly advertised hearing today, even though it was on
summary agenda and probably should not have been.
You know, the Board would have the ability to change that date,
implementation date of August 1st, without having to go back and
bring our consultant back in case you want to go over the fee-by-fee.
This is simply an update of our fees, you know, what our costs
are to build playgrounds and parks and so forth. And I think the
Development Services Advisory Committee recognized that and
didn't see the need for an additional meeting to follow that.
Um, additional comment I would make is that I did send an e-
mail to Mr. Ellis prior to acknowledging that this would be coming
forward several weeks ago on the tentative time frame that we had
set. So and from some standpoint, I do believe we have put out the
notice.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think maybe we were just a little
quick on the draw there and I do apologize for the lack of discussion.
If you so like, I would like to reconsider the motion so that we can
bring it back for discussion now?
MR. MUDD: David, can he--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: David--
MR. WEIGEL: Did you finish your vote on the first motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I didn't.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't believe you did. So --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can I withdraw it?
MR. WEIGEL: I thought -- I thought perhaps Mr. Carter had
not voted.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I hadn't voted yet and I concur
with Mr. Henning, I don't want to bring it back.
Page 200
June 25, 2002
MR.??: I had a couple more bits of detail that might help your
discussion a little bit. I agree, we would like to have had more time
for discussion with the DSCE -- DSAC and other entities that might
have been involved and interested.
Obviously, we are an ambitious schedule because we're trying to
get impact fees to where they need to be right now. Um, I will tell
you that that presentation of the DSC -- DSAC meeting that was in
the first Wednesday of this month, took over an hour long and we
went into excruciating detail about the methodology and the numbers
that were used and all the components that went into that discussion.
I filed the questions for over an hour myself. So there was quite
a bit of discussion that previously took place prior to our coming
forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, now, could I make a motion
for reconsideration?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I'll mention that on -- on every voting
matter that comes before the Board, all commissioners present must
vote.
So we are in a position where, on the prior motion and vote that
was called by the Chairman, either a vote must be made or we
entered new territory, um, it would seem to me that the vote for the
record should be made, I would opine.
And then that vote having been made, um, a motion to
reconsider at this very meeting could be entertained.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The vote was made and everyone did
vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, Carter --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I did, I voted. But
Commissioner Henning had voted against bringing it back.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
Page 201
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He voted. So now I make a motion
for reconsideration?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you may. And it's by any member who
voted with the majority. Um, if the motion is made prior to the
adjournment of the meeting in which the matter was voted upon, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And can the second be anyone on the
commission or--
MR. WEIGEL: It could be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's for reconsideration?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For reconsideration of the vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, of the vote; right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We got a motion and a second
for reconsideration. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle is the
opposition and Commissioner Carter, I haven't heard from you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no objection to bringing it
back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So with that, I would like to
make a motion that we approve staff's recommendation and then we'll
open it for discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we got a motion from myself,
Commissioner Coletta, second, Commissioner Fiala, and now
Page 202
June 25, 2002
discussion. And I was a little too quick on the draw the first time so
that's why we're going this particular route, to try to make up for any
sins we may have committed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we look at the Executive
Summary, the effects would be of homes of 3,000 square feet or
more, um, that's -- that's where the majority of it is. I think anybody
that lives in a house in Collier County deserves recreation and
'deserves to pay for it. So I'm going to support it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With a house like that, they can
have their own park there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, any
comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Um, I -- I just -- just think it's a
matter of form and policy, if there's an indication of disagreement,
something shouldn't be placed on the summary agenda and I just
think it's bad practice to do this.
I don't know that it would hurt us to have this thing brought back
and give the public a chance to be heard. But once again, I will yield
to the vote of the majority.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, any
comments there?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. My comment is we knew
the rates were going to be going up anyway, we asked for the impact
fees to be increased and this is in keeping in line and as long as it was
discussed with DSAC, and I didn't realize that they had such
extensive discussion on it, I would say let's move forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter, any
closing comments on this?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
Page 203
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I apologize to this Board for
acting too swiftly on that particular one and I'll be a little slower on
the draw in the future. With that, I'll call for the motion. All those in
favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero. Thank you, very much. Now, we're going to go on to -- excuse
the jumping around but we're trying to satisfy a bunch of--
MR. MUDD: Coletta Chairman, just -- just for -- there seems to
be some discomfort about how much we interact with the DSAC.
And what we'll do is we'll take a look at our process, I will also
make sure that Mr. Phil Tindall gives Mr. David Ellis the schedule
okay, of the updates; for instance, on the 30th of July, we plan to
bring before the Board the road impact fee update.
Um, and -- and, um -- that could be, um, an issue of some
discussion. So I want to make sure that Mr. Ellis has that schedule
for Mr. Tindle, and I also want to make sure that Mr. Tindle makes
sure that DSAC knows it's coming. And if he needs to schedule
additional meetings with them in the process, that that happens, sir.
Item #9H
RECONSIDERATION OF JUNE 11TH ACTION REGARDING
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ON DEVONSHIRE
BOULEVARD - TO BE RECONSIDERED ON SEPTEMBER 10,
2O02
Page 204
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Next item I
believe will be 9-H; am I correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 9-A, motion to approve
NAPKA.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, hold on, Commissioner
Henning. Did you say you wanted to move an item up earlier?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coletta, it-- it-- we have
numerous people in the audience that have MSTU interests and have
been here all day long.
If we go to 9-H and figure out the direction of the Board on that
particular item, and then we have some kind of a vote about a
continuance of item 10-C, 10-F and 10-G until the next Board
meeting, 30th of July, I think we can get these folks home before
dinner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll renew my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
You're just about as fast on the draw as I am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm trying to speed it up.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I know you have
speakers for this. I said earlier, I believe a policy decision that we got
to go to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Um, yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I would move that we defer
it to come back for policy looking at gateways and the other, um,
arterials or collectors where this would be applicable. So mine would
be a request by the Board to give Staff direction with two policies,
um, governing median beautification.
Page 205
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question, what has really
changed from last month when we approved, um, this Devonshire
Boulevard median beautification?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Actually, it was last -- about two
weeks ago, I think, and I'm the one who asked that it be -- to be
reconsidered and not because I want to do anything that -- that the
residents would object to. Um, what I would like to do is just
develop a consistent policy as to how we go about doing this.
Um, it's -- it's my opinion and I can always be corrected, but it's
my impression that we have lots of different policies; we have
MSTU's in some cases, we have the residents just voluntarily doing
it, like Devonshire used to do.
Um, and we have places where the, um -- the um, County picked
it up. Um, I just think we should treat everyone equally in the county
and to the extent we can develop a policy. And I have no intention of
trying to do something that the people who live in this area really
would object to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you think we ought to -- to
discuss an overall policy on the back of this particular one? Don't
you think maybe we ought to do that as some type of a workshop so
that we develop -- I think it's going to take little bit more than just
discussing it over this particular item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we were going to combine it
with 10-C, 10-F and 10-G, which we-- we discussed earlier today
when Mr. -- Mr. Bruce came before us and asked us to take a look at
some things.
And I think what -- what at least what my thought was that we
were going to take all of these issues about beautification and
landscaping, bring them back and deal with them all as a group, so
Page 206
June 25, 2002
that we deal with them consistently. And that's -- that's my only
intent here. And, urn, I don't know -- well, the -- MR. MUDD: Commissioners, um--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- County manager would feel
about this.
MR. MUDD: -- there's some -- no, and I think it's something
that we need to do. Because if you take a look at everything that's
siting on that -- on that agenda -- and I mentioned it before, it's about
$700,000 in maintenance, but if you talk about the one time capital
expenditure, it's about 1.8 million dollars.
None of which that's in your annual budget that you just took a
look at today and which you will approve later on in this fiscal year.
Um, but the staff is kind of sitting there going, well, we cut out 44
million dollars in the budget because we wanted to cut out some of
the fringe things, okay, because we needed to get the budget squared
away so that we can get our five year road program, urn, looking
forward and moving out and be able to minimize the amount of
bonding we were going to do.
Urn, and then we have some issues -- and I don't want to call
them -- they're not ankle biters, but I will tell you, there's folks out
there that has some needs, and you're -- we're talking about MSTU's
and we're talking about some other issues and we have to control
those -- control those expectations, um, and if we don't set some clear
policy, then you're going to be dealing with these particular items
throughout the year and it won't necessarily be just medians.
It will be streetlighting, it will be curbing issues, it will be
everything. It will be, urn, speed bumps on different streets and
things like that. So I think we need to get some clear policy from the
Board. And what we'll do in the interim before the next meeting is
we'll give you some options and we'll lay out those things for you so
Page 207
June 25, 2002
that you have -- you have an information sheet, an information packet
that will better inform you on what those options are in that process
and what the physical ramifications are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think this is something we
can handle in a regular meeting or should this be a special workshop.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I think you can handle -- you can handle
this particular item if we give you the information ahead of time so
that you're prepared for it during the 30th of July meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Um, my concern is leaving
these people hanging, um, for a long time. Um, we're going to go on
break here -- well, actually, it's going to be about a month. And I
know they have budgets to, um, to meet.
In the Executive Summary, it did state that, um, do an
amendment to the, um -- this year's budget to take over Devonshire.
So, I don't want to belabor this. Um, I guess you're giving
reassurance that they'll be happy of the outcome.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I sure hope so. That would be my
inclination.
MR. MUDD: And if-- Commissioner, as we extend this and the
county attorney basically said that we can't look at Devonshire until
the 10th of September.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right.
MR. MUDD: And in the interim, because the Board gave us
direction to go out and maintain it, I would -- I would suggest to the
Board that we maintain but don't do the $85,000 worth of capital
improvements that was also part of that motion, but we maintain it in
good order and get the grass cut so it looks nice, and deal with the
vegetations there until the Board can finally decide on the 10th of
September how they want to handle this particular one.
Page 208
June 25, 2002
But the original 6-A, um, petition that was done today plus items
-- items 10-C, 10-F and 10-G would be-- would be heard with some
policy direction from the Board on the 30th of July.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That works for me. Does this request
require a motion?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If you're going to continue those items
and you're gonna --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- and you want to look at 9-H, you're going to
have to say there needs to be a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, sir. And we still have
speakers, how many do we have?
MS. FILSON: We have two for 9-H and two for 10-F.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, actually, they're all being
considered together. Of course, this is going to come back so, um,
any pitch you make now, you're just going to have to repeat again at
that point in time it comes back.
I'm not going to deny you the right to be able to come up and
talk to us, but if you wish to wait, we would totally understand. Did
you want to call the first speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Grant Graham will be your first
speaker and he will be followed by Fred Rogers.
MR. GRAHAM: I almost had a heart attack. For the record,
I'm Grant Grehem. I'm here in my capacity as President of the Board
of Directors of First Lakes Masters Association.
Two weeks ago, the four Commissioners present voted
unanimously to approve the recommendation of Mr. Feder that the
County assumes the responsibility for the maintenance and lighting
of Devonshire Boulevard. The County collect a road and primary
access to Berkeshire Commons.
Page 209
June 25, 2002
The facts and circumstances presented by Mr. Feder and myself
have not changed and we are greatly concerned by the move to
reconsider. The agenda linkage with various considerations of
beautification MSTU is not a relevant comparison to the Devonshire
Boulevard situation.
We pay taxes into the Radio Road beautification MSTU and into
the countywide beautification plan found at 111. And for well over a
dozen years, we have borne the entire cost of maintaining
Devonshire.
Please bear in mind, we did not vote to impose this burden upon
ourselves as is the case with an MSTU. Assumption of the
installation and maintenance of the landscaping and lighting on
Devonshire by the developer served as vested interest in the sale of
properties within Berkeshire Lakes and Berkeshire Commons.
We are informed it was done without any permitting and may
have been or not executed according to county standards; depending
on what prevailed at that time. As far as we know, the standards to
which the work was carried out have never been challenged by Code
Enforcement.
The Devonshire situation is unique in view of the time which
has elapsed since the work on Devonshire was completed, the PUD
statements, agreements and commitments under which it was
executed. Our situation should not be considered as a parallel to
other area requests.
It is the unique case where the county did not assume it's
responsibilities, honor and acknowledge county road, once the work
agreed to by the PUD was completed. Our petition is a matter of
right versus wrong. Fairness, fairness, unfairness and just.
Your previous decision considered the merits of this and
recognized this was long overdue by your favorable vote. All we are
Page 210
June 25, 2002
asking is that the county step up to its responsibilities in this matter.
We respectfully request that you stand firm in your decision of June
1 lth. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And before we continue
with the next speaker, we are going to take just a minute to switch out
the recorder, the young ladies are ready to take a moment to do that.
It's going to take just a second when they -- as they close out one
and start another one up, so if you want to stretch your legs, go
ahead. Just don't disappear.
MR. MUDD: I'm going to mm off the speaker.
Thereupon, (A short break was had at this time, after which
proceedings continued as follows:)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Fred Rogers and he will be
followed by Lu Lackore.
MR. ROGERS: It seems the Commissioners are out there in the
audience talking. I'm Fred Rogers; R-o-g-e-r-s. I'm the Director of
Berkshire and there are several e-mails that I sent to you regarding
this issue, the action for reconsidering and the way that developed,
the way it's been handled, by both the developer and the county.
The place was developed 16 years ago. It was developed 16
years ago. And it differs from some of these other subjects which are
trying to be aligned to each on the basis that they deal with
beautification processes in the embryo stages and they can be
described having an installation phase, if you will, which is the
planning and the initial planning and then a maintenance fee.
Ours is a 16-year development. It's a beautiful looking street,
when you look at it. It's been there for 16 years. It's been maintained
for 16 years. We've even paid the street lighting for 16 years, even
though that was a county responsibility. We're not going back and
Page 211
June 25, 2002
asking you to pay for all that effort. We'd rather get this matter settled
up front.
As I understand the situation as it exists, if we reconsider the
issue of June 11 th, then we have to wait until September the 10th
before this issue comes up again, and frankly, that is just too long.
We need some action.
The developer got away with whatever he could get away with
at the time the PUD was developed. The PUD did spell out certain
county responsibilities and it never was followed up. There was
never any check, as far as we can determine, into permits. There was
never any attempt to take over the cost of the street lighting. There
was never any check on whether the standards of the day were met.
So we're left really holding this thing.
The developer pulled a fast one on us. He was very anxious to
sell the property within Berkshire Lakes and Berkshire Commons,
which is the other side.
And in that process, he very cleverly had BLMA pay for the cost
of all that effort in Devonshire and we were sufficiently naive that we
never discovered that Devonshire was even a county road until such
time a new road was cut through from Berkshire Commons into
Devonshire Boulevard. And since we have discovered that, we are
very anxious to put that matter right.
As I understand the reconsideration motion, if it is approved,
this whole thing gets put back to September the 10th. If it is not
approved, the discussion that Mr. Mudd just had prevails and the
work does get done. I would like agreement or otherwise that that's
going to happen. The work gets done while you consider what else
needs to be taken care of.
I would like to ask that we don't go into the reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
Page 212
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that a clarification is
what Mr. Mudd said in the interim until a decision is made what to do
with Devonshire that the County should commit to maintaining it,
whether it's September 2050; correct?
MR. MUDD: Until the Board makes a decision. If they decide
to reconsider this, the County should maintain it because that's what
you told us to do at the last board meeting and we should continue to
do that.
But I would ask the Board to give us some direction and not to
go with the capital improvements which is about $85,000.
MR. ROGERS: Can I speak to that? The $85,000 is a
speculative money, in my view. If you look at Devonshire
Boulevard, it is very attractive. Some of the stuff is like lowering the
median because it is slightly bowed and the water runs off it into the
street.
There are trees that are close to the roadside, the curb, that need
to be moved, things of that nature. It would be my thinking that those
things can be done over time. There's no need to rush into doing all
this stuff. This stuff has been there for 16 years. There's no great
panic to change the status of that landscaping.
MR. MUDD: That was an estimate to bring it up to present
county codes.
MR. ROGERS: I also understand actually from -- can I finish?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wrap it up, sir.
MR. ROGERS: I understand talking to a gentleman from Norm
Feder's department that part of that high cost is the fact that we need
a lighting device that says traffic must move to the right or to the left
and it costs $30,000.
Page 213
June 25, 2002
That absolutely staggered me. If you want to look for some
budget improvements, I would suggest that there's a heck of a good
place to start. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put a flagman out there for that
price.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lu Lackore and he will be
followed by Harry Yipson.
MR. LACKORE: Harry waited seven hours and he left. So I'm
going to be the only one speaking. My name is Lu Lackore and I'm
chairman of the Livingston Road Phase Two MSTU Committee, the
advisory committee.
Other members of the committee that are here with me today is
Bill Confoy, Dex Gruse and Tom Fabian.
And so that we don't have four people speaking to you, I'm
going to speak for all four of us.
Our purpose here is to present you with our recommendation on
landscaping Livingston Road Phase Two and to ask for your best
participation in this project.
Our committee, under the guidance of staff, has adopted an
estimated budget of $1,700,000 for this project, which includes
landscape design specification and supervision, irrigation,
landscaping, and the added cost of decorative lighting.
Several years ago the residence and land owners along
Livingston Road formed the Livingston Road Beautification
Association, raised over $50,000 and had a preliminary landscape
plan developed and coordinated with the County and the county staff
in each step in this process.
It was made clear to us that the county staff and Commissioners
advocated a private public partnership to landscape road.
Page 214
June 25, 2002
We learned that for arterial roads and gateways that the County
either paid for the landscaping or shared the cost of the landscaping
50/50. And that the County was paying for all of the maintenance on
the landscaped arterial roadway.
We were led to believe that the Livingston Road Project would
receive the same treatment. We recognized the increased demand for
roads and the failure of the half-cent road taxes considerably
tightened the County's budget.
We have contacted each of you and outlined how we felt the
County should participate. We heard your comments and as a result
have reduced our expectations.
However, during the design of the road, the Beautification
Association found that because of land availability restraints, the
design of the road included 6,000 feet of retaining wall and railing.
This feature was estimated to cost $600,000.
Through the efforts of the Beautification Association
arrangements were made which negated the need for this retaining
wall and railing with a savings of $600,000 to the County.
We therefore request the County participate in the cost of
landscaping Livingston Road Phase Two to the extent of $600,000.
You can look at this not as an added cost but as transfer of cost
from the road construction to landscaping.
Livingston Road is designated as an arterial roadway.
Engineering estimates that the traffic on Livingston Road when
completed would be as high as 60 to 70,000 vehicles a day. Compare
this with Airport Road now which has an estimated high 50,000
vehicles per day.
Livingston Road will be one of only two County north-south
corridors connecting Collier and Lee County.
Page 215
June 25, 2002
Some of the other arterial roads in Collier County are Airport
Road, 41 North, 41 East, Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road,
Vanderbilt Beach Road, Davis Boulevard and Pine Ridge.
The county paid all or 50 percent of the cost of landscaping each
one of these arterial roadways.
We feel that a request for 600,000 and the savings made on
construction is a reasonable request.
Maintenance, the County now maintains all of the landscaping
on the 10 arterial roadways that I mentioned. Livingston Road will
probably be the second most traveled north-south road in the county
system.
We feel it is also reasonable to ask the County to maintain the
landscaping on this important gateway arterial corridor road.
The committee has voted to recommend to you the imposition of
a .75 mill property tax to fund this project. This will yield
approximately $450,000 this year.
We ask you to provide for borrowing against the second and
third year tax as needed.
A County contribution of $600,000 plus three year tax revenues
will cover the estimated cost, the MSTU operating cost and some
cushion for variance.
That completes my presentation. Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir, that is great timing.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess from me what I'm going
to have to have is some history of the policies that the previous Board
has taken on arterial roadways and landscaping.
I don't need it today. But the understanding -- what you said is
just the opposite of what my understanding is of the arterial roadway
landscaping.
Page 216
June 25, 2002
So I need to do some research on that to really get a handle on
what was done in the past and also still keep in mind the struggles
that we have with the tax dollars and wanting to stretch them and still
build a roadway.
MR. LACKORE: If I can comment, the Livingston Road
Beautification Association, which resulted in the MSDU report,
which is what we are all on, went through a two or three-year process
to get to the point of requesting an MSDU, all of which happened
before the tax hit.
And up to that time we received all kinds of encouragement
from the county staff and the County Commissioners, that the way to
go was a public private partnership and that we could expect the
County's full participation because the history was that there had
Thank
been participation in every instance prior on roads of this sort.
you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Henning, on that
issue, the private public partnership is very correct. We were
pursuing that policy and through the point in time where the half
penny for roads was defeated.
Once that was defeated we had to revisit and begin to rethink
what our arrangements could be.
And I think when it comes back in July, you will find history
which is kind of a mixed bag, but that will be things we have to factor
in.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, we need some kind of motion on
what we want to do with, which is 9-H, which is the Devonshire
Boulevard relook, and then we need to figure out if we're going to
continue 10-C, 10-F and 10-G until the 30th of July meeting.
Page 217
June 25, 2002
We need some Board votes on this so that we can move out and
we'll get back on schedule and get back to 9-A.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. Does -- did
Devonshire people have an MSTU in place?
MR. MUDD: No.
ma'am.
MS. FIALA: I see.
They have a homeowners association,
Do you want to put one in place?
MR. ROGERS: No. We do it cheaper now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We are getting into a discussion that
is best left--
MR. KANT: I was just going to answer the Commissioner's
question. The Devonshire segment is within -- this is Edward Kant is
within the Radio Road MSTU.
MR. ROGERS' Not true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
No.
MR. KANT: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We went to the MSTU for
Radio Road.
MR. KANT: But the boundaries of the MSTU include that
property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. They pay for MSTU
for Radio Road, the people in Devonshire.
MR. KANT: That's correct. That's what I said, that they are
within the MSTU.
MR. FIALA: But that MSTU doesn't pay for Devonshire.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct.
MR. KANT: They're not paying for the cost of that
maintenance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
Page 218
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I make a motion? It's
important that I think we address all of these items. I think we should
address them all at the same time. So I would suggest that we
schedule these for discussion in our next meeting. And in the
meantime, with respect to Devonshire, the County should pick up the
maintenance and maintain it during the period of time that we are
trying to make up our mind what we're going to do. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WIEGEL: If we're still talking about the reconsideration
item --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Move closer to the microphone.
MR. WIEGEL: If we're still talking about the reconsideration
item, that item by ordinance must come back two regular meetings
away, which would make that September 10th. If you wish to bring
those other matters in with it, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't feel strongly about that. I
think we can deal with the Devonshire situation separately, if we
need to.
The important thing is we develop some consistent policy with
respect to how we deal with these things. I suspect there's some
urgency with respect to Livingston Road and other areas, if we can
bring those back the next meeting we can then develop a consistent
policy concerning that. That policy then can guide us when we reach
a resolution in the Devonshire maintenance.
But in the meantime, the County picks up Devonshire
maintenance and homeowners are relieved of that debt problem.
MR. WEIGEL: Very good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there no second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will second the motion.
Page 219
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle and a second by Commissioner Carter. I'm a little bit
confused. Are you saying, bring it back even though the county
attorney said we couldn't bring it back at the next meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm saying. My preference
would be to bring it back all at the same time. But in order to do that,
we got to delay Livingston Road decision two months, which clearly
we don't want to do, so we bring back those nine -- what are the
three?
MR. MUDD: 10-C, 10-F and 10-G. And you also have the 6-A
public petition that was brought to us today by Mr. Gross, the Board
decided to hear next time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I'm suggesting is we take all
of those, schedule them for our next meeting, develop a consistent
policy as to how we're going to deal with all of these and then it's two
votes and then vote on a reconsideration of the Devonshire situation,
schedule it for early September. MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that -- between now and
September, when we make a decision, the County will pick up the
maintenance of that road.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that --
MR. WEIGEL: That's just fine. I think by your earlier Motion
to Reconsider by operation of the ordinance, it automatically goes on
two meetings hence on September 10th, so there's no further motion
or continuance or anything in regard to this Devonshire matter that
you need to make now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We need a vote on the Devonshire
matter at first, it would seem to me.
Page 220
June 25, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I lost track. I thought you had made --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We started out talking about
Devonshire, then we went right into the others.
MR. WEIGEL: If you haven't made the Motion to Reconsider--
they did? Okay. I think that's all you can do on Devonshire today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have we voted on that?
MR. WEIGEL: You need to vote and with the vote you'll have
done all you can do on Devonshire and your further explanation on
everything, of course --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle, Motion to Reconsider. MR. WEIGEL: That was made.
MS. FILSON: Second from Commissioner Carter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's important and I
realize that we do make mistakes sometimes, but I think it's very
important for the Board and the integrity of the vote.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think if we make a
decision and it's based on the facts that we should stick to the
decision.
And I don't think -- I don't see that we're doing that today. I see
that we're backing down from the decision that we made from the
previous meetings. I will not support the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Even though we're going to continue
to do the maintenance and at that point in time, we can consider
everything in its totality?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. It's like anything in
life, Commissioner, life decisions are out there. It is sometimes you
let people hanging and that's what we're doing with the people in
Berkshire, just leaving them hanging.
Page 221
June 25, 2002
I understand where Commissioner Coyle is and I respect that,
but I will not support it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to comment and that is to talk
about lumping all the other landscaping projects in one BCC meeting,
I would think -- my opinion would be, it would be much better
handled at a workshop, where we don't have to delay everyone sitting
in an audience while we banter this back and forth.
We're talking about a lot of different facets of landscaping. And
I think we need to put them in categories and discuss each one. And I
don't know that we should be doing that at a board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the second vote. Right now
we're up for reconsideration of Devonshire.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was making a comment on it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can make a second motion after
we finish this one.
Is there any other comments? Hearing none, all those in' favor
of the reconsideration indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed? Please note for the
record Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Henning were in
opposition.
Item #10C, 1 OF & 10G
STATUS REPORT ON THE INTERCHANGE ENHANCEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS REQUESTED BY THE GOLDEN
GATE/I-75 AD HOC BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE;
Page 222
June 25, 2002
REQUEST FROM LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE II
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR
SUPPORT FOR THE BEAUTIFICATION OF LIVINGSTON
ROAD PHASE II; AND ADDENDUM TO LANDSCAPE
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE HIGHWAY
AGREEMENT REGARDING EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE EXISTING US 41 NORTH PAHSE I AGREEMENT TO
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD -CONTINUED TO JULY 30, 2002
And now is there another motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're talking about the other
items?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no preference with respect
to board meeting or a workshop.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with Commissioner Fiala that
a workshop would be more in line of what we're talking doing. We're
talking about serious dollars that are going to impact everyone in
Collier County. And we do have to come up with a firm direction to
be able to go on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hate to take up a whole audiences
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You understand that if we do it at
a workshop, we won't be able to take a vote there, which means that
we're further delaying the final decision. Really, I have no
preference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The important thing is to try to get
these things resolved. I understand how complex that might be. I'm
willing to do that. But it will delay the decision by going to a
workshop.
Page 223
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You would have to do that
workshop, get it on the agenda prior to the budget, final budget
workshops, looking at the mechanics, that would be a challenge.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You have to make a decision today if
you're going to continue these items. If you're not going to continue
the items, then you have to hear the items. Then you're going to have
to vote on each one of them.
And you really don't have a firm policy that I can basically say
this is what we've done in the past and we've been consistent about it
in every particular case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I served on Naples Scape
for several years. We jumped all over the Board with that one. I do
have some background. I served on a MSTU.
So I know all of the different areas that we would have to cover.
Okay. Fine. I will withdraw--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You didn't make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She was getting ready to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we're looking to do is make a
motion to bring this back at the September -- the first meeting of the
Board of Commissioners in September. MR. MUDD: July 30th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can legally do that; is that
correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you may.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then when we bring it back on
July 30th, consider all the MSTUs we have to deal with -- I'll leave it
go at that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got a motion to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 224
June25,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got a motion by Commissioner
Carter and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any other discussions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: His motion said MSTUs or do you
mean landscaping?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me correct that. The items
that are today's agenda that deal with median beautification
sometimes they're called MSTUs.
MR. MUDD: 10-C, 10-F and 10-G.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me restrict it to that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your second still remains?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion? Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a note, what we're doing is
continuing 10-C, 10-F and 10-G to the next meeting so they can be
held at the same time as Mr. Gross' proposal or public petition for
Pine Ridge Road landscaping, so we're bringing -- we're continuing
three items.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And incorporating--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And incorporating the public
petition to be heard all at the same time.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can add that to the motion so
it's clear.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, you maintain
your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? All those in
favor, indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page225
June 25, 2002
Oe
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed?
The ayes have it 5-
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would look, when that's
brought back, Mr. Mudd, and you will give us the framework and
policy and date it for everyone to review so when the Board
reconvene they will have a knowledge base in which to enter into that
discussion.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2002-305 APPOINTING JAMES G. O'GARA TO
THE 1-75/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AD HOC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item is 9-A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve from
Commissioner Henning and a second from Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #9B
Page 226
June 25, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-306 APPOINTING HELEN CARELLA TO
THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
applicant 9-B.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? All
those in favor indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2002-307 APPOINTING EDMUND J.
MCCARTHY TO THE BAYSHORE AVALON
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
applicant of 9-C.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coyle. All of those in favor indicate by
saying, "aye".
Page 227
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2002-308 APPOINTING MICHAEL J. CARR, SR.,
GEORGE C. MOHLKE, JR. AND REAPPOINTING JOHN T.
CONROY, JR. TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING
FINANCE COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'd like to make a motion that
for 9-D, we follow the committee's recommendation for Carr,
Mohlke and Conroy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got it already from Commissioner
Henning, unless he changes his mind. So we got a motion from
Commissioner Coletta, a second from Commissioner Henning. Any
discussion? All those in favor, indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COYLE: Aye.
FIALA: Aye.
CARTER: Aye.
Item #9E
DISCUSSION REGARDING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY-
STAFF TO REVIEW AND BRING BACK SUGGESTIONS
Page 228
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Donna, we're to you now, 9-E.
Michelle Arnold has been kind enough to come up and she'll give us
a fast overview on this.
Let me say, as she's coming up, you probably read it right here
in the agenda. This is a concern that we've had in the triangle areas
especially with areas that are boarded up places along with vagrants
living in them. We also have critters of all different sizes.
And they found it's becoming a health hazard and Michelle only
has so much that she -- her -- so much policy for her to go by and
then her hands are tied, so I asked her if she could come up here and
tell us what she needs from us. If we can't condemn them, what can
we do to force the property owners to make them at least look
presentable and be safe and guard the health of the surrounding
neighborhood?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code
Enforcement Director. Yes, there are quite a few areas where,
because for lack of maintenance or occupancy the condition of the
structures and the properties have gone downhill. And all my
department is able to do with the regulations that we have right now
is to make sure that they're secured.
And from time to time the boarded up windows and doors may
get removed and, you know, with the assistance of the Sheriff's
Office, we get them boarded up again.
I think that if we had some direction from the Board of County
Commissioners to pursue different regulations that would allow us to
require the continued maintenance of these facilities so that it doesn't
get to the level that it is, I think that would help matters a little bit.
So if the Board wanted to direct staff, myself, the County Attorney's
Page 229
June 25, 2002
Office and perhaps the planning staff to look into it to bring back for
future amendment to the Land Development Code, we can do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bayshore MSTU was very
concerned about -- Bayshore triangle MSU is very concerned about
these, I believe that the triangle residence had a group that gathered
together and they were actually going to take those structures down,
take it out, no cost to the County whatsoever, take them off the
property and then they were not allowed to do that.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that would be trespassing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The owners would prohibit them
from doing that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. They love it looking like
that I guess, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would you recommend?
MS. ARNOLD: I would have to confer with the County
Attorney's Office to see what regulations could be put in place so that
we, again, require the continued maintenance or upkeep of the
property so it didn't get to the level where it becomes a problem for
the health, safety of the community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any way we can condemn
those properties that are causing a problem?
MS. ARNOLD: Not that I see. We're talking about properties
that have gone in disrepair and create either a problem for -- unless it
gets to a point where it's unsafe structurally, the structured stability of
the property is unsafe, we can't -- I don't have the authority to
condemn it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be willing to make a
motion that we provide guidance to research the alternatives and
come back with a set recommendation as to how we would solve this
problem.
Page 230
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I second that. That's
what I'm asking for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? All those
in favor, indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much, Michelle.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2002-309 APPOINTING ED STAROS TO THE
PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item is G.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for an approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? All those
in favor, indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we go on, just one
second, I just want to check something.
Page 231
June 25, 2002
Commissioner Fiala, could you tell me if this item here, E, 10-E,
if that's what the people in the audience are here for?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They already left. I have some
people from Marco Island and that 10-L is one of them, and also I
have Isle of Capri, three different ones.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If we can take them a little bit out of
succession so we can move them on home to dinner.
Item # 10L
DIRECTION FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A
WRITTEN NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BCC AND THE CITY COUNCIL
OF MARCO ISLAND DATED 1/19/1999 WHICH PROVIDES
FOR THE COLLECTION OF COUNTY IMPACT FEES BY THE
CITY GOVERNMENT- APPROVED SUBJECT TO BOARD
ACTION ON JULY 30, 2002
MS. FILSON: N, O and P.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: L, N, O and P. Let's go with L, 10-
L, which was formerly 16-B-13.
MR. TIMBER: In January of 1999, Collier County and the City
of Marco Island entered into a local agreement whereby they set forth
the administrative provisions and policies that would allow the city to
collect county impact fees and pass those through the county for the
purpose of efficiency and better customer services. That's allowed
for in Chapter 74 in the Code of Ordinances, which is the chapter that
has to do with impact fee administration.
Page 232
June 25, 2002
Without such interlocal agreement, those impact fees would
have to be paid to the County and it creates a little more of an
administrative hassle for people pulling building permits.
That has been approximately three and a half years since that
interlocal agreement was entered into by both parties. Obviously,
some of the concurrency issues and funding issues for transportation
and capital projects have come into full focus since then.
Those issues related to those items, we feel that because of the
time that's gone by and issues that have come to the floor in recent
months, there's a need to readdress the specific provisions of that
interlocal agreement particularly having to do with the collection of
road impact fees.
The provision for that is that the city would retain 60 percent of
those impact fees collected, the road impact fees, that is, and pass
through to the County 40 percent.
We feel it would be worthwhile for both parties in the interest of
ensuring that we're providing adequate funding for capital projects to
ensure that we take another updated look at the level of funding
necessary within the city and also within the County within that
impact fee benefit district and just enter into discussions for the
purpose of entering into a new agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I was going to do was to
jump in at this time and say that actually the City of Marco Island and
our people in -- Phil Tindall as well as the people on staff have never
had a chance to communicate. This was just put on to the agenda
without even any discussion.
As Phil said this needs to be discussed now and an agreement
worked out and I would like to put this off until the July meeting.
Page 233
June 25, 2002
We need to know before the 1st of August. And this way -- I'd
like to schedule meetings every week until we work out an agreement
that everyone can live with, because as you say, we are going to have
a few years in front of us to do that.
I don't think this is the time to do that without even conferring
with the people on Marco Island.
MR. TINDALL: The reason we bring this item to you now is
because if the agreement is going to be terminated, a Written Notice
of Termination has to be provided from one party to the other by
August 1 st, which would mean if the decision to terminate the
agreement was made on July 30th, that would be absolutely the 11 th
hour for being able to terminate the agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we have to do that in order
to give them an opportunity for discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question: Is the agreement
coming back to the Board of Commissioners if there's an amendment
to it?
MR. TINDALL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we'll get a chance to listen
to everybody's concerns at that time.
MR. TINDALL: That would be correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, these
people have been waiting all day. I think they still want to be heard
today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say I want to stifle the
public speakers. I'm just saying -- going on what you said is that we
want to have the window of opportunity for notification of parties.
We still have more time for comments of the agreement.
MR. TINDALL: Sure.
Page 234
June 25, 2002
MR. MUDD: The contract, Commissioner, just so you know, it
says it runs from 1 October to the 30th of September. It's basically
done on the fiscal year.
The contract in the term is right here, basically, it stipulates that
we have to come to them in the -- the term is there in the one August
date is right here where my finger is, basically stipulates that you
have to give them notice if you want to renegotiate the contract.
We can, as a staff, get with Marco Island and come up with a
preliminary draft agreement and get into negotiations between now
and the 30th, if the Board wants us to do that. And we can come
back to the Board with an agreement. And if you would be so kind,
direct the county manager to draft the letter that says we can
terminate the contract if the Board doesn't agree to the agreement at
the 30th, then they can initiate the letter at the same time and we'll try
to move this up on the agenda so it's the first thing that we hear.
So -- the 30th is a long meeting. And we've had them before
where you can get into the midnight hour and, all of a sudden, you
get to this item and it's midnight and you just missed you opportunity.
And we can get it done in that particular occasion, if that's the
Board's desire.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure I'm clear on one
thing. You are providing written notice really that we're going to
enter into a negotiation. The contract wouldn't expire until
November the 30th, I guess; is that correct? MR. MUDD: September 30th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: September 30th. It's not on the
screen here. You cut off the right side of it. So it doesn't expire until
September the 30th, even though you're sending a written Notice of
Termination before August the 1st. In fact, you're sending it now to
give them even more time to sit down and talk about it and review it.
Page 235
June 25, 2002
So it's not as of it's being terminated right now.
MR. MUDD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think they need to be notified
that's what it's all about. I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to
listen, but I'm not going to stay consistent with what we're doing with
the other city. And I make no bones about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would somebody like to make a
motion and then I'll call the speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm going to make a motion
and that is, and let me first preface it by saying, that we as County
Commissioners, we would dislike immensely if the City of Naples or
the City of Marco Island decided to terminate something and we
found out, say, four days before the meeting via a fax that we were
going to do it. Nobody even calls or says anything.
So I believe -- and then it was coming up for vote. I believe we
owe them the courtesy of sitting down at a table of negotiation,
discussion in order to work out an agreement.
So I suggest to you that I would like to make a motion that we
agree to work with the Marco Island staff to work out an agreement
for impact fees and have it ready to present to the County
Commission on July 30th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We also have to do the notice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second the motion. I don't think it
hurts one bit to have that. We're interested in doing this.
What I'd like to do at this point, we have a second to bring this
back and meanwhile to have the staff here work with Marco Island.
So what I'm going to do now is open it up for the speakers. If
you find that someone has already covered the subject adequately,
you may wish to waive.
Page 236
June 25, 2002
But in any case, we would like to hear from you. Mrs. Filson,
would you please call the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have three speakers. The first one
being Bill Moss and he will be followed by Mike Minozzi.
MR. MOSS: Good evening, Bill Moss, I'm the City Manager of
Marco Island. I appreciate the motion that is being considered.
As I heard the motion you're instructing your staff to negotiate a
contract, but by the same time, you're issuing a Notice of
Termination. That's the way I hear the discussion. Now, maybe that
will take some clarification.
May I suggest an alternative. I'm not sure why this issue is even
before you today. You have an option of one, staying with the
agreement as it is. I don't believe the City of Naples is making an
issue in regards to any disparities between what the City of Marco
Island might get with this agreement or the City of Naples. At least
that's what they tell me.
If we're going to attempt to do agreements that are compatible
with each other, then maybe we should discuss the gas tax agreement
Naples gets three times the amount that Marco Island does.
I think it's very unfair to the City and to the people of Marco
Island to consider this agreement by itself without completely
understanding the context for which the Board of County
Commissioners in a joint meeting with the Marco Island City
Counsel hashed out a series of agreements dealing with many, many
issues most of which cost the City of Marco Island a lot of money.
At that particular meeting, the Board was asking Marco Island
for 1.2 million dollars for certain services. It was asking Marco
Island to assume responsibility for 12 bridges that had already been
identified as having severe deficiencies.
Page 237
June 25, 2002
It was asking Marco Island to assume responsibility for all the
parks on Marco Island. And this agreement was just one part of a
series of agreements that was reached between our cities.
I think full well the Board knew what it was doing when it
entered into this agreement with the City and I don't believe that
anybody in that room three and a half years ago would ever anticipate
that the agreement would be cancelled, especially so quickly for the
reasons that I believe are being advanced by the staff.
This is simply, as we see it, a way to help fund county roads,
which we appreciate and respect. And at the same time, Marco
Island has its own road issues and we have been relying on this as a
funding source because of an agreement. It was negotiated in good
faith by the two governing bodies.
Secondly, I will say that there are critical issues and then there
are important issues. If you decide that you cannot live with the
existing agreement, then I suggest that maybe this is an important
issue to Collier County but it's a critical issue to Marco Island.
You as I understood earlier today pretty well resolved a good
part of your budget issues. I seriously doubt that any additional
revenue that you'll get by an amended agreement is going to impact
this budget. But I can tell you for certain, the revenues that are
anticipated under this agreement are part of our fiscal year budget.
The portion I'm asking is why is it so critical that it has to be
addressed July 30th? Why does it have to be cancelled by August 1 .9
Why can't the staffs get together and negotiate and come back
sometime well in advance of August 1 of next year with a revised
agreement, if that's a direction that the Board would like to take.
Thank you so much for receiving my comment. Doctor Biles,
she's probably on her way but may not get back here in time. I don't
think she made it back. Thank you.
Page 238
June 25, 2002
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mike Minozzi.
MR. MINOZZI: Just for the record, Mike Minozzi a member of
the City Counsel of Marco Island.
And I first want to say the next time that I feel bad about sitting
on a counsel meeting for five hours, I'll remember a meeting like this.
But I think Bill explained quite aptly what our position is. I do
want to say that I am here representing all of the seven counsel
members of Marco Island. Because of the Sunshine Law regulations,
we do not want to have more than one come here.
We're asking you to simply leave this agreement as it is. And
we personally don't feel that there's any reason to make any changes.
As Bill Moss pointed out, these funds are extremely important
for Marco Island. And as he further pointed out the fact that when
this agreement was entered into, we had given up an awful lot
amounting to millions and millions of dollars regarding bridge repair,
regarding road repair, monies that had been allocated, set aside, for
work that would have been done on Marco Island that never came to
Marco Island.
We accepted all of that. We're doing all the work ourselves,
including spending millions of dollars on bridges and millions of
dollars on roads.
So we feel that-- we recognize the importance of the impact
fees. We know that because of the defeat of the half-percent sales
tax, it's been causing problems and we certainly commiserate with
that and we recognize that these are problems. We don't feel a
solution to the problem is to make it, you know, 10 times worse for
the City of Marco Island.
We feel that what is in place right now is very fair considering
what we had given up in order to get to this point. And again, we
would like that you simply take this off the table and perhaps do as
Page 239
June 25,2002
Mr. Moss had recommended and that maybe next year, let it go for
this fiscal year, and then next year, if you feel there's discussions to
be made on that, we have plenty of time.
But to spring this on this within a couple of days notice, we feel
it's not fair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No doubt.
MR. MINOZZI: I do thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can assure that when this comes up
-- staff has to exercise due diligence. That's what we pay them to do
and I'm sure the message is loud and clear what you're saying.
You're very fortunate to have Commissioner Fiala up here
representing Marco Island. She's like a bulldog. She's not going to
let us go.
In fact, if I know her, she's going to end up giving you the desk
and chairs around here too.
I think we still need to move this forward through the channels,
go through the negotiations that's been suggested. I'm sure once we
get through that, we'll have a lasting agreement -- I mean, I'm much
more impressed with what you're doing down in Marco than I was at
the beginning of the day.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so glad that you mentioned -- I
thought my motion was to just table this until we met the 30th of
June, but make sure we are meeting every week until then to hammer
out an agreement.
Either you or Bill mentioned something about it being
terminated and then having discussions and I didn't mean to have that
-- I don't think my motion said that. I want it just for us to table this
until the 30th of July when our staffs had time to meet and come to
an agreement.
Page 240
June 25, 2002
MR. MINOZZI: It does not include a Notice of Termination?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. I added it in there.
Maybe I wasn't thinking clearly at the time.
The problem was, if I am not mistaken, the period of time that
we have from that meeting until August 1st, which is a matter of one
day.
Can we have a letter ready in that time that could be dated, ready
to be signed and handed to them so we can bring finality to it if we
had to bring this to a conclusion?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I would suggest that based on Commissioner
Fiala's motion that we work on a contract, modified contract, and we
have it ready for the Board on the 30th of July.
At the same time the Chair would direct or the Board would
direct the County Attorney to draft the letter that basically gives
notice to Marco. Just in case you decide that you don't like the
agreement and it doesn't pass, then your other alternative at that
juncture is to give them notice that the present contract will be null
and void on the 30th of September, at which time what would happen
at that juncture is the developers on Marco Island would have to go to
Horseshoe Drive in order to pay their impact fee instead of being able
to pay it one-stop shop on Marco Island.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's another complication
that we have to look at it. I think the direction you suggested, if you
care to incorporate in the motion.
In other words, we're not serving notice on them. You get your
chance to negotiate. If you want to change your motion, I'll change
my second to reflect that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll change my motion to reflect
that.
Page 241
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My second also follows. Any other
questions or discussions on the part of this Board?
MR. CARTER: I cannot support not giving the Letter of
Notification. To me that is procedural and improper and it
communicates and it doesn't mean it will happen.
It's a form of which it puts people on notice so that at some point
in time I don't hear, gee, we really didn't think that was going to
happen.
I'm going to tell you this Commissioner would like to give you
notice now to let you know that it could happen and you'll have every
chance in the world to negotiate this and find a reasonable contract
and maybe approved or not approved by this Board. I can't support
the motion as it stands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Commissioner Carter
clarified it for me. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to emphasize that the
only thing that's happening here today is we're giving the staff
direction, essentially, to notify that they want to enter into
negotiations with Marco.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Right. Right.
If the negotiations fail then the
contract expires on September the 30th. So that's what the staff is
asking us to do, as I understand it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The point of contention is, do we
send the letter now or do we hand it to them on July 30th at the
meeting if we can't reach an agreement?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Quite frankly, I don't see the
difference because whether we direct the staff to prepare the letter
and give it to them on the 29th or whether we direct the staff to give
Page 242
June 25, 2002
it to them now or give them more advance notice, I think is far better
to let them have advanced notice as possible.
But we need to make it clear, this doesn't mean it's cancelled.
We're just following the contract.
MS. FIALA: I think it's a common courtesy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whatever you want to do, I'll go for
it. The only thing is it's a matter of courtesy to Marco Island that I
was going along with Donna's motion.
If you feel that the interest of the County would be violated by
doing that it, then say so we'll -- meanwhile, we have the motion
from Donna Fiala, second from myself.
Let's go ahead and clear that and see if we got support. We got
three people, then we'll come back and entertain the second one.
Any other discussion on Commissioner Fiala's motion.
MR. MANALICH: For clarification, Mr. Chairman, the current
motion does not include any Notice of Termination?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Today.
MR. MANALICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have the powers to be if Marco
Island is here in this room. I'm sure the message is loud and clear.
And my basis behind this whole thing is to show them good faith and
we're ready to work with them.
With that all I'll call the question. All those in favor of
Commissioner Fiala's motion indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Coletta were the only ones that voted in favor.
Now, second motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would restate the same motion
with the Letter of Notification being issued now. Out of no
Page 243
June 25, 2002
disrespect for Marco Island, but I call it a procedural process of
notification.
And therefore, they know, everyone knows, and it can move
forward on exactly the same scale.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think we have to drag this out
too long, sir. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. It should not mean
any disrespect to Marco Island. It's just following a contract. That's
what the contract says we are supposed to do.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be of
assistance for clarification, of course, the motion, the notice could
state that it is subject to the Board's action.
The notice of-- contemplation of termination is being provided
subject to the Board's action on July 30th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you incorporate that in the
motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And would you incorporation it in
your second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure would.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good. Any other discussions?
All those in favor indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The opposing vote is Commissioner
Fiala. Thank you very much.
Page 244
June 25, 2002
Item # 1 O0
CHANGES TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND
RECREATION NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND TOT LOT
POLICY APPLICATION AND CRITERIA- APPROVED
Now, the next item we're going to go to is 10-N tennis court,
which was originally 16-D-1, we'll take a minute to flip over. Nine I,
nope, we're going to come back to that. First, let me get rid of the
crowd here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16-D- 1 ?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was originally --
SPEAKER: Good evening, Commissioners. Probably the most
appropriate way of handling this since Commissioner Coyle has
requested it be held in tandem, is maybe to present the overall
neighborhood park policy first, which is actually Item 16-D-11,
transferred to 10-O, and then we can hear the follow-up items behind
that.
I think that makes the most appropriate sense to talk about the
policy issue and then talk about the individual case by case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we're going to 16-D, what
first?
SPEAKER: It's actually 10-O.
MS. RAMSEY: Good evening. For the record, Marlo Ramsey,
Collier County Parks and Recreation Director.
The policy amendment that you have in front of you was
requested by Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee to add
clarification to the criteria for the selection of neighborhood parks
within Collier County.
Page 245
June 25, 2002
Just some of the highlights that we have on this particular item
was dealing with trying to put a firmer cost on what neighborhood
parks consist of and to divide the neighborhood park policy into two
areas, one which was Tot Lots, which is a small area with a
playground on it. And another being a neighborhood park, which is a
larger acreage similar to the Rita Eaton in Golden Gate, which is
about three to four acres in size.
As we go through our neighborhood park policy and select some
of the areas such as Isle of Capri, which is an item in companion to
this, we're finding it's very difficult to find larger parcels --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Ramsey, excuse me a
minute. Somebody's cell phone is ringing.
MS. RAMSEY: Because of the fact that a lot of the lots are
very small now and only able to accommodate playgrounds, the
dollar amount that we had allocated in the past we thought was too
high for those particular items.
But also looking at what it costs us to find a larger parcel of land
within an older neighborhood the $195,000 we had allocated in the
past was too little.
So we brought before you a policy amendment that basically
states that neighborhood parks have a criteria of providing to the
public walkways, picnic areas, open play areas, benches and fences
for safety along with landscaping and irrigation at a cost of
approximately $250,000.
We put a dollar amount on there just so that you would have an
idea that when you approve a policy that says a neighborhood park,
you would have somewhat of an idea of what it would cost you to do
that.
For a Tot Lot, it's a little lesser standard. That's basically a play
-- apparatus, benches landscaped to code, and fencing for safety.
Page 246
June 25, 2002
If there was a request from the neighborhood to provide
anything other than what is listed there, it would need to come
through donations or MSTD.
The only other thing that we changed in here was to deal with
the criteria itself. And at the back of Executive Summary that you
have, we have the criteria listed and we put a point system directly up
against it, so when the applications come in from the neighborhoods,
they will know exactly how the item was ranked within the various
areas.
For example, if it was in a location that had a 50 to 100 kids,
you would get five points for that. Or if it was in a neighborhood that
had 400 kids, you would get 20 points for that.
It really gave us a lot better handle as to how to determine what
the point system is and how it relates to each other when we look at
three or four different locations at one time.
I guess with that, I've kind of gone over it in a summary format.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Since I was the one who asked
these to be pulled, let me cut through it, we won't spend much time
on it.
What we have here, of course, a neighborhood park and Tot Lot
criteria and a request that some county property essentially be turned
over or leased to Isle of Capri Civic Association for a tennis court
which they will build.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
It's two separate issues, though.
No, it's all together. And then
there's a 1.14 acre lot for a neighborhood park in the same
neighborhood.
My only reason for pulling these, perhaps there's two reasons,
but one is that, once again, I'm not aware of a policy concerning how
Page 247
June 25, 2002
this is done. Should this be done through an MSTU or should the
general fund fund Tot Lots and neighborhood parks?
And secondly, does the Board want to establish a policy that we
turn over public land to a homeowners association for the purpose of
using it as a tennis court that will be used primarily for the members
of the civic association?
So those are the issues that I thought should be considered. And
I just think that the Board should establish a policy concerning that
and I'll leave it up to you to decide and feel about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm still having a hard time marrying
these two items together.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
All right. Let's take them apart.
They're kind of separate. We
started applying for this neighborhood park about, what, four years
ago?
MS. RAMSEY: For the Isle of Capri Lot that we're looking to
purchase today on the agenda, we started that process about two and
a half years ago, I believe, very close to two and a half years ago, and
trying to locate lots, get it approved, funding in place, et cetera.
And there's an actual committee on Isle of Capri that I've been
working on quite closely on that particular one lot. And I do feel that
one lot is underneath the parks policy and was budgeted in this fiscal
year to purchase and develop.
As far as the other items that's on the agenda, that is probably a
separate item for what the policy has.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So would this particular lot -- it
was already part of our policy, right, to have a neighborhood park and
it met the criteria?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. It went through the criteria
selection by the PARAC, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee,
Page 248
June 25, 2002
was selected as one of the locations of this particular year, along with
Willoughby Acres. If you will, recall that Naples Park came in later
and asked for a lot at that particular time as well and we deferred
Livingston Woods until next fiscal year in order to accommodate
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So this is all under the same
policy?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And one of the reasons it was
requested in the first place was because the children on the Isle of
Capri, it's just going to be a Tot Lot. It's just for little ones, they have
no way to get to a park.
They're not even in close proximity to anything. None of them
can drive. It's the only way for them to get to a park on the island or
any of the islands. There's four islands there. So that's the reason for
that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're only partly right,
Commissioner Fiala, when you said they can't drive. They can drive
their parents crazy if they can't go to a park.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just policy, I'm not talking
about the park. Are we going to agree to purchase property in every
neighborhood that--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's a policy in place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the question and the price is
getting very, very expensive. We see the price go up rather
dramatically and you have it in this Executive Summary here.
Are we going to obligate ourselves in purchasing ever escalating
real estate in every neighborhood for the purpose of creating either a
Tot Lot or a neighborhood lot or neighborhood park or are we going
to set an MSTU policy for the purpose of funding those? Since they
Page 249
June 25, 2002
are generally for a specific neighborhood and not for the general
population.
That is the policy and I'm just asking what the Board would like
to do with that policy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that we're going to do
this today and we're not going to hold anybody to adopting this
policy in the future and it is in the Community Character Plan. So
I'm in favor of the neighborhood park concept at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion? All those in
favor indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And please noted that Commissioner
Coyle is the opposing vote.
Item # 1 ON
RESOLUTION 2002-310 RE A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
THE ISLES OF CAPRI CIVIC ASSOCIATION TO DESIGNATE
LAND FOR A FUTURE TENNIS COURT ON ISLES OF CAPRI -
ADOPTED
Okay. Let's move on to the next one, Commissioner Coyle, with
the Civic Association in Goodland.
Page 250
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does the Board want to mm over
public property for almost exclusive use for a single Civic
Association.'?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a lease.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's pretty much permanent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have to reimburse them if you're
going to end the lease for the improvements that they make.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The lease will be automatically
extended for -- automatic extension of 30 years. So it's pretty much
permanent and your giving property to a civic association essentially
and for all intents and purposes, it's not easily available to people
outside the civic association.
It's for essentially private use, as I understand it.
MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, John Dunnuck, Public
Services Administrator. The way your current lease agreement is
structured.
First and foremost the County has the ability to terminate that
lease with cause or without cause at any given time if there's a needed
use.
When we discussed this issue with residents of Isle of Capri, we
looked at it in terms of they had a need and we had excess property
on that site specifically that the water department controls.
Building this lease agreement, which has been consistent with
other partnerships that we've had throughout the county, we're
bringing forward this lease agreement.
As far as the issue of who may utilize the tennis court, the fee
that the civic association would charge is $15.
However, we have incorporated into the lease agreement that
any member of the public could join that court for that $15 fee.
Page 251
June 25, 2002
We felt it was a fair user fee and also you'll discuss later today,
we consistently use user fees throughout the parks and rec' system.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: $15 a year? I don't know where I
missed this. In other words, I understand what you're saying now this
is absolutely, totally open to the public for their use. They don't have
to join the civic association. They would pay the users fee to help
maintain it.
MR. DUNNUCK: The way it's structured, they would pay the
civic association the $15 fee, but we have incorporated into the lease
agreement that the civic association does not have the ability to
stipulate who may or may not join that association. Any member of
the public may join that association for purposes of playing on that
court.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's where I got the problem. I
don't mind a $15 fee or even $25 if it was open to the public and it's
the same fee they're charging their own members and they want to
assume the responsibility.
Let me approach this another way. Obviously, there's a need for
this particular facility in Goodland. Is there any way we might be
able to come up with a partnership deal where they could build it and
we would maintain it as part of the parks system?
There can't be much maintenance on a tennis court.
MR. DUNNUCK: In essence, we got a better deal from the
county perspective and the standpoint is that they're going to build it
and maintain it. We're just providing the land in that regard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A county's perspective, yes. From
the individual person out on the street, I'd like to have an example of
where we're doing something like this now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just happened to have a few.
Page 252
June 25, 2002
MR. DUNNUCK: I don't mislead you. These are not exclusive
club agreements that we have. But these are just a number of leases
that we have through the Parks and Recreation Department where
we're allowing specific uses of rental space in county parks
throughout where we partnered to meet the demands of the
community.
In the case with Isle of Capri, we did work with them on many
different issues with the neighborhood park. We looked at property
that may be large enough to put a tennis court on and work it through
the MSTU process as part of the neighborhood park policy.
Unfortunately, they were constrained by the size of park spaces
in that community and recognizing also, where we were trying to
target the neighborhood park in the central portion of Isle of Capri,
the need of direct location is much less for a tennis court per se, and
using this excess land at the water plant seemed to be a perfect fit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't oppose this. All I'm asking
for is a policy. If that's the Board policy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the policy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You will recall that there's
substantial criticism for some of those leases that we turned over for
exclusive use for certain organizations.
Now, the only concern that I have is, is this decision consistent
with the Board's policy and is it going to cause you any problems in
the future?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think the exclusivity is taken from
this particular issue; being that you, your brother and your friend and
Jim Coletta, can all come and join the Isle of Capri Civic Association
for $15 a year and play tennis.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If he joins, it's not exclusive.
Page 253
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't see any problem with this
particular issue. I'd like to make a motion that we accept this
agreement with the Isle of Capri Civic Association, the way you've
designed it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to get a motion and
second and then go to registered speakers.
We got a motion from Commissioner Fiala to accept it as is
here. Any second on that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a second from
Commissioner Henning. Speakers, please. MS. FILSON: No speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine. Any other discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed? Okay, 5-0. You're
getting a little slow there, Jim.
Item #10P
PURCHASE OF A 0.14 ACRE LOT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK IN ISLES OF CAPRI AT A TOTAL COST OF
APPROXIMATELY $81,700 - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where we at? I have a vote for
10-O, I don't have one for P.
Page 254
June 25, 2002
MR. MUDD: That's what we're doing right now.
MS. RAMSEY: That would be the purchase of the .14 acre
parcel on Isle of Capri for the Tot Lot.
If you need some specific information on that, Mr. Carrington
from the real property who can help you with that particular issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you
have any concerns about this one?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only if the money is budgeted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion for a approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
approve.
Not me. Someone else.
I'd like to make a motion to
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion from Commissioner Fiala a
second from Commissioner Carter. Discussion? All those in favor
indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #9I
DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGE ORDER POLICY- STAFF
TO REVIEW CHANGE ORDER PROCESS, INCORPORATE
INTO POLICY AND COME BACK TO THE BCC
Now we go back to where we left off on the agenda before; 9-1.
Page 255
June 25, 2002
Commissioner Coyle, discussion regarding contract change
order of policy, I think you came up with a better plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I hope it's better. We have
frequently been confronted with a very sizeable change order
sometimes issued after the fact totally hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
And I think that we need to establish little tighter control over
those change orders. What I'm proposing is that we establish a
formal process for certifying change orders by a project manager,
certifying that the work that was done was not part of the original
scope of services, is essential to the completion of the project as
originally approved and it's fairly and reasonably priced.
And what my objective would be is to incorporate this into all of
the contracts that we have so that the contractors understand that
unless they have an approved signed change order in accordance with
these provisions in their hands, they will not be reimbursed.
And I would expect that to identify in the contract how much --
what percentage of contract, total price, could be recovered in terms
of change orders.
In other words, if it's a $3,000,000 contract, then what we're
looking at is the project manager being able to approve $90,000, if I
did the math correctly.
So all I'm asking is for the Board to provide the staff to take a
look at this and incorporate these provisions and their policy to come
back to the Board for review and approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds very reasonable,
Commissioner Coyle, if I'm so recognized by the chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, you are.
Page 256
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And as long as we have that
provision, it was not part of the original scope of the services or the
contract, it's a very good language to include into it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The staff might come up with
some additional language. The objective is to tighten up control of
that. Because change orders are killing us. And we just need to get
someone -- we need to have from the clerk's standpoint and our
standpoint some additional assurance that these things have received
the utmost review before they're approved. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that the Board
direct the staff to review the change order process, incorporate this
language into them, and perhaps even improve this language and
come back to us with the proposal.
MR. MUDD: One of the things I'd like to do is get that to you
in a workshop too. So the policy we can really talk about it. We're
talking about a major capital improvement program in Collier County
with hundreds and millions either going on roads or in utilities or in
buildings, and we need to make sure that we got a solid contract
policy and set up procedures, so it's the very tighest rein that we have
on these processes.
And we'll get those things on number one, Commissioner, and
we'll get locked into a checklist right away. We're in the process of
implementing an improved contract management system right now.
We can do some increased tightening in that process for the
second round. We'll make sure the clerk is involved in that and we'll
get that to you.
The one thing down in four, I will just tell you that right now it's
10 percent at the division administrator, nothing down below the
division administrator as far as project managers and things like that,
Page 257
June 25, 2002
so you're really losing the reins a little bit to a couple of elements
down below, and we might not want to go there until I get Board
direction in that process.
So that's the one thing -- unless we have a good project manager
certification program, which we don't have right now, I would feel a
little bit uncomfortable delegating any dollar threshold down to them
until we got a good program that locks it in so that we got our folks
well trained.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
was not to loosen up the process.
I agree. The only reason I did this
If you think it's a good idea not to
do that, I'd be willing to listen to it.
But I wanted to make sure that the person on the ground who is
out there touching that project is going to be able to certify that these
charges are proper. And I'd like to see his name on a piece of paper.
If that turns out to be the Division Administrator, then that's
okay as long as that person gets out on the ground and he knows
exactly what's 'happening.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I like your idea, Commissioner.
I think it goes a little deeper into contract administrator, which Mr.
Mudd has alluded to. Because you got the mechanical side of the
process, then you got the behavior side.
And we have to work on both of those because sometimes old
behaviors are still being applied against the new system and that's
where I think we get ourselves in difficulty in the process.
So I think it's a good idea and it's a good start for us to pursue
and work more diligently.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're just directing staff now or is
this in the form of a motion.
Page 258
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm asking the Board to provide
direction to staff to go back, take a look at the contract procedures,
incorporate these elements into them as they are appropriate and
come back to us with recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And tie it in with the certification
that Mr. Mudd was talking about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got an agreement on that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You can do a motion, if you
want. It's up to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We just directed staff, unless you
think a motion is necessary.
What we're going to do now is, every hour and a half we're
supposed to take a short break for the stenographer to be able to
stretch her fingers and get up and move around.
Commissioner Henning, stop feeding Commissioner Coyle
sugar candy. He's starting to go on a high.
Thereupon, (Brief recess was taken, after which the following
proceedings were had.)
Item # 1 OB
2002 HURRICANE UPDATE PRESENTATION
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10-B, I believe.
MR. VANRAN: Good evening, Commissioners, I'm Jim Van
Ran from the Emergency Management Department.
This evening, we have a quick overview of the hurricane season.
The details of which is contained in the other white notebook that we
provided for you up there.
Page 259
June 25, 2002
As the season looks, at this point, if you refer to the monitor,
we're looking at 11 name storms, six of which they expect to be
hurricanes and two of which they expect to be severe hurricanes.
Now, that's for the whole Atlantic region, including the
Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico.
As a review, these are the categories of storm, the Category
Three above being the severe hurricane.
This is how that affects Collier County if we should get a
hurricane. The colored areas, the red area being Category Five on
down to the green areas which are tropical storms.
I will note that 42 percent of the population lives in that
Category One or below area with about 80 percent in the colored
areas, 80 percent of the population.
This is just a summary of last year, where we had 15 named
storms, and you can see how they operated out there. I guess it was
good luck that some of the storms didn't move farther to the west to
affect us.
Two of the storms, the tropical storms, did affect the continental
United States; Allison early in the year and then Gabrielle late in the
year.
Those were just tropical storms; however, they had a pretty
severe financial impact on the areas that they did hit.
Just as a review, this is our shelter situation of Collier County
with 24 shelters in approximately 31,000 sheltered spaces. That's
based on approximately 40-square foot space per person.
We could shelter more persons in an emergency. However, as
you know, the bigger the storm, the less shelter space available
because a lot of them are located close to the coast.
We have done some work to retrofit and harden our shelters.
We were able to get some grant money to Barron Collier High School
Page 260
June 25, 2002
this last year ready for this season, as well as Gulf Coast High School
and Corkscrew Middle School. That helps us with some extra shelter
space.
We've also been out in the public. We've done 85 seminars so
far this year. We estimate we will probably do about a 125 in
keeping in how we've done it in past years.
We've been active with the community response teams and
added 10 teams throughout the County this year and we've done
approximately six seminars. Those are the large happenings that we
have at the mall or some of the large hotels.
This is our special needs program. This is for the persons who
need a little help in a an emergency with evacuation or sheltering,
typically the little old ladies that live on the condos on the beach.
Currently, we have 730 clients registered. These are people that
we need to help in an emergency and we take them to Barron Collier
High School. We give them a little bit of extra assistance and we
provide school buses and some assistance. It's an ongoing and
successful program and it takes a lot of effort to keep that list updated
and continue to make sure we know who we have.
The reentry program with the different colored reentry stickers.
Sheriffs District is shown on the slide there. We sort of reinforce our
efforts with the Sheriff's Office this year and done extra seminars to
get the word out that this program is out there and they should get
their stickers.
We have had some success with that. We're hoping to have more
success so we have less interest close to the storm. It normally gets a
little hectic to pass these out.
As far as publications, we've passed out the all hazards guide.
We get 70,000 of those as sort of a co-sponsor between Rollsafe and
Collier County.
Page 261
June 25,2002
We have passed out 35,000 so far. So we're halfway there. We
also passed out approximately 3,000 other types of brochures. That's
the all hazards guides there, approximately 25 pages of information
on Collier County hazards. And then these depict some of the
multilingual publications that we pass out.
We have also done some work on web site. We have both an
internal web site that we use to pass information within the County
during an emergency. And then the Collierem.org, which we use day
to day to get the word out and to provide information to the
community.
We've worked through the year to enhance that and keep the
information updated. And it's a very successful program.
Additionally, we have -- we call the one list or the tropical
weather watch list, which is the way that people can sign up to get the
tropical weather via e-mail.
And also, we have an external method to get e-mail information
to folks in the event of an emergency -- if they evacuate they can get
information on the status of the County so they know when to come
back.
We rely on volunteers quite a bit in the event of an emergency.
And three of the big volunteer efforts that we have, the amateur radio
volunteers, which helps us communicate throughout the County
should the phone system go down. The Serve Organization, which is
really an organization of all the other churches, Boy Scouts, things
like that out there that help us in an emergency.
And then of course, the phone bank, which we draw from the
county employees as well as volunteers that help us answer the large
number of calls 24 hours a day in an emergency.
Of course, the support agencies that we work closely with Red
Cross, Salvation Army and the Health Department. We work
Page 262
June 25, 2002
throughout the year always trying to hone what we're doing with
them so then in the event of an emergency we're ready. And, in fact,
we've done that.
I'll just leave this as sort of the last point. Rarely, does Florida
go two years without a hurricane striking. And the last one we had
was 1999. And just to look at the statistics. It's quite likely that at
least the State of Florida is in for being struck by a hurricane this
year.
We hope it's not here, but there's no way to tell that. Based on
any questions that's as fast as I can do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can count on all the
commissioners being here at the time of the storm. They'll take
whatever job you assign them.
Item #1 OD
AGREEMENT WITH DHR INTERNATIONAL IN THE AMOUNT
OF $15,000 TO OBTAIN QUALIFIED CANDIDATES FOR THE
POSITION OF COLLIER COUNTY MANAGER- JIM MUDD
APPOINTED AS COUNTY MANAGER, EFFECTIVE JULY 15,
2002, WITH NEGOTIATED CONTRACT TO BE BROUGHT
BACK TO THE BOARD ON 7/30/02; PRIOR BOARD ACTION
RE SELECTION PROCESS RESCINDED; AND MR MUDD
AUTHORIZED TO HAVE THE OPTION TO UTILIZE THE
SEARCH FIRM FOR HIS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 10-D, which is recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners enter into an agreement
Page 263
June 25, 2002
with DHR International for the search for the candidate for the
county manager. Steve Camel.
MR. CARNEL: For the record, Steve Camell, Purchasing
General Services Director.
Followup to your direction from the Board on May 28th, your
staff has gone out and solicited proposals to hire a firm that would
assist this Board with hiring its next county manager.
And as indicated in the agenda item, we did receive five
proposals. The group of staff from Employee Services and the
Purchasing Department have reviewed the proposals and are
recommending at this point the selection of DHR International.
In reviewing the proposals, there were five submitted and two
we thought were clearly head and shoulders above the other two and
that would have been the submittal from DHR and the Mercer Group.
The DHR proposal is priced $15,000. The Mercer Group
proposal is at $19,000. Both have active Florida practices and both
are very active in public sector job employment searches.
Having reviewed the proposals, the recommendation from your
staff is to go with DHR based on the slightly lower fee and the most
competitive and responsive schedule for the front end of the search,
which is particularly the submission of names to this Board.
They are committing to do that within 20 working days of when
we started. If you just look at your calendar for a moment, if we start
them tomorrow, we anticipate having a list of candidates back by July
the 24th, which would enable us to have a discussion at the July 30th
meeting with regard to candidate possibility and scheduling of
interviews from there and bring that back to you and give us direction
on how you would like us to proceed with the interviewing process at
the July 30th meeting.
Page 264
June 25, 2002
The other schedule from Mercer was a committment for 30
days, which would put us into about the same time. It's actual 30
calendar versus 20 business. It's roughly the same calendar, few days
later.
Both DHR and Mercer committed to what we had given them in
the schedule which was the goal of a start date for the County
Manager no later then October 8th.
However, the DHR proposal envisioned having an interview
schedule that would enable this Board to make a selection in late
August.
Whereas, the schedule from Mercer was September 7th. So the
Mercer schedule, in effect, is assuming a shorter window for that
person to give notice and come to work here.
With that, that's where we are in terms of recommendation and
we would seek direction from the Board to authorize DHR and
approve a budget amendment to fund that endeavor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: CommisSioner Henning answered
one of my questions at least already. I was wondering if there's any
way I can persuade the Board to do away with this process and
proceed with the selection of Mr. Mudd as the County Manager.
The reason I'm saying this is that what we're doing is we're
selecting the person who can provide us the list the fastest. It doesn't
necessarily mean it's the best list.
If we wait-- if we go with the person that can provide us with
the best list, we're wasting a lot of time without making a decision.
I would just like to remove the uncertainty, go ahead and
appoint a man who has been doing a good job for us. And if I don't
get a second, okay, but at least I've said it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second it for discussion purposes.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 265
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe I have a motion on the
floor to approve staff's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner, I never
heard your motion. I really didn't. I apologize for that. If you
proceeded Commissioner Coyle, then we'll honor your motion first.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I appreciate it and I do
recognize we--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that for discussion so
we can deal with this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your motion and my second are
mute.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Off the table.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We do have some great staff
here in Collier County and Jim Mudd has done an excellent job in the
short term he's been here in the county, and trust me, the best possible
person to fit Tom Olliff's slot.
If we choose today without looking at other potentials, how
would we know that we got the best person? We don't. And that's
the only thing that I'm coming from today's recommendation is for
the search.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we're going to do is go down
the line here and have every Commissioner comment on it and then
we'll call the motion.
Commissioner Coyle, we'll go with you. You're next and I'll
follow you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree that we want the best
person. And I can't tell you how many of these searches I have gone
through in my lifetime.
There have been a lot of them and without fail the best decisions
I've ever made were the ones about people I knew.
Page 266
June 25, 2002
There's no interview, no selection process which substitutes for
personal knowledge of the performance of the individual.
It is almost impossible for us to verify the capabilities of
someone who comes here unknown. And I would discount
recommendations dramatically when they are compared with my own
experiences of serving the performance of an employee here.
So I remain firmly committed to getting this job down and
saving some money and saving a lot of time. Making this transition
as easy and seamless as possible. I would like to go ahead and do it.
That's one opinion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, recently I've
come to the same opinion. I have seen Jim Mudd in action. I like
what I see. I was very, very concerned about who would be able to
step in to fill the shoes. It's a not known when you bring someone in.
I've been through the interviewing process for Chambers of
Commerce and different organizations. It's a long drawn out process.
I'll be honest with you, the success ratio is quite minimal, to be
honest with you.
If the Board is so willing, I would be willing to forgo the search
and throw my support behind Jim Mudd.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I feel the same way. I want to ask
you all, we can discuss things with one another; right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We sure can. That's what we're
doing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE'
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
yOU.
I don't want you talking to me.
I want to make sure. I agree with
I know that everyone does. We have all enjoyed working with
And, you know, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and
we all know that.
Page 267
June 25, 2002
I want to know is it fair to Jim Mudd? If we don't have a search
firm, will someone then say we never even-- we didn't chose him
from the best; we just settled with him because we didn't want to
spend the money?
I just want to make sure he's not saddled with that. Do you guys
have any suggestions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We are going to come to your
motion in just a minute, Commissioner Henning. Commissioner
Carter, your mm.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand the situation. I
don't think you're going to find anybody better then Jim Mudd. But
how does Jim Mudd feel?
There's always this perception out there, if you didn't look, then
you didn't do your total job. I don't want him to be compromised by
the nodding nay bombs of criticism, I think was quoted by a famous
person in this community. And somewhere the Prince of Darkness
will come out and say, you know, we didn't do the right job.
So with that aside, I don't have a problem, if Jim Mudd is
capable -- he is capable, he's comfortable, but what I would like is to
reserve the right to have the search firm to look at however he wants
to structure his executive team. I don't know if he wants to stay at the
same executive structure.
If he does, I want to allow him the opportunity to look internally
and externally for his chief operating officer. Because if you don't
have a good chief operating officer, and he knows, he just moved up
from that position, you're in enormous trouble.
So it's up to him, in my judgment, to make that call. So I guess
before I would vote, I would like Jim Mudd to tell me, and maybe it's
not a fair question, just give me some of your thoughts if you can at
this point, sir.
Page 268
June 25, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioner -- Jim Mudd for the record. I'm
honored by what you're talking about today, I truly am. And your
confidence in me. I want to have the best County Manager for
Collier County. If that's Jim Mudd, so be it.
But I want to make sure you're comfortable with that decision.
Because, yeah, Jim Mudd will get second-guessed, but you could get
slammed banged in the paper for comments that you didn't go out
there and do due diligence for that search for the County.
And I've only been here for a short time, but I truly love this
County and I think we are doing great work for it in this forum.
And I want to make sure that that is done correctly, and they
have the very, very best. I don't mind competing. And that's easy.
You just go for it and you do your best. If it happens, it happens.
But I want to make sure you're comfortable with that. I want to
make sure that the Board is comfortable with that process, if that's the
way you're going to go with that selection. I think that means more
to me then what Jim Mudd feels.
I think the County is bigger than me and I'm here to serve it in
whatever capacity you want me to do that in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we take a vote, I'd like to go
through the Commissioners one more time for further comments,
starting with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I think it's only fair for the
confirmation of Jim Mudd that we do due diligence and go out there.
And I think that we all have a lot of great confidence in his ability.
But I think if Jim Mudd does the least -- flushes the toilet wrong,
we will get criticized. We all will get criticized by not doing right by
looking at other people out there in the world.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
Page 269
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I understand exactly what
everyone is saying. But I'll tell you this, I would be proud to stand up
and take the shot to support Jim Mudd because I think it's a right
thing to do.
We are going to get second-guessed no matter what we do. If
we go outside and select someone who turns out to be a disaster, who
makes one major error, we're going to get criticized for it.
If we select Jim Mudd, he makes a mistake, we might get
criticized for it. But there's one thing that I'm certain of and that is
Jim Mudd can do this job.
And I'm willing to take whatever heat someone wants to give me
for standing up and making that decision. And I'm not going to be
afraid to do that. And I don't think it's a mistake to do that.
We will save the County a little bit of money. And I don't think
we will affect the criticism one way or the other. I think we're going
to get criticized no matter what we do.
MR. OCHS: For the record, Leo Oaks, Assistant County
Manager. Again, just being the institutional memory of these days,
just to remind the Board, when Mr. Olliff was appointed, even though
you used an executive search firm to do a brief interview process, it
was limited to internal candidates at the time.
So there is some precedents in your most recent appointment of
Mr. Olliff that that was, in fact, an internal promotion. You had
employed an executive search firm, but only to do a screening and
interview process with the two candidates at the time.
So again, I just offer that as a point of reference, not to,
obviously, influence your decision one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Question then would be,
do we only have one internal candidate, that being Mr. Mudd, or do
we have two.
Page 270
June 25, 2002
MR. OCHS: There hasn't been a posting because we had
anticipated the Board moving forward with the executive search firm,
but you could overcome that if you so chose by using the County's
internal Human Resources Policy that would provide for the Human
Resources Department to do their posting process according to your
policy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Within the County?
MR. OCHS: That would be a very abbreviated posting period,
typically, 10 days.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can be agreeable to that. We still
have Commissioner Henning's motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My concerns are one about myself,
actually. I'm rather biased and I really like knowing what I'm going
to get and how I work with that person and what kind of job they can
do, rather than reading something on an application and that's what
they want you to think that they do and not having worked with them.
And obviously in this day and age when you call around to find
out what people think of them, they can't tell you. They can just say
they worked there or didn't work there. They can't tell, you know, that
they've beaten their wife for 20 years and killed the dog.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: He would make a good manager.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I feel that I'm going to go into this
with a bias. On the other hand, I want to make sure we're fair to Jim.
This is why I'm really tossing between this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter. And then
possibly we can call the question.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can concur with Commissioner
Coyle and the rest of the sentiment here, but it will require a different
motion.
Page 271
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have any problem with
Jim Mudd. In fact, when he was here earlier one person went after
him in this community and I had no problem having a press
conference and slicing and dicing that individual which says that he
has no love for me.
Well, I can say I have no love for him either because I don't like
people that come in and start attacking people's character when they
don't know what they're talking about.
So I would totally support Jim Mudd for being County
Administrator and when I do that, I am also going to bring back in
another motion that you give him the opportunity to use a search firm
to select, if he goes with that format, his number two person, the chief
Operations Officer, because I've seen it long enough. If you don't
have a good CEO, you can take more arrows in the back, then you'll
ever get in the front. You can't guard all your flanks. You need a
good number two man to be right there with you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do this. I think we've had quite
a bit of discussion on Commissioner Henning's motion. And I think
we probably reached a point where we could bring it up for a vote,
unless someone seriously disagrees with that. We can take another
vote after this. We do have a motion on the floor and we really need
to follow through with that one motion.
Commissioner Henning's motion was that we follow staff's
recommendation. And it was Commissioner Carter's, I believe, that
seconded it for discussion purposes.
With that, I'd like to call the motion. All those in favor indicate
by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Page 272
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. I think you misunderstood.
Henning's motion, just so you make sure you understand Henning's
motion is to follow staffs recommendation to do the search.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would vote no on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more time. The motion is
exactly recommended in -- it is recommended that the Board of
Collier County Commissioner direct staff to contact with DHR
International initially to conduct an exclusive search for the county
manager position as provided for above.
With that, I'll call the motion. Again, we got correct language
on the record. All those in favor indicate by saying "aye".
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm missing a voice.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You got three that said they did
not want to support and you got two supporting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the two that voted to
support it was Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala.
We're ready for a second motion. ! think you said you would
like the privilege of making that motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like to move that we
keep the search firm to do a search within a period. It may not have
to be that short now and allow -- I would prefer recommendation
from Mr. Mudd, my recommendation to the Board and the motion
would be, to set aside the same amount of money for a search for
chief operating officer to serve with him on the executive team.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
Page 273
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion by Commissioner
Carter and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Now discussion
starting with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this legal that we can --
without public advertising of a new direction of the item on the
agenda.
MR. MANALICH: I know Mr. Chairman and members of the
board. This item was advertised-- there's previous Board direction
on this.
The item was advertised entering an agreement, but this
particular firm to obtain candidates for the position of county
manager. I think the substance of the subject matter has been
advertised.
Now, there is a change in Board direction that can always occur
in every meeting. My other item that I was tossing around in my
mind, is there any other statutory or county requirement by ordinance
or otherwise other than what Mr. Ochs mentioned that would require
us to go through with some type of selection.
I'm not aware of that requirement. I think it falls within your
discretion. So I think you are in a position to act on this motion today
is my opinion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My second concern is the
motion to direct the search firm to -- is it a Deputy County Manager
or assistant?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You can call him Deputy County
Administrator. You can call Chief Operating Officer, whatever.
Deputy County Administrator is the formal term.
If Mr. Mudd accepts the position of County Administrator, he
can come back to us and say I don't want that. I'm giving him the
opportunity to use that tool, if he wants it.
Page 274
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's up to the County
Manager to choose that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. It's not implied that he
has to. I'm handing him the tool if he wants it.
Now, there is the issue of the internal posting. I guess that still
has to take place under this process. Is that what I'm hearing?
MR. MANALICH: I don't believe I said that. I would ask that
Mr. Ochs and Mr. Camel elaborate on that.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. You have a
county policy that applies to all of the employees that work for the
County Manager.
This happens to be a contracting employee that works directly
for the County Commission. I don't believe those roles apply. You
may choose to do that as a discretionary item. I don't believe you're
bound to advertise internally for any given period of time for the
position of County Manager.
That's a direct contractual relationship between the Board and
the individual.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure I understand
this. We don't have to go through a competitive selection internally
to make this decision?
MR. MANALICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But with respect to Jim Mudd
making his selection for any employee that he would wish to select,
he would go through the normal policies, personnel policies, of the
County at which would include an internal posting.
And then if he did not find suitable candidates, I presume he
could use the search firm that Commissioner Carter is proposing to
give you in your toolbox? Is that a logical process?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 275
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's something you don't have
to use. It's just -- we are approving the use of a consultant, if you
need one. But certainly you would follow the internal posting
process.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, we can come back around
again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He can have my time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You used up your time. You're on
my time now. Now, you made me lose my thought for a moment.
Where we're going with this, I can't see where we have to
commit any money for you at this time to go out and find yourself a
second or whatever.
The one concern I got and I need somebody to help me through
this, do we have anyone else in county government at this time that is
interested in the position of county manager? Are we doing
something as far as jumping in front everyone else out there? I'm not
so sure on this.
Are you aware of anyone else that has any interest in this
position?
MR. MUDD: Leo does the HR side of the house, but I know of
nobody else that has come forward and expressed an interest. Leo?
MR. OCHS: Nor do I.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It seems to me when we looked
for the interim that would have been the point where someone else
would have stuck their hand up and said, I want to be interim County
Administrator. No one stuck their hand up to do that.
So it was literally one person that was willing to move forward.
Page 276
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only question, I guess,
Commissioner Carter, do we have -- do we need to go forward with
your particular motion. Would you like to reconsider it?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not necessarily. I'd like to hand
him the tool. Let him make the decision. I'm not going to
· micromanage this man. I'm just suggesting he become the County
Administrator.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have not made him the
County Administrator yet. I mean, we got one motion in front of the
other, unless you want to incorporate them all together?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move that he be appointed
County Commissioner by this Board of County Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: County Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The Board of County
Commissioners appoint the interim County Manager, Jim Mudd, to
the position of county manager with the effective --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: July 15th.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: With a negotiated contract to be
put together with him and use the Chairman of the Board as a
negotiator of that and then comes back to the Board for an approval.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would second that.
MR. MANALICH: For clarification, I suggest that motion
include that this is rescinding the prior Board direction in regard to
the selection process. I think it's implicit for clarification.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would include that in my
motion. I also would add to give him the tool for the toolbox.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll include that in my motion,
my second one also..
Page 277
June 25, 2002
We have a motion by Commissioner Carter, a second by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, and now for discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you never let me, you get all
the guys and not me. I just wanted to say way back when we were
talking, I thought it was Jim Mudd for the County Manager's place to
then build his staff the way he sees fit. We got Leo there who is a
wealth of knowledge. Tom takes away with him all of background
and experience. But Leo is still here, and I think that would be up to
Jim Mudd to decide who works with him, not us; right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's make sure it includes Leo
Ochs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The manager has to live with us.
Okay. Let's clarify this motion, again. I want to make sure we don't
have it so top heavy that it's going to topple over and kill us one day.
One more time.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It rescinds the prior Board-
direction. It appoints the interim County Administrator, Jim Mudd,
to the County Administrator position effective July 15, with the
negotiated contract to be brought back to the Board of County
Commissioners on July 30th.
It also allows him the option to utilize a search firm for a Deputy
County Administrator, if he chooses.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Or something similar?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Or something similar.
Whatever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I go along with that. That's my
second. Comments? Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, first of all, I want to kick
this up. We were really dragging on this item and other ones.
Page 278
June 25, 2002
The second thing is, we made a huge decision of the future and I
would like to have some time for us just to contemplate the decision
that we made. It's not a bad decision. You're going to have a lot of
people in the community wanting to discuss County Manager
position, so I would hope that we could delay this, since we pretty
much made up our minds, so delay this until July 30th so we can get
some more public comments and bring it up at the board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any more comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I still stand by my second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I made the motion, I know where
I am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's right. With that, no other
discussion. I'll call for the motion. All those in favor indicate by
saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. The ayes have it 5-0. Okay,
we're at E; right?
Item # 10E
RESOLUTION 2002-311 GIV1NG PRIORITY TO THE
ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG
THE 951 CORRIDOR - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 279
June 25, 2002
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, for the record,
Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. I'd like to inquire for
the position of County Manager now. I do want to congratulate --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who says this man has no sense of
humor?
MR. FEDER: I'd like to congratulate Jim Mudd.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
reconsider?
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
MR. FEDER: 951 corridor.
Do we have a motion to
I missed that.
This was brought to you in May. It
was taken off the agenda because a number of issues were raised,
particularly, the folks from Lely, in particular, the Veranda.
What this is is an item to ask the Board to establish a resolution,
that is a planning resolution to identify the future intent and need
within this corridor, much like you have 200 feet right-of-away
between Marco Island and US 41, to state our intent to hopefully
establish a 200-foot corridor from 41 all the way up to Immokalee
Road.
With that in mind, though, we recognize that there are areas
throughout this corridor already development in place that would
make that 200-foot corridor difficult, if not impossible.
The intent on this was never to take any homes. I think that
intent has now been clearly displayed to the community. In two
successful meetings myself and Commissioner Henning met with
representatives of the community.
We have modified the resolution to add paragraph 12. And I'll
read it into the record to make sure it's quite clear.
Of course, this is the Board's statement by the Board's signature,
if you will. But it's not the intent of this Board that the resolution for
the proposed right-of-way referenced in here result in the taking of
Page 280
June 25, 2002
any existing homes or any homes in which the owner has possession
of Certificate of Occupancy as the date of this resolution. To the
extent such homes fall within the 951 corridor referred to herein,
Collier County Transportation Administrator shall explore alternative
ways in maintaining the integrity of the roadway, such as having
adjacent development accept storm water retention, reduction of
medians, imposition of limited access to the roadway or other
reasonable means related to the restricted segment of the corridor to
allow the reduction of the median width to avoid the taking of any
existing homes.
What we're trying to do with this is basically acknowledge that
to have an optimum six-lane facility, we should have a six-lane right-
of-way. And that right-of-way needs to be about 200 feet.
Right now we have 120 feet in the corridor. We have adjacent
to the west of that 125, a foot canal within 100-foot right-of-way that
goes over to Big Cypress Basin.
In here we also would acknowledge that the possibility of
moving the canal is a very costly, but nonetheless, maintained option.
Our desire, though, would be to work with new development, in
particular, as it comes in to evaluate if, in fact, we can have their
development provide for that additional 75 feet. If we can, we come
to you and ask for your authorization to acquire that based on an
agreed settlement amount.
If we cannot acquire 75 feet off of new property or off of
existing property, we will try to work with the developer to see if
there are some alternative that can be done.
Maybe it's some additional footage, in some cases it may be as is
mentioned here, asking them to take the storm water so that I can
reduce that width of right-of-way from the swale and that have that
storm water taking on property or restricting access so I don't have to
Page 281
June 25, 2002
put the 22 feet, 11 feet in each direction, median for future turn lane
to accommodate access point.
What I'm trying to tell you is that we need to put people on
notice. It's a planning item. We are not taking any property by this.
We have to come back to you with any agreement to get your
concurrence before we proceed.
This does not institute condemnation and the intent is clearly
stated as not taking any homes. So I hope that clarifies some of the
issues.
And I do note that there's a request by Mr. Anderson who's
worked with Jackie Robinson for minor modification to this and I'll
let them speak to that issue specifically, and then open up to any
questions you might have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You certainly may, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just being a meat-and-potatoes-
common-sense-down-to-earth type person, I'm just looking at that
corridor and I absolutely agree. It's wonderful that you're planning
for the growth ahead of time, which we have not done in some of
these populated areas.
Speaking of the population, I notice there's population on the
one side, but the other side is absolutely empty yet.
I would think, and you talk about the storm water management,
but I've seen this equipment drive down, dig up something and pour
the sand or the dirt over to the other side.
I would think it would be easy enough to drive one of those
pieces of equipment down, dig another swale and put the stuff that
they had in their back into the old swale and then put the road right
over it and you would never disturb a home and you wouldn't be in
Page 282
June 25, 2002
anybody's back yard. And it would cost a heck of a lot less than
having to replace homes, go through lawsuits, or any of the other
things that might take place.
To me a virgin land would be the most ideal spot to do this.
MR. FEDER: First, let me tell you that it's not quite as easy as
you're outlining there. It's very, very expensive. We worked with the
Big Cypress Basin. They are on the west and 50 feet of that hundred
foot. They're looking at some major expansion along there because
of the growth in the corridor, approximately 75 feet.
We first spoke to them, that'd be happy for us to move and set
up a profile of 75 feet over, which gives me 25 additional feet, if you
will, if I can make that move, which is pretty expensive. And then I
still would be looking for 50 feet in some cases. As you point out,
I'm very constrained there so I'm trying to work with the developers
to see what we can do especially when we got existing development
today.
The intent is not to take a home. Not to take a home in
Verandas, not to take a home in another section that is developing
within Lely, that is coming in, much like the Veranda, straight up
against the west, and therefore, right up to 951.
In those areas, we need some assistance as well to make sure we
can maintain the integrity of a six lane in the future for hurricane
evacuation.
The only thing that this is doing is as development comes
forward, for instance, right now we're allowing the northern end
model homes to come in 50 feet off of the existing right-of-way.
I'm either going to be taking those, I the taxpayer, or I'm going
to come so close to them, they wish I was taking them.
Page 283
June 25, 2002
What I'm saying is we shouldn't allow more development to
move in there and not try to work forward on it. Where we have
existing development, we need to recognize it.
Through Golden Gate City, I'm unlikely to get a 200-foot
corridor through that area. But the question is right now how do we
work with it and protect a six lane and as we're evaluating it, it may
be that the issue of moving the canal becomes the more cost feasible
or the more accurate relative to disruption.
I'm not ready to accept that and we need to be planning for it.
All this is doing, new development comes in or instructing us to go
out with existing development, try to come up with alternative, try to
protect that corridor before we come to the point where it's all built
up the whole corridor and we have no options left.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But there's nothing built on the
other side. It's so simple.
MR. FEDER: One option is to split the road on both sides of the
canal, but then you have very costly crosses with bridges. I'm not
taking anything off the plate, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, we need to keep moving
on this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to move for staff
approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We still have discussion taking place
here. We have a motion by Commissioner Carter, second by
Commissioner Henning.
My concerns were -- I'll go before you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't want to end up with
something like St. Andrews down there, where it originally was
Page 284
June 25, 2002
intended to be a through street, going right through, the developer
intentionally built it in such a way that it never will become that and
never could.
If we can't protect the integrity of 951, with all options open, we
got a real problem. We're going to reach that day when people are
going to look back and why didn't those Commissioners do it? Why
didn't they take care of it back when they had the chance?
I do believe we need to keep going forward on this. We got a
guarantee we're not going to take homes. I thought we were going to
have to. If you say we don't, we don't.
The thing is we're at the end of the 9th inning folks, something
has to be done.
And with that we'll keep on going with discussion.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's the key element. I
very strongly objected to our original position on doing this because
it jeopardized some homes.
This particular agreement has been rewritten so that it
guarantees that no homes will be taken. Even if you have to move to
the other side of the road or if you have to narrow the width of the
road so you have some flexibility there.
And so with that understanding, and we're not going to be taking
people's homes, I would feel comfortable supporting this.
MR. FEDER: If I could, I mentioned to you that there was one
issue that got raised and I'll ask Ms. Robinson, if she would to
address that with you.
MS. ROBINSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Attorney
Anderson raised an issue with paragraph 11 that we've been
attempting to address. And that is the situation where a property
Page 285
June 25, 2002
owner decides for some reason that the owner wishes not to sell the
property to the County.
And by the way, the procedures as envisioned right now on
paragraph 11, is that once the property owner files for a final site
development plan or a filed plat that triggers the county's ability to
make an offer to purchase within 90 days of those events and that
offer to purchase should be brought to the Board of County
Commissioners. It has to, in my opinion, and the Board of County
Commissioners will have a hearing and decide whether or not that we
suggested to you to purchase the property is appropriate.
At that time the property owner can, of course, raise any points
that the property owner feels are appropriate.
But additionally to that, Mr. Anderson was concerned that
there's really no cut off point for the property owner and what we've
decided, if it's okay with you, of course, is that we will give the
property owner 60 days after we have made the offer to purchase the
property, because we may continue to negotiate to try and you may
direct us to take some additional action after it's brought to your
attention.
And after 60 days, the property owner would be allowed to
petition the Board to get a final decision on the offer to purchase.
So that if the Board -- the Board could either accept the offer
that the County suggested, which means that it would then not release
the 75 feet from the property owner, whatever compromise that we
thought was appropriate and done in good faith and fair, or they can
release the property, if that's what the Board wanted to do. Or the
Board could take any other appropriate action at the time that you
hear petition from the property owner.
But in any event, after that public hearing is held this matter
would be final for the property owner and no more administrative
Page 286
June 25, 2002
procedures pursuant to the offer to purchase would be required. And
if the property owner decided to take whatever legal action the
property owner wanted to do, they could do it at that point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would apply on both sides of
the road.
MS. ROBINSON: Yes. That would give the County
approximately five months to work on each individual property.
It's also understood that the fact that we are working on trying to
come up with an offer to purchase would not stop the administrative
process, in most instances for plat approval or site development plan
approval, they would still move through the process while we were
trying to negotiate a purchase at that point. Are there any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Norm said something about
the road up further toward Golden Gate and he said if they had the
ability to widen it up there, he said that road would be right in the
people's backyards so they wish they would have taken their homes.
Again, I'm going back to the fact that there aren't any homes on
the other side of the street, and yet this 75 feet is going to land right
in their backyard so that they wished you would have taken their
home.
And not only that, by the way, if it was on the other side, the
east side of the street, wouldn't it straighten out that road and provide
a straighter shot?
MS. ROBINSON: It could very well do that. That is one of the
options that county staff will look at. They have not foreclosed that
at all.
Right now what's happened is just an opportunity for you to
make a policy statement that it's the intention of the Board to exercise
Page 287
June 25, 2002
its absolute best efforts to preserve that right-of-way for the six-
laning of the road.
The manner in which that is done is through a process with each
individual property owner.
MR. FEDER: If I could, Commissioner, you said meat and
potatoes. Let's get real specific. Do we allow development to
continue to capitalize on all that right-of-way and force us to move
the canal?
In some cases that may be the situation as we negotiate with
them and they can't reasonably develop that land and provide some or
all of that 75 feet.
In some cases, they've got that capability. And if we could
make a good faith offer and reserve, that it would be much cheaper to
the taxpayer in the future than having to move the canal.
The canal movement is not cheap or an easy item. And I'll also
present to you where there's some development today, what is the
encouragement for that development to come in and resolve some of
the problem or just tell us, go take the canal? Where is it in their
interest to come in and take on some of the storm water, limit some
of their access to help protect what they built right up next to the
roadway?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Norm, if I may ask a question. Have
we ever looked into the possibility of also keeping it open at Lely to
maybe put a MSTU on themselves to pay itself for the canal being
moved and all the improvements it would take to move it to the other
side? Have we ever looked at that?
MR. FEDER: We have discounted nothing. We will continued
to work with ever option.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make sure that we
address Commissioner Fiala's concerns. Are there any circumstances
Page 288
June 25, 2002
where we are likely to take property, take private property, to the
point where we make a habitable structure uninhabitable?
MR. FEDER: No. What I will tell you is that you got inverse
condemnation as a result of that. And I think the point of the question
is, where we got existing development today, do we have to
recognize that and what we're doing to plan this corridor? Yes.
Do we want to continue to present ourselves with that obstacle7
No. And do we want to find a way around those issues? Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But for existing structures, we are
not going to build the road so close to their homes that it makes their
homes essentially worthless or decreases the value of their homes?
MR. FEDER: An example of what you're raising was raised
particularly with the homes in the Veranda.
If you took very 75 feet, you would take Celeste Drive.
Technically, you wouldn't touch a single garage. They still have
access roads around them, but I find the roadway very, very close to
those homes.
We're trying to find an alternative to do that and we feel that the
resolution that you pass by adding paragraph 12 makes it very, very
clear, that that's not your intent either.
And then the last bottom line is, this gives no authorization for
me or any staff to go through and either finalize a negotiation for
purchase or even more so to go out to condemnation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One final comment. I just think
that if we go ahead with this, we must be very careful in our
discussion with the public and with the property owners that we don't
lead them to believe that we're going to route this road in a way
which will take away their property. It's very important that we do
that.
Page 289
June 25, 2002
MR. FEDER: I think we've tried to do that in the meeting. I
assure you it was not our intent from the beginning. We had to
overcome a lot of literature that was out there. I think in many ways
we've done that, not fully, but hopefully to a degree. And I think our
actions will resolve the last of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll allow all the Commissioners one
chance for a final comment before I call the question.
I'm sorry. There's two speakers. Let's go ahead with them.
MR. MUDD: You have two speaker, sir.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Ken Drumm, and Bruce Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Ms. Robinson and I have negotiated some
language dealing with the legal follow through and trying to bring
finality to this process and rather than take up your time I'll be glad to
read it or just give it to the court reporter. It would be added at the
end of the paragraph 11.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it would be appropriate to
read it.
MR. ANDERSON: At the end of paragraph 11 it would read,
"If no offer is made or if after 60 days the property owner has not
accepted the County's offer, the property owner may petition the
Board of County Commissioners to file condemnation proceedings to
acquire the property or to release the property from the reservation or
to grant other appropriate relief.
If within 30 days of filing the petition, the Board of County
Commissioners fails to either file condemnation proceedings or to
release the property from the reservation, the County shall be deemed
to have made a final decision and the property owner may proceed to
file for inverse condemnation.
Page 290
June 25, 2002
At all times, the County shall continue with its normal review
and approval process for the property owners plat or site development
plan."
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No problem from legal?
MR. MANALICH: No. I would add however, that you were
previously furnished a copy of a letter from Dorrill Management
Group, by Mr. Neil Dorrill, on behalf of Lely Community
Development District.
This should be added to the record. I will be happy to read it, if
necessary. You may have already discussed it, I don't know if you
have discussed it. I don't know if it was earlier in the day.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We have not discussed it. It was
a matter of record. We can so recognize it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I would like to hear it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Read it, please.
MR. MANALICH: It's not long. "Regarding Collier County
Right-of-way Resolution.
Dear Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to express
today our interest in the proper planning for the future corridor of
Collier Boulevard.
The Lely Community Development District Board of
Supervisors meeting on June 5, 2002, unanimously voted to express
the following two concerns of the draft resolution before you today.
The first concern is that the proposed corridor as described only
affects communities on the west side of the highway. As you're
aware, the west side of the existing highway is substantially
developed with community entrance walls, landscaping, golf courses
and mostly importantly the existing homes.
Page 291
June 25,2002
The east side the road, however, is only five percent developed.
It would seem the right-of-way reservation should take into account
the area that will be developed in the future impacting this road.
We would request the desired 200 foot reservation both the east
and west side of the road.
Secondly, we would request that the word "priority" be used in
the resolution to indicate the Board's desire to evaluate alternatives
during the preliminary design process.
Failure for the Commission to express that alternatives be
validated will result in less then complete considerations to fully
measure the impacts of design and existing communities.
Thank you again for your assistance and committment to
fairness. Sincerely, W. Neil Dorrill, District Manager."
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for reading that into the
record. What I'm going to do now is start with Commissioner Carter.
I'm going to end with you, Commissioner Fiala, so you have the last
comment.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
Any last comment?
I would request if the Board
passes this, we translate it into language that is clear and concise to
the community that you send this out to residents in that area and
comes officially from the Board of County
Commissioner/Transportation Department, Collier County.
That you repeat the same thing on Channel 11, so that you don't
get someone out there sending out some hysterical letter implying
that, you know, the sky is falling, the county is coming in tomorrow
and taking your property and doing all sorts of nasty things.
That is the only way we're ever going to shore up and protect
ourselves because I think that everything that I've heard protects the
property owners, regardless of which side of the road you're on, and
Page 292
June 25, 2002
if you were working into a negotiations process within a framework
to the achieve effective of obtaining right-of-way.
MR. FEDER: I will note that we have sent out to the various
people that have sent us correspondence and sent you
correspondence, rather lengthy e-mail with a copy of the resolution,
we'll continue to explore those avenues to make sure the information
gets out.
I appreciate the observation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Put it in laymen's terminology.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the Board aware that Item 12
is not the intent of the Board. Again, it is not the intent of the Board
to take anybody's home.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think you can repeat that
enough times. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to say it again. It's not
the intent of the Board to take anyone's home.
And with respect to Mr. Dorrill's letter, he has asked specifically
that the desired 200-foot reservation occur on both the east and west
side of the road. And it's my understanding this provides you the
flexibility to do that. That is an option to expand into the east side of
the road where it is feasible to avoid the disruption of private
property on the west side.
And his other request is largely just wording that we should do
this on a priority basis. It appears to me that this agreement does
what he has asked, is that true?
MR. FEDER: It does, in essence. What I will point out to you,
I don't want to mislead you at all, never try to do that. I will tell that
we already know that it's very, very costly to move the canal.
Page 293
June 25, 2002
And we're trying to evaluate through this process what our
options are on the west side, not always just with right-of-way maybe
with other options.
We will maintain and we have told folks that's in here as well
that moving the canal remains an option, but we know it's a very
costly one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess for my own opinion, I
would prefer to pay additional costs to do this than take someone's
private property or home.
MR. FEDER: That's understood. And what I'm talking about is
the ability not to widen, you'd be on the existing 125, if, in fact,
there's no access connection, there's 22 feet, if somebody takes my
50-foot swale, my 125 is now 200 feet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no other comments.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I realize 12 says that it's not going
to take anyone's home. But like Mr. Feder said earlier, when it's right
in your back yard, you wish we would have taken your home.
You get into that area, and it's not only very costly as you begin
to ride into peoples back yards, yes, they're going to take the road
away. They'll still have access to their garage. Does that give you a
picture of how close the road is planned to be? No road, but you
have access to your garage.
And then on top of that, people are going to be fighting that.
That also puts time limitations on it, doesn't it?
Where the other side of the street is empty. To me it's just such
a common sense thing.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I did not say that. I did not tell
you that I was coming up to that garage. I cannot make any decision
on this without bringing it back to this Board.
Page 294
June 25, 2002
What we've done is we've provided an opportunity to plan. We
can't continue to have the development continue up and down that
corridor without putting them on notice of our desire for a six-lane
facility and to try to work our way through some things.
We are not taking any homes. I would love to have some folks
step forward and resolve even that issue that we're discussing relative
to the Veranda.
Other than that, we have to look at other options. But that's one
very viable option. I just gave you one where I don't come any closer
than the roadway is today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, Commissioner Coyle, I
really would like to move on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to make sure that
addressed Commissioner Fiala's concerns in her district.
You just said that we're going to evaluate all other alternatives.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And not have the road routed any
closer to the homes than is today.
MR. FEDER: No, I didn't say that. I will only come back to
you and you'll have to agree to any proposal. My desire in that case
would be just to do what you said, but I'm not going to go stand here
and tell you that I can carry that out necessarily.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're leaving the options open.
MR. FEDER: I'm leaving the options open. But I can also read
the tea leaves and I know what's going to happen if my option is
coming up to a parking garage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I commend you for staying in there.
I know it's not easy when you got Commissioners coming back to
you on this.
MR. FEDER: That's fine.
Page 295
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're doing what we hired you to
do. Someday I know I'm going to be very unhappy.
Let's call the question. All those in favor indicate by saying
"aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A very loud no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And would you please show that
Commissioner is the descending very loud no.
And what we're going to do is take a short break at this point in
time to give our typist here a chance to take a break.
Thereupon, (Brief recess was taken, after which the following
proceedings were had.)
Item # 1 OH
APPEAL OF TOWN MARKET PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE
SIGN PERMIT REVOCATION- APPROVAL TO REINSTATE
ORIGINAL PERMIT
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where are we?
MR. MUDD: 10-H. This is an item that the County Attorney
brought before the County Manager to put on the agenda. It's an
appeal to the Board of County Commissioners of Town Market
Project Administrative signed permit revocation for Mr. George
Shami.
Page 296
June 25, 2002
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, just as a brief introduction,
I've placed on each of your materials, there are three items for your
attention.
One is Section 1.99 of the Land Development Code talking
about appeals from signed permit and building permit revocation or
other proceedings.
The other two items, another section of the code was that Mr.
Cuyler asked that that be passed out to you as well as the particular
materials that consist of exhibits and a brief memorandum of law and
argument prepared by Mr. Cuyler that you can follow along as he
makes his presentation.
With that being said, I guess I'll let Mr. Cuyler lead off unless a
staff wishes to do otherwise.
One other thing I should mention, we should approach this as a
quasi-judicial proceeding. So I think we should commence by
making any disclosures of any contacts that may have been made on
this item to any of the Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have met with the Petitioner
and his legal counsel, Mr. Cuyler.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've met with him before, not
recently.
MR. CUYLER: No. I don't think any of the meetings have
been recent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need your help with this. Did we
meet? I can't recall the meeting. You really leave a lasting
impression.
MR. CUYLER: You may have met with the property owner,
Mr. Chairman. I don't know if we met. I don't believe we did.
Let's start with Conunissioner
Page 297
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I may have met with the property
owner. I'm sure that my calendar will verify that or prove me wrong.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I met with the property owner and
with Mr. Cuyler. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have not met on this
particular-- what is being asked of us today, but I have in the past.
MR. CUYLER: If I may begin.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have to swear in all the
people that wish to participate?
MR. MANALICH: Yes, I think we should.
Thereupon, (All speakers were sworn by the Court Reporter.)
MR. CUYLER: We're not actually going to be presenting
testimony today. This is an appellate mechanism. Still, that's fine.
For the record, Ken Cuyler, with the law firm of Goodlette,
Coleman and Jones representing J.P. LLC of the Town Market
Project.
You only have one issue in front of you this evening and let me
start by saying I am not unmindful of the fact that it is late in the
evening. We will try to proceed as expeditiously as we can through
this.
This is obviously a critical issue to my client. I know we're all
getting a little tired and I appreciate your patience.
There's only one issue this evening and that's the signage issue.
If you're aware there may be a couple of other issues with regard to
this property, but those will be heard at a later time.
The only thing we're dealing with this evening is the signage
issue. And we do appreciate the opportunity to provide the property
owners side publicly on this and to appeal the decision on the staff's
Page 298
June 25, 2002
revocation of a permit that was issued for a sign and that permit was
unrevoked.
In a moment Dave Underhill from Banks Engineering and the
project engineer will give you a little of the early background, only
three or four minutes of discussion.
It's very important to know how the property owner first came
into this, and you know that part of the issue is that there was staff
that was here at the beginning that is not here now and there have
been changes to the interpretation.
I think several other important things before Mr. Underhill
stands up is that the property that was purchased was actually
purchased after this property owner went into the County to
determine what he could do, what type of uses he wanted to do, how
much property it would take, and then he went out and purchased the
property in reliance on those discussions with staff.
Secondly, there was a site development plan that was approved
in May of 2001, just to give you a chronological background.
The building permit was issued and the Town Market Project
was built at a cost of several million dollars.
A sign permit was issued on December 3rd, 2001. The sign was
ordered from Sign Craft and it was fabricated.
I believe in February, 2002, somewhere around there, which as,
you know, four months ago or so, staff took the position that the sign
that had been permitted which was 15 foot in height with 80 square
foot of face area was not allowable and they revoked the sign.
This was directly contrary, the interpretation that led to that
revocation, was directly contrary to all of the County interpretation
that had been made from November of 2000 up to that point,
February of 2002.
Page 299
June 25, 2002
Staff's legal position, and I don't think there's any questions
about this, staff's legal position is that the property is either an
outparcel or the project is a quote, convenience store with gas pumps.
And the relevance of that is, if it falls into either of those two
categories, then the sign for the project is limited to eight feet in
height and 60 square feet in face area. So that's really the issue we're
talking about; 15 foot versus eight foot, 80 square feet versus 60
square feet.
In order for the lower sign to be required, it has to fall into one
of those two categories, otherwise the larger sign is allowed for all of
these types of uses.
We intend to show you over the next few minutes that staff is
legally incorrect and there's no basis to support permit revocation.
But before Mr. Banks speaks, I want you to know one very
important thing; that is if these interpretations had been made by staff
when the property owner first came into the County, then under those
circumstances, even though in my opinion the interpretation would
still be legally incorrect, this property owner never would have
proceeded with this project.
He specifically went in to talk to staff to get these type of
interpretations and he relied on them during the course of the project.
So with that, I'm going to introduce David Underhill of Banks
Engineering, and let him talk to you for just a few minutes to give
you some idea of what the original conversations were and then I'll
wrap up with regard to my appellate argument.
MR. BANKS: Hi, my notes start off as good afternoon. We'll
skip forward to good evening, Commissioners.
My name is David Underhill. I'm a professional engineer with
Banks Engineering, and I'm the person who designed and permitted
this site work and aspects of the project.
Page 300
June 25, 2002
I want to go through some of the background in how the process
-- how the project carried through the process. It started as with any
project in Collier County, you're required to have a mandatory SDP
preapplication meeting with staff.
Basically, you go in and you get to ask the staff the questions
that you want. We brought in a site plan and a floor plan and met
with staff, went through what we felt were the key issues for the
project and also the unique nature of the building and the use.
The key issues that we had identified were parking, the
landscaping, the signage and the impact fees. We took our plans in,
met with staff, got a lot of good input from them and we really took
that information to heart.
We went back, we incorporated their our comments into our
preliminary design before we ever submitted our application and we
checked through the code to make sure we agreed with whatever
interpretation they gave us, and where necessary, had follow-up
meetings.
We had follow-up meetings with the landscape reviewers, the
planners, and, you know, really went through this project with a fine
tooth comb before it was ever submitted.
These were critical issues that were literally hundreds of
thousands of dollars and affected the size of the property, the uses
and some significant money on a project that is this size, fairly small
in nature.
Throughout this process, we obtained reasonable and consistent
interpretations that the project was, in fact, much more than a
convenience store with gas. And that staff agreed with us that the
project would not be subject to the most stringent interpretation of the
code, that it was simply a gas station.
Page 301
June 25, 2002
Staff repeatedly agreed to classify the project as a mixed use
project with respect to a number of issues that were material in the
design and development of the project.
We relied on these interpretations and consistent interpretations
from various staff people throughout the development, permitting, the
design of the project.
For me the issues before us really become one of fairness. My
client has relied on staff interpretation and the preparation of his
business plan. We obtained the necessary permits. We constructed
the facility only to have staff at the 11 th hour change their
interpretation to -- which has significant financial burdens to my
client. That's really how the process started.
The facility was constructed, ready for a CO when it hit the fan.
That's why we're here today. Thanks for your consideration.
MR. CUYLER: As I pointed out, the staff has taken the position
that the property has to be one of two things in order to require the
lower height sign and the lower face. Otherwise, the permit that was
issued is correct. And I don't think staff disputes these two things, at
least the categories.
The first is that the property is an outparcel. The first thing to
note is that outparcel is not defined in the Land Developement Code.
You have 68 pages of definitions in Land Development Code, but
what staff is using as their basis to revoke the permit is not a defined
term, so it is clearly just interpretation on the part of the staff.
If you will look at the property -- if you'll go to the two-page
document that Mr. Manalich handed out to you at the bottom,
2.5.5.2.1.1. Look at page two. You will see that that is the
requirement, if it is an outparcel. Ground signs should be limited to
eight item feet in height, not to exceed 60 square feet.
Page 302
June 25, 2002
But if you go to A in that same definition on the previous page,
you will see that it says, "In addition to any wall signs permitted by
this code, outparcels may be allowed one additional 60-square-foot
wall sign facing the shopping center, if the additional sign is not
oriented towards..." And then the wording goes on.
The key words in that phrase is shopping center. This parcel is
not in a shopping center parcel. This is in the old Cypress PUD. It is
a commercial section and these are platted lots, the platted lots, very
similar to the East Trail that faces on an arterial. There is not a
shopping center in that area.
I would suggest to you that that language doesn't say if the
outparcel faces the shopping center, it implies that there's a shopping
center if there's going to be an outparcel.
Frankly, I've been doing land use for 20 years and that's always
been my understanding. That's where outparcels are is usually in a
shopping center.
I ran a word search on your Internet Land Development Code
and I got only six hits on outparcel. And one was this, the other five
dealt with designs and all of the wording lead to the same conclusion
and I have that document with me, if you want to see it.
It says, that the outparcel building shall be, for example, have
the same facades as the main building. It implies that there are
combination of buildings usually in a shopping center. As a matter of
fact, in your definition it implies it is always in a shopping center,
where there's a smaller parcel.
And you're all familiar with the shopping centers around town
where there's an Arby's or Wendy's in an outparcel, an Applebee's or
whatever.
I think that one is absolutely clear that this parcel of property is
not an outparcel.
Page 303
June 25, 2002
The second one I think staff is probably relying on a little more
heavily is the term convenient store with gas pumps.
Again, this is not defined in the Land Development Code, not
defined in the PUD, within which this parcel is located.
Mr. Underhill explained that the property owner went to great
lengths to ensure that his property was not going to be classified as a
convenience store with gas pumps for a number of different reasons.
He went in originally to get those determinations from staff.
You know, and I looked to see whether there were any other
indications that those convenience stores with gas pumps regulations
were not applied to the property and one of the most basic Land
Development Code regulations, and that is parking, was not
determined for this project or applied consistent with that
interpretation.
The interpretation is that it is a convenience store with gas
pumps. This is an ! 1,200 square foot building.
If you take the convenience store parking requirements, yet, one
space per 200 square feet, you have a space for every two seats for a
food establishment, when you add those up, there's 66 parking spaces
that would be required for this project under the parking for a
convenience store, convenience store with gas pumps.
This project was approved with 47 parking spaces. And the
reason that it was approved with 47 parking spaces, and you can't see
it in the appeal document because it's probably too small, but if you
wish to see it, I can get you a copy right now, the parking was
determined on per use basis. So many square feet of a bakery at
certain number of parking places, so much of convenience, so many
square feet of food, so many square feet of bank, so many square feet
of dry cleaner. It was fixed -- it was figured on a mixed-use basis. It
was not calculated on a convenience store with gas pumps criteria.
Page 304
June 25, 2002
And I would suggest to you even more importantly, common
sense indicates that this is not a convenience store with gas pumps.
You've been in 7-Elevens with glass pumps, you have been in
Hess with gas pumps, Mobil stations with gas pumps. Those are
usually an average of 3,000 square feet. Some are smaller. Some are
1,200 square feet. Rarely do they get much over 4,000 square feet.
This building is 11,200 square feet.
How many convenience stores have you seen that you've seen
are that large? How many convenience stores with gas pumps where
you've seen offices on the second floor? How many have you seen
with a drive-thru banking facility? How many have you seen with a
copy center within it? How many have you seen with a dry cleaner
dropoff and pickup?
The conclusion has to be that it's not a convenience store with
gas pumps. It is a new animal. I don't know whether you've been out
there or not. I went out there yesterday for the first time. It literally
is a new facility. I've never seen anything like it in Collier County.
I've never seen anything like it anywhere.
It's a fairly large facility. It does have gas pumps. Obviously,
there's a convenience aspect to it. That's what most people go into
business for is to make a product convenient for their customers.
But it's just something new and I think staff, with all due respect
to staff, they work very hard, they do a very good job. I will tell you,
I would not be here had we not talked about this thoroughly with
staff. You are our last resort to this issue.
But things come up and they don't fit in the Land Development
Code. They don't fit into the little slot that they need to. I know
there's a lot more concern about broad interpretations then there used
to be. But everything doesn't fit in.
Page 305
June 25, 2002
For example, unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember when
they didn't have drive-thru windows at fast food places. As a matter
of fact, I remember when they didn't have fast food places.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Way back then.
MR. CUYLER: Believe it or not. Cell towers, satellite dishes
on homes, new things pop up, and what do you do? You try to do the
best you can to fit them under the proper category and then you
change your regulations and you catch up. You can't be ahead of
everything there is.
There's also an equity part of this. I think that those arguments
indicate that staff is technically wrong in their interpretation. It is not
an outparcel. It's not a convenience store with gas pumps. If that's
the answer, then the property owner is entitled to the larger sign.
You need to keep in mind that these are all interpretations. It is
not in black and white. It is not defined and because of that we're not
saying that staff couldn't make an interpretation on it, but it's just an
interpretation. The original staff made an interpretation. I don't think
their interpretation is incorrect. I think it was correct.
But even if they were close, there's an equitable side to this and
that is the property owner for a year and a half, for almost two years,
relied on the interpretations that have been provided by staff. It is
simply inequitable. It is simply unfair to get to the very end of a
project, where the building is actually built, a sign permit is actually
issued, and then to say, no, we're changing our interpretation.
And believe me, if you look in there, you won't find the exact
answer. It's an interpretation.
On behalf of the property owner, I would sincerely request that
you in any way you see fit, I don't care how you have to characterize
it. Staff does the best job in the world. We're not going to contest
Page 306
June 25,2002
that, but this property owner needs the sign he was originally
permitted for and that is what we're asking for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, could you shed
some light on the subject, please.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of
Community Development and Environmental Services.
I appreciate Mr. Cuyler's rundown. He did a very thorough job.
Just to reiterate, this is an issue concerning a size of a sign. A 15-foot
high sign, 80-square-foot dimension versus the eight foot, 60 square
feet.
I'm passing out some bullets just so you can follow along in the
history of this.
Yes, in August of 2000, Mr. Shami was advised that this
convenience store, as it was called then, on Immokalee Road could
have a 15-foot sign.
And that decision was made by the team in the building and
basically in the Planning Department where they determined because
of the uniqueness of this project that a 15-foot sign was the
appropriate sign.
At that time Mr. Shami defined his business as mixed-use retail
facility. And I like the analogy that Mr. Cuyler used because he
talked about, this is a different animal, but we only have so many
cages we can put animals in. And we had to put this animal in the
cage.
And that cage had to be one of two things, a convenience store
with gas station or a shopping center. I'm putting on the visualizer.
There are gas pumps out in front of the facility. Basically it is a gas
station. Here is another one.
Page 307
June 25, 2002
And principally, we understood from a marketing perspective
one of the primary portions of this business was the gas station,
which is shown here as Amoco.
In July 2001, his contract submitted for a permit for a sign, and
the LDC clearly denotes that it can only be eight foot high for a gas
station, and that was denied.
Faced with the conflicting guidance, Mr. Shami met with the
staff, it was reassessed and they determined that, in fact, he could
have the 15-foot sign. So Mr. Cuyler is correct.
So in December 3rd, 2001, he was issued a permit for the 15-
foot sign. We received a complaint from our code enforcement
section based on that permit. I don't know what the genesis of that
complaint was, but we did receive a complaint and principally had to
do with the fact that we are issuing a sign permit for a gas station that
exceeded the LDC standards.
So on February 6th, we revoked the permit. Now, the reality is,
I met with several times on at least four different occasions with Mr.
Shami and his staff and you know this project has been before you in
the past. It was recommended because of the uniqueness of this
project that a developer submit a variance.
And as you note in the last paragraph, I stated there that
basically they would submit for a variance, given the history of this,
understanding the fact that the staff did make a commitment or at
least a projected 15-foot sign was a correct sign and we reversed
based on our reassessment of the situation.
And I said that I would personally brief each of you on the
background and history and certainly the mitigating -- extenuating
and mitigating circumstances that got the developer in this position.
And I recommended that we submit a variance and proceed
through the variance process through the Planning Commission and
Page 308
June 25, 2002
on to the Board. That has yet to be initiated. Why? I don't know.
That is something you'd have to ask Mr. Cuyler or the developer.
Probably the second and more prudent measure would have
been to just go in and amend the PUD, the projects PUD and provide
a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Land Development Code and
under 2.5.5.2.6 or.5.6.
So those were the two recommendations. Yes, staff did advise
the client early or at least the applicant early on that the sign was
correct. That opinion was changed based on the fact that we could
only fit this unique project -- and it is classified as an upscale
convenience store and it is almost twice the size of a typical
convenience store and we recognize that.
But it is not a shopping center. It's a convenience store with gas
pumps and we know -- we talked to the applicant about mixed-use.
But the mixed-use as a category when we assessed the impact fees.
But from a standpoint of application of the Land Development
Code when it concerns signs, that's where we put it. Did it warrant
consideration coming before you all as a request for variance7 Yes.
And that is still the position of the staff that we look at this either
through a request for a variance or to amend the LDC from the -- at
least from the aspect of a comprehensive sign plan.
Subject to your questions that's pretty much it. Unless you want
to get into some legal aspects of it, Patrick White, Assistant County
Attorney can talk about some of the specifics with -- as far as land
use requirement as defined from a legal perspective.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There was a sign on the picture
you showed us. Is that the sign we're talking about? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that sign is okay7
Page 309
June 25, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: That sign is attached to -- the sign we're
talking about and I had it here, that's basically what was submitted
which would indicate, I think -- and I would have to ask Mr. Cuyler
or Mr. Shami, but Subway, the bakery and some of the other things
were just examples, there are some internal -- these are all internal
operations within the -- under one roof.
But basically that was the sign. So it's a pole sign that was eight
feet versus the 15 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Has the sign been manufactured?
MR. SCHMITT: My understanding, the sign has been
manufactured and already paid for.
But back when we notified the developer, this was back in
January when this first came up, and we notified the developer, my
understanding at that time, we had not yet paid for the sign but it was
ordered. There was already a commitment made.
And that was part of the commitment I made when I presented
this in front of the Board in January that I would ensure that each of
you understood the history of this as what I would call extenuating
and mitigating circumstances involving the purchase and how the
developer got in the position he got into and some of the justifications
as to why a variance certainly would be in order with this type of
project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are other issues here with
respect to impact fees. This is about one specific issue?
MR. SCHMITT: This is the one specific issue on the revocation
of the permit. The impact fees are other issues that were identified
January. Those impact fees have been paid, but paid under protest.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is any decision we make with
respect to this issue today in any way relevant to the impact fee
issue?
Page 310
June 25, 2002
If we make this decision here and agree with Mr. Cuyler that
this is not a convenience store with a gas station and we permit this
sign, do we then establish this as something other than we originally
zoned it and for which we charge the impact fee?
MR. SCHMITT: I'll have to pass that for legal opinion. He's
frowning, Mr. White.
MR. WHITE: Good evening, Assistant County Attorney,
Patrick White. I'm going to advise you that it does not, but I suspect
that you may hear as part of the appeal from Mr. Cuyler subsequent
to today that it does.
But in our opinion, those are separate matters. They are
regulations that arise from different reasons, for different reasons and
serve different purposes, but that's the best I can tell you today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would imagine if we're going
to consider this and not the variance route to approve it, it would have
to be -- I don't think we need to say in a motion why we -- if we had
any findings or that, so it doesn't link the sign to impact fees.
MR. SCHMITT: Just to clarify the point here. You would be
reinstating the permit that was revoked that was the plea from -- so it
would be not approving -- what you would be doing is telling
Community Development to reinstate the permit.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner, just for clarification, it
would be my position that the way this matter is postured here today,
obviously, it's of concern to the Commission, I think we really need
to make the decision based on the revocation and the criteria as
argued both by staff and Mr. Cuyler and not base it on the impact fee
determination that will have to fall on its own different proceeding,
but I don't think it should be linked to this decision. This decision
should be made based on the revocation and the criteria for signage.
Page 311
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question I have for Mr.
White is section 1.9.9 in the Land Development Code, is this the
proper procedure for us to take consideration on this matter?
MR. WHITE: There's two answers to that, Commissioner, one
is assuming that at some point in this process Mr. Cuyler indicates
that he's waiving the requirement that the County would have had to
provide him notice by registered mail, which I believe he will do.
Secondly, it requires me to answer in a way that I'm not
comfortable with, but I have to tell you what I analyze 1.9.9 as. I've
likened it to a word game where you probably remember there were
two lists of the words and the objective was to draw lines between
one set on one side and connect it to the other and that's essentially
the way this provision is constructed.
There's a series of things on one side or actions on one side and
on the other side. There's a list of the entities or individuals to whom
you could go for relief.
It's a very broad an open-ended provision. And in that regard it
is our understanding that you can read it to say that there's a
revocation of a permit.
Then one of the places that you can take that to that would be
considered appropriate is in front of the Board of County
Commissioners.
We get here in large measure because we do not have more
typically where this matter would end and that would be the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals. That happens because the new Florida
building code went into effect in March and for reasons I'm unable to
fathom. There's no continuing provision as there was for all the years
I can remember in the Southern Building Code, predecessor to the
Florida Building Code. It had for Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
Page 312
June 25, 2002
So we are left essentially with no other alternative but to bring
this to you with this round whole to fit Mr. Shami's square peg.
I believe that the scope of your review is one that is limited to,
as Mr. Manalich has indicated, of whether or not the County's
revocation of the permit followed proper process and was supported
the law and the facts.
Mr. Cuyler's position is that it's not supported by either the law
or arguably the facts as they apply. I believe that that is something I
take exception to. I think we properly revoked it.
I know for certain that if staff tells me this is a convenience store
with gas pumps and there's no other pigeon hole or cage, as
Administrator Schmitt has indicated to you, in which to put it, it
doesn't by exception automatically rise into the provision that he's
told you.
Those provisions set maximum limits for all types of on-premise
signs indicating that that's the maximum. It isn't just -- if you're not a
convenience store and you're not an outparcel, then that is where you
belong. I don't believe that you otherwise get there.
Our job was to put it in a place where it best fit. Their job was
to figure out the regulations that allowed them to do.
And I can tell you that our staff probably -- I know to a certainty
gave bad legal advice, gave bad factual advice.
But unfortunately when we discovered that, we had no choice
but to give the best and most correct legal advice based on the facts
that we had before us.
That is why we have a square peg in a round hole and look to
you to provide some relief, but the opportunity for that relief is
limited by the fact that you have to determine whether we properly
revoked the sign permit or not.
Page 313
June 25, 2002
And my analysis that essentially ends up with does it fit? Is it a
convenience store with gas pumps, yes or no? If it is, then those are
the limits it was supposed to meet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to go to Commissioner
Coyle and work right on down the line here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you'll permit me, I'm going to
digress just a little bit, but it's going to lead somewhere, I think.
Can you tell me why a 15-foot sign is essential to the success of
this business?
MR. CUYLER: Have you been out to the premise,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. CUYLER: It is set off the property -- it is set off the right-
of-way. It is not directly adjacent to the right-of-way.
And the property owner is absolutely convinced that the eight-
foot sign is not going to be visible enough for people moving down
Immokalee Road in the speeds that they move down Immokalee
Road.
He considers it is absolutely essential and this business to date
based on no sign indicates that signage is a critical element.
As a matter of fact, I haven't pointed this out, but the Town
Market banker attends these hearings. That is how important these
hearings are.
He's here tonight. He's been at prior hearings as well. And I
would like to address a couple of things that Mr. White said at the
appropriate time whenever you're through with your questioning.
MR. SCHMITT: If I could add from a perspective, we
understood where this is located. Of course, there's the canal
between Immokalee Road and the Town Center. And again, and that
Page 314
June 25, 2002
was one issue that would have been introduced had there been a
request for a variance.
So I can tell you, I keep on going back to this is a unique
situation where a variance would have been the appropriate avenue to
pursue and certainly we probably would not be here today had that
been initiated when this first came before you in February.
But that was a choice only counsel and the developer can make.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can move down the line here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to see that picture again
where it says Amoco. Is that sitting in front of the shopping center?
I was just trying to take a look at it.
Although, I've been by it, I didn't remember --
MR. SCHMITT: This is it here, but that is the portion of it.
That's the gas pumps itself. And so you can see where the orientation
is. This is kind of from the side there.
There are the pumps, so I guess those are the -- and you're
looking at.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It looks like an outparcel. Is that
what it is?
MR. SCHMITT: That, in effect, are the gas pumps which are
part of the -- I'll call it a convenience store with gas pumps.
It's a principle part of this business. It's the magnet that draws
the business, at least from a perspective, if you're evaluating land use,
any other convenience store is going to look at the same opportunity.
So that's what initiated the complaint through code enforcement
which opened the investigation, which lead to where we are today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
MR. SCHMITT: I also have with me here Mike Venari here, he
is the permitting official if you have any questions from a perspective
from sign permitting and review.
Page 315
June 25, 2002
MR. MANALICH: While Mr. Schmitt is at the podium, it is my
responsibility to make sure that there's competent substantial
evidence in the record however you decide.
And Mr. Cuyler has articulated a number of points as to why he
believes that this structure does not fit into the outparcel or
convenience store category.
I would like, Mr. Schmitt, if you could, summarize basically
how it is that staff arrives at the position that it is a convenience store
with the gas pumps? What are the things you're looking at there so
it's clear for the record? I don't mean to put you on the spot.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's a good thing you did because
I was.
MR. SCHMITT: Actually, when we review the list of permitted
uses, that's the best fit for this business from a staff's analysis based
on the operations that are involved in this business and the adjacent
gas pumps.
And I understand from Mr. Cuyler's perspective it's like he's
equating it to Costco or K-Mart, if they had an island and they sold
gas, would you consider that a convenience store with gas pumps?
No. But this is not a large shopping center.
Mr. Cuyler's words, it is not a shopping center. It is a rather
unique upscale convenience store with gas pumps. We don't have a
cage to put this animal in and that was the best fit.
So, for the record, I guess it's based on the best of the defined
land use in the Land Development Code.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, let me help. We're spending a lot
of time on a sign. I got nothing against Mr. Cuyler. He gave a pretty
good argument.
I would tell you that an appeal, and I just talked to Ramiro, an
appeal is an appropriate place for a Petitioner, but Mr. Shami can
Page 316
June 25, 2002
come in with his legal help or without his legal help and basically
say, we want to appeal a staff decision.
I will say to you if Mr. Shami had come in with a variance, the
staff would be sitting here recommending that he get the variance, so
we're playing this and that.
Now, there's one other piece to this. I want to make sure you
know it and Mr. Schmitt has got it down here about to amend the
PUD for a sign plan.
And there's an issue with the directory sign right now and Mr.
Cuyler knows that. And that's basically the staff saying, hey, we can
get done with this directory sign and this sign and get it all done in
one piece.
I will tell you today if this would have came in with a variance,
the staff would have been sitting here today saying, we want it to be
an 80-foot sign and 15 foot tall because this is what the issue is.
I think -- Ken, you tell me if I'm wrong. I think we talked about
this.
MR. CUYLER: No. I readily concede that the staff had
indicated that a variance could be processed.
I was under the impression that at least one Commissioner said
if this variance doesn't meet the variance requirements, I'm not going
to vote for it. Mr. Shami recalls another Commissioner saying that.
But the reason I did not file a variance, not because I want to go
through this process, I don't want you to determine anything other
than Mr. Shami is entitled to his sign.
But a variance is a legal process that has certain underpinnings.
If staff's interpretation were to be found correct and that the
appropriate sign is supposed to be eight feet with 60-square feet of
face, what exactly am I supposed to argue to you is the hardship that
we would be entitled other than to get Mr. Shami what he deserves
Page 317
June 25, 2002
and has deserved from the beginning which is the sign that was
permitted and you have the ability to do that today.
I don't want you to blame staff. I don't care whether you blame
staff. All Mr. Shami wants is what he had for a year and a half before
it was revoked. I'm not saying anybody did anything wrong. I'm not
blaming Mr. Schmitt.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Cuyler I hear you loud and clear.
Let me tell you something. We're starting to repeat ourselves. We're
getting repetitious over and over again.
Is there a motion on the part of this Commission so we can
move forward and get into discussion on how we're going to resolve
this or bring it to closure?
COMMISIONER COYLE: I move we approve it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion to approve
from Commissioner Coyle. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm telling you -- I'm reaching the
end of the -- Commissioner Carter made the second. Open for
discussion. We'll start with Commissioner Henning. Anything you'd
like to put into this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to hear from the second
motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to go to the first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're looking for you for guidance
on this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My feeling is that at some point in
time, the Petitioner has the right to rely upon what the Government
has told him.
And this really has been a difficult thing for everyone to deal
with. It is unique. We don't have a slot to put it in.
Page 318
June 25, 2002
And I am persuaded by the County manager's remark that if it
were coming through a different process, that the staff would be
supporting it from the standpoint of fairness, I believe.
And if that is the case, then I would like to proceed on that basis.
And I don't see that this sign is going to really cause irreparable harm
to anybody.
The gentlemen has spent money based upon his understanding
of what he could do, and I think we should let him use the sign he's
purchased.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter, we'll
go to you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Quick question. When you apply
for variance, there's a fee. Will the staff waive the variance fee
because of mistakes made on the part of the staff?.
MR. SCHMITT: That issue was discussed when we first talked
about this. I have no authority to waive a fee. I would have to come
back to you and that would have to come out of the general fund to
reimburse the Development Fund.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Knowing everything that you
know, would you have made that recommendation? I don't want to
put words in your mouth.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I made that commitment back in
January. Now, of course, the only thing that we're doing now that we
wouldn't do under the variance is canvass the residents or other
businesses within 150 feet or is it 300 in this case? I'm not sure
which.
But you would have the opportunity for other public input.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me, Commissioner Carter, I
think the motion was to reinstate his permit not to go through the
variance procedure.
Page 319
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. You just answered part of
it. I'm not going to belabor it. I agree. I don't like the process. I
hear what the attorney is telling me. He didn't think he can get the
votes for the variance. We're getting into which system did you
apply to get to figure out what animal you're going to put into a cage.
I have no problem with it. Therefore, my second stands for
approval of the Petitioner's request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, do you have
any last words on this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't either. Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go from there to a vote.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I want to make sure this appeal is
to reinstate the original permit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the way I understood it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying,
"aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next item?
Item # 10I
Page 320
June 25, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-314 RE THE APPLIED FOR TRANSFER OF
THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM COMCAST
CORPORATION TO AT&T COMCAST CORPORATION-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Sir, we're at 10-I. And it's the Comcast
Corporation and AT&T Comcast franchise.
MR. ESSMAN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is
Doug Essman, I'm the cable franchise coordinator, for the record.
Comcast has made an application to the County to transfer their
cable franchise to a new entity being formed as a result of a merger
between Comcast and AT&T Broadband.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, before he gets
into all of this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have one request, I should
say. Naturally, everyone knows that we have Comcast and Time
Warner servicing Collier County. I have gotten a lot of request for
NOAA Radar.
And it's my understanding that Comcast has exclusivity on the
best NOAA Radar that's offered. And I would like to put conditions
on there where they would be open to sharing that with Time Warner
so that everyone in the county can have the ability to have the same
product.
And I'm not saying Time Warner should not pay for that cost,
but I would just like to put that in to the approval process for this
contract.
MR. ESSMAN: I'm not sure of the legality of that. I would like
to defer to our legal department.
Page 321
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're all gone. Don't worry
about it. It's fine.
MR. ESSMAN: Mr. Palmer is here, as is Barbara Hagen and
Maureen Sistari both will answer that question.
MS. HAGEN: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Barbara
Hagen, I'm the general manager for Comcast. And Mr. Henning you
and I talked I believe last week about this issue.
I'm not in a position -- I don't know for sure that I do have an
exclusive agreement. What I am willing to do is work with the
general manager at Time Warner. We did work on a lot of issues. If
it's within my control, I don't have a problem sharing it or with him or
with Time Warner customers.
What I cannot commit to is I don't know that I can make that
decision. I agree with Mr. Essman. I don't know that this is the right
forum on this transfer to talk about that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He did not say that. What I
think I heard you say is if you do have the exclusiveness on the
contract, you're willing to share it with Time Warner.
MS. HAGEN: I don't know for sure that I can -- let me rephrase
what I said. First of all, I don't know for sure that I do have an
exclusive agreement.
Secondly, I don't know for sure if the exclusivity could be
waived. I'm just telling you that I would be willing to work with
Time Warner. I don't negotiate those types of contracts locally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you commit that you
would be favorable within your power or order Comcast to share this,
if you do, with Time Warner.
MS. HAGEN: Yeah. I will commit to that. There's a number
of things that Time Warner and Comcast do share; the Commission
meetings, so on and so forth.
Page 322
June 25, 2002
We work with them very closely. If there's the ability -- first of
all, if I do have an exclusive agreement, I will look to see, you know,
if there's an option to give them the product. Comcast locally does
not have a problem with giving NOAA radar -- weather radar fee to
Time Warner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With that I have no -- I feel
very comfortable, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Carter. Any
discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One of the concerns that has been
expressed is that this acquisition might result in some rate increases
and I believe there's been a commitment that the acquisition itself
will not result in a rate increase.
My question is, how do we measure that? How do we determine
the cause of a rate increase if one should occur after this acquisition
or merger?
MR. ESSMAN: First of all, I don't believe that it's a freeze on a
rate increase at all.
I think the commitment was, and I believe the commitment is
that they agreed to the not to make a rate adjustment that contains
anything that was as a result of this merger.
There has been concern expressed that because of a debt load
that's going to be taken on by this new entity, that they will have to
raise rates and reduce customer service.
Comcast executives have said they will continue with their
regular rate adjustments which have occurred annually, but these
adjustments will not contain any charges pertaining to this merger.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we verify that?
Page 323
June 25, 2002
MR. ESSMAN: The only way I know that we can verify that is
by taking a history of rate adjustments and seeing if a future rate
adjustment is greater then the history.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we put that in the contract?
And what history of rate adjustments would we use? Five years?
Ten years ?
MR. ESSMAN: I would defer to counsel.
MR. PALMER: Tom Palmer, Assistant County Attorney.
Commissioner, I think going back five years is adequate.
Actually, Comcast was not the franchisee up to the year of 2000,
prior to that time it was another franchisee.
Now, these are questions of economic analysis and fact. When
this -- when a franchisee gets a rate increase even the basic tier, they
have to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission
in Washington, D.C., which reviews them for appropriateness an
factual support.
That would give the basis on which they are having the rate
increase. And I think it's just a matter of fact to determine whether or
not the rate increase, even incrementally is greater than it would have
been had Comcast remained a stand alone entity.
So essentially, it's economic analysis. If it's minimal, it becomes
a problem. If it's large, the easier it is to differentiate. Whether or not
the rate would have occurred but for the merger.
I've also advised that the Federal Communications Commission
will not allow an applicant to put in as a basis for a rate increase
acquisition costs. They are essentially off the table and have to be
incurred by the stockholders. So that takes that off the table right
there.
Page 324
June 25, 2002
The other question is whether or not there were other things that
the rate increase occurred just because this transfer took place. I
think there may be issues approved there.
But I think if, in fact, it comes down to that we'll be able to
differentiate that which occurred because of the rate because this
Board approved the merger.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that satisfy you, Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not really. But I don't think
there's anything we can do about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a question for Mr. Wallace.
Mr. Wallace, I believe it was last year we instituted an accounting of
the franchise fees that were due us. And I recall there was quite a
considerable amount of money that we were owed. Were we paid all
the money that was due us?
MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir, we were, both from Time Warner
and from -- I guess it was Comcast at the time.
However, since then, the Florida Legislature has enacted the
Communications Service Simplification Tax.
And now we're getting those revenues directly from State level,
they're collecting them there. That act did take away our audit
powers, so we cannot go in and audit either the carriers, Time Warner
or Comcast any longer. That was a result of that act.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions of Mr. Wallace?
Thank you, sir. We have a motion from Commissioner Henning; am
I correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a second from
Commissioner Carter. Okay. Is there any other discussion. All
those in favor indicate by saying "aye".
Page 325
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it 5-0.
Item # 10J
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO COMPROMISE LIEN
IMPOSED IN CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. JUAN AND VERONICA BARNHART,
CEB CASE NO. 99-030 - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, your next item is 10-J. It's a move
from 16-A-19, and it has approved the settlement agreement to
compromise lein imposed on the code enforcement case entitled
Collier County versus Juan and Veronica Barnhart. And it's a Code
Enforcement Board Case Number, it's 9930.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just so we can get through this
quickly. I'm the one who pulled this.
Basically, the situation is this, we are asking -- we're giving
them an abatement of a penalty; right? MS. CHADWELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of roughly $26,288, which they
will use for improving the property they have. The agreement doesn't
have any way to verify if, in fact, they have accomplished that. We
have no way of monitoring whether or not they ever spent the
$26,288 to improve the property.
Page 326
June 25, 2002
All I would ask is that we somehow incorporate a requirement
into this agreement that they must submit to us the invoices and
payments for this.
MS. CHADWELL: For the record, Ellen Chadwell, Assistant
County Attorney. Commissioner Coyle, the agreement does provide -
- we do have some way of knowing what they're going to build. The
agreement specifically says you're going to go for your site
improvements. It's going to be in substantial conformity to a plan
that has already been approved by the County.
As a practical matter, they've already initiated the process on the
property located at 3001 Alamo Drive.
So staff already has that in their hands and has an opportunity to
review that. And in addition, the attorney for the property owner has
provided me with a contractor's proposal who is working with the
Barnharts on this as well as the Taylor Street property for the
improvements and did do the improvements on the subject property.
I felt that was adequate in providing us with the assurance we
need. Also bear in mind, they don't get their release or their
satisfaction until we get their site improvements plan and that lies
within staff's hand to make sure it complies with the agreement.
If you would like to see to require that they submit detailed
invoices for all of the costs in improving this property, we would like
the item back and draft the language and run it by their attorney and
submit it on the July 30th hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my only concern. You're
basing the evaluation upon a site plan. Whereas the agreement is
based on $26,288.
If you can say that $26,288 has been spent on that site plan, that
is fine. If we're going to settle for that amount of money, that we
Page 327
June 25, 2002
ought to get some satisfaction that that money was really put into the
improvements.
MS. CHADWELL: Let me make one other point and then I'll
be still. The improvements that they're proposing and we are
requiring as part of this agreement will exceed the $26,000 and that
was also a consideration in not requiring actual verification of the
amounts after completed.
Again, I leave it to the Board's discretion, if you'd like to have
that in the contract, then we would ask that you give us direction and
bring it back in July.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I prefer you not to bring it back.
Is there some way we can just tell you what we want in it right now
and have you go with it? I don't want to delay it any further.
MR. MANALICH: We could approve it subjected to that
direction if the other party agrees to it than it's already been approved
here.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, we could
request that they provide us just receipts for the amount that we're
waiving and not anything in excess of that. We don't need to know
anything more than the 26,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be my motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle and a second from Commissioner Carter. Any
other discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying, "aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Page 328
June 25, 2002
Item #1 OK
RFP 02-3346 - STANDARDIZATION OF DECORATIVE
COUNTY STREET LIGHTS TO CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTORS, INC.- APPROVED AS ORIGINALLY
SELECTED
MR. MUDD: Then next item is 10-K. It's a move from 16-B-4
and it's basically a proposal for extra street lighting, decorative street
lighting.
MR. CARNEL: Steve Camel, Purchasing General Services
Director. The item before you as Mr. Mudd indicated is a
recommendation to create a standard for future acquisition for
decorative street lighting.
This is a product of some analysis by transportation staff over
the last several months, in recognition of basically your heavy
volume of current and future growth in road-related work, whether it
be new roadway or expansion of existing.
And with that the recognition that as we build roads we have to
install lights and light them properly. And in many, not all instances,
but a certain number of instances, we may want to deploy a different
style of lighting then a conventional standard almost commercial
style of lighting.
So your staff and transportation has researched and we, through
the purchasing department, and they opted to issue an RFP to
competitively establish a standardization in the market place.
We went out with the intent of trying to find a product that
would enable us to have a more neighborhood friendly type of
design, where this decorative lighting comes into play. We are
Page 329
June 25, 2002
applying it in streets and areas that are adjacent to neighborhoods
where the lighting is more dimly controlled, so it doesn't spill into the
neighborhood as much and also esthetically to have a product that
was more pleasing.
An RFP was issued to that effect in February. The RFP was
very general in its approach because it was intended to in a broad
way try to capture future need for decorative street lighting whether it
be on arterial road project or potentially for use on a MSTU.
We didn't have a litany of projects that we were targeting
specifically at that time. It was create a standard, create a contract
that would be available for use and then we would draw upon it
where appropriate.
So that RFP was issued under that premise and we received two
proposals; one from Lumec Inc., and another one from Consolidated
Electric Distributors Inc.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does anyone have any questions on
this?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Who pulled it?
MR. CARNEL: Let me finish it. I'll be very brief. The
selection committee recommended the award of the AAL,
Architectural Area Lighting Product as offered by CED Raybro,
Lumec Inc., filed a protest and objecting to that decision. And that's
where we need to cover that aspect of the issue.
My office reviewed the issue and issued a decision. The protest
and the protest decision were included in your agenda backup on this
item.
I issued a decision. Lumec then filed an objection, which means
they can appeal it to the five of you directly in public session.
Page 330
June 25, 2002
Your protestor has been here all day and I'm sure would like to
have the opportunity to summarize their protest concerns with you
right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go right to the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mike Piscitelli and Mr. Ronald Steedman.
MR. PISCITELLI: I'm Mike Piscitelli, and I represent Lumec
Inc. This is the culmination under your county administrative
procedure of the way that a bid or request for proposal is protested.
So it is in a fashion an administrative or quasi-judiciary proceeding.
The County is doing in the guise of standardization something
very extraordinary here, because they're selecting the none standard.
The market has standardized decorative lighting in Collier
County. Collier County roads and parks have 217 decorative lights.
Every one of them is a Lumec product. None of them is AAL
product.
There's another approximately 200 in Naples. Every one of
them is a Lumec Product and none of them is an AAL product.
I believe and the reason that we've given you the material that
we've given you that there was a substantial amount of confusion
regarding the pricing aspect of the proposals.
Yet, although there were presentations made, no one asked
questions to clear that up. That was, in fact, indicated by the result
that we got back from the purchasing department that said it looks
like there was confusion.
But this is math and the math is clear. If I may, the Lumec
product is cheaper. The Lumec product is standard and it's cheaper.
And nevertheless, in every one of the matrices, which are in
your package I believe at Exhibit E, in every one of them, the Lumec
product is evaluated lower on pricing.
Page 331
June 25, 2002
And I think there was confusion. I think people didn't
understand that the Lumec product came with the base and the arm
and the pole all for one price.
Because it is math. You can't come to a conclusion that the
more expensive product should be graded higher on pricing. If you
reverse the pricing items, the pricing grades, Lumec wins.
So we're in a situation where you've got the standard that is the
only fixture, decorative fixture in this County. There are some out
here on 41 as you leave this complex. Those are Lumec fixtures. If
you're going to standardize, it makes a lot of sense to standardize in
the standard, and it certainly doesn't make any sense to pay more for
the non-standard.
Let me give you a more specific example because the Livingston
Road MSTU, which is now almost to the point of purchase, was
priced using both the AAL product and the Lumec product.
The AAL product on this package cost $50,000 more than the
Lumec product. The AAL product is 698 and the Lumec is 642.
There was clear confusion in the process. This is math. This is not
discretion. This is not evaluation. This not analysis. This is math.
There were also substantial problems we believe with due
process -- with the process I should say, by which this award got to
where we are today. The initial vote was not to award to the
proposer, CED Raybro, but to award to the manufacturer AAL.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would it be possible, sir, if we were
to direct the County Manager to take this back and review it and
report to us.
MR. PISCITELLI: Absolutely. We asked for a hearing officer
which your code makes discretionary, but if you wanted to do that--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What you're saying is there's a
difference in the pricing? This is something I want him to be able to
Page 332
June 25, 2002
evaluate. Well, I am having some difference of opinion here. We're
going to allow you to continue and then we'll resolve this thing
tonight.
MR. PISCITELLI: In addition to the pricing issues, and I'm
sure -- let me come back to that. I'm sure they're going to say well,
this is competitively, it is a hard price. I agree with that.
But the pricing aspects which was 30 points is math. It's one
way or the other and you can't reconcile the way these were
evaluated.
In addition to the pricing issue, the competing proposal was
submitted by CED Raybro. The presentation was made by
Architectural Area Lighting. The selection committee voted to award
Architecural Area Lighting, even though they didn't propose.
When we pointed that out in our original protest, your
purchasing department said, you're right on that aspect. I'm sorry, I
thought these were not on the o'clock if they were quasi-judicial.
MR. MANALICH: It would be my recommendation to provide
him more than five minutes to state his case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please turn that.
MR. PISCITELLI: The Purchasing Department agreed that it
was inappropriate to award it to someone who was not a proposer,
but merely said, okay, we'll give it to CED Raybro, even though there
had been no vote by the selection committee to give it to CED
Raybro.
When that occurred, we attempted to again raise the issue as a
new protest, saying, okay, now we want to protest the award to CED
Raybro.
And we were told by the purchasing director, and the letter is in
your materials, that we couldn't do that because that was a second
protest and there were no grounds for a second protest.
Page 333
June 25, 2002
So we've never had the opportunity to raise certain issues
relating to CED Raybro exclusively because there was never a Notice
of Intent to award that that we were permitted to protest through your
proceedings.
So I believe that is problematic. I believe there also was some
problems in Sunshine Law issues. We've tried through the Public
Records Act to get minutes and such of the deliberative meeting. We
have not been provided with any.
I believe they don't exist, because there was a reenactment of the
deliberations and I use that term literally, where the staff members --
the committee got back together and through one member's notes
attempted to reenact what they had said at the earlier meeting. It's
clearly no provision for that in the Sunshine Law.
A couple of other real quick issues that I want to touch on. We
objected to the inclusion of a chart that attempted to compare
qualitatively the illumination that was provided by the various lights
that was included within the competing proposal.
And it was prepared earlier by a county consultant and
apparently given to our competition, but not to us. In a context of
getting some public records in the last two days, we found that the
chart that was in that proposal was only one piece of the chart and
that there's another piece of the chart that favors our product much
more than the chart that was included in the proposal.
We didn't have that. We didn't have either piece of the chart
before the process.
There was certain aspects of the proposal that were
nonresponsive. The proposal asked for quality control certification.
The CED Raybro proposal said, essentially, we don't believe in that
stuff.
Page 334
June 25, 2002
Well, they may not believe in it, but you asked for it. Similarly,
the CED Raybro proposal didn't give you products with project
managers from the public entities for those projects before so you
could check. They gave their in-house project managers.
And interestingly, all of their projects that they gave you were
out of state. All of our projects that we gave you were local. Because
we have local projects and they don't have any local projects.
In closing, I think -- let me point out one other problem that I
see, and with all due respect, the process that we've gone through is
we sent in our formal protest to the Purchasing Department. Some
time went by, we got a letter, the letter says, purchasing director, I've
talked to this person and they meant this when they wrote this and
they meant this when they voted in this way, that's -- it's a difficult
process to be an advocate on because we have no opportunity to test
that.
First, it's hearsay. Second, we have no evidentiary opportunity
to test it, which is why we asked for the discretionary procedure of
going to a hearing officer so we could flesh out those sort of the
issues in an evidentiary fashion. We were not permitted that. We
still haven't gotten all the public records that we've asked for. I'm not
saying they are not trying hard, but we have not gotten all the public
records that we asked for prior to this procedure.
But it appears for some reason there's a rush to get this done. In
fact, during the dependency of our protest there was a directive to go
ahead with an order for the Livingston Road Project that would have
gone out even though your purchasing code specifically says you
can't do that and it wasn't until we contacted the County Attorney's
Office and got them involved that that was stopped.
So I don't know what the urgency is because you've never had
this standard and, all of a sudden, it's urgent that you have it.
Page 335
June 25, 2002
Just to close, I will close; the pricing clearly was a matter of
confusion. There was clearly an error on the part of the proposer.
There is a standard in this County. The standard is Lumec. Why
standardize with a non-standard and pay more to do it? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Ronald Steedman.
MR. STEEDMAN: I only listed myself as a speaker in the
event there was some technical questions that came up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. I'd like to hear
from legal staff at least. These are pretty serious allegations that are
being made here.
MR. CARNEL: First off, on the pricing consideration. The
confusion that the attorney is referring to -- I'll be happy to hold this
up and show you the documents.
This confusion that this gentleman is referring to was generated,
if any, entirely by his firm in their submission.
The proposal from CED Raybro and the proposal from Lumec,
and they're both right here, one page each. The CED Raybro
proposal has no exceptions, no caveats. It simply fills in the pricing
for the representative list of prices that we asked for.
We're doing a generic standardization evaluation here. We're
not trying to figure out the cost of every last dot and tittle we're going
to possibly purchase relative to lighting, but rather an overall product
evaluation that includes some price consideration.
Again CED Raybro is completely filled out. There's no caveats.
There's no exceptions. There's no variations. It's what we asked for.
This is CED Raybro's proposal, the recommended proposal.
Page 3 3 6
June 25, 2002
Lumec's proposal by contrast -- what I want you to note. This
column, there's asterik, no caveats, no qualification. It's very
straightforward.
Now, let's compare that to the Lumec's submission. You'll
notice, first off, there's contradictory language here. Next to the 40-
foot pole, we asked for a variety of different line items to be priced.
It says the pole prices include arms and T-base. All right. Then
if you go down to the bottom and then it says assembly pricing, this
is in all capital letters, can be obtained by adding the pole luminar
and arm.
Now, if you read down this page, you'll note that poles, luminar
and arms are all priced separately. And yet we have the statement on
the top that pole prices are included and we have a statement at the
bottom that says, you need to price them separately.
In addition to that, when you read the balance of the narrative,
you see several pricing options depending on wattage and type of
light.
Now, the contention from the protestor and this was repeated
throughout the protest, and has a lot to do with what was said within
the protest decision frankly.
There were contentions made with no supporting evidence
whatsoever to substantiate it. It was a kind of throw-it-up-there and
see-if-it-sticks approach in many of the claims that were made.
In other words, what they said, they improperly evaluated the
prices. I'll tell, you when you line these line items up, the way these
people submitted them, the four comers of the document, not the way
they reinterpreted afterwards, I'm telling you now the submission
from CED Raybro, the majority of the line items, they were lower.
We didn't have any hard and fast formula to evaluate prices that
was for each pricing committee to look at and determine. But to sit
Page 337
June 25, 2002
here and say this was just obviously math, well, yeah. You can
invent an algebra formula you want after-the-fact to reinterpret, of
course, we meant this and of course, we meant that.
But they create the confusion and now what they want you to do
is bail them out, in fact, on that issue.
Now, with regard to this thing about the issue of us attempting
to award to somebody who didn't propose, let me gather myself here.
I want everyone to pay attention real closely. This is extremely
simple.
This is the proposal from Raybro. I have the proposal from
Lumec here as well. Now, what I'm telling you is we got a proposal
from CED Raybro, we got a proposal here from Lumec. Lumec is
those guys, the protestor. If we weren't proposing award to Lumec,
who does that leave?
What they are wanting to believe and what happened, there was
an inadvertent mistake when the Executive Summary was written,
they names the manufacturer rather than the proposer.
But when you go back and you look at the selection committee
note, the forms where they fill out the scoring, in some cases the
committee members wrote down AAL. They should have written
down CED Raybro. In other cases they wrote down CED Raybro.
So it is clear that there was not a conspiracy of all five of them
to pick a proposal that wasn't tendered.
Now, I think the way it happened was, think of it this way; we
go out to bid for a vehicle and we ask for Tamiami Ford and Bob
Taylor Chevrolet to tender bids and they both do. The committee
gets together and starts looking at the product analysis and comparing
the two vehicles and they get into Chevy versus Ford.
And they start comparing Chevy versus Ford. And the
discussion drifted from Taylor in this analogy, Taylor Chevrolet
Page 3 3 8
June 25, 2002
versus Tamiami Ford, and it drifted into the product names and they
were focused on the product names.
And if you look at the balance of the evaluation and the
overriding considerations consistent with the evaluation criteria, they
were looking at product safety, product functionality, and Mr. Cantor
can elaborate on that to understand what the key issues were with
regard to safety and performance that that committee focused on.
They were thinking product, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Board, they were not thinking who signed page 28 of the proposal
and what the name of that entity was.
And there's no evidence from these gentlemen to contradict that.
None. And they want you simply to believe that because they say it.
And they have no evidence supporting that.
Now, with regard to some of the other points that got made here,
again, I'll move as quickly I can. I don't have a lot more to say.
The argument that Lumec is already a standard, not true.
Simply not true. What I tried to indicate to you at the beginning, and
the premises of this process is that we are growing and we are getting
more and more into the road and light business, like it or not. And we
have never gone out and competitively searched in the market place.
This RFP made no consideration into the fact of what was out
there already. And if someone thought that was a bad idea, then why
didn't we hear about this.
The RFP was very public and forward. It said what the criteria
for evaluation were. These people are introducing it after the fact,
after it didn't go their way. They're wanting to tell you, oh, let's now
consider all these swell Lumec fixtures we got in Collier County.
But they didn't say a word about it during the competitive
process. In fact, there was a transportation staff prior to the RFP
Page 339
June 25, 2002
contemplating the idea of standardizing on Lumec without
competition.
And the guy in purchasing with the big mouth says why don't
we do it competitively? Why don't we see what happens?
And what happens was your transportation staff made a good
faith effort. They went out and looked and, lo and behold, they
decided they liked the other product better.
And it was based on sound business reasons which Mr. Kent can
elaborate on, if you wish him to.
Let's touch on the public records request just. For the record,
the protest was filed in May, the decision was issued on June the 12th
that was a -- almost two weeks ago. The public records request was
submitted last Wednesday and it was basically, a give me every
document possibly related to this process and to the whole issue of
decorative street lighting beyond the RFP.
We turned over a number of documents to the protestor
yesterday, and we are in the middle of gathering more and trying to
do a very comprehensive job for them, and including using our IT
Department to actually scan all the e-mails and drives on this subject
matter.
So we think that we've acted in good faith. So you understand
the protester didn't file this back in April. This was filed last week. I
think one could make the argument it was filed as part of an effort to
try to find some substantiation on the things they didn't substantiate
in the protest.
This issue of reenactment. This was a Murphy's Law thing. We
had a selection committee in April, the tape ran out. And the
committee kept going.
Page 340
June 25, 2002
So when Lumec -- by the way, Lumec attended these meetings
along with the other competing firm, so they heard the bulk of what
was said or had the opportunity to hear it.
So when you start talking about Sunshine Law, and trying to
imply that we're doing something nefarious here. It was an honest
mistake with the tape cutting short.
We think we bent over backwards from the public records
perspective to remediate it. We reconvened the committee and we
discussed the issues again.
And this is all done in the Sunshine, all done with the presence
of anybody able to hear it including Lumec. They were reinvited to
come attend. That was our good faith effort to try to remediate that
situation with regards to deliberations.
Now, the chart issue. They're talking about this chart. Let's
understand what happened here. This chart was a document that was
originally independent of the RFP evaluation. It was provided by
Wilson Miller in consultation with transportation staff on the broader
and bigger questions about decorative lighting and doing some
business analysis of comparing decorative lighting to conventional
lighting from a cost and performance standpoint.
Now, Wilson Miller provided this information and the
consultant from Wilson Miller talked to both decorative light vendors
and also to what they call Cobra Head or conventional product
vendors as well.
And they complied this information and then offered it back to
the vendors when they were done. This is what the gentleman from
Wilson Miller told me.
Now, the CED Raybro, for whatever reason, put it in their
proposal, one page document. Now, what these folks are trying to
argue is that it somehow bias the process because it was submitted.
Page 341
June 25, 2002
I went back, listened to the tape and I talked to selection
committee members, and again, this comment about me talking to
selection committee members, I did that bending over backwards
because these people didn't substantiate their claims, so I went and
tried to ask. And I didn't tip my hand. I told -- I went and asked
different selection committee members in an objective way trying to
find out if there was something to what these guys were saying.
Basically, I was doing a lit bit of their work for them. And what
I basically found was that the committee members in their answers to
my questions did not substantiate these claims.
So I said that back in the protest decision, so they would
understand the due diligence that took place and they would
understand that I didn't just blow it off, that I went in and check it out
as best I could.
And to suggest that I was doing something improper, I think
doesn't give you the full picture of what was occurring there.
A couple of other things, well, let's just leave it at that right now.
Let me hear from you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Camel, you straightened
out my doubt in the process. I'm happy with all this.
MR. PISCITELLI: Can I reply to that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. CARNEL: Let me say something there. That's another
thing that has been going on here --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to limit your
comments too. Please, this goes for everyone. I want to hear from
my legal counsel.
MR. MANALICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I know the hour
is late. Because obviously, this may end up in litigation, I
recommend you allow them a brief rejoinder before you --
Page 342
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to step down,
please. Come on over to this podium here. What is considered a
reasonable time for a brief presentation?
MR. MANALICH: Well, I think it would be to respond to the
points raised. Can you do that within five minutes?
MR. PISCITELLI: Absolutely. The biggest problem I have
with what Mr. Camel said, I didn't mean to make him angry. I wasn't
trying to take him on personally. The biggest problem with what he
said is, well, we didn't prove our case.
With all due respect, your procedure doesn't provide a way to do
that. There's no discovery. There's no testimony under oath. I can't
call your employees, because they're represented by counsel.
There is no provisions in your procedure to do that, and I think
it's a problem with the procedure and that's why I asked for a hearing
officer to go through that situation.
But to suggest that we were remiss for not doing something that
the procedure doesn't provide for, that's a little troubling.
We made several public records act request, not just one. And
as we would get an additional reply we would make an additional
request.
The standard that -- the issue that ought to be focused on,
though, is the issue of whether there was confusion over the pricing
and we both agreed there was confusion over the pricing.
In the face of that, doesn't it make sense to revisit the process in
some fashion? I don't believe our information we were giving you
was confusing and I think if you look at it, you won't reach that
conclusion.
But there was a press presentation; if people were confused they
should have asked questions at that and there were no questions
asked in that regard.
Page 343
June 25, 2002
The other thing that troubles me is the suggestion that the
decision, the original decision, to award just to Architectural Area
Lighting was inadvertent. It's not true.
The tape reflects that someone asked the question of the AAL
representative, can we buy direct from you, and the response is, yes,
we can do that.
And there's also minutes or at least notes of those minutes that
we have gotten that say may be able to purchase direct.
So that was not, by any means, inadvertent. It was erroneous.
And it was erroneous for us then to not be permitted to challenge the
second intent to award to CED Raybro.
If you come back to the beginning, at the beginning, you've got
a standard. You're deviating from that standard and the guise of
standardization and you're going to pay more to do it.
At least put the process, at the very least, put the process back in
place so the next 20 years of these things you buy aren't 50 or 60 or
$70,000 more expensive because someone was confused or can't do
the math right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. I don't think it's
necessary to do any more comments. Let me see where we are with
this. I'm going to close the public portion of this hearing. We will
address the question to whoever we deem necessary at this point in
time. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have one question. Knowing
what we know now, would it be less expensive and better for the
taxpayers to do it differently?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportion Operations Director.
Based on comparisons of the lower or shorter lengths of the
decorative poles of these two manufacturers, it would appear that the
Page 344
June 25, 2002
Raybro -- AAL, whatever the designation is, is less expensive than
the Lumec.
I know that Lumec did provide a price based after the fact, but
based on what was submitted and based on what we were able to
devine from that submission and I have a comparison, but in the 25
and 30-foot heights, which is where we intended to be going on this
Livingston Road job.
Raybro was a less expensive pole. I want to put a codicil on
that, Commissioner, for all of you. The pricing was not, and I speak
as a representative of the Transportation Department and a member
of that committee, that was not one of our major concerns at the time
that we evaluated those.
Aside from what Mr. Camel pointed out is the fact that we
would have to work out a price on an individual job, our concern was
more with the operational aspects of the fixture, the ruggedness, how
a guy in a bucket truck was going to service it. Those were the major
considerations that we made when we were making our evaluation.
But to directly answer your question, Commissioner, is that, no,
I think that with the -- depending on individual cost, it would have
appeared to us at the time that the Raybro was the less expensive
alternative.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to continue this for the rest of
the commission. Commissioner Fiala, do you have any comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I'm ready to vote on this. I'll
make this comment as a businessman. If I go to a bid process, it is
my obligation to present the data clearly in an understandable format
to the people of my customers who purchase this.
Page 345
June 25, 2002
It is also my responsibility to ask them if they have any
questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So are you making a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll make a motion that we
approve this as the original selected person as submitted, you know.
I can understand all this back and forth and maybe some other
safeguards in the process, but I'm going to go with transportation and
their assessment on all factors, including price.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion from
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Henning. Is
there any final discussion before I call the question? All those in
favor of the motion indicate by saying "aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it 5-0.
Thank you very much for coming out.
Item #1 OM
RESOLUTION 2002-312 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR EASEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCITON OF A FOUR-LANE SECTION OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD BETWEEN WILSON BOULEVARD AND
CR 951/COLLIER BOULEVARD- ADOPTED
Page 346
June 25, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next item is 10-M. It's the
move on 16-B-18, which is a condemnation for right-of-way on
Immokalee Road.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director.
I'll be brief with this.
First of all, I want to apologize, this should not have been on the
consent agenda because it is a condemnation resolution.
You were provided a memo which is in your packet and was
provided to you earlier in the year with an analysis of criteria that
were looked at when the right-of-way was determined for this
project.
By the way, this project is Immokalee Road from Wilson
Boulevard to -- between Wilson Boulevard to County Road 951,
Collier Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Kant, I don't mean to interrupt
you. Let me see if there's any questions.
MR. KANT: Sir, I've got to read something in the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you pull this? We were trying to
establish.
MR. KANT: This is something that I have to read into the
record. I think it's important that the record reflects that you've been
advised of alternate routes, safety factors, long-range planning
factors, environmental factors and costs, as outlined in that earlier
memo.
And there's one paragraph of this Executive Summary which is
important to be read into the record, and that is: "That the Board of
County Commissioners has been advised through various public
meetings and PO meetings and documentation of the various
alternate routes and typical roadway sections considered by its
professional engineering staff and consultants and of the
Page 347
June 25, 2002
environmental impacts and costs of each engineering alternative, and
of the public health, safety and welfare considerations and of the
long-range planning implications posed by each alternative and has
determined that the legal descriptions and the interest in real property
specified on each legal description which are a part of the attached
resolution represent the most feasible location and are necessary for
the construction of the proposed improvements to Immokalee Road.
And that gentlemen and ma'am, you've been advised of publicly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I recommend that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that we adopt the attached
resolution and authorize this chairman to execute the same on behalf
of the Board and authorize any budget attachment that may be
necessary to implement the collective will of the Board as evident by
the adoption of the attached resolution order and the approval of this
Executive Summary.
Discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying"aye".
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item # 1 OR
RESOLUTION 2002-313 AMENDING THE PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR
AREA LICENSE AND FEE POLICY- ADOPTED WITH
AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE BEACH PARKING FEE
Page 348
June 25, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next item is 10-R, which used
to be 16-D-6, and that's Parks and Recreation fees.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'll address the item in regards to
the fact that there's probably an issue in regards to policy of whether
we charge an administrative for a two-year period to obtain a beach
parking permit to utilize the beaches.
I'm assuming that that is probably the issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For me it is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For me it is.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't have a presentation so if
you'd just like to ask questions, I'll be willing to answer them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion that we
approve the fee amendment and remove the beach parking sticker
permit fee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that motion. In other
words, do away with the fee for the $16 fee.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's a $12 fee for a two-year
period, which averages out to 50 cents per month. It does reflect
about $100,000 in the current budget that was presented earlier today.
The reason that the staff has brought this forward is that in the
process of doing the budget we were asked to look at all fees and to
be creative. And this is one area where we thought that we might be
able to recoup some of the additional funding that we're giving to the
city for the beach parking, which is close to $280,000, as well as staff
time.
We issue about 40,000 beach parking stickers per year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can I help a little with this? We
might want to separate this from the rest of the motion so we can deal
with this separately.
Page 349
June 25, 2002
I personally -- let's stick with your motion, Commissioner
Henning. We have how many speakers?
MS. FILSON: Emily Maggio.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
and 3 5 minuteS, Emily.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
You've only been here 12 hours
We should be paying you.
MS. MAGGIO: My name is Emily Maggio and I live in Little
Hickory Shores, which is in the extreme northwest portion of the
County. And I have lived for 33 years.
And I know all about parking fees and every other thing that Mr.
Ochs and I and everybody else who's been here for a while knows.
If I understand correctly, are we asking residents to buy a permit
to go to the beach? Is that what we're doing here?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Staff is recommending a $12 fee
to obtain the beach parking permit that goes on the back of your car
as an administrative charge.
MS. MAGGIO: Okay. Now, let's go -- you know, what I
learned today, I probably could talk for three hours, but I'll try to be
brief.
What we learned today is it's really hard to know where to go on
a lot of the these issues. And you know what? A very good way to
know where to go is to see where you've been. And this is where you
have been on beach parking fees. There isn't anything in here that
ever made a dime to relieve the taxpayer burden when it came to
parking fees. And that is not opinion. I have Executive Summary
written by Mr. Olliff as Administrator, Public Service Administrator
et cetera.
Show that. The County did surveys. They asked other counties.
They all lose money. What service are we providing by charging --
Page 350
June 25, 2002
the man that collects the money is where the money is going to pay
his salary. What service are we providing?
Parks are a public service, just like as Mr. Coyle mentioned last
night, the bus service. They're not supposed to make money. And
they shouldn't break even because in order to do that you got to
charge fees that are going to make those facilities out of bounds for
the people who depend on them the most, the little guy.
The more you charge, the less we can use them. And maybe
there are those who live on the beach that like that. I don't know.
But it seems to me you're already collecting a tourist tax.
The tourist tax is supposed to benefit the tourist. Everyone is
paying the same three percent whether you stay on the beach or
whether you stay inland. But if you stay inland, we're going to get
you again when you go.
Now, we were going to make all kinds of money with this $3
parking fee on tourists. We were supposed to make a million dollars
according to the people who presented it to the County and it was
Mica as a matter of fact and that's all documented in these Executive
Summaries.
We were going make a million dollars. We were going to be in
the money and it was going to solve all the problems. Evidently, it
didn't do that.
A couple of years ago, they wanted to charge us to get our free
sticker, which tells me they were not making money. And here again
they are asking us to pay for that sticker, so we aren't making money,
so what are we doing?
Why don't we simply take some funding -- I know everyone
wants to stick their fingers in the tourist tax, but after all it should
benefit the tourists that are paying it. They do come here for the
beaches.
Page 351
June 25, 2002
Why can't we take some money from tourist tax to help maintain
these parks and operate these parks and let us all go fee free, first
come, first serve.
We invite them to come here. Let's not harass them and
harangue by picking their pocket every which way we can. And let's
certainly not harangue and harass the taxpayers who provide these
parks with our tax dollars.
And I really find it-- I don't understand the thinking where the
only place we charge to park is the beach. I can go to Veteran's Park
or any other community park; I can spread my towel on the grass; I
can smear myself with my SPF and I can lay there and bum up all
day long until the park closes and nobody wants a dime from me.
But if I try to do this at the beach, they want to charge me and
they have in the past charged me. And the reason the Commission
got rid of the fees way back in '92 was because we proved to them
that they were losing to something to the tune of $122,000 a year
collecting those fees.
Like Commissioner Fiala, I suffer from terminal common sense.
And when we're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, which it
tells me in this Executive Summary here from 1995, to make
$30,000, there's something wrong. There's something wrong.
The whole concept of these fees is just to pick our pocket for no
benefit that I can see or that I have ever seen.
I thank you. I didn't mean to yell at you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That a girl.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was good. Okay, we have a
motion from Commissioner Henning, second from Commissioner
Coletta, that's me.
Let's go with discussion. Commissioner.
Page 352
June 25, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree, Emily.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no other comments,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What costs are associated with
beach parking or cleaning the beach and that sort of thing.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You're 00! budget which is the
only Parks and Recreation budget that is in the 001 area, is your
entire beach and access related budget.
Unfortunately, from the top of my head, I can't remember the
exact dollar amount that's associated with that particular budget. I'd
be guessing if I told you.
The services would include your beach rangers, which do
interpretative programs, which do compliance, which help answer
questions and educate the public, make sure they're not barbecuing on
the beach and they're not running their ATVs up and down. Those
kinds of issues. Take care of cleaning the rest room facilities, picking
up the garbage at all of those locations.
We, of course, would maintain those facilities, cut the grass and
landscape and fertilize and all the other things that go along with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
what, general fund?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
And this money comes out of
Yes, sir, 001.
So what you're trying to do is to
set up a user fee for the people who use the beach to be able to
maintain and clean it and that sort of thing; is that the object of this?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would say that our objective
was to look at all options of fees and come back to the Board with
what we felt might be reasonable.
Page 353
June 25, 2002
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has approved the fee
policy as it sits in front of you.
Although, their original request was to charge $24 for a two-
year period for the beach parking fee rather than the 12 that we
submitted today.
And I would also say that we were intending to raise the daily
parking fee at the beach, which is normally your tourist from $3 to
$4.
All of those, again, to try to raise the user fees or the revenue
that's associated with cost of doing business.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do have a comment for you. I don't
mean to jump in front of you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You just did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I did. Go ahead and finish.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think one of the things we've
always been trying to do is to get the charge at the right place.
And there are probably a lot of people who never really come
down to the beach or go down to the beach, and yet, they're paying
for the cost of maintaining it.
Maybe that's okay. I don't know. But if you have a free beach
sticker and you go down and you occupy one of those parking spaces
where we would normally get three or four dollars from a tourist,
we're not going to get anything because that space is occupied by
someone who is paying zero.
So not only does a free beach sticker eliminate our opportunity
to collect money from the tourist, who should be paying for this, but
it means that the administrative cost of printing the stickers and
providing the stickers is not even being covered.
So I would have to come down on the side of charging the fee
for the beach sticker because it is the right thing to do. It certainly is
Page 354
June 25, 2002
not traditional, but I applaud your efforts to try to get user fees for
things that are used by specific people and not used by everyone.
So I'm in the minority. I know this isn't going to pass.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just want to mention the fact that
people who move here to Collier County and invest their time
making the whole system work, pay their taxes for their property, the
one thing that they look forward to twice a year is to go to the beach.
If they feel they have to bargain to do that, God bless them.
They deserve it. That's my feeling. But I'm just one person.
Any call for a vote on it? All those in favor of Commissioner
Henning's motion.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I have a clarification to the
motion? The motion is to accept the fee as it is stated in the policy
except for removing the $12 for the beach parking sticker, all the rest
of the fees would remain the same.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with that. All those in favor
indicate by saying "aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Please put Mr. Coyle down as the
opposition vote.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Could tourist development taxes
be utilized for that purpose?
Page 355
June 25, 2002
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, Commissioner, we were a
little bit late in this particular cycle, but staff does have its eye on
looking at the future of not only this particular issue but also, can
tourist development fees actually pay for park rangers, maintenance
staff, et cetera, as they're associated with the beaches and that is
something that we'll look at in the future.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would encourage that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you can do that, I'll even reverse
my vote on this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Too late.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you can get the tourist tax
revenue, I think that's wonderful. That's a better alternative.
Item # 1 OS
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES NECESSARY TO
ADD TWO ADDITIONAL TOWER SITES TO THE COUNTY'S
800 MHZ RADIO SYSTEM AT A COST OF $1,400,000
FINANCED OVER FIVE YEARS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-S. It's a move from 16-E-6.
And I want to get a point of clarification here. You got to change
your paper.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate the fact that you let me
pull this particular item. Let me see if I can cut right to the bone on
this.
This item came to us about six months ago and at that point it
was almost the same particular write-up that's here, the fact that we
need to move at an urgent matter to be able to secure this.
Page 356
June 25, 2002
At that time I raised some questions, and suddenly it
disappeared, and, all of sudden, it surfaces again, so, of course, I got
real concerned when I see $1,400,000 for something that we've been
living without for a long time.
I also got concerns with the fact that we're talking about used
electronic equipment with a 30-day or 60-day guarantee on it. I
really have two concerns, but now I'm sure you're going to convince
me that I shouldn't have any concerns.
MR. DALY: John Daly, Telecommunications Manager for the
County. The delay in coming back was also to answer some of the
questions that the public safety community had about refurbished
equipment.
We did some research with the folks in Hawaii to determine that
the equipment was operational when it was traded in and in good
working order.
And we also wanted to determine that the vendor would
continue to support this equipment for a reasonable period of time,
which we have the letter in the packet that the vendor will support
this through 2010 based on existing contractual obligations.
The determination of the user committee of the 800 users to
bring this back and recommend the refurbished equipment is that this
allows us to use our existing electronics through their normal life
cycle. If we were to do the site upgrade with an item upgrade with a
technology upgrade to the existing equipment, we would be removing
equipment prior to its normal life expectancy.
So we would not have gotten the full benefit of the initial
investment. You asked about is it needed, we do have a couple of
exhibits which we can show you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
Page 357
June 25, 2002
MR. DALY: Can you see that? If we look up in this area in the
Corkscrew area and if we look in the area down here in the south
blocks, we see some areas in blue.
What that indicates is that the level of signal strength there is
marginal. When you look at signal strength, it's kind of a sliding
scale of what's usable. When you get into the marginal areas where
you have some failed points --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please point to those areas, they're
not showing up on the TV screen the color you're talking about.
MR. DALY: It's in this area west of Everglades Boulevard,
south of Immokalee Road. There's a couple of points here. We also
have some areas down here in the south blocks down around Stewart,
Desoto and Everglades Boulevard similar to the attachment that was
given to you last week. These highlighted areas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about Goodland, they get no
reception down there whatsoever.
MR. DALY: They have -- it's okay -- there is a problem on the
road into Goodland due to mangroves and that's a foliage issue that
has tremendous impact on radio signals, the road into Goodland.
This would also help Goodland. And I could show you a little
bit of that. We have another map.
When you get into these areas as you begin to get development
and especially in the Corkscrew area, we have a high school that is
going to be built, and we have an elementary school, you would not
have in-building coverage in those areas. And that is the level of
coverage particularly for the sheriff's office when they're working
calls for service.
We've tried to do our due diligence on this, but this is a request
from the public safety community that they feel -- Chief Peterson was
here earlier, but had a fire chief meeting to go to, that they feel that
Page 3 5 8
June 25, 2002
this is needed for them have the level of the service to meet the calls
that they're running on a regular basis out there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I talked to the chief of Corkscrew the
other day. He called me up to straighten me out on it. And when
what I told him what the cost of it was, he was horrified. He never
realized it was that expensive.
He did say that there were some areas where the signal was
weak. He didn't indicate that there was pending disaster. I'm just
concerned about $1,400,000 for used equipment with what -- I think
you said, the year 10, by the time you get it installed, it will the year
three, you got seven years, you're looking at $200,000 a year, if it's
really needed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, can I
ask you a question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You sure can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the value of a
firefighters life? Because I can tell you--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's as much --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I went down in the
south blocks, three, four years ago when there was fires going on.
And there were cases out there that there was no communication
from a firefighter because 800 system was down and they need that
second backup over there.
MR. DALY: I think we can help clarify this a little bit. Of that
one 1,400,000, 500,000 of that is basically for engineering,
installation and some site cost.
This includes -- the shelters would be new. The antennas, the
physical antennas that get attached to the towers are new. There will
be new generators at each of the site. There will be battery backup
systems.
Page 359
June 25, 2002
This is not all completely refurbished equipment. And the basic
reason behind recommending the refurbished equipment, is otherwise
in order to add two sites to the radio system, we would need to do a
complete technology upgrade, which would raise that price to 4.8
million.
And the cost of the refurbished equipment, the radio equipment
for the two sites is approximately 30 percent below what our normal
purchase price would be, which is in line with the vendor's normal
discount for refurbished equipment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How old is the original equipment
that we're buying?
MR. DALY: David can also address the warranty issue and he
may have an answer on that.
MR. JACOBS: David Jacobs with Maycom out of the
Clearwater office.
The Honolulu equipment is probably in the neighborhood of
three years old. I've not worked with that account, but the equipment
is about three years old.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So they bought it three years ago,
they used it for approximately three years and now they are recycling
for something higher grade; right?
MR. JACOBS: What they chose to do because they wanted to
improve their coverage and do a number of different things, they
looked at the option of increasing existing equipment or replacing it
completely and total with the newer GPS type simulcast.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Someone would like to make a
motion for approval. I still don't have that comfort level with this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 360
June 25, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Henning.
Is there any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
the father of an Eagle Scout?
MR. DALY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
I just wanted to ask John, aren't you
That's me.
Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
right there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
"aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Well, that solidifies the deal
I was an Eagle Scout.
All those in favor indicate by saying
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The Eagle Scout says aye too.
MR. DALY: Thank you very much.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: That brings us to paragraph 1 1 which is public
comment on general topic.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have three, but I only see one,
so. Fred Pauly, Chuck Mohlke is gone and Phil Mudrak.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, Chuck Mohlke, I have
distributed to you a memorandum that he asked to be provided to
Page 361
June 25, 2002
you. He was here earlier. And he's requesting it be submitted for the
record.
This has to do with Item 16-K-4, the new precinct lines to reflect
the 2002 reapportionment lines.
And just to paraphrase here. He's basically commending the
County Commission, county attorney, school board, Supervisor of
Elections, for their efforts in process by which these lines have been
adopted and publicized.
He calls to your attention and to the Supervisor of Elections,
because Collier County is a covered jurisdiction that we talked about
for purposes of voting rights act, that there's a standard of the Florida
Department of Division of Elections that talks about the methods in
which these lines are to be made known to the public, through
different types of polling and other public announcements.
And he's simply endorsing the efforts of the Election Supervisor
and recommends that these administrative code guidelines be
strongly adhered to to promulgate these guidelines.
MR. MUDRAK: Phil Mudrak, for the record. I'm here today
because I was eating dinner, watching the meeting. I see you made a
decision on the County Manager.
With all due respect, I know Jim Mudd will do a fantastic job. I
know he puts his heart and soul into the County and he's working as
hard as he can to get himself familiar with the County, but with all
due respect I think it was a little premature.
I think we should have gone and did a little bit of research.
There could have been somebody here in the County who had interest
in that job that may have a little more knowledge of the County or a
little bit more qualified.
Page 362
June 25, 2002
I just had to say that for the record. But I do wish Jim the best. I
know he'll do a good job and he'll do the best job that he possibly
can.
I know the school board went through the pounding out of a
superintendent, and, you know, myself I was at that long meeting and
didn't get out of there until 12:30 at night.
And actually, I was kind of glad that the superintendent backed
out of her decision because she was only a superintendent for a year
and a half. And her demands, I think were a little bit too much for
the taxpayers palette.
On a lighter note, we have public television for County
Commission meetings. I don't know if there's any way possible to
hook up with a radio station and perhaps have them broadcast over
radio.
I know I work all day and I don't have that opportunity to listen
firsthand on what's going on in County Commission meeting.
If I had that opportunity, you know, there's something on the
agenda that I could address, if I'm in the vicinity, I could stop by and
make a comment.
But I don't know, put it out to the people, let them hear back
from you and see what their interest may be in it.
I know a lot of people in my industry listen to the radio all day;
some listen to talk radio and some listen to plain music.
Myself, I have a big concern on what's going on with the County
and I'd like to know what's going on firsthand.
Next, I'd like to commend all of you and especially Tom
Henning, who is my district, for doing a very well job.
I just want to say keep up the good work. I know it's a difficult
task being up there. You're never popular. You're only popular with
Page 363
June 25, 2002
what bad decisions you make. That's what everyone remembers.
They don't remember the good things.
But I just want to say I appreciate the work you're doing up
there. I want to say good luck to Jim. I hope you do a good job for
the County.
I'm going to miss Tom Olliff. I know he's raised here in Collier
County. He knows it like the back of his hand. I'm sure he's giving
you a lot of insight on what's happening here in the County and I
wish you luck.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. With that we're
going to go to our new County Manager, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't dare at this late hour.
We have nothing.
MR. MANALICH: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start with Commissioner
Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Have a nice recess.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Happy birthday, Jim.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Soon.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do. A gentleman has
been working on addressing of Airport Road. It's supposed to be
north and south for a long time.
I contacted Commissioner Fiala and myself, Mr. Feder, so if you
would put that on your list, I would appreciate it.
Page 364
June 25, 2002
I'm not going to bring up the other things that I was going to
bring up because today is my wife's birthday and I have two weeks to
make up for being here today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just about four or five things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it. Take your time. We've got
plenty of time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only thing I want to bring up is,
we did cover, back to the County Manager now.
There was a contract in there for that period of time that was in
the Consent Agenda; correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that contract still in effect?
MR. MUDD: That contract would be in effect until I get
another contract with you on the 30th.
I'll come see you in between in order to negotiate something that
we don't get in trouble with the school board about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Take a look at a school board
contract as an example of what you don't want to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then throw it away.
That's all folks. Thereupon, (Proceedings concluded at this time.)
***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
Page 365
June 25, 2002
AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF NAPLES TO UNDERTAKE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RIVER PARK COMMUNITY
CENTER USING $750,000 ($250,000 PER YEAR FOR THREE
YEARS) OF THE COUNTY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING
Item # 16A2
AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF MARCO ISLAND TO
UNDERTAKE CONSTRUCTION OF TALLWOOD STREET
STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM USING $750,000
($250,000 PER YEAR FOR THREE YEARS) OF THE COUNTY'S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDING
Item # 16A3
FINAL PLAT OF "PINE AIR LAKES UNIT FOUR"
Item # 16A4
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING THE FISCAL YEAR
2003 STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP)
PROGRAM BUDGET
Item # 16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
WESTVIEW PLAZA- AND RELEASE THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Page 366
June 25, 2002
Item #16A6
2002 TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH MARCO ISLAND FILM
FESTIVAL FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EVENT
GRANT OF $96,000
Item # 16A7
FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL 113"- WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
LETTER OF CREDIT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8 - Deleted
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2002-274, Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES,
P.A., AS AGENT FOR NAPLES VANDERBILT LAND TRUST,
JIM FIELDS, TRUSTEE, RE PETITION AVESMT2001-AR1147,
VACATING A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT LOCATED IN
SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16Al0
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.522 (MOD),
"QUAIL WEST OFFSITE HAULING," BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH BY PARKLAND WEST PUD (LEE COUNTY), ON THE
SOUTH BY TERARFINA PUD ON THE WEST BY QUAIL WEST
Page 367
June 25, 2002
PUD AND ON THE EAST BY MIRASOL PUD
Item #16Al 1
RESOLUTION 2002-275, SHANE PARKER, P.E. OF MC ANLY
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC., AS AGENT FOR ARM
DEVELOPMENT CORP OF SW FLORIDA, INC., RE VACATION
OF UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED IN SECTION 27,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A12
LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY, TO BE SUBMITTED
TO THE U.S. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
BY THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF THEIR MEMBERS
Item #16A13
FINAL PLAT OF "JELLYSTONE PARK"
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 2002-276, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENT FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SHORES AT
BERKSHIRE LAKES PHASE TWO-A"
Item #16A15
Page 368
June 25, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-277, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENT FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SHORES AT
BERKSHIRE LAKES PHASE TWO-B"
Item #16A16
CONTRACT #02-3317, WITH HENDERSON, YOUNG &
COMPANY FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR AN
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES (SCHOOL - IMPACT FEE
UPDATE STUDY- IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,575
Item #16Al 7
FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 3, UNIT ONE"
WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16Al 8
FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA SOUTH GOLF COURSE PHASE
FOUR"
Item #16A19 - Moved to Item #10J
Item # 16A20
Page 369
June 25, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-278, EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE
GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY
COMMITTEE THROUGH JUNE 26, 2003
Item # 16A21
RATIFICATION OF EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER #ZO2-
008 ISSUED TO NAPLES DOCK & MARINE SERVICES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $22,000 TO UTILIZE GRANT FUNDS FOR
DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL
Item # 16A22
FINAL PLAT OF "SIERRA MEADOWS"- WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A23
RESOLUTION 2002-279, RE PETITION AVESMT2002-AR2228
JEFF DAVIDSON, P.E., OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
AGENT FOR NEW HOPE MINISTRIES, INC., REQUESTING
THE VACATION OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST
Item # 16A24
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $76,400 FROM FUND
#113 RESERVE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
Page 370
June 25, 2002
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PERSONAL
SERVICES
Item # 16A25
IMPACT FEE REFUND REQUEST FROM SHELTER FOR
ABUSED WOMEN- IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,780
Item # 16A26
AMENDMENT TO EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT FOR SADDLEBROOK
VILLAGE PUD
Item # 16A27
RESOLUTIONS 2002-280 THROUGH 2002-290, RE "PUD"
SUNSETTING PROJECTS" AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 16A28
REMOVAL OF 191,000 CUBIC YARDS OF EXCESS
EXCAVATED MATERIAL FROM THE SITE OF CLASSICS
PLANTATION ESTATES, PHASE ONE - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item # 16B 1
RESOLUTION 2002-291, AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF THE
TRIP AND EQUIPMENT GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE
Page 371
June 25, 2002
FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED (CTD)
Item # 16B2
RESOLUTION 2002-292, CONFIRMING THE TERMS OF
OFFICE OF B.J. SAVARD-BOYER, CAROL WRIGHT, FRANK
HALAS, ALVIN DOYLE MARTIN, JR., AND DICK LYDON TO
THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Item # 16B3
PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND WARRANTY DEED TO
ACQUIRE A 1.03 PARCEL OF LAND IN THE LELY LAKES
SUBDIVISION AT A COST OF $8,110.50 FOR THE LELY AREA
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN
THE EAST NAPLES AREA- WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16B4 - Moved to Item # 1 OK
Item #16B5
BID #02-3366, "SR 84-DAVIS BOULEVARD, PHASE II"
LANDSCAPE RENOVATION- AWARDED TO HANNULA
LANDSCAPING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $631,423.35
Item # 16B6
Page 372
June 25, 2002
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR UTILITY IMPACT FEES FOR
LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION METERS FOR BID #02-3366 FOR
SR-84 DAVIS BOULEVARD PROJECT #60098
Item # 16B7 - Deleted
Item # 16B8
WORK ORDER AMENDMENT NO. ABB-FT-00-07-A01 AND
BIDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE WIGGINS PASS ROAD
OUTFALL PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 31212)
Item # 16B9
CONTRACT AGREEMENT NO. C-12252-A1 WITH THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR A TIME
EXTENSION OF A FUNDING ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT FOR
THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16B 10 - Deleted
Item #16B 11
WORK ORDER AMENDMENT NTI-FT-02-02-AO 1 TO NATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FOR THE GORDON RIVER
CLEANOUT
Item # 16B 12
Page 373
June 25, 2002
BID NO. 02-3376, FOR THE 2001-2002 PATHWAYS PROGRAM,
AWARDED TO AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $613,797.75
Item #16B13 - Moved to Item #10L
Item # 16B 14 - Deleted
Item # 16B 15
AGREEMENT BETWEEN BRENTWOOD LAND PARTNERS,
LLC AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION AND RAMP REALIGNMENT
FOR THE IMMOKALEE ROAD AND TARPON BAY
INTERSECTION TO BE BUILT WITH THE IMMOKALEE
ROAD/I-75 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
Item # 16B 16
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OPERATING
BUDGET FOR THE GRANT YEAR 2002-2003 WHICH BEGINS
JULY 1, 2002
Item #16B 17
REVISED TRANSPORTATION 5-YEAR ROAD PLAN AND
REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL SENIOR PROJECT
MANAGER POSITION TO THE TRANSPORTATION
Page 374
June 25, 2002
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
Item # 16B 18 - Move to Item #1 OM
Item # 16B 19
RESOLUTION 2002-293 AND 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 INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT OF ALL FDOT
ROADWAY SEGMENTS WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16C 1
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH HOLE MONTES, RFP-93-2121 FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES AND WORK ORDER TO YOUNGQUIST BROTHER
FOR RFP-01-3139 TO CONSTRUCT AN INJECTION WELL AT
THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
Item # 16C2
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE -
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 375
June 25, 2002
Item # 16C3
RESOLUTION 2002-294, SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2002-295, SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2002-296, SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Item # 16C6
RESOLUTION 2002-297, SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN
Page 376
June 25, 2002
FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Item # 16C7
BID 02-3325 FOR BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLIES
AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS - REJECTED; STAFF TO
REISSUE A MODIFIED BID
Item # 16C8
EXISTING ROYAL PALM IRRIGATION PUMPING SYSTEM
DECLARED SURPLUS AND DONATED TO BLEU WALLACE,
COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER FOR THE LEE CYPRESS
COOPERATIVE
Item #16C9
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND UNANTICIPATED
EXPENSES WITHIN THE WATER DISTRIBUTION COST
CENTER
Item # 16C 10
REVISED (UTILITY) EASEMENT MODIFICATION
AGREEMENT WITH IMPERIAL GOLF CLUB, INC. FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A RE-USE WATER LINE TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
Page 377
June 25, 2002
CLUBHOUSE FACILITY
Item # 16C 11
BID NO. 02-3373, FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF) EXPANSION TO 30.6-
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (MGD) MAXIMUM MONTH
AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MMADF) PHASE lA- LIQUID
STREAM VIBRO-REPLACEMENT - AWARDED TO
HAYWARD-BAKER, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $464,000
Item #16C12
WORK ORDER TO YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $650,000 TO FUND AND COMPLETE THE
REPAIR OF DEEP INJECTION WELL #1 AT THE NORTH
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Item #16C13
CONTRACT TO FLORIDA STATE UNDERGROUND INC. TO
CONSTRUCT FIVE RELIABILITY WELLS IN THE GOLDEN
GATE WELLFIELD IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,566,064
Item # 16C 14
RIGHTS OF ENTRY FOR THE PORT-AU-PRINCE
SUBDIVISION UTILITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Page 378
June 25, 2002
Item # 16C 15
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE COUNTY TO
ACCEPT HORTICULTURAL DEBRIS (YARD WASTE)
GENERATED WITHIN THE CITY OF NAPLES
Item # 16D 1 - Moved to Item #1 ON
Item #16D2
TRANSFER OF ADDITIONAL, UNCOMMITTED TOURIST TAX
REVENUES COLLECTED IN CATEGORY C (MUSEUMS) OF
$224,100 TO PARTIALLY RESTORE THE COLLIER COUNTY
MUSEUM'S BUDGET IN FISCAIJ 2003
Item # 16D3
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO PREPARE THE FOOD FOR THE
SUMMER FOOD SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM
Item # 16D4
ASSIGNMENT OF GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
PRIMECO PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., NOW
KNOWN AS VERIZON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AND
CLEARSHOT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND SECURE
APPROVAL OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO GROUND LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH CLEARSHOT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Page 379
June 25, 2002
WITH AN INCREASE IN THE ANNUAL RENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $7,200
Item #16D5
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PARK EAST DEVELOPMENT
LTD. FOR OFFICE SPACE TO BE UTILIZED BY THE WIC
PROGRAM AT AN ANNUAL RENT OF $20,460
Item #16D6 - Move to Item # 1 OR
Item # 16D7
RENEWAL AND AMENDMENT OF CONTRACT #97-2623,
"SKATEBOARD PARK CONCESSION" WITH SANCTUARY
SKATE PARK-COLLIER, INC., FORMERIJY SPARROW
VENTURES, INC.,
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 2002-298, EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND APPOINTING AND
EXTENDING THE TERMS OF MEMBERS AS OUTLINED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16D9
AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD FOR ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT
Page 380
June 25, 2002
OSCEOLA ELEMENTARY- IN THE AMOUNT OF $391,559
Item # 16D 10
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
EVERGLADES FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER SKATE
PARK PROJECT FOR UP TO $25,000 IN MATCHING FUNDS
Item # 16D 11 - Moved to Item #100
Item # 16D 12 - Moved to Item # 10P
Item # 16D 13- Deleted
Item # 16D 14
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK CONTRACT #01-
3189 TO KRAFT CONSTRUCTION FOR NORTH NAPLES
REGIONAL PARK- IN THE AMOUNT OF $175,000
Item # 16E 1
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ISLANDS AND HIGHLANDS,LLC,
FOR USE OF OFFICE AND GARAGE/WAREHOUSE SPACE BY
THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AT A FIRST YEAR ANNUAL RENT
OF $28,275
Item # 16E2
Page 381
June 25, 2002
RFP #01-3290 "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES" - TO THE SEVEN FIRMS AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E3
STATUTORY DEED AND A REVERTER DISCHARGE &
RELEASE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE
GAC LAND TRUST RESERVED LIST TO COLLIER COUNTY
FOR IMMOKALEE ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
Item # 16E4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS
AND ASSOCIATED REVENUES FOR OPERATING COSTS IN
FLEET MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION FUND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $99,200, DECREASE APPROPRIATIONS AND
ASSOCIATED REVENUES FOR FUEL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$568,600 AND RECOGNIZE REVENUES FOR CURRENT AND
PRIOR YEAR REIMBURSEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$11,600
Item # 16E5
AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH AEC NATIONAL INC., FOR THE DESIGN
OF THE EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF THE NAPLES
JAIL CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $758,380
Item # 16E6 - Move to Item # 1 OS
Page 382
June 25, 2002
Item # 16F 1
BID NO. 02-3369 FOR THE PURCHASE OF MEDICAL
SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT- AWARDED TO AERO
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
PRODUCTS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SUPPLY, MC KESSON
MEDICAL, MDS MATRIX, MICRO BIO-MEDICS, MOORE
MEDICAL, PMX MEDICAL QUADMED, SOUTHEASTERN
EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AND TRI-ANIM HEALTH
SERVICES AT AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF $179,000
Item # 16F2
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE
PROTECTION AND RESCUE SERVICES TO THE
UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF GOODLAND AND KEY
MARCO- AT AN ANNUAL COST OF $56,564.00
Item # 16F3
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR AN ADVANCED LIFE
SUPPORT (ALS) ENGINE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, ONE
TIME EQUIPMENT COST OF $50,000 AND ANNUAL
PERSONNEL COST OF $15,000
Page 383
June 25, 2002
Item #16F4
RESOLUTION 2002-299, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF
MODIFICATION #1 TO A HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY
Item # 16G 1
ACTING COUNTY MANAGER'S CONTRACT WITH JAMES V.
MUDD
Item # 16G2
BUDGET AMENDMENT 02-361
Item # 16H 1
ACCEPTANCE OF $250,000 GRANT FROM THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN INCUBATOR SUPPORT FACILITY AT THE
IMMOKALEE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK
Item # 16H2
MODIFICATIONS OF BUDGET FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS
Item # 16J 1
Page 384
June 25, 2002
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 385
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June .25, 2002
FOR BOARD ACTION:
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 26, 2002 through May 31, 2002.
2. Disbursements for June 1, 2002 through June 7, 2002.
B. Districts:
1. Cow Slough Control District_- Budget and Meeting Dates FY 2002-03.
Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting
for February 27, 2002, Audit, Management Letter, Financial Stmnt and
Budget.
C. Minutes:
County Government Productivity Committee - Minutes for April 17,
2002, May 13,15,22 and 28th, 2002
Productivity Committee - Minutes for June 4 Budget Review
Subcommittee and June 10 Organizational Structure Review
Subcommittee Minutes.
3. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for June 20, 2002.
H:Data/Format
June 25, 2002
Item #16K1 - Deleted
Item # 16K2
STATE REVENUE SHARING APPLICATION FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2002-2003
Item #16K3
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF
GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED
REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS TO
SATISFY SAID PURCHASES
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2002-300, ADOPT1NG NEW PRECINCT
BOUNDARIES AND APPROPRIATE PRECINCT NUMBERS
Item # 16L 1
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH G-4
PARTNERSHIP, JULIET C. SPROUL TESTAMENTARY TRUST
AND BARRON COLLIER, III ("DEVELOPER") FOR THE
CONTRIBUTION OF LAND TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR
GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Item # 16L2
Page 386
June 25, 2002
SEPARATION AGREEMENT ENTITLED "SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE" BETWEEN
CHARMAINE STEINER AND THE COUNTY
Item #16L3
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES RELATIVE TO
THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 2.4T AND 53-T
IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN B.
FASSETT, TRUSTEE OF THE ANNE F. FASSETT TRUST
DATED JUNE 5, 1986, ET. AL., CASE NO. 99-3040-CA
(LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT NO. 65041)
Item # 16L4
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES RELATIVE TO
THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 2.4T IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN B. FASSETT,
TRUSTEE OF THE ANNE M. FASSETT TRUST DATED JUNE 5,
1986, ET AL, CASE NO. 99-3040-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD
PROJECT NO. 65041)
Item # 16L5
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS
AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS
167, 767, 867A AND 867B IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
Page 387
June 25, 2002
COLLIER COUNTY V. WALLACE L. LEWIS, JR., ET AL, CASE
NO. 01-0711-CA, PROJECT NO. 60071
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2002-33, RE PETITION RZ-2001-AR-1934,
VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, OF WILKISON AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING EMPOWERMENT
ALLIANCE OF SW FLORIDA- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM C-4 AND C-
5 TO RMF-6 FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FROM RMF-6
TO C-4, LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
EAST EUSTIS AVENUE AND SOUTH FIRST STREET IN
IMMOKALEE, CONSISTING OF 7.255 + ACRES
Item # 17B
RESOLUTION 2002-301, RE PETITION AVPLAT2001-AR1861,
RICHARD DOLL, REQUESTING THE VACATION OF A
PORTION OF THE 5 FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT AND A
PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND GOLF COURSE
EASEMENT ON LOT 415 OF THE PLAT OF "RIVIERA GOLF
ESTATES UNIT 2"
Item #17C- Continued to July 30, 2002
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF THE
GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER SEWER DISTRICT TO INCORPORATE THE
Page 388
June 25, 2002
RECEIVING AND NEUTRAL AREAS WITHIN THE RURAL
FRINGE AREA
Item #17D- Move to Item #8G
Item # 17E
ORDINANCE 2002-34, AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES AS
PREVIOUSLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13 (THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED) INCORPORATING CHANGES
TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS TO UPDATE
THE DEFINITIONS OF ELIGIBLE INCOME GROUPS AND TO
EXTEND WAIVER AND DEFERRAL ELIGIBILITY
STANDARDS TO INCLUDE OWNER-OCCUPIED
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AND TOWNHOUSES
Page 389
June 25, 2002
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair- Time: 10:15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
JAMES
/:;"'DWIQHTi~E, BROCK, CLERK
AtteSt' as to Chat~ S
'"~'"~~e min~.pproved by the ~oard on.~~ ~
As presentedor as co~ected
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF COLLIER )
I, Lisa Holton, Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that the
foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as
Page 390
June 25, 2002
stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing
computer-assisted transcription, is a true record of our Stenographic
notes taken at said proceedings.
Lisa Holton
Professional Reporter
Page 391