BCC Minutes 07/30-31/2002 RJuly 30-31, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING
Naples, Florida, July 30-31, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., at County Commission
Meeting Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
JIM COLETTA
DONNA FIALA
FRED COYLE
TOM HENNING
JAMES D. CARTER
ALSO PRESENT:
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager
Leo Ochs, Assistant County Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
July 30-31, 2002
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL
LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
1
July 30, 2002
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
e
e
e
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
INVOCATION
A. Reverend Mary Anne Domer, Church of the Resurrection
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Be
Ce
Do
Fe
Ge
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
May 28, 2002 - Regular
May 29, 2002 - Special
June 12, 2002 - Special
June 17, 2002 - Workshop
June 18, 2002 - Special
June 19, 2002 - Special
PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Proclamation recognizing four officers from the Collier County Sheriff's
Golden Gate Sub-Substation for heroic efforts in a house fire incident. To
be accepted by Corporal Todd Sanner, Corporal Chris Jordan, Deputy Juan
Morales, Deputy Byron Tomlinson.
Proclamation to declare September as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Carolyn Benivegna, President and
2
July 30, 2002
Founder of Ovarian Cancer Alliance in Florida.
Ce
Proclamation to recognize John T. Conroy, Jr. for his 22 years of service to
the Collier County community as a member and Chairman of the Housing
Finance Authority. To be accepted by John T. Conroy, Jr.
PRESENTATIONS
Ae
Presentation of a check in the amount of $120,000 for a Florida Recreation
Development Assistance Program Grant for renovation and new
construction of boat docks and support facilities at Bayview Park. To be
presented by Senator Burt Saunders and State Representative J. Dudley
Goodlette.
e
PUBLIC PETITIONS
Ao
Public Petition request by Albert Lee to discuss the Recreation Center on
School Drive, Immokalee.
Public Petition request by Garrett F. X. Beyrent to discuss moratorium
impact on proposed affordable housing development.
Ce
Public Petition request by George Risher to discuss access issues on Golden
Gate Boulevard.
e
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ao
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2001-AR-1747
Pamela Stewart, Esquire, representing Mark Von Spitzock, requesting a 5-
foot variance from the required rear yard setback of 10 feet to 5 feet for
accessory structures for property located at 1249 Pompei Lane, further
described as Lot 12, Block H, Sorrento Gardens Unit 3, Section 15,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-2691,
Don Cahill, of Don Cahill Architect/Builder, representing William and
Joann Reckmeyer, requesting variances in the PUD Zoning District as
follows: 1) From the required Gulf front yard (PUD Ordinance 85-83)
3
July 30, 2002
setback that aligns with the State of Florida Coastal Construction Setback
Line (CCSL) to allow (A) the balconies to extend a maximum of 8 feet West
of the CCSL; (B) the roof to extend a maximum of eight feet five inches
West of the CCSL; (C) the shear wall to extend a maximum of ten feet five
inches West of the CCSL; and 2) from the required ten foot access drive
right-of-way yard setback (PUD Ordinance 85-83) to allow: a building
setback of eight feet, a variance of 2 feet, on the East side along Dominica
Lane, for property located at 107 Dominica Lane, further described as Lot 9,
Block C, Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1, Plat Book 12, Pages 34-37, as
recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida in Section 6,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Cw
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-2035,
Kenneth D. Goodman, Esquire, of Goodman and Breen, requesting a 25-foot
variance from the required 75-foot front yard setback to 50 feet for 20 lots in
the Shady Hollow Trust Subdivision, which is located in Section 9,
Township 48 South, Range 27 East, further described as Lots 1-20, Shady
Hollow Trust, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Adoption of a Resolution amending the Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule,
which is Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Law and Ordinances, the same being the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition ST-2194,
Michael Landy, P.E., of Landy Engineering, Inc., representing Southwest
Florida Opportunity Fund, L.L.C., requesting a Special Treatment
Development Permit to construct a 11,200 square foot drug store and a 266-
seat restaurant via the Site Development Plan approval process on a 4.02-
acre site zoned C-3ST, located at the Northeast comer of the Intersection of
US-41 and CR-951, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
C. This item has been deleted.
4
July 30, 2002
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDA-O 1-
AR-2491, Robert Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., representing James and Diane
Williams, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as the Arrowhead PUD having the effect of
increasing the number of approved dwelling units from 900 units to 1,254
units, which increases the project density of 4.3 units per acre, change the
mix of single family and multi-family dwellings, delete mobile homes as a
permitted use, revise the currently approved master plan to allow for the
reconfiguration of the commercial tract, update the PUD document to reflect
current terminology and code references, reduce the maximum building
height from 100 feet to 50 feet for the commercial tract, modify the list of
permitted commercial uses, and revising the development standards
consistent with the developer's workforce housing requirements for property
located at the Southwest quadrant of the intersection of Lake Trafford Road
and the future extension of Carson Road in Section 31, Township 46 South,
Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
E. This item has been deleted.
F. This item has been deleted.
Ge
This item is being continued to the September 10~ 2002 BCC Meeting.
An Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 91-102, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, which includes the Comprehensive
Regulations for the Unincorporated Area of Collier County, Florida, by
providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact;
Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code,
including amendments to Division 2.3, off-street parking and loading;
Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Land
Development Code; Section Six, Effective Date.
He
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), prohibiting early
payment of impact fees to avoid rate increases and distinguishing payment
of impact fees from pre-payment of estimated future impact fees prerequisite
to issuance of a Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy.
5
July 30, 2002
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition RZ-01-AR-
1143, James G. O'Gara, representing Golden Gate Capital, Ltd., requesting a
rezone from "RSF-3" Residential Single Family to the "RSF-5" Residential
Single Family Zoning District to allow for a maximum of 16 single-family
dwelling units for property located at the Northeast Corner of 50th Terrace
SW and 22nd Avenue SW in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
Je
Public Hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance establishing the
Tuscany Reserve Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to
Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
Ke
Public Hearing to consider transmittal to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs of a Resolution amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as
amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, for the Immokalee
Road/Collier Boulevard Area (Heritage Bay Development of Regional
Impact) to establish the "Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay" for
Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, T48S, R26E, Collier County Florida By: Amending
the Future Land Use Element and Map Series; Amending the Sanitary Sewer
Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element; Amending the Potable Water
Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element; Amending the Water and
Sewer Service Boundary Map of the Public Facilities Element; Providing for
Severability; and, Providing for an Effective Date.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ae
This item has a time certain of 1:15 p.m. Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board request for the County Commission to support a "Living Wage"/Farm
Worker/Agricultural Issues Forum and Dialogue.
Be
Request that the Board of County Commissioners recognize that the Collier
Hispanic Task Force serves a valid public purpose and approve the use of
County resources to provide meeting notices and meeting space.
(Commissioner Fred W. Coyle)
Ce
Appointment of member to the Collier County Water and Wastewater
Authority.
6
July 30, 2002
10.
De
te
Confirmation of appointment by the City of Naples to the Contractors'
Licensing Board.
Approve the Employment Agreement for the County Manager.
(Commissioner Jim Coletta)
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
Proposal to impose a temporary moratorium on projects in the Whippoorwill
Area (bounded on the North by Pine Ridge Road, on the South by the
Wyndemere Subdivision, on the East by 1-75, and on the West by proposed
Livingston Road) until such time as a master plan showing proposed
infrastructure improvements, including at a minimum, potable water
distribution, sanitary sewage collection, stormwater management, and roads,
has been accepted by the Collier County Community Development and
Environmental Services Division. (Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
Approve the purchase ($2,750,000 Purchase Price) of a 99-acre tract of land
identified as the major source of mitigation for wetland impacts associated
with the construction of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project
(Project No. 31101). (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
Ce
To adopt proposed FY2003 Millage Rates. (Mike Smykowski, Director,
Office of Management and Budget)
This item has a time certain of 11:30 a.m. Approval of two Interlocal
Agreements between Collier County and the City of Marco Island: First,
providing for the collection of County Impact Fees by the City Government,
providing for the percentage distribution between the two entities of road
impact fees collected by the City, and providing for reimbursements from
the County to the City for administrative costs associated with the collection
of County Impact Fees other than those for roads; and Second, providing for
relinquishing jurisdiction for County Roads 92 and 92A to the City of Marco
Island; authorization for the Chairman to sign the Interlocal Agreements on
behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation)
Status report to the Board to provide a review of current roadway
landscaping enhancement issues and requests for additional funding and to
7
July 30, 2002
11.
request the Board determine a policy for current and future roadway
enhancement initiatives. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation)
Fe
This item continued from the June 25, 2002 BCC Meeting. 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. (Norman Fed,r, Administrator, Transportation)
Ge
This item continued from the June 25~ 2002 BCC Meeting. Status Report
for the Board's review of the Interchange Enhancement Recommendations
requested by the Golden Gate/I-75 Ad Hoc Beautification Committee.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
He
This item continued from the June 25, 2002 BCC Meeting. 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 US41 North Phase I
Agreement to Vanderbilt Beach Road. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
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.
Approval of the Form of Public Petition drafted by the County Attorney's
Office at the request of Citizens of Golden Gate Estates for the widening to
four lanes of Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson Boulevard to DeSoto
Boulevard.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
8
July 30, 2002
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)
Approve a Budget Amendment for a Red Cockaded Woodpecker
(RCW) Habitat Survey of Section 24 and the North Belle Meade
Overlay in the amount of $15,000 using $12,500 from MSTD General
Fund (111) Reserves.
2)
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No.
59.803 "Blue Heron Offsite Hauling", located in Section 33,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East; bounded on the North by
Interstate 75 R/W, on the West by Sapphire Lakes Subdivision, on the
East by Sherwood PUD, and on the South by Radio Road, R/W.
3)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Sabal Bay
Commercial Plat Phase One", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the Performance Security.
4)
Proposal to accept a Master Plan and Legal Agreement for
infrastructure to serve projects in the Whippoorwill Area (bounded on
the North by Pine Ridge Road, on the South by the Wyndemere
Subdivision, on the East by 1-75 Right of Way, and on the West by
proposed Livingston Road, which is presently under construction).
5)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Indigo Lakes Unit
Seven", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
6)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Carson Lakes
Phase II", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
9
July 30, 2002
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Noah's Landing".
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Island Walk Phase
Seven A".
Approval of the Mortgage and Promissory Note for a Seventy-Five
Thousand ($75,000) Dollar Loan to Renaissance Manor, Inc., a Non-
Profit Housing Provider, to assist in the construction of a Special
Needs Affordable Housing Development.
Approval of Third Amendment to 2002 Tourism Agreement with
Kelley Swofford Roy, Inc., as recommended by the Tourist
Development Council.
Approve 2003 Tourism Agreements between Collier County and
Kelley Swofford Roy, Phase V of Southwest Florida Inc., and Evans-
Klages Inc., as recommended by the Tourist Development Council.
Adoption of a Resolution approving an application for a Waiver of
Impact Fees for a not-for-profit, charitable organization, Hospice of
Naples, in an amount not to exceed $7,500 for an inpatient facility;
said waiver being fully funded from accumulated and unencumbered
interest in each of the affected Impact Fee Trust Accounts.
This item has been deleted.
Recommendation to approve a request for exemption from payment of
impact fees, in the amount of $3,872.82, for a mobile home emplaced,
but not then permitted, on the homeowner's property prior to adoption
of applicable Collier County Impact Fees, provided the property
owner obtains all necessary permits and completes all improvements
required by the County and pays all other associated fees.
Authorization to redistribute approved funds between two existing
purchase orders for the consulting services agreement with RWA,
Inc., for the rural and agricultural assessment orders.
10
July 30, 2002
16)
Authorize Assistant County Attorney to bid on behalf of County at
Foreclosure (Code Enforcement Lien) Sale to be scheduled by the
Clerk in Board of County Commissioners v. Wayne Thibodeau, Case
No. 00-3935-CA.
17)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican Marsh Unit
Sixteen".
18)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Hammock Bay",
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
19)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
an Amendment to the FY02 Adopted Budget of the Comprehensive
Planning Section for Expenses Incurred Relative to Final Order No.
99-002.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution fixing the date, time and place for the Public Hearing for
approving the Special Assessment (Non-Ad Valorem Assessment) to
be levied against the properties within the Pelican Bay Municipal
Service Taxing and Benefit Unit for maintenance of the Water
Management System, Beautification of Recreational Facilities and
Median Areas, and Maintenance of Conservation or Preserve Areas,
and establishment of Capital Reserve Funds for ambient noise
management, maintenance of conservation or preserve areas, U.S. 41
berms, street signage replacements within the median areas and
landscaping improvements to U.S. 41 entrances, all within the Pelican
Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit.
2) Approval of three (3) Impact Fee Refund requests totaling $81,086.92.
3)
Approve Committee Selection of Five Firms for Contract
Negotiations for RFP #02-3371, "Fixed Term Professional
Transportation Planning Consulting Services". There is $200,000.00
budgeted in the first year for this contract.
11
July 30, 2002
4)
Approve Bid #02-3378 Immokalee Triangle Landscaping Installation,
in the amount of $134,445.
5)
Approve Change Order with Apac, Inc., for roadway improvements at
Golden Gate Parkway and 53rd Street SW in the amount of
$22,644.50, Project #60016.
6)
Approve to purchase and install bus stop shelters for Collier Area
Transit (CAT), in the amount of $57,472.
7)
Approve a request for Advanced Funding to the Livingston Road
Beautification Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) in the amount
of $228,583.08, to install decorative lighting during the Livingston
Road, Phase II Improvement (Project No. 60071). Also, approve
Change Order No. 5 with Better Roads Inc., to purchase decorative
lighting fixtures and perform additional construction services related
to street light installation for an amount of $352,021.80.
8)
Approve Budget Amendment request for median improvements by
Better Roads, Inc., in the amount of $83,294.75 on Airport-Pulling
Road, Project No. 60175.
9)
Approve an Agreement with Waterways Joint Venture, et al, to
purchase Parcels 190A, 190B, 190D, 790B, 790C, 790D, 790F, 890A,
and 890C for four-laning improvements to Immokalee Road.
10)
Adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 2002-98 authorizing
condemnation of right-of-way and/or easements required for the
construction of a six-lane section of Livingston Road between Pine
Ridge Road and Immokalee Road, Capital Improvements Element No.
58 (Project No. 62071).
11)
Approve the piggybacking of a Broward County Contract for the
purchase of light emitting diode traffic signal components.
12)
Approve a Budget Amendment to transfer $100,000 from Gas Tax
Reserves to reimburse the City of Naples for the construction of
Goodlette-Frank Road improvements at the City's Pump Station.
12
July 30, 2002
Approve a Budget Amendment to transfer $50,000 from Gas Tax
Reserves to reimburse the City of Naples Airport Authority for the
County's share of the Airport Road Landscape Project.
14)
Approval of the recommended Management Company to enter into a
contract with Collier County Government, serving as the Community
Transportation Coordinator for the Collier County Transportation
Disadvantaged Program as identified in RFP #02-3383 and
authorization for the County Manager to negotiate and enter into a
contract with the selected management company.
15)
Approval of a First Amendment to Lease Agreement with LB/P
Groveway, LLC for its two-month continued use of county-owned
property netting the County $4,000 in additional rent.
16)
Recommendation to approve the purchase of one (1) double drum
vibratory roller, in accordance with BID #02-3391, in the amount of
$64,995.
17)
Removal of a non-warranted traffic signal from the intersection of
Radio Road at Commercial Boulevard. Removal of the traffic signal
poles and equipment will cost approximately $3000.
18)
Board approval of a Lease Agreement with Volusia County for the
use of two trolley/buses in the amount of $500.00 per month, per bus
and authorization for the Chairman to enter into the Agreement.
19)
Request that the Board approve a loan of $60,000 to the Forest Lakes
Roadway and Drainage MSTU for the completion of drainage work
necessary to help prevent flooding of homes in this community.
20)
Request that the Board approve a loan of $20,000 to the Livingston
Road Phase 2 Beautification MSTU for the initial landscape design
and to cover secretarial expenses for the remainder of the Fiscal Year.
21)
Award a ConstTuction Agreement to APAC-Florida, Inc., for the
construction of North 11th Street Extension from State Road 29 to
Roberts Avenue, Collier County Project #62021, Bid #02-3387, in the
amount of $144,150.
13
July 30, 2002
22)
Award a construction contract in the amount of $1,928,170.77 to
Better Roads Inc., and allocate $190,000.00 (10% of the construction
cost) for contingency purposes to construct the proposed Immokalee
Road/I-75 Interchange project, Project No. 66042A.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Authorization to execute and record Satisfactions for certain water
and/or sewer impact fee payment agreements. Fiscal impact is
$135.00 to record the Satisfactions.
2)
Request a Budget Amendment for Wastewater Collections Facility for
$145,000 to be transferred from Reserves to cover the expenses for
sewer lines repairs and chemicals.
3)
Adoption of a Resolution approving Special Assessment Hardship
Deferrals for certain sewer special assessments for the 2002 tax year.
The Fiscal Impact is $21.00 to record the Resolution.
4)
Approve Work Order GH-FT-02-9 with Greeley and Hansen LLC, to
perform Phase 2 Engineering Services for design and construction of
the Santa Barbara Sewer Force Main Interconnect between the North
and South Wastewater Collection Systems, Project 73132, in the
amount of $659,080.
s)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Acquisition by Gift or Purchase of
non-exclusive perpetual utility interests by fee simple interest and/or
easement for the construction of a force main and pump station sites
required for the Collier County Water-Sewer District Santa Barbara
Sewer Force Main Interconnect Project between the North and South
Wastewater Collection Systems, Projects 73076, 73132, 73150, and
73151, at a cost not to exceed $470,012.
6)
Authorization to acquire and implement a Call Center Telephone
System for Customer Service Functions in the Public Utilities
Division-Cost is $181,365.85.
7)
Adopt a Resolution and approve a Corrective Declaration of Easement
for two water well house sites and a pipeline to be located within a
portion of property acquired for a future park site at a cost not to
14
July 30, 2002
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
exceed $24.00.
Authorization to acquire consulting services to implement Phase II of
the Utility Billing Software System and to acquire technical assistance
during acceptance testing, data conversion verification, parallel
processing, and cut-over to the live environment-cost of services is
$46,200.
Approve Reimbursement Agreements with Florida Power and Light
Company related to new brackish water supply wells serving the
North County Regional Water Treatment Plant at a credit of
$9,158.50, Projects 70075 and 70094.
Approve a Resolution and the Granting of a Revocable Temporary
License and Utility Easement to Lee County Electric Cooperative
Inc., for installation of an electric power line on the Carnestown
Transfer Station Property, the cost of which will not exceed $50.00.
Approve Amendment No. 1 to that Agreement No. HW465 with the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection for electronics
recycling.
Approve Resolution supporting continued federal funding of coastal
projects.
Award RFP 02-3339 for construction and demolition waste artificial
reef recycling to committee's shortlist selection of firms, McCulley
Marine Services Inc., for an estimated annual amount of $250,000.
To authorize monthly billing of irrigation water availability charge as
identified in the executed agreement by and between the Collier
County Water-Sewer District and the Old Collier Golf Club, Inc.
Approve Task Order 6 in the amount of $6,106,261 with Youngquist
Brothers, Inc., for North County Water Reclamation Facility Deep
Injection Well Construction, Contract 01-3193, Project 73948.
Approve an amendment to the April 10, 2001 Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Consent Order related to the North and
South County Water Reclamation Facilities, Projects 73077 and
15
July 30, 2002
17)
i8)
19)
20)
21)
73949, at no additional cost.
Adopt a Resolution to set the date, time and place for an Advertised
Public Heating where the Board of County Commissioners will adopt
fees (Special Assessments) to be collected on the property tax bills for
curbside trash collection services for the 2003 Budget Year.
Authorize conveyance of a utility easement to Florida Power and
Light Company for the installation of underground electric facilities to
serve water wells to be located on County-Owned Future Park
Property, the cost of which should not exceed $30.00.
Request a Budget Amendment for the North County Water
Reclamation Facility for $241,400 to be transferred from Reserves to
cover expenses for overtime, sludge transportation, electricity,
operating supplies and equipment repairs.
Approve a Budget Amendment for $258,500 primarily for the
construction work on the Price Street-Barefoot Williams Road Water
Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) Special Assessments Fund
(409), Project #70077.
Approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of $200,000, to fund
unanticipated expenses within the North Water Treatment Facility
Cost Center.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of $70,000 for the
design and permitting of a soccer field at East Naples Community
Park.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Award Bid #02-3386, Tire Services, to Collier Tire and Auto Repair
as Primary Vendor and Collier Retreading, Inc., as secondary vendor
at an estimated cost of $35,000 annually for the services and $100,000
annually for new tires.
'16
July 30, 2002
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Approve an increase of the RFQ #99-0290 "File Retention" services
$25,000 threshold to $33,000 with Robert Flynn Moving and Storage.
Approve a Letter of Support for the Empowerment Alliance of
Southwest Florida to submit a front porch Florida Application for
designation of South Immokalee as a Front Porch Florida Community.
Approve a Budget Amendment totaling $72,500 for expenditures
related to the temporary relocation of the Law Library.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners convey a
Grant of Utility Easement to Sprint-Florida, Inc., for relocation of a
cable connection cabinet from Airport Road Right-of-Way to the
County's Main Government Complex property. There will be no
financial impact to the County as a result of this request.
Approval of a Budget Amendment to the Group Health and Life Plan
in the amount of $2,217,100 recognizing additional premium revenue
and increasing budget expenditures for insurance claims, reinsurance,
and life insurance premiums through September 30, 2002.
Approve a Budget Amendment totaling $37,000 for the installation of
additional lighting for the Harmon Turner Building (Building F)
South Parking Lot to create a safer parking area.
Approval of an amendment to the contract between Collier County
and Insurance and Risk Management Services Inc., for the placement
of National Flood Insurance and Builder's Risk Insurance Policies.
Approval to grant employees hired through the Recap program who
have provided continued full-time, uninterrupted service to the
County, a vacation accrual date consistent with their original recap
hire date.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Approval of fixed fee performance based agreement, in the amount of
$7,947.00, between Collier County and the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs; said agreement provides
reimbursement to Collier County for the review and update of hazard
17
July 30, 2002
Ge
He
2)
3)
4)
analyses at designated facilities within Collier County that possess
extremely hazardous substances at or above the threshold planning
quantity.
Approve Ochopee Fire Control District Application for a matching
(50/50) Grant offered by the Florida Division of Forestry in the
amount of $7,974.50 and approve the necessary Budget Amendments.
Award Bid No. 02-3389 to Pyramid II, Inc., for the purchase of
janitorial supplies for all Collier County Departments.
Approval of Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Applications
for funding to improve hurricane protection of County Public Safety
Facilities and retrofit the Foundation of the Everglades City Hall
against flooding.
5)
Recognize and appropriate revenue for two Florida Department of
Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Matching (25%
County Funds/75% State Funds) Grants to appropriate and transfer
County matching funds in the amount of $53,346.80 from the
Emergency Medical Services 490 Reserves, and recognize the State
Funds of $160,040.40.
COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Summary of Consent and Emergency Agenda Items approved by the
County Manager during the Boards scheduled recess.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Ke
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record as Directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
18
July 30, 2002
17.
detailed report of open purchase orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of county funds to satisfy said
purchases. Open Purchase Order Report from June 18, 2002 through
June 30, 2002 available for review in the County Manager's Office.
2)
New Precinct Lines to reflect the realignment of political boundaries
within Collier County as established by the Federal Judicial Panel.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve the Agreed Order awarding Expert Fees relative to Easement
Acquisitions of Parcel 175C and 575C in the Lawsuit entitled Collier
County v. Richard H. Evans, et al, Case No. 01-1235-CA, Livingston
Road Project No. 60071.
2)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the filing of a Lawsuit against a Collier County employee to seek
reimbursement of a debt owed to the County by the employee in the
sum of Eleven Hundred Three Dollars and Sixty-Two Cents
($1,103.62), plus costs.
3)
Approve General Release submitted by WCI Communities providing
for payment of previously unpaid education impact fees for Marbella
at Pelican Bay, Inc.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
19
July 30, 2002
Ae
Bo
Co
0
Ee
This item has been continued indefinitely. Petition CU-01-AR-1912, R.
Bruce Anderson of Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A.,
and Margaret Perry of Wilson Miller Inc., representing Bonita Bay Group
Inc., requesting Conditional Use "17" of the "A" Rural Agricultural Zoning
District to allow for a golf course and related facilities for property located
on the South side of Immokalee Road (CR-846) and approximately four
miles East of Collier Boulevard (CR-951), in Sections 29, 30 and 31,
Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition SNR-2002-AR-2239, the Community Development and
Environmental Services Division, requesting a street name change for a
portion of Thomasson Drive to Thomasson Lane, located in Sections 13 and
24, Township 50 South, Range 25 East.
Petition AVROW2002-AR2439 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in a portion of the road right-of-way for
14th Street North which was dedicated to the County by the Plat of"North
Naples Highlands", as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 12, Public Records of
Collier County, Florida, located in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range
25 East.
Continued from the June 11~ 2002 BCC Meeting. Petition PUDZ-01-AR-
1553, Michael R. Fernandez, of Planning Development, Inc., representing
Relleum Inc. and Granite Development II, L.C., requesting a rezone from
"A" Rural Agricultural to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known
as the Balmoral PUD allowing mix of residential dwelling types for property
located on the East side of the future Livingston Road (CR 881) and
approximately one mile South of Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) in Section 18,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition DOA-2002-AR-2208, Robert J. Mulhere of RWA, Inc., representing
Parklands Developments, L.P., requesting an amendment to the "Parklands"
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) in order to extend the date of
commencement for the project by one year to March 11, 2004 for property
located on the East side of the future Logan Boulevard Extension and
approximately 2 miles North of Immokalee Road (CR 846) in Section 9,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
VAo2002-AR-2444, Golden Dream Homes, representing Edith Montero and
Osvaldo Rivero, requesting an after the fact variance of 2.5 feet from the
20
July 30, 2002
required 37.5 foot front yard setback to 35 feet for property located on a
comer lot at 1795 Desoto Boulevard South, further described as the South
180 feet of Tract 63, Golden Gate Estates Unit 85, in Section 21, Township
49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
Ge
To adopt the proposed Resolution to establish fees for the processing of
background checks and issuing driver identification cards; to reaffirm
application and certification fees for certificate to operate a public vehicle
for hire business; and to repeal Collier County Resolution No. 93-127, as
amended.
II.
Petition PUDA-01-AR-2028, Robert Duane of Hole Montes Inc.,
representing Cypress Glen Development Corporation, requesting a rezone
from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as the
Cypress Glen PUD for the purpose of decreasing the maximum building
height from 3 stories to 2 stories, reducing the landscape buffer from 10 feet
to 5 feet, revising the development standards, revising the master plan to
depict the proposed internal placement of structures and modified traffic
circulation system, and to add a water management area along the Western
edge of the property for property located on the North side of Pine Ridge
Road (CR 896) and approximately one quarter mile West of Livingston
Road in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance utilizing CRA Funds to create a site improvement grant and
impact fee assistance grant for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area of the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA).
Jo
This item has been continued indefinitely. PUDZ-2001-AR-1464, Robert
Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Robert C. Malt, requesting a
rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to
be known as Estuary Bay, for 236 multi-family units and 79 affordable
housing units for a maximum of 315 multi-family units, for property located
on the West side of Collier Boulevard (SR 951), 2 miles South of the
intersection of US 41 and Collier Boulevard (SR 951), in Section 15,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
78.7 +/- acres.
21
July 30, 2002
Approve a Resolution to amend Ordinance No. 2000-70 for changes to the
by-laws of the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
22
July 30, 2002
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats ladies and
gentlemen. Would you all rise for the invocation to be given by the
Reverend Mary Annie Dorder.
Thereupon, (Prayer was given, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.)
Item #3A
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Greetings. Let's start off first with
Mr. Mudd.
MR MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm hoping you
had a nice vacation so far, and I'm kind of-- my apologies for a very
long agenda. And it does have some policy issues that need to be
discussed. But before I talk about the agenda items, Commissioners,
because this is a very large packet, I would like to get a consensus of
the Board or a Board vote that basically lets us continue parts of this
agenda to tomorrow morning, in particular, Items 8-A and 8-H. 8-A
is the impact fee and 8-H is the prohibition of paying impact fees
early.
We can start that because there's a large part of our community
that wants to voice their concerns, opinions in support in that process.
And they can pick one of the three they want to talk about it. But I
think that would speed up the agenda today, and that would let us get
a lot of the large issues without having a large majority of this
audience sitting here waiting for those items to come at the wee hours
of the morning.
Page 2
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Chairman, I would make a
motion to approve the recommendation of the County Manager.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Carter and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any
discussion? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to propose to end
at a certain time today?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, my ambitions are is to try to
end at 5'00 o'clock, 6:00 o'clock at the very latest. But if we find
ourselves in trouble with the balance between today and tomorrow,
we might not be able to finish tomorrow. Then I think we might run
a little bit later. But when we do get close to that point in time, I will
be consulting the rest of the Commission to find out what their
feelings are on the direction we should go. 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 to 0.
MR. MUDD: Commission, the agenda change items are as
follows: Continue Item 7-B to September 10th, 2002. This was a
Petitioner request, and this was the -- had to do with the William and
Jone Reckmeyer property in a series of variances that they needed for
that. They would like to consult their neighbors before they bring
that to the Board. So, again, they wanted to continue it until
September 10th.
Page 3
July 30-31, 2002
The next item to be continued is 7-C, and that again goes to
September 10th. And that's a variance request for Shady Hollow
Trust Subdivision, again at Petitioner's request.
The next item is Item 8-A and I alluded to this already. 8-A will
be heard at the continuation of this July 30th board meeting to be
held on July 31st, time certain 9:00 o'clock to be followed by Item 8-
H. 8-A is the road impact fees. 8-H is the prohibition against paying
impact fees early.
The next item, continue Item 8-K to September 10th, 2002. And
that's th Heritage Bay Develop of regional impact. This was at the
Petitioners request. The next item is an --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What was the date of that
continuation?
MR. MUDD: September 10th, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, so it's still 9/107
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We have an add item and it's item 8-L.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and that has to do
with Keystone Custom Homes and we know it as Little Palm Island
Subdivision. That was a request. First of all, the reason it was
missing from the agenda was a staff mistake. It was brought to our
attention by Commissioner Carter that we put this -- get it back on
the agenda because it was heard by the Planning Commission.
The next item is Delete Item 10-A. This a good news item.
Back in January of 2000, the Board directed the Whippoorwill
Developments -- Developers to come up with a master plan. It's
taken us two years to get that master plan in that process. And we
started to turn the heat on around January of this year and gave them
some suspense dates in order to keep the direction of the Board of
County Commissioners.
Page 4
July 30-31, 2002
A lot of credit goes to the all the developers, in particular to one
attorney, Rich Yovanovich, for bringing all that all together. And we
did get all the signed agreements yesterday and the master plan. And
you'll see this item as 16-A4. And I'll read something into the record
that has to do with that later. But we're going to delete 10-A because
we do have the master plan and the development agreement signed.
Next item, the Item 10-E. That's got a time cert of 10:30. And
that has to do with policy for roadway landscaping enhancements. I
will also tell you that you have some companion items which are 10-
F, 10-G and 10-H that all have to do with landscaping. This was
direction of the Board to come back with some policies and some
alternatives for the Board from our 25 June meeting.
And I will also tell you that we had an awful lot of MSTU
supporters and neighborhood folks sitting here in the audience until
the wee hours of the morning on the 25th just to find out that their
items were going to be continued until the 30th, so trying to help
them out a little bit and get them in and out this time instead of
having them sit again.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What time is that, sir?
MR. MUDD: That's a time cert of 10:30.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10:307
MR. MUDD: Sir?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10:30 you said?
MR. MUDD: 10:30, sir. And I'll go over the time certs one
more time after we're done with this to make sure that we've got all
the times in chronological order. Add Item 13-A. This is an item to
be hear at 9:30. The clerk would like to discuss concerns that he has
with the contract for North Collier Wastewater Treatment Plant. I
Page 5
July 30-31, 2002
talked with the clerk yesterday. He just needs to disclose some of the
actions that he's doing. He said it would be pretty quick.
The next item is to amend the title and staff recommendation on
Item 16-A4. And this had to do with deletion of 10-A. And I need to
read this into record. "Proposal to accept a master plan and
acknowledge the legal agreement for infrastructure to serve projects
in the Whippoorwill area, in brackets, bounded on the north by Pine
Ridge Road, on the south by the Wyndemere Subdivision, on the east
by 1-75 right-of-way, and on the west by proposed Livingston Road,
which is presently under construction." And that makes it right as far
as 16-A is concerned.
The next item is to delete Item 16-A9. And that was to the
approval of a mortgage and promissory note for a $75,000 loan to the
Renaissance Manner, Inc. Again, that is to be deleted. And that's at
the Petitioner's request.
The next item is to continue Item 16-B 15 to September 10th,
2002. It's an approval of the First Amendment to lease agreement to
the GroveWay, LLC. It was a two-month lease agreement. We
hadn't received the funds, nor we had the final contract signed. So
we'll continue that to 7/10. Hopefully in the next week or so that will
come forward as an exact summary that the County Manager can sign
for you. Based on the resolution that we have, standing resolution.
And then I'll bring the action back to you on the 10th of September.
Next item is to continue Item 16-C14 to September 10th. That
was to authorize the monthly billing of irrigation and availability
charge to the Old Collier Golf Club. That's Staffs request, after
talking to the Petitioner yesterday. They have got some issues they
need to work out.
We have one more item that's not on you printed agenda, and
that's to move 17-D off the summary agenda to 8-M, as in Mike.
Page 6
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me. Commissioner
Coletta, County Manager Jim Mudd, I think there on that one there
just needs to be a clarification by the developer to add to the record
so it can stay on the summary agenda.
MR. MUDD' If I can-- this could be an appropriate time to
have the developer come up here and make that -- MR. OCHS: Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. MUDD' Mr. Yovanovich to make that statement. Not the
developer, Mr--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michael Fernandez.
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners, Michael
Fernandez representing Valmoral PUD. We've made a change to our
commitments that would provide the southern most 15 feet as a
donation for immediate use for County Utilities and the balance of
the right-of-way for Green Boulevard Extension, also as a donation
when the County has funding for those improvements. And with that
change, we believe it meets the intent that Staff had requested. And
I'll talk to Commissioner Henning about this.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Just a clarification, when you
say the County funds the project, are you meaning funded in the five-
year work plan?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's nine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We believe that it meets both your
immediate needs and your future needs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I agree.
MR. MUDD: Then we don't need to move that particular item.
It stays on the summary agenda. Again, as notes --
Page 7
July 30-31, 2002
MR. BOLOGMI: For the record, Jim Bologmi, Administrator
of Public Utilities. Sir, I'm not sure I want to keep this. I like to -- I
think we've got something to discuss with regard to the south looping
of the utilities. It's my understanding that it was going to be on the
north side of the canal. I've just learned that there was concerns
about putting it on the south side. And I'm not sure that I understand
exactly where we are on this. So I'm not yet prepared to not make
comment to that fact.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Shall we continue the item 'til
September 10th or deal with this today.'?
MR. FERNANDEZ' We'll just wait 'til later on today then.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioners, so what we'll do is we'll
move 17-D off the summary agenda to Item 8-M. And we'll hear it at
a later time today, and hopefully they can work out those differences.
But, Commissioner, I think in essence that the 50 foot of easement is
there. We're just trying to figure out exactly where the location of it's
going to be on the map, sir.
That's the last change I have. Of notes, we have Items 10-F, G
and H. As I mentioned before, they're kind of companion items with
10-E. And 16-C 16, just for clarification, that is an extension to the
consent order from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection on the wastewater plants that we got into last year and had
to do with the inability of getting those permits on time based on the
estimates that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
gave us. So they have extended the due dates for two projects that
are the consent order. And I just wanted to make sure that's clear for
the Commissioners.
Again, let's go over time certain one more time. We have 9:30,
we have Item 13-A, which is the Clerk of Courts. We have 10:30
Page 8
July 30-31, 2002
time certain, which has to do with median beautification and that's
Item 10-E.
At 11:30, we have Marco Island off of the -- coming in to talk
about the agreements for impact fees and the takeover of County
Road 92 and 92 Alpha. And then it 1' 15, we address Item 9-A,
which has to do with the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. That's all
I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the number for 11'30 for
Marco Island?
MR. MUDD: 11:30 is Item 10-D.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10-D. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning, I was just notified by
Mr. Mulhere that there's a statement that needs to go on the record for
Item 17-E on the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: If the Board would be so inclined.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, go ahead and identify yourself,
please.
MR. BASINAIT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
the Board. My name is Charles Basinait. I'm an attorney with
Henderson Franklin in Fort Myers. I represent the developers of the
Parklands Collier Project. We're here today to just simply make a
statement for the record that it is our intention to construct Logan
Boulevard.
As part of this project, we have already submitted construction
plans, cross sections, whatever we need to with the County, along
with our other permitting -- along with the other permitting agencies
to go ahead and construct that road from it's northern terminus at Old
Cypress all the way up through -- ultimately to Bonita Beach Road,
but through the Parklands Project.
Page 9
July 30-31, 2002
But Commissioner Henning has asked that we give you a certain
comfort level, and we're happy to do that. Ronto Development and
Parklands, Inc. is intending on building that road, paying for that road
and not going to be seeking road impact fee credits for that. So we
hope that allays any concerns that there might be there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I think you're setting the
bar at a new level, and I thank you very much for that.
MR. BASINAIT: You're quite welcome.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a clarification, if
somebody comes in and builds a portion of Logan, either -- what I'm
trying to get at, Parklands is still committed for relieving somebody
of that expenditure or giving to the County in lieu of that relief that
somebody else takes over that responsibility?
MR. BASINAIT: Commissioner, I can tell you with a high
degree of certainty we have spoken to the other developer, that is, if
you will, in line for Logan Boulevard. We are going to be in the
ground well in advance of those folks. We are going to build Logan
Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say with no credits?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. BASINAIT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct. They're going to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's the new order of the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to clarify, I don't think you
answered my question. If somebody does come in and build it before
Parklands, are you committed to the expenditure to that to the person
that constructs it or give to the County in lieu of the construction of
Logan in dollars?
MR. BASINAIT: Commissioner Henning, certainly we're going
to work with -- and it's Tarafina is the intervening development.
Page 10
July 30-31, 2002
We're going to be working with Tarafina to try and establish a cost-
sharing structure if we can. But please understand, that if we cannot
do that, if for whatever reason that doesn't work out, it's still our
intention to build Logan Boulevard ourselves. We have the permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He didn't answer my question.
MR. BASINAIT: The permit's in. As soon as they're issued, we
intend on proceeding forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I still don't have that comfort
level.
MR. BASINAIT: We have spoken to the perspective contractor,
purchasers of the Tarafina Development. They are not going to be in
the ground for a couple of years. They have no intentions of coming
forward at this point to construct. On the other hand, we have to. We
have submitted our permit request to the County. As soon as those
are issued, we're going to be moving forward.
And that's one of the reasons why we're asking for the year
extension for the commencement date is to just deal with the issues of
timing of the cross section so that we can be sure that the County is
comfortable with the type of road that's going in. And once that's
done, we're going to move forward.
I understand what you're asking me, Commissioner. But the
point is that Tarafina, the only intervening developer, is not going to
be in the ground before we are. We're going to go ahead and build a
road. I don't know what else I can assure you with other than to say
that we are, in fact, going to pay for and construct that road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're going to pay for it no
matter what?
MR. BASINAIT: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. BASINAIT: Thank you.
Page 11
July 30-31, 2002
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, that concludes the remarks from
the County Manager.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before I do that, Commissioners, let
me go to Mr. Weigel our County Attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
It's nice to see you. Just two comments. One, first I'd like to
comment in regard to a matter that came before you on June 25th. I
don't have the agenda number of June 25th to tell you, but it was the
Silver Lakes PUD, which was continued indefinitely at that time with
the intention to be brought back before you.
There is a requirement under Section 2.7.2.11 of the LDC which
talks in terms of a matter being brought back to the Board within 90
days, our legislative action being taken by the Board within 90 days
of a Planning Commission action. By virtue of the fact that you're
just meeting once now and the next meeting is September 10th, the
intended date of September 10th is 92 days away.
I would request, ask the Board to accept my statement to the
record and Mr. Dwight, who is here on behalf of Silver Lakes
Project, that they will be advertising and bringing the matter back to
this Board on September 10th and that this Board note that with the
lack of biweekly meeting dates, that September 10th is not a problem
in having the matter scheduled for hearing. Nothing more than that
would be your acknowledgement that you will hear it. No promise
beyond that at this point and time, kind of a courtesy for clarity on
the record and procedure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want that in the form of a
motion?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 12
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion from Commissioner
Carter and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? All
those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it 5 to 0. Anything else,
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: One other thing on a happy note. I've had the
opportunity, as well as I know a couple of Commissioners, at least, to
meet with contractors, construction people that are, among other
things, working with dock construction.
And I'd like to make a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners that in regard to our Ordinance Number 2002-21 that
amended in mid May in many ways following a year and a half of
work shopping and working it over, that there was an element that
was brought in regarding certain insurance coverages. And it has to
do with the application of Federal law, requirements of Federal law to
the industry for people that are working over navigable water.
I propose to send a letter from my office no later than tomorrow,
and hopefully today, to the Development Services Staff, a
Contractor's Licensing Board Department so that they will no longer,
until further determination from me, require a showing of certificate
of insurance in regard to the Federal Insurance Requirements until I,
working with the industry and with the State agencies and Federal
agencies, come to a better understanding of what is required under
Federal law.
And that's further to state that the Federal law is the Federal law
no matter what the County does. And those are obligations of the
Page 13
July 30-31, 2002
people that are affected and the businesses that are affected. But we
at the County Staff level will not require them to show the certificate
of insurance, even if required under Federal law, until we know what
the Federal law and Federal offices would demand for the specific
businesses that are operational, because it will be dependent upon the
number of employees and the type of work that they do, both
electrical and outright construction.
And we look forward to working with those people. We have
many of their names and addresses. And we're going to work with all
of them that we can and look for their assistance so that the word is
out in a uniformed manner that they will not have inordinate
problems from an application standpoint of the County. I got a little
wordy, there, but we're looking to put the word out to staff to work
with us so that we can work with these people.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, I'd like to place that in
the form of a motion so directing you to do so. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by myself, Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion? All those
in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr.
Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think at this point we're ready to
proceed with, Commissioners, on the consent agenda to see if there's
any other changes and also too to make any declarations on the
Page 14
July 30-31, 2002
summary agenda, those items that have not been moved. We'll start
with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to pull off the
consent agenda Item 16-A12, impact fee waiver, and also 16-C15
which is the deep water injection for the North Naples Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Disclosure I have on the summary, Commissioner,
is 17-B and 17-E. I have talked to Staff and the Petitioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to pull for a very brief
discussion Item Number 16-E8. And my question is concerning the
remaining items on the consent and summary agenda have been
answered.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. My questions have been
answered, and I have nothing to disclose on the summary or consent
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My questions have been
answered on both the consent and summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also for myself.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coletta, so I can give you some
numbers to those three poles, 16-A12 will be 10-I.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go slow so we can get it in our
agenda packet here. 10-I?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Becomes what?
MR. MUDD: 16-A12 becomes 10-I.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: 16-C 15 becomes Item 10-J. And Item 16-E8
becomes 10-K.
Page 15
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do we have any speakers on
the consent agenda or the summary agenda?
MS. PHILSON: Yes, sir, we have one speaker, Anthony Pires
on Item 8-L, the add on item.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Pires approaches the
podium, I have one other item on the consent agenda with a request.
Both my Petitioner and Staff-- Mr. Pires is representing Petitioner in
16-Al 7. The request would be to move it to the regular agenda
tomorrow so that, for the record, some resolution language on that
item could be corrected. That's 16-Al 7 to be moved to the agenda
for the tomorrow.
MR. MUDD: That would be Item 10-L, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10-L.
MR. WEIGEL: To be heard tomorrow.
MR. MUDD: To be heard tomorrow right after 8-A and 8-H.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman just briefly.
My name is Tony Pires, the law firm of Woodward, Pires &
Lombardo. Today I'm representing the Plum River Homeowners
Association. The reason I'm speaking at this point in the agenda is
that ya'll have added on -- or are adding on Item 8-L involving an ST
petition for the project known as Little Palm Island.
Last week when the public agenda was put on the internet, I
think everyone recognized that this item was not on the agenda. And
there were e-mails back and forth and telephones calls back and forth
on a Friday when we did find out it was on the agenda for today.
And while we may be, you know, able to have some individuals
here to speak on the issue, the fact that it was not on the published
agenda, we think that this is the type of issue that would be more
appropriate to be on an agenda that was advertised, noticed to the
public the full knowledge and the opportunity to be heard in present.
Page 16
July 30-31, 2002
So, therefore, we would ask that Item 8-11 not be added to the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe it
was ever an add on. It was on my original draft. It was sent to me.
And I think it was an administrative slip that it didn't get on the file
agenda. Unless the County Attorney and I went to him and asked
him if it had been properly advertised, he so instructed that it had
been. So I think it's up to the Board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments from the Board
members. Mr. Weigel, any comments, further comments on this?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Commissioner Carter is correct that as far
as legal requirements for notice or advertisement, there is no issue
there. It does not appear in the published agenda, the printed agenda.
It was added to the scrolling agenda on our County TV program
yesterday morning. And calls were made starting Friday and
working through the weekend in redundancy to known interested
parties on this. So that's the information. As Tony indicated. The
choice is yours to make as Mr. Carter indicated.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pires, we thank you very much.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve
the agenda?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval of the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As amended, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 17
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING' Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0.
Page 18
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
July 30, 2002
CONTINUE ITEM 7B TO THE SEPTEMBER 10~ 2002 BCC MEETING: VA-2002-AR-
2691, Don Cahill, of Don Cahill Architect/Builder, representing William and Joann
Reckmeyer, requesting variances in the PUD Zoning District as follows: 1) From
the required Gulf front yard (PUD Ordinance 85-83) setback that aligns with the
State of Florida Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) to allow (A) the
balconies to extend a maximum of 8 feet West of the CCSL; (B) the roof to extend
a maximum of eight feet five inches West of the CCSL; (C) the shear wall to extend
a maximum of ten feet five inches West of the CCSL; and 2) from the required ten
foot access drive right-of-way yard setback (PUD Ordinance 85-83) to allow: a
building setback of eight feet, a variance of 2 feet, on the East side along
Dominica Lane, for property located at 107 Dominica Lane, further described as
Lot 9, Block C, Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1, Plat Book 12, Pages 34-37, as recorded
in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida in Section 6, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 7C TO SEPTEMBER 10t 2002 BCC MEETING: VA-2002-AR-2035,
Kenneth D. Goodman, Esquire, of Goodman and Breen, requesting a 25-foot
variance from the required 75-foot front yard setback to 50 feet for 20 lots in the
Shady Hollow Trust Subdivision, which is located in Section 9, Township 48
South, Range 27 East, further described as Lots 1-20, Shady Hollow Trust, Collier
County, Florida. (Petitioner request.)
ITEM 8A WILL BE HEARD AT THE CONTINUATION OF THE JULY 30, 2002 BOARD
MEETING TO BE HELD JULY 31, 2002 WITH A TIME CERTAIN OF 9:00 A.M. TO Bt=
FOLLOWED BY ITEM 8H: (8A) Adoption of a Resolution amending the Road
Impact Fee Rate Schedule, which is Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of
the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, the same being the Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended. (8H) 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), prohibiting early payment of impact fees to avoid rate
increases and distinguishing payment of impact fees from pre-payment of
estimated future impact fees prerequisite to issuance of a Certificate of Public
Facility Adequacy. (Commissioner Coletta request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 8K TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 BCC MEETING: Public Hearing to
consider transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs of a
Resolution amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County
Growth Management Plan, for the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard Area
(Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact) to establish the "Urban-Rural
Fringe Transition Zone Overlay" for Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, T48S, R26E, Collier
County Florida By: Amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series;
Amending the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element;
Amending the Potable Water Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element;
Amending the Water and Sewer Service Boundary Map of the Public Facilities
Element; Providing for Severability; and, Providing for an Effective Date.
(Petitioner request.)
ADD ITEM 8L THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN
AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS: ST-
99-03, David Farmer, PE, of Keystone Custom Homes, requesting a Special
Treatment Development Permit to allow development within a Special Treatment
(ST) Overlay (ST Parcel 23A), located within the proposed Little Palm Island
subdivision, in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
DELETE ITEM 10A: Proposal to impose a temporary moratorium on projects in
the Whippoorwill Area (bounded on the North by Pine Ridge Road, on the South
by the Wyndemere Subdivision, on the East by 1-75, and on the West by proposed
Livingston Road) until such time as a master plan showing proposed
infrastructure improvements, including at a minimum, potable water distribution,
sanitary sewage collection, stormwater management, and roads, has been
accepted by the Collier County Community Development and Environmental
Services Division. (Staff request.)
ITEM 10E WILL BE HEARD AT 10:30 A.M. Status report to the Board to provide a
review of current roadway landscaping enhancement issues and requests for
additional funding and to request the Board determine a policy for current and
future roadway enhancement initiatives. (Staff request.)
ADD ITEM 13A THIS ITEM WILL BE HEARD AT 9:30 A.M. Discussion by Dwight
Brock, Clerk of Courts relating to issues that concern the North Collier
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
AMEND THE TITLE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM 16(A)4 TO READ AS
FOLLOWS: Proposal to accept a master plan and acknowledge the legal
agreement for infrastructure to serve projects in the Whippoorwill area (bounded
on the north by Pine Ridge Road, on the South by the Wyndemere Subdivision, on
the east by 1-75 right-of-way, and on the west by proposed Livingston Road, which
is presently under construction. (Staff request.)
DELETE ITEM 16(A)9: Approval of the Mortgage and Promissory Note for a
Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000) Dollar Loan to Renaissance Manor, Inc., a Non-
Profit Housing Provider, to assist in the construction of a Special Needs
Affordable Housing Development. (Petitioner's Request)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(B)15 TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 BCC MEETING: Approval of a
First Amendment to Lease Agreement with LB/P Groveway, LLC for its two-month
continued use of county-owned property netting the County $4,000 in additional
rent. (Staff request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(C)14 TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 BCC MEETING: To authorize
monthly billing of irrigation water availability charge as identified in the executed
agreement by and between the Collier County Water-Sewer District and the Old
Collier Golf Club, Inc. (Staff request.)
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
July 30~ 2002
NOTES:
Items 10F, 10G, 10H, contingent upon decision of 10E.
Item 16(C)16: This is an extension in the process because of issues with Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
July 30-31, 2002
Item #3B,C,D,E,F&G
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2002 REGULAR MEETING; MAY 29,
2002 SPECIAL MEETING; JUNE 12, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING;
JUNE 17, 2002 WORKSHOP MEETING; JUNE 18, 2002 SPECIAL
MEETING AND JUNE 19, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would move that we approve
the May 28th minutes, 29th, June 12, June 17 workshop, June 18th
special, June 19 special.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Fiala. Any
discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0. Well, we're
at our first time certain, which is 9:30. Why don't we go to that
before the proclamations. I would -- no. Let's come to some
agreement on this.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'll talk to the clerk. But can you
wait for the proclamations? There's a lot of people and we'll get them
out. And then we'll go right after the proclamations and we'll get the
clerk's items, if you'll be so inclined.
Item #4A
Page 19
July 30-31, 2002
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING FOUR OFFICERS FROM
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FOR HEROIC
EFFORTS IN A HOUSE FIRE INCIDENT- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Dwight Brock. First
proclamation from Tom Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to call up the
Collier County Sheriff's deputies from the Golden Gate Subdistrict.
Gentleman. While they're on their way up, I'll go ahead and read
this. Whereas on the morning of June 17th, 2002, a house fire was
reported in Golden Gate City, and whereas the following law
enforcement officers responded to the emergency call: Corporal Tod
Scanner, Corporal Chris Jordan, Deputy Juan Morales and Deputy
Bryon Tomlinson.
And whereas these brave gentlemen did not think twice when
the onlookers informed them that the occupant was still inside the
house. They entered the burning house, risking their lives in order to
save a life of a homeowner, and whereas the expertise and bravery of
these gentlemen provided proof that they are true heroes among us
right here in our own community.
And whereas these officers went beyond the call of duty in order
to insure the safety of Collier County citizens. But therefore be it
proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners of Collier County Florida
that these members of the Golden Gate Sheriff's Substation be
applauded for their heroic effort and unselfishness in the line of duty.
Done in this order the 30th day of July, 2002, and signed by our
Chairman, Commissioner Jim Coletta. I make a motion we approve
this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
Page 20
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion? All those in favor
indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0. Gentleman.
Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER, 2002, AS
OVARIAN CANCER AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER
COUNTY- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Will Jane Fender and Diana -
- oh, I'll never pronounce that right, Diana C. come forward, thank
you, while I read the proclamation. And then I'll come down and join
you down there and we'll ask you or invite you to give a little talk to
US.
Whereas approximately 23,000 woman will be diagnosed with
ovarian cancer in the U.S. every year, the majority of these, 70
percent, will be detected in the advanced stages. And whereas
ovarian cancer is the most deadly gynecological cancer because it is
usually diagnosed in its late stages when it is more difficult to treat.
And whereas the overall five-year survival rate is less than 50
percent. And these figures have shown only minimal improvement
over the last 15 to 25 years.
Page 21
July 30-31, 2002
And whereas if diagnosed and treated at an early stage, 90 to 95
percent of woman diagnosed with ovarian cancer would be alive
today, five years later. And the incidence of ovarian cancer is
increasing over time with a 30 percent increase in the number of
ovarian cancer cases diagnosed and an 18 percent increase in the
number of ovarian cancer deaths reported in the U.S. in the decade
between 1985 and 1995.
And whereas the risks and symptoms of ovarian cancer are not
well known by the public. And whereas ovarian cancer has been
predicted to reach epidemic proportions as the population ages,
because advancing age is one of the known risk factors for the
development of ovarian cancer.
And whereas the Ovarian Cancer Alliance of Florida Gulf Coast
is dedicated to dispelling myths and misunderstandings about this
disease and is actively engaged in programs to save women's lives by
raising awareness of ovarian cancer and by promoting education
regarding its risks and systems. And whereas it is appropriate for all
Collier County citizens to learn about ovarian cancer and to recognize
the efforts of the Ovarian Cancer Alliance of Florida Gulf Coast as it
promotes Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month in Collier County.
Now therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners in Collier County Florida that September be Ovarian
Cancer Awareness Month in Collier County 2002. Motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commission Henning. All those in favor indicate by
saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 22
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it 5 to 0. And we need a
photo opt, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. They wanted me to come --
they had requested that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess being the female, I mean,
one of you guys could come down and do this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no. You're so much more
appropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it would be more
appropriate.
MS. FENDER: Yeah. Well, good morning and thank you on
behalf of the Ovarian Cancer Alliance of Southwest Florida and
myself, an ovarian cancer survivor. We'd like to thank you for this
proclamation. Awareness is our best defense against this deadly
disease. Most ovarian cancer is found too late.
And so our organization would like to promote knowledge and
information. I do have some informational cards that I would like to
leave on the desk outside. Please take one for yourself if you're a
woman or for someone that you love. It might save someone's life.
Thank you, again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Item #4C
Page 23
July 30-31, 2002
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JOHN T. CONROY, JR. FOR
22 YEARS OF SERVICE AS A MEMBER AND CHAIRMAN OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY'S HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY-
ADOPTED
With the following proclamations to honor John T. Conroy, Jr.
for his years of service in the Housing Finance Authority of Collier
County. Mr. Conroy could not be present, but he asked that Don
Pickworth stand in for him. Mr. Pickworth, would you please come
up here and I'll go ahead and read this.
Whereas the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County,
known as the Authority, was duly created by the Ordinance Number
80-66, adopted by the Board of Collier County Commissioners on
July 29th, 1980, for the purpose of assisting purposes of low,
moderate and middle income and obtaining affordable housing in
Collier County.
And whereas John T. Conroy, Jr. was an original appointee to
the Authority at its creation in 1980. And whereas John T. Conroy,
Jr. has served as chairman of the Authority since 1982. And whereas,
under his leadership, the Authority has provided financing for the
construction of more than 3,400 single and multi-family housing
units in Collier County.
And whereas under his leadership, the Authority has made
grants to community organizations involved in the provision of
housing for persons of low income, such as, but not limited to,
Habitat for Humanity and has initiated programs to provide funds for
down payment assistance for qualified persons. And whereas after
22 years of service to Collier County, John T. Conroy, Jr. has
reassigned from the Authority in order to pursue full-time post
graduate studies at the University of Notre Dame. Amazing.
Page 24
July 30-31, 2002
Now therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County Florida that John T. Conroy, Jr. is
hereby recognized for his 22 years of service to the Collier County
community as a member and the chairman of the Housing Finance
Authority of Collier County and that this Board, on behalf of the
citizens of Collier County, hereby express the gratitude of this
commitment for such services and extend to John T. Conroy, Jr. the
Board and the community's best wishes in all future endeavors. Done
and ordered this 30th day of July, 2002, James Coletta, Chairperson.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have a motion by
Commissioner Carter and a second by Commissioner Fiala. All those
in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's he studying, Don?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Will you say a few words for Mr.
Conroy.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you, Commissioners. On behalf of
Mr. Conroy and also both the current and all past members of the
Housing and Finance Authority, Jack has always been fond of saying
over the years to people who are considering becoming members of
the Authority, "It's a good job if you want to get absolutely no reward
and work in total anonymity," and I think we have.
But in spite of our anonymity, I think by some of the things you
see in the resolution, we've done an awful lot in 22 years. And
Page 25
July 30-31, 2002
hopefully the next 22 will be even more productive. So, again, on
behalf of Mr. Conroy and the members of the Authority, I thank you
for this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Don. Okay.
Item #5A
MONETARY PRESENTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,000
FOR A FLORIDA RECREATION DEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT FOR BAYVIEW PARK-
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, we have one presentation from
Senator Burt Saunders and Representative Dudley Goodlette. And
they got to give the check to the clerk anyway. So we might as well
get the check. And then the clerk comes right up after that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come on up, Dwight. I might lose it.
MR. MUDD: It's big enough. You won't lose it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And is -- where's Dudley?
Representative Goodlette is here. Hopefully he can hear us calling
him. Go ahead. Start talking, and then we'll get him in here.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: About a month or so again,
Representative Goodlette and I were up here making a presentation to
the County Commission and to your Parks and Recreation
Department, an award for their Summer Food Program. Today,
Representative Goodlette and I have the honor of presenting a check
to the -- your Parks and Recreation Department. It's a Florida
Recreation Development Assistance Program Grant, $120,000 for
repairs to certain facilities at Bayfront Park.
Page 26
July 30-31, 2002
The reason that Representative Goodlette and I are so pleased to
be able to make this presentation-- Representative Goodlette, you
can hold the check. We're pleased to make this. These are
competitive grants. And your Parks and Recreation Department has
done a great job over the years in applying for these grants.
Representative Goodlette has worked tirelessly to help get these
grants for Collier County. His Staff, my Staff have worked very
hard. And so we're pleased that your staff has done such a great job
that they are deserving of this. And it's $120,000 grant to pay for the
park.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Thank you.
Dwight?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I like this one. This one is green.
The last one was white and you took it back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's see if Dwight can top this one.
Item #13A
DISCUSSION RELAT1NG TO ISSUES THAT CONCERN THE
NORTH COLLIER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MR. BROCK: I'm sure I can't. Commissioners, I know you've
got a full plate today. And I'm going to make this real short, real
sweet. You may or may not know that my auditing and financing
staff had been looking into a contract at the North Collier Water
Treatment Facility. As usual, we have been working with Ramiro. I
mean, it's always a pleasure to work with Ramiro. Yesterday, for the
first day, I met with Commissioner Mudd and went over the issue --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He's not Commissioner.
MR. BROCK: He's not a Commissioner yet.
Page 27
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We haven't graduated him.
MR. BROCK: Mr. Mudd. And, you know, I hope all of my
encounters and dealings with Mr. Mudd was as pleasurable as the one
yesterday. It was sort of a breath of fresh air that I had somebody, it
seemed, and, you know, I'm going to take this as a sign of what's to
come in the future of someone that really wanted to work with us in
terms of dealing with the issues.
My purpose here today, prior to yesterday, was to tell you that
the Clerk's Office, because of what we have discovered and some
legal issues and concerns that we have, we will no longer be cutting
warrants pursuant to that contract, period, until we resolve the issues.
And let me tell you what one of the issues is. In a request several
months ago, we went to the subcontractor that billed -- we were
billed for services.
And we asked them for records supporting their billing to the
contractor. And we were essentially told, "No, go through the
contractor." So we took his request and we went through the
contractor. And we went through the records of the contractor
recently. And based upon what we could gleam from those records
with much difficulty, we came to the conclusion that we could not
tick and tie what we were billed to the records that came from the
subcontractor.
We are now going to make one additional request of that
subcontractor, at which time, if he refuses again, we're going to
initiate legal proceedings to get the records, if we can't. I think both
the Clerk's Office and the County Manager's Office has some
concerns about what transpired. And even though they may not all
be the same, they are issues that we're working to resolve.
And we each have issues regarding that contract. The same
thing I think is true with the County Attorney's Office. But until such
Page 28
July 30-31, 2002
time as we resolve our concerns, both the County's concern and the
Clerk's concerns, there will not be any further bills paid off of that
contract. And we thought that you should be made aware of that so
that if that issue gets brought to you that you would fully understand
that, you know, this is a call that the Clerk's Office is making.
But now as I understand it from my conversation yesterday, it's
not an independent call. It also reflects some concerns from the
County Manager's agency. And that's my purpose of reporting to you
today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Brock.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad you --
MR. MUDD: Mr. Brock, before you leave, I'm going to have
my Staff get with Mr. Bums of your staff. We need to draft a letter to
the contractor and notify him that we're holding, so we don't get
ourselves in this prompt payment act or statute type issue where we
give him a legal defense. We just need to notify him. And we'll get
the verbiage together and give him that letter. Thank you.
MR. BROCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thanks again.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I
must say that I am absolutely delightfully pleased to hear what I
heard this morning, that is, Government at its best, working hand-in-
hand to get to where we need to be to protect the tax payers. So I
commend both our Staff and Clerk of Courts for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll just add to that. That's a
very good speech. And I just want do say, this is teamwork, and
that's what it's all about. Thank you. Thank you, both.
MR. BROCK: Thank you.
Page 29
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
move on now to the -
Fine.
I think enough said, we'll
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY ALBERT LEE REGARDING THE
RECREATION CENTER ON SCHOOL DRIVE, IMMOKALEE-
STAFF TO RESEARCH THE MATTER AND BRING IT BACK
MR. MUDD: Public petitions, sir. It's 6-A.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public petitions? Mr. Albert Lee, are
you here? Hi, Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee, is one of the community leaders in
Immokalee just to give them a little bit of a background on it and has
been very active in the political scene for many, many years.
MR. LEE: Good morning, Commissioners. And thank you all
for the opportunity to come and request that ya'll make some
changes. I would like to briefly, and I know ya'll are pretty busy, but
sometime in the late 60's or early 70's there was a building that was
purchased by an organization in Immokalee. That building has now
been taken over, according to the last report I heard, by the County.
According to that report, that building was given to the County
by the Collier County School Board. Now, we the community have
used that building since it was put there on County property, to the
best of my knowledge, and my knowledge only extends to the early
60's in Collier County, that the County nor the School Board put one
dime into is that building, absolutely nothing.
Now, what they're proposing to do now is removing the
building, tearing it down. We the community have used that building
and are still using that building. The church now pays the light bill.
The community uses it for meetings. In fact, there's a meeting there
Page 30
July 30-31, 2002
tonight. I'm hoping that you, as Commissioners, can see or do a
certain amount of research, find out how ya'll own the building, put it
back where it really supposed to be.
Hopefully at this time it will be into a name of the organization.
I say that I don't want to take up all of your time here today, but look
into it. See what we can do to come up with something that would
work for the community and everyone else. And I thank you. Now,
if you got any questions, I certainly would like to answer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Lee, I'd like to call Mr. Dunn up.
I believe he is -- or who has the background on this?
MR. MUDD: Ms. Ramsey does, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
to date on where we are on this.
MS. RAMSEY: Good morning.
Maria, would you bring us up
For the record, Marla Ramsey,
Parks and Recreation Department Director. The best of my
knowledge that I've been able to pull together from Staff and from
real property is that the building was actually built in 1941. And it
was moved to County property somewhere in the 1972 area.
A lease with the American Legion Post No. 269 was made in
1982 for a ten-year term. It was renewed for a five-year term in
1992. The lease was set up to be between the American Legion to be
used as a community building to be opened for at least 25 hours per
week. The tenant was to repair all of the items within the building, as
well as electrical, gas, electricity, trash collection, etc. The lessee had
no right to sell or assign the lease in any part.
And to this date, when we were trying to work with the
American Legion Post, we weren't able to find an American Legion
Post. So the church has been assuming the lease on this property.
Before we could renew the lease in January, we went out and looked
at the facility.
Page 31
July 30-31, 2002
And in order to bring the facility up to code, I have an estimate
of about $32,000 to bring the facility up to code for handicap
accessibility, door widening, restroom facilities, structural types of
activities, just to bring it up to code. At that point in time, we talked
with Commissioner Coletta and with Staff and determined that the
building was not worth the additional $32,000 in order to bring it up
to code.
So we have not leased it at this point in time, nor do we have the
money in order to budget it. So at this point in time, there is no lease
on the facility. It's sitting on County property and has been slated to
be removed, although we don't have a way of doing it currently.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ma'am, if I can try to sum this up a
little bit. We got a situation where a building, I believe it's a wooden
structure; correct?
MS. RAMSEY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was built back in the 40's. And it's
remarkable that it's survived as long as it has. And what we're talking
about is just bringing it up to code standards. It doesn't mean that the
structure, the building will endure for the years to come unless we
spend even more than 32,000. I've been told that the actual cost to
really bring this building back would exceed the cost of the building,
a new building.
MS. RAMSEY: It's somewhere over the $50,000 mark just, you
know, to bring it up to -- clean it up and do some --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there a possibility that we might
be able to ride this out for as long as possible while we look into the
possibility of picking up some portables from the school system and
maybe finding funds or have the school system move the portables
for us to the site where we might be able to have them modified in
Page 32
July 30-31, 2002
such a way that they'll work there, some surplus portables that have
been offered to me for use in Copeland.
But I believe that I found another use for them. And I would
like to be able to explore that. In the meanwhile, I'd like to see if we
can keep the facility open for the use of the church and -- MR. LEE: The church and the community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the community, you know,
provided that there isn't anything as far as safety goes. I mean, if the
floors are in danger of giving way or if the access to the building
because the steps may be deteriorated might leave us in a liable
position.
Of course, that would change the situation dramatically. But if
we could possibly maintain the building with minimal amount of
expense until that point in time that we can explore the possibilities
of portables being donated by the school system. And I think we can
do that.
MR. LEE: I'd like to ask a question, if that's possible?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course it is. That's why you're
here, Mr. Lee.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Why don't we, Mr. Chairman,
give Staff direction to work this out and bring it back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Mr. Lee does have the floor.
And would like the one question from him and then we can go for
that.
MR. LEE: What I would like to know because the American
Legion did come into a written contract. The first contract was 99
years for the use of that property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm getting a shaking of the head.
MR. LEE: Well, how did the American Legion-- my question
is, now the County owns the building. And you will find absolutely
Page 33
July 30-31, 2002
nothing to show how the County owned that building, unless it took
it, just really just took possession of it or the School Board just took
possession of it. It was a liquor store. It was a bar. We purchased
the building. We requested from the County to put the building on
that piece of property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-hum.
MR. LEE: That piece of property still being used by the
community, the recreation, basketball, in part parks and recreation.
At this point, it's in their way, and they're not using it. They've never
used it. And that's our problem. It's why it becomes such a hazard
now, and it never have been before.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's code. It's code, Mr. Lee.
We have to follow code. The County's just as responsible for code as
every individual out there and every business. And if we can't live up
to our own codes, then how can we expect the rest of the County to
follow suit?
But I think the object isn't so much the building, it's a place to be
able to continue what's been going on, whether it's the building that
exists now or another structure. Would that really matter?
MR. LEE: It wouldn't matter if the County came in, that they
have never done, and says and this part of community we going to
put a building that can be used for multi purposes, such as recreation,
such as meetings, such as anything. This building already exists.
Now, what caused it to be so hazardous now and everything
else, I don't know. We're still using the building. There's still water
in the building. There's electricity. It has not been condemned. So
that's where we're having our problem as a community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. But it's not up to code. And
in a matter of time, we're going to have to act on it one way or the
other. So let's be proactive and direct Staff to go back and look into
Page 34
July 30-31, 2002
the possibility of getting school portables that can be arranged in such
a way, put together that would afford to give the same amount of
space or more that presently exists in there and something that would
be up to code. Anything that you want to add to that, Marla?
MS. RAMSEY: I'll have to come back for a budget request. In
order to do that, it takes about $20,000 to put a portable in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me see what I can work out with
the school system. As far as the moving and the setting up of the
portable, I think we might have some allies that you don't know about
yet.
MR. MUDD: In the meantime, Commissioner, is -- can they
still meet in there? Marla, what are we going to do in the meantime
for the community? I don't want to leave that open.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure that you have total
support of the Board.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, to direct Staff to look into it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I are you recognizing me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't think that we
should treat one organization different than any other organization as
far as Parks and Recs facilities, if this is what this facility is under. I
think one option would be for Ms. Ramsey to take a look at what is
available and our existing other facilities in Immokalee to see if there
is any other place where this organization can meet. And you want to
share some comments on that?
MS. RAMSEY: We have offered the Community Center in
Immokalee to the church group on Sunday mornings. But I believe
that the community wanted to stay in the neighborhood.
Page 35
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's the reason I'd like to
direct Staff. But in the meanwhile, I'd like to recognize
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question. This building,
obviously, has no value to the County. Why can't we transfer
ownership of the building to the community and then negotiate a land
lease at a nominal fee. And if they're satisfied with the condition of
the building, why do we have to be concerned about it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Code. They'd be responsible for
code rather than the County. We're asking for some time to be able to
work this out. But the code is not going to go away.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we have a lot of buildings in
the County that don't meet code because they were constructed prior
to the time when the current codes were placed in existence. And I'm
sure this one met code whenever it was built.
So my question really I think is a legal liability question. It is
generally the policy that whenever a piece of property changes hands
and ownership that it has to be brought up to code. But I'm
wondering if that's an ironclad requirement legally.
MR. LEE: Isn't it a fact that if you took everything in Collier
County now, prior to the 70's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They don't meet code.
MR. LEE: -- it would not be in -- if you're out of compliance
right now. So I can't see how we can sit with this one building and
say code, unless we're going to look at all of the buildings, you know.
I'm pretty sure that the building that Parks and Recreation is using in
Immokalee right now, which was the first Collier Health Clinic, I can
find some out of code there in comparison to what you got here.
You're not going to tear that one down.
Page 36
July 30-31, 2002
But the only thing we're asking for is to leave it alone, give it to
the community, deed it over. We don't want your property. Find
some other way to let us be in peace as far as having our meetings
there, having church there, whatever we wish to have there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Chairman, I would suggest to the
Board that we give it to Staff to review all the legal and other
application uses, and in the interim period allow them to continue to
use the building while that's being reviewed by Staff, because I don't
think we'll resolve that issue this morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I thank ya'll very much and
thank you all for the time. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just make a fast comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe your church group, if this
all goes, you know, nicely and I like the idea of allowing you to keep
the building and maybe lease that land. Maybe you could have a
project for the church group to bring it up to code themselves, get
everybody to bring out their hammers and saws. And I'm sure you've
got a lot of talented people there. And it could be a church effort
together to -- you've got the building to bring it up to code.
MR. LEE: Ma'am, we would be more than happy to do
whatever it takes to stay in that building and be left completely alone,
if possible. We're not asking for no funds. If it's something that
needs to be done, deed it to those, and just like we're suggesting, give
the building to the community.
Now, you just can't give it -- put it in someone's name, because
if it's not, it's going to be torn up. It has been like that before. It's no
Page 3 7
July 30-31, 2002
windows broken now. Air condition's in it. It's usable. They're
using it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, your church is a legal entity.
Then the church could probably be the one to accept the title for the
building.
MR. LEE:
possibly could.
Yes, sir. There's other community organizations that
But it was understood that when the church went in
there, the Mangos (phonetic) got it. We allowed the American
Legions to take over basically because somebody have to be in
charge. The American Legions then allowed the church to come in.
They fixed everything, painted it, stuccoed it, everything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. What we're going to do, Mr.
Lee, is I agree with Mr. Carter about having Staff bring it back. Is
there another Commission that does?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Um-hum.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have four
Commissioners at least that would like to see it brought back for
consideration after we do the research. And we'll notify you of where
we are on it before the meeting so that you'll be able to interact with
the agenda item when it comes back to us. I appreciate it very much
you taking the time to come out here today, Mr. Lee.
MR. LEE: And we thank you all. Thank you very much.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION BY GARRETT F.X. BEYRENT REGARDING
MORATORIUM IMPACT ON PROPOSED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - DISCUSSED
Page 38
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next public petition is a
request from Garrett Byrant.
MR. BRYANT: For the record my name's Garrett Francis
Xavior Byrant, Byrant. See I'm real estate. By rent. That's what my
mother used to say. You're going to be in real estate some day. Boy,
was she wrong. In any case, I'm here specifically to speak about
exempting affordable housing projects from the current pending a
moratorium. And I have a picture here. Does this thing work? Okay.
Okay.
Those are people that lived in affordable housing projects.
That's my great grandfather in the middle there. He's a coal miner in
Pennsylvania. So I'm kind ofjust happy that the coal miners got out
this week. I also have another interesting picture. Let's see. That's
pretty good right there. No you -- you have to put the price in. Okay.
That's an affordable housing project I built back in 1983 that
was the Winter Park PUD. And the reason I was able to build it --
my family built it. We built it together. I putted it as a 13.4 units to
the acre. It's 1340 square foot apartment and the price is 49,900 in it.
Even then, it was ridiculously low price. But the trick was, I had
my own utility. I had my own water/sewer. There was virtually no
impact fees at the time, because what happened was this was the first
PUD that was approved, if I only turned over my utility lines to the
County.
So I naturally, I sued the County. It was a lengthy battle. And
we out a deal were you guys gave me 4,000 utility credits in
exchange for my utility, which was relatively -- I was serving about
3,000 units at the time, not particularly mine, Lakewood, East Naples
generally. But what made this thing possible was the fact that there
weren't any impact fees.
Page 39
July 30-31, 2002
It certainly not $8,000 worth of impact fees and bought the land
for a $1,000 an acre. That was a pretty good deal. And you guys
gave me 13.4 units to the acre. That was really good. And I probably
made about probably $7,000 per unit profit on that. So it was a lot of
money back in those days. That was October -- I think it was
December 27th, 1984, that was.
But particularly what I'd like to speak about is the elements that
we're all facing right now on affordable housing. And I'm always
looking for Donna Fiala's support, because I'm calling her the queen
of affordable housing which was not a slam. I told you. Okay. And
I had -- I had a couple of rude awakings.
I went and got copies of all the workshop tapes on affordable
housing. And I sat there and watched everyone of them. And the
biggest shock that came to me was that a woman got up to speak
from Lee County about a study that had been performed by Lee
County, relative to Collier County. And the study showed that
Collier County is losing $300 million a year in revenue because it
doesn't have any affordable housing to speak of.
And all these people that are jamming the interstate every
morning are coming down from Lee County. And but they're
spending all their money that earn in Collier County in Lee County.
So that's kind of a tremendous loss to this County just because we
lack affordable housing. And my proposal, and specifically I was
requesting an amendment. I'll read it verbatim. There I go again,
looking for papers again. Okay.
My request is actually I would like the Land Development Code
2.6.9 and 2.6.9.4 shall be amended to allow affordable housing for
the use of work force housing and LDC Sections 2.2.3.7.1.2 and
2.3.3.7.4 and 2.6.9.4 of this Code shall not apply. Essentially what
I'm requesting is that all of the elements pertaining to affordable
Page 40
July 30-31, 2002
housing relative to the moratorium be eliminated and that all
affordable housing projects, and there won't too many of them in the
future, because the numbers just don't work anymore.
We're very fortunate to have this window of opportunity. We
have low interest rates. Unfortunately, we also have the highest
impact fees of any County in Florida right now. I understand we're
followed up by Lee County. They're running a close second. But by
tomorrow, we're probably going have 150 percent increase in the
road impact fee credits which are road impact fee charges, which are
going to like probably push a lot of potential projects, if not totally
out, just on hold for waiting to see whether something happens.
And I understand there is some ground movement right now
going on where people are attempting to have affordable housing
projects exempted from impact fee altogether, any kind of impact
fees, which is -- that's another issue relative to bonding. And that's a
tough way to go. That will be years in the courts. But, essentially,
that's what I'm requesting.
I talked briefly to Marjorie Student about the numbers, these
2.3., you know, there's too many numbers here. I think she can
probably synthesize it if I can get any support from the Board as far
as requesting the exemption of affordable housing from the a
moratorium. That was another because the numbers don't work.
I mean, this is all just numbers. Affordable housing is just
numbers. It's just, if the numbers work, then you're going to get it.
But until those numbers work, you're going to have people spending
$300 million every year that work here and get paid with our money.
They're going to be spending it in Lee County, because that's
where they work. So I'd appreciate any support I can get from
anybody up there, even Mr. Coyle. Even Mr. Coyle to support me.
Page 41
July 30-31, 2002
That wasn't -- I wasn't being facetious with that either. And I
appreciate you letting me talk to you today. Thank you were much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Commission
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd just like to point out to the
Board members when the -- there was an affordable housing project
that came to the Board in East Naples, particularly Henderson Creek
PUD. I know that some of Commissioners had a problem with
having affordable housing in an area that has area traffic congestion.
Land Development Code did provide for it, actually removing one
density unit for it.
Therefore, I send a memo to Community Development Director
Joe Schmitt who removed this language in the Land Development
Code that allows affordable housing density bonuses in this area so
that we can be more responsible for infrastructure and not exempting
anybody from it. I was copied by two Commissioners that were in
agreement with that.
So what I'm saying is it's just the opposite direction that myself.
And I cannot support what is being requested. And I'm not sure how
the other two Commissioners that agreed to that copied through that
memo, how they feel at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just a little discussion, first
with Tom. What did that memo say? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Henning? Let's
see.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It said, "Although the Land
Development Code provides affordable housing density bonuses, I
believe it is irresponsible of us not to consider the serious impacts on
Page 42
July 30-31, 2002
the infrastructure in the Land Development Code 2.7.7.2.1. It is my
opinion that this land that allows affordable housing density bonuses
in areas of traffic congestion should be removed. The language
allows for a total of 12 units per gross area, minus one for the density
of traffic congestion."
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much. I
just wanted to comment just a little bit about this particular PUD.
And I don't know too much about it myself. And I don't know how
long this a moratorium will be on the road. I'm adamantly opposed to
impacting roads. I fought bitterly for the -- to deny Henderson Creek.
I was the only one that did that, because I felt it was a terrible
detriment to our road system in that area.
Again, as much as I think Mr. Byrant is going to build a great
project, and let me tell you, Winter Park was a good project. And we
need work force housing. I still have to stand by the fact that we
have a problem with our roads. Now, maybe there's something that
we can do about helping this gentleman along, to move along the
process and until such time as the road is in place so then he can just
begin to build.
And maybe we can work with FDOT to get that Davis
Boulevard widened, because we do need the work force housing. I
would like to see us travel in that direction to see at least see what we
can do about encouraging FDOT to move that way up on the list.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REGARDING ACCESS ISSUES ON
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD- TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON
SEPTEMBER 10, 2002, AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
Page 43
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Well, let's go on to the
next public petition, which is by George Richard. Mr. Rich
Yovanovich for Mr. Richard.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of Mr.
Richard. I recognize that no action will be taken today. And I've had
an opportunity to brief most of the Commissioners on Mr. Richard's
request to have an agenda item placed on the agenda to discuss access
issues related to his property on Golden Gate Boulevard which have
resulted from the four-laning of Golden Gate Boulevard.
And I'll step over to the map real briefly, take you through the
issues. And hopefully the Commissioners will place this on the
September 10th agenda to further discuss this item with
Transportation Staff. Mr. Richard's property is located at the
northeast quadrant of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard.
Mr. Richard cooperated with the County to convey the needed right-
of-way for the expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard before the final
engineering design was done.
Mr. Richard was assured that access to his property where
Golden Gate Boulevard would not be affected by the construction of
Golden Gate Boulevard. What has happened is that there is now a
stacking lane for traffic turing south on Wilson Boulevard that
completely blocks access to the property for the traveling public
turning -- going east on Golden Gate Boulevard. That forces all of
the turning movements to be on Wilson, if you're traveling east. And
if you want to go back east, you got to go back out on Wilson.
As you can see from this graphic, the access point on Mr.
Richard's property is very -- on Wilson is very close to the
intersection. It makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to get the
Page 44
July 30-31, 2002
traffic in and out of the property for people who are coming to the
store.
It is greatly impacting the mom and pop shops that are there.
You have a pizza place and you have a hair salon there. And they're
losing a lot of business. What we're proposing is a two-step solution.
There's a temporary solution and then a longer term solution. The
temporary solution would be to reconfigure this mm lane to shorten
the stacking for traveling public south.
Wilson Boulevard, there are very few homes currently on
Wilson Boulevard south of the property. A 300 foot stacking lane I
don't believe is necessary in the short term. In the long term it may
be, which would provide the opportunity to create a median opening
here and a stacking lane from Mr. Richard's property to allow both
access from the east from Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard and
would also give people traveling east an opportunity to get out, both
off of the Golden Gate Boulevard exit entrance and the Wilson
entrance. That's the temporary solution.
The long term solution would be for Mr. Richard to come
through the process, incorporate the rear portion of his property into
the existing zoning, incorporate the neighbor's property to the east
into the existing zoning. By doing that, we would be able to move the
entrance off Wilson further north creating a greater distance for
people to mm left on Wilson, get another site and then come back out
and stack.
And it would also give an opportunity to move the access point
on Golden Gate Boulevard further east, which would greater enhance
the access to the site. Just as a bit of history, when Mr. Richard
originally zoned the property, he brought the five acres in. He
wanted to place his structures further to the north.
Page 45
July 30-31, 2002
The County required that he place his structures further to the
south, which has resulted in the issue we're facing today. Having the
access point close to the intersection. What we're requesting is that
the Board place this on a future agenda, hopefully September 10th, I
believe, is the next meeting, to where we can talk about both the
temporary solution and how we implement the long term solution to
providing access to those existing establishments. And if you have
any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Other than that,
that's my presentation on the issues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait, I come first. Commissioner
Fiala and then Commissioner Henning and then we'll come to you,
Commissioner Coyle. Push your button.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. First of all, just as a
general observer, as I go past G's store, G's General, I notice it's the
only store around for miles and miles and miles. And if I were living
out there where my daughter lives on 22nd Street Southeast and I had
to go get a loaf of bread and I had to travel about 50 feet further to
make U-ey rather than travel ten miles to the store, I'd make the U-ey.
I think that if our Traffic Department feels that this is the best
route, I would just stick with it. Me personally, that's how I feel.
And he's not going to lose any business there because he's the only
guy in town, in my opinion.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I will tell you that there's two
different issues. The convenient store is a different situation than
someone who's selling pizza. And it's those establishments that are
hurting the greatest. You're right on the convenient store, people will
find a way to get those staples that they need. It's the other two
establishments that are hurting the most.
Page 46
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I still think I wouldn't travel
another ten miles to go to a beauty shop or a pizza shop either.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think there are some
alternatives, Mr. Yovanovich. I'm not sure. Of course, we'll have to
get some --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- opinion from Staff on the
short term solution. But I'm in favor of bringing it back September
10th for a full decision of this item.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm also in favor of considering it.
I think it's only during that consideration that we're going to be able
to get into the kind of details necessary to resolve the issue. But
conditional upon my support would be a request that you look into
the possibility of getting an access road entering on the undeveloped
property to the east of your client's property. And that way we could
do a lot about eliminating some of those other access points because
it creates a safety problem as well as an access for a business.
And since that other property is being proposed for future
development, I think the County would be wise to try to explore a
frontage road that would provide access to all of those commercial
developments that are likely to be place in that area. So I would
support it if you would go about looking into that before it comes
back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before I make a comment, I'd
like to call Mr. Pfeiter upfront here for his comments. Mr. Pfeiter, I
guess the question is, would an access road be something that we
Page 47
July 30-31, 2002
could work into the plans in such a way that would alleviate the
situation for G's General?
MR. PFEITER: Yes. For the record Norman Pfeiter,
Transportation administrator. Mr. Chairman, yes, we would be happy
to look at the long term solution. I will tell you the near term
condition is such that once we went to a multi lane facility and placed
a median in, you've got a turn lane in that area and we can't maintain
access that they're requesting.
However, we do agree that we need to work with them and
evaluate what long term options exist. And if that's the direction of
the Board, we'll be happy to work with him on those issues and bring
it back to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to put my name in for
number three vote. One of the things that I'd like to see is in the
interim, if we could post a sign there to be able to access G's,
something that says, "Turn left on Wilson," so that we have
something to try to alleviate the situation to some point in time that
we're able to take more positive.
MR. PFEITER: The nature of that would be problematic of one
business item. But let's look at what our options are. I understand
your desire. I don't want to read you the conclusion that that's going
to happen until we look at it, but be happy to look to look at the issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, I guess then we're
looking at bringing it back. Can we bring that back as an issue too on
September the 9th, I believe it would be?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10th. Thank you.
MR. PFEITER: At your direction, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So it will be on agenda?
Page 48
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, we'll have it on the agenda.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I tell you what we're going to do, at
this point in time before we go to our time certain, we're going to
allow for our Recorder here to be able to take a short break. So don't
go too far.
Thereupon, (A recess was held.)
Item #10E
STATUS REPORT PROVIDING A REVIEW OF CURRENT
ROADWAY LANDSCAPING ENHANCEMENT ISSUES -
WORKSHOP TO BE HELD IN SEPTEMBER WITH A DATE TO
BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO THE SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
MEETING- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seats, please. Next item is
a time cert-- we're at 10-E?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. KANT: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, Ed.
MR. KANT: My name Edward Kant, Transportations
Operations Director. In your agenda package, I've put together a
status report to discuss beautification and other enhancements. And I
just want to very quickly summarize what's in that rather lengthy
executive summary. Collier County, over the last decade, has
committed well over ten and a half million dollars toward the
beautification of medians and road edges through landscaping and
other enhancements.
Page 49
July 30-31, 2002
In addition, we currently spend well over two and a quarter
million dollars annually for maintaining these improvements. Back
in December 1 lth, right after the sales tax initiative was not -- was
defeated, the Board, in its meeting, directed staff to assure that all gas
tax and impact fee revenues would be focused on capacity and safety
improvements rather than other types of enhancements to the system.
Staff has been following that direction religiously since that
time. So what's happened since that time with respect to these
enhancement requests, we've received at least seven additional
requests for different types of enhancements.
We had Tall Pines Subdivision, from the Vineyards
Development Company, from the Pelican Bay Community along
U.S. 41 north, from the Livingston Road MSTU, from the Golden
Gate/I-75 Adhoc Beautification Committee, from a citizen requesting
some enhancements along Pine Ridge Road and from the Devenchar
Homeowners Association.
These requests have kind of been varied. Some of them have
been as simple as trying to mask a pedestrian guardrail and some of
them have been as grandiose as an entire landscaping scheme along
the roadway. And if we look at just these seven requests, we'll find
that the impact ranges from anywhere from 35,000 to over 600,000
for capital, and anywhere from 15,000 to 300,000 a year annual
maintenance.
In total, the sum of these requests for capital costs is estimated at
over $2,000,000, just for these seven requests. And the annual
maintenance cost, if all were implemented, would be close to a
million dollar, $870,000. So that's why, in accordance with your
prior direction, we feel that we need a policy direction from the
Board because, again, all of these requests, while they're similar, are
very, very different in their specifics.
Page 50
July 30-31, 2002
And it would be very comforting to Staff to have an idea of how
the Board wanted to handle these on a gross basis. Now, you've
heard several of these. As a matter of fact, they're companion items
to this item, depending on what direction this item takes for three
more of these items to come back to you yet today. Staff has done
some investigation. We believe you have several courses of action.
And I'd like to just present to you some alternatives for
discussion this morning and to hopefully help coalesce the direction
that you would choose to give us. Obviously, one item that you
could consider would be to defer any specific action, pending a future
workshop at a date to be determined, perhaps sometime between now
and September.
And we could then thrash out all of these items and also get a
better handle on how you would want to handle future projects.
Obviously you also have the option to fund any or all of these
requests. I'm not suggesting specific fund, but obviously that option
does exist. Another option you have would be to permit these
landscaping enhancements within the to public right of way subject to
a permit with no funding participation on the part of the County.
We have a number of these types of requests that are kind of out
there that I don't believe have been presented to the Board yet, but
we've tentative inquiries from some of the development entities that
simply want to dress up the front of their development in the public
right of way. And we're kind of trying not to encourage or discourage
that 'til we see what direction the Board wants to take.
We can try to work with the Board and the public in establishing
some guidelines for the implementation of public/private
partnerships. But, again, that would also imply that the Board would
agree to fund some part of both the capital and maintenance costs.
There's a proposal that all of the existing MSTU's be collapsed into a
Page 51
July 30-31, 2002
county-wide MSTU. And conversely, the proposal to establish a
County-wide MSTU but to accept from that MSTU the existing seven
localized MSTU's.
And finally, of course, there's any other policy that the Board
might choose to direct towards us. So having that and kind of
walking very quickly through agenda item, if you have any questions
or if there's any specific information I can offer, I'll try to do that for
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Fiala and then
Commission Carter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I think your first
suggestion was an excellent one, the workshop. I think that we all
have a lot to learn about the landscaping. But I personally would like
to hear what my constituents would have to say along this line. It's
enhanced U.S. 41 east immensely with all the blithe that exists on
that particular corridor. It's softened that to a great degree.
I just had a call this morning regarding that and other people
along Rattle Snake Hammock and 951 who have requested
landscaping. But I'd like to know how they would like to pay for it.
So I'll make it my business before we have this workshop to pole my
people if the workshop is agreeable to the other Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Like Commission Fiala, I
support the workshop idea because beautification of these medians on
collectors and arterials benefits everyone in the County. This is not a
single-neighborhood issue. And there's all types of arrangements that
are being made. There's all kinds of possibilities. And I would
suggest that we do this early in September because by then, people
will be back in the community again.
Page 52
July 30-31, 2002
We have a lot of folks still absent out of the community during
the month of August, which I have some concerns about. And if we
could deal with that. And by the second meeting in September, come
up with a policy and in a direction to deal with this in a County wide
basis, my judgement would be the appropriate direction to go to get
the multiple inputs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would support the workshop
alternative. However, I'm still troubled by the fact that I don't have or
I'm not aware of a policy concerning standardizing the kinds of plants
to be used in those medians in order to minimize the cost of
maintenance and irrigation.
I think that when we're developing this particular policy, we
must have that policy available so that we can evaluate the potential
cost of ongoing maintenance, because maintenance is quite a large
element in this cost factor. So I'd really like to see those things. And
I would be happy to go to a workshop on these things.
MR. KANT: Commissioner Coyle, we do have a set of
standards. And I apologize if they were not transmitted to you. We'll
see if you can get those later today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I appreciate that.
MR. KANT: And they do embody xeriscaping technics --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. KANT: -- and those types of things.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Have we done that in the
landscaping we've done?
MR. KANT: Yes. We've been-- this has been something
ongoing since about 1995. We started out with a relatively simple
policy. And then one of the former County Managers put together an
Adhoc Committee, everybody from the Soil Conservation Service to
Page 53
July 30-31, 2002
our own Staff. And we came up with another set of guidelines, a
little more detailed, right down to plant lists, which ones are
acceptable and which ones aren't.
you later today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
And that's what I will provide to
Okay. Good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And if I may go next. A
couple of comments I'd like to make. I too support the idea of a
workshop to be able to deal with this as an item totally by itself.
Some of my concerns is that we have made a commitment to spend
the money first most on the roads to be able to get them done and to
come back later on landscaping. And we were going to try to free up
every dollar we could from the budget.
The second item that gives me a little bit of concern is the idea
that everyone in Collier County can benefit from the landscaping.
And that does have some truth to it. But it diminishes as you go
further out. If you'll refer to your map on page 11, you'll see where it
shows an area that is -- what they call the urban area of Collier
County where at one point it was one of the suggestions that we have
a special tasking district. And my home's included in that area, by
the way and I think it's fair in itself.
My concern is if you look at that map, it's extremely misleading
in the fact that District Five continues way off the page and it doesn't
show that. You have communities so far removed from the
downtown -- or the urban area of Collier County that they may as
well be a County all by themselves. And their amount of-- that
they're going to receive from this as far as the beautification that
takes place, what they're going to receive is quite a bit diminished
from what the people that actually live in that area are going to
receive.
Page 54
July 30-31, 2002
And when the time does come, I hope that we give it
consideration of the fact that such far removed communities as
Immokalee where you have some people that haven't been down here
to what we call Naples for many, many years that are going to be
paying on their tax roles for these improvements to be made. I see
you shaking your head no. In the next case, I'm very happy to see
that motion take place. Go ahead.
MR. KANT: Commissioner, just for clarification, the intent of
the boundary line was to encompass what we term the urban service
area, which is a line approximately one mile east of 951 and then
commencing west. It was not intended to include the Immokalee
urban area or any of the outlining major communities or even
scattered lots. That was to look at the urbanized area of Collier
County on the western end only, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, for beautification
purposes --
MR. KANT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- we're looking to contain it within
the urban area?
MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No argument there. But now the
taxing district is the part that has my concerns is how we're going to
tax fairly people on the outside the urban area, especially those that
are extremely outside the urban area for improvements that are made
totally to the urban area on what we want to call the aesthetics rather
than the necessities.
MR. KANT: When that proposal was advanced, it was intended
to only those properties inside that boundary would be subject to that
tax. And the way we normally have set up all of the MSTU's is on
the a evaluation basis. So if you have a, shall we say an upscale,
Page 55
July 30-31, 2002
rather grandiose property that has a high value compared to someone
who lives a mile or two away who has a relatively modest property,
you obviously would pay more because you'd be valued more.
And the implication is you would get the higher benefit from the
enhancements, from the ambiance and everything else that the
landscaping is contributing to Collier County. And I know that if you
talk with assessor, he will tell you that that has been a contributing
factor to the continuing rise in property values in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, you
haven't had a chance to speak yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. And it sounds like
we're going to go to a workshop. That's what I'm hearing from my
colleagues. And I concur with that and just ditto what Commissioner
Carter, after August would be appropriate -- MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for Staff to make that
determination when the workshop could be available. And I will
make a motion for that. And I hope that all these concerns that
everybody has about boundaries and other issues can be worked out
in the workshop.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion from
Commissioner Henning and a second from Commissioner Carter.
But I still have two lights lit up here. And I believe Commissioner
Fiala you are next and then Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I'll just make a fast
comment then. Thank you. Our ambience is known around the
country as an example to other communities and that's because of this
median landscaping. But one of the things that FDOT has studied
and proven to the State of Florida is the safety concerns seem to be
Page 56
July 30-31, 2002
diminished because traffic speed on a roadway that has median
landscaping, for some reason, seems to slow down, what was it, five
mile an hour or something like that, just because of the median
landscaping. So there is another little aspect of this that is for the
safety of our community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's on the workshop, also.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will not make any further
comments to the workshop. And I will respond to your comments,
Commissioner, at that workshop. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
Any other discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying --
MS. PHILSON: Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry. I have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
MS. PHILSON: Mr. A1 Moore.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you'd set the timer, please.
MR. MOORE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is A1
Moore, and I am the chairman of the Golden Gate/I-75 Exchange
Adhoc Advisory Committee. And want to modify my comments
because your direction is -- appears to be going toward a workshop.
And I think that those will be -- we can work with that at that point.
What I'd like to say at this point is that -- at this point though is that
we're dealing with different entities.
One is that we're dealing with the County and we're also dealing
with the State and FDOT. And we have some things that are
mandated by the FDOT which has a great impact on us, i.e., the
bridge at the interchange. The FDOT is mandating that you have to
have a fence there if you have a sidewalk going across that bridge.
And one of our proposals and the reason why we're here is that we'd
like to enhance that bridge with that fence, because if we don't, then
Page 57
July 30-31, 2002
we'll have an industrial type appearance versus what we're trying to
do as far as have a residential impact. But those are some of the
things that we can address in the workshop.
So just based on that, I'd like to reserve that until we get to the
workshop. But just one other thing to go along with Mr. Kant, we
have already addressed a lot of the things that you brought up as far
as looking at what we can do now and do later, plant size, so forth
and so on, type of plants, irrigation, all those things that have been
addressed.
And his Staff has given a lot of input in the committees in doing
that already if they have done the same thing with the other
committees. And I think we're way along in that process of getting
where we want to get. Thank you very much for your opportunity to
talk this morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. Was there
any other speakers, Ms. Philson? MS. PHILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All in favor of the motion for
a workshop? Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it 5 to 0.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Item #10F, #10G and #10H
Page 58
July 30-31, 2002
REQUEST FROM THE LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE II
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR
SUPPORT FOR THE BEAUTIFICATION OF LIVINGSTON
ROAD, PHASE II; STATUS REPORT OF AN INTERCHANGE
ENHANCEMENT RECOMMENDATION REQUESTED BY THE
GOLDEN GATE/I-75 ADHOC BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE;
AND ADDENDUM TO THE LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION
AND MAINTENANCE HIGHWAY AGREEMENT FOR THE
FDOT TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EXISTING
US41 NORTH, PHASE I AGREEMENT TO VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD - ALL ITEMS CONTINUED TO AFTER THE
SEPTEMBER, 2002 WORKSHOP
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could interject. I'll try to get
that workshop set before the second meeting in September. And this
way we can get that in there. And one of the reasons I'm talking
about that is because you have some companion items to E that have
to do with landscaping, and that's 10-F, G and H.
And if it's the Board's desire in case we have people that want to
speak to those items out here, if you want to continue those items or
would you-- the Board's desire to make decisions on those items
prior to the workshop?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to continue it myself.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would support continuance of all
those items.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree. Mr. Chairman. I have
one issue I'm working on with Norman Pfeiter in regards to the one
agenda item that we have to work out with FDOT so that they don't
delay the capital construction on the one in front of Pelican Bay of
Page 59
July 30-31, 2002
which those residence have already paid for. And they have to -- and
FDOT has said, "We won't approve it until we know whose going to
do the maintenance."
And I'm working with Norman to see if we can't get FDOT just
to waive that. Of course, it's going to be maintained. Who is going
to do yet is the unknown. But I hate to see that construction delayed
so we can get it done before season.
MS. PHILSON: And, Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers on any
of those items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. And what were those items
that we're going to --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll go over them one more time.
From what I'm getting right now, the Board would like to continue
10-F, which is an item that was continued from June 25th and that is
to consider a request from the Livingston Road Phase II
Beautification MSTU Advisory Conunittee for support for the
beautification of Livingston Road, Phase II.
The other item is 10-G. And this item was continued from June
25th, the BCC meeting. It's a status report for the Board's review of
an interchange enhancement recommendation requested by the
Golden Gate/I-75 Adhoc Beautification Committee. And I think you
just heard that gentleman state that they would like to have their
decision continued until after the workshop. And the last item that
has to do with landscaping is 10-H.
And this was also continued from the June 25th meeting. It's
approve an addendum to the landscaping installation and
maintenance highway agreement for the Florida Department of
Transportation within the unincorporated area of Collier County
Florida authorizing the Chairman to expand the boundaries of the
existing U.S. 41 North Phase I Agreement to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Page 60
July 30-31, 2002
And I think that's what Commissioner Carter was talking about in his
comments for a continuation of that particular item. And, David, do I
need a motion to have that those items continued, sir? MR. WEIGEL: You do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would move that we continue
those items until after the workshop that will be held in September.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter to continue it and a second from Commissioner
Fiala. Any other discussion? Commissioner Coyle, do you have any
last comments? I see you have a light on here for you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's because you didn't turn it
off from the last time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. In that case, we won't take
any comments form you. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0. Thank you
very much. Okay. So we're now back to the regular agenda, which is
Item 7-A. Am I correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2002-340 REGARDING VA-2001-AR-1747,
PAMELA STEWART, ESQ., REPRESENTING MARK VON
SPITZOCK, REQUESTING A 5-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
Page 61
July 30-31, 2002
REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 10 FEET TO 5 FEET
FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1249 POMPEI LANE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this is going to require that all
those that wish to participate to stand up and be sworn in by our
Receptionist.
Thereupon, KAY DACELUM and PAMELA STEWART, the
Witnesses herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I stand corrected, Recorder. Before
you begin, I need to find out if there's any disclosures on the part of
the Commission about this. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Myself, none. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please continue.
MS. DACELUM: Yes. Good morning. My name is Kay
Dacelum. I am a principle planner with the current planning services
portion of Community Development. And I am here to represent the
staff's position on this particular variance petition for Mark Ombisat.
He is requesting a five-foot variance from the required rear yard
setback of ten feet to five feet for a pool enclosure on single-family
home.
You have the executive summary in the Staff report if you have
any questions. I can tell you that the Planning Commission voted 7,
0 for this position with the recommendation of approval. Staff did
Page 62
July 30-31, 2002
have a recommendation of denial based on the fact that there was no
land related hardship. I can say no calls or letters of objection were
received. The Petitioner did provide letters in support of the petition.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Carter and a second by Commissioner Henning. Any
discussion? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. You just didn't mm it off
from last time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you're getting carried away
with that little button, Commissioner Coyle. I'm going to take it
away from you. Okay. Let's -- in that case there's no discussion, I'm
going call for the vote. All those in favor?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do we have any speakers?
MS. PHILSON: Yes, Commissioner, we have one speaker.
MS. STEWART: If you're going to vote 5, 0 that's great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And you're waiving? Do you
want to speak? I'm sorry.
MS. STEWART: Yes. I'm the attorney for the Petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Your the attorney for the
Petitioner? And if we're voting in favor of it, why would you have
some objection to that?
MS. STEWART: Well, I just said I don't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Great. So thank you very
much.
MS. STEWART: If you're going to vote 5, 0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Speakers, sir?
Page 63
July 30-31, 2002
MS. PHILSON: The speaker is Pamela Stewart.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was it? Okay. So let's call for
the motion. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the motion passes by 4 to 0.
Commissioner Fiala is absent at this point. Okay. The next item, we
skip over B. That's been continued, so C.
Item #7C
RESOLUTION 2002-333 REGARDING VA-2002-AR-2035,
KFJNNETH D. GOODMAN, ESQ., OF GOODMAN AND BREEN,
REQUESTING A 25-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
75-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 50 FEET FOR 20 LOTS
IN THE SHADY HOLLOW TRUST SUBDIVISION- ADOPTED
WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, a correction from this morning's
change agenda. Over the break, we were notified by the Petitioner
that he did not want to have 7-C continued and that he would like to
have that heard today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask Mr. Weigel what we
do in this particular case since we already approved the agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you wish to
consider to go forward with this item, 7-C it would be appropriate
and necessary under the County's Reconsideration Ordinance for this
Board to first entertain a motion and potentially adopt a motion to
Page 64
July 30-31, 2002
reconsider Item 7-C. The action taken was continuing the item to
September 10th.
So if you were to approval the motion to reconsider, having
done so at this very meeting that the first actions was taken as
opposed to later on at a different date, you may then, after successful
or approval of reconsideration motion, go forward and take the item
in chief.
We'll note for the record that the this Item 7-C will have some
statement by Staff in regard to the status of the item coming to you
now. And I am informed that there were no speakers signing up for
the item this morning, in any event.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Leo Ochs, Assistant
County Manager. Even though your change sheet this morning
indicates that the continuance was made at the Petitioner's request,
that was actually an error on my part. I had indicated the wrong
continuance, so the Petitioner was here expecting to be heard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: And I have to accept responsibility for that error.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That answers the question,
because if we go into reconsideration, if I understand that procedure,
it could push it off until the second meeting in September. So if I
was a Petitioner, I would either A if it was our error, you've answered
it; or B, I would have taken it on September 10th. MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But we've clarified that. It's an
error on our part. Let's hear it.
MR. WEIGEL: You will need to take a motion for
reconsideration. Actually, it's those desires for reconsideration by a
Commissioner voting with a majority, subsequent to a Board meeting
Page 65
July 30-31, 2002
that kicks you into that two and three meeting phase in the future.
But having picked up on this during this very meeting, if you do the
motion to reconsider the previous vote that you had to continue this
item, then you will take care of it all this very meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to reconsider.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by myself, Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Carter for reconsideration. Any
discussion? All those in favor indicate by voting aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0. Now, we
make the motion to --
MR. WEIGEL: Well 7-C is now reinstated on the regular
agenda, and it may be heard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Could we go to questions, Mr.
Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We certainly can. Go ahead. Oh,
I'm sorry. We have to have everyone sworn in. And I'll ask our
recorder to do that, please, those that wish to participate.
Thereupon, KATY SALOM, the Witnesses herein, having first
been duly sworn, testified as follows:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll start with Commissioner
Henning for any disclosures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did speak to a Planning
Commission member in this item.
Page 66
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Myself, none. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I spoke to the County Manager
about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I spoke to Leo Ochs about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue.
MS. SALOM: Yes. I'm still Katy Salom from Current
Planning. And I'm here instead of Fred Reichel, who presented the
particular petition. I will note that this particular petition was heard
by the Planning -- by the -- I'm sorry -- Planning Commission on July
18th. So your executive summary does not reflect their action.
And I can tell you that their action was a vote of 7 to 1 to
approve it for lots 4 through 9 and 13 through 19 only. If you'll look
on the Exhibit, those particular lots are shown in orange. The entire
site is shown more or less in yellow.
And the actual sites, the lots that were recommended for
approval, are shown in orange. And you can see the actual --
interactions between the lake, how much setback there is, how much
lake excavation has actually occurred and that's why there was the
change.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
subject?
MS. PHILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
Do we have any speakers on the
I'm going to move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will second that if we include
Planning Commission's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will include that in my motion.
Page 67
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine. So we have a motion
by Commission Carter and a second by Commission Henning. And,
Mr. Weigel, you have something?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. That your motion would include then the
action you're taking as well as that you have overturned your prior
decision to continue -- well, you reinstate the matter. Searching for a
word. You did your motion to reconsider, but I want it on this
motion to also include then that in reconsidering, you have reinstated
the action.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would consider that as part of
my motion.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll consider it my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion? Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is subject, again. I just want to
emphasize recommendations of CCPC incorporates that?
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it 5 to 0.
Okay. I guess we're at 8-B now. Am I correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's also going to require that
all those that wish to participate stand and sworn in by our recorder.
Page 68
July 30-31, 2002
And once more, we'll go down the line here. We'll start with you,
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which one are we on now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8-B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8-B.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 8-B.
Item #8B
PETITION ST-2194, MICHAEL LANDY, P.E., OF LANDY
ENGINEERING, INC., REPRESENTING SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA OPPORTUNITY FUND, L.L.C., REQUESTING A
SPECIAL TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A DRUG STORE AND RESTAURANT AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF US41 AND
CR951 -CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2002, OR
THEREAFTER AND ALL CONCERNS TO BE INCLUDED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I did speak to a
Planning Commission member on this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commission Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I have spoken with the
Petitioner and with Mr. Tony Piers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I did speak with
somebody as well. I don't remember who it was, but I remember
talking to somebody on this in my office. I'm sorry.
Page 69
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I also spoke to the Planning
Commission. And I may be mistaken, but I believe I talked to Tony
Pierce about it. And maybe he might nod his head up and down. I'm
trying to recall. Yes, I did. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, there's quite a few
different items that come before us. And sometimes it's a month or
two beforehand that we get to the talk to the Petitioners on these
items.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe that we all did receive
some information from the petitioner. So I'll just include that in our
disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that would be an excellent
idea. And I would put it in mine and I think that we can probably
continue it for the rest of Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to be able to cover it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to say, I also
met with representatives of the conservancy concerning this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Continue, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Ray Bellows. I'm chief planner with the Current Planning Section.
The petition before you today is an ST permit application. As you
can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the north side
of Tamiami Trail and on the east side of Collier Boulevard.
The Petitioner is requesting a special treatment development
permit to construct an 11,200 square foot drug store and a 260 seat
Page 70
July 30-31, 2002
restaurant by a site development plan process that requires an ST
permit process, which is this petition before you today. The subject
property has an ST overlay over the entire parcel.
Typically the ST designation is used to identify jurisdictional
wetlands on site, the boundary of which is determined by the
Petitioner and verified by the South Florida Water Mangement
District prior to submission of an application to the County. The
subject sites within an activity center and is in urban residential area
of the County.
Therefore, the proposed commercial use are consistent with the
master plan and the growth management plan. But we have Steven
Lenberger here to go over into detail the environment --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. BELLOWS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Could we go directly to questions?
I'm think we can move this along.
I'm looking at this now and I'm totally familiar with it. It's been
before us a number of times. We've been looking at from different
angles. And correct me if I'm wrong.
But at this point in time I understand that Water Management
has approved the -- this particular project. And, two, these people
have already spent something like $60,000 in mitigation on a small
section of land to make up for the shortfall. But there is some
questions, I guess, from legal how this thing all comes together. Am
I correct in summarizing this or no?
MR. BELLOWS: Marjorie Student can answer the legal aspects
of this. I don't believe there are any legal issues of this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the objections to this were
from?
MR. BELLOWS: The objection to the petition were, Staff
recommended denial.
Page 71
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Based on?
MR. BELLOWS: Based on the fact that they were impacting
most of the wetlands on site. Purpose and intent of the overlay district
is to identify environmentally sensitive lands and try to protect them
where the basic zoning district regulations don't provide adequate
protection.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But meanwhile, the Planning
Commission after hearing this did pass it.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. They recommended approval with three
conditions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But how did the EAC recommend
it?
MR. BELLOWS: The Environmental Advisory Council voted
to support Staff's recommendation of denial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So EAC and Staff went for denial
and CCPC went for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: With conditions. And what are
those conditions?
MR. BELLOWS: The conditions are that they approved it upon
a mitigation plan they proposed. I can put it on the visualizer, if you'd
like to see it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: David, while we're waiting for that
to come up on the visualizer, you're looking at me like you have
something profound to say and I'd like to hear it.
MR. WEIGEL: To the extent that you may have questioned for
legal, our legal will be here momentarily. But he's not here at the
moment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine.
Page 72
July 30-31, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: The mitigation plan's on the visualizer.
Basically the petition wishes to develop the cite with the restaurant
and drug store. The forested area is on this portion of the site,
basically the eastern third of the property. They proposed to retain
the existing vegetation in this darker green area at the bottom of the
retention area, existing elevation and to have mitigation plantings of
wetland and up on species in the water pretreatment areas and on the
perimeter berm in the area surrounding the area of retained
vegetation. The other conditions the Planning Commission had were
basically to try to provide an interconnect to the properties to the east,
which this applicant has. They provided an area here for interconnect
to the neighboring property and also -- and that would be if possible,
the Planning Commissioners. And the Planning Commissioner also
recommended if possible, that a interconnect be provided to the
commercial property to the north in Falling Waters Beach Resort.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would falling waters be acceptable
to that? I mean, it's a pretty-well standalone community. Would that
give them another exit in and out of the place when they give them an
advantage they don't have now? As far as a left-hand turn where they
don't have a left-hand turn, they got to turn right into 951 ?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so. I don't believe the
Petitioner wants an interconnect to the north. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: Our Transportation Department is
recommending an interconnect to the east.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To the east?
MR. BELLOWS: To the east.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows.
Page 73
July 30-31, 2002
MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like to add for the record the Falling
Waters PUD is approved without an interconnection it would be
difficult to have one. They would have to come in and amend their
PUD to make that interconnection to the north.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We got Commission Fiala
and then Commission Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. After reading this,
it's Staff opinion that the applicant has not reasonably accommodated
both the preservation of wetlands on site and the proposed wetland.
And it's also Staffs upon that 82 percent impact, regardless, of off
site mitigation is an unacceptable level of impact who designated
land. And being that the EAC also supported Staffs recommendation
for denial, I would move to deny.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter, you
got anything else you want to add to it?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a question and maybe I
missed this. The Cross Hatch Dairy is on diagram. What is that an
expansion of the wetlands or elimination of parking? What is that?
MR. BELLOWS: The Cross Hatch area.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you've go--
MR. BELLOWS: This portion here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm talking about all these other,
like, you know, if you run X's back and forth. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. That's where the
Petitioner is proposing parking in the jurisdictional wetland area.
Okay. What I didn't understand is why that's highlighted and
darkened from the rest of it. There was some significance to that. If
there's not then --
Page 74
July 30-31, 2002
MR. BELLOWS: Okay. This dark area here from here to here
is just indicating the boundary of the jurisdictional wetlands on site.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't think I got my
question answered. But it's really kind of irrelevant because I don't
support the project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pierce, you're representing the
Petitioner; correct?
MR. PIERCE: We've a presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
MR. PIERCE: If I could use the other podium over here
because --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development and Environmental Service Administrator. You had
asked about the Planning Commission. I just want to make a matter
of record the Planning Commission's assessment did recognize, of
course, the Staff's recommendation for denial, but their assessment
had to d really with the -- what they call the value of these wetlands.
And they clearly recognize that these now are or would be
deemed low value wetlands because for all intents nd purposes, the
Falling Waters PUD pretty much cut off the interconnectivity of these
wetlands. And that was really what led to their conclusion. So -- and
I'm sure you're going to hear from the Petitioner's side, from their
analysis of that as well.
But that's really what led the Planning Commission in the
direction where they, was frankly looking at the remaining wetlands.
Of course from our perspective it is an ST overlay. And we're looking
at protecting those wetlands. But it was recognized again, the value
of them.
Page 75
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The value of them is fairly much
diminished and we are talking about a comer commercial lots. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right at this point in time, at least
until I hear the presentation and ask some more questions, I'm in
agreement with the Planning Commission.
MR. SCHMITT: I think it's valuable if you hear from the
Petitioner on this, because they'll present that argument. And I think
you have to weigh those against our position as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt.
MR. PIRES: IfI may, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Commission, my name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward,
Pires & Lombardo. And I'm here along with Mike Landy of Landy
Engineering, Reann Borlan, our environmental expert, which I think
can provide important information that we hopefully will persuade
you to vote in favor of this ST Petition with the petition testified by
the Planning Commission.
I think a number of issues are important to be noted here. First
of all, the subject property in an orientation perspective. This is 951
going south to Marco Island. And this is 951 going north on Collier
Boulevard. And this is U.S. 41 east. The is the subject's property.
And this was taken in January or February of 2002.
The wetlands, that are the subject matter of this particular
application, are in this, approximately eastern one third of the
property. As you can see from this aerial photograph, this is the
Falling Waters Development of the north. And this has all been
improved and a separate development plan. This area here has been
approved for a mini storage.
You will hear testimony from Mike Landy and Reann Borlan
that in this activity center, and this is an activity center,
Page 76
July 30-31, 2002
approximately 80 to 100 acres used to drain down from this area,
through the Falling Waters area and discharge this way. What has
happened is that has been completely severed. That historic flow has
been severed.
And what happens with the Falling Waters drainage, their
drainage, their South Florida Water Management district permit by
their drainage system, their water runs -- no longer runs to the south.
It runs northeast into the lake system, runs east, then comes back out
-- and Mike Landy has a larger aerial photograph -- into the U.S. 41
canal much further southeast.
So that there is, number one, no longer any flows from the north
for this particular property. Interestingly enough and I'd like to make
a copy of this for the record. What we'd also like to do is make sure
that everything before the Planning Commission is part of this record.
Because at the Planning Commission we introduced a number of
items that I believe, you know, were persuasive to the Planning
Commission. One is Falling Waters has a South Florida Water
Management District permit for them to engage in their activities.
South Florida Water Management District recognized that there
were impacts off site. I impact to this property from the activities on
the Falling Waters site. So as a result, the Falling Waters
Development had to mitigate for secondary impact to this site. So
again, that historic flow has been severed. And South Florida
recognized.
And their permit at Page 7, "Secondary wetland impacts include
a reduction in the habitat value of the off site wetland contiguous to
wetland one." South Florida Water Mangement District, in this case,
also issued a permit for this site. And without going into all the legal
discussions, my client, based upon representations and a letter from
the then Planning Services Manager went and obtained a South
Page 77
July 30-31, 2002
Florida Water Management permit, paid $65,000 in mitigation credits
to Pine Island Mitigation -- excuse me, mitigation bank to buy
mitigation credits to mitigate for the wetlands on this particular site,
the wetland impacts.
Then subsequently because of the change of personnel, when he
came back through the process, Staff said that representation by Staff
was no longer valid. You had to go through the ST process and that's
why we're here today, but nonetheless, what South Florida Water
Management District recognized. And the key is the growth
management plan that's utilized by Staff, as it currently exists, talks
about viable, naturally functioning wetland.
If you go to the EAC minutes I provided to ya'll, if you go to the
Planning Commission minutes I provided ya'll, you will not see the
term viable, naturally functioning wetlands as applied to this area.
Any viability the wetlands would be artificial induced, if at all. And
we have our expert saying they are not naturally functioning
wetlands.
And once again, South Florida recognized that at page five of
their permit for Centerpoint, quote, "Due to the location of this
wetland system adjacent to a mayor intersection in the presence of
existing developments to the north, it was determined that on site
preservation was not a feasible alternative to maintain a functional
wetland system in the long term." They recognized this was not
going to be a viable, naturally functioning wetland.
Once again, that is the key in the existing growth management
plan language. With regards to the propose -- which is interesting
also, this Board adopted, this past June 19th, revisions to the
Conservation and Coastal Management element and have transmitted
them to DCA for their review. We all recognize that the focus is on,
not these remanent wetlands, the focus is not on these ice setter
Page 78
July 30-31, 2002
wetlands that don't have any viable, natural functional capability. We
look at the larger system.
In the adopted -- once again, subject to review by DCA, the
objectives and policies are being relied upon by Staff have been
repealed and deleted. And what has occurred, the recommendation
has occurred by this Board. And as Planning Commission's
recommendation to you that there's an objective to protect and
conserve wetlands and the natural function of wetlands that's in
objective 6.2, the new Conservation Coastal Management element.
The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural
functions of wetlands. Policy 6.2.3., recently adopted, states, "Within
the urban designated areas, the County will rely on the jurisdiction of
the terminations made by the applicable state or federal agencies."
And more importantly were permits issued by such state or federal
agencies allow for impacts to wetlands, as we have here, with an
urban designated areas and require mitigation for such impacts,
which was required here and achieved, this shall be deemed to
preserve and protect wetlands and their functions.
So we have achieved what your objectives in the newly adopted
conservation and coastal management call for. Once again, the
existing language requires that there be -- maintain viable, naturally
functioning wetlands. We do have that in the instant case. At the
Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recognized what the
issues involved and also it recognized there might be an opportunity
for the developer to enhance the vegetative scheme, recognizing the
impact of the wetlands.
What we have provided, which was stipulated at the Planning
Commission, this darker green landscaping is above and beyond the
requirements of the code. The area within here, this possibly would
be retained as part of the -- and that's part of the permit with South
Page 79
July 30-31, 2002
Florida Water Management District. And we agreed to the
stipulations that the Planning Commission added onto it.
The motion was made by Commissioner Bud, seconded by
Chairman Abernathy to approve it. And then Commissioner Strain
added some amendments which was approved by the Planning
Commission. And we agreed through this enhanced vegetation
planning that's described in this particular exhibit and that will be to
part of any site development plan for the property and implemented
at the time of development activities into the extent physically and
legally possible provide an interconnection to the property to the east
using the access point on U.S. 41 depicted on the approved South
Florida Water Management district permit plan, which is right here
and to the extent legally and physically possible provide an
interconnection to the property to the north. Those were are all upon
and we have no difficulty with that.
Once again, looking at the ST Ordinance, part of the aspects and
attributes of having an ST designation, and this is from your code, is
that has unique assemblage of floor and phonate, not the case in this
instance. That's an intricate, ecological relationships within the
systems. I would submit to you, there's no longer a system. That
system has long been modified substantially by Falling Waters, by
modified by other activities further to the southeast that will be
shown on the materials by Mike Landy, and furthermore, recognition
that under ST that there's a contribution to adjacent ecosystems, we
would submit that does not occur in this particular instance.
One other aspect is the overdrain that has occurred in the past by
the U.S. 41 canal. All of these activities have led to this wetland not
being a viable, naturally functioning wetland. At the EAC, there was
a question about whether or not our client could maintain an artificial
hydroperiod at this particular site. That cannot occur.
Page 80
July 30-31, 2002
And once again, it's an artificial one. There's no final viable,
natural functioning hydroperiod that will allow for the viability of
these particular wetlands. We also recognize and under the ST
process any modifications of the STP that would change the types of
uses or allocations of square footages. Through the submit it would
not alter the intent and purpose of the ST regulations, and thus, would
not have to follow the procedures and approvals as if we're a new
petition.
If there are any modifications to the site plan, they are not going
to be, in this particular area with the vegetative scheme or the
enhanced vegetative scheme, the vegetation retention in this area and
the aspects over in the Water Management Section and the Wetland
Section. I would like to have Mike Landy of Landy Engineering to
provide some additional testimony and evidence as to the prior
historical drainage patterns, existing drainage patterns, the severing
of the historic flows and the control elevations in this area that will
show. It's not a viable, naturally functioning wetland.
And also perhaps Reann Borlan who has been qualified as an
expert and environmental expert. We would ask that she be qualified
in environmental impacts, wetland impacts, impacts analysis, and
functioning testing and functional assessments of wetlands.
Once again, we would submit because they are remanent
wetlands. They are isolated wetlands which CORE has asserted no
jurisdiction because they are isolated. No runoff from the north. U.S.
41 canal has overdrained the wetlands. It's not a viable, naturally
functioning wetland and it is appropriate for the grant of the ST
petition as modified by the stipulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pires, I'd like to entertain a
question from Commissioner Fiala for you.
MR. PIRES: Yes, ma'am?
Page 81
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. After this very refreshing
presentation, I just wanted to ask, being that you give such a
persuasive presentation, did Staff and did EAC know all of these
things before they recommended denial.
MR. PIRES: Staff had known this and that's one of our
frustrations. Once again, the Staff never said it was viable, naturally
functioning wetland either in the EAC or the Planning Commission.
They say it's viable. And there was possibly some misunderstanding
as to various control elevations in the area at the EAC level that may
have led to some determinations.
As to the Environmental Advisory Council there was additional
hydro studies and hydrology testing done surveys performed after
EAC, because there were questions that were raised. But the
vegetative plan which is enhanced in this area was not part of EAC's
presentation. But the aspect with regards to severing was.
And I think what they were trying to do is artificially induce and
artificially maintain the hydrology on site. If you look at the minutes
from EAC, I think that's what's trying to be achieved as indicated by
Mr. Carlson. Once again, the focus is on the viable, natural
functioning. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, just to help just a limit bit because
I licensed to all of that and I start scratching my head just a little bit.
And I went back and I asked Staff and I asked one question. I said,
"Have they done off site mitigation for every bit of wetland impact
and it's a low grade impact, a low grade wetland in this area on this
site?" And the answer I got back from Staff was, yes. And then I
said, "And on top of that, they're doing this enhanced green area that's
on this slide right here." And they said, "Yes."
So I just want to make sure you've got that information, because
we went through a lot of dialog and I'm not too sure all that came up.
Page 82
July 30-31, 2002
MR. LANDY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Mike Landy of Landy Engineering. I'd just like to touch on couple
points, maybe answer Commissioner Fiala's questions about the
EAC. During that meeting, one of the things they were focused on
was the hydrology of the area. And I think there was some
misunderstandings about some control elevations of the existing U.S.
41 ditch that's adjacent to the property and the fact that they may
enhance the hydrology of the wetlands.
Just -- I don't know if we got that. You can see this but this is
the Henderson Creek Canal. And there's a control structure here
where my finger is in the lower left-hand comer. The control
elevation of that weir is 5.0. The ditch that runs along 41, it's an open
ditch. That, which we surveyed, that ditch, the water elevation in it
after the EAC because they asked us to do that. it's at 3.6. That was
about two weeks ago after we got 17 inches of rain during the month
of June.
There's a little slue skate that's right here that controls that, this
ditch, and it's at 4. The permitted control elevation for the Falling
Waters Development here and they point discharge into this ditch is
4. Our control elevation that we got as part of the South Florida
permit for Centerpoint is at 5.0. And the reason we did that is to try
to enhance the hydrology of the native vegetation that we're saving
on site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By I the way, I want to apologize
that I forgot your name when I was disclosing. Excuse me.
MR. LANDY: That's okay. One of the other things that we did
following the EAC meeting was to survey high water marks on the
trees within the wetlands. They were surveyed at 5.6, which is
something we would expect from a wetland that used to have
Page 83
July 30-31, 2002
approximately a hundred acres of off site development that kind of
drained into it and added to that hydrology.
With the 80 acres of Falling Waters being rerouted and no
longer discharged into the wetlands, as Mr. Pires said, that wetland's
just not going to be viable. It's not going to receive the amount of
water that it historically has. Just another point, a couple of things
that are going to further sever that the 41 ditch from that wetland,
DOT has plans to widen 41 at some point in he future and they're
planning on culverting, putting in a pipe in a portion of that ditch and
it's going to -- the end of that pipe extends 250 feet east of our east
property line.
So that -- the ditch in front of our wetland is, you know, it's
going to be out of our control. That ditch isn't going to be part of that
system in the not too distant future. And additionally, when we built
the crossaccess, it connects us to all this. This is C-4 and C-5 zoned
property that runs along here and gets the access points on 41.
Again, that connection is going to be severed. I'd be happy to answer
any questions if you have any.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think there's any questions
from the-- I take it back. Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have any questions for
him. I'm not a hydrology expert. I'm not a wetlands expert. I
understand the mitigation process, mine will have to do with another
issue. So when we're ready to go there, I will discuss it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine, Commissioner Carter, at your
pleasure whenever.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My observation of this is that
I've probably seen a hundred of these things since I've been a County
Commissioner. I see clear cutting the whole section of land, two
boxes and a lot of parking spaces. I think this is in violation of
Page 84
July 30-31, 2002
community character process. We had this big discussion when we
did Pine Ridge and Goodlette and we would enhance this. We have
spent almost two and a half years on an ST Program with Little Palm
Isle.
I will not approve this project until I see a plan that comes back
and follows the recommendations of the community character plan
where you would enhance this whole area. You have oak trees in
there. I don't know where those oak trees are, but they don't grow
over night. So I think it's about time, if you're going to bring
something to me as a County Commissioner and you say I'm a short-
termer. Well, you might be able to.
But as long as I'm here, I will not approve this project unless I
see a site plan that follows the guidelines of community character.
The only thing I see in interconnectivity. The rest of it is business as
usual and that's not acceptable to me.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I may address some of the
concerns of the Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You certainly may. Go ahead Mr.
Pires.
MR. PIRES: Commissioner Carter, I understand and I hear your
concerns. And one aspect and Mike Landy can expand upon it that
the landscaping that is outlined on this site plan, both exterior
buffering and the interior parking is in compliance with an excess of
what's required by the code. I believe Nancy Seaman had reviewed
it.
MR. LANDY: Nancy looked at the site plan and she likes the
site plan. That Exhibit that you're looking at, it's really strictly
focusing on the revegetation of the area that we're clearing that's
within the limits of the wetlands. The remaining code vegetation
that's going to be required along the perimeter or internal to the site.
Page 85
July 30-31, 2002
I mean, it will meet minimum. It's just not graphically indicated on
that Exhibit. I don't know if that--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand minimum code, and
that may not be what we're looking for here. Understanding code --
MR. PIRES: One thing for clarification--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- sometimes doesn't get the job
done.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Landy to the parking aisle. The landscaping is
proposed in this area or these areas. Is that not beyond what's require
by the code?
MR. LANDY: That would be above and beyond code. That's a
site planning element that we incorporated into the plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to take a second and go
to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what Mr. Commissioner
Carter is looking for is site preservation on the site of the natural
vegetation. What you're explaining is the standards in the
landscaping code of the exterior or the boarders and for the parking
regulations of 2.4, the land LDC. MR. LANDY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I think that what I
heard was preservation above and beyond for the character of the
community. And this is a major intersection of the community. One.
MR. LANDY: Of the hardships, and I'll try to explain this. Of
this particular sites, it's only a four acre site. It's got tremendous
grade changes for such a small site. And it's a function of it's
location. Existing grades in our preserved wetland are in the 5.0
NGBD elevation, which is our control elevation for the site. My
finished floor elevation for the building, and it's a function of
proximity to 41 and 951, which are the roads there, is 10.75.
Page 86
July 30-31, 2002
And I got minimum parking grades that are in the 8.75 range.
So, you know, I'm almost four feet above for minimum parking and
almost six feet above existing grade. Just making that transition is
difficult. And it is a hardship for the site.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence. But also I
think and I agree with what Mr. Carter was saying as to this particular
site. Once again, it's indicated on the aerial photograph. This portion
has been cleared and utilized for years as a fruit stand. There's a
billboard that's been there for a number of years as we go all go
through the intersection.
The portion that's subject of the -- that has the wetlands is the
eastern one third, this area here, generally. And as to that area, once
again, the area that's in the dark green here this revegetation planting
plan is in excess of that that is required by the code. It's over and
beyond what the code requirements are. And even Mr. Landy can
articulate that. That's what that is.
That was a suggestion by the Planning Commission because, I
believe, they realized that same concern, Commissioner Carter, with
regards the location of this parcel and the recognition that there be
some enhancement that's otherwise required in order to maintain the
greenery. And that's what this area here is over and above, probably
by a hundred percent or even double or more.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Pires, in all due respect, I
understand that. I can read a map pretty well. But that doesn't do
anything for U.S. 41 or State Road 951 or Collier Boulevard. And I
hate to be considered to be unreasonable. I don't think I am.
But you want this to -- if you want my approval on this, I want
to see an enhanced site plan instead of what I see here in verbiage,
which I'm not saying that you don't mean to be positive. But I have
heard a lot of this stuff. And when it gets translated into the end
Page 87
July 30-31, 2002
product, it doesn't reflect what I've heard in the Board of County
Commissioner meeting. So that's what I am requesting personally in
this situation.
MR. PIRES: My client has indicated that he's recognized as the
concerns of this Board and the Commission as he recognized the
concerns articulated by the Planning Commission to have additional
plantings along 951 and U.S. 41 for and enhanced nature consistent
with the community character plan; is that correct?
MR. LANDY: Yes.
MR. PIRES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the way I understand it now is
you are willing to enhance what you presented to us so far by
additional plantings along 41 ?
MR. PIRES: Yes, consistent with the community character
plan. And as Mr. Landy indicated, he's worked with Nancy Seaman
of your Staff, landscape architect. I'm just planning she likes this
plan. I'm sure she would like and enhanced plan that has landscaping
along the perimeters consistent with the community character.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that would also include 951 ?
MR. PIRES: Yes. 951 and 41.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. How about the interconnect,
if we may also talk about that? Not that I want to take you away from
the other subject. We can come back to it in a moment if you'd like,
Commissioner Carter. But one of the things I'm looking at is Falling
Waters has a, because of their closeness to the intersection within less
than 660 feet, they're reduced to a right turn only going out of there.
If there was a interconnect, some of the people might be able to
use the interconnect to be able to go down through, get onto 41 for a
right-hand turn. I don't if that's practical, if that's something that
traffic would be agreeable to or the people in Falling Waters would
Page 88
July 30-31, 2002
be agreeable to. But it's something that I hate to see an opportunity
like this go by without asking the question.
MR. PIRES: And the Planning Commission recognized that as
Conunission Strain. And one of the stipulations they attached and
we've agreed. I've made part of the record is that -- and our client
would like to have that, but recognizes that there's an STP already in
for a ministorage to the north in Falling Waters Peace. But to the
extent physically and legally possible, we agreed to provide an
interconnection to the property to the north.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When you say physically and legal,
you physically would mean Falling Waters would have to buy into it?
MR. PIRES: Or fix. If they've got buildings in the way or they
don't -- if it's going to modify their site plan. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. PIRES: Once again, we're going to do that. The question
is are they willing to do that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Of course, we have a motion
at this point in time for denial. So I'm not sure which way it's going
to go. But if we get around to a motion for approval, I would like to
incorporate that into the motion. Where are we with this now?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Call the motion.
MR. MUDD: Do you have any speakers?
MS. PHILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have no speakers. I close the
public portion of this meeting at this time. And I guess the motion
we have before us is for denial. The motion made by Commissioner
Carter and seconded by Commissioner Fiala. And is there any
discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I had a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead.
Page 89
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to clarify something. If
you put that other map, site plan backup, please. Now, are you
saying that the landscaping around the perimeter of this property is,
in fact, planned and you've committed to it? It just is not shown on
this site plan; is that what your saying?
MR. PIRES: According to Mike Landy. Mike will you say
something.
MR. LANDY: I'll speak to that Tony. That plan or what we're
showing there, it's probably 15 or $20,000 worth of planning above
and beyond what would be required by Section 2.4 of the
Landscaping Code. And it's just trying to soften that area. I mean,
it's two thirds of an acre is the limits of that. And, you know, for the
most part it's transitional. It's a berm, and it's a transitional areas.
And I think the Planning Commission recognized that they
didn't want to see like a Bahia sod berm just sticking out in the
middle of that area. And my client recognized that too and that's why
he agreed to that plan, trying to recreate as much as we can the
vegetation that's in that area right now, but recognizing also that from
my water management standpoint, we have to change the grades in
that area.
MR. PIRES: Mike, I think he's talking about perimeter along
951 and 41.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the perimeter landscaping
which seems to be the concern of the Commission.
MR. LANDY: None of that is shown on the plan. I mean, that's
going to be reviewed and approved as part of the site development
process. And I think we've just agreed that what we're going the to is
enhance that landscaping above and beyond Section 2.4 to follow the
community character plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's the missing part.
Page 90
July 30-31, 2002
MR. PIRES: Well, I think I stipulate too that if the Board's so
inclined. And one point of clarification in my presentation I was
representing that the current language in the growth management
plan that talks about preserving, taking viable, naturally functioning
wetlands and we don't believe it's necessarily functioning.
But the Board has adopted amendments that radically change
that process. They are not yet ineffective, because in effect because it
is being reviewed. But again, it shows the sentiment of the Board's
recognition of wetlands that remanents not naturally not functioning.
And when you have permits from other agencies that recognize the
impacts to allow mitigation, that development can occur.
And once again, we have stipulated and we will stipulate if
there's a request or a recommendation for approval to the landscaping
along the perimeters greater than which is required and consistent
with the community character plan as part of the STP process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to Commissioner Fiala
and Commissioner Carter, Mr. Weigel, did you have something that
you wanted to add to this at this time? No.
MR. WEIGEL: No. The records been made clear and I
appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Fiala and then Commission Carter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'd just like to say one
more time that I still stand behind the Staffs recommendation as well
as the EAC. And Commissioner Carter brought up such a good
point. And I didn't even think of that. But as we're trying to -- as
we're about to redevelop or develop this area and enhance it, we
should be taking community character as our banner.
And one of the community character suggestions is when you
look at it from the street, you don't just see parking, that the parking
Page 91
July 30-31, 2002
is behind buildings and that the front of buildings are enhanced. And
I would much prefer to see you come back with a better plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So fine. What we're going to
do is go to Commissioner Carter. And we'll give each Commissioner
a chance to make a comment, if they like, on this end of dais and then
we'll go ahead and take a vote. Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My question is real quick. What
precludes you from moving your building closer to the street and
taking your parking internally, which again, you don't see where cars
are parked you see that it enhances the buildings, your berms and
your parking is to the highest degree possible internalized.
MR. LANDY: Just for the record, the berms that-- the buffers
that are along 951 and 41, I mean, double hedge road, trees every 25
feet, we'd be happy to work with the specifications on the size, the
materials that gets planned along those corridors, but I'm trying to
picture.
I know we had trouble with some of the big boxes in town, like
the intersection of Airport and Pine Ridge where the buildings are
really close and kind of backing up to the street. I think it will be a
softer look for the overall project if you have landscaping, parking
and the building's internal. That's a personal opinion.
And I think what we're trying to do today is just -- I don't know
if it's the Board's -- it's up to the Board to approve the site plan.
We're just trying to determine how we're going to develop the ST
area.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We generally don't see the site
plans.
MR. PIRES: It is unusual in this instance. You're right. And
that's one of the issues that our consultants had with the Staff at the
time because as you know in other instances the Board has said
Page 92
July 30-31, 2002
between the ST petition and with a concept plan. Why go through all
the process of a site development plan.
Let's do one first and then do the final site development plan
later as opposed to this Staffs insistence was a greater level of detail,
which we think provides -- actually it's a detriment to all parties. But
that's what we're stuck with. And, Mike, correct me if I'm wrong.
MR. LANDY: No. It's -- the original direction from Staff was
that we go talk to the Water Management District in the core, see
how they wanted to permit this particular piece. We went there and
went through the entire permitting process. And then we came back
with a preapplication meeting to do a site development plan. And
that's when the issue of the ST came up and they directed us to go
through this process.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is there any problem with
bringing this back to the Board with a site development plan for
review if this is approved today?
MR. PIRES: The site development plan, you mean
subsequently?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Subsequently when you get a
design and you can give us a picture of what this looks like as you're
going to put it in the ground.
MR. PIRES: IfI can have a few moments?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, if they're willing to
do that, you'd be willing to change your motion, Commissioner
Carter? Is that what I'm hearing?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would be, yes.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can interject for just a second.
I'm trying to find a compromise here for you a little bit. And I know
you're trying to wrestle with this, too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I don't want to prolong this.
Page 93
July 30-31, 2002
MR. MUDD: You could withhold the site development plan
approVal from the Staff and have it come back to you for approval on
this particular item because you have questions on it. And they
wouldn't be able to -- the ST is the overlay process to keep them
moving. And on the 10th of September, you could direct that the site
development -- direct the Staff to bring the site development plan to
you because you want to review it before the Staff approves it,
because you have some questions about it, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm going to violate my
rule on micromanaging and ask for that request. MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: While we're waiting, Commissioner
Henning, Commissioner Coyle, do you have any comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that include reviewing of
architectural standards being on a major roadway, what that's going
to look like?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would think so.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. My suggestion
as a chief planner that this petition be continued, have the applicant
submit a full blown site development plan that addresses the
community character, landscaping issues. This is an important
intersection and entryway into Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-hum.
MR. BELLOWS: That was Staff's original request all along that
a full blown site development be submitted with this process so the
Board would have all the information needed. That's my
recommendation and I'd hope you take that under advisement.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Bellows.
Because my other question, mitigation and all that have been
Page 94
July 30-31, 2002
answered. I don't have any problem with that. I just want to see what
it's going to look like at the end.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pires?
MR. PIRES: I don't know if the ST regulations provide that
ability to have us bring that with the ST petition. And once again, I
this Board has -- once again, it may or may not be a good example.
The Board split those out. They said, "We'll do the ST first and a PSP
as opposed to coming through the full blown level of detail." But as
far as -- bear with me a moment. From the standpoint of approving
the ST petition with the recommendation with the stipulation that
comes back before the Board with a greater level of detail, we have
no difficulty with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know if that's what
Commissioner Carter said; was it, Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I said I just heard what Mr.
Bellows said and I prefer that that would be my first choice.
MR. LANDY: I have a question for Commissioner Carter. Are
you mainly interested in landscaping elements of the plan or--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want to see what you're going
to build. I want to see how you're going to landscape it. It seems to
me when you go to a site development plan with the County, you
need to have all that incorporated into that. I want to know what it's
going to look like.
MR. LANDY: I think the intent probably is it was going to be a
phased STP. And, for instance, there's another engineer in town
working on an STP for the drug store element, but not necessarily the
restaurant is something that's probably not to that level of design yet.
And that's the only -- for instance, if we went -- if we agree do that
stipulation, I'm just curious whether if, for instance --
Page 95
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would encourage the
other people to get in gear and get it to that level of design where we
can see it. I man I'm sure everybody's got a vested interest here. And
I don't know if this is a franchise restaurant.
But I don't want to see a, you know, Italian 101 out here. I want
to see something that is done that fits the character of this
community. I've seen McDonald's that wouldn't even recognize as a
McDonald's. And I've seen other that are just, you know, plain
vanilla.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You might want to really consider
before you belabor this, I got a feeling that it's not going your way
this point in time. You might really want to give some serious
consideration or reconsideration to bring it back for a continuance.
MR. PIRES: Commissioner Coletta, my only concern is that
when we talk about a continuance, are we talking about having to go
back to the process with the other Commissions or come back before
this Board with a level of detail that you're looking for?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I don't have a problem. I
think I'm your problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we're the problem.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, it doesn't make any
difference. It only takes three votes to pass it. I'm just saying I'm not
going support it until I see the other. And I agree with our planner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: I would just also like to make a point, as long
as the site plan is consistent with what has been previously reviewed
by Staff as the impacts of the wetlands. Any other that changes --
MR. PIRES: That will be consistent. The other aspects that I'm
hearing form the Board is if we're talking about trying to internalize
Page 96
July 30-31, 2002
other aspects in the community character. We might be able to do
revisions to the site plan to achieve that. But the aspect dealing with
impacts to wetland, that's going to cure it generally in the manner
indicated.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. And I'm saying again on
the record, I don't have a problem with your presentation, Mr. Pires.
I understand it, and I'm not objecting to it. If we can accomplish the
other, I'm with you.
MR. PIRES: And I guess the question is how is it accomplished
by having this continued to bring back the greater level of detail or
having it approved or coming back to the Board at some future point
with a greater level of detail.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it would be in your best
interest to have serious consideration.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can help. That it comes back
to the Board on a continuation with the site development plan and
then you take a look at that process. So you continue that action with
the stipulation that you get to see the site development plan with the
expanding community character landscaping and things like that that
were talked about during this presentation so that you can either
approve or deny this ST.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to Commissioner
Henning, which is next, I want us to make sure that we understand
the direction that we're limiting this to now is just to the aesthetics of
property itself. We're no longer talking about the wetland. We're
basically in agreement with that. If we're not, we letter know that
upfront. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I concur. And I just wanted to
add to Staffs comments and Commissioner Carter's architectural
Page 97
July 30-31, 2002
standards included in that. So I think we're moving where we want to
go. So if somebody would remove their motions, then we can --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have to have a request for it
first to continue it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll remove my prior motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll remove mine, as long as it
will be continued and include all of the suggestions, the architectural
standards and the community standard.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It may require a separate motion.
Am I correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, as you are doing, remove the motion and
second, there will be no vote on that. And then the floor is open
among the Board to entertain a new motion for continuance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to continuance
and include the discussion of what the Board and Staff a looking for
the continuance on September 10th or thereafter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning and a second form Commissioner Carter.
Mr. Pires, I'll allow you one more ending statement.
MR. PIRES: We would like to have it scheduled for September
10th because we've been in this process for quite a while.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. PIRES: I understand the motion is September 10th and
thereafter. So thereafter that makes me nervous.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no. The reason for thereafter
is maybe you missed a beat. And that leaves the door open for you.
MR. PIRES: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I think Commissioner Henning's
motion was adequate.
Page 98
July 30-31, 2002
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion? Okay. All
those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any opposed? The ayes have it 5 to
0. And before we continue on to the next item, we're going to take a
lunch break.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got 11:30 time cert. Forgive
me.
Item # 1 OD
TWO 1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND- RE:
COLLECTION OF COUNTY IMPACT FEES - APPROVED; AND
JURISDICTION FOR COUNTY ROADS 92 AND 92A-
APPROVED WITH SETTING ASIDE 92A AS COUNTY
OWNERSHIP FOR 2 YEARS BUT BEING MAINTAINED BY
MARCO ISLAND
MR. MUDD: It's the Marco Island item. It's 10-D.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right. You're absolutely
correct.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can try to speed this along just
a little bit. I know we have some speakers, don't we, Sue, on this
one? 10-D.
Page 99
July 30-31, 2002
MS. PHILSON: Yes, we do.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And let me speed this along from what I
know so far, okay, and what I've heard from the homeowners
association on Goodland and things like that. There's some concern
about taking County Road 92 Alpha that's within the city limits of
Marco Island and turning that over as far as maintenance and
ownership, and I think the ownership is the issue, of that road to the
City of Marco that stays within their city limits.
There is a move, a local move within that homeowners
association in that community that they would like to try to deannex
some of the land that went to the City of Marco in 1997 that pertains
to Goodland and their entry into their community.
And I would make a recommendation, and maybe we can cut
down on the comments, and if it's okay with them, that we leave that
as maintenance only of 92 Alpha. And we leave that in a
maintenance only category for a two-year period-year period of time.
And that gives them the amount of time that I need in order to go
through the deannexation, paperwork and legislation that they will
need to do.
And after a two-year period of time if they haven't been
successful or they're local movement in order to do so just teeters out,
then ownership and maintenance will revert back to the city, the City
of Marco Island within their boundaries. That would be my
recommendation as far as the agreement with the City of Marco on
the transfer of road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I just add, Mr. Mudd, that
deannexation, I didn't even think of nor consider. But I have spoken
to the representatives from Marco Island, from City Council.
I've spoken with Mike Minozzi and I've spoken with Bill Moss
and they have no problem with us maintaining ownership of that
Page 100
July 30-31, 2002
portion of 92A that leads into Goodland. And they continue to
maintain it with the money that we're sending them. So I think that
all are in agreement. I've got my Marco Island guys back here and my
Goodlanders here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would make a motion that we
approve -- let's see. How do I want to say this? That we approve this
agreement, setting aside 92A as a continued ownership by the County
but maintained by Marco Island.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Do we want to put a two-year stipulation in there
as far as ownership is concerned?
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
getting --
MS. ROBINSON:
there's --
Two-year stipulation is good.
And I second it.
Wait a minute. How come we're
Good morning, Commissioners. Apparently
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On the record?
MS. ROBINSON: This is Jacqueline Hubbard Robinson,
Assistant County Attorney. And I've been sitting here. And the
people in the audience were saying that they thought the motion that
reversed what they understood was to occur.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Keep 92A in the County; correct?
Right. And maintained by Marco Island?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why not? By the County. Owned
and maintained by the County. I'm at a loss now.
MS. PHILSON: I have four speakers, sir. Would you like one
of them to come up?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I withdraw my motion.
Page 101
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. I would like to hear what their
problem is with that idea.
MS. PHILSON: Edward Frommer. Edward Frommer?
MR. FROMMER: Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? Okay. My
name's Edward J. Frommer, past president of the Goodland Civic
Association and also chairman of the Extraction Committee that I'm
in charge of. What you see here is Marco Island, the city limits that
was made in 1997. And down here you see Goodland. The note of
history of this, you have go back to 1513 when Ponce de Leon landed
here and called the whole area Goodland.
Since 1542 when Desota got here, everybody's been trying to do
away with Goodland. But we love Goodland, and we're not going to
let anybody take our area. Specifically when Deltona came in here
with Collier and decided to develop this, one of the first things
Collier did was take the citizens of Marco Island and moved them
down to Goodland.
There's 50 historical homes in Goodland. The only ones left
besides Bill Colliers house on Old Marco and the Old Marco Inn.
Everything else has been destroyed of the history of Goodland or the
history of Marco Island. So what we would like and you see the line
where City comes down, imaginary line comes through here, comes
around here and cuts out Key Marco, which the County still has to
maintain the roads in Key Marco. It's a part of incorporated Collier
County.
The reason the line was drawn down here, was so the City could
cut Goodland out, because the first two times the vote went to make it
a city, the Goodlanders voted against it. They wanted to stay with the
County. They trust the County. What was done, what they did was
Gerrymandered in two marinas. One was known as Marco Shores
Goodland Marina.
Page 102
July 30-31, 2002
It came about the court settlement in 1984 between the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Deltona Corporation that this wetlands
there would be no more building because the Army Corps of
Engineers say they're not going to destroy anymore wetlands,
because the Deltona Corporation had designs to build this whole area
and also to go all the way out 92 to 41. That was all going to be
homes until the Army Corps of Engineers interfere and had a court
suit and it got settled. There's to be no more building.
There's no sense of Marco Island coming down into Goodland,
except for the two marinas. They said they wanted rubles. Here's
some of the most expensive property outside of there in the County.
They're building a million to five million dollar houses on Key
Marco.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. I have to ask you
some questions. This is Commissioner Coletta up here at the dais.
MR. FROMMER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm totally lost. Let me summarize
this for you and you help us through this so we understand exactly
what you're talking about. We're talking about an interlocal
agreement Marco Island where they get X number of dollars, and in
turn, they're going to maintain the roads; is that correct? MR. FROMMER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We still own the roads.
MR. MUDD: No, hang on, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me.
MR. FROMMER: What he said.
MR. MUDD: In this interlocal agreement, the roads, the County
roads of 90 -- the County Road 92 and 92 Alpha that reside within the
city limits of Marco Island would be turned over for ownership and
maintenance to the City of Marco Island.
Page 103
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But the part that's in Goodland that is
outside of that is still the County?
MR. MUDD: The County, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But 92A you said -- I made
a motion to keep in County ownership and maintained by Marco
Island.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 92 would go to Marco Island for
maintenance. The interlocal agreement would stand as is, but 92A
would remain for two years in the ownership of Collier County, but
maintained by Marco Island.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And the premise here is that two years
would give the opportunity to the Goodland homeowners association
to deannex the land that they think should belong to the County to
preserve their historical pass.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If I may speak?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, sir. Let me finish with one
speaker at a time.
MR. FROMMER: Mr. Coletta, in answer to that, what we're
saying is 92A, which comes all the way in-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. FROMMER: -- and comes all the way down to new
County park that's going to built down there. It's all County. You
people invested five million dollars last year in Goodland. You
bought the land for the property. You put a new bridge in coming in
on 92A.
The NPO has appropriated $137,000 for bike paths that was in
Marco City's budget last year. And when they ran into problems, they
didn't do the work. They pulled it out of the budget. It's in the budget
Page 104
July 30-31, 2002
this year. It runs out September 1st, six weeks. We still don't have
bike paths, even though the County has approved 137,000.
We're being treated like second citizens as far as we're
concerned. We're the same as the people on Marco, Port Royal or
anywhere else or Pelican Bay. We want control on what's going in
on our area. As Mr. Moss mentioned, he wants control of what
you're going to do on 951 that affects Marco Island. Whatever Marco
Island does and the County does affects Goodland. So we would
rather stay with the County and deal with the County.
Now, I would like this road kept County owned, County
maintained. Even though maybe two years from now if we don't
succeed in our extraction of the properties that we feel belongs in
Goodland. There's nothing down here that has anything to do with
Marco Island, except two marinas. This used to be Marco Shores
Goodland Marina. They changed the name to Calusa.
You approved a pub last year, Goodland Gateway. They
changed the name. It's now Calusa Village. Moran's Barge where
Tommy Barfield's Speakeasy, the ship ahoy bus, was changed to
Moran's Barge. Now they've just changed it again with plans to
Marco City to build a 112 foot high condo 300 feet long and they --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to
summarize to stop because you're way past your time.
MR. FROMMER: And they changed the name again. It's no
longer that. It's Harbor Place at the South Bridge. They're even
trying to do away with the name of the Goodland bridge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Look, can you make your
final comment, please.
MR. FROMMER: We need you help. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then we can go on to the next.
MR. FROMMER: We need your help.
Page 105
July 30-31, 2002
MS. PHILSON: The next speaker is Connie Follmer and she
will be followed by James Graham.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, don't go too far with the map.
Somebody may need that.
MS. FOLLMER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Connie Stagol Follmer, secretary, treasurer of the Goodland Civic
Association. And what Mr. Mudd was describing sounded pretty
much what we thought we were wanting. The County retained
jurisdiction of the roadway. But then our anticipation was that the
County would -- our hope was that the County would also continue
maintenance of the roadway.
And from what we understand from the motion that was made,
the intent would be that the County would continue jurisdiction of the
road but Marco City would be responsible for maintenance so they
wouldn't have to divvy up any of that money, that million dollars and
split it off. Initially, that kind of sounds okay.
But I just want to be sure that that doesn't make Goodland
subject to requesting and needing road maintenance and not being
able to get it, because that million dollars is not restricted in their use
at the Marco City. They can use that million dollars anywhere within
the city limits of Marco. And so that leaves the concern about, do we
get the maintenance when we need it? Just as to show you --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you loud and clear on that.
MS. FOLLMER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's something that maybe.
MS. FOLLMER: Initially, the motion sounded great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I interrupt you just for one
moment. I'd like to have Mr. Pfeiter stand up to the microphone over
here and address this particular situation. What kind of guarantees
Page 106
July 30-31, 2002
will we have that they maintain the roads at this end of the spectrum
rather than use it all internally within the city?
MR. PFEITER: Again, the City of Marco needs to speak to this,
the City of Marco Island. But specifically, they've assured us that
they will maintain it. The initial issue we put in that they maintain
access. There was added concerns and that's why we've now agreed
with what you have on the floor, which is that they would maintain it
but that we'd maintain ownership as ownership. We're going make
sure that they maintain it from the County's perspective as well as
Goodland's perspective.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, at the end of two years, if they
don't maintain it, do we have some way to be able to --
MR. PFEITER: Well, before that time, we're going to talk to
them. But there's nothing specifically written in here to maintenance
requirements. It's more on the City and the County working together
with Goodland.
MR. MUDD: There's a mandatory Staff review on an annual
basis in this contract that they talk about those different things as far
as the impact fee coordination is concerned. So that's a mandated
issue between two Staffs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FOLLMER: What would be our process in Goodland when
it does become time for maintenance to be done on that road? What
would be our process? Will we be contacting Mr. Pfeiter's
department or will we be calling Marco City to request maintenance
along the roadway?
We're happy for Marco City about this new interlocal
agreement, because they do need that additional funding to help them
with the roadways. The only part of that new interlocal agreement
Page 107
July 30-31, 2002
that we had a problem with was how it impacted the village of
Goodland and that roadway.
MR. MUDD: Contact Norman and he'll get that done for you.
MS. FOLLMER: So you will be our contact if maintenance
needs to be done along the road?
MR. PFEITER: Yes, myself and my staff. And that would be
fine. And what I will tell you that what we're trying to do and I
appreciate Goodland's concern. That's why we're trying to make this
acknowledgement. But, essentially, we're tying to have the roads that
are within the City maintained by City.
For most residents, I realize you've got a special issue here. But
for most residents, that makes it clear who they can work with. But
in this case we'll work with the City. And if you need anything,
please call me.
MS. FOLLMER: Just as one more final point for your
Commissioners because this is blown up a little bit so that you can
see and a little bit better detail the tiny little area of roadway we're
talking about. Between this line and this line is a half mile stretch of
winding road. That's the area we're talking Goodland, Goodland drive
west or CR92 continues on into the village down to this point and all
of the roadways, approximately a 15 mile stretch of road still will be
maintained by the County.
So the County will still come into this area doing maintenance
down in this area. But Marco City now, under this agreement, will
come in and do maintenance on this road under the guidelines of--
taking it out of their budget, out of the million dollars.
Marco City will now have to spend money out of that million
dollars that you're going to be transferring over to them to maintain
this road over the next two years, even though the County will still
come in here and take care of te roadways within the village of
Page 108
July 30-31, 2002
Goodland. So that's why it initially didn't make any sense to us to
give over the maintenance of a half mile roadway to Marco City.
But if this is your intent and if Marco -- if the Village of
Goodland is able to contact the County anytime that we need
maintenance along that road, it will appear that it's probably a pretty
fine arrangement. I'm going to pass. So that's all I have to say.
Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wonderful presentation.
MS. PHILSON: The next speaker is James Graham.
MR. GRAHAM: My name is James Graham. I live in
Goodland. And I live on Palm, 656 Palm, and I've been there about
seven years now. And I'm here to talk about the history of that little
winding road. It's -- which we know there's a lot of history in
Goodland. It was pointed out that a lot of history of Goodland, which
was like Marco Island, has been taken away over the years. I am a --
and so on all the residents of Goodland, we're County people.
We vote in, you know, Collier County residents, not Marco
Island City residents. We would like to have a good relationship with
the City of Marco Island. I would, anyways. I don't feel comfortable
right now because I don't feel like we're developing a good
relationship. The history of that winding road. I have some stuff
here, see if I can wing it here is fellow by the name of Petit, they
bought land, a family. I guess it goes way, way, way back.
This is history. This is historical stuff here. It goes all the way
back. And he had children and he needed to get his children on to the
road to get on the bus because they're going back and forth in skits,
you know, the rowboats, whatever you want to call them. And he
started and he was told if he built the road that they'll do something.
Anyways, he's got a wheelbarrow and a shovel and he started
taking the oysters shells and started creating a road. So all the high
Page 109
July 30-31, 2002
points, that why the road is winding, by the way, because he went to
all the high spots. There was a river somewhere around the foot of
the bridge, which we know as Goodland Bridge and the marina there.
There was like a river there.
Anyways, he was about-- I don't know. So the story goes, two
thirds -- or one third, I believe, away. And someone gave him a
truck, you know, a Ford truck, one of those old trucks. And they got
over with two skits and they put them together and they got the truck
over to Goodland Point, was the name of it at the time.
And he finished the road and kept hauling more shells, oyster
shells. And he was able to get his family, his children to be able to
go over a road rather than the other. That's the only road in Goodland
that goes in and out for the citizens and th residents, I should say, of
the County, not the City of Marco Island, the County of Marco
Island.
I feel, and the citizens fell, I believe, that that's our history. We
have history there, which you-all know it is a destination for people
to say, "Let's go, you know. I want to go to that point." Boy, am I
shaking.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're doing a great job. Keep
going.
MR. GRAHAM: And -- well, the bottom line is down at the end
of this thing, this whole story. The man did this stuff years ago. And
there was -- I've got it right here. That's funny. My last name is
Graham, but this guy's first name was Graham. And his name was
Graham, W-I-D-E-N Widen or Widen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Widen.
MR. GRAHAM: Whatever the word is. What is the word?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Widen. The old Widen family.
Page 110
July 30-31, 2002
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. So I'm not the historian here, by
the way. But I'm trying to do my best. But anyways, he was told --
or the family down the road was told at that time if he finished that
road and then he did. And he got the children on the bus to go to
school. He was told and promised by that Commissioner Widen.
Mr. Petit was told that the County would maintain that road
forever. And the only way they can do that, my opinion, and I
believe the opinions of most people that are in the County where I
live, to delete that section of road. Which, by the way, it has two
names. It has Goodland Drive West, CR 92A. One name. The other
-- that's two names there. Goodland Drive West is one name and
92A is the other. And whether you realize it or not from what I
understand, I could be corrected on this, but that Goodland Drive
West runs all the way to that end -- thank you -- to that end. May I
continue? Only a few seconds.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wrap it up, sir.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. To the end of that
island to the other side. It doesn't stop at the border of the thing. It
runs right through Goodland, all the way through Goodland to the
other side. So what are you doing here? And that two-year thing, I
don't believe it for a minute.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well.
MR. GRAHAM: I think now and then you should delete this
from that and the rest is fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
MS. PHILSON: Next is Mr. Mike Barbush.
MR. BARBUSH: Good morning, Commissioner. My name is
Mike Barbush and I'm the president of the Goodland Civic
Association. I'd like to read a short statement and then. My name is
Page 111
July 30-31, 2002
Mike Barbush, president of the Goodland Civic Association. We
come before you this morning to endorse the interlocal agreement
between the County and the City of Marco Island with one exception,
for the reasons previously stated. Goodland has a historical,
emotional and a physical attachment to County Road 92A.
And we respectfully request that the County retain jurisdiction
of the entry road to our community. I'd like to thank Mr. Mudd and
David Weigel and Ed Caff from your Transportation Department for
supplying information helpful to -- regarding to the transference of
the jurisdiction. Let me also state that we have a good relationship
with the City of Marco Island.
This is in no way an advisory situation with the City of Marco
Island. We've been working with Mr. Moss, the City Council and a
Public Works Director, Vlad Resu for over a year on the construction
of a bike path down County Road 92A. There are three developments
in the future that will require a cooperation between the City and the
County.
The Barge Marina at the base of the Goodland Bridge the
approval and the approved PUD for Calusa Island Village and the
interconnects with the Calusa Yacht Club all in the planning stages
will require a good faith negotiations between the City and the
County. I lived on Marco and Goodland for 22 years. And I'm in the
construction industry on Marco Island everyday.
I believe the interlocal agreement will be an asset to Marco
Island to improve -- to continue with the capital improvements
already underway. And I believe it's a sound policy for County also.
We would like to see the jurisdiction of County Road 92A remain
with the County.
In March of 2002, the Goodland Civic Association voted to try
to get County Road 92A back into unincorporated Collier County.
Page 112
July 30-31, 2002
This long, difficult process will be accomplished with by going to the
State House of Representatives and the Senate and the Governor and
also the citizens of Collier County to approve such a request.
Retaining jurisdiction of County Road 92A is critical to this effort.
Please approve the interlocal agreement and retain jurisdiction to
County Road 92A for Goodland. Mr. Mudd's proposal is acceptable
to us. If the County owns the road and the City of Marco Island
maintains the road, that's a win-win for both of us. Marco has the
ability to use those monies for not only for the road but for also
capital improvements, drainage and those sort of things.
We're like this with Marco. We have to be like this with Marco.
And again, like I say, if Mr. Mudd's proposal is agreeable to ya'll, it's
definitely agreeable to us. The two-year window gives us enough
time to work with Burt Saunders and with Dudley Goodlette to find
out if we have some where to go with this, to get the road back in
unincorporated Collier County.
Our citizen Goodland are adamant about getting the road back
into the town. So my direction as the President of the Civic
Association is to follow through this. And this is just the beginning
of a long process to try to get the winding road, County Road 92A,
back into Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And don't forget your biggest asset,
Commission Fiala will be there for you.
MR. BARBUSH: Absolutely, without a doubt. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would ask Commissioner
Fiala to reinstate her motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry.
I thought I had it right the first time. But I'm going to try it again.
Page 113
July 30-31, 2002
And that is that I would like to approve this interlocal agreement as
written except to delete Route 92A and keep that in the ownership of
the County but maintained by Marco Island for a period of two years,
and then we can come back and revisit it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, you know --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we wrote, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thank you. Mike
Minozzi from the Marco Island City Council would like to come up.
And thanks, Mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we do, there's one problem I
have with the motion. It's worded in such way that we're bound by
the interlocal agreement dollarwise. And we may be bound to take
the road back over to pay to have it repaired from what I hear in your
motion. There's the part that gives me a little fear.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No. No. Marco Island would
repair. Marco Island would maintain--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For two years?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But two years -- at the end of two
years --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then the road goes to Marco Island
or we work out some other agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. But we're not bound by the
County. If it doesn't go to Marco Island, you take it back and start
paying for it without adjusting the interlocal agreement, because that
would be disastrous to have to start paying for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No. No. No. That isn't--
MR. MUDD: Let me help for just a second. Okay. There's two
interlocal agreements Okay. And I suggest you take them on one at a
Page 114
July 30-31, 2002
time. Okay. And let's get the road one done first, because that's the
most critical one and then we'll get to the impact fee one.
What the road agreement is, as it states right now, is that the
roads, County Road 92 and 92 Alpha, would be turned over, those
pieces of road that are located within the municipal boundaries of
Marco Island would be turned over to Marco Island for maintenance
and for ownership, okay, with a payment from the County of one
million dollars a year for 15 years.
Commissioner, what I think you said, okay, is that County Road
-- that's all stands firm, except in the case of County Road 92 Alpha.
In that particular case, that road segment would be maintained by
Marco Island. The ownership would stay maintained by Marco
Island for 15 years. And Connie Follmer has the point of contact with
Norm Pfeiter to come if they need any repairs so we can get with
Vlad Resu and get that fixed.
An ownership of the road would stay with the County for a two-
year period of time while Goodland Homeowners Association works
the details out for deannexation of that particular property along that
road back to the County. After that two-year period of time,
ownership would be revert back to Marco Island if they're effort is
unsuccessful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that leaves me still wondering
what about the dollar amounts?
MR. MUDD: It's okay at that particular juncture because they're
maintaining the road for that fifteen-year period of time no matter
who owns it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Regardless?
MR. MUDD: Regardless.
Page 115
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Minozzi, thank you very
much for bearing with us.
MR. M1NOZZI: Thank you. For the record, Mike Minozzi,
Councilman, Marco Island. First of all I do want to thank you for
bringing this entire issue up. I know that we were -- at the very
beginning we were kind of unhappy about the way it was shaping up.
But I think it turned out to be a win-win situation for the County and
for Marco Island.
And I wanted to express my support for the motion. And I just
want to let our neighbors in Goodland know that if we're going to
make a commitment to maintain the roads, we certainly are going to
stand by our commitments. And certainly with Norm there to kind of
referee if anything needs to be done, certainly there will be no
problem.
Certainly, reasonable maintenance of these roads will be
something that we would do if we agree to do it. So, again, I just
want to make sure that our neighbors know that there is no problem.
We will maintain the road. Whether it turns out that we end up
owning the road or not owning the road, you know, that really is okay
either way. It doesn't make any difference.
We have no designs to do anything other than to keep the road
in good maintenance. And by the way, I just want to address one
point regarding the bike paths that gentleman made before. And, yes,
we did receive a grant to do bike paths. But that grant does not come
due, I believe, until '05 or '06. And we had originally, we had
attempted to push it up, you know, with an agreement earlier.
Unfortunately, it did get cut from the budge as many other
situations got cut from the budget. And so we're attempting to do it
again this year even though we will not get paid for it until '05 or '06.
So I just want to make sure that people understand that we are not in
Page 116
July 30-31, 2002
any way shorting Goodland in this case. We're actually doing --
we're actually paying money in interest to do this project well in
advance of what the grant was for. But we certainly do support your
motion. And I do want to thank you all of you for bringing this up.
Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you Mr. Minozzi. Okay.
Where are we at this point? We have a --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Call a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's see. I'm sorry. I think I have to
close the public hearing if we haven't done that. We heard from all
the speakers?
MS. PHILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Close the public hearing. And at this
point we have a motion. And the motion is one part or two parts?
MR. MUDD: This is a one-part motion from what I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was a one-part motion.
MR. MUDD: And this has to do with the turnovers of the
County Road 92 and 92 Alpha to the City of Marco in the exception
that County Road 92 Alpha will be maintained by the City of Marco
Island, will remain in County ownership for two years after which
time it will revert to the City of Marco Island unless there's been
some legislative deannexation of properties from the City of Marco in
that process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And Commissioner Henning
seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seconded it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-hum.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So is there any other
discussion on this motion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Page 117
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it 4 to 0.
Commission Coyle is absent.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner we have one more item here, okay,
with this. You have another interlocal agreement with the City of
Marco Island. And this has to do with impact fee collection. The
major change in this agreement versus the old agreement, because
these two things go together, in this particular case, the City of Marco
Island would have a fixed rate for to cover administrative fees for
collecting road impact fees of $200,000.
And let me get it a little bit clearer. Basically, they will collect
road impact fees until it reaches the $200,000 mark. Sometime in the
future if they only $100,000, they would keep that, because there
would be nothing above the 200,000 mark that would come to the
County. But once the road impact fees that are collected exceed
$200,000, that monies will be returned to Collier County. It's very,
very similar to what's happening with the City of Naples. Okay. So
we're trying to stay real consistent with this one. And that's the other
interlocal agreement that's before you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to make the motion to
approve that agreement.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala for approval and Commissioner Carter is the second. Any
discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 118
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 4 to 0.
Commissioner Coyle is absent.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would say that it's lunchtime.
And I would remind the Board that they have a time certain at 1:15.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MR MUDD: Yes, sir.
How about making it 1:30?
Make that time certain to 1:30.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Thereupon, (Proceedings concluded at 12:30 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, please take
your seats. And where we left off, we're ready to go on to 8-D; am I
correct?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. You have a time certain.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we do.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2002-334 REGARDING HISPANIC AFFAIRS
ADVISORY BOARD'S REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FOR "LIVING
WAGE"/FARM WORKER/AGRICULTURAL ISSUES-
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: 9-A; Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board request
for the County Commission to support a living wage farmworker
agricultural issues form and dialogue.
MR. CORRAEA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Honored
Members of the Board, David Correa. I'm Chairman of the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board of Collier County.
As you are all well aware, the function of the Spanish Affairs
Advisory Board is to evaluate problems of concern to the Hispanic
Page 119
July 30-31, 2002
community and serve as a bridge of communication between the
community and the county government.
We have held meetings throughout the county, and the
farmworker issue continues to be a paramount importance for the
entire community.
The low wages and the deplorable conditions far outweigh other
issues.
In the past, we have presented proposals seeking a resolution
from this Board. Requesting a dialogue between the growers, the
farmworkers of Collier County, and on those prior occasions the
Board by a narrow margin, has failed to approve our measure
requesting a dialogue between the growers and the laborers.
Although, I must publicly state that both the Democratic
Executive Committee and the Republican Executive Committee have
both formerly endorsed this resolution to the Board of Collier County
requesting a dialogue among the various groups.
I'm here today to present a new proposals that is both unique and
different earlier than my earlier proposals.
Mr. Dick Nogaj, President of the Harvest for Humanity has
presented the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board a potential solution
for the agricultural crisis, specifically, the living wage concept under
which produce would be labeled with a living wage label.
That would state laborers are paid living wage or fair wage and
produce is grown in the U.S. And that would motivate consumers to
pay slightly more for produce which is safer and healthier to eat and
which benefits American workers and businesses.
If passed, this resolution would provide a forum for all segments
for all agricultural industry to participate in this discussion.
Page 120
July 30-31, 2002
Once again, I must emphasize this resolution is a request by the
Board for the various groups to have a dialogue, not to involve itself
into negotiations.
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board is not requesting the
Board to involve itself in the dialogue, the forum or the terms of
employment.
We are only asking that you issue a proclamation requesting the
parties to discuss the issues at a recognized center for the sole
purpose of improving the living and economic conditions of a
specific segment of the population of Collier.
The Spanish Advisory Affairs has discussed the issue with the
Florida Gulf Coast University Center. And they have agreed to host
a forum to mediate the agricultural issue.
Under living wage concept growers would have greater control
over price. And might be willing to discuss these issues with
farmworkers, buyers, brokers and retailers.
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board that Mr. Nogaj's living
wage concept merits a forum and dialogue as a possible viable
solution to the farm worker and agricultural issues in Immokalee and
Collier County.
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board is hopeful this concept
will be of sufficient interest of all parties involved in the industry so
as to motivate the parties to participate in the Florida Gulf Coast
University Forum.
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board also continues to believe
that the Collier County Commission should play a lead role in calling
for this forum by resolution.
The Board of Community Commissioners should do this to
encourage participation in the parties in discussion of issues that
Page 121
July 30-31, 2002
effect vital humanitarian economic and agricultural issues in this
county.
Thank you for your time, consideration of this vital issue that
effects this county.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before I go to you Commissioner
Henning, I'm sure there's some questions.
I would like to make a motion to approve this and then we'll get
into the discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a second at this point in
time. Commissioner Henning, you had the light on first and I'll come
back later.
MR. HENNING: Thank you. Just one question, the Resolution
before us today, did either Republic or Democratic parties support
this Resolution?
MR. CORREA: Well, I've gone before the Republican Party
and Democratic Executive Committee, and they've both endorsed and
supported this Resolution.
In fact, at the Republican Party, I was told that they strongly
support any type of dialogue between the parties just to get the parties
to sit down and communicate with one another.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So are you saying it's the same
resolution that we had before as the last time?
MR. CORREA: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. CORREA: What's that now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The question was, is this the same
resolution that we had before that we rejected?
Page 122
July 30-31, 2002
MR. CORREA: Oh no, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. This
Resolution actually it's different. This has to do with a living wage
where prior to this we were discussing just having the farmworkers
and growers sit down to discuss and have negotiations of a forum, a
dialogue.
This now is completely different, whereas, I have a concept
which is called a label for living wage, a fair wage proposal, to be
placed on produce. This will also bring the different parties involved.
We expect to have the retailers, the distributors come to this
table to discuss the issues.
At the present time, the retailers set the price for produce. We
believe -- and the American farmer is in competition with the South
American, the Mexican farmers as far as produce in this country.
I became an expert. I'm from New York City, but I became an
expert. I barely know what I'm talking about, but I'm making an
attempt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you can answer my question,
please.
MR. CORREA: I'm trying to, Commissioner. The American
farmer has to compete with the Mexican and South American farmers
that use their own pesticides. We don't know what type of pesticides
they use.
So on the health issue, we believe that the American produce
would be safer. And it's a matter of educating the consumer, just that
they realize it's a better product. It's a safer product and it's also
helping the economy.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Answer my question.
MR. CORREA: Go on, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did the Democratic or
Republican Party support what you're asking today?
Page 123
July 30-31, 2002
MR. CORREA: Yes. We've gone before them and we've
spoken to them about this Resolution, this Resolution that is on
today.
This is the same Resolution that has gone before the Republican
Party and Democratic Party. And we've spoken to them before.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, I think we would like to
here from Dick Nogaj about his living wage concept program. MR. CORREA: He's here in the audience.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know you don't have your name
down. I'm drafting you. You are to report up front here to the
microphone and make a report. Boy, the powers of this office.
MR. NOGAJ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity to address the Board today. We're here really today as a
grower.
Harvest for Humanity is a grower in Immokalee. And we have,
over the last many years, experienced the same dilemmas that most of
our fellow growers have experienced and not being able to set prices,
fair prices, for their produce.
And in mm, not being able to pay workers the kind of wages,
living wages, that would constitute higher quality of life.
This is a dilemma that agriculture faces because of the issues
involving foreign produce. The issues of involving having to be a
price taker not a price maker.
It is critical that we bring to the table now for economic
development purposes all this opportunity in Collier County to
utilize, for example, in Immokalee, the 10,000 jobs that exist out
there, not only to raise wages an improve the economy of Immokalee
and all of Collier County, but to bring an opportunity to the table for
growers to obtain fair prices through fair food or living wage
labeling.
Page 124
July 30-31, 2002
Both the Democratic and Republican groups have looked at this,
they have not only endorsed this, but they have endorsed letters to
Senator Graham's office to involve a Tax Credit Campaign that
would actually be able to provide short-term remedies to growers for
higher wages until you and I as consumers recognize that fair food,
American grown, USDA grown is healthier, safer to eat and we
should pay a little more for it.
The whole solution has the potential of addressing all of the
issues, provided we bring to the table elected representatives at the
house level in the State of Florida in the Senate level.
We bring to the table representatives of consumer groups. We
bring to the table representatives of buyers. We bring to the table the
retailer reps and the growers and the workers.
Now, with all these sectors involved Florida Gulf Coast
University has agreed to provide the facilities, the space, the forum
and all of the background necessary to begin to explore fair food
produce and higher price produce for living wages as one solution.
There's many that also can be discussed, once those representatives
are at the table.
So we ask the County Board to help kick start this process by
exercising their leadership in showing the agricultural community
that let's begin this dialogue, not just with growers and workers, and
let's not put it all on the growers, because we as growers cannot pay
the kind of wages we'd like to pay, stabilize our work force, but if we
had the fair price for our produce, because it was American grown,
because we got reimbursed for the cost to comply with all these
standards, then we could pass down to our workers higher wages,
which in turn would mean turn around the economic development for
Immokalee, which will benefit all of Collier County.
MS. FILSON: If you can spell your name for the record.
Page 125
July 30-31, 2002
MR. NOGAJ: My name is Dick Nogaj. And it's spelled N-O-
G-A-J. And I'm President for Harvest for Humanity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Nogaj, you're to be commended
for coming up with such an original idea. This is not unlike what
Starkist did with the problem of killing of the porpoises, fisherman
out at the high seas.
They came up with a label that said that their tuna without blame
-- that no porpoises were killed in order to harvest the crop. They
gave that particular guarantee. And their sales took right off.
Something similar to recycle paper and recycled products to
give people more of an incentive to buy it. We're back to the free
market system now where we're not trying to impose something on
something. We're trying to encourage people to do the right thing
through this particular label process.
I comment you for it. I think it's an excellent idea. I think if it
catches on here, it will go nationwide in short order. I'm proud to be
at the beginning edges of this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that signed by Charlie the
Tuna?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I got those words right from
Charlie the Tuna. Thank you very much, Commissioner Carter.
Any other comments before we call for the motion?
Do you want to push a button?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I forgot the new system.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, were you
trying to push the button and couldn't?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My button doesn't work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. You just push my
button and I'll get it for you.
Commissioner Henning first and the Commissioner Coyle.
Page 126
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe a good way to approach
this is just -- experimental purposes, is the blueberry growers in
Collier County, let them sit down with the industry between the
retailers, the farmer and the growers and try that program and see
how it works and we can monitor the outcome of not only the wages
of the farmers but also how the farmers benefit and the laborers out
there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you repeat just the
beginning of that again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to change the Resolution to
say for the blueberry farmers in Collier county we encourage them to
sit down with the retailers, the wholesalers and the laborers to enact
some kind of a fair wage program for them and let's see how it works
in the marketplace and how it dictates in the marketplace.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In order for something of this
magnitude to work it has to have the exposure of something more
than just a limited blueberry market --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I disagree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- which has no competition. There's
only one Florida blueberry market and you're selling everything you
can produce.
So how would you be able to you use that for a measure?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You measure it by starting out
in a small portion of the marketplace instead of imposing --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who's imposing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- something on the whole
industry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Big Government interfering
with the small businessman again.
Page 127
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, shame on us for imposing this
particular label on the general population out there, including the
farmers.
I don't hear the word imposing at all. This is a voluntary
program that a person is motivated to do it on their own.
If they see an economic benefit, they join this program, if they
don't, then they don't.
It's completely beside anything that's imposing. Hopefully, it
gets to the point where it's a run off and everybody wants to see the
label, that would be the incentive and you'll they have it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the resolution is the same as
it was before --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that is what we're doing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The gentleman from Spanish
Advisory Board said it is the same.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. He corrected himself,
Commissioner Henning. It doesn't resemble it at all.
And the reason I know this is because I helped to rewrite it. It
doesn't resemble the original resolution in any way, shape or form.
Anything referring to unions or any other kind of negative
comments were stricken out.
It was put in there about the economic incentives in there and
free enterprise being involved.
That's what I believe this Commission is looking for and that's
what I tried to portray when I rewrote the item.
Before we go to you Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree. This is a significant
improvement over the Resolution that was originally submitted.
Page 128
July 30-31, 2002
In reading and in knowing the background of the intent of the
program, which I think is laudable, I am not convinced yet that the
resolution portion of this reflects the exact intent of what you want to
do.
I would just like to make a suggestion or recommendation to
you. What would happen if the Commission were to pass a
resolution which commends Florida Gulf Coast University for
agreeing to mediate a forum to promote a living wage fair price on
agricultural issues.
This forum will encourage representatives of growers, workers,
consumers, buyers, brokers and retailers from Southwest Florida to
explore the improvement of living and economic conditions for all
members of the agricultural interest in Southwest Florida.
Now, I think that says the same thing, but it takes the
Government out of the process of directing, advising certain things to
be done by private industry.
But what you're really looking for is for Florida Gulf Coast
University to do this and for the other organizations to participate,
and if we commend Florida Gulf Coast University for their
willingness to do that and leave the rest up to you and the private
interest, that might very well remove some of the resistance of the
Board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No offense, but what Commissioner
Coyle is saying is right along the lines with what we're talking about
earlier.
I have no problem myself with the language he wants to write
over in this. I wished that you consulted him also before we brought
this before you.
Excellent, Commissioner Coyle. I'd like to make that part of the
motion.
Page 129
July 30-31, 2002
MR. CORREA: I'm willing to go along with the change in
language. I think it is commendable. I'm very happy. I would settle
for that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's up to you, Donna.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's fine with my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, do you have
something else to add?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I was just going to say it's so
healthy for different sides of an issue to sit down together and talk. I
don't care what it is. Sometimes people forget to sit down and talk
with one another and they jump to conclusions and this encourages
them to do that.
I appreciate your adjustment to the language.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a clarification, so we're
moving with HAAP which recommends the Board of Commissioners
to endorse a concept of a living wage program and encourages all
stakeholders to be involved in the agricultural industry in Collier
County to participate for the good of all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. We're not really saying quite
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're removing it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me read it again, because it is
a juxtaposition of some of the elements of the original resolution.
But let me try it slowly and then we'll -- you'll have a better
chance to determine whether or not it meets your needs.
I am suggesting that the Collier County Commission pass a
Resolution which commends Florida Gulf Coast University for
agreeing to mediate a forum to promote living wage fair price
agricultural issues.
Page 130
July 30-31, 2002
This forum will encourage representatives of growers, workers,
consumers, buyers, brokers and retailers from Southwest Florida to
explore on the improvements of living and economic conditions for
all members of the agricultural interest of Southwest Florida.
It gets to exactly where you want to go. And the difference
really is, if I can boil it down to just a few words, it is a resolution
which commends the private industry for doing this and it is not
something that appears to be a directive towards private industry.
That's the essential difference.
I think it gets to where you want to go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that answer your question,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And that's with a
period, beginning and ending with a Resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion? Hearing none.
No speakers; correct?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it
unanimously. Thank you very much gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner
Coyle. That made it possible for me to support it, taking the
Government out of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, we are at 8-D.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 131
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This will require all those people
who wish to participate to stand and be sworn in by our reporter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go down the dais. Are there
any declarations on part of the commissioners? Starting with
Commissioner Henning.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2002-40 REGARDING PETITION PUDA-01-AR-
2491, ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE MONTES, INC.,
REPRESENTING JAMES AND DIANE WILLIAMS,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARROWHEAD
PUD AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD
AND CARSON ROAD IN IMMOKALEE- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which item are we on? 8-D?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're on 8-D.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Delta. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8-D.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to a Planning
Commission member on this matter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have talked to the Petitioner
about this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have talked to the Petitioner and the
Planning Commission on this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have spoken with Bill Clone and
with a few others over the last few months.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I met with the Petitioner,
Commissioner.
Page 132
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I guess we're prepared to go on here.
MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon. For the record, Ray
Bellows, I'm with the current planning staff.
The petition, I'm presenting is PUD-A-01-AR-2491. The
Petitioner is requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD for the purposes
of amending the Arrowhead PUD document and Master Plan as noted
in your Executive Summary packet.
As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on
the Southwest comer of Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road.
This petition would've been a Summary Agenda since the
Collier County Planning Commission approved this unanimously
eight to zero.
However, this Petitioner requires the Board of County
Commissioners to make findings as noted in your Staff Report and
Executive Summary packet.
The first finding is that and it's illustrated here on this Master
Plan. The area in yellow is the commercial tract and some of the
criteria within the Immokalee area Master Plan requires that the
configurations of commercial parcel will have no more frontage then
depth unless otherwise authorized by the Board of County
Commissioners.
This Petition will have -- is requesting reconfiguration that
allows for more frontage along Lake Trafford Road then you would
see on Carson Road.
The purpose is to allow for better utilization of the site and the
multi-family tract area that fit in between the preserve area, south of
the commercial tract.
That's the purpose of this request and the determination by the
Board.
Page 133
July 30-31, 2002
The other one deals with the construction and the commercial
designated area shall not be allowed until 30 percent of the project
has commenced construction unless otherwise authorized by the
Board of County Commissioners.
The developer of Arrowhead is requesting that the standard be
modified to allow construction of commercial uses once 20 percent of
the building permits have been issued for residential dwelling units,
which will coincide with the first phase of development.
I've also invited Cormac Giblin with Housing and Urban
Improvement to go over some of the work force housing benefit to
this project and then after that, Collier County Planning Commission
had made some revisions to the transportation stipulations, and we'll
go over some of those afterwards.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin
from the Financial Administration and Housing Department.
Arrowhead Development is really -- we hope will be a model
PUD for the future of Collier County.
If I could back up, a few hours ago on your Summary Consent
Agenda, you approved 17-H, which is a PUD Amendment to Cypress
Glen.
Coincidentally, the same developers that are also proposed to do
this Arrowhead Development are also building the Cypress Glen
PUD, which you approved this morning.
In that Cypress Glenn PUD, they agreed to a minimum of five
percent of all the units in that development up to a target of up to 10
percent of the units would be designated to low-income home buyers.
This is inclusionary zoning at work in the real world. Cypress
Glenn will be a townhouse type community that the units that the
low-income buyers live in will be indistinguishable from any other
units in the development.
Page 134
July 30-31, 2002
The Petitioners here have agreed to do the same exact thing with
the Arrowhead Development in Immokalee, except at a much greater
scale.
The price points for this development are going to be very
attractive to low-income first-time home buyers in all of Collier
County, not just in Immokalee.
They have agreed to allow the Collier County Housing
Authority to build about 304 apartments on the parcel.
And in addition to those, which are going to be affordable just
by the very nature of the Housing Authority's operation, they have
agreed to an additional amount of five percent of the remaining
balance of all the dwelling units to be sold to low-income home
buyers.
This is the direction that the Housing Department would like to
see developers, and especially a developer such as this who has done
it for virtually no county benefit, there's no affordable housing
density bonuses in this project.
They have not applied for any impact fee waiver or deferrals on
this project.
They merely took advantage of some fast-tracking incentives
that we offer to low-income housing developers.
The rezone before you today will also eliminate about 300
mobile home uses from this property in Immokalee, which a lot of us
can agree that Immokalee already has enough mobile homes to begin
with. It's refreshing to see someone requesting to remove that as an
allowable use.
So in all, approximately 29 or 30 percent of this PUD will be
restricted to affordable housing when you include the Housing
Authority's portion of apartments.
Page 135
July 30-31, 2002
We would recommend approval by the Housing Department.
And also your Affordable Housing Commission has voted on this
issue and recommends an approval as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know we have some speakers, but
I'm going to jump in a little bit earlier and make a motion for
approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion from Commissioner
Coletta and a second from Commissioner Fiala.
Now we'll go on to public -- I'm sorry, your presentation is not
concluded yet, has it, sir? Are you pretty well versed on it fellow
commissioners?
I've been on top of this issue for months. I don't want to
presume you all have the knowledge that I have on this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There's only one issue and that's
whether it's 30 or 20 before your commercial. I think that's the only
issue to be determined by the Board. That's the only question I have.
If everyone is in agreement with that, then I say -- unless somebody
is opposed to it, let's call a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The length and the depth of the
commercial there.
MS. FILSON: We have five speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are they all opposed to it? We don't
know. All in favor then you may want to do this. (Indicating.) It's
called a waive so we can move on. We'll call you off and you can do
the waive.
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Patrick McCuan.
MR. MCCUAN: Let me just simply say, I'm the CEO of MDG
Companies, the developer.
Page 136
July 30-31, 2002
All I would like to say is to make absolutely clear, if I could, just
one simple thing is that this is not subsidized housing. This is
affordable housing that we intend to build here.
We intend to build housing that our schoolteachers and our
deputy sheriffs and our county employees and others can enjoy.
This is not subsidized housing. It's not Section Eight Housing.
This is an entrepreneurial effort.
And by the way, we're not do gooders. This is going to be an
entrepreneurial effort and we intend to make it just that.
And thank you very much. I won't say anything else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go through the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Bill Clone and he will be
followed by Robert Dwayne.
MR. CLONE: My name is William Clone, President of MDG
Capital Corporation.
I'll make it brief because Cormac said most of the things I had to
say. I'd like to take a minute to make it very known to the
Commissioners that Joe Schmitt and Denny Baker and Cormac
Giblin deserve a hand for the fine help that they assisted us in going
through the planning process.
We got a few more consultants that we have not had and I don't
think there's any necessity to call upon them, but if so, thank you very
much for your time and support.
MS. FILSON: Robert Dwayne. He waived. Essie Solata.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Burke Gorman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker.
Page 137
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle and then we'll
go to Commissioner Carter. I don't know if you finished your
comments before or not.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Go to Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no serious objection at all
to this project. I just want to clarify a couple of details with the staff.
I raised the question with respect to the potential for credit for
right-of-way or credit for impact for right-of-way improvements, and
the answer I got was a little equivocal.
I want to make sure that we understand where we're going with
that. My question really is that the Petitioner is asking merely that
the door be left open that sometime in the future, if there's the
opportunity, and if it is permitted, that they be able to apply for and
get impact fee credits for certain portions of this work.
My question is, how are the impact fee credits valued? Are they
valued at the point in time when they are likely to be applied at the
impact fee levels that exist then? Or are they somehow going to be
applied at the impact fee levels that exist upon approval on this
particular PUD?
MR. BELLOWS: Staff-- transportation staff and the applicant
have been working feverishly up to the last minute to refine the
details of how this should be done.
And in the Planning Commission, it was agreed that impact fee
credits and just let me read from that section, may be we'll have Joe
Schmitt or someone from Transportation read how that's applied.
But I also want to go over some of the other conditions of
approval.
Page 138
July 30-31, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, normally, to answer your
question, normally when you have impact fee credits, it's like a bank
account.
It's a certain number of dollars that go out there that can be
applied for impact fees when the building permits get pulled.
And it's the fee -- and it's paid at the price of the impact fee at
the time that they pull the permit.
MR. SCHMITT: The fees are in effect -- for the record, Joe
Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental Services.
The fees that are in place at the time when you have a permit
application and that application is deemed sufficient, you can then
leave your permit and it's good for six months, but it's actually the
fees that -- they're in place when you actually apply.
And by the way, we're going to talk to you tomorrow about that,
to clean up the code a little bit. That's one of the things that we're
going to propose tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's one of the complicating
factors here. It can work either to the detriment or it can help the
Petitioner, depending on how those impact fees go sometime in the
future.
And I think that both parties need to understand how that's going
to happen.
MR. SCHMITT: Just to clarify, are you talking about impact
fees that are through low-income housing instruments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand there's a deferral.
MR. SCHMITT: There's a deferral process when they have a
sufficient low-income housing agreement, the deferral process. But
those fees that are assessed are the fees that are in place when they
actually come in and apply for the building permit.
Page 139
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that will be the fees that exist
at the time that -- they get the first building permit?
MR. SCHMITT: They get the building permits for the buildings
they're going to build. Now, I know with this project, I don't want to
use this in a derogatory manner, but they're kind of cookie cutter type
of units, so when they come in and submit for review, those buildings
will be reviewed and pretty much will be for almost the entire
project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there's a deferral of six years,
is it?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, when they apply for the low-income
housing program and -- yes, it's a bonding and it's a six year deferral.
Is that a six year, Cormac? Yes, six years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that. Just one other
general question. You gave me maybe a full page of typed written
conditions that appear in the final development agreement.
I presume those are all part of the staffs recommendation?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Item Q is -- it says, "All
conditions and improvements described in paragraph 55-J through
8.50, which describe the road improvements may be considered
eligible for road impact fee credits.
Credits will be considered only if or when road impact fee
ordinance 2000-13 is amended to allow for the impact fee credits for
roads that are not contained in the capital improvement element for
the Collier County Growth Management Plan.
Impact fee credits should also be subjected to separate
developers, contribution agreement to be approved by the Collier
County Board of Commissioners."
This was the language that was adopted through the Planning
Commission hearing.
Page 140
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there are a number of other
stipulations that are part of the staff's recommendation?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. They're the same ones that the
Planning Commission recommended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm just back to the question of
20 and 30 percent, and what does the motion include? Are you
recommending 30 percent or 20 percent?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What is the staff's recommendation?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Staff's recommendation is 30
percent to the developer who is requesting 20 percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just need clarification.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm lost at this point.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's on the page second page of
your summary, item number two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're requesting less commercial;
is that correct?
MR. DWAYNE: For the record, Robert Dwayne, representing
the Petitioner. My understanding is that we have staff's support to
reduce this threshold from 30 to 20 percent.
That was the recommendation of the Growth Management
Department. That was the recommendation from the Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mine would be the 20 percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That answers all my questions.
Page 141
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My question is very simple, what is
the price range for the single-family owner occupied home? You
don't have to make a long speech, just tell me.
MR. DWAYNE: They will meet the county level of what it
establishes, which is now 130, it is soon to be 150. So it will be 150
and under.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I see no more lights on my
board telling me someone wishes to speak.
Is there anything else we need to cover? Fine. I'm going to call
the question. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero. Thank you.
Let's move on to the next item 8-H.
MR. MUDD: No, sir, that's tomorrow morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course it is.
Item #81
ORDINANCE 2002-41 REGARDING PETITION RZ-01-AR- 1143,
JAMES G. O'GARA, REPRESENTING GOLDEN GATE
CAPITAL, LTD., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "RSF-3" TO
"RSF-5" FOR 16 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 50TM TERRACE
SW AND 22ND AVENUE SW- ADOPTED
Page 142
July 30-31, 2002
MR. MUDD: It brings us to 8-I, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8-I. This will also require those
people that wish to participate to stand at this time to be sworn in.
Thank you. And we'll go right down the line to see if any
commissioners have to declare. We'll start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same people as last time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want me to start at the other
end?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Same people as last time.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mine would be the same. I have
no further disclosures.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just met with Mr. O'Gara
initially. I do have a question, though. This is merely coming back
to us because of a technical glitch in advertising.
Is there any need for presentation on this?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not from my part.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can make a motion for an
approval. I have nothing to declare. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I spoke to Mr. O'Gara many
months ago when he first made a presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nothing new since the last time?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing new.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Nothing new to disclose.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, did you have a motion you
want to make?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
Page 143
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle for approval and a second by Commissioner Carter. MS. FILSON: No public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I close the public part of this meeting
and we'll call the question. I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to get it clear. Is this the
lots running the front part of the lots, are they going to be the same as
was across the street, as far as the width?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm trying to zero in on a typical lot size here.
The typical lot size is about 80 feet wide. That is similar to RSF
Three District that is currently zoned.
The reason he's asking for the five is due to the unusual shape of
the tract, the minimum lot may not be met in all cases. However,
they're within five percent of that requirement.
In addition, the tract, as it is at 3.7 acres would not yield enough
lots that he's requesting 16 months rezoning to RSF, five would allow
for that, put a cap at 16 lots.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I guess that satisfies that. Let's call
the question. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have Commissioner Henning as
the descending vote, four to one.
Item #8J
Page 144
July 30-31, 2002
ORDINANCE 2002-42 ESTABLISHING THE TUSCANY
RESERVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 8-H, Commissioner, that's a
public hearing to consider the adoption of an order establishing of the
Tuscany Reserve Community Development District.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one question about
the CDD and the boundaries, not knowing the densities and that, is
there any commercial?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Yovanovich is going to make a statement
about that. I asked him to do it last night.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich
representing the Petitioner.
Within the proposed amendment to the existing PUD, there's a
village -- Village Center to serve the residents, within that there can
be a maximum 30,000 square feet on no more than 4.5 acres for
business and personal services to service the residents.
So there is about a 4.5 acre site that could be utilized for some
commercial to service the residents within the PUD. It's a 461 acre
plus or minus PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many units?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The existing is over 1,300. The PUD
amendment that's in the process is at 799. There's a reduction in the
PUD amount. That's winding it's way through the process separately
on the zoning issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's 799 units, is that what
you're saying?
Page 145
July 30-31, 2002
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what the PUD amendment is for.
If you want to get into the particulars on the development we can. I
have some people from the Petitioner here to get into those details if
you would like.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one question, what is the
threshold to start a municipality as far as Chapter 190?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think it's a 1,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion from Commissioner
Henning, a second from Commissioner Carter. Are there any other
questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to verify one thing.
That's a reduction of about 500 units.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be. Remember, you got to keep
the two process separate. Yes, the PUD amendment that's coming
through is going to request less.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Henning, let me
correct myself, I believe it's 5,000 not a.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's even better.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It has to be over five. I stand
corrected on my statement, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion that I'll call at this
time -- Commissioner Carter, did you have some other questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I was trying to get your
attention to talk to Mr. Henning, but we communicated by sign
language.
Page 146
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not going to go there. I'll call the
question. 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 five to zero.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
Item #8L
RESOLUTION 2002-335 RE PETITION ST-99-03, DAVID
FARMER, PE, OF KEYSTONE CUSTOM HOMES,
REQUESTING A SPECIAL TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT WITHIN THE PROPOSED LITTLE PALM ISLAND
SUBDIVISION- ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS AND
CHANGES
MR. MUDD: The next item is 8-L, as in Lima. And that is a
special treatment overlay for Little Palm Island and the participants
need to be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have all my disclosers in a
blue folder here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have some also, but very briefly
I have spoken with the Petitioners.
I have spoken with Mr. Pires and I've spoken with
representatives from the Conservancy.
Page 147
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've spoken to all those people and
received numerous e-mails and are available for anybody who'd like
to see it. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have all of this mail, and I've
spoke to the property owners in Palm River, in fact, ridden around
with them and I was the one that spotted the first tortoise, gopher
tortoise and spoke with the people at the Conservancy and spoken
with Tony Pires, spoken with the Key Stone person David Farmer,
and anybody else who wanted to come to my office and talk to me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I got a complete file. I've been
at this, I think, two and a half years. I've talked with Key Stone. I've
talked with Palm River Association, with Collier's Reserve and
numerous representatives of all those organizations.
And I believe Key Stone and Collier's Reserve is still in a
conference room, and let's see if I can get them step into the room
now so we can proceed forward.
I believe with the information that I have, I would like to give a
brief overview to see if all the parties are here in the agreements and I
understand that have been reached to be read into the public record so
that we might expedite this process for the Board and answer any
final questions.
I see Mr. Farmer is here and I see Collier's Reserve is here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to allow you,
Commissioner Carter, to call the people at your discretion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. Do you have -- I can
-- I got them memorized.
Ms. Murray, if I might, let me share what I believe I understand
and we can then begin to proceed with this accordingly.
Palm River had a great concern about the traffic impacts during
the construction period. It's my understanding through the
Page 148
July 30-31, 2002
representative, Tony Pires, that they have a list of, I believe, six items
to introduce as public record of an agreement between the
communities.
And it would be appropriate for Mr. Pires to step forward and
read in those agreement. It's also my understanding that Collier's
Reserve and Key Stone have reached an agreement on buffering
between the two projects in which a sum of money will be given to
Collier's Reserve to create their own buffer between in the properties
in exchange for the easement, which would further enlarge the
gopher tortoise preserve.
So the gopher tortoise have met the requirements and exceeded
our regulations and standard in which the Conservancy will make a
public record to that effect.
So the tortoises have been taken care of, the wetlands, retention
area has been taken care of. I believe the parties have reached an
agreement between Collier's Reserve and Key Stone, and I believe
the concerns of Palm River have been addressed through the traffic
control an construction of the agreement.
So I would respectfully ask that the parties, however they want
to present, and if I'm correct in saying this afternoon, step forward
and address the Board so the Board then can take action upon this ST.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's go to the
Petitioner. And we need to ask if that's in agreement with you, the
stipulations that Commissioner Carter just stated.
MR. FARMER: To be honest, I wasn't listening to all of them.
I was trying hurriedly set up for my presentation.
Page 149
July 30-31, 2002
We have been very diligently working with different
organizations to come to some agreement.
The Conservancy asked us early on to get involved with their
gopher tortoise expert and we have agreed to seven additional items
that will provide for the gopher tortoises.
We've been working with Collier's Reserve County to try to
work on buffering against the visual pollution from their point of
view on their side.
Mr. Pires has several items that he's read into the record, I
believe, three times. There's a couple of little things on there that if
you're willing to discuss them I would like to.
Namely, one being that the final plat has to come before the
Board. I think we can work together with the homeowners and with
county staff so the final plat does not have to come back on the
regular agenda and it could come in on the summary agenda. Should
we have problems and can't work it out by all means we can pull it
from the Summary Agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Could you share with the Board
what your agreement is with Collier's Reserve, if you have reached
that agreement?
MR. FARMER: It's about 15 seconds old and I'd be glad to talk
about it. Key Stone has agreed to purchase the rights of that
easement from Collier's Reserve at the point of which our first
building permit is pulled. The price will be $90,000.
And that will add an additional 1.5 acres easement itself if only
one acre. But it will add 1.5 acres to our existing 14 and a half acres,
bringing us to 16 acres of gopher tortoise preserve.
Part of my presentation, not to get into the math a little bit, we're
required by the code to provide seven acres. So at 14, we're already
at double, and at 16, well above double.
Page 150
July 30-31, 2002
I'd like to point out that's not to our density, it's zoned for three
units an acre, we're at less than half that. We're at 1.25 units per acre
five.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's great. And Collier's
Reserve will be responsible for establishing their own buffer.
MR. FARMER: Excuse me, I left that part out. Yes, in
exchange for the easement rights, Collier's Reserve will take care of
their own buffering and we've also agreed then to on four of our lots -
- we're allowed -- ours have three zones, have specific rights that are
outlined in the Land Development Code.
It talks about setbacks and we're allowed to go to two stories.
We've agreed that on four lots, their choosing, we'll limit those four
lots to single story to try to work with them.
Is there anything -- I have a whole presentation to go through.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Whatever you need to do. What
I'm interested in is if the Palm River Association, through their
representative, Tony Pires and you, to read those items into the public
record which he will need to do.
MR. FARMER: I was trying to hook up with Tony before lunch
and we were not able to hook up. We have not had a chance to talk
about these items. He was busy yesterday. So we didn't have a
chance to really sit down and talk about these items.
We don't have to make this ugly. We can hash it out right here.
I think it's item number three -- he e-mailed and sent you all a record
and letter and let me see if I can find that very quickly myself.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You want a copy?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, would it also help, Mr. Pires is
sitting in the back of the room and having him come forward in this
process it will help a little bit.
Page 151
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you would just come up and
interact with Mr. Farmer and go through this, then we can get all this
in the public record.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, you may have speakers to these
issues, whatever it is, if we can get all of this on the record so that we
know as a Board what's been agreed to by all the parties, I think it
will make it a lot easier for us to reach a decision.
MR. FARMER: I would like to point out that I tried diligently
to connect with him and we're both busy guys, but I believe we can
work it out right here very quickly in front of the Board.
Tony, on your items to be stipulated, the first thing I mentioned
is number three on the bottom. You're saying none of the foregoing
maybe modified in any way or amended.
It's not that I plan on modifying or amending anything. I think it
might be handled at a lower level with community development.
If then we can't, we reach an impasse, then maybe we can come
to the Board, but not throw every single decision back on the Board.
Board, it's your pleasure on how many times you want to see us
again.
MR. PIRES: For the record, Tony Pires, with the law firm of
Woodward, Pires and Lombardo representing the Palm River
Homeowners Association Inc.
And my recollection of this, once again back in time, as I
mentioned to you in my correspondence with the verbatim transcript
of February 13th of 2001. These were items that the developer had
agreed to at that time, and hopefully in the spirit of resolving all of
this would continue to agree to it.
I believe the primary imposition at that time and the regularly
scheduled agenda item was the issue to ensure that the plat language
was on there with regards to the roads being opened to the public.
Page 152
July 30-31, 2002
While they might be privately maintained, they would be open
to the public so there would not be an opportunity for a quieter
approval process by any future Board. So that it would be on a
regularly scheduled agenda.
So we're still interested in having it in that fashion.
MR. FARMER: I think someone other than the Board of
County Commissioners can verify, maybe an attorney sitting next to
me that that language is indeed on the plat. But I'll leave it to the
Board's pleasure.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Why don't we get to the ones
that you've all agreed to. Item two.
MR. FARMER: Yeah, item two, I think we're pretty much
there. We could have been a lot further.
I wrote a letter, I believe I gave you all a copy, I think, Mr. Pires
included, in his package on May 17th, the homeowners have not
replied to this.
We could have had much of this all worked out. Unfortunately,
that did not occur.
Item three, was really my big one. And if you all want to keep
seeing us every time there's a minor discrepancy and not let staff
work that out, then we'll do it that way.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: For the record, under Item D on
your list, I think the word is "speed", you got speed bump.
MR. FARMER: We never agreed to speed bumps on the record
prior to our last planning commission. It was bumps, bumps, always
bumps.
And Mr. Pires felt that now in today's modem age, just like
everything with technology, speed bumps have come a long way, no
pun intended.
Page 153
July 30-31, 2002
And speed humps are more of an appropriate device to use. At
the last Planning Commission, we agreed to that. It doesn't speak to
the number of how many might be required.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a suggestion, maybe this
might work with all parties, Commissioner Carter, the developer and
the homeowners association.
It's my understanding from, of course, this is third-hand that not
all the residents in Palm River are excited about speed humps.
If we can have the developer, to all their subs, write a letter
stating to amend to the speed limits, let's do some traffic enforcement
in there.
If any of the contractors, subcontractors are ticketed, they would
-- the developer would donate a certain amount to the homeowners
association.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I see Mr. Bellows shaking his
head no to that. I think speed humps were the controlled mechanism
in that project with the number to be determined between Key Stone
and our Department of Transportation on those road stretches.
You don't have them every 10 feet. There must be some traffic
plan that controls on the section effectively. So I would prefer to
leave that up the staff, the developer and association just as long as
it's on the record that it will be done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
MR. FARMER: I would like to offer, I know many developers
have a negative connotation or black hat associated with them. I am
here in good faith today. I'm saying on the record I'm here in good
faith.
Indeed, the homeowners named indeed vote that they don't want
speed humps. I'm willing to work in good faith, you know, as long as
it's --
Page 154
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Reasonable.
MR. FARMER: -- in the sense of being reasonable. That's all I
can ask for. I don't know if Mr. Pires has a thought to add to this or
not.
MR. PIRES: I think the term was without getting bogged down
into details, I know the Board has a lot of other items, the speed
humps were what my client's desired.
I know the speed humps before season are much nicer then
speed bumps. Speed humps going from to 41 to Goodlette Frank
Road through Twin Lakes there are much nicer.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's all the seven items you
had under two. My understanding you're representing the
homeowners, they're in agreement with that and the developer is in
agreement with that. I don't want to belabor each point. You're okay. You're okay. I'm okay.
MR. PIRES: Once again, these are just all the issues from the
planning perspective and the environmental perspective, relatively
minor, they have come a long way.
There may have been issues in the past with regards to
communications and the lack thereof, they have come a long way.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
MR. PIRES: The only other one is the environmental and they
may have done this or performed this, but the active tortoise bureau
study be performed prior to the approval.
We suggested that the DAC, we suggested that the Planning
Commission, the stipulation that is in there now is with construction
activities. But we hoped --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now, I see nods all around
behind you. I see it from David Farmer. You've had that issue
addressed.
Page 155
July 30-31, 2002
MR. FARMER: Yes, sir. Can you clarify that that is not prior
to submission of the plans, but prior to the construction, which is the
State requirement?
MR. PIRES: I mentioned what our position was and
recognizing what the staff had proposed and recommended. I just
wanted to make sure that was clear.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Prior to construction, Mr.
Farmer.
MR. FARMER: And there's one other item and I don't recall if
it is still in the staff report, but it calls for a friendly fire burn, if you
will.
I'm not saying I won't go there, but I think the preferred, my
preference would be a manual reduction or let's be honest, some guys
with chain saws doing the cutting back.
Again, we're not saying we won't do the burn, but there's a
whole bunch of issues that will go with that that may not work with
the proximity of the houses that are around it now.
So I don't know if you want to -- in our last hearing, we
proposed some changes to that, that it would be not a burn but a
manual reduction of the over story.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I see staff nodding yes. I think
that's fine.
MR. FARMER: I'm not trying to beat these points. I just want
to make sure we understand so there's clarity when we looked at this
two years from now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right. Collier's Reserve, are
you in agreement with what Mr. Farmer said, do you want to go on
record by Mr. McConnell or Doctor Goldman?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just would like to say right here,
this is beautiful --
Page 156
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, if I could direct you to this
podium. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- communication and
compromise.
MR. MCCONNELL: Thank you, Commissioners, my name is
Robert McConnel, I'm President of the Collier's Reserve Association.
Yes. We have reached an agreement just about five minutes
before you got it on your agenda.
The agreement will be a trade for the easement that we currently
-- has been assigned to Collier's Reserve by the developer of Collier
Enterprise.
We have conducted a landscaped study because of the possible
visual pollution that would impact our community.
And we engaged Smallwood Landscape and we came up with
the estimates and the figures based upon their study, presented to our
Board.
We agree that the plantings would be on our side on our
property. And we have also agreed that the access for the equipment
to get in and bring those plants and materials in could come with the
access agreement as it currently exists until the first building permit
is issued.
And finally, we have agreed that four of those lots, which have
the highest visibility to the closest homes in our community that they
would be single family. Those four lots will be decided later.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: One story?
MR. MCCONNELL: One story, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think they're all single family.
Thank you, sir.
MR. MCCONNELL: Thank you.
Page 157
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, you'll have a chance to speak if
your name is up here shortly.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't know his name, but we did have eight
speakers total. Should I go through the list?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let's go to Doctor Goldman and
get him off the list.
MR. WEIGEL: Doctor Goldman.
DOCTOR GOLDMAN: Thank you. I want to thank the
Commission for offering us the opportunity to afford this
compromise.
This was down at the behest of the broker, Mr. Jim Carter, who
got us together this morning at eight o'clock with a meeting with me,
several phone calls yesterday, organizing this compromise with Mr.
Farmer. We're in full cooperation.
I want it to be said they didn't purchase this from us. This is a
trade off as Mr. McConnell has so aptly stated. I thank Mr. Carter
again.
I want it to be known that in my book, he's the greatest lame
duck around. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. Mr. Pires.
MR. PIRES: IfI can just clarify for the record, that all of the
items listed in that stipulation that was submitted to the Board, two
pages including the additional items requested by the community will
be made part of this approval. That's my understanding. I just want
to make sure we're clear on that.
MR. FARMER: Which two pages?
MR. PIRES: The items -- document -- which is titled, "Items to
be stipulated and agreed to by developer applicant."
MR. FARMER: I have one.
Page 158
July 30-31, 2002
MR. PIRES: Second page about parking and staging of all
equipment. It should be on development site. MR. FARMER: Well--
MR. PIRES: Any washing or hosing down will be on
development site.
MR. FARMER: Fine.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very much.
that.
you,
I just wanted to clarify
MR. MUDD: Can you give a copy to the reporter? Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Pires. Thank
Mr. Farmer.
Do you have other speakers? And Mr. Farmer, you might want
to stay there and let the other speakers do this, but I need to turn it
back to the Chairman for him to continue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, call the next speaker.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And these may be taken care of, at
least in part. Mr. John Bilt.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you have feel that we have
handled this to the point where you're satisfied and nothing else you
have to add, don't be the slightest bit embarrassed to waive like this
and that means we move on to the next person that may have
something new to add.
MR. BILT: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I would try not
to add too much. I am confused a little bit because of the lack of
notice that we had until phone calls started coming in on Friday
because the public agenda didn't have anything on Little Palm Island.
We told them that we were. We understood, we checked with
the County Development Department and got a reply that it's
Page 159
July 30-31, 2002
scheduled for September 13th, and then we got another phone call
back, no, it's been changed until this time.
I'm a little confused because people that have work for this, for
the county's position, Mr. Fred Reischl and Barbara Berkson who's
followed this all the way along, are both out the town on at this
particular time, and I just don't think it's right for you folks not to
have your specialists going ahead and understanding this.
And secondly, there's no transcript or -- not a transcript, I guess
it's a memorandum of the Planning Board that is not ready and
available from the county yet.
I understand Mr. Pires had furnished you a copy of the Planning
Board so you have that on consideration.
But to speed this up along the way without utilizing your experts
in the filed, I don't think it's quite proper.
Second thing that's got me a little confused also, ! raised this
before is that I understand that the owners of the property have
cancelled their contract with Key Stone.
If it's cancelled, why are we spending the time right now to go
ahead and getting all this stuff approved, which may never come to
fruition? That is one of the things that bother us very much.
There's a court case filed by Key Stone asking the Court to say
that they can go head and specifically enforce the contract. And also
have a provision in that for damages.
So the question in my mind is that the contract is cancelled until
the Court says it is still in existence or damages can be awarded for
the cancellation.
To me they are going ahead and this has all happened before
they appeared before the Advisory Committee on Ecology, before the
Planning Board, and they never told us this at all or discussed it with
us in any way, shape or form.
Page 160
July 30-31, 2002
The thing that bother us as much as anything and with these
stipulations that we just now discussed today and that we think
they're good stipulations and I'm glad that Mr. Farmer has agreed to
them. We do feel that they should be made part of a plat because we
are not convinced yet in our dealings with Key Stone that they're
going to develop this property and sell it off, build the houses and
have all this stuff under control while this construction is going on.
We feel it is important from the neighborhood, from the traffic
standpoint, that these stay with any plat that is approved now or
construction plat in the future, so if anyone if they decide to sell it to
somebody else and someone else comes in, they will be bound by the
same restrictions and that's our principle concern and that's why we
are asking you to include that as part of any plat approval today.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Bilt, those are included in
the land use decisions which travel with the land. I will have our
county attorney address the other issue. I raised the same one. The
answer I received, those decisions stay with the land, even if it's sold
to somebody else, they cannot change it to increase anything on the
land.
They can decrease, possibly, with the approval of the Board, but
they cannot exceed the conditions approved by the Board in this
document today.
Mr. Weigel, you are the legal expert. You tell them why we can
make a land use decision even though it's in litigation.
MR. WEIGEL: Sure. I'd be happy to. First, I'd like to mention
that although Miss Berkson worked diligently last week and over the
weekend in regard to notice and reconfirmation of the agenda item
today, it's the not by desire predetermination of her not to be here, it's
due to a medical appliance failure that puts her at All Children's
Page 161
July 30-31, 2002
Hospital in St. Petersburg. So it is not for lack of intention to be here
today.
Secondly, in regard to a contract that may come under litigation
because it's being challenged, it's not for the Board of County
Commissioners or the County staff to determine the legitimacy of the
contract, merely that the contract was in existence as matters came
before the Board of County Commissioners.
As I've opined before and I'll state again, that if the Court
determines that the contract is not valid, then, in fact, there's an issue
concerning that contract for the parties to the contract to be
concerned with as well as other parties that must deal with it.
But it's a legitimate contract in the eyes of all who come before
it until the Court determines otherwise.
And I could not recommend to this Board just on the mere filing
of a lawsuit that the documents and parties before them are not
appropriate.
MR. BILT: Let me just ask a question, ifI might, in response to
that. If the Court decides that their contract was cancelled, what
standing is all of these agreements that we are now making with these
people who have no contract rights then? Would that still apply to all
of the things that anyone else buys this piece of property?
MR. WEIGEL: As Commissioner Carter indicated, the rights
and determinations that this Board makes pertaining to the land will
run with the land.
And if there are, in fact, civil issues contract or tort, that is
damages, claims between the parties, based upon their own
contractual, private contractual matters that they've entered into prior
to this and apart from the county, those are issues and damages
between those parties and you'll seek your own remedies at that time,
if there are remedies.
Page 162
July 30-31, 2002
MR. BILT: Well, the agreements that we're making and the
Board is approving, is that our agreement with the Board and their
decision along the way? Will they be the ones that protect us? Are
we making with these only with Mr. Farmer?
MR. WEIGEL: The Board is making determinations of land use
before it today. The parties and land interests they're effected, will, in
fact, be effected conceivably by any determination of a court of law
in the future.
I can't predict, this Board can't predict, nor even can you, what
will happen in the lawsuit that is existing out there concerning the
contract.
So it be remote and inappropriate for this Board and its decision-
making to make a presumption that a contract is going to fail or
anything different then the fact that it is in existence between the
parties at this point in time.
The protections that you have in part will be based upon your
own private property interests that you have, your own constitutional
rights.
And I would suggest that you consult with your own counsel in
regard to that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker, Charles Healey, and he will be
followed Kevin Bamhill.
MR. HEALEY: I hope you can hear me. Thank you very much
for permitting me to speak.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Pronounce your name, sir, for the
record.
MR. HEALEY: I'm Charles Healey, the President of the Palm
River Homeowners Association.
Page 163
July 30-31, 2002
There's no use of beating a dead horse to death. Mr. Carter has
said many times to the developer, I want you to have a meeting, a
public meeting, with them and on a very short notice David and I
have had very pleasant relationship and we have no way tried to stop
his development.
We were concerned about safety issues. But I want to clear up
one thing that he brought up at the Planning Commission.
Mr. Carter, we did have that meeting on very short notice. We
were able to get in about six days over a 125 people who met at the
fire station in North Naples. And I turned the meeting over to Mr.
Farmer and I had a very nice letter from him thanking me. He agreed
to a number of things at the request of those in attendance.
Now, I just want to straighten one thing out, David, you said
several times that I never answered your letter.
Now, I want to clear that up. You finished your letter by saying,
"I look forward to hearing from you soon so we may begin to
determine the specific routes, days and time for construction traffic."
I thought that was a little premature, since I learned shortly
thereafter that the contractor with Key Stone had been cancelled on
February 15th, and on March 13th, Key Stone had filed a suit against
the owners of the land and it just seemed a little silly for me to talk
about schedules. And your letter was written on 17th of May and
mailed on the 23rd. Now, I hope you understand why I didn't answer
you.
Now, the other thing I want to mention, I was reading the
planning committee notes and you made quite a deal about there were
10 more tortoises there then when you counted them the last time.
I thought that was kind of funny because the inference was that
someone put them it in there. It takes 20 years for them to mature.
Page 164
July 30-31, 2002
The other thing I want to mention, again, and probably I
shouldn't, but I am, there's also only a four rent sewer lift up there.
Now that was confirmed by Bob Forsyth, who was the original
man Palm River who brought the first water in from 41. So I think he
knows what he's talking about.
And it was kind of ironic, there was somebody who wanted to
buy a couple of lots back over there, and I asked him why he didn't
build where he was and he said he was in Candlewood and that they
only have a four-inch sewer and the county wouldn't approve it so
they had to build their own road.
With that, David, I wish you well. I still am concerned about the
safety, school starts in two weeks. We will have many, many,
children running across the streets, waiting for the buses and please,
please, watch the safety angle. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kevin Barnhill and he will
be followed by Kathleen Avalon.
MR. HEALEY: He's been delayed. He couldn't come down
right now.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan. She will be followed by Kathleen
Avalon. And she will be your final speaker.
MS. AVALON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan,
here on behalf of the Conservancy of the Southwest Florida.
I e-mailed yesterday afternoon the Conservancy's recommended
stipulations for-- if this project is approved.
I hope that all of you received that. If not, I have some extra
copies. Does anybody need a copy?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Does Mr. Farmer have a copy of
that? You're okay with that, Mr. Farmer?
Page 165
July 30-31, 2002
MR. FARMER: Yes, sir, I am.
MS. RYAN: Yes, I also e-mailed a copy of this to Mr. Farmer.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Would you like to enter those
into the public record, since he has them and agrees to it? Do we
need to have each one of these read into the record or can we have
them admitted into the record which state what it is?
MS. RYAN: I certainly can. I just want to start out by saying,
of course, the Conservancy has a long history with this project and
the stipulations that we're asking for in no way state that we support
this project or approve of it.
We still want to see this property put into conservation. But
what we're asking today, if you approve the project development that
these stipulations be included.
The stipulations are about two and a half pages long, so I will try
to read them into the record quickly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just hand them to the reporter there,
she'll take care of it.
MR. MUDD: Just let me have them.
MS. RYAN: Just for some background in an effort, we have
tried many avenues to preserve this land. We try to assist in raising
funds for its purchase. We also applied for a Florida Community
Trust Grant. Unfortunately, the property did not rank high enough to
get grant funding.
We still want the property purchased, but the reality is that at
this time, there's no funding for the purchase. That does not mean
that we'll not be working diligently up until the time that dirt is being
moved to try to find a funding source for this property, and also to
put a plug in for the referendum in November. This property would
be a wonderful candidate for a county land acquisition program, if
such a program were in place.
Page 166
July 30-31, 2002
The plan that's in front of you today is certainly much better
then what has been proposed in the past. And the developer has
included tortoise protection measures that are above and beyond what
the State and the County require.
On a side note, the Conservancy plans to work with the County
staff to get some of these tortoise protection measures in the Land
Development Code during the upcoming cycles.
Key Stone has been willing to listen to our concerns and to
incorporate the additional tortoise protection measures into their plan
and they have come a long way.
We ask that these stipulations be included and they deal with
such issues as a tortoise burrow survey, additional acreage for the
onsite preserve, which is wonderful. Now we have the additional
acre, from the Collier's Reserve easement, developing a
comprehensive tortoise management plan, sufficient preparation for
the preserve site, conservation easement that ensures that the preserve
will be maintained perpetuity and some pretty stringent off-site
relocation measures.
And I believe with that, I will conclude and I just ask that our
stipulations be included.
to these stipulations.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON:
MR. MUDD:
And for the record, Dave Farmer has agreed
Final speaker is Kathy Avalon.
Mr. Farmer, Ms. Ryan insinuated that you agreed
to the stipulations from the Conservancy, and can you, just for the
record, say yes or no instead of-- it's tough to get the nod into the
record.
MR. FARMER: Okay. I agree to the Conservancy's request of
the additional items be attached to the ST permit.
Page 167
July 30-31, 2002
I tried to state that without a nod earlier on but it wasn't clear
because I guess I wasn't in front of you. Let me say she's very
tenacious.
MS. AVALON: Kathleen Avalon, Citizens for the Protection of
Animals. I would just like to add one thing, because Nicole really
summed everything up for me.
We just hope that with your approval, contingent upon the
stipulation from Ray Ashton, that Little Palm Island could serve as a
template for future treatment of gopher tortoises on land that is
earmarked for development.
And I think that would be the success of Little Palm Island, if
there is any.
Thanks.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As you would say Commissioner
Coletta, I think they raised the bar.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did a wonderful job to bring us
to this point.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
Majorie Student, Assistant County Attorney.
I just have a couple of items for clarification in the proposed
resolution that was distributed to the Board earlier by staff.
And the first item deals with paragraph 9-C, about the hand
clearing of the exotic vegetation versus paragraph G-3 that talks
about the mechanical maintenance of the preserve area.
I was told and I just need it clarified on the record that the initial
would be by hand and then subsequent to that it would be
mechanically maintained.
The second item that I need clarification on deals with historical
plat. I'm assuming that the application has to be made to the county.
Page 168
July 30-31, 2002
It doesn't say to the county, but we do have a Historic Preservation
Board and the at times does approve and designate historic areas.
And lastly, in paragraph 17, there's a reference to an MSTU,
MSBU and we need to state what the purpose of that would be.
That's all -- if we have this clarifications for record, I thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Farmer, would you like to
clarify for the record, please.
MR. FARMER: I don't know if I can speak about the MSTU or
MSBU, other than I think our intent and the spirit of it all along was
whatever they form the MSTU, MSBU for that is being the Palm
River HOA, we're committing all 109 lots.
If they want to put up five poles or widen the roads or put in
sidewalks, we're committing all 109 lots, without the ability for them
to vote on that. It's not their choice. We're going to commit all of
them to join that MSTU/MSBU whatever it may be.
Just because I'm very anal I'm very. The mechanical clearing
versus hand clearing, I want to make sure that when we say we're
going to remove by hand it does still mean chainsaws. It just means
that we're not going to bulldozers into the place to do the clearing.
I just want to make sure of that. The hand clearing would take a
long time.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, Kevin Barnhill has since returned
to the room and would like to speak.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: By all means, please call him up.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Barnhill.
MR. BARNHILL: Hi, my name is Kevin Barnhill, I'm a senior
software developer down here in Collier County, high tech low
pollution worker.
I spend a lot of money in Collier County, last year we spent over
$200,000 here. I'm civically minded, VP of the homeowners
Page 169
July 30-31, 2002
association, I'm head of our neighborhood watch. I wouldn't mind
running for political office one day, and I'll be proposing an
amendment one day to the LDC that would limit the density of a new
development that is 100 percent within an existing community.
I think that will help you guys out a lot. I'm a conscientious dad
who knows that sometimes kids make mistakes and it's up to
responsible adults to let kids grow up safely.
Key Stone has talked about completing Palm River, and I think
they've come a long way. There's still a little dense in my opinion.
If you on the visualizer on the left-hand lots, you can see --
actually, you can't see on this one, I threw out my copy because this
meeting came up really quick.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next time take the elevator, okay?
MR. BARNHILL: I might miss the time. So anyway, if you
look, I believe Cypress Way West, they have eight lots to every one
of our six lots. So it's not the same as the density.
The gatehouse that's up on Cypress Way East still exists even
though they say that they're not going to have gates. I'm a little
concerned about that.
We all have choices and you have a choice to approve, disprove
or whatever this with a stipulations and I hope that you seriously
consider the stipulations that the homeowners and we tried to work
with Dave Farmer.
We know our neighborhood and we know what's going to work
in the future. And I have a decision to make too, if I deem that
Cypress Way East is no longer safe for my children, I just heard that
it's now a collector road, even though it's 17 feet wide that concerns
me.
Page 170
July 30-31, 2002
I had a letter also, it's in my pack, of a woman who moved there
with four kids on to a dead end road, and now she's going to be living
on a collector road. Part of that is part of development.
I grew up in Orlando. I saw a lot of changes from development.
I saw a lot of changes go wrong. And I'm seeing the same thing
happen here. This is development, it should be good and it's coming
a long way, but this is about keeping Key Stone honest and seeing to
it that they honor their commitments to the community.
Please require that there are requests be granted as part of the
plat. And save the turtles. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think, Mr. Barnhill, I know you
weren't here, but when you have a chance to review all of this, I think
that your concerns all have been addressed and committed to by the
developer, Key Stone Corporation.
I appreciate your effort for being here. Mr. Chairman, if other
people have questions, if not, I'm ready to move for approval.
MR. FARMER: I have two housekeeping issues.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have a question?
MR. FARMER: No. I have two housekeeping issues that
Marjorie is kicking me on. She's being nice.
On Item Number 11 addresses the historical Tamiami Trail, it
doesn't say who that we're going to make application for historical
designation, it would be to the county, you all, the BOCC.
And on Number 17, the MSTU, the MSBU, for any valid
purpose, we're going to add that language.
So one more time, initial clearing will be done by hand and
subsequent maintenance will be done mechanically.
Page 171
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm ready to move for approval
incorporating a list of items by Counselor Pires representing the Palm
River Homeowners Association, the agreement between Collier's
Reserve and Key Stone Corporation, the Conservancy's request,
laundry list of items and all changes that have been discussed and
entered into the record this afternoon during this public hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter and a second by Commissioner Fiala. I don't see any lights,
but I don't want to make a comment.
This is a remarkable thing that you did. It took a long time, but
it's well worth it. This is a legacy that will follow you for a long time
to come.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Look at Ray Bellows.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Everyone has worked hard on
this and I compliment the homeowners groups and Key Stone
Corporation and their legal counsel and we got everyone on the same
page.
And at the 11 th hour, like most negotiations, where final things
reach resolution and it was my pleasure to use my office as a catalyst
to accomplish that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much,
Commissioner Carter, we're going to miss you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Get into the business of mediation
and facilitator.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you every think about that for an
occupation?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I did it before I came here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we'll do now is we'll bring you
back and let you work for nothing.
Page 172
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm already doing that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's why you're holding the button
down.
Commissioner Coyle, I'm not too sure if he's already spoken.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I'll call the question. 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 five to zero. Good
work.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 8 --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. Before we go on, every hour
and a half, we promised our reporter here that we would take a break
and we'll do it at this point in time.
We'll take a short break. Don't go too far. The parking lot is too
far away.
Thereupon, (A brief recess was taken, after which the following
proceedings were had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats. I believe
we're on 9-B.
Item #8M
ORDINANCE 2002-43 RE PETITION PUDZ-01-AR-1553,
MICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT,
Page 173
July 30-31, 2002
INC., REPRESENTING RELLEUM INC., AND GRANITE
DEVELOPMENT II, L.C., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A"
RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO BE KNOWN AS THE BALMORAL
PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE
FUTURE LIVINGSTON ROAD (CR881) AND
APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD
(CR896) - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
were paying attention.
MR. MUDD: It's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
No, sir, we're on 8-M.
I was just checking to see if you
Oh, yeah, formerly 17-B.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Correct.
MR. MUDD: I believe we have everyone agreeing to it at this
particular juncture. If I can just ask Mr. DeLony to bring me up that
statement that he needs to add to the record, I think we're squared
away.
We got the easement, sir, based on your conversations yesterday
with the developer and there was one issue this morning about where
the utilities would be located. And I think that got resolved over
lunch. Mr. DeLony.
MR. DELONY: For the record, Jim DeLony the Public Utilities
Administrator.
We added some language to this commitment to ensure that
we're going to be able to get our utilities in place and can maintain
those utilities as this PUD is developed.
Page 174
July 30-31, 2002
What we're going to do is add a sentence below A. I have here.
In the event that East/West Green Boulevard Extension is four-laned
in the future, the 12-inch water main shall be relocated out of the
median into into dedicated Collier County easement according to
Collier County ordinance standards at the expense of the developer.
I've spoken to all the parties and everyone has agreed to this
language and believe this is a workable solution for this PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. DeLony, we need to get
that agreement by the developer, so he needs to come forward and
just say that on the record. And while we're coming up, maybe the
Court Reporter can swear everyone in that's giving testimony.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go right down the line.
We made -- at that point in time, we're separated from here, --
even if we did we'll do it again. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you go ahead and make any
declarations you care to make at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was the same that I made this
morning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't recall meeting with anyone
on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't recall meeting with anyone
either.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: None here either. Please continue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to have the Petitioner
to confirm everything that Mr. DeLony wants to interject on the
agreement.
Page 175
July 30-31, 2002
MS. REESE: For the record, my name is Dominque Reese, I'm
the attorney for Relium Inc, which is the Petitioner on this.
And we are in agreement and the client has given authority to
accept the added language to the A and B that you already have in
front of you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public hearing is closed. You don't
need a motion to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
There is no speakers; is that correct?
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, a second by Commissioner Henning. Any questions?
Discussions? All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it five to zero.
Item #9B
USE OF COUNTY RESOURCES TO PROVIDE MEETING
NOTICES AND MEETING SPACE FOR THE COLLIER
HISPANIC TASK FORCE- RECOGNIZED AS SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Page 176
July 30-31, 2002
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 9-B, which is a request that the
Board of County Commissioners recognize that the Collier Hispanic
Task Force serves a valid public purpose and approve the use of
county resources to provide meeting notice and meeting space.
And this was at the request of Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: IfI could, just correct it. It wasn't
my request, but it was done by someone because I am the chairman
of this task force.
It was done primarily to make sure that Collier County staff
could be used in a support role without creating any problems. And
that's the only reason.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Again, I'll move for approval,
sir.
Carter for approval and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the question.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
zero.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Any
The ayes have it five to
Item #9C
Page 177
July 30-31, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-336 APPOINTING LOWELL LAM, W.J.
MARKEL AND JERRY MORGAN TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY- ADOPTED
Next, we move on to 9-C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I just discuss this a little bit?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. You go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really studied this water and
waste water, and there were -- they need lay member, but two
applied. And they needed two technical and four applied. A lot of
them from my district by the way.
But in the lay member category, there's one gentlemen who has
been on this committee before, in doing a little bit the research I
understand he did an outstanding job and has a great deal of
background already in the research and he would help to get this
committee back up and running.
Right now it's dwindled to two people.
recommend him, Lowell Lamb is his name.
I would like to
Even though Dianne
Taylor is my friend, I would like to nominate Mr. Lamb.
And then upon -- I don't know the other people, I don't know
Mr. Lamb, but Mr. Markle and Mr. Morgan seem to have outstanding
recommendations and background and I would like to nominate those
people as well.
So we have Lamb, Markle and Morgan.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is this the one City of Naples?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. This is the 9-C Water
Authority, water and waste water.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second the motion.
Page 178
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Carter. Any
discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question.
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 five to zero.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2002-337 CONFIRMING THE CITY OF NAPLES
APPOINTMENT OF ERIC D. GUITE TO THE CONTRACTORS'
LICENSING BOARD- ADOPTED
Move on to 9-D. Confirm the City of Naples appointment.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Approval being Eric Duite;
D-U-I-T-E.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter and a second by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. Just wanted to
make sure any. Any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 179
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
zero.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
action?
The ayes have it five to
Do we have to take another
Item #9E
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTY MANAGER
-APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 9-E; isn't it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, someone just turned in a speaker
slip for Item 10-C, which is the utility authority, Collier County
Water and Waster Water Authority.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This has already been--
MR. MUDD: 9-C.
MS. FILSON: 9-C, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, she wants to speak for
10-C, forgive me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're on 9-E.
MR. MUDD: It's my contract.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's your contract, Mr. Mudd. And I
reviewed this thing, went over it to start the whole process going.
Looking for the feedback of the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll come to you too. I have a
motion from Commissioner Carter, second from commission Fiala.
Page 180
July 30-31, 2002
We'll start off with Commissioner Henning and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In talking talk to Jim Mudd, I
think that we can clear up some of my concerns. Section 11, and I
believe Section 13, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Commissioner Henning had some
concerns about the automobile and cellular phone allowance. And he
asked me some questions yesterday about that particular item, and I
said I would be amenable to take that cellular phone and car
allowance out of this agreement and replace it with terms that the
county would provide a cellular phone for the County Manager.
And in a partial compensation to taking that out of that contract
in Section 13, retirement, put the words back in "employer agrees to
pay the maximum allowable annual amount" and strike out "five
percent of employee's annual salary into the employee's current
retirement fund on the employee's behalf".
What that is is a gain for the county of about $3,500. And it all
has to do with taxes. The retirement account goes in before taxes.
The allowance comes to me before taxes to the tune of about $6,600.
By the time you get done with the tax bracket I'm in, I get to use a
little less than 60 percent of it. It saves the county about $3,500 by
doing that.
And I would be amenable to those changes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It doesn't bother me any. I'll
amend my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll amend my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think we're done yet.
Commissioner Coyle.
Page 181
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to page five, Section
10. I've also talked with Mr. Mudd about the permission to include
occasional teaching, writing, speaking or consulting performed on
personal time off, even if outside compensation is provided for such
services.
I would like to make sure that his --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm amenable to striking
everything after the first sentence. "The employee agrees to remain in
the exclusive employ of the county while employed in the county."
We'll strike all the rest.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's fair enough for me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll amend my motion since the
County Manager agrees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see no more lights at this point, I'll
call the question. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
reduction in salary.
We forgot to talk about the
MR. MUDD: Leo told me before this started, jack the price up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We were going to take all the extra
part out of staff's salary to make up the difference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was that one?
MR. MUDD: That was 9-E, ma'am.
Page 182
July 30-31, 2002
Item #1 OB
PURCHASE OF A 99-ACRE TRACT OF LAND ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LELY AREA
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, we're going to 10-B.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: B as in boy.
MR. MUDD: This to purchase a 99 acre tract of land as a
mitigation source for the Lely Stormwater Project.
MR. STRACKLOOSE: Good afternoon, Commissioners, my
name is Greg Strackloose. I'm the Director of the Engineering and
Construction Management Department.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner. Any
discussion or questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a couple of things. A couple
of questions, if I may, as long as we're consulting -- let's see. I had a
constituent call me yesterday and he wanted to know if the Toll
Brothers got credit for this property way back when it was approved
in their PUD.
Did they get some kind of dollar credits or tax credits or road
impact fee credits or something? And are they now getting paid
again so is it like double dipping?
MR. STRACKLOOSE: That's a good question. I don't know.
I don't have the answer to that. Mr. Robert Wiley is intimately
involved with this project, he may have that answer.
Page 183
July 30-31, 2002
MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley, with your Storm
Water Management Section.
This property is not owned by Toll Brothers. This is the
property of Medium North. We know it as Naples Forest, so this is
separate parcel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did anybody get any credits for it?
MR. WILEY: This property prior to us going to acquisition
process went through a rezoning, but it was with Club Estates. It's
already gone through rezoning with them.
There's know mitigation credits or anything assigned to this
right at this point. It's free and clear for us to use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to make sure we don't give
away the conservation easements on this property until we have the
permits in hand.
MR. WILEY: That's correct. Once we have the permit in hand
before we can start actual construction on either project which
requires us to do mitigation for it, then we would have 90 days at that
point to do the conservation easement, but we do not do it until the
permit is in hand and we're ready to go to construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I amend my motion to reflect
that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And one last question. Will this
now block the extension of Whitaker Boulevard or Drive or Road?
MR. WILEY: I think what you're referring to is the East/West
connection going between County Barn Road and 951, it will block
it.
We will not be able to go back unless -- I say that because you
always can go back to the process and buy out the buy out, but it gets
Page 184
July 30-31, 2002
pretty expensive and we do not plan on extending the road across
through there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? Comments?
Hearing none, all those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero. 10-C.
Item # 10C
RESOLUTION 2002-338 SETTING THE PROPOSED MILLAGE
RATES AS THE MAXIMUM PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR
FY2003 AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-
ADOPTED
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners, for the
record, Michael Smykowski, County Budget Director.
I'm here before you today seeking Board adoption of the
proposed millage rates as the maximum property tax rates to be
levied in fiscal year 2003.
The tax rates adopted herein must be provided to the property
appraiser in accordance with Florida law by August 4th for the
property appraiser's use in preparing the Notice of Proposed Taxes
that is received by ever property owner in Collier County by August
24th. Again, in accordance with Florida statute.
Page 185
July 30-31, 2002
I want to be very clear that the Board at this point is setting these
as the maximum tax -- possible tax rates. So from a constituent or
taxpayers standpoint, this would be the worse case scenario.
At the September public hearings, the Board has the latitude to
maintain or lower the each of the millage rates adopted herein today
at the public hearings.
But you also need to be clear that you cannot raise the millage
rates above and beyond what is proposed today, without meeting
some fairly onerous public notice in advertising requirement.
The budge that-- the millage rate fund was the culmination of
the budget workshops and previous board policy direction to be
millage neutral in the general fund and establish a reserve at a
minimum of two million dollars for future road construction.
On June 25th, the County Manager presented his
recommendations in that regard, that was a combination of
expenditure reductions, shifts in funding and revenue enhancements
that exceeded the boards policy direction to establish a minimum two
million dollar reserve for road construction at that point the road
construction reserve was 3.6 million dollars.
Based on the final taxable value figures provided by the property
appraiser on or about July 1, that additional reserve was increased to
its current state of 4.2 million dollars.
Relative to the millage rates contained herein, there was one
issue relative to the Livingston Road MSTU millage, and that was a
new millage. This would be the first actual tax levy for that group.
I want to be clear for the record that the advisory committee
desires ultimately to levy less than the two million that is authorized
within the enabling ordinance, but there are some mitigating factors.
Page 186
July 30-31, 2002
For instance, 10-F that was continued today was a Livingston
Road MSTU request to partner with the Board relative to the median
and landscaping improvements along the Livingston Road corridor.
Given that workshop is not scheduled September, we want to
provide the maximum flexibility possible to that advisory committee
until those decisions are made.
Therefore, there is a two million levy that would go out under
the notice of proposed taxes, but again, for purposes of record
recognizing that ultimately what will probably be adopted at one or
both of the September public hearings would be reduced.
They've actually discussed a .75 millage levy, but given the
uncertainty relative to the partnership agreement and given that this
would be their first tax levy, we feel it's imperative that they have
maximum flexibility to kind of determine their own fate following
the policy decisions that the Board might make at that workshop.
And with that, I entertain any questions. Ultimately the Board
needs to adopt a resolution that is adopted herein that has been
reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to move for approval
of the budget.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. I think we have
some public speakers.
MR. MUDD: You're approving the millage rates, sir, not the
budget.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm sorry. I move for approval
of the millage rate which is reflective of the proposed plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter and a second by Commissioner Henning. Public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have one public speaker, Ms. Janet
Vassey.
Page 187
July 30-31, 2002
MS. VASSEY: Janice Vassey, for the record, Vice Chair of the
Productivity Committee.
And I sent you all an e-mail a couple of days ago about some
recommendations from the productivity committee. We met on July
17th to decide, you know, to look at the county manager adjustments
that were being proposed and see if we still had any
recommendations, and we did.
And we decided that it would be up to you if you wanted hear
them or not, but basically, we came in with a few issues that we
thought still could be done to cut the budget.
And if you'd like to go over those and hear those I would be
more than happy to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If I can just ask a question? Excuse
me, I loved a lot of their suggestions. And I thought they would
really work, but I didn't know if we should, excuse me, accept this
millage rate now and then work on them in September. Is that the
best method?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you're asking my opinion,
that's what I would like to do is that since our goal is to fund the
transportation as much as we can, the time to deal with that would be
the budget hearings in September.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, to answer your question, the
millage rate that you're setting right now is a cap. You can make it
less during the budget hearings, but you just can't go over it.
And right now you're basically saying you want to keep it the
same millage rate as it was last year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words, if we cut a
position out here --
MR. MUDD: Those ideas that Ms. Vassey gave us I got a copy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Page 188
July 30-31, 2002
MR. MUDD: And the list that she just gave us and the letter I
just put it in public records, so it's in there.
The staff will go over these issues we'll give a response to you
and to Ms. Vassey about those actions and that process, and then
we'll bring those back up again during the public hearings in the
process and adjust our budget accordingly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. We'll come
right back to you, Janet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that it is the proper way to
go. That we approve the millage rate, because I do not believe that
with our current requirements for revenue to handle the major
infrastructure problems that we have that any decision we make with
trimming expenses out of the budget that we're going to effect the
millage rate.
I think the millage rate is going to stay at what we agreed that it
would stay at, but cost savings are important. I think we all agree
that there's a number of these things that simply have to be cut out of
the budget. And the question is when we do it. And we have budget
hearings?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The first one on September 5th.
MR. SMYKOWSKi: September 5th, which is a Thursday
evening and the final hearing is Wednesday, September 18th, both of
those hearings you will have the opportunity to adopt tentative and
then final millage rates on the 18th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Or make any changes to the budget even
if you were not inclined to reduce the millage, you could increase that
transportation reserve.
Page 189
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have one follow up question,
very briefly. We have approved some consulting contracts, from a
budgeting standpoint, for this current fiscal year.
We authorize funding for hiring a number of consultants to
assist in the LDC revision and the concurrency issues.
Now, I know that we are taking advantage of that to some
degree, but not to the degree that it was budgeted. Now, what are we
doing with those budgeted funds if they're not used?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Any unspent funds would roll over --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And increase the reserve in some
account.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if the reserve in that account it
is considered to be excessive we then can transfer it out and spend it
where we think we need to spend it; right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, within the funds. If you start change
some of the funds then you get into some different rules.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to clarify that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry to interpret you, Janet.
MS. VASSEY: That's all right. If you'd like me to come back
on September the 5th, I'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A little bit more than that. We need
to have you come back and meet with the commissioners prior to that
individually, so we can be briefed on this one more time. If you or
one of your fellow members of Productivity can spare the time to do
that.
MS. VASSEY: We would be more than happy to.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, I believe our staff has also
initiated the process of responding to some of the recommendations
made by the productivity. So hopefully we'll have a full explanation
Page 190
July 30-31, 2002
and clarification of where we stand on each of the issues either pro or
con.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only item I'd like to see different
next year is that prior to the budget cycle that we take a few moments
to examine the way we want to handle it.
Whether we want to have the county manager handle or we want
to go through the full-blown process and have open discussion and
advertised meeting so that we're all agreeable on the way it's going to
go and that the public feels they have a say in it too.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I promise you we'll change the way
the budgets presented, okay. Because the commissioners are not the
only one that's confused.
I've only been here less than two years and it makes my head
hurt. If there's a simpler way to do this we'll find it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that we'll call the question. All
those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero.
Item #10I
RESOLUTION 2002-339 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR
A WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR HOSPICE OF NAPLES -
ADOPTED
Page 191
July 30-31, 2002
Thank you. Now, we're on to Item 10-I, which was formerly 16-
A-12.
Commissioner Henning, I believe you pulled this particular
item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Just staying consistent
of my position of waiving impact fees for not-for-profit organization,
I want to have an opportunity to vote no on the item. So if we can
just go to the vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Did you want to make a
motion to vote no or vote yes?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a motion to vote yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll make a motion that we
vote in favor of this particular item since you didn't do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. This is an impact
fee waiver for Hospice of Naples.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's out of the funds that we set aside
from an interest, $100,000 interest that we have. It's a maximum of
7,500.
MR. OCHS: 7,500.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The maximum that can be per
occurrence per organization to be able to help them grow their
infrastructure. It's only a small, small percentage of what people pay
for impact fees in these cases. These are organizations that serve a
purpose that Government normally would step in and get involved
with.
Any other comments? I see none. So I'll call the question. All
those in favor.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 192
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning is the
descending vote.
The next item is 16-C- 15.
Item # 10J
TASK ORDER 6 1N THE AMOUNT OF $6,106,261 WITH
YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS, INC., FOR NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DEEP INJECTION WELL
CONSTRUCTION- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: It's 10-J.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, with the help of
Mr. DeLony, he answered all my questions. I found the material I
was looking for, so I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second by Commissioner Carter for
approval. Any 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 five to zero. Next
we move on to 16-E-8.
Item # 1 OK
Page 193
July 30-31, 2002
AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., FOR THE PLACEMENT OF NATIONAL
FLOOD INSURANCE AND BUILDER'S RISK INSURANCE
POLICIES - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I asked for that one to be pulled,
Mr. Commissioner --Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. You can call me
whatever you want.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Really?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Really?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. I withdraw that. You will
show me the due respect that this chair deserves.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reason I pulled this item is
that our whoever IRMS is, our insurance consultant, has asked that
we transfer to them the commissions on the underwriting process to
compensate them for the staff time that they have spent working
beyond the original definition of the contract.
And according to my calculations, unless I've missed something
here, they're going to be spending 100 additional hours, but yet, there
are $44,000 in commissions that are likely under this process.
Now, that works out to be $440 an hour. And what I would like
to do is make sure that we understand just how many hours they're
going to take and how many commissions are represented here and
not just sign over all of these commissions, but to agree that we
would compensate them for the additional amount of time they spent
at some hourly rate that is reasonable. And we can take that,
somehow, out of commissions, I presume. Can we do that?
Page 194
July 30-31, 2002
MR. WALKER: For the record, Jeff Walker, Risk Management
Director.
I agree with you, Commissioner. I think we need to look at this
in terms of two issues.
The first issue has to do with the flood insurance policy issue.
The issue there is those commissions are going to be paid no matter
what we do.
The hundred hours was really relative to the flood insurance
issue and they're going to put in about a hundred hours of work into
that project. That equates to about $150 an hour, which is not an
unreasonable amount.
The issue with regard to the builders risk is another issue which
I think that we need to negotiate more strongly. I agree with you on
that.
What I would suggest to the Commission that we do on that
issue is to go back to IRMS and say let's negotiate a flat fee per
policy. And their estimate was six to seven hours per policy to be
issued or a flat annual fee on the basis of how many of those we
expect be done in a year, which will probably between five and ten of
those a year.
And I spoke to IRMS prior to coming down here, they're
agreeable to doing that and we would be happy to do that.
I would recommend, however, that today that we authorize staff,
that you authorize staff, excuse me, to prepare an amendment to the
contract to allow them to accept commissions on the flood.
The reason being is because if they accept them and we're
starting to get those place, they're essentially in violation of their
contractor, and flood will pay them the commission. They don't give
them a choice.
Page 195
July 30-31, 2002
And I think the amount of work -- we're talking about a 150
policies that they got to place is probably reasonable.
The other we would bring back later to you and I will lay out for
you exactly what those amounts are as you described.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be willing to move for an
approval on that basis.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would second that. Great
catch, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussions? Seeing
none. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero.
I believe the next one is 16-A-7.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's Wednesday.
MR. MUDD: What I would say to you, because Mr. Pires is not
here, we thought we might get it done today, but we're not going to.
This should be a fairly simple item because we need to read
something in the record and we'll do that first thing in the morning to
gets those folks out before we get to that.
Now, that means we have three items are on the agenda that are
left up to this point. We've got 8-A, 8-H, and we now have 10-L,
which is 16-A-17 to be heard tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But that's be quick.
MR. MUDD: That first one 10-L will be quick, right after the
Pledge of Allegiance we'll be raring to go.
Page 196
July 30-31, 2002
any?
So that brings us to public comment, Number 11.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Public comments, do we have
MS. FILSON: No, sir we don't.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: They're all on vacation.
Item # 12A
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL FOR SHADER-LOMBARDO
INVESTMENTS, LLC V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 01-
413 5-CA-HDH - APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Twelve, County Attorney's Report,
Item A.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mike Petit, Assistant
County Attorney will begin to address the Board in regard to this and
we have a counsel and four interested parties here too.
MR. PETIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This item has
been before you several times. As you recall we have partial
settlement.
It was before you once before. Since that time, the county has
served a Notice of Formal Settlement Proposal as directed.
We've had additional mediation and now there's another
settlement proposal before you. And if this was all we had to have
before you today, I would endorse it relatively heartily.
Unfortunately, we now have information that's arisen since this
Executive Summary was prepared that tells me that Number Four of
the principal terms of the settlement, we probably will not be able to
achieve that.
Page 197
July 30-31, 2002
I am advised that of the unit owners in the building one
condominium, the Board of Directors will vote to approve the
settlement. And probably in the neighborhood of 14 of the 16 unit
owners will. One for certain looks like he will not vote to approve.
And so the question is what does that mean.9 It means well not
get a consent and release from that gentlemen. We can have
arguments that we could go ahead and proceed with the settlement
for several reasons.
One is that the Board under it's by-laws speaks for him, at least
with respect to areas of common interest and the common elements
of the condominium association. So to that extent he would be bound
by the stipulated judgment that would have to enter to solidify this
settlement.
We also have now been told and advised in light of this event by
the Plaintiff in the lawsuit, the developer of building two, that it will
indemnify the County from any suits or claims by this individual or
any other individual in building one.
My recommendation at this point, and I will tell you what I'm
saying to you is, I can not guarantee with this settlement absolute
peace over this matter.
There may be an individual who will file an individual lawsuit.
We have, and codify in the settlement documents a representation
from the Plaintiff that's suing us now that it will step forward and
defend us and indemnify us in that lawsuit, but that is the best we can
hope for, as I understand the facts right now and those facts have
simply changed since we had this last round of mediation and we
presented this to you.
Is it a good settlement in light of that? It certainly still, I think,
will alleviate any risk. Although, I have also said it's an outside risk
of a large damage award against the county because those damaged
Page 198
July 30-31, 2002
claims, if any, are held by the developer not by this particular
individual.
It does raise the question, though, of what involvement will
have. And, of course, one of the reasons that anybody settles a
lawsuit is to buy peace and quiet, to put the issue aside and move on
and not spend resources defending itself.
I simply cannot absolutely guarantee that will happen, other than
to say that we would have to rely on the indemnification of the
Plaintiff to step in and defend our position there. I suspect we would
also be involved in some fashion.
So at this point that is where we are. I would recommend to the
Board proceeding provided we get all of the other unit owners to sign
and we're only dealing with this one individual, that would be my
modification to the agreement.
And, of course, I would also require then that the developer,
Plaintiff, step up to the plate if we do get another lawsuit and we're
somehow made a party and defend our interest in that lawsuit.
I don't know whether you have any questions for me. I know
that both counsel here and counsel for the association and counsel for
the Plaintiff, developer, are here to answer any questions that you
may have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ready for a motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ready for whatever.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I recommend that we accept the
offer to settlement this with the indemnification by the developer.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner Coyle, a
second by Commissioner Carter. Commissioner Henning.
Page 199
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just need the Plaintiff to step
up and exhaust us of all this future possible mediation or whatever
indemnification of the possible lawsuit.
MR. WEIGEL: Counsel for the Defendant at this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard Plaintiff.
MR. PETIT: We are the Defendant in this lawsuit. Mr. Vega
represents the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the developer.
The reason we have three parties is the condominium intervened
on our side originally in the lawsuit.
MR. VEGA: My name is George Vega. I'm representing
Shader-Lombardo. The Plaintiff. And I'm not too sure that I
understood the question, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Petit said that you would
step in for us in case --
MR. VEGA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Yes, we would step in
what-- if this person -- the one person that is objecting, if he brings
litigation, we well actively defend and hold the county harmless for
any damages and go all the way.
We think that -- we say that because we think that he sat there
and let the association run the show.
so he's saying he may do something.
successful.
Now he doesn't like the results,
We don't think he will be
You can't get two different results in Court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's some disagreement there, I
think.
MS. STEWART:
really a disagreement.
Pamela Stewart for Vanderbilt Villas. It's not
I just want to make sure it's clarified that it
Page 200
July 30-31, 2002
could be this one person and there is a potential of another person as
well.
I wanted to make sure it was on the record that Shader-
Lombardo indemnified the County in that instance, which is what our
discussions had entailed.
MR. VEGA: We agree wholeheartedly. If there was a third
person we would agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's John Vega for the
record.
MR. PETIT: I would have -- this is Mike Petit for the record. I
would have to reiterate. There is, as I understand it, an individual
who doesn't necessarily per se object to the settlement that is
concerned that it's not a unanimous agreement among all the
members.
And that gentlemen, I think, is unlikely to be involved in
litigation over this matter beyond any settlement that is reached here,
but we would require, if at all possible, that gentleman's signature on
the consent.
And certainly if we cannot get all of the other consents with the
exception of those two, I would not recommend that we go forward
that becomes too many variable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The maximum is two; right?
MR. PETIT: That's my understanding. And the likelihood is
only one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would modify my motion too
include a maximum of two.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would include it in my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, is there any
other discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Page 201
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero.
MR. PETIT: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item # 12B
PUBLIC PETITION FORM FOR THE WIDENING TO FOUR
LANES OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM WILSON
BOULEVARD TO DESOTO BOULEVARD- STANDARDIZED
FORM TO BE USED FOR PUBLIC PETITIONS - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The next item is 12-B.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
12-B before you is a form of the public petition that County Attorney
Office has been working with citizens of Golden Gate Estates
particularly related to Golden Gate boulevard from Wilson Boulevard
to DeSoto Boulevard.
I am pleased that Mr. Feder, and, of course, the County Manager
here to provide information, respond to any questions in regard to the
road situation as described here.
The County has a citizen's petition policy process that provides
for a form and format to be submitted to the county manager's office
as well as to the county attorney office, where a citizen group wishes
to come forward and petition the Board of County Commissioners.
Typically, it's for such things as the creation of a taxing unit or a
benefit unit or to get a ballot question before the county in a
countywide or less than countywide election referendum situation.
Page 202
July 30-31, 2002
But it also serves as a model will for uniformity so that
petitioners will bring before the Board, and the Board will not be
saddled would with, various petition questions from different sources
potentially on the same area of consideration.
And the idea is that the County Manager Office and the County
Attorney Office can provide clarity to the petition questions.
It also provides for an ability, through the Boards own policy, to
achieve verification, confirmation, of signatures to a petition.
Now, the petition that's in the package today, and if you've
looked at it before as I know that you have, please look at it again, it's
a very simple petition because we have had little specific direction
other than to create a question.
But if the petition form is adopted for use to be submitted to the
Board of County Commissioners for review as indicated in the
Executive Summary, I think that you would want to attempt to put
out some quote ground rules so we know to whom the petition is
circulated and from what pool or area, geographical area, you're
getting your response.
Example being given is it's possibly petitions with an idea, do
you approve or disapprove of something, to be passed out in public
forums or public parking lots, anywhere where in the county which
may effect an area elsewhere in the county, but ultimately asking the
Board to make a commitment to fund and allocate resources toward a
given and desired end.
This Board may want to, if it does approve this form, attempt
either to now or shortly in the future provide a kind of a scenario of
how this type of petition will have legitimacy before you.
Such as circumscribing an area around the geographical area of
discussion. Wilson-- excuse me, Golden Gate Boulevard from the
Wilson to DeSoto Boulevard areas.
Page 203
July 30-31, 2002
Things of that nature need to be taken into account, I think, to
make the petition have more relevance to if it's ultimately submitted
to you.
The County Manager Office and County Attorney Office can
provide their respective functions on petitions once they are created
and tendered so that the Board will get our report in any event.
I don't know if there's anyone here from the public in this regard,
and certainly open to any questions and try to respond in any way I
can for this matter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go to Commissioner Henning
first, because he has already pushed the button. And then I'll go with
some explanation why we got to this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: First of all, on the Executive
Summary it says, "fiscal impact none".
I can tell you if we do a petition it will be a fiscal impact.
Secondly, the consideration is the question on whether to form a
MSTU. I think if the Board is going to consider this petition that it
needs to be on the petition, "Are you willing to tax yourself extra to
four lane Golden Gate Boulevard?"
The third thing is what we should do is take a look at trips
generated on Golden Gate Boulevard versus Immokalee Road north
of 41 -- Street 41, I think it is, and find out prioritize our
transportation, and whether we should be putting this on our five-year
work plan, Golden Gate Boulevard, or leaving Immokalee Road on
the five-year work plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate that, Commissioner
Henning. We'll go to you in just a minute. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My only observation is that the
forum itself is going to cause some problems. I would just suggest
Page 204
July 30-31, 2002
perhaps provide a little more room here for all the information you're
requesting.
You've used up about two-thirds of a page. I would suggest that
we use the entire page. I believe there's not sufficient room on one
line to put all the information; the printed name, address, telephone
number identification type.
You might even specify what kind of identification is acceptable
for this purpose; driver's license, voter registration card, something
like that.
But also the space between the numbers. What's going to happen
on this form is that someone is going to sign their name and it's going
to go right over and get mixed up with the printed name of the person
below.
So I would suggest that if you're going to do this, you need to
decipher this when you get it.
So my remarks only pertain to the format of the petition itself.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may bring you up to date why
this thing has come about to where it is.
This is not necessarily a petition to expand the road from Wilson
to DeSoto. This is -- the reason we make forward with it is the fact
that this commission or past commission has put together a set of
rules for petitioning the Commission that are so difficult that you
can't get by them.
And as far as coming up with a legal petition that would be
recognized as being legal, it didn't exist. And this became a serious
problem.
So this is why I went to the County Attorney to see what we
could done and you authorized him to go forward with it so we could
get the basic format for people to be able to use in the future.
Page 205
July 30-31, 2002
This does not commit the Commission in any way, shape or
form by putting out the petition.
This gives people the basic right to interact with their
Government in the simplest type of form. Where they have a
petition, but this petition is worded in such a way it has some legality
to it. It's not so off the mark that someone is going to lose the point
for what it is.
It won't be questioned when it comes before us and be thrown
out thrown as meaningless because of some minor legal technicality.
It gives the basis to build everything on from this point forward.
Any time someone comes to you and they say, I'd like to run a
petition for a park or I'd like to run a petition for whatever to bring to
the Commission for consideration, you have this form now available.
Whether you agree to use it or not, it's still here in a legal format
that works to a point.
You've seen numerous petitions come across this dais over the
years. And quite often it was stated in such a way that it didn't have
the meaning it should. There's some question as to the legality.
As far as taking it and going through it and identifying every
persons telephone number and every persons identification, that is not
required of this Commission to do.
The only thing it does is give a public a chance to interact and
you get the scope of the demand out there by a petition such as this.
And that's the reason why we requested this at the previous
meeting to be brought back now.
I do agree with you as far as the layout of it and the dimensions,
it could be changed dramatically to make it flow a little bit smoother
so people have enough room to scroll their information in there so
that it means something to us when we get it back.
Page 206
July 30-31, 2002
The other comment I have to take some offense to,
Commissioner Henning, I'm sure you probably didn't mean it in any
demeaning way in any way is that why should I have to choose
between Immokalee Road and Golden Gate Boulevard?
This is something that could be put on the scope for sometime in
the future, something for consideration that comes up for talk. It
doesn't mean we have to immediately go out an cancel Immokalee
Road, much less Santa Barbara, mention that to where we can give
consideration for cancellation, but we're not going to do that either.
This is to give the citizens out there to bring this up on the scope
so we can start the process forward.
At this point, it doesn't even exist. Thank you very much for
putting up and enduring with my long winded explanation of where
we are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is burden.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It is. It's very difficult. Let's go to
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Carter. And we'll come back
to you, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine were simple. I just wanted
to, on the form itself, instead of saying identification type, in case
that would confusing, say form of identification.
I was wondering if you would need a zip code in there just to
identify where these things are coming from, being that this is going
to be like a standardized form.
And lastly, if you wanted to leave some point here, a place for
comments, I didn't know. That's just--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think that's comments would
work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Those were my suggestions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
Page 207
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think the comments by
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala are appropriate for the
design of a form, the standardization, that's where we want to be.
I would suggest somehow you might enlarge large the print of
what happens in this -- I got pretty good eyesight, but it would take
me a long time to read what I was signing.
I think you need to beef that up a little bit. Now we're in the
business of micromanaging the design of a form little, which I would
suggest if you take it down to departments that do this type of thing
and incorporate the concerns of the Commission and move forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I could
read the Executive Summary, it's not stating about a generic form.
It's approval form the petition drafted by the County requests by
citizens of Golden Gate Estates for four-laning Golden Gate
Boulevard.
So I take issue with that. And just to -- if the citizens are
responding on a positive of four-laning, I think we need to be
cognizant of how are you going to fund that.
And that is where I'm coming from. I understand that
Immokalee Road to Immokalee was put on there by a request by
Commissioner. And I'm just saying, are we going to drive our road
network or five year or 10 year planning of funding and building
roads in Collier County politically or are we going to let staff make
recommendations?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would say that you're right in all
phases of that; staff, public.
We're here to represent the public and to get the word in front of
the commission at large and staff for due consideration and we'll take
the recommendations of staff and see how they fit.
Page 208
July 30-31, 2002
You know, what the needs are out there, it's never been assessed
to the point that we can do it. This is the first step -- you don't even
got the petition back yet or the request to do it or even consider it.
But when you do get back the petition, I assumed that it will be
directed to staff for their consideration sometime in the very near
future where they can come back with some recommendations.
That's what we pay for.
Commissioner Henning, I see the button, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what we're doing is
setting up avenues for Commissioners -- the citizens to petition the
commission on whatever improvements, what they want, like you
suggested; a park, a roadway, and that.
And I think that before we send out the petition that we need
staffs input ofjustification of the request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I disagree totally. I think it's the
right of the citizens out there to petition its Government any time, in
any forum, in any place that they choose to.
That's one of our basic rights under the Bill of Rights.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't disagree with that.
I'm just looking at that this is not going to be any expensive
expenditure. And it's just something some we need to take into
consideration before--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To be honest with you,
Commissioner Henning, at this point in time, I have before me
everything I ever needed.
However, I'd hoped that this Commission would endorse the
petition, but if it doesn't, I still have what I know is a legal entity to
work with and develop on my own if I need to.
But I will serve the need of the people in the best way I see fit.
With that I'm going to go to Commissioner Coyle.
Page 209
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Henning
raises a good point. I'm not going to try to do anything that would
prohibit people from petitioning their Government.
But I think we must understand the consequences of that. What
is going to happen when these people petition for the widening of this
road and they submit the petition to us and we say we're not going to
do it.
We have raised a false expectation by doing that. And it's going
to result in lots and lots of controversy.
Even though it might be a good way to get opinions from
people, I'm merely making observation that the result might be quite
different then what you expect.
We could have petitions in all of the districts about which each
district would like to have and then we have major conflicts with
respect to how we allocate the funding and who we establish the
priorities.
And the people who petition for something are going to be mad
as a bunch of bees, and they're going to wonder why we didn't do
what they petitioned us to do.
That is always the problem when one forgets that we have a
representative form of Government. We don't have a democracy or
anarchy. Everybody doesn't get to decide what they want.
But the same process is occurring with respect to this Charter
Government Petition. They want people to be able to put items in our
State Constitution like specifying the size of crates for pigs.
Or they want to put in the State Constitution the requirement to
build high-speed rail for which there is no money and no one ever
told them what the cost was.
That's the danger of these things. And I think we must be very
careful, but I'm not going to stand in the way. If you want to solicit
Page 210
July 30-31, 2002
petitions from people about things like that then perfectly ready to sit
here and say no, if they come in and they want it if I have to.
Because I'm not going to shy away from that.
I'm not going to turn over my responsibilities as an elected
member of this body merely to concede to the interest of a poll every
few weeks or every few months.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, I would like to say that
what I have in my best pocket at this point in time is everything I
need to accomplish what I want to do with or without the blessing of
this Commission.
I have something in resembles a legal form of a petition that I
can move with. It doesn't mean that you have to give it your
blessing. They're still going to go through the motions.
At that point in time, you will exercise your elected office and
make the best decision that you deem is right for whatever comes
before you.
This is just another tool for them to interact with the County
Government.
Let's go to Commissioner Carter and we'll come back to you
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I tried-- I've listened to all of
this. I'm just going to make this statement. At any time you start
using petition for whatever purpose, you begin to encourage a citizen
expectation.
And the longer it's out there and the more they sign it, the higher
that expectation. It gets nourished and it gets fed.
And the longer it takes for Government to be able to respond to
that creates a community moral problem. They begin to get negative
about government, because they can't get what their expectation was.
Page 211
July 30-31, 2002
You can choose to do whatever you want as an elected official.
What I have to as long as I'm here and I would hope that this is the
process by which elected officials operate. You work at your staff,
you look at your sources, your revenue streams, you look at priorities
and you commit those to the community projects on that basis.
Because everyone that has ever come to my office wants
something. And that is what I'm elected for is to listen to the wants
and then balance that out with what we can accomplish.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one final comment. I think
you're right, Commissioner Coletta, you already have what you need
to do that, because included in our packet today are petitions signed
by people and there wasn't really Government form or requirement to
do that.
But there are petitions, a number of signatures on petitions,
supporting the variance for the installation of a pool enclosure that
goes behind or encroaches in the back yard set back.
We frequently get petitions from people about doing certain
things. And I think the people understand that they can do that.
And I think taking the step to prescribe an official process
merely gives people a false expectation that all they have to do is sign
the petition and present it to us and that's what we're going to do, and
then we're going to disappoint them when we're not able to do it
because the priorities are funny.
That's my feeling. And I don't -- I think you got what you need
to do right now. If you want someone to give the Commission their
feelings about that, just tell them to go out and get some petitions
signed because that's what people do every day.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only thing, Commissioner
Coyle, that I wanted to mention to you, that there's an ordinance
Page 212
July 30-31, 2002
already on the county books that governs petitions. It's not
something that I'm inventing new. And the way the ordinance is
written, it didn't give you any direction of what a legal petition is, and
that raised all sorts of problems before we go forward.
That's why I was looking for this particular instrument to be able
to have the basis for a legal petition to be able to guide us.
And I really apologize. This has been drawn out for quite a
length of time. I'll allow one of you to make a motion, if you like.
I would like to see this petition endorsed by this Commission,
but if it isn't, I can live with that too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you brought in front of me and
you requested a standardized format that people use to file a petition,
I wouldn't have any objection to that.
What you're asking is for a specific project. That I can't support.
I can support a forum of standardization. Perhaps we're not asking
the right question here. If that's what you want, I can support you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
for a standardized form.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Using this as an example, but going
I can make a motion to the fact that
we use a standardized form with the suggestions made by the
Commissioner Fiala and Coyle to enhance that form to be utilized--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can accept that. That reaches
everything that I'm looking to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion? Commissioner
Coyle and then Commissioner Henning. You weren't quick enough,
Henning. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I believe that the petition
ordinance is one which is designed primarily to permit citizens to get
something on a ballot.
Page 213
July 30-31, 2002
I believe that's what our petition ordinance is designed to do at
the present time. Am I wrong, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't know. Principally, to put something on
the ballot, because it can be an MSTU or MSBU.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Forget my comments. I will
support Commissioner Carter's proposal to establish a standard form
for any of those and whatever they are, they fill in the blanks.
MR. WEIGEL: I'll just mention that the citizen petition and
process policy attempted to give a little bit of freedom in the sense
that as iterated here in the big paragraph, Section D of that policy,
certain things have to be there.
And then a petition which is created by a citizen group or
interested person, it can be an individual, they bring that to the
manager's office and it comes to our office for review for legal
sufficiency under the policy.
And by the way, it's not law, it's merely a resolution and policy
that is in place. There's no violation of law or anything of that nature
in regard to these petitions.
Under our policy, we have that fine print that you're seeing here
and one of the reasons it's fine print because it is legal size reduced to
letter size, like our resolutions are.
The fine print below the question that was proposed here was
essentially provided by Mary Morgan, who in the past would have to
confirm the signatures looking at voter registration rules and things of
that nature and they noted that there's a law that talks about petitions
where people are falsely signing.
So the petition policy itself is not a law of the county but an
abuse of the petitions by state law could occur and person could have
liability.
Page 214
July 30-31, 2002
That may be a chilling effect for people not to sign willy nilly on
behalf of four or five signatures on behalf of their family or
something like that. I think that's a good thing.
But what I think the Manager's Office and our office will always
be hard pressed to do and the policy specifically attempted to avoid,
is to have the county creating the questions for the groups.
But for the format, it's largely there and if you like I'll work, of
course, with whomever, particularly the manager, and we can come
back again with a style and smorgasbord of styles to see what works
best as far as shape and form and size.
And Ms. Filson indicated that if this had been turned on it's side
you can get a lot more language and maybe make it easier to see. So
we can do all those things.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know what, I never have to
see it again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a pleasure and an honor to
support your wishes on the amended item on this agenda,
Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. With that we'll call the
question. 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 five to zero.
With that we go to staff comments. Start with you Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: If I could recommend, we have three items
tomorrow and something could come up during those three items that
Page 215
July 30-31, 2002
would add some more to this, that we postpone this particular piece
until tomorrow, until the end of those items. And then we don't have
to go over it again. We can get it done at one time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. We'll reconvene
tomorrow.
MR. MUDD: At nine o'clock, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
Thereupon, Proceedings concluded for the day and continued on
July 31, 2002 at 9:00 A.M. with the following present:
CHAIRMAN:
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
Tom Henning
James D. Carter
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo Ochs, Assistant County Manager
Joseph Schmitt, Community Development
Administrator
Norman Feder, Transportation Admnistrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you all please rise for the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Thereupon, (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, and good morning to everyone.
Mr. Mudd.
Page 216
July 30-31, 2002
MR. MUDD: The good news, Commissioner, good morning,
the good news is that we don't have a change list from today.
But the order, we have three issues to be heard today; they are 8-
A, which is the road impact fee, 8-H, which is the prohibition, what I
call the prohibition to pay impact fees early, and an Item 10-L, which
is 16-A- 17; that particular item takes about two minutes in the fact
that it needs to be read into the record and make the correction and
then the Board needs to approve it.
Item # 10L
RESOLUTION 2002-341 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
MARSH, UNIT SIXTEEN"- ADOPTED
So I suggest we do 10-L first and then go to 8-A and then to 8-
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Good morning, Commissioner, Commissioners.
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney.
I'm not sure if you need this for your distribution, we made a
minor change to this resolution based on the fact that we were
unaware that there had been a conveyance to the CED and so we had
to adjust the resolution. We caught that yesterday and we're bringing
it before you today.
And if there's any question, I'll be happy to try to answer it.
Page 217
July 30-31, 2002
MR. MUDD: Sir, this was the request to grant final acceptance
to the roadway drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final
plat of Pelican Marsh, Unit 16.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the problem was mainly in the
language.
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion from Commissioner
Carter, a second from Commissioner Fiala. Is there any discussion or
questions? 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 five to zero. Thank
yOU.
Item #8A
WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS ROAD IMPACT FEES AND
PROPOSAL TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS MEETING IN OCTOBER, 2002
MR. MUDD: That brings us to Item 8-A, which is the road
impact fees.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record,
Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator.
We're bringing to you today the recommendations for updated
transportation impact fee. That schedule is consistent with one that
Page 218
July 30-31, 2002
has been out there for sometime as to the update of this particular
impact fee.
We went through a process, we brought on board the firm of
Post, Buckely, Shue and Jemigan and have representatives here today
from that firm that looked at it.
The most recent data, and fortunately we have recent data on our
actual costs of our projects and asked them to develop that data not
only for this impact fee process but also for update of our five-year
work program.
In essence they went back and looked at what it's costing us on
projects based on specific data that we have available, and also to
give us some inflation factors as we look to interim updates to the
impact fee and as we look to develop a work program that's not based
on present day cost, but inflated out as it needs to be.
You have here today Brian Williams from Post, Buckley, Shue
and Jernigan. They will be here and available to respond to any part
of the issue.
Once we got the cost data for those two purposes, particularly
for the impact fee, we realized that in applying that we wanted to
look back at the formula, methodology, that has been here developed
by Tindle-Oliver in a 1991 study and in 1999 studies and make sure
that the methodology was reasonably sound and to look at any of the
factors that applied in that methodology that might need an update.
We knew that we would have to update relative to the gas tax
having been extended out to 2023, which represents a credit.
We wanted to look at any of the others along with applying the
new cost data.
We then brought that out to the community. We brought it out a
month ago, four weeks ago in earnest, went out to do number groups.
Page 219
July 30-31, 2002
We went to the Productivity Committee. We brought it out to DCAC
or Development Community Advisory Committee.
We held a public forum meeting to discuss the issues out at the
North Regional Library and we've had very, quite a bit of
correspondence both in -- back and forth in e-mail, many follow-up
meetings with all the interested groups and we've had an awful lot of
input in this process.
Some of that has resulted in some minor changes. I'll let the
consultants go through that with you.
URS is the consultant that then took the cost data and then
analyzed that further. I have here today from that firm-- first of all,
Bob Longfield, as well as Jeff Stevens, so I'll ask them now to go
through the process and show you what we did, provide you a little
bit of a wrap-up and then ask Joe Schmitt to talk about our
recommendation for September 1 st and an issue we have on the
utility relocation.
MR. LONGFIELD: Norman, thank you. Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Commissioner, it's a pleasure to be here today and
talk to you about the work that collectively these two companies have
undertaken and what we see as our technical recommendations to you
for potential changes.
To start with, I believe I need to hand in a copy of our formal
documentation on the study effort.
MR. MUDD: Please identify yourself for the record.
MR. LONGFIELD: I'm sorry. My name is Bob Longfield. I'm
the project manager for URS.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good point, though. That will speed
everything along. If everyone that comes up to the microphone that
we have over there would identify themselves, who they are, for the
record.
Page 220
July 30-31, 2002
MR. LONGFIELD: Thank you. We will certainly do that.
Each of the other gentlemen with me will be introduced and will also
do that. And we'll kind of go through in tag-team fashion and deal
with it.
We're dealing with, as Norman indicated, the formula that has
been in existence within Collier County for some, well, 10 to 12
years for use in calculating impact evaluations.
We've looked at every one of the factors in that formula. We'll
go quickly through those factors to highlight those that we see
potential changes, suggesting potential changes in, those that we do
not see any particular need to update, given the nature of the
information that's in there.
In general, the overall impact fee formula that has been in
existence within Collier County is one that translates improvement
need or improvements demand and the cost associated with that
minus particular travel-related credits into an impact fee associated
with new development. That is really the simplistic portion of it.
I do not intend today to go through, shall we say, an exercise in
Algebra, so we won't go into all of the nuts and bolts of the
equations, but rather look at the factors that come into play.
I believe you have this table in your packet; do you not?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do.
MR. LONGFIELD: Okay. Particularly focusing on the left side
of the table, we have some 12 factors that are inherent in the overall
impact fee formulation. I'd like to address the first one, then let
several others with me address some of the others and work our way
down that listing.
The first factor in there is basically one of lane capacity. We
mean by that using adopted national standards, normal procedures
Page 221
July 30-31, 2002
utilized by all the technical agencies; Florida Department of
Transportation, all of the counties, entire traffic engineering industry.
The general level of service value that we, depending upon the
adopted standards in each county, that we use and say a lane of traffic
can handle this amount of volume over the course of a day. And we
do it on a daily basis in this instance.
The bottom line on this particular value though there have been
some new publications come out updated by Florida Department of
Transportation. The values that are appropriate for Collier County
for the types of roads that we're dealing with have remained relatively
unchanged.
That's one of the 12 variables that we saw no particular need to
adjust under the circumstances of this review.
The second item on there is one that has received a great deal of
attention and is the construction cost.
For that I'd like Mr. Brian Williams with Post, Buckley, Shue
and Jemigan to come up and talk briefly about the changes that were
made in that particular review.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Bob. Good morning,
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Brian Williams with
Post, Buckley, Shue and Jernigan.
The first one is just a reminder of those costs from the Tindle-
Oliver 1999 study per lane mile cost of construction, $922,000, and
the right-of-way costs for $712,778 and the total on the bottom.
Mr. Feder charged us with the responsibility to come up with
costs that would update and accurately reflect and be able to defend
the cost of the updated study, and that's what we have attempted to do
here and we think we have done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we put that back up there?
It wasn't focused in and nobody really had a chance to look at it.
Page 222
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's too large.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Leo's got it.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's the total figures from the original
study in 1999 from Tindle-Oliver. The $922,000 in the construction,
engineering, and the right-of-way figure. At that time it was
$712,000 for a total of 1,635,000 per lane mile. And those were the
figures that we started with currently.
Is that okay? Can you see that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: These are the components that Mr. Feder and
staff asked us to look at and I'd like to go through those briefly one at
a time.
The design cost -- design cost we looked at current projects that
are being developed and have been developed recently by Collier
County in fiscal year 2002 and 2003.
And those costs include the normal design cost; surveying,
preliminary engineering and the like. And we came up with a cost as
you see there of $226,901 per lane mile.
I would like to skip over right-of-way for right now and come
back to that in a minute. It takes a little more discussion.
Utilities, that reflects just county-owned relocates. It does not
reflect upgrading and those costs are also based on the same projects
that are being used and constructed by the county. That's very recent
information. And those costs reflect currently what's going on in the
county of 232,261 per lane mile.
Construction and CEI costs, these are again projects that are
very up to date, they're under construction or recently constructed.
The utility costs have been removed from this figure because
they are already considered under a separate line item above and they
accurately reflect the cost of 1,465,000 per lane mile.
Page 223
July 30-31, 2002
Mitigation costs. These are costs related to wetland impact,
flood plan impacts, impacts associated with environmental permitting
on these days on major projects.
And those costs are currently based on what you're paying on
major projects right now in the county, very recent projects, $42,884
per lane mile.
Going back to the right-of-way costs. Originally, as we
developed these costs and began to update them, we came up with a
cost of about 1.7 million per lane mile.
We did that based on assumptions that we made working with
the county, county staff, based on land use urban and residential,
based on looking at some other counties, what the Department of
Transportation, some figures there, because right-of-way costs have
gone up so high.
But again, with the charge that Mr. Feder gave us to develop
costs that we thought were very defendable, we didn't have a lot of
local good data to verify this cost.
As we began to go and meet with folks in the county, based on
our first draft of this information, the productivity committee and
others, they began to ask and question this cost as to why we didn't
use recent costs like we did on our other design and construction
projects that you recently completed.
Well, the answer to that was, well, we didn't have it. That's not
available currently in the county. We don't have recent costs to base
that on.
We thought that since we didn't have that, it would be better off
to drop back and take a position of something that's more defendable.
And in that sense, that's why in our figure that we're presenting today,
we dropped back and took back the figure the out of the 1999 Tindle-
Oliver Plan, which was $712,000 per figure, got the just value growth
Page 224
July 30-31, 2002
factors pertained, that is available from the Property Appraiser's
Office and got the growth percentages for the last three years, applied
those factors and came up with a new figure of $1,189,000 per lane
mile and we thought that's what we were using, that's what's included
now.
And we realize, we think that is low, but that is a figure that we
think is fair and defendable at this time. We just did not have the
data available within the county to support the higher figure that we
were using originally.
So the figure that you see there, the 1,189,316 per lane mile is
based on that figure, so the total proposed construction at this time
per added lane mile is $3,157,279.
MR. LONGFIELD: Mr. Chairman, Bob Longfield again. Let
me clarify one comment that Mr. William made when he --
comments that we don't have a lot of current right-of-way
information.
Many of the current improvements that we would use the right-
of-way acquisition is still in either litigation or negotiations or some
phase thereof, so that, in effect, the numbers that we hoped we would
have are not yet available. It's going to be a little bit longer. It can
take a little bit of time for that information to be available to be able
to use it, so we've had to drop back in that regard.
Let me introduce -- to move on into some of the other factors,
Mr. Jeff Stevens with URS.
MR. STEVENS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record,
Jeff Stevens, with URS Corporation.
In looking at -- back to our summary sheet, we took a look at
beyond the construction cost, which Mr. Williams has spoken to
already.
Page 225
July 30-31, 2002
The next items on those lists, the other factors contained in your
formulation --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me, can we focus in on
that so everyone can see it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I also have 100 copies being
burned off right now and we'll distribute those as fast as we can get
them off the machine.
MR. STEVENS: Excuse me. We took a look at the fuel tax
based on current information that is within your existing ordinance,
changes in the tax structure, extension of the second local option, five
percent gas tax, extending it out to .23.
In the -- need to be reintroduced back into the formula to allow
for appropriate credit against the impact fees, which is where this
comes into play and bring it up to date.
The existing structure recognized that that tax was going to
basically expire in 03, I believe it was, and there was some other
allocations of the taxing structure that needed to be brought up to date
as well as bring the state sales tax up to speed with current levels.
In a nutshell, what that brings us up to is a current 14.8 cents per
gallon gasoline tax that is in the formulation need to be brought up to
the recommended 24.1 cents, which is the information that we
obtained from local staff based on actions that this Board has taken
and legislation on your state gas tax.
Looking at fuel efficiency, this again figures into a calculation
of your credit. What it does is recognize what the average mile per
gallon fuel efficiency is of your local automobile fleet.
Currently what is in formulation 16 miles per gallon based on
the standards in effect at that particular time and adopted, and the
accepted levels, we took a look at national standards, trends and other
local governments and based on the most publications of Federal
Page 226
July 30-31, 2002
Highway Administration on their roadway statistics, highway
statistics, for miles per gallon on average fleet, the 20.1 -- excuse me,
21 -- 20.1, excuse me, miles per gallon on your fuel efficiency is
what the national accepted average is for your fleet covers both the
rural highway and city mileage, so to speak. It's all lumped into an
average nationally and these are consistent with other jurisdictions
and what our recommendation would be.
Your present worth value factor basically, we looked at that, we
made no recommendation to change it. The current standard is based
on six percent interest rate, 25 year life span of a roadway. These are
within the ranges that other jurisdictions have based on their capacity
to borrow money, things of that nature, for future roadway projects,
and we recommended maintaining that level consistent with what you
have now.
The number of work days is presently at a full year, recognizing
that businesses operate on a basically full calendar year basis.
Someone is open seven days a week and this is consistent across the
board.
Very few jurisdictions anymore have a full calendar year in their
formulation and our recommendation is to maintain it -- and it gives
you a comfort level. It's a conservative approach to it and we suggest
maintaining that.
I'm going to skip over the interstate mileage factor at the
present. It requires a little discussion on modeling, forecasting,
things of that nature. Mr. Longfield is going to speak to that.
The last five factors that you have on the list, trip generation
rate, percentage of new trips, size and facility of development, total
trip length and assessable trip length, these are factors based on the
proposed development. They vary with what is being proposed,
subject strictly to the application before review.
Page 227
July 30-31, 2002
There are factors or values that this board or previous boards
have adopted, accepted as being representive of local trends and
standards.
These include your trip generation rates for particular land use
classifications, your total trip length, assessable trip length.
These are all factors that the boards have reviewed and
discussed with other groups at times and come together with an
understanding that are representative of Collier County.
We made no recommendation to change these. They are still
acceptable with the exception of under trip generation, we found four
land use classifications that had not been updated in several updates;
those were hotels, motels, resort hotels and movie theaters.
The current trip generation rates that are contained in the impact
fee ordinance are based on Fourth and Fifth Edition of the Institution
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
The current addition that is currently being utilized nationally,
and here locally as well, is the Sixth Edition, which was published
and out for print in 1997.
And we are recommending that those four land use
classifications be brought up with those standards, making them
consistent with the rest of the land uses that you have contained
within your ordinance.
Like I said, the size of the facility is strictly dependent on the
application beforehand and the developer that is presenting it.
I will turn it back over to Mr. Longfield at this time to discuss
the percentage of interstate trips.
MR. LONGFIELD: This particular aspect of the overall impact
fee ordinance is one that has been in basically the Collier ordinance
from the very beginning. It is not necessarily used in all ordinances
around the State.
Page 228
July 30-31, 2002
It recognizes a condition that existed here in Collier County a
number of years ago when as the Interstate was being built that
played a very important role for travel within the county because it
provided roadway access to areas that otherwise did not have good or
continuous access.
Obviously, as time has passed, the remainder of the major street
system has continued to improve, continued to evolve with additional
development, with additional programs by the county and by the
State, whereas the Interstate itself, with the exception of the addition
or the upcoming addition of one particular interchange, has remained
basically constant.
So the evaluation of this factor, number one, would expect that
to change with the passage of time, as other elements of the overall
surface transportation system increase in quantity, number of lane
miles, number of volume of traffic, et cetera, and the Interstate has
not, one would expect that the proportion of local travel, meaning
travel that starts and ends in Collier County, would actually start to
decrease as a proportion of the total system.
Now, this is going to be a variable over time and tends to be a
little time-dependent perhaps.
But for right now, when we look at all of the available modeling,
travel forecast modeling, now that is the first time we used that
phrase today.
The NPO process, the NPO long-range is based upon an overall
travel forecast model or utilizes in it's development, I should say, an
overall travel forecast model. It is based on existing land use
conditions as well as forecast land use within the area.
In addition to that model structure which is a standardized
structure throughout the State of Florida, it is used by all the NPOs
Page 229
July 30-31, 2002
and then individualized to the particular county or particular NPO
area that is under study.
This particular model structure has also been utilized by the
Florida Department of Transportation in their detailed evaluations of
the Interstate system for potential improvement to that system in the
studies that they're currently conducting in both Lee and Collier
County.
That adjusted, what shall we call it, Interstate model is also
available. We looked at both model structures and several different
conditions.
Number one, what would be an estimate of today's level of
development, 2002 development within the county? With the
available data information that the NPO has, at the 2025 year, design
year, for the current cost feasible NPO plan and at the 2030 forecast
conditions that the Florida DOT has developed for the purposes of
looking at improvements to the Interstate.
To assess what proportion of the local vehicle miles of travel, in
other words, the local quantity of travel that is actually being served
by the Interstate, that number in all of those comes in slightly under
six percent, and therefore, we have suggested that the variable in the
equation, in the overall impact fee equation, be adjusted to six
percent.
I believe that discussion covers all 12 of the variables in your
current equation. We feel, in an overall sense, that the equation
remains -- the process remains reasonable, consistent with that in
general use within the State.
We've identified, in effect, the five variables that we feel need
adjustment, technical adjustment, in the ordinance itself. We have
indicated what we feel is a sound and supportable value for each of
those and as such, believe that by incorporating these, we fully offset,
Page 230
July 30-31, 2002
as we indicate on the second bullet item on this slide, the
transportation costs associated with new development using the
information that this evaluation effort has produced.
With that brief summary, we'll entertain any questions that you
have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two questions. The summary
question that you just presented, Mr. Stevens, said that they're
estimated at 25-year life span on the roads.
That I really don't understand. I'm looking at a road facility as
lasting forever as long as you maintain it.
So I really need to understand that aspect of it.
MR. STEVENS: The life span that we're geared towards is that
in your engineering studies, planning studies, you evaluate that. One,
you got planning horizons that are typically 20, 25 within your land
use planning year cycles.
You've got design years for completion and construction of
roadways and you've got, you know, what would be a life span to
basically update, replace or consider reconstruction of facilities and
how much to borrow against that particular future construction cost.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in the life cycle this 25
years, what is estimated in the cost of that 25 year span?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
Let me put it in a little simpler terms.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Basically, yes, a roadway is out there and it looks
like it lasts a long time. I don't see them going away any time soon.
Page 231
July 30-31, 2002
You got a couple of different issues. First of all, you got your
pavement life which is seven to 11, 12 years, depending on the use of
the facility and the type of the facility.
Then you got the issue of what is the useful life. What we're
talking about here is growth requiring capacity expansion to the
system.
What you provide for when you go for that capacity expansion
is you develop it out to a 20-year horizon, typically. You do that in
your long-range planning as to what your needs are and when you
design a project you design it to meet that 20-year projected growth
when you develop it.
So a 20-year horizon is realistically when you're developing the
improvement, and therefore, when you consider these costs of what
we're spending on the average, on unit cost for an improvement, it is
for an improvement that is slated for the 20- 25-year horizon.
The 25 year, which some areas use 20, some use 25, was the
more conservative. And quite often, when you're updating your long-
range plans or doing your design traffic, you usually try to go to a
five year or 10 -- the zero-year increment, so sometime you're at 24
years, 23, 22, 21. So it can go up to 25 and we've used 25 as the
more conservative approach.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much weight does that
play on the estimated cost of lane mile?
MR. FEDER: The estimated cost of lane mile is to make an
improvement. What this is speaking to is how long is that
improvement considered good for and 25 years, as ! said, is the more
conservative. You're designing for 20 plus. And in this case you're
saying 25 years.
Page 232
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I probably didn't ask it in the
way that I need to. The 25-year life span of a road, is it a factor in the
lane mileage cost?
MR. FEDER: Yes, in the sense that when you have that cost or
that improvement, that improvement cost and that improvement is
slated to address your needs for the 20, 25 years. So you're
acknowledging that it has that life cycle.
When we go to expand a roadway, we don't go to expand it to
what our need is, if it's a shortfall, just that shortfall off of tomorrow.
We try to expand the road in the overall network to meet a 20 to 25
need.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: That's the NPO process?
MR. FEDER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we're talking two
different issues.
MR. FEDER: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Its life span --
MR. FEDER: The life span of that facility meeting the need of
new growth is 25 years; that's what you factor in.
When you look at your projected demand on that facility, you
look at 25 years out and you develop a facility to handle that 20- 25-
year horizon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I got the consultants in the back
trying to get you the answer to the question that you asked is what
kind of impact by percentage does that 25 years put into the equation
versus 20, versus 30?
And they're working on that to get to your specific answer. If
you give them a couple of seconds and go to your next question, give
us a couple of minutes to figure that out.
Page 233
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where is my next question? In
the presentation, it is stated that the number of working days, using a
facility, is used 365 days.
Now, looking at some of your big retail shops, I can understand
that, but I can't understand the mom and pops -- being in business for
myself, you're really pressing me if I could get five working days.
And just looking around in the community, churches, day cares,
it's a long list. I just have a real problem understanding that one.
MR. LONGFIELD: Bob Longfield, again. I understand exactly
what you're saying. This has been a discussion in many, many
jurisdictions and locations around the State.
This has generally been the -- what should we say, the agreed
upon factor to put in recognizing that recent trends are suggesting
that much of our business and social activity is literally a seven day a
week process.
Does it vary by day? Yes. Can we agree that can we build all of
that variability in? Probably not.
So it has generally been in the credit situation. This is the most
conservative situation to use, so we have typically in areas gone with
that number.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're saying it's too difficult
to look at the different aspects of land use and find out if it is used
one day or seven days?
MR. LONGFIELD: No. What I'm saying -- what I'm
attempting to say is that in the manner in which this is used in the
equation this provides the most conservative estimate of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand what you're
saying, we need -- in order for me to make a decision, are we getting
accurate data? That's all.
Page 234
July 30-31, 2002
MR. LONGFIELD: Okay. I fully understand. What I'm
attempting to convey to you is that this is a fairly uniformed situation
in a lot of urban areas around the State.
This has been an item that has been discussed in the profession
previously and within the context of the calculation process the
mathematics, if you will, given the 365 gives us the most
conservative or beneficial answer in terms of actually providing the
greatest level of recognition on the credit that is provided within the
calculation.
If we shorten, the credit comes down. We're going with a longer
one which generally goes as opposed to do this on an individual land
use basis for all of the land use categories and relate that to each and
every major street corridor.
We have tried to generalize. I say "we", both within the context
of this study and within most of the other studies around the State.
MR. MUDD: Sir, let me ask you a question, if I may,
Commissioner. If the number goes down, just for clarity sake, as far
as work days are concerned, does the impact fees go up or do they go
down?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They go up.
MR. MUDD: They go up. I just want to make sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll move to Commissioner Fiala,
and then we'll go to Commissioner Coyle.
Before we start, Commissioner Fiala, I wanted to let you know
that there's still some seats available in this room and we've set up
seating in the hallway over here with a television monitor so you can
follow the meeting.
If you get tired and you want to sit down they're available to
you. Go ahead.
Page 235
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On the six percent variable on
Interstate traffic, being that I need things brought down to basic
terms, does that mean that six percent on an average of our people
use the Interstate?
MR. LONGFIELD: No, not quite. The unit of measure is
actually vehicle miles of travel.
It would be -- think of it this way. One person traveling one
mile is -- one vehicle traveling one mile is one vehicle mile.
Now, what we're saying is of the total quantity of travel within
the county, four internal trips; trips that start at one location in Collier
County and end in another location in Collier county, okay, what
proportion of that travel is served by the Interstate, that is what the
six percent represents.
So it's close to what you've asked, but not quite.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And being that so many of our
employees have to live in Lee County in order to be able to work here
because they can't afford homes as it is, is that calculated into this
figure in any way?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can't afford homes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our people have to travel a long
way --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Those aren't butterflies.
MR. LONGFIELD: I understand. No, it is not in the six percent
number. We get, again, into an area within the technical analysis
process that are available to us.
I recognize you've given a specific case where there might be a
consideration to incorporate that, but we have in that same
evaluation, we have conditions where we're dealing with a category
of travel.
Page 236
July 30-31, 2002
I mentioned internal, starting in a location within Collier
County, ending at a location within Collier county, home to
shopping, for example.
We get into two other categories. We have through travel,
which is traffic that starts outside the county and ends outside the
county, in other words, it's literally just passing through. That is not
considered typically within that particular factor.
In other words, these people don't have anything to do with the
county, they just happen to be using the system, most are on regional
system.
The other category of travel is what is referred to as
internal/external. In other words, starting in the county and going
outside the county. Starting outside the county, external, coming into
the county internal.
So we have that category, which is exactly the examples that
you have referenced.
We have a wide variety of users that fall into that. Not the least
of which are visitors to the county. It is generally our consideration, I
say that as this team, that we suggest to you that because of literally
given the technical tools that we have without detailed studies, we
don't have a feel of how much fall into the various categories within
that to be able to split that hair.
We can get the total, for internal/external, external/internal, but
it's difficult to split. There are segments that we don't feel should be
incorporated based on the nature of the travel. There are other
segments that perhaps have a strong basis for incorporation.
Given that difficulty, again, in this instance, we tend to err, if we
err on the low side by just incorporating the part that we can clearly
define by internal only travel.
Page 237
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If that figure was higher, what
would that do to the impact fee?
MR. LONGFIELD: It occurs in the credit, it could increase the
credit, and then therefore, decrease the fee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll go to Commissioner
Coyle and then Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a brief housekeeping detail,
and then I'll go into some more specific questions.
The formula that you've shown on the screen that was contained
in the draft impact fee is incorrect. I know we didn't use this formula,
but I think the document should be corrected.
The Interstate mileage reduction multiplied by the trip, should
actually be one minus the Interstate mileage reduction.
If you use the mileage reduction in that formula, you would have
an impact that was 15 times lower then the impact fee that we're
talking about. Okay?
If you want to use that particular definition, you would have to
use a .94 under your calculations.
MR. LONGFIELD: I see exactly what you're referencing. It is
a typographical mistake on our part.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it's a typographical mistake.
MR. LONGFIELD: I know the equation calculates the way it's
supposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to make sure there's no
misunderstanding concerning that. I think we should have it
corrected.
MR. LONGFIELD: By all means.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the maximum
volume for the adopted level of service on the arterial roadways, what
Page 238
July 30-31, 2002
database is being used to determine that? Was it the year 1999 or
2000?
MR. LONGFIELD: The most recent we could get, I believe, it
was generally the year 2000. Was it not? Yes, sir, using the 2000
count program.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would happen if you were to
accommodate or take into consideration the new capacity that has
been developed since that point in time? For example, the
construction of Livingston Road and the widening of Airport Road,
the widening of Immokalee and the widening of Pine Ridge? What
effect would that have on this process?
MR. LONGFIELD: What we're calculating there is the capacity
of a particular lane overall using latest count information and current
analytical procedures.
You have obviously a range of conditions, that is the reason we
have differing procedures, et cetera, for calculating that.
It shouldn't change whether we incorporate an existing facility
or a new facility. A new facility is probably built to higher standards,
but if we adopt something based on those standards, it should
calculate exactly the same.
So if you see what I mean, the technique is predicated on the
physical conditions that go into the computation and of capacity, not
whether it's a new road or an old road.
We have old roads, for example, with 12-foot lanes. We have
new ones with 12-foot lanes. We have old roads with appropriate
turning lanes at signalized intersections, we have new roads with
appropriate turning lanes at signalized intersections.
So you calculate the same kind of daily flow rate. The -- where
the counts come in is give us the necessary traffic characteristics for
determining this computation.
Page 239
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you agree that the flow rate
is a lot greater on Livingston Road then it is on Airport Road, for
example?
MR. LONGFIELD: Just given the
16 characteristics in nature of the section on the road, I would
say yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there's no way yet to factor
that in because our traffic information isn't really available yet
because it hasn't been opened that long; is that basically true?
MR. LONGFIELD: In terms of the new facilities, yes, we have
no counts for the year 2000 because certain roads that exist today did
not exist in the year 2000.
And we are going with the count program, the latest count
program that is generally available.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go to the right-of-way
calculations. I understand that you have taken out the landscaping
right-of-way. How does -- I'm sorry, not the right-of-way allowance,
the construction cost. You've removed the landscaping cost from that
calculation. Tell me what you do with things like sidewalks and
lighting?
MR. LONGFIELD: Let me let Brian Williams address that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Sidewalks are only a part of the construction
cost. They're figured in different sections. Lighting is a separate bid
item and those bid items are separated because they are not relevant
to all projects, and are usually paid for by some other funding source.
So the sidewalk would be in there, but the lighting would not
necessarily be on the construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the right-of-way
costs, we had on our agenda yesterday an item which involved the
Page 240
July 30-31, 2002
purchase of some right-of-way for utility purposes. How do we break
out in this study the cost for right-of-way for roads at capacity
expansion and the cost for utility expansion?
MR. WILLIAMS: We just used, in this calculation,
Commissioner Coyle, the figure based on the original study. And
that was what I was trying to make earlier.
And the reason for that is because although you have some
information currently ongoing on your county projects, and there's
condemnation going on, we didn't feel there was enough historical
data in which to arrive at judgments for inclusion into this.
The assumptions we really don't feel were -- we could come
down to the strength level of the others that we had; the design, the
mitigation figures, the utility figures are based on historical data right
now. You can't get any better than that.
Right-of-way, you're in progress on those things, so we thought
that to take the original figure that would be more fair. Go to the
appraiser's office get the growth percentages, apply those and put that
factor in now.
Again, knowing that it is low, continue to work on that in the
future to come up with a more realistic figure, but to get something
that's more defendable at this point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we buy right-of-way, for
example, for expanding -- widening County Road 951, we're going to
buy right-of-way and then after we buy right-of-way we're going to
put in utilities and we're going to put in a road, how do we break
those out? And does the formula provide for that?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. We are only buying the right-of-way in these cases
for the roadway need.
Page 241
July 30-31, 2002
Now, the utilities, public and private, get to use that right-of-
way, but we don't buy additional right-of-way to meet the needs of
utilities.
And utilities, if it's an expansion issue, is going to be addressed
through utilities, whether that's right-of-way need or if they can use
ours then they can use it.
The cost for expansion utilities is through utilities. The only
thing you have in here, and we'll be talking about that a little bit
more, is the relocation of utilities.
So in answer to your question, we buy the right-of-way we need
for the road. If utilities can be accommodated within public and
private, we do it to accommodate them, but we don't buy the utility
for the right-of-way for the placement of utilities.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you buy sufficient right-of-
way to accommodate?
MR. FEDER: That's correct, for roadway and utility. They
basically go within our roadway. We're not buying extra area. The
utilities are typically under the sidewalk between pavement sometime
in the median. We try to keep them out of the major travel lanes
because we have to get to them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can you tell me a little bit
about the statement on page seven Paragraph D.
The last sentence that says: "The recommended increase to 20.1
miles per gallon will decrease the total credit for gas tax and result in
an increase in the individual transportation impact fee."
I believe that is true if it's taken by itself, but the point is we
increased taxes by 63 percent and we increased the fuel efficiency by
only a 26 percent increase.
So it seems to me that that would not actually reduce the credit,
it would increase the credit because you're increasing the enumerator
Page 242
July 30-31, 2002
by 63 percent and the denominator by 26 percent and I'm just
wondering if that statement is correct or an error.
MR. STEVENS: For the record, Jeff Stevens, Commissioner
Coyle, let's see. Let me bring us back to our detail.
The statement that we're making there on page seven referred to
is that as you increase that value and what the statement is alluding to
is if you increase that value you're decreasing the amount of credit
that is deducted from your gross impact fee.
It does not take into consideration it may be actually offset by
other components within what we're doing, but that in itself is driving
a reduction in the amount of credit that's available.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're saying all other things
staying the same, if you increase this one it would reduce it? MR. STEVENS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In fact, what did happen with that
credit? Did it not increase? Because all other things were the same
except for the taxes, the tax rate.
MR. STEVENS: It took the total credit --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the total credit.
MR. STEVENS: All things across the board did increase.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The present work factor,
and this is a follow-up to Commissioner Henning's question about 25
years.
I too am concerned about how we value those roads and I
understand what the manuals tell us. I'm not really someone who
likes to be managed by manuals, but I understand what you're telling
us, that these roads are going to be effective from the standpoint of
handling capacity for 25 years.
Are we taking into consideration the fact that this commission
has just taken action that prohibits development in roughly 80 percent
Page 243
July 30-31, 2002
of the county? And that there's a fine item out of additional
development, additional growth that will occur? And are we taking
into consideration our build out rates?
We expect to be built out theoretically before 25 years, so if we
are built out it would seem to me that the roads would have a longer
present work factor.
Am I right or wrong?
MR. STEVENS: If I understand the direction of your question,
if you got your build out year in consideration and everything taken
in light of that, yes, they should have a longer life.
Unfortunately, with a lot of those components that you've
discussed and brought up, it's extremely not -- maybe not impossible,
but typically not those that are tried to work into that fabric of that
particular factor.
What we took a look at in other jurisdictions statewide, it did not
delve into that level of detail and try to incorporate those
components.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. I just want to make
sure that it is consistent with the plans of the NPO and consistent
with our growth plans, because it has to be defensible within that
context.
So I am concerned that the NPOs projection with respect to
build out anticipate build out far before 25 years has expired and the
earlier we have build out, the longer -- the larger the present work
value of the roads will be to me, it seems to me. Is that a correct
statement?
MR. SCOTT: Transportation and Planning. The NPO plan, if
you go out 25 years and the population that was assumed in that is
not built out. As this equation is updated in future years that might
be more of a consideration, but essentially it's there for two years.
Page 244
July 30-31, 2002
As we stand right now, present worth value would be 25 years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the NPO plan you're telling me
doesn't anticipate or doesn't take into consideration the Rural Fringe
and Eastern Land Settlement that prohibits construction in those
areas?
MR. SCOTT: In the 2025 build out the population that is
assumed in 2025 long-range transportation plan is not the build out
population.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask, while Mr. Scott is up
there, ask a question on this subject.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you taken the growth
projection of where we were in the last 10 years and where we're
going to be in another 10 years and then another 10 years after that
just to piggyback back on what Commissioner Coyle is trying to get
at or the NPO process was a different formulation of the calculation
of build out?
MR. SCOTT: If you're talking about some of the recent Rural
Fringe issues, the NPO plan that was adopted was probably before
that time frame or is before that time frame. So from that standpoint,
the long-range transportation plan needs to be updated.
They do have interim years, if you look at the population
assumed in the long-range transportation plan it's somewhere around
450,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I'm talking about is, I
think we had a growth in the last 10 years of 65 percent; is that part
of the calculation of the NPO process?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, when you go out and choose a population
or if it comes from the Bureau of Economic Development --
University of Florida, that comes up with a figure of either a high
Page 245
July 30-31, 2002
number or medium, I think they went with a medium number that
doesn't take the high growth in the last 10 years, it takes something
less than that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What I'm going to do is ask you to
wait so we can go in some sort of succession. We'll come back to
you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. I got a sequence of
questions here. I'd like to get through the sequence of questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry. Henning picked up so I
thought you were through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wasn't through.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I will ask that other Commissioners
refrain from entering in until they're recognized by the chair.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't object.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My apologies. It won't happen
again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just another clarification and I
think I'll need the consultants here.
Trip generation rates, I got to get it fixed in my mind about what
generates a trip and what receives a trip.
We're focusing entirely on trip generations. I use two of the
examples in the report.
We have a resort hotel per room that is going to generate 10 new
trips and the movie theater is going to per screen generate 220 trips.
If someone in a resort hotel wants to go to the movie, that's one
trip. Is it charged against the hotel or is it charged against the movie?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good question.
MR. LONGFIELD: Depends on what land use you're doing the
estimate for within the ordinance itself.
Page 246
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're double-counting.
MR. LONGFIELD: No. The trip generation is the sum total
based upon empirical on studies that have been going on in effect
around the country since approximately the mid 70s.
This has been compiled by the professional organizations that
many of us that are traffic engineers belong to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers nationally and is made available.
This is perhaps the most, what should we say, complete
reference that we can use on how much travel is produced by
attracted to in total a particular land use type.
Okay. So what I'm saying is, it does have both components in it.
When we talk about the generation that is within -- within the context
of the ordinance, we say it relates to a specific land use.
So that we calculate it for that land use. It's both types of travel,
if you will, travel that starts there and travel that ends there with that
particular land use.
Now, those are the examples for that land use, how that travel,
in your example, how that travel distributes throughout the area is
where we get to the other side of trying to assess using the travel
forecast modeling process that tends to assign, here are trip origins,
here are trip destinations and it works that process throughout the
whole urban area and is balanced to the account information that we
have.
So it is doing as good a job as we can with a quite complex
computer-based travel forecast model of routing traffic around the
area travel with the road system that exists at any point in time.
Because then we get to forecast things in the future. In other
words, it is the NPO process said another way.
Page 247
July 30-31, 2002
The point I'm getting at is for the impact fee ordinance, we look
at specific land use types. We deal with that in terms of how much
traffic they yield based on empirical surveys.
And Florida, I might add, is a very heavy contributor to that
database. A lot of the trip characteristics studies have been done
around Florida and they continue to be done and information gets
turned in to the National Clearing House.
So that we are represented well in terms of our trip
characteristics in this national database. But for the purposes for
calculating for that particular component of the equation where it
involves trip generation, we're taking that into account into the
various components, Commissioner, is the best way I can answer that
and I've tried to go into a little bit of detail.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this is trip generation per
room, not per room per day?
MR. LONGFIELD: On that particular -- yes, it is, trip per room.
These are daily rates.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Daily rates. I'm not going to go
on record of trying to champion resort hotels.
But I'll tell you when I go to a resort hotel on the beach, I don't
get in my car and drive around 10 times a day.
But nevertheless, let me go on to perhaps one other item, and
that's the issue of the right-of-way values.
I know that right-of-way increases rapidly here in Collier
County and that's one of our problems. We have not kept pace with
the increase here and we have to do that.
Are we using in the calculation the right-of-way inflation rates
for improved property or unimproved property or is it an
accumulation of both?
Page 248
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It depends on where you're
taking the road.
MR. LONGFIELD: It would be in development of the
information that has been used for this analysis, we have tried
wherever possible to take that from recent projects.
So in that instance, it would be actually a combination of the
two in that there are some road areas where we might have right-of-
way information where perhaps some of the adjacent land has not
been developed, therefore, it's undeveloped value, if you will, versus
somewhere they have, I'm sure somewhere they have already
developed, and we're incorporating those costs. So exactly what the
mix is, I'd have to delve back into the actual numbers that were used
to find that out.
But both are inherent in the numbers that we've used because we
have used, wherever possible, available information from actual
right-of-way acquisitions within the county..
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'm finally at the
end.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. You can come back for
more later. Commissioner Carter.
MR. CARTER: Thank you. I think Commissioner Coyle has
drilled his formula in a very professional way, better than I could
have ever hoped to accomplish the same goal, and I compliment him
on that.
Where I am in this process is I've got two global questions for
you. When I approved two years ago what I was told was a
maximum by law road impact fee increase, and then it comes back to
me two years later at an average of a 154 percent, I am very troubled
by, A, was the empirical database that I made the first decision on
sound or did it have more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese, and
Page 249
July 30-31, 2002
why should I then buy into your formulation and be convinced today
that yours is a more solid basis because I guess what you do is
benchmark one, do your calculations, and then derive the percentages
of increases.
I need a lot of help here, sir.
MR. LONGFIELD: Let me attempt to open up and take a first
cut at answering that particular question.
Some of the details in the last estimate, we are not able to
ascertain from the documentation in that.
There are certain aspects of the computations that we are not
able to reproduce.
Right-of-way costs, on the other side of that, right-of-way is
perhaps one of those. We don't know exactly what projects were or
were not included in the analysis that arrived at the numbers that
were suggested two years ago.
This time we have made a definitive attempt to use as many
actual projects as we can.
Now, specifics on that, I'm going to leave to others.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
Commissioner, what I'll point out to you is a couple of things. I
was not here in the last study as well.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand.
MR. FEDER: What I will point out to you is that that last study
did not have any recently completed projects.
What I hope you've heard today is basically the formula remains
unchanged for the last 11 years. What does -- what has been
basically changed is we actually have recent data on projects, and
therefore, good figures on what our actual costs are to construct.
Page 250
July 30-31, 2002
We have an issue on right-of-way, that's why we're deferring
that a little further out and that's been discussed with you. But we do
have very good figures on our cost to construct.
I honestly have not been here and could not speak to what could
have been used other than basically industry standards. At that time
because at that time, there had not been any projects built in the last
four or five years.
So what you do have now is you have projects since 1999 have
been constructed. We know the cost, almost complete, we know
what the cost will be and we're utilizing those at least for construction
and design cost.
So I think that is a big part of the answer to your question. The
other thing is you have a couple of changes you'll hear more about,
but on utilities, relocation, that's being added in it makes a lot of
sense.
The only reason I'm relocating that utility line is because growth
is that we modify the road system, and therefore, I have to move the
utility because I don't want it under my travel lane or whatever on the
movement of that utility.
That is not going to be implemented until all of those fees are
out of any of the public utility fees. I'll be discussing them in a
minute. But that is another reason for some of the modifications.
So what I will tell you is, again, we're very, very comfortable
with the cost figures. We have actual data, actual projects, specifics.
In the area of the right-of-way, we had to use what we intend we
would recommend using in the interim year and that's the county
property appraiser's just value percentage increase for the last years
in this case because a prior study was done in 1999. So 2000, 2001
and 2002 that we're working with today.
Page 251
July 30-31, 2002
I think that some of that change is there. What I am going to
recommend to you, obviously, we're going to recommend that you
implement this fee, and you have a lot of people you need to hear
from today, we need to let them speak, but I will tell you that we
need to address what is the major escalating issues relative to this
impact fee.
You'll hear a lot discussed today about affordable housing. It's
an important issue, but at the same time a separate one; we need to
take that into account.
You'll hear about economic development. That's extremely
important, diversification of our economy.
Yet, at the same time, obviously, this is dependent on good
roads. We don't want to end up feeding other problems for it and
that's where the concerns will be raised.
I think the important part of that equation as we go through it is
that we see what the costs are and we figure out that we don't have
that shock of every two years as you're relating to, I can't speak
totally between the difference from the 2000, I've given you a couple
of reasons why I think there's modification.
But the key thing is we need to get with the stakeholders and the
county and we need to evaluate, right-of-way being an obvious one,
right-of-way acquisition, public-private partnerships, which you
worked with on 4 ! and others with the State.
We got options there and some of our regulations requiring that
right-of-way be looked at in the development pattern to either
accommodate drainage that's going to be required or to make sure
that we don't develop drainage or buildings within the future right-of-
way need or other issues of the sort.
So there's a lot of things we can do that we need to do. What
you got is the cost and what it's costing us today and we need to
Page 252
July 30-31, 2002
address that. We need to then work, because we don't need these two
year rather exorbitant increases and this is one, I acknowledge that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, before you sit down,
being the Chair, I always have to let the other commissioners go first.
I want to compliment you on doing a wonderful job asking the
questions.
But could we get a little bit of the history on how did we get to
this point? Why do we have this 11 th hour need to do this right now.9
Why hasn't this been taken care of before.9
MR. FEDER: Let me try to answer it the best I can and if I'm
not answering it, please make sure that I do.
Essentially, what you're asking me is why now.9 First of all,
what we promised to this Board was, we would not do what we did in
'91, passed to '92 and then wait until the '99 study that got updated in
2000.
We were not going to wait eight years before we came back to
you and reassessed the impact fees. We promised you that we would
come back every two years, given that the other was actually put in
place April we're just off of that schedule. But it is about two years
and nine months since the studies and a little over two years if it's
implemented right now and that's the schedule that we worked with
in other issues. So we're basically on a two-year schedule.
What we promised you what we would do, and that's what we're
trying to work towards, is do the study every two years on the even
year, and on the odd year our recommendation, and that says, is we
basically go cost inflation for construction at about three and half
percent as you'll see in the inflation numbers that were worked up out
by Post, Buckley to bring up design and construction costs.
Page 253
July 30-31, 2002
And on right-of-way that we use that percentage of just value
increase from the property appraiser. So then hopefully, when we
come to the update every two years, we don't have the major shock.
Now, unfortunately, right-of-way and possibly mitigation costs
which are going up are two things we need to speak about with all of
the sector in the community and see how we get control on that so
that we don't have that spike, even if we do an interim process as I've
mentioned.
How did we get here? Like I said, 2000 study was done, I've
explained I think a good portion of the difference in those costs,
although, I can't explain all of it, but I can tell you that we're very
comfortable with the figures that we've given you except for right-of-
way.
And there I think we are using the interim approach effectively,
the property appraiser's just value increase, until the data is in.
And the way I characterize that, for everything we did, we took
actual projects, took the corridors, looked at what the cost was, lane
miles, came up with the figure for each one and averaged the cost.
Each corridor is a little bit different.
Well, the ideal would be to do that in right-of-way. It's obvious
from the start that we couldn't.
So staff I think did a very credible job of looking at recent
appraisals, how they were changing, looking at some parcels, and
making assumption about commercial versus residential split, about
with the right-of-way, you're going to hear a lot of questions and
debate about that, about what percentage will be condemned versus
negotiate.
All those things they had to make a number of assumptions. I
think they made very credible assumptions, professional assumptions,
but that's just what they were.
Page 254
July 30-31, 2002
Okay. Productivity committee, others that are in this audience
today said, you need to back that up strongly. You need to do what
you did in design and construction, show each corridor, show what
that average is and average the cost.
We tried to do that, it resulted in what we knew intuitively going
in and that is right-of-way doesn't pay out as fast as your design and
construction costs.
Therefore, we don't have all that data in hand. Ideally what you
would do on each of those corridors, and we tried to do, you identify
corridor as 100 parcels. Let's say 60 percent of them are negotiated
and 40 percent of them or 40 parcels will end up in condemnation
order of taking.
Ideally, you would have had out of that 60 negotiated, 50 of
them already completed. Where you know what your original
appraisal was, you knew what you ended up negotiating it for, so you
only had 10 more, let's say, and you can take the difference between
what you had for an appraisal and what you paid and you could
figure out what the other 10, which you had the appraisal for, would
probably end up paying out. And you have a pretty good level of
confidence.
The same with the other 40. If you had 30 of them, let's say,
that were already final settlement orders and you knew what you put
in the court versus the final settlement you can figure it out.
Even in the design, you'll find in here where we had one where
we had an overpass on Golden Gate Parkway. We took out the high
and the low to make sure that our average was not skewed by them.
In right-of-way, we didn't have enough data, we didn't have
enough closed to formulate a good delta, that's why we recommended
the interim approach until next cycle.
Page 255
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, what would be the
connection between impact fees now and moratorium? Is there a
connection?
MR. FEDER: In effect there is. The fact of the matter is, if we
do not collect what it takes to pay for new growth, then we have one
or two situations. We either allow that growth not to be fully
addressed and face what we faced with four or five years of no
construction and not moving, some of that was non-delivery, some of
that was dollars, obviously, as we know from '92 to 2000, not
updating the impact fees.
And we face the situation where either you have to find another
funding source, in this case the only one available today is property
taxes, or you have to allow more degradation of the system.
If you have degradation of the system that immediately
translates into the issue of moratorium and concurrency.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Before we continue
we're going to take--
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I can have your indulgence very
quickly. I want to follow up Commissioner Coyle who asked a very
good question about the movie theater and that.
Please understand trips are not double-counted. You got the
long version of how you build a watch, let me tell you what the time
is.
Essentially, what you got is the trip to the movie theater from
that resort hotel is charged to the movie theater.
Obviously, the person went to that resort hotel, that's where their
trip was generated from. But it's also not when you go to the hotel
you don't go out 10 times because it's on the beach so good move on
your part.
Page 256
July 30-31, 2002
But the fact of the matter is the maids, the cooks and the others
are also coming there to service you while you're out on the beach.
That's why you have trip generation of 10 for there. They're not
double-counted. Just to clarify that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to take a 10 minute
break to give our recorder here a chance to rest her fingers.
When we come back we will go to Commissioner Fiala and then
Commissioner Coyle.
Thereupon, (Brief recess was taken, after which the following
proceedings were had).
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're back live.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When we left off Commissioner
Coyle was waiting to ask some questions, so we'll go to
Commissioner Coyle at this time.
MR. MUDD: Please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats and we'll
proceed with the meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we ready?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the calculation of the credit, we
have assumed that all fuel taxes are being used for road construction,
that's our policy now I think it is. What happens when we apply a
fixed fuel tax in this formula to calculate the credit?
It's a fixed fuel tax of what, .24 or something? And the
consumption of fuel increases annually. It generates more tax
revenue, how does that get factored into the credit issue? Do you see
what I'm saying?
Page 257
July 30-31, 2002
The current fuel tax will stay the same for next year and the year
after that. But the consumption and total fuel tax, the revenue will
continue to increase year after year.
MR. LONGFIELD: With an appreciable -- I guess I would have
to ask as a follow up -- for the record, Bob Longfield, I would have to
ask, is there a corresponding change up or down in economy, fuel
economy so that our--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can't answer that question.
MR. LONGFIELD: In other words everything else stays the
same, actually, I would have to sit down and run some numbers, quite
candidly.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think part of the answer to that
question is not in total and I can't tell you if they have a sliding scale
or not because they'll have to know that.
But one of the reasons we're doing updates every two years is to
try to capture that information better. MR. LONGFIELD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me address that very briefly
and I'm going to say this again at the end of this meeting.
However this turns out, we can't afford to continue doing this.
We can't wait two years to update impact fees. If these fees are
correct, we've lost over $50,000,000 in the past two years because of
our failure to update impact fees.
We simply have to have a formula that permits us to index
certain items in that formula to our local economy so that these things
are automatically adjusted.
And I'll make a more extensive statement of that later, but I have
recommended that to this Board two months ago, I said we need to
have this formula solidified. We need to make sure it is correct and
we need to have annual inflation index.
Page 258
July 30-31, 2002
And I have looked at the formula. This is not rocket science.
And I believe that it is something that can be done and I'll leave it at
that at the present time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a question too on the land
acquisition prices that we're coming up with in the formula. They're
based on what? What records are we using? Are we using the
property appraisers records?
MR. FEDER: Yes, just value.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know the property appraiser shows
we've had an increase two separate years of 20 percent each, or very
close to it, maybe slightly more than that.
My question is, are we basing it on the full evaluation of
property throughout the county, those that have homes on it? Or are
we basing it just on raw property itself that we'd be purchasing?
MR. FEDER: We're basing it on the full value and the way you
have construction underway, because when we go out on appraisals
the taxpayer has to pay in acquiring the property even if the person
just has plans in place to build something, no vertical construction,
that's taken into account when you go through the right-of-way
acquisition process required by both Florida Statute and procedures.
So essentially, in answer to your question, we're taking in this
case and we would recommend as Commissioner Coyle has
mentioned, for interim year updates the just value increase including
new construction because when we go out to appraise property that's
what we're facing is not only what's out there today but also the
highest and best use of the land, particularly if anybody is in the
process of constructing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That takes into account the fact that
raw property and property with a house on it, there's a difference in
the value of the price. You got property that is worth $50,000 and
Page 259
July 30-31, 2002
you put $100,000 house on it, you don't come up with $150,000.
Usually when you combine the two together, you come up with
something like about 200 or 175.
MR. FEDER: Exactly. That way you're using it overall as a
statement of cost. You're going to have some situations where it's a
lot more than 20 percent increase that's been experienced, some case
where it's less.
That's the average again and that's from the property appraiser's
office. It is on all land throughout the county, how property has
appreciated over the last year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And on that same note, whenever
you raise impact fees, generally, and correct me if I'm wrong but this
is my understanding, but generally those impact fee increases are
inherent in everyone's houses thereafter. What happens is, if you
raise everything by $1,000, the valuation of everyone else's property
goes up by $1,000 based on that.
So in essence, would that additional increase on the impact fees
be generating new ad valorem tax that could offset part of the impact
fees?
MR. FEDER: You will increase valuations, but again, the
component that you're looking at is the fact that you're going to be
paying more for that property because the property will continue to
appreciate over time.
That has been the biggest variable that I can tell you again. I
can tell you exactly all the issues on the 2000, but the difference
between them as we pointed out in the initial shot of where we are
today, the biggest variable that's increasing is the cost of property.
That's what we're taking into account here is when the taxpayer
goes out to buy the property it's going to cost us a lot more tomorrow
than it cost us today.
Page 260
July 30-31, 2002
And that's why I said we need to get to the community after this
and make sure we don't keep that spiral going.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. I heard you very well
Norman. I like your answer, it was a nice answer.
MR. FEDER: It should come into overall values within the
community as other things do, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have figured that into the fact
that the property values, whenever we add $1,000 on, your property,
my property, we purchased prior to these impact fees is going to be
worth $1,000 more as a result of this action.
MR. FEDER: But again, I'm not using any property taxes today
on transportation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know you're not, but there's a net
gain to the ad valorem tax because of impact fees. MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Indirectly. Isn't there some way we
can formulate that in to be able to allow for that fact?
MR. FEDER: If you want to use it on transportation you can
lower the impact fee accordingly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then take that part out of ad
valorem as justification for the fact that the impact fees have raised
valuation of the property?
MR. FEDER: And if you want to do that, that's always at your
disposal. Implement a higher impact fee than what's been presented,
unless you can defend it.
But you could implement lower and if you do, then have a look
at the offset.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Mr. Mudd, he has some
comments.
Page 261
July 30-31, 2002
MR. MUDD: One other ingredient to your comment, and I just
want to make sure I bring it in there, because it's a little bit more
complicated, and I don't want to make this issue any more, but you
have a homestead exemption out there that caps and it gets put in and
got the save our homes that caps at three percent, so, yes, it will when
you finally sell the property and there's about 50 percent of the
properties that are in that homestead, I'm talking about private ones,
that's what I've heard, around 50 percent, and 50 percent that aren't,
so it's a little bit more complicated, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand that. What is it, a three
percent cap that you can raise property valuation?
MR. MUDD: If the property appraiser, for instance, say it's up
20 percent and you've got a save our homes and you're in the
homestead, it will only go up three percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you. But if may counter
that. We have a large amount of property which is business
properties that do not come underneath this.
We also have a large amount of winter residents that come down
here and they don't have the exemption and they're paying the full
shot.
And even at the three percent, there's got to be a certain
percentage at three percent that is part of that $1,000 increase in
itself.
What I'm just wondering about if there was some sort of the way
that we might be able to say, yes, because of the fact that we're
raising this $1,000 that this could be offset by ad valorem taxes from
that part of the raise.
It's a suggestion and I want to bring it up for consideration.
MR. MUDD: I wanted to give you another piece of that.
Page 262
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Let's see, I believe
Commissioner Coyle was next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, Commissioner Fiala was next.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we'll come to you
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to see if I really
understood what you said. Did you say that the price of all land goes
into -- so in other words, all the multi-million dollar homes goes into
the valuation of land even though in most of those cases they're gated
communities or high rises or whatever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That formulation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You don't get exempt because
you have a million dollar home.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I meant how much the right-of-way
would cost.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Were you done?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A woman of few words.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good words, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, Mr. Chairman, I think
I'm going to save my comments concerning this issue until we've
heard from the public.
I think I've talked enough and I'd like to hear from the public.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I don't think we're through
with our presentations yet.
Mr. Mudd, would you give us a little bit of a run down of where
we are and where we're going.
MR. MUDD: I think we're going to basically finish up -- the
consultant was done except for questions and answers and Norm was
Page 263
July 30-31, 2002
going to come back for a quick couple of comments and then Mr.
Schmitt was going to come in and talk about a phase in of impact fees
because of the utility relocate count that right now is being paid for in
utility rates and give you a projection of when those utility rates are
going to change. So the impact fee that the staff would recommend
to you would be lower than the one that is in your book to the tune of
about $400 to $600 per impact fee because the utility relocate won't
be in the first phase, step one.
So that -- the staffs recommendation is that particular fee
structure would go into effect on September 1, and would stay in
effect until the utility rates could be adjusted until it could take the
utility relocates out of it and then the road impact fee would come
into being.
In the interim the delta between the road impact fee at the
second phase and the lesser amount with the utility relocates out will
keep track of who comes in and pays the impact fees. We'll keep
track and audit that amount and utilities will reimburse roads for that
particular amount to make sure that that account is kept whole. And
Mr. Schmitt will talk about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may ask a question in that same
direction, now rather than later.
If at any point in time that we do accept this or we accept
whatever we do come up with, that if through our calculations we
find out that later through land donations or other funds that come in
that weren't anticipated, because I'm working on three different
efforts to bring in different money that might offset it, could we
possibly give back a rebate too for that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who do you rebate it to?
Page 264
July 30-31, 2002
MR. MUDD: What we can do, sir, I won't get into that one until
I talk to the County Attorney's Office because that gets into a little bit
of a trick.
We can make sure that -- one of the things that I've asked Norm
to do and his staff is take a good hard look at real estate as they get
the actual cost that come in the next year, to come back in with the
impact fee adjusted for real cost versus, using the '99 Tindle-Oliver
and then adjusting with the property appraisal increases per year for
the last three years.
And that's basically what you have for right-of-way right now.
We took the conservative approach versus the original where we
interpreted the information. We want to get a better handle on that
this next year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development Environmental Services.
Well, I was going to go cover two areas. As the division
responsible for implementing the impact fee rates and also collecting
the impact fees, I just wanted to cover the two issues.
One, Mr. Mud brought up the fact that we've concluded that
we're going to be double-charging because under the transportation
impact fees we included in that study the cost of relocating utilities,
when, in fact, it's required for road expansion.
We're currently charging that rate also underneath the utilities
impact fees. When we looked at the utility impact fees in February,
we would back that under that study and then we'll implement the
phase or the second phase of these fees when, in fact, we bring to the
Board for your approval, the approval of the transportation or the
utility fees.
Page 265
July 30-31, 2002
We're looking at two different rates. You're going to approve
one rate today, but in the interim there will be a discount that will be
applied up until the time that we bring back to you the utility impact
fees.
The second thing I just wanted to make sure for the record, so
we all understand, these impact fees will be effective on September
1 st. That means that all who want to ensure that they are not impacted
or could or do not have to pay the fees under this schedule have to be
a complete and sufficient application for permit into the Community
Development and Environmental Services Division by close of
business on August 30th. So that will pretty much buy the line in the
sand. And that is defined in this resolution as well.
So that is where we're at. And I just -- from that perspective,
Jim, if we want to show a snapshot.
MR. MUDD: The other thing I ask you to do, Mr. Schmitt, is
how about talking about the economic impact and affordable housing
and make some comments on that.
MR. SCHMITT: As the division responsible for low-income
housing program, and, of course, economic development, and we
pointed out in that Executive Summary, under the financial impacts
of this, pointed out that there's certainly second and third order {sic}
effects.
We know that there are effects that will be a result of this
increase on business relocating. Whether or not the decision will be
made to relocate to Collier County.
And yes, that is counter to the Board's direction of trying to
diversify the economy, as Norm pointed out.
And we also implemented the SHIP Program, the State Housing
Improvement Program, and we use the million dollars a year of that
money to help low income families pay impact fees.
Page 266
July 30-31, 2002
We currently help about 161 families a year with that in paying
impact fees. And with the increase in the impact fees, we look at that
probably somewhere a reduction of about 100 families.
So yes, there will be an impact, economically, on the numbers of
families. We can assist because the amount is limited. We have
$1,000,000 in SHIP funds.
We know that and we understand that. But the fact is from the
study and the study perspective, the numbers are the numbers. And I
know you have a difficult choice because they're also -- where do we
offset whether we charge it under an impact fee or do we offset and
try to create revenue through other programs to offset the loss and the
low income housing or to somehow compensate businesses that want
to decide to relocate within Collier County.
And I know you're going to hear from the public on that today
and those are kind of issues that we can talk as they come up, but
though they're related to this issue from a perspective of the impact
on the imposition or the imposing of these impact fees, the study is
the study as I guess is really the numbers are the numbers. It's just a
matter of where do we get the money from and how do we pay for
the roads and how do we offset the impact on the economy or on
housing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The woman of a few words has a
few more words. First of all, this is my topic and this is something
I'm extremely concerned about.
First of all, by raising these impact fees to a point where young
executives, middle income, lower income, people who are out there
hard-working cannot buy a home because they can't-- the impact fees
on top of which, you know, when you buy a house -- I was reading
Page 267
July 30-31, 2002
someone's e-mail, just to buy the land and to put in the utilities and
pay the impact fees, it's $40,000 before you begin to build the house.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. On the visualizer we show a
typical 2,000 square foot home, currently $12,000 a year with impact
fees. With this increase for the transportation or road impact fees, it
will go up to $15,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But of course we're also
raising the library shortly and the fire, EMS and the jail. I mean, we
have a lot of other ones going up.
MR. SCHMITT: And water and sewer as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's say it as it is. Anyway --
MR. SCHMITT: The end result of this will probably be
somewhere around $18,000 for a 2,000 square foot home.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. By the way, because people
can't afford, they live in Fort Myers and then travel on the roads that
we're trying to widen to accommodate the traffic. If they were
allowed to live closer to their place of employment the traffic would
certainly be curtailed to some degree.
So I was brainstorming with a friend of mine, actually, I was
brainstorming with a lady named Janet Vassey, who I felt is really
good with figures, and I said, what can we do for this segment of the
community? What can we come up with?
As I mentioned to you on the telephone the other day, I thought
possibly there would be another incremental level here as we
proposed these taxes, and that is for homes that are valued at
$130,000 or less or are to be built to meet the SHIP qualifications,
which is of course going up to 150, maybe we can take those impact
fees and only raise them 25 percent rather than 154 percent.
So that we take into consideration the people that need to live in
those homes they're servicing our community.
Page 268
July 30-31, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: In effect, we did talk about this and that's
certainly an alternative as we talked about other methods as well as
inclusionary zoning, linkage fees, increase in tourism taxes, we've
talked about all these different mechanisms to help --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is down the road.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And we -- I have asked the staff, at least
my staff to look at that. I don't have a conclusive answer.
But in a nutshell what you're really doing is waiving a portion of
an impact fee that would be assessed because the impact fee is
strictly, as you heard the consultants, it's based on the land usage and
the impact of that land usage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not saying waiver. I'm saying
create another level because it's just like movies has its own little slot.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand. Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, for the record, all of those things can
happen, ma'am, and we will, based on Board direction, we will get
into those when you want to get those resolutions put on the books.
I will tell you incentives for bringing businesses into the county
have been addressed by previous Boards and we're -- didn't go
anywhere because they didn't want to talk about those.
There are things that we can do to offset those particular impact
fees for any level of housing price that the Board would like us to
take a look at.
And there's several things and we've talked about some at a
workshop about inclusionary zoning and linkage fees.
We tried to talk a little bit with Tallahassee and we wanted to
use tourist tax for roads and it didn't get too far in the legislation.
And we'll go back at them again with this year with your help. And I
think all five of you have mentioned that to me. So we'll make sure
we get that legislative package in there to do that process.
Page 269
July 30-31, 2002
There's some other things we can do with building permit
surcharges to kind of bring in other amount of dollars to offset some
of those.
I think there's a way to do that and I think this Board is very
interested in taking a look at those issues. And ma'am, those are all
doable things.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Don't you think we ought to
have them in place -- there ought to be -- we ought to have a whole
package.
If you say these things are doable and if you say that we should
be researching them, let's do it before we present this whole package.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, one quick thing. I just want to
point out that on an impact fee you need to show a direct nexus
between what you charge and what the cost is for what the impact is.
In this case, you are talking about trying to set up something as a
way to offset. You can't reduce the fee for a certain type of
development or portion of the development. You need to establish
what the fee is to meet the growth. Now you can reduce it across the
board but not selectively.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can't add another tier. You
have 62 tiers as it is. What is wrong with 63?
MR. FEDER: What I'm saying is unless you specify a
designation and go through that and develop what its trip generation
is and its impact on the system, it's not developed on what
development I want or do not want for this county, and that doesn't
matter anyway. What you want or do not want for this county is
developed on trip-generated times the miles traveled in that trip. That
is the generation of demand and you look on other side of costs, you
reduce the credits and that's where you end up with a fee you can't go
over.
Page 270
July 30-31, 2002
So I can't establish a category and arbitrarily say its trips are less
than they are and its impacts are less.
Now, you can come back, as Mr. Mudd has pointed out, and
establish other programs then, because of other policy items to then
reduce that fee or subsidized to, in effect, address what you want
from a policy perspective.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why should I come back when I
can establish it now?
MR. FEDER: I will defer that one to others, if I understand
your question.
MR. SCHMITT: IfI can follow up so -- what you're focusing
on, it is a focus or issue as to cost of a house, but the impact fees are
based on the size of the square footage of a home and not the cost.
And I know that is hard to understand from a perspective of
equality but that's the legal -- we open ourselves up to a legal
significant legal challenge if we begin to assign impact fees based on
the value of the home and not the impact --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can say for SHIP fund homes
or for homes that qualify, you know, there could be -- what say we
can't -- have we checked on it legally? Is this something that needs
further discussion?
MR. SCHMITT: We have your direction as we talked two days
ago and we're trying to sort that out legally. It again is targeting the
fees based on cost of a home, and I think the way to approach that is
to offset or to have a program that raises revenue to offset the cost of
the impact fees that one would pay at a certain threshold or value of a
home which today to qualify is $130,000 for the SHIP Program. And
we need to do that.
But I can't answer your question from a perspective of bringing
the whole packet. We've been working on this for quite awhile.
Page 271
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the figures don't seem to be
jiving for me anyway. I'll get off this stage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter and then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: With all due respect. I think
we're mixing apples and oranges here.
I understand the concerns. I had the same concerns as
Commissioner Fiala.
You have to take one revenue stream, meet the requirements
legally and then you can look at what we call offsets.
If at the end of the day the people that we're really concerned
about and starting in the new home buyers, there may be offsets that
you can subtract from that.
But I can't change the percentage of the impact fee for that.
What I can give them is credits against it. As long as you reduce the
number that's what you're concerned about. That's what I'm
concerned about.
If I get into the debate today, I'm in trouble legally.
MR. SCHMITT: Also an impact fee is only for a new
construction and as the Chairman brought out in his question we
know that the impact fees tend to raise the other value of the homes
so that the corollary or the end result will -- all valued homes tend to
go up in value when impact fees go up.
But these impacts are based solely on new construction. And
most of the instances where we're offsetting the impact fees are those
homes associated with Habitat for Humanity. That's where our SHIP
Program --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mostly goes. So those dollars
really can't get to offset the impact fees for the other homes in that
price category.
Page 272
July 30-31, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: Certainly you can apply and try to qualify as
anybody can if they have the threshold.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We shouldn't get into that. If
there's no dollars left there's nothing to qualify for. Move on, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm really anxious to get to
public speakers because of the time and I know that they're all taking
time away from their jobs and we need to get their input before
debating this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Speaking about that, what I'd like to
do is schedule a break for lunch, a brief break of half an hour, 12
o'clock.
The reason I'm saying that is if anyone in the audience would
like a longer lunch break, I would suggest you leave at 11:30 so you
can be back here at 12:30. That does not include staff or the
commissioners.
With that we'll go to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, I
understand your concerns and really this has nothing to do with what
we're dealing with today. We can also take ad valorem taxes to
augment affordable housing or economic development.
And I know that Commissioner Coletta is working on an issue
with the Florida Association of Counties to offset the impact of
impact fees. And it has nothing to do with this discussion. I think it's
worthy of bringing it out at some point so the community knows that
we're looking at all different aspects and how it does affect the
community.
Page 273
July 30-31, 2002
I do have some questions on the tables in our packet, Mr.
Chairman, I didn't know when it was appropriate in your eyes when I
should raise those questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you think now is the appropriate
time, go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In our packets we have
different tables. The table one several different -- right in our book
here. Several different projects, like project 60061, 60111 so on and
so forth, doesn't appear to have a design cost in it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Brian Williams, table one, they are not
design costs, Commissioner, they include the engineering, surveying,
the preparation of plans, the bid document and related permits.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't have the individual
cost for the other projects like 60061 is not in this table, but it is in
other tables.
MR. WILLIAMS: Table one, we didn't use the same projects
for all the tables. We use projects that we thought represented the
best for that particular category and offered the best representative
cost.
The cost in table one are projects that are actual fees for design
projects to be lead by the county in fiscal year 2002, 2003.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We know that there are design
costs in all of the projects out there.
MR. FEDER: That's correct. The items you have in the design,
some of those we do not get to have construction. We got them
through a level of design that they are completed or substantially
there we know the cost.
We use some representative projects here that you don't yet have
your construction cost on to use the most immediate design.
Page 274
July 30-31, 2002
So some of your construction ones you're not using design that
was done 15 years ago, you're using the more immediate cost trying
to evaluate what is your cost today. You use projects within the last
couple of years and we use enough projects across the line to make
sure we get a representative sample.
So what I'm saying to you is that of these design projects, we
don't know their construction costs yet.
We do know, if I have a backup, I go back and that's where
we're going to update our work program with, but these are the ones
that we know the design costs on, some of them we don't know
construction yet.
MR. WILLIAMS: It was current and the best information we
felt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I understand that we're
going to correct the utility relocation so that handles my second
question.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner. I think Mr. Schmitt has a table
that separates the phasing of that. I think it is an illustrative that you
need to see. It hasn't been shown yet where it has the different
phasing based on utility costs and Mr. Tindle is getting that right now
for you so you can see that on the visualizer, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You got them in two different tables. It gives you
a side-by-side comparison.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Something I'd like to bring up. At
some point in time I kind of hoped that we'll be able to get to the
speakers so some of them--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want me to stop my
questioning?
Page 275
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, go ahead. I'm trying to draw
some sort of line in the sand so we can get to the speakers. Please
continue.
I got Commissioner Fiala next. We'll give everyone a chance to
speak one more time.
I didn't mean to interrupt you. Please continue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we're going to get to my
question right here.
MR. SCHMITT: This is the issue that the County Manager
talked about. What we're talking about here is the phased approach.
And in the column shown is the interim credit you're actually
going to -- when you vote, you will vote on one impact fee schedule,
but in the interim between the implementation of the study and then
the implementation of the utilities fees, when we look at the impact
fees for utilities and the study which will be brought to you in
February for your review and vote, we'll have a phase one schedule
which really backs out the cost of relocating of utilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Table three, it doesn't appear to
have construction and CIE costs for projects, giving the example
60018, 60027.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Brian Williams, PBS&J. These are not
the same projects that we use for design. These are projects, again,
going for best information that are presently under construction or
recently completed by the county.
These are impact construction costs most recent and they reflect
bid summaries and cost-related changes actually made during
construction so this is best information, most recent information.
I think probably the tables look very similar and you'll assume
that the projects used on every sheet were the same.
Page 276
July 30-31, 2002
Although they are for a couple of tables, they are not for all. We
worked with the county staff to get projects that reflected the most
recent and accurate data.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just a general estimate of--
MR. WILLIAMS: No, they are actual costs. On table three, the
construction and CEI costs that are under construction or recently
completed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the ones that I'm
referring to have not been completed yet.
MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir. Those are other projects, like Mr.
Feder has indicated on these designs, but had not gone through
construction yet.
So we just used those for the design estimates because they were
the most recent for design.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. But CIE costs, isn't
that an average?
MR. WILLIAMS: It is, but it would have been in for -- some of
these projects were completed already in construction.
So those costs would have been known. Others were under
construction so it would have a bid that would have been very
accurate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Table four is the mitigation
cost. Taking an example of 60061, again. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have any -- there's a lot
of projects that I know of that there's no mitigation costs associated
with. And that's just one of them another one, the other one is 60071.
It's not in the table. So I guess what I'm getting at is all these tables -
- are we using an average?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
Page 277
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: We're using a high average?
MR. WILLIAMS: We're using a mean projected. We're using
projects for which -- that were in fact impacts on projects like on
table four and --
MR. FEDER: If I could just for a second. Norman Feder. For
instance, on your mitigation. The first four projects are estimates, the
remaining four are the higher ones are the actual costs.
In each case, whether it was designed or constructed whether it
was mitigation or there was utility relocation, we took projects that
either recently complete or sufficiently filed on where we have a
good number for them.
In the case of design, some projects we fully designed,
announced to go to construction, some have not yet.
On the construction, we have some projects that we were
completed on, or were almost complete, so we know the final figure.
On the utilities, as you identified in a couple, we have not started
construction. Utilities gave us our estimate that we work on with
them based on the design package as to what they normally would
pay for utility relocation on that corridor.
And on the mitigation as you identify, if you look at the first
four that we don't have the answer yet on, we assume no major
wetland impact, and therefore, for very little cost on the table.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just concerned about
getting an actual number, a construction number.
MR. FEDER: We agree. And we feel very comfortable that we
got a good cross-section of projects and recent costs.
The only place we had a big issue with that, as I said, was in the
design where we effectively dropped the high and the low on the
table because we had a structure that distorted or skewed, if you will,
the cost on design on the Golden Gate overpass at Airport.
Page 278
July 30-31, 2002
So we did take that into account. Once we figured the cost of
each of these corridors we tried to make sure we had a representative
sample. And the case where we had real -- like on the design, we
agreed with the community and eliminated the high and low to come
up with a more representative average cost.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one more question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The land use categories that we
have and the associated impact fees associated to them and I
understand it's a national average and that, but let me tell you real
time here in Collier County. One example is I live in the one to two
story multi-family in a villa. My next door neighbor lives in a
townhouse, two-story. My next door neighbor has two families
living in it and yet that unit charges less than the single-family home
square foot under 1,500.
I have a real problem -- another one even on a national average,
a mobile home impact fee is 2,500, single-family of 1,500 square feet
is double, almost double of what that is.
I just can't understand for the life of me how can you associate
the amount of people living in each structure and the trips generated
from that and some of the commercial uses in there are really
confusing to me.
I'm not sure if we're doing just by taking a national average
instead of doing a local study to find out what the true impact on the
infrastructure is for each of the use of land use items.
MR. TINDLE: For the record, Phil Tindle Impact Fee
Coordinator. We're taking a national average. In some cases, we
have done exceptions in the past where we have actually gone out
and done trip characteristic studies.
Page 279
July 30-31, 2002
There were a few done in the 2000 update to basically tweak the
numbers, but the vast majority of the 62 categories are based on
national averages provided to us by the Institute of Transportation of
Engineers in the Sixth Edition of their trip generation reference book.
MR. MUDD: There's nothing that precluded us, Commissioner,
in this next year to initiate a study to get us into more localized data
as far as trip generation is concerned.
And I've kind of started planting that seed with the staff to come
back to the Board and get that as far as the budget is concerned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I appreciate that. Are we
doing justice to the community by imposing an additional fee when
we really don't know what the impacts are of the particular land uses
out there?
MR. FEDER: Again, for the record, Norm Feder,
Transportation Administrator. Let me just point out a couple of
things in response to that. Yes, we're using a national standard. It
was developed with a number of states in the study, one of them
being Florida and developed in areas without major transit system,
which, pretty much, Collier fits in well. Very comfortable with the
figures they used for every other process that is done nationally in
transportation modeling and analysis.
The key here, to get to your question, is two things. One, the
only thing for sure is when you use an average, a standard and an
average, any one particular situation is not going to fit it, it's going to
be high or low. But on average it will form that way.
The other thing that's important to note is in our impact fee
process, if someone feels that the statement or trip generation is
inappropriate they are allowed to do a more detailed study and bring
that forward, and none of that has changed.
Page 280
July 30-31, 2002
So if you have a situation where someone has a development,
they feel that trip generation out of the national standard on average
doesn't apply to them, the bad part about that is, as I said, it's an
average, everyone that's low will come in and everyone that's high
will never come in.
But nevertheless we provide for that option.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to go to Commissioner
Fiala and then I'm going to give Commissioner Carter and
Commissioner Fiala to respond before we go to speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine is just a fast question, again.
Now, you know that I'm the Board liaison to the work force housing
task force, so I take a deep interest in that particular subject, so let me
just ask you one question.
And I think this is really for Joe Schmitt. Do we have to meet a
certain number of affordable houses built every year to comply with
the law?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If we do, the law is very deficient.
MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners, Cormac Giblin
with the Housing Department.
Our Growth Management Plan does set a target of 750 units a
year that we must -- affordable housing units that must be built the
county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did I read some place in this work
that of the -- however many we were building this impact fee would
greatly reduce that?
MR. GIBLIN: Well, it would reduce the amount that we could
assist with our SHIP Program. There are apartment complexes, other
avenues that are available to affordable housing that do not use our
SHIP money.
Page 281
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm talking about single family. I
believe in here, some place in here, you sent me something that --
450 houses down to 300 a year; right?
MR. GIBLIN: Yes. That's what we anticipate our SHIP
Program will be able to handle after this rate increase goes through.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was 161 to 1007
MR. GIBLIN: That was the impact portion of the SHIP
Program. The 750 units a year, that's not only single-family homes,
that's all housing unit types.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, did you have
anything else?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want to go to speakers. I have
a lot of things to say, I think it's going to be after I hear from the
public speakers. I don't want to be redundant in what we've already
done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we begin a couple of
housekeeping items, this agenda was originally scheduled as part of
the agenda yesterday. I asked for it to be moved to today so we could
concentrate on this all by itself and not having everything over the
top of us to give it the full time that it was due.
In that respect too, normally at the regular meeting something of
this magnitude we would limit people to three minutes. I'm going to
allow the full five minutes.
However, if you feel the person before you has already made the
point and you have nothing else to contribute, you may wish to
waive, you may not, but in any case I want to hear everybody. I want
to hear everybody's opinion.
Once again, we're going to break for lunch on or around 12
o'clock for a half an hour. If you wish to go a little earlier and come
Page 282
July 30-31, 2002
back, I'm not sure what the speaker order is, you might want to be
careful about that.
If you do go to lunch early, let me put it this way, and you're not
here when we call your name, we'll put your name on the bottom of
the pile so you will have a chance.
You don't have to feel that you're going to miss your opportunity
to speak over a half an hour lunch.
So with that we'll go ahead with the speaker. Who is the first
speaker?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have 32 speakers. And with
your permission, I'll call two names and the second one can come up
and stand on board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. Please.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is David Ellis. He will be
followed by Jeff Perry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You'll notice when Mr. Ellis comes
up, he's going to introduce himself one more time for the record and
then he'll stated his name. And I would appreciate it if everybody
else would do so.
MR. ELLIS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
David Ellis and I'm with the Collier Building Industry Association.
Thank you for having this special time. Commissioner Coletta, I
appreciate you moving it to this day so we can address this the way
you've mentioned.
The last 20 working days have been kind of a dizzying array of
changes, mistakes, and reevaluations and misapplied logic, as we've
looked at these fees.
It's been very confusing. We had a public forum on the 16th of
this month where the information was presented that was in the
original study.
Page 283
July 30-31, 2002
A lot of questions were asked. Your staffhad pointed out that it
was a draft. But yet, we hoped it would be pretty close and we would
just be refining it.
The changes that have come out of that have been significant.
And I think even today, as your staff has gone through this, they have
enumerated many of the mistakes that were in that early report.
They talked about wrongly including landscape, about how they
miscalculated Interstate reduction factor, how they included a
duplicate of the utility fees, how there were miscalculations in terms
of lanes and how many were divided into different numbers and
certainly the right-of-way cost and how they were done.
It creates a lot of concern for those of us who come into the
process to see that and to see that kind of significant reduction really
based on how the report was originally done.
Certainly lends to the question, how many more mistakes are
still latent in the process? Even today many of you have asked good
questions that none of us have come up with yet. It creates a great
deal of concern about the numbers.
Even today as we worked with your staff we have significant
differences in terms of the miles per gallon rate and how that's
arrived at, and the Interstate's reduction factor and how that's being
done. And certainly in the right-of-way costs.
When the staff couldn't provide data to substantiate the first cost
they showed us at $150,000 per acre, they came back to another
factor, which was in the old study, by the way, your consultants this
morning said, they're not really sure how that number came about and
how to back that number up either, but we're willing to use it as a
basis for escalation for arriving at today's numbers.
Page 284
July 30-31, 2002
Even in picking the escalator that your consultants used to
escalate the cost each year, they picked the wrong factor, in our
opinion.
I'll give you an example of how I see it, they included new
construction in their percentage. And I'll explain it to you the way it
was explained to me.
If I have $100 in my bank account and during the year I save 10
bucks and put it in the account with my $100, and then at the end of
the year or whenever my bank so accrues, I have an interest increase.
And let's be optimistic, and think back to the good old days and
say I got 10 percent interest, so I'd probably get 11 bucks or so into
my account.
So now I have $121 21. And if you looked at that at the end of
the year from the beginning of the year to the end of the year and you
included the amount that I put in myself, you'd say gosh, you had
some 20 something percent increase.
Well, the truth is, the increase in value is the increase of the
interest that was added into the account.
To add the new construction and use that percentage, once
again, artificially inflates that number.
If you take that out, it actually reduces the overall number by
$150,000.
Commissioners, I don't want you to mistake my even talking
about that example though as an endorsement of the process that your
staff used to arrive at that right-of-way.
I want you to understand that even in the process they used to
arrive at that, it appears to be flaws or misapplied thinking in that
process.
Page 285
July 30-31, 2002
The other thing I guess is the general argument to look at. As
we've compared ourselves to other counties, what's going on there in
terms of overall cost for construction.
A couple of counties had recently completed reports.
Hillsborough, their cost per construction overall 2.2 million. Pinellas
in their study that they're actually finalizing now, according to the St.
Pete Times, I read a story and I'll mention it in a minute, 2.2. Lake
Count just finished a study, 1.7. Lee's existing rates now, and again
they're being revised, they're 1.3.
When I look at all those, I'm willing to concede that our
numbers could be more in Collier County, we certainly have some
unique experiences, but I don't think our right-of-way costs are any
more different then the highly urbanized areas of Hillsborough and
Pinellas County..
And by the way, in Pinellas County in the story that I read in the
St. Pete Times, their fees are increasing 18 percent, at least that's
what is proposed, an 18 percent increase.
Their commission is so concerned about the effect on the local
economy and affordability and the business community, that they're
considering phasing in that 18 percent over a couple of years.
We're looking at a dramatically higher increase here in Collier
County, and yet, we're not considering those type of things in our
equation.
That leads me really to the point that Commissioner Fiala, I
appreciate you championing for us today, affordability.
This has an effect. It obviously has an effect. And nobody is
going to tell you that we shouldn't find ways to properly fund our
infrastructure, that growth should be paying for growth. I'll finish up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not only finish up, I would like you
to direct several questions to staff for us, if you would, so that we can
Page 286
July 30-31, 2002
get some of these answers. These are beautiful statements. I think
there's some answers to some of them.
I'm not too sure if there are answers. Would you turn off the off
buzzer please.
MR. ELLIS: Let me just finish and I'll be done.
Commissioners, today you're making important decisions, a very
important decision.
In making that decision, we have to look the people in the eye
that are coming here, the young families that want to own a home, the
people that want to start a business, if you feel comfortable with the
numbers that have been presented to you, you can look them in the
eye and tell them that we have to do this, that it's your purgative to
move ahead, I'm uncomfortable to that end.
It seems from your questioning you might be. This demands
further study. We should bring our property appraiser in to ask him
to participate in discussion of these right-of-way costs.
We should bring in other people. You can do that quickly and
efficiently. Rest assured we still have some of the highest, if not the
highest, transportation impact fees in the State.
If you don't act today, but you act in a month or so, we're still
going to be collecting those high fees and they're still going to be
there. Make sure what you do is legally defensible. It's appropriate
and it's justified.
This kind of important decision shouldn't be rushed and it
shouldn't be done in a haphazard manner. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Two most important issues, would
you put them in the form of a question to staff?.
MR. ELLIS: About the right-of-way? There's some other smart
people that are coming behind me that can probably have dialogue
with staff. I'll mention the right-of-way.
Page 287
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mention it in the form of a question.
MR. ELLIS: Mr. Feder, when I look at those numbers in terms
of escalator you used on the right-of-way costs, you heard my
example, how does that not apply? We've talked about that, but
never really got an answer.
MR. FEDER: It has little or nothing to do with the issue at
hand. The issue at hand is, what does it cost the taxpayer to acquire
right-of-way?
When I go to acquire that right-of-way, I pay for basically the
value of that property, including severance, damages and other issues.
I, the taxpayer.
The taxpayer pays you and the development community when
we come and buy this right-of-way for the use of that right-of-way.
We pay front foot. We don't get to buy by the acre. When a
situation exists where we already know what we have to do so we
already have the seller knowing that we have to take their property
and then we have to follow a very stiff process, that is one of the
most strict in the county.
The bottom line is this, the development out there and
development that is underway is taken into account when an appraisal
is done.
I would ask the smart people that are following you on this,
David, and you yourself, is there any way that I'm going to acquire
property from somebody if they're already underway in construction
that I'm not going to have to pay in the assessed value of that
property, the results of that ending construction.9
So you don't take the construction out. You take that adjusted
value and we know it's low, but again, to another question you
already raised here is, are these mistakes, misplaced logic, changes
and mistakes?
Page 288
July 30-31, 2002
No misplaced logic. We started out with a process that hasn't
yet been challenged in 11 years, which is a formula and methodology
that has been here all these years.
The only thing changed is very good data on what it's actually
costing us to construct a project.
In the area of right-of-way, we agreed with you that we didn't
have sufficient data so we want to pull back until we have that
defensible, good, solid data.
So there's very little in this process that's changed beyond new
construction dollars and a process that has been here for 11 years.
Yes, we came out early with the study results and the draft
purposely to give that. We said an intense 20-day business days to
make sure everyone had the chance.
There's a lot of concern that impact fees come forward and
nobody has seen them. We have had a lot of the interaction, and in
some places that has resulted in modification refinement and we
appreciate all that input.
We feel comfortable with the number.
MR. ELLIS: I appreciate what you're saying, Norm, but in
reality, in relation to that, when you look at what it costs to acquire
right-of-way in other communities, when we have called around to
different ones--
UNINDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What happened to the five
minutes?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's that same guy again, huh?
MR. ELLIS: Hillsborough, for instance, which is highly
urbanized are 941,000 in their recent, 515 in Pinellas.
When I look at it, it's hard for me to justify the number in
comparison to the other number.
Page 289
July 30-31, 2002
MR. FEDER: The chairman gave me two questions and I took
the liberty of asking a second question. Let me answer that one.
In Pinellas County, you saw the Paul Harvey version. Pinellas
County right now it is true, they are looking at a 19 percent -- 18
percent increase and find that will be problematic within a phase-in
over two years.
What is not said is that is that their justified, evaluated and
studied impact fee level that they say they should charge without
right-of-way would be higher than the one we're proposing today
with right-of-way, but the reason that they're not implementing that
as a Board is that they passed a penny sales tax. Let's not confuse apples and oranges.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to interrupt here, if
I may. David, you've been involved in this process for a long time.
I know I put you on the spot and as uncomfortable as you may
be having you do what you do, I'm sure Mr. Feder was even more
uncomfortable.
I have a couple of Commissioners here probably that are a little
bit upset with me doing this process this way, but in order for
answers and questions -- when you-- people -- when statements are
made, if they're not answered, how is the general public going to
know how we're arriving at a decision?
If I did make you feel uncomfortable with this, I apologize. I
didn't apologize to staff or my fellow commissioners, but I want the
audience out there to understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why not?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think it's necessary, to be
honest with you. This is the crowd I'm playing to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we take a vote on that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Too late, I already did it.
Page 290
July 30-31, 2002
MR. ELLIS: There will be people following asking important
questions about aspects of the issues. If I tried to say anything it was
in some way to try to say there has been a lot of momentum and
change in these numbers. They haven't been small.
It certainly lends credibility to the idea that there may be
problems and challenges with these numbers that we've even been
unable to uncover today.
Make sure we do this right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
I assure you I won't be doing that with every speaker that comes
apl
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I hope not.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Jeff Perry and he will be
followed by Edward Hanf, H-A-N-F. If you'd like to come up.
MR. PERRY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much. Commissioners, for the record my name is Jeff Perry. I'm a
transportation planner with Wilson-Miller.
I've passed out to you a couple of hand outs that I'm referring to.
It's just to document basically what I'm going to talk about.
There are two reasons why your impact fees essentially are
going up, your fees are being proposed. One is the cost factors which
have been alluded to right-of-way and construction, mitigation and
utilities.
The other is the change in the credit formulas that are being
applied to the particular category.
It is the latter that I'm going to talk about, specifically, the miles
per gallon factor which contribute to the motor fuel credit calculation,
the Interstate mileage reduction factor that contributes to the lane
miles per day, demand calculation, and I believe there is a missing
credit for other transportation revenues, the non-gas tax revenues that
Page 291
July 30-31, 2002
I believe must be included within the credit calculation, which is not
in there today.
The first exhibit which is the little 8 and a half by 1 ! exhibit,
this basically is the table that is included in -- that is referenced in
your report from Federal Highway Administration.
It provides you with miles per gallon data, the national data, for
the year 2000. The passenger vehicle miles per gallon is 22 miles per
gallon. The light truck, van, SUV is 17.5 miles per gallon. The
average of that is 20.1, that is the number that your consultant has
chosen.
What is excluded from the calculation are all other vehicles,
primarily trucks, multi-axle multi-wheel trucks.
As you'll see dotted in red squares at the bottom, that rate is
about 5.8 miles per gallon. Obviously, trucks don't get good gas
mileage.
If you average all that together you come up with 16.9, not
unremarkably close to the current which is 16 in your current
ordinance.
The reason it's important to use the 16.9 number instead of the
20.1, we can't lose sight of the fact that fees are not being paid by
residence, single-car drivers alone.
These are being charged to commercial businesses, industrial
businesses and everyone who has served by vehicles other than
automobiles.
So the 16.9 factor is a valid factor. It was valid for the last 12 or
13 years. It is certainly a valid factor today. We are talking about
vehicles that are not only passenger car vehicles that are paying the
motor fuel taxes and paying mileage based on your mileage in your
calculations. So that particular rate is a significant change in what is
proposed.
Page 292
July 30-31, 2002
The second exhibit is the Interstate mileage calculation.
Essentially, what has been explained to you is that Interstate mileage
is that reduction of mileage that is local trips on the Interstate,
internal trips as it was referred to, those that begin and end within the
study area or within Collier County.
Commissioner Fiala hit it right on the head. A lot of the trips
coming into this area and leaving this area on the Interstate have one
point, they either begin within Collier or they end here.
That mileage, the IE trip, as Mr. Longfield called it, the
internal/external trip is mileage on the Interstate, and it is a
substantial amount of mileage on the Interstate.
It is part of the miles that are calculated in the trips that are
being generated in the trip tables that are used in this report.
The single-family, the multi-family, the commercial mileage
that is in your calculation, a portion of those trips start in Collier
County via the Interstate or vise versa.
They are coming to Collier County, they come to that store.
They come to that place of employment, they use the Interstate.
The large table that I have here, all you have to look at is in the
upper right-hand comer, we calculated the vehicle miles of travel,
which is when you take all of the road miles, count all the cars on
there and come up with vehicle miles of travel.
The vehicle miles of travel within the urban area on the
Interstate is 13.48 percent.
Now, there is some pass-through traffic that I will admit that is
on that particular segment of road, it doesn't stop or start within
Collier County and should be excluded.
But I can assure you, if you look at the entire county, the VMT
on the Interstate is 22 percent of all vehicle miles of travel in Collier
County.
Page 293
July 30-31, 2002
It is not six percent. It cannot be six percent. I don't know
exactly where the six percent number came from or modeling
exercise. Admittedly, it is only the II trips and not the IE trips or not
the -- those missing trips, as you can imagine on the Interstate when
there's 60,000 cars traveling the Interstate the county line and only
13,000 of them going to the west coast, those trips are coming to and
from Collier County, the delta, the difference between those two
numbers.
So we know there's a substantial amount of IE trips. So that
particular rate, for the sake of argument, 13 percent as far as we can
tell is an appropriate rate to use and not six percent.
The last exhibit is an exhibit based on your March 12th road
findings and program. On March 12th, this Board agreed to -- if I
can just have one minute.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Sum it up in one minute.
MR. PERRY: On March 12th, this Board agreed to a substantial
bonding program using sales tax and ad valorem revenues.
If you look at line 13 on that table, over the next four or five
years you're going to be getting $257,000,000 in bond funds.
Over the next 25 years $383,000,000 in general revenue debt
service, sales tax and property tax is going to pay off those bonds in
the next 25 years.
That has to be credited in the impact fee. It is being paid by fee
payers. The person who buys a house today, next year, a year after
that, is going to be paying for the next 25 years their share of that
general revenue. It has to be calculated in the credit.
You had some correspondence from your impact fee coordinator
that said you're not bonding next year, you don't have to give the
credit this year; you do have to give it.
Page 294
July 30-31, 2002
It's ridiculous to think that a person building a house today is not
going to pay any of that ad valorem or sales tax, when the guy next
year is, in fact, going to get the credit for it.
So you have to give that particular credit in this particular
calculation. If you include all three of these, and I can run the
numbers -- if you include all of these credits within the impact fee
ordinance, you can reduce the fee schedule by about 3 5 percent.
That means that you're still going to be raising the fees over
what you have today by over 50 percent. But it is much more, fair
certainly, and I believe a legally defensible position.
I don't think the factors that have been included in here are
correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, sir, this is wonderful work.
It brings up some very interesting questions. I do have one question.
Wilson-Miller and you have spent a considerable amount of time on
this, these don't come out of the air, who is your client? MR. PERRY: Nobody.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nobody? Just Wilson-Miller is
doing this on their own?
MR. PERRY: Absolutely. They are paying my salary. I have
no clients paying my fees for this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you very much for coming
here. I would like to -- I think Norm would like to make a response
to this. Thank you for taking the time. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The bonding revenue that we
dedicated for was sales tax and gas tax, it was not ad valorem or
general revenue. It would have to go to a referendum to do that.
Page 295
July 30-31, 2002
MR. FEDER: You pledged the gas tax and a portion of sales
taxes. The plan was to use increased ad valorem value to pay it off
and that's what's being referred to here.
There's a couple of points to be made. First of all, I'm going to
ask the consultant to address the two specific technical items. Both
the miles per gallon, which interestingly enough, we were provided
by the industry the issue that we were using a '99 figure of 19.6 and it
should be 20.1. And they gave that to us in our discussions.
And I find it interestingly now, I haven't seen the analysis that
you have in front of you, but that that is being raised. I'll let the
consultants speak to that and the Interstate issue.
What I wanted to talk to is just that issue, the credit. First of all,
I am using most recent cost. I can't use my projected costs.
Remember, again, I can't make up past deals. I can't fund a
work program. What does it cost me to deliver a lane mile, what is
the demand for a lane mile minus the credits? That's all I can use.
So the fact of the matter is, I can't look at my future work
program and say it's going to cost me "x", my shortage is so much, so
I'll set up an impact fee to pay for it.
In the same way, I can't look at what I might do in costs in the
future and change it now. If, in fact, we use property taxes in a way
that should provide a credit that will be addressed in updates, and
that's why you do need updates, just as Commissioner Coyle has said,
at least every two years with an annual modification or every one
year as he's going to tell me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe every six months.
MR. FEDER: Or every month, please, no. But essentially, what
I'm pointing out is this, we haven't used it yet, all the costs we've
done is where we are today.
Page 296
July 30-31, 2002
Even if we were to use it, I think it's a fallacy in many areas.
And remember why it's even being used. It's being used because the
impact fees we collected in the past were insufficient to address the
demands of growth.
Now we're trying to play catch-up. And we're bonding and
we're going out, we're using that property tax to catch up.
The only thing we're talking about here today is, what does it
cost to deliver, based on where we are now, to the demands of
growth?
If we use that in the future, the question is should that person get
a credit? My question for you is this, what about the people that were
here before 1980, when everyone has told me, history wise, that, in
fact, there was no deficiency on the system whatsoever. Somehow
things have changed.
And my observation is everybody who was here before 1990,
why do they find that not problematic that they're going to pay that
portion or possible ad valorem property increase to address it? Their
property is increasing as well.
So again, that is an issue for debate for the next updated cycle
next year. And it is not an issue that has occurred now. I'll ask the consultant to address the other two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. Before you go, Commissioner
Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My question is not for Mr.
Feder. Mr. Chairman, everyone that comes up here is going to have
some different input on this. I suggest we take this list at the end and
go back to the staff and consultants and give them a chance to
respond to it.
Page 297
July 30-31, 2002
If we do this back and forth, we have now talked to two speakers
and we got 30 more to go, at midnight we'll be here playing the ball
back and forth across the net.
MR. FEDER: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is this the will of the Board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You bet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll do that.
MS. FILSON: Edward Hanf.
MR. HANF: My name is Edward Hanf; H-A-N-F. I'm Vice
President of Operations for American Dream Builders.
American Dream Builders specializes in first-time home buyers
and getting houses for people with less than perfect credit.
I have a number of issues with this impact fee that we would
like to address. And again, we would appreciate it if the staff would
take these under consideration.
First of all, where does the State funding go? The State helps
new projects between counties. What about all that State money?
Secondly, try building new roads instead of widening. It's far
less expensive. You can buy whole parcels of land rather than
buying a little strip of land from somebody.
How many new roads are planned versus widening? Why are
millage rates dropping while budgets are increasing?
The next item is the few economy is ridiculously high. Again,
we are in an area of rapid development. We have an awful lot of
dump trucks out there because we have to provide fill to build the
houses up.
So even the national average that this gentleman mentioned
here, probably doesn't address the fact that we are a rapidly growing
community.
Page 298
July 30-31, 2002
Exact tax information is on file. There's no need for
guesstimates. We can spread commercial property over many
regions. No bike lanes or sidewalks should be included in the cost of
road impact fees.
If we're paying for the road impact fees through impact why do
we have to provide sidewalks and bike lanes?
Roads are intended to be major arteries. Future right-of-ways
should be purchased with the start of the road. I challenge you to
think about the fact that they have excluded Golden Gate Boulevard
from this study.
Golden Gate Boulevard, the right-of-way, was already
established for four lanes divided. What is the cost of that?
Land -- consider new east-west, north-south arteries as toll
roads. Why are we doing this and not considering the possibility of
the toll roads? There are many counties in Florida that have done
this. Where has all the impact money gone from Golden Gate
Estates? One of the few areas where there's still affordable housing.
Lastly, your staff and the consultants have talked about the fact
that these road impact fees are based strictly on trips generated.
The larger homes built in this area have staff. Once you go
behind 2,500 square feet, they consider that to be a one-family. But
they a have staff. They have housekeepers. They have butlers. They
have chauffeurs. They have landscapers. This is generating a lot
more trips to that particular house.
The same question has to do with condominiums. We have very
large condominiums. Do you think that those large condominiums
that those people clean those condos themselves? That they don't
have cooks or cleaning staff that is generating trips? They should be
addressed. These are the local issues.
Page 299
July 30-31, 2002
I would encourage the staff to consider these facts before we go
forward.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We will reconvene here at exactly
12:30.
20 Thereupon,
(Brief recess was taken, after which the following proceedings
were had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats.
MR. MUDD: You're on, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of the problems with trying to
plan a half hour work lunch, it doesn't always work out quite like you
anticipated.
In our case, the lunch that we ordered never showed. Believe it
or not they couldn't find the government complex, but that's another
story.
So what we're going to be doing when it does show up, I believe
it's just Commissioner Fiala and myself, we are going to go to the
room that we have where we eat our lunch. We have a television set
there so we can watch the proceedings as we eat our lunch for about
five minutes or so and come right back again.
If you see us leaving we're not leaving the meeting, we're
picking it up in another room.
Did that sound right, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I understood everything you
said.
Page 300
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, very much. Who's our
next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Our next speaker is Bob Murray and he will be
followed by Herb Lunns.
MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Bob Murray.
I'm the Co-Chairman of the Economic Development Committee of
the East Naples Civic Association.
And I want to thank you for the oppommity to speak this
morning. Tis' a puzzlement the King of Siam said of the recent
introduction of changes by the Governess of England. And this too is
a puzzlement.
You are in a situation where you need to satisfy all the -- all of
the citizens needs and you are going to be unable to do that today.
And that's good actually. I have a concern, not for Immokalee,
although I do concern myself with Immokalee and not for Golden
Gate, but I concern myself with that locality.
Let me be specific, I have a concern for East Naples. We are
trying to generate opportunities for development, controlled
development, careful development.
We are trying to make sure that we have some restaurants. We
are trying to make sure that we draw a middle class to the area.
We are concerned with what is happening with conditions
already, the Town Center, et cetera. I don't want to go over old
details.
But the fact is right now with 154 percent increase, if that's a
reality, we are going to see the future that will effectively eliminate
so many middle class people from having an opportunity to purchase,
to live in the communities that we are hoping to grow.
It is essential that we have a mix. We have our poor. We have a
middle class, but we don't have much of one.
Page 301
July 30-31, 2002
By raising the rates to this extent, you will succeed in building
roads. And you will succeed with the marketers will change their
stance and they will seek to go to another level because those are the
only people that will be able to afford to buy.
And they will be seeking services, but we will be extracting
from our community who wish to be here. And I'm very upset to
think that some of the data that is presented here this morning is
apparently based on issues or assumptions or empirical data or a mix
thereof that goes back so many years that I have to be honest, I sense
it in the room, we doubt it.
We don't doubt the individuals that were given the task to do the
job. They're trying to do an honest job. Maybe they're being hurried
to do this. I think that's wrong. We need to change that approach.
I beg of you, postpone this, give it an opportunity to be worked
out so that when the next time you meet, the people who stand here
can answer your questions without having to convince them or
without having to dance around the issue or be upset that they may
have missed the point.
You're not happy to be in that position. I'm not happy to be in
the audience listening to that. And I'm not happy for them. Those
are good folks. They're trying to do their job.
But that is an incredible amount of money to request an increase
for. Next time when you run out of those numbers and an
entrepreneur wants to build in a community, what are they going to
do?
I'm talking about restaurants, businesses and services. What are
they going to do? They're going to look and say, wait a minute, those
people put that in there, they can't do that again, they're going to hit
me with sales tax and business tax.
Page 302
July 30-31, 2002
You're scaring folks away with these numbers. Now ultimately,
if you have to serve these numbers on us we'll deal with that.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Herb Luntz and he'll be
followed by Richard Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Luntz, before you start, I just
want to thank you for the greatest Fourth of July parade Collier
County has ever seen.
MR. LUTZ: Thank you. I'm here on a different note today. I
didn't know if I was going to address you folks or not. I filled the
paperwork out first thing this morning just in case.
I don't envy you sitting up there in those chairs right now. If
you've ever had a time where the decision that you make determines
the future of this county, it's right now.
I've been in situations where I have seen depressions caused by
moratoriums. Forget recession. We talk depression. The moment --
if this ever did occur, God forbid this place would roll up and die.
I would never in my wildest dreams envision that 21 years ago
when I came here that this sort of thing would be on the table.
Then I listened to the presentations that were made and everyone
in the goodness of their hearts and minds are doing what they think is
best.
But I heard a couple of things that really got to me. When they
were talking about the impact ofi-75, and I thought to myself, my
God, in the beginning when 1-75 just stopped here it was one thing.
And then all of a sudden they got it built across the State.
And what an incredible impact we have on this community with
traffic moving back and forth from the east coast through us up north.
It's not taking any consideration at all. They're dealing with local
trips, trips originate here and trips that come back here.
Page 303
July 30-31, 2002
I never heard anything mentioned about how seasonal we are.
When we were trying to do things for a VA hospital we had to prove
to the Feds how seasonal this community was. And it is.
And even though we may get around right now, we can't get
around in January or February. What is the difference in the impact
that the seasonal residents have on this community?
You put all of this together and I say to myself, I can't totally
believe all the charts, all the graphs, all of the fancies that are being
put in front of us. It needs to be done with this community in mind
alone.
Nationally, I could care less what happens in Las Vegas or
anyplace else. I worry about what happens right here where we live.
Because of the big question mark and I picked some of them up
from you folks as well and the audience as well, I implore you,
whatever decisions you're going to make to take your time with this
and if you have to hold it off a little bit until you get the kind of data
that you can totally believe in, hold off.
I think we'll all be grateful for that. I thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich and he'll be followed by
Darwin Brand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon, Commissioners, for the
record, Rich Yovanovich. I'm representing a couple of my residential
clients and a couple of my commercial clients in trying to raise some
of the issues that they see with the increase in the impact fees that is
being proposed.
From the residential side, there's been a lot of discussion about
how did we market to and bring housing in for work force, not
affordable, but work force housing.
And I think what is happening with the Commission at times, is
you look at things in a vacuum. You say, well today we're raising the
Page 304
July 30-31, 2002
rate by $3,000, and yes, that increases the house price, but you can't
look at that in a vacuum, because you just had a change to the
building code that increased the cost of the house.
You put the impact fees on top of that that increases the cost of
the house. There's a discussion about fire sprinklers in all two-story
buildings if you have more than two units in a building, that adds
another $5,000 to the unit price of the house.
Pretty quickly, nobody can build a house for under $150,000.
We're just not going to be able to serve that market.
That's an economic impact of the decision that's being made
today. I understand that that's not staffs role to advise on the
economic impact. There's policy decisions for the Board of County
Commissioners to decide how they want to react to the information
that was provided today.
The commercial side, I was before you not too long ago on a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to include an area by 951 and
Davis Boulevard as being eligible for an industrial and business park.
It's a 300-acre site, a hundred -- basically half of it is going to be
given to the agencies, so they'll have 150 usable acres left. The plan
is to do 1,250,000 square feet of industrial and 1,250,000 square feet
of business park. The high tech type ofjobs we want to come to
Collier County.
Under the existing impact fees, the total impact fees for that two
and a half million square feet is $8,300,000.
Under today's proposed impact fee schedule with the average of
154 percent increase, that number jumps up to $21,124,000.
That's a dramatic increase and people who are coming here to
relocate their businesses are going to look long and hard at what is it
is going to cost them to build in Collier County?
Page 305
July 30-31, 2002
I will let you know that that on a per square foot basis is greater
then the cost of the land.
Conversely, in Lee County, under the existing rates Lee County
charges basically $1,720 per thousand square feet. That totals out
under the analogy I gave you to $5,000,000 in impact fees.
So Collier County will be four times the cost to come here and
relocate a business. I don't know that those businesses can come in
here and absorb that kind of a hit and relocate to Collier County.
That is an economic impact of the decision that is being made
today. But I'm not at all comfortable with the numbers. I heard some
statements, I'm not casting aspersions on anybody that spoke.
But I heard statements like, we can't recreate the numbers that
are in the 1999 studies, so we don't know how we got to the original
construction numbers or the right-of-way acquisition numbers in that
study.
Bottom line is, that study said it would cost you $900,000 to
design and construct a road. Today's study says it's $2,000,000.
That's an incredible jump in cost over a two year period.
Someone needs to be able to explain how that $900,000 number
got in there in the first place if it was way off and make us
comfortable that the $2,000,000 number is right.
What I sense from my clients and from what I sense from people
speaking is they are not comfortable with the number.
Your staff may be comfortable with the number, but they sure
haven't convinced those of us who are trying to find the number in
the paperwork how they got there.
I think there's some things that need to happen before we rush
into that decision, because I agree with what Mr. Luntz said, you
can't unring a bell.
Page 306
July 30-31, 2002
If you impose these numbers and you find that you're wrong and
those businesses have gone away or decided not to come here, I don't
know if you're ever going to get them back, no matter how hard you
try.
Delaying this to make sure we have the right numbers may
result --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wrap it up, please.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- may result in you miss a million or two
dollars in collections. In the grand scheme of things that's an
insignificant amount of money when you're looking at the impacts of
the decision you're making today.
I would hope that the Commission would look at some policy
decisions like what type of right-of-way do we want? Are we
designing the roads to be cost-efficient? Are we asking for too much
right-of-way? Can we still deliver a good roadway, but sharpen our
pencils as to what that roadway will look like because that could
translate to a significant saving on right-of-way acquisition and
construction costs?
You'll get the same type of road and you'll get the level of
service Collier County wants and deserves, but at the same time keep
us competitive, provide affordable housing, provide job
opportunities.
And with that, I have nothing further to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Yovanovich.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Darwin Brant. He will be
followed by Mario Valle.
MR. BRANT: Let me tell you a little bit about me. I came here
in the 50s when I was this high. (Indicating.) I came back in the 60s
when I was this high (Indicating.) I came back in 85 when I was this
Page 307
July 30-31, 2002
high (Indicating.) I wasn't as overweight as I am right now but this all
happens.
Let me tell you what's going on here. And I think -- I think
there's some real bad stuff that's happening to the industry. I'm a well
driller. I'm not a big well driller. I'm probably the smallest. Okay.
Me and my wife work together and this is our dream, this is Naples,
Florida.
When I came here in the 50s and in the 60s I was smart enough
to come here 15 or 16 or 17 years ago to come back.
Now, what's going on here is 11 years ago I sat and watched on
TV everyone come up to this thing over here and they told you
people that they needed impact fees for this, this, this and this. All
through everyone agreed with them.
Now they're back and they want someone -- I came back last
night, I got back into town and I saw this. Well, someone said it was
200 some percent is what they wanted. Now it's down to 150
something percent.
Like I said, I was here when I was this tall and this tall.
(Indicating). When I was this tall they built Goodlette Road.
(Indicating.) That's the last damn road they built in this county time
except Livingston.
Do you know what I'm saying? Where the hell -- where is the
impact fees gone for 11 years? In the street lights? All we got is stop
lights and a few more mm lanes. That's all we got in 11 years.
Like he said, it was going to be 50,000,000 if this thing went
through 50,000,000. And if we go in the same rate as we did from
1968 when Goodlette was built, okay, if we go that rate, with 50
more million we ain't going to get nothing.
Page 308
July 30-31, 2002
Look back 30 years ago, they should've been buying land out in
Golden Gate then for roads. Use a little common sense here guys.
This a real bad deal that you're going to try to do.
MS. FILSON: Mario Valle. He will be followed by Dwight
Nagew.
MR. VALLE: Commissioners, my colleagues have spoken
about the issue the industry has in regards to the number. I wish to
address what I consider to be a greater issue. This is the issue of the
human effect.
We are dealing with folks who serve our food, educate our
children and protect our homes and businesses. For those wishing to
live in Collier County in the future, they will be excluded from the
dream of home ownership.
Some say who cares. I care. I care because it will not only cost
us more money in the long run but because it is the right thing to do.
The current increase and the proposed increases to follow are
expected to cost the new homeowner over $20,000. That's my guess
for what the smallest house you can build, a 1,000 small square foot
house without a garage.
Those $20,000 will cost that homeowner than over $59,000
because they have to finance those fees on a 30-year mortgage.
For those who are capable of building a home of $1,000,000 in
value will pay only $3,000 more. This makes the burden for those
buying a home for the first time much greater.
I believe everyone should pay his or her fair share, however,
proportionately. The county will only receive this development tax
one time. I understand we are trying to pursue a more equitable
solution to our current dilemma, but the fact remains that from 1996
to 2001 the county has lowered its mill rate over 1.3 mills in that
period of time.
Page 309
July 30-31, 2002
So because of that we are under budget for items such as roads.
So who is the one that suffers the most? The first time home buyer.
Those folks who have the support of low market mill rate and the
resale of homes who never paid impact fees.
Yes, the escalating values in homes provides some increase in
revenue. However, the Save Our Homes Program protects
homesteaded property from increasing tax rate by placing a three
percent cap on increasing taxes.
So what was done to lower the rate was done as a political ploy
to gain votes putting the economic future in jeopardy.
By forcing the increase in the impact fee the county will suffer.
Those who are capable will move to Lee County taking their impact
fee money with them and still creating a traffic problem.
Families who are not able to move will double up, they'll move
in with another family, creating a greater stress on utilities and
creating a larger blighted area.
Affordable housing will degrade to substandard housing.
Studies have been done in neighboring counties that quantify the
outrageous costs in road resurfacing because of the choice to relocate
our work force further and further away from their places of
employment.
The study was done in Lee County and it shows a $180,000,000
cost over a 20-year period of time for road resurfacing because they
choose to locate the workers in Lehigh as opposed to Estero.
During the time we seek alternative funding sources, we need to
let these first time home buyers know we care. The county needs to
revive for impact fee waivers. Without taking in the revenue we can
still provide for the same amount of documentation necessary so that
we can provide the recapture of those fees where we need to follow
Page 310
July 30-31, 2002
them with the same housing cost price as we do the SHIP Program, I
think that's very attainable.
The county also needs to seek an exemption from the
Department of Environmental Protection of one-third of an acre per
lot in the Golden Gate Estates.
This will help reduce the cost of lots by allowing more lots to
enter the active inventory thereby reducing overall cost of land.
Since developments with activity centers are allowed a reduction
in road impact fees, allow the same reduction for the Golden Gate
area.
Simply because our subdivision does not have walls or gates
should not prevent us from getting the same benefits as the gated
communities.
In the Golden Gate Estates area, for example, there are three
activity centers that are located within that subdivision. But because
we don't have gates or we don't have, we don't get the same reduction
in the road impact fees as a gated community such as Island Walk.
The area has long known been platted. The county knew of its
potential, and yet, we have received only two road projects over the
last six years.
We need to continue to slowly increase the mill rate to 1996
levels. The built in measure protection of the Save Our Homes
Program will assure us that people will not be unfairly taxed out of
their homes.
When you look at the numbers, please keep in mind that these
decisions have real consequences to real people.
Make sure that we are looking out for all of Collier County
residents and not just a select few.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dwight Nadu and he will be
followed by Todd Gates.
Page 311
July 30-31, 2002
MR. NADU: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Dwight Nadu, planning manager with RWA and I am
here representing both residential, commercial and industrial
interests.
I'm not going to address the methodology of how these increases
are being proposed. There are much more knowledgeable people in
this room or those that have spoke that have addressed that issue.
I merely want to look at some equitable application of how these
impact fees would be calculated based on the land use categories, the
62 that have been outlined in your Executive Summary and back up
material.
For example, there's a significant increase for golf course impact
fees. There might be a necessity to add a private or semi-private golf
course to that list of the uses, such that a public golf course is going
to generate the trips that would come out of the Institute of Traffic
Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
But with a private or semi-private course which is built inside a
residential development, many of those trips are going to be captured
internally by the residents who are living in that project and have paid
the road impact fees for the dwelling units that they lived in.
Similarly, if we look at the residential land use category, where
single family is calculated by a threshold square footage by dwelling
unit, perhaps the impact fees could be calculated based on square
footage of living area. Garages wouldn't bear accessory uses,
ancillary to the residential use, perhaps you would exclude the
garages that would -- in those areas that would not be for living area.
Now, I was going to use the term air conditioned space, but I
was told that there may be a problem with that, because someone can
say they're not going to build air conditioning in their home.
Page 312
July 30-31, 2002
Well, I don't think there would be anybody building a house in
new construction that is not going to put air in.
Lodging could remain as drafted because it's per room. It
doesn't include the equipment rooms, the elevated shafts, the
stairwells. Recreation could remain as drafted.
Institutional hospital could be significantly jeopardized because
it's also calculated on square footage and possibly we look at square
footage of treatment and public areas and not include equipment and
storage areas, stairwells. And I'm not going to go through a whole
list.
These are utilitarian areas. This provides for that rational nexus
between the impact fees imposed with the land uses that are being
assessed impact fees as Mr. Feder was looking for.
There needs to be a nexus between them. Another example
would be office. That also could be calculated based on office area
including the meeting conference rooms, but not the storage areas,
equipment areas and bathrooms.
The same methodology could be applied to retail road impact
fees. Retail square footage based on the retailer area including indoor
display and sales area, not the bathrooms the storage and equipment
rooms.
I don't believe I need to go on because there's methodologies
that can be applied that are rational on how those impact fees should
be applied.
With that I'll conclude. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. Todd Gates. He will be
followed by Walter Crawford.
MR. GATES: For the record, my name is Todd Gates.
Page 313
July 30-31, 2002
Commissioners, I know most of you personally and I know
down deep in your hearts, you sincerely want to do the right thing
based on talking to all of you.
Please remember, the right thing is not always based on who can
scream the loudest or who can e-mail you the most, who's able to
write the last word.
I think we all need to stop a moment and take a deep breath. I
mean all of us; the anti-growthers, the pro-growthers, the editorial
staff, the county staff, and yes, you Commissioners.
We all need to look at numerous repercussions that today's
decision may bring. For every action, there's a reaction. You heard
me say that before. We need to really predict what reaction is going
to be.
When we start tinkering with the second largest economic
engine in this community which effects all of us, so many businesses
supplies and enormous amount of capital that pays for the much
needed infrastructure and we start affecting the lives of so many fine
folks, great thought, thorough analysis and extreme care is needed
prior to any modifications and/or.
Look around, we do not live on an economic island. Dot com
companies have plummeted. The stock market is bouncing all over
the place. There's corporate corruption at the highest level. There's a
lot less Europeans coming to Naples right now. Right now.
Highly respected department stores are closing businesses. All
it will take is one more misguided animal to blow something else and
the entire free market will stand still and I mean Naples as well.
Remember, what has carried the entire Nation for the last 10
months has not been corporate America or the stock market, it's been
housing.
Page 314
July 30-31, 2002
What provides the economic strength to this community is
tourism development and agriculture.
Putting unrealistic burdens on these economic foundations is
simply not smart, and to be perfectly frank is simply irresponsible.
Increased impact fees will affect all districts. However, the
effect on Commissioner Henning's district, Coletta's district and
Fiala's district will be devastating.
The people in families you represent work in the very industry
that is being grossly taxed. Not to mention more financial hardships
for them to purchase a home.
Please remember, for every $1,000 that's added to a home
you've eliminated 311 families from purchasing that home.
The county staff is correct, the existing impact fees structure
will not cover the much needed road construction. New impact fees
were never intended to pay for 100 percent of the road construction.
For us to think otherwise is simply foolish.
We need to ask ourselves why do we currently have the highest
impact fees in the entire state and the lowest property taxes?
We're one of the wealthiest communities in the country, yet we
act like the poorest. We are not in a very big wheel here. Other
communities all over this country have dealt with the same problem.
The solution was not taxing new businesses and families at a rate
which simply drove people out of the town.
These towns -- there are towns and counties all over this Nation
that would give anything for this economy. Doing anything that
would jeopardize this is not smart, especially in these uncertain times.
As a community we need to look at ourselves in a mirror and
ask, why do buyers of existing homes who live into Port Royal, Park
Shore Pelican Bay and other very fine neighborhoods, pay zero
dollars in impact fees?
Page 315
July 30-31, 2002
Yet, a new home in Golden Gate Estates pays the highest in the
State. There's something grossly wrong with this philosophy.
Remember, all homes prior to 1986 did not have any impact
fees. I ask you, how can you be grandfathered in if you paid zero
dollars in impact fees?
My grandfather used to say, you can't complain unless you got a
solution, so I hope I got a solution.
A real estate transfer fee paid by all homes, new and existing
purchased in this county is the most logical solution. I realize it's
more of a state level and not a county level.
Remember, there will come a day when no new homes are built.
However, families and tourists will continue to come. Fair, equitable,
reasonable solutions need to include all people and all citizens no
matter where they choose to live.
On a personal basis my company has a preapplication meeting at
one o'clock. It happens to be in Commissioner Henning's District.
These people currently employ 85 people. They're looking to employ
300 to 400 people in Golden Gate.
He left the room earlier, concerned. We have been directed to
meet with the EDC in Lee County. We have been directed to look
for property in Lee County. This is one of the cleanest industries that
will ever come to the county. It's a wonderful, wonderful association.
Impact fees on his project alone will increase by $825,000. If he
goes two feet across the border in Lee County, he saves well over
$800,000.
This is a huge, huge, economic issue. There's a little guy with
big ears that said many, many, years ago, there's going to be a giant
sucking sound out of Collier County if this goes forward.
Please, with all due respect, think about your reaction. Thank
you very much.
Page 316
July 30-31, 2002
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Walter Crawford, and he will
be followed by Robert Johnson.
MR. CRAWFORD: Commissioners, again, for the record, my
name is Walter Crawford. I'm a 13 year resident of Collier County.
I'm employed by WCI communities.
I'm the incoming president to the Collier Building Industry
Association. And I also serve as vice chair of your contractor
licensing board.
I wanted to make the statement and make sure you do
understand the economic impact of what you're about to do,
potentially do. Most of the discussion today has been regarding cost
of the road, which is only half of the equation.
The other half of the equation is the impact, not just on
residential homes, which is very important, but also the commercial
side that Todd Gates mentioned earlier.
I would like to refer to one specific example, and I can go
through many examples, but this a personal example that I'd like to
share.
It's on a very small basis, but back in 2000 when the impact fees
were raised and Commissioner Carter and I spoke about this and Phil
Tindle, the Impact Fees Coordinator and I spoke about it, my wife
and I were going to build a child care facility in North Naples.
Child care is something this county needs. The quality of child
care in this county is very poor and we were trying to start that
business.
At that time the impact fees per student were just about $100
each. And the impact fees were raised to over $200. That added an
additional cost of $15,000, which didn't perform out and it didn't
work. Again, a very small amount of money, but it was a small
business.
Page 317
July 30-31, 2002
Today's proposal that sits before you takes that same per student
rate, based on the revised number from Monday up to $569 per
student.
That would be an additional $51,600 to that small facility. So
that's $50,000 on top of the $15,000 from two years ago, on top of the
original impact fee, on top of all the other impact fees and permit
fees.
I'm here to tell you that there's not going to be a child care
facility built in Collier County if the impact fees are passed because it
won't work.
Commissioner Coyle, when we met back on July 2nd, at the CBI
offices, you encouraged us to be part of the process to understand the
numbers, to provide input, to provide consultants and studies and
we're in the process of doing that.
And therefore, I respectfully ask that we delay today's decision
so that we can have the input that's required so that we don't have this
dramatic effect on the economy. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Mike Reagan. And he will be followed by
Thomas Macchia.
MR. REAGAN: My name is Mike Reagan. I'm representing
the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. And ladies and gentlemen
on the Commission, I empathize with members of the commission
and also members of the staff.
I think you got an excellent staff of fine public servants. You
are facing a very, very difficult decision.
The reality is that, obviously, we need to fix the infrastructure
and improve it in Collier County. The other obvious reality is that we
got to figure out a way to pay for it.
Page 318
July 30-31, 2002
The bottom line is the proposition before you today I think will
hurt dramatically, small businesses and ordinary people in Collier
County.
! would urge you to understand that at least half of the chambers
membership 1,500 companies are small business. These are people
who pay rent. They provide the services that make -- find the
character frankly of this whole community.
These are also people that live and work in a thin and minor
margin. This I think, ultimately, will have consequences of disaster
impacted upon them.
Second bottom line seems to me, you got a terrible dilemma to
face so I would join with others in urging you to take a moment and
catch your breath.
Down the road you really need to come up with a
comprehensive plan in looking at lacing different ways of raising
revenues and mixing them appropriately and with all due respect to
deal with some of these terrible dilemmas.
The only way to do that seems to me is to study this a bit more,
take your time, focus on what you're doing totally. In order to do that
and it would seem to me it would be wise to take another 90 days or
so to look at this carefully.
As you do that please take into account the impact that you have
on ordinary people in small businesses. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Tom Macchia. And he will be followed by A1
DiNicola.
MR. MACCHIA: My name is Tom Macchia and I am the
President of TAG, Taxpayers Action Group.
Page 319
July 30-31, 2002
You do have a dilemma. I don't envy you. On one side of the
equation, you have developers and people who work for them as
aptly represented in the hall today.
The other side of the equation, you have full-time residents,
part-time residents, and people who work in the service industry that
work for hotels and bars and such.
I do not believe that you represent people who want to come
here, nor should you represent people who want to have businesses
here. They're not part of your constituency.
Having said that, what I noticed at first blush was that you went
out and you asked an organization to give you the figure that would
be the highest impact fee that you could legally impose.
When you got that figure, which was 228, whatever happened in
the ensuing one or two days there was a miraculous revelation and it
was put down to 154.
And I had thought originally when I heard about the 228, I
thought, well, there goes my argument that the Commission
continues to say that they want growth to pay for growth. They don't
want it.
And when it lost 72 percent and dropped from one day to the
other, I came to either one of two conclusions, either the Commission
has gotten in touch with the people who they hired and told them, oh,
my God, what are you giving me, 228, revise that figure, please.
Or they are an inept organization that should not have been hired
to do the job. My prediction is that you will put this off and it will
probably go past September 10th. And after September the 10th, I
predict that you will lower the fee down from 156.
Growth will never pay for growth as long as you guys have this
attitude.
Page 320
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, just a moment. I want
to just for the audience sake, we never saw -- well, we never perused
this thing carefully until the productivity committee came in. They
studied this thing. They tore it inside and out and they made the
suggestions that maybe things could be cut here and there.
Their recommendation was to lower it to 154 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Macchia, I have a question
for you, if you don't mind, please.
Mr. Macchia, I want to thank you for being here today.
MR. MACCHIA: Unless I can reply to your question, I don't
want to sit here and be lectured. Can I reply to what you have to say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Thank you.
MR. MACCHIA: Sure. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The figures that presented out
first and then was changed, it's my understanding that it was things
that were taken out like landscaping and things of that nature.
I can tell you from my perspective none of the board members
presently interfere with the day-to-day activity with the organization
or the consultants. It's against the County Manager's ordinance.
And from what I know, each and every one of us takes that
seriously.
MR. MACCHIA: Is it to the lowering and taking out the
landscaping that doesn't answer the original question that you asked?
The original question was how high you could raise the impact
fees? By taking out the landscaping that doesn't answer that
question.
In fact, you could lower the impact fees by not having any more
road construction and not giving any more services.
And as far as the right-of-way, I don't see how you can cut out
right-of-ways that you're going to need to build.
Page 321
July 30-31, 2002
To the figure, the second figure, the 156 does not address the
question, what is the highest I can raise the impact fees?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need to ask a question Mr.
Macchia, please. Do you believe that the Board of County
Commissioners has a responsibility to make sure that the facts
presented to us are correct?
MR. MACCHIA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have any idea what the
highest legally justifiable impact fee is?
MR. MACCHIA: I was told it was 228.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. You were told that's what the
consultant said; is that not true?
MR. MACCHIA: The one that you hired told you 228. That's
the first thing I read in the paper was that you asked them what it was
and they told you it was 228.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not this Commission.
MR. MACCHIA: One or two days later I read something
different.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not this commission. But
nevertheless, if it is incorrect, do you believe it is appropriate that we
reduce it?
MR. MACCHIA: If it is incorrect, if it is not the highest figure
that you can possibly legally impose, and if it is not the highest
figure, and it is incorrect, then I think you should adjust it, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would agree with that, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I apologize for taking other
people's time on addressing that, but I appreciate your indulgence in
that.
Page 322
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Henning, I don't
want to take of lot of time, but I got to do it. I'm going to destroy the
myth right now.
Growth does not pay for growth. Impact fees pay for part of
growth. If the Smiths move into an ASL and the Jones move from
Chicago, move into their home and they got two teenagers and two
professionals, I can add at least three cars to the road to impact for all
the services in this community and not collect one more dime to pay
for growth.
So let's get growth in perspective. Impact fees are a part of the
formula, not the magic bullet. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is A1 DiNicola. He will be
followed by Frank Halas.
MR. DINICOLA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. For the record, I'm A1 DiNicola, I'm the president of
the Naples area Board of Realtors, an association of Realtor
professionals.
We all find ourselves in a difficult position today. We'll be
sorting through fact and fiction. Emotion plays as well as reasoned
arguments. And you must find a solution now or later that provides
what is necessary and equitable in a defensible manner.
The failure of current roads to handle current capacity indicates
a failure of residents and businesses to pay sufficient tax to build
sufficient roads. But that is in the past and a crisis is of the past.
Today we are planning for the future. Our local roads are a
community need for the health, safety and welfare of our community.
They sustain our economic viability and the ability to continue the
quality of life that we know.
It must be built and it must pay for it. In the introduction to the
memorandum, it says the decision concerning transportation policies
Page 323
July 30-31, 2002
require adequate information. Those before me addressed the
changes from the 228 percent down to the 154 percent.
However, the data is still fluid. Chairman Coletta has already
suggested a broad based solution with an offset of ad valorem funds.
Additional creative possibilities have been suggested to relieve
the burden of our work force housing. We would respectfully
suggest that the best solution is not yet available.
We must all acknowledge that we can do better and that waiting
to do it right doesn't make it wrong. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Halas. Tom
Conrecode and he will be followed by Patrick McCuan.
MR. CONRECODE: Good afternoon, my name is Tom
Conrecode I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
Let me begin by saying that you really need to raise your impact
fees for roads, get that on the record.
However, the work completed and the study you have before
you today, whether you take the one that was released in mid July or
the one that was released on July 23rd, it's not ready for prime time.
There's a lot of problems with it. There's a lot of things that needed
to be corrected. Some of them were captured and corrected in the
July 23rd document. There's still a number of them that aren't.
There's a number of them that are in question. Some staff says
yes, it is, and the community says no, it's not. And there's not been a
meeting of the minds to resolve some of that.
We've thought that it would be appropriate to seek outside
consultation either from your bond counsel or experts in the
industries that apply to those pieces of process of the study.
We would ask you to take the time to make sure that you do that
and we address all those things specifically and directly so the fee
Page 324
July 30-31, 2002
that is increased and is implemented is appropriate and defensible and
whatever your justifications need to be.
If I could I'd like to be specific to a couple of things to give you
additional information about some of the flaws that I think are in both
pieces of the initial draft and the more final draft on July 23rd.
First of all, the 1-75 data in the documentation reflects that it was
drawn from the PDE work that was done for the expansion of 1-75.
I will tell you that that work isn't completed and it won't be
published until October. As a result, I questioned the validity of first
their access to that information, but secondly it's incomplete data if
it's not published by the FDOT yet.
Secondly, in a call to FDOT regarding that data, they indicated
that the increase of local trips on 1-75 has been occurring since 1975
and it is up to a current 80 percent 20 percent mix of local traffic
versus through traffic on the Interstate.
That information needs to be looked at a little bit more
completely. We have asked for the model data and the model runs
from staff and the consultants on that particular piece of the puzzle
and it has not been provided in the two and a half weeks since we've
asked for it.
The debt service credit, I think was mentioned by Jeff Perry of
Wilson-Miller. And he had identified the bond, although it has been
cited as repayment with gas taxes and ad valorem -- gas tax and sales
tax, because you can't bond ad valorem without a referendum.
You have recognized the most efficient way to pay that back and
not dig a deeper year and the outer years of your work program is, in
fact, to pay it back with increased ad valorem.
If in fact that is the case and that is the policy that this Board
takes, that credit needs to be applied to the impact fee. I'm not going
to argue when or if or how.
Page 325
July 30-31, 2002
But if a decision is made that it's paid back with ad valorem,
then that needs to be credited back. If it is paid back with another
source, that too needs to be credited and calculated accordingly.
Otherwise, new homeowners will pay twice, once in the impact fee
and once in their ad valorem rate.
The utility relocation expenses currently budgeted between the
water and the wastewater master plans that you approved in January
at 16 million dollars based on the value that is used in the report it
will account for 60 of utility relocations. I think someone needs to
take a look at that and verify the extent of 69 miles worth of pipes
being moved.
If that in fact is the right number then God bless us all and let's
move on with it. If it's not we need to take a serious look at that.
In any event, that number for utility relocations can't be charged
twice. The real estate numbers is flawed. First the iteration, you've
heard all those assumptions and that that has been targeted.
The second iteration we think is equally invalid because we can't
tie down to the specifics. We have not been able to get any
information out of staff as requested over the last two and a half
weeks relative to the adjustments. And we have found internally
county documents that don't support the claims that are being made
by the consultants and the team that's proposing this today.
This needs extensive and further review and we ask that you
consider that. There's other flaws, insufficient time for me to address
all of them, but I'll try to hit on them, the landscape cost you heard.
The ITE trip data.
There's one specific item that was called out today, I will tell
you that that is a one day trip data number that was used in there for
the resort hotels.
Page 326
July 30-31, 2002
There are other examples of that where they don't use the full
battery of data that is available, they don't test it locally and don't
necessarily generate the right result for your work.
The capacity assumptions --just one more minute.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sum it up, please.
MR. CONRECODE: The capacity assumptions were arbitrarily
reduced last November by 17 percent, reducing effectively a million
capacity miles on your system.
We raised this issue previously with the concurrency thing and
it's quoted currently at 86-something as a maximum. That's not
correct. It can, in fact, be higher. Lee County is up to 10,000
vehicles per mile.
And the cost data, and I think one of the commissioners picked
up on, in fact, leads to some cherry-picking opportunities or at least
some questions about cherry picking the data that they used in the
study. We've asked for the rest of the information and have not been
provided that information.
Let me conclude by thanking you and staff for being accessible
and listening to our concerns. When we continue to express we have
an interest in getting the data so that we can either support or
challenge the assumptions that are made.
And lastly, let me answer Commissioner Henning's question
because it was not answered by either the consultants or staff. I don't
know whether that was because they did not understand the question
or they do not understand the way the impact fees are calculated.
Relative to the 25-year life, it has nothing to do with NPO
process. And it has nothing to do with your road building plan. It
has everything to do with the credit that's given for ad valorem and
gas tax payments that are by made people who in live in this
community.
Page 327
July 30-31, 2002
It's on the credit side of the equation. And it has to do with the
life of the road, not the road building program.
I ask the consultants and staff to go back and look at it that way,
and say, gee, if a road is going to last 50 years, we potentially should
get some credit for that.
That concludes my remarks. I thank you again for the
opportunity to come up here and speak. I know it's been a tough day.
I wish you luck in your deliberations.
MS. FILSON: Patrick McCuan. He will be followed by Reed
Jarvi.
MR. MCCUAN: Good afternoon, Members of the Commission.
My name is Patrick McCuan. I'm the Chief Executive Officer of
MDG Companies and thank you for approving two of our affordable
housing projects. One being if you recall Cypress Glen and the other
one the Arrowhead Project in Immokalee.
And, by the way, the Arrowhead Project will be the largest
affordable housing community in the history of Collier County. And
it's a 1,245 home community.
I also am here -- I'm not going to speak to it in the capacity as a
commercial developer. In the last three or four years, we have built
four office buildings in Collier County.
I think we will have built our last office building in Collier
County, if indeed these are passed.
But I'm here today to talk to you about affordable housing.
Now, we are not here to criticize and we're not here to take you on
the carpet. All we're here for is to offer an alternative plan for
affordable housing, but before I present the plan I would like to make
a very few short remarks in my five minutes.
Page 328
July 30-31, 2002
Collier County is fast becoming an exclusively service-oriented
economy. It's not likely that's going to change to a manufacturing,
assembly, technological hi-tech or development economy.
The only real economic development job creating industry in
Collier County is the home building and real estate industry. I'm
defining this as an industry that for every new home and for every
commercial facility developed, every dollar spent on construction,
returns eight and a half dollars back into the local economy and
$17.42 into the State and National economy.
Locally, most economic experts agree that this sector is the
primary economic engine in our county. However, this is going to
change in the very near future.
Let me take out of this some of my other thoughts and I'll give
them to you in writing. But I'd like to say this, that despite the
Herculian efforts of Denny Baker and Cormac Giblin, Collier County
Government has done an incomplete job of encouraging and creating
affordable housing for our working families.
The work force is saturated and we have highly trained people
leaving Southwest Florida every day because the cost of housing for
their family is prohibitive.
Most of these are young families. Now, I believe that the
Economic Development Counsel will confirm that new high-tech
industry chooses not to locate in Collier County because among other
reasons, there's not a diversity of housing for this work force,
primarily affordable housing.
Now, in summary, while Collier County struggling to catch up
with its population which is what this is all about today, we're
struggle to catch up with errors of the past, it is making fast and
furious decisions; some are wise and some are not so wise. But of
course, wisdom is in the eye of the beholder.
Page 329
July 30-31, 2002
But in any event, what concerns us is that the type of
organizational behavior that is going on in our county now reminds
me of the Billy the Kid syndrome; shoot first and ask questions later.
Now, in our opinion, this impact fee proposal may very well be
a decision that will guide the course of economic development in
Collier County for the next decade and beyond. It is truly one of the
most gravity -- this is very gravitatious {phonetic}. Anyway, this
adds a lot of gravity to this decision.
Therefore, the ramifications must be carefully considered. We
believe that if you increase these impact fees as stated without taking
into consideration the very people we need to maintain our service
economy, because we're in a service economy, we will set this county
into an irrevocable course that will permanently damage the
community spirit and you may very well strike a death nail to the
wonderful quality of life that we so much enjoy in Collier County.
Our affordable plan is quite simple. I will give you a chart later.
You can read it at your convenience. It depicts one way of looking at
impact fees for affordable work force housing in Collier County.
It includes a mechanism for collecting those fees; this plan
recognized the needs for reduced, not eliminated, impact fees on
affordable work force housing. And on a scale ranging from 30
percent to 100 percent of impact fees ranging of homes that sell from
79.9 to 199 and above. And it's a fair scale. It's a fair scale.
Thank you, Commissioner Fiala, for thinking about this earlier
because I think you will see that this will follow what your interest is.
May I just have a moment more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please wrap it up, sir.
MR. MCCUAN: Now, in conclusion, please remember when
you pass this increase and impact fee, it will most likely result in
Page 330
July 30-31, 2002
Collier County imposing the highest impact fees in the United States,
if not the entire universe.
MDG does not challenge in any way your Commissions right to
control the economic balance. But I think we need to look at new
imposition of these fees.
In conclusion, we ask, no, we implore, we implore the
Commissioners to think carefully about affordable housing needs for
our work force.
Please note, we're not talking about subsidized housing or SHIP
Programs, because those are programs which are -- which are means-
related, meaning they are related simply to how much money you
make.
We're talking about a fair generic program for everyone. And
don't let the lawyers tell you that it can't be done because it's been
done. This program is being done in several other communities
where we develop across this Nation.
So don't let the lawyers sit down and say we can't do it. And
lastly, just because we've done something in Collier County 20 years
doesn't mean we can't change it. We can't go by square footage of
the houses.
Let's look carefully and maybe we ought to look at the cost of
housing and do impact fees related to that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make one fast
comment and I wanted to give --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Just a moment. We got to
change paper in the machine. Everything has to be duly recorded.
Boy, that was fast.
Page 331
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it was. I just wanted to give a
fast definition in my opinion of what affordable housing even is.
Affordable really means -- moderate priced homes for the work
force, for retirement, for middle class, for everyone that is out there
working, raising children. By the way, the prices for day care will go
up as the price for the day care centers goes up.
They're getting hit twice with this thing, not just for the higher
price for the houses, now it will also be a higher price for day care.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Reed Jarvi and he will be
followed by Jane Varner.
MR. JARVI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Reed Jarvi. I'm a professional engineer living in Collier County
working in Southwest Florida, Collier and Lee County and Charlotte.
I have a couple of issues to talk about, mainly, there is
somewhat black and white issues. So it will be a little easier, I think.
First off, we talk about the cost of construction and I don't know
that the county staff did anything wrong with adding up the numbers.
I have no doubt that the numbers are what they are.
But I just looked at it and looked at it from a reasonability
standpoint that in 1999, three years ago, we did some study and
somehow how got a number of $922,000 per lane mile. And now we
have $1,465,000 per lane mile. That is a 59 percent increase in three
years.
I don't know that the numbers are wrong or not, but it just seems
like a large increase to me and we should look at line item to line
item to see what has changed significantly since 1999.
I know the numbers now are based on new, excuse me, recent
road projects. But what is the difference? Are we adding things now
that we didn't add,? I don't know.
Page 332
July 30-31, 2002
It seems that's a high number to me. That averages out as 17
percent per year. And as we talked about in the later part of this
study, the economy or cost of living is roughly three and a half, 3.3
percent per year. So we got a big difference there. I think we should
be looking at the difference, why is it that much different?
The other thing -- two other things, one is the Interstate mileage
reduction. Once again, it seems to me it may be on the low side. I
don't know enough about it to look into it. I understand it's there
primarily because we don't pay for the Interstate with the impact fees.
It's not a county. It's a Federal and State issue.
It seems to me that we also have other roads like US 41 and
State Road 84 and State Road 951, that we also pay by State road. I
don't know that there's a difference for a credit standpoint. If we
credit one, shouldn't we be crediting the other or if we don't credit
one maybe we shouldn't credit the other. It seems to me they're along
the same lines.
So I think that should be looked at. And the last thing is I'll just
mention it, trip generation rates. You've seen me up here before and
this is what I do, traffic generation.
Tom Conrecode mentioned it briefly, and some others have too.
I find it curious, first off, that the movie theater, first, old trip rate was
109.97 -- 110 trips per day per movie theater, per screen and the new
trip rate is 220.
I happened to look in the trip generation manual, and please bear
with me, there are two land uses for movie theaters. One is with a
matinee and one is without a matinee.
It happens to be that the -- this is a Sixth Edition, movie theater
without matinee is the 220, excuse me, trips per day, movie with
matinee is 153.
Page 333
July 30-31, 2002
I don't know about you but every movie theater I've been to in
Collier County has a matinee. It seems to me we should be using the
movie theater with matinee as the correct trip generation.
I can't say for sure that -- I also note that there's only one
observation in this data pack and that's not a very high reliability
from a data standpoint.
Also, resort hotel, 10.09 trips is in the new generation. It is for
one observation on ITE, it's on Sunday. That seems to me not a lot of
data to use as mentioned earlier. I don't know that the 5.9 is a right
answer. I did look at 5.9 is a peak hour trip generation .59, typically,
we use 10 percent as making a daytime. I'm assuming that's where
they got the 5.9 but I couldn't find it.
Hotel and motel. The new rates 8.92 for hotel and 9.11 for
motel. Those are occupied rooms. If we were doing 365 days a year
as our work day, I'm sure everyone here who is a hotelier would love
to have fully occupied rooms, but I got to think that it is not
reasonable to use occupied rooms for an impact fee calculation. You
would use a room rate. The other ones is 8.25 and 5.63 are rooms in a
hotel; that's the IT trip generation.
Typically when we do traffic impact studies we do occupied
rooms because we are looking at peak season. That is reasonable.
Impact fee I don't believe is correct.
And that actually concludes my comments. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jane Varner. She will be
followed by Frank Rodriguez.
MS. VARNER: Good afternoon. I'm Jane Varner, I'm a
member of the Taxpayer Action, but I am speaking for myself.
First, I want to say that I know it is going to take a lot of the
courage from all of you to do what you have to do. It's not an easy
job.
Page 334
July 30-31, 2002
Before when we were asked to pay for the cost of roads,
somehow it also got diminished to not quite be the right amount that
we needed for the roads so we are facing the deficits that we have.
So I hope what you'll do is honestly look at what will the costs
be and then have the courage to do what you must do even though it
is very difficult.
But now what I would like to add is that maybe we could be
more equitable though in how the impact fees are distributed because
it was so glaring to me that high rise condominiums paid so little in
road impact fees, which I'm just addressing residences and road
impact fees right now, compared to even a small single-family home.
So when I was given the justification for this is that there was
some kind of methodology for the trip generation, I looked at it and I
really don't think that a lot of that holds water and that maybe we're
using something on a national level and not pertinent here to Naples,
which someone did bring up that we should be using statistics that
apply to Naples.
Maybe we could alleviate some of the impact fees for the
smaller homes. Let me give some examples of that. I know in the
high rises they don't seem to think they need the same services as --
we've got gated communities, a bigger home in a gated community
probably doesn't have any children.
The roads belong to that community. There's one entrance.
They come in and we can say we're a high rise only and we're all flat.
But it's one entrance.
I just have to say that a lot of high rises, they have a lot of
services, cleaning people, you know, so forth. They go places just
like someone else.
Page 335
July 30-31, 2002
You could say in gated communities, they don't have to leave
the community to go to parks or the golf course because it's all
contained right there.
So what I'm showing is the inequity there where you would say
a gated community with bigger homes should, you know, why should
they pay so much more, which is, I don't know five six thousand, it's
so much more, that that is inequitable.
But even when you come to the smaller homes, the smaller
single-family homes, a lot of those are used by retired people, and
they're not generating a lot of trips or whatever. They may stay home
a lot.
And then when you got to the homes with children, a lot of
them, they may do their own yard work. They may not have pools.
They don't employ cleaning services. Maybe the paint their own
homes, make their own repairs. Use the roads mainly to go to work
and their children may walk to the bus stop or bike to the parks or
whatever.
So I believe young families are paying more than they can
afford. They're not only paying more, but they're picking up the tab
for the impact of those more wealthy people living in the high rises.
If you have to divide the cost, let's be a little more fair. Now, I
don't know how easy it would be to go to each individual when they
move in and assess. And I can't divine what's going to happen in that
house.
But I would say maybe you have to look at something that is a
little more even so that when -- a resident is a resident. One may use
it more in one way and one may use the roads more in another way,
but let's at least try to be more fair to the people paying the impact
fees. Thank you.
Page 336
July 30-31, 2002
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Rodriguez, and he will
followed by Russell Tuft.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Frank
Rodriguez, I'm Chairman of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of
Collier County.
The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Collier County, Inc., is
a non-profit corporation organized to promote, advocate and facilitate
business and economic development of Hispanics in Collier County
and adjacent areas.
The Chamber is formed by a group of individuals who work
together to advance and intergrate the financial, the industrial and
city interest of the Hispanic Community into the mainstream of
business and economic activity in Collier County.
The Chamber's main functions deals with community
development, including promoting a modem adequate transportation
system in which capacity acts as agents in public affairs and
government relations.
The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce recognizes the need to
develop an aggressive road construction program to improve our
system. We also are aware of the fact that previous administration
may have failed to keep growth construction at the same pace as
growth.
The proposed road impact tax, and we call it a tax, before the
Collier County Commission today has raised serious concerns among
Hispanic families and businesses.
Numerous calls have been received by opposing or questioning
how reasonable and equitable this new tax is.
Some family concerns are like -- because property values are
going up, existing houses are too expensive to buy. Apartments or
housing rents are going up. If this tax is added to the purchase price
Page 337
July 30-31, 2002
of a new house, how are we going to qualify to purchase our first
home when the down payment will increase over a hundred percent?
If new construction stops or is substantially reduced, my
construction job will disappear. How am I going to keep up with my
mortgage if all I know is to work in construction? Why should I pay
the same as someone who is much better off financially?
On the business sector, I own a business where most customers
are construction workers. If they lose their jobs due to layoffs, my
business may fail and I may have to close down and lay off my
employees.
How will they and I meet financial obligations and continue to
sustain a family? What are the options for us?
These are only some of concerns expressed by different people.
They are all concerns that leaves us wondering of how equitable is
this proposed tax.
And we continue to call it a tax, because these are taxes
collected for public service revenue, fees are collected for services.
We see these as a tax and not as a fee.
It would be imposed and remain as part of the original cost of
the property. If it was a fee, it would be paid in exchange for
receiving a service, but it is not.
Most of those who would pay would not benefit from it.
Approximately 70 percent of the revenues would be used for roads
west of County Road 951. Nothing appears to be allocated to serve
Immokalee, even when we're allocating resources and funds for the
development and business and industry.
The impact tax implementation can result in paying tax on tax.
It will remain as part of the original cost of the property. The
homestead exemption will be basically offset by the new tax, unless
Page 338
July 30-31, 2002
homestead exemption is included in the same amount as the impact
fee tax. The homeowner will pay tax on tax for life.
We suggest that the County Commission request from staff to
reconsider the manner a new tax will be proposed. It is an exorbitant
amount and the source of this revenue.
Other alternatives need to considered. Transfer fees on property
sold mainly for reconstruction.
Millage rates and other means which will bring balance and
allow our economy to continue without a major slow down.
Tourism, agriculture and construction continue to be the three
main economic activities in Collier County. Construction is one of
the foundations which have crippled or will hurt every other business.
There were other impact fees waiting in line to be also
implemented.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Russell Tuff, he will be
followed by Larry Basik.
MR. TUFF: For the record, I'm Russell Tuft and I'm
representing the Golden Gate Civic Association today.
You give me three more years what's coming out of my mouth
would be what I mean coming out of my head, you know, I'm
learning to speak better.
But anyway, it's great to be here. I want to thank you for this
opportunity and taking the American system work, the process of
democracy, me getting a chance to say what I have to say. And I
appreciate that.
And the Golden Civic Association is opposed to the dramatic
increase in the impact fees. And I guess I'm also sitting on the
Golden Gate Master Plan, and I'm not sure where my role lines where
Page 339
July 30-31, 2002
I am representing me or the Civic Association. We met really
hurriedly and were opposed to those.
But I guess I would make some comments on this Golden Gate
Master Plan. Chuck Mohlke met with us and said in the northwest
quadrant of our community, 37 percent of the homes are rentals. And
that's the homes. And he said, they're not just rentals, there's multiple
families in the rentals.
And we've all had the code enforcement problem. And I believe
we all feel strongly that if this impact fee goes that that will increase
and that will get worse and create another nightmare.
And that will increase our social cost dramatically or increase
our domestic, other problems that we'll have and things will
deteriorate.
We're also working on getting new commercial areas to keep
people off the roadways so they can shop where they are located.
And I don't have to repeat what everybody has said what that
would do to their costs. I venture to guess that a couple of you guys
were in business with me out here, we didn't have to pay those fees. I
don't think I could make it today going into business knowing what
those fees where.
And some of our commercial areas are deteriorating. And we're
looking at revitalizing and making things happen. I think that will go
way because people -- the economics won't be there to do that.
I know we have the highest impact fees in the State, they say,
probably as we heard or the universe is what he said, and we have the
lowest tax rates in the State.
And yet, as I drive around, we live in the most, my opinion, the
nicest place in the whole world to live. We have beautiful services.
Our commissioners have done a tremendous job at making this a
great community.
Page 340
July 30-31, 2002
And I believe because of growth, because of development, we
add these new houses on those tax rolls, we have more money to do
all these wonderful things and now growth does pay for growth. It
gives us all these wonderful things.
And to shut down those economic engines is a bad thing for our
community specifically. We're at a critical stage. We're going up or
we're going down and I don't want to go down in Golden Gate.
I think making the increases a niceness in this community pay
for the guy that can't afford a home is not the right place to put that.
There's a lot better ways to do that.
We all have nice things. If you look at the shifts in the budget,
the sales taxes, where the dollars went, they used to go parks, they
went to roads and that shift has been made. We made a definite
decision.
I think we can either increase taxes, ad valorem, to make up
those costs or we can reduce some of the nice services we have.
I like the services we have, so those are just options. But I
believe, for our community, that this impact fee would be very bad.
And at least, I hope you take more time to study it.
That's all I have. Thank you.
Larry Basik. And he will be followed by Mario
MS. FILSON:
Curiale.
MR. BASIK:
Good afternoon, my name is Larry Basik, 30-year
resident of Collier County. I'm here representing basically
development and American Funding Company, which is a mortgage
company.
I just thought I would bring to light something that really has not
come up here yet. And I don't think there's anybody here, I'd like to
see, is there anyone here concerned with the TDR that are to be dealt
with in Golden Gate? Mr. Coletta.
Page 341
July 30-31, 2002
I just wanted to show you what type and effect, just the idea of
the newspaper article of that appeared on the increase, 200 percent of
impact fees.
We have developments in Lee and Collier county, and there's
only one that I'm concerned of. And that's the one that is in the
receiving area on US 41. It's the largest receiving area in Collier
County.
That's where you're going to see most of the development
because out there that's not environmental concerns. You got Six-L
Farms out there, Florida Farms.
So there's no problems with the environment or ecology to go
ahead and build homes there. I think that's one of the reasons that
area was set up for a receiving area.
Since the article, we have six projects that are underway in our
receiving area, six different companies or entities that are either in the
architectural aspect of it or in the SDP aspect of it.
We have -- some of the projects we own. Some -- we have an
industrial development out there of-- the total development is 56
acres. And we have 16 acres of industrial and then commercial.
We have an office supply company that anticipated moving in
there with 32 employees. We have a bottling company with 22
employees. And we have a marine manufacturing company with 17
employees. We have, of our own projects, we have an RV and a
water park that we're in an SDP for.
We have 87,000 feet of retail and we have a commitment by a
major hotel chain for an 82 unit motel in the receiving area.
Since the article hit, five of the projects have been put on hold.
Concerns are that all these projects have to have economic feasibility.
And we mn into the finding aspect of it.
Page 342
July 30-31, 2002
One of the projects has a commitment for an SBA loan. The
other -- the other project is working with USDA. In those situations,
you got to prove up jobs. We thought we were headed in light of the
TDRs and what was imposed on that section of Golden Gate, we
thought that this made a lot of sense, because if we could bring in
jobs and the total jobs are 141, that 80 percent of those people want
to live in the immediate area.
You were trying to accomplish with having a receiving area so
the TDRs would be valuable to those people that needed to transfer
those TDRs from a sending area to a receiving area.
Well, five of the projects are put on hold. We went to SBA on
the one project, we said, if the impact fees are raised $500,000 just
for that one project, would you entertain financing those impact fees
or some portion of it? And they said no, because the economics of it
is that if for some reason the project goes down the tube and they
have to take back the projects, whether it's a manufacturing company
or whatever, they're bound by the economic value that is created in
the rent roles and what they can receive in that.
So they didn't feel that they could participate in the additional
cost. So then those companies are saying, let's stop. We're in the
architectural part of this until we see what happens.
And they are also concerned that if those people that they
employ move into the receiving areas that they won't be able to
afford house in there.
I'm just here to tell you how this effect, just from the newspaper
article, has caused now five companies that bring 141 employees, to
say, hey, maybe this is not the right thing to do.
And we were bringing in jobs into the receiving area, which is
what that whole thing was about. So I think you're going to trash
Page 343
July 30-31, 2002
your TDR Program if you bring the impact fees into the receiving
areas.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mario Curiale A1 Zichella. He will be followed
by Herb Savage.
MR. ZICHELLA: Commissioners, for the record, I'm A1
Zichella, WCI Communities and CBIA Governmental Affairs Chair.
And thanks for letting me speak today.
After hearing this presentation, I'd like to point out a few things
to you, I'm going to keep my remarks brief. I've been active e-mailer
to you, I know.
In the meantime, for the public record, let's talk about a few of
these issues. I noticed and am aware of some flaws in this thing. I
don't intend to get technical. I just want to reinforce a few things that
have already been said, but possibly from my perspective.
One of them item four on the chart and other item seven on the
chart, the first time where they do a fuel efficiency, where they leave
out, of course, heavy trucks.
And I think that's a fatal flaw to that part of the calculation. I
agree with Jeff Perry, it's inappropriate to exclude that stuff given
where we live and the nature of high the number of those roads and
they are buying gas.
So to leave them out of the equation grossly underestimates gas
tax revenues. I think -- that's on the credit side of the equation.
I'm hoping that's not a convenient mistake and just an honest
one, but in any event, we need to factor those things back in.
Item seven dealt with Interstate mileage reduction from 6
percent to 13 percent. Again, I agree it's unjustified.
Everybody -- it is one of the main north-south corridors in the
county. To deny that is naive. Anybody who lives here travels up
Page 344
July 30-31, 2002
and down that Interstate on a regular basis that go from north to
south.
Particularly, if you live on the east side of town I submit to
anybody who does. So to reduce that from 6 to 13, I think is
disingenuous.
Some other points I'd like to make refer to the traffic counts. I
heard it in a number of these equations. Well, I think we know by
now they do not have the data. They may say they do, but they do
not.
We have two permitted traffic set ups in this county and two in
the box, unless they've recently taken them out, which give us a
generous number of four. And they're all in the wrong place for this
kind of data and I just don't believe they have what they say they
have on this or the concurrency issue, which is not at question today.
I'm just telling you to remember that, it what it is and I heard a
lot of debate about the credibility of the numbers. And frankly, I'm
skeptical.
And we think we found numerous errors in their report, some of
them are self-admitted and some of them are just merely clerical.
But hey, this is their there presentation we're sitting through here
and I would hope that it would all be right.
The justification for what we have before us is shocking frankly
and is inadequate. And in my opinion, it not very well considered to
think that we could increase this amount of money in road impact
fees in three years, I think just strings credulity.
We have not seen or heard anything that this presentation that
gives me any comfort that those numbers those are night.
I urge you to think this thing through and give us more time to
look at this. I don't think we are on fire. We already have, it was
pointed out before, the highest impact fees in the State.
Page 345
July 30-31, 2002
To speak to that issue on affordable housing, I think on a 2,000
foot house with $18,000 worth of impact fees that comes $9 a square
foot for impact fees.
I will tell you, because I'm a contractor, that it would cost about
$11 a square foot to build structure.
Okay. Nine dollars for impact fees, $11 to build the building.
That doesn't include of course the finishes, we are talking about the
structure. That's a shocking number. I urge you to think about that.
As I said, I think it's impossible to achieve that increase in the --
or to justify an increase in only three years.
We heard some conversation about statewide comparables and I
think they may be incorrect. I've done a lot of conversations this
weekend, I was in Orlando at the Southeast Builders Conference. I
talked to a lot of people who serve on a lot committees around the
State, I won't bore you with who or how many, but many. The
remarks to me were they think we're crazy. It doesn't cost us to build
road anywhere in the State.
DOT, I will tell you, does not agree with the conclusions
reached here today and they are certainly not liberal in how they
figure this stuff. They're very conservative and they don't agree with
the conclusions we heard today.
One joke I found particularly funny was said to me over the
weekend, we're going to rename Collier County to Fantasy Land, so
that's how we're being thought of around the State of how the
magnitude of our increases.
Having said that, we at the building industry, we've
acknowledged that we may need to look at road impact fees.
We have always said and we'll say again, we want to pay what
our fair share is. This just is more than strains credulity. It's just
unbelievable.
Page 346
July 30-31, 2002
And what we're getting -- I though was watching a cooking
show, I waiting for someone to say, let's kick it up. It's just not a fair
appraisal. Let's not cook the books let's get it right.
I urge you to put it off so we can have some hearings and go
through a sensible procedure and come to where we need to be for
what's good for everybody.
That concludes my remarks. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this time, before we go to the next
speaker, we're going to give our recorder a short break so she can rest
her fingers. That means you can take a break too.
Thereupon, (Brief recess was taken, after which the following
proceedings were had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats. Herb, I
believe you're the next speaker.
MR. SAVAGE: Let's start off with, for the record, I'd like to
know if everyone in the rear is hearing me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're hearing you on Marco
Island.
MR. SAVAGE: Sometimes I think the controller of the sound
ought to be back where I was a while ago. What did you say, Mr.
Mudd?
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you all the tremendous
stamina that you have to sit here and listen to all of these magnificent
speakers.
They had and all kinds of the things to talk about and very, very,
well done. I'm here just to tell you one or two things about early
Page 347
July 30-31, 2002
Florida. Is Mr. Jarvi still here? He's an engineer and he knows every
section line, 16, 15, 16, 17, and every one of those line north and
south and east and west.
What was it, very significant in Florida? You can see it from an
airplane. There was a road on that section line going north, going east
or west.
And it's amazing to me here in Collier County, and I'm sure that
there were roads done years ago without an architect or a planner or
an engineer to make magnificent design, ambiance, aesthetics.
Acoustics?
But those roads went north and south and east and west and they
were every mile. And if I had followed that here in Collier County,
we wouldfft be asking for more fees because of the fact that there
would be a road going through that area, north and south, east and
west.
Look at all of those gated communities which cut off that traffic
going east and west, north and south.
I'm asking Mr. Schmitt, do they pay impact fees for those roads
that they paid for when the built them? Are they dedicated to the city
and county? Those are public roads. There should be access from
every point in this county going from north, south, east and west.
You wouldn't need any of those excessive building of roadways
in order to have left-mm lanes, right-mm lanes. That's a small part.
I think of a sieve in a strainer, all those little wires and you pour
water into that and water goes through that sieve and if you don't
clean that wire once in awhile that gets clogged up with algae and the
water will not go through unless you punch a hole in the bottom of it
such as 1-75 that you can go on through.
But the rest of it is not available for that water. And I say the
same thing about our road. If we don't have a road every mile east
Page 348
July 30-31, 2002
and west, north and south, we're going to have that confusion. That's
algae, I call it.
It's a shame we didn't plan it that way. It's not very exciting to
look at, but it is a magnificent way of continuing the traffic.
Another thing I want you to ask you to think about is, I think
Mr. Schmitt is not here, but I don't believe we charged impact fees
for additions to homes? Is that correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we do.
MR. SCHMITT: We do? I thought we did not. Anyhow, we
may have changed that, but we did not charge impact fees for
additions to homes.
And I think there's so many houses here that have been bought
and raised except for maybe one wall and put a much larger addition
on that house and paid no impact fee.
I can remember the early lots of Marco Island on Caxambas
Pass, when we opened it in 1965, $18,000 was the most expensive lot
we had. Today it's a million and a half for that same lot.
My point again is, there should be some legal method of when
they sell that for a million and a half dollars, that the county or the
city should be getting some revenues based on that increased value.
And evidently, we don't do that. Someone gets it. I'm assuming
a sales profit. But those are revenues -- I think-- we have to have an
impact fee. We are going to have to have one. You got to raise it. I
just hope you can pick out a figure that everyone can be happy with.
And they will not be.
Just remember this, ladies and gentlemen, wherever we have
them, we should have them in gated communities as well as those
plain old streets that every Tom, Dick, Mary and Harry drive on and
work on.
I ask you to think about that seriously.
Page 349
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson and he will be followed by
Mario Curiale.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, for the record my name is Bruce Anderson.
I'm not going to address the merits or the lack thereof of the
proposed increases. Instead, I want to focus my attention and ask you
to focus yours for a moment about the manner of implementation of
this particular increase for this particular time.
I urge you to grandfather in, under the existing road impact fees,
those persons who have previously filed applications for site
development plan approval.
The rational for that is, is that your Planning Department has
been understaffed for approximately the last year and the site
development plan review and approval process has not been able to
be completed in a timely fashion due to that short staffing.
I believe they are perhaps now back up to full staff and I'm glad
to know that. But these applicants have been delayed for not being
able to obtain a site development plan and then after that a building
permit because of this understaffing.
It's not fair to charge the new increase to those who have been in
the process trying to timely obtain their permits. And I would just
ask you to grandfather in under the existing fees for this particular
increase those who have been in the process. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mario Curiale. He will be followed by Joseph
Bruce.
MR. CURIALE: Good afternoon. I'm here and I heard so much
about all of this statistic. The last time I remember is 25 years ago
and I was in college and I had a headache.
Page 350
July 30-31, 2002
And now I got a migraine because after all the statistics was
said, I don't think I understood anything they said.
There's a lot of numbers they pull out of their hats, whatever it
is, the number they came up to is really hard for me to understand
and also the audience here to understand.
What I try to point out here is that all these years for the past
five, six, 10 years all the major developments that's been taking place
in the Southwest part of Florida, which is actually the primary
properties, which is in Florida.
And somehow maybe we missed the boat to collect the right
impact fees as we needed today. The sprawl that we left today is
sprawled from 75 and east.
And the reason why a lot of people here put the sign up and
says, the rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer, or whatever it is,
because on that side of 75, it's all the working force people of Marco
Island, of Naples.
I deal with these people day in and day out. They are struggling
to make it here. It's hard for them. It's hard for everyone else to
understand.
This year was implemented a new code. The code alone
increased the cost of an average home to around 10 to $15,000.
That's an average home.
You go build a home about 200 or $300,000, but it's $30,000 for
the new impact for the new windows, lumber, whatever you need to
do.
This additional increase in cost, they put a strain on this younger
family. They both work, husband and wife. They have a couple of
kids, and including my kids are struggling the same way and it's hard
for them to make a down payment on a house, it's very harsh. Put an
additional cost in that, it's extremely hard.
Page 351
July 30-31, 2002
Why we have arrived at this point? What blows my mind is we
just finished 951 two years ago, Collier Boulevard, from a single lane
traffic to four lanes and now we need to an additional lane for
easement to enlarge it to six lanes.
If those people that were here before the staff which are really
smart people and they knew ahead of time, they would to buy
easement at that time before all of the other developments took place.
I mean, you don't have to be a brilliant scientist here. You just
finished Radio Road around seven months ago. Today I'm driving
through there, I almost got run over by a truck because they change
the interchange lane, left lane, right lane.
Do they know ahead of time when the don't they design the
roads that they need a center lane here, they need a detour here?
We spend additional costs, maybe we don't do you the study
properly. Another question, I have here before I give you a second
answer to that is impact fees reflect only Collier County road or also
pertain to State roads? I don't know. The collector-- what are we
talking about? State roads or county roads or all together?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County roads.
MR. CURIALE: If we talk about county roads itself, we should
have some blending, togetherness, with the DOT also.
Somehow, we have -- how these guys come up with his
ridiculous price how to build these roads? I'm driving on 41 from
Barefoot Williams Road all the way up to, what do you call it,
Rattlesnake Hammock? They got about 100 vehicles out there and
only got 10 guys working.
But today they use one machine and tomorrow another. Bottom
line is, is this guy working TNM or working contracts? I don't know.
Maybe it's something we should find out.
Page 352
July 30-31, 2002
As far as raising impact fees. I think everyone should get a
share of it. Not only these people that are going to -- because the
sprawl of building is in the east part, which is all Golden Gate
Estates. All of the west part has already been built except a few
developments taking place.
So my recommendation is, I know we got a cap with the state
legislation, but make sure we go to them and change such things
called, what do we call it? Tourist taxes. We can raise the tourist
tax. We don't have to put the pinch on these people.
If you all drove here today, you guys have any problem getting
over here today? You have a lot of traffic today? How long did it
take you guys to get over here? Five minutes?
Can I have one more minute?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wrap it up, sir.
MR. CURIALE: In other words, we don't have a traffic
congestion now, but when season arrives the traffic congestion exists.
Let them who causes the congestion pay part of these impact
fees.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm just wondering that if
everyone that's applauding this supported the half penny for roads?
Because I will tell you and I said it when it happened, it will
come and haunt you like a ghost. And here's the ghost. Because that
half penny for roads, we wouldn't be in here today looking at these
numbers.
So that gives everyone something to think about for the future.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Joseph Cruz. And he will be
followed by Dawn Roupp.
MR. CRUZ: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to
address you today. Commissioners. My name is Joseph Cruz and I'm
Page 353
July 30-31, 2002
representing the United Hispanics of Southwest Florida, Collier
County Chapter.
And the United Hispanics of Southwest Florida is an
organization created to represent and advocate for the best interest of
the Hispanic Americans here in Southwest Florida.
And we, United Hispanics of Southwest Florida, represent the
voice of thousands Hispanic families currently living in Collier
County, who, after years of hard work and dedication, have reached
the necessary economic level to realize their dreams of becoming
homeowners.
We also speak of thousands of hard working Hispanic men and
women whose jobs or businesses are directly or indirectly dependent
on the construction industry.
We believe if a road impact fee tax is approved by the Collier
County Commission, it will have a devastating affect on their jobs
and their businesses.
Furthermore, it will have a greater devastating effect on the
economy in general.
Therefore, the exorbitant of more than 200 percent tax increase
if raised most definitely the down payment requirements to levels out
of reach of the average working family.
A reduction of qualified home buyers will slow down or stop
builders who serve the needs of housing at a cost affordable by the
budget of the average working family.
We further believe that the massive layoff of construction
workers estimated to be over 80 percent Hispanics will generate
serious losses to those financial institutions who finance their homes.
We further believe that the business sector will suffer sharp
reduction in revenues, lose the ability to operate, which will lead to
unemployment, defaults and bankruptcy.
Page 354
July 30-31, 2002
The large majority of those adverse impacted by the road impact
fee tax as proposed will be Hispanics, who represent over 20 percent
of the population in Collier County.
Hispanic households in Collier County generate nearly one
billion dollars annually into the economy, plus help adding several
billion dollars more in property values to the creativity of their
unique labor and craftmanship.
The Commission has the duty and the responsibility to provide
opportunity and service to all residents, not to implement policy with
or without intention impact any particular group with disparity.
The road impact fee tax, if approved, will effect the Spanish
adversely. But not other sectors of the population who afford such a
tax burden.
Other county services agencies, like law enforcement maybe in
the process of developing another proposed impact fee tax to follow
the one under consideration.
Therefore, given the above mentioned reasons, we, the United
Hispanic of Southwest Florida, request the Collier County
Commissioners to oppose the road tax fee as proposed.
We further suggest that the County Commissioners and their
staff, that is, that the County Commissioners ask their staff to seek
other options to generate revenues for road funding.
We further suggest that the County Commissioners ask their
staff to evaluate and make recommendations about requesting from
the State legislation authorization to impose a transfer fee tax on sale
or purchase of transactions based on the excess of the sales price over
the tax assessed value of their property.
And lastly, we suggest that the County Commissioners ask their
staff to consider raising property taxes mills to provide a revenue
source that will keep pace with growth as new construction develops.
Page 355
July 30-31, 2002
I thank you for your time today. And again, we hope you
oppose this and give you the time to consider it.
MS. FILSON: Dawn Roupp. She'll be followed by Ilen
Estrada.
MS. ROUPP: Thank you. For the record, Dawn Roupp. I'm 41
years old. I've lived in Collier County my whole life. My family has
lived here for more than 60 years.
I remember when Highway 41 was only a two-lane highway. So
I realize the work that needs to be done in the county on the roads.
I travel the roads every day. My husband and I are part of the
work force that everyone is speaking about.
My husband and I are also some of the people that are trying to
build a home first time. And we have worked very hard for 10 years
to get to the point where we could do this.
And they have come up with these new impact feel. And it's
terrifying to us. As it was we barely qualified to build this house that
we wanted to build. We even went through the County Assistance
Program, the SHIP Program, and they raked us through the coals and
we needed that money to do with what we already had to build our
home.
We have children that go to school here. And like I said, both
myself and my husband work in this county. And when -- if these
impact fees go through the way they plan them, we won't be able to
live in this county.
We won't be able to afford it. Like I said, my family has lived in
this county for as long as I can remember. I want to raise my
children in this county, and it's getting harder every day.
And it seems like the working man, the people of the work
force, are going to have to carry the burden, the ultimate burden, of
Page 356
July 30-31, 2002
all of these new impact fees and road construction costs and every
other thing that they can come up with. Thank you very much.
MS. ESTRADA: Good afternoon. My name is Elaine Estrada.
I'm here representing, I really don't know who I'm representing,
myself as a sales person, myself as a Hispanic, as myself involved in
new construction. So here I am, all three of us.
I really can't touch -- everyone has touched on everything I
wanted to speak on. I'm just going to answer one of the gentleman
that spoke earlier.
Any civilization is based on its people, the family. The strength
of the family is their home.
The decision that you make is harsh. And I don't want to be in
your shoes because it would be very difficult. You have to comply
with your jobs to renew our streets, but you have to be in balance
with everyone that is going to be effected.
We would be hypocrites to say that we are defending someone's
else calls. We're here defending our own, and also the lady east that
just spoke.
This is going to effect us personally in our businesses, but we
are also here voicing those people that we help every day.
It is extremely difficult to get a first-time buyer to be able to buy
a wetland lot out on Everglades on 68th Avenue where he has to
travel every morning at least 25 miles to get to, let's say, North
Collier-- Naples Community Hospital, and on top of that go through
the DEP to get a permit, pay extra money for that.
The extra construction cost right now because of the new
hurricane codes. And now this, it's just going to bombard -- it's just
going to throw a lot of people out of the market.
Page 357
July 30-31, 2002
And Lee County has their arms open waiting for all these people
we want to get rid of. We have to do something to help these
families.
Naples -- it's a shame that this problem has put us front to front
with a gentleman that's 80 years old who represents one that 80 year
old vote and a young family of a lady who's 25, who represents a
vote.
And you have to represent all your constituents. The ones have
been three generations and the ones that have been here just three
months.
It's difficult on your part. I don't like your position. But the fact
of the matter is, if you make this impact fee go through, you will be
eliminating the American dream from a lot of American families,
young American families who are trying to raise their families here in
Naples, because it's a wonderful place to live and raise children.
It's a shame that we have to go some place else because it is to
expensive for us. It is a shame that we have to fight between the big
builder and the little builder.
We're all trying to survive and I think that the point is that we
have to do something equitable.
It's not fair for someone who's buying a 1,500 square foot home
out on DeSoto Boulevard -- where they're out in the boonies, then
someone that's seeing the sunset of the Gulf every single day.
I don't think that's equitable. It isn't a sin to be rich. We all
want that sin if it is, but the fact of the matter is that we have to be
equitable.
It isn't fair for a young family that their dream is being taken
away -- it's our obligation for all of us to be wealthy, because if we're
wealthy, we can help someone else stand up on their own two feet
and become a worthy citizen contributing.
Page 358
July 30-31, 2002
We don't want people going to, I feel, to subsidized housing if
they don't have to when they can make their dream come true of
owning their home.
It's going to wipe out the dream of a lot families. I feel at this
stage in our country where we don't know if we're going to be here
tomorrow because some nut is going to blow us up or nuke is out that
we have to worry that our dream -- we have to get illusion, the dream
that we're going to own our own home and have a back yard for our
children and that dream is being taking away.
And especially to the Hispanic community. The Hispanic
community is a new immigration in this country. But it's just the
same as the Irish when the came or the Polish when they came.
We're just the target right now because we're the newest
immigration. We're hard working immigration. And we can't go
anywhere. We can't go back to Cuba or where we came from so we
have to make it here.
And we have to fight for what we need. We need our homes
that's our foundation of family. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Lawrence Huss. And he will be followed by
Susan Pareigis.
MR. HUSS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I own Creative
Homes of Southwest Florida, and five other supporting companies
that are all related and dependent on the first-time home buyer.
We average approximately 36 full time employees another 100
working subcontractors. And probably built more houses in Golden
Gate than any other person.
For your information, close to percent of my employees live in
Lee County now. They do use the 1-75 parking lot during the season,
which is going to be full-time from the looks of it.
Page 359
July 30-31, 2002
They do that mainly because they can't afford to buy the same
type of house in Collier County then they do in Lee County. It's
getting worse.
If I'm understanding correctly, for eight years there was no study
done on impact fees. Therefore, people that bought homes during that
period of time, they didn't pay the correct impact fee.
Now, the new homebuyers have to pay for catch up. If the
property tax mill rate went down for those same people, in other
words, they didn't pay the correct impact fee, the mill rate has been
reduced five of the last six years, what does this cost Collier County?
What is costing is what you are presenting today, gentlemen.
The first-time home buyer that cannot afford that type of an increase.
I talked to a few county staff people two and a half, three weeks
ago, and they predicted from 20 to $26,000 of impact fees on the
smallest house you can build in Collier County.
Well, it sounds like that has readjusted. I took figures and said
probably 24,000 if it went to that point. That means that that person
would have to pay $59,000 over the course of a 30-year loan.
$59,000 for a first-time homebuyer for the smallest house they
can build, which is 1,000 square feet with no garage.
That is more then I -- then the cost of the houses, impact fees
and everything else was just seven, eight years ago, just the fee.
That's incredible. What you're doing to me is saying, okay,
we're cutting your business in half, Mr. Huss. You can take half of
your employees, lay them off, and you can take half of your
subcontractors, lay them off, let them all commute to Lee County and
build house up there.
There will be no choice. I can't say in Collier County. That's
the situation we're up against right now. Quite honestly, we have to
have money to pay for the new roads, but quite honestly, it's not been
Page 360
July 30-31, 2002
a fair and equitable solutions for the last 10 years. We have not
brought enough money into it to pay for it.
Does growth pay for growth? Hell no, I will tell you that. No, it
does not pay for growth. What happens to that person for the last 10
years ago, you say the last two years it went up 20 percent each year.
That's a tremendous amount for that person that never paid impact
fees and his ad valorem taxes went down in five of the last six years.
He's sure paying this fair share, isn't he?
Now, at least they can look at a situation and say, okay, fine,
they lived here for that period of time, they took advantage of all
these breaks, the tremendous rate evaluation that they went through.
They're going to be making thousands and thousands and thousands
of dollars off that lot because of the tax increase right now, the
impact fees, they sell their home.
They move to a condo, to an apartment, whatever. The new
person moves in here from where? As you said, Mr. Carter, that
person comes in here, could have two, three, four, five kids, a
household of five to eight people, or possibly more. What do they
pay for impact fees? Zero. Absolutely nothing.
Yet, we're supposed to take the people, like this young lady that
has lived here all of her life, worked all of her life to get into a first-
time home buyer situation finally gets there and says, oh, geez, sorry,
go to Lee County, we don't want you down here.
My time is up, but I think you get the drift of the whole thing.
This is not a fair tax. We have to do something else or you're going
to have a one-way street. The moat is already is there. You're
closing the doors.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Susan Pareigis and following
her will be Keith Basik.
Page 361
July 30-31, 2002
MS. PAREIGIS: Good afternoon, my name is Susan Pareigis
and I serve as the President for the Economic Development Council
of Collier County.
I must share with you that I didn't craft the remarks that I'm
going to say in the next minute. But I would share with you that I left
a prospect today to come to the meeting.
We had originally scheduled to speak on this issue yesterday and
the prospect flew in last night and we took him around town today
and we are now in the throws of trying to talk to the prospect on what
the bottom line cost will be to operate in Collier County.
And it's a bit of a moving target at the movement, very difficult
conversation. About three weeks ago, the EDC hosted the Secretary
of Community Affairs, Steve Seibert in Naples.
His comments included positive accolades for the process our
county used in the eastern land assessment review and how it can be
used as a State an National model.
Secretary Seibert also lotted our community on having all the
stakeholders together at the same table, at the same time, and also
acquiring the Collier specific data that was used in deriving
recommendations and conclusions.
In listening to the consultants presentation, subsequent questions
by our commission, I heard from the staff that the numbers are the
numbers.
However, I also heard our lead consultant, Bob, state in reply to
Commissioner Fiala's question about 1-75 regional commuting traffic,
that without detailed local studies those trip characteristics and
impacts were not included in the fee calculations.
For those of us who don't live in Tampa, but rather in Collier
County and travel 1-75 on a daily and weekly basis, we understand
Page 362
July 30-31, 2002
there's significant impacts from a large percentage of our labor force
traveling to and from our county on a daily basis.
A local 1-75 trip generation study is most definitely warranted.
In addition, for those of us who live in Collier County, we understand
that we have made significant strides towards understanding what
total build out is acceptable to our local citizens.
Our elected commissioners have also made changes in our
Comp Plan, LDC, to reflect those desired changes.
For those local build out changes not to be included in the useful
life calculation of our roadways is misleading and inaccurate.
Build out certainties must be included in deriving the useful life
of our roads in those proposed impact fee calculations.
While the EDC agrees that adequate mobility for roads, airports
and seaports, is one factor in site selection.
Another very important consideration is the economics, or the
bottle line of the project. Currently, we have higher land cost, a lack
of work force housing and a neighboring county which has a million
and a half dollars annually to issue checks to companies that consider
moving to our neighboring county.
Admittedly, we have many attributes that our neighbors do not
have. However, at the end of the day, the fiscal side of the project
must be economically viable.
Even today in our rapidly changing economy, the EDC is
charged with expanding and recruiting high wage jobs to Collier
County.
However, in our enterprise zones of Immokalee and Everglade
City. We assist all job creation and retention.
The proposed fee increases are not physically viable for those
struggling in high unemployment areas in our community.
Page 363
July 30-31, 2002
With the current challenges for these communities, economic
development is quickly priced out at the possibility of consideration
for many local expansion projects and business considering Collier
County as their future business destination.
Historically, the EDC has always supported an equitable and
proportioned share of cost to be incurred by new demands placed on
our infrastructure.
However, we have a considerable number of questions regarding
the methodology, the assumptions and the sources of non-local data
that was used in the proposed road impact fee calculations.
In closing, the EDC cannot advise our public partner, in our
public-private partnership, on the fees before you today as they were
recalculated and given to us in the hall less than 48 hours ago.
We respectfully request a public workshop on this singular issue
and direct staff to obtain the missing specific local data that will
derive an accurate and timely percentage increase for road impact
fees prior to the workshop.
We would also suggest meeting facilities that allows adequate
public participation and no constraints be placed on the type of
questions that may be directed to staff and our consultants at the
workshop.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Keith Basik and he will be
followed by your final speaker Bill Macrides.
MR. BASIK: Good afternoon. This is my first time in front of
the County Commissioners, so hello to everyone.
A couple of quick things. I really don't have a prepared speech
here, but I just wanted to go over some items that people seated in the
back wanted to bring to the forefront.
Page 364
July 30-31, 2002
First of all, from a equitable standpoint, it doesn't-- basically,
everything I'm hearing, it doesn't sound as though this is the most
equitable way to go about solving the problems in terms of finding
the funds for the roads.
I think the burden, obviously, from everything we're hearing, is
the onus of it is falling on the individuals who live here and who
work here.
And I don't think anybody here can say otherwise. The question
is, do you want -- is that where you want the burden placed? Is that a
fair way to do it?
I don't think it is. I think -- you have a bag of tricks that you
could pull little tricks out, little toys out, but we seem to be grabbing
the same one for the past three, four four years.
We need to find out and look in the bag of tricks and see what
else is in there from a creative standpoint that we could get to
generate this revenue.
I think one of the things, don't know much about it, one of the
things that came to me mind initially was the gas tax.
The gas tax seems to be the most logical, equitable way to
generate a lot of this revenue.
I talked briefly with Burt Sanders about it. Our thought was that
we go to the State legislators and find out, given the fact that we're
Naples, Florida, I've been reading over the past four years that we're
either the first or second fastest-growing county in the County.
And if we can't go to our State legislators and say, we need an
exception. We need to go ahead and take off that cap and we need
for the State legislatures to help us.
And the way we could do it, it seems to be the easiest way -- not
necessarily the easiest way, but the most equitable way to do, it is ask
that question.
Page 365
July 30-31, 2002
And in talking to him, he said if it was postponed. If this whole
idea was postponed and basically we would need five or three
Commissioners out of the five to ask that question, go to State
legislatures and say do -- can we do anything with the cap?
I'm sure we could provide them data after data as to why we
should maybe have a relook at that cap.
So that's the first thing I wanted to throw out. And I appeal to
the County Commissioners to at least ask that question and at the end
of this, find out whether or not an inquiry is within reason.
Second of all, in the hopes of trying to gain additional revenue,
you, in fact, might be hurting or reducing the revenue that we get on
impact fees.
Let me give you a quick example. I think my father was up
here, we own an RV park. Impact fees for that RV park are anywhere
from four to $600,000 before we put a shovel in the ground.
From an economic standpoint, we barely make it. If you were to
come back and say, okay, we're going to increase it three or four
times that amount, that's $2,000,000.
I'm telling you right now, we walk away from that project.
What has happened? You could have had 400 to $500,000 on road
impact fees from us because we're able to go ahead, create that, and
there's additional revenue you could get from the tourist and a
number of different sources because of that RV Park, but in essence,
you're losing out on 400,000, because you've impacted us too greatly.
So the net effect is you lost money. That's what you got to look
at. And I think Todd Gates made a very valid statement, you have a
sucking sound. Well, that sucking sound costs you money.
So in one sense you're saying I want to go ahead -- it's just like
Ray Crock, the whole idea behind McDonald's was the fact that the
Page 366
July 30-31, 2002
burgers were reasonable. But he made money basically, you know, at
a low price.
But the fact is if you hit them too hard, they're not going to come
here. So the net effect is you lost money and that's what you got to
look at it.
The final thing I got to say is I think the EDC, the lady from the
EDC brought it up just a second ago, there's holes in this plan.
I keep looking at it and I'm wondering why do we have -- why is
there such a rush? I mean why today?
I think there's holes in the plan. And that's why there's a rush.
We don't want to expose the holes. We don't want to expose the
holes in it.
Well, gosh dam it, if I'm not mistaken or maybe I'm a bad man,
but I bet you in two months from now, this county still exist and still
functioning if we wait.
So that's what I think you got to look at. I got to read the rules
before I come in here. But that's what you got to look at. Why is
there such a rush? This is a very, very important decision.
And so I think it's because there's holes in it. I think people
want to get it off their desk. I think there's people from the staff have
done a tremendous job, but I think this needs to be looked at, give it
two months. We'll survive. Thank up.
MR. MCCREATIS: How are you doing gentlemen and Donna.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're a sight for sore eyes.
MR. MCCREATIS: Because I'm last or because it's been
awhile, Jim?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Both ways. Glad to see you.
MR. MCCREATIS: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to
you all. You've had very, very, many eloquent speakers. Okay. I'm
Page 367
July 30-31, 2002
not going to be one of them. I'm not political correct. Okay. I'm just
one of our people if the community. Okay. Someone that cares.
I've got issues with some of the things that are happening, and I
don't understand them, as I'm sure very, very many of the people in
the county don't either because a lot of this stuff, it's way above us.
We don't get into the day-to-day politics that you all deal with,
hourly, sometimes minute to minute. All of a sudden, out of
nowhere, we're watching people's lives being threatened and possibly
destroyed.
I'm here because I don't know what else to do. Who do we turn
to? We can't sit on our hands. We can sit back and watch it happen
because if you're not on the field, you're not in the game. If you're
not in the game, you can't win.
And you got to come here and say something. My problem is
I'm scared to death for these young families who are struggling.
Because it wasn't all that many years ago that each one of you may
not have had to go through the struggle that I went through, but I
remember working three jobs. Three. Two of them full-time, one
part time, a hundred hours a week because I had a wife and two kids.
And I wanted to have a home. I was tired of paying rent. This
idea of low-income housing and affordable housing, real quick side
note, I just had to put my ex-wife into one of these communities. Do
you know what their idea of affordable low rent was for her and my
two children, $950.
She takes home $335 a week, as a full-time employee. She's
been working for this accompany for five years. That's not low-
income to me people.
Okay. And if you were to go apply for a mortgage, they sit and
tell you your income -- or your mortgage should not be more than 25
percent of what your gross income is.
Page 368
July 30-31, 2002
But $950 is affordable income? Okay. I have a problem with
that. Now, you're talking about raising an impact fee on this new
housing, okay, that is going to effect these so-called low-income and
affordable housing communities where these people are having to
move into.
Not only are they going to get hit with an additional fee, they're
going to turn around and they're going raise that fee for these young
families and these single mothers with their kids, that that 950 is a
going to be cheap bargain.
Okay. I'm worried about these people and I'm worried about
these kids. It's not just my kids and my wife -- I could care, you
know.
They're important to me and one way or another, I'll make sure
they survive. That's my job. Okay. But what about the people that
are out there having to struggle and work in the lower incomes that
aren't making the $335, $380 a week.
They're working for McDonald's, they're trying, they're not
trying to turn to a life of crime. They're trying to do the right thing
and we're cheating them out of everything.
We're taking their dream away. And it's not right. I can't
believe the numbers these guys are spewing off.
I sat here in your audience and I listened on how we are
planning a 25 year plan. I've been here 32 years. Guys, I got news
for you, you missed the boat. Okay.
If you're planning out 25 years, why the hell are we here today?
And this theory that we're using the statistics and we're using proven
methods for the last 11 years, guess what? Why are we here today if
they work so damn well.
Page 369
July 30-31, 2002
I don't have the answers. I know it's not penalizing the poor
people that are struggling to get a down payment to even qualify for a
loan. It's not right. It's not fair.
And Larry was right when he said growth doesn't pay for
growth. You can't use these models and National figures for our
community, because if we could our growth weight wouldn't be
number or two in the Nation.
Yeah, I know. But the bottom line of it is, we're here and we're
people and we all have been down at the bottom at one point, trying
to figure out how to survive and live in this town. And we got one
thing that we can do, we can worry about the people or we can watch
them leave.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll recognize as Commissioner
Fiala for the first commissioner to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's just a fast comment on Mr.
McCuan's -- there's an element out there in our community who
really don't care about the work force. They only care about their
pocketbooks and their savings and tax dollars.
You hit a lot of cords with a lot of us who do care. There's a
certain element out there that doesn't and never will.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that the last of the public
speakers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the last of the speakers. Mr.
Feder, I imagine you got quite a few things you want to cover.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, first of all, what I want to do is
thank everybody that everything came out today and spoke. An
awful lot of people with very, very definite concerns and good
reason. I appreciate them coming out.
Page 370
July 30-31, 2002
I do want to tell you for the 250,000 people that aren't here
today, we do need to try and wrap up and hit some of the points that
were made.
I'm going to try to address the technically aspects of the impact
fee itself for transportation.
There's a lot of other issues that have been addressed that are
related and I'm going to ask Joe Schmitt to hit the issues relative to of
affordable housing, economic development and some of the other
aspects related to it.
I guess the way that I can be as brief as I can and try to
summarize is to tell you that in all this discussion you heard so far
today, including our presentation the issues raised at least on he
technical end of it, we're talking about a formula that's been this
community that has been used in other communities around the state
and it was developed by Tindle-Oliver that was and used in 1991
study and used in 1999 study, that has never been questioned in the
manner it's being questioned.
And you say why is all that questioning happening.9 And let me
tell you from that formula, what we have changed is not the formula,
not the methodology, only four factors. Four of the 12 factors.
Construction cost being one. Let me come back to that in a
minute.
The next factor that was changed is the gas tax credit. You
didn't hear anyone arguing about that today. You folks extended the
local option gas tax, credited accrues back appropriately that's been
adjusted. There's been some increased state tax, that's been adjusted.
That credit has gone up considerably.
Net result of that is theoretically to lower the amount of the
impact fee, obviously, we're talking about a very big increase anyway
Page 3 71
July 30-31, 2002
in spite of that. That one was not raised, it lowers it and gives full
credit for to those issues, and it should.
The next factor that we changed that was raised in there was so
much discussion on was the Interstate mileage reduction. I need to
put that in perspective and then go back and give you some options
on it.
But to put that in perspective that was added into the formula as
a credit in recognition that the State has a separate funding source for
the Florida Intrastate Highway System.
Basically that is the Interstate and major facilities around the
State. Here in Collier County it is only the Interstate, 1-75.
And the concept as Mr. Tindle made it clear to me when I
started into reviewing this process, was that other areas of the State,
like in Lake County with the Turnpike, like in Duval County with
major Interstate work, which is an awful lot of, as he put it, billions
of dollars being spent on this Intrastate system.
And therefore, since it's coming from a funding source it's not
available locally, it needs to be factored in as a credit.
I'll submit to you that over that last 12 years there's not been
significant dollars spent on the 1-75.
As a matter of fact, the most significant dollars might argue a
debit rather than a credit and that and that is the three years worth of
saving up of State and Federal dollars that could be used on your
arterial system off the Interstate system. That you did to fund the
Golden Gate Interchange, which will increase trips on the Interstate,
by providing other alternative route and leaving some of the system.
That's a good project.
I'm just pointing out that the nature of this issue that's under
debate, under discussion, is one of a credit for a component based on
Page 372
July 30-31, 2002
not how many trips, purely and simply, but based on the fact that it's
a credit, because there's another funding source to pay for it.
Has that come through? No. If it does not future, should you
had respond to it? Yes. But regardless of that, we said we would stay
with the formula and we did.
Our consultants have evaluated and looked at it and said that
should be six percent not 13.
Yes, there was a change and I think this is real important I need
to hit first and foremost. You folks have not been involved in this
study until we presented it to you. The change in 231 to 154 is, I'll
get to in a minute, is predominantly on construction costs, and a little
bit of this factor I'm talking about right now where we went from
three to six.
Originally, the consultant looked at it in formula and thought it
was local trips, local trips on the system, local trips on the Interstate.
And then was told, no, it's vehicles miles traveled, which is trips
times length. That adjustment brought it to six percent.
I will submit to you the debate that you had so far today, all this
debate, the issue is between three and 12 on the system that is giving
credit, I'm not sure how many other dollars are brought to bare.
The next component in this change is fuel efficiency. We have
provided by the industry the 2000 figure actually, by the folks here
that showed it as 20.1.
The biggest connotation there is we are not including trucks.
We don't include the Interstate trips on our component for capacity in
this system and other things and here we're giving a credit for the
Interstate system in the surplus and provisions as provided and most
of your truck vehicle miles on the Interstate system.
What I will tell you is those are the only three, other than cost,
first and foremost the gas tax credit, which nobody has debated, then
Page 373
July 30-31, 2002
the Interstate mileage, six versus 13. The vehicle fleet efficiency, the
question is 16.9 versus 20.1 because of truck efficiency. And then the
last is construction cost.
So before I get to that, let me tell you, if you were to use 13
percent on the Interstate, if you were to use 16.9 rather than 20.1, I'm
not sure how staff agrees with those, but nonetheless if you were, you
would change by 12 percent, and the resulting impact fee would end
up being about 18 percent change or in quick math, 136.
My point is, now I only have one factor to change that's
uncontested, that is construction cost and I'm talking about a 136
percent increase.
And the case of the construction cost, these are numbers in the
last two years that are bona fide numbers here. There's a lot of debate
about, gee, that's and awfully big increase from 2000.
I got a feeling today what happened in 2000. What I can tell
you is, essentially, in 2000, they had to estimate. We did not do that
on right-of-way. The reason we changed from 233 average to 154
average, was that we had to do too much estimating on right-of-way.
So we went back to more conservative, and what we were going
to review as an interim approach, and said we need to address that
next cycle when we do have better numbers for right-of-way.
So we already short of phased in this impact. Now I don't relish
here this large an increase. I would tell you that my only job was to
provide for you the number, the correct number.
I can tell you unequivocally, that 136, those costs, I'm very
comfortable with. I can tell you the others that I still feel we ought to
be using six percent, we ought to be using 20.1. Those are the only
two sources of technical debate that you heard in all this discussion.
Page 374
July 30-31, 2002
The inference of nobody has had it long enough, nobody has had
the opportunity. The issue has been out. It's been known that we
were going to update this formula in July for quite sometime.
The formula and the methodology has not changed in 12 years.
We've had extensive meetings and discussion over the last month.
Now, this is only one part of the equation. You've heard a lot
today. And the reason -- we still have other issues.
What I want to relate to you is that, essentially, what you're
talking about is actual numbers cost for projects and we have that
data.
If there's a big change from 2000, as gracious as I can be they
had to estimate. We did not.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development and Environmental Services Administrator.
I guess I can't put anything more in perspective than you've
heard from Patrick McCuan, Todd Gates, Bob Regan, David Ellis,
Herb Savage, Susan Pareigis, A1 Zichella. You've heard from them
all.
And those are areas -- certainly these are folks that I work with
weekly, daily and we talked about the impact on housing. We talked
about the impact on local economy. We talked on the impact on
economic development.
I think the real issue here is, I got some charts just so I can show
you what we're dealing with. And what you're looking at is issued
commercial and industrial permits. And for those who can't make
this out from the audience, we're really talking about from '92 up to
2001. It's industrial issued permits for -- commercial and industrial.
And we'll look at the square footage. And this is what is happening
right now in this county.
Page 375
July 30-31, 2002
Let me show you a couple of more slides, just so you can
understand the perspective when we talk about growth. These are the
issued permits for residential units; 4,205 in 2000. Those are issued
permits.
Now, let me just equate that with residential units. This is what
we're dealing with in the county when we're talking about growth.
And providing infrastructure to meet the demands of growth.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me ask you a question is that
last number date on the right hand side 2001.
MR. SCHMITT: That was last year, 8,500 approved residential
units last year in the county that were permitted.
The year before 7,883. So just look at the growth in the county.
Those are the permits that we are dealing with in Community
Development.
In between my staff and Norman's staff, what we've talking
about today is we need to fund -- we need to find a way to support the
construction of infrastructure to meet the demand of growth. That's
what we talked about all day.
Norm presented and his consultant presented the scientific facts
and presented the data and I talked a bit about the economic impact
and we know that.
You've heard from folks about both of the economic impact and
the low-income housing and we do have that. This is what we're
dealing with when we're looking at the county and the growth of the
county and dealing with this kind of growth, this kind of permitted
construction, I'm not talking about approved in PUDs. I'm talking
about hard, fact building permits. People come in and draw a permit
to begin construction.
Page 376
July 30-31, 2002
So this is what we're dealing with and we've been collecting
impact fees on those and of course the study validated that a
significant impact in the growth or in at least the cost of that.
I just want to, in closing, make sure the record is clear on three
things; remodeling. If Herb is here, yes, we do charge an additional
fee for remodeling if you go from one bracket to the next.
For instance, if your home is 1,500 to 2,499, and if you remodel
and go up into the next bracket, you pay the incremental impact.
Of course, our ceiling is 2,500. Could we have another bracket?
Probably. If you direct us to, we will go back and look at another
bracket.
We created the three brackets because of the low-income
housing impact. Less then 1,500 square foot was the bracket created
to give the low-income housing a break in impact fees.
So I think if we're looking at low-income housing, again, the
square footage is what defines land use and where the impact is, at
least from an impact analysis, when you look at the rational nexus.
So yes, we do charge an impact fee for remodeling.
I talked about the utilities. It was brought up about utilities and
being double charged. We are backing out the utilities up until
February when we expect to come back to you with the utility fee
study.
And we've already have a rate that we've developed that will
back out that cost and there will not be a double counting.
Haul fees. We heard something about, we're not charging for
trucks. Just to set the record straight, you directed us a year ago, we
came back, we've already implemented it. We did it in April of this
year.
Page 377
July 30-31, 2002
We charge a haul fee for vehicles that haul quantities, large
quantities of material on our road. You pay an $850 application fee
and you pay 4.7 cents a cubic yard.
And to give you an example, we just issued one permit for
100,000 cubic yards, $4,700 and that goes right into the
transportation coffers to pay for repairing of roads. So we do have
that right now where we charge a fee if those large vehicles hauling
any kind of type of materials on our county roads today, they pay for
that.
We already addressed that in that aspect and from that
perspective so you understand, I won't get any more unless you got
questions if you want to explore further on housing or any of the
other aspects.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go to Commissioner Carter first,
then Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You said it well, Joe. I made
this note sometime ago, which said how do we the community invest
in our community to pay for the infrastructure roads and services?
What is happening, in my judgment, is that we have an impact
fee that suddenly become a lighting rod. We can defer this. We can
have a workshop. We can go through this whole exercise again with
the stakeholders and community, I'm not sure at the end of the day if
the 136 percent figure will change. I don't know that. And I would
not for a minute suggest that it would.
But what I am thinking and what I think is so critical here, is we
need a workshop on revenue streams to pay for that statement in this
community, and we don't have it.
Because all day I heard what about gas taxes, ladies and
gentlemen, they're maxed by law. And when we did it we caught
Page 378
July 30-31, 2002
more hell then you ever want to think about. You didn't take it to
referendum.
This Board made that decision to do it. We have exercised every
opportunity to maximize an income stream that we could in the
power that has been vested in us without stepping out and getting into
big debates where we could get chewed up by entities that probably
don't understand anything that we said in this room today.
So that's going to be one part of my proposal for the future
income stream; assess it, where do you go, there's legislative
possibilities. There are other opportunities where we are going to
have to revisit how we allocate and what we do.
I've heard millage rate no more than four or five times today.
The lowest in the State of Florida. You're absolutely right. But on the
other side of it, your increases are coming because the property
appraisals have gone up so you've had an increase in value.
So where do we push that? We could increase the millage rate.
Absolutely we could increase it and then decrease the amount of
money you have to spend on roads.
We can have a penny for Collier and decrease what you have to
spend on impact fees.
But this Board of Count Commissioners body politic, if we try
to take it out and sell it, we will get crucified.
This community has to have a workshop where any and all these
ideas are discussed to determine what income streams we're going to
end up saying, this is what we want for our community and it has to
come from a wide range of stakeholders in this community.
It can be from the arts, from construction. It can be from social
services, it can be from anywhere. It has to be broad based and
inclusive, and then no one entity can knock you down.
Page 379
July 30-31, 2002
If we do it, body politic will get crucified. And we would be
back here long after I'm gone. Commissioners like in 1992 went
through the same exercise and they didn't remains the impact fees and
for eight years, they didn't do what they needed to do, and addressed
having the lowest millage rate in the State of Florida and we have
now reaped the harvest.
So where am I going to go with this? You got two stages here,
as far as I'm concerned as a board member, make a decision today
whether or not you're going to approve this impact fee structure for
roads or you're going to delay it 30 days, go to a workshop with
stakeholders, bring it back and determine if this what you're going to
do, but the bigger picture is get to a workshop on revenue streams
and figure out how you're going, we the community, invest in our
community to pay for the infrastructure roads and services. That's where I am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was stated the we do charge
dump trucks that impact the roadways an impact fee for that, is that a
credit in the calculation?
MR. SCHMITT: A road damage fee. That is a fee that is
assessed for large vehicles for hauling of dirt and material. It really
goes into the transportation fund to pay for maintenance of roads.
Not capacity, it pays for maintenance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The table that was used
for mitigation, there's a few things that I just don't get. I don't feel
comfortable in making a decision on something I don't feel
comfortable about the input that was given.
The mitigation cost is an overall cost of the whole network or is
it just an example of?.
Page 380
July 30-31, 2002
MR. FEDER: For that particular project, we go out to get our
permits and are required to offset purchase property, do other things
to mitigate usually for wetland impacts, so what you found, is I
pointed out, you got four projects that are upcoming where we've
estimated and in those projects, we have the feeling of very little
wetland impact.
You have the other four on that table so there's eight projects to
come to an average, where you have what it costs us after the permit
process and what we did to pay out the mitigation and we've
averaged those together.
And again, that's a figure that as, Commissioner Carer raised,
whatever you do today I would recommend as he has pointed out on
all funding sources, but also on ways to minimize particularly in
right-of-way and mitigation that are going to be the issues in the
future, that we do that, whether to follow up actions today or as part
of.
In answer to your question, on mitigation, first four estimated,
we don't see a lot the wetland impacts based on our plans and permits
as they stand now.
The other four are actual. They are a bit higher. They had some
wetland impact. So I would tell you in the future, unless we do
something, I would expect that mitigation will become a bigger part
of our cost, especially the nature of the projects that we're looking
going outside, more of the urban already disturbed area and more into
the expanded area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other question is the life
cycle of a road. Are we talking about actual life cycle or are we
talking about lane capacity of the road?
Page 381
July 30-31, 2002
MR. FEDER: You're talking the latter, sir. That's the important
thing to note. I'm not talking about the pavement length or whether
the road will be out there longer in that period of time.
We're talking about when you design capacity, when you build
that new capacity to meet the demand of growth, you design it to
address typically a 20 to 25 year horizon.
That's why you will find throughtout the State it's 20 to 25 years.
And we have not yet, and the other issue was raised as a good debate,
probably in upcoming cycles as well, we have not come close to
including at least in that 25 year horizon at this point in time, build
out and that may then change things.
If my build out was two years away, it becomes more of a moot
point. If I have the capacity today, that's the end of the issue and it's
not in demand.
But right now it is capacity, it's not the roadway itself. It is not
the pavement of the roadway either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're really not sure about
the numbers of build out? I hear that and depending on who you talk
to that figure -- it's a moving target.
MR. FEDER: It is a target that will move over to on based on
decisions and it's one that will come to a big source of discussion as
we go to update, with the new census data in, which will be done in
the end of 2003 for 2004 adoption.
Then I think you will have an awfully big discussion about
where we stand. We have now the rural lands. We have more pieces
of that puzzle coming together. We'll have a better shot at it.
That's something that we need to continue to look at, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For us to make a decision on
what each dwelling unit or land use should pay in impact fees,
Page 382
July 30-31, 2002
without applying real data here in Collier County, I don't think, again,
that we're doing just to the calculations for the people out there.
MR. FEDER: What I would tell you using an industry standard
that's used for your design and it's used nationally for that purpose,
Florida was one of the states, even got a better situation there non-
transit.
But I think a critical part of the component as well is to also
realize that we have an alternative calculations built in to our impact
fee process. And should anyone feel tIiat their project is a-typical of
the standard, they have the ability to come in and prove their trip
generation, which is -- and trip length, which are factors and capture
those issues in that proving be able to maybe modify that rate, I'm
sure they won't prove to me it should be higher, as I said before, but
they can prove if, in fact, that national standard doesn't fit them.
But again, we'll get a lot of that trip characteristics analysis and
we're all ready working towards that. As we get more data coming
out of the census. That's why the census is done only once every 10
years. It takes time. It's very expensive and same with your updating
models and your local trip characteristics.
I agree, the more localized data I can have the better I will be.
And I will also tell you, I have a very, very national accepted
appropriate standard and an option for people to come in where they
don't feel that reasonably applies to them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. But the people here
today know that they can come in and have -- if they can prove that
they're not really --
MR. FEDER: That's part of the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The whole community doesn't
know that. I know this doesn't have anything to do with today's
discussion, but Herb Savage did bring up a very good point, people
Page 383
July 30-31, 2002
that live in gated communities that doesn't have a supplying road or a
connector road for the general public to travel on is a higher impact
on the system then the people who live in a grid system community.
MR. FEDER: Yet, at the same time, a lot of their travel is done
on roads that we don't operate or maintain or pay for. They pay full
impact fees.
But yet they do require a longer secure travel because of them,
so there's a bit of a trade off, but I understand your statement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, did you have something?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would just like to say something
before you come up with a motion. That's all. Just make one
statement. If you want to discussion with the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll continue discussion until
everyone is exhausted.
MR. MUDD: Sir, what we basically have is, we've heard a lot
the speakers talk today about the rise of impact fees.
And what I got was that a distinct dislike for impact fees and it
causes some issues.
And there was some things that were said that were very correct.
When you raise impact fees you also have a tendency to raise the
appraised value of someone's home in future years that will increase
your taxes. That's a true statement.
So impact fees in and of themselves, don't totally pay for
growth. Everyone feels the burden when the impact fees go up and
that's one thing.
I also heard someone say today that -- I'll talk a little slower.
COURT REPORTER: You're fine.
MR. MUDD: I also heard someone say today that the Save Our
Homes in three percent, and I heard, I think I heard someone say that
Page 384
July 30-31, 2002
that three percent increase protects them from a millage rate increase.
And that is absolutely false.
The only thing that three percent protects is the appraised value
of the home. If the millage rate goes up, your taxes are going to go up
appropriately and there's nothing that Save Your Homes is going to
do for you in order to do that.
I want to make sure everyone understands that fact. I heard a lot
of bantering about raise taxes and offset the impact fees. Be careful
what you ask for.
The second thing -- or the third thing I'd like to talk about, we
only have so many places that we can get money right now. Okay.
Three of which we know about; the sales tax, impact fees and ad
valorem tax. Gas taxes are maxed, tourist taxes are maxed.
And we also heard someone say today about real estate transfer
tax. I will also say something, gas tax in order to take the cap off
takes a legislative process and I don't think this Board is against
going to the 2003 -- or the 2002, whatever they call themselves now,
that they start on One July, go to Tallahassee and try to work that
through as we start up our legislative agenda.
We tried last year to get the tourist tax to get the fourth penny to
go through the State legislature.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Third penny.
MR. MUDD: No, it's the fourth penny, we already three
pennies, and that brings up about three million dollars per penny into
the county for a total of $9,000,000.
And the thought was if we went for the fourth penny that would
give us another $3,000,000 that we could use for roads.
Something that was enlightening that came across during the
legislative was that the legislatures loosened up on the fourth and
fifth pennies that used to be used for sports complexes and things like
Page 385
July 30-31, 2002
that, and they said that those monies could now be used for
advertisements to try to offset the impact of 9/1 1 on the Florida
tourist industry.
So I saw some movement there. Maybe there's some movement
on roads and things could loosen up a little bit in the legislature that's
one issue.
And real estate transfer tax would have to go through another
legislative issue.
That's about what we have, Commissioners as far as revenue
sources and things that we can go for.
I've heard enough today about what's the local -- what's the local
trip generation process versus the country or the state versus that
manual that we use.
I will tell you that in order to do one of those studies, if we
didn't have an influx of people during the high season, you could do
it any time, you could probably get that done over a two or three
week period of time by a sampling technique.
The problem is we get a little bit of an influx here in November,
December, January and February that's little bit of different, and you
can get a little bit different in condominiums an whatnot for those
people that are seasonal coming in that could impact that.
I just wanted to let you know that fact. Okay. If there are
categories that have been brought up today and some have been
mentioned where there might be a local swing that's different than the
National, we can take a look at those over the next two or three
weeks to see if that swing is warranted or not.
I will also say that I was a little bit -- we could spend a little bit
more time talking to Abe Skinner to make sure the percentages that
he gave us for those three years are on the mark for road right-of-way
easements to make sure that he's totally on board with those
Page 386
July 30-31, 2002
percentages so that it didn't incorporate something that we didn't want
to have incorporated.
Commissioner, I will also tell you when we did utility impact
fees, I'm on my sixth or seven statement, I want to make sure you
know that you have some precedent, when we did utility impact fees,
we presented the impact fee structure to you on 27, November, with
no vote and you voted for them on December 11 th so that we could
continue the dialogue with the industry.
I will tell you that wasn't a bad exchange, but I will also tell you
it didn't change a whole heck of a lot. If you remember what was
presented on the 27th and what was on the 11 th.
But I really don't like the fact that everyone is taking pot shots at
every number and they're really not forthcoming with better data.
I was really happy to receive some better data or some
additional data that we got today with our third -- fourth speaker or
maybe second speaker, I think.
But I will tell you, Commissioners, you need an incentive to
make sure that this private-public partnership continues and that they
understand that there's a time certain when they need to provide
things to us.
I also heard that they're consultant was working on it but they
have not had the results yet. Personally, I'd like to see those results,
but if they tell me they can't have them until next year, we got a
financial obligation in order to find funding for roads around to try to
make that happen. So I don't want that to drag on forever ever.
Commissioners, I would say to you there are some things we
need to look at as a staff. I think the industry needs to provide us
data. If they got better data then what we're using, then by God, come
to the table and give it to us, and if you can't then you just need to say
it will be better next year and I'll get it.
Page 387
July 30-31, 2002
I would say, Commissioners, that there's a resolution before you
from the staff that says to implement this is on One, September. I
would say it One, October as effective date and give the staff and the
industry time to change those numbers, if they're going to change,
based on better data, okay, not on speculation over the time of
September 10th, September 24th, to get to you on either one of those
dates a better rate scale and we can present you with those facts.
But I would let it be known today that the impact fees are going
to go up and the tentative rates are what is in that proposal that you
have in front of that is a stepped increase, one, without utility
relocates and then when we change the utility user rates in the One,
February time frame, then it will be full up some instead of offset
manner.
Commissioners, I know it's been a long day, and this is a hard,
hard decision. And I am sorry I put you in this predicament. It's one
of those things when you say you got to look at your impact fees you
do the best you can.
And I would tell you, after it's all done, you're never going to go
get a perfect number. Okay. And there's always going to be a
question, but we need to be able to answer them as sure as we
possibly can.
And I think there's probably three areas that we need to look a
little bit harder as far as staff is concerned. With that,
Commissioners, I won't say anything else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, actually my question was
way back when Joe Schmitt was up there. No, that's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come up with something else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I will.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Closing remarks?
Page 388
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to say that I thought
Commissioner Carter's statement was excellent, and I thought we
should have work shop and I would like to put that into a form of a
motion.
And I also totally agree with Mr. Mudd and I think we should
put that off until October 1 st. And I put that in the motion as well. If
that's a closing statement, if you don't give me any other time, I have
to make it now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's not necessary. It was a
suggestion from Commissioner Coyle. It was an effort to try to
silence you. I should have known it wouldn't work.
me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
It doesn't take too much to silence
It was worth a shot.
Well, I just feel that, you know,
you can arrange figures to say anything you want them to say. I've
said that before, I'll say it again. Each one of us can do that.
And I think we should go back to the drawing board. There are
a lot the things came out here today and we want to be sure of what
we're presenting before we just jump into it.
And I think it will give us all a better level of confidence if we
go into a workshop and prolong this just another month so we can
address it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your suggesting that we have an
workshop rather than just having staff with the building industry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think both. Staff should work
with the building industry. Absolutely. And we're going to be off for
awhile any way. And when we come back have a workshop and then
go forward.
Page 389
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carer, you mentioned
it in the beginning, is this what your thoughts were?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me clarify it. I'm not in
disagreement with having a workshop about the impact fees with the
industry and all the things that were incorporated and discussed, it
was highlighted by County Manager, Jim Mudd.
Secondly, beyond that, at the future date, I'm suggesting we
have one on revenue streams where we begin to analyze the
legislative aspects. You look at what we have to work with and what
flexibilities that we might have within our existing structures.
Out of that may evolve, as I said before, what I call a blue
ribbon committee that would sit down for much like the Economic
Advisory Council did several years ago and look at all of this and
come back with specific recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners as to what we should go, in all probability to
referendum with to begin to augment these revenue streams and get
more balance in terms of getting back on how do you fund your
structure and services.
So it's two-fold. The first part is the workshop that addresses the
impact fee, road impact fees.
The second one is beyond that. And I don't want to confuse the
two. And I think if you go to the second one that may be in October,
and then you take it from there.
Then I will be as they say, ride out of Dodge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you should be here, you can
facilitate it very well. And we all agree. I'll just finish up, we all
agree the impact fees need to be raised.
There isn't a question there. All the other impact fees in Collier
County are going to be raised. It's just how much it should be. I
Page 390
July 30-31, 2002
think there's still an uncertainty and I'd like to wait just a little bit
longer.
Okay. I've said enough.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, or did you
push the button by mistake?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I probably did push it by mistake.
But I'm going to say something anyway.
You know, I understand that the staff is reacting to our
guidance. We've told you that we want to have impact fees as high as
we can legally justify them for all the reasons that have been
discussed today.
And I think you've made an attempt to do that. But this process
is insane. There's no way we should be involved in determining
impact fees in the way that we have done it in this particular case.
Let me tell you the position it puts all of us in. A week ago staff
was recommending an increase of 228 percent. In a matter of days it
went to a 154 percent, a change of 74 percent. That does not create a
lot of confidence with respect to the validity of the figures.
In fact, it creates a lot of suspicion that they were not developed
accurately in the first place. And what is happening on a public level
is that figure of a 228 percent is now the correct figure in the eyes of
the public and anything this Commission does to reduce it is going to
be portrayed as caving in to the construction industry.
It's not going to be portrayed of making sure we have the right
information. It's going to be caving in to the construction industry.
And that's a very difficult position for us to be in and I don't like
it. And I'm to make some recommendations about that in a few
moments.
I'm going to go over some of my concerns. I don't buy for a
minute the current year factor that is being used in these calculations.
Page 391
July 30-31, 2002
I think the 25 year road life is a fantasy. I don't buy it. It didn't
consider the Rural Fringe Amendments that we recently made and it
doesn't consider our projections of build out.
I'm uncomfortable with the way the gas tax revenue is used in
this particular formula. Because I have not been able to get an
explanation as to how the increase in gas tax revenues each year from
higher utilization will effect the formula.
I am uncomfortable with the way of right-of-way costs are being
calculated. I am not convinced that we have condemned any
$5,000,000 and tom them down for right-of-way.
Consequently, I don't believe that improved property is
necessarily the assessment of the improved is necessarily the best
way to go. We may want to go with the unimproved which is
generally what we're acquiring in any event.
The work force housing issue is a very important one to every
one I believe. I think that I'm in agreement with Commissioner Fiala
that we should devise policies with respect to the effect upon work
force housing before we implement these fees. We should know
what we're going to do there.
I am concerned with the fact that that the people who are going
to be paying the fees say that they don't have the information to
determine whether or not they're justified.
And I'm not going to take sides on this issue. I don't know
whose right. I don't know whether you've been refused the
information.
I don't know whether the staff has provided it to you and you
just haven't responded, but there's no way in the world we should
ever impose a tax on everybody unless they understand why it's being
imposed and they understand how it's being calculated.
Page 392
July 30-31, 2002
So that brings me to my recommendations. I said this a couple
of months ago and those people thought that this was an impossible
task. But I said a couple of months ago, we need to sit down with all
of the stakeholders and develop a formula. You got a formula. It's
not rocket science. Many of the factors are really sort of fixed and
very clear, I think, but there are number of variable that are subject to
great interpretation.
And I think we got to sit down and resolve those issues. And we
have to get the people who have a stake in this issue to understand
why they would have to pay higher impact fees.
And along with everyone else, I think higher impact fees are
justified, but we cannot impose a tax unless we can explain how they
were calculated to the point where it can stand up in a court of law.
I think we should have an annual escalation figure so we don't
go through this exercise every two years.
Furthermore, I don't think we should wait every two years to
update it. I think it should be updated every year using that
escalation factor. Believe we can sit down and work out an
escalation factor that makes sense to everybody.
I believe that there's a significant amount of unavailable
information. I think that would be improved if we could have our
update schedule consistent with the fiscal year. Then we could have -
- then it would be consistent with also the budgeting cycle.
We would understand what we're going to be looking at as far as
potential revenue is concerned and people who were planning
projects would know that on October the 1 st, each year, there would
be an adjustment and they'd know what that adjustment was.
There would be some certainty and you don't catch people in the
middle of a financing operation or financing procedure and suddenly
increase rates on them.
Page 393
July 30-31, 2002
So once again, I can't say strongly enough how crazy this
process is. We cannot continue this. We simply have to get a better
way of doing this job. And we've lost -- as I said earlier at least 50 to
$60,000,000 if these figures are right over the passed two years
because we have not updated impact fees.
If we updated them, we probably wouldn't be here today talking
about this problem. So I think also in my recommendation --
supporting the recommendation of the other commissioners is that we
should proceed immediately to ask our legislative delegation and our
lobbyist to begin investigating what is necessary with respect to a real
estate transfer fee and an increase in the tourist taxes.
There's no argument there, they're both logical tax increases and
I think we can defend them. And with that I do not want to see us
delay this issue too long. It leaves everyone in limbo. I would be
willing to go along with Commissioner Fiala's proposal that --
commissioner Carter's proposal that we have a workshop, but.
I think we need to set a time limit. We can't drag it out very
long. And some of the people who came here to speak said 60 days,
someone else said 90 days. I don't know which is right.
But we need to take the time to sit down in a public meeting, go
through those numbers, have someone demonstrate to everybody's
satisfaction that we have a sound basis, that doesn't mean you have to
agree with it, that you have a sound basis for that.
And I can tell you sitting here today that hasn't been done. I am
not convinced that there's a sound basis for what our staff has
produced to date and that bothers me.
I got to feel more comfortable with about it before I can make a
decision. I'll close by saying we got a serious problem and I think it
is our obligation as a Board of County Commissioners to have the
Page 394
July 30-31, 2002
impact fee fixed at it's highest legally justifiable level so that we can
provide the infrastructure that is necessary to service our community.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You brought up about the starting
the incentive for our legislature delegation to be able to approach this.
I've already taken that initiative.
Next week on the -- well, on the 8th of August, I'm holding a
special meeting right after the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Commission.
We're going to put together a delegation from all the local
counties to be able to petition the Florida Association of Counties,
which consists of all the commissioners all through Florida to make
some of these items that we're talking about today, such as the
transfer title tax, such as the tourist tax, one percent tourist tax, and
the indexing of the gas tax, and possibly increasing the gas tax is a
priority to be carried forward to the State legislative body.
The Florida Association of the Counties does have a quite a bit
of swing. And they usually follow from what the commissioners pass
on to them from there.
At that particular meeting, we'll also have our consultant, our
what is the word, our lobbyist, Keith Arnold. He'll be there to advise
us too at that point in time.
And hopefully we'll get together, it will be a collective effort
that we'll be able to bring in different organizations to help move this
forward so we can bring this into reality.
I'd like to see these taxes that we're going to be picking up, this
new funding source, to be able to be used to offset impact fees,
number one, and also for some degree for affordable housing to try to
establish some sort of balance back into Collier County.
With that, we go to Commissioner Carter.
Page 395
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just two comments. As
Chairman of the Southwest Regional Planning Council,
Commissioner Coletta is, I believe, now the chair of the legislative
group.
I sent a memorandum to your committee outlining not only the
two that we mentioned real estate transfer expansion of the tourist
tax, but you do have the indexing, which has never gotten through the
legislature, and we also have the seven percent administrative fee that
if you met all the other criteria and it can be returned to the county of
origin.
All of those will be go through a legislative mix. I heartily
support that and needs to be part of this process.
Secondly, I would not want to postpone a decision on this
indefinitely. That's why Mr. Mudd suggested October 1, that gives
us a change between now and then to get a workshop, get the
stakeholders involved, revisit this process and see if there are any
changes in the end numbers.
Like Commissioner Coyle, I am uncomfortable with the process.
And I don't know what number we're going to recommend today, is it
a 154 a 136 percent? I've heard two in this room, the last coming
from Mr. Feder. Looking at some possible adjustments, but that may
come only after the workshop. So that will be the discretion of the
board.
Lastly, no matter what we do here today and we go beyond this,
economic development expansion of businesses and jobs in this
county serves the purpose of diversifying the tax base.
Right now 78 percent of the ad valorem taxes come from you
and me every citizen in this county. And unless you diversify that
base and get a better base you're continuing to go through paying a
Page 396
July 30-31, 2002
higher percentage of your personal property taxes to provide these
services.
And it only makes common sense that you don't want to kill
what potentially can diversify your base. So at some point in time
this county is going to have to deal with what we call incentives.
And I think if you take that to the last workshop that I
mentioned where you get out and look at revenue streams and
address these issues, that's where that kind of discussion can take
place.
If we get the stakeholders in this community to begin to hold go
after these and address it, I think we have a chance not to slide
backward but to go forward.
Wayne Daultry once said, "Every community has a potential to
become a slum." And what happens is when you don't reinvest in
your community, your infrastructure, it deteriorates and you didn't get
the Schick Heart Center because it stood still as a community.
It's here because there's numbers. There's an population by the
medical community to provide that service. So those are some of the
things that we must keep in my our minds as elected officials in a
community, the real people in the community, not the people that we
hear from the in the editorial page, but the ones that we hear from
here like today that come forward on a regular basis and share the
concerns because you are the community.
And that's where we have to make the decisions based on that.
With that, sir, I'll close. I'll say no more until you go to your
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a second on the
motion?
Page 397
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't -- do we have a real official
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She has a motion.
Commissioner Fiala made a motion, if you want restate it, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion that we
prepare to have a workshop and I would like to correct that to two
workshops, one, strictly on impact fees and the other on other
funding sources, to be held and how did I say that, the 1st of October
revisit we could revisit these impact fees.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. The impact fees you need to
do in October -- September prior to October.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the workshop is in September.
But our impact fee, this rate adjustment, will come back before us the
first meeting in October.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure if we need a
second workshop on funding sources. It was just mentioned. I think
that we can ask staff and of course Commissioner Coletta is working
on that to look at those options and bring it up at a regular board
meeting for do we want to take this to the delegation for them to fight
for it in Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me go back and say we should
have a workshop regarding just impact fees to be then presented back
to us, shall I say, the first meeting in October that gives us enough
time so nobody is rushing through this vacation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You would like the workshop to take
place during the regular commission meeting?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, sometime in September. We're
all going to be off in August and then the results presented. Back to
the motion, I'm sorry, we'll start all over again.
Page 398
July 30-31, 2002
I'd like to have a workshop scheduled strictly to discuss the
impact fee rates and I'd like that to be in conjunction with other
aspects of the community so we get well rounded figures and the
proposal then brought before us the first meeting in October.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. I don't want to
delay the decision, but if I make a decision, I want to base it on facts.
And I just don't feel comfortable with the facts and figures at
this time. And realizing just like everybody else, we do need to pay
for the infrastructure and realizing the impact fees are going to be
raised.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would hope that we would be
directing staff to work before this workshop with the construction
industry even, though, if we have to look them in a room for two or
three days try to come to some sort of accord here. So when we
come to this workshop, it flows.
Commissioner Coyle, I think you got a great idea, what is it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just something you said. I would
prefer that we have this workshop a little broader based as far as the
staff is concerned other than just with the construction industry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the work force housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I said all aspects of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I stand corrected.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
All stakeholders would be do it.
Instead of all aspects.
And with respect to your other
concern about determining revenue sources, can we do that during
our budget hearings in September? We're going to be meeting,
talking about potential budget reductions at that point in time.
Page 399
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. My thoughts on that is the fact
that this process is going to be drawn out. In order to be able to talk
about funding sources coming in, they have to be something that's
been agreed to by the State legislature -- we're going to be looking at
a delay of a year before that money becomes available.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was thinking about doing
whatever we need to do to get the requests in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're doing that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we got a whole bunch of
things mixed up here. First of all, you can take your legislative
agenda, you can generate that at any time and get that working, and
you have a four or five subjects to put on it, take it to Regional
Planning Council, FAC, your own lobbyists, that will go into the first
part of the next year when the legislature is in session. That's one
item.
The second item you're talking about is this workshop only on
the impact fees that is inclusive of all stakeholders to be held in
September with the final decision on the impact fee implementation
in the first meeting in October, as I understand it.
The third thing is when I'm talking about revenue stream, I'm
talking about a workshop where you brainstorm of all the
stakeholders in the community, come up with ideas and directions
that we may want to explore, that maybe go -- out of that workshop
only end up with a blue ribbon committee that says, we'll take all this
and move forward in a longer period time.
That is long range. There's no limitation on that. That is
creative thinking. That's saying let's get outside the box. Let's figure
out what are some of other options here.
Page 400
July 30-31, 2002
That's a different process. That's all together different from the
other two items that we're talking about. It's three; legislative,
workshop for impact fees, the other is a global workshop on potential
income streams, revenue sources, economic incentives, you name it
where we can get a bigger picture for a frame work for the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your motion has a drop dead date in
it when we have to have an answer ready to go?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The first week in October, the
impact fee proposal would be brought to us. The first meeting in
October, I'm sorry, the first BCC meeting in October.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd is standing over there on
the side line listening to all this. Have we covered our basis?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I think you have. What I'm basically -- the
only thing point of clarification that I have, you talked impact fees,
generally, are you going to limit that to road impact fees or bring
them all in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. No road impact fees.
MR. MUDD: Because they're coming.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know they're all coming. We're
just talking about road impact fees. I know they're all coming.
MR. MUDD: You got some that are due to come to you on the
24th of September. It's correctional facilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's appropriate in a
workshop to let's look at it so we can -- if we don't feel comfortable
about the steps that we're taking to get to the end, then by the time we
vote on it at least we should feel comfortable about that so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can talk about phasing in at the
workshop.
Page 401
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what workshops are for to be
able to discuss all the different options that are available without
committing yourself.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The other side of this, you have
to have a drop dead date here for your implementation. I heard Mr.
Mudd say October 1 st.
MR. MUDD: Sir, the reason I mention it to you, if it's supposed
to go up and I've heard people and I heard David Ellis say that he
thinks it should it should be higher and so did Tom Conrecode that's a
lost revenue for a matter of months. We don't want to make it a
quarter.
And I was trying to get a date that says, hey, it's going to
become effective on -- and another reason for that, David, is there's
been some litigation in one particular county because the Board
decided to raise a fee and they decided to sum -- they decided to do it
right now, and you didn't give people enough reaction time or enough
notice for that process.
If you do it in October, the first meeting in October, you're
talking two weeks or so, you're talking an effective date of One
November. That means you've lost two months as far as revenues are
concerned and you have to understand that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've lost more than two months
come. There's going to be a run on the bank.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's our next subject.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead and include that in
the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the next item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We are covering that. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
Page 402
July 30-31, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: In regard to the first meeting in October when
you bring that before this Board the discussion of the road impact fee
ordinance, is it your intention as a Board that the ordinance be
advertised for that date so that is a date of potential adoption, as
opposed to a discussion date?
As we go beyond five weeks, this is not merely continuing this
item until the week in October, we will need to readvertise and I
would like to make it clear for us, all staff and then the public, that
well be advertising for possible adoption at that first date?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. And we will cover all the basic
workshop so when we come into the meeting, we'll be ready to vote
on it, I assume.
MR. WEIGEL: As Mr. Mudd and Mr. Ochs indicated, the draft
ordinance in your package today it talked about a September 1 st
effective date with a bid of a lead time, so we'll have made a change
to show an effective, which is not absolutely concurrent with the date
that is received by the Secretary of State which is just a few days
after adoption of the ordinance.
We will have a bit of a lag time in there, I think that's what Jim
is indicating and that's my advice too.
The Board adopts, on the first week of October it will become
effective at a clearly indicated time of matter of two to a few weeks
later or later if you determine at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No later than November 1,
which is my suggestion and earlier if possible.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to clarify something. We're
going to have our first meeting to discuss this issue again in October,
that's what we're saying?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Workshop is in September.
Page 403
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're going to workshop
something in September and have an adoption hearing the first
meeting in October. Is that what I understand?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And meanwhile, the other
industries will be working before our workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I believe we frame this in motion
that is going to cover all this unless someone sees something missing.
Any other discussion2 With that I'll call the question. 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 five to zero.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item. Wait let's take a break.
Thereupon, (Brief recess was taken, after which the following
proceedings were had.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's just two of us. We'll
handle it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We got Commissioner Carter
here. And I seen Commissioner Fiala out here a minute ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here I am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here she is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just playing. How.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You move like a teenager.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right you. I feel like one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, how are you?
Page 404
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fine. Thank you. Do I have to
sign up for this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we getting punchy again.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're on live.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Frank Rodriguez, I want to tell
him, you have a great tie. And do you know Frank is going to be a
father. It's going to be a boy and in September. She's recording that.
Item #8H
ORDINANCE 2002-44 AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
PROHIBITING EARLY PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES TO
AVOID RATE INCREASES- ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: The next item is 8-H.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development and Environmental Services.
And sometimes I think probably Commissioner Coyle would
relate to this jumping out the airplanes is heck of a lot more easier
and a lot more fun then what we just went through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Try it without a shoot.
MR. SCHMITT: I bring before the Commissioners, to discuss
the Amendment to Chapter 74 of the County's Code. And we're
talking about prohibiting early payment of impact fees to avoid rate
increases and we're also talking talk about the impact these in regards
to prepaying impact fees with an issuance of certificate of public
facility adequacy.
So what we're here to do is just talk about -- really what we're
trying to do is clean up the law.
Page 405
July 30-31, 2002
You, back in March 13th, 2001, passed an ordinance of the
consolidated impact fee ordinance, we found there's a couple of holes
we're bringing this before you today that one prohibits the county
staff from accepting impact fee payments prior to submittal of a
complete building permit application.
So that's the first proposal that distinguishes impact fees from
prepayment of future fees when requesting a Certificate of Adequate
Public Facility.
And the third piece of this is it clarifies the policy of prepaying
impact fees by stating that the prepaying of fees does not grandfather
a development from future fee rates at a time when applying for a
specific building permit.
So that's really what we're trying to do is clearly define the line
in the sand. What does that mean? Well, it was just like we talked
about with the effective date of the new impact fee ordinance, we
would say that you have to have a complete application at the time of
applying for a building permit.
And that is the date that locks in the fee that you, in fact, have to
pay. If you come back six months later and actually draw your
building permit and you pay those fees, you pay the fees -- you get
the fee upon the date that your application is deemed sufficient. You
pay the fees when you actually draw the permit and that date can be
actually after the new rate is imposed, but you would pay effective
the rates effective the day you got the complete application
submitted, I guess, hopefully I made sense. That's the line in the
sand.
The second thing and, of course, we have had this with our
concurrency issues that you come in and apply for a certificate of
adequate of public facilities, a COA, that is a prepayment of
estimated fees.
Page 406
July 30-31, 2002
When you come back a year or two later and you actually apply
for a building permit, you pay the fees that are in place at that time.
The COA does not grandfather you. All it does is recognize a
vehicle to prepay. Let's you pay based on the date that you actually
draw the permit.
And so that is what this ordinance is doing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for an approval by
Commissioner Carter and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
And with that we'll go for discussion, Commissioner Henning --
oh, we got some speakers. Let's go ahead with the speakers first.
We'll come right back to you Commissioner Henning, if you can wait
a moment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's okay. I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you rather go first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We're here for the public.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. Speakers please.
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Michael Fernandez and he will
be followed by David Ellis.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Michael
Fernandez of the Planning Development, for the record. I agree there
needs to be a line in the sand and this is more of a clean up measure.
I understand with all the impact fee issues that are before you,
what I am suggesting this issue be studied and perhaps reconsidered
during your deliberations in the next two months.
We believe the line in the sand should not be when you apply
for your building permit, but when you apply for a SDP that allows
for construction.
Page 407
July 30-31, 2002
For instance, right now, I have a project that has $2,000,000
worth of infrastructure being put in the site in terms of parking lots,
lakes and so forth.
All the financing is in place, but it would be impacted, pardon
the pun, by the increase in impact fees because we have not finished
the drawings.
We have another project, 90,000 square feet, same deal. We've
got our financing in place. It's based on existing impacts. The site
improvements are underway. Again, it would be impacted by the --
we really believe that the threshold, the line in the sand, should not be
a building permit but a SDP permit that allows for construction.
We believe that is a reasonable request. We believe that the
problem in discussing it with staff, we understand that currently when
those COAs are issued for impact fee estimates, that money is taken
and put in an escrow account.
Right now you have $30,000,000 in an escrow account that
you're not using because if the project does not go forward you may
have to give a refund.
If that money is committed and you can use it, in both projects,
we have no problem with that. We're going forward with the
projects. We believe we should be grandfathered in at that time.
We're simply suggesting that you ought to look at that during
this period of consideration. Again, when you're talking about real
world, financing for projects, that's where this comes into play.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Ellis.
MR. ELLIS: Thank you Commissioners. For the record, David
Ellis, with the Collier Building Industry Association.
I would echo some of the same concerns that Mr. Fernandez
had. I certainly understand the need and one -- the level of a
Page 408
July 30-31, 2002
residential single-family community, it's a little easier to think
through what we're talking about if you -- again, we talked about this
in our concurrency discussions.
If a develop came in with a 200 unit community, they we
wanted to do -- for their concurrency purposes prepay their impact
fees so that they reserve their concurrency status, which is important,
obviously, if we go into the checkbook world, it would be very
important that they have that opportunity still.
It's a lit easier for a residential single-family developer, then,
say, two years from now with the impact fees have gone up, they can
pass it to on that particular house. It works in that process a little
more elegantly.
Not so in the case of what Mr. Fernandez said in terms of a large
commercial park or that kind of thing where they would begin
construction on the infrastructure for the development, but perhaps
not the buildings.
It's often the case in the construction of a church or those type of
things, you'll get your SDP, you'll begin developing the land, doing
that, based on the performer you got.
If it came through particularly with this impact fee today the
example on kind of an increase you can have your horizontal stuff
going and may be done and then not be able to afford or justify the
construction of the building.
In particularly, when you're working on the financing package
with your bank, it would create uncertainties. I understand your
concerns. As a matter of fact it interesting that Mr. Fernandez
mentioned it. One of the things that I'd love to see in that that
prepayment process that frustrating thing for all of us, you can't use
the money.
Page 409
July 30-31, 2002
I wish we could find a way because you can begin using that
money as soon as it's prepaid, perhaps with some percentage of it
held back for contingencies in case there's ever refunds in the future.
But to be able to start building that infrastructure even earlier in
the process, I think has a lot of merit. It's almost the inverse of what
we're talking about.
I think your staffhas some ideas on how to make that go. That's
going to require Land Development Code changes and other things in
the future.
I'm concerned, particularly about the scenario that Mr.
Fernandez said in this process. Since I got a copy this I've been
running it around to different folks, and saying, "How would this
affect you?"
It was really Mr. Fernandez scenario that was the one that I
heard back from as the largest concern.
Again, the single-family builder, developer, has the opportunity
to shell out the increase as you go along, but for that property it
creates a challenge for that developer. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Ellis Mr. Schmitt,
would you care to comment on that?
MR. SCHMITT: Let me talk about the escrow account first.
Mr. Ellis is correct, we're going to come back to you in the fall with a
proposal to try, at least break that log jam, so we can use that money.
Because that money is sitting there and it is fenced and we need to
break that free to use that for infrastructure.
In regard to the line in the sand, you got to put the line
somewhere. I look at this when you as almost when you go to the
bank and you want to close on a house, you kind of play the
mortgage rate and then they you say, okay, it's five and a half and six
Page 410
July 30-31, 2002
percent, but you can lock in today at seven or you can play the float,
but if it goes up eight you lost. Or it goes down to five and a half and
you locked in at six and half, you kind of what if for the next 15 years
as you pay those mortgage rates.
It's the cost of doing businesses and we maintain the ledgers,
we're doing this right now for the COAs. If we do it for at the SDPs
and why not for -- at the PSP, the preliminary subdivision plats, or
the final plats, so we'll be doing it for almost everything throughout
the county as we come in and look at whether they're DRIs or is it at
the PSP level or final or whatever.
And we're trying to define, we've done it and I hate to use the
analogy here like this, it's been a common practice that every time
something happens the mechanism is at the building permit.
When we implemented the Florida Building Code, you had to
have in the hand all the Community Development and Environmental
Services Division, Building Department, you had to have your plans
in for review on or before -- it had to be before the first of March.
This would be in effect the same thing you have to have the
plans in prior -- that we would announce the date just as we will
when we talked about impact fees and you announce the date.
It's tough on someone like Mr. Fernandez who's working on a
project and, in fact, it's a large commercial project and he's already
started. But I don't know, I guess, I'm looking for some legal advice
from the County Attorney, because if we say SDP, are we talking
about preliminary subdivision plats? Am I reserving an entire
development based on previous impact fee rates? I just don't know
from a legal perspective, are we opening a can of worms?
I threw that over to the County Attorney. That's all I got from
that perspective.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
Page 411
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's your answer?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No speakers.
MS. FILSON: Justtwo.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There we are gentlemen. Ladies and
gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I hit my button again?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you're next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need to take us through
the SDP submittal, SDP approval, COA. I don't believe the Board
really understands the whole process. Then I'll reserve my questions.
MR. SCHMITT: The developer comes in and wants to -- take
Mr. Fernandez, he's building the St. Agnes Church. He comes in
with a SDP and that is probably the most rigorous piece of the
process. That is the long pole in the tent that's the process that takes
many months because it's going through transportation review and all
the infrastructure, utilities, roads, looking at architectural standards.
We're looking at landscaping, all the other things associated with
what we call the horizontal piece of the construction.
Once that is approved, an approved SDP, we do not do
concurrent reviews anymore. So we have a improved site
development plan. You come in with your building plans, plans for
the church and they come in for review.
Commercial, we average between 18 and 22 days turn around
for commercial. Single-family family homes or residential is
somewhere around 72 hours. They're in and out and that's a quick
turn around when we're talking about the building plan side.
Or, in fact, you'll know within 72 hours that is deemed complete
and sufficient, and it will go through some of the review process.
Page 412
July 30-31, 2002
So the real -- the longest piece of this is getting the SDP
approved. And that's where you as Commissioners hear from as the
aspects of the planning staff because that's the planning staffs tied
up, whether it involves coming before the EAC or the planning
commission or eventually may have to come to you for a variance or
some other aspect.
All of that is part of the SDP process. Same if it's a residential
neighborhood then it's a preliminary subdivision plat, so it's a PSP.
That's where Michael is asking for the line in the sand. Once
that is approved, he wants that to be the threshold where the lock-in
for impact fees is a established rather than at the building permit.
And those are the two probably easiest points of demarcation, so
to speak, that you can define. Yes, I have an approved PSP so I'm
locked in. Or i have an approved building permit, I'm locked in.
Just at the latter creates a significant more of an issue. I could
probably ask Phil Tindle, he can tell you some of the complications
that would be involved, probably over 50 ledgers and even more. I don't know if you want to talk about that piece.
MR. TINDLE: Phil Tindle, Impact Fee Coordinator. What I
believe Mr. Fernandez was asking for, and just nod if I'm wrong,
Mike, for them to be eligible to pay -- early pay their impact fees not
upon approval of a site development plan but after filing for.
It. MR. FERNANDEZ: To add approval when we have the
ability to start construction, when we get approved.
MR. TINDLE: I was wrong. I'm sorry. Some of the pitfalls
involved with this that we have to work out if a policy were to be
implemented, there's a number of opportunities for error and
collecting the wrong amount of impact fees based upon this type of
policy that we would have to overcome procedurally somehow.
Page 413
July 30-31, 2002
Number one being, is the fact when you're at that point during
the SDP process, you don't as a general rule, yet have detailed
architectural drawings, which is important for a commercial project
because most of these assessments are based upon square footage.
If you don't have exact square footage figures, then we would
have to come up with a procedure whereby if they're under paid
because of the improper unit count, we would have to come up with a
mechanism for collecting the additional amounts of money due
before a building permit is issued.
And also, it just -- unless you have some kind of mechanism in
place, it does have mistake or intention, just a low estimations of
what the impact fees are, then they would be locked in.
So then you have to come up with a mechanism for making that
if the estimations are incorrect, then we have a means collecting the
correct amount of money at the rates that are in effect when the
building permit is issued.
So there's a lot of the things that we have to work out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is being proposed is SDP
approval, you can prepay-- pay.
MR. TINDLE: That's a pretty short order between that time and
when you apply for a building permit. It's almost no difference.
I thought what they were talking about was after you have
applied for the SDP.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was asking the question, he
wasn't. So the question is, how long does it take so get from SDP
submittal and SDP approval?
MR. SCHMITT: That could be 12 months. And it depends on
the quality of the product that we get. It depends if they have to
come before the Board for some kind of a request.
Page 414
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Mr. Fernandez, tell me
on the Allan Systems, how long it's been in the hopper and how much
is the cost for you to prepare it to get it to SDP submittal?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The plans are -- the SDP is waiting to be
approved now. We expect it within the week. As far as getting the
plans, we've been through zoning and through everything else, it's
probably been about a year process, including the purchase of the
land.
Our expenses have amount to $100,000 already. With the
church, we're doing St. Agnes, we've spent over a year and a half
going through the SDP process. And we really couldn't start the
architectural until we got the SDP.
So right now we're start building the site, it's going to take about
six months. It will take us approximately ten weeks to do the
architectural and then we will be able to submit.
The funding in the both those projects have all ready been
negotiated with a financial with final lenders.
Now, it's a matter of a search in impact fees and we've lost our
basis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just wanted the Board to
understand the process and how it effects a piece like the Allan
System.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, the proposed increase would be like
$700,000 between the two buildings that we're doing. And $700,000
is going to have a huge impact on the private sector business.
MR. SCHMITT: Just in closing, this amendment does not
change anything that we're doing now.
All it does is clean up the law. When we're talking about a
COA, and you need to understand when we issue a Certificate of
Page 415
July 30-31, 2002
Public Facility Adequacy, we're already providing the applicant the
opportunity to lock in so they're not impacted by moratorium.
We already provide for that benefit. And it just is matter of
when do we impose the impact fee. And I think in reality is, when
does the impact occur? It occurs when you draw the building permit,
because that is when you see the increase in activity out wherever
that site maybe, construction vehicles and other type of things.
So it's actually the drawing of the building permit. We don't
charge the impact fee if they're out doing preliminary site work, yes,
sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Joe, you said that the time interval
from SDP to pulling the building permits was relatively short in most
cases, what is that time?
MR. SCHMITT: From approval? What I mean by that, when
the applicant comes in for building plan for review, commercial can
be 18 to 20 days turned around time in the building review. That's
the vertical construction side of it.
We're talking about the building plans.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: From the time the horizontal
section of the portion is approved, generally, how long is the interval
until the vertical portion?
MR. SCHMITT: They have up to two years before they come
back in with plans for review, so they would be vested, frankly, under
the old scale. It could be up to two years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me see if I -- I'm sorry, are you
through?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're looking at to stop the idea of a
run on the bank which--
Page 416
July 30-31, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: No. They can still to that. Yes, they can still
do that. When we come to you with a plan to implement the impact
fees, we will tell you the date it is in effect.
We came to you on this last one for effective date of One
September, it allows the community time to come in and take a run
on the bank and get their plans in for review on or before -- or before
the first of September. Now we've moved this out to November.
We think we have duly notified the community that impact fees
will go up probably on or about the first of November. They have
between now and November -- we still would allow that. What we're
closing the door on is this notion that if you prepay to get a certificate
that -- you're vested from standpoint of not impacted by the
moratorium or any other type of-- but this is something new. It's --
we don't do this now.
What Mr. Fernandez has asked, he is asking to be vested at an
SDP, we don't do that now. That's something that we don't do or
never did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I should probably ask this of Mr.
Fernandez, but can't you build this redundancy in your contract where
something like this happens, you pass the costs back.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. It usually doesn't work that way,
especially with a financial. We have another 100,000 square foot
office building that was spec, $600,000 you can't build it into it. It's a
gone project. You can't do the difference.
The problem -- one of the problems -- challenges we have, I'm
not saying this is something you're going to fix today, I'm suggesting
you leave the door open and give staff a chance to look at it.
What it will do and, Joe Schmitt alluded to it, it would allow you
to start spending that $30,000,000 that is locked up. It would allow
you to spend that now.
Page 417
July 30-31, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: That's a different issue. Issue.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That can be related.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me ask you this, we're dwelling
on this too long, is there a possibility that we can come back and
adjust it at another time for what Mr. Fernandez may need, if there's a
way to adjust it?
MR. SCHMITT: That's another issue. If he wants -- if you
want look at SDP rather than building permit, frankly, the bottom line
is we can leave it just the way it is and the law would stand.
The only problem is we get a lot of the questions. This is the
why we're putting in this verbiage to say, here is the answer.
It doesn't change the way we operate. It solidifies and codifies
the process. It has nothing to do with what Michael is proposing.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We can do this at another time. And we
can work with Phil and make that work. Your issue that you want to
do today is separate from that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle and hopefully
we can call the question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one final question. Does it
make any sense at all to make a separate date from commercial as
opposed to residential?
MR. SCHMITT: That's a policy issue. Really it depends on, I
hate to throw that back to the, Commissioners, yes, we can do that. It
allows an opportunity to divest under the old rate for a period of up to
two years.
And it probably from a perspective does protect the industry
from a standpoint of the risk.
The construction industry is usually a low margin.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I believe there are
ways we can deal with that. I don't think we can deal with it today. I
Page 418
July 30-31, 2002
guess, I would prefer we go ahead with this process and we can
probably deal with that.
You can even put some sort of maximum time limitation in this.
For example, if someone were to get their building permit within six
months of the SDP approval, then they wouldn't have to pay the
increased impact fee because it wouldn't have gone up that much,
hopefully, in that short period of time. But if they wait two years
they're hit with the increase.
We don't have to hold the bag for two years with escalating
impact fees, because that's what puts us behind anyway.
So maybe we can deal with some of those fine tuning issues
later.
MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd for the record. One of the issues we're
doing when we talk checkbook concurrency and one of the ideas that
the staff is thinking about right now in -- we've talked about it at
great length is to, when someone comes in with their SDP is to
collect the impact fees upon approval for the entire project, from the
road side of the house.
And then based on when they pull the permits, we keep track of
when they pulled them versus what the impact fee was at that point.
If it goes up, then we collect the difference.
And that way you'll have those dollars ahead of time so you can
start building those roads that Mike was talking about so you don't
have to bond those .things and start paying interest.
So we've been thinking about that process too. I don't think this
is too far away from where we ultimately would like to go as far as
checkbook concurrency for roads and when we collect those fees for
that particular project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that cover it? Is there any other
comments?
Page 419
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One other thing, if we can
change the ordinance to say excluding commercial, staff will come
back with some more thought on that of when we, like Commissioner
Coyle was saying, SDP submittal and not to get somebody is trying
to beat the system, but somebody in the process that really wants to
do a project so they don't get hit with a heavy impact, therefore,
killing the deal.
In this case, you're having $100,000 worth of plans. That's my
concern of voting on it. If we delay the commercial side until we get
something that's more palatable to just catch the ones that are trying
to beat the system and not put the hammer down on people who are.
MR. SCHMITT: We can look at that. We need to have some
legal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not at ease to put in that distinction today.
The presentation has been that this is a codification, that is putting
into law what a practice is what is in place right now.
I think to break out a commercial, non-commercial distinction
maybe problematical today, if that's what you wish to do.
I would advise that you do not adopt today and we do the
homework and bring it back to you at a later date. MR. MUDD: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to move for approval
on the codification to be brought back within 60, days 30 days, to the
Board of Commissioners to consider the commercial aspect and it
will publicly announced and could be intergrated into this if it's going
to change the commercial.
I share the concerns, I would like to see something done on
commercial. But I would like to draw the line today.
Page 420
July 30-31, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: We'll bring it back for the 10th of September
or the 24th.
MR. MUDD: Do it the 24th.
MR. SCHMITT: We got to solve this because it's going to
impact the other piece. You don't want to look at September. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you're withdrawing your original
motion? We still that got?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not going on amend. I'm
going to let the amendments come back in September or whenever
you're going to do it, you deal with commercial because there's some
concerns and I concur with that.
MR. SCHMITT: That's a legitimate concern. We need to come
back and tell you whether it's legally defendable. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this point in time in your motion
stands, your second stands. 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 have it five to zero.
Item # 15A
DISCUSSION REGARDING CONFIGURATION OF THE
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE WITH LEO OCHS BECOMING
THE DEPUTY COUNTY MANAGER
I believe now we're at the point for staff comments.
Page 421
July 30-31, 2002
MR.. MUDD: I just want to make sure that -- there's some staff
that is scratching their head. I want to make sure for the record that
the motion to approve the staff recommendation -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. David, I guess I'll start first. I want to
talk about four items, if I could, Commissioner.
First is the reconfiguration of the manager's office. You signed
a contract or approved a contract yesterday and he's already talking
about changing stuff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as it's not redecorating.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. I did not redecorate and nor will and
I'll leave that bathroom issue alone.
What we have in front of you is, I really think that the previous
County Manager when he brought Leo and I up to the front office, he
had down deep in his heart, he had some ideas that he wanted to
leave. And he was trying to bring the best candidates he had up
forward to try to mentor them so the county could have a good
transition.
And Leo and I have beat ourselves to death as we worked that
process up there for-- since October.
And what we found out is first bit with Tom, he gave us the
charter that he wanted us to get into the day-to-day activities of the
particular divisions that he put us in charge of.
After we got into that about two months, he start saying, wait a
minute, there's not enough people looking at the major muscle
movements that are going on there in the particular divisions. And
we started to talk a little bit about having us so involved in the day to
day that you can't get involved in the major things that are going on
and stay abreast of everything that's is going on.
Page 422
July 30-31, 2002
In particular, you know, it would have be wonderful if we could
have spent more time with the road impact fees from the manager's
office instead of one or two briefings, been there with the consultants
way back when as they were developing this in the spring time.
What you have before you is a chart that basically depicts a
Deputy County Manager and no assistant county manager as it exist
right now is the old structure.
I'd like to delete the assistant county manager position and
replace that with two assistants that would report to the Deputy
County Manager that could be thoroughly involved in the day-to-day
activities of what's going on in those divisions. And he can-- he or
she can recap that for the Deputy County Manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, I'm lost here. Can you do that
one more time more slowly? What is it you want to eliminate?
MR. MUDD: The assistant county manager position. The
position that Leo Ochs now sits in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not on this chart.
MR. MUDD: No, sir, it doesn't exist. This is the new
organization. What I'd like to do is move Leo into the Deputy
County Manager because he comes with a wealth or knowledge as far
as what the county has done over the last of manager 15 years, and
right now I need that particular quality.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We all do.
MR. MUDD: The assistants to the County Manager for
Operations Support, which is right here on your chart, those
particular assistants is a day-to-day correspondence and those
particular actions that you move to those division to make sure that
they come back in a routine and timely fashion.
I already had a meeting with the staff, and said, hey, you got five
workings days, don't mess it up. Great organizations do routine
Page 423
July 30-31, 2002
things routinely and we're not there yet, but we're going to get there.
And we need to make that happen.
So I wanted to let you know what we're doing to that front
office. One of the things is woefully weak in is setting the legislative
affairs agenda. We started to get into that last year with
Commissioner Carter and Leo. And I would like to get that assisted
up there just above the two operational ones and let them work
strategy, instead of letting strategy be something that we do from the
cuff or from the hip that it's done on regular consistent basis with
charters, metrics, to see if we're making proper change. And then to
make sure that legislative agenda is set properly.
We don't even write good legislative language down here. We
didn't pass up anything to those folks besides our wishes. We didn't
draft the language or anything. We should be doing those things in
order to get that stuff across. I found out through my experience the
more work you can do down in your staff or their staff up north, the
better off your prospects are that it will get some place because
they're already overwhelmed.
So those are some things we'll talk about. One of the other
issues that I'd like to share with you is the County Manager's Office
was under some criticism from the productivity committee in the fact
that there wasn't enough workers to supervisors in that particular
organization.
We were criticized by the fact that Leo only had three and I had
three and Tom had two. Because of the amount of supervisors to
workers, employee type -- this also corrects that.
I will also tell you that we have some plans for emergency
services. We're not fully there yet, but we want to make sure that the
hurricane emergency disaster type services start reporting, and they're
Page 424
July 30-31, 2002
looked at by the County Manager's Office. You can see that office
shift at a later time up under my purvey.
It needs to be closer to our vest to make sure that we got
everything tied together and we got everything -- we've got the focus
where it needs to be.
The next thing I'd like to talk about a little bit, now that I
showed you that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala had a question
on that. I think I do to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've always wondered why is Storm
Water Management under Transportation rather than under the Water
Department where it seems water specialists are?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, to answer your question, I asked the same
question when I took over utilities. I said, why is John Bolt moving
from Building H and going to Horseshoe Drive?
It's because the road and bridge folks have an awful lot of that
equipment that they use to clean out those swales and drainage
ditches and things like that it was.
There was an economy scale to be gained there and it was more
-- the economy scale were better for us in that department then they
were to stay in utilities as far as the engineering side of the house was
concerned.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just two questions, if I may. Are we
gaining any employees or are we remaining just where we were
before?
MR. MUDD: What we did when -- we're not gaining any
employees, Commissioner. When we chose not to fund the
Emergency Management Administrator's Office, he had an executive
assistance that was there and that person's slot will be moved around.
Page 425
July 30-31, 2002
She might not be the person that comes, but that particular
position would be moved and that would be the body count.
As far as salary and dollars are concerned, those two slots do not
equal what the assistant county manager was making.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My other question is under the Board
of County Commissions, is it possible to have a side arm over here so
that our own staff is answerable to us?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I can do that. I was trying to give you an
idea of what I was doing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is something we ran into some
problems before when Tom was here. We never did resolve it or talk
about it.
I think our own staff should be directly answerable to us and not
have to go through the chain of command to come back up to us.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We can make that happen. Did I answer
the questions on this particular slide?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: The other thing I'd like to talk about is what's
happened as far as ethics are concerned, and I'd like to talk about it in
a public forum and what we've done or what I've done with the
particular gift-giving incident that happened in the waste water
department.
The investigation, I gave John Dunnick the investigation the first
part of the June. He had finished his investigation and he was
proceeding to pass that investigation off with his results to Jim
DeLony the Public Utilities Division Administrator for his
disposition of the case.
Why didn't that investigation come up to the County Manager's
Office because some of those employees weren't part of the
ordinance as the ordinance is written.
Page 426
July 30-31, 2002
Therefore, they are under it's HR policies of the county. When
that happens an employee can appeal any disposition of the case as
far as action that's taken against him or her to the appellate.
And the appellate in this particular case is the County Manager's
Office. If you get to close to it then you can't be the appellate any
more and it has to go to some higher authority. That's not necessarily
the Board of County Commissioners. That's somebody as a mediator
or a judge.
To preclude that from happening, it went to Mr. DeLony, Mr.
DeLony was making his particular disposition on this case when all
of this stuff hit the newspapers.
When it hit the newspapers, I had not seen the particular
disposition of the case or the results of the particular investigation by
Mr. Dunnick.
When I received those on Friday, I looked and read the
investigation and I asked a couple of questions. And the questions I
asked were any of these employees on the selection committee of the
particularly or this contractor who or this person that worked for the
contractor and the answer was yes. And.
I also asked the question, did any of our employees sign work
orders, work requests for this particular case. And there were -- the
answer to that was yes.
At that particular time, I made a decision that it needed to go to
the State Attorney's Office, because it was more than ethics, it could
be some other violation of a statute.
I will also tell you that people in the United States are innocent
until proven guilty and there needs to be an investigation. And they'll
find out that.
Page 427
July 30-31, 2002
I don't have the authority to investigate, nor does anyone else in
the county except for the Sheriff to investigate a case outside of the
State Attorney's Office.
So those were the two sources that I went to and that and I took
it to the attorney's office.
Now, my original plan was once I got the disposition and I was
going to make a determination, I was going to brief the Board of
County Commissioners Office and the Clerk's Office, but things hit
the paper before I had that opportunity.
So be it in the Sunshine and it's a system that we have, but my
apologies for that. It wasn't that I was going to preclude the Board of
County Commissioners for that.
I needed to tell you what actions I took as far as that case is
concerned. I did take another action. The other action I took is I told
the Chief of Contracting, Steve Carnell, to please draft language that
we could use in any future contracts that basically tells the contractor
that if they violate or give gifts to our employees, even the smallest
token of well-being, I don't care if it's pen, that they at that time could
be subject to a cancelation of their contract for cause.
Then I also asked him not only to draft that language and get it
incorporated in our standard contract boiler plates, but to also draft a
letter to all the present contractors and let them know that this is
serious and let them know what the language will be in the future
contracts and ask them at that time if they would voluntarily put that
language with that contract as an amendment to show us their good
faith in that process as a partner.
So I've done that action too. And I started that Friday morning
when I made the decision to go to the State Attorney's Office.
Page 428
July 30-31, 2002
Because this a two-way street. When a gift comes from
someone and goes to someone, well we worked on the receivers, now
we got to the work on the givers. And I think that will hold true.
I know the Board wants to do future actions and there's been
some discussion, but I wanted to make sure you knew what we did
from the County Manager's Office.
We don't take those actions lightly. It was done with heavy
heart as we did that it action, but it was the right thing to do. The
right thing to do.
You'll notice at this meeting, we didn't have longevity service
awards in the process, the agenda was quite full, plus it was the
summer break period of time.
The manager's office, Leo and I, have been in discussion about
what we would like to do in the future to try to move the agenda
along.
And some of the Commissioners have raised some concerns that
is probably one of the most enjoyable part of the BCC meetings by
giving out those and shaking hands with the people that are dedicated
to service to the county.
I'd ask you to think about that over the summer break. And
think about maybe -- the people that five years, I can't say this for
everyone, I will tell you that we get more people with the five year
award not wanting to come because they're embarrassed versus the
folks that do come.
I will tell you the folks that are here 15 to 20 years, really relish
the thought of coming, you don't get too many no shows in that
particular category, and maybe we need to say it's 15, 20 year,
whatever you want to do as far as that thing and the employee of the
month, the employee of the quarter, employee of the year, just to do
that so it has a more elevated status.
Page 429
July 30-31, 2002
And those folks that are at the five or 10 year, we can do it on a
monthly basis where I will ask the chair or the vice chair or one of
the commissioners come down and help me do that or all the
commissioners come down and help me do that.
I'm not going to discuss anything, we're give out awards or we
can also recognize it at the county picnic and things like that.
I would like you to think about those items in the next couple of
weeks and we'll talk in individually and I'll get your comments and
concerns. And the other thing -- ma'am, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I offer a suggestion. I've
been thinking a lot about that ever since that you spoke of it
previously. I thought being we're also together for the NPO meeting
anyway, maybe we could just get together beforehand, it's televised
anyway, and maybe that would be an opportune time to present these
awards.
There wouldn't be a parking problem. We'd be here anyway.
And maybe we could do the proclamations then and get that whole
shabang out.
MR. MUDD: Okay. That's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Every once in a while.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the first time this year.
MR. MUDD: The other thing I would say to you, the best thing
we did is make this meeting two days. And the manager's office only
advertised it for one and my apologies.
But next year, summer break, I will advertise it for two days,
just so we don't kill each other. I can imagine being here all night
last night and continue this thing first thing in the morning. It would
have been a very difficult time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Keep a close eye on the September
agenda for the first meeting. And if it starts to back up to be heavy,
Page 430
July 30-31, 2002
we can tell well in advance, especially around the Planning
Commission, we got something heavy, let's do it again. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whatever it takes. I don't want to see
anymore of these meetings that go pass six o'clock. We have the
audience out here getting bent out of shape.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're getting close.
MR. MUDD: This is your tentative September agenda,
commissioners. And we started to work on where your agendas are
for September, October and it's busy. And I have to say, you know,
I've had landscape workshop which is in here, it's the same day as
your budget hearings, but it's between 2:00 and 4:30 in order to get it
in.
And then that night you go into budget hearings at five o'clock
and go into the wee hours. I just moved your impact fees, the only
day I could find it was free on all five. The roads on the sixth of
September. And then we run our BCC meeting and the citizen
survey time certain for the 10th.
Then you have your NPO meeting on the 17th. You have a
contract management GIS workshop. The contract's management is
one of those things that Commissioner Fiala brought up the fact that
we might want to talk about GIS and emergencies and make sure that
we're focused in the right direction for the county.
And the next day on the 18th, you have budget hearings, the
second of the budget hearings on that evening.
And then the 24th, you not only have adoption of educational
facilities impact fee, you also have the correctional facilities and the
sheriffs impact fee on the 24th during your board meeting.
Page 431
July 30-31, 2002
And then the next date you start your BCC/LDC special cycle
meetings. The ones -- we have had three already, we had three more
planned for the fall.
And then if you go into -- checkbook concurrency, the
workshop, is the 27th of September. And so that is busy time before
we start the actual LDC-315 workshops in October, but I'd scare you.
So what I will do for you is I will provide you each a copy of
this tentative schedule so that you know that it is going to be a busy
fall. And your action packed and if you keep adding workshops, it's
going to get a little tighter for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. That's what we are here
MR. MUDD: That's all I have.
MS. FILSON: Did mention the Pelican Bay budget that's
sometime in September.
MR. MUDD: It's not on here yet. That was a resolution that
was approved yesterday.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is there some way -- that is
probably the biggest waste of time I ever spent in four years is to take
every commissioner out there to set up this thing, have three people
show up, wrap the gravel, bing, bang, bong, we're out of there in 10
minutes.
I think that could be incorporated into one of our meetings. It
never made any sense to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: It could be. I think it was just a matter of
geographical courtesy. Let me work closely with Jim in our new
ordinance and make sure that we don't run into any problem at least
with this first one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Page 432
July 30-31, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Maybe eliminate a meeting. A
lot folks don't show up. I'm sure for the five or six that might want to
participate with in that they can come on down here and enjoy the
day with us.
MR. MUDD: I'm done, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: I would just like to say, I appreciate Jim as
County Manager. It's a pleasure working Jim and Leo day and night.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You spend nights together, guys?
MR. MUDD: Lately.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You say that without smiling. Okay.
We'll go for comments from the commissioners. Why don't we start
with you Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I wouldn't think of comment on
anything. But that my grandson Ethan James was born June 30th in
Atlanta, is now nine pounds and growing. And he's a delight along
with Ashley. Nicole who was born the 29th of May. I got grandkids
coming right and left. People say what am I going to do when I leave
the Board? I'm busy going to be poppa, that's what I'm going to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, have a happy summer. I'm
leaving town Saturday. I'll be gone a month. I'll miss all of you, but
I'm out of here Saturday.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter, I can't
compete with your nine pound grandchild, but I did catch a nine
pound salmon in Alaska last week.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Did you bring it back?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we ate it on the sea, shared it
with about ten other people. Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
Page 433
July 30-31, 2002
I'd lake to make one comment, today's meeting was not without
pain. We have some staff members that put a tremendous amount of
work into this. I want them to know that I recognize their efforts.
And that if during the meeting, I may have asked questions that
were inappropriately asked, I apologize at this. I appreciate
everything they've done. I think we're very close to reaching a
resolution on this.
I'm a little bit concerned sometimes, you know, with political
world then turing into the world of reality, if you know what I mean.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want all of you to feel secure in
your vacations over next month. I will be here to take care of things
and keep the home fires burning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anyone that needs a commissioner
for the next month, call Commissioner Coyle, any time of the day.
We'll furnish you with his home phone number also.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County attorney, you don't
have to answer this, but I'm not sure if we need to approve anything
above the administration level on this chart. The other thing in our
agenda --
MR. MUDD: You can't approve anything above the division --
you do division administrators and the County Manager and the
Deputy, but anything below that is my purvey.
I wanted to do this as a professional courtesy to let you know
what my plan was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I said above, I thought I
did. Glenn Heath, one the planners wrote a summary on the Land
Use items. I would just like to tell you, it was the most enjoyable
reading in how it flowed and how, you know, I understood it.
Page 434
July 30-31, 2002
I didn't have to look between the lines. I didn't have to flip
pages. It was a great summary.
One other thing, speaking about landscaping workshop, what
I'm noticing in the community, I don't know if anybody else is, when
we do our road expansions, we do noise abatements.
My concern is how we're setting up this community looks with
walls, so I would like to see some alternatives besides walls or walls
with landscaping incorporated with it and who takes the
responsibility of that landscaping in from that community and in front
of that wall?
That's all I have.
MR. MUDD: If it's the pleasure of the Board, I can include in
the landscaping workshop that we have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. You got it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We'll agree to anything now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's 5:30. We covered an awful lot of
items. You did a wonderful job, take the rest of the day off.
***** Commissioner Carter moved, seconded by Commissioner
Henning and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR A RED COCKADED
WOODPECKER (RWC) HABITAT SURVEY OF SECTION 24
AND THE NORTH BELLE MEADE OVERLAY IN THE OF
$15,000 USING $12,500 FROM MSTD GENERAL FUND (111)
RESERVES
Page 435
July 30-31, 2002
Item # 16A2
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.803 "BLUE
HERON OFFSITE HAULING", LOCATED IN SECTION 33,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH BY INTERSTATE 75 R/W, ON THE WEST BY
SAPPHIRE LAKES SUBDIVISION, ON THE EAST BY
SHERWOOD PUD, AND ON THE SOUTH BY RADIO ROAD,
R/W- WITH STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A3
FINAL PLAT OF "SABAL BAY COMMERCIAL PLAT PHASE
ONE"- SUBJECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY- WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
ACCEPTANCE OF A MASTER PLAN AND ACKNOWLEDGE
THE LEGAL AGREEMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE TO
SERVE PROJECTS IN THE WHIPPOORWILL AREA
(BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY PINE RIDGE ROAD, ON THE
SOUTH BY THE WYNDEMERE SUBDIVISION, ON THE EAST
BY 1-75 RIGHT OF WAY, AND ON THE WEST BY PROPOSED
LIVINGSTON ROAD, WHICH IS PRESENTLY UNDER
CONSTRUCTION)- WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
Page 436
July 30-31, 2002
FINAL PLAT OF "INDIGO LAKES UNIT SEVEN"- SUBJECT
TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
FINAL PLAT OF "CARSON LAKES PHASE II"- SUBJECT TO
THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
FINAL PLAT OF "NOAH'S LANDING"
Item #16A8
FINAL PLAT OF "ISLANDWALK PHASE SEVEN A"
Item #16A9 - Deleted
MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE FOR A SEVENTY-
FIVE THOUSAND ($75,000) DOLLAR LOAN TO
RENAISSANCE MANOR, INC., A NON-PROFIT HOUSING
PROVIDER, TO ASSIST 1N THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SPECIAL NEEDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Item #16Al0
Page 437
July 30-31, 2002
THIRD AMENDMENT TO 2002 TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH
KELLEY SWOFFORD ROY, INC., AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Item #16Al 1
2003 TOURISM AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND KELLEY SWOFFORD ROY, INC., PHASE V OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., AND EVANS - KLAGES, INC.,
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
Item #16A 12 - Moved to Item #10I
Item #16A13 - Deleted
Item #16A14
REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF IMPACT
FEES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,872.82, FOR A MOBILE HOME
EMPLACED, BUT NOT THEN PERMITTED, ON THE
HOMEOWNER'S PROPERTY PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF
APPLICABLE COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES, PROVIDED
THE PROPERTY OWNER OBTAINS ALL NECESSARY
PERMITS AND COMPLETES ALL IMPROVEMENTS
REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY AND PAYS ALL OTHER
ASSOCIATED FEES
Item #16A15
Page 438
July 30-31, 2002
AUTHORIZATION TO REDISTRIBUTE APPROVED FUNDS
BETWEEN TWO EXISTING PURCHASE ORDERS FOR THE
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RWA, INC.,
FOR THE RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT
ORDERS
Item #16A16
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BID ON BEHALF OF
COUNTY AT FORECLOSURE (CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN)
SALE TO BE SCHEDULED BY THE CLERK IN BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. WAYNE THIBODEA U, CASE NO.
00-3935-CA
Item #16A17-Moved to Item #10L to be heard on July 31, 2002
Item #16Al 8
FINAL PLAT OF "HAMMOCK BAY"- SUBJECT TO THE
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A19
AMENDMENT TO FY02 ADOPTED BUDGET OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION FOR EXPENCES
INCURRED RELATIVE TO FINAL ORDER NO. 99-002
Item # 16B 1
Page 439
July 30-31, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-315 FIXING THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE
FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING THE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT) TO BE
LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PELICAN
BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 AT 6 P.M. AT THE FOURNDATION
CENTER, PELICAN BAY
Item # 16B2
THREE (3) IMPACT FEES REFUND REQUESTS TOTALING
$81,068.92
Item #16B3
STAFF TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS WITH FIVE FIRMS (5)
FOR RFP #02-3371 'FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES"
Item #16B4
BID #02-3378 IMMOKALEE TRIANGLE LANDSCAPING
INSTALLATION- AWARDED TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $134,445.
Item # 16B5
CHANGE ORDER WITH APAC, INC., FOR ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS AT GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND 53m)
STREET SW IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,644.50, PROJECT #60016
Page 440
July 30-31, 2002
Item #16B6
PURCHASE AND INSTALL BUS STOP SHELTERS FOR
COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,472
Item # 16B7
ADVANCED FUNDING TO THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT
(MSTU) IN THE AMOUNT OF $228,583.08. AND CHANGE
ORDER NO. 5 WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES RELATED TO STREET
LIGHTING IN THE AMOUNT OF $352,021.80
Item #16B8
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS BY
BETTER ROADS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $83,294.75 ON
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60175
Item #16B9
AGREEMENT WITH WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE, ET AL.,
TO PURCHASE PARCELS 190A, 190B, 190D, 790B, 790C, 790D,
790F, 890A AND 890C FIR FOUR-LANING IMPROVEMENTS
TO IMMOKALEE ROAD.
Item # 16B 10
Page 441
July 30-31, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-316 AMENDING RESOLUTION 2002-98
AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
AND/OR EASEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SIX-LANE SECTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD BETWEEN
PINE RIDGE ROAD AND IMMOKALEE ROAD, CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO. 58 (PROJECT NO. 62071)
Item #16B 11
PIGGYBACKING OF BROWARD COUNTY CONTRACT FOR
THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL COMPONENTS
Item # 16B 12
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $100,000 FROM GAS
TAX RESERVES TO RE1NBURSE THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE CITY'S PUMP STATION
Item # 16B 13
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $50,000 FROM GAS
TAX RESERVES TO REIMBURSE THE CITY OF NAPLES
AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR THE COUNTY'S SHARE OF THE
AIRPORT ROAD LANDSCAPE PROJECT
Item # 16B 14
ATC PARATRANSIT TO ENTER A CONTRACT WITH
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT SERVING AS THE
Page 442
July 30-31, 2002
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
PROGRAM AS IDENTIFIED IN RFP #02-3383 AUTHORIZING
THE COUNTY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO
A CONTRACT WITH THE SELECTED MANAGEMENT
COMPANY
Item #16B 15 - Continued to September 10, 2002
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LB/P
GROVEWAY, L.L.C., FOR ITS TWO-MONTH CONTINUED USE
OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY NETTING THE COUNTY
$4,000 IN ADDITIONAL RENT
Item # 16B 16
BID #02-3391 TO PURCHASE ONE (1) DOUBLE DRUM
VIBRATORY ROLLER IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,995
AWARDED TO NORTRAX EQUIPMENT CO.
Item # 16B 17
RESOLUTION 2002-317 TO REMOVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FROM
THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AT COMMERCIAL
BOULEVARD AT THE COST OF APPROXIMATLY $3,000
Item # 16B 18
Page 443
July 30-31, 2002
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH VOLUSIA COUNTY FOR THE USE
OF TWO TROLLEY/BUSES 1N THE AMOUNT OF $500 PER
MONTH, PER BUS
Item # 16B 19
LOAN OF $60,000 TO THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND
DRAiNAGE MSTU FOR THE COMPLETION OF DRAiNAGE
WORK
Item # 16B20
LOAN OF $20,000 TO THE LIViNGSTON ROAD PHASE 2
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU FOR THE INITIAL LANDSCAPE
DESIGN AND SECRETARIAL EXPENCES FOR REMAINDER
OF THE FISCAL YEAR
Item # 16B21
BID #02-3387 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NORTH 11
STREET EXTENSION FROM STATE ROAD 29 TO ROBERTS
AVENUE- AWARDED TO APAC-FLORIDA, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $144,150.50
Item # 16B22
BID #02-3381 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED
IMMOKALEE ROAD/I-75 INTERCHANGE PRJECT-
AWARDED TO BETTER ROADS, INC., iN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,928,170.77
Page 444
July 30-31, 2002
Item # 16C 1
EXECUTE AND RECORD SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF
PROMISE TO PAY FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION
FACILITY TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM RESERVES TO
COVER THE EXPENCES FOR SEWER LINES REPAIRS AND
CHEMICALS
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2002-319/CWS 2002 01 APPROVING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR CERTAIN
SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2002 TAX YEAR
Item #16C4
WORK ORDER GH-FT-02-9 WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN
LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $659,080 TO PERFORM PHASE 2
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SANTA BARBARA SEWER FORCE
MAIN INTERCONNECT BETWEEN THE NOTH AND SOUTH
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS, PROJECT 73132
Page 445
July 30-31, 2002
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2002-319/CWS 2002-02 AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF NON-EXCLUSIVE
PERPETUAL UTILITY INTERESTS BY FEE SIMPLE INTEREST
AND/OR EASEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FORCE
MAIN AND PUMP STATION SITES REQUIRED FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT SANTA
BARBARA SEWER FORCE MAIN INTERCONNECT PROJECT
BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH WASTEWATER
COLLECTION SYSTEMS, PROJECTS 73076, 73132, 73150, AND
73151 NOT TO EXCEED $470,012
Item #16C6
ACQUIRE AND IMPLEMENT A CALL CENTER TELEPHONE
SYSTEM IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
Item # 16C7
RESOLUTION 2002-320 ADOPTING A CORRECTIVE
DECLARATION OF EASEMENT FOR TWO WATER WELL
HOUSE SITES AND A PIPELINE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A
PORTION OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR A FUTURE PARK
SITE
Item # 16C8
CONSULTING SERVICES WITH VACARRO CONSULTING,
INC., TO IMPLEMENT PHASE II OF THE UTILITY BILLING
Page 446
July 30-31, 2002
SOFTWARE SYSTEM AND TO ACQUIRE TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE DURING ACCEPTANCE TESTING, DATA
CONVERSION VERIFICATION, PARALLEL PROCESSING,
AND CUT-OVER TO THE LIVE ENVIRONMENT
Item #16C9
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH FP&L TO NEW
BRACKISH WATER SUPPLY WELLS SERVING THE NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT AT A
CREDIT OF $9,158.50, PROJECT 70075 AND 70094
Item # 16C 10
RESOLUTION 2002-321 GRANTING A REVOCABLE
TEMPORARY LICENSE AND UTILITY EASEMENT TO LEE
COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., FOR
INSTALLATION OF AN ELECTIRC POWER LINE ON THE
CARNESTOWN TRANSGER STATION PROPERTY
Item # 16C 11
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. HW 465 WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR ELECTRONICS RECYCLING
Item #16C12
Page 447
July 30-31, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-322 SUPPORTING CONTINUED FEDERAL
FUNDING OF COASTAL PROJECTS
Item #16C13
RFP 02-3339 FOR CONTRUCTION & DEMOLITION WASTE
ARTIFICIAL REEF RECYCLING - AWARED TO MCCULLEY
MARINE SERVICES INC., IN AN- ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $250,000
Item #16C14 - Continued to September 10, 2002
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT AND OLD COLLIER GOLF CLUB, INC., FOR
MONTHLY BILLING OF IRRIGATION WATER
AVAILABILITY CHARGE
Item # 16C 15 - Moved to Item #10J
Item # 16C 16
AMENDMENT TO THE APRIL 10, 2001 FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CONSENT ORDER RELATED TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES, PROJECTS
73077 AND 73949
Item # 16C 17
Page 448
July 30-31, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-323 AND 2002-324 RESPECTIVELY TO SET
THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 AT
9:00 A.M. BOARDROOM CHAMBERS FOR AN ADVERTISED
PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT FEES (SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS) TO BE COLLECTED ON THE PROPERTY
TAX BILLS FOR CURBSIDE TRASH COLLECTION SERVICE
FOR THE 2003 BUDGET YEAR FOR DISTRICT 1 AND
DISTRICT 2
Item # 16C 18
UTILITY EASEMENT TO FP&L FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES TO SERVE WATER
WELLS TO BE LOCATED ON COUNTY-OWNED FUTURE
PARK PROPERTY
Item #16C19
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY FOR $241,400 TO BE
TRANSFERRED FROM RESERVES TO COVER THE
EXPENSES FOR OVERTIME, SLUDGE TRANSPORTATION,
ELECTRICITY, OPERATING SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
REPAIRS
Item #16C20
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $258,500 FOR CONSTRUCTION
WORK FOR THE PRICE STREET-BAREFOOT WILLIAMS
ROAD WATER MUNICIPAL SERVICES BENEFIT UNIT
Page 449
July 30-31, 2002
(MSBU) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FUND (409), PROJECT NO.
70077
Item #16C21
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $200,000 TO FUND
UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES WITHIN THE NORTH WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY COST CENTER
Item # 16D 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000 FOR
THE DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF A SOCCER FIELD AT
EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK
Item # 16E 1
BID #02-3386 TO COLLIER TIRE & AUTO REPAIR AS
PRIMARY VENDOR AND COLLIER RETREADING, INC., AS
SECONDARY VENDOR AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $35,000
ANNUALLY FOR TIRE SERVICES AND $100,000 ANNUALLY
FOR NEW TIRES
Item #16E2
CONTRACT WITH ROBERT FLYNN MOVING AND STORAGE
FOR INCREASE OF THE RFQ #99-0290 "FILE RETENTION"
SERVICES FROM $25,000 THRESHOLD TO $33,000
Page 450
July 30-31, 2002
Item #16E3
LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE
OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA TO SUBMIT A FRONT PORCH
FLORIDA APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION OF SOUTH
IMMOKALEE AS A FRONT PORCH FLORIDA COMMUNITY
Item #16E4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING $72,500 FOR
EXPENDITURES RELATED TO THE TEMPORARY
RELOCATION OF THE LAW LIBRARY
Item # 16E5
GRANT FOR A UTILITY EASEMENT TO SPRINT-FLORIDA,
INC., FOR RELOCATION OF A CABLE CONNECTION
CABINET FROM AIRPORT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE
COUNTY'S MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX PROPERTY
Item #16E6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE
PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,217,100 RECOGNIZING
ADDITIONAL PREMIUM REVENUE AND INCREASING
BUDGETED EXPENDITURES FOR INSURANCE CLAIMS,
REINSURANCE, AND LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
Page 451
July 30-31, 2002
Item # 16E7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING #37,000 FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL LIGHTING FOR THE
HARMON TURNER BUILDING (BLDG F) SOUTH PARKING
LOT
Item #16E8 - Moved to Item # 1 OK
Item #16E9
GRANT EMPLOYEES HIRED THROUGH THE RECAP
PROGRAM WHO HAVE PROVIDED CONTINUED FULL-TIME,
UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE TO THE COUNTY A VACATION
ACCRUAL DATE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR ORIGINAL
RECAP HIRE DATE
Item #16F 1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS FOR THE REVIEW AND UPDATE OF HAZARD
ANALYSES AT DESIGNATED FACILITIES WITHIN COLLIER
COUNTY THAT POSSESS EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES AT OR ABOVE THE THRESHOLD PLANNING
QUANTITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,947
Item # 16F2
Page 452
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
APPLICATION FOR A MATCHING (50/50) GRANT OFFERED
BY THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTY GRANT
APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,974.50 AND APPROVE
ANY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16F3
BID #02-3389 FOR THE PURCHASE OF JANITORIAL
SUPPLIES FOR ALL COLLIER COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
AWARDED TO PYRAMID II, INC.
Item #16F4
APPLICATION OF FEDERAL HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT
FOR FUNDING TO IMPROVE HURRICANE PROTECTION OF
COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES AND RETROFIT THE
FOUNDATION OF THE EVERGLADES CITY HALL
Item # 16F5
APPROPRIATE REVENUE FOR TWO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
MATCHING GRANTS AND TRANSFER COUNTY MATCHING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,346.80 FROM THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 490 RESERVES, AND
RECOGINIZE THE STATE FUNDS OF$160,040.40 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MOBILE DATA TERMINALS & EQUIPMENT
FOR RESPONSE TO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
INCIDENTS
Page 453
July 30-31, 2002
Item # 16G 1
SUMMARY OF CONSENT AND EMERGENCY AGENDA
ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY MANAGER DURING
THE BOARDS SCHEDULED RECESS
Item 1:
BUDGET AMENDMENT #02-354 FOR REINBURSEMENT TO
THE MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR PROFESIONAL LIABILITY
INSURANCE
Item 2:
RESOLUTION 2002- 325/CWS 2002-03 FUNDING EVENT TO
CELEBRATE THE OFFICIAL LAUNCH OF THE SOUTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY EXPANSION
PROJECT
Item 3:
BUDGET AMENDMENT #02-355 TO PURCHASE AND
ADDITIONAL LIBRARY VEHICLE FROM LIBRARY IMPACT
FEE
Item 4:
Page 454
July 30-31, 2002
BUDGET AMENDMENT #02-427 FOR HOSPITALIZATION IN-
PATIENT CHANGES PER THE HEALTH CARE
RESPONSIBILITY ACT
Item 5:
ACCEPTANCE OF AN ADDITIONAL $51,455 IN STATE AID
TO LIBRARIES IN FY02 TO IMPROVE LIBRARY SERVICES
Item #16J1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 455
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
July 30, 2002
¢isc. Corms:
coS
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTE~
A. 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:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Disbursements for June 8, 2002 through June 15, 2002.
Disbursements for June 16, 2002 through June 22, 2002.
Disbursements for June 20, 2002 through June 25, 2002
Disbursements for June 26, 2002 through July 2, 2002.
Disbursements for July 6, 2002 through July 12, 2002.
B. Districts:
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Resolution 2002-2 to
be attached to the February 25th 2002 Minutes.. Unaudited Financial
Stmnt, Description of Outstanding Bonds and Minutes of April 24, 2002;
Minutes of May 22, 2002
o
Ceder Hammock Community Development District - Minutes of July 16,
2001, Proposed Budget, Adopted Budget and FinanCial Statement.
Immokalee Fire Control District - Annual Financial Report, Audit,
Management Ltr and Response to Management Ltr.
Port of the Islands Community Improvement District- Unaudited
Financial Statement and Minutes of April 19, 2002; Minutes of May 17,
2002 and Proposed Budget FY 2003
Key Marco Community Development District - Unaudited Financial
Statement, Minutes of 2/16/99 and 1/17/01 meetings and Adopted Budget
2002.
C. Minutes:
Pelican Bay Services Advisory Committee- Agenda for June 5, 2002 and
July 3, 2002, Minutes of June 5, 2002; Minutes of June 12, 2002.
H:Data/Format
o
o
o
o
o
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for June 10, 2002,
Minutes of April 18, 2002; Agenda for June 20, 2002, Minutes of May 8,
2002
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for May 15, 2002;
Agenda for June 12, 2002; Minutes of May 15, 2002
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for May 23,
2002; Agenda for April 25, 2002, Notice of Meeting July 25, 2002;.
Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for April 17, 2002;
Agenda for May 22, 2002, Minutes of April 17, 2002; Agenda for June 26,
2002, Minutes of May 22, 2002.
Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee - Agenda for May 22,
2002.
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board -Agenda for May 23,
2002, Meeting Notice for June 27, 2002.
Lely Community Development District Minutes and Records - Minutes
of March 20, 2002, Minutes of April 17, 2002,; Agenda for June 27,
2002, Minutes of May 10, 2002.
Hearing Officer Advisory Committee - Notice of Meeting June 26, 2002.
Collier County Airport Authority - Minutes of Workshop of May 30,
2002, Agenda for June I 0, 2002
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Agenda for June 17, 2002 and
July 1, 2002; Minutes for May 20, 2002 and May 6, 2002
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board -
Agenda for June 12, 2002 and July 3, 2002
Collier Soil and Water Conservation District - June 19, 2002, Minutes of
May 15, 2002.
Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for June 19,
2002; Minutes of May 15, 2002.
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for June 5, 2002, Minutes of
May 1, 2002.
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Agenda for June 26,
2002; Minutes of May 29, 2002.
H:Data/Format
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agenda for
April 24, 2002, May 9, 2002; Minutes of April 30, 2002.
Lake Trafford RestoratiOn Task Force Meeting - Minutes of April 12,
2002.
Enterprise Zone Development Agency- Draft Minutes of May 28, 2002
Environmental Advisory Council -July 3, 2002; Minutes of June 5, 2002.
1-75/Golden Gate Interchange - April 18, 2002
Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority - Minutes of April 22,
200Z
Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization - Agenda for June 14,
2002.
H:Data/Format
July 30-31, 2002
Item #16K1
DETERMINE WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF GOODS AND
SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDUTRE OF COUNTY
FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2002-326 REFLECTING THE REALIGNMENT OF
POLITICAL BOUNDARIES WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY AS
ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL PANEL
Item # 16L 1
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES RELATIVE TO
EASEMENT ACQUISITIONS OF PARCEL 175C AND 575C IN
THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. RICHARD H.
EVANS, ETAL., CASE NO. 01-1235-CA, LIVINGSTON ROAD
PROJECT NO. 60071
Item # 16L2
AUTHORIZATON TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST A COLLIER
COUNTY EMPLOYEE TO SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF A
DEBT OWED TO THE COUNTY BY THE EMPLOYEE FOR THE
SUM OF ELEVEN HUNDRED THREE DOLLARS AND SIXTY-
TWO CENTS ($1,103.62) PLUS COSTS
Page 456
July 30-31, 2002
Item # 16L3
GENERAL RELEASE SUBMITTED BY WCI COMMUNITIES
PROVIDEING FOR PAYMENT OF PREVIOUSLY UNPAID
EDUCATION IMPACT FEES FOR MARBELLA AT PELICAN
BAY, INC.
Item #17A - This item has been continued indefinitely
PETITION CU-01-AR-1912, R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG,
VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE AND ANDERSON, P.A., AND
MARGARET PERRY OF WILSON MILLER INC.,
REPRESENTING BONITA BAY GROUP INC., REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "17" OF THE "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A
GOLF COURSE AND RELATED FACILITIES FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR-
846) AND APPROXIMATELY FOUR MILES EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR-951), IN SECTIONS 29, 30 AND 31,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2002-327 RE PETITION SNR-2002-AR-2239,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVORONMENTAL
SERVICES DIVISION, REQUESTING A STREET NAME
CHANGE FOR A PORTION OF THOMASSON DRIVE TO
THOMASSON LANE, LOCATED IN SECTIONS 13 AND 24,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST
Page 457
July 30-31, 2002
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2002-328 RE PETITION AVROW2002-AR2439
DISCLAIMING, RENOUNCING AND VACATING THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF
THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY FOR 14TM STREET NORTH
WHICH WAS DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY BY THE PLAT
OF "NORTH NAPLES HIGHLANDS"
Item #17D- Moved to Item #8M
Item # 17E
RESOLUTION 2002-329 & DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2002-02 RE
PETITION DOA-2002-AR-2208, ROBERT J. MULHERE OF
RWA, INC., REPRESENTING PARKLANDS DEVELOPMENTS,
LP., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE "PARKIJANDS"
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) IN ORDER TO
EXTEND THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT FOR THE
PROJECT BY ONE YEAR TO MARCH 11, 2004 FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE FUTURE LOGAN
BOULEVARD EXTENSION AND APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES
NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R.846) IN SECTION 9,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item # 17F
RESOLUTION 2002-330 RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2444,
GOLDEN DREAM HOMES, REPRESENTING EDITH
Page 458
July 30-31, 2002
MONTERO AND OSVALDO RIVERO, REQUESTING AN
AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE OF 2.5 FEET FROM THE
REQUIRED 37.5-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 35 FEET
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON A CORNER LOT AT 1795
DESOTO BOULEVARD SOUTH, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS
THE SOUTH 180 FEET OF TRACT 63, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES UNIT 85, IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item # 17G
RESOLUTION 2002-331 ESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE
PROCESSING BACKGROUND CHECK AND ISSUING DRIVER
INENTIFICATION CARDS; TO REAFFIRM APPLICATION AND
CERTIFICATION FEES FOR CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE A
PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE BUSINESS; AND TO REPEAL
COLLIER COUNTY RESOLUTION 93-127, AS AMENDED
Item # 17H
ORDINANCE 2002-37 RE PETITION PUDA-01-AR-2028,
ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE MONTES, INC., REPRESENTING
CYPRESS GLEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE CYPRESS
GLEN PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896) AND APPROXIMATELY
ONE QUARTER MILE WEST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD IN
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Page 459
July 30-31, 2002
Item # 171
ORDINANCE 2002-38 CREATING A SITE IMPROVEMENT
GRANT AND IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR THE
BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA)
Item #17J - This item has been continued indefinitely
PETITION PUDZ-2001AR-1464, ROBERT DUANE, OF HOLE
MONTES, INC., REPRESENTING ROBERT C. MALT,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
TO BE KNOWN AS ESTUARY BAY, FOR 236 MULTI-FAMILY
UNITS AND 79 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR A
MAXIMUM OF 315 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(SR 951), 2 MILES SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF US 41
AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (SR 951), IN SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 78.7 +/- ACRES
Item #17K
RESOLUTION 2002-332 AND ORDINANCE 2002-39
AMENDING ORDINANCE 2000-70 FOR CHANGES TO THE
BY-LAWS OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
ADVISORY COUNCIL
Page 460
July 30-31, 2002
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair- Time: 5:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
JAMES COLETTA, CHAIRMAN
?ATTEST:c;,
'" DWiGtt, T E BROCK, CLERK
'.,. ~.:~ ~, /
~ttest as ~ C~~'s
st~at~~e minutes approved by the Board one,
As presented /°r as co~ected
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF COLLIER )
Page 461
July 30-31, 2002
I, Lisa Holton, Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that the
foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as
stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing
computer-assisted transcription, inclusive, is a true record of my
Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings.
Dated this 25th day of August, 2002.
Lisa Holton
Professional Reporter
Page 462