BCC Minutes 09/24/2002 RSeptember 24, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING
Naples, Florida, September 24, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing boards(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Jim Coletta
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
James D.Carter,Ph.D.
ALSO PRESENT:
Ramiro Manalich, Chief
AssistantCountyAttorney
David Weigel, County Attorney
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., Deputy County Manager
Page 1
September 24, 2002
Sue Filson, Executive Management BOCC
Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator
Marla Ramsey, Parks and Recreation Director
Jim DeLony, Utilities Division Administrator
Skip Camp, Facilities Management Director
Gregg Strakaluse, Director of Engineering
Construction Management, Transportation
Division
Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager
Bob Herrington, MTO Manager
Laurel Land, Project Manager CUTR
David Week, Comprehensive Planning Staff
Page 2
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
September 24, 2002
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA 1TEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL
LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
1
September 24, 2002
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Rabbi Howard Greenstein, Jewish Congregation of Marco Island
e
AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
e
SERVICE AWARDS
Ae
Be
Ce
De
Sue Getter, Solid Waste - 20 Years
James Thomas, Parks and Recreation - 25 Years
Judith Marks, Social Services- 25 Years
Patricia Cookson, Utility Billing - 30 Years
e
PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Proclamation for Child Safety Month. To be accepted by Amy Hendrickson,
Event Chairwoman for Collier County Child Safety Fair.
Be
Proclamation to recognize John Dmry, Executive Director of the Collier
County Airport Authority, for his outstanding service.
Ce
Proclamation for Financial Planning Week to be accepted by Suzanne Low,
President of the Financial Planning Association of Southwest Florida.
2
September 24, 2002
e
e
e
ge
e
PRESENTATIONS
PUBLIC PETITIONS
A.
This item continued from the September 10, 2002 BCC Meeting. Public
Petition request to discuss reassessment of Impact Fees on the Homewood
Residence.
B. Public Petition request by David P. Barker representing Bentley Village
regarding Impact Fee Assessment.
C. Public Petition request by Pastor J. David Mallory regarding an Impact Fee
Deferral.
D. Public Petition request by Taylor Ives for a Waiver of Fees for one dedicated
EMS Unit during the Franklin Templeton Shootout.
E. Public Petition request by Ellin Goetz to discuss draft-implementing
ordinance for the Greenspace Referendum.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Amendment to the Emergency Management Ordinance expanding the
succession of authority to include all County Commissioners, the Clerk of
Courts and the Deputy County Manager.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
B. Appointment of member to the Public Vehicle Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
D. Appointment of member to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
3
September 24, 2002
10.
Ee
Discussion regarding amendments to Resolution No. 94-136 establishing
guidelines for receiving recommendations for appointment of members to
advisory committees and Quasi-Judicial Boards.
F. Appointment of member to the Education Facilities Authority.
G. Appointment of member to the Industrial Development Authority.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Acquisition by Condemnation of Non-
Exclusive, Perpetual Utility Interests by Easement for the construction of a
force main and pump stations required for the Collier County Water-Sewer
District's 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 $670,012. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
Be
Presentation of options regarding a building (American Legion Hall) on the
South Immokalee Neighborhood Park property with associated costs ranging
from none to $37,000. (John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public Services)
Co
Request Board provide staff with direction in regard to adding maintenance
of Devonshire Boulevard to the Radio Road Beautification MSTU
responsibility at an estimated cost of $40,000 annually. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation)
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)
Ee
Approve an Addendum to the Landscaping Installation and Maintenance
Highway Agreement in the amount $288,000, with the Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) within the Unincorporated Area of Collier
County, Florida; authorizing the Chairman to expand the boundaries of the
existing US 41 North Phase I Agreement to Vanderbilt Beach Road. The
County's cost for annual maintenance is estimated to be $105,000. (Norman
Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
4
September 24, 2002
11.
Fe
Ge
He
Je
Ke
te
Approve amended median landscaping agreement between Collier County
and the Vineyards Development Corporation in the amount of $35,000.00.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
Status Report to the Board reviewing past Board direction in regard to the
Beautification of the Livingston Road Corridor. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation)
Award a Construction Contract in the amount of $18,899,386.08 to Better
Roads Inc., and allocate $900,000.00 (5% of the construction cost) for
contingency purposes to construct the proposed Livingston Road Phase III
Project, from Pine Ridge Road to Immokalee Road, Project No. 62071.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Acquisition by Gift or Purchase of right-
of-way in fee simple title, as well as perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-
way, drainage and/or utility easements, and temporary driveway restoration
easements, and temporary construction easements, which will be required
for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements for the
Immokalee Road six-laning project from US 41 to 1-75 (Project No. 66042).
Fiscal Impact: $9,880,700. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
Approve Annual Rate Resolution to set Landfill Tipping Fees,
Transfer/Recycling Center Fees, Residential Annual Assessments and
Commercial Waste Collection Fees for FY2002/2003. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
Award Bid #02-3415 to Lodge Construction, Inc., for the construction of the
Golden Gate Community Center Annex at a cost of $2,311,117.00. (John
Dunnuck, Administrator, Public Services)
Approval of a Project Budget Amendment for $357,000 and approval to
Award Bid #02-3377 in the amount of $2,529,376 for a Construction
Contract with Brooks and Freund, LLC, for construction of the North Naples
Government Services Center. (Jo-Anne Leamer, Administrator,
Administrative Services)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
5
September 24, 2002
12.
13.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14.
15.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Approval of First Amendment to Lease between CPOC Realty, L.L.C.
and Collier County for the continued use of office space for the
Financial Administration and Housing Department at an annual rental
amount of $44,636.88.
2)
Approve Fourth Amendment to 2002 Tourism Agreement with Kelley
Swofford Roy, Inc., extending expiration date from September 30,
2002 to January 31, 2003 to allow FY02 Advertising/Promotion
Funds to be expended in FY03, as recommended by the Tourist
Development Council.
3)
Approval of Budget Amendment transferring $3,608.04 from Tourist
Development Fund 194 to Utility Regulation Fund 669 for
reimbursement of FY01/02 Expenditures made by Utility Regulation,
which were dedicated to the tourism effort, as recommended by the
Tourist Development Council.
4)
Approval of Budget Amendment transferring $20,000 from Tourist
Development Fund 194 to Utility Regulation Fund 669 for
reimbursement of Utility Regulation staff time dedicated to the
6
September 24, 2002
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
tourism effort, as recommended by the Tourist Development Council.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-075 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Charles Hitchcock, Inc., McAlpine Briarwood,
Inc., and Charles Hitchcock (Briarwood Golf and Practice Center)
regarding violation to Section 3.3.11 of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier
County Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-037 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Enrique Iglesias regarding violation of Sections
3.9.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-379 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Charles and Joan Humphries regarding violation
of Ordinance No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development
Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-005 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Quail Crossing Property Owners Association
regarding violation to Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended of the
Collier County Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-061 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. A.L. Dougherty Co., Inc. regarding violation to
Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended of the Collier County Land
Development Code and violation to Ordinance No. 99-51, of the
Collier County Litter and Weed Ordinance.
Waive purchasing policy and approve limited engagement of
McLaughlin Tourism Management to assist staff in development of
the FY03 Advertising/Promotion Plan and facilitating a joint
workshop to establish goals and priorities of the Tourism Marketing
Program, not to exceed $30,000, as recommended by the Tourist
7
September 24, 2002
11)
12)
13)
14)
16)
17)
18)
Development Council.
Approve amended 2002 Tourism Agreement between Collier County
and the Naples Botanical Garden, extending expiration date from
September 30, 2002 to September 30, 2003, to allow FY02 Special
Museum Grant Funds to be expended in FY03, as recommended by
the Tourist Development Council.
Status Report to the Board of County Commissioners on the work
plan and schedule for preparation of an Interlocal Agreement with the
Collier County School Board for coordinated land use and school
planning as required by Chapter 2002-296 Laws of Florida.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 1999-069 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Dale Horbal and Cheryl Horbal regarding
violation of Section 3.9.6.6.6 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended of
the Collier County Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-023 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Terry Arce regarding violation of Sections 3.9.3
of Ordinances No. 91-102, as amended of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
Approve 2003 Tourism Agreement with Marco Island Historical
Society for Tourist Development Special Museum Grant of $25,000.
Code Enforcement Lien Resolution approvals.
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Hawthorne Suites.
Petition AVESMT2001-AR659 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in a drainage easement conveyed to
Collier County by separate instrument and recorded in Official Record
Book 805, Pages 755 through 757, and to accept a drainage easement
as a relocation easement, located in Section 27, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
8
September 24, 2002
19)
Approval of an Impact Fee Refund (double-payment) request totaling
$40,945.75.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve County Incentive Grant Program (CIGP) amendment
extension for Livingston Road from Golden Gate Parkway to Pine
Ridge Road (FM#410003 1 54 01) Project #60071.
2)
Approve Work Order for $1,265,384.22 for the construction
engineering and inspections services by PBS&J, Inc. for Goodlette-
Frank Road (Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road) four and six
lane improvements, Project No. 60134.
3) This item has been deleted.
4)
Recommendation to approve the purchase of one (1) tractor with
boom mower attachment from Alamo Sales Corporation in
accordance with State Bid Contract #765-900-02-01 in the amount of
$80,703.00.
s)
Approve Work Order for $1,601,472.25 for the construction
engineering and inspections services by Johnson Engineering, Inc. for
Immokalee road "Milestone 1 & 2" (Wilson Boulevard to 43rd Avenue
N.E.) four lane improvements, Project No. 60018.
6) This item has been deleted.
7)
Approval Bid #02-3416, Immokalee Beautification MSTU/MSTD
Roadway Grounds Maintenance in the amount of $154,839 to
Commercial Land Maintenance Inc.
8)
Approve an Easement Agreement and accept a Drainage Easement to
acquire a 60 x 150 foot parcel of land in the Naples Gateway Estates
Subdivision at a cost of $800.00 for the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project which is located within the East Naples Area
(Project No. 31101).
9)
Approve a Contract Amendment to the Agreement between the Board
of County Commissioners and APAC-Florida, Inc., to provide for a
September 24, 2002
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
warranty bond and inspection for any needed pipe replacement and
repair on Golden Gate Boulevard, Project No. 63041.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Acquisition by Gift or Purchase of
Fee Simple Interests required for a Storm Water Treatment Pond
which will be required for the construction of roadway improvements
along 13th Street Southwest from Golden Gate Boulevard South to 16th
Avenue SW (Project No. 69068). Fiscal Impact: $130,000.
Request for approval of payment of all travel expenses for persons
representing the MPO Board and Advisory Committees in the amount
of $8,000.00.
Approval of Purchase Order Modification with McGee and Associates
for US 41 North Phase I Landscape Services in the amount of
$5,730.00.
Approve Work Order No. BRC-FT-02-03 with Better Roads Inc. for
median improvements in the amount of $113,075.55 on Davis
Boulevard between Commercial Drive and Pine Street, Project No.
60016.
Accept a Right-of-Entry granted from Naples Botanical Garden Inc.,
for permission to enter upon property located adjacent to and
including Lake Kelly for the purpose of allowing Road Maintenance
Department Staff to maintain the vegetation by application of State
Certified Herbicides.
Approval of the FY2002 Transit Development Plan Update, which
was conducted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research
(CUTR) at the total cost of $80,000.
Approve change order with APAC, Inc. for roadway improvements on
the North 11th Street Extension Project at the Intersection of State
Road 29 in the amount of $31,733.60, Project #62021.
A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
requesting the inclusion of 1-75, State Road 29 and the Immokalee
Airport in the State of Florida Strategic Intermodal System.
10
September 24, 2002
Ce
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid Waste
Residential Account wherein the County has received payment and
said lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1993 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal Impact is $ ! 2.00 to
record the Lien.
2)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are Satisfied in Full for the 1994 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $18.00 to record the Liens.
3)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are Satisfied in Full for the 1995 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $52.50 to record the Liens.
4)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are Satisfied in Full for the 1996 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $58.50 to record the Liens.
5)
Authorization to execute and record Satisfactions for certain Water
and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal Impact is
$34.50 to record the Satisfactions.
6)
Approve the Satisfaction of Lien Documents filed against Real
Property for abatement of nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts to
record same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Fiscal
Impact is $132.00 to record the Liens.
7)
Waive Purchasing Policy Threshold for Formal Competition and
approve a Purchase Order Modification for the adjustment of water
and sewer valves related to the widening of U.S. 41 from Rattlesnake
Hammock Road to Barefoot Williams Road, Projects 70045 and
11
September 24, 2002
8)
73045, in the amount of $9,859.00.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Budget Amendment transferring funds from Mandatory Trash
Collection Fund (473) Reserves for payment to haulers for the Solid
Waste Mandatory Collection Program. Total funds needed from
Reserves are $93,200.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approval of an Agreement for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 funding
contribution to the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., at a
cost of $926,100.00.
2)
Approval of the annual contract between Collier County and the State
of Florida Department of Health for Operation of the Collier County
Health Department at an FY03 cost to the County of $1,343,200.00.
3)
Authorize Budget Amendment to transfer $200,000 from the Golden
Gate Community Center to Parks Capital Projects for the Community
Center's share of the Construction Costs of the new Annex Building.
4) This item has been deleted.
5) Renewal of an Agreement for joint use of facilities with St. John
Neumann High School.
6) Approve modification to the Caxambas Park submerged land lease
with the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection at
an additional annual cost of $150.00.
7) Award of Bid #02-3407 to Primary and Secondary Vendors for
purchase and delivery of fertilizer at a projected cost of $200,000.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) To Award Bid #02-3409 for purchase and delivery of concrete and
metal culvert pipe at an annual cost of $35,000.
12
September 24, 2002
FJ
2)
3)
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 of a Budget Amendment to the Group Health and Life Plan
in the amount of $1,249,900 to fund claims payments through
September 30, 2002.
4)
Recommendation to adopt the 2003 Fiscal Year Pay and
Classification Plan, Pursuant to § 125.74 (1) (H), Fla. Stat.
s)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
#02-3372 for Full Service Auctioneer Agreement.
6)
Award Contracts #01-3290 "Fixed Term Professional Engineering
Services" to the following firms: Q. Grady Minor, Hole Montes.
(Estimated Annual Amount $1,000,000)
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Recognize and appropriate $11,648 of unanticipated revenue from a
communications tower lease, and approve the required Budget
Amendment.
2)
Approve an Amendment to the Contract between the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners and the Southwest Florida
Professional Firefighters and Paramedics, Local 1826 IAFF for
providing Healthcare Benefits to EMS Part-Time Employees, Funds
are available in Fund 490; Emergency Medical Services and were
approved by the Board of County Commissioners for the FY02
Budget.
3)
Accept an Agreement and adopt a Resolution authorizing Collier
County, Florida to accept $105,806 from the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for Emergency Management Program
Enhancement.
4)
Approve a Transportation Service Agreement between NCH
Healthcare System Inc., and Collier County for a dedicated
Interfacility Transport Ambulance at no cost to the County.
September 24, 2002
COUNTY MANAGER
1) To adopt a Resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants,
donations, contributions, or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year
2001-02 Adopted Budget.
He
Je
ge
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1)
Approve a request to reclass uncollectible accounts receivable
incurred by the Airport Authority in the amount of $7,704.07.
2)
Approve the Transfer of $78,800 from the General Fund (001) to the
Collier County Airport Authority Fund (495) to offset shortfalls in
Airport Revenue.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Commissioner request for approval for payment to attend function
serving a valid public purpose. (Commissioner Fiala)
2)
Commissioner request for approval for payment to attend function
serving a valid public purpose. (Commissioner Carter)
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record as Directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) This item has been deleted.
2)
Authorize a Budget Amendment funding projected personal services
shortage in Court Administration in the amount of $98,400.
3)
To amend the current contract with KPMG LLP for auditing services
to include Government Accounting Standards Board, Statement No.
34, "The New Government Reporting Model" which is mandated for
14
September 24, 2002
4)
5)
6)
the Fiscal Cycle ending September 30, 2002.
Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners serve as the
Local Coordinating Unit of Government in the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement's Edward Byme Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant, approve the Sheriff's Office
Grant Application, authorize acceptance of the Grant Award, and
approve associated Budget Amendments.
To approve Budget Amendments to recognize additional Fiscal Year
2002 Revenue in the Confiscated Trust Fund (602).
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the Expenditure of County Funds to Satisfy Said
Purchases. Open Purchase Order Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301 E.
Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.
Le
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approval of the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 175C in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v.
Michael S. Combs, et al, (Immokalee Phase 1 Project).
2)
Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue revenue
bonds to be used to finance health care facilities for NCH Healthcare
System, Inc.
3)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Acquisition of
Parcel 209 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Armando A.
Lambert, et al., (Immokalee Phase 1 Project).
4)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and ratify the retention of Nichols Hospitality Consulting, Inc., and
Jan L. Nichols as Consultants or Experts on Hotel Issues in Aquaport
v. Collier County, Case No. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF, now pending
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
15
September 24, 2002
17.
and authorize the Chairman to sign any necessary retention
documents.
s)
Recommendation that the Board approve a continuing Retention
Agreement for Legal Services on an "As Needed" basis with the Law
Firm of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith and Cutler, P.A. to
meet County Purchasing Policy Contract Update Requirements.
6)
Direct Office of County Attorney to prepare an Amendment to
Ordinance 99-85 (codified at §. 126-2, Collier County Code of Laws
and Ordinances) IMPLEMENTING THE RECENTLY ENACTED
PROVISIONS OF §. 196.075, FLA. STAT. (Additional Homestead
Exemption for Persons 65 and Older).
7)
Resolution regarding disposition of mediation funds in accordance
with the requests of the State Comptroller's Office and the Chief
Judge of the Twentieth Judicial Court.
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.
Ae
To adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the Fiscal Year 2001-02
Adopted Budget.
Be
THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. A Resolution
to approve the expansion of the Geographic Boundaries of the Collier
County Water-Sewer District to incorporate areas within the Rural Fringe
16
September 24, 2002
Ce
Amendment Area.
CUE-2002-AR-2088, Thomas Hawkins requesting a one-year extension of
an approved Conditional Use for an assisted living facility located at 2101
County Barn Road, in Section and Township 52 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of approximately 9.63 acres.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
17
September 24, 2002
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats. Would
you all stand for the invocation by the Rabbi Howard Greenstein
from the Jewish Congregation of Marco Island.
Thereupon, (Prayer was given, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. Good morning.
Let's start off with Mr. Mudd. Any agenda changes from your end
first?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Good morning. The first item is
we're going to continue Item 8A to October 8th, 2002. And the
reason -- and that was to expand the Emergency Management
Ordinance succession of authority. We had a little problem with
advertisement. So we'll get that right and it will be on October 8th.
The next item is Item 10C to heard time certain for 3:00 p.m.
And this has to do with the item of Maintenance for the Devonshire
Boulevard Landscaping. Again, that's 10C time certain at 3 p.m.
The next item is to continue Item 1 OF to October 8th. And what
happened last night, we had some contract modifications at the last
minute. And it was unfair to the Board to have to go through that
process and so there's no urgency so we'll continue it until October
8th. Next item is to continue Item 16A-15 to October 8th. And that
has to do with the Tourist Agreement with the Marco Island
Historical Society. And that's at Staffs request. We're going to move
Item 16B-11 to Item 1 OM. And that's a request for approval of
payment of all travel expenses for persons representing the MPO
Page 3
September 24, 2002
Board and Advisory Committee in the amount of $8,000. And that
had several Commissioners' concerns. And Commissioner Coyle
asked for it to be pulled. With that item on 16B-11, I'd like to read
into record that the approval of all reference travel expenses shall be
consistent with the Florida Statutes of 112.061, just as a point of
clarification. Next item is to move Item 16B-15 to 1 ON. That's the
approval of the FY2002 Transit Development Plan and for a total
cost of $80,000 and that's at Staffs request. And hopefully the last
item is item-- is to continue 16B-16 to October 8th. And that had to
do with the road improvements on North 1 lth Street Extension
Project. And that had to do with the utility process, and maybe
Roberts Ranch wanted utilities. So we thought it would be better to
pull it to make sure that that contract had that in there if that was
indeed the case and the wishes of the taxpayers. Of note on 16A-19,
and this is a point of clarification, your notes basically say that that
return, and that's on the attachment to your sheet right here, in your
notes it says that the refund, which was a double payment for -- this
particular community, was $40,000. We went over the numbers and
the vouchers and the checks that they paid us and it's $60,255.79.
And I thought we better itemize that for you as a point of clarification
and read it into the record so the refund to that particular
development would be $60,255.97 instead of the $40,000 that was so
specified in the agenda. And last but not least, Item 16B-13, just a
appoint of clarification, there's -- and it wasn't clear in the write-up,
and Commissioner Fiala asked if we could mention this, FDOT will
reimburse the County for $182,885 in that particular contract. The
bid for construction came in at $113,000. There's some CEI things
that will work through that process. But understand the reason that it
was $182,000 is that's what we voucher and bill the state that they
reimburse us for. And that's all I have,' Commission.
Page 4
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. We'll start
with Commissioner Carter to see if there's any changes on the
consent agenda or the Summary Agenda and also in declarations on
the Summary Agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: None whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. They've taken care of this.
That was one thing I wanted to clarify. Another one I wanted to
clarify was the travel expenses as long as it was Statute 112, and
that's taken care of. And also I wanted to pull the Marco Island
Historical Society, and that's been taken care of. And I don't have
any declarations. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everything I wanted pulled has
been pulled.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I wanted to compliment Staff
for working so closely with us on the agenda so that we could get the
questions answered in advance. Thank you for that. Is there any
speakers on the Consent Agenda or Summary Agenda. MS. FILSON: No, sir?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a motion for
approval?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, just one comment for
clarification before you proceed. On Item 8E, that will be advertised,
and if the advertising time frame is allowed, then it would be heard as
Mr. Mudd said on October 8. Secondly, that on 17C, as a matter for
the Board of Zoning Appeals, I think you've made disclosures. In
Page 5
September 24, 2002
regard to that, you will be, in fact, approving that as the Board of
Zoning Appeals and not as the County Commissioner. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Fiala. Is
there any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
September 24~ 2002
CONTINUE ITEM 8A TO OCTOBER 8, 2002 BCC MEETING: Amendment to the
Emergency Management Ordinance expanding the succession of authority to
include all County Commissioners, the Clerk of Courts and the Deputy County
Manager. (Staff request.)
ITEM 10C TO BE HEARD AT 3:00 P.M. Request Board provide staff with
direction in regard to adding maintenance of Devonshire Boulevard to the Radio
Road Beautification MSTU responsibility at an estimated cost of $40,000 annually.
(Commissioner Henning request)
CONTINUE ITEM 10F TO OCTOBER 8, 2002 BCC MEETING: Approve amended
median landscaping agreement between Collier County and the Vineyards
Development Corporation in the amount of $35,000. (Staff request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(A)15 TO OCTOBER 8, 2002 BCC MEETING: Approve 2003
Tourism Agreement with Marco Island Historical Society for Tourist Development
Special Museum Grant of $25,000. (Staff request.)
MOVE ITEM 16(B)11 TO 10(M): Request for approval of payment of all travel
expenses for persons representing the MPO Board and Advisory Committee in the
amount of $8,000.00. (Commissioner Coyle request)
MOVE ITEM 16(B)15 TO 10(N): Approval of the FY2002 Transit Development Plan
Update, which was conducted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research
(CUTR) at the total cost of $80,000. (Staff request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(B)16 TO OCTOBER 8, 2002 BCC MEETING: Approve change
order with APAC, Inc. for roadway improvements on the North 11th Street
Extension Project at the Intersection of State Road 29 in the amount of $31,733.60,
Project #62021. (Staff's request)
Note to Item 16(A)19: See Attached.
**Note to Item 16 (B)11: Approval of all referenced travel expenses shall be
consistent with Florida Statutes 112.061
AGENDA ITEM NO. 16A19:
IMPACT FEES FOR 8-UNIT CONDO & 8-BAY GARAGE
Permits Issued 8~30~02 to Pristine Homes, Inc.
(DBA Sherwood Communities, Inc.)
Parks
EMS
Fire
Correctional Facilities
Library
Road [Dist. 6 (GG Ests)]
Educational Facilities
Water
Sewer
$6,566.72
$744.00
$1,933.23
$943.84
$1,712.00
$12,096.00
$6,616.00
$14,420.00
$15,224.00
Total:
$60,255.79
Corrections:
1. Total amount of refund changed from $40,945.75 to $60,255.79.
2. Entity to receive refund is Sherwood Communities, Inc, not Pristine Homes, Inc.
3. Water/Sewer refunds to be paid from Water/Sewer Impact Fee Funds (411/413);
remainder to be paid from Impact Fee Escrow Trust Fund (675)
September 24, 2002
Items #3A, #3B, #3C, #3D
SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Moving right onto --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Service awards.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- service awards. I believe we're
going to do that upfront.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to join me, please.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, it's indeed an
honor today that we have -- we have three distinguished employees
that are going to receive awards today. The first recipient is a 20-
year -- is a 20-year award, and that will go to Sue Getter from Solid
Waste. If Sue could come forward. The next recipient is a 25-year
attendee and that's Jim Thomas from Parks and Recreation. Mr.
Chairman, our last recipient is a 30-year awardee and that goes to
Patricia Cookson. That ends the award ceremony for today, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have a proclamation.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 5TM, 2002 AS
COLLIER CHILD SAFETY DAY- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do. And this
proclamation is Child Safety Day. Do we have some children here to
accept this proclamation? You want to come upfront and stand in
front of the dais. Why they're heading up, I'll go ahead and start.
Page 7
September 24, 2002
Whereas, October 5th, 2002, is declared by Collier County as Collier
Children Safety Day. Whereas, unintentionally -- unintentional
injuries are the leading cause of death among children ages one
through 17 in Collier County. And whereas, in 1998 motor vehicle
collision was the leading cause of death due to unintentional injuries
among children less than 17 years of age, and nationally six out of ten
children in crashes are totally unrestrained. And whereas, for the
period of 1997 through 1999, the average number of years of
potential life loss due to injuries for children age one through 14 is
435 years per annum. And whereas, the majority of unintentional
injuries are preventable. And whereas, one of the most effective steps
parents, caregivers and teachers can take for safeguarding the health
and the well-being of Collier County children is to establish a pattern
of safety habits for children. And whereas, hundreds of children
could be saved each year from death and serious injuries if the Collier
County community takes steps to make safety a priority. And
whereas, children, parents and community leaders are joined together
nationwide to address children safety in their community. Now
therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissions of Collier
County, Florida, that the 5th day of October, 2002, be designated as
Children Safety Day 2002 and urging all community members to take
advantage of opportunities to learn about safety prevention at the first
annual Collier County Safety Children Fair at the Veterans Park,
done in this order the 24th day of September, 2002, and signed by our
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner Henning
a second by Commissioner Fiala. All those in favor indicate by
saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Page 8
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0. Before
anyone leaves, we're going to get a photo opportunity. So I'm going
to ask you to stay in place and look at the lady there that's going to be
taking the picture, the one that's waving right now. Commissioners,
concentrate.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: They're doing better than we are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This little one is hiding behind her
flower. You want to take another -- there you go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And is there someone from your
group who would like to say a couple of words.
MS. HENDRICKSON: Yeah, I will. In acceptance of this
proclamation, the children of Ann Phillip Preschool have been
selected to represent the children of Collier County. The question's
been delivered throughout the community, what can be more
important? And today the Board of County Commissioners have
answered this question by declaring October 5th as Collier County
Child Safety Day. The most precious gift a parent can receive is the
gift of a child. And it's our responsibility as parents, caregivers, and
teachers to reward this gift with the utmost possible care. This is why
Collier County has joined hands to form a collision dedicated to
keeping our children safe. We have a strong community of leaders,
an outstanding group of coordinators and all those together have
developed the Collier County Child Safety Fair. It's a pre-nonprofit
community event. It's going to open its doors to safety on October
5th at the Veterans Community Park. This is your chance to visit
Collier County's first safety town. At the park, the children will walk
through the doors of eight- to ten-foot brightly colored buildings.
They will be able to participate in safety events and free activities and
Page 9
September 24, 2002
listen to music all while heightening the awareness on safety. The
sole purpose of this town is educate in a whimsical atmosphere while
educating safety matters to all those who attend. Remember, it only
takes one fall. It only takes an inch of water. It just takes seconds or
a box of matches or one stranger and the results of that last a lifetime.
So why risk it? What could be more important than our children? I'll
see you at the fair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Hold that up so
everybody can see it. Thank you very much, children. You can
probably guess by all the smiles and the awes that there's a couple of
grandparents up here. Commissioner Carter?
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JOHN DRURY, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, FOR HIS OUTSTANDING SERVICE - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Chairman. It's my
pleasure at this time to read a proclamation to a gentleman who is
going to be leaving this community. He is our first and only airport
director. I would like Mr. John Drury to come forward this morning
while I read this proclamation. Get up here and face the camera,
John. We know you're headed up off to be the City Manager in
Stowe, Vermont and also going into the lodging business. We will
greatly miss you here, sir. But let me read the proclamation that you
have certainly earned and gained all the appreciation of everyone in
this County for a job well done. Whereas, to all matters, great and
small, often controversial or sensitive, john Drury applies knowledge,
Page 10
September 24, 2002
experience, administrative ability, superb judgment and a sense of
fair play. And whereas, as a first executive director of the Collier
County Airport Authority, he faced unprecedented challenges. And
whereas, he undertook the daunting task of guiding the Authority
through the maze of problems existing at the three Collier County
airports. And whereas, John Drury replied with unparallel energy,
effort and enthusiasm. And whereas, under his leadership these very
different airports have become a significant County asset, tourist
attraction and economic engines for the benefit of the community and
its residences. And whereas, his performance reflects a rare blend of
dedication to his community, professional skills, uncommon common
sense and unfailing good will. Now, therefore be it proclaimed by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida and the
Collier County Airport Authority that John Drury is hereby
recognized for his outstanding service as the executive director of the
Collier County Airport Authority done and addressed this 24th day of
September, 2002, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County,
Florida. Jim Coletta, Mr. Chairman. Mr Chairman, I move for
approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, a second by Commissioner Coyle. 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.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Richly deserved speech. Here's
the paper.
Page 11
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: John, before you go, would you mm
for the camera, please.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: One more time, John, photo opt.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: John, would you like to step up to
the podium and put in a commercial for your ski lodge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And look at his whole family is
here from the Marco Island Airport. That's great that you're here.
MR. DRURY: Can I say just a couple of words, if it pleases the
Board. I'd like to have Bob Titus stand. He is our CPA and finance
director. I'd like to have Bob Tweedie stand. He is the new acting
airport director. I'd like to have John Kirchner stand. He's the airport
manager for Immokalee. I'd like to have Gail Hambright stand. She
is my administrative assistant and Mr. Gene Schmitt, past chairman
of the board and Joanne Lehmer, if she's still in the room back there,
past CPA and finance director and Mr. Tom Palmer who is the
County Attorney for the Authority who's not here who's probably
upstairs watching this. I just wanted to say that these are the people
and this Board have been the people that have made these airports
work. I was just really at the right place at the right time. It's this
partnership that has brought these three County airports to where they
are. You did the political work that needed to be done to keep these
airports going. And they did all the hard work, and I was just sort of
a go-between between the two. So Collier County citizens really
ought to be thanking you and these hard working people for having
airports that will protect them and serve them for decades to come.
So thank you all and thank all of you for all your work and all of your
work in getting these airports where they needed to be. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, John. Commissioner
Coyle?
Item ~4C
Page 12
September 24, 2002
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 7-13, 2002 AS
FINANCIAL PLANNING WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY-
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a proclamation for
Financial Planning Week to be accepted by Susan Lowe, President of
the Financial Planning Association of Southwest Florida. Suzanne,
would you come forward, please. Proclamation, whereas, the
financial planning process allows individuals to achieve their dreams
by empowering them to identify and manage realistic financial goals
and negotiate the financial barriers that arise at every state of life.
And whereas, everyone can benefit from knowing about the value of
financial planning and where to mm for objective financial advice.
And whereas, the Financial Planning Association is the membership
organization for the financial planning community representing
28,000 members dedicated to supporting the financial planning
process as a way to help individuals achieve their goals and dreams.
And whereas, the Financial Planning Association of Southwest
Florida is the membership organization for the financial planning
community in Lee and Collier Counties. And whereas, the Financial
Planning Association believes that everyone needs objective advice
to make smart financial decisions, and that when accepting the advice
of a financial planner, the planner should be a CP -- CRP
professional. And whereas, the Financial Planning Association is
dedicated to helping individuals discover the value of financial
planning. And now therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 7
through 13, 2002, be designated as Financial Planning Week in
Collier County. Done and ordered this 24th day of September, 2002,
Board of County Commissioners. Jim Coletta, Chairman.
Page 13
September 24, 2002
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Carter. 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. And we
move on to 6B, Public Petition, David Barker. 6A I believe was
continued, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It could have been from
September.
Item #6A
PETITION REQUEST BY JOHN MARSHALL TO DISCUSS
REASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES ON THE HOMEWOOD
RESIDENCE - DISCUSSED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: From September. Forgive me. 6A
would be correct.
MR. MUDD: That has to do with the Homewood Residence
impact fees.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. MARSHALL: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is John Marshall. And I'm here on behalf of the American
Retirement Corporation. And I'm with the law firm of Holland and
Knight. Thank you for allowing me to present my petition this
Page 14
September 24, 2002
morning on behalf of American Retirement Corporation, and I'll refer
to them as ARC.
ARC owns and develops and operates assisted living properties,
including the home and residences, which did both, developed and
owned. ARC's appearing today because it's concerned about the
impact fees reassessed against it. And it believes that these fees
cannot be reassessed as a matter of law.
We presented a legal memorandum to the County in June, and
we'd like to stand on the memorandum. But quickly I'll just give a
quick overview of some of the facts and the legal arguments, so you
can ask me questions or have a general idea of the arguments.
There are two legal arguments that we believe support our claim
that impact fees should not be reassessed. The first is that the County
would be equitably estopped from collecting the impact fees. And
the second is that the applicable statute of limitations would prevent
the County from bringing an action to actually collect the impact fees
in this case.
As I go over the facts, there are three entities that you'll hear
about. And so I just want to let you know who the entities are. The
first is Paladin Corporation. Paladin was the initial owner and the
developer of the property. Then, of course, there's ARC, the entity
whom I'm representing today.
ARC developed and owned the Homewood Residences and then
the subsequent owner, which is Nationwide Health Properties. The
timeline really begins back in 1996 when Paladin entered into a
contract to purchase the land where the Homewood Residences are
now constructed. In 1997, Paladin sought a building permit initially
from the City of Naples. At that time, the City of Naples transmitted
to Paladin a statement telling Paladin what was due in the way of
impact fees. At about the same time, in fact, the next month, Paladin
entered into a development services agreement with ARC, whom I'm
Page 15
September 24, 2002
representing. And under that agreement, Paladin agreed to develop
the property for ARC.
There are also three relevant provisions in this contract in the
development agreement. The first provision is that ARC -- or rather
Paladin agreed to submit a budget to ARC outlining all of the
expenses that would be incurred, including permit fees and impact
fees. So that was a budgeted item in the contract that Paladin would
agree to pay on behalf of ARC.
Secondly, Paladin promised that it would obtain all the
necessary permits in order to go through the construction and
development of the project. After that agreement was entered into
and a little later that month, Paladin sold Homewood Residences, that
property, to ARC. This is in November of 1997.
At that same time, roughly three days later, the City of Naples
issued a building permit to Paladin. And that building permit showed
that we had paid the impact fees, and it showed the amount that we
owed and the type of impact fees that we had paid. Over -- actually,
a little less than a year, nine months later, ARC conveyed the
property to Nationwide Health Properties, the current owner. This
was before construction was actually complete on the Homewood
Residences.
The City of Naples issued a Certificate of Completion for this
project the next year in March of 1999. The next month in April of
1999, the City of Naples issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the
property.
And then we come to the present state of events when in
November of 2001 we first received a letter from the County stating
essentially that ARC owed about $137,000 in past due impact fees.
That's adding both the educational impact fees and then a group of
other impact fees as well together. And a second notice was sent in
May of 2002, saying that $118,000 was owed.
Page 16
September 24, 2002
And then finally last -- two months ago in August a final notice
of impact fees was delivered to us and that said $108,000, the amount
of past due impact fees.
Given those facts, as I started out of saying those facts basically
form a background for the two legal arguments that ARC has and
they are that County would be equitable estopped from collecting
impact fees; and second, that a Statute of Limitations would prevent
the County from actually bringing an action and collecting the impact
fees.
Briefly to outline the equitable estoppel argument, there are six
prongs to the argument. And of the six steps, the first is that the local
government represents material fact and that that fact is contrary to a
later position taken by the local government.
In this case, the first step was the City of Naples, through an
interlocal agreement by which the City of Naples collects impact fees
for the County, made an erroneous representation regarding the
amount of impact fees that were due at the time that the building
permit was initially issued.
Okay. The second prong is that the property owner reasonably
relies on the representation by the local government entity. In this
case, ARC and the developer, Paladin, reasonably relied on the City's
representation regarding the impact fees. These were written
representations and conservations, and then, of course, the custom,
which is set forth in the impact fee ordinances that those impact fees
will be due at the time that the building permit is issued.
The third prong is that the property owner detrimentally relies
on the representation. And here in this case, ARC, the entity whom
I'm representing today, relied to its detriment by calculating the fees
that were charged into the purchase price and its acquisition fee for
the property.
Page 17
September 24, 2002
Fourth, the local government's conduct has to be deemed by the
Court as a matter of law to extend beyond negligence. In this case,
just based on case law that exists in Florida, we're talking here at
least in the 40 to 50, $60,000 range as far as the reassessment is
concerned above and beyond what's been paid at this point. In other
cases, fees as large as $40,000 that have been failed to be imposed or
overcharged has deemed to be negligence on part of the local
government entity. Fifth, the fifth prong is that it will cost serious
injustice for the impact fees to be collected. Here, the financial loss
to ARC at this stage is a serious injustice.
And finally, the sixth prong is that a finding that the government
is estopped will not harm the public interest. And in this case,
although it does amount to the County having to forego because of
the legal issue at stake, the past due impact fees, the Courts have
found in the past that this application of estoppel is actually important
in the sense that it helps insure fair dealing by the local government
with regard to collection of fees.
And the second argument, and it's very brief, is the Statute of
Limitations argument. And that simply is that the clock began to run
for collection of the impact fees when they could have become due,
which was in November of 1997. That was just over four years after
we received the initial letter from the County in November of 2001
regarding the past due impact fees.
The trigger event, under a Statute of Limitations' argument,
would be the time at which the obligation to pay the fee first arose.
And I think in this case it's clear that the obligation under the impact
fee ordinance arose initially when the building permit was issued in
November of 1997. We're approaching five years now after the
building permit was issued. So we safely feel that the Statute of
Limitations argument also sets forth another ground why ARC should
not be liable for this reassessment of impact fees.
Page 18
September 24, 2002
So again, thank you very much for allowing me to present the
petition for ARC. And if there are any questions, I'd be happy to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have three speakers on this
subject?
MS. FILSON: On this issue actually, Mr. Chairman, we have
two, and one is Mr. Marshall and that is you. Okay. So he has
spoken.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to limit the time for three
minutes so they can be heard. And I'm going to ask them to please be
brief and not repetitive if they could possibly do so.
Would you call the first speaker, please.
Item #6B
PETITION REQUEST BY DAVID BARKER, REPRESENTING
BENTLEY VILLAGE, REGARDING IMPACT FEE
ASSESSMENT- DISCUSSED
MS. FILSON: Yes. David Barker. Pardon me?
MR. MUDD: He said it was 6B.
MS. FILSON: Okay. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's it? Okay. Move onto
the next petition and that would be 6B, Public Petition by David
Barker.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, did you wish to hear any
comments from our office in regard to the first petition presented.
They are separate?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does any of the Commissioners wish
to hear any? I don't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
Page 19
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: (Nodding in the negative.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. BARKER: My name is David Barker. I'm an attorney at
the law firm of Gronek & Latham at 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite
600, Orlando Florida, 32801.
I brought an information packet for each of you to look at. I
requested this hearing on behalf of Bentley Village, The Classic
Residence by Hyatt. That is a large retirement community located
here in Naples. It's been around for over 15 years.
And then recently in 1998, they built an expansion to that
existing facility which included an assisted living facility, which is a
subset of a CCRC. And that is the point today.
I asked for a petition before this Board regarding a final notice
to collect impact fees. $69,468 of educational school impact fees,
$63,688 of community parks, regional parks and library impact fees
and asked the County to make payment of the overpayment by
Bentley of Road and EMS impact fees of 75,768.
So the County has asked Bentley Village to pay 133,000
roughly, and has admitted that 75,000 under road and EMS refund is
due. The difference between those two is 57.
Real brief history, in February, March of 1998, they started on
the construction, getting ready for the construction of the expansion
parcel. An engineering firm petitioned the County for relief from
certain impact fees. Water and sewer went through an alternative
method. It was approved by this Board and those fees were reduced.
At the time, they asked for a reduction in the school impact fees
and the park impact fees. At the point -- and that was in February,
March. Negotiations went on with the County. And then that
November, a building permit was issued, and those fees were deemed
exempt by County Staff.
Page 20
September 24, 2002
Okay. Down the -- then a CO's issued; everything's fine. Come
this year, we get a preliminary notice. And then this summer in July,
we receive a final notice assessing -- or reassessing these impact fees.
Previously, Staff had deemed those exempt and now has come
back and said, "We made a mistake." Their excuse is that Staff can't
waive this. This is only a matter for the Board. That's the reason why
I had to have a petition for the Board on the final notice because the
Board's the only one that can hear or make a final decision. So that's
why we're here today.
Under the -- there's two different types of impact fees. There's
schools and then there's parks. Schools, there's a case that the County
Attorney has relied on called Aberdeen, a very influential case
dealing with school impact fees in the senior housing community as I
think past 19 -- or the Supreme Court did that in the year 2000.
I don't want to go through the analysis of that test, but the
crucial part of it is it's a dual rationality nexus test. Does the
expansion have a direct impact on the community, and will the fees
collected for that be spent to benefit that expansion?
Let me describe this expansion for you. Eighty-four unit assisted
living facility of which 36 are Alzheimer's care units and memory
loss, which is basically -- and assisted living is for people who cannot
live independently and they need assistance in daily living.
And under the statute, that is for elderly people who need help
with dressing, taking care of their place and daily medications. And
Alzheimer's is, obviously, people who have memory loss and can't
function in society. These are the type of people that this expansion
was for.
Obviously, these are senior citizens, and the rationale is that they
would not have school age children that would live in this facility that
would impact the school system. So therefore, the impact fee does
not apply in that instance.
Page 21
September 24, 2002
That is the discussion that occurred previously four years ago.
And Staff agreed, and now we're back before it today. There's legal
arguments we can make on the Aberdeen case. One of the ones that
the Staff has brought up in the Aberdeen case, there was a restricted
covenant that said you could only use it for senior housing.
And I provided some information to the County and put some
excerpts in yours. The way this property has been currently
developed, is licensed and used is the same as recorded restrictive
covenant. It is marketed, licensed to the CRC for 62 and older. No
school age children are allowed to be on the property.
I'm including an affidavit from the executive director. The
youngest person ever to be there since '98 is 62. The average age is
82. The oldest resident is 98. There has been no school age children
ever. And Bentley Village has almost 600 units, not just the assisted
living. So we provided that information.
What we asked the Board to consider is that while we
understand it's important for the school system that this particular
expansion did not have impact on the school system. The -- and then
you heard Mr. Marshall's discussion on the equitable estoppel. We
have similar reliance made on that.
Four years ago we thought the issue was resolved. We priced it
out and went -- and our business based on that. Each of the
ordinances gives you an opportunity to go through an alternative
methodology and opportunity to go to the Board on each of those.
But because Staff told us we were exempt, we didn't avail ourselves
of that ordinance right, which is similar to what we would be doing
today.
The second one deals with parks. And parks in your packets
under six, there's some photographs. The facility is a very large
facility and has quite a few amenities. At the time, Staff agreed that
Page 22
September 24, 2002
because of those immense onsite facilities it was unlikely that the
parks or library system would be used.
If I could read to you just briefly what is in place. "There's two
clubhouses with exercise facilities; two swimming pools; an 18-hole
executive golf course; three tennis courts; three shuffle board courts;
a crochet court; a wood working shop; seven miles of paths for
biking, walking; seven lakes for fishing; and a complete library with
staff librarians that provide books, audio visuals, CD's; all that."
So again, the impact of this facility on the community at large is
unlikely. Again, it's seniors who aren't mobile, cannot go to the
parks. And for a library system, they have their own library as part of
the facility. So it was unlikely that they would impact either of those
facilities.
Bentley Village has routine -- transportation takes them
shopping to different -- Wal-Mart, Target on different days of the
week. And they have not now or ever offered routine trips to parks
or libraries for the seniors because they have their onsite facilities,
that the second portion of the impact fees which is the same analysis
that this particular development did not have an impact on the County
system.
So in conclusion and I don't -- I understood I only had ten
minutes, is that we ask that the County understand that to reaffirm the
Staff's prior decision that this expansion should be exempt for
payment of school impact fees and also that it should be exempt from
payment of the parks, regional and community and the library fees
and additionally to authorize the repayment or the refund of the
overpayment of the Road and EMS.
And based on our final notice, what I ask the Board to maybe
consider today is the final notice that if it's not paid within 30 days
Bentley Village was subject to a ten percent surcharge or penalty plus
a possibility of a lien.
Page 23
September 24, 2002
I understood that the Board couldn't take final action on this
matter today. I'd ask that the Board consider that those two items be
held in abeyance until 30 days after a final decision is made. That
way I can -- depending on whatever, depending on what the Board
decides, that gives the client the opportunity to decide their next
course of action.
If not, that might cause undue litigation earlier than I think
anybody would care for. So if you have any questions, I -- there's
lots of facts. I'll try to keep it very simple for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one comment I'd like to make
for the record is that the handout that you gave us was received at the
time that you started talking to us. MR. BARKER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can't give due consideration to
this and our directions to Staff or lack of directions to Staff.
But first we'll go to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Just to expand upon
that. I cannot make a decision on your petition listening to you and
read the information that you provided for us to make a decision.
MR. BARKER: I appreciate it. Mr. Tindall's letter to me for
this hearing today was -- the sole purpose of this hearing was to ask
the Board to have a hearing on the matter. It wasn't that -- and I
understood that final action wouldn't be taken today.
I was out of town, came in last week and I tried to assemble
these materials, get the affidavit and get it to you at this hearing. But
I understood that any action would require another hearing or
direction from the Board. I do apologize.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I seen a hand motion. I wasn't too
sure.
Page 24
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. BARKER: Thank you.
Item #6C
PETITION REQUEST BY PASTOR J. DAVID MALLORY
REGARDING AN IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL- STAFF TO
CONSIDER AND EVALUATE THE REQUEST AND COME
BACK TO THE BOARD
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the next petition would be by
Pastor David Mallory.
MR. MALLORY: Chairman Coletta, Vice Chairman Henning,
other members of the Board of County Commissioners, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is David Mallory. I
pastor First Assembly of God.
I came to Collier County 14 years ago. And through a series of
events interacting with some homeless people, I had a passion in my
heart to reach out to the hurting of Collier County. For the last 14
years there have been many challenges and many changes, one of
which located us on 70 acres just off of Collier Boulevard.
And I -- as our congregation moved out there, there was a
number of things we had to do. We put about five million dollars
worth of improvements onto that property, putting all the
infrastructure in. During this time period of change, we had a major
crisis which resulted in some financial hardship and limited our
ability to raise funds for about a two-year period.
Why I stand before you today is that we have a number of
individuals, some of which are in the audience today, who are in our
Life Academy Ministry, which is a ministry to drug and alcohol
Page 25
September 24, 2002
abusers. We also have a ministry to moms, unwed mothers, to some
of the veterans of Collier County, the homeless. And we are trying to
reach out to these individuals and establish our ministry.
Into the County right now are permitting -- is permitting for park
model trailers. We have been permitted -- or allowed to have up to
124 trailers there. We are going to put 30 in place. Eight are now on
the premises. We need to move our clients into these permanent
residences.
Right now we are housing them in travel trailers, and that's
temporary, to say the least. The problem that we are facing is that
when we went to get the permit -- the permits are ready to pick up, by
the way, for modular classrooms and these trailers. There was an
impact fee levied on everything that we built through the water and
sewer.
And I'm not asking you to waive that impact fee. I'm asking you
to defer it. I'm not asking you to forgive it in any way. But what I
would like to have you consider on each modular trailer on each park
model, these are two-bedroom, two-bath facilities, the fire impact
fees, the police, the library and all of the other impact fees except
sewer and water are paid as you pick up each permit.
Sewer and water want us to pay for the full amount based on a
three inch meter on the first trailer. And I was -- I'm asking you if
you would consider prorating that impact fee, the water and sewer,
over the first 30 trailers, that we would pay for proportionately.
The trailers have a three quarter inch line to them. There is no
water going to those trailers at this time. They are not hooked up.
And -- but when they are hooked up, they will be three quarter inch
line. And the eight trailers are just going to be using what a regular
household uses. The reason for the three inch meter is fire protection.
It was turned on for that purpose.
Page 26
September 24, 2002
We have never to date, used the sewer that has been installed.
We pay $800 a month to have sewage hauled away from these park
models and our trailers. We've, in the last two weeks, we have used
sewer for the first time, because we have a CO for our little chapel
that we built.
So we are now online. And for the first time, we're also using
the three inch meter for that chapel. Up to this point, the three inch
meter has only been used to test the water for the fire hydrants and
things like that.
So as I stand before you, we are anxious to pick up these
permits, get all the inspections going and get our residents moved
into -- into this proper facility. And there are many people waiting to
come to our project that we cannot help at this time.
So I would just ask you to consider stretching that out, making
the burden a little easier for us at this time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. MALLORY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Reverend Mallory --
-- I remember back in the 90's
that you were working with the Sheriff's Department on an ordinance
or the County was trying to create an ordinance on vagrancy in
Collier County and it had to do with your facility on 951. MR. MALLORY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that still in progress?
MR. MALLORY: From what I understand from one of the
former County Attorneys is that that ordinance can only be enacted if
there is a place for Collier County to bring the people. The Sheriff's
Department bring us people now. The Courts assign people to us
now.
But we are not in a permitted -- we're in a permitted status. In
other words, we don't have permitted housing. Once these facilities
Page 27
September 24, 2002
are brought online, these park models, I believe the Collier County
Ordinance can be enacted.
It's an anticamping ordinance, from what I understand. And it
will extend ten miles from the beach, and they will be able to take
campers out of the woods and offer them a safe place to stay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that is, in my
opinion, a public benefit of health, safety and welfare. And in my
opinion, I would like to see whatever we can do in our means to help
out Reverend Mallory. And one of the things that I think that we
need to do in our legislation delegation, Senate Saunders, is give us
some latitude on how we can spend our ships monies for programs
that benefit the County as a whole.
And I understand there's language prohibiting for us to use ship
monies for this facility and understanding the goal of First Assembly
of God and Reverend Mallory on his mission and also it parallels
with our precedence on a mission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of
the Board, what I would suggest to the Board this morning is that any
of these ideas brought forth by Reverend Mallory and perhaps other
speakers be given back to Staff for consideration and evaluation
within a framework of our ordinances and how we might assist in this
matter and report back to us in a couple of board meetings or so to let
us know what their thinking might be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I agree that it needs to be
massaged a little bit more. But apparently they need to be picking up
these permits now. And it seems to me that the water and sewer
impact fee isn't consistent with the rest of the impact fees, being that
they all have to be picked up as they're, you know, as they're needed,
according to Reverend Mallory. He said that only the sewer and
Page 28
September 24, 2002
impact fee has to be paid in advance for all of the facilities, whereas
the other ones can be passed. Is that what I understood him to say?
MR. MALLORY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So is there a way for us to allow
him as he picks up each permit for each park model to pay the sewer
and impact fee for those particular ones?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be a good item to bring
back. May I also add something to this mix? I don't know if you
were looking for a question right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You bet ya.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Let's go ahead. Mr. Mudd,
could you direct somebody to answer Commissioner Fiala's question?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, according to -- we've done some
research on this one. I mean, we've met with Pastor Mallory a couple
of times and everybody's trying to help, okay, in that process as much
as we can help.
The problems that you have, okay, by Florida Statute, the
Collier County Water/Sewer District was created by special act of the
Florida Legislature, Chapter 88,499, Laws of Florida, Section 19,
titled, "System Development Charges provides legislative intent for
impact fees." Paragraph 5 of Section 19 provides that existing
structures and that's if you're running a line and there's a house that's
there and there's a part where you mandatorily have to make the folks
hook up because of the Water/Sewer District and that process.
But we can defer or make payments over a seven-year period of
time for those existing structures. But there's nothing in that statute
that allows deferral of new construction. Okay. So it's just existing.
So we went there to try to take a look. And then if you take a
look at the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance of
2,113, it states, "The payment of impact fees must occur when or
before the permit is issued."
Page 29
September 24, 2002
So we're -- by the statutes and by the ordinances that we have
right now, we don't have the latitude without amending the ordinance
to defer that particular -- or put it in installments based on when he
takes -- when Pastor Mallory brings another trailer on board. We tried
this one. This particular juncture without an ordinance change, we're
pretty well stuck.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may comment on that.
I think Commissioner Henning had the right idea about bringing
it back with all the options. One of the things I'd like to keep in mind
is the fact that we do have in our ordinances now a deferral program
for low cost housing where it's paid in the future or a point in time
that that person living at that residence reaches a certain income level
or they try to sell it to someone outside that income level the housing
was designated for. I think we're talking about something that's very
similar.
I don't say -- you know, we waive them. I say that we defer
them. I'd like to see approach on that and what it would take as far as
ordinances go and what could be done to try to accommodate. This is
a service that's being performed that's going to take more pressure off
the County. More cost that we incur on Social Service ends of the
whole thing are going to be removed because of what Reverend
Mallory is doing. I see this as a tremendous plus.
Also too at this point in time, we do have a $100,000 fund that
we use to make a, what do you want to call it, a token contribution to
agencies, certain agencies that this Commission determines on a case-
by-case basis for up to $7,500. And we may even want to explore
that.
I'm not too sure if Reverend Mallory's organization would come
into that. But I'd like to explore the possibilities of that at the end of
the year whatever we have left in that $100,000 fund, that instead of
carrying it forward to the next year with the anticipation that
Page 30
September 24, 2002
somebody might need another 7,500, that we disperse it back to the
agencies that applied up to whatever the impact fees could be to --
that had to be paid to try too lesson their burden and to encourage
them to grow, to take the burden off the taxpayers of Collier County.
With that, I'll mm it over to Commissioner Coyle and then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just an observation. Mr.
Chairman, I don't think all the public speakers have spoken. I think
Senator Saunders --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, they haven't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- wanted to say something before
we reached any conclusions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we -- you want to do that
now, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Why don't we do that now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
MS. FILSON: You first speaker is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got one friend up here, Burt.
MS. FILSON: Your first speaker is Senator Burr Saunders, and
he will be followed by Greg Smith.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Commission. I apologize for not being fully dressed.
I had to be on Marco Island this morning and I ran out of the house
and didn't realize that I had failed to completely get dressed this
morning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You got the important parts.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Up to this point in time we never
realized there was a problem.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: I am appearing on behalf of the
center Campus of Care. They are providing obviously a tremendous
service. And if it wasn't for what they're providing, then there would
Page 31
September 24, 2002
be a tremendous cost back to the County. There was talk about the
Sheriff picking up folks and bringing them back to that campus.
Traditionally, a lot of those people were being arrested, and, of
course, we taxpayers pay the cost of that. So this is -- you're all
correct and this is a tremendous public service.
I would suggest in terms of the ordinance, there is a way to
amend that obviously. And if timing becomes a problem, you can
literally, over the next period of a couple of weeks, declare an
emergency and amend that ordinance to take care of this type of a
situation, because under Florida law an emergency basically is
whatever you determine it to be. And so you could do that and
shorten the time period for enactment of an amendment to that
ordinance.
The emergency would be the fact that you've got homeless
people and you've got a facility that will save taxpayers a lot of
money and save a lot of hardship and agony for a lot of folks that
need these services. So I would encourage you to take advantage of
that.
And I appreciate the Commission's willingness to work with the
Campus of Care. It's a tremendous project, and I commend the
Reverend for all that he's doing to better the lives of many people in
Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, did you
have a question of Mr. Saunders?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Senator, thank you for
being here this morning. Do you think that it's part of a solution or a
viable solution to ask the -- our delegation to give us some more
latitude on the ship's fund?
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Yeah. I will take a look at that. I'm
not familiar with the statute. I know what generally it is, but I don't
know what the restriction is in there that prohibits you. I will take a
Page 32
September 24, 2002
look at that. Certainly providing housing for the homeless should be
something that would fit under that. I'll take a look at it. The
delegation meeting is going to be the Tuesday before Thanks Giving.
I'm not sure of the exact date.
MR. MUDD: It's the 26th.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: 26th of November. So it would be
good for someone from the County to make a presentation
concerning. But I'll do some research on that prior to that and get
back with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. And just
one other thing, Mr. Chairman. I think the item that we're talking
about is about Reverend Mallory's request and anything else, any
other direction needs to come back and direct Staff to do so by a
majority of the Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
And, Mr. Chairman, you final speaker is Mr.
MS. FILSON:
Greg Smith.
MR. SMITH:
Chief Greg Smith.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
I'm representing Sheriff Don Hunter this morning
who couldn't be here. It would not be possible for me to improve on
that which has already been said by the Chairman this morning
regarding this project.
So I'll just simply echo some of those comments that the Sheriff
remains very excited, enthusiastic about the potential that this project
could bring to this community and what it could do for law
enforcement, what it could do for social services in this community.
We're not experts in weighing in on whether fees should be
waived or deferred, but we do know the potential that this project
could bring would be of a great benefit to this community. And we
stand solid behind it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Page 33
September 24, 2002
Do I see direction to ask Staff to bring this back? (Nodding in
the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: (Nodding in the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nodding in the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Nodding in the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nodding in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We think you got five nods.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got five nods. Thank you very
much, Reverend Mallory. Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you.
Item #6D
PETITION REQUEST BY TAYLOR IVES REGARDING A
WAIVER OF FEES FOR DEDICATED EMS UNIT DURING THE
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON SHOOTOUT- NO ACTION
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next public petition is by
Taylor Ives.
MR. IVES: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I'm here this
morning just in regard -- my name is Taylor Ives. I'm with the
Franklin Templeton Shootout, which is an annual PGA Tour Event
hosted by Greg Norman with a focus on charity for the National
Childhood Cancer Foundation.
This will be the second year we'll play the event at Tiburon Golf
Club in North Naples. The event does have a 14-year history,
however, starting out on the west coast. The request this morning is
for a waiver of fees for one dedicated EMS unit for a five-day period
which totals 39 hours. The event draws approximately 25,000
Page 34
September 24, 2002
spectators. And the safety of our patrons is an important item to us.
And we ask for consideration of that waiver.
Also, the tournament over a three-day period has seven hours of
national live television coverage, which is a -- highlights the Collier
County area and local hotels, is a great economic boost. So between
what it's done for the County as well as our charitable focus, we ask
for a waiver of these fees which will allow us to have a greater
impact on our charities. I'm happy to answer any questions regarding
the tournament.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think every member of this
Board appreciates the economic value of your tournament to this
community, but staying with our policy, Mr. Chairman, I will not
support a waiver of any fees and believe that all have to operate on
their own basis. That has been my position for sometime, and that's
where I am, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, and I also agree. I worked on a
number of events over the years that were for charity and we couldn't
selectively pick one out. We would have to do it for all. Having
every event coming back to us on a continuous basis for this would
be -- would be, who do we choose? Who do we don't choose? And it
would become very difficult. So I think you got to keep the playing
field level. Any other comments? None. Thank you, very much.
MR. IVES: Can I just ask one question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
MR. IVES: I can appreciate that. I'm going through the
motions to do what I can to save our tournament money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
Page 35
September 24, 2002
MR. IVES: But it seems as though there are a handful of events
locally, at least that's what I'm told by some EMS staff, that they do
have, I think it's a permanent waiver of fees. I was told the Collier
County Fair and the Seafood Festival as well as some football games.
And I'm just wondering if there's anything we can do in the future to
be considered in that category?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll be honest with you, I wasn't
aware there was waivers out there. I know every organization I ever
was with we had to pay the fee. And I really resent the fact that there
are waivers. If they do exist, I think they need to be reexamined.
MR. IVES: That's what I was told as I was doing research.
That could be false.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments from--
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, for the record Leo Ochs, Deputy
County Manager. Your EMS fee resolution does contain a waiver
provision for three community special events, those being the Collier
County Fair, the Everglades Seafood Festival and the Collier County
Public High School varsity football games. And those have been
three long-standing waivers that are part of your fee resolution.
We will be bringing, incidentally, your fee resolution back as we
do annually in October. So if the Board would want to change any of
that direction, now would be an appropriate time.
Again, every waiver, every additional waiver costs the system
revenue. And as you know, your EMS system is 60 percent funded
by general fund dollars.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's exactly right. And if we're
going to make a waiver for anyone, we have to make it for everyone.
So we really do need to review that. I do appreciate you bringing that
to our attention.
MR. IVES: My intent wasn't to rain on anyone's parade, but I
had to ask the question.
Page 36
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, in regards
to high school football games, it will be paid one way or another
where it comes out of our budget or the School Board's budget,
because it's kids on an athletic field. So I think it will become a
review and a discussion on this Board's part as to whose budget it
comes out of more than--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree. But so we have to have --
we have to protect the integrity of the taxpayer here and have a clear
playing -- level playing field for all agencies. That's my big concern.
But we'll bring that back. It will come back for review. Thank you,
very much.
MR. IVES: Thanks for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Moving on, we're past that.
We're into the advertised public hearings. No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Board of Collier County
Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: No. You still have 6E.
Item #6E
PETITION REQUEST BY ELL1N GOETZ REGARDING DRAFT-
IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE FOR THE GREENSPACE
REFERENDUM- STAFF TO PROVIDE DRAFT ORDINANCE
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Oh, you know something,
I've been looking forward to this one all day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All those people in green.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ellin Goetz, are you here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ellin Goetz?
Page 37
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ellin? Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There she is.
MS. GOETZ: Good morning. My name is Ellen Goetz. I'm
coming to you today as chairperson of Vote Conservation 2002. I
want to thank you for this opportunity to present to you a public
petition for a Vote Conservation 2002, which is a grass routes
citizen's initiative to establish a Natural Lands Acquisition Program
in Collier County. I am acting as the chairperson of a varied group of
citizens, some of whom are in the audience today in a very nice shade
of green. I'm speaking on their behalf. I am a volunteer in this effort.
As you are all well aware, we came to you in June of this year,
first in a workshop and then as an agenda item to get the
Conservation Collier Referendum Question on the November 5th
ballot here in Collier County. That question is now on the ballot and
will go in front of the voters in November.
You have today before you the draft ordinance -- or the draft
document that, for planning purposes, is the framework for what is
intended to be done with the Countywide Land Acquisition Program.
This is a draft document that can control the implementation and
management of this willing seller land program should the question
succeed with the voters on November 5th.
I'm just going to hit a few very specific highlights of the
program and then make a request from you. The program, as
outlined in that draft document, has specific goals for this willing
seller process. There are two funds. It would be funded through the
monies raised, the acquisition of the lands and then the management
of those lands. It's very specific. There's a 15 percent figure put into
the document so that we can be confident that these lands are
sufficiently managed without going back for more money.
There is citizen involvement outlined in that draft document
through the land acquisition advisory committee, which would be as
Page 38
September 24, 2002
illustrated in the document appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners to represent the broad interests of Collier County. It's
very specific in there.
There are very specific criteria for the actual selection of the
proper land that would be nominated for such a program. And there
is a very clear process outlined in the draft so that both you and the
public can be -- have a certain level of confidence in the process.
And very importantly, public access is an important component of
any parcels that are eligible for this program.
We are requesting today that you direct Staff to bring you this
draft ordinance at your next meeting so that appropriate changes and
adjustments can be made with your input prior to the November 5th
ballot question.
And we are also doing this so that the public can have
assurances that this program, if voted into effect by the public, will
have a very predictable and very public controlling process. And I
would entertain any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One question and then I'll make a
comment. How do I get a bumper sticker?
MS. GOETZ: I happen to have one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Good.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all understand that we can't or should
not pass an ordinance governing the Greenspace Acquisition Program
until such time as the voters have had a chance to express their
opinion.
But I think we owe the voters a very clear explanation of how
the program will be administered so that they can cast a reasoned
ballot. I think proactivity is a good thing, and I believe that if we
have an ordinance, a draft ordinance, which lays out the framework
Page 39
September 24, 2002
for how this program would be administered, I think it would be a
great benefit to all the voters in Collier County.
And I would be very supportive of bringing this back and
making the final adjustments on the draft ordinance so that the voters
will understand what they're voting for. They will understand how it
is going to be administered. And then this draft ordinance will serve
as the framework for the admission of this program and the voters
will clearly understand what that is.
So I would support bringing this back and doing the final
tweaking that is necessary. There are some changes that are -- excuse
me -- are recommended and necessary, and I believe doing that at the
earliest possible date would be an appropriate thing to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with
everything you've had to say. I worked on this initiative, as you
know, back when we started one many years ago in '96, I believe, and
it failed dismally, but not because it wasn't an excellent program. It
was because we didn't have it outlined well enough for the citizens to
know what they were voting on. And I think this gives them a clear
view of what they're voting on.
You've done a lot of work on this, and you've done all of the
necessary, preliminary work to let people know exactly what they are
voting on, that they will have public access, that it is urban land in
many cases.
And this is what people are clamoring for. They're asking
everybody, "Save the Greenspace. Save the Greenspace." Well, now
they have an opportunity to do that. But now with this outline, it will
be more clear to them what they're voting on. So I totally agree with
it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
Page 40
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Goetz, you've heard my
concerns about the ordinance, and I'm sure they will be corrected. I
too would also like to keep it in draft form until we get a clear
indication from the voters. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, back to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one final summary comment.
With the challenges that are being posed to the rural fringe study and
the rural land study, it is possible that those studies and the
preservation resulted from them could be held up for some time.
That makes this Greenspace initiative even more important. It might
be the only alternative we have to guarantee the preservation of
Greenspace in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hope that's not true. I'm sure we're
going to prevail in the end.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hope so. But this Greenspace
initiative is very, very important.
With that, do I see direction from the Commission to bring it
back in a draft form? We're also going to have one speaker.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: One correction, it is a process.
The ordinance outlines the process very clearly. It does an excellent
job on it with some tweaking yet that needs to come back to this
Board. And that's what I would hope the voter understands this is
what you're voting for or against.
Whatever your decision is, it clearly indicates how it operates.
It has an advisory board selected by the Board of County
Commissioners. Based on the recommendations they bring through,
ultimately the Board of County Commissioners make the decisions
on the parcels that might be acquired. It is a willing sellers' program.
Page 41
September 24, 2002
Nobody's taking anybody's land. You have to be in agreement. So
that's important.
And the other, Commissioner Coyle, I don't believe we have and
challenges under rural lands; it's only under rural fringe. Hopefully
land is in place, will stay in place.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have a challenge.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We do now have a challenge.
Well, it makes my day. Thank you.
MR. MANALICH: We'll, Mr. Chairman, a question if I may be
heard for clarification. Is it the intent of the Board to bring this back
in a workshop-type discussion or is it for advertisement and actual
consideration of the passage prior to that front?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, not passage.
MR. MANALICH: Merely discussion of the contents in a
workshop --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Discussion. Define it in such a way
that the voters know our intent.
MR. MANALICH: If there's no adoption, then I think we don't
have to go through the advertising. We merely place it on the
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I suggest we go through the
advertising?
MR. MANALICH: We certainly can. It will probably be the
second meeting in October.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what -- we just had the
discussion. Leo was picking up the phone and Ramiro was talking to
him. Okay. We've got the place pretty well wired. But --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can walk over there and save
the telephone bill.
MR. MUDD: The difficulty -- the can's underneath. No. That's
okay. The difficulty here is if we advertise, it won't be until the
Page 42
September 24, 2002
second meeting in October. And there was something that came from
the dais just a little bit ago, the earliest possible in order to come
back.
If we have it as a discussion item under the regular agenda,
under the County Manager's part when we do that, we can come back
to you the first meeting in October. If we advertise -- and the reason
you would advertise if you were going to vote on it, but I'm also
hearing from this Board that they wouldn't vote on it prior to the
referendum.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
MR. MUDD: So I would say to you that it would probably
behoove the Board to get at this the first meeting in October without
an advertisement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I agree. But I still think that we
need to get the word out anyway possible, that we have as much
public input as possible. And if it's formal advertising or some other
means, the word has to be out there to the public. This is their chance
to interject their feelings to it, show their support or come up with
their questions.Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me make sure I
understand something. We can have a workshop that is publicly
advertised; is that not true?
MR. MANALICH: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then the objective of making sure
people are informed can be accomplished by advertising the
workshop. And then we can get this thing done early.
MR. MANALICH: Yes. I think what I was referring to is
simply not the formal ordinance adoption advertisement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MANALICH: But if you provide direction, I think it
would serve a public purpose to do whatever advertising would be
Page 43
September 24, 2002
appropriate to disseminate information and bring this back on a
regular agenda, not for adoption consideration but merely for
discussion of contents.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I sort of thought that we
couldn't get together unless it was publicly advertised. So I thought
that advertising --
MR. MANALICH: Well, there's a notice requirement in the
Sunshine Law that that does not necessarily always equate with
broader advertising that might go with an ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MANALICH: But whatever direction you provide, we can,
I think, work today to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would recommend that we have
the workshop as quickly as possible and advertise the workshop.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We could have the workshop as part
of our next meeting, unless the agenda is way out you sight.
MR. MUDD: Well, that's kind of what I was trying to get to, get
to it an hour or so and get through that process. You do it on the
County Manager's piece. We'll advertise it as a draft ordinance for
review and discussion, and we'll get on with it. We don't have to go
through the number of days' process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have one speaker, but we'll go
to Commissioner Carter first.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: County Manager Jim Mudd
outlined it well for me, get it on a regular agenda, give it some time.
It's a public advertised agenda. You accomplish both objectives and
you get it done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. Next speaker?
MS. GOETZ: Thank you, very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 44
September 24, 2002
MS. FILSON: Yes. Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Mr.
Wayne Jenkins.
MR. JENKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Wayne Jenkins. I'm president of the Collier Sportsman Conservation
Club. I've learned a pretty good lesson this morning. And I read the
article about this in yesterday's Naples Daily News.
And I was here all set to really give you a brassing this morning,
and I met with Ms. Goetz and Mr. Cornell from the Audubon
Society. They gave me a lot of details that were contrary to what I
had read, and I guess what you just said, clarification is going to be
the main thing as to what kind of response you get out of this.
I have a little concern of removing more lands off of our tax
rolls, and so much of Collier County has gone by the years to
government owned anyway. But I feel that the idea of preserving this
land is a better alternative than not having a wetlands area developed
or denying the private property rights of the individual who owns this
land. So I think it's a good move.
And just my interest, as Mr. Coletta knows and some of the
others, I am very avid and interested in outdoor, active recreation,
which includes hunting, camping, RV's. And with reading what was
actually in the ordinance and discussing it with these people, I think
you're on the right track. And I fully support it at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. JENKINS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make sure the language is in there
that's going to protect your rights and the resident's rights so
everybody has --
MR. JENKINS: I thought I saw your fingerprints on that part.
Thank you.
Page 45
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, we gave direction
to Staff. I mean, we're clear enough. I don't think we have to go into
anymore detail on it. We're going to take a ten-minute break.
Thereupon,(A break was had.)
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2002-410 APPOINTING JOHN DOWD TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats and we can
begin. Okay. Item 9A, Member to the Environmental Advisory
Council.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 8A? Did we skip 8A?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's continued.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's continued. 9A.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
approval from Commissioner Carter and 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: All those opposed? Ayes have it 5 to
0. Moving right on, 9B, Appointments to the Public Vehicle
Advisory Board-- Advisory Board. Excuse me.
Page 46
September 24, 2002
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2002-411 APPOINTING NICHOLAS WHITNEY
TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to nominate Nick Whitney.
I think he did a fine job.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that. And we have a
motion from Commissioner Fiala and a second from myself, Jim
Coletta. Any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2002-412 APPOINTING FAYE BILES, MICHAEL
GERAGHTY, JOHN DOWD AND KATE GODFREY-LINT TO
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY
COUNCIL- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Move on to 9C to the Emergency
Medical Service Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, they have made
some recommendations, but under District Two I would recommend
Mike Geraghty.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And Mike, he's a tremendous
guy, Dr. Geraghty. The only things they noted back in here were Dr.
Geraghty and Kate Lint both had a problem with attending meetings.
Page 47
September 24, 2002
And I would just like to make sure that-- from their letters it said
they really wanted to continue, but I would want to make sure that
they were supportive and participating members of this committee. I
don't know if we can make that provision or not.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's up to the Committee I think
to look at that, and if they don't show up, make recommendations that
they leave and come back to us with another candidate.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. We have that in the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That to me is Advisory
Committee business.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, because the Committee
already said Fay Biles and John Dowd. They recommended them.
They just had some reservations about the other two. So with that I
will agree with you. And I'll mn down the list, Fay Biles, Mike
Geraghty, John Dowd and Kate Godfrey-Lint I nominate for this
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
MS. FILSON: And, Commissioner Fiala, you'll need to waive
Section B of Ordinance 2,155, Dr. File --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fay Biles.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry. Thank you. Dr. Fay Biles have served
a two-term limit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: So you'll need to waive that section. And I also
need you to confirm the organizations' appointments.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're going to make that all
part of your motion, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make that all part of the
motion. Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. I'll second all of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we covered it. So we
have a motion from Commissioner Fiala and a second from
Page 48
September 24, 2002
Commissioner Carter. Is there any other comments? Hearing none,
I'll call the question. 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.
Okay. Moving on to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2002-413 APPOINTING CHARLES ARTHUR TO
THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
Arthur.
CARTER: Move for approval.
HENNING: Second.
FIALA: For Charles Arthur.
COYLE: What person? There's --
CARTER: Charles Arthur. I'm sorry.
COYLE: Okay.
CARTER: I move for approval of Charles
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 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.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 49
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #9E
DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO RESOLUTION
94-136 ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR APPOINTMENT OF
MEMBERS TO ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND QUASI-
JUDICIAL BOARDS- STAFF TO BRING BACK WITH
CLARIFICATION
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Item 9E, discussion regarding
the Amendment to Resolution 94-143.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
MS. FILSON: Move for approval of?.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Of the recommendation that-- I
move for the Staff's approval for Staff recommendation.
MS. FILSON: Actually-
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're on 9E.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They don't--
MS. FILSON: 9E.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They really -- the Board -- they
recommend that the Board of Collier County Commission review
Resolution 94-136.
MS. FILSON: Yes. Mr -- Commissioner Carter, I did this
executive summary as a result of direction of the Board on September
10th. I believe Commissioner Coyle wanted to put additional
stipulations in the resolution for appointment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Actually--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Have those been put in?
Page 50
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, they haven't, not additional
stipulations. But to me, the ordinance is contradictory. The objective
I strongly support. But if we look under, "Now therefore be it
resolved," there is a statement that says that these guidelines are
hereby established for advisory committees and quasi-judicial boards.
And then we have down at the bottom it says, "Quasi-judicial boards
will not be making recommendations," and that is to me a
contradiction. And it makes it very confusing. Is there a way we can
straighten that out?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ramiro?
MR. MANALICH: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board,
I don't view it totally as a contradiction. It could have more
clarification. Basically the Board has the discretion whether or not
they wish to have quasi-judicial boards part of this recommendation
process for the appointees.
And here the resolution is saying that they are going to include
quasi-judicial boards, and they make the decision here, the previous
board, to not have quasi-judicial boards be part of that
recommendation process, as I read it. Now, if you wish to change
that, we could have quasi-judicial boards in a new resolution be
included.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not even suggesting that,
because I don't have the history with respect to why those were
excluded. I would like to have recommendation from everybody.
But maybe there's a good reason not to have quasi-judicial boards. I
just have a problem that saying that in one sentence that quasi-
judicial boards will have to abide by these procedures and then at the
bottom of the page the quasi-judicial boards will not make
recommendations.
MR. MANALICH: Well, the way I read that above, it says,
"The following guidelines are hereby established for the receipt and
Page 51
September 24, 2002
acceptance of recommendations from the advisory committees and
quasi-judicial boards." Now, what I see then, they're saying they're
all included. But then below they say, "However, we're not from
quasi-judicial boards. We're not going to receive those
recommendations."
So I see the tension there. Although I don't think it's actually a
contradiction because they're just saying we're recognizing they're out
there, but we're choosing not to have them submit recommendations,
the way I interpret it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just would prefer that we
MR. MANALICH: The language could be changed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the language could be
cleaned up a little bit. But other than that--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We should get Ramiro to clean it
up and make it work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MANALICH: I think the big policy question is whether
we want the quasi-judicial boards to make recommendations. Now,
we could report back on that at the next meeting, review the history
and see if there's any sound policy reason to include them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to understand why
they were not included. Maybe there's a good reason not to include
them. I just don't know what that is. But if there's a good reason not
to include them, then I think we should proceed. But if there is a
good reason to include them, I think they should be included, and we
should get rid of all this contradictory language.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So what do we need from the
Board, Ramiro, for you --
MR. MANALICH: I think just some direction to bring this
matter back at a subsequent meeting with clarification of the
Page 52
September 24, 2002
language as to address Mr. Coyle's concerns and with a report on
whether there are sound policy reasons militating in favor of
inclusion or exclusion of the quasi-judicial boards.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Exactly. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Does that require a motion on
our part?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to that--
MR. MANALICH: I think just direction is sufficient. It's a
resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's one more thing now that we
have this ordinance in front of us again for review, I was wondering
if it's possible just for the committees, possibly the other
Commissioners' committees, my Health and Service Committee, if
we could put a clause in there that would allow us to bring alternates
for consideration before this Board.
Some of our problems is that we have the -- well, we have the
chief officer of Naples Hospital and also the Cleveland Clinic, and
they're having a difficult time making the meetings. But a number of
times very qualified people show up on their behalf to share
information.
And we've had several other situations like that, and it's not
always possible to get a quorum to be able to conduct business even
though we got qualified people there that can work on the subject.
And I'd like to give that some consideration for the next time it comes
forward. Susan?
MS. FILSON: One of the questions, the reason I brought this
back before the Board today was that some of the advisory boards
make recommendations and some don't. And I thought the Board
wanted to make a decision whether to make it mandatory to have the
advisory boards make recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners and possibly even interview the applicants.
Page 53
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I like that myself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I do, too. I think it's
important to interview those applicants.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we're always looking for
that input anyway.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's fallen on my shoulders about two
or three times to bring different members of advisory boards into my
office. In one case we even had one of them removed for
inappropriate action. So I --
MS. FILSON: And one other question: Do you want to include
the CRA Boards in this resolution or do you want to do those
separate as a CRA Board?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I would think that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that just came before us
recently and we had some applicants. And we didn't know the
applicants, and we didn't have a recommendation from the CRA
Board. I think it would be an excellent thing, an excellent part of this
ordinance to include CRA's and the interview process as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Once again, our advisory
boards are very important to us and we want to keep them as
functional as possible. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to move this along, I
believe we're asking for a recommendation from nonquasi-judicial
advisory boards and in that process would be a interviewing process,
whether it be the -- whatever they provide to us as far as information
of their background or are we talking about personal interviews?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought personal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Personal interviews, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 54
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you mentioned nonquasi. But
then Commissioner Coyle suggested that we should find out why
quasi is excluded and maybe include that as well. Would that be --
and I think that's an excellent idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess the concern that I
have is you want a broad spectrum of people, whatever the advisory
Board is. Therefore, a majority can have influence on the outcome of
the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. You see what I
mean?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Yes. I understand.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think that's a good point,
too. If we proceed in that direction, that is, if we exclude the quasi-
judicial boards in the interest of making sure we have a balanced
board, I would strongly suggest that we do the interviews then.
If it is important that we make sure we have appropriate balance
on those boards and we don't want the boards themselves to be
making the discussions, then I think it's important that we see and
talk with the person that we're planning on appointing to these things.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would be willing to spend that
time doing that.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
reading these things and
opportunity to interview
COYLE: I would, too.
FIALA: I know I take a lot of pains in
calling people to -- and I don't have the
them. I'd like to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're heading in the right
direction. I'm still for having the advisory boards send us
recommendations, if not through the interviewing process based on
their applications of personal knowledge of the people. But why don't
we do this, we got a couple of different options that we can send back
Page 55
September 24, 2002
to Staff for consideration. Also too with the Board's permission, I'd
like to have the item on alternates to be brought forward too for
consideration. I think we got enough direction now. MR. MANALICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move on.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2002-414 APPOINTING ALICE J. CARLSON TO
THE EDUCATION FACILITIES AUTHORITY- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 9F, I believe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Henning.
This has to do with the Educational Facility Authority for
appointment of one member. 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 0.9G.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2002-415 APPOINTING ALICE J. CARLSON TO
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY- ADOPTED
Page 56
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Henning.
And this is for members to the Collier County Industrial
Development Authority, and there's only one applicant and that's
Alice Carlson. All those -- 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.
Moving on to -- now, we're coming to 10, but we're going to go
to 10G to accommodate the people who are in the audience that have
been patiently waiting to be heard.
Item #10G
STATUS REPORT IN REGARD TO THE BEAUTIFICATION OF
THE LIVINGSTON ROAD CORRIDOR- STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION NOT TO FUND ADDITIONAL
LANDSCAPING ENHANCEMENTS - ACCEPTED
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. As a follow up to the workshop you recently held on
landscaping, a number of projects identified. We'll be bringing some
before you today. This one on Livingston Road deals with the
request for Board direction and follow-up to that workshop as to how
you wish to proceed.
Page 57
September 24, 2002
Specifically what you have in from of you is an outline of
basically the chronology of events starting with -- and I know the
folks in the audience will want to discuss the November 14th, 2000,
Board action which was approving a request to hire a design engineer
to look at developing design for the corridor. It also referred back to
the prior Naplescape process that's attached as an attachment to your
agenda.
And in particular, I'll call your attention to what it was
requesting. "Staff is requesting direction to develop a design concept
for the entire corridor." And I'm just before the fiscal impact on the
second page. "Staff will return to the Board for its endorsement of
this concept and request approval to reduce construction documents.
Upon completion of the construction documents, a more refined cost
estimate will be provided along with Staff recommendation to the
Board for funding."
Down at fiscal impact, it also makes it clear that what we're
asking for is an effort to define the nature of what can be done out
there and not necessarily specifically the funding.
The Naplescape program that's referred did define that two
corridors a year be the goal, but it didn't specifically provide separate
funding. It rather identified the nature of projects, whether they were
gateway, whether they arterial, what funding source would be the
eligible funding source for those. And so when I came on Board, that
was about the time we were continuing that.
Shortly after that November 14th, on December 12th, the Board
did hear a petition requesting the formulation of an MSTU for the
entire corridor. Based on that public petition February of 2001, the
Board was brought back with a request for direction to Staff to, in
fact, work towards development of the MSTU. And on December
1 lth of 2000, the Board did approve the ordinance creating the
MSTU, and we've gone from there.
Page 58
September 24, 2002
I think the issue at hand is from the workshop that the Board
noted its desire to maintain its commitment to prior commitments for
landscaping we're talking about in the overall corridor here of what is
determined by this Board approximately two and a half to three
million based on the ten mile length for both the capital and about
500, $600,000 annually in maintenance for the entire lane.
The predominant concern that you've heard recently that the
MSTU was formed for was just the Phase 2 portion, from Golden
Gate up to Pine Ridge. That section obviously is about 2.8 miles. So
if you look at it, if we're talking about 250,000 a mile, you'd be about
750,000 up to 900,000 capital. And then based on 50,000, it would
just be below 150,000 up to about just below 180,000 of operating
based on 2.8 miles.
So that's the issue they have before you today. I know there's a
number of people that want to talk. I'd be happy to try to answer any
questions that the Board might have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go to the speakers, and
then we'll put it up for Board discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before we change, just as a note,
I'm sure you meant to mention this that the figure in the second
paragraph on the second page is incorrect. It said from Lee County
line will be about $2500 up to three million dollars. And I think they
meant to say 2.5 million.
MR. FEDER: 2.5 million.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. FEDER: 2.5 million. There's a zero missing.
MS. FILSON: Are you ready for the speakers, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: We have 12 speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. It will be three minutes a
piece we'll allow them. I'm going to ask you though that if it
Page 59
September 24, 2002
becomes repetitious and you find the person in front of you has
explained it quite well, you may wish to waive. But, however, that is
your prerogative.
Call the first speaker and then the backup speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. The first speaker is Mr. Lu Lackore.
He will be followed by Bill Confoy. Mr. Lackore?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, that's him.
MR. LACKORE: My name is Lu Lackore. The Naplescape
plan was adopted by this Board in 1997, and it specified two projects
on major gateways per year. The beautification of Livingston Road
benefits both local residents and the County as a whole.
Commissioners and Staff encourage the Beautification
Association to plan on County participation in landscaping and
maintenance. The Beautification Association started in 1999. The
Beautification Association saved the County $600,000 that was
budgeted in the road. This amount should be put into landscaping.
On all major arterial roadways, the County pays all of the
maintenance cost.
Item 16B-9 of the November 14th, 2000, Commission Meeting,
the Commissioners approved unanimously landscaping Livingston
Road from Fund 111 at a rate of $250,000 per mile. Phase 2 is ready
for landscaping and needs your immediate commitment for $700,000.
At the September 5th, 2002, workshop, the Commissioners
agreed unanimously the Board would keep prior commitments. And
landscaping Livingston Road is one of those commitments. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: You're next speaker is Mr. Bill Confoy, and he
will be followed by Mary Jo Fausnight.
MR. CONFOY: Thank you. I'm Bill Confoy. I've spoken here
before the Board on the same subject and I've worked with the
Page 60
September 24, 2002
Collier County Staff for the past three years. I have read the
Livingston Road executive summary for today.
And I believe those of you who read it should take some offense
at the proposals stated by Mr. Feder for the Board consideration.
There are only two dates in the body of considerations that are
relative today, that of September 5th, 2002, and that of 11-14 in the
year 2000.
Looking at that summary, please refer to Item One, Page One at
the bottom. The base level referred to has already been funded and is
provided in the basic road cost and has no bearing on approved
landscape commitments made by the Board.
Item Two on the same page, this is a real zinger. This tells you
to determine if your 11-14-00 Board action continues to be
appropriate. This is what is known as passing the buck. The Board
has already made that determination by voting unanimously to fund
Livingston Road at $250,000 per mile and landscaping support.
There is nothing more for you to determine except how fast you will
move on your commitment.
Now, looking at the bottom at the fiscal impact, those items that
follow thereafter on Item One, of course there would be no fiscal
impact on Item One as these costs are already in the basic roadway
costs. Item Two, however, seeks to imply that you must fund the
entire road now. That's ridiculous.
Phase One is complete, and no landscape funding was requested
or budgeting. Phase Three won't require landscaping until the year
2005, and Phase Four in 2004. Phase Two is why we are here.
Landscape funding of $700,000 was approved from Fund 111, the
general fund, and is needed now. This was your commitment, and
you must own up to it.
Lastly, you should also put back into the landscaping fund the
$600,000 the Beautification Association saved in road construction
Page 61
September 24, 2002
cost. This request was submitted to the Board in the form of an
executive summary on September 5th and has not yet been acted on.
Now is the time.
There are resident speakers and supporters here from Grey Oaks,
Kensington and Wyndemere. We want you to honor your
commitments. A person's word is their bond. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mary Jo Fausnight. She will
be followed by John Leach.
MS. FAUSNIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Mary
Jo Fausnight of Wyndemere Homeowners Association, and I'm here
representing as Board of Governors.
For 20 years the residents of Wyndemere enjoyed quiet and
seclusion by living at the end of a two-lane roadway lined with more
than 150 mature mahogany trees. Now those trees are gone, and soon
there will be a phenomenal amount of cars and trucks traveling on a
six-lane arterial roadway.
The earlier plan of Livingston Road was for four-lanes with no
landscaping. At that time noise generated by traffic was of great
concern to our residents. Ingress and egress was another because our
gatehouse was going to be very close to the road. When the plan
changed to six lanes, noise and access became even a more concern
to our residents. As a selling point, Wyndemere was assured that
because Livingston Road would be six-lanes, it now qualified for
beautification funding under the Countywide Road Improvement
Fund.
Wyndemere residents are reaching into their own pockets to the
tune of approximately $900,000 for a new entrance, gatehouse, and
landscaping inside and outside our wall. This will hopefully soften
the blow of the impact the road will have on our community.
Page 62
September 24, 2002
We ask that the Commissioners honor what was unanimously
approved at that November ! 4th, 2000, meeting, which includes the
authorization of the development of the extended landscaping
initiative consistent with the County streetscape plan, the provision
for allowance of 250,000 per mile for capital and 50,000 per mile for
maintenance. These figures are consistent with the general scope and
basis of the other character zones.
Also, we ask that you designate the Livingston Road corridor
from Radio Road to the Lee County line as a major arterial roadway
qualifying for beautification funding. At this point in time to do
anything less would not be completing this road project. Thank you for your consideration.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. John Leach, and he will
be followed by Gus Nichols.
MR. LEACH: Good morning. I've also been here before
talking about the MSTU. And I think you know our position on Grey
Oaks regarding that subject. However, I would like to say that it is
the unanimous opinion of both the board of which I'm on of the Grey
Oaks Homeowners -- Estates Homeowners Association that we
support what has been said so far by the folks of Wyndemere.
Now, not to repeat what they have said so far, I'd like to add one
other thought as you process this request and that is to step back for a
moment and just ask, "Well, why do we have six-lanes of Livingston
Road?" That's not something that we in Grey Oaks or in Wyndemere
or elsewhere requested. This is to provide an arterial thoroughfare
for the residents of Collier County.
So it's going to be Countywide residents who will -- and from
without who will enjoy the use of this road. So there's going to be a
lot more traffic coming down this road.
Now, it is my contention that this traffic is going to cause a lot
more noise. There's a beautification aspect of this, but there's also a
Page 63
September 24, 2002
noise abatement factor which I think needs to be considered. And the
traffic, the noise is coming from traffic from the County and outside
of it.
And so I would request that you give consideration to
landscaping as a way -- as Commissioner Fiala said in the very first
meeting that I was here, landscaping has been proven to slow down
traffic on roads.
So I would ask you to give consideration for landscaping for that
purpose, which will entail or, in mm, reduce the noise factor. And
also, the landscaping immediately adjacent to the road will absorb
some of the noise that will be going into other residences. We at
Grey Oaks don't have this big wall that was constructed, I believe, at
County expense on the east side of the road. We have nothing.
So I would suggest that landscaping is there for another purpose
other than just beautification and pleasure, which is nice to have. But
I think there's a much more -- another important utilitarian value for
the landscaping itself, which I think is an obligation of the County to
supply not necessarily the individual residents of one area that
probably did not request, would not have requested or even desired to
have the six-laned road passing by their residence. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. Gus Nichols. He will be
followed by Dr. Carl, and I know I'm going to get this one messed up,
Sheusi.
MR. NICHOLS: Hi.
Wyndemere Country Club.
My name is Gus Nichols. I reside in
I agree completely with the previous
presenters, and I would like see the Commissioners honor their
previous commitment. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Carl Sheusi. He will be followed by Charles
Zinn.
Page 64
September 24, 2002
DR. SHEUSI: I'm Dr. Sheusi, a resident of Kensington. In an
attempt to conserve time and avoid repetition, I concur with the
people from the previous community.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Charles Zinn, and he will be followed by
Wayne Spielman.
DR. ZINN: I'm Dr. Charles Zinn from Kensington representing
the Kensington Homeowners. In the essence of time, we concur with
what's already been said. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Wayne Spielman.
Kenneth Finn.
He will be followed by
MR. SPIELMAN: I'm Wayne Spielman. And, of course, I will
echo everything that was said previously. And in an effort to be
brief, I'm going to waive my rights to say anything further. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Kenneth Finn. He will be followed by
Nelson Gearhart.
MR. FINN: My name is Kenneth Finn, I'm a resident of
Wyndemere, and I echo the sentiments of the previous speakers and
urge you to honor your obligation and commitments that have already
been made.
MS. FILSON: Nelson Gearhart. He will be followed by Jim
Galton.
MR. GEARHART: My name is Wilson Gearhart. And I also
echo the sentiments that were already spoken to by the other
speakers.
MS. FILSON: Jim Galton. He will be followed by Thomas
Erbach.
MR. GALTON: I'm Jim Galton, a resident of Wyndemere. I
concur wholeheartedly with what the previous speakers have said.
Thank you.
Page 65
September 24, 2002
MS. FILSON: Thomas Erbach, and your final speaker, Robert
Greenspahn.
MR. ERBACH: My name is Thomas Erbach, and I live at
Wyndemere, 102 Edgemere Way South. And I would waive my time
and concur with everything that has been said on behalf of planting
Livingston Road. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Robert Greenspahn.
MR. GREENSPAHN: Bob Greenspahn. I live in Kensington.
Naturally, I agree with everything that everybody else said. But I'd
like to remind you about one thing, September 5th, I believe it was
when we had the meeting here and found the faults that happened due
to the fact that the developers got involved and the residents didn't
get involved.
Okay. You had some good ideas, the 50 percent plus one,
making sure that the -- if the developer does make the suggestion or
make the commitment that we will pick up the tab.
Even if the property isn't sold, I think there should be a warning
to the new people who are coming in, and I mean a warning like from
the Federal Government, you know, on-your-labels warning, not in
that small print that I can't read without a magnifying glass, but make
sure that this won't happen to you again, won't happen to us again.
Because I think it's very, very important if the developers make a
commitment, they should be stuck with it. Thank you, very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think everyone on this Commission
agrees with you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Chairman, I have one final
speaker --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
MS. FILSON: Mr. William Hagman.
Page 66
September 24, 2002
MR. HAGMAN: My name is William Hagman. I'm a 15-year
Wyndemere property owner and a full-time Collier County resident.
I guess I'm speaking somewhat in the summarization position. In the
September 5th workshop on landscaping, there were seven requests
for financing landscaping that were approved by previous Boards.
These requests included Livingston Road.
It is my understanding the present executive summary advocates
funding only five of those seven requests. Livingston Road has not
yet been approved in the current executive summary. Rhetorically, I
raise the question why the delay in releasing these funds?
Livingston Road was previously approved by the BCC,
previously agreed to by Staff and is just as worthy as any of the five
approved and is rapidly heading toward dedication time. I
respectfully ask your renewed approval for funding of the Livingston
Road Phase 2 only beautification request. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We'll go first to
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. As the Board well
knows, I'm a great proponent of median landscaping. I have been. I
worked on Naplescape for many years on their Board. And so I
learned a lot about the importance of median landscaping. I think on
this particular road, especially as we introduce it this highway, if you
will, that's going to connect Lee County with the east end of the
County, I think it's important to prepare this road immediately rather
than let it languish.
I think that -- I love to see the Kensington and Grey Oaks and
Wyndemere people coming together in their support of the
landscaping. I agree with Mr. Leach completely that the landscaping
will absorb a lot of the noise that will be generated from this
roadway, and that's an important factor.
Page 67
September 24, 2002
As I stated before, it's a safety factor as well, and we all know
that it reduces speed to some degree. So I agree with the $700,000
moving forward and getting this landscaping in place. I -- in fact, I
would like to make a motion to that effect.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may.
MR. MUDD: You need to tell me what fiscal year you want me
to put this in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We haven't got through the motion
yet.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We haven't even got a second
yet.
MR. MUDD: Because this is not in the budget. I would just
point this-
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. That concerns me. But we
have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-hum.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And without a second, it fails. But
we can come back to that motion or a different one. But I'd like to
hear from Mr. Feder a little bit.
I'm very, very concerned about what we're trying to accomplish
as far as roads go, our objective and how something like this -- if we
suddenly interject landscaping, which we all agreed before that we
were going to put off to one side or try to minimize. Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, again for the record, Norman
Feder, Transportation Administrator. I got a few issues that have
been raised here and I'll just put it on the table. I'm not trying to defer
to the Board, but the direction does have to come from the Board.
Essentially, what you have is a process that we're going through,
especially when you're talking 2000 employees come aboard. We're
looking at, what is our program? How are we going to move
Page 68
September 24, 2002
forward. Community character is being looked at. And the proposal
we were making Countywide for all of the road network was
basically tree lined, trees along the side of the road and down the
median as well.
So the concept you have here when you hear the 250,000, that is
for tree lined and the discussion, as was noted by folks, of setting up
the MSTU with any enhancement above and beyond, which is also in
your November 14 agenda package.
So I think in going in and formulating the initial MSTU, that
was their understanding that the County was going to try to tree line
the roadways, that anything above and beyond that more extensive
landscaping which they desired they had worked through a
committee they had even before the MSTU and it worked with some
design to go above and beyond that.
Then, of course -- oh, shortly after that all that program was tied
to a work program developed based on proceeds out of a half penny
sales tax. When that half penny didn't pass, we came back to the
Board. The Board's instruction was we still need to move on the
capacity project, but we need to pull away from 44 million worth of
enhancement.
And a portion of 44 million, of course, was the concept to go
into an aggressive -- I think we're looking at five miles a year of
landscaping and then maintenance of that landscaping. I knew from
the day I came here I didn't want to build roads, put in what we have
as a basis here, which is basically irrigation sleeves and grass, green
sod of the type, and leave it at that. That's not what the community
has been looking for.
But at the same time, I think probably the Board said we have to
focus on capacity. After that time, of course, more and more of that
pressure came up as we opened up sections of roadway without the
Page 69
September 24, 2002
landscaping. And that was the genesis of a number of requests that
came to you in your workshop.
The issue of gateway is important. Obviously, Livingston Road
for many reasons, I'd love to see it landscaped, not only those cited
correctly so by Commissioner Fiala that it helps absorb some noise, it
tends to slow people down. It has some traffic calming and safety
factors. It also helps to maintain the access control up and down the
corridor. And this was designated specifically as a controlled access
corridor as you did with 951. It is a gateway to the community.
There's no question that this is an item that was long debated out in
front of this community, and it's coming forward. I would pull back
at least personally from any statement that they were committed to be
landscaped when it went from four to six decision. But I would not
pull back from the desire or the interest in making this a landscape
corridor.
The bottom line comes down to dollars. That's where the policy
shift got -- was created. That's where the policy shift, if it's going to
be changed, was brought to the workshop and needs to come back
from the Board.
I hope I've answered your question, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just hope that everybody I was --
I'm trying to support in this, by the way, supported us when the tax
came before us before. I hope it was just other people that didn't
want landscaping.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's always the case. It's
always the other people.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to keep pushing
your buttons there so we can keep everybody in order.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I just had to insert that. I'm
sorry.
Page 70
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know that. Commissioner
Henning's been waiting very patiently. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What action did the Board take
in November of 2000 in dealing with this?
MR. FEDER: November 14th, 2000, as I read it basically, the
direction was that we continue the concept that had been developed
before that before I came here was the Naplescape concept we
brought forward based on public petition to look at landscaping
throughout the County, in particular, along this corridor the concept
of Naplescape. And this is the way it's eligible.
What Naplescape provided for, as I mentioned and now referred
to by Commissioner Fiala on this one, but basically it said that you
have gateways that are eligible for gas tax money because it's a
gateway. You have other sections of the principal arterial that are
eligible for Fund 111, the general fund there. And it defined what
type of facility is eligible for what level -- what nature of funding
source. It also said that the goal would be that you have two projects
a year. But what it didn't do that I can see and anything I've seen
from the record is establish the funding for specifically two projects a
year. It just says what funding sources would be used, and it never
really got to that point.
I think then it was raised as sort of a son of Naplescape. It was
two different design concepts being done along the corridor. So we
brought forward, "Let's get an engineer, design what should be in the
landscaping and bring that back to you to get approval for funding,"
and that anything above and beyond what we do relative to those two
different concepts that were being developed we said would have to
be funded by a MSTU.
So we did ask for direction to basically follow up on Naplescape
concept. We asked direction to go out and get an engineer to design -
- define what we should be trying to do. And basically we're looking
Page 71
September 24, 2002
at probably following through on the community character tree line,
which is 250,000 a mile. That's why it's in that write-up and then
came back to you for funding. Other issues came forward at that time,
then the emphasis on the half penny and there was no follow up to
that specific item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- in 2000, I believe that
we all knew that we had some funding shortages for transportation
network. And I find it hard to believe that the Board of
Commissioners would recommend or identify funding sources
knowing the shortfall. So --
MR. FEDER: Well, what I would read to you to your question,
the exact recommendations as Jim just provided me were, "To
designate the Livingston Corridor from Radio Road to Lee County
line as a major arterial roadway qualifying for beautification funding
from the Countywide Road Improvement Fund, Fund 111."
Number Two, "Authorize the use of Fund 111 MSTD for the
procurement of a professional landscape design consultant for
corridor-specific concept plan consistent with the guideline in the
Collier County Streetscape Master Plan."
Number Three, "Authorize the development of an expanded
landscape initiative consistent with the Countywide Streetscape
Master Plan with any extraordinary costs to be funded via the
formulation of and MSTBU, and authorize the necessary budget
amendment and any other required documentation consistent with the
Board's intent and direction."
The focus was on developing the engineering analysis, but the
emphasis was also to try and continue forward and proceed forward
with the Naplescape concept. And we specifically identified, based
on tree line, about 250,000 in capital and a portion in maintenance as
well.
Page 72
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may help to move this along a
little bit and possibly just for discussion purposes, I'd like to make a
motion that we accept Staffs recommendations not to fund additional
landscaping enhancements along Livingston Road corridor and direct
Staff to work with any interested local community or citizen initiative
for future landscaping enhancements outside the County budget
process.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
discussion purposes.
I'm going to second that for
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
myself, Commissioner Coletta, and a second from Commissioner
Carter for discussional purposes. We're going to go first with
Commissioner Carter and then with Commissioner Coyle and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to make three points on
this. First of all, everyone is here that wants what you want. I totally
understand that. I initiated, when I came to this Board out of the
focus groups that were back in the mid, mid 90's, to get the
community character.
And by 2002, we are coming off, I'm going to call a high, from
doing that study, from that coming forward to a overall acceptance by
the Board of County Commissioners to take a look at community
character of which this is all a part of the enhancement, beautification
for your community.
Now -- and part of it was the gateways and the visuals and the
everything else. And we then prepared, "How do you fund this?"
You see, I've heard words like commitment. Well, we didn't really
say that. We said it would qualify. A lot of things can qualify, but it
didn't say it would be funded.
We said that we had a mechanism we would suggest and use,
but it wasn't funded. So we came to the community with a half penny
Page 73
September 24, 2002
referendum that not only talked about blacktop, it talked about
sidescaping. It talked about all the enhancements.
And what I would suggest to you, you have to go and ask, "Who
are the initiators that defeated this? Who took the charge to defeat
this so that today you're in front of us asking for something that you
want, we wanted and we don't have it?"
So that's a big question that only you can go and research, and I
suggest you take a hard look at, because every Board has to revisit
decisions. And that's what we had to do, because we came out of the
half penny defeat and said, "What do we do to build a road network?"
And that's our top priority.
We can get the blacktop down. We can follow through and stay
on a road program to build the collectors, to build the arterials, to do
the intersection improvements, and all the things that everybody
wants. We can do that. But there's a cost. And the cost was, we can
only do minimal landscaping. We can put in the lighting.
Sure, we'll do minimal, and we'll set the scene for where it can
be enhanced. We can put the sleeving in for the median
beautification, but you don't have the trees and you don't have
everything else, because at the end of the day what we're doing is
putting down grass.
So we had to meet the basic needs for the things that we want
and stay with the things that we absolutely have to have and that is to
build roads. And that is a top priority of this Commission.
So what do you do from here? Because everybody wants
something. This is a whiffing factor. Everybody wants something.
And at the end of the day what you really want is to protect your
neighborhood, protect your property values and to make it a pleasant
place to be. I totally understand that. Everybody wants that.
So the question is, how do you meet the need. And what I'm
going to say to everyone and to the Board is, it seems to me it's going
Page 74
September 24, 2002
to get back to public/private partnerships where you can -- and what
is the public doing? The public aspect is, we're staying with the six-
lane arterial, which has always been on the plans, by the way, and
nobody really ever paid any attention to that. That's the public side
of it.
That's the Board's, in my judgment, decision to go after that, to
support the funding to get you there. The private part of it is going to
have to come through MSTU's or the developers along these whole
corridors because they have an investment here, too.
The ones that are coming, if they want it to look better, they're
going to have to help pay for it. And why do they want to do that?
They want to sell the project inside the gate. So I think that's where
we're going to be, public/private partnerships to get us to where we
really want it to look like and a Board that says, "We only have
limited funds."
And until this community at some point in time helps establish
additional revenue streams which may be some form of, quote,
taxation that you make the decision on and you go out and support at
the polls and you say, "This is what we want for our County," it's not
going to happen otherwise, because a Board has limitations. And the
Board can only live within a framework of those limitations. And
that's where we are today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Impressive. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A couple of questions of Staff?.
The issue of an MSTU was raised back on December 12th, 2000,
when this was considered by the Board of County Commissioners, as
I understand it, and that the County Manager at that point in time was
directed by the Commission to go back and work with these groups,
who were the homeowners groups, and come back to us with a
proposal. What was that proposal?
Page 75
September 24, 2002
MR. FEDER: The proposal was to formulate an MSTU, but
also in between that time there was an evaluation of what we're going
to try to add in as landscaping and find out what happened with the
half penny.
There was some documentation before we told the group, you
know, "We can't define what is going to be your role and
responsibility on MSTU until we know what our base level of work
is." And we went after the half penny. And after that failed, then we
came back. And that's when the MSTU was officially formed
knowing that we had to pull back from even our tree lined provisions
that we were seeking to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the Livingston Road MSTU
was formed, and then recently we were asked to unform it; is that
essentially the case?
MR. FEDER: That is correct, sir, relative to some issues of
concern that representation was not necessarily for the homeowners
but the developer, yes.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd, for the record. What
you basically told us at the workshop was to go back with the MSTU
and talk to them, that there were some issues about representation.
I'm talking specifically about the Livingston -- the Livingston II
Beautification MSTU. And it supposedly represented Kensington,
Grey Oaks and Wyndemere.
And we found out through testimony that it was a little -- it was
a developer set up basically in Kensington and Grey Oaks, and that's
what basically came out in testimony.
You told us to go back with that group with the MSTU
Committee, figure out what they wanted to do. They presented their
case at the 18 September Budget Hearing, the second one. And they
asked that there be no millage that would be assessed against that
MSTU for this year and that their -- the fee for street lighting --
Page 76
September 24, 2002
enhance street lighting to the tune of about $228,000 be put as far as
a loan with collecting interest. And they would come back to us in a
year and tell us how they were going to pay us for that particular loan
and the principal, interest and principal on that loan. And there were
some conversations between developer representatives as far as
paying their appropriate share of that bill during that particular
hearing, going back to the workshop and that brings us all the way
through the Livingston II MSTU. So it is dormant for a year. It has a
zero millage for this year, and they are trying to figure out how
they're going to pay their $128,000 bill for enhanced street lighting
for this next year coming online.
But let's go back to the workshop for landscaping. You also --
the Board also told us, directed Staff, to go out there and survey the
taxpayers during our annual survey to figure out how they feel about
a Countywide, unincorporated Countywide, and I make sure I specify
that in the urban area-, okay, type thing to see how they felt about
having a Countywide unincorporated urban area MSTU in order to
deal with landscaping. We're doing that. We're setting that up. You
have to understand that our survey results are coming to us, because
the survey was completed in July by Mr. Molky and the crew and the
League of Woman Voters to help in order to do that. Our dilemma
right now is to -- it won't get put into a survey until July next year.
We're going through the process of trying to get an intermediate
survey to try to look at that particular issue specifically so that we can
get some direction and get that moving so that next FY for the budget
we can come back to the Board with -- with the results and see what
you want to do as far as landscaping any unincorporated urban area
of Collier County.
Commissioners, we're also going to take that back to their
constituents in Marco and Naples to see if they wanted to be part of
that effort. And that's ongoing as we speak.
Page 77
September 24, 2002
You also told the Staff to come up with a standard, okay, what
we want the arterial standard to be, also told us to look at collector
roads. Okay. And it was kind of discussed but not directed that we
come out for a standard for that.
The Board was kind of looking at collector roads being a
neighborhood kind of issue in what they wanted to do. But you
directed us to come up with a standard for arterials on those six north
-- six north, south; six east, west and to lay that back on and talk
about cost and things like that. And the Staff is doing that right now
and that was envisioned to take the process of this next FY in order to
do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the construction
that's going on now, are the medians being prepared for enhanced
landscaping in the future? Are the sleeves being installed-- MR. FEDER: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the electrical sleeves?
MR. FEDER: And the soil as well, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how about for street lighting?
MR. FEDER: The street lighting, of course, we had started to
proceed on standard street lighting, and at the request of the MSTU,
we had moved to decorative. And right now I guess -- MR. MUDD: Do it decorative.
MR. FEDER: -- going -- continuing with the decorative,
MR. MUDD: Because that's that 200 and -- and just so I'm not
stepping on Norman, that's that $228,000 in order to -- we presented
that to the Board at the 18 September hearing that if we cancelled that
project right now, it could cost us about $160,000, if I remember my -
- I think it was 156. But every minute -- everyday you wait, it costs
us more to cut the contract off and stop it right now versus $228,000
to see it to fruition.
Page 78
September 24, 2002
So what would have happened to that MSTU and the people that
are part of it, they would have to pay for something that they didn't
receive to the tune of about 160,000 or they pay an additional 60,000
and their fair share and they get the decorative street lighting that
they had wanted when they asked the Board for that commitment
back in July.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're moving ahead with the
decorative street lighting?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Through the MSTU, right.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That was the piece where they said they
wanted that loan to go for another year with interest and they would
come back to tell us how they were going to pay for it at the next
budget cycle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to say that the
people in Wyndemere had full knowledge of the MSTU. And I feel
sorry for them that their neighbors did not have that full knowledge.
The problem, I took a look at Fund 111. The only thing that we
can do, since we set the millage rate, we can't raise it. And I have
problems with that without having the taxpayers of Collier County
giving us the nod to do that is to cut out something else. Everything
else has been funded. So I have a problem having to -- making that
decision of cutting something else for the landscaping.
And though I believe that this is very much a part of the
community character and I will be -- and I hope the other
Commissioners take a look at what we can do in future years, like
next year, to see what we can do about putting landscaping on this
segment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 79
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. And it goes into --
oh, I have so many things to say right here. First of all, I think we
need to consider a Countywide MSTU. That is the second best thing
-- the sales tax would have been a way to distribute it fairly amongst
the whole County for sidewalks, for landscaping, for bike paths and
so forth. We didn't get that. And I hope everybody's happy that we
didn't get that, because they voted that way.
Conversely, we can consider a Countywide MSTU in the future.
But right now I wonder if this -- if these communities who seem to be
coming together would be agreeable to funding half of the expense to
put in this enhanced landscaping.
And if they would be -- if they would commit themselves to
paying half of what we need to landscape that properly now as we
introduce this roadway, we can then make a motion to designate it a
major arterial road, thus qualifying for the Beautification
Enhancement Funding to pay the other half. How does that sound?
Sounds good to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we still have a motion on the
floor. We have to dispose of that. I still stand by my motion, because
I -- anything that we take from one thing and we put it into another,
we're just robbing Peter to pay Paul and we're setting a precedence
that never ends. That's my concern right at this point in time.
Is there any other discussion that's before us? And hearing
none, I'll call the question. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 80
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the opposition vote would be
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I tell you, it was quite a
wrestle with our conscious here in trying to come up with what was
fair for everyone. And you Commissioners have to be commended
for doing the right thing and your concems very much were weighed
forward.
Let's go on to 10A, Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the
acquisition of Condemnation of Nonexclusive -- go ahead, Mr.
Mudd, I'll let you take it from there.
Item # 10A
RESOLUTION 2002-416/CWS 2002-04 AUTHORIZING BY
CONDEMNATION OF NON-EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL
UTILITY INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A FORCE MAIN AND PUMP STATIONS
INTERCONNECT PROJECT BETWEEN THE NORTH AND
SOUTH WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion to approve
from Commissioner Henning and a second from Commissioner
Coyle.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, before we go to the vote, I
believe for the record we just need to make a very brief record for
purposes of the condemnation aspects of this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
Page 81
September 24, 2002
MR. DELONY: Sir, for the record, Jim DeLony, Public
Utilities Division Administrator. This is a follow-on resolution to the
30 July, 2002, resolution that authorized Staff to acquire by gift or
purchase the necessary rights and interests required for six-mile
wastewater interconnect from the north plant to the south plant.
The tentative day's resolution before the BCC is to provide the
ability, if needed, to initiate condemnation proceedings, which will
enable us to meet our much-needed deadline, construction deadline,
of 2003 in December. This is -- this important interconnect project
will allow us to move wastewater flows between the north and south
plants, which will allow us system flexibility and redundancy in our
operational reliability. The full length of pipeline project is
approximately 33,000 linear feet for about six miles, utilizing
existing right-of-way for all but five parcels totaling only 762 linear
feet for about 2.3 percent of the project.
The pipeline easements are on the east side of the roadway and
will be along the roadway frontage of the parcels. There is also an
easement requirement for a pump station on Vanderbilt Road east of
Logan Road.
Sir, that's all I have with regard to this project. If there's any
questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I call the motion Mr. Vice Chair.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Vice Chair?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. I call the
motion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any opposed? Motion carries
4, O, with Commissioner Fiala absent. Thank you, Commissioner
Carter.
Page 82
September 24, 2002
Next item?
Item #1 OB
OPTIONS REGARDING AN AMER/CAN LEGION HALL ON
THE SOUTH IMMOKALEE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
PROPERTY- STAFF RECOMMENDS ITEM #4 AS OUTLINED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The next item is 1 OB concerning the
American Legion Hall on South Immokalee Neighborhood Park.
MS. RAMSEY: Good morning. For the record, Marla Ramsey,
Parks and Recreation Director. I have on the visualizer for you a
photo of the South Immokalee Neighborhood Park to show you the
location of the building that -- in reference which happens to be the
building right here in the very front.
On July 30th of this year, the Board of County Commissioners
gave Staff direction to meet with a Mr. Albert Lee of Immokalee on a
request to deed the church to the -- deed the building to the church so
that they are allowed to continue to use it on a lease basis.
What we have done and we also have directed Staff to come
back with some options in regards to try and find a permanent
solution to the building itself. And I have involved in this long
executive summary a number of options for you. I'm not sure if you
want me to go into a long detail or give you a short synapse.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I vote for a short synapse.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't you give us the short and
then we'll ask questions.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. The short synapse: There's four various
options that we came up with. The first one would be to demolish the
Page 83
September 24, 2002
building with the expense of about $4,000 coming out of the
Immokalee Park's General Fund 111.
The second option would be to deed the building to the church
and require the church to move it off of sight. Expense to the Park's
General Fund 111 would be again about $4,000 to make the
improvements once the building is gone.
The third option would be to repair the building at County's
expense with the expenses coming from Fund 306, which is the
General Fund 111 in the rune of approximately $37,000 and then to
lease the building to the church for a $10 per year for a five-year
period as a revenue source.
The fourth option would be to require the church to repair the
building and then lease it to them. The expense of that to the Parks
Department would be none and there would be about a $50 revenue
source over a five-year period.
I do have with me a number of photos that show you the existing
building a little bit, a little closer and points out some of the areas that
are code violations as the building currently stands. I can go over
some of those if you wish me to or I can just slide it along and let you
take a peak at it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we got a pretty good idea, and
I think that we're getting some good direction on this. If we could, if
I may interrupt you for just a moment. MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What I'd like to do is bring Albert
Lee up to the other podium over here. Albert, where are you? Will
you please come up to this other podium and maybe we can move
this thing along.
My suggestions and I talked to Albert yesterday and I think that
his thoughts are very clear on this also is that we go with Item
Number Four, which requires nothing on the part of the County for a
Page 84
September 24, 2002
dollar commitment, but it would give the ability for the -- for Albert
Lee, American Legion, the church, for other entities within
Immokalee to be able to still utilize this building under, I guess -- the
American Legion. Would they still be the person, Mr. Lee?
MR. LEE: No, sir. What we're hoping is that the American
Legion is no longer active at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-hum.
MR. LEE: The Victory in Jesus Christ Church is one of the
organizations that is willing to accept the responsibility of taking and
being in control. Now, that don't mean anything as far as the
community's concerned on who, where and how it will be used. We
have to have someone in charge.
The building -- and I don't know where some of those films
come from. That's probably when it was really in bad shape. I don't
see it at the present right now as being in that bad of shape.
What we're hoping to do is whatever the building needs along
with other parts of the community getting it fixed, getting it up to
code that any building that was built in -- during the 60's would
qualify for. Beyond that, we don't expect to have the County to come
in and do something this year that they got the chance next year.
When it gets to the point it's falling down, then we like to help the
County dispose of it. But at this time the community has a lot of use
for it. And they're not asking the County to do anything but allow
them to use it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Lee, I would have to conform
eventually with code. There's no two ways about that. We can't
exempt any organization, building, family or individual from code
requirements.
With that said, I think that we can probably come up with a
grace period for the corrections to be made to this building. And
what I would suggest is that we go with Item Four and that we give
Page 85
September 24, 2002
the church the ability to be able to make these repairs, work within
the community. I'll personally work with them to try to raise the
monies to do it and to get people involved into renovating this
building so it becomes an asset once more for Collier County for the
use of this organization.
We give them a lease of whatever standard, reasonable times are
with an option for renewal at $5 a year so that we -- is that the
amount that's in here?
MS. RAMSEY: I think the standard is ten.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, double the money, $10.
I'll pay the first year's lease, by the way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion on
Commission Coletta's idea.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A lot of seconds.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion. And
we'll come right back to you, Mr. Lee. Motion from Commissioner
Henning and a second from Commissioner Fiala. Any other
comments that you have for us before we take a vote?
MR. LEE: What I would like to do --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle.
MR. LEE: What I would like to do is thank you-all for even
considering the whole thing. And we, the community of Immokalee,
along with everything else that intend -- everyone else that intends to
use this building, again, do thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no. We thank you for being so
interested. And I'd like to volunteer every one of my Commissioners
to come out there for a weekend and do a cleanup. How's that?
MR. LEE: I will not ask you to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Smart man.
Page 86
September 24, 2002
MR. LEE: That may be asking too much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Politically correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just in the interest of full
disclosure, sir, are you going to have a problem with the $500,000
liability insurance that will be required if you keep the church on the
property?
MR. LEE: Sir, again, I don't know why I keep having some
problems. It's not the church. They may not never have church in the
building. It's for meetings. It's for groups that would like to meet.
We've been talking to Weeds and Seeds. They would like to utilize
the building. We're trying to get Habitat to come in and do some of
the restructuring and whatever is needed of the building.
So we have views on where we want to go. But, you know, we
don't want to tear down and destroy and whatever. That building was
in Immokalee when I came to Immokalee, was moved where it's at
now in the early 60's. So it has some -- we ought to be trying to
preserve it somewhere in Naples to make it --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Historical.
MR. LEE: -- a historical sight.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, the reason I raise that
issue --
MR. LEE: But have to -- we will, to answer your question
directly, whatever it takes to come up with the insurance. And we
hope not to be treated any different than any other organization that
utilize or uses County property for that purpose. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. LEE: If you treat the others like that, you treat us the same
way, we won't have no problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Page 87
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
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: The ayes have it 5 to 0. And with
that we're going to take a break for lunch.
MR. LEE: We thank you very much, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Albert.
One hour.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Thereupon,(A recess was had froml2:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-huh.
With no more questions, I'll
Aye.
Item #1 OD
STATUS REPORT OF THE INTERCHANGE ENHANCEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS REQUESTED BY THE GOLDEN
GATE/I-75 AD HOC BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE-
APPROVED WITH INITIAL FUNDING, SECURE GRANTS FOR
ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS
MR. FEDER: 1 OD is dealing with the 1-75 at Golden Gate
Parkway interchange enhancements. Very quick background, as you
remember, when the Board of DOT looked at establishment of an
interchange at 1-75 and Golden Gate, they needed to get a lot of
commitments from them, and from us, that we would maintain it as a
residential interchange as part of the approval process with Federal
Page 88
September 24, 2002
Highway, that we wouldn't mm this into another activity center, if
you will.
The Board established that commitment consistent with
maintaining the residential nature and -- of the interchange. As part
of that, an advisory committee was set up. The 1-75 Golden Gate
Parkway Ad hoc Beautification Committee. That committee was set
up in February of 2001.
They had quite a few meetings. They met with Board of DOT.
They tried to secure what they could for the funding from the state.
In your package, you'll find that they did secure essentially 874,000
for what amounts to hardscape and -- and landscaping of the
softscape improvements.
Of that fund, I would call your attention to the fact that DOT
maintains a 20 percent contingency, and so that left about 728,000
actually available to the work. The overall project was three million -
- 1,369,000 as proposed by the committee for all of the different
improvements and, of course, the county and the City of Naples and
others on the committee.
That leaves a shortfall, overall, of 495,000. And in your agenda
package, there's a highlight of three major things that would not be
funded without the commitment from the Board of 495,000, which is
what is being requested, acknowledging that 100,000 of that, based
on the MPO action for enhancement funding has been approved and
therefore, $100,000 of that 495, if it's granted, will be coming back.
The three items are specifically that on the structure itself, where
there is a requirement usually to cage in the walkway so nothing gets
thrown off the side of a bridge, if you will, and issues on the East
Coast came up with that.
They want to set up a decorative mesh, something that will fit
better with the community. Total cost of that activity -- and
decorative grill work is about $100,000.
Page 89
September 24, 2002
The second item was hardscape components, texturing of the
bridge pier, the column and beams, for about 70,656, and texturing,
painting the bridge itself, 24,378, for a total of $95,034.
They also -- the third item was to add 300,000 to the available
balance for landscaping of 296,144. That level of landscaping is
needed not only for the interchange beautifications internal to it, but
to make sure there is adequate screening for the residents in the area,
and that's why the proposal there.
So effectively, what you've got in front of you, is a little over
800,000 being proposed by the State, 495 being requested of the
county, with 100,000 of that under the enhancement to be reimbursed
later.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go with Commissioner Fiala
first, and then Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I remember at the time
when we were talking about this -- this -- what do you call --
interchange. Sorry about that. It's right after lunch.
And we promised the residents at that time that we would -- that
we would not just leave it as a -- as a plain old ordinary interchange
that -- that is very unattractive. We said we would keep it green.
We would keep it -- we would keep it away from any kind of
retail or commercial businesses and -- and we've promised them that.
And we need to keep that promise. I see, you know, I don't want to --
I've said it before and I'm going to say it again, I want to do the job
right in the first place.
I don't want to go back with taxpayers money and say, oh, darn,
it looks so bad now, we have to go back and fix it. And that's exactly
what we're talking about here if we don't do it right in the first place.
Like, for instance, the -- the appearance of chain-link fence.
Mesh grill work would be so much more attractive. A chain-link
fence is going to last a long time. Let's do it right in the first place.
Page 90
September 24, 2002
I feel that we can apply for some enhancement grants here, each
year. And we had $100,000 this year. We are not going to be
building that interchange for a little bit yet. Let's apply for other
enhancement grants, but I think we must do it right in the first place.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I would like to add, and I
appreciate you raising that. The State's project is to start in 2004.
In a practical sense, why we're asking for this approval, the
budgeting of dollars for all of this work would not be until about
2005 or six, because the work obviously would -- we would want to
see that for the interchanges and stuff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, I would like to make a
motion to that effect. And I -- I better make it rather succinct,
shouldn't I, saying that I would like to approve, let's see, I might even
need some help with this, Norm, because I want to say it right. I
want to approve the -- the remaining balance of $495,000 to -- to --
MR. FEDER: Implement the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- implement the --
MR. FEDER: -- Ad hoc Committee's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- enhancements --
MR. FEDER: -- recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you. Implement
the Ad hoc Committee's recommendations and find funding sources
such as the enhancement grants.
MR. FEDER: And would you also be asking for us to then --
throughout some of these features, they'll be doing construction,
some later, to obviously come back to you with future budget
requests to include these dollars as they are needed both for the
hardscape work and then for the landscaping.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Please include that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I will second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Page 91
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Over to you, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I just spoke.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to say something
else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a couple of questions. Can
-- can you explain to me why the beautification of this bridge is
different from the beautification of Livingston Road?
MR. FEDER: A couple of reasons. First of all, you entered into
an agreement sometime back with the State and with the community
at large that we were going to do something different with this
interchange rather than the Regional Activity Center progression,
going half and half on most interchanges, so you have the state
contributing funds.
When the committee was formed by this Board to come back
with what was needed to meet those commitments both to the State
and more importantly to the community itself and -- and those
residencies in the area to maintain it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if our-- would-- would the
Board, or would the staff recommend that we do the same sort of
thing with the Golden Gate Airport Road Overpass?
MR. FEDER: I think as part of that project, we are going to
come in with some enhancements on landscaping, and as we have
mentioned to you on the project as it's been developed, yes, we would
to make sure that it fits into the community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that would include sidewalks
with brick pavers and --
Page 92
September 24, 2002
MR. FEDER: I don't think to that extreme. We are talking right
now about some work as you have seen in the development of that
design like you have there on hardscape, the treatment of the
structure itself, lowering of the lights on the bridge and some
landscaping.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I -- I guess -- guess my -
- where I'm going with this is -- is that I believe there is a budget
amount here to deal with. It's my personal feeling that I think that --
that in view of our -- our crunch for money right now, is that people
should live within the budget that is established.
And I -- I believe that -- that there also seems to be some
uncertainty with respect to what really is required with the statement
that the committee would like further analysis from FDOT describing
the impact upon the existing buffer and the opportunity to focus on
irrigating these areas for future landscaping.
My -- my concern is I don't believe that all of the costs have
been identified here.
MR. FEDER: They're asking the State to go further than what
you have here, as well.
COMMISSIONER COLE: Yeah. So I certainly would not be in
-- in favor of contributing $400,000 to -- to these kinds of
enhancements, and I -- I guess it would appear to me that an MSTU
is the right way to handle this, since we have taken that position on
almost all the other beautification projects.
But -- and I'm -- I'm still a little -- little confused about so much
money being spent on brick pavers for a sidewalk. I don't know how
much -- how much pedestrian traffic occurs going across 1-75 there.
Certainly not very much in my opinion.
But there -- there would be more likely to be pedestrian and --
and bicycle traffic going across Golden Gate and Airport Road. So --
so there is an issue of precedence here as well as a budget issue, and I
Page 93
September 24, 2002
-- I cannot support pouring in $400,000 for -- for these kinds of
beautification enhancements. Some of them are very good. Some of
them, I think, are excessive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I can understand a lot of what
you are saying, although I'll weigh a couple of other items in here.
One is the fact that we have a considerable amount of money
coming in from the State, and we are looking at supplementing this,
and I know we will. We'll come up with different grants that will
help to bring the cost down.
We're talking about years '07, '08 for when we would be actually
spending this money. Are we going to appropriate it early and sit on
it?
MR. FEDER: You'd have -- you'd have some of the funds
probably in 2005, probably the balance for the landscaping --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. FEDER: -- About 2006, maybe in seven. It depends on
how long it takes to build the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I can personally endorse --
we'll come back to you in a minute, Commissioner Coyle. We are
going to go to Commissioner Carter, Henning, and then come back to
you.
But what I -- I can endorse this for the simple fact that we got
enough time to be able to work on this, and, I think, it behooves the
commission to take the responsibility to find alternate funds to start
buying this now so the taxpayers aren't going to be burdened with
this.
And when we get close to that time, we may have an MSTU in
place that can pick up the balance of it. But right for this point in
time, I am going to put my backing behind this. We'll go to you,
Commissioner Carter.
Page 94
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Three questions -- well, one is a statement. First of all, regardless of
whether you enhance it or don't enhance it, it is a green intersection,
no commercial; am I right on that?
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
be.
Absolutely green as green can
MR. FEDER: And -- and with your assistance; correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: State funding, I would count on
that about as much as I would the sky falling this afternoon, and it's
probably a higher probability the sky will fall, so I don't really count
on that.
Thirdly, I would not confuse this intersection with Airport and
Golden Gate. Enhancements there over the vanilla version,
Commissioner Coyle, I think the enhancements, one, I saw the
original numbers and they are not that much different, and there is a
video available where you could see both of those.
And I won't be here when you make that decision, but if I had to
spend additional money, I would do it there, so, like, you don't see
our first over/under pass as much as. So I -- I have some concerns
like Commissioner Coyle that there may be other options to fund this
difference, and I really prefer to stay at the base.
Since it is green and there's a timeline where maybe other
revenue sources could be found, through whatever comes back,
remember, you are going to have a revenue commission out here that
may come back, that may find those enhancements through another
funding source, whatever those recommendations might be.
So at this point, I am not going to support increasing the base.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And between now and --
and when actually the interchange is functional, I think that that is
Page 95
September 24, 2002
one opportunity that we can do, but the commitment from the
Advisory Board -- well, first to the state and then -- then from the
county, the reason I think this is important for us to do something
different, Commissioners, is because I feel it is going to be the main
entrance not only to our community, but the City of Naples.
And I know that Mayor MacKenzie spent a lot of time on this
Advisory Board because of-- of the interest for the City of Naples.
MR. FEDER: And I would beg of your indulgence and ask, I
believe Pam Lulich is here. I do not attend the Ad hoc Committee's --
Pam and Ed Kant did. And I don't want to not do them justice in
presentation to this. I -- I don't know if anybody from the committee
or Pam can speak to their version.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: While she is coming up, there is
another question I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is the City of Naples going to
spend money on this too?
MS. LULICH: They haven't dedicated any money at this point
in time, but the reason why the committee has asked for this funding
is so that they can seek future grant money. We -- this is all FDOT
committed money, so in order to get matching funds, we need that
county support.
So the -- the MPO grant for 100,000 is a reimbursable grant. So
by putting 495,000 forward, we would get 100,000 back. So the net
would be a 395,000 commitment.
We're looking -- we're looking for the additional 300,000
because we have 300,000 for landscaping. That's a base level of one
mile. We also have the interchange ramps and the buffers that they
would also like to provide landscaping for.
Page 96
September 24, 2002
We have ponds, and then also the -- the -- the side service roads,
so those are also areas that the committee would like to look at for
funding.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, in lieu, to the Board, I might
present an option to you and again, I feel bad not having the
committee or the direction from the committee here.
But what I would say is that some of the items are what they call
hardscape. They need to be put into the design now if that's going to
be the design we go forward with. And the mesh issue relative,
rather than the -- the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Chain-link.
MR. FEDER: -- chain-link on the pedestrian feature, which is a
total of 100,000 and the other feature that is 95,000, so that 195,000,
I think is a more immediate direction we need to get if it's going to be
put into the design and-- and I'll defer to Pam.
She's been going to those meetings. The enhancement part that
we have on the 100,000, I'm sure, can be applied against that 195.
So I'll submit to you that maybe the answer to the other 300,000
might be either taken up later or find other funding sources for it,
including possible future enhancement funding to fund that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I believe that was in my
motion, wasn't it? To find additional funding and sources.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. But we were still committing
to the whole thing and it was an alternate part of your motion. What -
- we are suggesting, Mr. Feder is suggesting, is you might want to
consider redoing your motion. Of course, it's up to you.
MR. FEDER: The first two bullets, possibly with the 100,000
that so far, we have committed out of enhancement to help pay back
towards that 195, so the county is only out, unless other funds come,
the 95,000 and the other 300,000 in the third bullet, be deferred at
this time for evaluation of other possible funding scenarios.
Page 97
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I could support that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to change your
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll -- I'll change it to support
that, as long as we can continue to go forward with that.
MR. FEDER: I think that would allow us to go on with the
design.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you were
the second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And the emphasis is still
trying to find the funding sources for that 300,000.
MR. FEDER: For that 95, as well as the other 300 or whatever
else.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I need a restatement of the
motion. I need to understand exactly what the proposal was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That I make a motion to
fund the hard costs that are -- initially must be planned for, and that's
the $100,000, of course, we already have that $100,000, that will then
be used to apply for other grants as needed.
MR. FEDER: With all due respect, Commissioner, what I was -
- the other thing you might consider is agreeing to fund the first two
bullets, which is the mesh rather than the wire, and the 95,000
relative to the texture items on the structure itself, both of which need
to be included in the design before they let it for bid.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm -- I'm glad you clarified that.
That's what I mean when I said hard costs.
Page 98
September 24, 2002
MR. FEDER: And also, the 100,000 we have in enhancement
already, be applied against that 195 if you chose to do that.
And then as we continue to pursue funds for the other 95
reimbursement and pursue enhancement and other funding sources
for the 300 or whatever else is requested relative to visual screening
and-- and landscaping.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And that's what I meant by
hard costs. I'm glad you said the first two bullets instead, because
those things we can't go back and do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm-- I'm still a little confused.
Let -- let me try to tell you what -- what I think I would be happy
with, and -- and then we'll determine if-- if-- if the motion actually
addresses that. There is $446,462 that is already authorized and
available from FDOT?
MR. FEDER: Actually there is a total of 874,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay. So there is 874,000
for the landscape budget for this interchange; is that right?
MR. FEDER: Landscape and the hardscape.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Okay. Now, what-- what I
would like to see is that 870 something thousand dollars be spent on
the things that are the hard costs that cannot be revised later on, and
that money will be expended first before we start talking about any
more money to do additional landscaping items.
That's where I'm coming from. My -- my problem is -- is -- is
committing money that we currently don't have for a project, four
years from now, the costs of which haven't been totally determined
and the ability to get state funding and grants hasn't been determined.
So -- so what I would -- this -- I guess it can't be an alternate
motion until you -- until you vote on this one, but my -- my idea
Page 99
September 24, 2002
would be to take the 870-something dollars and spend it on the things
you really think are necessary.
And then let us spend the next three or four or five years trying
to get grants to do the stuff that is nice to have, and rather than
committing today that we are going to give -- give you $400,000 to
spend on -- on whatever.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, just for the point, and I appreciate
what you are saying, the 875 is coming as committed from DOT and
it's in the third year, so it should stay there, and they have to address
that. They've made the commitment.
As to the other, the two items, the first two bullets do deal with
hardscape items that need to be put into the design. They do total
about 195,000. You do have a commitment of 100,000 out of
enhancement, so you would be only out of pocket, unless some other
item comes out of the county, 95,000, once you get paid back the
100.
That's why I proposed that, because those are the additional
hardscape costs. The three bullets of the three things that at least
your Ad hoc Committee said that they wanted that couldn't be funded
out of the state's 874.
Having provided that clarification, I appreciate your comments,
Commissioner, and I'll let the Board do --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, things like
texturing a bridge pier are clearly not hard costs. You can do that
after it's been put up. You can do it five years later. You can apply a
texture to a bridge pier. That is not interval for construction.
Painting the slope, again, is something that can be done later.
These are not hard costs that are dependent upon the construction
process. So I -- I'm not in agreement with that, but the -- the majority
of the Board --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My motion stands.
Page 1 O0
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion?
Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle said it twice
and, he's just one person.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it only counts for one vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For the descending vote. Yes. Nice
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I never thought of that one before.
That almost worked.
Item #10E
ADDENDUM TO THE LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION AND
MAINTENANCE HIGHWAY AGREEMENT WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-
APPROVED
Okay. We're on to 10E.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
Page 101
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Fiala. Any
comments, questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The addendum is part of a -- a
previous commitment?
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the estimated cost is 288 --
no, it's 105. I'm sorry.
MR. FEDER: 105 for the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? Hearing none,
I'll call for the question. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
THE BOARD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They ayes have it five to zero.
Item #1 OH
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH BETTER ROADS, INC.,
FOR THE PROPOSED LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE III
PROJECT, FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD
- APPROVED
Moving right along to H, warranting the construction contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve the
-- this is the Golden Gate Community Center?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. This is --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is Phase III.
MR. MUDD: This is Livingston Phase III.
Page 102
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I remove my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We are on H?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: H as in Henry.
MR. MUDD: Give them an introduction.
MR. STRAKALUSE: For the record, my name Gregg
Strakaluse, Director of Engineering Construction Management for the
Transportation Division.
This item before you, Item 1 OH is for the approval of the
contract for construction of Livingston Phase III to better roads for an
amount of $18,899,386.08, with a contingency of $900,000, which is
approximately five percent of the total construction costs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just want to say thank you for not
putting it on the consent agenda. Commissioner Henning, you're up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion Approved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning for approval and a second from
Commissioner Fiala. Any questions, comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Comments is I'm glad we're
moving forward so rapidly on Livingston Road. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're proving to the whole
community that we meant what we said when we came on board in
the first place. We'll get these roads built. Thanks, Norm Feder.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. That's my sentiments exactly.
Hearing no comments, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
THE BOARD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it five to zero. Okay.
Moving on to I, resolution-
Item #10I
Page 103
September 24, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-417 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE
IMMOKALEE ROAD SIX-LANING PROJECT FROM US41 TO 1-
75 - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter for approval, a second from Commissioner
Henning. Questions? All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
THE BOARD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anyone opposed. The ayes have it
five to zero. J, Annual Rate Resolution to Set Landfill -- Landfill
Tipping Fees.
Item # 10J
RESOLUTION 2002-418 APPROVING ANNUAL RATE
RESOLUTION TO SET LANDFILL TIPPING FEES - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioner, or, Mr. Chairman, I have a
speaker on this one, too before you call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Very well. Meanwhile, we
have a motion by Commissioner Fiala for approval and a second
from Commissioner Carter. Do we have questions of staff or should
we go to the speaker?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have questions.
Page 104
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's -- would you please
bring the speaker forward?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. The speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi, Commissioners. How are you doing?
Bob Krasowski here. I would appreciate it if I could make my
comments after the presentation that's going to be made to you, that
has pie charts and numbers and percentages.
It would be, you know, more valuable, I believe, if I could speak
after the presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the -- hold on. We might not
have a presentation. We reviewed all this individually and ask
questions --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of staff. Unless the Commission
here asks for the presentation or questions related to it.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, Mr. Yilmaz, I saw some of his
slides. He has some really good stuff for you there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He does.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I -- I as a citizen would like to see it and I
think --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, maybe you could get a copy
from him and look at it.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, how about the rest of the community,
you know--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let me put it this way. What
questions do you have, Bob. Why don't you ask the questions?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, they are more --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Yilmaz, would you come up
here to the podium and answer some questions?
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- comments. Okay. So, I guess, my
request is denied. My name is Bob Krasowski. I'm with Zero Waste
Page 105
September 24, 2002
Collier County and -- Incorporated. I've read this executive
summary, summary regarding this issue today, and I have a couple of
questions.
And I -- I first would like to comment that it would be very nice
for our group to receive these executive summaries prior to these
meetings, so we can give more attention and time to -- to evaluating
them, although I now have had a chance to read it over.
There is some detailed numbers in the back that you can see. I -
- I hope I haven't missed anything. But this item deals with the cost
of tipping fees and-- and the residential collection service.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's true.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And recently in the newspaper, an item
you dealt with on the 10th of this month regarding the tipping fees for
this year and then the years -- the next three years following, caused
concern of a citizen in -- in East Naples, and then caused the
newspaper to wonder why more information wasn't provided. They
were concerned about not being informed, because that caused us
concern.
And we, as you know, we've been interacting with the Solid
Waste Department for regular, -- irregular meetings for the past year
and a half, dealing with solid waste issues, so -- but the -- the concern
that these -- the paper and this woman had were over what was
identified as a $50 increase per year which is about a 46 percent
increase on the solid waste bill that goes out to residential customers,
which is substantial.
It adds up to tens of millions of dollars. But from talking to Mr.
DeLony, that amount is a cap identified to allow for increase and
costs depending on what program we might go with in the future. So
that was a concern of mine and a reason I wanted to be here today.
Otherwise, I believe I understand this.
Page 106
September 24, 2002
I believe it's a-- it's a good document. I believe it represents, to
the extent I understand it, good work on the part of the Solid Waste
Department and Public Utilities Department, and we're enthusiastic,
excited about continuing to work with these people and understand
most of what's proposed by them.
There is an item in here where it mentions that if you want enact
what's -- what's suggested in here as far as diversion of construction
and demolition materials, it brings the volume of materials diverted
from the landfill to about 50 percent, and this is -- this is very good.
It leaves future opportunities for us to look then at the municipal
solid waste, which contains recyclables, which contains
compostibles, also allows us to further reduce that volume through
strategies and programs for waste minimization at different levels --
different areas in the waste stream, and it's all good. It's all good.
I was -- I know Mr. Yilmaz was going to talk about some other
things, and I hope you listen to him and see his pie charts, because it's
-- it's more good stuff, okay? So until next time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. KRASOWSKI: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Thank you, Bob.
Okay. Let's call the question. I'm
sorry, Commissioner Coyle and then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Mudd, I think this is a perfect
time for us to very briefly discuss, and maybe you can explain what --
what the intent was of these notices concerning increased rates.
Could you -- could you do that, please?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle, Jim Mudd, County
Manager, for the record. The notices are -- first of all in order to --
by Florida Statute, you have to notice the community about
mandatory collections fees, and you have to do that before you set the
rate or the taxable rate, just like we do for our budget so that they can
have their tax bills in November from the tax collector.
Page 107
September 24, 2002
Well, there is nothing in the Florida Statute that says that you
have to notice it every year on the year. And what -- what the Solid
Waste Department has done in years past is the first time in '97, when
they raised the rates, they noticed the public that their fee would not
exceed a figure of about $140,000. It's up or down. I can't remember
the exact number.
And they did it for a five-year period of time. That five-year
period of time saved the county $50,000 each notice period, because
that's how much it costs us to mail that stuff out.
Last year, we noticed the community for one year and one year
only and said that it would be no more than $175, because you have
CPI adjustments for the collection contract with waste management
and Immokalee disposal and you also have a CPI adjustment for the
landfill, as far as tip fees are concerned, and that changes every year
and it goes up.
Plus the Board, last year, was going through a short-term mid-
term. This year we're out for RFP's. We're still out there trying to
gather more compost, yard waste, bidders and we've been -- we've
been working with Zero Waste listening to them and trying to expand
that particular contact. We're still waiting for those bids to come back
in, or proposals to come back in.
What we chose to do this year, because there was going to be no
great change to what we were going to do for a series of years,
depending on what you're going to decide in January for the long-
term aspects of solid waste, it would take -- if you -- once the Board
makes a decision in January, it will take us two to three years to do
design and everything else, and it wouldn't impact the fees that
greatly as far as the taxpayer is concerned.
So we're looking at CPI adjustments for the next three years
based on the collection contract and the landfill contract. And that's
rather minor. So we decided to put out the proposal last week in -- in
Page 108
September 24, 2002
-- or last board meeting in concert with this year's solid waste fee,
which is 127.27, which is the same as it was last year.
We did both together, and we saved the county about $150,000
in order to do that. The intent is there is no secret plan to raise the
fees some $50,000 or $50 per household over the next three years.
It's a standard protocol that we use based on Florida Statutes.
You have to set a sealing and you have to notify the public of
that. What we did is we gave advanced notice for the next three
years that we weren't going to exceed that, and we'll be well under
that, a lot closer to 127.27.
So that's what we did, that's what the staff did. They're trying to
take care of taxpayers' dollars, and I know of no other organization in
Collier County, or the State of Florida that gives anybody a sealing of
what their taxes are going to be three years in advance.
So my hats off the staff and the find job that they've done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go to Commissioner Henning
first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I've got a comment to
follow up my question. Then -- then I'll just briefly summarize that
we, Collier County Government, we're interested in containing costs
and we've saved $150,000 by giving a three-year notice of the
maximum taxes that would possibly be charged over that three-year
period of time.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is a positive service for the
people. There will be no increase this year; is that correct? MR. MUDD: That's right, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not even sure there will be
an increase next year or the year after that. We merely published a
maximum sealing and that's all we did, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 109
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm trying to stay on line here.
Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd answered my
question, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: A comment. I think this would
be an excellent opportunity to do a short presentation out of the
Public Information Office on Channel 11 to articulate just what
Commissioner Coyle said, which you have said so well.
Mr. Delony, and we well, and I thank Bob for his comments, but
this gives an opportunity to communicate with the public and I'm sure
we could put together a neat little production and everybody would
better understand where we are going and why we are doing it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Amen. Very good, Commissioner
Carter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
MR. DELONY: We'll do it.
Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's direction from the
Commission rather than a motion, that we get the point across.
Meanwhile, we do have a motion, we do have a second. If there
is no other comments, questions, I'll call the question. All those in
favor, indicate by saying aye. THE BOARD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it five to zero. Okay.
Item K, Award of Bid.
Item #1 OK
AWARD BID 02-3415 TO LODGE CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
Page 110
September 24, 2002
CENTER ANNEX - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion approved.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. I do have
something, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Carter, and Commissioner Henning,
you're up. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we look at the executive
summary, one of the things that bothers me is, if you look at the bids,
the top bidder is a firm from outside of Collier County. The second
bidder is a contractor from inside the county.
There's a two-percent difference, a two-percent difference in the
difference in the bids. And I don't think that we -- the way it's set up,
we do justice to the taxpayers by giving us some -- a little bit of
latitude to approve somebody from inside of Collier County. That's
my comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He -- he makes --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I just jumped right in
there. He makes a really good point, and for that small of amount of
difference, and yet they're tax dollars with be spent right here, we'll
probably get a greater percentage of tax dollars back. I would have to
agree with him if that can be readdressed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Well, that's true, but you've
got to remember, we have a certain protocol that's already been put
into place and to go back on that at this point, without going back and
changing the protocol would -- you leave the door open for everyone
else down the road that is -- we've accepted a bid from that's outside
Page 111
September 24, 2002
the county against those that live in the county, two percent, I agree
with you, is a -- is a small amount and I would like to see it in that
favor.
But in this case, to change this particular one, I think we would
have disastrous consequences. I don't see legal make any sudden
moves. There we go.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I can help you a little bit. Right
now, the policy calls for the award to the lowest qualified and
responsive bidder. Location is only considered in the event of a tie.
What I -- and that's the policy now, okay? And that's what we are
dealing with and that's what's been sent out.
But that doesn't mean that you can't give direction to staff to --
to qualify what the definition of a tie is for future bids and -- and if
it's one percent or one and a half percent, we can take a look at that or
it's -- it's some monetary amount if the -- if the contract is -- is below
$100,000 or whatever.
We can take a look at those and give you and -- and further
define what a tie is so that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we are giving you direction to
do such. One comment I would like to make, is whenever we have a
dollar generated in the community and spent in the community, it
turns over something like seven times within the cormnunity.
If it's spent to a firm outside the community, it generally leaves
the community and doesn't come back. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a brief comment concerning
that, because I've -- I've run into these types of situations myself.
You have to be very careful about how you write this thing,
because what will happen is that some of the companies who are
outside of Collier County will establish an office in Collier County,
and there -- there are ways to get around these provisions if you are
not very careful about how they are written.
Page 112
September 24, 2002
So if it would be -- if it's the sense of the -- of the Commission
to direct staff to look at that with a view toward changing the
procurement processes, that's fine. It's just that we have to be very
careful about how those things are done. Otherwise, people will
circumvent them very easily.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We could have something in
there like recognize a home-town firm for what it actually is by the
number of employees that are employed locally. I'm sure there is
some way. I mean, staff and their -- their abilities far exceed
anything that we have up here --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm sure they are going to come
back with a tremendous proposal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We got a motion.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I just have one quick question on that, or
just a comment on that. Marla Ramsey, Parks and Recreation
Department. One interesting thing about this particular item is that
Dana, who is the second one of the list is actually a sub for the
number one --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh.
MS. RAMSEY: -- who got the award. So just because the firm
might be outside of-- in Fort Myers --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good point.
MS. RAMSEY: -- doesn't mean that the subs aren't from Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's
something still to look at. Let's -- any other questions? All those in
favor, indicate by saying aye? THE BOARD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it five to zero.
Moving right along to L, which is listed as a time certain that-
Page 113
September 24, 2002
Item #10L
PROJECT BUDGET AMENDMENT AND AWARD BID 02-3377
FOR A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH BOOKS AND
FREUND, LLC, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH
NAPLES GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER-APPROVED
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to be here
for--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. I know.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to move for approval
on L.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am happy to second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter and a happy second from Commissioner Henning.
Discussion?
SKIP CAMP: Yes. For the record, Skip Camp, Facilities
Management Director. If you will include in your motion a technical
thing, just that the current budget amendment needs to be for Fiscal
03, and I appreciate your consideration.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's included in the motion, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine. And with that, any
other comments, questions? Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor
indicate by saying aye.
THE BOARD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it five to zero.
Now, we're moving back to the items that we pulled earlier.
Item #1 OM
Page 114
September 24, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-419 APPROVING PAYMENT OF TRAVEL
EXPENSES FOR PERSONS REPRESENTING THE MPO BOARD
AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES- ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: We're on Item 1 OM, which is a pull, which was
16B-11, and that had to do with the MPO $8000 travel allotment.
MR. HERRINGTON: Good afternoon. I'm Bob Herrington, for
the record, manager with the MPO. I've come before you today. I
guess there was some confusion over the executive summary, and I --
hope I can clear that up. What I was seeking was the Board's
approval to change the finance policy.
Currently, part of the MPO Board is made up of members, of
course, of you, yourselves, and representatives from the City of
Naples, City of Marco Island. The MPO process does call for
different meetings throughout the state, sometimes out of state. And
it calls for travel as Commissioner Coletta will tell you about.
We make a quarterly trip, usually to Orlando. We have been to
Tallahassee. In doing so, the MPO dollars that we receive, which are
federal and state grants, are for the MPO process and to help pay for
that -- the travel or any of the needs of the members of the MPO
Board and its Advisory Committees.
Currently, the Collier County's Finance Department's policy is to
pay for any and all expenses for travel and such of only Collier
County employees.
And what I'm seeking is approval of this Board to change the
resolution -- or with the resolution, to change the policy of the
finance department to allow for the MPO process to pay for any
travel that may come up in the future for your outside representatives
that represent the other cities.
Page 115
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bob, if I may add something to that,
being that I've been so close to this for so long. Those advisory
boards are an important part of our process, and if we can't keep them
fully informed by taking them occasionally to these different
meetings that are taking place, we're -- we're going to be on the short
end when it comes to making decisions. They are only as good as the
advice that they have and with the feedback that they get. We are not
talking about a -- a junket of any sort.
This is usually one ovemight and back again. And they are held
to the per diem rate of three dollars for breakfast, six dollars for lunch
and, I think, it's twelve dollars for supper.
MR. HERRINGTON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's far from a luxury type of
accommodations they are going to be staying at. But it does serve a
purpose to the county and I -- I hope that we can consider this when
we make our decision here today.
Commissioner Coyle, you were first and then Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I asked for this to be
pulled only because the objective of the executive summary says for
payment of all travel expenses incurred by the representatives of the
MPO and its advisory committees.
There is -- there is no requirement in-- in this executive
summary that a judgment be made to the public purposes being
served. And -- and frequently, we are -- are asked to approve
expenses for ourselves and we are frequently asked to determine that
a public service is -- is being served as a result of this expenditure.
And if-- if the MPO will have the authority to determine
whenever these -- this travel is necessary, then I'm perfectly happy
with that, but I think it's a proper thing to do.
Page 116
September 24, 2002
My only concern is that there was nothing in this executive
summary that indicated that those kinds of controls were applied to
the approval of the travel.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-huh.
MR. HERRINGTON: IfI can respond to that? We fall under
the same regulations that your county employees fall under for travel,
state and federal regulations also.
Also, we have a second check because all of our funds come
through the Florida Department of Transportation, and if it does not
meet their regulations, they won't pay it. And in them not paying it,
we would not be able to pay you back, so I can assure you that we
watch very closely any travel, any trips that we do make.
As far as the travel that we do go on, it is approved as is your
county's. My -- my director in the Transportation Planning
Department approves my travel. I can't speak for the county
commissioners who -- who approves theirs.
But when I submit a budget, my Unified Planning Work
Program, the UPWP, to the MPO for it's approval, which we have
already approved for this fiscal year, it includes different tasks.
Within those tasks, we talk about travel to different meetings and
such, and in the approval of that UPWP, you're approving the travel
that is needed to complete that task.
And, I guess, basically what I'm saying is we do meet the same
regulations in -- in approval process that your staff or you meet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I -- I would say to you
that -- that the federal and state regulations don't really deal with the
issue of a valid public service. And-- and if it did, we wouldn't have
to approve our own for that purpose, okay?
So -- so that is my only concern is that somebody at the MPO is
saying, okay, it's okay for three of the members of the MPO to go to
this particular meeting and that's serves a valid public service.
Page 117
September 24, 2002
But -- but approving the payment of all travel expenses incurred
by the representatives, I think, is a very, very broad -- broad
authority. And -- and if-- if we can be assured, or if I can be assured
that this will be authorized by the MPO on a per travel basis, I would
be perfectly happy with it.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could expedite this
a little bit, and that is I think Mr. Coyle raised some valid concerns
here. We have spoken with Mr. Mitchell from the finance office and
I think that it would satisfy the clerk if we added the language here,
instead of all expenditures, expenditures that meet the criteria defined
in Section 112.061 of Florida Statutes.
And additionally, I think you're correct, Mr. Coyle, that, you
know, really, ultimately it's this Board that determines public
purpose. One other additional way we could tackle this one time
only would be if we wanted to describe in this resolution the types of
activities that they'll be involved in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One of my problems there is -- is
it's perfectly logical for one or two people from the MPO to go to a
particular meeting. It is not necessarily logical that every member of
the MPO go to that meeting.
So if we identify the meetings to which people can go for a
public purpose, and we have five or seven or nine people going, when
we only need two, then in my opinion, it doesn't meet a valid public
purpose.
And -- and that's my only problem with that particular segment
of your recommendations, Ramiro. But the rest of it, I think is fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we -- we do the same thing on
our MPO. We usually designate one or two people to go and they are
the ones that automatically do it from then on out. We could do the
same with these advisory committees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
Page 118
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And possibly the Chair and the Vice
Chair would be the two designees that would be sent to these
meetings that take place.
MR. HERRINGTON: My -- the only problem you might run
into there is the -- the -- our technical advisory committee, for
example, does change memberships sometimes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-huh.
MR. HERRINGTON: What I would recommend is that I would
come to the MPO Board and advise them that staff has been notified
of a meeting, and is requesting permission to take such and such
member with me as the chairman of the GAC -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's fine.
MR. HERRINGTON: -- and request the MPO Board's approval.
Along the lines of the MPOAC, each year we name or rename a new
representative from our MPO Board to the Advisory Council, which
is statewide. Currently, it is Commissioner Coletta.
And then what I can do is add the wording in, the approval or
the renaming of a new member that this -- I'll put language in there
explaining that this does include travel to quarterly meetings.
Sometimes, if they get on a subcommittee, we may have to go to
Tampa or Orlando for those subcommittee meetings also.
But I will make sure that I word any appointments of new
members to include that so that we can get the approval right at the
beginning and be set with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And-- I'm sorry,
Commissioner Coyle, do you have something? Okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm not really okay, but -- I --
I think we're missing the point, but I'm not going to belabor it any
more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
Page 119
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just to clarify, we are not
asking for any more dollars. These are already in here. You're just
asking to legally pay these expenses that are already approved in the
budget.
And as I -- I mentioned to -- to our County Manager in my
meetings yesterday, I wanted to -- I spoke with Jim Mitchell from the
Clerk of Court's Office because I had a few little problems with this.
And I said, help me through this, which he did and he said, as
long as we say pay all expenses authorized by Chapter 112.06, I
think, it is, of the Florida Statutes, that covers it all.
So I want to make a motion that that be added to the language of
this -- of-- of this proposal -- of this, yeah, proposal it would be, and
I would like to make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that. Okay. Is there any
other comments, questions? Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate
by saying aye.
THE BOARD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero. Okay. Next one is N.
Item #1 ON
FY2002 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: And that's the carry-forward on 16B-15, which is
the 2002 Transit Development Plan.
MR. HERRINGTON: Again, my name is Bob Herrington, for
the record. I'm your MPO manager. Each year, excuse me, in order
to receive our annual block grant funds for our transit system here in
Collier County, we have to update our transit development plan,
Page 120
September 24, 2002
which is basically a three to five-year plan that tells you and
recommends what your future should look like for transit for Collier
County.
On December 11 th, your board approved staff to go out to bid,
and in doing so -- well, we did not go out to bid. We hired a
governmental agency, excuse me, which falls within the criteria.
We hired the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the
University of South Florida to complete our transit development plan
update.
Today, I have with me Ms. Laurel Land, who is the project
manager from CUTR. She will be doing a presentation about the
findings of the transit development plan.
! also should let you know that this item was presented to our
MPO Board at its last meeting and approved unanimously. With that,
I'll give you Ms. Laurel Land and then we'll answer any questions
you may have following her presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Pull this? Staff pull this?
MR. MUDD: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. LAND: Did you want me to go ahead with the
presentation? I know that some of you have already seen it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I -- myself, I feel that I'm fully
versed in it, but maybe one of the other commissioners would like for
you to proceed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But Commissioner Fiala--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that was from before, I think.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. I turn on my light then.
Page 121
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's all right. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I just saw some
correspondence cross my desk about something having to do with
funding, state funding, if a county exceeds 200,000 in population.
Could you explain that process to us and what is it's impact upon us?
MR. HERRINGTON: This is -- what has happened in Collier
County as you may know, our population has jumped over 200,000.
In doing so, we become what's called a transportation management
area.
One of the requirements of that is that you can no longer use
your transit funds, our Section 5307 Transit Funds for operation.
Any expenditures are operational ones.
What it does mean, though, is that we get additional dollars for
capital, which basically says we can buy a lot of buses, but we don't
have anybody or any way to pay for the operation of them.
So what we're going to be doing and what will be coming up at
our joint MPO meeting that we are going to be having with Lee
County, is the discussion of looking at other ways of funding the
operational dollars that we're going to need to operate.
Currently, Collier County Government has approved -- it's
approximately $700,000 that we used for what is called transit
enhancement, which are capital purposes. I hope to come back to
you in the future once we get to look into all of the -- what's going to
happen with this -- the changes in population.
One of the options that I can look at is coming back to you
asking to use those dollars for the operation and then use the transit
enhancements that were earmarked for those dollars and use the
additional federal dollars to pay for those.
But that is -- I want to make sure we're looking at all angles
here, because we are going to have to seek other -- other ways of
funding, not just with what you give us but as we grow, our
Page 122
September 24, 2002
operational funds are going to -- the needs are going to be a lot
bigger.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so you are going to be
coming back with alternatives for the funding crisis.
MR. HERRINGTON: Yeah. That's why we're -- that's one of
the reasons we want to meet jointly with Lee. They are running into
the same issue and there is like, 52 areas in the country that jumped
over this 200,000 population that, in fact, Martin County just started
their transit system this year.
Their very first year of funding, they lost their operational
dollars, so they are in worse shape than we are. But we are going to
looking at various options and talking about them with everybody
involved, and then I'll come back to the Board seeking a selection of
an option of ways to handle this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask who wants to see the
presentation? Is it Mr. Ochs that wanted to see it, Mr. Mudd? --
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll entertain a motion -- I
mean, I'll make a motion since Chairman Coletta is back to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. The ayes have it four to zero,
with Commissioner Carter absent. Well, we're at that point now
where we have a 3:00 certain. Can we go into public comments at
this time?
MR. MUDD: Absolutely, sir.
Page 123
September 24, 2002
Item #1 lA
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have one registered speaker
under public comment. Oops, wrong one. Kenneth Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Kenneth Thompson. I live at 2831
Beck Avenue. And I don't -- I don't know who's doing this rotten
trick to me, but, you know, Don Hunter started off with these Spanish
people. He's was going around and hauling them off and said he
didn't do it, but he was lying. He did.
So he got on the steps over here and he's trying to tell all these
people when you had 1,000 people over here, but anyway, I'm getting
bombarded every night, every day. I can't go nowhere. I'm being
threatened. I've had my pole lights shot out. I've had a gun pulled on
me, a little bit of everything.
And the damn speed bumps they put in the street, is wide open
night and day. You try to get him out there to do something, only
way he can find his way over here is to go out and beg for money. So
if you want to save money, you give it to another organization, take
the $60,000 a day away from him and get his men and himself a
motor scooter to ride.
I'm telling you I got nothing against Don Hunter, but when
people start threatening me, and doing to me what they're doing to
me, and I -- I've been here an awful long time. You were talking
about this preacher over here a while ago, bringing the poor people in
here and the homeless.
I was so poor when I got here that I had to borrow your rake to
use it. They ain't no sense -- they ain't no homeless people in this
Page 124
September 24, 2002
country. You got it in your head. I was a heavy drinker. I got no
problem with that, but it drove me to work like a slave.
And I'm telling you, I am sick and tired of these people. I don't
know who they are. I can't open my gates, but I got people out there
every morning a bothering me about this, that, and the other.
And I'm telling you right now, you call Hunter's men out there
and all they'll do is, oh, we'll take care of it.
And I can tell you another way to make a lot of money, is to go
over here to Walmart that's put everybody out of business, and sit in
that parking lot all over Naples and write these people up for out of
state tags and then charge Walmart for hiring them, and that will
bring you some revenue.
We've got about 15 of them on my street, and the worst of them
are Ohio. They'll come down here and they'll tell you right quick
they don't need no license plate. Well, believe you me, you've made
me do everything in the book. And I'm proud of the book, because it
got me straight. And the last time I had a bad day is when I poured a
beer on my wife's head and that ended the drinking. Believe me, it
did.
But all he wants over here is somebody to go over here and hand
him two, three thousand dollar fines, and-- and that's what he's a
getting and this -- this is terrible what he does to you. You can't get
him to do nothing -- and you want me to tell you another good thing
he does?
We go up 1-75 to the Cleveland Clinic, and you'll find his men
up by Immokalee Road sitting under the bridges. I don't know
whether they's asleep or what they're doing. But I take their pictures
and they don't like it, and also a place where they're -- you're
overdoing this thing about 9/11. That's long gone.
And I worked for Hercules and Picatenee. One makes black
powder, one makes nitroglycerin. And the way them buildings went
Page 125
September 24, 2002
down wasn't by no jetliner, because I worked world-round, for
Hercules.
I've worked for every airline in California and they ain't no
airline that carries that much fuel to bring down a building that big.
If you noticed how they went down, they stacked their way down.
There was more in those buildings.
I got -- I got four kids that was killed out here on the highway,
for Christ's sake. You don't see me carrying on every day a wanting
somebody to give me money and loving me to death. I just buried
them and that's it.
But it's a hard life, every day to put flowers on them. It's -- it's a
hard thing to do to lose your family, especially like that. Nobody got
blamed.
You had Tom Prentiss over there. He slapped this Chinaman on
the hand and charged him 750 bucks and let him go. I thought that
was the meanest thing I've ever witnessed in my life, but something --
something needs to be done about these people in that neighborhood.
And then you've got all this shrubbery a being planted out there
along the road by me. I'm trying to get them cut. You don't want me
to have nothing growing over on you. But then you people grow
them over on me, see, and I try to get them cut. I can't get nobody to
cut them.
I got one Spanish guy out there. He don't speak no English, but
I bet you a dollar if you make a mistake on his paycheck, he talks
loud and clear.
So I wish you would get somebody to cut those hedges and --
and stop this harassing me night and day because I'm in the damn
comer right now, and somebody's going to get hurt and I don't care
who knows that. It's not the officers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you very much for your
time.
Page 126
September 24, 2002
MR. THOMPSON: It's not the officers. It's the man that don't
know how to use his head. Let's put it that way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we're at that point in
our agenda, what we are going to do is we -- we have a 3:00 certain
that we have to honor.
It has to do with a person that's physically disable and that's the
only time they can make it. But we are going to go to the County
Attorney and get his report.
Items #12A and #12B
DISCUSSION REGARDING HEPATITIS SCARE AND TOWING
ORDINANCE
MR. MANALICH: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, two items, just
progress updates. One, the Chairman did sign for Board direction the
letter to the Sheriff regarding Mr. Kramer's request for an
investigation regarding the Copeland Hepatitis outbreak, and that was
sent over to the Sheriff with the Chairman's signature. That should
be copied to all of you. You should have that.
The other item that also emanated from Mr. Kramer was
regarding the towing ordinance, and Assistant County Attorney Tom
Palmer of my office informed me that he is working with the Sheriffs
counsel on some of the concerns raised at the previous meeting by
Mr. Kramer on that. And so we'll hear more about that in the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mudd, even
though we're not at the end of the meeting, we'll take your comments
now.
Page 127
September 24, 2002
MR. MUDD: Okay. To jump on what Ramiro had just talked
about, we also sent the bill to the gentleman for the services by
Pollution Control going out and testing the water that day, coming in
and out as part of that hepatitis scare.
Item #15A
DISCUSSION RE REORGANIZING COUNTY MANAGER
DIVISIONS
If I can get the overhead to come on. There we go. We sent this
down to the Board meeting --or to the Board room yesterday and all
the commissioners got a copy last night. I just wanted to inform the
Board, earlier this year, earlier this FY, prior to budget, we told the
Board that we were not going to fill the emergency management
administrator position, nor fund the secretarial management staff in
that particular division.
So what we basically did at that juncture is we -- we killed that
division. There were six divisions in the county. That one -- that one
would go out of being.
And the remnants of the division, EMS, the helicopter, a
contract for the medical examiner and -- and the county, the EM, two
-- two fire departments all come under Leo Ochs and they all reported
to him. That's okay for a stop-gap measure.
While that was all going on, the Productivity Committee gave us
a recommendation on what to do with that particular department.
And they had basically said that the emergency management piece
should fall under the County Manager's Office. And if you think
about the -- the -- the 9/11, you have a citizen corps that's -- that's --
that the Board voted on last meeting.
Page 128
September 24, 2002
And that would give it some centralized control in the county,
and we agreed with that particular case, so we're taking emergency
management to contract for the medical examiner and the two fire
departments and we're putting that under the County Manager's
Office.
What's left is EMS and the -- the helicopter service that we have.
Productivity Committee recommended it-- that go to the Admin
Services Division of Collier County and that particular division does
everything internal. They're kind of the internal organization, HR,
they do benefits, risks.
They run the motor pool, that kind of procurement, that kind of
business, all internal to -- to our organization, and we basically share
that particular division with all the other divisions in order to let us --
let us do our day-to-day activities.
It doesn't necessarily have a good fit for emergency
management, nor the Medi-vac Helicopter Operations. So we chose
to put that under Public Services Division, under John Dunnuck's
division, and it fits there, because that's parks and rec. They do
everything that's public service and it's a good fit there.
So we've got that shown right there on that block under Public
Services Division and we've got the Emergency Management piece
underneath the County Manager, and I -- and that will be effective on
one/October.
I just wanted to make sure that you knew about it, where we
were doing it, so -- and -- and to give you some visibility on that
particular operation.
Items # 15B and # 15F
DISCUSSION RE CHALLENGE OF RURAL FRINGE AND
RURAL LANDS AMENDMENT OF THE GMP AND FINAL
Page 129
September 24, 2002
ORDER PROHIBITED USES - DISCUSSION CONTINUED
LATER IN MEETING
Outside of any questions about that, the next point that I would
like to talk about would be -- there was a comment made from the
dias and I just wanted this as a point of clarification. The Rural
Fringe Amendment to the Growth Management Plan has been
challenged, by two parties.
The Rural Lands Amendment, we sent a transmittal and we
received the objections, recommendations and comment report from
DCA in Tallahassee, and that's what we call the ORK report.
And that's basically their comments on our transmittal. Their
review and -- and they come back and tell us where we could make it
better, where they need to have more detail before they can approve it
and that kind of business.
So the -- right now, the Rural Fringe is in court. That's the best
way I can say it to you. It's in court. It's been challenged and that
document will stay in -- in -- in court until the judge decides one way
or the other and -- and we'll get through that process, so that one
aside, sits over here.
The Rural Fringe -- or, excuse me, the Rural Lands is -- is going
on just like any other process. We do a transmittal, we get the ORK,
we do a review.
We get all our-- the information that DCA and Tallahassee
needs and then we bring it back to the Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners, and that's all going to happen this
Fall, and then if you approve it, we'll send up the approval document
to Tallahassee.
And then it can be challenged, just like the Rural Fringe did by
two parties, if they so desire, or five parties or whatever, that -- folks
that don't agree with it.
Page 130
September 24, 2002
So point of clarification, we've been challenged on the Rural
Fringe. That's in court. Rural Lands is moving right along. We're
answering the comments now that Tallahassee had on our transmittal
document that you sent up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to interrupt you for just a
second. Commissioner Coyle has a question. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I would like to get a
clarification from the county attorney, or the acting county attorney,
about the effect of the legal challenge of the Rural Fringe.
As long as this challenge is in place and the Rural Fringe Study
provisions are not implemented, does that mean that the uses that
were previously permitted on that land can continue?
I'm specifically asking about the earth mining use that was
apparently permitted under the Governor's Moratorium and -- and
what I'm wondering is, if-- if this challenge to the Rural Fringe
Study would permit people to begin earth mining in the Rural Fringe
or not.
MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: David, lean right to the mike there.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Did you get it? David Weigel, County
Attorney. I believe, Commissioner Coyle, and Commissioners, that
the challenges can do nothing more at this point then prevent the
ultimate approval and implementation of the amendment as submitted
to the state.
And that the final order, as we call it, that was issued from the
Governor and his group in 1999 continues to be the operative
standard in that -- in that area. And if your question goes beyond that
to say -- to -- to question as to earth mining under that order, would
be preempted or stopped at this point by -- by virtue of the challenge,
I think the answer is no.
Page 131
September 24, 2002
I think that what is in place under that final order as far as what
is still allowed presently in the jurisdictional as pertaining to the
order, in this case, Rural Fringe, will continue as that order indicated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that means earth mining can
continue now --
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that that is the case.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: And we would -- what I would suggest is we'll
check with the state level on this to see if, in fact, they have any
indication to us that is contrary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any way to -- to keep that
from happening, legally?
MR. WEIGEL: To, in essence, prevent the earth mining?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Prevent the earth mining, yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not aware at the present time, and what I
would suggest is that we would check and coordinate with the state
and provide you and make, in a very public way, a very quick
response to that question so that everyone would know, general
parties as well as parties with particular property right interests out
there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're -- you're questioning the
receiving -- the sending -- sending areas; correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The sending areas. Because I -- I -
- I believe -- it's my belief is exactly the same as yours that -- that the
-- the challenge to the Rural Fringe, I mean, it could go on for a long
time before it's resolved.
And during that period of time, people can begin earth mining in
any of the designated sending areas. I -- I think that's what it means,
unfortunately. Is that not your interpretation?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that's what it means.
Page 132
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. WEIGEL: We'll follow up on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: First of all, Mr. Mudd, thank you
for the clarification. I thought my earlier statement was correct.
Maybe I should have said we haven't legally challenged in the rural
area, but it was going through the ORK report.
Secondly, I believe our outside counsel in Tallahassee can
address Commissioner Coyle's comments, statements in terms of
what was frozen under the executive order and the cabinet as to what
you can do and can't do in the Rural Fringe.
And it would be whatever they set at the time, whatever that
frame work is, that's where you live until -- because we are under a
moratorium in there, we live with that until this other is done in the
courts.
And I would not, for a moment, suggest any phraseology here
other then I would heartily recommend that we get that information
and get it to everybody so they clearly understand of what's going on
in this legal process now, since it's been challenged.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm so glad that you -- that
you brought this subject up, but I thought it froze it. And what, of
course, I'm concerned about is our future water supply.
And -- and thinking that this -- the earth mining was frozen, I --
I never -- I wouldn't have known to bring it up. There must be a way
to protect that area until this has gone through the courts. I realize
that people have some money involved that -- they are not thinking of
the future water supply for us for our future residents, they're
thinking about their pocketbook.
Page 13 3
September 24, 2002
And -- and, I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel. And I think we
need to address this if it's going to harm our future water supply
while we languish in court for years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's one of the problems with
the court challenge, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, do you have anything
else?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I'll try to do, and I -- the
phone calls that are going on, we're trying to get Joe Schmitt and
we're trying to get some folks to call Tallahassee to get some
clarification, so -- and we have until the 3:00 time certain. We can
really get into this issue and hopefully get you some answers real
fast.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you where we-- I think
we're at that point now where we're best to take a break until the 3:00
time certain, and then come back and take that on and then we'll have
closing comments at that time from the commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. So we are going to adjourn until 3:00
p.m. this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: May I say one thing before you
shut this down?
MR. MUDD: Recess, not adjourn.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would suggest to all my fellow
commissioners to be very careful of what you say about anything that
is legally challenged, because we are all public record and you don't
want to come back and read about yourself in a deposition
somewhere.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And with that, we'll take
a break.
(Whereupon, the meeting was recessed until 3:00 p.m. and
continued as follows:)
Page 134
September 24, 2002
Item #10C
MAINTENANCE OF DEVONSHIRE BOULEVARD TO THE
RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU- MSTU TO
MAINTAIN THE MEDIAN OF DEVONSHIRE; AND THE
COUNTY WILL MAINTAIN THE HEDGE NEXT TO THE
COMMERCIAL UNTIL MSTU IS AMENDED; AND
ORDINANCE TO BE AMENDED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. Item 10C is dealing with Radio Road
Beautification MSTU, that has agreed to take on the maintenance for
the Devonshire median landscaping.
They are not agreeing, and I think I need to probably make this
clear, to take on the responsibility to maintain, as I understand it,
from the sidewalk over to the commercial area and those hedges, that
they are agreeing to taking on, through the MSTU, the landscaping
median and the work to their side, to the Berkshire Lakes side of the
property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle after that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I believe that initially when
we heard this, that the Radio Road MSTU people said that they didn't
want to include them, but now they've changed -- they've had a
change of heart; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: That is my understanding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So --
Page 135
September 24, 2002
MR. FEDER: They've agreed obviously this area is included
within that, although I think, and I will defer do your attorneys, you
may want to talk about making some maybe minor change to the
MSTU language itself to make it very clear. But, yes, overall, this is
within the MSTU area and they have agreed to taking on the
maintenance.
As far as the capital issues, if you remember, when the county
looked at it, we probably would have made some modifications to the
landscaping that's out there to meet some of our provisions. We've
been asked not to do that, rather to leave it as is and they'll maintain it
as is.
There has not been a safety problem, in spite of some concerns
on -- on standards, and so we've agreed to that. I don't know if there
might be any minor requirement to take care of something that might
be dead or the like. In there, we would probably try to work on that
issue, but generally speaking, there's no capital involved and the
MSTU is going to take over the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, you're saying
unless we hear something different from Ramiro, this is a win-win
situation?
MR. FEDER: I think it very definitely is. I know you have
folks here from Devonshire in case I have not said anything quite
correct in all what I've just presented to you, and I think that they
may want to, since they came down to speak to the Board as well, but
as far as I know, the answer to your question, yes, ma'am.
MR. MANALICH: The only thing the county attorney would
be simply that we agree with the recommendation, that if this is the
action today, that the ordinance should be amended to reflect the
specifics.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle and
then Commissioner Henning.
Page 136
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- I think this is an
excellent solution to the problem. I -- I only have one question and
that is the portion of the landscaping on -- in front of the commercial
area. Are we going to hold the commercial property only responsible
for maintaining that portion --
MR. FEDER: That would be our desire. We're going to try to
explore what our options are to get that issue addressed to make sure
that the commercial property understands and takes on that
responsibility. We need to find out whether or not that was within
the 100 feet of right-a-way dedicated as public easement. If so, it
was done without permit. I don't think they want to remove the
hedge.
We are also trying to find out if they have the responsibility for
that landscape buffer when they developed as part of the code. And
if so, the issue to maintain it, looking at other issues, but they say
that's obviously something we need to look at, but that would be our
intent and our desire.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not just going to languish.
Somebody is going to take care of it?
MR. FEDER: We're going to look at it. We're going to try to
make sure that it's addressed. In one way or the other, we'll make
sure that it doesn't languish.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. FEDER: But it wouldn't be our desire to take that on as
maintenance. We feel it should be the commercial.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will hold my comments until
the public speakers have spoken.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we'll go to public
speakers now.
Page 13 7
September 24, 2002
MS. FILSON: The first one is Matthew Loiacano. I'm not sure
how to say that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many speakers to we have?
MS. FILSON: We have three.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And he will be followed by Grant Grimm.
MR. LOIACANO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Matthew Loiacano, L-O-I-A-C-A-N-O. I'm vice
president with Coastal Communities Corporation, the developer of
Berkshire Lakes originally. I do have a brief package I would like to
hand out to you, Commissioners, and then I will keep my comments
brief. Thank you. There is more detailed backup in the package.
My main reason for being here is just to clarify a couple of the
items that have been brought up during the course of this process. I'd
like to start as commending Grant Grimm as president of the
homeowner's association and Commissioner Henning on their effort
to get this brought into the MSTU and get this issue clarified. I think
they both deserve a congratulations on that.
At the time Devonshire was installed in 1989, the code required
a buffer between commercial and residential land uses. The code
also requires that a long-term maintenance entity be designated on
plats. The homeowners, having the most long-term benefit and gain
from a well-maintained entry road and buffer, therefore, were given
this responsibility.
Considering the Berkshire Lakes is surrounded by 1-75, Santa
Barbara and Radio roads, and that there are walls and buffers along
these areas and the association is responsible for their maintenance,
because they benefit from these buffers, the same thinking went into
the Devonshire buffers.
It was not a way for the developer to dupe the residents or lay an
unnecessary financial burden on them. By giving them control, they
Page 138
September 24, 2002
could maintain it as nicely or as poorly as they wanted. And if the
residents were upset about the appearance, they could make changes
or improvements to the landscape or buffer if they chose.
They were given control, and as with many benefits, there is
also some burden. In this case, a financial burden, but not a very
large one when it is divided over 1700 homeowners. Collier County
initiated a transportation study in 1999.
Tindale-Oliver studied the Radio Road/Santa Barbara Corridor,
and they recommended to the county the additional access on
Devonshire to try and minimize the accidents that were occurring.
This was not initiated by the developer.
We cooperated with Collier County and did the improvements
on Devonshire and did the improvements on private property to
improve the access into and out of the shopping center, in -- in
conformance with the county's commissioned study of that area.
I just wanted to point out a couple of these issues that have been
brought up. Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Matt --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please, Commissioner, will you
allow me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since we did -- we are talking
about the access, this has nothing to do with it. The DRI called for
the access of the commercial.
MR. LOIACANO: There was a secondary access internal to the
PUD that was shown on the original DRI; that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The primary access on the DRI
shows it on the collector. That is not complete. When is your
organization -- your company going to improve that?
Page 139
September 24, 2002
MR. LOIACANO: We are currently in litigation with the owner
of the shopping center and one of their tenants over the opening of
that access point, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we have a better dialogue
with that issue so we are kept into the loop with that access?
MR. LOIACANO: I speak with Ed Kant from transportation
about once a month on that issue. I can speak directly with Mr. Feder
if that would help.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the landscaping on the
commercial side of it, can we address that and the -- the willingness
of-- of your company to take over that maintenance?
MR. LOIACANO: I don't know if I'm in a position to directly
respond to that today. There -- there is an easement on our property
that is outside of the hundred-foot right-of-way. That hedge is within
the easement.
The easement is not as specific as it would be in today's times,
but 13 years ago, it was in conformity with the guidelines of the land
development code when it was platted. There are potentially some
issues between the homeowners association and the owner of-- the
two owners of the commercial property that front on Devonshire.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you are saying that was
built in 1990, the commercial development?
MR. LOIACANO: The shopping center was CO'd in 1991, a
little over two and a half years after the first residential units were
built and conveyed to them for use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's just giving us some
background information to research land development codes to see
that -- what was approved at that time. Thank you. MR. LOIACANO: That's fine. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Grant Grimm, and he will
followed by your final speaker, Fred Rogers.
Page 140
September 24, 2002
MR. GRIMM: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
I am Grant Grimm, president of the board of directors for the
Berkshire Lakes Homeowners association. I have to take breath for a
second before what I start so say here.
The commission has made well-known its feeling about a
developer committing potential buyers of properties within the
development without any input from these people who aren't actually
on site yet.
And actually, that's -- that's a parallel to our situation, because
obviously there was no vote of the people or there probably weren't
enough people there to even have a vote, so this is something that
was strictly signed by the developer.
And the fact that the situation with the access road, which I'm
not here to address today, indicates that there was some problem as to
whether the developer had certain agreements with the -- the
principal lessee of Berkshire Commons as to whether he had the right
to proceed without getting their consent, as I understand it. That's
why it's in litigation.
The access road is being set up in order to alleviate a traffic
accident situation which existed on Santa Barbara. And that side, on
that one, we feel that for anybody to enter that access road strictly as
an access road, and it is a primary access road to Berkshire
Commons. Not Radio Road or not Santa Barbara, but Devonshire
Boulevard, and primary access road by your own ordinance.
Now, coming out of there will be a different situation. We
anticipate, and to be proven wrong, we would have to suffer
somebody losing their life or having serious accidents, a series of
them. We're very fearful about what's going to happen, but only time
will tell.
We hope that we are wrong on our assessment of what that's
going to turn to be as far as the traffic, a potentially disastrous traffic
Page 141
September 24, 2002
situation, but having commented on that, which I had not intended to,
I'll just make it part of my remarks today.
First, I want to say we very much appreciate that the
consideration you have shown by allowing us the luxury of a 3:00
p.m. time certain for our Agenda Item 10C. We are sorry not
anticipating this meeting would end earlier and we compliment you
for that. To carbon copy it, that we could not, in turn, accommodate
you by coming in earlier. We're sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. You don't have to apologize, sir.
That's what we are here for.
MR. GRIMM: Well, we feel -- we want to cooperate with you
as you have cooperated with us, of course. Now in the June 11
unanimous vote of the board to assume landscape maintenance and
street lighting of Devonshire Boulevard under Fund 111 was
welcome as a relief of a burden we have carried exclusively, for
about 15 years.
The September 5 workshop relieved any concerns we had by the
Board's affirmation of its pledge to honor previous commitments, of
which it was determined, Devonshire was one of four from you list of
seven.
The -- we walked out of there feeling that that was it. We would
be here today to thank you and go on our -- on our way. But now we
understand that the Radio Road Beautification Committee, which
previously had declined to include Devonshire Boulevard median
maintenance in -- in their program, was now going to undertake it.
As we understood it, they were going to maintain the median
and the grass from the street on both sides up to the adjoining hedges.
We at Berkshire Commons, pardon me, at Berkshire Lakes would
maintain the hedge on our side, which includes irrigation,
replacement of hedge, everything you need to do to keep a good
looking hedge.
Page 142
September 24, 2002
And that the commercial track, which is known as Berkshire
Commons, would do the same on their side. But our understanding
of that is it was a matter of good will. Now, if-- to me, that's some
kind of a tenuous agreement -- arrangement, maybe a chad hanging
from this agreement in that good will as it comes can also disappear.
We -- we are concerned, or we were concerned about the Radio
Road Beautification Committee not assuming the capital
improvement or refurbishment, if you will, of the median on
Devonshire Boulevard. Mr. Feder has addressed that and, I think, to
our satisfaction.
But as to the other side, now, obviously, the residents of
Berkshire Lakes do want to have some kind of a buffer between us
and that commercial track-- if I may? I can finish here in about one
minute.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Thank you.
MR. GRIMM: Thank you.
If you would, wrap it up, please.
That is our concern is how binding is
this? What -- what kind of an agreement is it? What will be done to
cast it in stone so that it will not be something that rears its ugly head
later on and we have to go through this exercise again. I would be
willing to answer any questions that you may have. Let's see here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning has got a
question for you, sir.
MR. GRIMM: We would have had, as I said, more confidence
in the total resolution of the problem if it is stayed under Fund 111.
Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a -- is it my understanding,
it it's true, that the homeowners association is willing to maintain the
hedge, which borders on Devonshire along the property -- the homes
on Devonshire.
MR. GRIMM: Absolutely. Without hesitation.
Page 143
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that hedge is on the
county's property.
MR. GRIMM: All-- all the-- all that goes into maintenance,
not just trimming it, yes. We will do that, because we have
residential property that abuts that hedge. That's their back yard, so
to speak. It behooves us to take care of our residencies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. GRIMM: And we will do that, yes. If there are any other
questions, I would be happy to answer them. That you very much --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. GRIMM: -- for your time and consideration. We
appreciate very much the cooperation we have had from your staff
and from the -- the members of the board and especially, particularly,
we want to thank Commissioner Henning, who represents our district
and staff and Mr. Norm Feder and Mr. Mudd for the excellent
cooperation and understanding that they have given to us. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker is Mr. Fred
Rogers.
MR. ROGERS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I personally
would like to thank you for the 3:00 p.m. thing. It was because of
me. I'm the caregiver for my wife, and my time is limited by her
needs, so I really appreciate the efforts to enable me to be here.
Concerns we have, as I understand the MSTU, they will cut the -
- the grass up to the sidewalk, and Mr. Grimm has already committed
that we would take care of our side. I'm very, very concerned with
the vice president of Coast Communities, who has virtual control of
our opposite side is not prepared to commit today to look after their
side.
I think that is a huge loophole in the plan and certainly needs to
be closed within a year if any mutual understanding can be reached.
Page 144
September 24, 2002
The MSTU plan is a good one. I think the MSTU Advisory
Committee has a vested interest in making sure that things are kept
nice in Devonshire and we are certainly anxious to do that.
For our part, we would look after the entryways, you know, the
maintenance that is required on those. That's the homeowners
approach. But the big concern is Coast Communities. Just recently
they cut grass on their piece of property that bordered on Santa
Barbara Road and Devonshire. The grass was two feet high. It's been
that way for some time.
I think it was done in the last few days, obviously in preparation
of this meeting I would say. We are very, very concerned. The
agreement that was mentioned was signed for both parties by the
president of those communities. In other words, he was representing
both communities and the homeowner's association at the time he
signed them.
I don't think that's a very -- very ethical process, quite frankly. It
may have been legal, but it's not very ethical. So we have concerns.
The MSTU is a good plan. If we can resolve and get commitment
from Coast Communities that they would look after their side, I think
we'll be happy. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and I also do have
concerns and I guess we're going to have to work that out with Coast
Community and Mr. Higgs, because it is a benefit to not only that
area but to also the commercial development.
As you heard, the homeowner's association is willing and able to
take care of their side of Devonshire, so I hope that we can step up
that. But in the meantime, Mr. Mudd, Commissioners, the only
avenue that we have right now for that maintenance of-- of that side
and the capital improvements is out of Fund 111.
Page 145
September 24, 2002
So I'm going to make a motion to accept for Radio Road MSTU
to take over the maintenance of the median of Devonshire. The
county will do whatever capital improvements is -- is found
necessary, and in the interim, maintain the commercial side of the
landscaping or the hedge on the commercial side out of Fund 111
until Coastal Communities pick up the obligation.
And then there is one other thing that we need to have, legal
clean-up, is the deed as far as the maintenance on Devonshire, and in
no way does my motion or comments reflect any information that
Matt has provided to me, because I have had not time to review that.
That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Carter. I would like to hear
from Mr. Feder if we could. I'm not awful comfortable with this.
MR. FEDER: Again, I appreciate the Board's direction. We'll
take, as you know, the county has been seeking to maintain in our
schedule until this issue got resolved.
If I understand the motion, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
first of all, the MSTU will take over the median and really up to the
sidewalks.
The issue at hand is -- is -- is essentially the two hedges. In the
case of the hedge up adjacent to the residential, the residents are
going to take that. The hedge to the commercial, if I understand the
motion, is to ask us to continue to maintain, until we get resolution of
it, but hopefully we will also get Board's direction to try and work
with Berkshire Commons, the commercial developer to have them
take over the responsibility for maintenance of that hedge, which is of
value to the commercial area.
The only other thing I'll cite to you, it's a little bit off the issue,
but I still don't understand when a PUD requires as primary access to
Page 146
September 24, 2002
Devonshire, how you can have a lessee that can stop you from
implementation of the requirement of that access, what you put in the
lease, how it can be inconsistent with the requirements of your PUD?
But having said that, to the issue at hand, I hope that the
direction is for us to maintain it until we resolve the issue of
Berkshire Commons on the hedge by the commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have -- I have a question if I may,
and why -- why aren't we taking this out of the Radio Road MSTU?
MR. FEDER: The Radio Road MSTU is taking on the
maintenance as was noted of essentially the roadway and the median.
The concern is as was pointed out, the hedge is outside of the
roadway right-of-way. It's on an easement of the commercial
property itself, so I don't think you would have the MSTU
maintaining that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So who will maintain that,
according to the motion?
MR. FEDER: Initially, as I understand it, the county will
maintain it, as we were maintaining, while we're trying to address this
issue. But that the interest is for us to try and work with the
commercial and try and have them take over that maintenance, but
until such time, as the county takes on the responsibility to maintain
the hedge next to the commercial, the other issues having been
resolved hopefully today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I could support it if there was a time
frame for this to take place, and if it falls outside the time frame, then
it would have to come back before us to be able to continue it. In
other words, so this isn't something that's indefinitely.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. It would be your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
Page 147
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Would the motioner be
comfortable with a 90-day window for resolution?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Well, the only problem with
that is what's going to happen after 90 days? It is just going to come
back to us?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I would put it right on the
commercial. Say, you've got it after 90 days if you don't work out
something with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're collecting the rent for it
anyway. Why should we pay --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for their-- for the landscaping of
their property?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, it's on our
property. That's the problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whose property is it on, Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: I am only repeating what I think I heard, and I'll
invite folks to get up from Berkshire Commons, or the developer, but
as I understood it, what he said is one hundred feet of roadway
corridor, which is Devonshire, which is county right-of-way, that
their hedge is outside of that on an easement that they have where
they have the bushes.
If that's the case, it's outside of the county's right-of-way, which
is another issue of concern as to maintenance. So I'll defer. Is it, in
fact, outside the one hundred feet of Devonshire right-of-way?
MR. LOIACANO: We recently replatted a portion of the
commercial parcel. That plat came before you a year ago,
approximately. According to the boundary survey of the plat, the
hedge is within a ten-foot easement contained on private property
outside of the right-of-way.
Page 148
September 24, 2002
And just --just for-- a couple of clarifications, Mr. Feder. The
original plan that was attached to the lease with Publix, showed a
130,000 square foot large box user and a small circle-around drive.
The relocated drive and the change in the parking configuration is the
main issue at the suit.
We've revised the original parking configuration to
accommodate a different drive aisle.
MR. FEDER: I realize that's a separate issue, although one we
need to resolve. We're back to the question that I was asked, and --
and maybe some further clarification, if it's outside the hundred foot
of right-of-way, and it's on an easement not owned by the county,
then I don't know how the county maintains it with taxpayer money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Could you state your
name for the record, please?
MR. LOIACANO: Yeah. Matthew Loiacano.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. I'll -- I'll --
we are going to have to amend our motion, to remove the
maintenance on the easement and I think that myself and the
homeowner's association is going to have to deal with that at -- on a
different day and possibly bring it back to the Board.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll support whatever you want to
do, Commissioner Henning. I think it's -- it's when -- you're right,
you're not going to get all the resolution today.
But a frame work in which you can work with the association
developer to get it resolved where the burden does not fall on the
taxpayer and I know how judicious you are on that issue yourself, so
whatever you want, I'm willing to continue it and second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He just took care of my problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me too.
Page 149
September 24, 2002
MR. MUDD: Can I add one thing, Commissioner, while we are
at it? Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. The MSTU
needs to be amended. That takes time, okay?
While all of this stuff is going on, the county will still maintain
the median and do all that stuff until we get the MSTU amended.
We'll -- we'll work with Mr. -- Commissioner Henning and the
homeowners association and the commercials and we'll try to help
facilitate to get those agreements in place so that Devonshire, as it
was when the homeowners association maintained it, will be the
Devonshire of the future. It will be a class -- it will be a class access
road and that's, I think, everybody's intent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe you better re-state the motion
so we can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is to accept staff's
recommendations for the Radio Road MSTU to take care of the
median on Devonshire.
And the county will, out of Fund 111 do any capital
improvements so deemed. And directing the county -- or the legal
staff to clean up the language on the deed as far as the maintenance
and improvements on the median.
MR. WEIGEL: And we will make any necessary amendment to
the ordinance. That's David Weigel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And make any amendments to
the ordinance. Thank you. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I do have a question if I
may. The 111 fund, how far is that committed for this project? I still
don't quite understand that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Very -- very minimal from
what I understand, talking to Mr. Feder.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that correct, Mr. Feder?
Page 150
September 24, 2002
MR. FEDER: Again, for the record, Norman Feder. Yes. My
understanding is while we're maintaining it as we resolve this issue --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-huh.
MR. FEDER: We would look to make sure -- we're not going to
change the landscaping out'there, but if there is anything dead or
dying, we would obviously work to address that before we handed it
over.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I understand. Good work,
Commissioner Henning. Is there any other comments? Hearing
none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
THE BOARD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They ayes have it five to zero. All
right. So, we'll go right down the line here and get closing comments
from the commissioners, starting with Commissioner Carter.
Item #15C
TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP TO BE HELD WITH THE
MPO ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 AT THE BROOKS AND OTHER
ISSUES RE ANIMALS AND SWFRPC
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have three things. One is,
tomorrow the Intermodal Transportation Workshop will take place.
The MPO asked me to Chair a subcommittee along with Mike
Minozzi and Clark Russell from the city.
We will be there, EDC will be there, the committee
representatives from the greater Immokalee area will be there as we
push to get State Route 29 included into the intermodal game plan
because that relates directly to the Immokalee airport, which relates
to economic development.
Page 151
September 24, 2002
So we will be there in force tomorrow. It starts at 1:00 p.m.
That is up at the Brooks, I believe, off of Corkscrew Road. If I don't
have that correct, Norman will correct me on that. And you are
willing -- you are all welcome to participate because we really need
that to happen.
An EDC policy group this morning, of course, backed that will -
- Tom Conrecode as well as others will be there to support that.
Second item is in regards to dealing with -- I'm going to call it a
situation, but I need it for clarification, so I'm going to throw it out
and ask for clarification.
And that is when we pick up animals and if they are listed as a
dangerous animal, when we bring it in, do we photo those animals so
that there's no misunderstanding about the condition of the animal
when it's picked up, and what is our policy once we take them into
custody? Do we water, feed them, whatever is necessary?
I don't know the procedure. I'm not saying we're not doing
anything right. I'm saying it would be good for clarification when
people come and may feel that we did something and where we
didn't, but what is our policy?
MR. OCHS: When -- when an animal comes in, if it's classified
as -- as dangerous, we have three different holding areas, if you will,
in our facility. One is for animals that are ready to be adopted,
another is for those that are sick and need to be separated from the
rest of the animals, and third is a quarantine area for-- for dangerous
animals.
But all the animals that come are -- come in through what we
call our intake room. They're checked over. I don't know,
Commissioner. I would have to verify whether they're actually
photographed, and I'll do that for you and I'll get a full staff report out
to the Board before the week's out, telling you exactly what the
Page 152
September 24, 2002
procedures are for our intake on all -- all of the animals that come
into the facility.
But in terms of-- of water and feeding, all of the animals are
cared for regardless of which area they're caged in, obviously fed and
watered and cared for. We have a veterinarian on site that the Board
was good enough to fund a couple of years ago.
The facility is staffed with kennel technicians, animal control
officers and -- and administrative staff. So I'm-- I'm very confident
that the animals are very well cared for, but I will be very happy to --
to have Mr. Dunnuck and-- and the rest of the staff prepare a detailed
staff report on that for you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And when someone picks up an
animal, do they sign a release form to us that the animal is okay or
whatever? I mean, do we have any way of protecting county
government when there is a difference on the condition of an animal
upon release?
MR. OCHS: Again, I'll -- I don't want to speculate. Let me --
let me go ahead and answer that question as part of my -- my staff
report if I may.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Last thing, Mr. Chairman, is Mr.
David Burr was appointed by the Regional Planning Council as
Executive Director through a national search open process that took
place last Thursday. And we will move forward working with that
council on a lot of issues, including legislative agenda and other --
other issues that we will be dealing with as we go to -- get ready to go
to Tallahassee.
Within -- one of the things I know that council will bring up,
bring back Commissioner Coletta's committee is the Article V.
That's the court system, a lot of money will be here, a lot of issues to
Page 153
September 24, 2002
be dealt with and we will need a very strong input to FAC on our
position.
If you'd look at the selection of the committee that's going there,
is -- is the formulating committee appointed by FAC. You will note
an absence of anybody -- any county from Southwest Florida. That
might tell you something up front that we better be paying attention
to what's going on, and we're -- I'm saying that as a warning shot over
the bow that we really need to work with our Clerk of Courts,
because we stand to lose an enormous amount of money in this whole
shake-out ON this deal. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to add something to your
comments. I -- I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but the
council unanimously endorsed Jim Carter to the Governor for a
replacement for a person that was appointed by the Governor and is
leaving the council, and we're sending that letter on.
We're hoping that after Mr. Carter's term ends here, that he'll be
able to continue with the Southwest Regional Planning Commission,
where he's been a very valuable asset to them and to this county. I'm
pretty sure we're going to see that endorsement come forward. I'll
also send a personal letter with my recommendations to the Governor
to be endorsed for that position.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, our chairman is the one
that made the motion to get the council to endorse that. We had a
local representative here, Adria Parsons, who just resigned from the
Regional Planning Council and she is the Regional President for now,
it used to be First Union but now I believe it's Wacovia. It was the
surviving company in that merger.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No comments.
Page 154
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
Item # 15D
COMMISSIONER HENNING RE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO
TOUR GOODLAND BY BOAT ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe that ifs on this Friday
on my calendar, Commissioners, or it might be the following Friday,
the Corps of Engineers is going to be in Collier County. We are
going to get on a boat and tour Goodland, the Isle of Goodland on
their -- their issues with the schulling on the canals.
They are down here because they want to see if it warrants a
grant study under them, to study -- to find out what the solutions are
and what the cost would be, and then, from there, we are going to go
to Congress to see if we can get that funded.
Item #15E
COMMISSIONER HENNING TO WORK WITH
COMMISSIONER FIALA/DOVER-KOHL STUDY RELATING
TO SMART GROWTH
The other item, recently the East Naples Civic Association came
to the Dover Kohl Smart Growth Committee, Horizon Committee. I
met with that -- that group yesterday.
I want to work with East Naples Civic Association and the
residents of Naples Manor to -- Naples Manor is looking to focus
study on what the -- the desires of Naples Manor for the future, their
needs, what they want in their community what is important to them.
Page 155
September 24, 2002
And I think it will probably have to be advertised so Commissioner
Fiala will be there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like being there, since
that's my community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And -- and it's a -- I just
wanted to assure you, I'm just --I want to assist them with some of
these Smart Growth ideas and to build a poll of community character
ideas, and I'm looking forward to giving a little assistance there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I've said this before and I'll
say it again. I'm delighted that you take an interest in the community,
and not only that, but you're bringing a level of expertise that I don't
have from you community character and, you know, two hands
working together is a lot better than one, so I appreciate your help.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for your comments.
And that's what it is, is we are all here to serve the people of Collier
County --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
trying to step on your toes --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
-- and -- and I'm not in no way
No. I didn't take it that way.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This government and the parts of it
and the elements like you mentioned, with the Corps of Army
Engineers, is so vast that no one commissioner can ever cover it.
I -- I would like to make a motion that we recognize
Commissioner Henning as our point person with the Army Corps of
Engineers and we refer him to any -- any problems that come up that
we need guidance on, we send Commissioner Henning as our
representative.
Page 156
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But don't you have, like, a contact
there or somebody? I mean -- no?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a learning process. It's a
tremendous amount of information to be absorbed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second it if-- if
Commissioner Henning wants to do it, fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He's doing it, already.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're just making it official.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm working on--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's take a vote before he changes
his mind.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm working on this issue and
I'm sure there's more that I -- I might not be able to tackle, so I'm not
even sure if this is even appropriate to bring it up at this time. But I
appreciate the support.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Well, we do have a
motion and we have a second --
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, per the
Sunshine Law, will this be fact finding only mission with reports
back to the Board then?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. But we recognize
him as the point person as far as fact finding goes. That ought to
cover it. I amend my motion and you amend your second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, of course.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. Okay. All those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
THE COURT: The ayes have it five to zero. Congratulations
with your new-found --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. And I'll remember
that. Trust me.
Page 157
September 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You already have, several times.
find myself fully occupied with what you remembered already.
Commissioner Coyle, you're laughing too hard. What are we
going to do give you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have nothing more to add
either, so with that, we're adjourned. Oh, I'm sorry. Hold on one
moment. We got Mr. Mudd with a final comment.
Items #15B and #15F
DISCUSSION RE CHALLENGE OF RURAL FRINGE AND
RURAL LANDS AMENDMENT OF THE GMP AND FINAL
ORDER PROHIBITED USES - DISCUSSED EARLIER IN
MEETING
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you asked some questions at
around 2:05 about the Rural Fringe objections and -- and where we
stand right now as far as land use while that's being contested in
court.
And I've got Marjorie and Stan and David Weeks here in order
to answer that question, but I think a specific statement as where do
we stand as far as land use is concerned and while this thing is being
contested, Marjorie would be -- would be something to answer.
Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant
County Attorney. There were two challenges as the Commission, I'm
sure, knows filed to the Rural Fringe Amendments.
And I have been in consultation with our outside counsel, Nancy
Linnan and Marty Chumbler at Carlton Fields, because they were
Page 158
September 24, 2002
evaluating the challenges, vis-a-vis the actual fringe amendments to
determine if any of those fringe amendments can be effective.
And it was the conclusion, based upon my conversations with
Ms. Chumbler that because of the nature of the challenge and as to
why certain lines were drawn, that it, in fact, impacts all of the Rural
Fringe Amendments.
We therefore -- she confirmed for me that we still are under the
final order and the moratorium, and there is a whole laundry list of
prohibited uses under the moratorium, so we are still under that until
this matter is resolved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more question. Hold on, please.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Among the list of permitted uses
under the final order was earth mining.
MS. STUDENT: Permitted uses?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that means that earth mining
can continue, or even begin, while this -- this challenge is being
considered, right?
MS. STUDENT: That would be correct, because I verified with
Ms. Chumbler what was on the list of prohibited uses and she did not
find earth mining on the list of prohibited.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so it is permitted.
MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's troubling. And there
is nothing we can do about that, huh?
MS. STUDENT: No, sir. Well, I suppose that you could -- I
was just going to say, I suppose you could possibly look at Comp
Plan Amendments, but since this is all tangled up anyway, it just adds
more complications to it.
Page 159
September 24, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's a conditional use. It's not a
permitted use, and with conditional use, it goes in front of the
Planning Commission and it comes to this Board for your -- for your
decision, so, yes, you have some say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's good.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you for that, because I haven't
committed all those -- I've tried to commit all that to memory, but
haven't been able to and, of course, on a conditional use, there are
four criteria that the Board looks at and if any of those are not met, it
can be denied and you have the ability to put stipulations on those.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. That -- that brings one last
question up, okay? Are there any permitted uses under the final order
that would be contrary to our efforts to preserve the sending lands.
MS. STUDENT: I'm afraid that that would take some further
evaluation, because in that area, there are -- Dave? I'm going to have
to call a planner here.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks for the
comprehensive planning staff. If I understand the question correctly,
I'm going to rephrase it. Are there any uses that are allowed by the
final order that are not allowed under those Rural Fringe
Amendments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I think that's a correct re-
statement.
MR. WEEKS: The answer to that is, yes. There are some uses
the final order would allow that our fringe amendments as adopted
would not allow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What are those? Do you know
right offhand?
MR. WEEKS: I'm a little hard pressed, but I -- the specific area
would be those sending lands.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
Page 160
September 24, 2002
MR. WEEKS: Those are the ones of the highest environmental
value. Those are the ones that have the most restrictive allowed uses
under the sending land designation. I don't know if I could pull one
off the top of my head, but there definitely are some. Well, the
excavation is one case on point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: It's allowed by the final order and is not allowed
in the sending lands.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You said allowed, but it's -
- its a conditional --
MR. WEEKS: Not permitted at all. The sending lands
designations do not permit excavation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I understand that part. But
the final order permits excavation as a conditional use. But are there
any permitted uses that would be counter to our interest in preserving
the -- the --
MR. WEEKS: The final order doesn't change the nature of how
the uses are allowed, that is, conditional versus permitted. Actually,
what the final order says is, here's your list of uses that are prohibited,
so it's kind of the opposite way of looking at it, so if the uses are not
on the list of prohibited uses, then they are allowed.
The mechanism by which they are allowed is as spelled out in
our land development code, so that the final order isn't superseding
our land development code in the sense of permitted, it's conditional
or instead of conditional it's permitted. It simply says certain uses are
not allowed and if they are allowed, go through the usual zoning
process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you follow that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, plus, there is a density issue, too,
between the two. And-- and that's --
Page 161
September 24, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
limitation is not there.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
adjourned.
That's right. The -- the 40-acre
That's troubling.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Okay. And with that, we're
***** Commissioner Carter moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and adopted: *****
Item #16Al
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE BETWEEN CPOC REALTY,
L.L.C. AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR CONTINUED USE OF
OFFICE SPACE FOR THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT- ANNUAL RENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $44,636.88 FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND
INCREASED BY 4 PERCENT FOR THE SECOND YEAR
Item #16A2
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO 2002 TOURISM AGREEMENT
WITH KELLEY SWOFFORD ROY, INC., EXTENDING
EXPIRATION DATE FROM SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 TO
JANUARY 31, 2003 TO ALLOW FY02 ADVERTISING AND
PROMOTION FUNDS TO BE EXPENDED IN FY03
Page 162
September 24, 2002
Item # 16A3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $3,608.04 FROM
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUND 194 TO UTILITY
REGULATION FUND 669 FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FY01/02
EXPENDITURES MADE BY UTILITY REGULATION, WHICH
WERE DEDICATED TO THE TOURISM EFFORT
Item # 16A4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $20,000 FROM
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUND 194 TO UTILITY
REGULATION FUND 669 FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF UTILITY
REGULATION STAFF TIME DEDICATED TO THE TOURISM
EFFORT
Item #16A5
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-075 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
CHARLES HITCHCOCK, INC., MCALPINE BRIARWOOD, INC.,
AND CHARLES HITCHCOCK (BRIARWOOD GOLF &
PRACTICE CENTER) REGARDING VIOLATION TO SECTION
3.3.11 OF ORDINANCE 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE
Item #16A6
Page 163
September 24, 2002
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-037 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
ENRIQUE IGLESIAS REGARDING VIOLATION OF SECTION
3.9.3 OF ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Item # 16A7
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-379 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
CHARLES AND JOAN HUMPHRIES REGARDING VIOLATION
OF ORDINANCE NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
.DEVELOPMENT CODE
Item #16A8
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-005 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
QUAIL CROSSING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
REGARDING VIOLATION TO ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, AS
AMENDED OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE
Item #16A9
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-061 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. A.L.
Page 164
September 24, 2002
DOUGHERTY CO., INC., REGARDING VIOLATION TO
ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND VIOLATION TO
ORDINANCE NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LITTER
AND WEED ORDINANCE
Item #16Al0
PURCHASING POLICY WAIVED; SOLE SOURCE LIMITED
ENGAGEMENT OF MC LAUGHLIN TOURISM MANAGEMENT
TO ASSIST STAFF IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE FY03
ADVERTISING/PROMOTION PLAN- IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $30,000
Item #16Al 1
AMENDED TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDENS,
EXTENDING EXPIRATION DATE FROM SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2003, TO ALLOW FY02 SPECIAL
MUSEUM GRANT FUNDS TO BE EXPENDED IN FY03
Item #16A12
STATUS REPORT ON THE WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE
FOR PREPARATION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR
COORDINATED LAND USE AND SCHOOL PLANNING AS
REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 2002-296 LAWS OF FLORIDA
Page 165
September 24, 2002
Item #16A13
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 1999-069 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
DALE HORBAL AND CHERYL HORBAL REGARDING
VIOLATION OF SECTION 3.9.6.6.6 OF ORDINANCE 91-102, AS
AMENDED OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE
Item #16A14
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-023 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
TERRY ARCE REGARDING VIOLATION OF SECTION 3.9.3 OF
ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Item #16Al 5 - Continued to October 8, 2002
2003 TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH MARCO ISLAND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
SPECIAL MUSEUM GRANT OF $25,000
Item # 16A 16
RESOLUTIONS 2002-389 THROUGH 2002-398 CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIENS TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS
EXPENDED FOR THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
Page 166
September 24, 2002
Item #16A17
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
HAWTHORNE SUITES AND RELEASE THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A18
RESOLUTION 2002-399, RE PETITION AVESMT2001-AR659,
VACATING THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST
IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT CONVEYED TO COLLIER
COUNTY BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND ACCEPTING A
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS A RELOCATION EASEMENT,
LOCATED IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16A19
IMPACT FEE REFUND REQUEST IN THE AMENDED
AMOUNT OF $60,255.79 FROM PRESTINE HOMES
Item # 16B 1
COUNTY INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM (CIGP)
AMENDMENT EXTENSION FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO PINE RIDGE ROAD
Item #16B2
Page 167
September 24, 2002
WORK ORDER gPBS-FT-02-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION,
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES BY PBS&J, INC.
FOR GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD (PINE RIDGE ROAD TO
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD) FOUR AND SIX LANE
IMPROVEMENT - IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$1,265,384.22
Item gl 6B3 - Deleted
Item gl 6B4
PURCHASE OF ONE (1) TRACTOR WITH BOOM MOWER
ATTACHMENT FROM ALAMO SALES CORPORATION- IN
THE AMOUNT OF $80,703.00
Item gl 6B5
WORK ORDER gJEI-01-02 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,601,472.25
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
SERVICES BY JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. FOR
IMMOKALEE ROAD 'MILESTONE 1 & 2' (WILSON
BOULEVARD TO 43~ AVENUE N.E.) FOUR LANE
IMPROVEMENTS
Item gl 6B6 - Deleted
Item gl 6B7
BID g02-3416, IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU/MSTD
ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE- AWARDED TO
Page 168
September 24, 2002
COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $154,839
Item # 16B8
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO
ACQUIRE A 60 x 150 FOOT PARCEL OF LAND IN THE
NAPLES GATEWAY ESTATES SUBDIVISION AT A COST OF
$800 FOR THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EAST NAPLES
AREA
Item #16B9
CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND APAC-
FLORIDA, INC. TO ALLOW PIPE REPLACEMENT AND
REPAIR ON GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
Item # 16B 10
RESOLUTION 2002-400, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS
REQUIRED FOR A STORM WATER TREATMENT POND
WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ALONG 13TH STREET
SOUTHWEST FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD SOUTH TO
16TM AVENUE SW
Page 169
Item #16B 11 - Moved to Item #1 OM
September 24, 2002
Item # 16B 12
PURCHASE ORDER MODIFICATION WITH MC GEE &
ASSOCIATES FOR U.S. 41 NORTH PHASE I LANDSCAPE
SERVICES - IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,7300.00
Item # 16B 13
WORK ORDER NO. BRC-FT-03 WITH BETTER ROADS, INC.
FOR MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS ON DAVIS BOULEVARD
BETWEEN COMMERCIAL DRIVE AND PINE STREET - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $113,075.55
Item # 16B 14
RIGHT OF ENTRY FROM NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDENS,
INC. FOR PERMISSION TO ENTER UPON PROPERTY
LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND INCLUDING LAKE KELLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING ROAD MAINTENANCE
DEPARTMENT STAFF TO MAINTAIN THE VEGETATION BY
APPLICATION OF STATE CERTIFIED HERBICIDES
Item #16B 15 - Moved to Item #1 ON
Item gl 6B 16 - Continued to October 8, 2002:
CHANGE ORDER WITH APAC, INC. FOR ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS ON THE NORTH 11TH STREET EXTENSION
PROJECT AT THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 29
Page 170
September 24, 2002
Item #16B 17
RESOLUTION 2002-401, ENDORSING THE INCLUSION OF
1-75, SR-29 NORTH OF 1-75, AND THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT
IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA STRATEGIC INTERMODAL
SYSTEM
Item # 16C 1
RESOLUTION 2002-402, SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL
FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2002-403, SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL
FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2002-404, SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL
FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Page 171
September 24, 2002
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2002-405, SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL
FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Item #16C5
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND/OR
SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16C6
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST
REAL PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
Item #16C7
PURCHASING POLICY WAIVED; PURCHASE ORDER
MODIFICATION FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF WATER AND
SEWER VALVES RELATING TO THE WIDENING OF U.S. 41
FROM RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD TO BAREFOOT
WILLIAMS ROAD- IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,859.00
Item #16C8
Page 172
September 24, 2002
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM
MANDATORY TRASH COLLECTION FUND (473) RESERVES
FOR PAYMENT TO HAULERS FOR THE SOLID WASTE
MANDATORY COLLECTION PROGRAM
Item # 16D 1
AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 FUNDING
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL
HEALTH CENTER, INC. AT A COST OF $926,100.00
Item #16D2
ANNUAL CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR
OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AT A FY03 COST TO THE COUNTY OF
$1,343,200.00
Item gl 6D3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $200,000 FROM THE
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER TO PARKS CAPITAL
PROJECTS FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER'S SHARE OF THE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF THE NEW ANNEX BUILDING
Item #16D4- Deleted
Item # 16D5
Page 173
September 24, 2002
RENEWAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE OF FACILITIES
WITH ST. JOHN NEUMANN HIGH SCHOOL
Item #16D6
MODIFICATION TO THE CAXAMBAS PARK SUBMERGED
LAND LEASE WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AT AN ADDITIONAL
ANNUAL COST OF $150.00
Item #16D7
BID #02-3407 AWARDED TO PRO SOURCE ONE AND LESCO,
INC. AS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VENDORS FOR THE
PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF FERTILIZER AT A
PROJECTED COST OF $200,000
Item # 16E 1
BID #02-3409 AWARDED TO 3D SITEWORK CORPORATION,
HUGHES SUPPLY, INC. AND METAL CULVERTS FOR THE
PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF CONCRETE AND METAL
CULVERT PIPE AT AN ANNUAL COST OF $35,000
Item #16E2
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
Page 174
September 24, 2002
Item # 16E3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE
PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,249,900 TO FUND CLAIMS
PAYMENTS THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
Item #16E4
2003 PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
Item # 16E5
BID #02-3372 AWARDED TO FIRST COAST AUCTIONEER
FOR FULL SERVICE AUCTIONEER AGREEMENT
Item #16E6
CONTRACTS #01-3290 "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES"- AWARDED TO Q. GRADY
MINOR AND HOLE MONTES FOR THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $1,000,000
Item # 16F 1
APPROPRIATION OF $11,648 UNANTICIPATED REVENUE
FROM A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER LEASE
Item #16F2
Page 175
September 24, 2002
AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND
PARAMEDICS, LOCAL 1826 IAFF FOR PROVIDING
I-IEAI.THCARE BENEFITS TO EMS PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2002-406 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
AND ACCEPTANCE OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND
COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT
Item #16F4
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NCH
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR A
DEDICATED INTER-FACILITY TRANSPORT AMBULANCE
AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY
Item # 16G 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 2002-01, AMENDING
THE FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 16H 1
REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY $7,704.07 IN UNCOLLECTIBLE
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE INCURRED BY THE AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
Page 176
September 24, 2002
Item # 16H2
TRANSFER OF $78,800 FROM THE GENERAL FUND (001) TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY FUND (495)
TO OFFSET SHORTFALLS IN AIRPORT REVENUE
Item #I 1
PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50.00 FOR COMMISSIONER
FIALA TO ATTEND THE NAACP ANNUAL FREEDOM FUND
BANQUET, SILENT AUCTION AND DANCE TO BE HELD ON
OCTOBER 19, 2002 AT THE ELKS LODGE
Item #1612
PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $25.00 FOR COMMISSIONER
CARTER TO ATTEND THE UNITED WAY OF COLLIER
COUNTY 2002 CAMPAIGN KICKOFF TO BE HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL &
GOLF CLUB
Item # 16J 1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 177
FOR BOARD
Ao
Bo
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 24, 2002
ACTION:
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for August 24, 2002 through August 30, 2002
2. Disbursements for August 31, 2002 through September 6, 2002.
Districts:
1. Collier Mosquito Control District - Regular Meeting Schedule 2002-03,
District's Registered Office/Registered Agent, Proposed Budget and
Current District Map.
2. Port of the Islands Community Improvement District - Minutes of
Meeting held July 19, 2002, Adopted Budget, Financial Statements June
2002 and Current District Map.
Minutes:
1. Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization - Agenda for
September 13, 2002.
2. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board -
Minutes of December 6, 2001, Minutes of April 3, 2002, Minutes of
May 1, 2002, Minutes of July 3, 2002, Minutes of June 12, 2002
3. Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Agenda for August 5, 2002,
Minutes of June 17, 2002, Agenda for August 19, 2002, Minutes for
August 5, 2002, Minutes for July 15, 2002
4. Environmental Advisory Group -Notice of no meeting in August
5. Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Minutes of June 27,
2002
6. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee -Agenda for July 31,
2002, Minutes for July 10, 2002, Minutes of April 24, 2002, Minutes of
May 8, 2002, Minutes of May 22, 2002, Minutes of June 12, 2002
7. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for August 21, 2002,
Minutes of June 12, 2002
Co
H:Data/Format
Do
o
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Other:
1)
2)
-Enterprise Zone Development Agency - Collier County Finance Admin.
and Housing- Minutes of July 25, 2002, Minutes of May 23, 2002,
Minutes of March 28, 2002.
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for August 31,
2002, Minutes of July 9, 2002.
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for
August 15, 2002, Minutes for July 18, 2002
Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force Meeting - Minutes of July 8, 2002
Pelican Bay MSTU Advisory' Committee - Agenda for July 24, 2002,
Minutes for July 11, 2002, Agenda for August 7, 2002, Minutes of July
3, 2002, Minutes of July 11, 2002, Minutes of July 24, 2002
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for August 12, 2002 Minutes
of May 13, 2002
Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes - Minutes of June 5, 2002,
Minutes June 12, 2002 and Minutes of June 11, 2002
Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - Department of Revenue Rules
and Regulations and the 2001 Tax Roll.
Collier County Clerk of the Court - Payment of Public Notice for Unclaimed
Funds.
H:Data/Format
September 24, 2002
Item #16K1 - Deleted
Item #16K2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FUNDING PROJECTED PERSONAL
SERVICES SHORTAGE IN COURT ADMINISTRATION
Item # 16K3
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, AMENDING CURRENT CONTRACT
WITH KPMG LLP FOR AUDITING SERVICES TO INCLUDE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD,
STATEMENT NO. 34, "THE NEW GOVERNMENTAL
REPORTING MODEL"- IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000
Item #16K4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE AS THE
LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL STATE AND LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FORMULA GRANT AND
APPROVING SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION
Item # 16K5
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL
FISCAL YEAR 2002 REVENUE IN THE CONFISCATED TRUST
FUND (602)
Page 178
September 24, 2002
Item #16K6
PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES IN REPORT OF
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS DETERMINED TO SERVE A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION TO
EXPEND COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES
Item # 16L 1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 175C IN THE
LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MICHAEL S.
COMBS, ET AL, (IMMOKALEE PHASE 1 PROJECT)- STAFF
TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $350 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE
COURT
Item #16L2
RESOLUTION 2002-407, AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE HEALTH
CARE FACILITIES FOR NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.
Item #16L3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 209 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. ARMANDO A. LAMBERT, ET AL.,
(IMMOKALEE PHASE 1 PROJECT)- STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE
SUM OF $2,000 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Page 179
September 24, 2002
Item #16L4
RETENTION OF NICHOLS HOSPITALITY CONSULTING, INC.
AND JAN L. NICHOLS AS CONSULTANTS OR EXPERTS ON
HOTEL ISSUES IN AQUAPORT V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE
NO. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF
Item # 16L5
CONTINUING RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL
SERVICES ON AN "AS NEEDED" BASIS WITH THE LAW
FIRM OF CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMANUEL, SMITHY &
CUTLER, P.A., TO MEET COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY
CONTRACT UPDATE REQUIREMENTS
Item #16L6
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO
ORDINANCE 99-85 (CODIFIED AT S.126-2, COLLIER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES) IMPLEMENTING THE
RECENTLY ENACTED PROVISIONS OF S. 196.075, F.S.
(ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR PERSONS 65
AND OLDER)
Item # 16L7
RESOLUTION 2002-408, RELATING TO A REPORT OF THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT INSPECTOR GENERAL
CONCERNING THE COLLECTION, EXPENDITURE AND
DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN MEDIATION FUNDS AND FEES
Page 180
September 24, 2002
BY THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OFFICE OF COURT
ADMINISTRATION
Item #17A
BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 2002-02, AMENDING
THE FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 17B - Continued Indefinitely
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE EXPANSION OF THE
GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT TO INCORPORATE AREAS
WITHIN THE RURAL FRINGE AMENDMENT AREA
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2002-409, RE PETITION CUE-2002-AR-2088,
THOMAS HAWKINS REQUESTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION
OF AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITY LOCATED AT 2101 COUNTY BARN ROAD,
CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 9.63 ACRES
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair- Time: 6:15 p.m.
Page 181
September 24, 2002
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZON1NG APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JAME~"N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN
These minute/s approved by the Board on
As presented ~ or as corrected
Page 182