BCC Minutes 10/22/2002 R
October 22, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 22, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of Commissioners,
in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of
Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district
as has 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, East Naples, Florida, with
the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo Ochs, Assistant County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~
AGENDA
October 22, 2002
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL
LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
1
October 22, 2002
- ~._--
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Father Andrew Malarz, St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
Be
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
September 18, 2002 - Budget Hearing
September 24, 2002 - Regular Meeting
September 27, 2002 - Concurrency and LDC Workshop
September 27, 2002 - Emergency Mosquito Control Meeting
September 30, 2002 - CRA Meeting
October 2, 2002 - Value Adjustment Board
October 3, 2002 - Value Adjustment Board
October 4, 2002 - LDC Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
Twenty-Five Year Attendees:
1)
2)
Bonnie Fauls, University Extension
Thomas Mitchell, Ochopee Fire Department
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Proclamation for National Epilepsy Awareness Month. To be mailed to
recipient.
Be
Proclamation to designate October 19-27, 2002 Red Ribbon Week. To be
accepted by Paula Armbla, Bob Hignite and Betty Whitmore.
2
October 22, 2002
GL
Proclamation to designate the month of November as Collier County
Adoption Month. To be accepted by Debbie Allen and Terry Iamurri.
De
Proclamation to recognize all the individuals and agencies that participated
with the Alligator Alley incident on September 13, 2002. To be accepted by
Sheriff Don Hunter.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
AL
Public Petition Request by Jim Kramer to discuss items outlined in his fax
request.
gL
Public Petition Request by Ms. Ruby Hampton to discuss auto claim/damage
to vehicle.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
AL
ADA-2002-AR-3030 Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and
Johnson, representing William T. Higgs, requesting an Administrative
Appeal to Official Interpretation INTP-2002-AR-2421 concerning landscape
buffer requirements for the White Lake PUD per Land Development Code
Division 1.6.
BL
This item has been continued from the September 10, 2002 BCC
Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-
2015 Austin White, of Becker and Poliakoff, P.A., representing Unit Owners
of the Manatee Resort Condominium Association, requesting relief in the
RT Zoning District from the 500 Square Foot Maximum Size for a Hotel
Unit set forth in LDC Section 2.2.8.4.7.2.1., to allow four (4) units of the
total 19 as-built units to have 3,200 square feet of floor area (includes 550
square foot lanai) and to allow 15 units to have 2,625 square feet of floor
area (includes 543 square foot lanai), for property located at 9566 Gulfshore
Drive, further described as the North 50 feet of Lot 14 and all of Lots 15 and
16, Block B, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 1, Collier County,
Florida.
3
October 22, 2002
Co
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-2392
Gerald A. McHale, Jr., Trustee, Naples Gateway Land Trust, requesting a
variance from PUD Ordinance 2000-14, Section IV., 4.13, Landscaping and
Buffering, Item (2), which requires a 1 O-foot wide type A Buffer along the
Eastern Project Perimeter Boundary, to allow a 2.0-foot wide buffer area
along the Western edge of the sidewalk adjacent to the North-South portion
of the accessway connecting to the Raggae PUD.
De
This item has been continued indefinitely. VA-2001-AR-1205, Vince
Cautero, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Shane
Alan McIntosh, requesting a 7-foot variance from the maximum height
requirement of 35 feet in the C-2 zoning district to 42 feet and a 41-foot
variance from the Corridor Management Overlay District (CMO) setback
from Goodlette-Frank Road of 100 feet (50 feet plus 25 feet for each
additional floor) for a proposed 3-story commercial building located on the
Northwest comer of Goodlette-Frank Road and 13th Avenue North, further
described as Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Companion to Item 8C: RZ-01-AR-1204)
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ao
This item has been continued from the September 10~ 2002 BCC
Meeting and is further continued indefinitely. RZ-2001-AR-1595, James
G. O'Gara of Marquette, Development Company, representing Golden Gate
Capital Ltd., requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to RSF-5 for a seventeen-lot
single-family home subdivision on 4.26+/- acres on 2951 44th Terrace SW,
further described as Golden Gate Unit 3, Block 103, as recorded in Plat
Book 5, Pages 97-105, Collier County Records in Section 27 Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Be
This item has been continued from the September 10~ 2002 BCC
Meeting and is further continued indefinitely. RZ-2001-AR-1596, James
G. O'Gara of Marquette, Development Company, representing Golden Gate
Capital, Ltd., requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to RSF-5 for a thirteen-lot
single-family subdivision on 3.15+ acres located at 4501 30th Avenue SW in
Golden Gate Unit #3, Block 4, Parcel l, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages
97-105, Collier County Records, in Section 27, Township 49 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida.
4
October 22, 2002
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition RZ-01-AR-
1204, Vincent A. Cautero of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.,
representing Shane Alan McIntosh, requesting a rezone from "C-1" and
"RSF-4" Residential Single Family Zoning District to the "C-2" Commercial
Convenience Zoning District for property located at the Northeast Corner of
Goodlette-Frank Road (CR-85 l) and 13t"Avenue North in Section 34,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
1.15 acres more or less. (Companion to Item 7D: VA-2001-AR-1205)
Do
This item has a Time Certain of 1:40 p.m.: Collier County Growth
Management Plan (GMP) Amendments as a result of the Rural and
Agricultural Assessment for the Eastern (Rural) Lands Portion of thc
Assessment Area, including some Amendments applicable to the Entire
Unincorporated Area of Collier County, Except the Rural Fringe Portion of
thc Assessment Area (Adoption Hearing).
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ae
Appointment of Commissioner to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council.
Be
Appointment of member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development
Agency.
Ce
Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee.
De
Discussion regarding alternatives to condemnation to lower right-of-way
costs. (Commissioner Coyle.)
This item has a Time Certain of 1:30 p.m.: Discussion regarding Tim
Nance's 1000 tree donation offer for the Golden Gate Boulevard median.
(Commissioner Coletta)
F. Appointment of members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
The Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Attomey.
(Commissioner Coletta)
5
October 22, 2002
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
This item continued from the October 8, 2002 BCC Meeting. Approve
amended Median Landscaping Agreement between Collier County and thc
Vineyards Development Corporation in the amount of $80,000. (Norman
Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
Be
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Acquisition by Gift or Purchase of
Right-of-Way and Stormwater Retention and Treatment pond sites 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
Santa Barbara/Logan Boulevard Road Improvement Project from Davis
Boulevard to North of Pine Ridge Road (Project No. 62081), Fiscal Impact:
$11,914,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
Ce
Award a Bid 02-3424 in the amount of $12,495,051.66 to Ajax Paving
Industries Inc., and allocate $600,000.00 for contingency purposes to
construct the proposed Goodlette-Frank Road project from Pine Ridge Road
to Vanderbilt Beach Road, Project No. 60134. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
Award a Construction Contract in the amount of $28,986,526.90 to APAC-
Florida, Inc., and allocate $1,000,000.00 for Contingency Purposes to
construct the proposed Immokalee Road Four Lane Widening, from CR 951
to 43ra Avenue NE, Project No. 60018. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
me
Presentation of Collier County's 2002-2003 Legislative Agenda for the
Board of County Commissioner's Approval.
Fe
Approve Developer Contribution Agreement with Collier Land
Development, Inc., for Road Impact Credits and Future Cash
Reimbursement subject to Developer complying with all conditions of the
Agreement imposed by the County. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
6
October 22, 2002
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13.
Ae
This item has a Time Certain of 12:00 Noon: Closed Attorney-Client
Session pursuant to Section 286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., to discuss Settlement
Proposal/Litigation Expense 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. (David Weigel, County Attorney)
Be
For the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to Outside
Counsel, Ted Tripp, Esquire, and the Office of the County Attorney as to
any settlement proposal/litigation expense 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, following the
Mediation of October 19, 2002. (David Weigel, County Attorney)
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. SAP Update by Steve Carnell, Director, Purchasing Department.
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Petition CARNY-2002-AR-3192, Joseph C. Delfino, Second Vice-
President of the Naples Italian American Club, requesting a Permit to
conduct a camival from October 31, 2002 through November 3, 2002
on the Naples Italian American Club Property located at 7035 Airport
Road North.
2)
Approve the compromise of a Code Enforcement Lien imposed in
CEB Case entitled Collier County v. Roland Surin and Zelta
7
October 22, 2002
Robinson, CEB Case No. 99-067 (amount $5,803).
3)
To receive an exception to CMA Instruction 5341 Section 17 (b), for
the hours applicable for shift differential pay.
4)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-053 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Chad Dutton regarding violation to Ordinance No.
91-102, Section 3.9.3 as amended of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
5)
Approval of three (3) impact fee refund requests totaling $10,355.46
due to cancellation of building permits.
6)
Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of "White Lake
Corporate Park, Phase Two", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the Performance Security.
7)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
an Amendment to Contract 99-2976 (Community Character Master
Plan) with Dover, Kohl, and Partners for the development of a Naples
Park Community Plan in the amount of $211,370 which has already
been budgeted.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve an Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation
to receive $7,450,000.00 in Transportation Outreach Program (TOP)
Funds for costs directly related to the widening of Golden Gate
Parkway from four to six lanes from Airport Pulling Road to Santa
Barbara Boulevard and the construction of a Grade Separated
Overpass at Airport Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway, Project
No. 60027.
2)
Approval of an Equipment Loan Agreement with 3M Traffic Control
Materials Division for the use of an HSRA-48C Squeeze Roller
Applicator used for sign sheeting applications at no cost to the
County.
8
October 22, 2002
3)
Request that the Board direct staff to form a Municipal Service
Taxing and Benefit Unit (MST/BU) for the purpose of improving a
portion of South Eighth Street and Doak Avenue Extension in
Immokalee.
4)
Request that the Board direct staff to form a Municipal Service
Taxing and Benefit Unit (MST/BU) for the purpose of improving
Little League Road in Immokalee.
This item continued from the October 8, 2002 BCC Meeting.
Approve Change Order with APAC, Inc. for roadway improvements
on the North 1 lth Street Extension Project at the Intersection of State
Road 29 in the amount of $31,733.60, Project #62021.
6)
A Resolution to prohibit the operation of trucks and other commercial
vehicles having a rated load-carrying capacity in excess of one (1) ton
from through-movements on certain streets in the Northern High
Pointe Neighborhood.
7)
Removal of a non-warranted traffic signal from the Intersection of
Goodlette-Frank Road at the driveway to the Royal Poinciana Golf
Club. Removal of the traffic signal poles and equipment will cost
approximately $5000.
8)
Recommendation to approve a mutually beneficial agreement between
Outdoor Resorts of American, Inc., and Collier County to manage
stormwater for property along Immokalee Road in the amount of
$105,920.00 (Project No. 60018).
9)
This item continued from the October 8, 2002 BCC Meeting.
Approval to utilize insurance proceeds to purchase two reconditioned
Transit Buses and other support equipment in the amount of $91,853.
10)
Approve Developer Contribution Agreement with First Baptist
Church of Naples Inc., for road impact credits and cash subject to
Developer complying with all conditions of the agreement (estimated
at $668,056.81).
11)
Approve a Budget Amendment request to transfer $250,000.00 from
Transportation Gas Tax Reserves for Marco Island Projects from
9
October 22, 2002
Fiscal Year 2002.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Award Contract for annual maintenance of Chlorinator Equipment to
Water Treatment and Controls Company in the estimated amount of
$100,000.
2)
Approval of Budget Amendment to transfer funds from Reserves in
the amount of $381,400 to correctly fund the payment of County
Water and Sewer District in lieu of taxes (PILT) in the FY 03 Budget.
3)
Approve funding in the amount of $132,600 to upsize the Wastewater
Force Main to the North Naples Regional Park.
4)
Award Annual Bid #02-3402 for Underground Utility Supplies to
various vendors in the estimated amount of $1,000,000.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
To Award Bid #02-3405 (Addition to the Immokalee Library) in the
amount of $490,000 to M.J. Simpson Corporation.
2)
Authorize Staff to utilize State Contract Pricing to purchase
equipment and services for the County Telephone Switch Network.
3)
Approve a Lease Agreement with Naples Town Center Association,
Ltd., for space to be used by the Sheriff's Office for a remote closed
circuit visitation center, at a first year cost of $22,245.60.
4)
Approve a First Amendment to Lease Agreement with Arnold
Properties, Inc., for one additional year's use by the Sheriff's Office
of Garage/Warehouse Space at a total cost of $20,703.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approve the Reimbursement of $40,000 to the Bay Colony
Community Association and to approve a Budget Amendment in the
l0
October 22, 2002
amount of $40,000 to transfer funds from Pelican Bay Fund 109
Reserves to the Operating Budget.
2)
Appropriate unanticipated revenue of $12,178 in the Isles of Capri
Fire Department Budget.
3)
To adopt a Resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants,
donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year
2001-02 Adopted Budget.
4)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment//03-
035 for $600.00.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Action as Directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
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. (A copy of the Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders
is on display in the County Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon
Turner Building.)
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Acquisition of
Parcel 205 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Armando A.
Lambert, et al, (Immokalee Phase 1 Project).
2)
Approve the Agreed Order awarding supplemental attorney's fees
relative to the Easement Acquisitions of Parcels 172 and 772 in the
Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Dominique Rihs, as Trustee of the
October 22, 2002
3)
4)
5)
6)
Land Trust Number SI 46-A, et al, Case No. 01-0819-CA (Livingston
Road Project No. 60071) in the amount of $525.00.
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Fee Simple
Acquisition of Parcels 105 and 105OB in the Lawsuit entitled Collier
County v. First Baptist Church of Naples, Inc., et al., Livingston Road
Phase III (Pine Ridge Road to Immokalee Road) Project. (Payment of
$51,175.00)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcels 118A, 821B and 821C in the Lawsuit entitled
Collier County v. Tiburon Golf Ventures Limited Partnership, et al,
(Livingston Road Project #62071) for $1,800.00.
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 187 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Manuel Alverez, et al, Case No. 02-2182-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #60018).
Board approval of Memorandum of Agreement/Letter of
Understanding for the Board of County Commissioners and for the
County Manager with the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and
Benefit Unit Advisory Committee pursuant to Collier County
Ordinance No. 2002-27.
17.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
12
October 22, 2002
Ae
CU-2002-AR-2366 Ron Beaver, requesting a Conditional Use in the "E"
Estates Zoning District per LDC Section 2.2.3.3.7, to allow a lake
excavation on 6.6 acres located at 4640 31 st Avenue NE, further described as
Tract 144, Golden Gate Estates Unit 67, in Section 21, Township 48 South,
Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
Be
CU-2002-AR-1943 Golden Gate Seventh Day Adventist Church, requesting
a Conditional Use in the A-MHO Zoning District per LDC Section 2.2.2.3.7,
to allow a church/place of worship on 4.56+ acres located on the East Side
of River Road, 500+ South of Immokalee Road in Section 30, Township 48
South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
Request that the Board adopt an Ordinance creating the Immokalee
Beautification Advisory Committee; providing for appointment and
composition; setting forth the terms of office, providing for removal from
office, failure to attend meetings; providing for officers, quorum, rules of
procedure; providing for reimbursement of expenses; setting forth the duties
of the County Manager or his designee; providing for review process;
providing for conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in the Code
of Laws and Ordinances; and providing for an effective date.
De
To adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the Fiscal Year 2001-02
Adopted Budget.
A Resolution to approve presentation to the County's Legislative Delegation
a Special Act Codifying into the Proposed Special Act Five Special Acts
related to the Collier County Water-Sewer District and Five Special Acts
related to the Pelican Bay Improvement District.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
13
October 22, 2002
October 22, 2002
Item #2A #2i
REGULAR, CONSENT, AND SUMMARY AGENDAS-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES; MINUTES
OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2002 BUDGET HEARING, SEPTEMBER 24,
2002 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 27, 2002
CONCURRENCY AND LDC WORKSHOP; SEPTEMBER 27,
2002 EMERGENCY MOSQUITO CONTROL MEETING,
SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 CRA MEETING, OCTOBER 2 AND 3,
2002 VALUE ADJUST BOARD MEETINGS, AND OCTOBER 4,
2002 IJDC WORKSHOP- APPROVED AS PRF. SF. NTF, D
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't you make us live and
we'll begin.
Would you all stand, please. The invocation today will be given
by Father Andrew Malarz.
Sir, would you come up to the podium, please.
FATHER MALARZ: Sure. In the name of the Father, the Son,
the Holy Spirit, amen.
We stand before you, Holy Spirit. Come to us, remain with us
and enlighten our hearts. Give us light and strength to know your
will, to make -- to make it our own, and to live it in our lives.
Guide us by your wisdom, support us by your power, for you
are God, share in the glory of the Father and the Son.
You desire justice for all, enable us to uphold the rights of
others. 'Do not allow us to be misled by ignorance or corrupted by
fear or favor. Unite us to yourself in the bond of love and keep us
faithful to all that is true.
As we gather in your name, may we temper justice with love so
that all our decisions may be pleasing to you and earned (sic) every
word, promise to good and faithful servants.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 2
October 22, 2002
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, good morning, fellow
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And here we are again. What we're
going to do first is go to Mr. Mudd. And before we go to the rest of
the commission to hear about possible changes to the coming agenda,
we have a-- at least one public speaker. MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One public speaker, and then we'll
go down the line here for the consent agenda. But first you, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. We have a couple
of changes today. The first is to add item 5(A). The tax collector
told me he had a check for us, and it was in such an amount that I
figured he could break into the agenda at no problem whatsoever, so
-- and I wanted him -- to get him up front so he wouldn't change his
mind. So that's item 5(A), a presentation by the tax collector.
We have a request from the petitioner to continue item 7(B) to
November 19th, 2002, to the Board of County Commission meeting,
and that's the variance request for the Manatee Resort Condominium
Association.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My goodness.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to need a vote for that
continuance. This has been continued a number of times now from
the springtime. And what I would also ask you to do is -- they need
to either -- and I think Commissioner Carter knows this better than
not. They need to -- they need to do this right or forget about it,
because continuing it and continuing it and continuing it, it's got to
stop. And I haven't seen a whole lot of movement. I don't think he
has either, but he's been promised some things, so -- there's a request
Page 3
October 22, 2002
by the petitioner to continue, and I need a vote from the board in
order to do that, because this has -- this has happened several times.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What took place in a meeting
yesterday afternoon brought some new information to the table, some
new ideas, and I think legal counsel probably can best address the
board on that.
And it was my feeling that what they needed to do is have it
right before they brought it to the Board of County Commissioners,
that we did not want to be in a position where they were thinking
something and where they did not have the approvals of staff or our
legal counsel to bring it to us and not continue to muddy the waters
that are already stirred up enough.
So on that basis, I -- as I left that meeting, I said, perhaps they
should ask for a continuance to the next meeting in order to resolve
this.
But Counselor, you may have additional information you want
to give to the board before they make that decision this morning.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioner Carter. And I note
that counsel for the petitioner is here today, Mr. Austin White, who
may have a few remarks also.
In our discussions yesterday, internally as well as with
representatives for the petitioner and residents of-- owners of the
Manatee, the discussion that we had was that, in fact, they were
working with the residents in the area there, and they know as well as
we, the legal staff know, that the petition before this board today is
not the, quote, ultimate fix to the issue and problems that they have.
It has to do with the variance concerning the, quote, hotel
operation, closed quote, of the premises. And there is the potential
for, if not the perfect fix -- there probably is no perfect fix here -- but
there is the potential to approach a kind of fix which recognizes the
residential aspects of the operations of this facility, yet still an issue
Page 4
October 22, 2002
concerning absolute density and the ability for the 19 units to exist
there as they -- as they presently do.
From that standpoint, I think there's utility in granting a few
more weeks as a potential site development plan recision comes
forward.
To the extent that there are residents in the area that -- who have
been concerned with the issues there, I think Mr. White can comment
to you factually and provide you also his opinion as to how things are
working in the community there. We're attempting to be
solution-oriented. County attorney office, too, is unhappy with the
length of time it's taken for us to get here.
And as assistant county attorney Jennifer Belpedio has told the
Code Enforcement Board previously and will tell the Code
Enforcement Board again on Thursday, two days from now, the
county attorney office is prepared to prosecute the case before the
Code Enforcement Board.
But if we're looking for a solution, it's more than mere
enforcement of the kind that the Code Enforcement Board can
provide at this moment. At the same time, I'd invite Mr. White to
come up and address you, too.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, while Mr. White comes forward,
the one thing I will address as far as the staff's participation in this
particular Manatee development, we have turned over our
investigation plus the appeal that I was the appellant for for one of
our employees that we let go because of this particular item. We've
turned over that entire file to the State Attorney's Office for further
investigation.
AUSTIN WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
the commission. My name is Austin White. I'm an attorney. I
represent the Manatee Resort Condominium Association.
And just to follow up on what Mr. Weigel said, we have been
working with staff and with the neighborhood associations to try to
Page 5
October 22, 2002
resolve an acceptable solution to this matter.
At our hearing before the planning commission on the variance,
it became clear to us that nobody wanted to support hotel use there.
The neighbors did not want hotel use, the unit owners did not want
hotel use, nor did the surrounding residents want hotel use.
Everybody wanted to see residential use there.
So since that time we've gone back. We are working on an
amendment to the site development plan, hopefully which will allow
for residential use. We are continuing to meet with the neighbors.
The neighboring associations had requested that we ask for a
continuance of this matter today so that we can continue to meet.
In fact, we have a meeting set tentatively with members of the
county staff and the neighborhood associations and the unit owners
for next week, next Monday. We set that last night. After meeting
with Commissioner Carter, we had another meeting with the
neighbors, and that's what they wanted to do.
I advised them that we had submitted a motion for continuance.
I don't believe any of them are here today because I -- I didn't think
it would be heard. So if they're not here, that's because of me telling
them there would be a continuance.'
We would ask your indulgence to let us work for another two
weeks, or four weeks, I guess, to continue to try to arrive at a
solution that's acceptable to the county, to our unit owners, and to the
neighborhood associations. For that reason, we respectfully request
you grant this continuance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, would you
like to make that motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would move for a continuance
of item 8 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 7(B).
Page 6
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 7(B). I'm sorry, item 7(B), to a
future date where this issue can be resolved and presented to the
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's -- well, I think we have a motion
-- do we have a second from Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we clarify November 19th
this would be heard? That's -- Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's fine. I'll include in the
motion to be heard on November 19th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And included in the second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Henning. Is
there any discussion or questions?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
AUSTIN WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr. White.
I'll come back to you.
MR. MUDD: To continue, Mr. Chairman, we need to add item
13(A) to the packet. There are some precinct lines and correction
mapping errors that need to take place before the election, and the
supervisor of elections will be here in order to present that particular
document. It is in your packet. It's -- again, we're going to add item
13(A).
Page 7
October 22, 2002
Next item is, we're going to move 16(B)(1) to 10(G), and that's
at the request of Commissioner Coyle, and that's the agreement for
the Florida Department of Transportation to receive $7.45 million in
the Transportation Outreach Program.
The next item is to move 16(E)(3) to 10(H), and that's to
approve the first amendment to a lease agreement with Arnold
Properties for one additional year's use by the sheriffs office, and
that's at the request of Commissioner Fiala.
And that's all the changes I have, Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Mudd.
What we're going to do now before we go down the line here
with the commission -- and sorry, I didn't mean to miss you, Mr.
Weigel. Go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I'd like to note for the board and
for the record that item 16(B)(8), which is on the consent agenda, in
the published packet does not have a copy of all the exhibits, so I'd
like for the board to recognize -- and you've had distributed to you, a
document with all of the exhibits and that they be accepted into the
record for 16(B)(8), and we'll provide that to the clerk assistant here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
And we have one speaker; is that correct, Mrs. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. You have one speaker, Mr. Nelson
Warner.
MR. WARNER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, lady and
gentlemen.
I have a --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For the record, sir? I'm sorry. That's
-- right up here. For the record, your name, Mr. Warner?
MR. WARNER: Nelson Warner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. WARNER: I am a private citizen. I have a permanent
throat condition that may affect my voice. And if I'm having trouble,
Page 8
October 22, 2002
I'll ask Mr. Ochs to read my statement.
Yesterday noon, as I only had deputy county (sic) Manalich's
Email address, I sent him a draft copy of this presentation. I did not
receive a reply.
I suggest that the performance evaluation of County Attorney
Weigel be tabled until a new board can schedule a workshop to
determine his fitness to serve.
Last January and February I wrote to most of you and met
personally with some of you about Weigel. I had no success.
One of you was not interested and used the putdown phrase, we
must move on. Another commissioner told me that he recognized
that I wanted him to take positive leadership in dealing with Weigel,
but then he went on to tell me that as long as Weigel gave him what
he wanted, he wasn't going to do anything being Weigel.
It Was a personally worrisome day for another commissioner
who took no notes, and the subject was buried.
This board later moved to increase Weigel's salary outrageously
to be more than five thousand (sic) dollars a year, and that paid the
assistant to the president of the United States and chief White House
counsel, Mr. Alberto Gonzalez.
I am convinced that Weigel works only for himself and will do
whatever it takes to keep his job. Thus I have nicknamed him the
enabler.
On January 16th, 1998, I met with Weigel to discuss ethics. On
my list of prepared questions, I asked about the $1,500 golf
tournament tickets. Quote -- what I read to him, you are quoted in the
Naples Daily News that it was all right for the commissioners to
accept golf tickets, for they were not purchased for the specific
benefit of the commissioners, unquote.
My contemporaneous note in ink states, quote, the county
attorney called and cleared this with the commission of ethics. Of is
correct -- incorrect. It should be on. That's what I wrote -- unquote.
Page 9
October 22, 2002
However, six months later when Weigel had to put his opinion in
writing for Norris to defend the ethics complaint before the
commiSsion on ethics, Weigel wrote an entirely different answer
from the ethics attorney.
Quote, he did not expressly approve the commissioners playing
a round of golf in an open spot of a foursome, but he also did not
state that such was obviously prohibited, unquote. That was just an
example of Weigel attempting to get a simple decision from another
attorney.
Isn't it amazing how, under pressure, some of the truth surfaces?
Weigel was personally responsible for approving improper gifts
to then Commissioners Norris, Hancock and Constantine. Special
prosecutor Von Zamft took active interest in the golf tournament
tickets that Weigel approved.
I have a worse example. Norris asked for approval to make a
junket to Cleveland. Weigel failed professionally to direct
researching of the commission agenda for the prior 12 months for
any entries, there were two, for the Cleveland Clinic and to check
with the zoning and permit processing division. Instead, in an
amateur fashion, Weigel asked a known clinic lobbyist, Mr.
Conrecode, whether it had appeared before the board of
commissioners.
Conrecode answered correctly as it pertained to his ultimate
employer, the Cleveland Clinic in Florida, to the wrong question and
replied, no, it had not appeared before the board. Had Conrecode
been asked the correct question, had Cleveland Clinic lobbied the
board of commissioners or the county agency, you would have gotten
the correct answer, yes.
The confusion rested with the Cleveland Clinic foundation in
Ohio --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead and wrap it up, sir, in the
next sentence or two. I'd appreciate it.
Page 10
October 22, 2002
MR. WARNER: Just this much more (indicating).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you could summarize it up, I
would very much appreciate it.
MR. WARNER: There were two different organizations, the
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Cleveland Clinic of Florida. They
efficiently co-mingled their expenses and farther got to prove to the
commission on ethics -- which I believe was wrong -- that they were
separate.
The bad legal advice was compiled because I allege that there
was a cover-up when a memo had to be written to defend the ethics
complaint against Norris.
The research background cited some specific words to include a
misspelled word, decision-making, from the ethics statute, but left
out the important second criteria, or his or her agency for lobbying.
Thus the memo discussed only one of two possible criteria for an
improper gift, which I believe to be a cover-up of incompetence.
Mr. Chairman, these are just samples of the work product of
Weigel, thus my recommendation to table his review.
Over the years in all of my dealings with equal or subordinate
county officials, I have yet to hear a favorable comment on Weigel.
Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No questions, I don't believe.
But Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was going to address 16(B)(8).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me a little
bit.
Thank you very much, Mr. Warner.
Okay. Let's go down the line here with the commissioners and
see if there's any other changes to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no changes,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 11
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, on the one that I pulled, can I
just now -- what I'd like to do is continue that. I believe -- I would
like to direct Jim Mudd to direct staff to maybe select a more suitable
site for this particular project. And so in doing, then we don't even
have to discuss it.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, in concertation with the sheriff's
office and staff, we have talked about the issue, and we're talking
about item 16(E)(3), and that has to do with the Naples Town Center
lease that the sheriff would like to have. We can go out there and
take a look at some more alternatives and come back to the board and
give them a list of alternative locations or appropriate sites instead of
just having this one.
The staff would like to have a couple more weeks in order to
work on that in order to flush out all the different alternatives so that
we can come back with a better recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll make a motion -- I'll
second Commissioner Fiala's motion for continuance. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by staying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nope, that's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, by the way, before I go too far,
is there anything on this summary agenda that either one of you need
to declare?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, sir. I have nothing to
declare.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you?
Page 12
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing to declare.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. And I have nothing to
declare on the summary agenda, and I have no other changes to the
regular agenda.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to address 16(B)(8).
I had originally thought about pulling that but then thought we could
deal with it in a different way because the staff really did something
very good, and I think that that should be recognized. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we've just been handed a big
packet of additional information which we can't possibly review, and
so I'm going to be -- I'm going to ask that that either be pulled and
placed on the regular agenda or continued. But there's no way we
can review this information that's been given to us at the last minute
and permit this to stay under the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wherever your comfort level is,
pulled or continued.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can-- we can pull it, but I
think it would be appropriate that staff give us a brief summary of the
provisions of this information that's just been given to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because there's no way we can
read through all the details.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think you have a legal counsel,
Commissioner Coyle, who wants to make a comment.
MS. ASHTON: Commissioner Coletta and Commissioners, for
the record, Heidi Ashton appearing as an assistant county attorney.
The exhibits were submitted for your agenda package, however,
they did not -- were not included in the package. The exhibits are
just the legal descriptions as to the real estate conveyances, and
there's also a storm water easement agreement which addresses the
Page 13
October 22, 2002
conveyance and is our standard real property form document that we
use.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The problem I have with it is that
it also describes a lot of responsibilities for the developer as well as
for the county.
MS. ASHTON: The -- I'm sorry. The agreement is in your
agenda package. It's just your exhibits, but I included the agreement
so that when you referred to it or when somebody referred to it, they
would know what the exhibits went to, but the agreement is in the
agenda package as pages 1 through 8. It's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what did we just get that's
new?
MS. ASHTON: You got the agreement, but you got the legal
descriptions that identify the storm water easements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My request still stands. I do not
believe that we should even be considering information that's given
to us at this late date, quite frankly, and I think I'm being generous by
asking that it be moved to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think we need anymore
discussion on it. Let's move it to the regular agenda and continue.
MR. MUDD: It will be item 10(I).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10(I). And what was the numbers on
it--
MR. MUDD: 10(I) would be 16(B).
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Am I to understand,
Commissioner Coyle, that you want to continue it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, he wanted it pulled.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'll be happy to have it moved
to the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir. Thank you for
the clarification.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was that number again,
Page 14
October 22, 2002
16(B)(8)?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16(B)(8).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's now 10(I).
And do you have anything else, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I would like to continue
item 10(B) until the modeling of the intersections are completed for
the presentation to the BCC.
I have no disclosures on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To continue will take a motion; is
that what you're doing, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm asking for a
continuance, Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So I have a motion by
Commissioner Henning for a continuance. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning for a continuance, a second by
Commissioner Coyle. Discussion?
Commissioner Coyle, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to ask a question
about the significance of the continuance. To what extent does it
impair our ability to move forward and deal with the right-of-way
issue?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, first of all, the -- no, stand there,
Norm. You're doing fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just stand there.
MR. MUDD: The first thing is, Norman is prepared to talk
about the intersection modeling at this meeting. The second issue is,
we have postponed this item several times now through the summer
and through the fall and now we have it on the agenda to make sure
Page 15
October 22, 2002
that we did our fair share and got to the public with the design to
make sure that everybody knew about the project and the design.
As-we went through that, we had several town meetings. The --
by continuing it, we've lost several months. In my conversations
with Norm this morning, it might be to the point now we're moving it
out of physical years from 2004 to 2005 on the five-year plan. So
that's where we sit as far as movement of the project, and the lack of
getting the real estate in that process.
Norm, do you have anything else to add?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. I think Jim has covered it fairly well. 0The only thing
I'll add to that is that in the different meetings we've made alterations
to the plan as we continued forward. There's a request for us to come
to the MPO meeting, and there's a long presentation to you.
At that time we had the information on the impacts of
simulation -- it's been referred to as modeling -- but simulation of the
operati°ns of intersections and what they could do to delay the
requirement for six lanes. And at that time we were able to tell
everybody that that would essentially, if you did the full intersection
improvements, delay the need, at least on midwalk (sic) of the
six-lane for about four or five years out, to about 2011.
So we had the data, the information then. We were requested
through the MPO meeting to come back to this board to present that
in a little more detail, which we're prepared to do today.
Based on that presentation and your thoughts on that, we will be
asking you to move forward with the right-of-way. We're also going
to try and go through an issue or discussion with you on possible
whole takes, where that becomes a negotiated advantage to all
parties.
So. again, I think we need to move forward on this. I'm not sure
I see the value in delay or the inference to that. I also would say that
hopefully as we present today, if you find that we have covered the
Page 16
October 22, 2002
bases and the issues, you allow us to go forward with the request to
start the negotiating for the -- negotiations for the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I, for one, would like to have us go
forward, and then if for some reason'it seems like we've got an
incomplete package, then we ask for a continuance at that point in
time. But I'm ready to hear what we have myself. That's my own
opinion.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I appreciate the-- we're going
to have 'an opportunity to look at the modeling of the intersection
improvements today, correct? MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It just appears on the agenda
that we're making a decision without a modeling done first.
MR. FEDER: No, the modeling has already been done. It was
done before the MPO meeting, was presented some there, will be
presented in more detail today. The actuality, as was mentioned by
Jim, we were ready back in June to come forward with the
right-of-way after completion of 60 percent.
At that time, meeting with the community on a prior meeting,
knowing that we had some issues still to address, we pulled back
ourselves on that. Once we came further with some of the
discussion, addressed some of the issues on noise and on access
points, we were ready to come forward.
But at the second meeting out at the civic center, we were asked
to come to the MPO board and to delay what was already planned to
be on the agenda item, which we told folks then, the right-of-way.
We did delay that. We did the analysis, further analysis, and a
lot of other things we've done in the interim, brought it to the MPO
board and answered the question of how long it could accommodate,
and we're ready today. If you have questions on that, provide you
more details.
Page 17
October 22, 2002
So I would say that we have, throughout the process, responded
to the analysis requested, and now we're in the process of having to
present to you today further information on that analysis that was
done, and then based on that, would ask your agreement to go
forward with the right-of-way acquisition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To get to the agenda items, I'm
going to just say, I'm glad that we're going to hear the modeling
today. I think that's very important, so my -- I'm going to remove my
request.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For now? You may bring it back
up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we vote on this agenda,
Commissioner, it will be today, we'll hear it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, great.
Anything else, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion to approve the --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for the approval of the
agenda and minutes for today's meeting, for September 18th budget
hearing, September 24 regular meeting, September 27 concurrency
and LDC workshop, September 27 emergency mosquito control
meeting, September 30 CRA meeting, October 2nd value adjustment
board, October 3rd value adjustment board, and October 4 LDC
workshop.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, would you
repeat that, please.
We have a motion by Commissioner Carter, a second by
Commissioner Henning. Any comments?
All those in favor, indicate -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle,
did you have a comment?
Page 18
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that was before --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, that was before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- on the prior question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: These lights don't go off by
themselves, do they?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you
very much.
Page 19
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
October 22, 2002
ADD ITEM 5(A): Presentation by Guy Carlton, Tax Collector.
CONTINUE ITEM 7B to the November 19, 2002 BCC MeetinR: VA-2002-AR-2015
Austin White, of Becker and Poliakoff, P.A., representing Unit Owners of the
Manatee Resort Condominium Association, requesting relief in the RT Zoning
District from the 500 Square Foot Maximum Size for a Hotel Unit set forth in LDC
Section 2.2.8.4.7.2.1., to allow four (4) units of the total 19 as-built units to have
3,200 square feet of floor area (includes 550 square foot lanai) and to allow 15
units to have 2,625 square feet of floor area (includes 543 square foot lanai), for
property located at 9566 Gulfshore Drive, further described as the North 50 feet of
Lot 14 and all of Lots 15 and 16, Block B, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit
1, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner request.)
ADD ITEM 13 (A): New precinct lines to correct mapping errors and improve
access to polling place. (Supervisor of Elections.)
MOVE ITEM 16(B) I TO 10(G): Approve an Agreement with the Florida
Department of Transportation to receive $7,450,000.00 in Transportation Outreach
Program (TOP) Funds for costs directly related to the widening of Golden Gate
Parkway from four to six lanes from Airport Pulling Road to Santa Barbara
Boulevard and the construction of a Grade Separated Overpass at Airport Pulling
Road and Golden Gate Parkway, Project No. 60027. (Commissioner Coyle's
request.)
MOVE ITEM 16 (E) 3TO 10(H): Approve a First Amendment to Lease
Agreement with Arnold Properties, Inc., for one additional year's use by the
Sheriff's Office of Garage/Warehouse Space at a total cost of $20,703.
(Commissioner Fiala's request.)
October 22, 2002
Item//3
EMPI,OYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Now comes a very special time. It's called the service award
time. I'm going to ask you-all to join me up front here while we
present .two awards.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have -- we have one awardee
today. The second couldn't be here today. The awardee is a 25-year
award for Bonnie Fauls from the University Extension Services.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You did good work, Bonnie. We
all know you do good work.
MS. FAULS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, and we're
looking forward to the next 25.
MS. FAULS: Oh, I don't know.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY GUY CARLTON, TAX COLLECTOR-
CHECK lN THE AMOIINT OF $1:258:866.50 PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could make a request. Could
we move 5(A) up? I think--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Carlton, yes.
MR. MUDD: I think Mr. Carlton is nibbling on this check.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We'll take that man's money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only if he gives more money.
MR. CARLTON: As the bearer of good news, I'm your friendly
tax collector, Guy Carlton. And while this amount is less than last
Page 20
October 22, 2002
year, we've had'a very productive year. We purchased and built a
driver's license building, which is extremely effective. I want to
compliment your county manager for giving me those moments of
comfort when I had to deal with your permitting process. He's an
outstanding county manager, because I was a basket case at times.
Total turnback. Now, we had figured on 800,000 would be the
turnback this year. Total tumback this year is $1,399,771.73. The
board's portion is $1,258,866.50. And it's with great pride
representing the staff our office that helped do all this, we're happy to
return the money to you-all. (Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: I'm going to give it to the signor. Dwight
Brock said not to trust you guys.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's waiting there to collect.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, man. I'll tell you.
Let's hear it for a million dollars plus.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, I didn't want you guys to see that big
check.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jim Mitchell, we want to hide that
from the board of commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Guy.9 Guy, before you leave, I'm
not sure the public really understands the term turnback. I think it
would be appropriate if we just tell them what that really means.
MR. CARLTON: Okay. In Collier County, I'm a fee officer.
Not every tax collector is a fee officer. But in Collier County I'm a
fee officer and we charge a fee for everything we do. Those fees are
designed to run the office of the tax collector. Should there be
money left over, then we're to give it back to the appropriate taxing
authorities, which the board gets about 95 percent. And we're happy
to help in any way we can. And the really great news, my hurricanes
are six and O.
Page 21
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Essentially that means that was
just money that he didn't need and he didn't spend, so he's running
the department very efficiently, and so we got money back as a result
of it. So Guy Carlton is -- should be recognized for that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anytime anyone gives you over a
million dollars back, I think they should be recognized.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER AS NATIONAL
EPII,EPS¥ AWARENE~qS MONTH- ADOPTED
Moving right on. Commissioner Carter, you have a
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, I do. It's for National
Epilepsy Awareness Month. Is it my understanding there is not a
representative here this morning; is that correct? Or if there is
someone here, would you step forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could we just make a motion
to approve the proclamation?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you really should read it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Here we go.
Proclamation for National Epilepsy Awareness Month.
Whereas, epilepsy, also known as seizure disorder, has affected
mankind since the dawn of our species and has been recognized since
the earliest medical writing; and
Whereas, as long as 400 BC Hippocrates, the Father of
Medicine, repudiated ancient beliefs that epilepsy was a visitation
from the gods and sacred or that it was a curse from the gods the
people afflicted with this disorder held prophetic powers. I think we
should have just moved for approval. Hippocrates believed that
epilepsy was a brain disorder; and
Page 22
October 22, 2002
Whereas, a seizure, a sudden brief attack and (sic) altered
consciousness, motor activity or sensory phenomena, it is a sign that
certain brain cells, neurons, are discharging an excess amount of
electrical impulses; and
Whereas, epilepsy can be caused by injury in the brain, lack of
oxygen at birth, brain tumor, infection and brain hemorrhage. In 60
percent of these cases the cause is unknown; and
Whereas, epilepsy can affect anyone at any age at any time; and
Whereas, more than two million Americans are afflicted with
some kind of epilepsy. Of this number, 150,000 are Florida
residents; and
Whereas, with the administration of anticonvulsant drugs,
two-thirds or 66 percent of those afflicted with epilepsy are
drug-controlled; and
Whereas, a lack of education about the disorder has contributed
to the age-old myths, superstition and prejudices; and
Whereas, the stigma associated with this disorder is sometimes
worse than the disorder itself; and
Whereas, people who have epilepsy make reliable and
conscientious workers in job performance, productivity, safety,
cooperation and attendance; and
Whereas, studies carried out in the United States over the past
30 years have indicated that all -- that of all disabilities, epilepsy
poses the greatest barrier to employment with unemployment rates
estimated to fall between 20 and 25 percent; and
Whereas, epilepsy should not be a barrier to success. In
addition to the normal requirements for success, a person who has
epilepsy needs a supportive environment and employers who are
willing to give them an opportunity to become productive citizens.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed before the Board of County
Commissioners, County of-- Collier County, Florida, that the month
of November be designated as National Epilepsy Awareness Month.
Page 23
October 22, 2002
Done and ordered this 22nd day of October, 2002, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James N. Coletta,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF
NOVEMBER AS COLLIER COUNTY ADOPTION MONTH-
ADOPTED
This
they
Now we're at Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ah, yes. Thank you very much.
is -- let me see. We have Debbie Allen and Terry Iamurri. Are
here today?
I didn't even see you out there, Terry. Thank you for coming in.
Hi, Dustin. How are you? Welcome to our meeting.
DUSTIN: Hi.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hi.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi.
Page 24
October 22, 2002
Whereas, every child has the right to grow in a secure, loving
family and adoption is a positive way to build a family; and
Whereas, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida,
Incorporated, is a collaborative effort of community agencies and
individuals to create an increased awareness of adoption; and
Whereas, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida,
Incorporated's purpose is to provide resources and education on the
various aspects of adoption and to promote positive attitudes towards
adoption; and
Whereas, adoption brings untold benefits to Collier County
residents that are affected by the adoption process. This includes
benefits to birth parents, adoptive parents, and the children placed in
adoptive homes, as well as their extended families; and
Whereas, crisis pregnancy is a problem in Collier County and
adoption is a positive option that is not always considered due to a
lack of awareness and education.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of
November, 2002, be designated as Collier County Adoption Month.
And in honor of this event, we encourage citizens, community
agencies, religious organizations, businesses and others to celebrate
adoption and honor the families that grow through adoption.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of October, 2002.
Thank you very much. Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Carter.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
'COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 25
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What a wonderful thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I used to be very active in the
adoption work force. Any time you need any help --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are so good looking, you
know that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You sure are. Give me five. There
you go.
Were you ever that cute as a child?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't think so.
MS. IAMURRI: I would like to address the commission.
Thank you for bringing awareness to adoption as an important factor
to make families.
I, as an adoptive parent, again, are -- it would be the only way
that may I -- I might have been a parent, due to adoption, and want
people to realize how important it is that people have the opportunity
on both sides and how much it means to me and I think so many
others, that without adoption -- it has made a better world for all of
us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, so much.
Commissioner Coyle?
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 19-27, 2002, AS
RED RIlqBON WEEK- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The next proclamation is to
designate October 19th through the 27th as Red Ribbon Week, and it
will be accepted by Paula Arrubla, Bill (sic) Hignite and Betty
Page 26
October 22, 2002
Whitmore. Would you please come forward, please. I guess Bill
isn't here, right?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Bob.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bob, I'm sorry, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come right up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Come right up here while
we read this. And then afterward we'll give you a chance to say a
few words.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Stand right over here and face
the cameras. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas, prevention resources
have been dramatically cut, programs and community-based efforts
are asked to do more with less and community services compete for
initial limited support; and
Whereas, substance abuse is the most common risk factor
impacting our behavioral health, particularly for our young people,
furthering delinquency, teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, child abuse and
violence and so forth; and
Whereas, families face unprecedented pressures and stress
imposed upon them by the overwhelming nature of today's society;
and
Whereas, prevention and intervention efforts continue to
influence non-use of alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse, it still
remains prevalent in every Florida community; and
Whereas, Floridians must commit to strengthening families,
neighborhoods and communities, and educating our citizens about
prevention in every Florida community; and
Whereas, research and data reflect unquestionably that
prevention works and that our commitment to education, prevention
and positive lifestyles is imperative; and
Whereas, the red ribbon represents the Nation's united effort to
support prevention and build healthy and safe communities and to
Page 27
October 22, 2002
remember the brutal murder of Federal Agent Enrique Camarena;
and
Whereas, the 2002 Florida red ribbon celebration focuses on the
importance of supporting our young people and creating an
environment in which our youth may flourish; and
Whereas, the Florida Prevention Association, Incorporated,
coordinates year-round prevention programs throughout the state;
and
Whereas, the 2002 Florida red ribbon celebration asks that the
citizens of Florida become motivated and involved in alcohol and
other drug abuse prevention.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October
19th through the 27th, 2002, be designated as Red Ribbon Week and
encourage all Collier County citizens to wear a red ribbon to
symbolize our commitment to healthy and safe environments for
each citizen and to participate in events throughout the week and
throughout the year that support positive lifestyles.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of October, 2002, Board of
County Commissioners, Jim Coletta, Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Carter.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
Page 28
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to say a couple
words?
MS. WHITMORE: Yeah, that'd be great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe you could put them out on
the table over here, if you'd like.
MS. WHITMORE: We'd love to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Outside --just outside the door.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here they are. They can put some
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got one right here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Right over on the table. I
think we all have it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, before you go, we need you to
stand right here for a photo opportunity.
MS. WHITMORE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. WHITMORE: My name is Betty Whitmore. I'm the chair
of the Red Ribbon Committee this year and the vice chair of the
Substance Abuse Coalition of Collier County.
First of all, I'd like to thank all the commissioners for donning
their red ribbons, which we would encourage all of the community to
do this week. It is a very understated and underestimated cause.
We're only about two years old, and we're hoping to make a big
splash with this organization in the future. Via something we're
doing this week, which will happen on Thursday -- which we'll invite
you to come and take a look at if you'd like, at the Unity Church of
Naples -- we're going to hold an event where middle-schoolers will
be bused in to see what we have deemed Reality Journey 2002.
This will be a very hard, cold look at a reenactment of what
happens when you make poor choices concerning substances.
Page 29
October 22, 2002
If anyone is able to make it between 10:00 and 11:30, we'd be
happy to put you in as part of the tour, because it's going to be a real
interesting look. And we've had everybody from the Collier County
Sheriffs Department, the Naples police force, Marco Island Police
Department, East Naples Fire and Rescue. I mean, all of the service
personnel came out in force. We have many volunteers.
Red Ribbon Campaign, for those of you who are not aware of it,
is -- was started because Enrique Camarena was part of a drug bust.
He was a DEA officer, and he was shot to death.
As a stand, even though it seems very far away from us, in
California, all of the people, all of the service personnel, the
governments out there, stood up and donned their red -- they made
red ribbons, they tied them to trees, they did everything that they
could to show support for a senseless crime.
We would ask the county in the future to recognize us again, as
you do every year, and we appreciate that, and for the community to
come forth and sponsor us. We work on an extremely limited
budget, and it is something that we need to help this community
become drug free.
So with your unified partnership in prevention as part of your
community, you can help Collier County become a drug-free
communig -- a drug-free community. So, please, celebrate Red
Ribbon Week. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING ALL THE INDIVIDUALS
AND AGENCIES THAT PARTICIPATED WITH THE
ALLIGATOR ALLEY INCIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2002 -
ADOPTED
Page 30
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I would like to call up
representatives from the sheriff's department, EMS, fire and rescue,
and the Red Cross.
Right up front here. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and read this
while you're coming up.
Whereas, the terrorist attack on the United States on September
11 th, 2001, 2002 -- or 2001 was (sic) significantly heightened
domestic security; and
Whereas, the incident of potential terrorism that occurred on
Alligator Alley for more than 17 hours on Friday, September 13,
2002, required local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to
take extraordinary measures to mitigate the potential threat; and
Whereas, the sheriff's department-- sheriff's office of Collier
County initiated the managed -- and-- the scene and -- of the traffic
stops on September 13th, 2002; and
Whereas, local fire department, emergency medical services
providers were on the scene to provide assistance through the entire
event; and
Whereas, the local community service organizations were on the
scene throughout the event to provide substance to more than 200
first responders and media personnel; and
Whereas, several local commercial enterprises provided
assistance to the incident commander at no charge; and
Whereas, the board of commissioners wish to express its
gratitude and appreciation to all who answered the call and
throughout the successful collaboration of-- managed to bring the
potential threat to a satisfactory conclusion.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereby recognize these
dedicated individuals and agencies for their professional and
self-sacrificing efforts on behalf of the citizens of Collier County.
Page 31
October 22, 2002
Done in this order -- day, October -- I'm sorry. Let me start
over.
Done on this order, this 22nd day of October, 2002,
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, could we ask these
gentlemen to stay through the discussion of the Golden Gate street
widening project?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We could certainly try. But let's have
everybody up a little closer here for a photo opportunity and -- just
follow the directions. Come on, Guys. Get with the program. Face
right and march.
Do you have a spokesperson who would like to say a couple
words?
MR. STIESS: I can, if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure thing. I'd like to tell you, you
did a wonderful job out there. I was out there for about two and a
half hours with Ken Pineau.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Were you really?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it was the most amazing thing
you ever wanted to see. All these people working together, brought
together out of-- from all throughout the community. They left their
Page 32
October 22, 2002
jobs, they left work -- their works. A lot of them were volunteers.
They were all there in force to make it happen, and they did a
tremendous job.
I was very much taken in with what I saw, and I hope to God we
never have another emergency that requires such a turnout, but we're
ready. We really are.
Now I just took your speech away. Do yOu have anything left
to say?
MR. STIESS: Thank you, Commissioner.
Bill Stiess, chief of operations with the sheriff's office. I'd just
like to thank the commission for recognizing all those involved, and
you certainly put it very well, a tremendous effort.
Sheriff Hunter and the domestic security task force from region
six performed very well, I think all the agencies involved. It shows
no matter how large or small a part you play in one of these
operations, everyone is very part-- you know, very important, very
integral to it.
And I think we showed that day that we were a fine example,
not only for the state, but for the country, and we did get
international acclaim on that, and it's just a fine effort to show that
we are prepared and that should give the citizens a level of comfort
to know that we are in that state of readiness. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And I might also add
that in the audience we have a person that's been very instrumental
working with Commissioner Henning on putting together a domestic
security force, that's Ray Cadwallader, and we thank you very much,
and we thank you, Commissioner Henning, for all you've been doing
to pull this effort together locally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hopefully we'll see that
shortly.
Item #6A
Page 33
October 22, 2002
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JIM KRAMER TO DISCUSS
ITEMS Ol ITI,INED 1N HIS FAX REOI IF, ST
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Moving right on, public
petitions. And Jim Kramer will be the first one.
MR. KRAMER: Sue, are there any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No.
MR. KRAMER: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Jim Kramer, Mr. Chairman.
This was published in the agenda package as a fax request.
What the public doesn't know is there's actually four petitions that I
am prepared to speak about today.
Normally we get 10 minutes each. Does that mean I have 40
minutes?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would think not.
MR. KRAMER: Well, that's probably a good idea, because I
don't think I could speak on these for 40 minutes. But I just wanted
to make that point, that there are four petitions down here.
The first one has to do with the consolidation of the independent
fire districts into a unified county-wide department.
It's my recommendation that the board take up this issue. Out in
the community, as I have been lately, enough is enough.
Up at the North Naples Fire Department, we have had a problem
that keeps appearing in the newspaper. I wear the uniform of the
airport authority. In my opinion, James Tobin has disgraced that
uniform, and it's time to realize that this is not a sleepy little fishing
village anymore.
In 10 years we're going to have half a million people here, and
it's time for us to consider the consolidation of the independent fire
districts into a unified county-wide department. I think this will give
us better service, I think this will save the county money, and I would
Page 34
October 22, 2002
ask for you to consider that today.
Do you want to speak on these each individually or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The board of commissioners,
like you have stated, we have independent fire districts. MR. KRAMER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's really none of the business
of the Collier County commissioners to interfere with the different
government agencies, that you do have elected officials.
My advice to you, sir, as an airport authority member, I think
you did state, to go to the independent fire districts. They have
regular meetings. They're posted on the meeting times, and ask them
for that request -- of your request, I should say.
MR. KRAMER: I understand what you're saying,
Commissioner Henning. I have been to those independent fire
district meetings. I believe that at other times the county has
undertaken studies to consider consolidation of the fire districts, and
I've brought that before you today.
The second one today is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me, sir.
Commissioner Carter, did you have some comments?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I believe, my conversations with
our county administrator, that the fire chiefs are already looking into
that possibility, Mr. Kramer, and they have that under consideration,
and I believe that's exactly where it belongs.
We've always taken a position that if they want a unified, one
district for all of Collier County, it's up to the independent districts to
make that decision, work together to accomplish that goal. And if
that's their desire and direction, I think that's what's -- as I
understand, is on the table now for their discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Fiala?
Page 35
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he said it eloquently. I
couldn't add more. That's exactly what I was going to say. Thank
yOU.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue, Mr. Kramer.
MR. KRAMER: Okay. Number two has to do with our cable
TV, channel 11 and 16. What I have requested is that the cable TV
station produce or sponsor debates between commission candidates.
For instance, in District 2, I would like to have the incumbent,
Dr. Carter, as the moderator. And just to quote from your board
resolution of October 8th, as a va -- quote, as a valid public purpose
and in the public interest for the citizens of Collier County. I believe
that the facilities of the cable TV channel could be used for that
purpose.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What about the League of Women
Voters who put on an excellent presentation, separate from Collier
County government? But we do run over the government channels
on a continuous basis. Why won't that suffice?
MR. KRAMER: Well, it isn't that it wouldn't suffice, but I think
the county has gone on record of providing a valid public purpose
and in the public interest, and I think this would be a continuous use
of the county cable TV channel for something that has to do with the
commiss -- the running of the commission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do appreciate these ideas.
Commissioner Carter would like to make some comments.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Kramer, I believe that the
League of Women Voters is serving that purpose. They're an
independent organization. They sponsor the debates. It's carried over
channel 11. Anyone that desires to see that debate will have the
opportunity to do it; therefore, I think we ought to stay with our
existing policy, and that accomplishes a goal. MR. KRAMER: All right, sir.
Number three, I am bringing back to you a -- a request having to
Page 36
October 22, 2002
do with the towing overcharge dating back to the commission
meeting of February 12th. This has to do with ordinance 99-38. And
you may or may not know that, although this started in -- on January
8th, it has now been nine months since there has been no action taken
on ordinance 99-38.
And I believe that the county attorney has been working on this,
but I have heard nothing regarding this particular issue, even though
when I checked with the sheriff's department yesterday, there has
been 11 drafts gone through on this particular ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, I would recommend you
pay your bill and move on.
MR. KRAMER: I have paid the bill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What's your last item?
MR. KRAMER: Kramer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. What's your last item?
MR. KRAMER: Oh, I'm sorry.
The last item has to do with the chaos in Copeland dating back
to the commission meeting of September 10th. This has to do with
the hoax perpetrated by a gentleman named James Hammond, and
this is something that is now six weeks old. I'd like to know where
that particular issue stands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's with the sheriff's department.
I haven't gotten back a report, but I'm glad you brought it up. I'm
sure that one will be forthcoming from the sheriff's department very
soon. And since you were the person that originally brought it up,
we'll make sure that you get a copy of whatever report we receive.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: The second thing, Mr. Chairman, is, we sent the
bill to Mr. Hammond for the charges for pollution control to the tune
of about $258.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you know if that's been paid yet?
Page 37
October 22, 2002
MR. MUDD: I'll get with Mr. DeLony, and I'll get back with
you during communication on that, but I don't think so yet, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if you could share that with Mr.
Kramer, that would --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- be appreciated.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Kramer, thank you very much.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MS. RUBY HAMPTON TO
DISCUSS AUTO CLAIM/DAMAGE TO VEHICLE AS A RESULT
OF A I,ARGF. POTHOI,E
The next public petition is by Ruby Hampton.
Ms. Hampton, are you here?
MS. HAMPTON: Yes. I've never done this before so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you're doing just fine.
MS. 'HAMPTON: I'm just here -- I had some damage to my
automobile due to a huge pothole in the Collier County roads, and I
was just trying to get some help to get that paid.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well -- no, thank you very much.
Could you -- you want to do a little bit of detail to that? I'm sure that
everybody would like to know exactly what the problem was and
where you've been with it.
MS. HAMPTON: I've written several letters to the county risk
management and was denied the claim. I incurred $350 damage to
my car, which set me back a little bit financially:
The pothole -- this happened in August, and I checked -- I kept
checking and calling and trying to get help through various
organizations and people. And the pothole wasn't repaired in
Page 38
October 22, 2002
September and not in -- first of October, and then I drove by last
night, and it was repaired finally. It took a couple, three months.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where was the pothole?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And where was the location?
MS. HAMPTON: The location is off-- on the North Trail off
of 41, the first road behind the Site's gas station.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's hear from staff, then we'll come
back and--
MS. HAMPTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- hear the rest of your presentation.
MR. WALKER: Good morning, commissioners. Jeff Walker,
risk management director, for the record.
We received the claim from Ms. Hampton on this particular
incident. And just so that you understand as a matter of policy, we
have potholes that occur within the county from time to time.
Actually a pothole can occur overnight if we have a heavy rainstorm.
So as a policy level decision, we've made the decision that if we
did not have notice of the condition in question, we deny the claim.
Essentially, that is simply a matter of law. If we have notice and we
fail to respond and then there's damage, there's a legal issue. But we
didn't know about the condition. When we did learn about the
condition, transportation department was notified and they did fix the
condition.
The other issue that's in question here is that the roadway in
question is an alleyway. It's actually a very narrow alleyway. I
walked, have walked --
MS. HAMPTON: Excuse me, sir. It's a two-lane, and it does
have a stop sign, so it's a Collier County road.
MR. WALKER: I'm not saying it's not a Collier County --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to hold off. We
will give you a chance to finish your presentation.
MS. HAMPTON: Okay.
Page 39
October 22, 2002
MR. WALKER: I've walked that particular area two times
totally. I was -- actually I was out there yesterday. The road in
question, although it does have some indentations in it, does not have
potholes in it. It is -- it is actually smooth. The only area that I could
find, what appeared to be a pothole or what remained of a pothole
was at a stop sign area at the entryway into that alley. That alley is
actually very narrow.
To drive through there -- if one were to speed through there, it's
actually very frightening, because there's parking that comes up right
next to it.
I drove through there myself. I couldn't go more than about 10
miles an hour through that area. So in order to cause damage of this
type, one would have to be driving at a fairly high rate of speed to do
that.
But the real issue here is that we did not have notice of the
condition, and that is a precedent to liability. And frankly, we have
to take a position like that to protect the overall interest of taxpayers,
otherwise, we would be picking up cut tires and damaged rims from
things that we have no control over.
And finally, the other issue is, there's no other witnesses to this
incident. No one else saw it happen. While I don't doubt Ms.
Hampton had damage to her vehicle, we could not substantiate
anyone else who saw it happen.
So we look at these facts when we make these decisions, and we
made a decision to deny the claim.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?[]
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
what you just said.
MR. WALKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
have
even
Let me just find out if I understand
Did you just say that unless you
notice that there's a pothole, you don't pay? In other words,
if you have -- if you don't have notice that a sidewalk has a --
Page 40
October 22, 2002
has a lip and somebody trips -- I mean, if you had notice, naturally it
would be fixed.
MR. WALKER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the accident occurs once you
find out. Sometimes to people's detriment. So in other words, you
don't pay unless you're warned in advance that it's there? That doesn't
make any sense.
MR. WALKER: Well, no. There's really two issues. One is
notice, did you know about it? The other issue is, should you have
known about it? And that--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did she know about it or did we
know about the pothole?
MR. WALKER: She knew about it, I suppose, when she hit it.
We did not know about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. That's an awful way to find
out, right, yeah.
MR. WALKER: I agree. But you have to understand that we
can have potholes appear overnight, literally. And for us to know
about it, in many cases, is simply impossible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So how could -- how could
you not pay a claim if you didn't know about it when it appeared
overnight?
MR. WALKER: Because we didn't know about it and didn't
have the opportunity to repair it. That's my point. If we know about
it and we fail to repair it, that's liability, but that's not what occurred
in this case. We didn't know about it. Once we knew about it, we
repaired it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
it?
How long did it take you to repair
MR. WALKER: I don't have an exact date. We were trying to
get the ticket from transportation on that. I have heard a couple of--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Months?
Page 41
October 22, 2002
MS. HAMPTON: It was over two months after I reported it.
MR. WALKER: We were told a couple of different things, but
it was repaired. And we had no other incidents related to it reported
to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is about the six or seventh one
I've heard in two years, and they all bear about the same type of
consistency. In some cases the damage seems to be quite excessive
for the -- to the cars compared to what was on the road, some cases
they were right off the end of the edge of the road there where people
must have pulled off by accident or lost control. I'm not too sure
which. It's been an ongoing problem.
Tell me this, if they're not happy with what your department,
risk management, comes up with, can they go through to the court
system as far as small claims court?
MR. WALKER: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And small claims court costs $25.
MR. WALKER: Twenty-five or fifty dollars.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think it's 50. I hope it is not
50.
MR. WALKER: I don't recall.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I tried several times to see if I could
help to resolve some of the people that called up with similar claims,
and I wasn't successful at any point in time, and I was at a point
where I wasn't too sure what I was dealing with, so what I did is I
turned them over to Dwight Brock, the clerk of courts, to file there.
I've never had anyone come back and tell me about their success or
failure.
Do you knoTM about -- have you had some cases that have gone
to small claims court in the last couple of years?
MR. WALKER: We've had none that have gone to small claims
court on these types of cases.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 42
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just one other thing. Mrs.
Hampton or Ms. Hampton?
MS. HAMPTON: Ms., yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Has -- you know, she's never been
before us, and I just feel that if she has a hardship with $350, to then
go to court and fight that out is another hardship placed on her.
Obviously we didn't make the pothole, we didn't know about it, but I
would like to see us work with her and at least help her to adjust
some of these funds so that she isn't hit quite so hard for something
that wasn't her fault.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You bring up a very interesting
point, Commissioner Fiala, and it's been coming up a number of
times, similar circumstances. Possibly we could address this, have
the total background on this and all the options that are available to
us, brought back at a future meeting, if we wanted to so direct staff,
so we get a better feel for it. I'd hate to make a decision right here
and now to come up with a cash reward because of the circumstances
with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I wish we had a better policy
than we do have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do -- that's why I say, I think they
should work with her a little bit and see what they can do, you know,
to adjust it, but -- and I don't even know that it needs to come before
us again. I think that there could be some kind of an agreement
arranged.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a policy type of decision, you
know, and I don't want to deal with this just by itself. I want to come
up with something that's going to give us a comfort level in the
future. Would you like to see it brought back for consideration?
Not nec -- well, this one case, but I mean with the fact that we're
going to want to deal with this situation as an ongoing type of
Page 43
October 22, 2002
situation and how it should be best handled.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess --
MR. WALKER: I might -- excuse me -- I might suggest that we
might try to work on a policy internally with staff and get back with
Ms. Hampton on her situation.
I would caution the board that we do need to be very careful that
we don't open the door here on everybody who -- and this is no
reflection on Ms. Hampton. She's a nice lady -- but anyone who
claims that something happens now has an opportunity to file a claim
against the county to get whatever they want paid for. That's just a
real concern that we have. But we will work with Mrs. Hampton to
see what we can do and work on a policy issue too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Hampton --
MS. HAMPTON: Can I say something. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you had the repairs done?
MS. HAMPTON: Yes. They had to be done that evening.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. HAMPTON: Yeah. And I'm--just for the record, I was
not speeding. I had my sister with me. We were shopping, and it
was pouring down rain. The pothole was full of water. I didfft even
see the pothole, and I was going maybe 15 or 20 miles an hour.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you do have a witness?
MS. HAMPTON: Yes, and I have pictures, and I measured the
pothole. It was seven and three-quarters inches deep. For a small car
of my nature, it did a lot of damage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we have to be very careful
about how we proceed with these things because we might set a
precedent that opens us up to lots of liability. So I would suggest
that the staff come back to us with the recommendation concerning
Page 44
October 22, 2002
how we might handle this particular case.
There -- it's simply proper procedure to require some
presentation of fact about the county's obligation. And your
observation is absolutely correct, we cannot just adopt a policy that
says anybody who incurs damage on county property can, in fact, get
reimbursed. So we have to be very careful that we have a sound
basis for the development of a new policy which might deal with this
issue.
The other issue is the one of retroactivity. If you develop a new
policy now, is it going to help this lady? I don't know. And I think
that's the problem we have to deal with right now.
So I would suggest we ask the staff to propose some kind of
potential policy adjustment or resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I might suggest, too, in that policy
resolution, you can tell them that the next step that they could go, if
they have a protest to the lack of payment, would be the clerk of
court for small claims -- for the small claim filings. It's not that
difficult.
In fact, possibly you might even have the basic forms they need,
to give it to them, so that they can fill them out and take them over
there and start the whole process, so that there is one more oversight
that they can be looking forward to.
I'm a little disappointed that the three or four people I've talked
to and made this suggestion to, no one's ever followed through.
You've never had a --
MR. WALKER: We have not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That is disappointing, because that
would be a perfect avenue for something like this.
MR. WALKER: Absolutely. In fact, it's the appropriate
avenue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you keep me appraised of
your situation as this starts to go forward?
Page 45
October 22, 2002
MS. HAMPTON: Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. HAMPTON: Thank you very much for hearing me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We appreciate you coming out.
did an excellent job of presenting your case.
You
Item #7A
PETITION ADA-2002-AR-3030, RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH
OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON,
REPRESENTING WILLIAM T. HIGGS, REQUESTING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TO OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION
INTP-2002-AR-2421, CONCERNING LANDSCAPE BUFFER
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WHITE LAKE PUD PER LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 1.6- STAFF'S
1NTFJRPRF. TATION 11PHF. I.D
Now we're going to move on to the board of zoning appeals, and
the first one is 7(A), Mr. Yovanovich.
MS. MURRAY: Good morning. For the record, I'm Susan
Murray, current planning manager, and I need to make a few opening
statements, and then Mr. Yovanovich will present his information,
and then I would like the opportunity to respond to that, and I'm sure
Mr. Yovanovich will probably want the opportunity to respond to
me.
Just for clarification purposes, this -- I am the current planning
manager. At the time this was submitted, this request for formal
interpretation was submitted, I was the interim director of the
planning services department, and I am here with the authorization of
the current planning services director, Margaret Wuerstle, so I'll be
representing her and myself as the interim director at the time this
was submitted.
Page 46
October 22, 2002
This is an appeal to a request for a formal interpretation, and
division 1.6 of the land development code allows an individual to
write to the planning services director to request a formal
interpretation. In mm, that formal interpretation is rendered in
writing and it is appealable by certain effective parties, so that's
where we are in the process. The question was asked and it was
appealed, and we're here today to hear that appeal.
The objective, obviously, is to seek the reversal of the
interpretation issued by the planning services director. And the
question asked by the applicant was whether or not the landscape
buffer with requirements of Activity Center #9 applied to the portion
of the PUD that has been subdivided and platted as White Lake phase
three. And on your visualizer -- or on your screen, I have the White
Lake PUD outlined in black, and then you'll see in the blue area, this
is phase three. So we're talking about that section of the White Lake
PUD.
And if I could orient you also with some dates. The White Lake
PUD originally was rezoned January 5th, 1993. It was amended
October 23rd, 2001, and the phase three plat was approved March
28th of 2000.
Activity Center #9 master plan was adopted by the board on
February 13th of 2001, and January 9th of 2002 the implementing
land code regulations were adopted.
I point that out because it's important to know that during the
time that the PUD was going through the amendment process, the
LDC amendments were being crafted, and the applicant was fully
aware of what the LDC amendments entailed, including the
landscape buffering requirements. So I'll leave that and get back to
that later.
With that, I guess I'll go ahead and mm it over to Rich, and then
I'd like the opportunity to speak again. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, Mr. Yovanovich.
Page 47
October 22, 2002
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich with
the law.firm of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson representing the
petitioner in this matter.
As Susan indicated, this is an appeal of an interpretation as to
whether or not the PUD landscaping provisions apply or whether or
not the after-adopted overlay landscape provisions apply.
It's not there anymore, but the outline of events, as Susan set
them forth, is correct. It's important to know from a timeline
perspective that there was an original PUD adopted in 1993. That
original PUD provided that the external buffers shall comply with the
general LDC provisions regarding buffering. Okay. So originally
there was a tie to the land development code as far as buffering goes.
There was then an amendment to the PUD document, and that
amendment occurred in October of 2001. And one of the important
factors or important changes in that PUD amendment was specific
provisions dealing with the landscape buffering for this particular
project. And I've highlighted for the commission-- and this is in
your agenda material says on page 37 -- the actual landscaping
requirements for this property and project.
And they are a "Type D" buffer, which is a 20-foot wide buffer,
and it includes a wall. It's important to note that the "Type D" buffer
in the LDC does not require a wall. So this was a modification to the
general LDC provisions regarding what buffers will be required on
the property that basically fronts the roadway between 1-75 and the
project.
So the LDC -- I'm sorry, the PUD which was adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners on that date specifically addressed
the landscape buffer requirements. And everybody who is sitting up
there except for Commissioner Coyle was present at that PUD
hearing.
And the width of the buffer as well as the wall requirements was
debated and was moved and was approved by the Board of County
Page 48
October 22, 2002
Commissioners with the "Type D" buffer. The PUD master plan
depicted the 20-foot wide landscape buffer requirement that this PUD
required. So that sp -- that was specifically addressed in the PUD
ordinance.
And remember, a PUD is different than your standard zoning
districts like a C-4. A PUD is adopted by ordinance. It is negotiated,
if you will, between the property owner and the county with the
purposes of coming up with innovative, mixed-use projects. So a
PUD is different than an underlying zoning district. And I think
that's important in analyzing the factual situation we have before you
today.
The PUD document also provides that unless modified, waived
or accepted by this PUD, the provisions of the LDC shall remain in
full force and effect. As I have pointed out, the landscape buffering
requirements in the PUD are different than the landscape buffering
requirements in the LDC, so the LDC was specifically modified by
this PUD document.
And as I've pointed out, it's in two locations. It's in the text
where we address the "Type D" buffer and also in the master plan
that's attached to the PUD. And your land development code
addresses, what is the effect of the adoption of a PUD.
And I'll read the underlining, because it's difficult to see. It
says, thenceforth, the development in the area delineated as the PUD
district on the official zoning atlas shall proceed only in accordance
with the adopted development regulations and the PUD master plan
for said PUD district. That is what we're asking for. We want to
development in accordance with the master plan for our PUD zoning
district.
There are a couple of other important points that I want to point
out. In the PUD itself, there were requirements that we -- the
property owner do some certain things. For instance, there was a
requirement that the property owner pay the sum of $118,500 related
Page 49
October 22, 2002
to site-related improvements to the transportation network. Our
client paid that sum in reliance upon the terms and conditions set
forth in the PUD document. So he relied upon the PUD document in
making those payments.
The county essentially has unilaterally changed the PUD
document by adopting an overlay. It's clear, the case law is clear, it's
Porpoise Point case, and Margie's in the audience, and so is Patrick,
and they will tell you that the government doesn't have a right to
impose a PUD on a property owner's property against that property
owner's will.
YOu can impose a straight zoning district, but you can't impose a
PUD, because of the very nature. It's a give and take, it's a
negotiation process. If you can't -- if you can't unilaterally impose a
PUD on my client's property, you can't amend that PUD through
some other mechanism, and that's essentially what's happening. By
adopting the overlay, you are amending the text of that PUD
document against my client's will.
And I'll give you an example that I think is an absurd example,
but if you apply the logic, it's the same logic being applied by the
county staff at that point.
If my client had come through to rezone the property, which he
did, to a commercial and industrial PUD, and that was approved by
ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners, and then all of a
sudden the board adopts -- and we give all the development exactions
that we're required to do, then the board decides to adopt an overlay
to eliminate the very commercial and industrial uses we got approved
in the PUD, you will have essentially used the overlay process to
amend the PUD and take away the uses we've been permitted. That is
no different when you're changing a development standard
established in the PUD.
As you saw from the outline as -- that Susan put up on -- the
timeline that Susan put up on the visualizer, the PUD amendment and
Page 50
October 22, 2002
the proposed LDC amendments were tracking pretty closely.
What I find interesting is that your staff, when we went through
the PUD amendment process, recommended approval of a 20-foot
landscape buffer requirement with the wall, which was recommended
and approved by your staff to you-all, which you voted and approved
on, at the very same time they're proposing a 25-foot landscape
buffer requirement. Or maybe they weren't proposing a 25-foot
landscape buffer requirement. Maybe it was a different standard.
I find it hard to believe your staff would recommend to you-all,
approve a 20-foot landscape buffer requirement when they know that
they're really recommending in an overlay the 25-foot landscape
buffer requirement.
I think we have to ask the question, why did a PUD get
approved with a 20-foot landscape buffer requirement when your
staff was really recommending 25 feet?
I submit to you, we were never told that it was a 25-foot
landscape buffer requirement of the overlay. I think there was
discussions that things were going to happen in the overlay. Nobody
knew for sure what was going to happen. The important thing is,
when the PUD went through the process, our client agreed to the
20-foot landscape buffer requirement that you-all voted on and
approved, and now there's a unilateral change.
This specific factual situation also changes by the mere fact that
we have an approved plat that was approved. The subdivision
improvements were constructed and installed and then preliminarily
accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to the
adoption of the LDC overlay amendments.
Your code in section 1.5.2.2 specifically says, the provision of
this code shall not affect the types, densities and intensities of land
uses or the yard -- or landscape buffer with requirements of any final
subdivision plat and final improvement plan. Your code specifically
addresses this situation.
Page 51
October 22, 2002
I believe staff is taking the interpretation that that really means
the official adoption of the original LDC back in 1991. I submit to
you, that means the applicable development regulation when it's
adopted, because your code moves. You change it as it goes along.
And the question is, do you apply it retroactively. And I believe
you've determined that, no, you do not want to have retroactive
application of code provisions to approved final subdivision plats.
So I think that's the proper interpretation of section 1.5.2.2.
So I think the land development code specifically exempts phase
three of White Lakes from the overlay requirements.
If I may, Commissioners, I will read to you what the Florida
Supreme Court says about PUDs and what they are. This is the St.
John's County case where, as I was referring, the county tried to
impose a PUD. They called it something different. They called it a
planned special development, which is a smaller scale PUD in St.
John's County.
The county unilaterally imposed the PUD on the property
owner, and the court basically said, this type of development requires
cooperation between the property owners and the zoning authority in
creating an overall plan.
That's what our PUD did. We cooperated, we worked together.
We came up with the development standards for PUD, and those
development standards were a 20-foot wide buffer with a wall.
And it -- the court also went on to say that the purpose of the
planned special development is to provide development flexibility
that cannot be obtained under traditional zoning. You can't have
mixed-use developments in Collier County under traditional zoning.
You go through the PUD process to work out the plan of
development. And that plan of development is set forth in the PUD
text as well as the PUD master plan.
The commission could not impose the 25-foot landscape
buffering requirement through the PUD process unless my client
Page 52
October 22, 2002
agreed to it. The commission can't find another way to do that by
adopting an overlay district and applying retroactively to our client.
What we are requesting is that the commission honor the PUD
document as written, the PUD master plan as approved with the
20-foot landscape buffer requirement with the wall requirement --
with the wall requirement within that 20-foot buffer and not agree
with county staff on their interpretation that the overlay prevails over
the PUD text.
I'm prepared to answer any questions you may have. And as
Susan said, I'd like to follow up on --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll definitely have questions for
you, sir.
I'm going to ask the county attorney to respond first to the fact
that, was this overlay illegal?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't say it was illegal. I said it
doesn't apply retroactively to our particular project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll phrase the question
that way. Who cares to respond from the county attorney's office on
that?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. White will respond initially.
MR. WHITE: Assistant county attorney, Patrick White. Good
morning, commissioners.
In reviewing this particular administrative appeal, we did find it
-- that the interpretation that was rendered by your staff was
appropriate with respect to form and sufficiency. I want to put that in
the record as a procedural matter.
But more importantly, I think that we're almost talking apples
and oranges here in the sense that Mr. Yovanovich is talking about a
PUD and the subsequent effect of an overlay district with respect to
the PUD, and what I believe the staff is looking at is the distinction
between subsequent requests for development approvals.
As Mr. Yovanovich has indicated to you, there was a plat for
Page 53
October 22, 2002
one of the phases that went through with a 20-foot buffer
requirement. Just this morning, as part of your summary agenda --
excuse me -- consent agenda, we approved a plat that has a 25-foot
landscape buffer width.
The notion here is that we're not talking about at the level of the
PUD alone. We're talking about the subsequent phases, if you will,
that are coming in for other forms of development approval.
And what your staff has done, to the best of my understanding,
is apply that 25-foot to a request that took place after the Activity
Center//9 regulations went into effect. And their interpretation is
that that should be applied because it's later in time and does not
conflict with any specific requirement set forth in the PUD. I think
that's the difference of opinion, if you will, between your staff's
analysis and interpretation and the gist of Mr. Yovanovich's appeal.
So it's to that extent, I think, we're talking apples and oranges.
I can tell you that with respect to PUDs, the principle that Mr.
Yovanovich is advising you of is true, but that doesn't truly focus on,
I think, what the staff's perspective is, which is that we're not really
doing that. We're only applying this to a subsequent development
approval that initiated itself after the regulation change and the
regulation isn't something that was so specific in the PUD that it
controls because it was in place first.
I know that's a lot to grasp, but I hope that what I've shared with
you so far brings it into focus a little clearer.
If there's any questions, I think I can try and address them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There very possibly may be.
Commissioner Henning first, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Mr. White
and Mr.' Yovanovich.
Activity Center #9, is that document reflected in the land
development code?
MR. WHITE: Yes.
Page 54
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that correct, Mr.
Yovanovich?
MR. WHITE: It's an adopted regulation.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. It was a regulation adopted
subsequent to the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. So what you're saying
is, anything adopted after the plat in the land development code, that
you don't have to abide by?
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm saying is, when you look at
what development regulations apply to the property when
considering a plat or a site development plan, you look to the PUD
document when the PUD document specifically addresses that
situation.
I disagree with Mr. White. I showed you the specific
landscaping provisions in the PUD document. What I'm saying to
you is, when you look at a site plan, you compare it to the PUD
document when applying the landscaping regulations. You don't
apply an after-adopted overlay to a PUD when the PUD has the
regulations.
So what I'm saying to you, the answer is, no, the overlay does
not apply to my client's property because it was adopted after and my
PUD specifically addressed that situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or anything after it was
platted, nothing -- the old land development code applies to it at the
time of the platting?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. What I'm saying is what the PUD
does, the PUD -- the reason you do a PUD is because you can't live
with the development standards in the straight zoning districts. You
come forward and you say, I want to do a residential and commercial
project together. Well, you don't have a zoning district that tells you
how to develop. So you come to the Board of County
Commissioners and you say, this is the project I want to do. Here are
Page 55
October 22, 2002
my proposed setback requirements, here are my proposed maximum
height requirements, here are my proposed landscaping requirements.
If all those things are found in the PUD document, you go to the
PUD document and it governs the development of the property.
If, for instance, you leave out the buffering, which the original
PUD did, it said, we will be governed by the landscaping
requirements found in the land development code, so you go to the
PUD document. It says for landscape buffering, see land
development code. So you go to the land development code and you
find out what the land development regulations are.
In this particular case, the PUD was amended, and it tells you
what the landscaping buffering requirements are, and that's where
you end. You stop at the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm reading on page -- or 5.13.
It's calling for some landscaping, and it's referring to Activity Center
#9 and division 2.4 of the land development code.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree, and that's a perfect example.
For off-street parking, we agreed to be bound by section 2.4, but for
buffering and landscaping on the roadways, we did not agree to be
bound by that provision. We agreed to be bound by 5.12B. So that
makes my point. There are certain places where we've agree that the
LDC will prevail and in other places we've said, this is what will
prevail.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the fencing that -- okay.
Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And if you-all will remember, there was
the debate -- never a debate over the width. There was a debate over,
was it a wooden fence or was it a concrete fence. And because of the
-- you know, the gateway, the concern was, we need to have a
wooden fence and we want to have the landscaping planted on the
outside of the fence, not on the interior of the fence so the
community would enjoy the benefit of the landscaping and not the
Page 56
October 22, 2002
property owner on whose property the landscape buffer was imposed.
MR. MUDD: But -- Commissioner, Jim Mudd for the record.
If I remember the outcome of that particular presentation for the
fence, it was determined that it was going to be a concrete poured
fence instead of the wooden one, so -- just to make sure, because he
said wood.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right, and that's reflected--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It does say it here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In 5.112.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or 5.12.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Any other questions of me,
Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I have a question, but I think
it's one that is directed at the staff and the petitioner.
Here's my problem. The staff in the executive summary on page
two in the middle of the page says that the language set forth in the
White Lake Corporate Park PUD specifically provides that unless
modified, waived or accepted by this PUD, not by the LDC, but by
this PUD. Now is that what your -- the staff's position is, that this
can be modified, waived or accepted only by changes in the PUD, or
are you saying that it can be changed -- the PUD can be changed by
modifications of the land development code?
Because the subsequent paragraph states that if there is a
conflict between provisions of the land development code, certainly
the most stringent standards apply. But this is not a conflict between
the land-- provisions of the land development code. It's a conflict
between an approved PUD and a subsequent land development code
change.
MR. WHITE: Commissioner, I understand it's understood that
Page 57
October 22, 2002
all of your PUDs are, in essence, an amendment, a supplement, if you
will, to the land development code. They are adopted at the
reference and included as one of the appendices.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there's a difference.
MR. WHITE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A PUD is a negotiated
arrangement where you reach agreements with the developer. You
give some things and you take some things away.
Now, having gone through a contract discussion, essentially --
and I'm not inferring it to be contract zoning, but that's essentially
what it is. You've reached agreement on what we want to see and
what the developer wants to see, and as a result, we take things away
and we give things.
Now, after having gone through that discussion and reaching an
agreement, if we then modify that document through a change in the
land development code and that then applies to the LDC, then
essentially we open up every -- every PUD that we have previously
negotiated.
MR. WHITE: That's only true factually where you have a
circumstance that both of the regulations specifically apply to the
same issues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I think that's what
We're talking about a landscape issue. And in
we're talking about.
this --
MR. WHITE:
Well --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- case, the --
MR. WHITE: -- I don't want to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the PUD -- the PUD specifically
states what the landscape requirements are going to be, and we
agreed to that. Now we develop an overlay and we say, whoops,
what we agreed to doesn't really make any difference anymore.
We're going to change it.
Page 58
October 22, 2002
MS. MURRAY: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, after you've already laid out
the properties and you've sold some of them, what is the justification
for doing that?
MR. WHITE: I think that staff is going to articulate what the
difference is, and it's as I've alluded to, that it's a question of
specificity, and I'll let Susan--
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record.
If you use that argument, Commissioner, then every individual
with a commercial PUD could walk in here and say the commercial
-- the architectural provisions of your Land Development Code do
not apply to me, because after my PUD was adopted and then you
subsequently adopted architectural regulations for development of
my PUD, I'm sorry, I had a PUD in place, and no matter what you do
to affect the Land Development Code, I do not have to abide by it.
And that's not the case.
When we -- and the architectural standards function exactly as
this overlay district does. They are overlays to commercial zoning
districts within PUDs and outside of PUDs. They are overlays to
commercial components of PUDs.
It's the same logic that you apply here. This is an overlay to the
underlying regulation. The underlying regulation was in place, and
you overlaid an additional set of regulations on top of it. It's the
same logic that applies for the commercial architectural standards.
And I would point out also that if you go to all the sections of
the White Lake PUD, they reference specifically, development of the
White Lake Corporate Park PUD shall be consistent with the Activity
Center #9 interchange master plan. That's on page 18.
Go to page 21 of your agenda. Regulations for development of
the White Lake Corporate Park shall be in accordance with the
contents of this document, PUD development district and other
applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land
Page 59
October 22, 2002
Development Code and growth management plan in effect at the time
of building permit application. Not at the time of plat, not at the time
of SDP, but at the time of building permit application.
Page 25. Thenceforth, development in the area delineated as the
White Lake Corporate Park PUD district on the official zoning map
will be governed by the adopted development regulations, PUD
master plan, and all applicable provisions of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
The paragraph under that, at the bottom, at such time as Collier
County adopts design standards for the Activity Center #9
interchange master plan, those standards shall apply to this PUD.
The only difference in this PUD from the previous PUD was the
addition of the wall. The landscape "Type D" buffer requirements
always applied. Whether they reiterated them in here or not, they
always applied. There was no modification to that through this PUD.
They simply stated that they are going to have the landscape
"Type D" buffer, which is okay. We already know that because that's
what you're required to do. The only modification from the overlay
district was to increase the buffer with requirement to 25 feet.
Recognizing that this PUD was getting ready to be adopted and
we were still in the middle of ado -- creating these standards, we
asked that the applicant put that language in the PUD to ensure that
when the PUD was ready to develop, that it would apply -- the
standards would apply.
And I caution you because this -- your decision will also set a
precedent to the project across the street, which is already platted as
well. And that's the Tollgate Commercial Center. And I don't want
to talk about that now, but I just want to point that out, that -- that
this is the gateway to Naples. And, in effect, if those provisions don't
apply anymore, we've negated the whole purpose and intent of
adopting these overlay district standards, in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 60
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have to agree
wholeheartedly with everything you've said, and that's what we've
been trying to do. We, as a commission, in the last two years, is
trying to -- trying to improve -- let me say, correct some of the past
errors on our Land Development Code. That's why we're working so
hard to do it. I believe that what you've done is say, we are setting
these standards and we need to abide by them. And I wholeheartedly
agree, and I'd like to make a motion to stand with staff on this
proposal.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, a second by Commissioner Carter. Is there any other
questions?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Hang on a second. I think I'm entitled
to respond to Commissioner Coyle's question. It was a question to
staff and also to the petitioner, and the petitioner didn't get a chance
to respond, and I would appreciate the opportunity to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll allow you up to five
minutes. Can you do that in five minutes, Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe I can.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, again, I want to focus
exactly on what Commissioner Coyle's point was. This is a PUD.
It's a give and take, and Ms. Murray just made the point. "Type D"
buffer did not require the wall. We agreed to include the wall. We
specifically addressed the landscape buffer requirements in the PUD.
There's a provision in the PUD under project development
requirements, and I'll read it to you, 2.2C, found on page 21, which
was not read to you.
All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented
depicting restrictions for the development of the White Lake
Corporate Park PUD shall become part of the regulations that govern
Page 61
October 22, 2002
the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. The master
plan says a 20-foot buffer requirement.
When someone submits a plat or a site development plan, the
first thing staff does is they compare those submittals to the
regulations in the PUD document. And if it's consistent with the
regulations in the PUD document, it gets approved.
Now, I appreciate -- I don't know what the Tollgate commercial
PUD says. I don't know if it addresses landscape buffer or not. If it's
silent on landscape buffers, then your overlay prevails. If it
specifically addressed landscape buffers, I submit to you that their
PUD prevails. It is a case-by-case situation that you analyze.
If staff was going to recommend a 25-foot buffer for
landscaping, why was that not recommended when we were going
through the PUD process that was tracking the proposed LDC
amendments to implement the master plan?
It's a question that my client deserves to know. He was never
asked, can you live with a 25-foot buffer requirement, 25-foot, when
he agreed to do the wall. He wasn't asked that question. Instead,
unilaterally, without any -- in order to change an amend -- a PUD
ordinance, you've got to amend it. That requires a public hearing
process where you debate it and you analyze it. It was unilaterally
changed.
The commission said, we wanted to make a change. We want
25 feet,.and we're going to impose it upon you in your PUD
document and we're not going to ask you whether you like it or not.
We're going to amend the contract. We're going to do it unilaterally.
And I submit to you, you can't unilaterally amend a contract, and
PUDs are similar to contracts. They're negotiated. You live with the
deal.
You made a deal. The deal was a 20-foot landscape buffer
requirement. You have to honor that commitment. You can't amend
a PUD and impose it by adopting an overlay district, essentially --
Page 62
October 22, 2002
and I'm going to use the phrase behind my client's back, but I don't
mean that. I mean, it's been public. But you can't unilaterally say,
you know what, we didn't like the deal. We're going to change it.
And I think you need to -- and I think that your attorney's office
hasn't given you the -- it gives you an apples to oranges analysis. It's
not apples to oranges. We're saying you apply the Land
Development Code regulations to our property unless our PUD
specifically addresses them differently, and it does. The landscape
buffer requirements are different than the LDC, and it's in black and
white. I showed it to you. And I submit to you that you have to
follow the PUD requirements.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Another question. If we had a
PUD that was approved based upon RSF-4 zoning and they -- it was
approved at a density of four units per acre and we decide later on
that it should be RSF-2, do we go back and change the LD -- change
the PUD?
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can go first this time so I make sure
I get a chance.
Essentially, you can do that. You can adopt an overlay and say,
you know what, in this area we don't like four units an acre anymore,
even though you've got a PUD, we want two units an acre. And you
know what, that's after the fact. Forget the fact that the PUD says
four, we want two, and that's no different than what's happening with
the landscaping buffer requirements, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my question though is, have
we done that and would we do it, can we do it?
MS. MURRAY: What -- your question was, again? I'm sorry,
sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you approve a PUD at a certain
density, after it has been approved for that density and SDP has been
Page 63
(~ctober 22, 2002
submitted and approved, can you-- can we then go back in and
arbitrarily change the density downward?
MS. MURRAY: The opportunity to do that would come about
through the PUD sunsetting process, and at that time you're looking
at consistency with the growth management plan and Land
Development Code in effect at the time.
I'd also like to point out, while I have the opportunity, is the
PUD here did not specifically address the landscape buffer width
requirement. It said a "Type D" buffer, and that's it. "Type D" buffer
is whatever the code says at the time a "Type D" buffer is. And I just
wanted to point that out.
The issue with the wall was -- had to deal with the fact that the
amended PUD significantly increased the intensity of the PUD, and
we knew we were coming forward with the Activity Center #9
provisions, and specific language was referenced in the PUD to
address those when they were -- when they were adopted later that
year.
The other thing I wanted to point out is, just this -- as Patrick
White pointed out, just this morning a plat was adopted with the
25-foot wide landscape buffer in place on the plat. And I just think
that's important to note, that that is being recognized.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There seems to be some -- I'm
sorry. I'm really continuing with my --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, that's fine. Commissioner
Henning just came online while you were off, but if you want to
continue, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There seems to be some
disagreement as to whether or not that -- it was specified. The
reading of the contract indicates that Susan is absolutely right, there's
no indication of width of the--
MR. YOVANOVICH: You have to go look at the PUD master
plan. I recognize you can't read that, but what I've highlighted, it
Page 64
October 22, 2002
says 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So the exhibit of that PUD
master plan is part of the contract.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So it's "Type D" at 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Just one final comment,
then I'll leave this issue.
I believe that the sunset provisions that we have implemented
address issues such as this. That's why we implemented the sunset
provisions is to make sure that old PUDs didn't linger out there and
not conform with our current visions of growth and/or zoning.
And it was not, I don't think, ever our intent that having
approved a PUD, that we go back and nibble at it every year or every
few months as we change a Land Development Code.
My personal feeling is that when I negotiate a contract with
somebody and I give my word and I say that's what I'm going to
approve, that's what I'm going to stand by, even if it hurts me, and
I'm not going to be put into a position -- and although I wasn't
involved in this one, but the principle is exactly the same.
If I make an agreement with somebody and they agree to the
terms of-- the terms that I request and I give my word that, yes, you
can do this, I'm not going to go back around and try to change the
terms of that agreement. It is unfair, and government should be
consistent and fair in anything we do.
There is a way to resolve the issue through the sunsetting
provisions if these things really are so far out-of-date. But,
nevertheless, I can see how it creates some difficulties, but I think we
should keep our word. And I don't see this landscape buffer issue as
being a tragic circumstance that's going to destroy the appearance of
anything that is happening out there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Henning?
Page 65
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think it's more of an
interpretation issue, not a -- how it's going to degradate the area if
we're talking about five feet.
I guess what I have a problem with is, the language in the PUD
is conflicting. It's saying that it must abide by the Activity Center
#9, except for, there is one language that Mr. Yovanovich pointed
out, in the landscaping provision in the PUD, it does not reflect
Activity Center #9.
For me to make a decision on this, I would like to read the
minutes of when the BCC approved this PUD and find out if there
was any information in there so that I can make a logical decision.
And I know, Commissioner Coletta, there is a motion and a
second on the floor. My position is -- today is to continue it so we
can reflect back on the minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have concerns over the --
where we're going with this in the whole overlay program that the
county has being in jeopardy by our decision here today. I don't
think continuing it is going to really solve the problem. I believe the
information we got in our packet is total, complete, that we should be
able to make a logical decision.
With that, is there -- Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to hear from Counselor
White.
MR. WHITE: I respectfully agree with the principle that
Commissioner Coyle has set forth but have to disagree with respect
to the specificity that's in the PUD document in terms of the contract.
I know that Mr. Yovanovich has advised you that it's depicted
on the master concept plan, but I think the notion is that that is a
conceptual approval. And what I think your staff will tell you is that
in instances such as this, they look for those kinds of specificity to be
set forth in the text of the document. The notion being that if it's that
important and you're negotiating it, that you specify it.
Page 66
October 22, 2002
And that's why I said, I believe, that there's a discussion that's
apples and oranges, to some extent. And that's because on the one
hand yOur staff is saying, we don't see an overlap, and Mr.
Yovanovich is saying there is one and that you should interpret it in a
way that's consistent with what he believes his client negotiated.
So I hope that helps. But again, this -- the standard, if you'd like
to know, is, if you're going to overturn, you have to find that your
staffs interpretation is contrary to the Land Development Code or
somehow inconsistent with the growth management plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, my motion stands. I believe
staff has been consistent with the land development code. The
reason the sunsetting provisions are there are to update previous
PUDs that are flawed and outdated, so my motion stands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, is there any
other comments?
Hearing none, I'll call for the motion.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motions passes 3-2.
MR. YOVANOVICH: May I ask a point of clarification, since I
didn't get to chance to respond, to Mr. White?
Is it my understanding that it's now the Board of County
Commissioners' petition -- position that the master plan that's
submitted and attached to and part of the PUD document really
doesn't mean anything? So if my client had put a 50-foot landscape
buffer requirement on that -- on that PUD, I could have skinnied it
Page 67
October 22, 2002
back up to 25 feet under this overlay? Is that the analysis?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need you to take that up with Mr.
White. We've already made a decision on this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
What we're going to take is a 1 O-minute break. And I apologize
for running over. We told you it would be an hour and a half
between the breaks. In this case here, we're a half an hour past. Ten
minutes.
(Recess was taken.)
Item #7B - Continued to November 19, 2002
Item #7C
RESOLUTION 2002-437, RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2392,
GERALD A. MC HALE, JR., TRUSTEE, NAPLES GATEWAY
LAND TRUST, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM PUD
ORDINANCE 2000-14, SECTION IV., 4.13, LANDSCAPING AND
BUFFERING, FOR THE RAGGAE PUD- ADOPTED SUBJECT
TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats.
Okay. The next item is 7(C), and this is going to require
everyone that wishes to participate to stand at this time to be sworn
in.
MR. MUDD: Sir, 7(C) is a variance by Mr. McHale, a trustee
of the Naples Gateway Land Trust, requesting a variance of the PUD
ordinance 2000-14. It's a landscape and buffering item, number 2.
He's requesting a variance from the 1 O-foot wide A buffer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- fine. Would you please swear in
the people standing.
Page 68
October 22, 2002
(The witnesses were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask the commissioners
if they have any disclosures, starting with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I talked to one of the
residents in Livingston Woods. I also talked to the person -- one of
the owners of Harley Davidson on this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't recall talking with anyone
about this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And at this point in time I've talked
to no one concerning this item.
Commissioner Fiala, do you have any disclosures on item 7(C)?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that -- is that the Shane Mclntosh
thing?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is the one there with the Harley
Davidson and the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No disclosures?
Okay. With that, we'll go ahead. When Commissioner Carter
comes back, we'll ask him for any disclosures he may have at that
time.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning, for the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I'm a principal planner with current planning, and I'm
here to present this petition to you.
And I have put on the overhead projector visualizer a map that
shows the general area. You can see Livingston Road, Pine Ridge
Road. Those are the two main roads.
To show you the exact site of--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. May I interrupt you just
Page 69
October 22, 2002
MS. DESELEM: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I received some mail on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You can make that disclosure
now. It's still not too late.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I'm so sorry.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And while we have you interrupted
for the moment -- Commissioner Carter, do you have any disclosures
on 7(C)? If you don't have it in front of you, here it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Harley Davidson.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've only met with staff on this.
Thank you. That's the one between Hooters and the Harleys, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got -- your earmarks are -- will
work just fine for us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You seem to be very familiar with
that area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Notice which he put first. They
weren't in alphabetical order.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, I never figured
Commissioner Carter to be a Harley person, but who knows. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It depends on what motivates
you, sir. Depends on what's next door.
Very good, Sue. You got that. You're good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is a hard act to follow, isn't it?
MS. DESELEM: As I said, you can see on the visualizer that
we do have a map that shows the site. This is the actual Harley
Davidson site. The area where the sidewalk is going to be effective is
on this little road, strip road right through here. And you can see that
it will eventually interconnect across over to Whippoorwill
Extension.
And what they're asking for is a variance to put in a sidewalk.
Page 70
October 22, 2002
They will be reducing the amount of the buffer to allow for the
inclusion of a sidewalk.
The planning commission had recommended approval. Staff is
recommending approval. We have provided conditions to you for
your consideration, and the executive summary is part of the record.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have any public
speakers on this item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, if you
would close the public hearing I'm ready to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll close the public hearing at
this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
approve this item 7(C).
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Carter. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to note that in
the body of our summary agenda, it had stated that four letters were
submitted prior to the CCPC in objection to the request, yet later on
down in the body of-- it was on page 11 for public input, it said, as
of this date, staff report was prepared, no letters either in support of
or in opposition to.
So I did send for those letters, but apparently none of the people
here have followed up and -- with us since then. I just sent for the
letters because I wanted to know what they were. One says that none
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good.
Page 71
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- one says there were some, and
none of the people here -- are here today to object against it, but I
wanted that to be part of the record. Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: If you'd like, I can explain the two things that
you're seeing. One -- on the one page you referenced where there
were no letters, that's the staff report that went to the planning
commission, and at that time there were none.
If you go to the portion of the executive summary that mentions
the letters, that recognizes the fact that there were letters received
from the time that staff report for the planning commission was
prepared and the time that it was actually heard by the planning
commission. And those letters were faxed to your office. I do have
copies for anyone else that wants to see them.
They basically were concerned, or what was voiced was a
concern that the buffering requirements were going to be changed in
the area of the site plan from here up to Livingston Road. Once it
was explained to everyone that that's not subject to this variance
petition, it was determined that the issues were not relevant.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning,
would you also include in your motion the staff conditions that are
listed on page three of our summary agenda here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'd like to include staff's
recommendations on this item.
And also, Commissioners, I drove by. On the back side of this
PUD is supposed to be a wall and landscaping on the resident side,
and I found it to be acceptable of what the residents required on that
back street. So I think they're doing a great job of maintaining their
commitments to the residents.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, will you also
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, I include --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- include that?
Page 72
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- in the second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I am speaking to the fence.
ahead, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We can stay here all day.
not in a hurry.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's speaking of Hooters.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Any other
Go
All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #7D- Continued Indefinitely
Item #8A- Continued from September 10
Continued Indefinitely
,2002 and Further
Item #8B- Continued from Septemer 10, 2002 and Further
Continued Indefinitely
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2002-53, PETITION RZ-01-AR-1204, VINCENT A.
CAUTERO OF COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,
Page 73
October 22, 2002
INC., REPRESENTING SHANE ALAN MC 1NTOSH,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM C-1 AND RSF-4,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
C-2 COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE ZONING DISTRICT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD (CR-851) AND 13TM AVENUE
NORTH, CONSISTING OF 1.15 ACRES MORE OR LESS -
ADOPTED WITH CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF
AND WITH COMPANION ITEM #7D BEING REMOVED FROM
THE A GEND A
Okay. The next one will also require -- this is 8(C) we're going
to, and this is petition RZ-01-AR-1204, Vincent Cautero of Coastal
Engineering consultant representing Shane Alan Mclntosh requesting
a rezone from C-1 to RSF-4.
Would you stand at this time and be sworn in.
(The witnesses were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, for disclosures on the
part of the commissioners. Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. I met with the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've met with the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have also.
Commissioner Car -- excuse me -- Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with the petitioner, and
I have several letters from residents.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please proceed.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows with current planning staff.
Petitioner's requesting a rezone of the 1.15-acre site from C-1
Page 74
October 22, 2002
and RSF-4 to the C-2 commercial convenience zoning district.
As you can see on the visualizer, it's located on the east side of
Goodlette-Frank Road and on the north side of 13th Street North.
The petitioner received a zoning approval in 1998 to rezone a
portion of the site to C-1 zoning, indicated on this zoning map. The
C-1 portion has frontage along Goodlette-Frank Road; however, it
was determined that based on the applicant's needs, that they needed
the additional lots to build an office building as is being proposed
today, so they require the back two lots.
The subject site is also within the corridor management overlay,
zoning overlay, that runs along Goodlette-Frank Road. That
provides additional setback requirements. One of the setback
requirements is that the front yard setback from Goodlette-Frank
Road is 50 feet plus 25 feet for each additional story.
The petitioner originally requested a three-story building, which
would have required a hundred-foot setback from Goodlette-Frank
Road, and that was part of a variance application that's been
continued from the -- and not requested with this rezoning action
today.
The other restrictions included additional landscaping as part of
this corridor management overlay.
The aerial photo for the site shows the surrounding uses. To the
south is the post office, the United States Post Office. It's roughly
twice as deep as the proposed subject lot. To the north is within the
City of Naples, and it's a commercial chiropractor office.
In order for this project to be rezoned, it had to be consistent
with the growth management plan. And the growth management
plan criteria for this area shows that it's not within an activity center.
So in order to gain commercial zoning just south of the activity
center of Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette-Frank Road -- since
it's outside of the activity center, it must be consistent with the
current office and infill commercial criteria as contained in the
Page 75
October 22, 2002
growth management plan.
The staff report outlines the criteria that is -- this petition is
consistent with; however, to be consistent, there's some
interpretations that have to be made, and those are listed in your
executive summary.
One is the subject site exceeds the depth of the commercial
zoning district to the north by 140 feet, and it does not exceed the
depth of the commercial property to the south, which is roughly
double this.
So staff, in making a determination -- and the board has
previously made this determination on other similar projects such as
the Veteran's Park Commons PUD that's off Immokalee Road. If you
take the average depth of the sites -- as you can see, we don't exceed
the depth of the proposed lot, so, therefore, under past interpretations,
this would be found consistent with that criteria.
The other deals with the uses. Our growth management plan
staff has determined that this project would be consistent with the
C-1 office uses. The petitioner's also proposing banking institutions
that are'found in the C-2, and that's the reason they're requesting the
rezone to C-2.
So staff would find this consistent if we just limited the C-2 use
to banking and financial institutions.
And staff has received numerous letters from residents within
the area with concerns about the original proposal for a three-story
building and the other variances which would make it seem to appear
to the residents that this would have been an over utilization of that
site.
During the planning commission, the rezone request petition
V-01-AR-1205 was denied unanimously by the planning
commission, or recommended for denial. Based on the fact that it
felt it was an over utilization of the site, they needed a front yard
setback variance, a height variance, a parking variance, and a
Page 76
October 22, 2002
landscape variance.
The petitioner has withdrawn that application of consideration
today, or continued it from consideration today, and they are
proposing a two-story building, so, therefore, the front yard setback
would be 50 feet, plus 25 feet, so they have a 75-foot front yard
setback~
The C-2 district requires a 50-foot rear yard setback. So it's
staffs opinion that the proposed petition now, as presented, would
not impact the residential dwelling units in back because they have
the 50-foot rear setback.
So the planning commission did not have a chance to rule on
this revised petition. The petitioner has seen the results of the
planning commission, has modified their plans accordingly.
Staff has recommended approval subject to the conditions in the
executive summary. One is dealing with the sidewalk. And here's
the revised site plan that was distributed to you.
The sidewalk is located on -- along 14th Avenue North. Staff
would like to see that constructed for its entire length. The other is
the final ingress/egress points shall be reviewed and approved by the
transportation services department at the time of site development
plan review.
These access points would line up with the post office to the
south and would provide access to 14th, improving traffic circulation
in the area.
The subject site abuts commercial zoning on two sides, so we
would recommend that the C-2 zoning be limited to depository
institutions and banking. And then at the end we'd require a six-foot
wall within the rear landscape buffer to provide additional buffering
with the residents to the east.
And I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not so much a question, just that -- I
understand now that the variances have been removed, that staff has
Page 77
October 22, 2002
little or no objections to it as long as the other conditions are met.
Planning commission, of course, was looking at it with the
variances in place, which gave them considerable concern -- that is if
we do approve this today, I want it understood that if they do file for
a variance sometime in the future, my memory isn't that short. I'll
remember.
MRi BELLOWS: Staff would also point that out, if they did
come back, we would--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, depending on your vote today at
8(C), I would ask that Mr. Cautero, who represents the petitioner,
that he withdraw 7D as a condition based on that -- based on the
vote, once that's done, that it's not be -- it's not continued, that it's
withdrawn.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to make a comment on
that now, then we'll go to your presentation shortly.
MR. CAUTERO: I'll be brief in my presentation, and then I
would like to make a comment about that regarding one issue in the
community character plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we do have some questions
here before we go to that. I was just looking for -- MR. CAUTERO: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- the comment about the companion
bill, but if you don't want to go to that now, we'll give you that option
to wait.
Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was just going to say that I
would look more favorably if we were going to withdraw that
companion bill, but then, we've already said that. Thank you.
MR. CAUTERO: I can give you your answer now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I was going to move for approval
with the conditions as outlined by staff.
Page 78
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But what about the companion bill?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And the companion bill be
removed from the agenda.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. My client has
no intention of applying or continuing the variances indefinitely and
is willing to withdraw them, obviously if the zone change is
approved.
There is just one issue though that he asked me to discuss with
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go any farther, we have a
motion on the floor. I'd like to second that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. Please continue.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, sir.
One of the variances was for a setback to the Goodlette overlay
zone, the corridor management overlay that Mr. Bellows talked
about. The reason that the client applied for that was to promote and
implement a provision of the community character plan, which calls
for buildings to be closer.
His intent was to talk to the residents, if the zoning is approved,
if they would want this commercial building further away from their
property and closer to the road, which would then leave one variance
on the table, however, if the residents were not supportive of that, he
would withdraw it.
So the answer to your question is yes, but there's one caveat.
And if you have any other further questions of Mr. McIntosh, he's
here today, my client. He would be happy to answer it.
But he has no intention of moving forward with the variances.
It was °nly to implement a provision of the community character
plan to move the building closer to the road and buffer impacts to the
surrounding residents even further.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments from this
Page 79
October 22, 2002
board?
How about public speakers? How many?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have one. Mr. William Erving --
Ervin.
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just reserve the
opportunity to comment --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course. We--
MR. CAUTERO: -- since I didn't have to go through my
presentation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. ERVIN: Good morning. My name is William Ervin. It's
still morning.
It seems like -- I'm not sure what I have to say has anything to
do here. It seems like your minds might be made up already.
I live on 14th Avenue North with my wife and two daughters.
I'm two lots down on the other side of the street from the proposed
property requesting the rezone.
As far as I know, I, along with every other property owner that
is in this area, is against this being rezoned to commercial property.
Mr. Mclntosh has approached numerous ones (sic) of us in
attempts to buy our property if we ever have a desire to sell. I'm
pretty much -- I enjoy the residence. It is a residential neighborhood.
It's on tWo dead-end streets. We do have the post office right next to
us. If you have ever -- trying to leave the post office, I'm sure you
realize that traffic gets quite congested there.
This right here isn't -- where your entrance from the post office
-- or the exit from the post office there would not abut that property
the way it is right now. That entrance is actually one lot down
farther.
You know, we live in -- it's a nice residential neighborhood.
You know, what this county needs are nice residential
neighborhoods. I mean, I don't think we really need another bank.
Page 80
October 22, 2002
The last time I was here at the planning meeting, the zoning was
denied also, or recommended for denial. If it was rezoned to any
commercial, I think C-1 would be appropriate, not a bank, not a --
five businesses into one building. That adds quite a bit more traffic
to an area.
It's right -- there's going to be an egress on 14th Avenue, ! 3th
Avenue, nothing on Goodlette Road. So all traffic's going to be
coming in and out of those two streets. We can all agree that 13th
Avenue's already more congested than it needs to be.
The chiropractor's office next door in the city is an actual house.
That was re-renovated and made into a little office building.
Currently there are three businesses in there. They don't have
adequate parking. They park along the street.
You know, the lack of neighbors present here right now -- you
know, after the planning meeting and -- you know, where they
recommended the denial on this, I think most of them figured that
that would probably be that. I know one lady's out of town that lives
right next to this property.
You know, Mr. McIntosh was given a C-1 zoning on the two
pieces of property he had. He's adding to it with more residential
lots. He would like to continue to add to it with more residential lots,
as far as I understand. And, you know, the only person that this is
going to benefit is going to be him. The people whose property are
going to be right next to this -- you know, there's not going to be any
commercial value to their property. They're going to be right next to
a commercial piece of property.
The only commercial value, you know, would be through Mr.
McIntosh, not through anyone else, because he has the frontage on
Goodlette Road, which is what I'm sure he needs to be able to keep
stepping back.
Most everyone in the neighborhood likes the neighborhood and
would like for it to stay a neighborhood. I understand, you know, it's
Page 81
October 22, 2002
Goodlette Road. It should have a business probably on the from side
of it.
When you -- without having a building or without having
something that has to go back through the planning board also and
then be rezoned after that, I don't really think it's -- you know, I think
there's almost a need for another public hearing request for that rather
than changing -- you know, we're going to drop the variances, we're
only going to put up this building now. Well, the people hadn't had a
chance to hear that. The only one who did is me sitting here right
now.
I don't know if you have any questions or --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I listened to everything you
said. I went over and took a look at the property. I agree with you.
Facing Goodlette Road really wouldn't be a residential unit or two.
MR. ERVIN: No, it wouldn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It would have to be a business.
MR. ERVIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's, of course, what he's
proposing to do. I think he, along with the planning commission,
worked -- worked this thing through considerably when it was
supposed to be, from what I've read -- and I tried to do all of my
reading and background research -- and it was going to be a
three-story building with a lot more --
MR. ERVIN: The planning commission--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- expanse to it. And what they did
was, they listened to the neighbors, such as you, and they pulled that
building down to two stories, tucked it in a little bit more, gave it
more buffer, gave it a wall to protect the neighborhood because, as
you say yourself, you know, it wouldn't be suitable for residential. It
would be suitable for a business.
And so, it seems to me that the petitioner has done everything
Page 82
October 22, 2002
he could to work with the neighbors. And as you state yourself, it
really wouldn't be suitable for residential, so I --
MR. ERVIN: The back two lots still would be suitable for
residential. The--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well --
MR. ERVIN: Where you're going to be adding on to a parcel
that's already zoned, and now you're adding on to that parcel by, you
know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't think we can argue
that point. He owns the back two lots, and he's not going to build
houses on it.
MR. ERVIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so, at least a parking lot is
better than, you know, a lot of big trucks moving in and out, you
know.
So anyway, my second stands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you very much for coming
today.
MR. ERVIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other-- Commissioner
Coyle7
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have a couple of
questions, clarifications.
With respect to the height of the building, how does the actual
height of the building compare with the permitted height of
residences in the area?
MR. BELLOWS: The C-2 zoning district has a maximum
height of 35 feet. That is similar to the RSF-4 district. I believe it's
also 3 5 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
the residential --
MR. BELLOWS:
Okay. So it's the same height as
That's correct.
Page 83
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- allowance?
Is there a different height for C-1 zoning?
MR. BELLOWS: No, it's also 35 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm also concerned about
the fact that major changes have been made since this went to the
CCCP (sic), but I think I understand also that most of the real issues
have been resolved or taken off the table. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But what I would like to suggest --
the situation, as I understand it, is that we have two C-1 lots and two
residential lots, and they're asking for rezoning of all four of those
lots to C-2.
What I would propose we consider is not rezoning them to C-2
but rezone them to C-1 with the depository institution as a permitted
use. The C-2 provides for more intense use, which might be more
objectionable to the neighbors.
And as I understand it, Mr. Mclntosh doesn't intend to have any
of those C-2 uses other than just a depository institution, if that is
correct. Could you confirm or deny?
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. I could
confirm that, Commissioner. What you said is correct, that would be
the desired effect that Mr. Mclntosh would have. If your legal staff
tells you that you can get there, it would be the same as the C-2 with
the condition that Mr. Bellows has recommended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's -- I would like at
least for the commission to consider that, because it essentially
means we don't rezone two lots at all, but we rezone the residential
lots to C-1. And I would hope, it's my belief at least, that the C-1 use
is more narrow than the C-2 use, and that would work to the benefit
of the residents.
MR. BELLOWS: Staff had discussed this in the past with the
applicant and the attorney's office, and it was my understanding that
Page 84
October 22, 2002
we couldn't add a use to a straight zoning district that was not a
permitted use, but we could restrict the uses permitted in, say, the
C-2 to all but the one use that was permitted. That was the only
reason that we brought the petition forward this way is because it was
a legal issue, could you add a use that wasn't already listed to a
standard zoning district listed in the land develop code versus
restricting all uses in the zoning district to one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Other than just to that one?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to hear that interpretation.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney.
We do feel that there's an issue and a problem with adding a
more intense use to a lesser intense zoning district and not the -- of
use that's permitted in the C-1 district.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You--
MS. STUDENT: This is not -- it would be helpful if this were a
PUD because then we'd have more latitude to handle some of these
issues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: PUDs don't mean anything either.
We can change them every time we want to, but -- okay.
Is this an opinion, or do you have pretty solid legal evidence
that we cannot add a permitted use?
MS. STUDENT: This is an opinion, but my concern is the fact
that when you rezone to the C-1 district, the Land Development Code
lists uses that are permitted in the district. And so to go above and
have a more intense use, that's the concern. If we were eliminating
some things to a lesser intensity, that would not be of a concern.
Another concern that we also have is -- well, it was advertised
for C-2. But normally if we were going to do a rezone to the C-1, the
public would be put on notice of the C-l, they would look in the land
code, if they had an interest and see what the uses were, and that
Page 85
October 22, 2002
more intense use would not be included, so that's our concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the practical effect of that
concern? Suppose you did it? What's likely to happen if someone
disagrees with it?
MS. STUDENT: Well, if there were a challenge -- and it's
always difficult to predict what a court may do, but the court may
look at land code and say the rezone was to C-1 and these are the
uses that are permitted in C-1 and you've amended your land code,
generally amended it in a fashion by virtue of this rezone to include a
C-2 use, and you may have exceeded your authority. That's possibly
the outside.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think I've got it. It's not
really the way I'd like to go, but --
MS. STUDENT: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if we can be certain that we're
excluding uses under C-2 except for the depository institution and
that is very clear, then I can proceed with that.
MS. STUDENT: And as long as the petitioner agrees to that, I
feel very comfortable with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see him nodding his head.
MR. BELLOWS: And if I may, Commissioner Coyle, the
county has a process when-- if this is approved with that condition,
the zoning maps -- official zoning atlas is marked with a special note
to refer to the ordinance that shows the specific limitation on uses, so
that's an assurance to anyone checking the zoning, they see C-2, but
they see the asterisk referring to this ordinance, that they go to that
list for the specific uses.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So certainly one of the concerns
of the neighbors has to be, is this creeping industrialization here?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And then there's another factor. The
one gentleman thought that there could be additional encroachments
eastward.
Page 86
October 22, 2002
The policy that I referenced in the executive summary about the
depth of the adjacent parcels, if we look at the averaging, to be
consistent with the board's previous determination, we go from this
corner to that corner, that would prohibit cutting into the adjacent lot,
and we would not recommend any further eastwardly movement of
the commercial zoning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we have a policy that
essentially governs that and--
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- discourages any further
eastward creep?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope that we can
amend that for the uses in the C-2 and predominantly have the C-1
uses in this request for rezone.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: By doing this, you're consistent
with policy where you have reduced the use in a particular zoning,
which you did at Pine Ridge and Airport not too long -- or no,
Golden Gate -- not Golden Gate -- Goodlette not too long ago where
you restricted the uses in that particular zoning area.
I think it's much more feasible to continue that policy to say,
yes, we'll do C-2, but you can only do one thing in it, rather than
expanding an existing category, which I think is more of a tendency
to open Pandora's box in the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you have any parting
comments?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir, thank you.
Mr. McIntosh intends to withdraw all the variance requests.
Page 87
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's well understood.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's included in my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct, and in my second.
We have a motion, we have a second. Any other discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have one opposed vote, and
that's Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could I have a clarification on
the motion? Did we just rezone it with C-2 with all the intended
uses?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. All other intended uses are
not permitted. Only one.
SOMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't hear an amendment to
the motion, that's why I --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that was the intent of the
original motion, that you could only have one use in C-2.
MR. BELLOWS: And subject to all the staff stipulations?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENN!NG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have--
MR. MUDD: Do you want to call that -- do you want to call
that vote again, because there was some confusion with the motion?
David, help me here, if I'm--
Page 88
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we'd have to rescind it and
then come back at it again.
MR. WEIGEL: You would. If Mr. Henning wishes to indicate
on the record that although his vote was in the opposition, that with
understanding -- he can create the record indicating that he actually
agrees With the vote that was taken rather than get back into
reconsideration, if you'd like to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. WEIGEL: Or we can go the hard way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since the clarification was
stated on the record, then I'm in agreement with the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then we'll -- is there any
other business on that? Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I'm sorry, sir. Thank you.
What we're going to do -- we've got a 12 o'clock certain. We've
got just a few minutes. I think we can go through about three items
here, then we'll have to leave.
David, you're going to have to read something into the record
before we go on our 12 o'clock certain; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: I will very briefly as we adjourn from here to
go to the other conference room.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're just going to take a
couple of items fairly quick.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2002-438, APPOINTING COMMISSIONER
HENNING TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PI,ANNING COl JNCII, - ADOPTFD
9(A), appointment of a commissioner to the Southwest Florida
Page 89
October 22, 2002
Regional Planning Council.
Cormnissioner Carter, I'd like you to tell them a little bit about
what it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'd like to make a nomination
whenever you're ready.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I think it's pretty explicit
in the backup data of the responsibility. When you serve on a
regional planning council, you are now part of a six-county area that
is dealing with all land use considerations like DRIs, which have
major impact throughout the region.
You also deal with traffic issues, you deal with environmental
issues. It is -- just take what you do as a commissioner, think about it
in a more global perspective of working with six counties, and you
have that opportunity there to make an input and also have a more
global impact in terms of what you do in legislative issues.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I might also add to that that you
have the resources of the Southwest Regional Planning Council staff,
which consists of 16 members, I believe, at your disposal that can
assist you in all sorts of different items that come up before the
county.
With that, we'll go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to nominate
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle, a second from Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 90
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Congratulations, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2002-439, APPOINTING ANN OLESKY TO THE
IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 9(B), appointment of a
member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I recommend Ann Olesky.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner Coyle, a
second by myself, Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2002-440 APPOINTING ED CARLSON TO THE
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES MASTER PLAN AD HOC
ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ADOPTFD
Page 91
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And appointment of a member to the
Golden Gate Master Plan --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For--
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. White (sic), section 5.
MS. FILSON: -- on this one, you'll need to waive section 5D of
ordinance 2001-55. He currently serves on two boards.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And did you make a motion,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Motion to approve. Can
we make that amendment in the same motion? I just want to amend
it to include that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, sir. And I'll second that. And
we have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by myself,
Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 002-441, APPOINTING JOHN MACDOUGALL
AND READVERTISING FOR THE SECOND MEMBER-
ADOPTF, D
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle, I'll leave
this up to you. We have about three, four minutes. Is this an item
Page 92
October 22, 2002
you're going to refer to staff or would you like a little more time for
discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd prefer a little bit more
time. It shouldn't take more than ! 0 or 15 minutes. We'll defer to
later today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll do that, and--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we could move to F, if you'd like.
It seems like a pretty quick one, 9(F).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 9(F)?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Fiala. Sorry. I was trying to get
to the page too so that I would be there as soon as you were.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I knew the name. Yeah, good old
what's her name.
On this particular one, as I was reading through I noticed that
the parks and rec board just nominated one person -- motioned for
one person, and I can see why the other two they felt maybe should
be set aside. Although they need two people, I suggest we just take
the one person that they nominated and that we advertise again for
another person to fill that board.
The one person from District 1 who I was so much in favor of,
yet his meeting is exactly the same time, he wouldn't be able to
attend anyway. And the other person apparently didn't show up for
any of their meetings, so -- our interview meetings, so I motion to
just accept the one that the parks and rec board recommended.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
That's John MacDougall, right?
Yes, it is.
Okay.
Okay. But does that still leave the
Page 93
October 22, 2002
Immokalee one for reconsideration later? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: We're going to readvertise that one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. We'll leave that position
open.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll tell you, I will say right
now, I am really encouraging .East Naples people to apply, because
we haven't had a District 1 person on that board in years, not even
one. So I'm truly encouraging people to apply for that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be for the other position,
not the Immokalee one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm talking about parks and rec
board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, but there's one -- one of those
positions is an Immokalee area position, from what I understood. I'd
like to have one person from District 5 on there, if I could.
Especially somebody from Immokalee, being 22,000 some people.
And Askey (phonetic), I know, is very reluctant to leave, but he had
to because he was running for the fire commission.
MS. FILSON: And he has resubmitted, and the vacancy today
is for one member representing --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
MS. FILSON: -- anyone (sic) from Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. So we don't have to
belabor this now, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala. A second by -- who made the second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. Any other
discussion?
Page 94
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For Mr. MacDougall.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. MacDougall.
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item # 12A
CLOSED ATTORNEY- CLIENT SESSION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 286.011 (8), F.S. TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT
PROPOSAL/LITIGATION EXPENSES ISSUES IN AQUAPORT
V. COIJ~IFR COl INTY. CASF, NO. 2:01 -CV-341 -FTM-29-DNF
And with that, Mr. Weigel, would you go ahead and read your
preamble to our meeting that's going to take place in secret.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: In the shade.
MR. WEIGEL: -- Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know that's not the correct word,
but--
MR. WEIGEL: This is item 12(A) to be followed by item
12(B). And for 12(A) I'll just notice -- indicate that we have notice
given that pursuant to 286.011, subsection 8 of the Florida statutes,
which is the government in the sunshine law, the Board of County
Commissioners will be meeting in executive or closed session with
the attorneys today at noon in the commission conference room in
this building.
The board in executive session will discuss settlement proposal
Page 95
October 22, 2002
or litigation expense issues pertaining to the pending litigation case
known as Aquaport versus Collier County, which is now pending in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
And subsequent to this closed session meeting, the board will
reconvene, time permitting, immediately thereafter in this room for
item 12(B) for any direction or action in the sunshine concerning the
same subject matter.
If, in fact, the executive session should, per chance, go long
enough that it's inopportune for the board to meet immediately on
12(B), obviously that can come up later on in the day. We do have
our outside counsel here, and it would certainly behoove us if we
could utilize him particularly more quickly rather than have him wait
for later on.
So with that, we could move quickly and get set up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And a little bit of guidance
here, if you would, please. Our next time certain after this will be
1:30.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This may take about a half an hour
and leave an hour for lunch.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if could make a recommendation.
We go into special session and get this resolved and reconvene at
1:30, at which time we go right to 12(B), then we'll go to Mr. Nance's
tree issues, and then we'll go right to the rural land.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I think you just said exactly
what I said, and that's just fine.
Okay. We'll do that, then we'll reconvene at 1:30.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
(At this point a closed attorney/client session was conducted,
after which a luncheon recess was taken.)
Item #12B
Page 96
October 22, 2002
DIRECTION TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL, TED TRIPP, ESQUIRE
AND THE OFF ICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AS TO ANY
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL/LITIGATION EXPENSE ISSUES IN
AQUAPORT V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 2:01-CV-341-
FTM-29DNF- STAFF TO CONTINUED TO NEGOTIATE TO
RFJSOIJVF, BOTH IJAWSIIITS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome back. We've got a 1:30
certain that we're going to go to next, which is item 9(E), regarding
Tim Nance, 100,000 --
100,000; didn't mean to scare you, Tim-- trees to be donated for
Golden Gate Boulevard.
Mr. Kant, can we get you up here? And where's Mr. Nance?
Tim, coUld you come up over here to the other podium, please.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, while we're doing this, before we
broke for our session that was closed, we talked about -- and Tim,
I'm going to ask you if you could just give me a second here. The --
we talked about getting the direction to our attorney on item 12(B) as
a result of the closed sessioning, and do that rather quickly, and then
get right to Mr. Nance and then to the rural lands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tim, could I ask you to bear with us,
considering what we pay attorneys today by the hour? It might
behoove us to get him up here so we can move on. Let's go to 12(B).
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll deal with that.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, County
Attorney, in regard to item 12(B), this is a follow-up item from
12(A), which was the closed executive session just had with the
Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the Sunshine Law.
So at this point we're back before you, following the closed
session with the board, to come before the board, looking for
Page 97
October 22, 2002
direction from the board concerning the Aquaport versus Collier
County case, which is currently in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.
And before you at the podium is Mr. Ted Tripp, outside counsel
on behalf of the county.
MR. TRIPP: Commissioners, my name is Ted Tripp, which I'm
supposed to spell for the court reporter. It's T-R-I-P-P. We are
representing Collier County in the litigations brought against it by
Aquaport LLC, Conotel, LLC, Norman Burke and James Allen in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
We had originally come before you, anticipating that we would
have a proposal as a result of the mediation, which occurred on
October the 19th. Unfortunately, that mediation ended in an
impasse, and we are advised that counsel for the insurance company,
Northland, is not available to recommence that mediation for a period
of at least four months. So it does not appear that any formal action
on a mediated settlement agreement is appropriate.
We have, however, been advised by counsel for the plaintiff that
they are interested in continuing a dialogue to try and resolve the
matter. We believe that it would be in the county commission's best
interest'to resolve the matter, if it could, although we also believe
strongly that the county commission has very little exposure on the
merits of this case since it acted, in our view, properly and within the
powers afforded to it in the Collier County code.
Notwithstanding that, however, it would be in the interest of
staff time and in the interest of getting on with business of
government if we could resolve this issue, especially in light of the
fact that we have substantial insurance coverage available to the
county commission.
So all we're asking for at this point is direction from the county
commission to continue to negotiate with the plaintiffs counsel to
resolve this matter, if it can be resolved, within the context of
Page 98
October 22, 2002
existing coverage.
The one new item that we brought to you today is the potential
claim under the Burt Harris Act, and I would ask that you also
authorize our office to act with the office of the county attorney to
try and resolve that issue, as well as part of a global settlement, again
working within the confines of the available resources, including the
existing policy limits from Northland. The matter -- to resolve not
only the federal court litigation but also the Burt Harris Act claim.
We are asking for a motion to give us that direction and to
proceed with settlement negotiations, if in our view those
negotiations can occur in a way that's consistent with the best interest
of the taxpayers and the citizens of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well put.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion that we provide guidance to our legal representatives to
proceed with efforts to resolve both lawsuits in a manner which is
consistent with current policy limits.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Carter. Any
discussion or questions?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Commissioner Fiala absent.
No, we have a time certain.
And the ayes have it, 4-0, with
We'll come right back to it, though.
Page 99
October 22, 2002
Item #9E
DISCUSSION REGARDING TIM NANCE'S 1,000 TREE
DONATION OFFER FOR THE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
MEDIAN- DONATION ACCEPTED; TIM NANCE TO WORK
WITH STAFF AND COME BACK WITH PROPOSAL FOR
11PKEF. P CHARGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9(E) with Mr.
Nance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, if you'd take the position up
there at the podium, Mr. Nance, we would appreciate it very much.
Mr. Kant, would you give us an overview of where we are with
this donation at this time to beautify Golden Gate Boulevard?
MR. KANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Edward Kant,
for the record, transportation operations director.
Mr. Nance is at the other podium, president of Trans Gro, has
made a generous offer to the county for the donation of
approximately 1,000 sapling trees of several different varieties in
three-gallon certified Live Oaks, some native Slash pines and pond
cypress, and some one-gallon native Slash pine.
We had written-- and I gave a copy of this package to all of
you. It's a duplication of a memo you received, I believe, earlier this
week or early last week.
There are three basic issues. I think Mr. Nance's offer is quite
generous, but in deliberating your decision to accept or not to accept
this offer, at least depending on what other conditions he may impose
on it, there are three issues that I'd like to bring to your attention: One
obviously is a funding issue. It will take some funds to assure that
the planting is done properly. Although the proposal, as I understand
it, is to use volunteer labor, there is still a number of other costs
Page 100
October 22, 2002
which I detailed in the memo that I gave to you.
Another issue, of course, is ongoing maintenance, which is also
a funding issue, once the materials are in place.
And thirdly, but certainly no less important, is during the
installation, because of the request that we use volunteer labor, we
have to consider public safety issues, we have to make sure that we
have adequate maintenance of traffic, and that nobody's exposed or
unnecessarily put in harm's way.
Having said that, I would defer to Mr. Nance, perhaps to allow
him to present his proposal in person to you. And then if there's any
questions or comments, I'd be glad to address -- to try to address
those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Nance?
MR. NANCE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission, I originally started initiated discussions on the
possibility to replant some native plant material in the medians, once
the Golden Gate Boulevard expansion to four lanes was completed.
And basically the talks have been very general in nature. And I have
spoken only to Ms. Pam Lulich, who's a landscape architect for the
county, is my understanding. And I recently received a letter from
Mr. Kant, outlining some of the concerns and issues that I had during
my initial discussions with them.
I also have before me I guess a memorandum that you have in
front of you that outlines what some of the costs Mr. Kant envisions
as being necessary for the planting of the trees.
When I spoke to Ms. Lulich, I let her know that there were
absolutely no qualifications whatsoever in my donations of the trees
to the county. The county can use the trees on this project, the
county can take trees to their nursery to use for other projects. What
my -- my hope and what I envisioned was, to see more native
plantings done in the rural and semi-rural areas of the county that
could be accomplished without the tremendous landscape cost that
Page 101
October 22, 2002
normally associate median plantings. And that would include areas
such as Golden Gate Boulevard, County Road 951, the medians there
that have gone many, many years in the area of the estates without
having anything planted in them, as well as medians along the
eastern extremities of Pine Ridge Road.
I can see by the cost summary that was prepared by Mr. Kant, if
I was a member of the Board of County Commissions I wouldn't
approve this project either. This is -- not to criticize Mr. Kant, but
this is not what I had envisioned as being done. And what I would
ask the commission to do is let me work with members of your
landscape working group, such as Ms. Lulich and Mr. Bob Peterson,
to come back with a proposal that has specific costs attached.
I can see right here, just on line items, it includes $81,000 worth
of mulch for installation, and an additional $20,000 worth of mulch
for maintenance. Well, that looks to me like 100 bags of mulch per
tree. Well, the cost of $4.00 installed by volunteers, that's $400
worth of mulch for the $10 tree that I'm trying to give to the county.
I think that's pretty ridiculous.
So I believe that something can be done that's a little more cost
effective. And that was my intent. My intent was not to incur costs
for the county, my intent was to try to demonstrate to the county and
to the citizens of the county that we can do landscaping using
xeriscape techniques and good horticultural management without
spending a fortune over an extended period of time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And when we originally met to
discuss the possibilities of this many, many, many months ago --
MR. NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- we never envisioned anything like
this as far as cost.
MR. NANCE: No, I understand where this is coming from, and
I respect this, because probably this is the similar sorts of costs you
have on existing landscaping of the medians, which I think can be
Page 102
October 22, 2002
avoided. Not to be critical of anybody's efforts, the medians are
beautiful, but they are very costly. And I don't know that the
citizenry will support continued expansion of medians in that way. I
think there are alternatives. We can put our brains together. We
have 55 inches of rain that naturally falls in Collier County annually.
I think with a little bit of fertilizer and a little bit of mulch and native
plants, we can establish plants that are going to do well basically by
themselves. They do well in most of Golden Gate Estates without
anybody fertilizing them, pruning them or mulching them.
Now, I realize that these plants are going in a median, which is a
more stressful situation. The soils are probably bad because garbage
was thrown in the median and so on and so forth. But if we choose
things, I think we can do things that are acceptable and also very,
very -- at a very, very reduced cost.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what you're willing to do is we
could accept the plants to use as we so desire sometime in the future.
If we --
MR. NANCE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- decide not to use them in this
particular case, we can accept your gift.
But meanwhile, you're going to go back and work with staff?.
MR. NANCE: I propose -- and in light of this, I don't expect
anybody to approve of this. I wouldn't approve it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I agree with you.
MR. NANCE: I would like to go back and come back with a
proposal that encompasses all of these proposed costs and try to get
something that's a little more reasonable, if that's acceptable to the
commission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I commend you for your civic
activism.
Commissioner Coyle first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Nance, I'd like to commend
Page 103
October 22, 2002
you for your willingness to give these plants to us. And even more
than that, I would like to commend you for your sensitivity to the
cost to taxpayers.
If you get tired of the business of growing plants, I'd like to see
you here as a budget analyst, because that is exactly the kind of
assessment we need here.
MR. NANCE: I would hope that the commission would hold
me in a little higher regard than sentencing me to that sort of
penance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It wasn't intended as an insult.
But I would very much support your efforts to go back and
develop a plan that would avoid all of these costs.
MR. NANCE: Well, I believe that I can demonstrate, together
with county staff, that this can be done, it's my hope that it will be
done and, you know, it can be done, there's no doubt about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In the meantime, I would like to
make a motion that we accept your gift of the trees to be taken
possession of at some future time, so that we might be able to make
sure that they're in the county system so that if this particular venture
will not work, for one reason or another, then we can use these trees
to--
MR. NANCE: That's perfectly acceptable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- our desire to hold the cost down to
taxpayers.
MR. NANCE: I so indicated to Mrs. Lulich that I have abso --
you know, if you need 2,000 trees, that's fine. If the first ones have
25 percent mortality, we need to replace them, we'll replace them.
It's going to be -- it's not that hard to get this done, believe me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
MR. NANCE: It may seem like a daunting project, but it's
really not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion on the floor for the
Page 104
October 22, 2002
acceptance of the girl--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's a nice guy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- with no strings attached. He's a
wonderful person. In fact, he doesn't know it, but some day we're
going to have him as the president of the Golden Gate Estates Civic
down the line. We've got him on the line right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't say it too loud.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a second from
Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have means of storing
and taking care of these plants if we take possession of them?
MR. KANT: My understanding is that Mr. Nance has offered
the facilities ofTrans Gro, which is just off the boulevard.
MR. NANCE: Yes, sir, you don't have to do anything with the
plants. I have them in the nursery now. They're sitting there on a
daily basis, being taken care of. There's no immediate time line or
necessity to do anything at this moment.
MR. KANT: The answer -- the short answer to your question is
no, sir, we do not have a plant -- like a tree farm or anything like that,
at least not that I'm aware of. Frankly, it's possible that Parks and
Rec does, but I just haven't had an opportunity to check with them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to follow up on
that.
The motion was that we accept the girl. And I think the
implication in the motion was that you retain the trees until we
develop a plan and you can come back to us and make a presentation
and we agree on a plan to accept them. MR. NANCE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that was implied in the
Page 105
October 22, 2002
motion.
MR. NANCE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, sir, I think it's a wonderful
gift, and after the 18th of November, at midnight, I know a yard
where you can put some.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then afterwards, I'll buy you
breakfast.
And with that, I'll call the motion. All those in favor, indicate
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you very much, Tim.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Kant.
The next time certain-
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2002-54, COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) AMENDMENTS AS A RESULT
OF THE RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT FOR
THE EASTERN (RURAL) LANDS PORTION OF THE
ASSESSMENT AREA, INCLUDING SOME AMENDMENTS
APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COIJIJIF, R COl INTY - ADOPTED
Page 106
October 22, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to 8(D), which is
time certain, which is the Collier County Growth Management Plan
amendments as a result of the rural and agricultural assessment for
the eastern lands portion of the assessment area.
MS. LINNAN: Good afternoon. I'm Nancy Linnan with
Carlton-Fields. I'm the outside legal counsel for growth
management, here today representing ESTAT.
I have with me Marty Tumbler, my partner. Also, the usual
suspects, in case you have any questions about this. But I know you
have a long day, and I promise to make it as short as I can.
We're here on the adoption of the comprehensive plan
amendments covering the 195,000 acres, known to different people
as the eastern or rural lands. It transmitted those in June after a data
gathering. The committee worked for two and a half years. We
anticipated at the time that though it was a very big project, the
department would have some issues. It did raise those in an
Objections, Recommendations and Comment report, which we
received in September, and at that time we've been setting about
responding through amendments to the language.
I'm pleased to announce that we have agreement of all the
properties: County staff, the East Collier Property Owners
Association, the Conservancy, the Florida Wildlife Federation and
Collier Audubon on that language.
The environmental advisory committee raised some
considerations and issues. We addressed those. And the planning
commission endorsed the package you have in front of you
unanimously.
Briefly, very, very briefly, let me talk about the kinds of
changes, because some of the commission had asked that I do that.
The department asked that we provide a little more substance to the
form of development -- because we are not putting the usual spots on
Page 107
October 22, 2002
the map with these towns and villages and hamlets and compact rural
developments are going to go -- tell us in writing what they're going
to be like so we can have some requirements.
What we did was we turned guidance language, where
appropriate, into requirement. We limited the hamlets and CRD's
under 100 acres to a ratio of five per town and village. But we
limited CRD's over 100 acres to five. Count them, five. That was a
big issue with the department. And we have also provided a bonus
credit system for some of that acreage.
We have also created a minimum mixed use requirement and a
maximum floor area ratio, so the department, when they put those
numbers on paper, and the county will know what these look like.
In terms of location of receiving areas, the stewardship
receiving areas, we provided the department the piles of data, which
you saw about a year ago. Apparently we had not transmitted that to
the department in June, even though they have it. They just didn't
take it out of one pile and put it into another. And we explained
away their concerns in a couple other areas.
In terms of infrastructure, we provided them the data or are
providing them the data they have asked for. And we've also put
what I call stoppers in the language. When someone comes in front
of you and petitions to create a stewardship receiving area where
these towns and villages and hamlets and CRD's will be located,
they're going to have to show you in a fiscally neutral impact way to
the county that there is capacity available, or they will provide their
own capacity. So the county will not be responsible for providing
roads and sewer and those kinds of things, unless the county wants
to.
In terms of incompatible uses within the habitat stewardship
areas, those were the upland protection areas, what would ordinarily
be a sending area in the fringe. No golf courses, mining, general
condition uses, if the land has a value of over 1.2 on the index. And
Page 108
October 22, 2002
that was the level that we all agreed, including the state agencies, that
was the cut-off between land that had no significan~ environmental
value.
Even then, anything going on that property is going to have to
be a conditional use. And on top of that, folks are going to have to
present an environmental impact statement to document that they
have no adverse impact on the aquifer, unlisted species or their
habitat, and that the clearing is going to be minimized. On top of
that, clearing even then is only limited to 15 percent of the native
vegetation.
Any golf course design in these areas is going to have to -- the
design and operation is going to have to meet Audubon gold
standards, the highest there is. And we have limited to some extent
essential public services in the language you have in front of you.
We provided also, and this was important to everyone, an extra
bonus credit for landowners who were willing to give up
development rights in those particular habitat stewardship areas at the
front end for the first five years of the program. And they don't have
to concurrently, with doing that, run out and create a town or
anything, they can bank those.
What if you don't participate in the program? Very briefly, we
raise the regulatory floor for those folks. Partisan incentive, to
participate in the incentive program, but in part to protect the
environment, should they choose not to participate. You're not going
to be able to cluster out there if you don't participate in the program.
You have the same restrictions in the flow way stewardship areas,
and many of the same restrictions in the habitat stewardship areas.
You're limited to 20 percent site clearing. Not just a fate of habitat,
but site clearing. And you're going to be bound by essentially what
are the fringe wetlands requirements. So very strict habitat and
wetlands requirements.
On top of that, what we are asking you to do in your package is
Page 109
October 22, 2002
readopt the county-wide habitat and wetlands policies that you
adopted with the fringe. Now, the fringe area is not going to be
adopted as is, but it will cover urban areas, Golden Gate, things like
that. And those policies are not currently in effect because the fringe
amendments have been challenged. So this is another way to put the
same language in the plan a lot quicker.
Now, this document will go to the Department of Community
Affairs, after you take action on it for a compliance determination.
We have been in daily contact, sometimes many times a day, with
the department and feel pretty confident right now that it will be
found in compliance.
And the package you have in front of you, let me make that
clear, would be the green book that you received with the changes
dated Friday that you received. Let me just for the record -- you
were each faxed a two-page rap sheet last night.
I would point out that on policy 3.5 on the second line, we had
residential. Actually, a non-lawyer noticed that that should be
recreational. We have made that change.
Finally, there is one other piece of language that we have put in
to satisfy the department: The third page of that is a demonstration
of what a decentralized community wastewater facility is. The
department had some questions about it. We talked to the
Department of Environmental Protection, got their guidance and have
put that language together in cooperation with the department. So
that would be the package that would be in front of you today. Your
packet, two-page errata sheet with a change from residential to
recreational, and that language describing what the wastewater
treatment system would be.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't take the time to thank the
committee members who spent two and a half years working on this.
And we had chairs Barbara Barry, Ron Hammill, who I was pleased
to see is here today. You had a staff team led by Bill Lorenz, Bob
Page 110
October 22, 2002
Mulhere is your outside consultant; the legal team of David Weigel
and Margie Student.
The citizens groups: The Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier
Audubon, and Conservancy, all of which up until the last minute,
even outside, have continued to nudge us, in some cases not so subtle
a nudge, but to help us come up with a better project.
To A1 Reynolds and the Wilson-Miller team. I mean, they were
really a part of the team in putting this thing together.
And finally, and perhaps most importantly, the property owners.
We forget sometimes it's their property throughout this. They
maintained a pretty good collective sense of humor. And I hope that
five years from now when the first assessment comes up, they will
have done us all proud in banking some of these development rights.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question concerning the
application of some of the rural fringe policies to this particular
study. Could you amplify on that, please, and give me a little more
specifics about what that means?
MS. LINNAN: The rural fringe policies were the habitat
protection policies, listed species and habitat protection policies and
also very stringent wetlands policies. They will apply to what I call
the baseline folks, people who do not participate in the incentive
program. Because if you participate in the incentive program, those
areas are protected anyway. So essentially you have the same
protection that you have in the fringe, conservation and sending areas
as you do for the baseline people out here when they're dealing with
sensitive property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this provides ample
incentive, you believe, for people to participate in the overall
program?
Page 111
October 22, 2002
MS. LINNAN: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You made some reference to
the urban area amendments?
MS. LINNAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you explain that?
MS. LINNAN: Sure. When we adopted the fringe package, at
the same time, in order to have that go into effect, we also had to
adopt county-wide policies. Now, we took out this area of the
county, we took out the eastern lands, because this we were in the
process of still working on, but we came up with county-wide
policies that would apply, because you really didn't have any in terms
of habitat protection and wetlands protection.
Most of those policies, because it is -- most of the county that it
covers is in an urban area, basically left a lot of that to the federal
agencies, the state and federal agencies, to look at. Because we had
determined through the data and analysis that most of the major flow
ways were already protected or had already been developed at that
point.
So all we are doing is adopting the exact same language, only
this time we're -- instead of the eastern lands we're taking out of it,
we are taking out eastern lands because it's got its own protection,
and we're taking out the fringe because that isn't in effect yet. And
there hasn't been any objection to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I remember right, that was --
coastal area flood zones was one of them, and now we're seeing
wetlands within the urban area? MS. LINNAN: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, are we creating urban
sprawl when we say that?
MS. LINNAN: No, because actually we had determined
through the data and analysis that most of those areas had already
Page 112
October 22, 2002
been built on or were already protected as part of existing DRI's and
things like that. It will probably have very little impact, but for those
few areas that haven't been developed, we wanted to go ahead and do
this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about existing platted
land? Is that --
MS. LINNAN: If it is part of an existing DRI, if it's part of an
existing PUD, apropos the discussion you had this morning, it would
not apply.
If it is platted and they come in, they would have to be subject
to whatever the county regulations are at that time.
But we have not heard any concern, nor did we during the fringe
after we changed the policies that applied to the urban area from
anybody out there who had platted property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I think Mr. Mulhere can
answer the question that I'm interested in as far as the wetlands and
habitat protection.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere,
with RWA.
The urban wetland standards, specifically for existing platted
single-family lots such as Golden Gate Estates, the only requirement
is that if they have to go and get a jurisdictional permit, well, they
still have to do that. There's no county standard built into these. And
I think that probably was the area that you were most concerned
with, if I'm not mistaken.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. There's no greater regulation or
restriction in these standards; simply if they're required to go to the
Water Management District or the Army Corps, they would still have
to do that. We rely on those jurisdictional agencies and the platted
Golden Gate Estates.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 113
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Just a fast
question.
Nancy, you were saying that the owners would have to -- and I
forget the words you used, but something about make sure that the
aquifers were protected?
MS. LINNAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what guarantee would we
have that those aquifers were protected, other than just filling out a
form?
MS. LINNAN: Well, what will happen is you have to come up
with your land development regulations to implement this, and that
will be a very important part of this process. And they'll go through
all the usual steps: The EAC, the planning commission and then to
this board.
I'm assuming that as part of that, you could require what's
known as reasonable assurances or ask that someone document the
fact that it will have no impact. And then it would usually be
reviewed by your staff and anyone else. And in that case, probably
the Water Management District.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then they would test for it
afterwards to guarantee that it isn't, right?
MS. LINNAN: That could be part of your process. That's up to
this board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion at this time
that we 'adopt the GMP amendments and transmit them to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll come to the speakers. I just
wanted to get the motion on the floor. And I made the motion and
the second was by Commissioner Fiala.
And what we're going to do now is we've got Commissioner
Page 114
October 22, 2002
Coyle and then Commissioner Carter.
MS. LINNAN: Could I clarify something? Mr. Mudd thought
the word transmit was there. We're adopting, correct? I heard adopt,
and then my mind probably --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, transmit, I said.
MS. LINNAN: This is for adoption. We have already
transmitted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me, for adoption.
MS. LINNAN: Good catch.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My second will be for adoption as
well. And so will Commissioner Carter's.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It only takes one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry, Commissioner
Carter is next -- Commissioner Coyle, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You didn't let me ask my
questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought that was the shortest,
briefest conversation you ever had.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the second time today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It hasn't worked yet, either.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It hasn't worked yet.
Marty (sic), just a couple of questions. With respect to the
development standards of the stewardship receiving area, item 4.7.
The density standards were established at four units per acre, and I
believe DCA was concerned that that might inhibit the development
of affordable housing. How did we deal with that?
MS. LINNAN: We pointed out that that was four units per
gross acre, which had not been made clear before. And that there
was no restriction on either affordable housing or high-density
housing, multi-family, whatever. And they felt comfortable with that
explanation and the clarification in the language to include the term
Page 115
October 22, 2002
gross acre.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They were also concerned about
the fact that the SRA's permitted other than residential development,
and there were no intensity standards established. MS. LINNAN: Those have been added.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So now, rather than going
through each of the DCA's objections and recommendations, could
you just give us an overview, if there are any that we did not address
to DCA's satisfaction, to your knowledge?
MS. LINNAN: No, sir, none. I believe they are satisfied with
all of them. We've been taking their temperature, as I said, several
times a day.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The Board of County
Commissioners has taken a lot of criticism in the past, particularly in
the first two years while I was here. But let me tell you one of the
right things that they did, at the request of the landowners, was to go
into a long extensive process to do it right. And that's what we did.
Board of County Commissioners did that by setting the parameters,
the framework, to make this happen in conjunction with the
stakeholders to get us there. Because this is an effort of the Collier
County community, by the Collier County community, for the
Collier County community. So no one never (sic) needs to forget
that.
And in all the years I've been here, someone says I don't know
what this commissioner means by process. Well, let me tell you,
between these binders is what this process is all about. And when
you do it like this, then you certainly diminish any problems now and
in the future.
And this county needs to be commended for what we're doing
here. It's a model for the State of Florida, and in my judgment it is a
model for the United States. So we should stand tall and proud today
Page 116
October 22, 2002
as we move this forward to Tallahassee for the final seal of approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, let's go to the-- we have
two registered speakers who are probably going to try to talk us out
of it, so go ahead and call them up.
MS. FILSON: First one is Nancy Payton. She will be followed
by Brad Comell.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton, representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation.
Our major issues have been addressed as late as yesterday
afternoon. That dealt with the central services, wildlife habitat,
wildlife crossings. We're working with the transportation division to
make sure that roads are properly classified so we're eligible for
federal monies to establish wildlife crossings in appropriate areas that
are identified by the Wildlife Commission.
The issue of communication towers, we're going to address the
siting, construction and operation of these towers to avoid bird
mortalities through the land development code. In fact, Florida
Wildlife has offered to do the first draft, to expedite that, and staff
has accepted that offer.
We appreciate the willingness and the responsiveness of county
representatives and the eastern Collier property owners to address our
concerns. The three-year rural planning effort has ended as a final
order, directed as a collaborative community planning effort. It
started out pretty bitter, but it sure has ended rather sweetly with all
of us agreeing to the same plan. And I think this is in large part due
to this commission and your encouragement that people
communicate and they sit around the table. And I think that was a
key factor in turning this process, and truly one that everybody had a
seat at the table.
And I want to express again my appreciation personally and on
behalf of my organization to each one of you. And I urge you to
adopt this plan, move it on so we can get busy writing the land
Page 117
October 22, 2002
development code and implementing this landmark plan. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mrs. Payton.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Hi, Commissioners. Brad Cornell,
representing Collier County Audubon Society. I'll be very brief.
We are very supportive of the rural land stewardship area
overlay amendments that you have before you. We are all going to
have to watch how these new policies, which are very innovative and
very creative, how they are implemented and how they actually work
on the ground, not just in theory. But that's going to be hopefully a
very productive process, and we look forward to that, the writing of
the LDC amendments that go with this.
We've been surprised at the positive results of this kind of
cooperative conservation and community planning, and we look
forward to more of this. This is indeed, as Commissioner Carter
pointed'out, a model for how we would like to do things when we
have big issues. You know, everybody has their say, everybody has
their chips on the table, and we come to terms that are agreeable to
everyone. No one wins everything they want, and unfortunately we
have to recognize that. But we're very supportive of this, these
results, and we recommend adoption. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Quite a change from two or three
years ago, correct?
MR. CORNELL: Night and day.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the lions lay down with the
lambs. Everybody's getting along, happy.
MR. CORNELL: I don't know if we're laying down. We're in
the same room.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we're so thankful for it. Once
again, it's very remarkable how well so many people can work
together. And I know it set the parameters for a whole number of
things that are going to be coming up. One of them will be of course
Page 118
October 22, 2002
the green tax that's going to be on the agenda. And I think there's a
perfect example how the community, we can make things work. I
commend you all.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Gary Davis.
MR. DAVIS: I can't let my colleagues be the only ones to
support this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We kind of figured this was going to
happen. Go ahead.
MR. DAVIS: No, I'll be brief. Because I did meet with a
couple of you last week and shared some concerns that we still had.
And I wanted to make it clear that those concerns have been worked
out, and we now feel that we can fully support the plan as it's come
to you today.
It's a dramatic improvement from what we saw back at
transmittal time, through the efforts of the DCA and through the
efforts of the various parties who have been negotiating this over the
last week. We did some hard work to get where we are today. And
as Brad said, not everybody got what they wanted, but I think we're
in good support of this plan as it's coming forward, and we urge you
to adopt it today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before somebody changes their
mind --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so glad you made that
statement on the record, because I know a few of us were quite
concerned, but then we'd heard that your concerns were met and met
with a positive response. So I'm just glad you said that on the record,
thank you.
MR. DAVIS: Well, we appreciate you all for listening to our
concerns, and we certainly support this type of process, as
CommiSsioner Carter and others have noted today. And we look
Page 119
October 22, 2002
forward to participating on the land development code amendments
that are yet to come. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank. you, sir.
With that, I'll call the question. All those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you very much, Ladies and Gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We just made history.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Again.
MS. LINNAN: Mr. Chair, if I could just point out, because it's
now a requirement of state law, that there is a sign-up form outside in
the lobby for anyone who would like to receive a direct copy of the
Department of Community Affairs' compliance determination.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So noted.
Item #9D
DISCUSSION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO
CONDEMNATION TO LOWER RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS-
STAFF'DIRECTED TO CREATE A SUB-COMMITTEE WITH
COMMISSIONER COYI,E AS CHAIR
And with that, we're going to go back to our regular agenda with
the item 9(D). Commissioner Coyle, you're on. Would you like to take a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
think we're okay.
Page 120
October 22, 2002
Contained in your agenda under 9(D) is a request that the Board
of County Commissioners provide guidance to staff to develop a
better means of acquiring right-of-way. Our right-of-way costs have
skyrocketed. It's causing major increases in impact fees and, I
believe, unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars. Because we are not
evaluating all the alternatives for acquiring right-of-way, short of
condemning it.
So what I would like to do -- and by the way, a gentleman in the
audience today, Scott Cameron, is responsible for planting the seed
of this concept. And I would like to see if the commission would be
willing to consider either an ad hoc committee consisting of the
necessary real estate and financial people and tax attorneys who
could evaluate all sorts of ways that we could acquire right-of-way,
short of condemning it. And -- or we could combine that with an
existing -- combine that responsibility with an existing committee, if
there is one you believe is appropriate.
These things can be -- can involve all sorts of things, from
transfer of development rights to density credits, to just credits
against impact fees, which of course is already being utilized.
But there are a number of other interesting ways and innovative
ways where it is to the best interest and to the advantage of a
property owner to donate property to the government and thereby get
certain tax breaks which will make it less expensive for us to acquire
right-of-way because of the -- through the cost of condemnation.
So I'd just like for you to consider that. And if you're so
inclined, provide--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coyle, I read
your memorandum with a great deal of interest, and I couldn't agree
with you more, but I think the vehicle is being established to do that.
In a conversation with our County Administrator Jim Mudd, it
was our judgment that you could fold this into the revenue
Page 121
October 22, 2002
commission. And as that comes forward at our next meeting, this
could be an incorporation and a part of their challenge to come back
to us with the recommendations to embrace this, along with the other
-- the issues that are -- that exist for this county for infrastructure and
all the other items that we've discussed.
So it would be my suggestion to the board is that take a look at
that vehicle, see if it accomplishes a goal. If it does, terrific. If you
feel it needs expansion beyond that, that would be a time to do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are two issues here. One is
the concept of evaluating innovative ways of acquiring right-of-way.
The other of course is to identify the committee that is responsible
for making those recommendations to us. And I understand and agree
with your recommendation that we combine this with perhaps an
existing revenue committee. But I would suggest to you that we
need to do one thing today, and that is to provide guidance to staff
that we want to evaluate these alternative methods of acquiring
right-of-way. And secondly, that we want to identify and appoint
people with the unique skills that are necessary to evaluate this.
These are -- the skills that are necessary for exploring these
opportunities for acquisition of land are substantially different from
the skills that are necessary for determining additional revenue
sources. And if you would be willing to perhaps consider additional
appointments to the revenue committee so that we have those kinds
of skills represented, I would be very happy with that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know, that certainly would
work for me, Commissioner, and it could be an ad hoc committee to
that. But keep it within one envelope for that to whatever
mechanism works, additional people.
And I agree with you, you need a talent to come up with those
specific identifiable items. And it seems to me that could be worked
out with the county administration, to come back and say here's how
you can put it all in the same envelope and here's how the pieces
Page 122
October 22, 2002
work.
And I would be very supportive of any action that we need to
take at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. So it's not going to
require a motion per se, just the direction of staff?.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about getting three nods?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got a nod.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got a nod.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like that, save millions of dollars.
It sounded good to me.
MR. MUDD: But I also have--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He doesn't want to save millions
of dollars.
MR. MUDD: For the record, Jim Mudd. What I also -- kind of
through the nods, what I also heard, and before the workshop, you
directed staff to establish the revenue commission and not receive the
white paper for Commissioner Carter as far as that organization is
concemed.
While we're addressing the commission and maybe an adjunct
or incorporating this other one in there is, is this kind of what the
board wanted us to do with the revenue commission? I want to make
sure. And I think all the commissioners received this. It had
different organizations and memberships from those organizations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only thing that was missing
from there, if I may interrupt, it's got Golden Gate Civic Association,
it does not have the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, which
numbers 300 and some people. That's an addition I'd like to make
sure that is added to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many residents?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? I see your
Page 123
October 22, 2002
finger up. I was looking -- your red light's on too, so go ahead and
speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a problem with this
organization from the standpoint of investigating additional revenue
opportunities. But clearly this is not the set of people or backgrounds
or skills that is necessary to evaluate the tax implications of donating
land or operating land trusts.
So what I would suggest is that we create a sub-committee to
the revenue committee that consists specifically of the skills
necessary to deal with that particular issue. Otherwise, I think we're
going to have an unwieldy committee that simply cannot reach a
conclusion.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't disagree with that,
Commissioner. It takes special skills sets. Mine was broadbrushed.
If there's -- and it was -- you know, we have to wait till we're out
here. That's why it's no one to respond to that.
But you need the blanket. And my concern was we take a
blanket of organizations, we let them appoint a representative. We
the Board of County Commissioners set the framework. We say to
these organizations, you give us the people and with this you're going
to put some other qualifiers, which it's up to whoever those people
are to identify the best and the brightest in those areas so that they
can come back to the board with recommendations. We're not telling
them what to do, we're telling them what we need to do. And that
way I think we get the broad-based support from the community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would really prefer if we could --
now we've got what, maybe 15, 20 representatives on this list, maybe
more. If each of those tries to nominate somebody, we're going to
have a really, really big sub-committee. I would--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, no, no.
Page 124
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- ask that the commissioners
consider appointing this sub-committee ourselves. We know
generally what kinds of skills sets we need to do this, and I would
hope that we could identify certainly no .more than six or seven
people for a sub-committee. If we get a committee that puts it
beyond that, I'm afraid we're going to spend a lot of time getting
nowhere.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? I head up
the health and human service committee, Commissioner Fiala heads
up the affordable housing committee, Commissioner Henning is
heading up the smart growth committee. Would you consider taking
charge of this yourself?.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be delighted to deal with the
sub-committee for the evaluation of the right-of-way acquisition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you, but I got the feeling that
you're not comfortable, and after your explanation about the makeup
of this particular finance committees, I can see where it would follow
in the parameters for what you wanted to do.
COMMYSSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're looking for people with
special skills.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You bet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I support you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't know that a
· representative of a homeowners association is going to have the
requisite skills --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I didn't mean that, sir. I
said that you would need to identify specific people outside of that
list to fold into one envelope. That was my only point. Whatever
way you all are comfortable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'm suggesting that the
commissioners identify those people, appoint them, and I'd be happy
Page 125
October 22, 2002
to chair that sub-committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great.
So Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Legal counsel's going to have
something.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just joining in at the very end,
but what I wanted to say was it seems like it takes a special expertise
for what you're trying to accomplish, and I think they ought to be
handpicked people for this purpose only. I don't think it should be
convoluted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Suppose I do this, to make it a
little easier. Suppose I prepare some recommendations, not by name,
but prepare some recommendations about the case, about the
qualifications that I think would be appropriate for this particular
committee. And then each of us could appoint one or more people, if
you wish to do that. But at least that would give you some idea of
the kinds of people we're looking for. And if that would be helpful in
determining your appointments, I'll be happy to do that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if we could get the county
attorney to get some comments and some recommendations and
advice here, please. David?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Jim, Commissioners.
Just so you know, there is significant flexibility here in the sense
that if you have a committee that you're going to put together for less
than -- three years or less, it can be done by resolution. It doesn't
require ordinance with advertisement. You can always go ordinance,
if you want to, to establish a standing committee, even if it's
Sunshined or went out of existence at a stated time or when its
mission is completed. But you have the flexibility of county
manager and our office putting together a package or a couple of
packages for you to look at to see which one works best.
Typically by definition a sub-committee is a sub-unit of a
Page 126
October 22, 2002
committee. We may find that that doesn't work quite as well,
because the original committee of a revenue committee would have
the sub-committee coming up to it, bumping up against that.
But to the extent that Commissioner Coyle may be kind of a
principal on top of the triangle element there, I look very forward to
work with you so that when we come back in a couple of weeks, or
however quickly you would like, that we can give you the best
possible choices so that you achieve efficiencies in selection in
running the doggone things, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the commission would permit it,
I would be happy to work with the county attorney to work out some
alternatives about the organization and try to define some skills and
then get back to the commission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got four nods -- five nods.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's going to be one of the
horizon committees?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it would be safe to call this a
horizon committee, wouldn't it? You think this fits the def--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or a Sunset committee.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, it's going to rise and set.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, that's true.
Okay, with that, I think we're finished that item. We gave
sufficient direction to staff.
Item #9G
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY- TABLED; TO BE BROUGHT BACK LATER IN
THFJ MF, F, TING
Moving on now to 9(G), the annual performance appraisal for
the county attorney.
Page 127
October 22, 2002
And with that, for the listening public out there, the county
commission has basically three employees, one of them being the
county manager, the county attorney, and of course the airport
authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Manager.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The manager of the airport authority.
Other than that, everyone else works through the county manager,
the county attorney, or the director of the airport authority.
We have to take personal responsibility to evaluate these people
on a yearly basis, and that's what we're doing now with the cOunty
attorney.
Each one of us have had a survey given to us to rate the county
attorney as to what we found him to be. And the way the rating went
was is that the low standards it was three -- no, excuse me, two, one
to two. Meets standards would be three. And four would be
exceeding standards. And five would be far exceeding standards.
After everything was averaged, the overall average came out to
be 3.58, which would fall right between the two categories of meets
standards to exceeds standards. So somewhere between those two
points we are with the evaluation.
From that evaluation, we're supposed to come up with what we
need to do as far as a merit pay goes for our county attorney, based
upon his performance for this past year, be awarded either one
percent, two percent, 2.52 or up to 3.5 percent increment, based upon
the plan in place for all Collier County employees.
That's where we are at this point in time. Being that we're
coming above meets standards to exceeds standards, right in that
middle range, I propose to you for discussion purposes that we
consider an amount of 2.5 percent for merit pay. And that's for
discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My question is would that -- would
he then be earning more than the county manager?
Page 128
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure on that, but we'll
certainly have the answer very soon.
Could somebody do the -- compute that out and let us know?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's the question again, please?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would he be earning more than the
county manager with that type of an increase? I don't think that that's
right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a concern?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a concern with me. I feel
the county manager is the head of the team and he should be making
the most money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we'll get that number for you.
Could somebody take a second to compute it out, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does anybody here have an idea
of how much the county manager makes?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 150 or 160.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We just voted on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just asking.
MR. MUDD: I make $153,000.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the county attorney makes?
MR. WEIGEL: Under contract, it's $144,922.44.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it would be less than.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then it would be less with the 2.5.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. To be perfectly clear, there's
also a $400 a month car and phone allowance, which is not part of
the base salary. I don't recall if Jim has that separate and apart from
the base salary that he mentioned to you or anything else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Commissioner Henning, I
didn't mean to ignore you. We had a little discussion going here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, can you shed some
light on -- do you have any recommendations or requests from the
board on this item that we're about to take action on?
Page 129
October 22, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yes, I do have one, in fact. It's not so
much a salary increase as the fact that it's a clarification that came up
last year after last year's evaluation, which was rather favorable. And
that was I spoke with Jim Mitchell, or I should say he mentioned to
me after the meeting. He said David, you didn't clarify with the
Board of County Commissioners in regard to senior management
status. And I'm still a little unclear, when the contract was negotiated
back in 1998, it provided at the bottom of Page 4 in the contract that
the county attorney should be -- I'll read it specifically here. Page 4.
Employee, which is me, shall be entitled to the same retirement
benefit syStem contributions as are provided to the county
administrator. That language was directly from the Palm Beach
county attorney's contract, and was developed into my contract in
1998 when it was renegotiated with the board at that time.
And the question had come up following that time, that since it
didn't specifically say senior management, although it was referring
to the same funding, was that not what was meant. Well, in Palm
Beach County, it meant senior management, it was paid in the senior
management.
I heard, oh, a year ago, someone from Tom Olliff's office high
up had mentioned to me, David, good news, you're included with the
division administrators with the senior management retirement
element. I still don't know for sure if that's occurred or not, but I
don't think it's applied to the contract.
Quite frankly, yes, I think our office worked very hard this past
year. Not just me, of course, but the office has worked very hard.
And even a few minutes ago, listening to Brad Cornell talk about
very innovative, very creative handling, which our office is a part of,
a very significant growth management amendment effort. I think that
we've been pro-active and not developer friendly.
But all that in context, really what I'm concerned about more is
not so much a raise, it could be one percent, it could be nothing, if
Page 130
October 22, 2002
you wish to do so. But I would like the clarification of the senior
management retirement issue, which I thought was square in the first
place, but apparently still isn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So let me get this straight: The
only action that you're asking us to take today is to determine
whether the county attorney, being you, is eligible for senior
management retirement?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. It may even be considered a concession
on my part, based upon the evaluations, but I'm concerned about that.
And cost of living is in there anyway, because I should be getting
any wage adjustments that county employees get generally. And I
think that that's the term of the contract that was negotiated, and
would still be there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the COLA is still there?
MR. WEIGEL: That's what I'm talking about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What would be the difference
between your retirement benefits as you presently have them and as
you're talking about us looking into it?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what it ultimately means is if I retire --
and with young children I'm going to have to work forever -- but if I
retire, then--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know the feeling.
MR. WEIGEL: -- the retirement that I would receive at that
point woUld be higher than what it is right now. And I think that
really it's a clarification of a term that was negotiated over four years
ago.
But ultimately I'm not here to try to talk and finagle big bucks. I
think that this board has been very generous, albeit in a late sense.
That is, prior boards were not. And I worked here for years very
cheaply. But by virtue of the fact of an outside review that still didn't
even take into account public sector attorneys, not private sector
Page 131
October 22, 2002
attorneys but merely public sector attorneys. And with other
comparative data that I've provided you for what I consider to be
dynamic counties, of which this is clearly one, that if you look at
Hillsborough, Sarasota, even Lee, Pinellas, Orange County, the pay
that comes to the county manager or the county attorney is not in fact
inappropriate.
But once we established-- the board established phasing in over
an actually three-year period what they have, the pay is very
commensurate with what the job and the marketplace are at this
point. In the public sector, not the private sector. But that's where
we are.
So ultimately again, Mr. Henning, if-- I noticed in your review
you indicated cost of living, and I'll live with that. Obviously I'll live
fine. But I would like the clarification for the senior management
retirement aspect, which I thought was clear in the first place, but in
my discussions with the clerk was not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But during the last four years,
you've been operating under the basis that you were at the senior
management as far as the retirement fund calculation? I mean, have
you been operating on that basis? Are we contributing on that basis,
or is this just saying that the payout at the end, if you're considered
senior management, of course you're on a different percentage
payout than if you weren't?
MR. WEIGEL: Good question. There is an incremental
increase in pay-in toward that pay-out later on.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My question is, has that been
done in the past?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't know that it's been done every year. I
know that in one year, in lieu of that I received a check to make up
for it, because it hadn't been done. So it didn't go into retirement, it
just went to me.
Page 132
October 22, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm checking right now with the
clerk, and I've got my folks checking on that particular case, but I
will tell you, in my contract it specifies that I'm senior management
service. It wasn't in Mr. Olliff's, it was implied, but I put it specified
and bottom lined at one of the end of the paragraphs.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I totally agree with that,
and I would recommend to this board that he be considered and
classified in that position. After all, he's one of three people that
report to the Board of County Commissioners. You don't get to be
higher -- senior management doesn't get any higher than that. So that
needs to be clarified. What you do on the others is a separate
discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I still would like to hold out for
serious consideration for a merit pay. In fact, I'm going to make one
motion, possibly of two -- we have still to deal with the retirement--
that we give Mr. Weigel a 2.5 percent merit raise. And that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not through, Mr. Henning.
When I'm through, I'll let you go ahead and address it, okay?
But I'd like to see us give serious consideration to that. I'll make
a motion to that effect at this time. He has given us a year of service,
he has handlud many problems that have come down. He's got us
counsel at times for different items that have left the county in
jeopardy and handled it very professionally. I really think that he
deserves that 2.5.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's on top of the COLA, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the COLA is something we
haven't agreed on the retirement.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Don't confuse COLA with
retirement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, this is -- the whole thing on this
Page 133
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm not talking about --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The whole thing here --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Cost of living is automatic, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the COLA is automatic. And
we're talking about merit on top of the COLA. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what is COLA? How much is
COLA?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Cost of living index by 1.9, I
believe.
MR. MUDD: It's 2.1 percent for the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 2.1. So then this 2.5, that would be
almost like a five percent increase, right?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 5.6.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 5.6?
MR. MUDD: No, it would be 4.6, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So then would that make
him higher paid than you?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay-- I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your motion --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you have a second on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- failed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did I get a second? No, I didn't.
Commissioner Henning was jumping the gun just a little bit. But the
motion did fail.
And with that we'll go to Commissioner Henning. I'm going to
ask you to speak one at a time and to please use your button.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, your motion failed, so
Page 134
October 22, 2002
I'll make a motion that we give the county attorney the COLA and
we're going to wait for an answer on this other one on the senior
retirement --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- senior management
retirement.
MR. MUDD: Can you give me about 30 minutes or so in order
to get that? I'm trying to tackle somebody from the clerk's office --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to remove my motion
and hopefully that we can table this and move on to another item and
come back to it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we have a motion and a
second. Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Coyle. Discussion?
Okay, hearing none, I'll call the question: All those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Opposed?
The ayes have it 5-0.
Now, what we're going to do is table this and then come back to
it when we have an answer for the rest; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, this afternoon.
Item #10A
AMENDED MEDIAN LANDSCAPING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
Page 135
October 22, 2002
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION IN THE AMOIINT OF $80,000- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move on now to item
10(B) --
MR. MUDD: (A). 10(A), Commissioners. It has to do with the
Vineyards and landscaping.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Carter.
little
give
It wouldn't hurt for
polite, letting them
us a brief summary
the viewing public out there if we were a
know what we're voting on. Would you
of what the item is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I forgot to push my button.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation operations director.
Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
This is an item that was originally brought to the board at the
last meeting, and was pulled because there was a question as to the
amount of the payment -- the amount of the cost for Collier County's
portion.
There is an existing landscape maintenance agreement with the
Vineyards Development Corporation which has got about another
two years or so to run on it. And because of some damage that was
done during the six-laning of the Pine Ridge Road project, the
Vineyards asked the county to replace the damaged irrigation.
At the time, there was a question -- the initial estimate we
thought-was fairly low. It was about 30 or $35,000. As it turns out,
the total project was going to be approximately 136,000, of which
56,000 was the Vineyards cost and 80,000 is the county's cost.
When we gave you the initial number, I unfortunately neglected
to put all of the detailed costs in it. I subsequently followed up with
Page 136
October 22, 2002
a memorandum to you, detailing that cost for that 80,000. There was
about 50,000 actual repairs.
And I might point out that based on the irrigation consultant's
report, we may not have to spend that. But it's like anytime you do
remodeling or repairs, until you open it up, you're really not sure
what you're going to find.
In the best of all possible worlds, we'll find that the main was
not damaged and we'll have to spend very little of that 50,000. If on
the other hand the main line was damaged, we'll have to spend some
more on it.
Then I had also neglected originally to allow for the
professional fees and a contingency.
So that's the background of it. It was just in our zeal to get a
number in front of you, we just didn't do the proper research.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. I think it's
important that we try to get a brief summary for our viewing public
out there, to try to -- in some form of expediency, trying to skip over
that is not doing the public justice.
MR. MUDD: Let me share one more thing. Jim Mudd, for the
record.
And the landscaping workshop, you basically told the staff to
honor past commitments, and this is one of those past commitment
contracts that we have in place through 2004, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The short summary is that we
damaged the irrigation, we're being asked to repair the damage we
caused.
MR. KANT: That's correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the 80,000 is just an estimate,
not likely to exceed that, it could very well be less than that.
MR. KANT: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Page 137
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
discussions, I'll call the question.
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Commissioner Carter absent.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
With that, if there is no more
All those in favor, indicate by
And the ayes have it 4-0, with
Item #1 OB
RESOLUTION 2002-442, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
STORMWATER RETENTION AND TREATMENT POND SITES
AND 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
SANTA BARBARA/LOGAN BOULEVARD ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD TO
NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, FISCAL IMPACT: $11,914,000
- ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Now we'll move on to 10(B). Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Yes. For the record, Norman Feder,
Page 138
October 22, 2002
transportation administrator.
You have before you an item to look at the approval for
acquisition of the right-of-way for Santa Barbara/Logan Boulevard.
In this case you have a very difficult but a very important decision
before you. I won't take much of your time other than to note that
the issue is very difficult, not so much from an ability to show the
need and the case for a six-laning and its planning in previous times,
but very difficult, because we are impacting a number of residents
along this corridor.
And I want to point out to you, that's the type of project that
we're going to be facing quite a bit in the future if we are to
implement the plan to meet the needs of this community.
We're not talking about corridors as much in the future that are
dealing with commercial stretches and major plan developments. As
we go out to the growth that existed (sic) out in the estates with no
real collector arterial system to substantially accommodate them,
we're going to face this -- we're looking over at Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension and anything that -- we look at east, west, south of
there, future Wilson, Everglades and other areas that we'll be facing
in the future.
But for right now the important part is the plan that we have, the
need that we have out there to meet the issues today.
What we've been requested to do to bring before you, before we
ask you to move on the right-of-way decision, is I'm going to ask
Gregg Strakaluse to present to you some of where we are on this
project, how we got to where we are, what issues we're addressing
right now and where we see it going from here, and then ask Wayne
Hartt with Wilson-Miller and Associates, who is the design
consultant on this project, to review with you the issue morrowing
(phonetic) or in this case the simulation operational analysis of
intersections and how that could address some of the needs along this
corridor and for what period of time.
Page 139
October 22, 2002
With that, let me turn it over to Gregg Strakaluse.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Good afternoon, Gregg Strakaluse,
director of engineering and construction management for the
transportation division.
Item 10(B) is a gift and purchase resolution which would allow
staff to proceed with the acquisition of right-of-way along the Santa
Barbara/Logan corridor for a project.
Over the past few months, there has been some discussion and
debate as to the type of project that's necessary out along that
corridor. But I think I can say with a high level of certainty that
there is full agreement that some level of project is necessary to
increase safety and accommodate vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian
traffic.
The planning strategy used by the MPO and county staff to
build these types of major road improvements considers the entire
transportation network growing out for a period of 25 years into the
future. Important projects like this require a significant investment of
time and money.
we're also very aware of the disruptions that are caused by
construction like this: Noise, dust, heavy machinery, detours. So we
have a motto in our department regarding construction of these types
of projects: Get in, get out and stay out.
All the modeling and planning studies that have been done show
the need for a six-lane road system within the 25-year planning
period. Recently there has been some discussion regarding some
lower level improvement to the road. Some residents indicated that
traffic won't get any worse than it is now. This is as bad as it's going
to get, so let's deal with the problem as that exists now.
At the October 1 lth MPO meeting, county staff and
Wilson-Miller indicated that intersection improvements would
indeed improve existing traffic conditions until the year 2011, at
which time they would fail again due to the predicted growth.
Page 140
October 22, 2002
The MPO board asked county staff to discuss the details of this
analysis. And as I conclude with my presentation, I'll ask Wayne
Hartt from Wilson-Miller to review the details of that specific
analysis with your board.
At this time, I'd like to go over some of the efforts that county is
-- that county staff has made regarding public meetings.
We've held a public meeting at the 60 percent phase of the
design on June 26th. We had a follow-up to that meeting of
September 3rd because of the interest and the comments and
questions we got.
On October 11 th, there was an MPO meeting in which we again
reviewed some of the efforts that we've made.
Some of the design improvements that we've made for this
particular project include full cut-outs, some street lights to prevent
glare, to address pedestrian safety. We've eliminated sidewalk on the
north side between Davis and Radio, and created an eight-foot
sidewalk on the south side, as a direct result of the public's
comments.
In regards to right-of-way acquisition, we're Considering
alternative designs for storm water to reduce right-of-way takes along
the corridor.
Access and mobility was a significant item that came up in the
June 26th public meeting. Since that time, we've created additional
directional median openings; about five directional median openings
that would accommodate mobility issues and U-turn movements.
Noise abatement. We've done a noise impact study in regards to
the project and there are locations where noise abatement is
necessary along the corridor.
Aesthetics. We've included grass medians that will be prepared
for irrigation for future landscaping, if that's what the community
desires.
We're looking at accelerated construction methods. How can
Page 141
October 22, 2002
we get this project -- how can we get in, do the construction project,
get out and stay out? Again, that's one of our goals with
construction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you -- excuse me, before you
leave that page, did you say you were going to have a sidewalk on
the north side of the street?
MR. STRAKALUSE: No, we've eliminated sidewalk on the
north side of the street between Davis Boulevard -- I'm sorry, it
would be the west side of the street.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I knew it was the
north-south -- I was wondering where I was going. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good point.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Staff plans to have another public
meeting at the 90 percent design level, of which we're approaching.
At the most recent MPO meeting a recommendation was made
to explore opportunities to purchase entire lots with willing sellers.
This girl and purchase resolution would allow county staff to do that,
and then bring those recommendations back to your board for final
approval.
To summarize, a wise man recently told me to stand at the curb
and look past the obvious. Regardless of the level of project to be
built 2004, additional right-of-way will be required for the project.
That will make a difference in the future.
With that, I'd like to pass it on to Wayne Hartt for--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go, Commissioner
Henning has a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Noise abatement
improvements, can you give us an approximate location where that
has been--
MR. STRAKALUSE: Absolutely. There's one location that
we've identified some level of certainty where a noise barrier would
be required because of the project. It is located in front of the
Page 142
October 22, 2002
Countryside community between Davis and Radio Road. There's
also another area along that corridor in that section that we're taking
a closer look at, because some of the results from the noise analysis
came back a little questionable, so we're looking into those results in
a little bit more detail.
With that, I'd like to turn it over to Wayne Hartt.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. HARTT: Good afternoon. My name is Wayne Hartt. I'm
the engineer and responsible charge for the design of the project for
Wilson-Miller.
At the most recent MPO board meeting, we agreed to make a
presentation regarding analyses that we had done where we looked at
the level of service that would be provided in the event that we built
out the intersections but had four through lanes. And I'm prepared to
talk about the results of that analysis, talk about the methodology we
used, and also talk about some geometric considerations which are
also important to this discussion.
With regard to the results of our analyses, we modeled the
intersections with the projected growth in traffic, and did the single
timing and did the delay calculation. This is the results of our
analysis.
Golden Gate Parkway, determined to be deficient in the year
2009 under this scenario -- again, with the built-out turn lanes and
two through lanes in each direction, which would be commensurate
with the four-lane roadway.
I want to point out that this 2009 year is a mere two years after
opening -- after completion of construction.
Green Boulevard, we prepared a similar analysis. It is deficient
in the year 2012. This is five years after opening to traffic, based on
our current construction schedule.
Pine Ridge Road, as you can see, becomes deficient in 2011.
That's four years after opening to traffic.
Page 143
October 22, 2002
I want to qualify what I mean by deficient. Deficiency is
quantified in terms of delay. There's generally accepted thresholds
for that. It's supported in the Highway Capacity Manual, which is a
federal highway document.
Generally 55 to 60 seconds of intersection delay is taken to be a
deficient level of service.
Just to give you an idea of what that feels like, we also did an
analysis of the existing conditions at Golden Gate Parkway and Pine
Ridge Road. We determined that this same level of delay is
experienced today under current conditions during the peak hours.
So if you're familiar with those two intersections, that's what we're
talking about.
I want to also talk about the methodology that we used in our
analysis. The methodology for our operational analysis included
traffic forecasting, the operational analysis, and then a delay
calculation.
With regard to the traffic forecasting, the methodology we used
is fully documented in the traffic engineering report prepared by
Wilson-Miller and submitted to the county. It considers other
network improvements such as the Livingston Road link and also the
1-75/Golden Gate Parkway interchange.
The annual growth rates that we used are reasonable. They're
three percent, as compared to the six percent annual growth rate we
experienced in the last five years.
In terms of the operational analysis itself, we do use computer
modeling to come up with traffic signal timings. I want to just give
you a brief overview of the operation of a traffic signal.
Major intersections consist of four major phases: The left tums
and through movements for each major street. What the traffic
simulation modeling does is it computes the amount of green time
that's needed to clear all the vehicles through the intersection during
the red and yellow time for that phase. When you add up all the
Page 144
October 22, 2002
phases, that's all the cycle length. Okay, now, there's a practical limit
to the cycle length. That's about two and a half to three minutes. So
that the through movements and turning movements are all
competing for the same green time.
So when we went from three lanes to two through lanes, we
have a decrease in efficiency of 33 percent; hence, the deficiency two
to five years after opening to construction.
The last thing I want to talk about are some geometric
considerations with respect to building out the intersections.
Here we have a graph where we have superimposed the
proposed intersection lanage along the bottom with respect to the
existing lanage at the current intersections.
Now, this is important because if we were to design built-out
intersections that has been suggested, you can see how the
southbound edge of pavement is offset 36 to 45 feet. This would
require a geometric transition to get the travel lanes back into the
four-lane right-of-way.
We looked at the length of those transitions, for example,
between Green Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road. It's about 4,700 feet
between those intersections. The geometric transition to go from the
full blown-out intersection to the four-lane eats up over 4,000 of that
4,700 feet. Now, we're talking about major right-of-way acquisition,
major construction costs, all in an effort to do what, transition to a
four-lane roadway.
This analysis, along with our operational analysis, demonstrates
that the only prudent expenditure of public funds is to move forward
with the full six-lane highway.
With that, I'll turn it over, if you don't have questions --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, there is. Commissioner
Henning, please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could you put the deficiency
paper back up, please?
Page 145
October 22, 2002
The intersection improvements that you're showing these
numbers of being deficient at the years that are predicted, what mm
lanes, what through lanes did that model result in?
MR. HARTT: Our initial design analysis looked at where the
double -- and we have triple left mm lanes at many of these
intersections. We have double right turn lanes. We use the same
number of turn lanes that we did in our design to essentially built out
the intersection to the maximum, again, to make most efficient use of
the green time.
So with this analysis, we simply took away one through lane in
each direction to model the level of service and delay associated with
that geometry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One through lane, where there
is two through lanes today? Is that what you're saying?
MR. HARTT: We had three through lanes in our design, north
and south. This analysis reflects two through lanes north and south.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're saying by
adding that extra lane just at the intersections, it's good for (sic) the
year 2025?
MR. HARTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm not a traffic
engineer person, but just by logic it doesn't seem right. The
modeling that was done for the six-lane improvements within the
study, I think there was a projection that Golden Gate City, the four
square miles, was -- for the year 2015 was 42,000?
MR. HARTT: Okay, I think that Jeff Perry with Wilson-Miller
is more conversant with the planning growth study.
MR. PERRY: For the record, Jeff Perry with Wilson.
That's incorrect. The data that was used in the model was not
the data that was presented at the hearing. There are some
county-wide population and dwelling unit numbers that the county
uses for a variety of different purposes. They divide them into
Page 146
October 22, 2002
planning communities. The planning community totals were -- a
year ago had been erroneously extrapolated out to some numbers that
obviously could not exist within the community of Golden Gate.
They corrected those this year.
But that data is different from what we're using. We're not
using that information. Our information was correct that we
provided to the public and we presented it to -- at the MPO meeting.
We had used individual traffic zone data where we looked at the
build-out potential for every single zone, like in Golden Gate there's
five zones, so we actually have the true counts for existing conditions
and then grew that out to build out what would be on the ground by
2025.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the build-out for
Golden Gate City then?
MR. PERRY: I'd have to look it up. I can't tell you offhand by
memory what it is. But I can certainly add up the numbers.
The population projection for the Golden Gate planning
community is 42,191. That's what the county planning department
says is the population --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For the Golden Gate planning
committee -- or planning area?
MR. PERRY: Golden Gate planning community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is planning community? I
mean, what are the parameters for planning community?
MR. PERRY: Unless I had a map, I couldn't show you. The
county divides their urban area into a variety of planning
communities. There's North Naples, East Naples, South Naples,
Golden Gate is one, Urban Estates is another. But they're not
necessarily just the -- what you might think of as North Naples. And
there is a map.
They're used for a variety of planning purposes. It's not the data
that the MPO uses. The totals are. The county-wide totals are the
Page 147
October 22, 2002
same totals that the MPO uses, but the MPO breaks them down into
very small chunks for their computer models to use. It's not
aggregated the same way as this information is. This is the
information that was discussed at the MPO meeting by planning
community, and that's just a large aggregation of data that the
department uses for a variety of reasons.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, to answer the question,
it's 42,000 at build-out-out?
MR. PERRY: At build-out. That's what the planning
department says the Golden Gate planning community is.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I think the direction from the
MPO was to take a look at the citizens' state-of-the-art intersection
improvements to determine if that-- those improvements would take
us out how many years, so on, so forth. So that really wasn't done
then?
MR. HARTT: Yes, sir, it has. The original six-lane design had
state-of-the-art intersections with the optimum lanage and signal
timings and coordination between the signals. That's state of the art.
The analysis was based on the most efficient signalization possible,
in addition to the maximum build-out number of lanes. If there's
anything else that can be added in here to make it more
state-of-the-art, we're open to those suggestions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'm going to hold my
final questions to the end.
Does anybody else have any other questions?
Are we done with -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have a couple of
questions.
It seems to me that if we're going to do a complete job of
planning, there are a couple of other issues we need to consider, and
one is the planning of this entire roadway. It isn't, in my mind,
necessarily a good idea just to plan a segment of it and particularly
Page 148
October 22, 2002
try to acquire a right-of-way for just a segment of it without
considering the entire roadway. And I would like to know where we
are with that. But let me -- but.before you answer, let me just go
through a couple of other issues I had.
I'm not convinced that we have evaluated all of the alternatives
necessary to address the concerns of the residents. Now, I
understand that road designs are based upon a wealth of knowledge
that has been collected and published in manuals and in models and
things like that. But it seems to me that sometimes we have to get a
little creative, particularly when it comes to issues relating to safety
in a residential neighborhood.
And I'm just wondering -- in fact, I'm going to ask that before
we resolve this, that once again, the issue of right-of-way acquisition
width be reconsidered and/or justified. And one thing I'd like to hear
is the justification for putting in a bike lane on a six-lane highway. I
know that there are people who are hard-core bicyclists, but I'll tell
you, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life. And it takes a
lot of money and it's taking people's right-of-way, taking their front
yard just to do it. I believe there are other ways of doing it. And I
would like to have the opportunity to have those evaluated from the
standpoint of what can we do to address the concerns of the
neighbors rather than what does the manual say. And I would ask for
that sort of analysis.
But having said that, I understand the short-sightedness of
refusing to consider right-of-way needs until we mn right up against
the wall and we need to do something. That is very, very expensive
and very, very foolish.
But could you please address the other issues of the ultimate and
final route of this road and why it's not included in the study so far?
And can someone give me the absolute minimum right-of-way that
would be required in this area?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
Page 149
October 22, 2002
administrator.
Let me start off on your questions, Commissioner, and maybe
have some others collaborate.
First of all, please understand this corridor, as is the whole
system, has been studied. As part of your long-range transportation
plan, we've looked at different alignment options and alternatives,
evaluated what the lane calls are along the different corridors, and
when we go into design, we start looking at the most critical
segments of those corridors and bringing them forward. That does
not mean that we haven't evaluated the other corridors and the other
alternate alignments.
In the case here, basically your call is fairly easy with a rather
course grid and very not refined collector road systems. Essentially
what you've got is six north-south, besides the interstate. They
basically call for six-laning predominantly.
Here in this corridor what we're looking at is basically in the
2025 needs plan, six-laning up to Vanderbilt Beach Road, although
we've got some questions on that, then four-laning up to Immokalee
and right now two-laning up to and into Lee County up to Bonita
Beach Road.
We're evaluating right now of course the issue up to Pine Ridge
and then down south. As far as south of there, you have right now as
a board a position of alternate A plus C as an extension of Santa
Barbara to the south, although we are still continuing to try to work
through some issues that might look at Polly, Rattlesnake-Hammock
and 951, and continuing to look at the issue of lane calls and
demands in that area.
But essentially the model is calling for a need for a six-lane
extension, at least to Rattlesnake and down to 41, ideally, for this
corridor.
So we do have a feel for the overall corridor. We have some
other studies on the southern end that's basically brought about some
Page 150
October 22, 2002
of the alignment options. That's where their analysis is being done
now. And you have the long-range model in this book data.
So this is not taken out of context, or is only a portion of the
corridor being evaluated. We are doing some analysis, consistent
with your five-year work program, to look at the more detailed traffic
analysis, which is the traffic report that's mentioned. You do go
beyond just the modeling level analysis to look at it north of Pine
Ridge to see if in fact that can be retained to four lanes rather than
six, noting the issues on Logan.
As far as the issue of innovation, looking at cross-sections,
please be assured that your staff is not cookie-cutting anything out
there. We were asked some time ago to give you an idea of our
typical cross-section and why. We've done that. About 180 feet. The
only thing I told you is I don't have a segment that exactly replicates
that. We take that basic cross-section, try to fit it within the
community, within the needs and within the issue.
In this case, I've got very, very wide intersections. I'm talking
triple lefts, which is not a predominant feature, that I have to deal
with in a lot of areas, as well as dual rights and the through lane. In
the southern section, I have the right-of-way generally in hand.
The issue of major concern-- and well understood, and a lot of
people are impacted by this, I don't want to minimize that -- but is
this section of Logan. We've got a lot of folks that have driveways
that access directly to an arterial today, a four-lane arterial. That is
not ideal or desirable. But we do have that. And yet we look at what
are our alternative alignments, what are the options? How do we
service all of Golden Gate City and major portions of Golden Gate
Estates and movement throughout the county in any other alignment?
New alignments, where we're looking at Vanderbilt Beach
Road, are going to be extremely disruptive. That's why I raise that
issue. We had many years that we didn't move on Livingston
because we were backing up to some of the Estates' lots. We decided
Page 151
October 22, 2002
to take Golden Gate Boulevard, and in spite of the plans calling for
six lanes, to reduce that down to four. And that is going to increase
more demand on Vanderbilt Beach Road and maybe other alignments
that both directly are going to impact residential areas and have a
secondary impact as we go to bridge canals and others to try to link
up that system.
Unfortunately we sold lots out there but didn't look at it in the
sense of how we provide for the services and we're going to have to
retrofit. And that's exactly the terminology I will use here, and
unfortunately am going to be using in many cases as we move further
out into the Estates.
As far as a bike lane on the roadway, I share your concern,
Commissioner. I personally will not use it. We do have sidewalks
and we're accommodating. I will tell you that professional cyclists
do utilize it. It does give you a little bit more room for movement
and for separation in the area. We've looked at that and we've looked
at what it will do to reduce takings that are in many places not
significant.
However, what we've told the community and what we will tell
this board is, while we're asking to go after this right-of-way, that's
the widest envelope, we're continuing our design process, and in that
design process, if there are some other issues, while we can't
recommend to you not to move to six lanes, ultimately if not initially
we could go initially with the intersections, make some modifications
as presented to you before and then wait until that demand -- 2011 on
the average, I believe it is, four years after we get the intersections
done -- and then come back and six-lane. That creates more
disruption and some additional costs, but it's not -- but the bottom
line is we'll continue to look at some of the design features.
Most recently we've looked at some of the noise issues. We'll
continue there. We will ask, as was pointed out to you, to remove
the sidewalk -- the sidewalk, not the bike path -- basically on the
Page 152
October 22, 2002
west side, out between Radio and Davis, because there's only a golf
course along that stretch; not a lot of demand for access to it. We've
agreed there.
So we are not trying to limit that. We've opened up some of the
median openings. We can't open them all. But we haven't closed off
the issue to try and further be creative and to try to design --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I remember the traffic manual
correctly, Ed, the existence of a bike path actually reduces through
put. It has a lower factor, if I remember correctly, on the road. And
if you remove it, it seems to me that you'd have a -- you'd be able to
move traffic more quickly.
MR. FEDER: If that is the board's direction, we will look for
the design to remove that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, this -- I'm still not
addressing the issue here today. Your issue is right-of-way. And I --
from a standpoint of long-range planning, it has been a great failure
of county commissioners in the past not to make decisions to acquire
right-of-way to support the roads that are necessary. MR. FEDER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't like making that same
mistake here, but I would like to caution against something, that I
don't think there is anybody here who is really smart enough to look
out 25 years and with a great deal of accuracy predict what things are
going to look like out there.
And for that reason I considered the 2025 plan to be pretty much
a crystal ball result. No matter how much modeling is conducted
with that, I remain convinced that our planning horizons from the
standpoint of expenditure of money for building roads should not
exceed 10 years, because I think we might be able to have some
fairly reasonable estimates of what is necessary there.
But the acquisition of right-of-way cannot be delayed that way.
And so whatever we do, I want to work to resolve some of the safety
Page 153
October 22, 2002
issues and access problems that the residents have, but I can't in all
conscience say that we shouldn't start moving on right-of-way
acquisition.
But I'd like to say the same thing with respect to the ultimate
southerly extension of that route so that we know where it's going
and we can remove all the uncertainty and we can acquire
right-of-way necessary to do that.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I agree fully. First of all, your
issue about trying to go after reductions on possible right-of-way,
obviously when we went through the impact fee process, we agreed,
we need to address that and we applaud your initiative there. There's
a lot of things staff is already trying to do on that.
I will tell you, on the modeling, you're correct, that the
long-range transportation model that's plus or minus one lane is a
tool. And the only thing we know about it for sure is it's not right.
But it tells me I go in this direction, and I adjust and I constantly
update it, so I know I'm not going over there or over there, I'm in the
right direction, I'm constantly adjusting. And that's the best you can
do when you talk that far out, especially with our explosive growth.
Yet at the same time, if we are going to protect right-of-way, we
need to have that understanding in that field beyond. But I don't
think you necessarily buy right-of-way for something you need in 20
years, not with the demands we have on our system and financially
right now. So what -- we need to balance those two, and I think
you're quite correct on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I think Commissioner Coyle's
offering to head up the committee on the right-of-way purchasing
and try to come up --
MR. FEDER: The report.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- with some new thoughts on it is
going to go a long ways toward our future plans.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not going to focus on this
Page 154
October 22, 2002
route, I can assure you.
cHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no, no, no.
Let's go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I applaud that you're trying to
get this highway system done. I know that you've had to fight it all
the way, and it hasn't been easy, because we didn't have a grid. And
what you're trying to do is create a grid. And this is a road that you
feel will connect you from 4 ! east, all the way into Lee County, and
that's a good thing.
My problems with it are, it just so happens that this particular
road, even though it would connect all the way through, is stretching
from one end to the other with residential, other than a very few
blocks that have commercial. And whenever I see a six-lane
highway, I see the six-lane highway jotted with commercial on both
sides, because who wants to live on a six-lane highway?
So what I'm saying to you is, if we buy the right-of-way for six
lanes, we're really going to doom all of that residential area. And I'm
talking from U.S. 4 ! all the way out to Lee County, other than a few
blocks there. We're going to doom them to have a six-lane highway
in their front yard, with their driveways backing out into it.
I mean, I don't see any six-lane highways that are through
residential neighborhoods. And that's what I'm very, very concerned
with. I think that the -- I think the approach we should be taking is to
streamline, as you say, the intersections and make them the highest
tech streamlined intersections they can be, with timing of lights so
that you can accommodate the flow of traffic, as you see in all the
major cities. They don't have six-lane highways through their
residential neighborhoods, they have four-lane roads that are
designed to carry traffic -- to carry through traffic from one end of
the town to the other and keep it moving smoothly, and I think we
can do that.
MR. FEDER: With all due respect, most ever I've seen has a
Page 155
October 22, 2002
six-lane set of arterials, four-lane arterials and collector roads. And I
would love to have the second two of those categories, and that's
something we're still trying to work on.
To the issue of residential, I agree with you wholeheartedly, we
do not want ourselves in the situation that we find ourselves in, and
that is that we did not provide for an arterial system and are now
looking to retrofit. This area has been known to be going to six
lanes, and yet at the same time, like I said, I've got residences
backing out in driveways directly onto a four-lane arterial today.
Even if I don't do anything at all, that exists. That is an arterial,
whether you want to call it four lanes or six lanes. And yet the
overall system need is that I addressed -- I'm not taking it lightly, I
understand the issues there. But what I'm telling you is you have
other areas where you have six lanes in residential and you're going
to have more.
The bottom line in the future is that if we're going to address the
growth that we have out in the Estates area, we're going to have to
plan for identifying what those corridors are, and then try to respond.
I think some of what we're trying to do in maybe offering whole
take is a response to the fact that we probably shouldn't have had that
developed that way. If we had done the planning that the
commissioner's talking about, we wouldn't be finding ourselves in
some of these situations we are finding.
But as much as I say that, we're not totally unique. Neighbors to
the north have taken hundreds of homes for West Terry Street, for
Mid-Point Bridge, for others. I'm not advocating that, please
understand what I'm saying. But I am saying to you that we are
going to have to face some of these issues. I'm not relishing that
idea. I don't do it lightly and not acknowledging that folks -- that
hopefully are going to get a chance to speak in just a few minutes --
have very strong passion and rights about that's their home.
And yet for the full community, we've got to decide, are we
Page 156
October 22, 2002
going to move through, are we going to develop a system that allows
us to respond and have what we need to meet the full community in
the future. And that's the direction I need from this board.
We spent five years debating Livingston, because it was backing
up to some estate lots and to some developments. I'm not sure we
can afford to do that, yet at the same time I'm not insensitive to the
other.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, and that's good, and that's the
way I feel, too. I just feel that we have enough talented people
within our county to take this four-lane highway, being that we need
to go all the way through, but make a four-lane highway,
accommodate a free flow of traffic, as they do in other major cities,
rather than impact all of these homes. That's all you have along this
thing are homes, and--
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, what I think--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I think we have to think about
that.
MR. FEDER: -- with the four-lane, what you have to do to
move out of the intersections and how far back you go on that, you
effectively create much of the design that we're hitting on. We've
just got so much volume coming through a limited number of
facilities, and we don't have those four-lane or two-lane relievers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And let me just say one other thing,
while I've got the floor here, and then I'll give the floor up. I'm sorry
if I've --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you continue, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Another thing that I see as a problem is we talk about the four
lanes and the six lanes and the four lanes, and I've said it before, I'll
say it again in this venue, and that is it's kind of like the snake
swallowing the pig. How does that pig get out the other end if you're
going back down to four lanes.9
Page 157
October 22, 2002
So I'm concerned. I just think you'd have a much smoother
flowing road, and I don't think people would mind going a little bit
slower on four lanes, especially in a neighborhood. Maybe by
having fOur lanes, you'd slow down the traffic a little bit for those
children that are catching the school buses right there in their
neighborhoods. I just --
MR. FEDER: And the school bus will be picking up on both
sides.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to make safer
neighborhoods. I understand six-lane highways are wonderful, but I
think through a neighborhood they have to be safe roadways. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioners, I've been to this
dance before, and I want to tell you, that partner was an ugly, ugly
partner. And the ugliness was, first of all, you didn't have a strategic
road plan. Secondly, you didn't have a board of county
commissioners that had the political will to make those tough
decisions. Because what's presented to you now is a plan, and this-
happens to be a corridor plan. If we go back to planning 101, that's a
critical path.
And what's on that path? It's called time and it's called cost.
And the longer you delay it, the more expensive it gets. No matter
what you do, how many studies you do, how many things that you
do, time shrinks, cost goes up. Can't change that.
What folds into this? I have listened to this thing, I have read
this thing. You've got turn lanes, you've got signalization, you've got
road width, should it be four lanes or six lanes, debating back and
forth, you've got to acquire your right-of-way in order to make all of
this happen, do you have bike paths, do you have sidewalks, you give
up one Or the other, all become part of design. And decisions can be
made on that as this evolves.
Page 158
October 22, 2002
And then you've got the demographics. You can't change
demographics. People move to this area. Why? Because they can
afford to build a home in that area. If more and more people move
into the area, the longer you wait to do what you have to do, the more
that you're going to upset neighborhoods.
But the fact remains is, as this county goes forward, you're
going to find some ugly situations where you're going to have to
make tough road decisions through existing neighborhoods. We've
been able to avoid that in this county. And that time is going away.
And now some people are going to get real upset. And I'm sorry for
that. But the fact is the people you put in these chairs either will
make those decisions to do what's needed to be done, or you're going
to continually compound and exasperate your traffic movement
within this county.
Therefore, I think this study has been well thought through and
that what they're asking us to do is to go forward so that you can get
the right-of-ways, so that you can do the planning and work through
the best options as possible with neighborhoods. And there are
particular situations within that neighborhood where people do have
to back up, but there are aprons that can be put at the end of a
driveway where you can back up and then head out.
Will you be able to cut across six lanes of traffic? I wouldn't
recommend that. But my whole district is lined with arterials and
collectors that are four lanes and six lanes, and people find a way to
work through those systems to get to where they need to be.
So you're right at a break point, fellow Commissioners. You're
either going to take this and you're going to do what you need to do
and make the dance work out as best as possible, or you're going to
come back to the dance and it's going to be a 3 50-pound gorilla, and
you're not going to be a happy camper.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll be the next gorilla to go up here,
and then from there we'll go to Commissioner Coyle and back to
Page 159
October 22, 2002
Commissioner Fiala.
I'm very concerned. When we first started this whole scenario
of roads, back when we got elected and we made a firm commitment
that we were going to build the roads, we got a briefing from Mr.
Feder, telling us exactly what we were going to be up against. And
so far, it's been absolutely true.
And he said also the fact that when you get to a point where
you're starting to see some of the congestion being abated through
some of the roads opening, you're going to get resistance on opening
other roads.
And he's been totally true on this. It's been coming right down.
He said it's going to get more difficult as it goes through. He said
getting them approved when you're building them, there's a lot of
resistance. And when you get them in, people accept them and they
love them. But it's a painful thing. It's like the birth of a child. You
go through a lot of pain, when it's over, you appreciate what you've
got.
Myself, I'm impacted by these things. My own daughter is
going to be losing her home on Terry Street in Bonita Springs, a
home that she worked very hard for. But they're working out a real
good deal for her and she's going to hopefully be moving up here to
be closer to her family in Golden Gate.
Myself, my own road is in the distant future probably about six
to eight years out going to become a thoroughfare from the Estates
right on through to 951. I live on 17th Avenue Northwest, there's a
school going in, and the road that's going -- they're going to use the
road there hopefully to be able to join up 16th Street to relieve some
of the traffic that takes place on White. There's a tremendous impact
there, there's a lot more construction going on.
So I realize that the days of my quiet residential street is going
to be sacrificed for the public good. Hopefully we're going to -- I'll
be able to still be able to speak the people's voice, probably from out
Page 160
October 22, 2002
there on the floor, and make sure that we get the right kind of
planning, and that all sorts of amenities are offered to be able to
make up for some of the losses that we'll have. I'm not looking
forward to it, but I accept it. I know this is going to happen.
I guess what we're looking at now is if this thing here today
does not go forward and if we take a step back to four lanes and say
four lanes is going to be fine, we'll leave it to a future commission to
figure this out, as our brothers before us have done, are we really
solving a problem or are we just passing it on?
Also, too, the minute we draw back and we say four lanes is no
longer nec -- six lanes is no longer necessary, four lanes are, then
what we have done is we've just taken this whole house of cards and
knocked it down. It's going to be one right after the other, like a
domino effect. And we're going to be right back to where we were
when we started. And we had the commitment before and I hope we
can keep the commitment to go forward.
In the meantime, though, we have to keep up our movement
forward to make sure that the needs of the residents on these streets
are met. We have to show the compassion that's necessary to meet
their needs. We have to come up with all sorts of various tools for
them to be able to choose from, what they want to do, as far as what's
going to be fair for them, possibly even the offer to purchase their
whole property, if they think they're going to be impacted.
And as far as the loss of property values, I'd say if we ever make
that deal where we're going to buy their property, that it be a
historical high, so if there is a detrigation (sic) of the property values,
that we're not going to be impeding their investment, that they be
able to get the historical high and it would continue forward.
But we have to do what's right and we have to do what's right
for everyone, including the residents on the street and the rest of
Collier County.
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala.
Page 161
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not really advocating that we
avoid trying to make the tough decisions here. It is a tough decision.
I'm merely wanting to make sure that it's the right decision and that
we have exhausted all other alternatives.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My comments, sir, were not--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. I understand. I
didn't take it personally.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I ask you to please wait your mm.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 0I'm not being defensive here, I
was just making an observation.
I'm not a road planner, but let's just take one idea as an example.
What would happen with respect to traffic through put on the
existing four-lane road if we were to create access roads for the
residents on either side, close off the medians, the residents would
have access to the road at traffic signals at reasonable intervals. That
way you could devote the entire four lanes to moving traffic rapidly
back and forth and you would have the access road for the school
buses and for the residents to get out from their driveways in a safe
manner, it wouldn't create any difficulties for the school children or
the school buses, it would make sure everybody had an opportunity
to exit at a point in time where there was a traffic light, not trying to
fight traffic to get onto a busy highway.
It's just an idea. I'm not saying it's even feasible. I don't know
if it's feasible. But I'm convinced you could do it with the same
right-of-way space that we're talking about right now. And I don't
know if we've evaluated it, and I'm willing to listen to any
arguments.
But the only other comment I'm going to make about this is that
when we have uncertainty with respect to what we're going to do
with routes, it creates a lot of problems for residents. If we've got
two or three routes under consideration, and that means that the
residents along all those routes are uncertain about what's going to
Page 162
October 22, 2002
happen to their property, and it decreases the value of their property,
because no one is going to buy it if they think they're going to have a
big road coming right through their yard.
And I think we need to resolve that as quickly as possible, get
those alternative routes out of the way and make a decision about
where we're going to put them, in a way that has the least impact
upon our residents, okay?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, again, for the record, Norman
Feder.
We agree wholeheartedly. I label it -- and I was talking to this
board about that as it's holding people hostage. I don't like to do that.
We need to make the decisions and go forward.
What I would like to do is have some staff at least talk to you a
little bit about the fact that we did look at issues of service roads.
Please understand that we don't take these things lightly, in spite of
some opinion or impression I hear here, even on right-of-way
acquisition, although we welcome any additional assistance we can
get.
But having said that, Wayne will tell you what we looked at.
MR. HARTT: The traffic engineering report that Wilson-Miller
prepared, it considered the frontage road alternative, recognizing that
there are many driveways, particularly along Golden Gate City,
along the east side of Santa Barbara. The -- it would require
probablY a full taking of that first lot along Golden Gate City.
The problem, in terms of the operations of that, is that for
frontage roads to work, there has to be adequate setback to the
intersection that you're now creating between the side street and the
frontage road. And when we looked at how far that would have to be
offset, it then became an extraordinary task with respect to the
right-of-way costs. It could be done. It would have an order of
magnitude impact on the right-of-way costs for the project.
But we did look at it and it is documented in the report. So
Page 163
October 22, 2002
we're just -- you know, we're trying to be as sensitive as we can to
the needs and doing the best we can with what we have.
MR. FEDER: If I could, Commissioner, and Wayne, please
stay around to make sure it's accurate, it's not just costs, although
they're very significant. The key is, another issue that we've been
presented by the board, is that we are trying to avoid -- I won't say at
all costs, but I think I've heard that as my direction -- avoid the taking
of homes.
To look at a service road, I think what Wayne was saying to you
was not just the cost but to get that separation, you'd basically not
only across the city but all the way up to Logan on that east side, as
an example, would have to take basically the first row of homes the
whole way, and so you'd have a very significant impact on that
roadway, more so than necessarily taking "X" number of feet off of a
further setback lot to where we're closer than that. We're
recommending to you that we make offers to the take whole takes,
but essentially you'd have to take all that along that area. And then
you'd have some operation expenses.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know what you're saying. And I
don't want to try to design a road right here today.
MR. FEDER: Appreciate it. I just wanted to answer your
question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I would say to you that it is
not necessary to have that large a setback at the intersection itself to
permit traffic to enter onto the roadway. That can be done with
traffic signals. It's done in many cities throughout the United States.
And this service road could mn parallel with the other four lanes,
with barely a small median as an intersection -- as a separation.
It could even be designed so it's one way on the east side of the
street and the other way on the west side of the street, so you're not
having double lanes on both sides.
These are concepts that I have experienced personally where
Page 164
October 22, 2002
neighborhoods have had to go through this sort of a change. It can be
done.
The question that I have is what is the impact? Do we get the
through put that we really need on the main road?
MR. HARTT: Just if I could make another -- reiterate a point.
It's where that side road comes into the major connecting side street.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. And I'm
saying to you, that is not necessary to have that separated. It can be
separated by as little as a six-foot median, and all you need is a
traffic signal there that blocks the traffic long enough for those
people from the service road to turn onto the major road. And they
can turn on it and make a left turn or they can turn on it and make a
right turn. And all it takes is a traffic signal to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, what we're going to do now is
we're going to go to Commissioner Fiala, and then and after that,
we're going to start listening to our speakers, which we have how
many now?
MS. FILSON: Eleven.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Eleven?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, gee, I hate to take much time,
so I'll just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you take as much time as you
want. Every commissioner here is going to have to explore this fully.
That's what we're here for. That's what we're paid the big bucks for.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, and I -- I've heard the tough
decision and the not-so-tough decision. I think it's a tough decision
to remain with four, to remain with four, make it work with four.
And yeah, you know, you're fighting what analysts say --
analysts say you should go to six, and that's the easy way to do it,
just go with six and put that road through and then you have it. But I
think ifs a challenge for us to stay with four, make it work for us,
make it -- design it around the neighborhoods we're going to be
Page 165
October 22, 2002
barrelling it through. And design it properly so that it moves the
traffic most efficiently. I think that's important to us.
I've been trying to think as we're sitting here going through this
little --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- discussion. And I was trying to
think of anyplace in Collier County where we have a residential
neighborhood, especially a long residential neighborhood, we're
talking about miles here, where we have a six-lane highway through
it. And dam it, I can't think of one. But maybe there is something.
I'd love to know about it, just maybe so I can ride on it myself and
talk with people and see if they're having problems on this six-lane
highway. But I don't know of a six-lane highway through a
residential neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Try 41 North.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who lives on there?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't know, all the
residents of Pelican Bay along the berm could probably give you an
ear full.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah, but they live on the
side. You know, they don't live -- their driveways don't go out onto
U.S. 41 North.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's true, but to hear
them talk--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even along --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- you'd think they would.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but they have lights and
everything to get out on.
And even along that same road on 41 North, they even have --
what do they call that little road along, in front of the --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: An access road on--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Access road.
Page 166
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- the east side.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Because they don't want to
be pulling out onto a six-lane highway. They can't. It's too
dangerous. And they don't want their children to be picked up on a
six-lane highway.
It's just -- I've never seen a highway through a residential. And
that's -- I think of Logan Boulevard right now. That's where I'm
thinking of. And all those homes all along Logan. And all of a
sudden we're going to destroy their whole neighborhood. Well,
anyway, I'll finish.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's fine. I'm glad you shared
that with us.
Would you please call the first speaker, and then one for backup
-- oh, I'm sorry, let's take a short break. Forgive me. We're supposed
to go every hour and a half. We got so carried away in our
discussion, we've missed it. Ten-minute break. (Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats. Let's go with
the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: Okay, the first speaker is Neno Spagna, and he
will be followed by Tom Grant. Would Mr.-Grant like to come up
and stand on board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's an honor to have the president of
Golden Gate Estates Civic Association in this room.
Well, thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman,
MR. SPAGNA:
Ms. Fiala, gentlemen.
Good afternoon.
My name is Neno Spagna, and I'm here on
behalf of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, and I do
not represent myself or any of the Santa Barbara/Logan Boulevard
residents. They will be represented by their own membership and
themselves. So if I accidentally say we, what I mean is the civic
association and not me and somebody else, other than the civic
Page 167
October 22, 2002
association.
What I'm here for today is to speak briefly about the resolution
which the association passed on September the 18th. At that meeting
there was a group of residents along the Santa Barbara/Logan
Boulevard corridor who were present at our meeting, and they
expressed some of their views and concerns about the six-laning of
Santa Barbara Boulevard. Those concerns -- the association members
felt like those concerns were valid, and as a result they did adopt a
resolution, which I sent to each member of the board. I think you all
have copies. I did bring some extra copies along.
Briefly, what the resolution consisted of, and my interpretation
of what the residents along Santa Barbara/Logan Boulevard were
concerned about were two matters: Number one, they felt that there
needed to be more studies as to whether or not the timing was proper
for the six-laning of Santa Barbara Boulevard. They felt that perhaps
some additional studies should be made in order to confirm that the
timing was proper.
Also, they felt that the -- some of the design standards that had
been designed into the widening were unnecessary, and that perhaps
the reason -- well, that gets me into their second concern. Perhaps
the reason why there could be better design put into the project was
because they felt that they had not been consulted.
Now, probably this is a project that has been in standing for
many, many years. Many of them have moved in probably within
the last few years and may not have been fully aware of some of the
efforts that the county made in order to keep everyone informed.
However, the group felt that they had a good point, that many of
them who are living there could come up with some very good ideas
that would be very helpful to the designers --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead and sum it up, Mr. --
MR. SPAGNA: -- of the facility. So we did pass the resolution,
and you all have copies of that.
Page 168
October 22, 2002
And I hope that whatever action you take today will not
preclude any further discussions between Mr. Feder and the groups,
and that these people will still have a chance to express their views
and ideas. And I thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Mr. Tom Grant, and he will
be followed by Alan M-O-N-I-Z.
MR. GRANT: County Commissioners, thank you for listening
to me. I've been at all the meetings that have been going on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your name?
MR. GRANT: Oh, I'm sorry, my name is Tom Grant. I'm a
long-time resident of Collier County, probably one of the older ones.
And I'm also an affected property owner. But I do realize a lot of
things that do happen, I've seen a lot of changes in Collier County.
But just to reiterate a few things that I want everybody really to
consider and keep in mind, we've got the new interchange coming in.
That traffic's got to go someplace. It just doesn't stop there. And
you can't keep piling it on certain roads.
The Golden Gate/Santa Barbara intersection's a very important
intersection, and all of the other intersections, but I'm affected by that
intersection.
The other thing is, is we know that this has been a major
north-south corridor road since the 1980's. I knew it when I moved
here, I -- before I bought my property I did a lot of studies. That's
why I've done this, bought the property and so forth, is because I felt
that I knew where I wanted to buy and why.
Most of the property owners like myself are going to lose some
property. And also, from what I understand through all the meetings
and everything, we are going to be made whole, 100 percent whole. I
don't understand, there is -- I only know of one place that's going to
be affected by their house being taken. One.
Also, we're going to have roughly 35,000 now, possible 70,000
Page 169
October 22, 2002
in the future. And I agree with Mr. Carter, I've watched many, many
commissioners here, Max Haas on up, that's how long I've been here.
And if you keep passing the buck, the buck has got to stop
someplace.
And I commend you guys for doing what you did, because we
don't want to be in an emergency road situation again. I don't like
sitting in a parking lot when I'm on a four-lane road. And that's what
it reminded me of.
But the roads are getting better. And that's what I commend you
on. But to stop some of this -- and I'm sorry that some of us are
upset, but sometimes you have to just knuckle it up, suck it up and
move on. Because again, it's the betterment for that whole area road
system. If we back off of this road system, you're going to back off
someplace else, you're going to affect somebody else. I don't think
that's fair. You come through my neighborhood, which is six-lane
Airport'Road. That's my neighborhood. I've got to deal with six
lanes. Why can I not drive through their neighborhood just as
effectively as they drive through mine?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have a driveway onto
Airport Road?
MR. GRANT: No, because the county did not let us. And that's
what they're trying to do, they are trying to make a provision so that
these people can safely get across the road.
Last time I crossed Santa Barbara, I darted across two lanes to
hit the median perfectly so I didn't get hit in the front or hit in the
rear. I mean, that's what you're talking about up there.
And I'm just saying, please, make a decision, let's move
forward. Because the longer we wait, the problem is not going to be
solved by stalling or waiting. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Alan Moniz, and he will be
followed by David Ellis.
Page 170
October 22, 2002
MR. MONIZ: Thank you. For the record, my name is Alan
Moniz and-- Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, I do have property that fronts Santa Barbara
Boulevard. I've had that property since 1979. I've seen growth. I've
lived there. I've backed out onto the highway. I still back out onto
the highway today. I still deal with the traffic.
I realize that people have to make sacrifices for the betterment
of everyone in the community. I have to applaud Commissioner
Carter, and it's true, we have to bite the bullet sometimes and do what
sometimes is not very palatable to all of our constituents. But like
Mr. Grant said, we drive through all neighborhoods of Collier
County where road improvements were made at one time or another.
We all sacrifice. I'm going to have to sacrifice for my children so
they don't have to deal with the problems that we have here today.
I am certain that this board and most residents in Collier County
are aware that our traffic and road network has been neglected by
past administrators for many years, and now we're trying to correct
this situation and bring these failing roads to a present standard and
code, which our staff is working very hard at doing it, and we've seen
a lot of improvements. Since '79 I've seen tremendous
improvements. And just recently, not in the past commission. We
can't hold them accountable. They're gone. You have to deal with it.
And that's what we're asking for you to do.
Now, summing it up, the Florida Department of Transportation
had a quote that was rather good and I'd like to quote them, if I may.
It had to do with Golden Gate Parkway widening to six-lane, which
is going through a lot of neighborhoods on Golden Gate Parkway.
And I can't see why they can't do it on Santa Barbara.
If I may quote for a minute: The Golden Gate Parkway
improvements and Santa Barbara are a direct result of state and
county government answering the public's concern. Tremendous
growth has occurred in the above area as a result of-- traffic volumes
Page 171
October 22, 2002
have increased dramatically. It may be determined that intersection
approvements (sic) alone can no longer resolve many of the capacity
needs. They see that.
Listen, I can't tell you how to build roads. I'm an electronic
engineer. If you want me to design a circuit or you want me to
design something, I'll design it for you and I'll make it work. I don't
expect a road engineer to come and tell me how to design a circuit.
On the other hand, I as an electronic engineer cannot tell
transportation how to build roads. All they can do is make
recommendations for you and hopefully you'll listen to your staff.
That's why we pay them. If we're not going to listen to them, as I've
heard before, get rid of them and do nothing, as has been done in the
past.
I'm urging that you please listen to staff. Do not make the
mistakes -- the past commissioners have not dealt with these
problems. And please, move forward on the project. Thank you for
listening.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker will be David Ellis, and he
will be followed by Bob Stone.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Before I start my comments, I would like to say congratulations
on your decision on the eastern lands today. It was a very historic
decision you were able to make. I was part of the, I guess, sister
process in the rural fringe and I know how hard that group worked,
and it's exciting to see a plan come together like that.
Briefly, Commissioners, I -- Commissioner Carter, you were the
only one that was here when we came before you in 1999 with the
Collier Building Industry Association to talk about roads in Collier
County. We asked you to evaluate your funding sources. You've
done that. As a matter of fact, we've been through two very
challenging times in evaluating impact fees, as well as looking at
Page 172
October 22, 2002
other fUnding sources.
Commissioner Coletta, you're leading an effort now to look into
other fUnding sources, and we talked about some of that earlier
today. We suggested that you restructure your department; you've
done that, you've brought it all under one roof. You put together a
team that can build the roads.
And finally, the last thing we said in that thing was now it's time
to build the roads. We've been through a time frame in Collier
County where we did not build roads for a number of reasons. All of
them came together to create what we now have as a backlog in our
community.
I certainly don't pretend to speak to the details of what the -- the
decisions you have to make as far as the alignment of the road, the
design of the road, but I would encourage you, Commissioners, to
think of three things that we've talked about oftentimes in this
process. We need to develop the good plan, we need to fUnd that
plan, then we need to execute the plan as relates to roads.
As a matter of fact, Collier County, we've done a pretty good
job over the years of developing plans. I think your staff can show
you plans for all kinds of roads. They can show you plans back into
the Seventies for the building of Livingston Road. We even had
funding sources available oftentimes for those things.
But where we've fallen short is in the execution of those plans.
Certainly it's a little easier to say five years from now we're going to
do something. When we get closer, those decisions do become more
difficult.
I encourage you to move ahead with the safe, efficient and
cost-effective approach to building these roads. It's just come a time
in Collier County where we have to deal with those execution issues.
I've met with all of you and showed you the survey that we did
at CBIA this last year. We do it every two years. The question was
asked, which of the following do you think should be the top priority
Page 173
October 22, 2002
for elected officials in Collier County to work on for the next two
years? 36 percent of the citizens that were surveyed spontaneously
answered something to the effect of reducing road congestion. It was
an open-ended question. The survey person said that was rather
significant that they would all identify a certain answer. Now, in
Collier County, many of us think that would be a natural. But it was
an answer that was no ques -- no answer even came close to half that
as far as the amount. 36 percent of the people said that needs to be
your top priority.
Again, I encourage you to move ahead. In this recent discussion
of impact fees, we found by far it was the cost of right-of-way that
was the main driver in driving up the costs in the equations that led to
the significant increase in impact fees.
Commissioner Coyle, I applaud you in your thinking today in
bringing forth some ideas about what can we do to reduce those
costs. I encourage you to pursue those things, but more than
anything, I encourage you to move ahead with what we need to do to
continue to build a workable road network in Collier County. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Mr. Bob Stone. He will be
followed by Jeff Provenzano.
MR. STONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Bob Stone.
On Friday, October 11 th, we presented to the MPO our concerns
regarding the widening of Logan and Santa Barbara. These concerns
were presented, along with our proposed solutions to the widening
project. Both our concerns and the research and study of our
proposed solutions are valid, and they're based on county FDOT and
FHWA guidelines.
We ask that you delay a decision until additional studies using
up-to-date intersection design techniques could be employed to prove
Page 174
October 22, 2002
that state-of-the-art improvements to intersections on the network
would solve the problem of traffic flow without the widening project
and save millions of dollars in taxpayer funds.
Nothing I've heard here today from the engineering staff of
Wilson-Miller has convinced me that this has been done. I have
heard that they've used a modeling technique used for mid-block
modeling. Mid-block modeling has nothing to do with intersection
modeling. They've not said that Sedra (Phonetic), Transact or any of
the intersection modeling systems were used to do this modeling.
I'd' like for you to look at our existing intersections, if you will.
The thing I've heard today is that they want to expand these lanes
out. You'll still come to a complete stop when you make a right mm.
Our problem is origination and destination flow. Our problem is at
peak traffic hours. If we take and we widen Logan/Santa Barbara in
the middle, we're going to have twice as much choke at all of these
intersections.
Every manual, every guide, everything you see that's put out by
the Federal Highway Department, the state, anyone else, tells you
that intersections are nodes. They're choke points along an arterial.
Unless you take and increase the capacity of those nodes and
intersections first, what makes sense in widening an arterial?
What we've asked is that you study the intersections, you
improve the intersections, then if it's necessary, to then widen that
roadway. That's another subject.
We ask that a decision be delayed on this project until studies
could be made. The MPO did not vote to go ahead with it; they
delayed this due to our concerns and the studies and research that we
had conducted. We believe that this was a proper decision by the
MPO. We found--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll ask you to wrap it up, sir.
Continue, you know, the next couple of sentences until you come to a
conclusion there.
Page 175
October 22, 2002
MR. STONE: I would urge that the Board of County
Commissioners view this as a collective county-wide effort. This
affects everyone in Collier County, not just the residents of this
particular neighborhood. I would advise you to weigh your decision
today very carefully, and I'd ask you also to allow the studies to be
made before you go ahead with the decision to continue this project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Stone.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is JeffProvenzano, and he
will be followed by Gail Geary.
MR. PROVENZANO: Good afternoon.
Before I start, for the record, I would like to respectfully request
Mr. Coletta to disclose any conflicts of interest and also any and all
communications between himself and all parties connected with Mr.
Thomas L. Grant, including Mr. Grant and Mr. Moniz, who will
make a substantial amount of money if this resolution is approved
today. They were speaker number one and speaker number two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know Mr. Grant very well -- no,
no, Mr. Grant, you cannot reply to that, only I can. You're not at the
podium, you haven't been invited to reply.
I've known Mr. Grant for many years. He's a wonderful person.
He worked at the Chamber of Commerce with me. I know that he
owns some land on Golden Gate Boulevard. I -- socially a number of
years ago, I've known him in the Chamber of Commerce. That's
about the extent of it.
My other conflict of interest, if you want to call it conflict of
interest, is that I'm a citizen of Collier County and I drive on the
roads and I'm very much personally affected. My wife's a registered
nurse who's on the roads continuously for hospice, and she's very
much affected by the roads. So that's a pretty common analogy that
many people here can share.
I'm not too sure where the connection is that you're looking for,
but I'll be surely happy, as long as your time is here, to answer any
Page 176
October 22, 2002
questions that you would like concerning my relationship to anyone.
MR. PROVENZANO: And that's -- for the record, that's your
statement as far as communications concerning this project, for the
record, okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no, no, correction. You have to
make a request for records, and we'll be more than happy to share
them with you. As far as I know, you haven't. But there may have
been e-mails at different times, there may have been letters. And any
of that is available to you upon request.
MR. PROVENZANO: I do have e-mail, and I am asking you,
for the record, to please recuse yourself.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, sir, I will not. I don't see a
conflict of interest.
MR. PROVENZANO: I need to give these documents to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Court reporter.
Let the record reflect that Mr. Jeff Provenzano submitted some
material for the records.
MR. WEIGEL: And may the record also reflect that the
material provided the court reporter is not before the Board of
County Commissioners as they sit today.
MR. PROVENZANO: I'm sorry, Mr. Weigel, I didn't catch
that.
MR. WEIGEL: I said you have provided some documents for
the court reporter for the record, but those documents were not with
and being discussed with the Board of County Commissioners. The
Board of County Commissioners do not have them in their
possession.
MR. PROVENZANO: I understand that. Most of these
documents, they do have through the MPO board. And of course we
only were permitted -- we only had a one-day notice before this
meeting, which was yesterday. So --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would somebody care to comment
Page 177
October 22, 2002
on that?
MR. PROVENZANO: Is that my time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, Commissioner, if I can
help you, the residents -- Jeff Provenzano and some other residents in
the area have been working with staff on this road improvement, and
it's been a great relationship, from what I understand.
The problem with this item on the agenda, it wasn't until I spoke
to Jeff Provenzano, I think it was late, late on Sunday to let him be
aware that this item was on the agenda.
So his concern is a lot of the residents are not able to change
their schedule to be here today, and I think he might be requesting a
little bit more time to cover some of those issues that those residents
have shared with him that he wants the Board of County
Commissioners to hear today. Is that correct?
MR. PROVENZANO: Yes, it is. We didn't -- we had no idea,
it wasn't on the agenda that Wilson-Miller was going to give a
presentation today. You know, with a little bit of time -- we've
already documented the facts that -- what Wilson-Miller has said
here today and what they've said in the past is not tree, and we have
professionally come up with a -- with road designs and analogies that
prove that this particular section of Logan/Santa Barbara will never
need to be six-laned for any type of capacity. It just doesn't make
any sense.
But I think it's going to be hard to explain when somebody's
already'given you a presentation, and we found out something one
day that was printed in a paper. I was one of the only ones, I was
fortunate that Mr. Henning did call me late Sunday. But everybody
else, that was it. One day notice. I don't know how fair that is. I
mean, this is supposed to be America.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir, it is America, and we're
very proud of it.
MR. PROVENZANO: Well, I--
Page 178
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: God bless America.
MR. PROVENZANO: -- am, too, and I fought hard for that
freedom. And I've got scars on my body --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I want to remind you that we
just --
MR. PROVENZANO: -- fighting hard for every one of you
people sitting up there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I appreciate that. Your three
minutes is up. We cut the -- we had everybody else for three
minutes. I'd have to call back the president of the Estates Civic
Association, allow him more time, how about the president of the
contractors association, he did three minutes.
MR. PROVENZANO: Mr. Coletta, how much time did you
give Wilson-Miller and everybody in here? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr.--
MR. PROVENZANO: You put the government and the
employees before the people.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Provenzano. Sir--
MR. PROVENZANO: That's -- it's a freedom of speech and
that's my statement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we allowed you to exercise it,
and I'll ask you to sit down now.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to appeal to the
Board of Commissioners because of this item and the citizens'
involvement in it, and Commissioner Coletta, you stated that's what
we're here all about is to give them enough time to air their concerns
so that we can make a logical decision.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, three
minutes is adequate time. We've been through this scenario of events
about two, three times now. I do think that we have given adequate
time to everyone. If we're going to do that, we're going to start this
Page 179
October 22, 2002
whole proceedings over again from square one and have everyone
come up and we would do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Point of order.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the point of order is three
minutes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question is Roberts Rule,
is it up to the Board of Commissioners or is it up to the chairman on
presentation or the request by one commissioner?
MR. WEIGEL: It's generally the prerogative of the chair to set
the standard. The ordinance provides for five minutes, but this board
has been operating for three over a period of many meetings,
different kinds of meetings, and that's all right, too. If the board, as a
collective board, takes a formal vote to change the order of
procedure, then I would opine, if asked, that that would be the
procedure for the day or for the item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we allow
the citizens to -- allow them enough time to get their presentation
across for the Board of Commissioners to make a logical decision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Fiala. Any
discussion?
Hearing none, I'll call for the motion. All those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
The motion fails.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Page 180
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Who's the next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gail Geary, and she will be
followed by William Snelling.
MS. GEARY: I just have one quick question. Are we going by
the five-minute--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three-minute, ma'am.
MS. GEARY: -- excuse me, that was stated in the agenda, or
the three minutes from an agenda from a meeting that isn't here now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have three minutes, but I need
you to come up to the podium so everybody can hear your questions.
MS. GEARY: Okay. My name is Gail Geary. I live on 12th
Avenue Southwest, Golden Gate Estates, and I've lived there for 25
years.
Referring to the October 1 lth meeting with the MPO board, we
presented reasonable and factual information as to why this project
must be reexamined before it's allowed to continue. Here we are just
11 days later. And it tells me that the -- all of us, you, the
commissioners, and the people that presented wasted an entire day so
the MPO could go on record as having given its presentation time.
But the questions have not been answered and the problems and
inconsistencies that we presented have not been reviewed, discussed
or resolVed.
Mr. Coletta, you stated at the MPO hearing that during your
campaign you promised that, quote, come hell or high water, these
roads will go in.
What are these roads? At the time of your campaign, the
six-laning of Santa Barbara was never mentioned. And does hell or
high water mean regardless of the impact on the neighborhoods or
the soundness of the engineering?
You are constructing a highway designed solely for through
traffic, with no regard for the more than three miles of residential
Page 181
October 22, 2002
neighborhood. You're setting a precedent for Collier County and the
rest of the state for the destruction of a residential community.
Mr. Coletta, you also spoke of encroachment of our property
and stated that you would like to have in the toolbox the ability to
purchase the residential property of those who live directly on the
corridor outright, fair market value or historical high plus a five
percent aggravation fee to make them whole.
This is not mentioned in the resolution here today. And for a
commissioner to suggest such an enormous undertaking in time,
energy and most of all tax dollars, where is that extra money going to
come from, truly reveals the inappropriateness of this project.
And why would you only give consideration of those people
who live directly on the corridor, without giving any consideration to
those of us who live on the side streets and reside in Golden Gate
City that are also going to have our property and our travel and
everything directly and adversely affected by this restricted six-lane
expressway?
You stated that we were creating excuses for delay, delay,
delay, when in fact we have repeatedly stated we want action. Not
delays, we want action with state-of-the-art improvements, not
expansion of the roadway and intersections, which was illustrated in
our documentation.
This project has become a reckless and runaway steamroller that
is built on conflicting statistics, lack of studies to evaluate the impact
on everything from safety, neighborhood isolation, noise, air quality,
anything you can think of, and if allowed to continue it, it will be a
waste of the tax dollars and, by Mr. Coletta's own words, a decrease
in the property values of those residential properties along the
roadway. It will destroy a residential community and forever change
the landscape of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
The next speaker?
Page 182
October 22, 2002
MS. GEARY: Got it in.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is William Snelling, and he will be
followed by Jim-- it looks like S-P-O-U-N-I-A-S.
MR. SPOUNIAS: Spounias.
MS. FILSON: Spounias.
MR. SNELLING: My name is William Snelling.
Six-laning of Logan and Santa Barbara will inconvenience and
hurt thousands of Collier County voters, directly and indirectly,
including many others and me who do not live on either road and
who already detest and abhor the road with good reason. We count
on you to please protect all of us from this 28-million-dollar mistake.
I turn over the rest of my time to Jeff Provenzano.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three minutes per individual, sir.
You may continue with your remainder of your three minutes. You
can't assign your time.
MR. SNELLING: Oh. This is such a serious thing, and it lasts
a lifetime for me and for all the people that live on my streets. Please
have pity on us. I mean, this is a serious, serious thing. And there
are thousands of us that are going to suffer from this for the rest of
our lives. That's not some -- Collier County is a wonderful place, but
this destroys a whole lot of it, including the very American idea that
the public is supposed to be the boss. You're supposed to be our
servants. For goodness sakes, please.
I hope you're really hearing me. This is serious.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, as he's saying that, I
remember a while back, long before I was ever here, when I first got
started civically, they wanted to put a homeless shelter into a
neighborhood, and we fought that tooth and nail. We said if you
build it, they will come. Put it in an area that could accommodate the
homeless shelter. We were voted against, and they put the homeless
shelter in our neighborhood. The bigger they built it, the more
Page 183
October 22, 2002
people came.
They have a lot of problems in that area now. And instead of
locating it where it should have been, we're going to have to live with
it forever.
And just as this gentleman just said, some of these serious
mistakes affect us forever. Our vote up here today affects our
community forever.
And I feel if we build it, they will come. The bigger we build it,
the more people will use it. If we design it as a roadway through a
neighborhood, people will use it as a roadway through a
neighborhood. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are we done with public
speakers?.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We still do, but I -- you were just
ready to push the button.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, no, I'll wait. I'll probably be
a little cooler when I respond. I think we ought to finish the public --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How am I doing?
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Jim Spounias, and he will
be followed by Mike Reagan.
MR. SPOUNIAS: For the record, my name is Jim Spounias. I
live at 52237 Mahogany Ridge Drive. And I hope to bring the
contentiousness down a bit.
I want to thank the commissioners for sharing your opinions and
perspectives with us. And I think that -- I agree with Commissioner
Fiala wholeheartedly when the question is put to us about a six-lane
highway through a residential area. I know that road projects have
been fought. The term nimbi is used frequently, and in some cases
that's the case.
This is a very special example, though, because Commissioner
Fiala asked the question, a lot of people repeatedly do, where is there
Page 184
October 22, 2002
a six-lane highway where there are driveways? And your questions
and comments, all of you, are very insightful in that sense, and I want
to thank you for that. Because that's what we're talking about, in a
way. Political process is about compromise, it's about line drawing.
Now, my preference is to draw the line at four lanes. These
people had an expectation when they brought their property. It was
already -- I forget the term, it was already deeded, so to speak, for a
four-lane highway. There was a reasonable expectation that that
would be. It is a residential corridor.
According to County Resolution 247, it's an access seven
corridor. I haven't heard that discussed either. This is
unprecedented. To vote on it today, I believe to vote for it is a big
mistake.. And I don't think that we're going to have many problems if
we seriously tackle this issue within the next few months. The
property values will not escalate so high that if it is reconsidered, that
is the six-laning, and I am wholeheartedly against it, I don't think at
that time there will be any impact.
We just learned of this meeting. That's why there aren't more
people here today. That's why we didn't get, in our opinion, a fair
chance to adequately address Wilson-Miller's report. Obviously
Wilson-Miller knew that this was going to be on the agenda well
before the citizens did. And no disrespect to the commission, but
that's simply a slap in the face. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mike Reagen, and he will be
followed by Ron Talone.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, before Mr.
Reagen speaks, the last speaker said everybody knew before they
did. I find that hard to believe. I think this was publicly noticed. It
was at the MPO.
I think that -- you know, I'm going to say it one more time,
citizens have a responsibility, too. And if you want to find out
Page 185
October 22, 2002
something, we're trying to make it available for you to find out. But
to come in here at the 11 th hour and 59 minutes and tell me as a
seated commissioner we're being unfair because you didn't know, I'm
sorry, ladies and gentlemen, I can't go there.
MR. REAGEN: Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, my
name is' Mike Reagen. I'm the president of the Naples Area Chamber
of Commerce. I'm here to ask you to begin to move forward with the
right-of-way acquisition.
We have challenges in this cormnunity today because, as you've
stated over and over again, your colleagues, your predecessors did
not make decisions, they didn't make plans and they didn't fund them
and they didn't move forward on them.
The details of how you go forward in the next several years
clearly need to be worked out. And you've articulated that and you're
very sensitive to that, and I'm not in any way on behalf of the
chamber trying to diminish that. But if you don't move forward on
the right-of-way acquisition process, I think you're doing yourselves
and the community a disservice and will not begin the ball rolling to
begin to look at those hard decisions.
What you're doing today is in concert conceptually with the
growth plan you have for the community and with the MPO,
generally a consistent plan. It's the right thing to do. There are tens
of thousands of people who travel on these roads and other roads to
work and to live. So I would ask you to begin the process of
acquiring the land and move forward. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Ron Telone. He will be
followed by Tom Conrecode.
MR. TELONE: Good afternoon. My name is Ron Telone, I'm
with the consulting firm of David Plummer & Associates. I'm here
on behalf of the Southwest Florida Transportation Initiative,
otherwise known as SWFTI.
We encourage the board to move forward with the
Page 186
October 22, 2002
implementation of the county's long-range plan by approving this
project for the six-laning of Santa Barbara Boulevard. Our firm has
studied long-range transportation needs in Collier County on a
number of occasions previously. Those studies have consistently
shown the need for six lanes in this corridor. I have no doubt that
six-laning is needed in this corridor.
As far as the timing, the county's AUIR, the volumes and
projections in the AUIR indicate that the six-laning -- the four-lane
Santa Barbara would be deficient within the next two to three years.
So therefore, on behalf of SWFTI, we recommend that you follow
through with your plans to six-lane this corridor. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Tom Conrecode --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many more speakers are there,
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Judy Stevens.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CONRECODE: My name is Tom Conrecode, for the
record. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
It's certainly a shame that this has resulted in personal attacks
over some differences of opinion about a road project.
Aside from that, I'd ask that you please keep the project moving
forward. Staff has made numerous revisions to the plan. They've
made design changes and certainly some pretty good concessions to
the property owners.
If you fall into the trap that previous commissioners have, you're
setting a very bad precedent for the future, for every project that's
going to follow this one. Please don't repeat the errors of previous
commissions. Develop a plan, fund the plan, more importantly,
execute the plan. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: And your final speaker is Judy Stevens.
Page 187
October 22, 2002
MS. STEVENS: My name is Judy Stevens, and I live at 5410
Mahogany Ridge Drive, which is the comer of Logan Boulevard and
Mahogany.
And I had no intentions on speaking today, but I've been to all
the meetings. I'm not one to speak. I wanted to mm my time over to
Jeff, but that's not going to be allowed today.
I can say that I'm highly opposed to this project for obvious
reasons; children safety being number one. There have been two
accidents on the comer of our street within this year where two
people have died. And by increasing the traffic to this area, it is not
going to help, it is only going to hinder the project.
I'm not happy about my property value, that I'm going to lose
money as well.
I don't know what else to say other than, you know, think big.
You know, you have to think and make the right decision for
yourself.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, ma'am.
And that concludes our speakers and closes the --
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- public portion of the meeting.
I'd like to make a motion at this time, recommending that the
Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached resolutions
authorizing the acquisition by girl or purchase of all rights and
interest in real property which are required for the construction and
maintenance of a six-lane section of Santa Barbara Boulevard/Logan
Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to North Pine Ridge (sic), and, two,
where property owners are willing to sell the parent tract and all
improvements and the county has determined that a significant
impact Will occur to the parent tract as a result of the project,
authorize staff to require the parent tract at fair market value; and to
authorize the Chairman to execute same on behalf of the Board; and
to approve all and any budget amendments required.
Page 188
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion from Commissioner Coletta,
a second from Commissioner Carter.
We'll go to discussion, first Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not opposed to making that
tough decision of expanding this roadway. I guess what I'm opposed
to is taking a look at the design of the intersection that Bob Stone
presented at the MPO, with two dedicated right-hand turn lanes that
would funnel into the main line of Golden Gate Parkway was just
one of the examples. And I think his example could be fit throughout
all of Collier County, and it would not impede the traffic of that
right-hand movement. We have so many signalized intersections
where a right-hand turn does need to stop and wait for the green
arrow and so on and so forth.
That's one thing that I thought that the direction from the MPO
was to the design team and the staff of Collier County. And that was
not performed.
The intersection that was modeled was the existing proposed
intersection improvements. If that would alleviate and allow the
main line to flow on Logan/Santa Logan, then I think it's worthy of
looking at. Because we can use that money for other areas that we
need to improve here in Collier County.
So I would hope that the motion would fail so that we can really
take a good look at good intersection improvements. And this is --
part of the community character is not so much widening the road as
to keep them two-laned or four-laned with other improvements.
So if it does come back that that design will not work for past
2015, I think it's prudent that we go forward with the six-laning, but
right now I'm not convinced that that is the best thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a couple questions of staff.
Page 189
October 22, 2002
If Santa Barbara remains four lanes, what are your projections on
traffic with respect to level of service?
MR. FEDER: Basically out there now, very shortly, as
mentioned in the AUIR, if we don't make intersection improvements
or anything beyond the four-laning, we're talking two plus years
where we have failure at the level of service.
If you make intersection improvements as was identified-- and
I'll speak to the other -- then you can try and have that hold until
about 2011. You'd be able to finish those about 2007, and then you
have about four years before you then ended up in failure of level of
service,' and then would have to go to the ultimate six lanes.
We did look at other design alternatives. Now, what was
presented at the MPO, and I'll let staff speak to it as a consultant, was
you heard the term and we heard it quite a bit, state-of-the-art design.
When I asked what state-of-the-art design was at the MPO, I was
shown a picture of Bayshore. And Bayshore has nice trees and it's
four-laned, it is not an arterial. And I made that comment. But the
statement was that was state-of-the-art.
To the free-flow dual left that has been noted just recently, as
that was shown during the MPO meeting, we never received any
further concept on it. But that is typically what you use coming off
of an interstate or an expressway. It takes up an awful lot of
right-of-way, it doesn't eliminate your left-turn triple lefts; you still
have to .deal with your dual rights.
It does extend it out and try to take that a little bit out of the
phase, but what it requires is on the receiving facility, whether or not
that happens to be Pine Ridge, Golden Gate or off of those onto
Santa Barbara/Logan, it requires considerable room of merging from
the two to the one and the one into the free-flow lanes of the major
other arterials, which in this case is six lanes.
So I can let the design people talk to that more specifically, but
we did look at it.
Page 190
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In order to make the
improvements to the intersections, must you purchase right-of-way?
MR. FEDER: Yes. And I will let the design team go through
that. We've asked them and that's what they were presenting to you,
and I'll ask them to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just a yes or no question.
MR. FEDER: My understanding, and everything I've been told
and what I've looked at, is to make the intersection improvements,
you have to buy the right-of-way. Even in the state-of-the-art, you'd
have to buy different right-of-way, additional right-of-way, the
answer is yes.
In effect, you buy the right-of-way pretty close to the six-laning,
and you have to buy it a ways back to allow for that merge or that
weave from the existing land configuration over to the revised at the
intersection.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, there are two situations
then: One is assuming that we proceed with the intersection
improvements first to see what their impact is and one I favor, but
that will require purchase of right-of-way.
The next thing is, if Santa Barbara then becomes overloaded,
you will have to take action to improve traffic through put on Santa
Barbara through some method, either widening it or closing off a lot
of the accesses onto the highway and using some other means of
access, whether it's a service road or whatever. And in either case, it
seems to me that right-of-way is required. MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, I think it is financially
irresponsible to delay a decision on that issue for 10 years, but I very
strongly feel that if we do any construction at all on that highway,
that we should take into consideration those intersection
improvements first before we ever begin anything with anything else.
And furthermore, I think that we need to continue to look at this
Page 191
October 22, 2002
design process to be sure that we're doing the right thing. I do not
see the acquisition of right-of-way as meaning that we will in fact
construct a six-lane highway there.
MR. FEDER: We still have to come back to you for the
construction contract approval.
And if you note also in your executive summary, this agenda
item, we noted that since you have to buy the right-of-way,
effectively the six-laning at the intersection a ways back for that
merge, that what we were asking for is your approval to move on the
six lanes, and then for the board to, after we continue to work with
the community, to go from a 60 percent plus design plans to address
some issues. And we heard today some discussion relative to
on-street bike lanes and other issues we still need to look at.
But as we complete further that design, we come back to you,
before we actually go out to construction, we still have to have that
approved by this board. Whether or not we implement the
intersection and wait on the six-laning or do the six-laning all at one
time, it--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the board should approve the
right-of-way purchase, can we require that the right-of-way purchase
for the intersections be done first?
MR. FEDER: We'd acquire the full area. Obviously we can
concentrate on that. But as far as our negotiations efforts, we would
go for the full corridor. But we can focus as much as we can --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But what I'm getting at is that the
residents have asked for more time to make sure that we have
evaluated all the alternatives. And I know that the staff and the
consultants have said yes, we have. The residents have said no, you
haven't. We still need to resolve that issue.
But if everyone understands that intersection improvements are
essential, it seems to me that it's in everybody's best interest to at
least proceed with the right-of-way acquisitions for the intersection
Page 192
October 22, 2002
improvements.
MR. FEDER: And how far back. As --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. FEDER: -- we showed you, it goes quite a ways back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. Whatever is
necessary to create a safe intersection would seem appropriate, and
then we can begin evaluating this other issue and trying to resolve the
differences with the residents before we start buying up the rest of
the right-of-way. Is that a reasonable way to proceed?
MR. FEDER: Obviously direction of the board is always
reasonable, sir. But what I will tell you -- but I will tell you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then make this problem go away.
MR. FEDER: I am trying to, sir, and I don't want to add a
problem. But I did tell you that along with that is a very important
and difficult decision.
What I would tell you is you then would create some time,
while we're negotiating on what would be most of this corridor, by
the time you're done pulling that back. And I'll let the consultant
show you some of the analysis.
You would then delay that process of appraisals and
negotiations with others in the middle and not be holding them
hostage.
What I'm telling you is the need for the six lanes is out there.
However, we do not move on six lanes. I do not move past phase
construction or any construction until this board authorizes my
construction contract as well.
So what we're asking you today, and I'll ask you, in spite of
your good comments, Commissioner, is that we move on the
six-lane, with the understanding that we will continue in our design
to look at a number of features and issues with the community, and
that as far as whether or not you build six lanes or you keep to a
four-lane main line and build the intersections on a base construction,
Page 193
October 22, 2002
that will come before this board in the future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, actually, what I'm
suggesting is something slightly different, and that is that everybody
recognizes that intersection improvements would be the first step. So
perhaps we can reach agreement on focusing on the intersection
improvements initially, both from the standpoint of right-of-way as
well as construction approval. And then that will give us time to deal
with the residents' concerns about the other areas where we have not
reached a conclusion.
MR. FEDER: And again, Commissioner, I meant in my
statement, obviously we'll take direction from this board.
But I do want to bring to your attention, what was presented to
you is an example between Pine Ridge and Green Boulevard.
Essentially to address, as you're putting it, the intersection
improvements under the fact of the 4,700 feet, leaving essentially
650 feet of that, where that frontage is, I would not acquire the
right-of-way right now, from what you're telling me.
And what I would propose to you is that I'm holding those folks
hostage. I'm not acquiring that and giving them the opportunity to
get their issues addressed and resolved. I think that we ought to be
completing that gap, because that gap is very small relative to the
intersection improvement needs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I help out here one
minute?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you're out of order, but go
ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean out of order as far as who's
next.
I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is still -- we need to
Page 194
October 22, 2002
acquire some areas for water retention, even if we just do the
intersection improvements. If the board is going in the direction of
let's take a look at what the intersection improvements are going to
do and leave it four-laned, we still need that acquisition process. So I
feel comfortable with the resolution, if that's the intent of the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not approval for construction,
right? That's what you're saying, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, obviously we'd like to be in that
stage, but what I am telling you is we have to come back before this
board, and we've even put into the executive summary an
acknowledgement that it may be a staged construction with the
intersection possibly put in before the main line six-laning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To simplify it even more, what we're
saying is that we purchase the right-of-way for six lanes, but we still
-- the talks are still ongoing where it might still be -- end up being
four lanes. Is that what you're saying?
MR. FEDER: Four lanes, with intersection improvements --
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely correct.
And Norm, I'm going to interrupt for just a second here. And if
during that design, as we take a look at things -- and I've asked the
transportation planning folks and Norm to take a look at access roads
to see if it can fit within the right-of-way in that process in order to
take a look at that and get at some of the safety issues for busses and
get them off the road and see what that'd do for us based on the
comments that were made.
But when you even look at the access roads, you're still going to
nued the right-of-way, that footprint. And when I talked to the
design engineers a little bit earlier, on the intersections, they're
talking a footprint, a cross-section of 300 foot, okay. And when you
get on the long stretches outside the intersections, you're looking at
150 foot during that corridor. So those are the cross sections. And I
Page 195
October 22, 2002
know Commissioner Coyle, you're -- you've got interest --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, I'm going to try to put it
in the simplest terms possible so that we all understand it. And I
can't tell you how much I appreciate Commissioner Henning coming
up with some thought process into this that offers some different
options than we're looking at.
We -- everything can still be going forward. We're running
parallel, but the parallel idea with the road being four- or six-laned
haven't reached that point where they crossed. We'd be purchasing
the rights to property for up to six lanes, or an access road, but we --
and we're moving that forward so that we can act accordingly when
the time comes.
Meanwhile, dialogue is still going on with the community. Is
that correct? Is that what you just said?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good.
Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, the first one kind of lost its
effect. But Commissioner Henning was talking way back a couple
times ago about whatever statement he made. What he said was in
essence smart growth. That's what he was talking about, smart
growth. And that's the way we should be addressing this road,
smartly. I think that that's very important for us to understand.
Again, I still -- I'm still looking for a six-lane highway through a
residential neighborhood, just so I can compare to see what kind of
havoc we're going to wreak on this neighborhood, if indeed we are. I
mean, maybe it will just fit in real nicely in a residential
neighborhood, but I don't have one to compare with. So here we are
voting on something and we don't know what damage we can do by
this vote. So I wanted to say that.
And let's see. I think what our main objective is, and what
we've been talking about all along, really, moving traffic smoothly,
Page 196
October 22, 2002
we're talking about moving it all the way to the Lee County line.
That's something Norm wants to get done, to have another through
road. And I think four lanes, if we're moving it all the way through,
we're still accomplishing that. From U.S. 41 East all the way out to
the Lee County line. And if that's four roads (sic), it's still going to
be moving a lot of traffic.
If we build it smartly with the proper intersections and with the
proper signaling, I think we can have a great highway and yet not
disrupt or destroy a neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner, a couple of
thoughtS. I would say this because I've seen it too many times, but
I'm going to give you a philosophical statement, which you won't
have to listen to after one more meeting.
Commissioner decisions long delayed and expectations by
neighborhoods long nourished create morale problems, they create
animosity, and they create distrust in government.
So I don't know what people are going to hear out there today,
but I support the original motion, because you're going to acquire all
of the right-of-ways. It also gives you that opportunity to six-lane,
because at the end of the day this board will never probably have to
deal with that, but some board's going to deal with that. And if you
didn't buy the dirt, they're going to look at you just like we looked at
the people that sat in these chairs before we did and said why didn't
you have your lights on.
Commissioner Fiala says I don't know of any other six lanes in a
community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, in a residential.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, a residential community.
Let me give one right in your area. Lely Resort.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's not a six --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: This was a report -- this is a
Page 197
October 22, 2002
report from Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson. The attorney was Ken
Cuyler. This says Lely Development, six-laning requirement.
Closing paragraph says, in conclusion, based on the development
projections and development commitments provided by the
developer, we find that there is a development commitment to
six-lane the north/south main boulevard between U.S. 41 and
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road as a part of the Lely development
internal arterial system.
Now, you're going to see this one long after I'm gone. But
you're going to see them. So you're going to see them in every
neighborhood in situations like this.
So I don't see any difference here, frankly, Commissioner, that
you're going to be looking at this whether it's in your neighborhood
or whether it's in Tom Henning's, or whether it's up north, you're
going to see these things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm woing to ask you both to soften
it just a little.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, and just -- I just have to
respond.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that the four lanes that are
in Lely Resort are kind of typical of the same four lanes you have in
Pelican Bay. They're nice, landscaped roads and they lead into
communities on the side. There aren't any homes with driveways
that are backing onto those four-lane -- well, and they're not six
lanes, obviously. But there aren't any driveways there. And this is
what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people along Logan
who have driveways right on the street. That's what I'm concerned
with.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
concerned with this, Commissioner.
trying to make --
I'm not saying that I'm not
And I'm not angry. I'm just
Page 198
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it sounded like it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It sounded like it to me, too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If I was angry, ask
Commissioner Coletta when he saw me in the parking lot this
morning. That's anger.
What I'm saying is probably with passion, that you can't avoid
making' these decisions. They're going to keep coming at you and
coming at you. And at some point in time county commissioners
have to say I empathize with all of it, I think we've got a workable
plan, but let's not raise false expectations. Let's do what we have to
do and then work with the community to find the best possible
solution. And if you can find something that is more appropriate or
feasible or acceptable -- you're never going to get them all. Because
you're going to get some folks, no matter what you do, are not going
to like it. And you've got to live with the majority and not the
minority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we have to make wise
decisions. We have to make decisions that affect our community
now and for the future. And we have to take --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner, we could debate
this all night. I think a wise decision is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think both of you made your
points, and I'm going to take just a moment here now to make a
couple of small comments.
First off, this did not turn out to be the most pleasant experience
I have had as a commissioner. It's not every day that I have
somebody make claims that I'm in bed with somebody and that I --
you know, what I'm saying is, and I want to draw a comparison here,
I can't -- sir, I forgive you for that, but I want to tell you right now
that those kind of misinformations is the same kind of
misinformation we've been receiving up here with a lot of the data
that's been coming across, little bits and pieces. We pay Mr. Feder,
Page 199
October 22, 2002
by God, lots of money. I'm not going to mention the salary, believe
me. It's considerable. And the reason we do that is because Mr.
Feder is extremely qualified. We pay this man to get us on the right
track, to advise us on what to do, and he's very brave when he stands
up here, but he's giving you a message. He'll do whatever you want
to do in the end. But he's being honest and he's trying to be polite
about it. But he's telling you that you need to have this road or else
it's going to fail time after time.
Now, we can disregard his advice, and we can do whatever we
darn well want to do. But let's be honest about it. Let's say we know
the roads are going to fail but we don't give a dam. We're going to
live just like the commissioners did before us. We're going to do just
what our predecessors did. Why should we have to do anything
different? Why should I have to worry about a road that's going to
be built when I'm out of office and retired? Why should my staff
have to worry about it when they're going to be retired from this
road's built (sic).
No, I'll tell you, it's not an easy thing to sit up here and tell
people that something has to be done, when it has to be done, and
take the advice of somebody like Mr. Feder, who has the experience
to be able to advise us.
And I'll tell you something, if I have to take advice from
someone, I'm going to take advice from staff that's professional, has
the background, has proven that they know what they're doing
through years and years of experience, rather than somebody comes
in with distorted information. And you've seen an example of it,
when you try to tie me with Tom Grant. I can't believe it. But I
forgive you, sir.
And with that, we'll go on to -- Commissioner Coyle is gone.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Were you done?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I'm not done. Now I'm done.
Page 200
October 22, 2002
Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: He's just getting started,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because this is costing the
taxpayers money, so I call the question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I say this is costing the
taxpayers a lot of money, making political statements, so I call the
question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you don't quite so quick.
Commissioner Coyle's light's on, and if he wants to call it, then we'll
go from there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no. Oh, no. If you're going to
vote, I'm not going to delay that.
What was the motion again?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion was to -- as I originally
stated, purchase the property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Commissioner Henning had
suggested something else, or something slightly different, or a
clarification?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It sounds like the board is
going into a direction to where we're going to acquire the intersection
and we need to acquire even more of that for -- even if we just do the
intersection improvements, that Mr. Feder's understanding is let's
take a look at the intersection improvements and see how that -- how
far out that brings us. And I think that -- what I've seen is the
majority of the board of commissioners in favor of that, and if it--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, clarify it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and if it fails within a certain
period of time where it's not reasonable, then his understanding is
we're going to do the six-lane.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that wasn't my understanding of
Page 201
October 22, 2002
the motion, Commissioner Henning. The motion was to purchase the
land to keep the discussion going with the residents, to purchase the
six-- enough to be able to do six-laning, with the idea in that
footprint that if we find that there's another way, we would go to
four-laning and with possibly an access road, but to move forward on
the purchasing of the property. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's the primary
difference, in the positions of at least two commissioners.
Let me see if I can focus on a compromise. We all know that the
intersections are necessary, right? Everybody says the intersections
are necessary. We all know that additional right-of-way is necessary
to do the intersections.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? And so we all know that
the intersections should be done first. So if the intersections should
be done first, why shouldn't a right-of-way purchase for the
intersections be done first, and then as we're doing that, we'll have an
opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the intersections as we
proceed, and we can continue with acquiring the right-of-way, if
there's an indication that it is necessary to do so.
Now, I'd like to say one other thing about this: Based upon
what we've been told, and I'm not vouching for it, but based upon
what we've been told, something is going to have to be done with
Santa Barbara, even if we leave it four lanes. You're going to have to
buy more right-of-way, even if you leave it four lanes, because you
cannot have a four-lane highway with the projected amount of traffic
on it and have driveways coming out every couple of hundred feet.
That's just not safe. And it's not going to happen. You cannot permit
that to happen. So if the situation is that you leave it four lanes but
not provide some limited accesses, then you've created a very, very
serious safety hazard.
Page 202
October 22, 2002
So you're going to need some additional right-of-way, even if
you leave Santa Barbara at four lanes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For access.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For something. For something.
So people can get out on the road safely. Because even at four lanes,
it's going to get crowded.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, the Commissioners previously
asked me to hopefully give them something to get this issue resolved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Please.
MR. FEDER: I hope I'm going to be doing that right now.
I think what I'm hearing from the board is pretty much also what
I think we presented to you. And I hope I'm right in this statement.
Much like when we go from two lanes, knowing that we may need
four and possibly six, shortly after we purchase the right-of-way for
six, only build the four, if it's going to be a long period of time before
the six is needed, or come to you and say we should go with the six
initially right away.
In the same vein, we're recommending we buy the right-of-way
for the ultimate six. I need it for the intersection improvements. For
the mid-part becomes do I need to go six initially.
So in effect the way I characterize it is buying the right-of-way
for the six. The decision of going from two to four is going from
four to intersection improvements. And going two to six is going to
the ultimate six from the four-lane.
We have to come back to you to get approval of that
construction contract, either to go from the four lanes to enhanced
intersections within that six-lane right-of-way, or to go to the
ultimate six-lane cross-section. And you get to approve that at that
time. I think that's accomplishing what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's where I'm going.
Because the motion before us is not to build a thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
Page 203
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not giving you
authorization to build a single lane thing.
MR. FEDER: Motions for the right-of-way in the executive
summary specifically cites that with the issues raised, that in fact the
board may have to decide whether it wants to do what I'm calling
incremental construction or phased construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Feder, would you give me
some estimate of what the cost differences would be to take the
approach that you're recommending, as far as efficiencies in
building? Do you have any idea?
MR. FEDER: We don't have that cost data at this time. But
before we come to you either recommending one or the other, we
will have the ultimate for your consideration costed out as well, as
we do in each case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So I can incorporate that in
my motion, that we will -- that the actual size of the road, the
footprint of the road will be made at a future date when the contract's
going to be -- prior to the contract being awarded.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The construction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The construction, right. Does that
sound acceptable --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'll adopt--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- that in my second in the art of
compromise.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, if there's
nothing else, we're going to -- I'm going to call for the motion: All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 204
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you very much. It's been a long -- take a short
five-minute break here. Don't go too far.
(Brief recess.)
Item #10C
BID 02-3424 AWARDED TO AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES INC.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,495,051.66; AND $600,000
ALLOCATED FOR CONTINGENCY PURPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD
PROJECT FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now we've got a quorum.
Okay, let's go right back to it. Next item is legislative agenda,
right? Here we go.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Commissioners, Gregg Strakaluse, for
the record. Item 10(C) is award of bid for a construction contract in
the amount of $12,495,051.66 to Ajax Paving Company for
improvements to the Goodlette-Frank Road, of which we already do
have the right-of-way.
The improvements to this road include six lanes between Pine
Ridge and Center Street, and then four lanes from Center Street to
Vanderbilt Beach Road. It include sidewalks, pathways. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I move for approval.
Page 205
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval from
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Henning.
Any questions?
MR. MUDD: Do we have any speakers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
The ayes have it, 5-0.
Next?
Item #1 OD
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO APAC-FLORIDA, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $28,986,526.90; AND $1,000,000.00
ALLOCATED FOR CONTINGENCY PURPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED IMMOKALEE ROAD FOUR
I,ANF, WIDENING FROM CR 951 TO 43P'I) AVENI ~F, NF,
MR. STRAKALUSE: Next item is item 10(D). Award of
construction contract in the amount of $28,986,526.90 to APAC of
Florida, Inc, And allocate $1 million in contingency for items which
include protection of public health and safety during construction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This one here is mine. I'd like to
make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
Page 206
October 22, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion from Commissioner Coletta,
second from Commissioner Carter. Any discussion?
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No speakers?
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Thank you very much. It's a red letter day, 5-0.
Moving on.
Item #10E
PRESENTATION OF COLLIER COUNTY'S 2002-2003
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA- ISSUE #1 -APPROVED; ISSUE #2-
APPROVED; ISSUE #3- APPROVED; ISSUE #4- DENIED;
ISSUES #5 THROUGH #7- APPROVED; ISSUE #8- DENIED;
AND ISSI IFJS #9 THROIIGH #12- APPROVF. D
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, next item is 10(E), and that's the
Collier County 2002-2003 legislative agenda. And that will be
presented by Beth Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Beth Walsh, I'm the assistant to the county manager.
What we have before us today is the tentative list of items that
with the board's approval will become our legislative initiatives for
2003.
We have a few issues that need to be discussed before they are
approved, so let's get underway.
Page 207
October 22, 2002
The first item for discussion is the real estate transfer tax. As
has been suggested, the transfer fee attached to real estate
transactions would equitably spread the cost of infrastructure
improvements. It's also been suggested that to increase this
initiative's probability for its success, we need to define this initiative
and narrow the focus of what we are asking our legislators to support.
With that, I'll turn it over perhaps to Commissioner Coletta, who
can further go into some detail about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, as you know, our agenda for
these different items has grown a little bit. And now is the time,
before we go to the Florida Association of Counties, to give serious
consideration, we're going to be going there on December the 5th, to
present our -- what we're looking for and to be able to support other
people that have similar ideas to ourselves. And I wanted to go
through this and review it item by item with you to be able to make
sure that we're still on track. And we also have here -- where are
you, Keith -- Keith Arnold, who is our -- excuse me, my voice is
starting to give out -- who's our lobbyist, and a very effective one at
that, I might add, to guide us through this process.
And Beth has been very helpful. I appreciate all the help that
she has given up to this point.
We have some lights on already, so why don't we just start right
off with Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coyle, and then
whoever else wishes to weigh in. You can direct questions to Beth or
to Keith. And then Commissioner Carter after Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for
Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this to replace impact fees,
augment impact fees, pay for a deficit of infrastructure?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to see a balance stricken
Page 208
October 22, 2002
between all the above. Also some of it possibly being a local option.
I'd like to see some of it maybe weigh in for affordable housing.
And in the case of this -- and this is purely a suggestion at this
point in time. As far as the transfer tax, title tax, if that was to
become a reality, I'd like to see that offset some of our ad valorem
taxes, to be able to bring down the cost to our taxpayers locally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this, I think it says it is
for infrastructure, so I'm trying to determine what kind of tax you're
creating for. Again, replacing impact fees?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It would replace them to a degree,
yes. That's for this commission to decide. I couldn't possibly make
that decision for myself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to see-- I'd like to see
some of them replace impact fees in certain directions. There's no
doubt about that at all. That's one of the prime drives on this>
Especially when it comes to the transfer title tax. In that case, I think
we're looking at something that would replace the majority of the
impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The reason -- I know
you were spearheading this tax, so that's the reason I was asking you
what was in mind there, where we're going with it. And thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, thank you. It's a-- basically
what you're looking at, Commissioner Henning, is a concept I need
for you and the rest of the commissioners to help to fill in the lines so
we're carrying a clear and concisive message when we go on to Fort
Walton Beach and also later to Tallahassee. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if you'll indulge
me for a little bit, this is going to take a little while. But I'd like to
address each of these items, at least maybe four of them
independently very briefly, if I can. Because I think it's essential that
Page 209
October 22, 2002
we understand how these things are supposed to work before we go
up and try to get them implemented. And I think we need a general
understanding of exactly what it is we have in mind.
Because what we're really telling the public is that we're going
to go up and try to find ways of increasing your taxes in a number of
different ways, with no indication as to how that tax is really going to
be applied and to whom it is going to be applied.
And so let's start with the indexing of the local option gas tax.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, that's a good one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's my understanding that that is
part of a SWFTI bill anyway right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't know that we need to
take any more action on that particular issue, except to encourage our
lobbyists and our legislative delegation to support it, which I think
they already are.
Now, let's go to the real estate transfer tax. Now, this one gets a
bit complex.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It does.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know that the reason that this
was originally brought up is because of the impact fee issue. There
are lots of people who are moving into Collier County, buying
existing homes, and they never pay an impact fee, yet they have an
impact on our infrastructure. But a real estate transfer tax doesn't just
apply to the people who move into Collier County from the outside
and create an additional impact. It will apply to anyone who buys
real estate in Collier County. Even if you're someone who has
already paid your impact fee, you'll be paying it again, if you move
to another house.
So let's suppose you built a house five years ago, you paid your
impact fee, now you move out of your home and you go to another
used home and you buy it. Now you're going to get hit with a real
Page 210
October 22, 2002
estate transfer tax, because we set up the real estate transfer tax for
the purpose of catching those people who hadn't paid for their impact
on the infrastructure.
So it's a complex issue, and I think we need to give it some
thought to what it is we expect to do and how is this going to be
applie&
Now, I have thought about things like exempting anyone who
has a homestead exemption in Collier County, because if they had 'a
homestead exemption, they've already paid their impact fee,
theoretically, and they shouldn't be required to pay another one. And
that way you get only those who are not homestead exempted. That
gets even more complex, because now if we're calling it a payment of
an impact fee, where is the rational nexus and is all that legal?
So, you know, those are the kinds of things I think we've got to
sort out. I think when we first decided to approach these things,
these were concepts, and I think they're good concepts, but I think we
need some additional analysis to understand exactly where we're
going on that.
The four percent tourist development tax, the legislature, as I
understand it, has reserved this for financing of a professional sports
facility, a spring training franchise, and a convention center. I've got
an idea. Why don't we apply that four percent TDC and build
something like a golf stadium, which would be sort of interesting.
But -- that was a joke. That was a joke, Naples Daily News.
The document stamp surcharge again is an issue. Who pays it
and when? And I'm a little concerned that we haven't really thought
through that process.
And I would also say that my reaction would be, if I were sitting
in Tallahassee and I was being asked to make a decision that would
benefit Collier County and perhaps other counties, I would look at all
these and I would not focus too much on any particular one, and I
might very well disapprove them all. But if you come to me with a
Page 211
October 22, 2002
good argument for a specific tax or a specific issue, I think it might
receive better consideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So those are my remarks
concerning that.
The rest of the things I think are reasonable and I don't know
that I have any serious objections to them. But with respect to the
taxes, I think we've got to be very careful, because I do not want to
leave people with the impression that we're rushing into slap four
new taxes on the people of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, not at all. No, that's not the
case.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would very much like to see
us take a little time, study these issues a little bit longer in deciding
what do we want the money for, who is going to have to pay it, how
are we going to apply it, and is our rationale legal? And I think I'd
rather do that than asking our lobbyists to go up to Tallahassee and
start trying to get something that perhaps we haven't completely
thought through.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, if it's any help to you, there's
already an initiative on. I mean, it's not ours, but it's taking place
now in the indexing of the local option gas taxes. You're probably
well aware that some years ago when they put these gas taxes in
place to help pay for the roads, the state also had a gas tax. And
theirs was indexed, ours wasn't.
And over the years our revenue stream has depreciated because
of the devaluation of the dollar. This would be a small increment,
that it would go up every year, to give ourselves a revenue stream
that would be predictable as far as the value of it in future years.
That is something that's already well underway. There's a
tremendous amount of support for it. With or without Collier
County's involvement, I think that's still going to move forward. And
Page 212
October 22, 2002
I wouldn't be surprised if it reached approval, if not this year, the
following year.
As you know, the state is cutting back on their financing of a lot
of projects. The state has been at a loss because the revenue from
sales tax has been down over the years, and that's the main source of
funds that the state works with. And you can't divvy up dollars that
aren't there.
So they're telling us as a county that we have to be more
resourceful and come up with our own ways to raise the funds. And
let's face it, there's only so many ways that you can pay for
something. I just don't want it to fall on the backs of the taxpayers of
Collier County through an increase in ad valorem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Neither do I. And that's one of the
things I'd like to do, is if we think these things through clearly and
we have some answers about who will pay them and under what
circumstances they will pay them, and we understand that there's a
reason why it should be applied that way, then I think we have a
better chance of getting support for it.
And with respect to the local option gas tax, perhaps it would be
sufficient for us or the Chairman to send a letter indicating our
support for the bill that is designed to do that, which I understand
Representative Goodlette is sponsoring. So -- but the other things are
troublesome to me --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's take one at a time,
Commissioner Coyle. And let's go ahead and we can vote on it as a
group on each particular item and then discuss them at length, rather
than try. to combine them together into one package.
I make a motion that we move forward on the indexing of local
option gas tax.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion and a second.
Motion from myself, Commissioner Coletta, a second from
Page 213
October 22, 2002
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion on the local option gas tax? Commissioner
Henning, then Commissioner Carter. Commissioner Carter, forgive
me, your light has been lit. I'm going to go to you first, because
you've been waiting the longest. Then Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You've got a motion on the floor
for the one on the taxing. My question is bigger than that. I was
going to ask our lobbyist, Keith Arnold, to step to the podium and
give us an assessment of this laundry list and his opinion on what
would be reasonable for us --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's an excellent idea. What we'll
do is each item, as we go through it, we'll bring them into play.
Mr. Arnold, would you step up to the podium, please. And right
now we have a motion and a second towards the indexing of the local
option gas tax, as one of our legislative incentives. Would you
please comment on that.
MR. ARNOLD: Sure. For the record, my name is Keith Arnold
with Florida Lobbyist Associates, in Tallahassee.
yOur issue number one, indexing and local option gas tax was
something the legislature dealt with last year. It failed in its
adoption, but it looks fairly probable this year. There's a lot of
sentiment for passing this. There really wasn't any strong opposition
to it last year, it simply got caught up in the legislative process. I
think it has a very viable chance of passage this year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, is there any other discussion
on -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle brought
up a good point. If somebody is already carrying something for us --
SWFTI in this case is looking at the indexing -- we can focus on
other things to bring to our legislation delegation and let SWFTI take
this initiative through. And it sounds like somebody mentioned that
Page 214
October 22, 2002
Representative Goodlette is going to carry it through. So that process
is always -- is in the works, so I hope that we can delete that from our
list and move forward with some other things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Actually, my light was on to make
a comment about the next item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning, I hear what you're saying, but I think
it's just about the reverse we're looking for. Our Representative
Goodlette will be looking for our support on this item. He'll be
looking for us to be active with our Florida Associations of Counties
and also in Tallahassee, to be able to talk to other representatives.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see any nods.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
MR. ARNOLD: Sorry?
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
I think the Chairman's right.
I think the Chairman's right on
this issue. Sure, it's in the SWFTI bill, but you better go in and
protect the pieces of that bill you want. You never know what's
going to get flushed in Tallahassee, and you better have your
priorities right and you better have your list of what you really want.
And this one has been on the agenda three years that I can recollect,
and each year it gets a little closer. And I think this one, they might
boot it home.
And finally, all you're doing is protecting your income base that
you already have --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's exactly --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- by allowing us to index, which
the state had no problem doing for years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comm--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: For them it's not a tax, for us it
is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll call the motion. All those in
Page 215
October 22, 2002
favor of having that item one -- issue one, rather, included as part of
our legislative agenda, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, the ayes have it, 3-2. Two
opposed, three for. So that item's passed.
Real estate transfer tax. Mr. Arnold, would you give us a
rundown, the possibilities of this? This could be a contanctious (sic)
one, for sure.
MR. ARNOLD: This one is almost certainly a contentious one
in Tallahassee. I of course watched from afar, I might add, your
issues down here dealing with the impact fee increase, which you just
passed.
Really, when you're dealing with a real estate transfer fee,
you're dealing with another set of opposition. In this case it would
almost certainly be the Florida Association of Realtors, perhaps
others, but they would be more inclined to not support this; whereas,
in the impact fee debate you generally deal with contractors.
This idea has been around Tallahassee for a number of years.
It's never been seriously considered by the legislature. My personal
opinion is, is that under this administration, under this legislature it
probably won't be seriously considered by the legislature. Of course,
anything can happen on November the 5th, and we know that
particularly the governor's race is very, very tight, and perhaps there
could be differing views if there was an upset in that particular race.
I would say that, Commissioner Coyle, the issue would be, at
least from a legal perspective, complicated by making a distinction
between those people who are moving here paying the tax and those
Page 216
October 22, 2002
people who already live here and already buy -- or are buying real
estate or are moving from one location to the other.
You have at least two or three legal issues at play here, and I
would ultimately have to defer to your counsel on that. But there's
equal protection issues, there's also the rational nexus issue, which
you have already brought up, and certainly Constitutional issues.
I'm not sure -- I'm not sure legally we could do what you would
suggest. But again, I would have to defer to your counsel on that.
And in the final analysis, if it was determined to be legally
permissible, it would be difficult. And B, it would almost certainly,
if it passed, undergo a Constitutional challenge.
Be that as it may, the decision of course is yours. But it is a
difficult issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What kind of support is out there for
this particular item at this time?
MR. ARNOLD: The only logical support for this particular
proposal would be from your colleagues around the state who are
county commissioners struggling, city councilmen and women
struggling for local finance of local road projects. And so that's
where the support would, generally speaking, come from, potentially
the Florida Association of Counties. Although I don't think they
considered this specific issue. Potentially the Florida League of
Cities, although again I don't believe they've considered this issue.
And then the obvious support from the Florida Road Building
Contractors, who support all sort of revenue enhancements to build
roads.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Beth, would you correct me, but isn't
this on the Florida Association of Counties' radar screen?
MS. WALSH: Yes, it was discussed at the last meeting and will
be further discussed at the meeting in December.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's coming back on December 3rd
for further consideration by that particular group.
Page 217
October 22, 2002
Also, too, to tie in with this, not that I want to get off the
subject, but it's a direct tie-in, maybe a less intrusive way to
accomplish some of our goals, is a doc. stamp, very similar to what
they have over at Miami-Dade. Instead of having a transfer title fee,
adding on a new tax. This would be a small increase to the one that's
already there.
Beth, do you want-- have you got a little more details on that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought we were going to take
one item at a time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We are, but I just want to draw -- we
don't have to go into detail, but what I'm saying is one may be easier
than the other, and both of them would achieve the same end.
MS. WALSH: Well, currently Miami-Dade County is the only
county authorized to levy a document stamp surcharge, and they
levied their surcharge on mostly deeds that are taxable by the state
under Florida statute.
The way their surcharge is set up now, it currently exempts
single-family homes from the tax, and their proceeds from that go
towards affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, which item are we on,
Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're on item two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And we talk about
rational nexus on a real estate transfer fee. And we're talking about
transportation. The Governor's commission on growth has identified
you can -- you should do this for a deficit of roads, have a real estate
transfer fee. But, you know, living in a home that has paid impact
fees, and if I was to sell that home, and you're asking me for another
fee for transportation, this person is going to balk. Because it's not a
rational nexus in my eyes.
So I don't know, I don't think that we should even take up this
Page 218
October 22, 2002
issue of real estate transfer fees at this time until, like Commissioner
Coyle has stated, until we hash this out a little bit further so we know
exactly what we're going to be doing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that would be the next
legislative session a year from now. Which in any case is just fine.
So is it the consensus of this board that we pass over this one?
Is that what I'm hearing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't need a vote?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that would be an idea, make it
in the form of a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that it be
denied.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle to not to
consider the real estate transfer tax as part of our legislative agenda.
Any discussion? All those in favor of that motion, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
And opposed?
(N° response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it.
Next item would be expanding the allowed use of the fourth
penny tourist development tax.
And once again, this is an item that Commissioner Coyle just
covered fairly well in the fact that this is not a new tax, it's a tax that
Page 219
October 22, 2002
already exists for the use of the counties, but not for roads.
What we're looking to do is expand the terminology so that it
would come for roads and give about $3 million and help to spread
the cost of the roads over a larger part of the people that use it.
Commissioner Henning, and then we'll go to you, Mr. Arnold.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we're using it for roads and
we're tying it to the attractions that the tourists are coming to, or the
hotels that they're staying in, isn't the hotels and motels already
paying an impact fee? And maybe if it's too low, maybe we should
look at that avenue and -- instead of another tax on infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is an additional argument
that some people would use against this, and that argument
essentially is this: As we attract tourists here, they pay sales tax and
gasoline tax, theoretically. Consequently, they are paying at least
part of their share for impact on infrastructure, because those fees
would be available for dealing with some of those things.
So once again, it is an issue that I think we need to study,
because I do believe it is absolutely ridiculous for us to be restricted
to using this money for a professional sports facility if we don't want
a professional sports facility, or a spring training franchise if we don't
want a spring training franchise.
So I don't like the restriction. What we use it for is something
entirely different. But I just don't understand why we're restricted in
the use of that tax.
But I have to ask a question: Are we really collecting that tax
right now? Do we get that tax?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
MR. MUDD: No, sir, we only collect the third penny.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not being collected at all
right now.
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
Page 220
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I guess I have the
same feeling, until we decide exactly how we're going to use it and
what we're going to use it for and how much it's likely -- I think you
mentioned an amount it was likely to raise. MR. MUDD: $3 million.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: $3 million for roads.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we need to take a -- again,
study it. I wouldn't be opposed to it ultimately, but at this point in
time I find it hard to support it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Also, too, this is an initiative that's
underway with or without the Florida Association of Counties. Any
support they got (sic) from us might help to move it forward.
Mr. Arnold, do you have something you want to add on this
particular --
MR. ARNOLD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I mean, this issue is more
pragmatic than the preceding issue, but it is difficult. The obvious
opposition would probably be the tourism industry, who, generally
speaking, to the extent they support tourism taxes, which is
questionable in the first place, but to the extent they do support those,
they want them used for the intended use, which is fairly narrowly
defined in the statutes. And the more you expand the opportunity for
these revenues to be used beyond a specific scope, the more
attractive they are to local governments and the more likely they're
going to be imposed. So you can almost certainly bet that the big
players in the state, Disney, Universal Studios, Anheuser-Busch, et
cetera, would stand in opposition to this proposal.
Having said that, it is not an increase in a tax rate, so the
legislature would look at this more permissibly, because it expands
the nature of the utilization of an existing source of revenue. So it's
not impossible. It's difficult, but it's not impossible.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it's possible that if it got on the
radar screen, that it may be considered in the near future.
Page 221
October 22, 2002
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, the concem I have with this
particular tax is I think right now the tourism industry is reeling from
the impacts of the recession that we're dealing with right now, along
with the 9-11 situation, and I don't think we need another thing to
overcome. So I would prefer to put this aside. I think we need the
roads, certainly, but right now I think that the tourism industry needs
to recover and we don't need to give it a sock in the jaw.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One comment on that, because this
argument is far from old. Of course they imposed it too when the
industry was going quite well, but it wouldn't be enacted for about
two years if at that if we started now. In that point in time, all
indications are that we're going to be in a much better picture.
Also, too, this would be a local option where if it became -- if it
was something that was going to be over-imposing upon the industry,
we wouldn't have to enact it. Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I didn't support this at the
regional planning council, I will not support it now. I don't believe in
penalizing the number one industry in your county. It is my
judgment it only raises $3 million. It may sound like a lot of money,
but it builds about a mile and a quarter of a road.
I am not convinced the people who come and stay in hotels and
motels and use the beach and stay right there and conventioneers,
we're spending millions of dollars to bring them here, now we want
to turn around and tax them more to stay here. This will not fly, in
my judgment, in Tallahassee, when you're spending millions to
attract and you want to turn around and penalize somebody.
We need this industry to participate with us. I just think this is
like raising a -- waving a red flag in front of a bull. I can't support it.
I don't believe it's in the best interest of the community to go after
such a small amount when there are other opportunities that may
Page 222
October 22, 2002
exist.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I seem to be getting some
mixed signals. Because originally these ideas came from the
meetings we were having considerably earlier than this, especially
when it came to impact fees and everything.
But I have no problem. The farther we whittle this down, the
easier my job becomes.
So let's take a vote on that. I take it that -- let me make it real
easy. A vote for rejecting that is one of the issues. That would be
issue number three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got a motion for a rejection,
second from Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Okay, and the ayes have it.
Next one is a document stamp surcharge.
Beth, do you want to give a little -- tell us how that's different
than the title tax?
MS. WALSH: As I said before, this is a-- it's a surcharge on
the actual process of getting the doc. stamp on an illegal document.
It's my recommendation that we follow the precedent that's already
been set at Miami-Dade County, and structure this around proceeds
for affordable housing. I think that would be our best bet for getting
this through this legislature.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, start off with
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Actually, that was from the prior
Page 223
October 22, 2002
discussion, so Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. How much money
will this raise, and who's going to pay it?
MS. WALSH: Actually, that depends on what documents we're
going to tax.
And as I said, in Miami-Dade-Dade County, they exempt
single-family homes and exclude condominiums as well. So I don't
have those figures for you, but it would exclude a large base of the
documents that are being recorded.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This would be a local initiative. It's
not something that we would be doing through the state
organizations, because we wouldn't expect them to be able to support
us in saying that we're standing along.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what you're saying in a
previous statement is if we, you know, do -- there's an example out
there and we follow that example of Miami-Dade, it won't tax
single-family homes or condos, it will tax mainly businesses or
vacant lots or--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what it's for, they use it as an
augmentation to pay some of the fees for affordable housing. And so
they don't go with the single-family homes or the condos, because
that could be going against the affordable housing folks that you
really want to house and augment.
And it's a way for them to increase the availability of it. They
have a shortage in affordable housing, just like we do. And you've
heard Cormac tell you that we're short 15,000 right now, and in the
next 10 years we'll be short 25,000. We had the road impact fees go
up, and then we talked about the SHIP funds not being -- coming
back a little bit and not being able to do as many as we did before ......
last year. It was like 130 or 140. And his projection is we'd ~i~ly be
able to help 85 this year. I think my numbers are pretty close. And
Joe schmitt will be back there to help me out a little bit. But I seem
Page 224
October 22, 2002
to remember those numbers that Cormac gave us.
This would give us the ability to help augment some of those
shortages in order to help the folks get affordable housing, help pay
impact fees, or whatever we deem we want it to be used for, buying
real estate in order to build the project or whatever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It could take the place of those
linkage fees that you were looking for?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, she still wants those.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I like those, but I don't even
know how much money can -- if you don't really tax single families
and you don't tax condos, I mean, I don't want to put any more strain
on businesses. We've just kicked them really hard in the rear end as
it is with all these impact fees. For the 26 bucks left that you would
derive, I don't think it would be enough to give a shot in the arm to
the affordable housing.
MR. MUDD: What Cormac -- and it's back on tab four, and I'm
looking at item number four, local option doc. stamp. And the local
option stamp of five cents would create a local funding source of
work for housing generating approximately $2.5 million a year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But who is that tax imposed upon
to get 2.5 million?
MR. MUDD: I think Cormac's got it as everybody under doc.
stamps in a particular year, based on the transfer of property.
It would be something less if you went with a Miami-Dade
version,- in the fact that you would get rid of a lot of single-family
residences, which we build a lot of every year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what does the five cents really
mean? I mean, five cents per thousand?
MS. WALSH: I believe it's five cents per $100 of value.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's a piece of change.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 225
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know this must be frustrating to
you. We ask you to do all this, and then we mm around and
disapprove it. But I -- I would like to study this one a little bit
longer, too. At least that's my opinion. I think that five percent is a
bit hefty. And I think we also have to take into consideration who it
would apply to -- to whom it would apply.
And I would recommend that we not consider this one at the
present time until we can figure out exactly who's going to have to
pay it, how much it's going to raise.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's fine, because like I say,
this is strictly a local option, it's not one -- so, you know, you could
even -- if you really truly are interested in it, you can direct staff to
get those answers for you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm really truly not interested in it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, then, that's an honest answer.
Rqther than draw this out and have it brought back again. So why
don't you make a motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that we disapprove this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion?
All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Okay, number five. And this one I need you to give serious
consideration to, because this sounds like it's absolutely necessary.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval on that one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much,
Commissioner Caner. It's a pleasure. I'll give a second to that.
Page 226
October 22, 2002
Any discussion? Any questions?
What about Keith, what do you see for this issue number five?
MR. ARNOLD: I think it's quite doable. It's -- you're adding a
road to the state transportation list, and it's been done before. There's
certainly quite a bit of precedence. It's already been done for part of
this road in the first place.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we possibly give a big star in
front of this one, really push it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now I've got a purpose to life.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- have any impartialities there, do
you?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was beginning to wonder what I
was supposed to do.
MS. WALSH: Is there a motion for approval?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, you voted on every one, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did we vote on this one?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, a vote on every one of them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, all those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Discussion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Discussion? Go ahead,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's the one that put this on
the agenda?
MS. WALSH: Norman did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I'd move that we
approve the next item, support of the following grants: Florida
Page 227
October 22, 2002
Communities Trust, Barefoot--
COMMISSYONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- Beach Outparcel, Goodland
Boating Park, an FRDAP for North Naples Regional Park. And I
also would include in that the proposed special act codifying,
consolidating, all special acts relating to the Collier County water
district into a special act for this district, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we can move both those
items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
The ayes have it.
Okay, issue eight. This one here, there's some --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can jump in on this one. I'm
Jim Mudd, county manager, for the record.
Article five, revision seven, is a Constitutional amendment, and
they've got to do something with it. And our legislature knows that.
And there are several subcommittees that are meeting right now,
trying to figure out the wherewithal and the implementation
instructions and how much of it's going to happen and how much
isn't.
We've got issues with, you know, are we going to have a clerk
of courts or a clerk of finance, depending on if they're going to have
a center overarching state forum to look at this. Our courts could go
to the 20th Circuit. There's all kinds of unknowns here. And to give
a carte blanche support of implementation without having the details,
Page 228
October 22, 2002
I think the commission puts themselves in a bad position, because if
something comes up that you don't like, they're going to say, well,
wait a minute, you gave me your carte blanche full support of this
and I'm ready to go, Collier's behind it. You might not even know
that you've got a problem.
And what happens if they decide they don't want to fund some
of the things like Teen Court and other very positive community-type
things that we have in our court system, what do we do then after
we've already thrown in all our support.
I would just caution you, before you jump on this one, as far as
support. This is a fact item that we pulled off because it is a
Constitutional amendment they do have to implement. But I'm not
too sure that you want to give your support right now before you
know ail the details.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, this one leaves far too many
questions for me and too many uncertainties, so I vote to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
I make a motion to disapprove it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's very good, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're on item what?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Item number eight.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eight.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we include in that motion
that -- direct staff to keep an eye on this and report back to us when
we need to take a proper position.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning made a very
Page 229
October 22, 2002
good point. We should not only be coming out with this to be not on
our agenda for approval, we should be going after this to make sure it
doesn't get through.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, be lobbying it and
opposed to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or they're going to do
something like --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Or they're going to do
something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we don't know what it is we
are required by the staff-- the Constitution to do something,
Commissioner. It will come back, Mr. Arnold will keep us informed,
Mr. Weigel will keep us informed, I'm sure the clerk of courts will,
of what the legislators are doing on this item, report back to us, and if
we need to take a position at that time, then we should move forward
with that position.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I've got to remind you, this is
going to be coming up to the Florida Association of Counties. We
could take a stand on December 5th at Fort Walton Beach to make
our feelings noted, and if we can slow it down, that's going to be all
the more reason that you might not make the final call where you
have to worry about it at the end.
What's your feelings on this?
MR. ARNOLD: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board, that you're struggling with really two separate aspects of this.
One is the substantive changes; what will the legislature do to
reorganize the criminal justice system and the court system, the
clerk's office, many others that are part of this overlapping judicial
process.
The second part of the equation you're struggling with really --
and I think that's where most counties are focused on, is who pays for
Page 230
October 22, 2002
it. And I think frankly, I would assume that your direction ultimately,
to me, would be that we want to figure out a way to have the state
pay a greater percentage of these costs, vis-a-vis the local
governments, specifically county governments, without a lot of
substantive changes in the structure of the criminal justice system.
That seems to be where you're headed. In other words, you'd like to
keep essentially the current system in place, but you'd like to be
reimbursed for your expenditures. And I think that that's where most
of the counties will go.
I understand you have some serious concerns with some
reorganization issues, and those are appropriate. But, I mean, my
sense is that's what you're going to direct me to do is basically keep
the present system intact but figure out a way to pay for it and help
you financially. Is that a fair statement of where we're headed on this
issue?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would say so, wouldn't you?
Okay, we have a motion, we have a second on this. All those in
favor to disapprove this one, indicate by saying eye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
The eyes have it 4-0, with Commissioner Henning absent.
Next item, number nine.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I think we could
take the next three, if you reference to the back the act regarding to
animal control, cross reporting of family violence and opposition of
legislation increasing the county share for nursing home and
inpatient hospital costs, all the Medicaid mandates.
If the commissioners take a quick look at those. I can see that
you probably wouldn't want to -- you would either support or not
support based on the statement made.
Page 231
October 22, 2002
Animal control simply says that this is -- they can expand the
use of legalized drugs for the substances -- for the purpose of
immobilization and euthanasia, as well as standardized training for
animal control officers.
I think they're looking for a little more flexibility and the proper
way to -- of dealing with animal control. MS. WALSH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And the other one on family
violence, they tried to make that a cross situation, and that's been
opposed by FAC for some time.
And the third one is the issue number 11 in our back, in our
references. We're trying to find a way to do the least amount of
damage to us on Medicaided transfer downshifting of fees to the
counties. Because the game in Tallahassee, in which Keith works
with us very diligently, is they try and cost-shift as much as possible.
We try to stop them from cost-shifting as much as possible. So it's
one of those things we battle every session.
MS. WALSH: Commissioners, you might want to bundle issue
number 12 in there as well. It's also a general statement of fact
regarding infrastructure funding.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would include that, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, so your motion is to --
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is to include bullets -- actually,
if these were numbered on the summary sheet, they would be bullets
MS. FILSON: Nine, 10, 11--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: --nine, 10, 11 and 12.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you want to include them in the
agenda package, okay.
MR. MUDD: Then we're basically -- and we're basically saying
that you're going to support or oppose, based on --
Page 232
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Support or oppose, depending on
the recOmmendation by each poll.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that, if there isn't
one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, so we have a motion by
Commissioner Carter, a second by Commissioner Henning.
All those-- any discussion?
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
All those in favor, indicate by
Aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Thank you, that takes care of that.
MS. WALSH: Okay. And then I'll make those changes and go
ahead and submit them to Jim for his approval and then on to Mr.
Hart, the legislative delegation.
MR. MUDD: They need to be in Mr. Hart's office this Friday,
which is the suspense.
MS. WALSH: Thank you.
Item #1 OF
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER
LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR ROAD IMPACT CREDITS
AND FUTURE CASH REIMBURSEMENT SUBJECT TO
DEVELOPER COMPLYING WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF THE
AGREEMENT IMPOSED BY THE COIINTY- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, now we're at item 10(F).
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And that is to approve a developer's
contribution agreement with Collier Land Development, Inc. for road
Page 233
October 22, 2002
impact credits and future cash reimbursement, subject to developers
complying with all the conditions of the agreement proposed by the
county.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MS. FILSON: And, Mr. Chairman, I have a speaker as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to need a brief
description of what we're dealing with for the public.
MR. FEDER: I'll be very brief and I'll make sure that Jackie
Robinson corrects anything that I may have been incorrect on it
being brief.
Essentially what we're looking at here is the developer taking
care of a problem we have with an offset right now at Thomasson,
Rattlesnake-Hammock and U.S. 41. They're going to be building an
extension of Rattlesnake-Hammock that will line up with
Thomasson, consistent with the original PUD. They'll be providing
the right-of-way with no credits to the county. They are then going
to be constructing that facility and another connection over to the old
Thomasson. And in doing that, they'll be vesting 1,766 residential
units. Based on current impact fees, that's a total of 3,382,293.
Their non site-related construction, which is the only thing we're
giving impact fee credits for, total $2,222,861. And the difference
between the total impact fees needed (phonetic) on the 1,776 units
and what the costs are for the non site-related construction is
1,159,432. Under current impact fee levels, they will be depositing
that with the county in the trust, and then as they go to pull building
permits -- first of all, they can't pull them until the roadway's
completed, and then they will pull and taking out the credits of what
they have until they're used at the rate of impact fees at the time they
go to pull the building permits. That's a very quick overview.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good.
Any questions?
Page 234
October 22, 2002
Okay, Henning -- Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Will there have to be an RFP
for the design and the building of the road?
MR. FEDER: No. They've done an estimate of cost and we've
agreed, based on our engineering analysis. And that's part of what's
built into these estimates of cost.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if there's no RFP, it could
be done sooner?
MR. FEDER: They are going to build the road. The
commitment they've made is to open it by ideally December of 2003,
if not, May of 2004, all the way from 41 over to its connection with
Thomasson.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see this is one of those good
news items.
MR. FEDER: I hope it is. It's much like we did at Mediterra.
It's a public/private partnership, and I think it's a good item for East
Naples and for the county.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I still move for approval, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear that.
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is a good news item. And I think
you've done a good job.
MR. FEDER: Jackie did most of the work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just to summarize what I think the
good points are, the developer is actually going to construct the new
intersection at Rattlesnake Road and 41, and line up Thomasson
Road and build an extension over to join old Thomasson Road.
But in addition to that, we are -- have assurances that the Lely
outfall drainage ditch is going to be available for use and that there
will be an arrangement either to have an easement so we can
maintain it or they will maintain it. So we are killing a couple of
Page 235
October 22, 2002
birds with one stone here.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, thank you for raising that. That's
an important part of the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a very important part, because
that drainage issue is extremely critical for Lely. And the developer
has been very cooperative in making sure that we can have that
drainage across their property.
The other good thing about this -- not good for the developer,
but good for the county government -- is that the impact fees they'll
be paying will be the impact fees that exist whenever the permits are
pulled, so that we can double impact fees again real quickly and we
can make a killing on this deal.
MR. FEDER: I'm sure I'm looking forward to that just as you
are, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We could also take and put 10-lane
roads through the whole darn thing, right? Why not, since we're on a
roll.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. You brought up
something that's near and dear to all of our hearts in East Naples and
that is the flooding problem along Rattlesnake-Hammock and County
Barn. Those are all areas that just flood terribly right now. And
they're trying to build drainage system throughout that entire area.
And weive just been anxiously awaiting for the Lely -- or for the
Collier family to come in and start this project. So thank you very
much for bringing that up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that we have a -- oh,
Commissioner Coyle, you're still here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yeah. I'm not going to
belabor this; I'm not going to take much more time. I just want to
thank the staff and the developer, because I think this is a perfect
example of a public/private partnership that worked out very well for
Page 236
October 22, 2002
everybody. It saved, I think, the govemment some money. So I'd
like to congratulate you for the good work you've done, and
encourage you to keep doing more and more of that.
MR. WEIGEL: And we've got a public speaker.
MR. FEDER: I'd like to recognize Jackie Robinson at this time.
That's really her team.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a public speaker on this
correct?
MS. FILSON:
MR. CASEY:
one,
Yes, sir, Larry Casey (phonetic).
We don't have anything to add.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. With that, if there's
nothing --
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioners, with your motion and second,
and you're about to take a vote, so that you've had the explanation of
the document, and we want to place the document of record, and that
is the document that will come before the Chairman for signature
upon your authorization, should you do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the same document we
have, I presume?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes. I have made bound copies with all of
the exhibits, if you'd like a copy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe we've already got them,
don't we?
MS. FILSON: Yeah.
MS. ROBINSON: Well, you don't have a full -- with all the
exhibits.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. ROBINSON: But I have them here, if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Okay, and with that, I'm going to call the motion. All those in
favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Page 237
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, thank you. Wonderful job.
Next item?
Item #10G
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO RECEIVE $7,450,000 IN
TRANSPORTATION OUTREACH PROGRAM (TOP) FUNDS
FOR COSTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE WIDENING OF
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY FROM FOUR TO SIX LANES
FROM AIRPORT PULLING ROAD TO SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GRADE
SEPARATED OVERPASS AT AIRPORT PULLING ROAD AND
GOIJDEN GATE PARKWAY- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Is 10(G), which used to be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 16(B)(1).
MR. MUDD: -- 16(B)(1). And that's the $7.45 million TOP
strand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A what?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 16(B)(1).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16(B)(1)?
MR. MUDD: And this was pulled at Commissioner Coyle's
request. And it wasn't so much that he doesn't like to get free money,
it had to do with questions that he had about deconfliction of road
construction as we proceed in the out years, to make sure that the
staff was looking at those and try to get some explanation at this
Page 238
October 22, 2002
meeting for the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if I could just elaborate on
that just a bit. My concern is we've got a lot of road projects that
we're going to be undertaking and that are still -- that are currently
underway. I am concemed that we take into consideration
appropriate traffic circulation so that our simultaneous construction
projects do not create gridlock.
So I'm looking for a way to display that, hopefully on a map that
shows where traffic is going to flow while we're involved in all of
these different projects, so that we can, if necessary, phase these
projects to make sure we have a way to go.
And it's my understanding, talking to the county manager, that
they have already been working on this, or started working on this
before I brought it up.
So again, thank you very much, and tell us what we're going to
do.
MR. FEDER: For the record, again, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator.
What was just passed out to you highlights just the issue that
Commissioner Coyle is relating to, and that is that we have -- we've
already said previously, I inherited 14 and it's now 21 projects, a
very, very aggressive construction program.
The good news is seven of those segments are done or about to
be completed. The other news is that what you have in front of you
gives you an idea of the overlap of construction projects. And with
us completing the second phase of Livingston by December of this
year up to Pine Ridge, that will give us an opening and access to the
interstate, and hopefully is going to be a relief for some that follow.
But having said that, it's not really this year, it's 2004, as you
look down that graphic, where we have the projects that are starting
up right now, Immokalee, Goodlette-Frank and the other two sections
of Livingston that are in process of getting completed as we start up
Page 239
October 22, 2002
the east-west portions of Immokalee over 41, 1-75, Vanderbilt Beach
Road, Golden Gate, as well as 951, and as you see down the list here.
In reference to that, we've looked at, in each one, we need to
move on that schedule. For instance, we need to move on Golden
Gate Parkway, the six-laning portion which you see here, essentially
to be ahead of the opening of the interchange and out of their way in
their construction process, that being the state, the Golden Gate
interchange and 1-75.
In the case of Vanderbilt Beach Road, we've got considerable
backup today basically east of Airport Road. Relief needs to come as
soon as it can on that. And the same on the section of 41 to the
interstate on Immokalee Road.
So our feeling was that we couldn't necessarily solve it by
delaying projects. The question was, as the commissioner pointed
out, how can we be smarter about the phasing of projects and other
actions that can respond.
First of all, computerized signal system that the state's putting
in, although delayed about three months, should come on line, gives
us the opportunity to do incident management.
Beyond that, we are changing some of our practices in the way
we've approached items in the past and, as most areas do, when you
go under contract from point A to point B on a corridor, essentially
what you do is give that over to the contractor, and it's essentially
their road. Well, they also control or don't control, if you will, the
signals.. And quite often they'll cut the loops and all of a sudden
you're on cam time and other issues, and we've experienced that.
Well, that's not acceptable at all. So we're going to maintain
under our contracts -- and I'm sure we'll have some issues with our
contracts -- to be able to maintain control of the signals so that we
can make sure that we don't experience that.
We're also looking at putting in some of the basically laser so
that we can do, rather than loops, what you see mounted on the posts
Page 240
October 22, 2002
that can do essentially the same and that is identify vehicles in the
cube and trip the computer for timing, rather than necessarily relying
on loops to get that up during construction process.
We're also looking at trying to take each of these construction
items as they're going to come up close to each other and look at
them and work with a payout item of different items that we can do.
So when we bring to you the letting of this one, we're going to
review, this is what our basic construction is, but we're looking at
some issues like more night work on this one, looking at other issues
that we can look at and say these are the costs. And we've asked for
unit costs to add on some of these features. And then review at that
time, Commissioner, probably the map and how we see people
getting around as we bring each one on successively, collectively and
successfully.
So the point is very well taken. We've tried adding turn lanes in
areas. We need to get well beyond that. Especially 2004, as you can
see from this graphic, a very heavy level of construction throughout
the county.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're going to have a graphic
soon, right? Thanks.
MR. MUDD: Sir, if you look at the chart that Norman gave
you, it's the east-west roads that really get you kind ofjammed
together. If you talk about the big six, you've got four of them with
major construction going on in 2004. We're going to have to monitor
that, make sure the lanes are open during -- fully open. The existing
lanes are full open during rush hours, to and from work, so that
they're opened up and we avoid any kind of stoppages by the
contractor to any lane that's opened during those particular times, to
make sure that we keep the traffic --
MR. FEDER: And the second meeting in November, we're also
going to be bringing to you, in an effort to try and keep the private
construction, especially for turn lanes and issues, out of the peak
Page 241
October 22, 2002
season as well. So it's a number of things we're bringing together.
But we share with you that concern. People have to get around
at the same time that we're trying to respond to these needs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion we that approve
item 16(B)(4).
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle, a second from Commissioner Carter for
approval.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you.
Next item would be 16(E) --
MR. MUDD: No, 16(E)(3) was continued, Commissioner, and
that had to do with the sheriff's lease on the Town Center. We'll
come back in the next meeting with that one.
Item #10I
AGREEMENT BETWEEN OUTDOOR RESORTS OF AMERICA,
INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY TO MANAGE STORMWATER
FOR PROPERTY ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD IN THE
AMOIINT OF $105,920.00- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So 16 --
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 10(I), which is 16(B)(8).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- (B)(8).
Page 242
October 22, 2002
MR. STRAKALUSE: Commissioners, Gregg Strakaluse with
transportation division, for the record.
They say timing is everything. And in this forward item, it
really is. First I'd like to recognize Heidi Ashton for doing a lot of
hard work in working out the legal language for the agreement that
not only makes this fair but also protects the county from what-if
situations.
Essentially what we have here is a win-win opportunity. Two
projects: A road project and a developer project, which is a pretty
interesting developer project, for a motor coach resort. Both projects
need to control their storm water, or manage their storm water.
Well, before I got here, the county and the developer got
together to start talking about how to best do that. And somewhere
along the way, the South Florida Water Management District was
involved in those discussions.
What you have here is basically an opportunity to enter into an
agreement with the developer to co-manage storm water for both
properties. We've taken a look at the fiscal impact associated with
this.
Initially appraisals were done for the county to determine what
kind of storm water requirements were necessary, as far as property
acquisition, to create a basin. And those appraisals came in at about
just over $600,000.
By working with the developer and co-managing the storm
water, what we have is an opportunity to save a substantial amount of
money, and for just over $100,000 acquire an easement with the
developer to manage the storm water and to treat it and discharge it.
Really a win-win opportunity here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is another example of good
staff work, I think. If I understand the fiscal impact analysis, you've
just saved us $500,000; is that right?
Page 243
October 22, 2002
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you should be recognized
for that.
And thank you very much, Heidi. Even though I required you
to stay late. I have a thing about getting stuff at the last minute.
But I would appreciate it if you could very briefly tell me on
this, this diagram, where our responsibility ends and where the
developer's responsibility begins as far as these drainage easements
are concerned.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Everything within the outlined area --
and correct me if I'm wrong, Heidi -- within the outlined area here, to
direct storm water into the drainage basin and out the drainage basin
would be the responsibility of the developer.
Everything associated with the road improvement project, the
piping system, the swale system, would be the responsibility of the
county.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if the developer fails to do this
by the specified date, we have the right to go onto that property and
develop these retention areas ourselves, right? MR. STRAKALUSE: That's correct.
MS. ASHTON: Yeah, there are two alternatives, and that's why
we wanted to make sure that the legals were attached to the
agreement that you had in your agenda package.
If I could just quickly go through. Exhibit A is a legal
description of the outdoor resorts property.
Exhibit A-1 is the legal description that goes with the map that
Mr. Strakaluse has put on the overhead. And that is the legal which
we're hoping will be the one that will remain for the project. That
will allow the developer to build his on-site system, and the county
will essentially connect to that and will be able to use the on-site
drainage for our storm water retention.
There's also, in default legal, which is a legal description A-2,
Page 244
October 22, 2002
and that's the legal that if the developer does not construct their
on-site system by a certain date, then the default legal will be the
legal that will be used and we will end up constructing our own pond
on their site. It will allow us to go forward if they don't meet their
deadline. And I believe the deadline was June 30th of 2003 for the
construction of the on-site system.
The way this will work is that the county will get an easement
for both easements. And one will automatically terminate based on
certain conditions.
Also, the other exhibits that were attached was a storm water
easement agreement, which is our standard form that we use for the
real property department, and they will go forward and they will
close the storm water easements.
And the other thing that I want to note, if I could real quickly
before Mr. Henning -- I understand your question is that the property
owner is donating the right-of-way, road right-of-way that's needed
for this project, as well as the utility easements. And that's what the
last item in your package is. That's already been approved under the
condemnation, resolution and the authority the real property
department has.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle, a second from Commissioner Henning for
approval.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 245
October 22, 2002
If I'm not mistaken, that concludes the agenda items.
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner, that gets us to public
comments on general topics.
Do we have any speakers, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: We have one, Bob Krasowski, but I think he has
left.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He's left. Okay, with that-
Item #13A
RESOLUTION 2002-443, NEW PRECINCT LINES TO CORRECT
MAPPING ERRORS AND IMPROVE ACCESS TO POLLING
PI~ACF, S- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to other Constitutional officers, 13
Alpha, which is Jennifer Edwards to talk about the new precinct
lines.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good afternoon -- or good evening,
Jennifer.
MS. EDWARDS: Good evening.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My election is over, I don't care
what you do.
MS. EDWARDS: I know. You know, we received a call today
from a voter that was upset because your name wasn't on the ballot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I told you, it would have been a
90 percent margin if they hadn't done that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jennifer, I think we need a recount
for Commissioner Coyle.
MS. EDWARDS: Don't say that word.
We found, after the primary, that there were some housekeeping
changes we needed to make to a few precinct lines, and so since
you're required to approve those, that's why I placed them on the
Page 246
October 22, 2002
ballot -- on the ballot, see, that's all I'm talking about is elections --
on your agenda.
One is in precinct 412, which -- precinct 412 is Village Walk,
which is a gated community. And we had mistakenly placed
Bermuda Island Apartments within those boundaries. So one of the
changes today is to move that boundary, or move them into another
precinct.
We also had another mapping area, and that was in Pelican
Marsh. We mistakenly placed some people who are in Pelican
Marsh outside Pelican Marsh. So we're putting them back within that
development.
And then we found that after receiving several calls from
concerned people living at a facility called Aston Gardens at Pelican
Marsh, that we were causing senior citizens living there to drive a
longer distance to vote when indeed they only had to drive across the
street to vote, if we move them to another precinct. So we have
made that change to aid them in easier access to their precinct.
We have mailed a letter to every voter that's affected, and also
included a new I.D. card. We have not crossed any district, so we're
not creating an additional ballot style. And we will also post notices
in the affected facilities.
So I am asking for your authorization for those changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll -- we'll get there.
Just a quick question. Is there a legal requirement that we
approve the boundary changes that you think are appropriate? And if
there is, is there good reason for it?
MS. EDWARDS: There is a legal requirement, which is why
I'm here. And whenever we make a change to a precinct line, we're
required to bring it to the Board of Commissioners. We're also
required to notify the voters by sending them a new voter I.D. card.
Page 247
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we've got to approve it, right?
MS. EDWARDS: You have to approve it currently. I will tell
you that the Florida State Association of Supervisors plan to lobby
the legislature in 2003 to remove this requirement from the law.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Carter was
about to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER
approval, since we have
COMMISSIONER
CARTER: I was going to move for
COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we have a motion from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Coyle for
approval.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5- 0.
Keep up the good work, Jennifer.
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Get my name on the ballot, all
right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't want to do that again.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Could you get mine on the
ballot, too? I feel a little lonely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, as a write-in.
Olcay, under 15 we have the SAP update by-
Item #9G - Continued from earlier in the meeting
Page 248
October 22, 2002
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY- ISSUE OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT POSITION
TO BE ADDED TO THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION
AGENDA (CONSENSIIS); AND 2.1% COI.A APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd ask you to -- let's go back and
finish up 9(G) before we--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we did.
MR. MUDD: -- before we go to communications.
I've checked our records. The -- I wish the senior executive
service issue was more clear-cut.
I will tell you that we at the county HR side of the house take
his position, and we allocate one of the senior management service
positions that we can by law. David's name is on it.
There are some difficulties to pay David for the senior
management service retirement allocation in Tallahassee, because
there is a current law that states that any contract employee outside
the county manager, because it's -- the Florida statutes are quite clear,
the county manager will be in the senior management service -- that
no contract employee, other than the county manager, can be in the
senior management service.
Now, that is a point of contention. Some counties do it, some
counties don't. And in the past, the clerk of courts has not been
successful in making that happen. And I'd ask Mr. Mitchell to come
forward and try to clarify from his perspective.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good evening. For the
record, Jim Mitchell, the director of finance in the county for the
clerk's office.
This is an issue that David and I continue to discuss year after
year when his review comes up. When his contract was first let, it
was an issue that we brought to his attention, that there is a specific
prohibition against contract employees having the senior
Page 249
October 22, 2002
management service designation.
David has brought to our attention that there are some counties
out there that do have their county attorneys in that particular
designation. He's also brought to our attention that there's an opinion
from an attorney in Hillsborough that says that it is a valid
designation for a contract employee.
However, I did talk with the Department of Revenue today, and
they did say that there is a -- that prohibition still exists.
What I'd recommend that we do is David, myself and Jean Merit
with Mr. Mudd's officer, sit down and talk about this issue and see if
we can find some resolution to it.
Keep in mind that what we're talking about here is a
contribution to his state retirement account. It's not a direct payment
to David, but it is a payment that affects his retirement when he
retires. And basically what it is, it's the difference between 1.6
percent 'for every year that he's worked, compared to 2 percent for
every year that he's been in that senior management class
designation.
Now, if it is determined that he is eligible for that, we can go
back and retroactively apply him to that designation from the point
that his contract was let. But based on my discussions with the
retirement system, I have questions if that's going to apply.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Should we direct staff-- there goes
my voice. Should we direct staff at this time to take it back?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My light's on.
The -- this is something that we should add to our list for a
legislation delegation is to include the county attorney or full-time
employees for changing that in the Florida retirement system. And I
don't know if it's too late to do that now, but we're working on the
issue with the contract with the county attorney, and whatever
decision that we make or whatever comes out of the legislation or the
Page 250
October 22, 2002
meeting with the clerk of courts and that should reflect a decision
that we do here today.
And I don't know that we can take this at a two-step process,
because what I hear David -- or Mr. Weigel would desire is to be in
the system. And I'm all in favor of that. And what he's asking for is a
COLA and to be in the Florida retirement system.
So how can we make that happen, since he has given us good
service? Well, I think one way to do it is to make a motion for a --
continue the contract for another year, and whatever we can do as far
as getting him on the Florida retirement system, we should do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
MR. MITCHELL: Let me just state, there is specific criteria
that has to be met to be in that designation. And David meets every
single one of them, with the exception of a single exclusion that's out
there and that is a contractual employee. So I agree that David's
position is definitely suited to be in that designation; however,
because of that contractual relationship, it is totally excluded.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then we can solve that very
quickly, we just cancel his contract.
He's not smiling, so I guess he doesn't think that's a good idea.
What is the rationale for this prohibition?
MR. MITCHELL: I can't specifically answer that. In talking
with the retirement system, it's -- basically what they say is they have
to serve at the pleasure of. They cannot have a contract between
them and the board, with the exception of the county manager.
That's the only statements that they've made to me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the county manager can have a
contract and be included in the retirement program --
MR. MITCHELL: It is mandated that he be included.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- but the county attorney can
have a contract and he can't be included.
MR. MUDD: That's correct. And neither can the airport
Page 251
October 22, 2002
authority director, who's another contract employee.
Commissioners, if it's the pleasure of the board, Commissioner
Henning brought up a good thing, and it's not too late to add
something to our legislative agenda. And this seems to be a pretty
easy one. We basically add the fact that if the board votes on it, we
can add the thing that Collier County supports that the county
attorney be a mandatory senior management service employee as far
as our legislative initiative is to go forward.
At the same time, we can ask for an attorney general opinion to
get some clarification and do that at the same stead. And then while
we're doing it, David, Jim, myself, Jean Merit, can all get together
and we can work through this process and try to come up with some
solution or recommendation, if everything else fails on those
particular items that I suggested.
And I think that's fair to David to try to get some resolution on
this thing and to do it within the legal bounds that we have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I definitely think he should
be part of the program.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd agree. So what we need to do
is make a motion as a board to do that, or can you just -- can we
extrapolate from what you just said is board direction?
MR. MUDD: You tell us board direction, you want to add this
to our legislative agenda. That's the one thing I need from the board
right now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would recommend we do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, make that in the form of a
motion, since everything else has been--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I don't think we -- do we
need that? All he needs is direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine, let's do it.
And then what about currently? I mean, have we taken care of
every one of the issues with David's contract?
Page 252
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. You still have an issue back
there, I think it was a motion, of where you recommended -- maybe it
was defeated, I don't know. You were recommending a 2.5 percent
increase. That got into the discussion of being a part of the senior
program.
Commissioner Henning had also raised the issue about COLA.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It failed for a lack of second.
Did you want to make a new motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I'm not going to do
anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we extend
the county attorney's contract for one year, recognizing the changes
that we're going to make through our delegation and go through all
those avenues and whatever.
If that does not materialize, then we can look at a merit pay for
David Weigel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: For the record, my contract has one year still on
it. So if you're just looking to continue it for a year or extend it a
year, you need to be clear about that, or a year beyond that, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion, we have a
second.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, that's before.
Any other--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Clarification. David Weigel
says I've already got a year on this contract.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you don't add anything.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Or are you making a motion to
extend it beyond the year that he already has?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
Page 253
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you don't need a motion to
extend his contract, it's already there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we don't need to take any
action. 'Then let's wait to see what happens with our legislation
delegation, whether they're fruitful in Tallahassee on this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If they're not, can we come back
and revisit this then?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, make it retroactive.
MR. MUDD: My suggestion is if we're not successful, then we
come back and we take a look at David's 457 contribution that the
county makes to kind of compensate for that so that it is in a
retirement account for him, to try to come up with something that's
amiable and we do the difference kind of thing. And that's
something that I think the board should address, if everything else
fails, and we can go back and retroactive that, that process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, does that conclude -- anything
else from any other constitutional officers? I guess that's it for that
part.
Mr. Mudd?
Item #15A
SAP UPDATE BY STEVE CARNELL, DIRECTOR,
Pl IRCHASING DEPARTMENT - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to the presentation by Steve
Carnell to talk about SAP -- an SAP update.
And I will say, I have one other item. It has to do with FEMA.
We.have a 30-day update window where we either have to file an
objection to the new mapping and it's going to put a lot of things in
Page 254
October 22, 2002
the flood plain in the Estates and in the City of Naples that they've
got some bad data. And I'm going to let Joe brief that to you right
after Steve's done, and I won't say anything else.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, purchasing
director. Hopefully you'll like this one, short, sweet and you don't
have to vote on anything.
What I want to do is just give you an update of where we are
with our new financial management system implementation. We are
scheduled presently to bring this live in your agency and in the clerk
of courts and supervisor of elections agency, in December and on
January. 2nd.
If you'll remember, this package includes modules that support
our human resource, our payroll, our purchasing and all our basic
financial, accounting, accounts payable-type functions. And we're
going to be bringing all those up and into production, as I said.
The payroll will actually start in December. We'll be entering
time for all the employees. And then the first paycheck issued out of
SAP for board employees will be on January the 2nd, and on the
clerk and supervisor of elections agencies the following week.
Just a couple of things I wanted you to be aware of. Right now
the project team, which consists of roughly 30 to 40 people from the
clerk, board and elections agencies, along with our outside integrator,
are working very hard to finish up the key parts of testing the
software to make sure that it's properly functional in our
environment. And they're going to be moving in -- starting very
shortly, really next week, with delivering training to over 400
employees in three agencies who will be using the software. We've
had a very enthusiastic reception from not only the project team but
from the employees at large who seem to be very anxious and
prepared for this. We've appreciated the help from many, many of the
employees who participated in the project, including your own Sue
Filson and Kathy Highbaugh, who have been very instrumental in
Page 255
October 22, 2002
helping us with the grow-out of the project.
The testing and the training are really the two big issues left to
finish strong with. And right now we think we have a good plan to
make that happen and be successful.
We think that when we get this on board, that you're going to be
very pleased with some of the results you see.
The five of you individually may not touch this software,
initially may not touch it for a while. But I assure you that you will
see the impact of it throughout the organization in terms of a more
modern operation, better reporting information, and just more
efficient processing of a number of transactions that occur day-to-day
throughout all three agencies.
With that, I'll just tell you where I'm target -- on track right now
to meet all of our goals to get this up and live. We're within budget
right now. We have been monitoring our resources very closely in
terms of the people within house and also as well as the use of our
outside integrator and some of the resources that we used to support
the project.
Right now we're within budget. There is a possibility that to
meet all of our goals fully on or after January 1st, that we may need
some additional funding, but that's not to be discussed now. We'll be
bringing that back to you later, if need be.
At this point in time, however, we are within budget and we're
on schedule to bring this up in January. Just wanted to let you know
that, and be sure the five of you were aware. If you have any
questions, I'll be happy to answer them. ! do want to thank Jim
Mitchell for his support, Jim's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Jim.
MR. CARNELL: -- with the clerk's agency, been very
instrumental in cooperating with us to help make this be successful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Carnell.
Page 256
October 22, 2002
Item #15B
DISCUSSION BY JOE SCHMIDT RE APPEAL OF FLOOD
ELEVATION MAPS - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT THE
NOVEMBER 19. 2002 MEETING
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the last item that we have?
MR. SCHMITT: The last item-- for the record, Joe Schmitt,
administrator, community development, environmental services.
This is just an update on an issue that's been around since
December of last year. And it has to do with the appeal of the flood
insurance restudy proposed basin flood elevations for Collier County
and the City of Naples. The flood map for Collier County and the
City of Naples.
And I'm going to provide a brief update of where we are in this,
with the assistance of Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, who
will answer any of your questions.
On September 25th, 2002, staff, along with Bob Devlin of the
City of Naples, and our contractor, Richard Thomasello of
Thomasello Consulting Engineers, TCE, as they're known as, met
with Mr. Doug Bellomo of the hazard study branch, federal insurance
and mitigation administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, or FEMA, and his representatives to discuss our appeal of
the revised FEMA flood insurance rate maps.
In sum, the letter that you were just given that was addressed to
the chairman, acting as the chief executive officer for Collier County,
stated that TCE's methodology was not superior to the methodology
of FEMA's contractor, and that TCE had not validated that the
FEMA data was technically flawed.
So what in essence that letter says is they have denied our
appeal.
As a result, on behalf of the City of Naples and Collier County,
Page 257
October 22, 2002
staff is preparing a letter of comment for the county manager's
signature, which will initiate and trigger the next phase of the
appellate resolution of process that will require FEMA to respond in
writing to our comments.
So this is the next phase, and we'll be doing this jointly with the
City of Naples as the one Collier County appeal.
The City of Naples has expressed interest to meet jointly with
the board and to coordinate how to best resolve this appeal. And the
city manager has been in contact with the county manager, and we're
trying to set up that meeting so that both the board and the city
council can negotiate as to how they want to proceed.
Based on follow-on date provided by staff, FEMA has
expressed a strong desire, and I want to express a strong desire, to
work with the community to resolve this -- the methodology and the
associated flood insurance maps. I think they would rather do that
than go through a lengthy litigation. This is certainly going to
require additional financial commitment by the county and the city to
secure TCE's services.
To. that end, staff will provide a detailed briefing, and we'll
come back to you with an analysis on the issues and the options, and
we're going to schedule that for the November 19th Board of County
Commissioners' meeting.
So that fundamentally kind of summarizes where we are with
this. This is a long and ongoing process. We appealed. They did not
recognize the data as grounds for the appeal. Now we're going back,
initiating the comment period, which will start about an eight-month
process prior to them, them being FEMA, publishing in the Federal
Register that these maps are valid. So we're pushing the camp
further down the road so we don't get into issue here.
And my commitment to you is come back with both our
contractor and with any -- with some of the support from the city as
we try and explain to you where we are with this whole situation.
Page 258
October 22, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what this presents, what's
happened with these new maps is there's areas in Collier County that
they've designated on their maps that would have to carry flood
insurance that don't presently carry flood insurance right now. On
needed flood insurance. Because we have -- in our opinion and in
the City of Naples' opinion, they've got some faulty data. And I
think we've gotten them to understand what it was that caused them
to come up with a bad conclusion as far as Collier County is
concerned. And we're just trying to prevent people from having to
have flood insurance when they don't need to have it, based on maps
that aren't correct.
MR. SCHMITT: Let me just kind of piggyback off of that.
Franklyl we're really talking about a lot of homes in the Estates. And
what that means is that if you have a federal loan -- which 90 percent
or so of them out there are of some sort of another, backed by a
federal agency -- you will receive a letter from your lending
institution demanding that within 60 to 90 days you initiate a flood
insurance for your home. And the only way they will be able to
dispute that is through individual appellate process through FEMA.
We're going to delay that as we begin to try and convince
FEMA that their data was faulty. We'll need TCE's assistance, and
that will be a joint effort between both the City of Naples and Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, I hear you. And this is
indeed bad news. It's totally unwarranted. I know the study, when
they did it, they took land that was far removed from Golden Gate
Estates, which had a much lower level, and flooding was much --
would take place there at a faster rate, and used that as part of their
model. I thought this was all cleared up. Obviously the problem's
still there.
Whatever we have to do to keep this from happening we have
to, because the expense and the burden on the residents of Golden
Page 259
October 22, 2002
Gate Estates is totally unwarranted.
Also, too, is there another way that if this does become fact and
we can't fight it any longer, we exhausted the appeal process, can
individual lots get exemptions from this? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, there are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And would you explain that, to
maybe take some of the panic off of our homeowners out there?
MR. SCHMITT: Can I -- that's a little more detailed legally,
and I'm going to defer to Patrick, if I could for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then we'll go to you next, Mr.
Carter, and Commissioner Coyle.
MR. WHITE: Good evening, Commissioners. Again, assistant
county attorney Patrick White.
There's two processes, and they're both set forth in an e-mail
we've received from Mr. Bellomo October 10, indicating both their
apology for the mistake with respect to what's more commonly
referred to as the Sheet II-D study for Golden Gate, as to those data
errors. And those are things that will be number one on our list of
comments for resolution with FEMA.
But the two processes that are available for property owners,
those that may somehow, even after we've gone through and gotten
these data corrections, still be required to obtain flood insurance,
based upon their elevations, there's a process called letters of map
revision, and also letters of map amendment.
We're going to have to look at how many of them are remaining
after the data are corrected, and my belief is that many, many of them
will be corrected and there will not be the need to have that level of
revision by either what's called the LOMR or the LOMA.
So we're going to have to wait and see. But we already have
this e-mail from Mr. Bellomo at FEMA --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, so we --
MR. WHITE: -- indicating that they recognize the mistake.
Page 260
October 22, 2002
And we're working with our contractor and the FEMA contractors to
resolve those as quickly as possible.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this point in time, they can't force
the people out in Golden Gate Estates to buy flood insurance, is that
MR. WHITE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- correct?
MR. WHITE: We're a minimum of at least eight months away
from any type at all of an implementation of these maps. And as Mr.
Schmitt had indicated too, we're working diligently with the offer
that FEMA has made as part of this letter that you have at the very
conclusion to enter into a parallel process where we would be
looking.to actually have them acknowledge the methodology that our
contractor has brought forward, that they cannot do as part of their
standard review for these maps.
But they're willing to work with us, they're willing to commit to
a certain limited amount of funding from their agency for the
purposes of resolving some of these technical differences and getting
us to a place where we might actually have maps that are more
appropriate and akin to what we believe is a better methodology.
It may not be sufficient to meet the standards for a review by the
agency, FEMA, but it will be something that I think ultimately in this
parallel process will get us a better map, the one that our committee
has been looking for for years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hope we get this resolved. Because
Florida is a donor state. We take care of everybody else up and
down the eastern seaboard. Our money underwrites their expenses.
MR. WHITE: That's one of the things I think that's been
compelling, and something that's certainly been hurting Washington.
So I think the efforts of all of our ad hoc committee, as well as the
representatives of the city have been very helpful in getting us to the
place where we are today.
Page 261
October 22, 2002
I just believe that it's a question of timing. If we can become
actively engaged with FEMA at the earliest possible date, resolve
these technical matters with respect to methodologies, get on to the
point of utilizing the data, as we're going to have them corrected
through this study and other points in the county, I think we'll
ultimately be able to minimize, perhaps even down to zero, the
number-of days where we will have to live with maps that we believe
are not technically correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate that. Would you keep
me appraised of every situation along the way -- MR. WHITE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- so that I can be following this and
react when I have to?
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, we certainly will. And I just
want to for the record make sure and understand that there are also
not only Golden Gate, but there are over 600 homes along the coastal
community that will be impacted as well, and that is including the
City of Naples; many homes in the City of Naples and businesses in
the City of Naples that will be significantly impacted by a change in
these flood maps.
So'it is a very important issue, and we will get -- certainly make
sure you know when we're going to have a joint meeting. And I'll
depend on County Manager Mudd to at least advise staff as to when
that meeting will be so that we can jointly at least define a course of
action that we want to take and to object to the technical data --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very much so.
MR. SCHMITT: -- that they're now using.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I won't prolong this, other than I
congratulate staff and your persistence. I've been in this for three
years and probably -- and God knows how many years before this. If
we stay the course, FEMA, as the Chairman alluded to, even at the
Page 262
October 22, 2002
end of the day, Florida could say I'll tell you what, we'll just pull out;
we'll be self-insured, you can kiss the rope. When it comes to that,
FEMA would back down. And I think the letter indicates, gee, we'd
really like to work with you, but candidly, we've spent all this money
and we don't want to revisit our data. It's just another one of these
games that we're going to play until we finally get to that point that
says do we or don't we? And I truly believe, and you know from
working through bureaucracies a long time, that we'll probably
prevail at the end of the day. And people, as Commissioner Coletta
said, do not panic, don't worry, nothing's going to happen now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I've been involved in this
since it first came up from the standpoint of the city council in
Naples, .and it is a very serious issue. And I think we should continue
fighting it.
And I'd like to say, too, it's my belief that there's far more than
600 homes impacted. There are thousands of homes impacted. And
let me tell you what has happened. After Hurricane Donna, in 1960,
the base flood elevation was increased, I believe, to six feet. After
that, the base flood elevation was increased to 11 feet along those
areas in the City of Naples, let's say three to 400 yards from the
beach. And a lot ofhomes were built at 11 feet. Now all ofthose
homes are not going to be in compliance, if this goes through.
Now, what does that mean from the standpoint of insurance
coverage? It meanings that technically -- at least this is what I was
told at the time -- technically the current owner would continue to be
able to get flood insurance and continue to pay a premium, although
that might go up. Once the house is sold, the house is below the
required flood elevation.
Now, what is the difficulty in getting insurance coverage for a
house that's below the elevation? It could be a brand new house.
And now you're stuck. And yes, you can get it, but it's going to cost
Page 263
October 22, 2002
you money.
So it's a very, very serious problem. And I believe that the --
Commissioner Carter's idea is great. The amount we get back from
our flood insurance premiums is a mere fraction of how much we
pay. And the FEMA map and the base flood elevations are based
upon storm assumptions that have never occurred on the East Coast
-- or West Coast of Florida. Never occurred. They have failed to
consider that most of the hurricanes that hit our coast actually come
across the state and are consequently not as severe. And they've
made assumptions that -- of hurricane levels that have never occurred
here.
There are just lots of other apparently obvious mistakes, but I
guess we have to develop the technical data to refute that.
But I very strongly encourage that we fight it. And if we have
the authority, and I don't know if we do, but if we have the authority
to be self-insured, I'd sure vote for that, because we'd save a lot of
money.
But I really believe that FEMA's objective is to make it punitive
to live on the coast. They are getting hit so hard with respect to
government bail-outs for cities that are flooded out, even in
Tennessee and other states that are located in flood plains and in
coastal communities that are hit by hurricanes, I believe they are
intentionally trying to drive people from the coast. And I think this
is merely one step in the plan. And if there's a way we could become
self-insured, I'd sure go for it. I think we'd all save a lot of money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments?
MR. MUDD: We plan to come back to the board on the 19th of
November with this particular issue.
Just as a note of information, the City of Marco Island has filed
a complaint in the 20th Judicial Court about the takeover of the
Florida waters by the Florida Water Service Authority, and I'll let
you know that that happened -- I got noticed on Monday that that
Page 264
October 22, 2002
transpired.
Item #15C
DISCUSSION RE MR. KRAMER'S COMPLAINT AGAINST MR.
HAMMOND
To answer Mr. Kramer's petition for information as far as what
have we done as far as the bills to Mr. Hammond, we've sent out a
second notice for the bill. Next week we'll send out a third. Within
10 days of that notice being sent out, if there is no reply, then we'll
turn it over to a collection agency for that particular item.
The other petition was Ms. Hampton's, as far as the front part of
her wheel when she hit a pothole. You told the staff to go back and
work on policy. One of the things I told Jeff Walker this morning is I
said instead of just saying well, if we haven't been noticed, how
about adding a police report to the particular accident, so that if the
sheriff went out there, saw the pothole and the front end was laying
in the pothole, that's another issue. And also put in our policy that
the right way to appeal a particular decision by risk management on a
claim is to go to small claims court versus the Board of County
Commissioners. So he's going to work on those two items.
Outside of that, I have nothing else further to give the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick question about Mr.
Kramer's complaint about the guy --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Hammond.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Mr. Hammond.
Can you put a lien on his property for that amount of money?
MR. MUDD: We're sending the notices to a P.O. Box. We
haven't got the property issue down pat yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we can find the piece of
property, can we put a lien on it for that amount of funding?
Page 265
October 22, 2002
MR. MUDD: I'd have to look at that.
MR. WEIGEL: It's not an assessment, so first we'd have to take
it to court and get a judgment and put a judgment lien on his
property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Anything else, Mr. Mudd?
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, just one last little thing. In your review,
annual review of me, you had an action plan to look at, and it is the
custom of the board to use it as its tool and me as my tool in regard
to expectations. And so if it needs some tweaking, I typically in the
past have worked with a commissioner and brought it back. And
again, I think we learn from it every year.
I was wondering if this board had desire for either the current
Chairman or a commissioner over the next few weeks to work on it
so it could come back and be in place in its call it new improved
form for this next year. I think there are some complicated areas in a
few places there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, if I may recommend, I
think you really need to talk to each one of the commissioners on
that.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'd be happy to do that. And of course I
already have spoken with them some. I might come out with
something that's -- well, I can put together something, having spoken
with you and speaking again briefly, and bring it back to the board
for observation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that would be the best action
to take.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, let's start with comments.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 266
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sure everybody's aware,
I've seen some articles in the Naples Daily News, on some
allegati°ns or some reporting on previous commissioners dealing
with the waste management, waste management contract, so on, so
forth.
And I've been gathering some materials, and I'm considering
bringing back to the Board of Commissioners in the next meeting a
item dealing with that and making recommendations that the state
attorneys investigates that aspect of it. I didn't know if any of the
commissioners thinks it was inappropriate to bring that item to the
Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not sure, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would we want to do that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would have some guarded
reservations about that type of thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, without --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if Commissioner Henning has
some information which really should be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Shared with the legal authorities.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- shared, I think that would be
entirely appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have two things. First of all,
I wanted to just note for the record that I still oppose item 10(B),
Page 267
October 22, 2002
because I still cannot embrace that issue. So I'm just going to say
that for the record.
Also, I wanted to say to David that one thing, he asked for ways
to improve this thing. He didn't ask us to tell you how good you
were. And you just told us to -- and you've always been there for us.
And I wrote in there my comments. But you're always there
whenever we call. We can call you at home, day or night. Your staff
has always been there for us. And no matter when we call, we get a
response quickly and efficiently. And I want to note that for the
record.
Also, I think that you go to extra pains to make sure that you
research everything that we need to help us to make an informed
decision, so I just want to state that on the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just quickly. I've been thinking
about, Commissioner Henning, what you mentioned. Whatever you
put together, it is my recommendation that you use legal counsel to
frame that as it comes back here, to make sure that we're walking on
the right waters here without getting into something where we don't
want to be.
Secondly, I concur with Commissioner Fiala, David Weigel I
think has done a fine job. He has done some things differently over
the last year than in the past. I would keep encouraging more of the
same. When he said he really didn't care whether he got a pay
increase or not, I think that was a signal to the board I'm okay where
I am. And if you weren't, you needed to tell us that. At least if I read
the tea leaves up here.
Other than that, I don't have anything else, Mr. Chairman. It's
been a pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This isn't your last meeting, though,
is it?
Page 268
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, it's just been a pleasure
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I did,
too.
I would like to echo my sentiments, David. I truly enjoy
working with you. You've been tremendous, and you've always
come across. And I know today probably didn't go quite the way a
lot of us would have liked to see on a lot of different things, but it's
been interesting. We've put a lot of things in front of us, we've got a
lot of things behind us, and we've still got a lot of things to get done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we did understand everything
he said today. He promised us he would be doing that, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Carter moved, seconded by Commissioner
Henning and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2002-08, RE PETITION CARNY-2002-AR-
3192, JOSEPH C. DELFINO, OF THE NAPLES ITALIAN
AMERICAN CLUB, PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL
FROM OCTOBER 31, 2002 THROUGH NOVEMBER 3, 2002, ON
PROPERTY I~OCATFD AT 7035 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF $10,000 OFFER AS FULL AND COMPLETE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN IMPOSED IN CEB CASE NO. 99-067,
COIiI,IF, R COIINTY V. ROIJAND SIJR1N & ZEIJTA ROBINSON
Page 269
October 22, 2002
Item #16A3
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL PAY FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
EVEN1NG SHIFT FOR WORK HOURS OTHER THAN
SPF, CIFIF. D IN CMA INSTRIICTION 5341 SECTION 1 7 (lq~
Item # 16A4
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-053, RE CHAD DIJTTON
Item #6A5
IMPACT FEE REFUNDS DUE TO CANCELLATION OF
BUILDING PERMITS RE KENMARK CONSTRUCTION INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,070.82; BAY BUILDERS OF BONITA
SPRINGS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,238.82; AND JAMES E.
HIRST IN THE AMOIINT OF $37045.82
Item #16A6
FINAL PLAT OF "WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK, PHASE
TWO"- WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND
STIPI ILATIONS
Item #16A7
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT 99-2976 (COMMUNITY
CHARACTER MASTER PLAN) WITH DOVER, KOHL AND
PARTNERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $211,370 FOR THE
DFJVF, I.OPMENT OF A NAPIJES PARK COMMIJNITY PI.AN
Page 270
October 22, 2002
Item #16B 1 - Moved to Item #10G
Item #16B2
EQUIPMENT LOAN AGREEMENT WITH 3M TRAFFIC
CONTROL MATERIALS DIVISION FOR THE USE OF AN
HSRA-48C SQUEEZE ROLLER APPLICATOR USED FOR SIGN
SHF. F, TING APPIJCATIONS AT NO COST TO THF, COl JNTY
Item #16B3
STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE FORMATION OF A
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT (MSTBU)
FOR IMPROVING A PORTION OF SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
AND DOAK AVF, NI JFJ FXTENSION IN IMMOKAIJF, FJ
Item #16B4
STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE FORMATION OF A
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT (MSTBU)
FOR IMPROVING IJTTI~F, I,FiAGI IE ROAD IN IMMOKAI~F,E
Item #16B5
CHANGE ORDER #1 WITH APAC, INC. FOR ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS ON THE NORTH 11TH STREET EXTENSION
PROJECT AT THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 29 - IN
THF, AMOIJNT OF $31;733.60
Item #16B6
Page 271
October 22, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-432, PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF
TRUCKS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL VEHICLES HAVING A
RATED LOAD-CARRYING CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF ONE (1)
TON FROM THROUGH-MOVEMENTS ON CERTAIN STREETS
1N THE NORTHERN HIGH POINTE NEIGHBORHOOD
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2002-433, TO REMOVE A NON-WARRANTED
TRAFFIC SIGNAL FROM THE INTERSECTION OF
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AT THE DRIVEWAY TO THE
ROYAl'. POINCIANA GOI,F CI,IIB
Item #16B8 - Moved to Item #10I
Item #16B9
UTILIZATION OF INSURANCE PROCEEDS TO PURCHASE
TWO RECONDITIONED TRANSIT BUSES AND OTHER
SI JPPORT EQI IIPMENT- 1N THE AMOI JNT OF $91:853
Item # 16B 10
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH FIRST
BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC., FOR ROAD IMPACT
FEE CREDITS - IN THE ESTIMATED AMOI JNT OF $668:056_81
Item #16B 11
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $250,000 FROM
TRANSPORTATION GAS TAX RESERVES FOR MARCO
ISI.AND PROJECTS FROM FISCAl. YEAR 2002
Page 272
October 22, 2002
Item # 16C 1
CONTRACT #02-3417 FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF
CHLORINATOR EQUIPMENT- AWARDED TO WATER
TREATMENT AND CONTROLS COMPANY IN THE
ESTIMATF, D AMOIJNT OF $1007000
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $381,400 FROM
RESERVES TO CORRECTLY FUND THE FY 03 BUDGET FOR
PAYMENT OF THE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
PII,T
Item #16C3
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $132,600 TO UPSIZE THE
WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN TO THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
RF, GIONAIJ PARK
Item #16C4
BID #02-3402 FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY SUPPLIES -
AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS AS INDICATED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY- IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$17000,000
Item # 16E 1
BID #02-3405, ADDITION TO THE IMMOKALEE LIBRARY-
AWARDED TO M. J. SIMPSON CORPORATION IN THE
Page 273
October 22, 2002
AMOI JNT OF $490:000
Item #16E2
UTILIZATION OF STATE CONTRACT PRICING TO
PURCHASE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES FOR THE COUNTY
TEI.EPHONE SWITCH NETWORK
Item #16E3 - Moved to Item #10H
Item #16E4
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
ARNOLD PROPERTIES, INC., FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR'S
USE BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF A
GARAGE/WAREHOI ISE SPACE AT A TOTAIJ COST OF $207703
Item # 16F 1
REIMBURSEMENT OF $40,000 TO THE BAY COLONY
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND BUDGET AMENDMENT
TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM PELICAN BAY FUND 109
RESERVF. S TO THE OPERATING BIIDGET
Item #16F2
APPROPRIATION OF UNANTICIPATED REVENUE OF $12,178
1N THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET FROM
PROTECTIVE INSPECTION FEES, SURPLUS SALES AND
CARRY FORWARD
Item #16F3
Page 274
October 22, 2002
RESOLUTION BAR 2002-03, APPROPRIATING GRANTS,
DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS
TO THE FISCAI~ YEAR 2001-02 ADOPTED lqIIDGET
Item #16F4
BI IDGET AMENDMENT 03-035
Item # 1611
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 275
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 22, 2002
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
mo
Bo
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 September 21, 2002 through September 27, 2002.
Districts:
o
°
o
10.
South Fl. Water Management Dist. - Adopting the Budget for FY 2002-
03.
Heritage Greens Community Development District - District Map for the
FY 2003 District Map and Schedule of Regular Meetings 2002-2003.
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Registered Agent,
Description of Outstanding Bonds, District Map, Schedule of Regular
Meetings Budget of 2002-03.
Collier Soil and Water Conservation District - Public Facilities 5 year
Update Report, Description of Outstanding Bonds, District Map, Schedule
of Regular Meetings and Proposed Budget for 2002-2003.
East Naples Fire Control District - 2002-2003 Budget, Schedule of
Regular Meetings, District Map and Registered Office and Agent.
North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District - Final Millage Rate for the
District and FY 2002-2003.
Tuscany Reserve Community Development District - Resolution 2002-9
Designating Richard D. Yovonivich as Registered Agent
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - list of meeting to be
help in the next year.
Pelican Marsh Community Development District - District Map and
Schedule of Regular Meetings 2002-2003.
Mediterra South Community Development District - Notice of Scheduled
meetings for FY and a district map.
H:Data/Format
C. Minutes:
o
o
o
10.
11.
12.
Livingston Road Phase II Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee -
Agenda for September 25, 2002, Minutes of September 12, 2002.
13.
Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 3,
2002, Minutes of September 4, 2002, Minutes of June 6, 2002, Agenda
for June 6, 2002, Agenda for May 2, 2002, Minutes of May 2, 2002,
Agenda for April 4, 2002, Minutes of April 5, 2002, Agenda for March
7, 2002, Minutes of March 7, 2002, Agenda for February 7, 2002,
Minutes of February 7, 2002, Agenda for January 10, 2002, Minutes of
January 10, 2002,
a)
Vanderbilt M.S.T.U. Veteran's Park Minutes of September 4,
2002,
Productivity Committee Advisory Board - Minutes of August 21, 21002.
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee -Agenda for September
16, 2002, Minutes of September 9, 2002, Minutes of September
16, 2002, Agenda for September 9, 2002.
Pelican Bay Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 2, 2002.
Environmental Advisory Board - Agenda for October 7, 2002, Minutes
of September 4, 2002.
Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for October 9, 2002,
Minutes of September 11, 2002.
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Minutes of August 28,
2002.
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for September .
10, 2002, Minutes of August 13, 2002.
Forest Lakes M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee- Notes of August 16, 2002.
Black Affairs Advisory Board - Minutes of January 28, 2002 and
February 25, 2002.
Citizens Advisory Task Force Committee - Minutes of September 12,
2002, Minutes of May 9, 2002, Minutes of February 28, 2001, April 18,
2002, February 5, 2002 and January 31, 2002.
Historic & Archaeological Preservation Board Advisory Committee -
Agenda for September 18, 2002, Minutes of August 21, 2002.
H:Data/Format
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee - Minutes of June 25, 2002,
Minutes of April 22, 2002.
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Agenda for
September 26, 2002, Minutes of July 25, 2002.
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Board - Agenda for
September 23, 2002 Minutes of August 7, 2002, Agenda for October 2,
2002.
Enterprise Zone Development Agency Collier County Housing & Urban
Improvement- Minutes of May 23, 2002, Minutes of March 28, 2002,
Minutes of January 24, 2002 and Minutes of November 29, 2001.
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Notice of Meeting
September 26, 2002.
Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board Meeting - Minutes of
December 3, 2001, October 1, 2001, August 27, 2001, May 7, 2001,
March 5, 2001, February 5, 2001, January 8, 2001, September 4, 2002,
May 6, 2002, April 1, 2002, March 4, 2002, February 4, 2002, January 7,
2002.
Library Advisory Board - Minutes of May 22, 2002.
Enterprise Zone Development Agency (Collier County Financial Ser-
Minutes of July 25, 2002.
Lake Trafford Restoration Advisory Task Force Meeting - Minutes of
January 31, 2001, February 26, 2001, April 30, 2001, August 14, 2001,
September 24, 2001, November 13, 2001, April 12, 2002, July 8, 2002.
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for October 3, 2002,
Minutes of August 1, 2002.
Hispanic Affairs AdVisory Board - Minutes of May 23, 2002, Minutes of
July 25, 2002, Minutes of August 29, 2002.
1-75/Golden Gate Interchange - Agenda for October 9, 2002, Minutes of
June 13, 2002.
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Advisory Committee - October
15, 2002, Minutes of September 17, 2002.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for October 9, 2002,
September 18, 2002.
H:Data./Format
1)
2)
3)
Guy L. Carlton, Tax Collector - County Taxes levied on the county tax roll
for FY 2001.
Final Budget 2002-2003
Department of Community Affairs - Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for Collier (DCA No. 02-2) and Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Overlay Area (DCA No. 02-R2).
H:Data/Format
October 22, 2002
Item # 16J 1
DETERMINATION THAT THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND
SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXPENDITURFJ
OF COl INTY FIJNDS TO SATISFY SAID PIIRCHASFJS
Item #16K1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 205 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. ARMANDO A. LAMBERT, ET AL,
(IMMOKALEE PHASE 1 PROJECT) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE
SI IM OF $27300 INTO THF, RFJGISTRY OF THE COl JRT
Item #16K2
AGREED ORDER AWARDING SUPPLEMENTAL
ATTORNEY'S FEES RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITIONS OF PARCELS 172 AND 772 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DOMINIQUE RIHS, AS
TRUSTEE OF THE LAND TRUST NUMBER S 146-A, ET AL,
CASE NO. 01-0819-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT NO.
60071)- IN THF, AMOIINT OF $525
Item #16K3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE
SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 105 AND 105OB IN THE
LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FIRST BAPTIST
CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC., ET AL. LIVINGSTON ROAD
Page 276
October 22, 2002
PHASE III (PINE RIDGE ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD)-
STAFF TO DEPOSIT $51,175 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE
COl IRT
Item #16K4
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 118A, 821B AND
821C IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
TIBURON GOLF VENTURES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL,
(LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT #62071) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT
$1,800 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COIIRT
Item #16K5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 187 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MANUEL
ALVAREZ, ET AL, CASE NO. 02-2182-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT #60018)- STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF
$4,000 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Item #16K6
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT/LETTER OF
UNDERSTANDING FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND FOR THE COUNTY MANAGER WITH
THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND
BENEFIT UNIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO
COIJ.IF.R COI INTY ORDINANCE 2002-27
Item #17A
Page 277
October 22, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-434, RE PETITION CU-2002-AR-2366, RON
BEAVER, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE "E"
ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT PER LDC SECTION 2.2.3.3.7 TO
ALLOW A LAKFJ EXCAVATION ON 6.6 ACRES LOCATED AT
4640 31sT AVF, NI IF, NF,, GOI,DF, N GATF, F, STATFJS
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2002-435, RE PETITION CU-2002-AR-1943,
GOLDEN GATE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A-MHO ZONING
DISTRICT PER LDC SECTION 2.2.2.3.7, TO ALLOW A
CHURCH/PLACE OF WORSHIP ON 4.56+/- ACRES LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF RIVER ROAD, 500+/- FEET SOUTH OF
IMMOK AI,F,F, ROAD
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2002-52, CREATING THE IMMOKALEE
BF, AI ITIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTF, F,
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2002-BAR-04, AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL
YF, AR 2001-02 ADOPTF, D FIlIDGF, T
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2002-436, APPROVING PRESENTATION TO
THE COUNTY'S LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION A SPECIAL
ACT CODIFYING INTO THE PROPOSED SPECIAL ACT FIVE
Page 278
October 22, 2002
SPECIAL ACTS RELATED TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AND FIVE SPECIAL ACTS
*****
There being no further business for the good of the of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:03 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
;," _ '\ . i' _<'I ,~
~ .....1\ J. :,... 10.- ·'1' '.J/.)
'\\~,,., '.,¡;,
,/...::¡~} ". ~~;,~
~I:U
JAMg:s COLETTA, CHAIRPERSON
: ~ 'FTESr:t: '\\
... . oJ t, .. ,.' ....., ....~
, ~Wlq,~tl~,~"BROCK, CLERK
C ................ .
-i;:'~£.d#-#-~ ¡(J.~
Attest IS to Chai run · s
signature onlJe
These minutes approved by the Board on "7¡ ð-1A / Z .;!.ð6~
as presented /' or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING
BY: Terri Lewis, RPR and Cherie R. Nottingham, RPR
Page 279
Aquaport Settlement
Page 1 of 1
Patricia L. Morgan
From: Patricia L. Morgan
Sent: Tuesday, October 19,2004 10:36 AM
To: Pettit, Michael
Cc: Weigel, David
Subject: RE: Aquaport Settlement
'TTiankyou. I wi{[ Bet tfwse posted'ri¡]/it away. -Tris/i
-----Original Message-----
From: Pettit, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:35 AM
To: Patricia L. Morgan
Cc: Weigel, David
Subject: RE: Aquaport Settlement
-[pettit_m] Yes - the case has been settled and the minutes are open to the public. Mike Pettit. ----Original
Message-----
From: Patricia L. Morgan [mailto:Patricia.Morgan@clerk,collierJl.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:32 AM
To: weigel_d; PettitMichaei
Cc: bradley_n
Subject: Aquaport Settlement
good :Morning,
CPCease advise me if tfzis case lias been settCed aná I can reCease tfze erosed Session minutes for
pu6tìc viewing- I wi{{ neeá confinnation from your office to áo tliis.
rrfzanR.,you,
Trisfz :Morgan
:Minutes ~ ~cords
October 22, 2002
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 22, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, met in executive
(closed attorney-client) session on pending litigation case of 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,
on Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 12:00 p.m., in the commission
conference room, Building "F" of the Government Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Michael Pettit, Assistant County Attorney
Theodore Tripp, Outside Counsel
Page 1
October 22, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: If I may, I'll just get started with our court
reporter and then turn it over to Mr. Tripp.
We are here in executive session based upon agenda item 12(A),
and it is provided in the agenda itself. I know you'll pick that up and
recopy it with specificity to the court case and cause number.
In the room with us for executive session are the five members of
the Board of County Commission; we have the county manager, Jim
Mudd; myself, David Weigel, county attorney; assistant county
attorney, Michael Pettit, P- E- T - T - I - T; and our outside counsel, Mr.
Ted Tripp, with two P's.
MR. TRIPP: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to meet
with you-all today. I also appreciate the opportunity to speak with you
individually.
You may recall that when we spoke concerning the possibility of
this meeting, it was in anticipation of a mediation that was set to occur
and did, in fact, occur on October 19th, this past Saturday. What we
had asked at that time was to get some sense of where the
commissioners were individually with regard to what was then
perceived to be a possibility of resolving the case.
I am somewhat unhappy to tell you that the situation has changed
since I spoke with each of you and, in fact, it changed late last week,
again on Saturday, and yet again less than an hour ago.
Let me give you an update on where we are. This is a lawsuit that
has been brought against Collier County by James Allen, Norman
Burke, Aquaport, LC, and Conotel, LC, arising from the revocation of
a site development approval and a building permit for the construction
of a 68-unit hotel on approximately .9 acres of land on Vanderbilt
Beach in an R T district, which was then in Commissioner -- was then
and is now in Commissioner Carter's district.
The factual background, very briefly, is that the developer
identified this parcel at a time when it was zoned to allow the
Page 2
.--
October 22, 2002
construction of up to 16 condominium units or up to, I believe it was,
50 hotel units.
At the time the zoning limited hotel units to a minimum of 300
square feet, a maximum of 500 square feet, and the plaintiffs in this
case have conceded that a hotel was not an economically viable use for
the property at the time that it was purchased.
In fact, the developer purchased the property from seven existing
owners. At least five of them were given the contractual right to buy
units in what was described to them as the develop -- by the developer
as a Manatee-style condominium which was to be constructed on the
site once the existing condominium units were demolished and
removed.
Unfortunately for the developer, the plan that he had perceived at
that time was also not permittable, but he had been assured, he says, by
county staff that amendments were to be forthcoming in the next LDC
amendment cycle which would have permitted the construction of the
condominium proj ect which he had represented to the owners would
be built.
He desired up to 26 units for a condominium on the site. As a
practical matter, that could not have occurred without an amendment.
What then occurred after the contracts with the existing owners
and after the closing of three of those contracts was that the Collier
County Commission amended the Land Development Code, but
instead of changing the density as suggested by the staff and arguably
as represented to the developer, the Collier County Commission
adopted what's called a floor area ratio calculation for density.
Under the floor area ratio, technically up to 68 units in a hotel
could have been constructed on this property provided that the
construction was of a destination resort hotel.
Now, I will tell you that the code at that time drew a distinction
between a destination resort hotel, which I believe contemplated a
Page 3
___'__~_"'___"'___'_"__"'_"_"___~'____'_._M___'H'.__.___
October 22, 2002
facility like the Hyatt or some of the other major tourist destinations,
and what the code called an -- a transient hotel, what we commonly
think of as an overnighter where guests come and spend a night or two
and then move on.
Key to the developer's plan and ability to get this 68-unit hotel
approved was his ability to convince the staff that this was, in fact, a
destination resort hotel. I have my doubts, and the reason I say that is
because this hotel had no kitchen facilities, it had no food service, it
had no meeting facilities, it had no access to the beach except by way
of a beach access across the street and across another parcel of land.
So whether or not this ever was a destination resort hotel is an open
Issue.
But regardless of where we come out on that issue, the fact is that
the staff did grant site development approval for the construction of
this 68-unit hotel. There was an outcry from the citizenry.
A proposed lawsuit, pursuant to chapter 163, was presented to the
Collier County Commission. You were statutorily obligated within 30
days of being presented with that challenge to revisit the decision to
allow the construction of this proposed facility.
The Collier County Commission met in March. They voted
unanimously to uphold the staffs decision to approve the site
development plan.
Commissioner Carter then timely requested a rehearing of that
vote. That rehearing was ultimately set for May 22nd of 200 1.
In the interim, unbeknownst to either the county attorney's office
or the county commission, the staff apparently granted a building
permit to the developer for the construction of the 68-unit hotel,
notwithstanding the fact that the matter was then before the county
commission for reconsideration.
At the May 22nd meeting, there was substantial input from the
public. There was input from the developer. The county attorney's
Page 4
October 22, 2002
office rendered an executive summary and also verbal advice that if the
county commission wished to reconsider whether this proj ect, even
though it may arguably meet the objective criteria of the Land
Development Code was nonetheless inconsistent with the policy goals
and objectives of the growth management plan, that you sitting as the
county commission were the ultimate arbiters of that issue and were
empowered to overrule the staffs determination on that issue. In fact,
that's what happened. The Collier County Commission voted to
revoke both the site development plan approval and the building
permit.
At that time, no 68-unit hotel was lawfully capable of being
permitted. And as a practical matter, shortly thereafter, a further
amendment to the Land Development Code was proposed and
accepted by the commission which would make it impossible for that
structure to be permitted then or now.
The plaintiffs' claim is that they had a vested right to construct a
68-unit hotel because they had a lawfully issued site development plan
approval, they had a lawfully issued building permit, and they made
expenditures in reliance upon those approvals and that permit to ward
the construction of the 68-unit hotel.
They further assert in their federal court lawsuit that the council's
decision to prevent them from constructing a 68-unit hotel constitutes a
violation of their rights under the 5th and 14th amendments in the
United States Constitution, and therefore is actionable under a federal
statute called 42 U.S. code, section 1983, which basically gives a civil
remedy to individuals or entities whose constitutional rights have been
deprived under color of state law.
The plaintiffs originally presented to us damage demands that can
be broken down in basically four categories.
First they allege that they expended various sums to ward the
permitting and construction of the 68-unit hotel which, of course, now
Page 5
October 22, 2002
has no value to them, and they're seeking the recovery of those
out-of-pocket costs and expenses, which total approximately a million,
four hundred thousand dollars.
The second category is they allege that the land value itself has
been diminished. They have an appraisal by a local appraising firm,
Armalavage and Associates, which calculates the difference in this
acre of land, more or less, if it is zoned and permitted to allow a
68-unit hotel as contrasted to the value of this property if it is zoned
and permitted to construct 15 units of condominium. That difference
in value by Armalavage and Associates is two million, six hundred
thousand dollars, roughly.
They also claim lost profits. They profess that had the 68-unit
hotel been constructed, they could have either operated it themselves
as an owner-operation, or they could have leased it to a hotel operator.
Those lost profits have been calculated by a company out of West
Palm Beach called Brush and Company which does hotel evaluations
and economic proj ections. Those numbers, depending on whether you
go with the owner-operated scenario or the lease-operated scenario
range between 7.8 million dollars and 13.25 million dollars.
They also are entitled under 42 U.S. code, 1983, to have a jury
consider whether or not it is appropriate to award mental pain and
suffering, anguish, those kinds of intangible losses. In this category it's
very difficult to put a number on that, but I do need to alert you that if
they are able to state a claim and if they are successful in establishing
liability under 42 U.S. code, 1983, that is an aspect that the jury can
consider and could award compensation for.
Finally, there is an attorney's fee provision under 42 U.S. code,
section 1988. It provided that if a citizen brings an action under 1983
and is successful, they are entitled to recover their attorney's fees.
At this juncture the attorney's fees incurred by the plaintiff have
been represented to us to be in the neighborhood of 150 thousand
Page 6
October 22, 2002
dollars. I would estimate that if we were to try this case to a full trial
on the merits, the attorney's fees will be substantially in excess of 300
thousand, 350 thousand dollars. Now, that's the bad news.
The good news is that, number one, we have retained our own
hotel expert who tells us that there is substantial reason to believe, A,
that the 68-unit hotel room concept was not an economically feasible
development option for this land.
As you-all know, September 11th, 2001, dramatically affected the
hotel industry. I think the jury will hear that losing the right to build a
68-unit hotel that would have come online sometime after September
11, 2001, may have, in fact, been an economic benefit to these
plaintiffs as opposed to having deprived them of this income stream.
Secondly, our expert, a lady named Jan Nichols, advises me that
she believes some of the fundamental factual assumptions on which
the Brush and Company analysis is made are simply not credible.
They used, for example, as comparables, the room rates and occupancy
rates of the Registry Hotel or the Hyatt Regency. I mean, these are
facilities which in our opinion are not comparable in any real sense of
the word.
We have also retained the services of Woody Hanson of Integra
Reality Resources. He also takes issue with some of the calculations
that have been done by Armalavage and Associates. We have
substantial reason to believe that there may be some optimism in the
plaintiffs' numbers on this category as well.
When we spoke individually, we had been given reason to believe
by the plaintiffs' lawyer, Margaret Cooper out of West Palm Beach,
that the plaintiffs were interested in resolving this case in a manner that
would have allowed the county to protect itself against liability beyond
the existing insurance.
Collier County has a five-million-dollar liability insurance policy
through Northland Insurance Company. It is what's called an
Page 7
._,-,,_.._-..-.,.._..~_......~.-,_...,.,._._,._,,--
October 22, 2002
evaporating policy or an eroding policy. By that I mean, it is a
five-million-dollar policy that provides a cumulative aggregate total
insurance. Every time you pay a claim for a given policy year, you
exhaust a part of your coverage.
In addition, the costs of defense are paid from that policy limit.
So, for example, in this case, the funds that have been paid to my firm
since we have gone past the deductible, which I think has already been
exhausted in this case, whatever moneys are paid either to my firm or
to experts retained by my firm to represent Collier County, those
expenses come out of available proceeds.
Now, what does that mean to Collier County? It means that when
the lawsuit began, there was approximately 4.85 million dollars in
coverage. As we sit here today, there's probably 4.6 million dollars in
coverage. If we go to trial, I would estimate that you're going to have
somewhere around four million dollars in coverage.
So as a practical matter, there's a benefit to Collier County and
there's a benefit to the plaintiff to settle this case earlier rather than
later because the available policy is going to decrease.
The second factor is that the plaintiffs obviously are funding this
litigation. The more money they spend getting ready for trial, the
higher their number has to be in order to meet whatever their
settlement goals are.
So for all of those reasons, Ms. Cooper suggested to us that the
plaintiffs would be willing to structure a settlement under which the
available insurance policy would be sufficient either standing alone or
with some contribution by Collier County to achieve a settlement.
Now, we'll come back to that in a moment. I need to take a
detour about which I have not spoken with you because it wasn't an
issue until Saturday.
In addition to the federal court lawsuit for which we have been
retained, Collier County has also been presented with a claim under
Page 8
October 22, 2002
what is called the Burt Harris Act. The Burt Harris Act is a statute that
was enacted by the Florida legislature in the late '90's, mid to late '90's,
and its purpose is to provide a vehicle to compensate landowners
whose property has been devalued by the exercise of zoning powers by
counties and municipalities.
And while I do not profess to be a Burt Harris Act expert and
while I have not been retained to represent the county in that
proceeding, I will tell you generally that if, for example, Margaret
Cooper, the plaintiffs' attorney, could show that her client owned a
piece of property that would allow the construction of a 68-unit hotel
and it was rezoned by the commission to allow only a 15-unit
condominium and that diminution in value was significant, there is
available a claim under the Burt Harris Act for that diminution in
value, assuming she meets both the procedural and substantive
requirements of the statute.
That's significant because it is not clear to Mr. Pettit nor to me at
this time that the Burt Harris Act claim would be an insured claim. It
may be, because your policy contains an exception for powers of
eminent domain, that your insurance company is going to tell you that
whatever your exposure under the Burt Harris Act may be is not the
problem of Northland. It is the problem of Collier County.
That brings another dynamic to the 1983 settlement discussion,
because Ms. Cooper is telling us that she is willing to settle not only
the 1983 action but also the Burt Harris action. So we have two
potential sources of funds to settle the 1983 action. One is the
insurance company, one is the county coffers.
There is a second claim which also can be settled. That is a claim
which may not be subject to reimbursement by your insurance
company.
But the advantage to the county at this time, if it can reach a
settlement with the plaintiff, is that you get rid of not only the insured
Page 9
.._..".....,"'-'.-.."'-,.,.__._,.~---,.._--,-
October 22, 2002
exposure, but also the potentially uninsured exposure of the Burt
Harris Act claim.
Now, why are we here? We were here originally for one reason,
and that reason has, perhaps, become now two reasons. The initial
reason for this meeting was Ms. Cooper wished to know if the county
commission would be willing to offer funds in addition to the existing
policy coverage to resolve the 1983 action.
Why would she ask me that question? She asks me that question
because Florida law recognizes a claim by an insured against an
insurer for what is called bad faith refusal to settle. And I discussed
that individually with you-all, so I won't go over it again unless there is
questions.
But suffice it to say that if this case can be resolved reasonably
within existing policy limits, the insurer is given the opportunity to do
that, the insured, Collier County, demands that they do that and they do
not, there is some protection, both for the county and for the plaintiff
from recovery in excess of the policy limits, because that may set up a
bad faith claim.
So under an ideal scenario, Ms. Cooper would send me a demand
that says, I will settle for policy limits. I would then, because I'm
ethically obligated to protect the citizens of Collier County, write my
very best nasty letter to the insurance company and say, you folks need
to settle this case so the taxpayers aren't exposed to liability beyond the
policy.
If they settle, wonderful. If they don't settle, they know and I
know that if this case goes to a jury and the jury awards seven million
dollars, I have to advise my client, Collier County, that they have a
potential claim against the insurance company for bad faith. And that
claim could be conveyed by the county to the plaintiffs in return for a
release of the county. That gets you out of the litigation mode and it
gets you out of the payment mode, both of which are good things.
Page 10
October 22, 2002
So that was topic one. I was going to come to you today and say,
I need a sense from you as a body, A, are you willing to offer anything
in excess of the policy limits, and if so, what direction have you to give
me concerning the amount of money that you might be willing to
contribute?
I'm being told by Ms. Cooper that her number is in excess of the
policy limits but not much. Much, of course, is a relatively ill-defined
tenn. I suspect that it is substantially more than the commission would
be willing to pay, but I don't know that. I wish I had a number for you
today. I have done my very best to get the plaintiffs to give me a
number before today. I have been unsuccessful in that regard.
The second issue about which we did not speak but which is a
related issue, is that Ms. Cooper tells me that she's willing to settle the
Burt Harris Act claim based upon the Annalavage and Associates
appraisal. The Armalavage and Associates appraisal says that the
diminution in value to this property that resulted from the rezoning of
the property from a 68-unit hotel to a 15-unit condominium was
approximately 2.4 million dollars.
Ms. Cooper has also told me that that is a negotiable number, that
she's not looking for 2.4, but I think it's fair to say that she's looking for
something that has the equivalent number of digits as 2.4 million
dollars. You can change the numbers, but I don't think she wants to
change the number of places in the number.
But the bonus is, if we were to settle the Burt Harris Act claim, I
believe that she would then settle the 1983 claim within the existing
policy limits.
So the second issue today for your consideration is, are you
willing or prepared to give me some guidance or to give Mr. Pettit
some guidance on whether you wish to open a line of communications
directed toward the potential settlement of the Burt Harris Act claim
knowing that it is likely to be a two-for, by that I mean settling that
Page 11
October 22, 2002
claim will likely result in the settlement of the 1983 claim as well for
the existing policy limits.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it a question of time?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I could, I've got a comment. You
take it from there. I'm sure your question's going to be much more
eloquent than mine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not necessarily.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Cooper is one heck of a sharp
lady, I'll tell you, the way she keeps coming across to establish a
threshold, then she goes to the next step.
I don't have much confidence in the fact that she's going to settle
for anything other than going to court.
She's trying to bring the ante up continuously, from what I can
see. Maybe this observation isn't correct.
She came to us the first time, looked like we had a settlement
underway, and that settlement was for X number of dollars, it was all
clean as it could be. Now all of a sudden there's a new threshold, it's
vague as can be.
I'm just not too sure where we're going with this. It doesn't seem
like it's going to -- and also, too, I realize the clock is running for Mrs.
Cooper, and that she knows that there's X number of dollars out there.
And when it's all done, she's going to get paid first, her client gets
what's left over.
Is there some way we can force this to court sooner than later?
MR. TRIPP: The answer is, very little. We are in federal court.
The federal court operates under a series of deadlines, usually set forth
in a scheduling order. And unfortunately in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, where we are, the criminal
caseload takes priority. So we are currently set, or anticipate being set
for trial sometime in April or May of 2003.
In my view, there is virtually nothing that we could do to advance
Page 12
October 22, 2002
that trial date in federal court, and frankly, it's substantially possible, if
not likely, that we won't go to trial even then.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think she's just trying to get the ante
up.
Go ahead, Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a couple of questions. Will we
have any more out-of-pocket expense from this point forward or is it
all covered under the insurance policy? We've already met the
deductible, I would presume.
MR. PETTIT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we won't have any more
out-of-pocket expense for the county?
MR. PETTIT: To the extent that the Burt Harris Act claim is not
covered, and that's not a decision that we've agreed to yet, the
insurance company. In fact, they have not affirmatively told us
whether they believe it's covered. They will soon.
To the extent we have to defend that on our own, we will
probably be recommending retention of outside counsel for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So there will be some --
MR. PETTIT: So that would be out-of-pocket expense for us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a way to just give me a
ballpark number?
MR. PETTIT: Well, one thing I can say is, the expenses in that
matter should be significantly less simply because we will have
overlapped discovery. We obviously are going to have our own
appraisals done on that property in the context of the 1983 case, which
I think would be usable and viable to use in the Burt Harris Act case,
just as Ms. Cooper's using her appraisal from the 1983 case to support
her Burt Harris Act claim.
It's hard for me to come up with a number. I guess, just to shoot
from the hip, I think it would be under a hundred thousand dollars.
Page 13
--_......~._.._.-
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. A couple other questions. I
don't profess to understand the Burt Harris Act. It's been a long time
since I've read it. But seems to me that the Burt Harris Act does not
allow someone to claim the highest and best use of their property and
cannot claim damages if government fails to permit the highest and
best use of that property or any -- or any action by government would
reduce the usage. It is primarily, if I remember correctly, the
elimination of uses. And in that case, this does not appear to be a
strong Burt Harris claim; is that the correct assessment?
MR. TRIPP: I do not -- again, I'm not -- I do not profess to be a
Burt Harris expert. I haven't been retained, but the Burt Harris Act was
adopted by the Florida legislature in response to a series of cases in
which inverse condemnation claims were brought by landowners.
The federal courts established a threshold for compensation for
inverse condemnation which required that a landowner show that he or
she had been deprived of virtually all economically viable use of the
property .
The committee notes and the debate before the House on the Burt
Harris Act claim, which I have reviewed in the past, suggests to me
that the legislature intended to establish a lower threshold. And Burt
Harris talks not in terms of depriving all economically viable use, but
rather in terms of a substantial diminution in value.
So I do think that the Burt Harris Act contemplates that a
landowner who retains some ability to use it can still come to court and
get compensation if the measure between the available use and the
pre-amendment use, if you will, satisfies that substantial diminution
threshold.
And I will tell you, I am not aware of any substantial body of
appellate case law in Florida that has addressed the issue of what
exactly that means. Are we talking about a 90 percent drop, are we
talking about a 10 percent drop? I suspect, though, that given what
Page 14
October 22, 2002
Armalavage and Associates has to say in their report, they would
probably have enough evidence to get to a jury on that issue on the
facts of this case.
I think that a judge would have a hard time ruling as a matter of
law that a jury could not find that a 2.4-million-dollar decrease in value
is not a substantial diminution. So I think it's a jury question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. With respect to that, I think
it would be relatively easy to find a jury who's going to say, hey, you
can make 10 million dollars off of this deal, you only made seven
million dollars off that deal. I don't feel too sorry for you.
MR. TRIPP: I think that's true, both in the case and in the 1983
case.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
MR. TRIPP: Bear in mind this guy is developing what he told
those original owners he was going to develop all along. And he's
making -- the last calculation that we had is that he's making a profit in
excess of a million and seven hundred thousand dollars. I don't think
the jury's going to get real fired up about throwing money at this guy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't either. Now, I don't
have a background in this whole thing, but I'll tell you the way I read
this. I read this as a plaintiff who's really getting a little shaky, that
they're not sure they're going to win this thing.
If they're willing to accept a settlement based upon the policy
limits plus some increment, some very, very small increment, and then
take their chances for the bad faith claim, assuming we -- and they're
willing to accept assignment from us on that basis, I think that's a real
good deal, because they're taking all the risk.
They've got to go fight the insurance company. We're getting out
of the middle of it. If we were to -- and we can flush that out by saying,
hey, what are incremental costs going to be. We'll offer those
incremental costs as the increment above policy limits and then throw
Page 15
October 22, 2002
that back to them and see where she goes with it.
If they say, no, we're not going to do that, then we understand that
they feel that they've got a little better case. But if they grab that and
go with it, we're out of the middle of the thing, right? And we've
gotten out for a hundred, two hundred fifty thousand dollars, whatever
you decide. So it would seem to me that that would be an appropriate
course of action, but I appreciate the input of the lawyers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've sat through 18 hours of
mediation on this. I cannot disclose what went on in the mediation, but
I can make a couple of observations.
You're on target, and our problem Saturday was the insurance
company.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We could have moved Saturday.
We could have gotten to this table this afternoon, I think, with some
number for discussion. And I'm glad to hear that we have this other
option to go to.
Because as I listen to all of this, I'm not sure Margaret Cooper
controls her client. In fact, I am concerned that we're beginning to
make him a visceral enemy, because of -- just observation, I'll leave it
at that.
So I think if we had some play to go back, and if this commission
said, you know, pick a number, you talk five million, four million, you
pick a number, and you went back and tried to resolve this, I think you
would have an opportunity to stay out of going forward, meaning incur
all the expenses getting ready for trial, going to trial, and probably six
out of 10 times you may win in a trial, but with costs and time, et
cetera, you expend to get there to go with that risk. My crystal ball
isn't good enough.
But I do believe in mediation, if both sides begin to move. And--
Page 16
~"'--""--'-'"^"'""'"'"'~--""-""-'-"'~--'--~~----.-.
October 22, 2002
well, prior to the other side we had a bunch of problems, Margaret got
up there with her charts and everything she did to the jury, started
putting Ross Perot lost to the American people (sic), so --
MR. TRIPP: I knew I'd seen those charts somewhere.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right, right, so that's where I
think we are. If my observations are on target, we begin to work with
a number that says, how do we deal with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we do that as a package deal?
Do you think they would accept a deal that says, we'll pay you 250
thousand dollars over the insurance policy limits?
MR. TRIPP: Here's what Ms. Cooper is telling me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. TRIPP: She's telling me, if you get a number from the
county commission and tell me what that number is, I will write a
demand letter to settle for the existing policy limits plus that number.
And then contemplation that I would then write to the insurance
company and say, we'll pay X, you need to pay Y.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And would she then accept
assignment of our rights to the bad faith claim so we get out of it
completely? I'd hate to find ourselves in a position of -- reach an
agreement to settle this thing, then we've got to battle the insurance
company on the bad faith claim, because that just -- that puts all the
burden on us as far as the expense is concerned.
MR. TRIPP: I believe that that's what she contemplates. There
are a couple of issues that I want to look at very closely, because we're
talking about some significant numbers here.
Issue number one is, you do have a duty to cooperate with your
insurer, and I want to make sure that nothing we're doing could
jeopardize your coverage.
The second thing is, we need to couch this in terms of settlement
of both the Burt Harris Act and the 1983 claim.
Page 1 7
October 22, 2002
One of the things that I didn't discuss that I know is of concern to
the commission, and let me just put it on the table. As everybody
knows, there is a separate lawsuit that's pending in state court brought
by the residents. And I have heard some concerns about, well, what
happens if we pay money in this case and then the judge rules in the
state case that they weren't lawfully entitled to build that
condominium, won't we look kind of silly?
And the answer is, if we settle the Burt Harris Act claim, the
outcome of the pending Vanderbilt lawsuit is irrelevant. Because
understand, the Burt Harris Act claim does not depend for its success
on their ability to build a I5-unit condominium.
The Burt Harris Act claim is the difference in value as a 68-unit
hotel versus whatever the permittable use was after the rezoning. So
we can legitimately say to those who make inquiry, if the state court
litigation were to happen to be resolved in favor of the residents
surrounding the development, yes, that's true, the judge did so rule, but
we weren't settling that claim, we were settling a Burt Harris Act
claim. They could have built some I5-unit condominium. They just
built the wrong one. That isn't the case that we resolved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It comes down to dollars then, what's
going to be the settlement?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's been the issue all along.
MR. TRIPP: The issue for this body is -- as I see it, you could do
three things. Let me give you a multiple choice question here.
You can either A, do nothing, in which case we'll defend the Burt
Harris Act claim, we'll find out if it's covered. Frankly, we'll have the
ability to give you better advice concerning that claim, which we
cannot do here today. And there will come a time that that Burt Harris
claim in and of itself will go to mediation. This is not a one time and
one time only thing for the Burt Harris claim.
Option B, you can say to me, Mr. Tripp, with all due respect to
Page 18
October 22, 2002
the plaintiffs, we would prefer that they satisfy themselves with the
policy limits and that you would convey to them at this time that we
don't have any ongoing litigation expense. All of that's being paid by
the insurance company. If she can work out a settlement with the
plaintiffs with the existing coverage, God bless her, but we're not
interested in paying money. We think we're going to go to trial and
win. That's a perfectly legitimate decision.
As I think I have indicated earlier, I think you could try this case
four times out of 10 and win. I think you could try this case eight or
nine times out of 10, and even if you lost, the jury will award an
amount within existing policy limits.
The only concern that I have, the only reason we're here today is
that I can't tell you with absolute certainty that when she gets six
people in the box and writes a 23-million-dollar number on the
blackboard, we get a runaway jury who doesn't like government or
thinks that government gives away somebody else's money so why not,
you know, there could potentially be an exposure beyond the existing
policy limits.
So option two is, stay the course, in the words of President Bush,
and tell her to go look at the policy and we'll just defend it.
Option three, however, is, I'm given to understand by Ms. Cooper
that if we were to give her a number to settle the Burt Harris Act claim
and the county's exposure above existing policy limits, she would then
make a demand to settle for the limits plus that number, and we could
conceivably put the insurance company in the position where they
would have to think seriously about getting rid of a lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What do you think her total fees
are?
MR. TRIPP: Total fees?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So far.
MR. TRIPP: She is taking -- she said -- I have information that
Page 19
October 22, 2002
suggests that she has taken this case on a reduced hourly fee and a
contingency, that she's charging them 125 dollars an hour and 20
percent of the recovery.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's why she wants cash
from us.
MR. TRIPP: That's why she wants to settle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Then suppose we were to
propose two hundred thousand dollars plus policy limits, that way
they're sure of getting two hundred thousand dollars in cash, which
should cover her fee, and then they could deal with the settlement with
the insurance company, and we'd be out of it, assuming they would
accept our assignment of our rights under the bad faith clause.
MR. TRIPP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that make sense?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That will take care of Burt Harris and
everything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everything, the whole thing would
be settled.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think if we'd done that Saturday,
we might have been in a different position here today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the one thing is, if you do it--
it seems to me if you do it this way, you'll find out pretty quickly
whether or not they --
MR. TRIPP: There's a potential.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So they'll tell us yes or
no, and then if they tell us no, then we evaluate what you do after that,
but --
MR. TRIPP: Let me just bring one other thing to the table, and
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I think that's a perfectly valid
position and one that I thought when first we began, this might actually
get us where we needed to go. Because I thought her number at that
Page 20
October 22, 2002
time was 5 million dollars. There was about 4.8 in insurance, 4.8 plus
2 makes a nice round number. I thought that's where she was headed.
N ow that the Burt Harris Act claim has been raised, I do think
that she is looking for an offer from us -- I'm just telling you this. I'm
not recommending it. I think her perception is, she's looking for a
number between 1 and 1.5 million dollars from the county, which puts
her number at, assuming there's about 4.6 in coverage, she's at 5.5 to 6
Illilli()n cl()lIGlrs.
Now, can I recommend in good faith that you offer that kind of
money on the 1983 action knowing what I know about it? The answer
IS no.
Can I recommend that number to get rid of the 1983 action and
the Burt Harris Act action? To be candid with you, I don't know
enough at this time about the Burt Harris Act to give you a
recommendation one way or another on that. I just don't know enough
about that claim.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're saying that she's expecting
1.5 million dollars in cash from the county, plus the insurance moneys;
is that what you're saying?
MR. TRIPP: What I'm saying is that when a lawyer says to me,
my number is 2.6, but it's very negotiable, and I'm expecting a
response that has seven digits in it, that suggests to me that she's
looking for something that starts with a one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: From the county or total?
MR. TRIPP: From the county.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, one hundred thousand dollars
starts with one.
MR. TRIPP: No, no, no. That has the wrong number of digits.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not going there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going there either.
MR. TRIPP: And the sense that I got in the room, just without
Page 21
-~-_.,'--,.~~~,_.-.~-
October 22, 2002
hearing the other expressions is, nobody's going there, and that's
perfectly fine. We just don't know enough about Burt Harris.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go with Commissioner
Coyle's suggestion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think, again, that's the way to
run it. I will not be here by the time this gets back to you unless -- the
mediation was continued. I think it's still in --
MR. TRIPP: Yes, but let me give you an update on that,
Commissioner.
The other thing that's changed since last we spoke is that
Northland Insurance Company has exercised their right under the
policy to hire another law firm, and they have hired a law firm in this
matter late last week. That law firm showed up at the mediation and
participated in the mediation on Saturday.
We had a conference call this morning in an attempt to reschedule
the mediation, and the new lawyers for the insurance company have
indicated that it will take them at least three to four months before
they're prepared to mediate again. So this may be a moot point.
But what I told Ms. Cooper I would do is get some sense of what
I think I might be able to get three votes for. And my
recommendation, Mr. Weigel, would be that we not make any kind of
formal resolution or direction because of the timing issues here at a
public hearing.
I am hearing a sense in the room that if I were to get the
perception that this entire claim could go away with a contribution of
two hundred thousand dollars from Collier County, that that would be
something I could represent in good faith as a lawyer to my opponent,
I think I could get past.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are we in agreement?
MR. TRIPP: And that's really all I need to know.
MR. WEIGEL: You don't agree to anything here,
Page 22
--"._.,-~-_.. -~._."._-_..,-,_.._._'". ._,-
October 22, 2002
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. TRIPP: I'm not asking you to agree to anything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not agreeing.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm just stating for the record.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So how do we present it out there
so that we can reach a conclusion?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it appears to me that we do need to have, of
course, the follow-up formal agenda item out there. The idea behind
this meeting and the follow-up meeting is to give the attorney,
attorneys, additional direction. That direction can be as specific as you
wish or, perhaps, based on the general discussion here, not too specific,
but merely ind -- and correctly, Ted, if you need to, be more specific
than I'm going to be. But you could, in fact, indicate to the counsel,
Mr. Tripp, us, that we should continue to go forward and negotiate,
taking into account the policy limits and come back to the board again.
MR. TRIPP: Yeah. What I would suggest, Mr. Weigel, if this
makes sense to you --
MR. WEIGEL: Go ahead.
MR. TRIPP: -- is that I make a very brief presentation, advise
them that mediation was unsuccessful, but it's unlikely it will be
reconvened for at least three or four months and that I'm simply asking
their authority to continue to explore a settlement not only of this case,
but also of the Burt Harris claim if possible, understanding that the
county needs to be protected to the maximum extent possible by the
existing policy. And if such a motion were to be made, that would
satisfy my need. Is that --
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine, just fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we talking about a motion at a
public hearing, at today's public hearing?
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
Page 23
4-><__ .....____.__;__.,_'.__
-.",---.-..-..,..-.,-,..-.-...
October 22, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would authorize our legal
counsel to --
MR. WEIGEL: Continue to pursue --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- continue to discuss --
MR. WEIGEL: -- settlement negotiations. And Ted will probably
indicate a bit of the parameter there for you to catch onto.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Personally my concern is that this
needs to be a general motion without numbers.
MR. TRIPP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we don't have our third -- well,
I should say, sixth vote downtown telling us what to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
MR. TRIPP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe we should have consulted
them first, then we would know.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We probably should have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 1 :30, see you back in the
commISSIon room.
MR. WEIGEL: They have adjourned this item, 12(A). And we'll
go back to 12(B) at 1 :30.
(Lunch recess was taken at 12:53 p.m.)
Page 24
--".,-----
-,.~------,.<"'....
October 22, 2002
*****
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL.
ø~~~
DONNÄ FIALA, Chairman
A TTE<~:;[; =~~t:;~~.
D'~J~~··E:.:~eCK, CLERK
S ,,"::: "~':
, ~!v "~; '" l' . : ~ 0 C
~]Í(tt.;t'~$~ . Chai n s . . .
sfgnÄt.rè ~lJ. .
These mi~s approved by the Board on 1:iJ- è7t:J:£; , as presented
V or as corrected .
Page 25
T