BCC Minutes 11/19/2002 RNovember 19, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, November 19, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing 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
Frank Halas
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
November 19, 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 THE TIME IS ADJUSTED 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
November19,2002
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.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. SWEARING IN OF COMMISSIONERS COYLE AND HALAS BY
JUDGE LAWRENCE MARTIN.
B. Pastor G. Dale Benson, Naples First Church of the Nazarene
AGENDA AND MINUTES
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. October 22, 2002 - Regular Meeting
SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Proclamation to recognize November 24-30 as National Farm City Week.
To be accepted by Mr. David Santee.
Proclamation to observe December 1, 2002 as National World AIDS Day.
To be accepted by Andrea Taylor, Betty Ford and Betty Aubut.
PRESENTATIONS
Presentation by the United Arts Council of Collier County to present the
Collier County Cultural Assessment and Plan.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
Al*
Public Petition Request by Mr. Jim Kramer as received via facsimile.
2
November 19, 2002
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ae
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, as recorded in Plat
Book 3, Page 9, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDA-01-
AR-431, James G. O'Gara representing Park East Development Ltd.,
requesting a rezone from "PUD" Planned Unit Development to PUD for the
purpose of amending the Founders Plaza PUD to allow additional small-
scale retail land uses only on those parcels that exceed 150 feet in depth for
property located on the North and South sides of Golden Gate Parkway (CR
886) and at the Santa Barbara Canal Crossing in Section 28, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners adopt amendments to the Capital
Improvement Element; Transportation Element; and Future Land Use
Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance No.
89-05, as amended, the "Concurrency" Amendments, DCA No. 02-2.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Public Hearing to
consider adoption of an Ordinance establishing the Fiddler's Creek
Community Development District #2 (CDD2) pursuant to Section 190.005,
3
biovember ~19, 2002
Florida Statutes.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Al*
Discussion regarding the revision of the sign ordinance to allow for neon
open signs at establishments. (Commissioner Fiala)
Be
Discussion regarding evening Board of County Commissioner Meetings.
(Commissioner Henning)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
Approve a Revised Right-of-Way Permit and Inspection Fee Schedule for
the Transportation Operations Department. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Division)
Be
Consider request for funding from Tourism Alliance of Collier County in
approximate amount of $10,000 to terminate its corporate affairs. (Joseph
K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
Ce
Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding to establish an area of mutual
concem within which both the City of Marco Island and Collier County will
be provided a courtesy review of proposed Land Development Projects
involving Incorporated and Unincorporated Areas along the SR 951 and CR
92 corridors within five miles of the Marco Island City Limits. (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
0
Review Tourist Development related advertising and promotion invoices,
determine expenditures serve a public purpose, approve appropriate invoices
for payment in the amount of $14,850.47 from Fund 194 Reserves, and deny
payment of invoice in the amount of $3,857.00, as recommended by the
Tourist Development Council. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
Ee
Request approval and funding of two (2) full time positions to establish a
Tourist Development Department, as recommended by the Tourist
Development Council. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
4
November 19, 2002
Fe
Transfer $35,000 of funds from Utility Regulation Reserves to fund outside
legal services in support of Resolution 2002-428 opposing the Acquisition of
the Marco Island/Marco Shores Utility System by the Florida Water
Services Authority. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
Ge
Award a Construction Contract under the Fixed Term Annual Contracts for
the North County Water Reclamation Facility Oxidation Ditches
Improvements, Project 73251. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public
Utilities) Copies of complete back-up information will be available
November 18, 2002 in the Communications and Customer Relations
Department, First Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301 E. Tamiami
Trail, Naples, FL.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
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
Negotiations/Litigation Expenses 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.
Be
For the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to outside
Counsel, Ted Tripp, Esq., and the Office of the County Attorney as to
Settlement Negotiations/Litigation Expenses in Aquaport v. Collier County,
Case No. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF, now pending in the United States
District Court of the Middle District of Florida.
Ce
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners ratify and
authorize the retention of Ted Tripp, Esq., and the Law Firm of Garvin and
Tripp to represent Collier County in the Bert Harris Act Claim filed by
Aquaport Plaintiffs.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
5
November 19, 2002
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ae
Status report regarding potential expense on mosquito control boundaries.
(John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public Services)
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately
Ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Naples Gateway, Phase I".
2)
Request to grant final acceptance
sewer improvements for the final
Cove".
of the roadway, drainage, water and
plat of "Catamaran Court at Tarpon
3)
4)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Tarpon Cove".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican Marsh Unit Twenty-
Two".
5)
6)
7)
8)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Hemingway Place"
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pine Air Lakes Unit One".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Stonebridge Unit Three".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Huntington Lakes Unit
$
November 19, 2002
Two".
9)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Huntington Lakes Unit
Three".
10)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Huntington Lakes Unit
Four".
11)
Petition CARNY-2002-AR-3335, Pastor Ettore Rubin, C.S., Our Lady
of Guadalupe Church, requesting permit to conduct a carnival from
November 27 through December 1, 2002, on Church property located
at 207 South 9th Street, Immokalee.
12)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-003 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Lloyd L. Bowein regarding violation of Sections
2.7.6.5, as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code.
13)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-065 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Leonardo Portal regarding violation of Ordinance
No. 91-102 as amended, Sections 2.7.6.1 and 1.5.6 of the Collier
County Land Development Code.
14)
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No.
59.835/AR-3135 "Livingston Lakes Commercial Excavation", located
in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; bounded on the
North by vacant agriculture zoning and stiles PUD, on the West by
Livingston Road right-of-way, on the East by Donovan Center PUD,
and on the South vacant agriculture zoning.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve a Budget Amendment to combine funds in the Radio Road
Beautification MSTU into one Project Number 60081 in the amount
of $155,800.
7
November 19, 2002
2)
Approve a Budget Amendment to transfer funds from the Golden
Gate Parkway Landscape Maintenance Account into the CR951 Phase
A and B Landscape Maintenance Account.
3)
Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve a donation
agreement and accept a drainage easement from the Sabal Lake
Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc., for a parcel of land
containing 0.07 acres for the purpose of providing additional drainage
within the community which will allow the County legal access as
required for all common drainage facilities within the common area of
this development.
4)
Approve a Budget Amendment to recognize unanticipated revenue in
the amount of $1,400,000 for the proposed Immokalee Road/I-75
Interchange Project for the improvements related to the Tarpon Bay
Boulevard/Northbrooke Drive Intersection Improvements, Project No.
66042A.
5)
Approve Resolutions to establish "No Parking" Zones along the
County road rights-of-way of Industrial Boulevard and Corporate
Square Boulevard at a cost of approximately $2600.
6)
Approve an Interagency Agreement between Collier County and the
State of Florida Department of Corrections, Hendry Correctional
Institution, for continued use of inmate labor in road maintenance
activities.
7)
Request the Board to adopt a Resolution authorizing Transportation
Division Administrator and Transportation Maintenance Director to
sign the Certification of Disbursements for the FDOT Asset
Management Maintenance Agreement, Contract Number BD-418,
Financial Project Number 412918-72-01.
8)
Approve Work Order No. BRC-FT-02-04 with Better Roads Inc., for
median improvements in the amount of $128,317.75 on Pine Ridge
Road, Project No. 60016, and adopt a Resolution reducing the speed
limit on Pine Ridge Road from forty-five miles per hour (45 MPH) to
forty miles per hour (40 MPH) in the vicinity of Naples Boulevard
Intersection.
8
November 19, 2002
Ce
9)
Approve Budget Amendments to carry forward funds in several
projects to re-open purchase orders in FY03 that were closed by
mistake in FY02 in the amount of $100,996.70.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
De
1)
Approve Budget Amendment to cancel the Marco Island Breakwater
Modifications Project and return to the Tourist Tax Reserves
$699,500.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
Approve a Budget Amendment for the increase in Medicaid Waiver
Revenue and Program Costs in the amount of $16,930.
Approve a Lease Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation for Collier Boulevard Boating Park.
Approve a Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program
Grant Agreement for up to $120,000 for improvements at Bayview
Park.
4)
Award Work Order #PBS-02-06 in the amount of $190,161 to
Professional Building Systems for the renovation of Immokalee
Airport Park.
$)
Authorize temporary closure of 11th Street in Immokalee for safe
access into the Farm City Barbeque to be held November 27, 2002.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Award Contracts #02-3371 "Fixed Term Professional Transportation
Planning Consulting Services" (Estimated Annual Amount $275,000).
2)
Approve Change Order No. One, Work Order BSSW-02-01, in the
amount of $10,275.00, with Barany, Schmitt, Summers, Weaver and
Partners, Inc. for design services for construction of EMS # 19.
3)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and ratify a Settlement Agreement resolving the Lawsuit styled
0
November 19, 2002
Collier County vs. Chesley McDonald, Case No. 02-1520-CC, County
Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
4)
Approval of a Contract between Collier County and Community
Health Parmers Inc., for managed care services for the County's
Group Health and Workers' Compensation Program.
5)
Approve an Amendment to Agreement for the conveyance of GAC
Trust Reserved Lands to the District School Board of Collier County,
Florida, for future construction of an elementary school in Golden
Gate Estates, not to exceed ten dollars ($10.00).
6)
Approval of elimination of the Sick Leave Bank Program and an
increase in the Short Term Disability Benefit Program.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Award hurricane shelter upgrade and retrofit Contract//02-3429 to
Storm Smart Building Systems, Inc., for the roof retrofit and shutter
upgrade of the Laurel Oak and Vineyards Elementary Schools in the
amount of $48,750. This project is 100% reimbursed from the State.
2)
Selection of Underwriters (RFP 02-3435) in anticipation of financing
future infrastructure improvements in Collier County.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record as Directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Recommendation to adopt the Budget Amendment appropriating
Carry Forward and Expenditure Budgets for open purchase orders at
the end of Fiscal Year 2002.
10
November 19, 2002
2)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
Carry Forward Funding for the Sheriff's Office.
3)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
detailed report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. A copy of the Goods and Services Document is on display
in the County Manager's Office, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, W. Harmon
Turner Building, Naples, FL.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt and
ratify the termination of a Lawsuit against a Collier County
Employee, which sought reimbursement of a debt owed to the County
by the Employee in the sum of Eleven Hundred Three Dollars and
Sixty-Two Cents ($1,103.62), plus costs, on the basis that the County
Employee has filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
2)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 101 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Roberto Bollt, Successor Trustee, under Land Trust Agreement Dated
1/27/86, et al, Case No. 00-2433-CA (Randall Boulevard/Immokalee
Road Intersection) Project #60171.
3)
Acceptance of payment of previously unpaid Education, Community
and Regional Parks and Library Impact Fees for Bentley Village and
Education Impact Fees for Encore Senior Living and approval of
refunds due to facilities.
4)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 132 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v.
James R. Colosimo, Trustee under Unrecorded Land Trust Agreement
dated 12/10/92, et al, Case No. 00-0138-CA (Pine Ridge Road Project
#60111).
5)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Fee Simple
Acquisition of Parcel 171 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v.
Ismael Gonzales, et al, Case No. 02-2159-CA (Immokalee Road
November 19, 2002
17.
Project #60018).
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
Ae
Be
Petition PUDA-2002-AR-2566, Robert Mulhere of RWA, Inc., representing
J.E.D. of Southwest Florida, Inc., and Colony Corporate Center, Inc.,
requesting an amendment to the "Pelican Marsh" Planned Unit Development
(PUD), for the purpose of increasing the allocation of Medical Office Space
allowed from 9,000 square feet to 26,000 square feet within the approved
overall general office leaseable floor area of 295,800 square feet for property
located North of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 901) and East of Livingston
Road, in Sections 25, 27, 34, 35 and 36, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
and Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Companion item to DOA-2002-AR-2567.
Petition DOA-2002-AR-2567, Robert Mulhere of RWA, Inc., representing
J.E.D. of Southwest Florida, Inc., and Colony Corporate Center, Inc.,
requesting an amendment to the "Pelican Marsh" Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) for the purpose of increasing the allocation of Medical Office
Space allowed from 9,000 square feet to 26,000 square feet within the
approved overall general office leaseable floor area of 295,800 square feet
and to correct a Scrivener's Error contained within the Development Order
for property located North of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 901) and East of
Livingston Road, in Sections 25, 27, 34, 35 and 36, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, and Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. Companion item to PUDA-2002-AR-2566.
12
November 19, 2002
Ce
Request that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance
amending Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-76, as amended, which
created the Livingston Road Phase II Beautification Municipal Service
Taxing Unit; providing for amendment to Section Six to increase the number
of members who serve on the Advisory Committee from five to nine;
providing for amendment to Section Six to limit membership on the
Advisory Committee to three members from each subdivision or
community; providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances;
providing for conflict and severability; and providing for an effective date
Do
Request the Board adopt an Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance
No. 96-84 which created the Radio Road Beautification Municipal Service
Taxing Unit; providing for amendment to Section Three to expand the
purpose to include the cost for curbing, watering facilities, plantings and
maintenance of the median areas of any public roadway adjoining Radio
Road within the boundaries of the unit; providing for inclusion in the Code
of Laws.
me
This item to be continued to the December 3, 2002 BCC Meeting. VA-
2002-AR-2908, Craig J. Pajer, P.E., of AEC National, requesting a 40-foot
height variance from the required 35 feet to 75 feet in the Public Use District
for the addition to the Naples Jail Center located at 3301 East Tamiami
Trail, Building "W", Collier County Government Center, in Section 12,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East. Companion petition to CU-02-AR-
2759 and VA-02-AR-2909.
This item to be continued to the December 3, 2002 BCC Meeting. VA-
2002-AR-2909, Craig J. Pajer, P.E., of AEC National, representing Collier
County Board of County Commissioners, requesting a variance from the
maximum height of 35 feet to 110 feet for a parking garage at the Naples Jail
Center. This variance is required for the 5-story construction and future
expansion to eight stories of a parking garage. This request of 110 feet is 75
feet greater than that allowed in the Public Use District at this location.
Companion petition to CU-2002-AR-2759 and VA-2002-AR-2908.
This item to be continued to the December 3~ 2002 BCC Meeting. CU-
2002-AR-2759, Craig J. Pajer, P.E., of AEC National, Inc., representing
Collier County Board of County Commissioners, requesting Conditional
Use 3 of the "P" Public Use zoning district to allow for the expansion of an
existing jail facility for property located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, in
13
November 19, 2002
Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Companion petition to VA-02-AR-2908 and VA-02-AR-2909.
18. ADJOURN.
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
14
November 19, 2002
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats, ladies and
gentlemen.
Okay. Now that you've taken your seats, would you all stand
for the invocation by Brian Wardlaw. Yes, sir.
PASTOR WARDLAW: Let us pray. Dear Heavenly Father,
we come to you this morning and thank you for your blessings upon
us as a country and as the county, dear Lord. And I pray this
morning as we come to do this business, that as the leaders of our
county have been given that position by you, dear Lord, we pray
your blessings upon them, and as your -- and I pray that your
guidance is given to them as we take hold of this business today.
I also pray for the needy of the county, dear Lord, both in
wealth and -- or in the needs of our mind and the spiritual needs of
the county, dear Lord, and pay your blessings and your watchful eye
over them.
In Heavenly name we pray this morning, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning.
Item #lA
COMMISSIONERS COYLE AND HALAS SWORN IN BY .ll/DGE
I.AWRENCE MARTIN
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: First order of business will be to
swear in the two new commissioners, or the reinstated commissioner,
Commissioner Coyle, and the new commissioner, Commissioner
Halas.
I'm going to ask them to take a position up front here, and
Lawrence Martin, Judge Martin, will be doing the honors.
Page 2
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Honorable Judge Martin.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The Honorable. Thank you very
much.
JUDGE MARTIN: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta, how would you like us to stand?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what, why don't we
have them face towards you and --
JUDGE MARTIN: You face this way, I'll face this way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then you can face them and--
we want to keep them on display here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to have my wife come up
at this time.
JUDGE MARTIN: Both wives.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got two wives?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where's Cheryl? Oh, there she is.
Oh, look at your hair. How cute.
JUDGE MARTIN: Okay. Gentlemen, if you will raise your
right hands and repeat after me. I -- and state your full name.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I, Fred Coyle --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I, Frank Halas --
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
Constitution --
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Constitution --
JUDGE MARTIN:
-- do solemnly swear --
COYLE: -- do solemnly swear--
HALAS: --do solemnly swear--
-- that I will support--
COYLE: -- that I will support--
HALAS: -- that I will support --
-- protect and defend the Constitution --
COYLE: -- protect and defend the
-- protect and defend the
-- and the government of the United States
Page 3
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
United States --
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
United States --
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
state -- COMMISSIONER HALAS:
state --
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE MARTIN:
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE MARTIN:
-- and the government of the
-- and the government of the
COYLE: --
HALAS: --
-- that I am
COYLE: --
-- and the State of Florida --
and the State of Florida--
and the State of Florida--
duly qualified--
that I am duly qualified--
HALAS: -- that I am duly qualified--
-- to hold office --
COYLE: -- to hold office --
HALAS: -- to hold office --
-- under the Constitution of the state --
COYLE: -- under the Constitution of the
-- under the Constitution of the
-- and that I will well --
COYLE: -- and
HALAS: -- and
-- and faithfully
COYLE: -- and
that I will well --
that I will well --
faithfully --
HALAS: -- and faithfully--
-- perform the duties --
COYLE: -- perform the duties --
HALAS: -- perform the duties --
-- of county commissioner --
COYLE: -- of county commissioner --
HALAS: -- of county commissioner --
-- for Collier County --
Page 4
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for Collier County --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- for Collier County --
JUDGE MARTIN: -- on which I am now about to enter --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- on which I am now about to
enter --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- on which I am now about to
enter --
JUDGE MARTIN: -- so help me God.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so help me God.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- so help me God.
JUDGE MARTIN: Thank you, gentlemen.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll take five minutes at this time
so you can come up and congratulate the new commissioners.
(Recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's -- welcome to the family.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's start off with the consent
agenda and the summary agenda, Mr. Mudd.
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the first item today on our change
sheet is to -- is to delete item 10(D), which is a review of tourist
development related advertising and promotion invoices. That's at
staffs request.
To add item 10(H), which is to approve a budget amendment
and dredging contract for Wiggins Pass emergency maintenance
dredging in the total amount of $340,000. That's at staffs request.
Page 5
November 19, 2002
Just a little background on that one, the board approved
emergency engineering services to take a look at the shoaling on that
pass. The last board meeting you approved a contract for $100,000
to do maintenance dredging, up to $100,000 to do maintenance
dredging.
In this particular case we have an opportunity with a hydraulic
dredger that's coming through our area, maybe to save us some
money in the overall process without doing two events, doing it one
time, and the overall bill will be less.
Instead of having a maintenance dredge now and then a
hydraulic dredge in the spring, maybe can kill two birds with one
stone here, so we're adding that item. You received it yesterday. It
was added to your particular agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that it's a wonderful thing
that we're able to take advantage of this, because they're so expensive
to move in otherwise. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Okay. The next item is to move item 16(D)(4) to
10(K), and that's a work order in the amount of $190,161 for
professional building services for the renovation of the Immokalee
Airport Park, and that's at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is not a continue, it's a withdraw, so that's a
correction to the errata sheet. And that's item 16(E)(6) to December
3rd, 2002, and that's the approval of the elimination of the sick leave
bank program and an increase in the short-term disability benefit
program.
Commissioner Coletta asked for it to continue. Staff would like
to withdraw it. We need some more time in this particular event as
far as communication with our employees.
The next item is move item 16(K)(1) to 10(I), which is a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt and
ratify the termination of a lawsuit against a Collier County employee,
and that's at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Page 6
November 19, 2002
Next item is to move item 16(K)(2) to 10(J), which is to approve
the stipulated final judgment relative to an easement acquisition of
parcel 101 in the lawsuit styled Collier County versus Roberto Bollt.
The next item is move item 17(A) to 8(D), and that's a pet -- and
also move item 17(B) to 8(E). They're companion items. One is for
the DRI, and that's 17(B), the other is for a PUD change, and that has
to do with the Colonial Corporate Center requesting an amendment
to the Pelican Marsh planned unit development and DRI. So two
items, 17(A), 17(B) go as items 18(D) -- or excuse me -- 8(D) and
8(E).
There's an item that's not on your errata sheet that was brought
to my attention just before the board-- before the board meeting
started. Staffhas requested to move item 17(C) to 8(F), and that's the
Livingston Road to MSTU. That's at staffs request, and they just
have a deletion in the ordinance, and they need to just put the
specifics to you during the regular agenda instead of trying to do it
now on the fly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just say, was that --
MR. MUDD: That's 17(C) to 8(F).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
MR. MUDD: The -- a note that I want to put on record. Last
meeting there were several people that came to the podium -- and this
was brought to my attention by the clerk of courts -- that came to the
podium that represented certain clients and represented people in
front of the board that, under the terminology of our ordinance,
99-22, would be classified as lobbyists.
And Collier County ordinance number 99-22 requires that all
lobbyists -- and that's a person that's representing somebody else in
front of the Board of County Commissioners -- shall, before
engaging in any activities, 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
Page 7
November 19, 2002
department, which is just upstairs on the fourth floor.
Commissioner, I'm going to read that into the record for a series
of meetings now to -- let's try to clean up our act a little bit and make
sure everybody understands that, so we'll go along. And I'll do that
for the next couple of meetings.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who's going to be doing the policing
action on this?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'll check the list. If somebody
comes up, I'll look at the list and see if they're on it. If they're
addressing, I'll try to do that in a civil way, get with that individual
either during or after if there's a break and let them know that they
need to register in that process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And they can register today and still
come back and --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. They can register upstairs. It only takes
minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the cost for that is?
MR. WEIGEL: Twenty-five dollars.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Twenty-five dollars. Okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do they also--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- have to announce that -- when
they get up to the podium that they're a lobbyist?
MR. MUDD: Not necessarily, but they normally say that
they're representing such and such a client to the board and -- so that
you know that they're not there on their own personal stead, that
they're actually representing somebody, and that would -- that would
basically characterize them in that particular category as a lobbyist,
ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But this doesn't qualify -- people that
represent like a civic association, they don't have to file as a lobbyist;
Page 8
November 19, 2002
is that correct?
MR. MUDD: David, you want to help me a little on this one?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: It's paid-- a paid position. If it's not-for-profit,
such as a homeowner or civic association, it's specifically excepted
from the requirement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: To continue on this errata sheet, item 16(A)(7),
due to printing areas (sic), some agenda packets may not contain item
17(A)(7), titled request to grant final acceptance of a roadway,
drainage, water and sewage improvement for the final plat of
Stonebridge, Unit 3. Every effort has been made to distribute copies
of this item.
The document is part of the agenda package and available for
viewing in the agenda book outside the board room.
Item 16(B)(8), signed copies of the revolu -- yeah, revolution --
resolution have been distributed to the Board of County
Commissioners and the clerk of courts and are available to the
public.
And lastly, item 16(E)(5), copies of the amendment to the
agreement and corrective statutory deed are available for the public.
That's all I have, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
We'll start with Commissioner Henning for any additions,
changes to the agenda or disclosures on the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No changes, Commissioner,
but I do have ex parte communications on items that was moved to
the regular agenda, and at that time I will disclose mine.
Page 9
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine, Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All the items that I wish to have
changed have already been changed, and I would like to disclose that
on 17(A) and (B) I have met with the petitioners' representative, and
17(C) I have met with members of the MSTU and residents in the
area covered by the MSTU.
I have no further disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have -- everything that I had
a concern about has been pulled and put onto the regular agenda.
And 17(A) and (B), although we're going to be discussing it later, I
And let's
did meet with Bob Mulhere about that. He called on me.
see.
And that was it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I don't have anything I want
to move off the consent agenda, although I did meet with some
people yesterday in regards to the question that's coming up, I
believe. It was pulled off the consent agenda, and that was the PUD
in--
MR. MUDD: Pelican Marsh, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- Pelican Marsh, that's correct.
And also I met with people prior with -- on item 7(A) in regards to
the Manatee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That disclosure you'll make
at the time of the -- when the item comes before us here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that's okay.
Myself, I have nothing to change. The changes have been
made, and I thank staff for taking care of that.
And I also, too, had met with Mr. Bob Mulhere on both (A) and
Page 10
November 19, 2002
(B), but will -- disclosure will also be made when it comes back to us
under 8(D) and 8(E).
Okay. And do I hear of-- approval for--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So move.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have an approval from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Coyle for the
minutes.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 11
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
November 19, 2002
DELETE ITEM 10(D): Review Tourist Development related advertising and
promotion invoices, determine expenditures serve a public purpose, approve
appropriate invoices for payment in the amount of $14,850.47 from Fund 194
Reserves, and deny payment of invoice in the amount of $3,857.00, as
recommended by the Tourist Development Council. (Staff request.)
ADD ITEM #10(H): Approve budget amendment and dredging contract for
Wiggins Pass Emergency Maintenance Dredging, in the total amount of $340,000.
(Staff request.)
MOVE ITEM 16(D)4 TO 10(K): Award Work Order #PBS-02-06 in the amount of
$190,161 to Professional Building Systems for the renovation of Immokalee
Airport Park. (Commissioner Fiala request)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(E)6 TO DECEMBER 3, 2002 BCC MEETING: Approval of
elimination of the Sick Leave Bank Program and an increase in the Short Term
Disability Benefit Program. (Commissioner Coletta request.)
MOVE ITEM 16(K)1 TO 10(I): Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt and ratify the termination of a Lawsuit against a Collier
County Employee, which sought reimbursement of a debt owed to the County by
the Employee in the sum of $1,103.62, plus costs, on the basis that the County
Employee has filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. (Commissioner Coyle request.)
MOVE ITEM 16(K)2 TO 10(J): Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to
the Easement Acquisition of Parcel 101 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Roberto Bo#t, Successor Trustee, under Land Trust Agreement Dated 1/27/86, et
al, Case No. 00-2433-CA (Randall Boulevard/Immokalee Road Intersection), Project
#60171. (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala request.)
MOVE ITEM 17(A) TO 8(D): Petition PUDA-2002-AR-2566, Robert Mulhere of RWA,
Inc., representing J.E.D. of Southwest Florida, Inc., and Colony Corporate Center,
Inc., requesting an amendment to the "Pelican Marsh" Planned Unit Development
(PUD), for the purpose of increasing the allocation of Medical Office Space
allowed from 9,000 square feet to 26,000 square feet within the approved overall
general office leaseable floor area of 295,800 square feet for property located
North of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 901) and East of Livingston Road, in Sections
25, 27, 34, 35 and 36, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Section 31,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Companion item to
DOA-2002-AR-2567. (Commissioner Halas request.)
MOVE ITEM 17(B) TO 8(E): Petition DOA-2002-AR-2567, Robert Mulhere of RWA,
Inc., representing J.E.D. of Southwest Florida, Inc., and Colony Corporate Center,
Inc., requesting an amendment to the "Pelican Marsh" Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) for the purpose of increasing the allocation of Medical Office Space
allowed from 9,000 square feet to 26,000 square feet within the approved overall
general office leaseable floor area of 295,800 square feet and to correct a
Scrivener's Error contained within the Development Order for property located
North of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 901) and East of Livingston Road, in Sections
25, 27, 34, 35 and 36, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Section 31,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Companion item to
PUDA-2002-AR-2566. (Commissioner Fiala request.)
**NOTE TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD:
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.
Item 16(A)7: Due to printing errors, some agenda packets may not contain Item
16 (A) 7, titled: Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water
and sewer improvements for the Final Plat of "Stonebridge Unit Three". Every
effort has been made to distribute copies of this item. The document is part of the
agenda package and available for viewing in the agenda book outside the
Boardroom.
Item 16(B)8: Signed copies of Resolution have been distributed to the Board of
County Commissioners and the Clerk of Courts, and are available to the public.
16(E)5: Copies of the Amendment to Agreement and Corrective Statutory Deed
are available for the public.
November 19, 2002
Item #2B
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2002-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And for the October 22nd meeting?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval from
Commissioner Henning, second from Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And then service awards is --
I guess there's none this time.
Going on.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER
24-30_ 2002 AS NATIONAl. FARM CITY WEEK - ADOPTED
Proclamations. The first one, it's my honor to read the
proclamation. And David Santee, are you here? Would you come
forward, sir, and if there's anyone else with you that would like to
come up. I'll have you stand right here in the front.
Whereas, November 24 to the 30th is National Farm-City Week,
a time set aside to recognize and honor the contributions of our
Page 12
November 19, 2002
country's agriculturalists and to strengthen the bond between urban
and rural citizens; and,
Whereas, in Collier County, the highpoint of Farm-City Week is
the Annual Farm-City Barbecue, sponsored by the Collier County
University Extension Service and a committee of volunteers; and,
Whereas, agriculture is an important element in Collier County's
economic machine with total economic activities of over $300
million annually; and,
Whereas, 22 percent of Collier County is utilized for
agriculture, providing vital economic benefit, including habitat for
wildlife and recharge areas for our aquifer; and,
Whereas, the Board of Collier County Commissioners supports
local agriculture through programs including cooperation with the
University of Florida Extension Service; and,
Whereas, we encourage all citizens to pause to recognize the
contributions of our local farmers and ranchers to our economy, our
food supply and our society.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners that on behalf of the citizens of Collier County, great
appreciation and honor is owed to all of this county's agriculturalists,
and that November 24th to 30th be designated as Farm-City Week.
Done and ordered this 19th day of November, 2002, Jim
Coletta, Chairman, I move for a passage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 13
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hope we're all going, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To Farm-City Barbecue, all right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll be serving.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go, step back here. It's
what we call the photo oppommity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SANTEE: At this time I would like to invite everyone out
to the Farm-City Barbecue, which is November 27th. That's the
Wednesday before Thanksgiving. I would also like to call at this
time Denise Blan (phonetic) to the podium.
MS. BLAN: Good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
MS. BLAN: Nice to see you today. I'd like to ask the Johnson
family to please come forward.
Commissioners, I'd like you -- to introduce you to this year's
farm family and share with you that this is part of Farm-City Week
recognition, and I'm sure many of you know the Johnson family. And
there -- and you know, I'm not sure on this, has it been 50 years that
you-all have been farming in Collier County? MR. JOHNSON: Forty.
MS. BLAN: Forty, okay. I'm getting old, but not that old -- and
both farming and ranching.
And in particular, we'd like to share what -- the plaque that we'd
like to honor the farm family with. It says, Collier County farm
family, presented to the Jack Johnson family of Immokalee for
numerous years of tireless commitment and dedication to Collier
County and its agriculture, November, 2002.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, I bet they can tell a lot of
stories.
Page 14
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Boy, I'm sure they could.
MS. BLAN: And in addition, we have another opportunity.
You may not know that Ms. Audrey, as she's know in Immokalee,
has been honored and inducted into the 4-H Hall of Fame.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh.
MS. BLAN: That she was one of the original inductees, and I'll
share three sentences about Ms. Audrey.
4-H has never had a better mother hen than Audrey B. Johnson,
and you see the smiles of recognition. She was the first volunteer
leader in Collier County. She was beloved by 4-H members in her
club, and they knew she expected the very best of them.
Her strong discipline and high expectations -- now, is that Ms.
Audrey -- were not always what her kids wanted as teenagers, but
when they had children of their own, they realized Ms. Audrey
always had their best interests at heart.
As a 4-H leader and founding member of the Collier County
4-H foundation and then the Collier County Fair manager in the
1980s and '90s, Ms. Audrey was quick to remind everyone what
should be done for the young people.
We are very proud and thankful to have Ms. Audrey in Collier
County and as one of our six representatives in the Florida 4-H Hall
of Fame.
And with that, I'd like to present Ms. Audrey with her
medallion. I won't try to open it up and put it over your head, okay?
MS. AUDREY JOHNSON: That's all right.
Your medallion, Ms. Audrey.
MS. BLAN:
(Applause.)
MS. BLAN:
And for our commissioners, I'd like to induct them
into the gobble 'till you wobble.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have my turkey earrings on.
MS. BLAN: You have your turkey --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
Page 15
November 19, 2002
MS. BLAN: I have a gobble 'till you wobble pin that is 20 years
old. Unfortunately, I don't have any of those left. We've been
celebrating Farm-City Week for-- it's lost in the midst of time, but
I'm told it started in the 60's. Mr. Jack?
MR. JACK JOHNSON: I think, yes.
MS. BLAN: But we have Farm-City Week pins for each you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the value?
MS. BLAN: The value is 87 cents.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have to declare this, right?
MS. BLAN: And you have to declare it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. BLAN: Thank you so much for this opportunity to
recognize an entire family because the 4-H volunteer tradition and
children in 4-H has certainly continued, and what an honor it is to
work with people like this.
MS. AUDREY JOHNSON: Thank you.
MS. BLAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you leave, one more time,
would you give the time, the date, and what the farm barbecue is all
about, Farm-City Barbecue?
MS. BLAN: It's at Collier County's Pioneer Museum at the
Roberts Ranch, and we gather at about 11, because the main thing
that you do at Farm-City Week Barbecue is see people you haven't
seen. And it usually is between 6 and 700 of the people you haven't
seen.
And we have Immokalee salad, which is all the wonderful
vegetables that we grow in Collier County -- no salad dressing, only
salt and pepper allowed -- that we gather over, and then we, of
course, have beef, which is what we produce here in Collier County,
baked beans with secret sauce and fresh barbec -- fresh corn on the
cob right out of the steamer, and we serve promptly at 12. And we
have the honor of inviting our collected representatives in the county
Page 16
November 19, 2002
to serve in the serving lines, and that way you-all get an opportunity
to visit with as many people as possible.
And we appreciate the opportunity to continue this conversation
between the rural and urban areas in our community which, of
course, is the size of the state of Delaware. So we have a lot of
reaching out to do, and this is one of-- I think it might be the biggest
outdoor party in Collier County, so come.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We will.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Denise.
Commissioner Fiala?
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION OBSERVING DECEMBER 1, 2002 AS
NATIONAI. WORIJD AIDS DAY-ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Will the
representatives for UNAIDS come forward. Thank you.
Whereas, the global epidemic of HIV infection and AIDS
requires a worldwide effort to increase communication, education
and united action to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and,
Whereas, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS
(UNAIDS) observes December 1st of each year as world AIDS Day,
a day to expand and strengthen worldwide efforts to stop the spread
of HIV/AIDS; and,
Whereas, UNAIDS estimates that over 37 million adults and
three million children are currently living with HIV/AIDS, with
young people under the age of 25 accounting for more than half of all
new infections; and,
Whereas the American Association for World Health is
encouraging a better understanding of the challenge of HIV/AIDS
nationally as it recognizes that the number of people diagnosed with
Page 17
November 19, 2002
HIV and AIDS in the United States continues to increase with
900,000 people in the U.S. now infected; and,
Whereas, Collier County has 787 AIDS cases reported as of July
31st, 2002; and,
Whereas, World AIDS Day provides an opportunity to focus
local, national, and international attention on HIV infection and
AIDS and to disseminate information on how to prevent the spread of
HIV; and,
Whereas, an estimated 900,000 people in the United States are
currently living with HIV or AIDS, the World AIDS Day 2002
theme, HIV and AIDS stigma and discrimination is associated with
repression, stigma and discrimination as individuals infected with
HIV have been rejected by their families, their loved ones and their
communities; however, across the world HIV/AIDS has shown itself
capable of triggering responses of compassion, solidarity and support
bringing out the best in people, their families and communities.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Collier County will
observe World AIDS Day on December 1st, 2002, and urge all
citizens to take part in activities and observances designed to increase
awareness and understanding of HIV/AIDS as a global challenge to
take part in HIV/AIDS prevention activities and programs and to join
the global effort to prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS.
Done and ordered this 19th day of November, 2002. Motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 18
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
The ayes have it, 5-0.
And we're going to have to have you
stand up front here for a photo opportunity. Right here, please.
Little bit back. There you go.
Thank you. Would someone care to say a couple words?
MS. TAYLOR: Thank you for recognizing HIV and AIDS as
an issue in Collier County, and I'd like to invite everybody out to the
World AIDS Day observance on Sunday, December 1st, six p.m. in
Cambier Park. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY THE UNITED ARTS COUNCIL OF
COLLIER COUNTY-THE COLLIER COUNTY CULTURAL
ASSESSMENT AND PI.AN
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next is 5(A), presentation by
the United Arts Council of Collier County, to present the Collier
County cultural assessment and plan. MR. O'NEILL: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
MR. O'NEILL: My name is William O'Neill, O, apostrophe,
capital N-E-I-L-L, and I'm president of the United Arts Council of
Collier County.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you this morning
and to publicly present to you and thank you for your support in
Page 19
November 19, 2002
producing the cultural assessment for Collier County. We've been
working on this for about a year and a half.
The United Arts Council of Collier County is the local arts
agency created and supported by statute. One of our statutory
mandates is to, from time to time, assess the cultural state of the
county.
With the assistance of many members of this community who
participated in a stakeholders' committee, many members of the
business and arts community including, we're happy to say,
Commissioner Fiala, who participated directly in the stakeholders'
committee, with the financial assistance of many businesses,
including the United Arts Council and others that I won't name, and
of the financial assistance as well of the Collier County Commission,
for which, again, we thank you, we were able to produce this report,
this cultural assessment, and I'd like to now enter the assessment into
public record and make it available for inspection by the public.
The cultural assessment created some exciting results and some
exciting challenges for us. It confirmed to us what we knew, that this
is, indeed, a vibrant arts community, and it's becoming more vibrant
year by year.
It confirmed and emphasized the strong economic impact that
the arts have on our county. It also emphasized and confirmed that
this process is just the beginning. We have a long way to go in order
to serve all the community and bring all the arts to all of the members
of this community.
We must be ever vigilant in seeing that our arts education is
maintained to the highest standards. We have to look at the
availability of our facilities and make sure that the growth of our arts
is not limited by the lack of facilities.
The United Arts Council itself needs to take a stronger advocacy
role, and we need to develop the resources to do that.
I'm here today to present the assessment and to ask your
Page 20
November 19, 2002
continued assistance. I'd like to start and continue the dialogue. I'd
like the opportunity -- we at the United Arts Council would like the
opportunity to report from time to time on our progress in carrying
out the goals that are set forth in the assessment.
We would like to ask the commission, if it would, to direct the
appropriate members of staff to work with the United Arts Council in
carrying out and developing strategies to carry out the plan,
particularly to engage in a facilities survey, which we think is -- we
think is important, and otherwise, to look at ways to serve our
underserved areas and to promote cultural tourism.
We would like to participate in welcoming our new director of
convention in -- the Convention and Visitors Bureau, who I
understand is the former president of his local arts agency in the
community where he came from. So we're happy to have a friend of
the arts in that position. We hope that we can have leave to attend
the December 10th meeting to greet him to this community.
Again, I thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions that
you might have about the assessment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. It has been my
privilege to work with the United Arts Council and learn so many
things about it.
One of the passions that I have -- and fellow Commissioners,
being that I can never talk to you on the QT, I can tell you this out on
the public, that I have hoped to see the Bayshore area have an
influence from the arts. And I felt that it would be a perfect place to
have a tiny little amateur theater, playhouse.
It would be a wonderful place for artists to show their works and
maybe to have a coffee house. It would be a great place to have craft
shops where -- that you see all over North Carolina and Georgia, and
then with the -- with the Botanical Garden down at the end, it would
Page 21
November 19, 2002
just work out so beautifully. So that's something that I'm proposing
to the United Arts Council, and they've been very encouraging and
supportive.
So I just wanted you to know why I felt so strongly. And I want
to tell you, it really was an eye opener, the -- this report, wasn't it.9
We thought we knew a lot, but we learned a lot more from this
report, and thanks so much for all your hard work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I make
a motion that we accept the United Arts Council of-- Collier
County's assessment report.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning and a second from Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The next item on the agenda is
public petitions, and Mr. Kramer, I believe you're the only one today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I've been noticing --
while he's coming up here -- all three of us guys are left-handed.
Frank, you're left-handed as well, right? I heard left-handed
people are smarter than right, but I don't know.
Page 22
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're the only people in our right
mind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Where does that leave me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's different, Left-handed people
are the only ones in their right minds.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Kramer, can you save us from
this?
MR. KRAMER: I'm right handed, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sit down.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. JIM KRAMER-
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT CURRENT POLICY AND
SUNSHINE LAW RE: ORIENTATION OF NEW
COMMISSIONERS AND TO PROVIDE MEMO CONCERNING
DI IPI.ICATION COSTS
MR. KRAMER: Good morning. My name is Jim Kramer. I'm
here on public petition 6(A). The first part of this is the violations of
chapter 1 19, Florida Statutes, concerning the costs associated with
the duplication of videotapes.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that this has been corrected, and I'll
read a little bit of the letter I got from the county attorneys.
Mr. Kramer, this is to inform you regarding the conclusion of
the office of the county attorney regarding the charges that were
assessed to you by county staff for the above-mentioned videotapes.
I've had detailed discussions with Jean Merit, the public
information director, about the costs involved in reformatting digital
Page 23
November 19, 2002
video to VHS as you requested.
There's a county policy that provides the time particular-- to a
particular public's records request is not charged unless it exceeds
one hour. It appears that the time has been, exclusively in
responding to your request for each of these tapes, was less than one
hour per tape, parentheses, actual time for staff to monitor this
project at the same time it's tending to other duties was greater than
one hour.
I also wish to note that the reformatting of your requested video
VHS format is provided as a public service, even though the general
rules that -- is that the custodian of the public record only needs to
make them available for inspection and copying in the manner in
which they are kept, that is digital video.
By copy of this email, I am requesting Ms. Merit immediately
make arrangements to reimburse you for all moneys paid for these
tapes.
I understand that that is in the works and will be taken care of in
the next period of time here.
The second violation that I find here is with the Florida sunshine
or open meetings law. Section 286.011, the requirement that all
meetings be open to the public unless there's a specific statutory
exemption. Specifically I'm talking about the orientation of
Commissioner Halas.
I've had extensive discussions with your county manager and
your county attorneys as well as the state's attorney's office and so
forth.
I actually would like to show a video of the orientation of the
board mee -- board members of the school board, however, I
understand right at the moment that there -- it's not possible to show
it in here in this room, so I'll just read a little letter.
This is from me to Ramiro Manalich, one of the county
attorneys. A fine example of government in the sunshine took place
Page 24
November 19, 2002
yesterday afternoon, that's November 12th, at the school
administration center. Broadcast on the government access channel,
the newly-elected board members were oriented to their position by a
facilitator and the administrators from the district. They get it and
you don't.
Collier County citizens will no longer tolerate the excuse by
given -- given by Jim Mudd -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- we've
always done it this way.
Ramiro, all the legalese in the world will not convince me that
the orientation of commissioner-elect Halas was not subject to the
sunshine law. I was there.
On October 16th, I was invited to the orientation sessions.
Quote, should you be elected the commissioner of District 2,
unquote, by deputy county manager Leo Ochs. This is
discriminatory on its face.
Quote, once again, from Leo Ochs, in addition, this will give
you the opportunity to meet and familiarize yourself with our staff
and us with you, unquote.
Now, I'm speaking again. Your reliance on the manual to shield
the staff is incorrect. Members elect of commissions are subject to
the sunshine law, as an individual upon election to public office loses
his status as a private individual and acquires a position more akin to
a public trustee and, thus, is subject to the law.
There's another paragraph that doesn't really matter here, but
you do have a copy of it. My question is, so now what?
My next step to file a complaint with the sheriff's office and
have the state's attorney investigate per instructions from Pat Gleason
of the Florida Attorney General's Office. Must we go that far, or can
we come to some consensus on what is the public's business?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope that the Board of
Commissioners would direct the county attorney to bring the county's
Page 25
November 19, 2002
policy on public records law and take a look at if it should be
amended for the interest of the taxpayers of Collier County.
The other issue, Mr. Kramer, I would recommend to you, the
state attorney's office is upstairs. You're more than welcome to file
your complaint with them.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you.
There's just one other thing. I've noticed that in the abbreviated
agenda that's brought before you, for the last three times it is referred
to, my public ret -- or public petition request as received by
facsimile. I don't think that in any records that I can find I've ever
seen it referred to other than that, and I'm just wondering whether
this is an oversight or whether this is some systematic method of
trying to not have the public know what we are going to talk about in
the public petition section of the meeting. Do you have any idea?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's included, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. KRAMER: Hmm? What was that, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is included, your fax.
MR. KRAMER: As I say, the things that you're putting on
television and the things that you're putting out here in the public, all
it says is, received by facsimile. It doesn't give the public the
opportunity to know that we were talking about the open meetings
and the public records law today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's your opportunity to explain
that, Mr. Kramer. And I'd like to point out one thing that you're not
correct on.
When you made the comparison between the orientation of the
school board and the orientation of a commissioner here, whenever
you have more than one commissioner involved in anything, it has to
be a public meeting and duly notified. In this case, it was single
commissioner that they were dealing with, so it doesn't come under
that type of classification.
Page 26
November 19, 2002
MR. KRAMER: Well, you understand--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just wanted to point that out to you.
MR. KRAMER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a comparison that you --
MR. KRAMER: You understand that I disagree with you, but,
you know, that's something for the state's attomey to take up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's just what I know about the
law. I mean, as I single commissioner, I can act out there with the
public however I deem appropriate for my office. I can't act with
another commissioner unless it's duly advertised and there's an open
meeting.
So that's all I can offer to you on that, but I do appreciate you
coming here today.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there support on the Board of
Commissioners to take a look at this county policy on public records
and what we charge and don't charge the public?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would be interested in doing that
very much so, to be able to -- just to be able to reaffirm where we are
on it and possibly -- also, too, you brought up an interesting point,
Commissioner Henning. Some time ago we were talking about
public access being in the way of computers in different places,
remember that, back about a year or so ago?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, I remember it like it was
yesterday.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. I don't think
anything has been done since then, and it would be a good chance
probably to review that again. I'm for open records.
Mr. Weigel?
Page 27
November 19, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Yeah, the county attorney office,
we'd like to provide you a memo of what the policy is and how it --
how it is regularly implemented.
In the case with Mr. Kramer, as he mentioned from what he was
reading, he had requested to have VHS tapes made from the county's
records, which required actually a two-step process to provide it in
the format that he required, that he asked for.
Now, under public records laws, all the county or any custodian
of public records has to do upon a reasonable request is provide the
record as you keep it. But since the broadcast, the board meetings
that he wished to have copies of are in a digital format, that didn't
work for the equipment that he has or has access to personally.
So what we found, in talking with the attorney general's office
in regard to public records, was that our policy, which provides for a
charge beyond one hour, is an appropriate policy and is reasonable
and adopted in identical or similar fashion by many local
governments throughout the state.
But part of the charge had to do with the validation of the time
required to make these tapes. The tapes that were provided, I
believe, were tapes of entire meetings, which were recorded or
rerecorded and transcribed in real time.
But in our discussion with the attorney general's office, they
said that you have to, or should, use as your standard of measurement
time absolutely devoted exclusively to the reproduction of the record.
And so we found that although there had been on and off, on
and off review and dubbing over the course of providing these two or
three tapes, that ultimately, it could be condensed down -- it was not
eight hours of standing by a machine making those tapes, although
someone was in the room tending to that machine and doing other
business at the same time. That's how we were able to distill it and
ultimately determine that less than the free hour was utilized in this
particular request.
Page 28
November 19, 2002
But I'd like to provide you a memo in further detail on this, and
then you may have further direction to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, I -- that's only one of
many issues of public records. My own stance on public records,
because of a situation I ran into before I was elected, is that if anyone
requested public records on myself, I'll pay the first $10 on the cost.
I figure that's the simplest way in this world to be able to show that
we're sincere about public records.
But I'd like to see with the whole policy is -- and I think
Commissioner Henning would like to see that also -- do we have a
third commissioner who would like to see --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
MR. WEIGEL: That would be great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got four-- we've got four
commissioners that are indicating they'd like to have this brought
back to be able to see what the policy is in whole. MR. WEIGEL: Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Kramer, we thank you very
much. You'll be invited to participate in that particular discussion
when it comes back to us.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Item #7A
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, TO ALLOW FOUR (4) UNITS OF THE TOTAL 19 AS-
BUILT UNITS TO HAVE 3,200 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR
Page 29
November 19, 2002
AREA AND TO ALLOW 15 UNITS TO HAVE 2,625 SQUARE
FEET OF FLOOR AREA, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9566
GULFSHORE DRIVE - DENIED; ADDITIONAL DENSITY TO
BE UTILIZED FOR A ONE TIME ONLY SITUATION; STAFF TO
ENSURE THAT UTILIZATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL NOT
BE PERMITTED IN FUTURE ACTION; ALL ACTION TO BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LDC AND NOT LIMITED TO
IMPACT FEES OR TOURIST TAX; STAFF TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH SDP REVISIONS FROM A COMMERCIAL
FACILITY TO A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY AND IMPACT FEES
TO BE ASSF, SSED
Okay. Moving on to the board of zoning appeals. This next,
7(A), has to do with the Manatee Resort. And I'm going to ask all
those people that wish to participate to stand at this time to be sworn
in.
(The witnesses were sworn in.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now for disclosures on the
part of the commissioners. We'll start with you, Mr. Halas,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had some meetings with
the homeowners' associations and some of their people that they --
were supporting them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with a resident. She's
sitting right there, but I'm afraid I forgot your name, I'm so sorry,
also with their attorney, Austin White, and with Michael Fernandez.
I've also talked with different residents along the way here and
there, you know, over the past few months. And then I've read
everything I could as far as newsletters and newspapers and letters to
me, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And my situation was quite similar
Page 30
November 19, 2002
to yours, plus I have emails and letters all on file for anyone that
wants to see it.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've talked with representatives of
the petitioner and the attorney as well as a number of members of the
public who have an interest in this issue, and I also have a file of
correspondence.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My correspondence are in the
file, mainly a make-up of-- from emails, I also read the Naples Daily
News over the past two years since this issue has come about. I have
reviewed portions of the planning commission, and I have talked to
staff on this matter and talked to a very nice gentleman coming up to
the meeting today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Please proceed.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I am a principal planner with current planning and
planning services. I'm here to present the executive summary for the
variance petition that is before you regarding the hotel use.
And our objective today is to get a decision from you regarding
this petition. You have the executive summary before you that
includes the staff report and all the attachments to it.
Also, on the video visualizer, I have shown where the subject
property is. The site location is highlighted. And you can see that
it's on Gulfshore Drive, and it is between Vanderbilt Lagoon and
Gulfshore Drive.
The staff in this particular petition is recommending approval of
the variance. We have provided you with conditions to consider as
part of that approval. And I need to make it clear to you that there is
opposition to this petition, and there was not an approval
recommendation forthcoming from the planning commission. They
did recommend denial of the petition.
Page 31
November 19, 2002
I'm available if you have any further questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one fast one, and it's just a
little typographical error, I think, if you don't mind me just inserting
this before we move on any further. In -- on the first page here that
you gave us, in the -- in the little paragraph in italics it says, in the
urban designated area on the further land use map, and I'm betting
that that means future land use map, right?
MS. DESELEM: Mine does say future land use map. I
apologize.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: I don't know where there's a typo, but, yeah.
That is a quote, so it must have been --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, it's here.
MS. DESELEM: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to clarify it for, you know,
public records.
MS. DESELEM: I do apologize for the typo.
I know the petitioner is here and able to speak and ready to
address you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle has a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I would find it
astounding if anybody favored the staff's recommendation in this
particular case, to treat this as a hotel. And so I don't know of any
reason why we should debate that issue.
I would make a motion that we reject the staff's
recommendation and pursue another course of action, which I
understand the staff has discussed with all the parties involved, and if
there's a second--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then maybe we can get to
Page 32
November 19, 2002
the bottom of this issue relatively -- fairly quickly to the satisfaction
of everybody.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Mr. Mudd, did you have some comment?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, we'll go
right to you.
MR. MUDD:
MS. FILSON:
Sir, we've got a number of speakers --
Nine.
MR. MUDD: -- on this particular topic.
I have met with the Manatee Homeowners' Association along
with the Vanderbilt Homeowners' Association rep., legal counsel for
the Manatee.
It seemed to me from that meeting that I was in that neither one
of those groups, including the Manatee Condominium Association --
I call them homeowners' association. Even though they're a
condominium association, this thing is zoned as a hotel -- right,
wrong or whatever, don't think that those residents at that particular
building bought knowing that it was a hotel, but I can't say that in
fact. I can only do that as supposition on my part, because I don't
know what the small print was on the contracts that they signed, and
only they know that and their attorneys.
But with the folks that I talked to, they have these particular
units as full-time residences, so that tells me that somehow that
particular item of information about it being zoned as a hotel got lost
someplace in the translation between developer and unit owners.
There are a series -- there are -- in this particular complex,
there's 19 units, okay, all of which exceed the hotel minimum of 500
square feet. Now, there is some -- some units that could be
penthouses and have a larger square footage, but it's a small fraction.
All of the units, all 19, exceed and are more like penthouse layouts
Page 33
November 19, 2002
than they -- than they are hotel rooms.
I will tell you that I was the appellate person for an appeal by
one of our employees that we let go because of this particular item,
okay? And the poor-- and the poor staff work, and I'll say that again.
This is some of the poorest staff work I've ever seen, okay? And
we're basically cleaning up a mess right now that was done before
any of the commissioners on this board were on the board and before
the county manager and most of the staff that I've got were here, too,
but we're cleaning it up.
You've got 19 units. They've got a density of 18.4, based on the
square footage that they've got out there. They're missing about .6 of
a unit in order to make the 19 that they have.
I don't think anybody out there wants to crucify the people that
are in the condominium and say, you have to go through some
financial hardship to get rid of that unit.
I would ask the board to listen to the public comment, make sure
that the information that I've just provided you is exactly what I
heard at that meeting. And the staff has a way, if the board directs
them, to incorporate some of the county's right-of-way, square
footage, into their density calculation, and you can make that a
19-unit condominium, and it could be an SDP amendment done by
Mr. Schmitt in his house.
But I wanted to make sure, because there's been so much
controversy, so much public dialogue on this, that we completely
vent this out in public and to bring all the sides out to give you some
alternatives in this process.
It's unfortunate that we're here. I will tell you, again, and I will
repeat it, it's some of the poorest staff work I've ever seen. No doubt
in my mind, somebody violated our Land Development Code. That's
an ordinance. That's a law, okay?
And because of that, through Mr. Pettit in the county attorney's
office after the appellate proceeding and the swearing in of
Page 34
November 19, 2002
testimony, I turned that entire packet up with Mr. Pettit to state
attorney's office for further investigation, because it wasn't right in
my view at that appellate authority as I sat there and I heard the
testimony of all involved.
And again, it was listening to a hearing -- a history lesson, but
there was, obvious, some folks that just broke the ordinance and did
it knowingly. And I can't condone that, and I will not condone that
in the future.
But what I would ask the board to do is to listen to some of the
dialogue in the process before we vote on the variance one way or
the other. And if the board so directs staff to do a site development
plan amendment and incorporate the ease -- some of our county
easement into density calculation to make it 19 units, I'm pretty sure
that the petitioner will withdraw his variance request. That's all I
have to say, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, one question. You
mentioned it was a .6 they were lacking. Actually it would be just .2,
because once you hit six, you round it up, correct? No? My mistake.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development, environmental services.
Commissioner, no, you have to round down. Our current Land
Development Code says you have to reach the whole number or you
round down to the nearest whole number --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So point six would be correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I seen your
hand go up a moment ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I would --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- hope that we can wait on the
motion until we hear from the public and until we hear from the
petitioner, because I feel that once we make that vote, then we might
Page 35
November 19, 2002
have another motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll wait. I had a couple comments,
but I can certainly wait for those as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just wanted to make a
comment concerning that motion. The intent of the motion was to
make sure there was no confusion about what we were considering
here. And it would be, I think, extremely helpful for the public
debate if we focused on one alternative rather than trying to confuse
it with what amounts to really two alternatives on the table right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if the board is -- opposes
keeping this thing as a hotel, which I hope they do, then I'd like to
take that off the table and let the public focus only on the potential
compromise here. That was the intent of my motion so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And if-- I'd like to proceed
with that part, and then we could take up the following motion of a
potential compromise after we get the public's input, unless there's
someone here who wants to speak in favor of keeping it as a hotel. Is
anybody here who wants to see this as a hotel?
MS. RAUTIO: Point of order.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. RAUTIO: If you do this, those of us who came to speak
about the variance --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, ma'am. You can't speak
from the audience. You have to -- I will allow you to come up to the
podium at this time.
MS. RAUTIO: My name is JOYceanna Rautio. I'm a taxpayer
in North Naples. I just want to make it clear that I, as one who came
to speak, would like to hear the whole presentation that the staff
Page 36
November 19, 2002
would have then before you decide on the variance or the new plan,
because I think we should hear what the change is. We only read it
in the newspaper today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Rautio, we're in the process of
doing that right now.
MS. RAUTIO: But before you vote.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd just bring one thing to your
attention. If you vote on this, okay, and it's off the agenda, there's
nothing on the agenda that brings the second topic up so you can
discuss it. So you kind of get yourself into a Catch-22.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll keep it as a straw poll.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As a straw poll, how many
commissioners have the feelings that this would be better considered
as a residential unit rather than hotel? Just nod your heads if you --
MR. WEIGEL: I wish you wouldn't do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: I'd rather not do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll pull that back. And due to
legal counsel, we're going to get through this one way or the other.
Let's proceed with the speakers.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should we be taking our motion
and second off then?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You already did, I thought.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. The motion and the second will just lie
in wait 'till after you've had the public speakers, because otherwise, if
you were to vote, you would not have -- you would have had to close
the public hearing before anyone spoke, and I don't think you want to
do that either.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 37
November 19, 2002
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, do you want to hear the public
speakers prior to the petitioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we hear the petition first
because, see, they may have some ideas that can address the situation
and satisfy some of the needs of the public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Will we still have time to make a
comment afterwards?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, by all means. In fact, during the
presentation, Mr. Halas, if you feel that there's something that you
urgently want to get in, indicate by pushing the button and we'll
come to you. Usually we'll wait for them to take a small breath to
catch their -- to catch their breath, then we go ahead and interject
questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, is the public petitioner
coming forward, or did you have something else to add?
MR. SCHMITT: I will just be here, Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- in case you want to discuss the issues of
reference to the alternative.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: At least from the administrative perspective,
we can discuss the alternative, but I think we want to hear from the
petitioners first because --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that would be the best way to
go.
MR. SCHMITT: -- we're dealing with the variance right now.
AUSTIN WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
the commission, my name is Austin White. I'm an attorney, and I
represent the Manatee Resort Condominium Association.
We initially filed this variance as a result of a code enforcement
proceeding to try to abate that proceeding. But since the time it has
Page 38
November 19, 2002
been filed and considered by the planning commission, we have been
meeting with staff on an alternative to find a way to meet what we
felt was a directive from the planning commission and the interest of
the neighbors to allow this particular development to be used as a
residential condominium instead of a hotel, which really, as Mr.
Mudd said, nobody wants.
We are -- we are working to try to arrive at that to allow 19
units that are currently constructed to remain there as residential
condominiums. And if the board today would give the directive to
staff to consider the site plan amendment which we have submitted,
then we would be willing to withdraw our variance petition to use the
property as a hotel.
I would like to make that statement right up front. We can get
into public participation now, and I can answer any questions that
come up rather than speak to the merits of the variance petition at
this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions on the part of the
commission at this point in time?
AUSTIN WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And did that conclude the
presentation?
AUSTIN WHITE: For now. I'd like to get into the public
comment on the residential condominium, if we could.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll go to the speakers at
this time.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many are there?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have nine speakers, and I'll call
two names. If the second one would come up and be onboard. The
first one is Carol Wright.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just a point of order there. Three
minutes per speaker, and if anyone wishes to waive, if you think the
Page 39
November 19, 2002
person before you made the case that you wanted to make, you may
wish to waive. But in any case, you're -- we welcome you to come
forward if you'd like to.
MS. FILSON: And Ms. Wright will be followed by Chuck
Cowell.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, before we start
with the speakers, these people have been working on this item for a
number of years. I hope that we can allow them five minutes to
address the Board of Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if you choose -- so choose
SO.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that if you feel that it's
appropriate, Commissioner Henning, we'll do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're welcome.
MS. WRIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Carol Wright, and I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay
Association representing some 800 members.
First of all, I'd like to say congratulations and welcome to the
board, Mr. Halas and Mr. Coyle.
This has been a very, very difficult issue for a long time. As to
the variance, we are convinced beyond any doubt that the Manatee is
a condominium, not a hotel and, therefore, we strongly oppose the
variance that's being asked today.
However, following several meetings with the Manatee officers
and their consultants along with meetings with county officials, our
Vanderbilt Beach and Bay board has reluctantly agreed not to oppose
an amended site development plan as the resolution to this issue.
We have been assured by the county that this mechanism is to
be employed only in this case and that the county will close this
loophole immediately. Thank you.
Page 40
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Chuck Cowell. He will be
followed by A.D. Martin.
MR. COWELL: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Chuck Cowell. I'm the president of the Manatee Resort.
And it's been a long struggle. And we, as residents in the
building, has went along with recommendations from the county
staff, and we've tried different approaches.
Each time that we got to where we thought we might have
something, it would decide we ought to go another direction. And
quite frankly, last -- this last July -- for a year we've been working on
this -- kind of alternatives and a lot of resources are being spent, and
hours.
This past July we came down here to the planning commission,
and I notified all our residents and we all, the middle of summer,
flew down here, bought airline tickets, and we got here. And we
were here a short time, and it was decided that -- in the first place,
the Vanderbilt Beach people said they were strictly against the hotel
variance.
The only reason we were going for a hotel variance was because
-- that's the only way at that time that they would allow us to settle
the situation without starting to access a fine by code enforcement,
like $250 a day per unit.
And after a lot of conversation, the planning commission
decided that this wouldn't cure our problem. We need to be a
residential condominium.
So we went back and we accepted that. We went back and we
started putting together an alternative plan, and the plan that's been
presented already like a right-of-way, all of that, to make up for the
six-tenths of a unit is the plan we came up with.
We spent considerable time with a planner that we -- was
suggested by the county to hire, which we researched everything in
Page 41
November 19, 2002
the neighborhood. We went back and resurveyed the lot, make sure
we actually had 18.4.
And in the middle of all this, we come down to have a meeting
with the county commissioners back in October. The day before the
meeting with the commissioners, Commissioner Carter and the
county attorney and the staff called us in and we talked about it.
They said, well, you need to get this -- to have the county
commissioners to look at it closer, is to -- get the support of the
community. And that's put upon my shoulders to go talk to people.
We've had several meetings. I did find out that, quite frankly,
out of all of this, that there's some mighty fine people in the group.
You hear all this in the paper, and I'll be the first to admit I've
attended a lot of meetings and a lot of things, but I was able to
contact and get -- so we could sit down and communicate, and we
finally came to an agreement that we would have the county officials
there, and we had about a three-hour meeting one afternoon at the
Manatee Resort.
We come to an agreement, and what Carol Wright said today,
quite frankly, that's how they agreed to it, that they would not oppose
this, but they were kind of reluctant in some things, but they said,
yes, we'll go along with it.
Now, that's been our participation in this, and asserted today, I
would certainly like to ask you to consider approving this to be a
residential condominium.
And at this time I'd like to thank you for your time and
consideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: A.D. Martin has withdrew (sic). The next
speaker will be Jack Stirling, and he will be followed by Nancy
Peyton.
MR. STIRLING: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Jack Stirling. I've been a resident of Collier County and taxpayer for
Page 42
November 19, 2002
the past 20 years.
And I have followed the Manatee Resort Hotel from its
inception, in the commission, on television and in the newspaper.
And after reading the Naples Daily News this morning, I'm
going to change what I'm going to say. And the -- this is a hotel with
suites that are more than 2,000 feet, and their soul is condominiums.
Well, how could this be?
Two planners, one chief planner, Ron Nino, was fired partly
because of his approval of the Manatee Resort Hotel.
A few months ago, another-- a second planner, Chahram, and I
won't try to pronounce his Armenian last name, but everybody on the
commission, I'm quite sure, knows who Chahram is. He appealed his
dismissal to the assistant acting manager, Jim Mudd, and he was
fired.
He had been told by just two planning supervisors at the time to
approve the plans for the Manatee Hotel Resort. His two supervisors
were Wayne Arnold and Bob Mulhere, and they were -- told him that
if he didn't approve it -- and this is in the paper also. If he didn't
approve it, he was going to be fired. He approved it. He objected to
approving it.
The two planning supervisors acted -- one acted very quickly.
Wayne Arnold, he resigned his position as a chief planner and went
into private practice. And when things heated up for the other
planning supervisor, Bob Mulhere, he left and went into private
practice.
NOw, today and in the near future, we'll see and hear how a
Manatee hotel will become a Manatee condominium. Oh, yes, it is --
if this happens, the tax-paying public in Collier County should do
something that I can't -- I'm not going to recite. But if it was Chicago,
I'd recite it.
But there's corruption here, and it should be fully investigated,
even though Mr. Mudd has turned over this evidence to the state's
Page 43
November 19, 2002
attorney. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Peyton, and she will
be followed by Joe Connolly.
MS. PEYTON: Good morning, Nancy Peyton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation.
And I realize this isn't an environmental issue, but it's a growth
management issue, and Florida Wildlife Federation has long
advocated the strict adherence and upholding of the growth
management laws and, therefore, I wanted to speak today on what I
read in this morning's paper about the proposed one-time donation of
density to resolve this Manatee issue.
Florida Wildlife Federation and the general public should be
looking to staff to fairly and consistently apply the growth
management laws. Not doing this got us into this mess, and it seems
a shame that this -- we're going to construe and contort the growth
management laws again to get us out of this message, or this mess.
And when I asked staff about this, one of the first responses in
defense of this proposal to donate county density was, that's the way
they do it in Lee County.
Well, that's the Lee County growth management laws, not the
Collier County growth management laws.
We, the public, look to the attorney's office to protect the
integrity and the honesty of our growth management laws. We look
to you, the commissioners, to ensure that these laws are upheld
consistently, honestly, fairly, and not bent -- not bent for the benefit
of a few.
I'm disappointed and I find it shameful that a neighborhood
association that has so long advocated the adherence and the
upholding of a Growth Management Plan now says to other
neighborhood associations, do as I say, not as I do. Do this one time
for us, but make sure nobody else gets to do it.
Gifting density from the county's right-of-way was not allowed
Page 44
November 19, 2002
yesterday, it wasn't acceptable yesterday, and we're assured it's not
going to happen in the future. We're going to make it specifically
illegal. Well, if it wasn't okay yesterday and it's not going to be okay
tomorrow, then it shouldn't be okay today.
And I urge you not to give up your density on your right-of-way
because of the precedence it sets, and it's not consistent, and it
doesn't fairly implement our growth management laws. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Connolly, and he will be
followed by "JA" Rautio.
MR. CONNOLLY: Joe Connolly would like to bye until he
hears the presentation from the staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What'd he say?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I couldn't hear it, but in any case, I
take it he waived.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's not correct. What he
said, he would like a presentation from staff, and then he would like
to speak on this item. And that's the second person from the public
that we have heard say that.
MS. RAUTIO: Here's a third person. I bye until I hear the
presentation from staff.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKFJR: Fourth person.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Communication from staff, is that
what I'm hearing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Presentation.
Well, Mr. Schmitt, I thought you had completed your
presentation, but if you have not, why don't you go ahead and do so.
MR. SCHMITT: Good morning, Commissioners. Again, Joe
Schmitt, for the record, administrator of community development,
environmental services.
You kind of heard how we got here. Basically this was a project
approved by the county, received a Certificate of Occupancy from
Page 45
November 19, 2002
the county, and we know the history, that it was built as a hotel under
the auspices of 26 units per acres, and only the developer knows why
he did that.
We were faced with the situation when this was presented
before the planning commission. And we went to the planning
commission with a request for a variance, and strictly that focused on
the variance for the size of the room -- the hotel rooms, which, in
fact, would authorize the 19 units that currently exist.
During that presentation to the planning commission, the
planning commission noted that several objections were raised by the
public of having this continue to operate as a hotel or transient
lodging facility.
We were directed by the planning commission to go back and
explore alternatives, convert this from a transient lodging facility or
hotel to a residential condominium.
The first thing we looked at was, could we amend the Collier
County Comprehensive Plan? We cannot, and we cannot do a site
specific amendment. So faced with that, the alternative was, again,
to continue with this variance, which is before you today, or look at
another alternative.
And frankly -- and I'll probably turn to the assistant county
attorney, Patrick White, to talk about the legal parameters, and he
can follow me to discuss the specific issues from a legal perspective,
but this was a platted subdivision long before both the Collier County
Land Development Code and the comprehensive plan, but the issue
here is to find a way to give them the density that -- the acreage that
they need to allow for that six-tenths of a unit.
We deemed that -- looking at the layout, and the yellow line
shows the platted lot. This, of course -- this is the seawall, so you
can see some of the platted lot does include some merged lands,
which do, in fact, count as density in the calculation. It doesn't count
with any other thing but density. It doesn't include setback.
Page 46
November 19, 2002
But we deemed an order to give the property owners -- because
what we're dealing with here are the property owners. We have no
way of going after the developer. The developer is long gone.
Each of the residents in the Manatee were issued a notice of
violation for violating the Land Development Code, so we're
punishing those who, somewhat, are second-party to the entire
process.
We looked at, could we go into the right-of-way? And this is a
gross versus net acreage. An example, when we plat or-- plat a
PUD, you look at a PUD and you assign density to a PUD, you don't
subtract the road network, you do not subtract the drainage, the
ponds, or other type of water retention systems.
So we looked at this. Could we, in fact, go out -- because a lot
actually goes to the center line of the road. What we would need to
do is to'allow for density only 250 feet by six and a half feet, so that's
six and a half feet into the right-of-way, and then the overlay, and it
shows -- here is the line right here, which is the -- the limit of the lot
line would come up almost to the shoulder of the road allowing only
for that portion of the land to be counted in density.
Two hundred seventy -- 2,725 square feet or basically a
six-and-a-half foot by 250-foot portion of the land under the
right-of-way would be included in the calculation to authorize the
nineteenth unit.
If, in fact, the board concurs with that, I can proceed with an
administrative adjustment to this. The applicant will continue with
an amended SDP. It will be -- that SDP will convert the facility from
a hotel to a condominium. They will pay the additional impact fees
associated with that, which we think is going to be somewhere in the
neighborhood of a hundred thousand dollars. They will have to
comply with all the requirements of the new Land Development
Code, specifically up -- improving the landscaping and complying
with the parking requirements. So there is a significant financial
Page 47
November 19, 2002
burden to convert this facility from a hotel to a condominium.
We will -- we're still looking at the impact fees. I'm not sure of
the exact cost of that, but our initial figures, again, were about a
hundred thousand. We think it's going to be a little bit less than that
when we apply credits and other things.
But this -- this can be done through an administrative review
process. And, frankly, what we will do is solve this problem and do
exactly what the planning commission had directed staff to do, was
to convert this from a hotel to a condominium.
This is kind of an issue where if it walks like a duck, quacks like
a duck, it's a duck. And I think what we have here is a condominium.
And if we don't go this route, I'm afraid we'll probably be in court
over this, and that's the other alternative.
So with that, I think-- I'll answer any of your questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to make a
comment.
I think the reason that we're all struggling so hard for the --
about this is that we -- well, I should say personally, why I'm
struggling so hard, is I just loath rewarding underhanded behavior,
quite frankly. Yet, we're sitting here with innocent victims who had
no knowledge whatsoever of what was going on behind the scenes,
and I hate to see them victimized again, too.
The perpetrators, if you will, for this whole act are long gone.
They've put the money in their pocket and they're out of here. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And who's left is the innocent
victims. And I think that even though we loath rewarding
underhanded behavior, those people aren't going to suffer anyway.
And so, I think we have to keep that in mind all the time. It's a very
difficult decision.
MR. SCHMITT: I think-- ifI could turn to Patrick, and I
Page 48
November 19, 2002
thought he was here. Patrick might be able to explain, because
there's -- I know there was issues brought up about violating the
comprehensive plan. And I think you need to hear the legal
discussion and make that a matter of record so that both the public
and the board understands the legal interpretation of this so that we
note that there is not -- in fact, there is not a violation of our comp.
plan.
PATRICK WHITE: Assistance county attorney, Patrick White.
Good morning, Commissioners, and welcome to the dais,
Commission Halas, and welcome back, Commissioner Coyle.
Just one factual matter. Administrator Schmitt had said
approximately 2,700 square feet of the remainder of the feet, or the
right-of-way. The actual number is six-tenths of that because we're
dealing with six-tenths of the unit. It's about 1,600 square feet.
And the other point I'd like to make is that it is not the county's
right-of-way per se that we're talking about here. It's not the
easement at all. It's the balance of the fee simple, if you will, that is
held in real property terms by the adjacent lots, 14, 15, and 16.
This is very similar to the circumstance when you vacate a
right-of-way that's held by the public, that by operation of law there's
no formal action required by a court or by this board or any
governmental entity.
Just by operation of law, if you will, once that vacation takes
place of the easement, if you want to think of it in terms of being
peeled off, then the remainder fee rises to the surface and that
ownership interest is held in complete use by that adjacent lot owner.
The concept, if you will, is one that's recognized certainly by
Lee County. As you know, I was -- or hopefully know, I was an
assistant county attorney there for seven years. Their comprehensive
plan, unlike ours, is very details, in regard to the manner and means
by which you differentiate between gross acreage and net acreage.
What our LDC says is, you should rely on net acreage for the
Page 49
November 19, 2002
purposes of calculating density. And in specific, the comp. plan has
nothing to say about how you calculate gross acreage versus net for
anything other than the PUD. And I think that the concept, if you
will, that's being relied upon by the applicants here is that, just like in
a PUD, when you come in and you have all of your land that is --
you're entitled to use for the purposes of calculating the number of
units you'll ultimately build, that being your density, that you come
along later on and plat out your rights-of-way in your subdivision,
there's an allocation of that density, those adjacent lots.
That's exactly the same circumstance that exists here, but the
difference is, as Administrator Schmitt pointed out to you, is that this
subdivision was platted in the mid, early 'SOs. There was no motion
of density, there was no motion of lots of record. All of these
concepts, including zoning, came along afterwards.
So, in essence, you have a circumstance where, with the
remainder of the fee in the right-of-way, the nook below the
right-of-way, there was never any allocation of that density for gross
acreage purposes.
It's more correct for us to say that what the applicant's looking
for here in the SDP amendment is an unanticipated circumstance
rather than so much unprecedented. And in that regard, I believe
what we have is a question of first impression. We've never faced
this request before.
When we look to the comp. plan, there's nothing that
specifically says one way or the other what to do. And regardless, I
think, of what you decide to do here today with respect to this
particular variance or the SDP amendment, we're at a place where we
recognize that there are certain amendments that need to be made
both to the comprehensive plan provisions and to the LDC to assure
that, as the neighbors want, that this, quote-unquote, doesn't happen
again.
It can't happen in the Vanderbilt area, because that's presently
Page 50
November 19, 2002
under moratorium. The only reason you're able to hear this variance
request and that the staff has been able to entertain the application for
the SDP amendment is because there's an exemption from the
moratorium in order to resolve a code enforcement matter. And as
you know, that this is a case that's also pending with respect to code
enforcement.
One of the other assurances we've received from the petitioners
here is that if we're able to resolve this matter with an SDP
amendment, is that they're prepared to release certain rights with
respect to suits and other matters that are of concern to our office,
and I think that that's something that ultimately puts us in a position
where, unless you have questions, I think you'll find that it's our
office's opinion that this is a -- it's not unlawful what's being done. It
-- the density, if you will, arises by operation of law, not by -- from
anything that's the county's regulations.
If there's any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Halas first,
then C°mmissioner Henning.
PATRICK WHITE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As I look through this -- excuse
me. As I look through this packet of information, I think you need
about 16 land development attorneys to figure out what's going on
here.
PATRICK WHITE: We have two and one on the way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And as the county manager said,
there was malfeasance involved in this thing. I don't have a warm,
fuzzy feeling in regards to opening this up and giving people the
added space, but if this is what the residents want, I may buy into
this, but I want to hear everything else.
The problem that we've got to do here is make sure that our
Land Development Codes are addressed and that they are upholded
(sic) to the highest standards. And I think this is what's happened in
Page 51
November 19, 2002
the past.
And if we don't have enough people out there to find out what's
going on with the building industry, I believe that we need to make
sure that we've got adequate code enforcement people out there so
that this doesn't happen again.
And I'm concerned if there's anything else like this waiting in
the wings to hit us again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't like and I can't approve
what's being asked of us in our packet on this item. The alternative I
don't like either.
BUt I think to resolve this issue, I'm going to make my decisions
based upon the public's input, the residents of the Manatee and the
residents of the Vanderbilt Beach area that have spent a lot of time
and money on this issue.
But I think the most pressing issue for me is an embarrassment
from the former staff members that we had in the community
development. And I appreciate and support Jim Mudd's action on
this, but I guess what troubles me is these former employees can
come before the Board of Commissioners, petition them, representing
a client, and that's going to be very hard for me to accept their
testimony before the commissioners as any validity to what they
have to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to make sure I understand
this process of allocating part of the right-of-way for additional
density. I have two concerns. I'd like to understand the difference. If
this -- and I understand it was a platted subdivision sometime back.
I'd like to understand how the title -- or the chain of ownership
was transferred. I presume when it was a platted subdivision, the
ownership transferred to the county; is that true?
PATRICK WHITE: You may hear from our county attorney on
Page 52
November 19, 2002
that, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: And Pat may add to my comment.
The plat, like so many plats, has a dedication of a -- of an area
for road right-of-way to the county. It is not a deed. It is not a deed
in fee arguably, meaning all of the property rights. This is an issue
that we've been looking at, wrestling with. It is a mere dedication on
a plat.
Now, I want to make it very clear that the concept that's being
discussed by staff today is not a giving up of right-of-way. Clearly
working with our transportation department and knowledgeable of
the policies of the board and the demands and needs that are coming
forth in this community on that very roadway fronting this property
at issue, we're not looking to give up any of the road right-of-way
interests that the county has but merely in that interest recognizing a
square footage that might be utilized toward the density calculation.
Therefore, if there is -- are to be improvements in that area,
whether it's sidewalk or roadway enhancements or anything else,
there would be no reduction of road right-of-way rights in front of
the Manatee compared to any other property along the -- along the
area there.
I hope I've answered your question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do I have time for a follow-up, or
do you want to break now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, go ahead, Commissioner
Coyle, then we'll take a break for the receptionist -- the reporter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Very quickly. With respect to
Livingston Road where we actually acquired right-of-way for the
purpose of construction, how did we deal with that right-of-way with
respect to density for adjacent developments?
MR. WEIGEL: Off the top of my head, I can't respond
specifically to that. Typically, though, in our acquisitions we're
Page 53
November 19, 2002
taking the property in fee, that is absolute ownership. And when we
do that, where we do that, then that separates the county-owned land
we take in fee from adjacent properties and would not give the
adjacent property any right of density over the property we've taken.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if they were to donate that
property to you --
MR. WEIGEL: Makes no difference how it comes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're saying that if a property
owner donates certain property for us to build a road or widen a road,
that they get no credit for density whatsoever when they make that
decision?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it would depend upon the arrangement
reached between the parties at that point in time. If it's an outright
donation in fee typically -- typical to the acquisitions that we are
currently doing and have been for some time now, there would be,
quote, no strings attached, and it would not provide any particular
advantages of density to the adjacent landowner donor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
PATRICK WHITE: Just one small point to add to that,
Commissioner, so you'll know for future reference hopefully. The
rights-of-way provisions in the LDC were amended a year, or two
ago to indicate that in a platted subdivision context, we now presume
that we're acquiring fee unless it otherwise expressly says so in the
dedications on those plats.
So the circumstance today, if you will, is one where we're
presuming to acquire fee by way of a dedication rather than in the
past where the circumstance was that it was merely an easement that
was arguably coming by way of a dedication. Thanks for--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to take a short
1 O-minute break to give the reporter a chance to rest her weary
fingers.
(Recess was taken.)
Page 54
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioners, please take your
seats.
Where did we leave off?. We were at the speakers or we were
still having a presentation from staff?. At the presentation from staff?.
MR. SCHMITT: Sir, I concluded my presentation, unless you
have any other questions. But we do have, I believe, four other
speakers that do wish to speak. They noted that they wanted to speak
after hearing the staff in total.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you would please make notes
while they're speaking, because we may have some questions at the
end that you might want to clarify staffs position or directions that
we could take. It would be very much appreciated. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll continue with the speakers at
this time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker-- excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Before you begin, we
have a 12 o'clock time certain with the county attorney, and after that
we will have an hour lunch, so we'll be leaving at 12 -- Excuse me.
At 12 o'clock we have a time certain. We'll be reconvening at 1:30,
allowing for our time with the attorney and for lunch.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Joe
Connolly, and he will be followed by JOYceanna Rautio.
MR. CONNOLLY: Good morning, Commissioners. Joe
Connolly, C-O-N-N-O-L-L-Y.
I heard reference to an organization that I belong to saying that
they couldn't believe that they went along with what they went along
with.
And I just want you to know that we have spent many, many
sleepless, sleepless nights over this thing. We have agonized.
And the only reason we're doing what we're doing is to try to get
these people in their homes so they can live peaceful. We didn't
Page 55
November 19, 2002
cause the problem, they didn't cause the problem. You know who
caused the problem.
I'd like to correct one thing, Commissioner Fiala. They aren't
gone. One of them's going to be back here this afternoon in a lawsuit
concerning a hotel that they're trying to get settled out of court.
Same people. So they're still here, and they're going to be begging
for money out of you, and I hope the county commission -- attorney's
office fights the case rather than yielding to them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for correcting me. I
appreciate that. Thank you.
MR. CONNOLLY: So I just wanted to let you know that. And
the other thing that I want you to know is that we have been told, and
almost signed in blood, that if this does take place, it will never,
never happen again. And if you open the door, which it's going to
require, you better shut it in a hurry, or the same kind of opportunist,
that guy, he'll do it to you again. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Connolly, before you go,
please clarify your position for the direction of the Board of
Commissioners that we're -- that we're considering today, please.
MR. CONNOLLY: Okay. And I speak for myself, not the
association. Because of the homeowners and the homeowners'
association, I agree not to disagree, which doesn't say I support it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. CONNOLLY: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think I got your position.
MR. CONNOLLY: Like Joe Schmitt said, it's like you take a
shower 'and you feel dirty when you come out, that's the way I feel.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is JOYceanna Rautio, she will
be followed by Victoria Nader.
MS. RAUTIO: Good morning. My name is JOYceanna "JA"
Page 56
November 19, 2002
Rautio. I'm a resident of North Naples. I'm a former Collier County
planning commission chairman. I had the pleasure, I guess, of being
on the dais when -- at a Land Development Code hearing on the 16th
of May of 2001, Diane Ketcham stood up and corrected us and let us
know that there was, indeed, a hotel that was really a condominium,
and that was the first time we as a planning commission understood
that this existed, and I believe code enforcement action was taken on
the 22nd of May due to that discussion that occurred. We were
somewhat aghast to find out that this was happening in Vanderbilt.
One of the concerns I have -- and I have several different things
I wanted to say. But one major concern is that if we use right-of-way
and a density calculation, my assumption, having been involved with
this county and planning for years, is that this is the first time we've
ever used right-of-way to calculate density.
It's platted right-of-away. It's not unplatted right-of-way. And
that the implication that this is a loophole that we're going to close, I
take great umbrage with that.
So I want to make sure that I hear as the discussion goes along,
as apparently the residents and the homeowners' association, want to
make sure that this is a one-time effort to use right-of-way that's
platted in a density calculation.
BeCause one of the reasons I'm really upset about this whole
thing is I don't want these people thrown out of their homes, but we
have a developer who really created a mess. We have staff who
created a mess, as have been acknowledged, and perhaps additional
retribution will be taken.
But I just want to remind you-all of the floor-area ratio fiasco.
In Land Development Code hearings in May of 2000, we had a
marvelous staff presentation that told us that, golly Moses, we should
change our idea from 26 units per acre -- hope I don't lose my voice
here -- to this great floor-area ratio.
And we were told the study was done and we listened intently
Page 57
November 19, 2002
thinking, hmm, maybe this does sound pretty good. And, of course,
it was going to be for Vanderbilt Beach, but Vanderbilt Beach was
never mentioned.
And I went back and actually reviewed the meetings that I
attended to make sure I recalled what was or wasn't said. So what
did floor-area ratio give us in 2000? It gave us the Beachcomber,
slash, Bellagio Grande.
So lady and gentlemen, I truly want you to be very cautious of
what type of door you are opening today to make the right-of-way as
a density calculation an issue. I hope that we will make sure that we
never have another situation like floor-area ratio which, as I think all
of you do know, you changed that around then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Quickly.
MS. RAUTIO: -- a year later, and find yourself in some real
problems.
So, although I'm very concerned that this developer apparently
has never been penalized for what he did, rm concerned that people
-- he's not accountable for his actions. I'm not sure that this is the
body that's going to be able to take any action against him.
So, again, be very cautious that you're not setting a precedent
and be very cautious when your staff tells you you've got a great idea
that's really pretty innovative, and I think the first time ever used in
Collier County, from my 22 years of being here and involved in
government.
So be careful. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Victoria Nader. She will be
follow by your final speaker, Dr. Richard Bing.
MS. NADER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Victoria Nader. My husband and I own Unit 105 at the Manatee.
I'm speaking for all of the people who are in a similar situation
in trying to assist you in understanding that most of us, if not all of
us, had no clue that we were buying anything but a residential
Page 58
November 19, 2002
condominium.
My husband and I were pretty concerned when we received the
enforcement notice. And as the weeks went by and the matter did
not get resolved, our concern increased.
We ended up buying another home and moving because we did
not want to expose ourselves to the potential of, whatever it is, $250
a day, or something like that, that we occupied the condo.
And my husband and I are among the few who live year-round
in Naples, so that made us have even greater exposure than some of
the peoPle who might have just been there for a few weeks or few
months a year.
My personal situation has changed since the last time my
husband and I were in this room. My husband's health has taken a
turn for the worse. The only way he can do some of the things he
wants to do before he dies is to sell this condominium.
Would you buy this condominium under the current legal
circumstance? I kind of doubt it, or you'd expect to buy it for way
lower than market.
I believe there's only one other unit that's sold during the
pendency of this action, and guess who it was? It was Larry Gode.
Now, who knows what Larry promised his buyer. But most of us, I
think, are stuck. It's very unlikely that we can sell our units until the
matter's resolved.
And so I just urge you, please, please, sort this out so we can do
the things that we want to do while my husband is still alive. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Victoria, could I have a second
with you?
You said that when you bought this condominium/hotel, did you
go through a title company, insurance title company? Did they do
any follow-up on finding out just exactly what the real legal
Page 59
November 19, 2002
ramifications of this was? Can you put -- shed any light on that?
MS. NADER: I just have no knowledge of that. It was
something that was handled by my husband.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Dr. Richard Bing.
DR. BING: Good morning, Commissioners, and
congratulations again to Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coyle,
on your reelection and your election: Good luck. It's interesting that
this is the first issue you have to struggle with, Frank.
My name is Richard Bing. I'm the president of Vanderbilt
Gulfside Condominium Association, a member of the board of
directors of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association, and I acted as
the liaison, if you will, between our association, the Manatee, and the
county in many of these meetings.
And this is one of these very uncomfortable situations that I
wasn't in the beginning of and none of you were in the beginning of,
and here we find ourselves kind of picking up the pieces in
something that's kind of like a tar baby, when you touch it here, you
end up touching here and so forth, and it's not a very comfortable
situation for any of you.
And I would like to commend the county staff and the people
from the Manatee, as well as our board, for the work that they have
done to try to get to some kind of a meaningful resolution which
protects the innocent, if you will. Maybe there was a case for due
diligence here that was overlooked, if you will, but I can visualize
myself as well as any of us here getting into this same situation as an
innocent buyer of property.
Our organization raised this issue. It was not something that the
county raised or other people. We raised this issue two years ago and
brought it to the attention that it deserved really.
We've been assured that using the right-of-way is legal. And a
Page 60
November 19, 2002
previous speaker said that if it wasn't legal in the past, it shouldn't be
legal now and in the future. We've been told that this is a legal
mechanism to do. Otherwise, we would oppose it.
So you need to be sure that that's the case, if that is really true,
because we have no way of knowing that other than from your
attorneys that we've been assured that that is the case.
We've also been assured that the loophole, or whatever you
want to call this mechanism, is a closed one, and this is a one-time
only. My understanding is that the City of Naples actually passed an
ordinance which stopped the consideration of right-of-way totally. I
don't know whether you have to go that far. We've been told not
necessarily is the case.
But the whole idea of calculating density on something that
doesn't belong to you really is absurd. And that includes whether it's
under water or not either, because the principle of it is, you've got
something to see here and there's setbacks and so forth, and how
many people you can get there. It ought to be on land that you own
and can see and use and own, walk on rather than under water or out
in the street.
In the fullness of time, some of the things that aggravate all of
us, I think, here will come out. The county manager referred to the
state attorney's role here. And he mentioned in our meetings the
wheels of justice move slowly, and we'll be hearing about this in the
future.
I also am a lawyer of another phase of this that I wouldn't raise
publicly, but I think other action will be taken that will be interesting
and maybe get to the heart of what all our concern is about this.
So with that, I would like to say that Carol Wright spoke as our
president of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay, and I support a hundred
percent of what she said. We voted yesterday late afternoon about
what she said today.
None of us feel comfortable. It stinks. But it seems like, for the
Page 61
November 19, 2002
benefit of the owners, that this is the best way to go, with an
amended SDP. So with that, thank you for your consideration, and
hopefully in your deliberation you will consider their interest as well
as our organization. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd just like to say, I guess you've
both been victims actually, not only the people living there, but also
the people that live in the community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we have too, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All the taxpayers have --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask everyone to go back
to using their buttons so we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's all right. Just -- it makes it a
little bit easier for the court reporter there to be able to pick up your
conversations.
And that is the last speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. At this point in time I'll close
the public hearing, and we'll go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Can I make my motion
again, please? And that is that we reject the staff's recommendation
keeping this as a hotel, and then I'd like to make another motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Shouldn't it be all one motion?
Mr. Weigel, can you help us on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'd rather not have it all be one motion,
but the petitioner had mentioned that if the board were to pursue the
options presented by staff that they would withdraw their petition
before you in the first place, which would give you nothing to vote
on. But that's an option that you have of-- the petitioner had asked,
just bring -- the petitioner had asked the opportunity to come back to
the board.
Page 62
November 19, 2002
However, you may go ahead and, having closed the public
hearing, vote to deny the petitioner's request. I'm not so sure it's
necessarily a staffs recommendation as it is a petitioner's request that
is before you.
And I'd like to place some other matters on the record for you in
your deliberation before you take either vote right now, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
As Mr. Mudd and Mr. Schmitt have indicated, Patrick White,
assistant county attorney, and I to some degree, we have discussed
today, as well as certainly considered before now, the fact that this
seems to be a rather unique situation.
The facility, the structure, was built approximately five years
ago -- and from the standpoint of being unique, it had approvals that
were not by the board. I want to make the record very clear. Neither
board nor predecessor board -- board members had this development
that came to be permitted and constructed before the Board of
County Commissioners. This has never been board approved. And
what I'm going to trot out here are some of the uniqueness elements,
unique elements, of this particular matter before you today.
It was never before this board. We know of no property
similarly situated that has come before -- that would come before the
board that has had the kind of staff review and approval that this has
had. Now, this is the best information we have at this point, but that
certainly is a fact at this point in time in your consideration.
This is a question of finding an allocation of square footage
toward density. This is looking for an allocation of less than one unit
because the deficiency is less than one unit. This board is not
approving one or more units in density by giving a direction to staff
to go forward with a site development plan revision or amendment.
Another thing that's important to note is, this is not an issue of
setback. We're talking about an area of property known as the
Page 63
November 19, 2002
county right-of-way, and this does not change nor do you have before
you any question of setback with the structure that's at issue today.
And once again, let's not forget, the board is not approving a
construction today. That construction happened long ago. The board
is not approving a building permit. The board is not approving a
Certificate of Occupancy.
As mentioned, the Vanderbilt RT district is under a moratorium.
An overlay recommendation will come back to you eventually in the
new year.
And finally, I would hope that if you are to give direction to the
staff, that you include in your direction that you consider the staff
and direct the staff to take all actions appropriate with the Land
Development Code and the Growth Management Plan if necessary,
and it may not be necessary with the Growth Management Plan.
However, to direct the staff to take all due action so that
administratively and legislatively with you, that they come back to
you so that the appropriate amendments, if needed, will be done, and
that this board recognize today that that is zoning in progress, which
is a legal term of art. You've heard it from time to time, frequently in
contexts of threatened lawsuits on land use.
And the case law is such that the courts have said, where a
board has given direction to staff to bring back a specific change in
the zoning, that from that point and forward, not only the staff, but
the community, a-la the world, is on notice that there is a change in
standard to occur and that from that point and forward, there is an
inability of potential applicants to come in under the old standard and
achieve their desire.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a very convoluted process,
and what I'm trying to do is to deal with this in a simple and
straightforward manner so that everybody understands the parameters
of the board's approval or disapproval.
Page 64
November 19, 2002
I'm very reluctant to proceed with an action on the petition that's
before us for a variance without also providing very specific
guidance concerning what alternative the staff and the petitioner can
pursue.
So, in essence, what I'm saying is, I do not like the idea of just
saying, well, we disapprove of the variance process. Now you go off
and do something different.
What I would like to see us do is to disapprove the variance
process, and then either have another motion that supports the
compromise in very specific language so that it is understood that
this is not a precedent and that it will not be done before. Now, so
the question is -- I've tried this three times now, or two times at least
-- how do we do that and achieve that goal?
MR. WEIGEL: ! think you can go forward exactly as you've
stated. You have indicated and we -- that you'd like to go forward on
the question before you, the motion, for a vote, and I think it's
appropriate to take that now. The record has had full public
comment. You've had the comment from staff, so you may take that
motion, call the question, if you wish, and then after that, provide
direction to staff, and I think a formal motion would be most
appropriate for any further direction you give. And I know that
county manager and county attorney will be happy to provide any
additional language along the way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the earlier concern with that
motion was that if we disapprove the sta -- the variance petition that
is before us, then there's nothing left on the agenda to vote on. Now,
are we going to have a problem with this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that was a concern Mr. Mudd mentioned.
My concern actually was more that it would be problematical to
close a public hearing and take a vote on the advertised mattered
before you without allowing the speakers to speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. So we can proceed
Page 65
November 19, 2002
with a motion to deny the variance request, which is -- MR. WEIGEL: You may.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the subject of this issue, or the
subject of this agenda item right now? MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I so move that we
reject.
MR. WEIGEL: You have a motion and a second on the floor,
so I guess it's ready just to call the question, if there's no further
discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With a little bit of help, who was the
second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala was the
second.
Any discussion? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now that that's clear, let me
muddy it up a little bit.
The petitioner has stated he's willing to remove his petition for
variance if the Board of Commissioners is inclined to direct staff to
amend the SDP to resolve this issue. And my feeling, wouldn't that
be a safer way to do it is not even consider any motion or take any
vote on the action?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think it's a question of safety or not,
because it is a variance, and you have the ability to make the decision
based upon all the information before you.
There are criteria for a variance. It has to do with hardship.
Was it created by the petitioner asking for the variance? I think there
is statement on the record by others indicating that the petitioner
themselves, itself, did not create the hardship, things of that nature.
It's really -- you have your choice either way to go. It's not
problematical either way.
Page 66
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other-- Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if we -- let me get this straight.
If we turn down this variance, as Commissioner Coyle said, do --
can we then make another motion to make sure that we put in
language that this will never happen again?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we'll get through the first
motion first. It's nothing to do with the first motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, this weighs heavily on how
the vote's going to be here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could respond, since I made
the motion. My light's on, and my light will be on because I'm ready
to make another motion as quickly as we get done with this motion,
and if that doesn't work, I'm going to stop making motions this
morning, okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we have a motion on
the floor. I'm going to ignore Commissioner Coyle's light until after
the motion is voted on. But I guess he has first shot on the next
motion also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
yet.
But your question wasn't answered
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, it wasn't answered yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But by-- who did you want it
answered by?
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
to this question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
By staff or whoever will respond
Well, I think it's a question of
what the motion is likely to be, and I can tell you I'm going to make a
motion that addresses that exact issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, is there -- I
still don't think we quite hit the nail on the head.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, we haven't hit the nail on the
Page 67
November 19, 2002
head, we just hit it off on the side.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just ask your question again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about the county manager,
can he throw -- shed a little more light on this that -- in regards to, if
we reject this variance, are we -- can we then make another motion
and can we then put the language in there so that we -- that this
loophole is closed forever and it will not come back to visit us again?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, in my opinion -- and I'm not
totally in agreement with the county attorney on this particular one --
I'm more inclined -- Mr. Halas, we can make it so that it will never
happen again, okay? To the best of our abilities, we'll close every
door we can on this particular case to make sure it never comes back
up and that particular right-of-way is never used in density again.
That's the first thing.
The second thing is, if you -- I can't tell how the board's going to
vote, only -- I don't think anybody on this board can until you
actually take a vote.
I will tell you, if you vote no on the variance and then the
motion, the second motion, whatever it's going to be, okay, doesn't
carry, okay, this Manatee condominium group is in deep trouble,
okay, because they've got some issues now they've got to go after
and they've got to get themselves in a change. Their only option is to
-- is to break up their units into hotel rooms that are less than 500
feet, because they're still a hotel, they have to come back in and say,
I'm going to be a condominium and they're only going to be able to
get 18 units, and then they have to figure out what they're going to do
with the nineteenth.
I would -- I would recommend to the board that you resolve the
direction to the staff about amending the SDP and make -- and put all
the criteria and things and make it clear to us by vote before you vote
to deny the variance. I think that's on the safe side, and I think
everybody's interests are protected at that particular time.
Page 68
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this point we have a motion on
the floor and we have a second. Is there any other discussion from
this commission? If not, I'm going to call the question.
All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the opposition-- or the vote --
the negative is Commissioner Halas.
Okay. Now, Commissioner Coyle, your light is still lit. May I
mm it off now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will make a motion that we
accept the compromise of allowing the additional density to be
utilized for a one-time only situation and that the staff make sure that
this utilization of right-of-way will not be permitted in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that if we can
include that all action will be in compliance with the Land
Development Code and not limited to impact fees or tourist tax, the
collection of or the recalculation of, and then especially about impact
fees.
MR. SCHMITT: And the SDP is staffed, and it will be staffed
as an amendment to the SDP, and it's a conversion of the facility
from a commercial facility to a residential facility and the impact
fees will be assessed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And permit fees.
MR. SCHMITT: There will be no permit fees. The building's
already been permitted. We're just talking about impact fees.
Page 69
November 19, 2002
PATRICK WHITE: They've already paid their site
development plan fees, if that's what you're referring to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can we include those
comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle and a second by Commissioner Henning. Now we'll open it
up to discussion to the commission here. Any questions?
Hearing none, I'll call the question.
All those--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, fine. In your additions to the motion, I'd
like for you to recognize that by this action you're initiating zoning in
progress in regard to changes in Land Development Code to prevent
this type of consideration and approval to occur again at the staff
level.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I include that.
MR. WEIGEL: That you're recognizing the uniqueness of a
situation of which you have had no prior vote or approval upon.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll include that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. With that, is there any other
comments from the commission?
Hearing none, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 70
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you.
Item #8A
PETITION PUDA-01-AR-431, JAMES G. O'GARA
REPRESENTING PARK EAST DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
REQUESTED A REZONE FOR "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING
THE FOUNDERS PLAZA PUD TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL
SMALL-SCALE RETAIL LAND USES ONLY ON THOSE
PARCELS THAT EXCEED 150 FEET IN DEPTH FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES
OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (CR 886) AND AT THE SANTA
BARBARA CANAL CROSSING- CONTINUED TO LATER IN
THE MEETING
The next item is 8 -- 8(A), James G. O'Gara, Founders Plaza.
I'll ask for the people that are leaving the room to please exit
quietly so we can continue to conduct the meeting.
I need everyone that would wish to participate in this to stand at
this time to be sworn in.
(The witnesses were sworn in.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go down the line here
on the commissioners to see if you have anything to declare. I'll start with you, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have nothing to declare on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I spoke with James O'Gara.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also spoke with James O'Gara.
Commissioner Coyle?
Page 71
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I spoke with Mr. O'Gara.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My ex parte communication is
that I did speak to the petitioner and the members of the civic
association. I also received mail on the -- from the members of the
association.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows, would you proceed.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners, and
welcome, Commissioner Halas.
For the record, my name's Ray Bellows, chief planner with the
current planning section.
As' you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on
the north and south side of Golden Gate Parkway, and the east and
west side of the Santa Barbara Canal.
The petitioner's requesting a rezone from a planned unit
development known as Founders Plaza to a new PUD with the same
name in order to amend the PUD document to allow for special
small-scale retail uses. That was approved in the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan in the year 2000, May 9th, year 2000.
These small-scale uses will -- are limited to the larger tracts, as
noted in this area here. This will break up the strip mall type of
predominance that currently occurs on the narrow or shallow lots.
The -- as you can see on the aerial photograph on the site, some
of the tracts are currently developed. Tract B is developed with a
church.. Tract A is the parking lot for the church. Tract F is under
development with approximately four of these retail structures.
This proposed amendment to the Founders Plaza PUD will
allow for additional small-scale retail uses such as banks and
restaurants. That would serve the needs for the residents in the area
so they won't have to travel as far to get to these types of uses.
The comprehensive plan amendment to the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan -- and I can show you here on this. The Golden Gate
Page 72
November 19, 2002
Area Master Plan is broken up to use districts. This use district is the
Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office and commercial subdistrict
located along both sides of the Parkway. And it's just east of this red
area, which is a commercial activity center not within this Golden
Gate Area Master Plan.
These uses are generally office and C-l, C-2 type uses. This
particular amendment is consistent with that. Comprehensive
planning department is recommending approval, and also at the time
when the comprehensive plan amendment was approved, year 2000.
The environmental staff has reviewed this petition, and it's
determined that there are no environmental impacts. The site is
predominantly developed or cleared.
The Collier County planning commission reviewed this petition
on October 17th, and they recommended approval by an 8-0 vote,
subject to a few minor changes within the PUD document. Some of
that was to eliminate some of the uses that were previously approved,
such as power laundries, coin-operated laundries, dry-cleaning
facilities, liquor stores.
He also wanted to revise the setback requirement to allow for
25-foot setback when the property abuts a residential area.
Section 6.8 of the PUD document would allow for decorative
parapet walls to be incorporated into the design of-- in the structure.
The petitioner was also encouraged to work with the
transportation department to develop a fair share funding source to
allow for the construction of the pedestrian bridges. I believe the
applicant will have some photographs showing the bridges that
currently the pedestrians use to cross the canal. The very narrow
accessways are somewhat dangerous.
The petitioner would like to construct pedestrian bridges across
the canal, but we have to determine the proper funding source.
When the PUD was originally approved, there was ability to use
impact fees to pay for the construction of the bridges, however, the
Page 73
November 19, 2002
impact fee ordinance has changed, and that's no longer a viable
option with -- being consistent with the PUD ordinance.
We have transportation staff here to discuss that in a little more
detail.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go on, Commissioner
Henning, did you have a question at this time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, a question. Well, let me
make a comment first. I have a little bit of a problem with this PUD
amendment. I met with transporta -- or community development
director Joe Schmitt on it, and I directed him, and I hope everybody
supports, when a PUD amendment comes through to the Board of
Commissioners and planning commission, because members of the
planning commission has requested this also in the past, that we have
strike-throughs and underlines so we're not trying to go by memory,
that we know what is being asked to be changed as far as a use, so
hopefully we won't see that again. The -- MR. BELLOWS: If I may.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: The reason -- the applicant did submit the
strike-throughs and underlines, however, there was a lot of large
format changes which resulted in basically everything being
underlined, and, therefore, it wasn't really a usable document in that
respect. There was a lot of format changes creating new separate
tract designations.
I looked through the strike-through and underline -- everything
was -- either underlined, so it didn't seem to solve any purpose
providing that. I apologize for that. Normally that won't be the case
and we will get--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And it never should
have been accepted or submitted with separating out the tracts,
because it's really convoluted because you've got an overall PUD
here with the uses in there and the setbacks, now we have tracts with
Page 74
November 19, 2002
different kind of criteria.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And the reason for that, the narrower
tracts, we wanted more severe setback requirements because they
also abutted the residential. The larger tracts were centralized to this
PUD, and the petitioner requested a smaller setback for that and -- to
allow for the more creative design to get away from that strip type of
architecture, so that was one of the main reasons we broke it up into
the tract as we presented this case.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now for my question.
Not all the tracts are -- most of the tracts are calling for no overnight
parking.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there are one or two tracts
that it is allowed.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have a situation where there will be
overnight parking of Sprint vehicles, a permitted use within the PUD.
They have an occupational license. They're in operation. They were
at first being parked -- I'll show you on the master plan.
Within tract F, they're narrower tracts and they abut residential
to the south. There was a concern that parking of vehicles in these
shallow tracts would be an eyesore. The petitioner agreed to relocate
the parking of those vehicles to the larger tract where they could be
fenced and landscaped and be hidden from view.
And I had many discussions with the residents within the area,
and they seem to be satisfied that the increased landscaping around
the parking would satisfy that. We tried to limit the parking in that
area only for overnight parking of commercial vehicles so that they
could be screened and buffered and be protected from the view of the
adjacent residents.
I think the aerial photograph might show some of the parking
there right now. If I can zoom in on it a bit. The parking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's clear.
Page 75
November 19, 2002
MR. BELLOWS: This photograph was taken before the
landscaping was done, but it's an aerial view showing the pavement,
the landscaping where these overnight vehicles can be stored.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you zoom out, please, so I
can continue my questions. That's tract E the other tracts you have,
the larger tracts, is overnight storage or overnight parking allowed?
MR. BELLOWS: On the other larger tracts?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. BELLOWS: I believe they could be, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that's the intent of
the creation of this overlay back in the '80s when we were involved
in that. And, of course, we'll hear from the petitioner if that's true, if
it is allowed in these other larger tracts.
I don't want to see a nonconforming use be created by the action
that we take, but I want to close that to what -- the true intent of the
community in asking for the changes from multi-family to
professional/commercial office district. You understand what I'm
saying?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, I -- the PUD currently allows for
commercial uses on these larger tracts. Your question is, do we want
to limit the overnight parking commercial vehicles on the other larger
tracts? I think that is easily rectified. We can make that change. If
the board so deems to make that part of the conditions of approval,
we will incorporate that restriction into the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And we'll wait to hear
from the petitioner on that. And I think the only unresolved issue on
my part would be the pedestrian bridge.
Commissioners, reviewing the old PUD, it definitely calls for
the use of impact fees for a pedestrian bridge. And what we have
created by changing the ordinance, we can no longer use impact fees
for the pedestrian bridge.
So it is a part of the PUD and it does need to be constructed and
Page 76
November 19, 2002
the community wants it. The petitioner is open to having it, you
know, across his property, and so on and so forth. And it's because
in -- over on -- this would be the southwest comer of Golden Gate
City, there are a lot of children that take their bicycles to the middle
school that has to cross that canal in that pedestrian crossing, which
you will see in the near future. So I'm hoping that we can resolve
that and come up with some kind of funding source.
MR. SCOTT: John Scott, transportation planning. I don't
believe the ordinance, even previously, allowed for that. There's a
lot of questions when you get to, you know, impacts.
Impact fees are for increased capacity, and you get into a lot of
rational nexus questions of, how much does that increased capacity
do in the pedestrian bridges?
We are working with the applicant on other funding sources.
They have -- the applicant has said that the kind of right-of-way that
they would need, it would be helpful for that. Also construction
costs. We're probably looking at enhancement money where maybe
you do advanced reimbursement, then go to the board with that. But
we're still pursuing what the cost of those would be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could we use gas taxes for it?
MR. SCOTT: We are looking at that as where we could
advance that and then get paid back with enhancement money in the
future parts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. One of the things I
wanted to share with you on that bridge, I had a complaint about the
end of the bridge there where it was a lack of fencing. It presented
immediate danger.
I talked to traffic about it, and I got back a reply that some
measures were being taken to be able to correct that deficiency.
MR. SCOTT: I also received some information on that, too,
yeah, where a guardrail needs to be extended. Depending on what
Page 77
November 19, 2002
we do, if it's aligned and we do a bridge, maybe the need won't be
there for that, but one of those two things has to be done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'd rather something be done
sooner than later, before we have a child get injured on the bridge.
As far as the pedestrian way, I think it's a good thought, but I would
like to see it come back in another meeting with all the different
options, how it could be financed and exactly what the benefits are
from it, myself.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions of staff before
we go to the petitioner?
Hearing none. Mr. O'Gara.
MR. O'GARA: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Jim O'Gara. I'm here representing myself. I'm a small developer
operating out in Golden Gate City.
I Wanted to correct a couple of things that Ray said that are not
accurate. He did mention that the small retail building's on parcel F.
There is no retail component on parcel F in the past or even being
requested in this action.
He also said that this action would allow the developer the right
to build banks and restaurants. We currently have the right to do that
under our existing plan.
Golden Gate is an area that is lacking in services. We currently
have a commercial project ongoing there called Founders Plaza
which consists of nine professional office buildings being built on
what we referred to as tract F. We currently have four of them
already built, and buildings six, seven and eight in this area are under
construction right now.
This is parcel E where we have built this parking lot for Sprint.
Sprint is a tenant in the overall development. And we currently have
a bank under construction right here, and we're building a building
right here which we've designed for office uses, but we have -- and
Page 78
November 19, 2002
that was a result of scaling back our plans for parcel E.
We met with the community extensively on this project. We
currently have a project approved that is a long, linear Chinese wall
type of building that the community asked us to try to break up, and
we agreed to reduce that building and put in some other kinds of
structures that would start to open up view corridors in between here,
and that's where the idea of a bank came up for this location. And
the idea is we would build half of that building for office uses.
When we got into our planning, we found that it worked better
to create some public space in here in the middle, thereby reducing
this building even an additional amount, and we agreed to redo that
building. We completely redid the architecture and added a lot of
bells and whistles for that kind of building and we agreed to process
an amendment to our existing commercial development which would
allow for these small-scale retail uses. That would be in keeping
with the idea that we are trying to develop a project that is more
clustering, breaking up this strip type of development.
The sheer nature of our property holding in general is a linear
strip, and so just as -- because of the geographic way it's laid out, it is
a linear piece of property. But by being able to cluster it and break it
up, we think we can enhance the project overall and get more of that
community character.
But the commercial uses that were approved in the
comprehensive plan are limited to very small-scale retail uses, and
they're quite limiting. In fact, we can't even do a 31 flavors or a
Starbucks or a barber shop or a beauty shop. They're very, very
limited small-scale retail uses. But this gives the project the
opportunity to try to put in those kinds of uses.
And I humbly request your approval of these uses.
The real issue is pedestrian bridges. Golden Gate is a
community that, as we all know, has a number of canals running
through it. Pedestrian circulation is limited. The population
Page 79
November 19, 2002
demographic, in many cases there's only one automobile per family,
or in some cases no automobile, so there's -- walking is a very
important option to preserve in Golden Gate.
There is an existing situation there on the bridges. This is a
photograph taken yesterday. I might show this one first. This is one
that kind of shows the narrowness of the sidewalks in relation. You
can see how the roadway narrows to get across this bridge.
When we looked at it very closely, this area of the bridge -- and
it's only 28 inches wide. That's about the size of this podium. Of
course, there are signs posted there for bicyclists to walk their bikes
across there.
In fact, yesterday I chased two boys who were going across the
bridge with their butts hanging out over the waterside holding onto
the metal rail there just on a dare. And, of course, they could fall
into the water, or if they toppled over going into the street section,
the traffic there moves along quite rapidly. I think the posted speed
is 35 miles per hour, but people seem to exceed that. So it's a very
dangerous situation for pedestrians going through.
In fact, the school district currently buses the little kids, the
lower school, or the elementary kids across there because they don't
want them walking across in this vicinity. I don't think there's any
question it's a dangerous situation that needs to be rectified.
We did point out to the community that there was an
opportunity in the existing Founders Plaza agreement that provided
for the impact fees. And if you'd indulge me, I'd like to read those
six sentences into the record.
The existing agreement says that the petitioner may request a
two-party agreement with Collier County for constructing a new
pedestrian bridge or bridges across the Santa Barbara Canal. One
bridge would be located north of Golden Gate Parkway and the other
south of Golden Gate Parkway.
The two-party agreement could include either or both of these
Page 80
November 19, 2002
two bridges. And if the two bridges were proposed, the construction
would not have to be at the same time. If one bridge were proposed,
a second two-party agreement could be proposed at a later time to
cover the remaining pedestrian bridge.
Since these pedestrian bridges would be expanding the capacity
of the pedestrian movement, such bridges may be eligible for
transportation impact fee credits. The full and reasonable cost of
designing, permitting and constructing these bridges and their
sidewalk approaches may be counted toward any such transportation
impact fee credits. Now, subsequent to this 1996 approval, I guess
you can't use impact fees.
What I'd like to -- we feel that the intent of the language in this
document pretty clearly is that public dollars would be used for the
actual construction. Whether it's impact fees or not isn't really the
issue, that public dollars would be available to be used for the
construction.
We as a developer will be contributing land right-of-way, the
easements necessary for these bridges at no cost, and also we've
agreed that we will actually do the construction, which is no small
contribution unto itself.
Because we're constructing things out there, we feel if we can
time it right, we can build it for a whole lot less probably than
government can because of the economies of construction that we
would have on the site.
And so we -- this language about the impact fees or the funding
of these bridges has been expunged from the agreement -- in the new
agreement, and we request that in the interest of public safety, that
you direct staff to come up with some other alternatives for funding
of these bridges.
Thank you very much, and I -- oh, I would like to address the
issue that Commissioner Henning had brought up about parking of
vehicles overnight.
Page 81
November 19, 2002
We've agreed that parking on parcel F, the narrow area there,
that that's not an appropriate use and don't have any problem with
restricting that, but we have a very substantial problem with
restricting the parking, which are legitimate uses on those sites. We
have a very substantial problem with not allowing the overnight
parking of those vehicles. That would be a severe economic hardship
to us. And frankly, we would respectfully purely withdraw the
petition if that's a requirement of this board. But it's -- that's an
extremely important issue for us to preserve on the deeper sites only.
I'd be happy to answer any questions, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, let's take one issue at a
time and see if we can resolve it between all parties, and including
the Board of Commissioners.
And I think the pedestrian bridge is the first one we ought to
tackle, if you don't mind. I think it does belong and we need to
resolve this today, since it is in the PUD.
Last night I was informed -- I'm not sure if it's true -- that the
State of Florida has a WIC office, that -- is that one of your tenants?
MR. O'GARA: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that is servicing
pregnant mothers in need of whatever kind of nutrition they need for
their family and themselves?
MR. O'GARA: Yes, it is. It's a lease with the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. That -- okay.
MR. O'GARA: Collier County is the tenant, and the co-tenant
in the building is Sprint.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's my understanding
from Dr. Colfer that a lot of these -- the people who frequent WICs
do not have a vehicle, or their spouse uses it to go back and forth to
work. So I think it is a safety issue, as Commissioner Coletta
brought up, about this narrow bridgeway used by pedestrians and by
Page 82
November 19, 2002
pedestrians and bicyclists, and I hope that we can resolve this today
by giving staff direction to resolve this issue within the PUD.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That WIC, just for audience,
W-I-C, women, infants and children.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions for the
petitioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question of staff. It
would seem to me that if you built a pedestrian bridge, you would
have at least 24 inches that you could use for widening the road on
that bridge. Why can't that be -- two of them, I guess, 48 inches,
essentially. Why can't that be considered an improvement in
capacity?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, when you use impact fees, it has to be capacity
expansion. Widening a lane is not considered increasing capacity,
only adding additional lanes; therefore, you can't use it for
intersection improvements, sidewalks and the like, unless it's a really
major modification. That's been up for a while.
This issue got raised to our attention a while ago in one of the
Town Hall meetings. At that time we spoke with the petitioner.
What was relayed to us was that this was for the elementary school
and the children going to the school and that the school board wanted
to move out of the busing, that it would be better if, in fact, the
pedestrians had better pedestrian access.
We referred that to the school board, and basically the petitioner
has come back and said, well, the school board has said that they
don't have any funds for this.
He raised the issue of impact fees. We said gas taxes. We've
Page 83
November 19, 2002
been focussing on capacity expansion. But we do have, possibly, the
option with enhancement funds. We contacted the school board
when the Metropolitan Organization just recently gave the school
board some enhancement dollars for pedestrian improvements and
asked them, could that be applied, and then we tried to figure out any
balance, beyond that.
The school board, again, said, no, they want to use that for
planning, but that they felt the county needs to build bridges.
I will tell you that we will take direction from you if that turns
out to be gas tax. I will tell you that probably our recommendation is
to look at other enhancement funding and go with advancement
reimbursement, because, in fact, we're trying to use those gas taxes
and the impact fees for the capacity expansion program.
I would also say that I think we've got a number of issues, and
you'll hear more on other agenda items that we need to work out with
the school board as to role and function and assistance with each
other on some of these issues.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to you, Commissioner
Henning, we are running close to a time certain, and I don't want to
make Mr. Russell Tuff have to wait until 1:30 to be able to speak. I
know he wants to speak on this subject, so I'm going to call him up at
this point in time, then we'll come back to you, Commissioner
Henning, right after that.
MR. TUFF: Thank you. I appreciate that, and thank goodness
you had a good campaign, and welcome. You haven't seen me
before. I'm -- usually it's Cheryl Newman that's here, and she's a
short, nice lady, and you won't have to deal with me a lot, but I'm
sorry for that today.
But I know we've struggled a lot, we've clashed, and we've
hugged and made up with this developer on a lot of different issues.
And where it sits -- I guess you can't see yet, but it's like the
centerpiece of our community. And I believe this can -- there's
Page 84
November 19, 2002
nothing there, and it's either going to carry us forward, make nice
things happen, or it can go bad, backwards.
Not too far from there is a -- well, right here is a place that was
-- fixed it up, painted it, but then they put bars on the windows, and I
-- I thought, it caused a great amount of concern for me. And it's a
scary time for our community. We can go a lot of directions at this
point. We just need a little bit to go the right direction.
And this is one idea that we've agreed upon the whole way,
that's pedestrian -- that's safety, it's more aesthetics. It's a nice thing.
It could be a catalyst for the future, and I believe it's -- the right
thing to do is to fund this project. We thought all along it was going
to be impact fees, we can take the project and just put it there and
make it work, a wonderful, nice, happy story, and that came to a
crash recently.
And I guess it would be a desperate plea to say, let's fund it
anyway, however we need to do it. If we could get that vote and just
say, find out how to do that, I think it will be something we can all be
proud of and be happy with.
I -- since I came in late, I can't speak to the real specifics that
you were going to because I haven't been as intimately involved, but
I do know it's a big deal for our community. It's right there, it's a
showcase, and this is one thing we -- really will make a big
difference, and I hope you can support that. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions for Mr. Tuff before he
leaves, Commissioner Henning? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can move this item
before our time certain, Commissioner.
The -- Mr. O'Gara, talking about overnight storage of vehicles,
overnight parking, what uses within the categories are you looking at
that you might have overnight parking?
MR. O'GARA: The -- all the categories that are currently today.
Page 85
November 19, 2002
I mean, for instance, engineering, architectural companies. Parking
is extremely important for any user. The ability to -- this particular
tract --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we talking about
commercial vehicles, parking?
MR. O'GARA: In this particular one -- it's probably easier just
to talk about specifics. This is the parking lot for Sprint, Sprint
vehicles. It's adequately screened from the surrounding area. It's
difficult to tell here, but this street is substantially below the
elevation of this area. You can't see any of these vehicles from any
of the residential properties that are adjacent thereto.
When we had our community meeting, this particular resident
spoke, Ray, glowing terms at how much he appreciated the parking
being here and the adequate landscaping, that he doesn't know -- he
has no idea that this use is even there. It's completely quiet. He goes
to bed at five o'clock at night, and he's extremely happy, and he lives
right here in this house. And he came out on his own just to tell the
rest of the neighbors over here how good this is, come over and look
at that time, please.
It's extremely important for us to preserve this particular parking
lot as a method of getting financing for this building. Without this --
you know, if we're going to be building these smaller buildings for
these retail uses and putting in Billy Bob's Doughnut House --
because they're so limited in their scale, there's virtually no corporate
credit or anything available to it. Banks always want to see
preleasing.
In this case, you can't prelease this kind of stuff. By having an
income stream from this particular tenant, that gives us the ability to
finance this. So it's extremely important that we continue to have
this type of use.
But we've had many, many other parties that want to be able to
park overnight, as long as it's in those deeper areas which we can
Page 86
November 19, 2002
adequately screen and landscape so that no one see it, that's a terribly
important marketing amenity.
As we all well know, Golden Gate's a tough area to develop in.
This isn't U.S. 41.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the neighbor across the
street doesn't have a problem. They don't have overnight storage,
and thank God for code enforcement for enforcing the landscaping
and the fencing around the Sprint parking lot, which should -- the
action that we take now is not a permitted use unless you come to the
Board of Commissioners.
So again, my question is, besides engineering and-- engineering
business, what other uses would allow overnight parking?
MR. O'GARA: I can't stand here at the podium and tell you
each one, but there are substantial ones. And I disagree with your
statement that it's not a permitted use. It is a permitted use. Perhaps
you should put the question to the staff..
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, once the language is --
was removed providing staff to look at whether it is a use that is
compatible or comparable, that language is not here and has to come
to the Board of Commissioners.
MR. O'GARA: Currently, under the existing agreement, this is
a permitted use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Help me out, Mr.
Bellows.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got to remind you, we're coming
up on a time certain. We're paying attorney's fees for it. So, you
know, if this is going to take some time to work through, we might
want to, at a very near point in time here, break off to be able to
continue this after the time certain at lunch. But go ahead at this
point in time and see where we're going with this.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows.
The PUD allows for the uses, however, it was silent on the issue
Page 87
November 19, 2002
of overnight parking of commercial vehicles. The amendment before
you today limits parking to the larger tracts so they could have room
to be adequately screened and buffered.
Because the PUD was silent on the issue, parking was originally
approved and allowed on tract F, which triggered the code
enforcement case in issue, and the petitioner agreed at that time to
relocate the parking into an area that provides suitable screens for the
parking.
The uses allowed in the PUD, as currently approved, could
result in overnight parking of other commercial vehicles on those
narrower tracts because the PUD is silent on it right now where
parking shall occur.
The petitioner, through his own working with staff relocated the
parking to the larger tract, and they are in agreement with the staff
recommendation that the PUD be limited to ovemight parking of
commercial vehicles only to those larger parcels.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And, Commissioner,
maybe we should continue this after our-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- just a minute, please. But I
guess my concern is, what you're allowing is more strip zoning in my
opinion, if we allow the parking on the other tracts. And, again, I
don't want to have a nonconforming use, but I do have concerns of it
-- of it being strip zoning, and a parking lot where you're going to
hear doors at -- early in the morning, late at night or the potential of
opening and closing and engines and so on and so forth.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When we reconvene at 1:30,
Commissioner Halas will be the first commissioner to speak.
Item #12A
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION PURSUANT TO
Page 88
November 19, 2002
SECTION 286.011 (8), FLA. STAT., TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS/LITIGATION EXPENSES IN AQUAPORT V.
COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF, NOW
PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THF. MIDDI.F. DISTRICT OF FI,ORIDA
(At this point a closed attorney/client session was conducted,
after which a luncheon recess was taken.)
Item #8A- Discussion continued from earlier in the meeting
PETITION PUDA-01-AR-431, JAMES G. O'GARA
REPRESENTING PARK EAST DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
REQUESTED A REZONE FOR "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING
THE FOUNDERS PLAZA PUD TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL
SMALL-SCALE RETAIL LAND USES ONLY ON THOSE
PARCELS THAT EXCEED 150 FEET IN DEPTH FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES
OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (CR 886) AND AT THE SANTA
BARBARA CANAL CROSSING - CONTINUED TO LATER IN
THE MF.F. TING
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seats.
Just before we took a lunch break, Mr. Halas, did you want to
go ahead with your questions, or you want to wait to come back to
you?
MR. HALAS: I'll just ask this one question from the petitioner
there. In regards to the fencing that was around here earlier on the
other slide that you had there, it looks like it's a wood fence or
something. What type of fencing is that, and what type of buffering
Page 89
November 19, 2002
do you have around this parking area?
MR. O'GARA: That's a wood fence, solid. So it has the
appearance of being completely screened. It's also got very large
palm trees, and extensive landscaping all around it, that's maintained
by us. I think I mentioned the elevational -- the site is higher up so
when you see that fence you don't see anything.
MR. HALAS: Okay. Is this a high maintenance item fence,
then? What I guess -- where I'm going with this is that instead of a
fence or something of this nature, is there any way you could put
shrubbery around there or a high hedge row, that may be more
beneficial than looking at a fence itself.
MR. O'GARA: We also do have shrubbery that's growing.
MR. HALAS: Oh, okay, maybe it just hasn't matured enough.
MR. O'GARA: It's hard to see there.
MR. HALAS: Okay. I'm sorry.
MR. O'GARA: The fence will intrude it over time.
MR. HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that we'll go to
District 3 Commissioner Tom Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to make the correction --
or the statement I made earlier of directing the administrator Joe
Schmitt to these PUD amendments to add strike throughs and
amendments -- actually, I met with County Manager Jim Mudd
earlier in the day, and told him my wishes, and told him I'm have a
meeting with other issues with Joe Schmitt earlier-- or later on, and I
told him that I was going to mention to him and Jim Mudd e-mailed
Joe and told him that that was going to come up and please make
some corrections on that.
But I'm really -- on this issue, Mr. O'Gara, that my opinion
working with the community long ago when this multi-family it
wasn't the intent for this to be commercial. It was supposed to be
more like a 5th Avenue type setting, you know, retail, restaurants, so
Page 90
November 19, 2002
on and so forth. And now it's become a commercial with overnight
storage.
So I'm asking you one more time, are you willing to remove the
overnight storage of the permitted overnight storage of vehicles?
MR. O'GARA: Let me respond to that, Commissioner, I did
over the month break have the opportunity to call the current
president of the civic association, Cheryl Newman and asked her, is
this something that the community wanted to see, taking away the
overnight storage, and she said, no, they endorsed the amendment in
the -- the PUD amendment as it's proposed.
One of the things that we're all interested in, on a sidebar issue,
that directly relates to this is parking in the neighborhood. When you
take these trucks home, an employee and park it in the driveway,
that's a worse problem for the community. Usually, the best
alternative is to try to leave it at the shop. In the case of Sprint, this
is a consolidated, screened type of area. Even if we adopt these retail
opportunities for this particular project, you could have a florist that
has a truck or whatever, where else better to park it than behind the
store, rather than in the neighborhood?
So it goes to the overall community character of trying to have
parking that people don't want to see commercial vehicles, and that's
-- we all understand that.
Currently, we have an agreement that allows us to park
overnight over the entire site. We are voluntarily limiting a portion
of that in the skinny area of where the office buildings are because it
can't be seen and it makes sense. But it also makes sense to be able
to screen these parking areas in the fatter portions of the property
where you have the room and the latitude and the ability to landscape
to keep setbacks and to hide these parking types of usage.
We worked extensively with the community to try to create a
community character, after the fact, we have an agreement that
allows us to do a variety of things, but we voluntarily, you know,
Page 91
November 19, 2002
said we would do a bank-- a copula, and this is under construction
right now. The adjacent building, which is an office building or
retail building captures the same architectural flavor and everything.
We can put retail tenants in here or office tenants. By granting these
retail uses we increase the probability that we could have a
development that does improve the community character. But an
overall blanket, no overnight parking on the fatter portions of the
property, I respectfully cannot do, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, thank you for the
short answer. We do have the --
MR. O'GARA: I have the gab of the Irish.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We do have Code
Enforcement address the issues that you have brought up in the
neighborhood. I also talked to the president of the civic association
and we have a very good relationship and sit on the board of
directors, so I know that what the intent is, and there is a problem.
So, here's the compromise for each tenant to rent in the Founders
Plaza Parkway PUD is to allow up to five vehicles per tenant for
overnight parking in the larger parcels. And I think that's a great
compromise.
MR. O'GARA: Commissioner, I'd have to go back and do a
mathematical calculation. Standing here trying to agree to something
like that, I don't think that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you like to continue,
then, the discussion to another meeting?
MR. O'GARA: Commissioner, I really can't agree to the
overnight parking prohibition on the area that -- we're willing to do it
on the skinny area, but on the fatter areas, no, that ties our hands.
That's a huge economic burden to us that respectfully we would
prefer to just withdraw the petition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not a prohibition. It's a
limiting of commercial vehicles in there.
Page 92
November 19, 2002
MR. O'GARA: The extent of the limitation I can't respond to at
this location -- at this time. I would -- I would prefer not to have any
limitation on the overnight parking. I'm willing to stipulate that any
overnight parking that is included on these fatter parts has to be
screened and buffered and landscaped and all of that kind of stuff,
like the Sprint parking lot, which is quite attractive.
We don't have any people coming up objecting to this problem.
It doesn't seem to be quite the issue. In fact, we have adjacent
neighbors that like parking, overnight parking there. One of the
other alternatives we've looked at --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. O'Gara, they like it
because Code Enforcement forced you to shade it with a fence and
landscaping.
MR. O'GARA: Commissioner, that's absolutely not true.
Absolutely not true.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. This is getting a little bit too
confrontual. I'm going to ask both of you to stand out for a second.
I'm going to take a couple of questions, if I may.
I think the question here is what is the community's intent. I
know you personally, Mr. O'Gara, I've been to the civic association
meetings, and I've seen you participating for months now, in the
process of the civic association. So you're not so much of an
outsider. You're coming in there. I'm hearing from you that the civic
association doesn't have a problem. I'm hearing from Commissioner
Henning that they do have a problem with overnight parking. I don't
recall hearing Mr. Tuff state anything -- I don't see Mr. Tuff here
now. He's left. The one speaker that you had here that was very
supportive of what you were doing didn't state either way on
overnight parking.
If that is the issue that we're dealing with, what is the intent of
the civic association, possibly, we can direct Jim Mudd to give Carol
Newman a call and get it from another person exactly where we
Page 93
November 19, 2002
stand on this before we get hung up on an issue that could bring this
down in flames, and then these improvements, which I think are a
positive thing for Golden Gate City and the Civic Association has
also stated so, could go ahead. I don't know how -- at what point
you're breaking point is going to be on this, but I've got a feeling
you're getting pretty close to it.
MR. O'GARA: I would totally endorse that idea. I think the
phone call to the president of the association is very appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is this totally inappropriate or can we
do something like this, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's not totally inappropriate, but what you
would need to do is continue the matter until later in the afternoon.
And Mr. Mudd could make the con -- make the phone call and report
back. It's not the same as having testimony from Ms. Newman here
before you. It would have to be taken for what it is, that it is a report
from the County administrator on the contact that he may or may not
have had with that person.
Additionally, I would suggest for that phone call that the
petitioner be present to hear that phone call, so that there will be no
question as to the record that's being created once Mr. Mudd comes
back to the -- to the board forum to talk about that.
So, if you wish to continue this to later in the afternoon, either a
time certain, or at the end of the rest of the agenda, it sounds like a
couple of ways you could go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one fast comment. I have no
idea what you plan on putting in there, and maybe Commissioner
Henning has a better idea. I think he feels as protective about his
community as I do. And I know that if, you know, as we try and
shape what everybody in our community has to live with from
thereafter, we want to make sure that we shape it so that it's a credit
to our community.
Page 94
November 19, 2002
Like, for instance, in mine, sometimes things are masked and
actually something like a pawn shop wants to come in there, we'll --
and I don't think that's your case at all, but maybe that's what
Commissioner Henning is trying to do is trying to make sure that
whatever you put in there is something his community can live with
forever after. I'm sure that that's why he's so cautious.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I understand that, but we're
hung up on the parking issue. It's not the actual uses there, and I don't
mind moving past that and coming back to the parking issue, but I
seen a confrontual situation where pretty soon everyone was going to
lose out on this, and I guess that's why I drew a line in the sand at
that point in time.
I just want to know what the will of the community is so we go
on with it, you know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, if you don't think it's
appropriate for us to call Cheryl Newman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then, can we -- let's do this,
we'll continue this, again, after a couple items away, closer around
three o'clock.
MR. WEIGEL: You'll need to take a motion on that of the
board to continue --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll make a motion at this point
in time that we continue this after three o'clock. MR. HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from myself,
Commissioner Coletta, a second from Commissioner Halas for
continuing this item after three o'clock. Any discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 95
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #12B
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS/LITIGATION EXPENSES IN
AQUAPORT V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 2:01-CV-341-
FTM-29DNF, NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT OF THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA-
$500,000 SETTLEMENT FROM INSURANCE PROCEEDS AND
UP TO $100,000 OF ADDITIONAL MONIES FROM GENERAL
FIIND APPROVED
We're going to cover another item before we get too far away
from it and that's going to go to the County Attorney's report, Item B.
which is the follow-up to our closed attorney-client session that we
had.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Assistant
County Attorney Mike Pettit for the record, here to seek direction in
responding to a settlement proposal made by the plaintiffs and
developers in the Aquaport versus Collier County case. The proposal
was for 5.1 million dollars. And we at this point in time know that
our insurance company has authorized us to respond to that offer
with $500,000. And our office simply seeks direction if there's any
additional sum or position the board wishes to take at this point with
respect to that matter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we make the motion to
Page 96
November 19, 2002
approve?
MR. PETIT: Yes, we would need a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to make the motion to
approve $500,000 as the settlement agreement at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll go ahead and second it, and
with that we'll open it up for discussion. Any --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know that that was the
appropriate amount during our discussion.
Is that what you remember, Mr. Pettit?
MR. PETTIT: Well, the board is -- what I would explain here is
that our insurance company that covers the particular claims involved
in the federal court lawsuit has authorized a payment of $500,000 of
insurance company proceeds. The board would be free to authorize
additional sums of money above and beyond that amount if it so
moves and so direct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'll add to my motion and say
that up to $100,000 of additional monies from the general fund, but
that's my limit.
MR. PETTIT: So my understanding would be that we would be
making a settlement response, a counteroffer of a settlement proposal
of $600,000 provided that $500,000 of that sum would be from
insurance proceeds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I amend my second to state that
also.
Any other comments or questions here from the commission?
Hearing none, all those in favor indicate by saying aye?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 97
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
additional is appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
that was Commissioner Coyle.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
Aye.
Aye. I don't believe the $100,000
Okay. In the vote in opposition to
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2002-60, RE AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT; TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT;
AND FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Then we'll go back to
the -- the next item on the agenda would be Item 8-B, which has to
do with the Collier County growth management plan.
And I'll need everyone that wishes to participate in this to stand
to be sworn in.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you don't have to swear in 8-B or
8-C in these particular items. It's a misprint on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. Just following the
instructions that are printed here. I'm a very obedient servant.
MR. LITSINGER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. And for the
record, Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning. I'd first wish to
welcome Commissioner Halas, and welcome back Mr. Coyle. Item
8-B this afternoon is a public hearing for the adoption of your 2002
second cycle amendments, which have become known as the
concurrency amendments.
Page 98
November 19, 2002
As a bit of a background to how we get here today, as you know
back in May direction was given to the county manager and staff to
take certain actions relative to the implementation of new
concurrency policies in the way we measure and meet our growth,
and correct the impacts of growth as we go forward in the land
development review process.
My response is that staff prepared amendments to implement a
checkbook concurrency type of monitoring system for the roadways,
network, and Planning Commission had its transmittal hearing on
June 20th, and this board subsequently on June 25th, and the
amendments were transmitted to DCA.
Subsequent to the transmittal we received DCA's objections,
recommendations and comments report on September 16th, in which
they raised one objection that related to issues of concern with
financial feasibility of the plan that was submitted. The impact of the
concurrency proposals and the lack of options relative to the
checkbook application. And also lack of data and analysis to support
some of the positions we were taking relative to available
inventories. Subsequent to receiving the oral proposal on September
16, this board held a workshop on September 27th, at which time you
reviewed your content, your previously transmitted amendments,
current issues before you in the transportation management system,
and concurrency management system issues of funding and policies.
As a result of that workshop the board gave staff direction on a
number of policy changes relative to the amendments, which we
would bring forward to you here today to be adopted, which are
some fundamental ways substantially different from what you
transmitted.
Number one, the implementation of real-time checkbook
concurrency for roads will be delayed pending the collection of
additional data needed to be used in the transportation concurrency
management system to operate a real-time checkbook methodology.
Page 99
November 19, 2002
As part of that process to collect that data, you will adopt a policy
today that will implement a review process of all existing PUD's and
subdivisions to determine which projects may be eligible for vesting
and which may be certified for vesting for transportation impacts in
the future in association with the enforceable development agreement
as a voluntary process, and a way to establish the impacts and
background approvals that we have to factor into our system.
You also gave policy direction that for the time being, for the
land development code that you will adopt as a result of these
amendments that we will -- in 2002 use the annual updated inventory
report as the annual concurrency test for public facilities based on the
impacts, the inventories and the needs that we identified to you for
all category A public facilities, including roads.
You also gave direction relative to the significant impact
thresholds that we have in the comp plan that is required by Chapter
163, and you reviewed rezoned petitions, the comp plan amendments
that come before you for traffic impacts and potential population
impacts.
For many years their threshold has been five percent of the
population countywide, and five percent of impacting roadways.
Your transmittal had been one percent. In your workshop of
September 27th, you made a policy decision that we would take the
middle road or a three percent impact to rezone in the comp plan
amendment stage.
Other changes that you have directed that we include in these
amendments versus what was transmitted is that we will retain the
reliance on the three years that was scheduled for capital
improvements for road impact -- road projects as available for
current capacity to support the belt border issuance, where you'd
make a finding of concurrency in your AUIR process in September--
excuse me, in December.
You -- you agreed to adopt a financially feasible five-year
Page 100
November 19, 2002
scheduled capital improvements with general fund revenues,
revenues bonds and road impact the increases which you approved
on October the 8th of 2002.
You also gave staff direction to craft and draft a parallel to these
amendments, which is an unusual circumstance, and generally you
need the plan development code to implement the comp plan
amendments once per year, but behind these option amendments
which are running on a parallel process to be adopted by this board
on January the 8th, 2002 to implement the changes that we are
talking about here today, including the collection of impact fees,
earlier in the process, have the final plat approval for final site
development plan and to make those monies available for
appropriation for road improvements and other facilities that are
funded by impact fees.
You're also adopting a new policy relative to the traffic count
methodology that we use in Collier County that is more effective of
the traffic conditions that we experience here versus the 100th
highest hour of the policies that you have before you here today,
we're here today based on your direction on September 27th was to
go to a 1 O-month average, omitting February and March, and Mr.
Feder and his staff will give you some more analysis on that shortly.
The physical impact of these amendments, as I go through them
with you here in a moment, will be that we will adopt a land
development code that requires the payment of impact fees into the
impact fee funds at the time that we record the final plats or approve
final STP's and they're picked up. And these monies will go into the
various consolidated impact fee funds and be available for immediate
use. That's a significant change. And we're also changing in that
action the definition of final open development order to move
forward, if you would will, in the land development process to define
impacts of development and collect the necessary funds to provide
the services to support that development.
Page 101
November 19, 2002
For matter of clarification, I'd like to point out to you under
additional notes that as I had mentioned briefly before, since the
original transmittal, these amendments have had substantial --
substantial rewrites, much more so than we generally see in a
transmitted amendment between transmittal and adoption.
The capital improvement element that I'm going to go over with
you briefly is a single strikethrough and single underlines in order to
make it a readable document.
The transportation element has single strikethroughs, single
underline and also some double strikethrough and double underline
indicate changes from the original transmittal as we felt that could
demonstrate for you the changes that you directed through your
policy decisions, most recently on September the 27th.
Planning Commission met on November the 7th, I will go over
their recommendations to you which are behind the tab, directly
behind the executive summary.
After the presentation of these particular elements, the staff will
ask the board to adopt these amendments with the changes as noted,
but not to adopt the amendments to the language in the future land
use element, since we are now not using the ASI definitions of the
language that we would have proposed to adopt is redundant. And
we would just advertise it in order to be consistent. But we're not
going to ask you to adopt those particular very small amendments at
this time.
As far as the structure of your notebooks to help in your
reference, as I go through some of the highlights of the changes that
we've made, directly behind your tab ordinance, following your
ordinance, you will find the capital improvement element, and
directly behind that is the transportation element, which we are
proposing to have you adopt today.
For reference purposes we had included behind those two
elements, the capital improvement element and the transportation
Page 102
November 19, 2002
element in the form that it was transmitted for reference purposes,
but I just wanted to clarify it to you what we're asking you to adopt
before you today the elements that are following directly behind the
ordinance tab.
Very quickly I'll go over some of the highlights of both
elements, and then open it up to your questions. On CIE page two,
again, I'm referring to the CIE pages, just pointing out briefly as you
had heard before at the transmittal, we are removing government
buildings and independent fire district in Category B facilities. And
we're also recommending the board transmit the elimination from the
capital improvement element from Category C facilities, since these
are advisory only, and we have no particular regulatory authority on
those type of facilities.
On pages CIE three, Policy 1.1.2., here is the change that we
noted, which is significant that they'll be indicated before, that the
significant impact test relative to rezones and comp plan amendments
is now changed to -- if you'll look under Item C, significant impact is
hereby defined as three percent BEBR high range population
projections for potential rezone or comp plan amendment that might
need rezones. And three percent of the adopted service level
standard on impacted roadways.
On page CIE five, you can see that we are amending the levels
of service standards, and, of course, this amendment does not just
deal with the road capital improvement based on your AUIR
direction last December. And we have updated the adopted level of
service standard for county roadways. We've also updated the level
of service standards for sanitary sewer systems and also for parks and
libraries and the county jail, based on your direction at the AUIR last
-- last December.
At this particular time I'd like to point out one recommendation
of the Planning Commission, which they had asked us to follow up
on, and the question had been raised by the Planning Commission if
Page 103
November 19, 2002
the Immokalee Water and Sewer District should have a level of
service standard and adopt it in the comprehensive plan. We did
some research with the Utilities Department, and we determined that
the Immokalee Water and Sewer District is an independent, private
utility, that we do not regulate. Therefore, we would not want to
adopt a .level of service standard into our Category A facilities. Their
levels of service and operational characteristics are governed by Rule
10DC of the Florida Administrative Code, which is operable under
the water and sewer elements.
So reporting back to you, staff is not recommending that you
adopt a level of service standard for the Immokalee Water and Sewer
System in this capital improvement element.
On page CIE 10, under financial feasibility, here we modified
policy one through four, just to reflect your policy discussion relative
to the utilization of existing revenues and assets and revenue bonds
approved by the Board of County Commissioners to fund necessary
capital improvements to specifically road funding scenarios that you
have had previously before you and are reflected in this schedule of
capital improvements and the financing plan. This policy was
changed for clarification purposes.
Moving on to providing needed improvement on page CIE 13,
here we're defining the fundamental change, as I had mentioned
before, the redefinition of what a final local development order is in
Collier County from just not building permit to final site
development plan for final platted subdivision, which is a significant
test of the much earlier stage in the plan development process. That
change carries forward to your concurrency policies, which are on
CIE 14. On CIE 15 here we made the change different from what we
had transmitted from policy 1.5.3 that deals with transportation level
of service standards and the concurrency test to go back to the system
of relying on projects in the first three years of the State's project
schedule for availability for public facilities of reliance and also for
Page 104
November 19, 2002
the reliance of the three years of the County schedule for capital
improvements in the interim period for reliance that's available for
capital facilities.
Following on page CIE 17, you'll see a chart of projects, and
they are projects both for transportation for FYO2 to 06, and carry
forth all of your Category A and Category B public facilities covered
in the CIE, and CIE 49, we have a cost and revenues schedule which
is required in order to demonstrate the financial feasibility of the
plan. You can see that we demonstrate here that we have the revenue
streams in place based on actions by the Board of County
Commissioners and policy decisions relative to funding of the -- any
deficits that are indicated for the various facility types as a result of
the application of specific revenues.
CIE 51 is a -- programs to ensure implementation and it relates
back to the impact fees issues, and the application to the annual
budget and the AUIR is the monitoring management process we've --
the concurrency management system.
It also refers, at this time, to the annual update and inventory
report until such time as we change that.
Before we go on to the transportation element, perhaps I'd ask if
there are questions on the CIE element.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go back to CIE 13, policy
1.4.13 -- 1.4.3.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me try to state this and see if my
understanding is correct? That once an appropriation has been made,
and it's been made because of our evaluation of a concurrency impact
as a result of a final site development plan, final plat or building
permit, those -- the funding for those projects will not be removed; is
that a correct statement of what that means?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir, that is a correct statement that's the
rule 9J-5 requirement, very simply stated if you place a project, of
Page 105
November 19, 2002
course, it's associated funding in your schedule of capital
improvements, if it's in the first year in your annual budget and
you're relying on that capacity issue development orders, you need a
comprehensive plan removal order in order to remove that project.
MR. COYLE: To remove the project?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. In other words, the process
to remove it would involve an evaluation of whether or not there
have been reliance with the project there that the test is that you have
relied on it, you will not remove it.
MR. COYLE: Okay. I just want to differentiate in the term --
with the term "project." The project as you're using it means that the
facility development project, public facility development cannot be
removed.
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
MR. COYLE: Okay. Now, I'd like to make sure I understand
how that works with the three-year inclusion of the capital
improvements plan. It seems to me that this -- this is a pretty good
process that gets us started much earlier in the process. It gets the
money earlier for us to develop the infrastructure, and it holds our
feet to the fire to make sure we do it, and we cannot terminate that
project..
So, although there might be some concern that at least initially
we're using the three-year capital improvement budget, in fact, we
are using something that gets us started quite early in that process, in
fact, far earlier than we have ever started in the past; is that a fair
assessment?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir, that's correct. We have to
demonstrate in our schedule of capital improvements that the project
is going to commence which is defined technically as the contract
has been left before -- in the third year or by the end of the third year
covered in your schedule of capital improvement, with also a
notation that the three-year rule, as we call it, the three-year window
Page 106
November 19, 2002
applies only to transportation. It does not apply to water and sewer
and some of the other facilities.
MR. COYLE: Now, is the reliance on the three-year rule
primarily because you have not accumulated all of the data necessary
to deal with a real-time concurrency process at -- and you're going to
continue to use the AUIR for this year, at least, for determining
concurrency and project requirements.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes. Here in Collier County we have
chosen-- the Board of County Commissioners have chosen the
policy direction to retain that provision as a concurrency policy. And
it goes back to rule 9J50055, which provides for the three-year
window as it becomes a State-wide level transportation projects,
which again relates back to the tremendous backlog of facilities
needing to be provided at the State, this rule drafted.
MR. COYLE: I understand, but the public and, in fact, the
Commissioners had a great deal of problems, with including the
project that wasn't going to begin for three years in an assessment of
concurrency today. If I understand the provisions of policy 1.4.3.,
we're actually not waiting until the third year to obligate funds for a
project. It looks to me like we're obligating the funds to the project
the minute we understand that there is a need for the project. We're
not waiting for three years after concurrency -- a concurrency
determination has been made.
We are doing it at that very moment, so if a development comes
before us and we make a determination that by the time that
development gets completed and impacts are infrastructured we will
need additional infrastructure, and we will start funding it right at
that very moment. We will not wait for three years; is that a fair
assessment?
MR. LITSINGER: That is correct. As I mentioned it would be
an adoption of your schedule to capital improvements and its
financing, and including the stream of revenue you are essentially by
Page 107
November 19, 2002
ordinance adopting this as your plan of action for these facilities that
are critical to the level of service standard.
MR. COYLE: I think that's good progress.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The impact fees to be paid by
plat or STP is the provision in there to pay at permit, being there
won't be any vesting at permit?
MR. LITSINGER: The payment of impact fees, of course,
would be in association with receiving a concurrency determination.
We are moving that forward to include final plat and final site plan.
The answer to your question, sir, is that the issue of collection of
impact fees at those earlier points with the development board will be
dealt with in the land development Code 315 that you will be seeing
on December 1 lth. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
MR. COYLE: How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: Three.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, your presentation is --
MR. LITSINGER: We have the transportation element, we may
want to get through the highlights of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder.
MR. LITSINGER: A couple of points for the record, all of-- as
far as the adoption today and what will be adopted by ordinance, I'd
like to point out that all pages of the CIE will be adopted as part of
the ordinance. There are some variations of that in the transportation
element, which I'll point out to you as I go through it.
The transportation element begins right after the final page in
the break page of CIE 53. I'll point out some highlights to that which
relate to the items we've just discussed. From the standpoint of
adoption today, as part of your comp plan and part of ordinance,
we'll be asking you to adopt on the table of contents page Item D,
implementation strategy, and the goals, objectives and policy. And
Page 108
November 19, 2002
also we'll be asking you to adopt -- listed a couple of pages over,
maps TR-1, 2 and 3, which are required by Rule 985 and the
adoption is part of your transportation element. To that extent some
of the information that you have in your transportation element is
narrative data and analysis, it's not an ordinance per se.
The future system needs generally deals with your MPO plan,
your long-range transportation plan gives the narrative description of
the maps TR-1, 2 and 3, which are fundamental to what your
transportation meant, as far as your adoptive plan. It gives an
explanation of the nature of these particular maps. On page four of
the transportation element, we refer to page -- figure one and figure
one that the Collier County Work Program, FYO-2 to 06. These are
not -- they indicate projects will be in the schedule of capital
improvement, but not -- or not of itself to be adopted.
As we go through the transportation element you'll note -- notice
the number of gray shaded items. These are corrections that the
Planning Commission had asked us to make relative to clarification, I
believe it's self-explanatory. On page 11, in the beginning of
implementation strategy, which is the -- a portion to be adopted,
which identifies the new standards that are relative to how we will
approach peak hours services as opposed to peak hour/peak season,
and the analytical methodology that would be used applying the
transportation standards to analysis with TIS prior to issuance of
adequate public facility. All reference in each case, and a lot of these
cases you'll see a lot of strikethroughs as we removed the real-time
concurrency provisions for the time being. You will be re-visiting
those in some shorter period of time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page are you on?
MR. LITSINGER: I'm on, ma'am, page 11 of the transportation
element.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page is that in our book?
MR. MUDD: Page 84, ma'am.
Page 109
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. LITSINGER: On page 13, transportation element 13, we
have defined constrained roadways for Collier County, and Mr.
Feder can elaborate on that more for you, which will also be further
delineated within your land development code. Constrained
roadways permit only 110 percent of adoptive level of service
volume under minimized impact criteria.
On page 15, we have under goals, objectives and policies here,
again, they adopt proposed goals, objectives and policies to be
adopted including the level of service standard for the various
roadway classifications in Collier County, which relate back to and
are consistent with what you saw in the comp plan. A noteworthy
change here is we're eliminating constrain as a level of service
standard, constrain is a condition of level of service standard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, did you wish to
ask a question at this time?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Well, it was back when you
were talking about the maps, and you say you wanted to -- for us to
adopt the three maps. The concem I have with map number TR-2 is
that it shows a roadway extension of Santa Barbara that is still up in,
you know, up for a lot of consideration and debate, and I would hate
to adopt anything like that before -- before we determine where we're
really going.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. Commissioner, what you have
adopted there is what is your currently adopted, long-range so we
recognize that we're continuing from that process into our corridor
studies and other analyses, and I know this board is well aware that
we'll continue to look at options in that area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. But if we wanted to back
up and maybe -- and maybe redesign that roadway to be more
user-friendly, neighborhood friendly, whatever, by adopting this,
Page 110
November 19, 2002
does this mean that then we --
MR. FEDER: No. What it means as we stand today, that is in
the plan, and as it stands today it is in your MPO's plan, but
additionally as we go forward if the Board makes the decision to do a
different alignment, then we would go to the MPO and ask for an
update and modification to the MPO's plan at that time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. LITSINGER: Very briefly going back to page 17 of the
transportation element, here as I point out -- I try the high points, a
lot of these have been changed for clarification and to reflect current
conditions as versus when these policies were drafted and issued
many years ago. Policy 3.4 here states previous policy -- added
policy of Collier County shall acquire rights-of-way through
transportation improvement and fee simple unless otherwise
determined appropriate by the BCC based upon recommendations of
the transportation administrator.
Page 18, no significant changes.
Page 19, policy 5.1, here you will see the -- this is a policy
relative to the application of the 3 percent threshold and to further
build on that within the transportation analysis and the TIS's that will
be required to be submitted to the transportation division as a result
of rezone requests and ultimately is part of your development order
approval process once we get into a checkbook system, which
provides with thresholds and impact. Mr. Feder can give you more
detail in that if you'd like to hear how it will work operationally.
There'll be more detail relative to the application of policy 5.1 and
LDC 315 3 which you'll be seeing in a couple of weeks.
As directed by the Board on September 27th, we have a new
policy 5.3, which is the traffic impact vesting review process the
Board directed to take place over the next year to determine what's
out there, what has been zoned, but what has not received
development orders, both in a voluntary, cooperative process we
Page 111
November 19, 2002
would propose to hold those particular properties and subdivisions in
plats to come in and voluntarily join in a process, and also, in some
cases, to require some affirmation of vesting status for those projects
that might assert that they have statutory vesting. Here, again, there
will be more detail on that in your land development code, and that
was the policy direction of this Board.
Most of the policy changes for the rest through the entire
objectives -- excuse me, policy and objectives are an undated
concurrent conditions on operational status, which then brings us
back to your map, TR-1, 2 and 3. Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have another question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Is -- when we were
talking here -- I'm trying to find it, it's just on the first page of the
executive summary and we were talking about the intent of the
proposed amendments, and then the impacts of each final local
development order on the available service volume capacity of all
impacted roads segments would be analyzed and applied prior to, and
what I wanted to know is when we're doing that right now what kind
of-- I figure that we're in like in a state of flux while we move from
one to the other. And one of the things that has been happening, I
think is with affordable housing and the increased density, does that
give them a wake up and does this not apply -- I'm afraid, and, you
know, like in the Henderson Creek thing, for instance, there was a
road that was already impacted, but because they got the increased
density for affordable housing, they impacted the road even further.
Is there some way that we can avoid that happening again?
MR. FEDER: As you pointed, Commissioner, this is the interim
effort, but at the same time you have taken action to go to three
percent, rather than five percent. If you remember on that issue the
concern was that it didn't meet your five percent threshold back in
Page 112
November 19, 2002
the level of threshold of transportation of a development of regional
impact, a large development.
So by going down to three percent, if a development is large
enough, especially if it's seeking a bonus condensity, it may well
trigger that three percent. So I think that may go to some of your
issue, plus we'll have to go to the further concurrency management
system of the data collection that's provided for in here to move to
the next stage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I'm going to be needing from
you as one commissioner, anyway, is a lot of guidance when we get
into these things, because our roads are so impacted already, and,
obviously, that happened when you or I were here, but what I need to
do is for my part on this five-person commission, help to shape for
the future that that doesn't happen again. And I want to make sure
we have things in place to even protect us until we get into the
checkbook concurrency.
MR. FEDER: And you brought up another point earlier,
Commissioner, I think we do it in a couple of areas, probably three
that I can quickly recite; one of it's in our planning efforts. If we're
going to revise our long-range plans, look at those issues to make
sure that what we're looking at what we have out there and what's
coming and try to address on the planning level. The next is -- is
obviously in our work program and our shorter term, our strategic
planning to make sure we've got a program that is bringing forward
the project we'll need, and then the third is, of course, the actual
regulation based on what we did on the first two. And we're moving
forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just keep guiding us, okay.
MR. FEDER: And your guidance, as well. Together we'll get
there. Thank you.
MR. LITSINGER: Any questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas.
Page 113
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Under the capital improvement
element here under number one you say you want the removal of
Category C level service, are we just going to look at this Category D
and E from then on?
MR. LITSINGER: No, sir. Let me clarify on that. Category D,
it's usually the reference is the level of service that's associated with
their roadways. We have three categories of public facilities.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. LITSINGER: We have Category A, which are statutorily
required concurrency factors that we have to measure and provide a
level of service standard or take other measures and alternatives, but,
excuse me, we have Category B facilities like EMS, libraries and so
forth, which are very high priority projects supposed to affect impact
fees and set a level of service standard in which our policy decisions
come forth by the Board of County Commissioners, and originally in
the comprehensive plan is part of the citizens process decision was
made as an option to include a Category C, which are totally
advisory and almost reference from the standpoint of policy issue
before this Board of County Commissioners, and they have generally
not been operational from the standpoint of they're not operative
within the comprehensive plans so, therefore, we thought it would be
-- it would pick the plan up a little bit and not leave those Category C
facilities in there. We're not going to use this document as an added
tool.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That concludes Dan's presentation?
MR. LITS1NGER: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Mr. Feder, I guess.
MR. LITSINGER: I need recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more question, maybe for
Norm, and on page four of the executive summary under staff
Page 114
November 19, 2002
response number two, it talks about using -- preparing AUIR for
2002 as a concurrency determination for Category A public facility
includes roads, and I was wondering when we say including roads, is
that how we're going to determine, until we get into the checkbook
concurrency, are we going just to use like level of service A on the
roads; is that what's meant by that?
MR. FEDER: No. We're going to do -- we're going to do what
we have done in the past and that's to continue an annual certification
until we get into real-time concurrency, that means we set a level of
service, we're still going to look at what is out there, we've got an
expanded process beyond transfer, but we're still in data collection
for our real-time process, if you will, but we come to you with the
AUIR as in past years with the data that analyzes what, if any,
deficiencies we have right now, which are coming on at three, and
which in five years present that to you and used as a basis for your
recommendation to us, and the presentation of a work program to
address those deficiencies.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. And last question, this was
kind of a fun one, and I really received the answer already from
Greg, but I wanted to just mention it again. In all of these things
where they showed our proposed roads and so forth, and they were
talking about on 951 something about New York Drive, and I'd never
heard of New York Drive, and I went and looked for New York
Drive, and there isn't a New York Drive on a map. So would you
explain to--
MR. FEDER: New York Drive actually is on a map. It's
halfway between 41 and the Marco Island Bridge. And the original
state project went 41 down to New York Drive, although I couldn't
find it either, by way of that first one entered that was supposedly
New York Drive, and then went from New York Drive later with the
surcharge project down to the Marco Island Bridge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we don't really have a New
Page 115
November 19, 2002
York Drive, but that's where this road goes. MR. FEDER: About halfway down.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to mention
that on the record. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, your AUIR briefing will be
tentatively scheduled for the 20th of December. We'll give you a
briefing on parks, water, sewers, road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. LITSINGER: We stand before you to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, why don't we go to our
speakers and then from that additional questions, I'm sure.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers.
The first one will be A1 Setela. He will be followed by Nancy
Peyton..
MR. SETELA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, A1 Setela, I'm here today for CBIA and WCI Communities. I
want to thank you for hearing me today. I just wanted to comment
on the process briefly. This being a continuation, I think, from the
September 27th workshop which I participated in, and I'm very
happy to see where we are today, and continuing to participate in the
process, and basically would like to commend staff for what they've
put together based on your direction, I think it's a very faithful
attempt for the direction of the Board at the 27th workshop, and we
stand in complete agreement with what we've heard today, and we
just want to say that, and thank you for hearing me today.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Peyton. She will be
followed by your final speaker, David Ellis.
MS. PEYTON: Nancy Peyton representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation. We've monitored this process over this extended period
of time, and we'd just like the record to reflect that we did participate
in the process, and we did stand before you today. And we signed the
list outside to receive the notice of intent, which other people may
Page 116
November 19, 2002
not realize is out there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But do you support it, Nancy?
MS. PEYTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good.
MS. PEYTON: No negative comments, but if there's any
challenge or whatever we want to make sure that we have our
standing to do the right thing. No, no negative comments. MS. FILSON: Your final supporter, David Ellis.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm David Ellis
with the Collier Building Industry Association. Commissioner Halas,
welcome. We look forward to working with you over the next years.
A couple of quick things. Thank you so much for the workshop on
September 27th. I wasn't able to be here that day. Thank you for
your hard work. I think what the staff has brought forth today is
reflective of the decisions you made that day, and it's a positive move
towards getting to where we want to be in this process.
There's been a lot of hard work in putting these words together
for today, and, frankly, for the land development code amendment
you're going to be seeing in the upcoming weeks, certainly is
industry and we're hopeful, and we've always said we want to do
what we can in moving the money up in the process, as
Commissioner Coyle pointed out I think is one of the keys in order to
help this process move along in an appropriate way, because we like
you want to make sure the roads are there and available.
The other thing I want to mention is also the hard work really is
beginning, that your staff has a Herculean task for the next year in
gathering this data, assessing it, putting it in some kind of a
functional database that we can then use as we work through this
checkbook process, or whatever we're going to call the process in the
future.
But I would, again, encourage you as we develop all these plans
Page 117
November 19, 2002
that they're measurable, that they're funded, and that we work
together to execute those plans, because, frankly today, it really
hasn't been a funding issue, it really hasn't been even a planning issue
for the most part in Collier County that's gotten us into some of our
challenging places. It's been the execution of those plans.
I've joked with Norm several times if all of the time he and I
spent in a room talking about these things, we both were out working
on roads, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have in Collier
County.
So let's get a plan that we can get out there and get to work with.
Thank you very much, Commissioners, and we thank you for all
of the work that you put into this process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll take -- I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion from Commissioner
Coletta 'and a second from Commissioner Fiala, and we're going back
to you now.
MR. LITSINGER: I'd like a clarification on your motion, sir.
Before you make the motion, as Nancy pointed out from our
presentation here as provided for in Chapter 163 recent legislation,
what we have available outside for sign up for those folks who would
like to have official notification in approximately 45 to 60 days,
when a notice of intent is issued by the Department of Community
Affairs. You'll find these amendments in compliance, we would
hope. They would receive notification if they would sign the
notebook outside and provide their addresses and contact that we
may provide that information to them.
The recommendation -- the recommended motion that I have for
you, Commissioner, is that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt a second cycle of growth management plan amendments DCA
number 022, not including the future land-use element, but including
CIE pages, CIE-1 through CIE-53, transportation element pages 11
Page 118
November 19, 2002
through 14, implementation strategies and 15 through 25 GOP's, and
25 through 27 maps TR-1 and TR-3.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I include that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second, as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion?
Hearing none, I'll call for the motion. All those in favor indicate
by saying, aye?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great job.
Item #8A-Discussion continued from earlier in the meeting
PETITION PUDA-01-AR-431, JAMES G. O'GARA
REPRESENTING PARK EAST DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
REQUESTED A REZONE FOR "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING
THE FOUNDERS PLAZA PUD TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL
SMALL-SCALE RETAIL LAND USES ONLY ON THOSE
PARCELS THAT EXCEED 150 FEET IN DEPTH FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES
OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (CR 886) AND AT THE SANTA
BARBARA CANAL CROSSING - CONTINUED TO THE
DECEMBER 1 7~ 2002, MF, F, T1NG
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, County Manager for the record. If
Page 119
November 19, 2002
we could go back to 8-A, I've had my phone call with Ms. Newman
and with Mr. O'Gara present. And I'd like to report back to the
Board. It's Item 8-A. It's Mr. O'Gara representing Park East
DeveloPments for the Founders Plaza PUD.
In that conversation it became apparent to me that there are
some disconnects about parking and uses for this particular PUD, and
I would ask that this particular item be continued until three,
December, until Mr. O'Gara can get back with the Civic Association
and explain to them the uses that exist on this PUD, and the
additional uses that this amendment would offer and the parking
availability issue that was brought up. There is not -- the applicant
asked for the 17th. He's even going to ask for a couple more weeks
to work on it too, so I think it would be prudent for the Board to
continue this item for another 30 days so that we can get this item
worked out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, do you
want to. add anything to what they have to look at?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. Since I know a little bit
about the Civic Association, we don't have a meeting in December.
So is there any way to continue this into the second meeting in
January?
MR. O'GARA: Commissioner, I'm happy to work with you at
any time, and anyplace, anywhere.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we are going to work on
this, because we're both going to be there, and we're going to find out
what the intent is.
MR. O'GARA: If that's your desire.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Continue it until the 14th of January.
MR. WEIGEL: And that will require readvertisement because
we're beyond our five-weeks limitation. So it's on someone's nickel.
We all Probably ought to make that determination today.
MR. O'GARA: Are you referring to new signs, as well?
Page 120
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that we're asking
for the amendment to the PUD. So I think it's upon the petitioner to
incur that expense.
MR. O'GARA: I'm prepared to withdraw the application today.
I just don't see -- I mean, I'm happy to work with you, but, I mean, I
just don't understand.
MR. WEIGEL: I believe it was the petitioner that was asking
for the continuance. Typically if the petitioner asks for a
continuance, that would be upon the petitioner's obligation to take
whatever advertisement is necessary to bring it back. If you're talking
about withdrawing the matter altogether then, of course, you're out of
the process altogether, and would have to start fresh.
MR. O'GARA: I wasn't the one that suggested the continuance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the motion either comes from
petitioner or comes from the commissioner, one or the other; is that
correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yes, it can come from either, the request
for a motion for continuance. It appeared to me that the petitioner
was asking for either December 3rd or December 17th. If there's a
necessity for a formal meeting and coming together of the Civic
Association, which is inherent in his providing information that the
Board needs to make an informed decision, that is a matter beyond
this Board's control. It does not control that civic association and
when it meets. But it appears that that's the important element of
information that this Board needs.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. In light of the
need to meet with this civic association, maybe it would be better to
continue indefinitely, and that way we make sure all of the citizens of
Golden Gate City would have a chance to formally look at the final
revisions to the PUD document. There was a public information
meeting held a few months ago, three or four months ago, but it
didn't have the latest revisions of the PUD document. In this case
Page 121
November 19, 2002
they can see the latest wording and also maybe we'll have some -- be
further along in the language dealing with this. That would be my
recommendation.
MR. O'GARA: I'd be happy to delay this for two weeks. I have
a conflict on that day, that was the only reason, on the 17th of
December, but I'm trying to do something for the neighborhood, and
I really tried my best.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the request is coming from the
petitioner for the continuance?
MR. O'GARA: If I understand it if it goes to the third, we don't
have to readvertise; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. If today is the first date then
you got up to five weeks from today's date to bring this back without
readvertisement. But the question is I think in regard to the
information that this Board's looking for in regard to the sentiment of
the community, through the Civic Association for the proposed use.
MR. O'GARA: I have a mediation that day, that's my problem,
the third.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, then, if you want to go to the 17th -- but
the question seems to be that there's a need to get before the Civic
Association, which may not have a meeting between now and
December 17th, if I understand correctly, so I ask the petitioner how
do you propose to get the information to have a meaningful meeting
with the Civic Association and bring it back before the Board of
County Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
MR. O'GARA: Perhaps we could schedule a specific
association meeting.
MR. COYLE: As I see it, the Board has asked for a continuance
so we can get additional information, not only from the petitioner,
but from the homeowners' association. If the homeowners'
association doesn't meet early enough to provide this without having
Page 122
November 19, 2002
to readvertise it, I really do object to making it punitive on the
petitioner to deal with this issue. The homeowners' association had
the opportunity to be here. It was publicly advertised. I respect
Commissioner Henning's position on this, and I'm going to be guided
by his position, because he does understand his neighborhood, and
I'm not going to presume to judge, but I will not take part in any
punitive actions against the petitioner because we don't have the
information because the homeowners' association isn't here to
comment on this issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the President of the Civic
Association is not well. Is ill at home. So that's the reason for that.
What is. the advertising cost, Mr. O'Gara, since you paid the last one,
readvertising?
MR. O'GARA: I'm honestly not that familiar with -- I mean, are
you just talking about the signs?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm not talking about the
signs. I'm talking about the advertisement in the newspaper.
MR. O'GARA: I don't have those numbers right now,
Commissioner.
MR. COYLE: Well, a quarter-page ad is going to cost you
$1,200. So I think if the Board wants the additional information, the
Board should pay for readvertising it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that in the form of a motion or a
statement?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a statement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let's ask one more question.
Let's ask Commissioner Henning, rather than pay the $380 or
however much, $1,200, however much it costs, could they call a
special meeting with the Civic Association just pertaining to this
subject before the December 17th meeting so they can meet and
they'll know specifically what they're talking about, and then we can
or get -- meet here the 17th and that would still be under the
Page 123
November 19, 2002
five-week limitation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- that is in the bylaws that
the president can call a special meeting, and, of course, I can't speak
for her, and all I can do is assume, Commissioner, that that is a likely
avenue that can be taken from the Civic Association.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I can make a recommendation
that we continue this until you take a look at this motion, continue it
until the 17th of December, it doesn't cost anybody any additional
dollars for advertisement. If we don't -- and when it shows up that
day if we still don't have any kind of agreement consensus between
the Civic Association, their officers that represent them, and Mr.
O'Gara we'll know it at that particular time, and then Mr. O'Gara can
make the determination if he wants to withdrew the application. And
he, you know, he said it a couple of times at the podium today, then
I'll just withdraw. He would like to try to come up with something
that's agreeable with the community, and let's see if that 30 days is
enough to do that.
When I talked to Ms. Newman, she is sick. I'm glad she's not
here today. But she did say she sat between these two gentlemen last
night and she can't wait for one of them to catch it so she can get rid
of it. But she said she would be glad when she felt a little bit better
to get with Mr. O'Gara and work through some of the issues. It has
everything to do with parking.
MR. COYLE: Well, I have absolutely no problem dealing with
the issue, because I respect Commissioner Henning's position on this,
and it is his district. And I think he knows best what needs to be
done there. I think fairness is important too. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I appreciate your comments,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Somebody want to put that in the
form of a motion?
Page 124
November 19, 2002
MR. COYLE: Sure. I'll make a motion that we continue this
until the 17th of December.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle and second by Commissioner Henning for a continuance. Is
there any discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(N° response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. O'GARA: Thank you.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2002-61, ESTABLISHING THE FIDDLER'S
CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #2 (CDD2)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 190.005, FLORIDA STATUTES -
ADOPTF. D
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. 8-C, Fiddler's Creek.
MR. HEATH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,
I'm Glenn Heath with your Comprehensive Planning section. The
petition before you is for the creation of the Fiddler's Creek
Community Development District Number II. As that implies this is
the second community development district to be created for
Fiddler's Creek. It's an amendment to the original community
development district, and you'll actually be seeing within the next
Page 125
November 19, 2002
month or so the original community development district come
back for some changes and a renaming to Fiddler's Creek
Community Development District Number I. So you'll be seeing that
within the next month or so. With the -- the petitioner's
representatives are also here today. The proposed district covers
around 999 acres. So it's right on the edge of your ability to approve
or deny it. It's in section 11, 13, 14, of township 51 south, Range 26
east and section 18 of 51 South, Range 27 east. It's in the existing
Fiddler's Creek approved PUD slash development and regional
impact, which is part of the -- also part of a larger development and
regional impact called Marco Shores. The proposed CCD2 area, as
we're calling it, includes a proposal for approximately 2,087 units
with amenities on the 999 acres. The units have actually already
been approved. They were approved as part of the original Fiddler's
Creek development and regional impact approvals during the 1990's.
This is purely for the purpose of establishing the community
development district to enable the residents of that area to govern
themselves in the -- with the provision of amenities and facilities for
the development.
I'll take any questions at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a couple of quick questions. I
want to make sure that everyone understands this has nothing to do
with zoning. It has nothing to do with density. MR. HEATH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It has nothing to do with approval
of any development whatsoever.
MR. HEATH: All that has already been done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. It has only to do with
establishing a mechanism for the infrastructure to be developed for
that-- that development.
MR. HEATH: Infrastructure and services, yes.
Page 126
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Right. So I would
recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle and a second from Commissioner Henning for
approval. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've got a question. Looking
in here and they had wetlands mitigation. In regards to wetlands
mitigation, how much wetlands is going to be destroyed or
mitigated?
MR. HEATH: You're going to have to ask the petitioner to
address that. I don't have the exact information, other than it's
already been determined.
MR. COYLE: That-- ifI could, if you'll allow me that decision
was made a long time ago, apparently. All we're doing right now is
approving their ability to establish a financing mechanism to build
streets, roads, sewer and infrastructure. Am I correct in saying that
all of the decisions about wetlands and what you can develop and
what you cannot develop, those decisions were made a long time
ago, right, and we're not being asked to revisit those today, or modify
them or change them or nothing we do today will in any way impact
anything you do with that development, other than prepare the
infrastructure. I just want to make sure I'm correct, because
Commissioner Halas is right, we don't want to step into -- step on
another land mine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments or
questions? Hearing none, all of those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 127
yOU.
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank
Item #8E and Item #8D - moved from Item #17B and Item #17A
PETITION DOA-2002-AR-2567, AND PETITION PUDA-2002-
AR-2566, ROBERT MULHERE OF RWA, INC., REPRESENTING
J.E.D. OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., AND COLONY
CORPORATE CENTER, INC., REQUESTED AN AMENDMENT
TO THE "PELICAN MARSH" DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT (DRI) AND REQUESTED AN AMENDMENT TO THE
"PELICAN MARSH" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE ALLOCATION OF
MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE ALLOWED FROM 9,000 SQUARE
FEET TO 26,000 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE APPROVED
OVERALL GENERAL OFFICE LEASEABLE FLOOR AREA OF
295,800 SQUARE FEET AND TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR CONTAINED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD (CR 901) AND EAST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD -
CONTINI IED TO DECEMBER 17~ 2002 MEETING
Next item is the Pelican Marsh PUD change, formerly item 17A
now 9-A.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd also ask you to entertain at the
time Item 8-E, which is 17-B, because if you vote on this, it would be
better if you did the DRI first before the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we should go with Item E
first?
Page 128
November 19, 2002
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then we'll do that.
MR. MUDD: They're a companion item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those that wish to participate,
please stand to be sworn in at this time.
(The audience was sworn in by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And on the part of the
Commissioners for disclosure, starting with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I met with some of the
people yesterday afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with Bob Mulhere, I bet
a week ago or so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I also met with Bob Mulhere.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I met with a representative of
the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received an e-mail from the
representative of the petitioner, and an e-mail from one of the tenants
in the proposed area, and just spoke to two gentlemen earlier about
this amendment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Good aftemoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows. Petitions presented for you today are PUD
A-2002-AR-2566, that's the amendment to the Pelican Marsh PUD,
and an amendment to the DOA-2002-AR-2567 amendment of the
development order.
These petitions have resulted in summary agendas to allow for
discussion of concerns raised by some of the tenants of the Galleria
commercial tract within this PUD. Their concerns, basically, involve
the shortage of parking spaces, the perceived shortage of parking
spaces within that commercial tract.
Page 129
November 19, 2002
This issue is not directly related to the amendment before you
today, but it's indirectly related. The amendment before you today is
to change the mix of the maximum square footage of medical office
space, which is currently limited to 9,000 square foot. The proposed
amendment will increase that by 17,000 to a maximum of 26,000.
There will be an equal reduction to the general office to balance it
out.
There is no real comprehensive plan issue involved with this, or
environmental issues. This would've been a summary agenda item.
However, the concerns raised about the parking clearly is an insight
issue that the staff-- with the petitioner and the applicant, and some
of the tenants within the PUD.
Some of the solutions that the County is looking at is first off,
we put a hold on the issuance of occupational license so it wouldn't
exacerbate the parking problem within that. We're looking at --
working with the applicant to limit the maximum amount of square
footage of medical office space within the Galleria, because of the
parking requirements created for that medical office use, that would
release some of the parking pressure when future changes come in.
The other is to work out maybe designating certain parking
spaces for each of the tenant users in there, so they'd be assured a
certain percentage of parking spaces near the building. There's also
the possibility of off-site parking that would alleviate the situation,
but all of these are site-plan type of issues. They're not really
directly related to the amendment before you today.
And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As I understand the situation,
there are -- there's a fairly large amount of square footage now
committed to medical office facilities. Are adequate parking spaces
available right now to meet the needs of the existing medical
requirements.9
Page 130
November 19, 2002
MR. BELLOWS: I believe there is -- there haven't been any
code enforcement action to provide additional parking spaces, but
just a limitation of future. There's actually floor space that was
proposed to be leased out, but a hold has been put on it until
additional parking is provided to allow for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then it's my understanding
the petitioner is asking for an increase in the square footage allocated
to medical office space to meet the requirements of the medical
office space that are already leased to medical -- for medical
purposes; is that a fair statement?
MR. BELLOW: Yes. We have a PUD monitoring process that
we try to prevent a developer from exceeding the maximum
limitations for future total square footage or square footage allocated
for a specific use. It appears that there may have been some lease
spaces above that maximum limit. That is one of the reasons they're
here before you today is to correct that situation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So all we're doing is correcting a
situation. We're not providing additional medical office space over
and above that which is currently leased for medical office space; is
that true?
MR. BELLOWS: No, that's not true. It's my understanding that
this, as you can see on the screen here, this is the commercial tract
within Pelican Marsh area, the Galleria. Just this one small parcel
within this larger commercial tract that has the parking problem.
There is no parking problem throughout Pelican Marsh. So this PUD
amendment will allow for additional medical office space to be
developed elsewhere within the PUD.
However, it's our staff's recommendation that they not exceed
the current limit of medical office space on this parcel, where there is
a parking problem.
MR. COYLE: Okay. All right. So on the parcel in the upper
right-hand portion of the screen we're approving only the amount of
Page 131
November 19, 2002
square footage that is currently being utilized for medical office -- MR. BELLOWS: That is the recommendation right now on the
PUD amendment.
MR. COYLE: So we can measure that parking impact and we
know that we're not -- we don't have a current parking problem with
the current level of medical office space leased in that part of the
development; is that true?
MR. BELLOWS: To an extent. There's still some vacant space
there, about 7,000 square feet that can't get an occupational license
until additional parking is provided. And that's concerned some of
the tenants there, where this additional parking will be, and will their
tenants Or clients be forced to park a long distance and have to walk a
long way to get to their building. That is some o the concerns raised
by the tenants. They're here today to explain some of their concern
regarding that.
MR. COYLE: Okay. And then the other area where additional
medical office square footage is anticipated to be built, is there any
problem with parking in that area?
MR. BELLOWS: No, there is not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any questions? Do we have
speakers on this too, by the way? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll hold off on the speakers for a
moment. Let's hear from the petitioner.
MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob
Mulhere. First of all congratulations to Mr. Halas and Commissioner
Coyle, on, I guess officially assuming your seats today.
I'm sorry that I can't make this a more simple petition for you. I
thought that it was fairly simple, but late Friday afternoon and
actually Monday afternoon, I did correspond with some of the --
actually, they're not tenants, they're actually owners of commercial
Page 132
November 19, 2002
condominiums within the project that Ray referenced that have some
concerns relative to the parking.
It's a little bit complicated. I think I can explain it to you. I'll
do my very best. It goes back quite some time, by the way, I first
should also introduce you to some folks who are also in attendance
with me here today. I'm representing J.E.D. and Southwest Florida,
and Colony Corporate Center. And they are the owners of two
commercial tracts within the Pelican Marsh Commercial Activity
Center. Here with me today is Joe Dejamis, who is the president of
those corporations, as well as Ron Talomb with David Plummer and
Associates. And Gram Nork who is the Vice President of J.E.D, and
of Colony Corporate Center.
I'm not sure if you'll have particularly transportation questions,
but if you do Ron will be happy to address those for you. As I said
it's a little bit, and I should also mention that the RPC, because we
did have to amend the DRI, and RPC did approve NOPC or notice of
proposed change. Also the planning commission did recommend
with unanimous approval, and we do have a staff recommendation
for approval. What we're requesting is consistent with the land
development code and the growth management plan. Beyond that it
gets a little bit more complicated. It is true that the development that
Ray pointed out, does exceed the maximum allowable medical office
space. The Pelican Marsh DRI has -- sets forth a maximum square
footage of office space and it also sets forth the maximum square
footage within that overall office space of medical. And that has
changed over the years several times. It started out very high. It was
amended several times. Finally it ended up at 9,000 square feet.
Currently there is 13,800 square feet of medical office space in the
Plaza at Galleria. And that is the square footage that you referred to,
Commissioner Coyle, that we are in part amending the PUD and the
development order to correct.
There is sufficient parking at present, and actually back in July
Page 133
November 19, 2002
of 2001, the staff through the zoning certificate and occupational
license process recognized that there was a problem with medical
office space and the amount of medical office space within the
project, and my clients met with the staff and a memorandum of
understanding was executed. In the memorandum of understanding
that was executed, basically says, and I'd like to read certain portions
of it to you, the project as is currently constructed will require an
additional 23 parking spaces beyond those initially approved on the
site development plan to service the increased use of square footage
of medical office space. To remedy this inconsistency the developer
agreed not to utilize, lease or occupy 7,000 square feet until
additional parking spaces could be provided.
In addition, staff-- the developer agreed as part of this
memorandum of understanding to amend the Pelican Marsh PUD and
DRI, increase the medical office space. In the process of examining
to the extent we wish to increase that, there were a couple of
considerations; one was there were several clients who wished
medical office space in other commercial areas that my client
controls where there is no parking problem, and we would be able to
provide parking for those.
The other component was to minimize any potential traffic, and
that's why the request to increase is very small, 17,000 square feet.
That actually results in an increase in peak hour trips of some 30 trips
and when that's distributed north, south, east and west, it's a very
insignificant amount of increased traffic.
There are a couple of other issues, as I said it was rather late in
the game, we did have a public -- community public meeting back in
February. We were not aware -- I was not aware, I knew there was a
parking problem. I was
commercial tenants that
coming before you with
They really are separate
not aware that there was a concern by those
the parking problem be resolved prior to
the PUD and development order on that.
matters, and even the staff in the
Page 134
November 19, 2002
memorandum of understanding said come in and amend the PUD and
you must resolve the parking, and we intend -- we fully intend to
resolve the parking problem to construct the additional parking
spaces. Beyond that, we will agree not to put, of course, any more
medical office in the project -- the Plaza at Galleria, other than what's
there today, which is the 13,800 square feet. And we will certainly
involve.those clients in the process of remedying the parking out
there in a manner that's acceptable to them, as well. There have been
several meeting already, including, I think about two hours of
discussion in the hallway, but it was not resolved. We're more than
happy to meet with staff and meet with those commercial
condominium owners to try to resolve this issue, but the first step is
to resolve the parking situation in a manner that's amenable to them.
I say that, though, with one caveat, how we amend the parking will
be consistent with the county code. And to the degree that we can
also make everybody happy, we're more than willing to do that. I'm
not sure if making everybody happy to what extent that may exceed
the requirements of the county codes.
So I can't stand here before you and say we're going to make
everybody happy with every situation, just like any commercial
develoPment, one vacant parking space may be a distance away from
the store or the location that's to be served. But there are a lot of
solutions here as Ray indicated, employee parking designated in one
location, reserved parking for the uses, and, of course, we have to
increase the parking on-site.
We're committed to doing that, other than that, I'd be happy to
entertain any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions on the part of the
commissioners? Commissioner Henning first then Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mulhere, you can exceed
the code, the limits of the code, like the requirements, if you want to
Page 135
November 19, 2002
exceed the landscaping code you can do that? MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just wanted to clarify
that.
Tell me what the intent is to correct some of the parking issues?
MR. MULHERE: I don't know if this has been fully discussed
yet. There is room on the site to provide additional parking to meet
that 23 extra parking spaces. As I understand the concern these are
mainly medical offices that have expressed the -- and I'm sure they
can speak for themselves. And as I understand it, part of the problem
is, you know, how far will perhaps an elderly person have to walk to
get to the office, or perhaps an individual who has a medical problem
or perhaps -- whatever the case may be, one of the solutions that
really isn't a county code issue, but certainly could be resolved within
the condominium association itself would be to reserve some spaces
in front of each of the units for client parking, patient parking,
customer parking, and push the employee parking, you know, out to
the -- to the outter periphery. This is really no different than any
shopping center wherein, you know, the spaces in front of a unit
might be occupied, but it can be resolved. And we are committed to
resolving it and we take full responsibility for resolving it. So, I
mean, it's just a question of timing. I don't think it serves anything,
frankly, to delay this, because this has to be done anyway. And we
will get to do that, and we will work with staff to do it. And we have
a huge incentive to correct the parking, because that's 7,000 feet of
office space that's sitting there vacant represents $ ! 4,000 a month for
almost a year that's lost income. So we do have a very large
incentive to correct that. I don't think there could be any bigger
incentive, you know, in terms of a businessman trying to be able to
occupy the space that's currently vacant until we resolve these issues.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you bring me up to date a
Page 136
November 19, 2002
little bit on this issue. Wasn't this an issue of parking when this was
being constructed some time ago, and so what they did is they -- to
try to comply with the existing codes at that time when this was
being constructed maybe about two years ago, that they -- they
condensed the parking spaces down, I guess where I'm going with
this, instead of a regular car in there, you could basically only put a
compact car in there, and that was done so that they could address the
parking issue back then, before all this other additional medical area
came onboard.
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Halas, I have no recollection
or knowledge -- I wasn't involved at that point. I can certainly defer
to the property owner to answer that question. I've only been a
representative of the developer for the last six months. So this was
constructed long before I got involved. I can tell you one thing,
though, the county code did two years ago, I believe and perhaps
staff could confirm, allow compact parking spaces, but they only
allowed a very small percentage of the overall parking as compact.
Many municipalities allow compact parking spaces.
So the property owner, if compact parking spaces were allowed
then, would have been doing nothing wrong, other than following the
code and providing those compact parking spaces under the
limitations. The County LDC has subsequently been amended to
eliminate compact parking because small compact cars, for whatever
reason, have actually not increased in numbers, larger cars, SUV's
and those types of vehicles are now more prevalent, and the compact
parking spaces are not deemed to be appropriate. So that was
removed, but to answer you specific questions perhaps -- do you
have any knowledge?
I don't believe that was the case, and my client is shaking his
head, no, that there wasn't any effort to reduce the number of spaces
by using compact -- you should know that the limit was like, I think,
10 percent. So anybody could do that, but you couldn't just do it
Page 137
November 19, 2002
indiscriminately so you could reduce your parking requirements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if you had 250 parking spots
and you increase it by 10 percent, that's substantial, that's 25, right?
MR. MULHERE: You could-- no. Well, you could provide 25
compact spaces if it was 10 percent, each compact space was, I think,
a foot narrower than a regular space, nine foot versus eight foot, so
you would get some additional parking spaces by providing compact,
and I can tell you that any project that I saw while I worked for the
County there was compact parking spaces.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But right now this particular site
where we're talking about upper -- upper right-hand corner, there is
not adequate parking in that area to accommodate the people that
need to go to those medical buildings; is that correct?
MR. MULHERE: No. There actually is adequate parking.
There would not be if we occupied the 17,000 square feet that we can
occupy until we add more parking to make it. So there is adequate
parking right now by the county calculations. I'm not telling -- I'm
not stating that -- I'm asking not asking you to believe me, that's by
the county's calculation and in the memorandum of understanding.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
How many speakers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MS. FILSON: Five.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
them forward.
MS. FILSON:
MR. WHITE:
I represent --
Would you please proceed to call
Larry Tamilli.
Commission members, my name is John White.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm going to ask you to step up
to the microphone, and state your name for the record.
MR. WHITE: My name is John white, and I'm an attorney with
the law firm of Parrish, White, Lawhon & Adler. And I've been
retained by a number of the building owners and tenants to make a
Page 13 8
November 19, 2002
presentation and explain to the commission -- and I'll be one of the
speakers, and if I do a reasonably good job, maybe everyone else
won't have to come up, so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give it a try.
MR. WHITE: I'll do my very best. We are here in opposition
to the passing of this amendment, and if not the passing of it,
certainly delaying of the passing of this amendment for a couple of
reasons. First of all, the way the amendment is drafted the amount of
medical space in the Galleria project, Plaza project can be increased.
And we've heard from Mr. Mulhere saying that they have no interest
in increasing the amount of square footage, and that's fantastic.
But we have a second reason that we would like to request the
County continue the consideration of this motion or this amendment
so that the owners can meet with the owner of the -- or the developer,
and try to resolve these parking issues.
Do we have anyplace to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There is a microphone on the wall,
sir, behind you.
MR. WHITE: I also have an overhead projector, if you'd like
me to relocate on the other side of the room, that might be a little
more certain.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be fine. You can do that,
sir.
MR. WHITE: As I mentioned, we are in opposition to the
commission passing this amendment today. The owners would
appreciate the opportunity of meeting with the owners of the project
to try to resolve certain parking issues, and in order to explain what
those positions are, I'd like to digress a tad and explain the history of
this project. This project was approved as a 66,000 square foot site
plan, office complex with no medical attached to it at all. In spite of
the designation of no medical, there's been to date 14,000, or
approximately 14,000 square feet of medical space sold. This is a
Page 139
November 19, 2002
perfect example of a developer creating an entirely new concept or
adding a new dimension to the concept that it's easier to request
forgiveness than it is to seek permission. This project has been sold
as medical from day one, and it's really creating an imposition for the
owners. And the buildings that we have highlighted in yellow are the
ones that have been sold for medical purposes. We have the
predominance of medical in this section of the project. And,
unfortunately, the issue that we have is since the site plan was
designed for non-medical parking, then we have not only a lack of
quantity of parking spaces, but the parking spaces as they are located,
really don't have the quality to service a medical use. This building
is occupied by Dee Krishner. This has additional medical uses.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I just
got notified that you're not a registered lobbyist. MR. WHITE: Meaning that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meaning simply that you're not
permitted to appear before this board unless you are registered.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I can straighten this up.
Are you a unit owner there and -- or do you have your office there?
MR. WHITE: No. I do not. I'm an attorney. I made
presentations before the commissioner on a number of occasions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion. I think
this may work. Why don't we go on with the other presentations
here, go up to -- whereabouts do you go.9 MR. MUDD: Fourth floor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fourth Floor. Get registered, and
then come on back down and if we're still continuing this, then we'll
allow you to speak. But we have to hold to this. Everyone has to be
a registered lobbyist that's speaking on behalf of a client on a profit
situation.
MR. WHITE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I apologize for not getting a hold of
Page 140
November 19, 2002
you sooner on that. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can solve this problem, if
you're working for no fee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Or if you want to donate it to a
charitable cause.
MR. WHITE: Actually, I haven't been paid yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go to the next speaker.
And, sir, I'll give you the opportunity to get upstairs and see if you
can get this resolved before we continue.
MR. MUDD: It's the Clerk of Courts on the fourth floor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Larry Tamilli, and he will be
followed by Peter Myers. Is Mr. Tamilli here?
MR. TAMILLI: I'm here, yes.
MS. FILSON: You're up to speak, sir. And he will be followed
by Peter Myers.
MR. TAMILLI: You changed our order, and I don't know what
process you go through to determine whether he's viable or not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you state your name for the
record, sir.
MR. TAMILLI: I'm Larry Tamilli. I'm a unit owner. And my
question is in regards to the attorney that was here, how did we
ascertain that he was not --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He probably never could've. It's
supposed to be the responsibility of the attorney to become a
registered lobbyist. It's a simple matter of filling out a form and
paying a $25 fee. But in any case, speak from the heart. We're
listening.
MR. TAMILLI: All right. My concern is I'm not -- I'm a
non-medical owner in there, and essentially, you know, as an
association we got together as a group of people with the concern of
Page 141
November 19, 2002
the parking issue as was brought to my knowledge, certain things that
obviously the attorney didn't get to bring out, that it's my greatest
concern is the fact that when the buildings were constructed, or I
should say the site plan was submitted for parking, that there was
supposed to be 259 spaces, in actuality it was reduced to 220 spaces,
and on that particular site plan it showed the sizes of the building,
which they used to calculate how many parking spaces were needed
and, of course, it was designated for office use, and the sizes of the
buildings that's on that plan versus the actual permits that were taken
out on the building themselves, there's a discrepancy there.
So, in other words, larger buildings were placed on those sites
than what was actually asked for. And I feel -- I can't say certainly,
that's why we're asking to have this looked at, and reviewed in the
building department, that there's a discrepancy of not only 23 spaces
that were set aside, but with the calculations that we have on what the
true size of the buildings actually is, is it's additional 50 spaces, and
we want to see that those particular spaces are going to be set aside in
the future, and that we have the adequate parking, so as these
buildings reach full capacity, which they're not right now, they're
going to create a greater strain for parking in the future. And until
it's addressed that's a great concern for all of us because of the value
of our properties going forward. And essentially that's our greatest
concern, and the issue is that if this is moved to be reviewed to a later
date, that we then have the opportunity to ascertain that information
to know if that's true or not, and see where we stand. In a sense this
gives us leverage, and a means of communication, and that's what
we're hoping to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Before we go on to
the next speaker, we're about twenty minutes past where we're
supposed to break for the recorder. I'm going to take a short break at
this time.. This will give the other-- the person that's representing a
number of the petitioners a chance to fill out his paperwork and get
Page 142
November 19, 2002
back here in time.
(A short break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right, sir. You're all set now, and
we appreciate your patience.
MR. WHITE: I apologize that I held everybody up. My sign is
number 3 7100.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to move the
microphone down just a little bit too. Thank you. One more time
since there's been -- would you repeat your name one more time.
MR. WHITE: Yes. My name is John White, and I'm a lobbyist,
a registered lobbyist. My number is 37100. And I really apologize
for holding the commission up. I had no idea.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. We'll go to all extremes
to get $25 more.
MR. WHITE: I do feel a hole in my wallet. As mentioned
earlier, we are here proposing passing of this amendment, for two
reasons, resummarizing, first reason is we are very concerned about
increasing the additional medical square footage available in the -- in
the Galleria project, but equally as important is that we are -- we
would like to resolve our parking issues with the owner. And we feel
that if this amendment is passed right now, then the incentive is
taking away from the owner and we will have a very chilling effect
in our ability to work with the owner to get the quality of parking
spaces that would be -- that we should've had at the first part of the
project. And as I was indicating before, with this area having the
heaviest concentration of the medical office space, it's important that
we have not only the number of parking spaces, but have those
spaces strategically located so they're accessible and serviceable by
the patients, clients and customers of those owners. And as the
parking has been site planned, the actual location of the number of
parking spaces that are available to those buildings will really create
an imposition for those -- for those building owners, and the patients
Page 143
November 19, 2002
and customers of the tenants that occupy those buildings, and we've
listened to Mr. Mulhere indicate that the owner wants to sit down and
work out the parking problems. But what we are concerned about is
that the -- that the developer has been under a memorandum of
understanding for over a year now, but the developer has not sat
down with the owners to try to resolve those parking issues. And it's
really important that we have our ability to sit down and talk. What
we're concerned about is that if this amendment passes, then one of
the options in resolving the parking is that the -- there could be some
off-site parking that is available to the developer, that is across the
street, that maybe within the defined limits, or allowable limits under
the land development code to serve as substitute parking, but it really
won't be accessible to the building in the comer and that really
creates a problem.
Right now the developer cannot lease out the first floor of this
large building. And so there is a limitation of-- that we might even
be able to consider as an option using the under floor of that building
as parking. Well, I think our negotiating ability is going to be greatly
diminished if the -- if we are not able to have all our options
available, including the passing of this amendment. And it is the
developer that's created its own set of circumstances. It is the
developer that promoted this project from day one as medical, when
there was no medical. And these people have really, really been
misled and really need to have some opportunity to sit down and
work out their problems.
I have here as handouts and including this particular -- this
particular handout is an actual circular used by the developer when
he was initially promoting this project, which even shows up here in
this comer, the fact that there were 259 parking spots. And the
reason I bring this to the attention of the board is that I think that at
one of the previous public hearings before the planning and zoning
commission, there was a representation that the developer did not
Page 144
November 19, 2002
knowingly promote those units as medical space, and that it was the
tenants themselves that were going down to pull or obtain a zoning
certificate without the knowledge of the developer. This just simply
is not the case. And we have a number of owners here that will
represent that in their initial promotions in the sales literatures it was
always promoted to them with available medical space.
And so what we would like to do is simply urge you to deny this
or continue it to allow us the opportunity to sit down and meet with
the -- with the developer to try to work out an acceptable solution
that will provide both the quality and the quantity of the parking
spaces.
One of the additional problems that we have is that there is an
argument as to what the number of parking spaces would be required
to satisfy the current code requirement. There is an issue that the
buildings that were actually constructed are larger than those that
were site planned and approved by the County, and so there may be
an issue that there is -- there are additional parking spaces that are
required beyond what the current staff thinks that are available. And
as we've heard, this project, unfortunately, is replete with
miscommunications with the staff in terms of why all of these
medical use zoning certificates were issued, when it was originally
site planned and approved as a non-medical.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If ! may ask a couple of questions,
sir, to try to move it along. I'm sure my fellow commissioners share
these concerns also. First, the parking that's there now, does it
conform with what is legally acceptable by the county?
MR. WHITE: Yes. In the sense that there is a building, a large,
three-story building here that has 7,000 square feet of unoccupied
space that is subject to a memorandum agreement between the
commission and the developer, where it prohibits them from leasing
it out pending an amicable resolution. What is not worked out or
resolved is the -- is the adjustment of parking with respect to
Page 145
November 19, 2002
providing a quantity of parking spaces available to the tenants.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I guess my next question would be
for the county attorney. Mr. Weigel or Ms. Student, what are we
walking into here? Exactly where does -- where does the law lie,
where does the code lie?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant
County Attorney. I think as has been identified by staff, this is really
a site planning issue, and something that is generally handled by
staff. The -- what you have before you today is a DRI development
order amendment that has been passed on by the regional planning
counsel and also an amendment to the PUD for some additional
square footage use, and their criteria that are in your staff report as
found in the code to identify you, or excuse me, identify this criteria
to aid you in making your decision based upon what you have heard
here today.
Again, this is a site planning issue and these -- staff, planning
staff are the ones that implement our land development code and
would handle these issues of parking.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But what -- what are our options that
are available to us as a commission, how many different ways can we
find here?
MS. STUDENT: I think this one option that may be out there, I
hate to make a decision for the commission, but you may wish to ask
the developer, because there does appear to be a tie-in in between the
additional square footages that they're asking for, and the lack of
parking. So there is a tie-in, it appears there, that you may wish to
have the developer represent and work out these issues with the
condo unit owners and tenants in the development, and then, you
know, have it brought back once it's worked out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: ! don't think there's any resolution
here today from what I'm hearing.
MR. WHITE: We're not asking -- all we're asking is the
Page 146
November 19, 2002
opportunity to sit down with everybody involved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion for a continuance,
bringing it back at a future date and forcing them to work together on
this to settle these difficulties. I'm not at all happy with what I'm
hearing here.
MS. FILSON: We have additional speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll go to them. I can make the
motion, though. I made the motion. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion from Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. We'll go to the speakers
first, and we may call on you afterwards, Mr. Mulhere.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Peter Myers.
MR. MYERS: I'm going to waive.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ash Ateya, and Ceasar
Marsten.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Mulhere, I'm going
to ask you to keep this brief.
MR. MULHERE: It will be very brief. Just one quick question.
Assuming that we are able to meet and resolve these issues, can we
have a time certain that we can bring it back if we can't resolve it
we'll have to readvertise it, but I think 30 days as David Weigel
indicated was the time frame, 30 days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five weeks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Five weeks. I could add that to my
motion.
MR. MULHERE: I would think that would put us on the --
MR. MUDD: 17th, December agenda meeting and I can --
MR. MULHERE: If we can resolve it, if we can go back on the
summary, I think, so it wouldn't occupy much of your time if we
resolved the issues.
Page 147
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
You'll second. Is there any other comment?
in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just for clarification, that's item
8-E, which was 17-B, can I have the same motion for 8-D, which is
17-A.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? Hearing none, all
these in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
I'll make that part of my motion.
Hearing none, all those
Item #8F - moved from Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2002-62, AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-76, AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED
THE LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE II BEAUTIFICATION
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING FOR
Page 148
November 19, 2002
AMENDMENT TO SECTION SIX TO INCREASE THE NUMBER
OF MEMBERS WHO SERVE ON THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM FIVE TO NINE; PROVIDED FOR AMENDMENT TO
SECTION SIX TO LIMIT MEMBERSHIP ON THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO THREE MEMBERS FROM EACH
SI ~FIDIVISION OR COMMIJNITY- ADOPTFD WITH CHANGF, S
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 8-F, which is
17-C, and it's the Livingston Road two MSTU. If you remember
correctly we had folks, and you have a memo that I gave you from
Mike Adalanti, who is road maintenance department, and I promise
I'll get that done. And, basically -- we're basically -- we'd like to
strike out this sentence that's highlighted that basically says four
appointed representative property owners. That's what got this
MSTU in trouble the first time because one of the representatives
from either Kensington or from Grey Oaks was a developer
representative and not a homeowner, and so this would take that
chance out, and the representatives would have to be members of
those particular communities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we take out appointed
representatives.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
MR. WEIGEL: While you're looking at that sentence in the --
in the draft ordinance, the words to be taken out are part of a,
obviously, a full, larger sentence, which says, said members shall be
permanent residents, comma, property owners, and then has the
language that Mr. Mudd is indicating to be removed, within the
MSTU and electors of Collier County. For clarification I want to
make sure that the remaining language works smoothly, and so with
that sentence, said members shall be permanent residents, comma,
property owners, do we wish to say, permanent residents and
property owners or do we -- we clearly want them, I think, to be
Page 149
November 19, 2002
property owners, is my surmise here. But do the property owners
need to be permanent residents, as well in these subdivisions.
MR. MUDD: I would recommend that it be an "or,'' because
you'll have folks that live there, and might be only there for four, five
months and they could represent that homeowners' group, if the
homeowners' group wants them to -- that person to represent them.
But they have a vested interest outside of being the developer in that
particular homeowners' association.
MR. WEIGEL: If you go with the "or," then there's a possibility
that they could be permanent residents, but not necessarily property
owners within the district. So I think property owners is the keystone
phrase, and they are -- they must also be electors in Collier County.
So, again, I don't know if Mr. Kant has any words, but said members
shall be property owners.
MR. MUDD: I changed it to an on the sheet, because you're
right, if their electors in Collier County, they have to be permanent
residents.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. But conceivably someone could own
property in these subdivisions but not be a resident there and still be
an elector within Collier County.
MR. KANT: Edward Kent, transportation/operational director.
I don't have any recollection that at their meeting the MSTU
advisory committee, or those residents in attendance made that type
of specificity. Their concern was more with the removal of the
appointed representative phrase. So I can't really speak for that,
except that we want to make it legal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to ask that elector
question. So you can mark me off.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two questions, number one, let
me make sure I understand what changes you've made. You've made
Page 150
November 19, 2002
it so the representatives must be property owners and electors of
Collier County. Not just residents, but property owners?
MR. WEIGEL: The question in that sentence is whether they
need to 'be residents and property owners within the district, not
merely Collier County, and that may well be what you intend.
Property owners and residents in the subdivisions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's probably more important to me
that there are people who pay property taxes in that area than it is
where they live. They can live in another part of the county, as long
as they're paying property taxes in that MSTU, then I feel reasonably
comfortable because, in fact, that's the impact it has on the people on
their property taxes. So I wouldn't want someone making a decision
about property taxes in an MSTU if they didn't own property there.
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. And it also mentions, of course,
here somewhere that they are electors within the county.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: It's the very same sentence.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're striking out the phrase
permanent residents and the phrase or appointed representatives of
property owners; is that true, because there's no -- if we're going to
require that they be property owners -- MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
those other phrases.
MR. WEIGEL: I think not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
-- then we don't have to put in
I agree with you.
Now, the other-- the other
question I have is not so much related to the approval of this
particular ordinance, as it is to clarifying what the public might
gather from our decision today. You will recall that we had a fairly
large number -- members of the public who were here to protest the
formation of this MSTU in the first place and, in fact, continued to
want to be excluded from this MSTU.
Page 151
November 19, 2002
Now, they're likely to interpret that through this action that we
are continuing MSTU against their wishes and that is not the case.
As I understand it, all we're doing is we are creating fair
representation from all of the neighborhoods involved, so additional
members will have to be elected, I presume, to this board, and is that
the way they're going to be selected?
MR. KANT: Commissioner, if I may.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant again. The intent is to enlarge the
committee and the request for participation would be similar to what
we do now. It would be the same as what we do now where Ms.
Filson would advertise and receive expressions of interest from
residents, but what you're doing is limiting who can be on that
committee, and they have to be residents -- well, property owners
within that district. They're not elected by their-- they're all owners
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, see, that's where I'm going
with this thing. This does not, in any way, give the members or the
residents of those neighborhoods any opportunity to make a
determination as to whether or not they want to be in that MSTU.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think they ask us to try to
resolve that problem for us.
MR. KANT: You're correct, Commissioner. This is not an
attempt'to change the boundaries of the MSTU. This is merely to
move forward with their request to enlarge the advisory committee.
If there is an issue of boundary change that will have to be taken up,
again, at some other point in time. They did express to us an interest
at that point to change the boundary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But when you say "they," you're
talking about the board members.
MR. KANT: I'm talking about the advisory committee as a
Page 152
November 19, 2002
result of the public meeting that they had about two -- two or three
months -- I'm going to say about two months ago.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As I recall it, the problem was that
the advisory board was not deemed to be a representative of the
neighborhoods that were being taxed?
MR. KANT: That's correct. And that's the reason for this
change.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So now if we make this change, it
adds more members, but it doesn't guarantee that the people who
don't want to be part of this will be represented. It merely means we
add more members, and it could be more members who will say,
yeah, let's continue this. We don't care what those other residents
think.
MR. WEIGEL: It does require that of the nine members -- it's
being increased from five to nine members, of those nine members,
three must come from each of the three subdivisions so that there
would be equality from each area of interest that comprises the
MSTU.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're missing the point here. The
point is they can come from these areas, it doesn't mean that they're
elected from these areas. They can be -- they can be volunteers who
are strongly in favor of continuing the MSTU. And my concern is
how do we address the desire of residents to express their opinion
about whether or not they should continue to function in this MSTU,
and we don't have to solve it now, but I think that they are going to
interpret from our action here that we are merely solidifying this
MSTU without listening to their requests to find a way to get them
out of it.
MR. KANT: If I may again, Commissioner, when those
resumes -- I should say expressions of interest people who want to
serve on the MSTU board come in, they must be reviewed, ratified
and confirmed by the Board of County Commissioners. So you will
Page 153
November 19, 2002
have an opportunity in looking through that stack, if you will, I hope
it's a stack of people who have expressed an interest in serving to
help make sure that you get the equity that you're looking for, but
that's the only control that I'm aware of that's within the current
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One more question, and then
Commissioner Henning has a question. Is there any way we can
require that the Livingston Road MSTU take a vote of their
neighborhoods to determine whether their neighborhoods want to
continue in the MSTU? Now, please understand I am not suggesting
that anybody be let off of the hook for the amount of money that they
owe us. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that once we
get our money back, they should have the right to make a decision
whether or not they want to continue it. Now, how do they go about
doing it?
MR. KANT: I don't want to make it sound too simplistic, but
they have indicated that they may take that course of action, the
current board has even indicated that. The issue that we're concerned
about from the staff point of view, obviously, is the pay back. And
once that is handled, if that board, that advisory committee says, all
right. That's it. We're done. We don't want to do this anymore. We
want the board to dissolve us. We'll come back with a request to
dissolve it.
MR. WEIGEL: But Commissioner--
MR. KANT: We'll follow their direction.
MR. WEIGEL: Also, we do have, it's seldom utilized, we've
got that petition process policy in place where the Board can get a
certifiable measure of the geography of the people who are for or
against something, and it's a very regulated process that's done in
conjunction with the County Manager's Office and the assistance of
the county attorney, and, you know, we hold ourselves out to assist to
get the process started for any group that would want to poll
Page 154
November 19, 2002
themselves and provide that to the Board, and the attempt in
developing the policy in the first place was so that the Board would
have truly good data to review to know the sentiments of people that
are affected by government.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not getting to this quite yet. I
understand what you're saying, but the problem is that the people
who came before us said they were never consulted. This thing was
set up before they ever purchased their property. Now, maybe
somebody was remiss in not telling the new purchasers that this thing
existed. But the point is they are asking for a voice, another vote on
whether this thing continues, and I'm merely trying to find out how
we can give them that other vote.
MS. ASHTON: Commissioner Coyle, ifI could address some
of those issues for clarification. For the record, I'm Heidi Ashton,
Assistant County Attorney. Let me tell you why we're here in the
first place with this ordinance, and that's because you had a
landscape workshop in September of 2002, and directed that the --
that the size of the committee be increased. So that's why we're here
on this particular ordinance. This MSTU has not been funded for the
next fiscal year. There will be no millage collected for the next fiscal
year. I have been contacted by some property owners, personally, as
to how do they go about dissolving or being removed from the
MSTU, and to the best of my knowledge, we don't have a specific
petition policy governing the termination or the removal from an
MSTU.
My suggestion to you if you want to know what their opinion is
as to whether they want to be within the MSTU. In the past the
County has sent out questionnaires; however, that has fiscal
implications, so it would have to be funded. You may want to
consider oral requests to the association to poll their members and get
back to you, and then at that time you can make the decision of
whether or not you want to proceed with an ordinance amendment to
Page 155
November 19, 2002
repeal it, or to change boundaries and so forth.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'd like to hear what
Commissioner Henning has to say. I think he might have a solution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think I'm about the only
-- one of the only ones that really understood what you were trying to
say. I thought it was very clear. I think what we can do, Mr. KANT,
is it's the board's wishes to direct the MSTU members once they're
established with equal representation to poll the residence within the
MSTU of their ideas and the approval by a majority of the residents.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. That's the what the Board
wants to direct Mr. Kant to write a letter and have our chairman sign
it for that direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have another option. And
purse strings are always a good control. In order for the MSTU to be
effective they need money in order to implement their ideas. They
have to come to you during the budget process, just like they did this
last time to voice their concern. There is an outstanding debt, as far
as this MSTU is concerned and you've honored their request to put
this in hiatus, and hold their debt until next year at the budget debt
time. If you make it known via letter through Ed Kant that the Board
is not going to entertain an increase outside of what their debt is, that
levy that they will have to show you that all of the residents have
been queried and they have their concurrence to continue or to
dissolve this particular matter, I think you basically have that power
and you can -- you can exercise it during that budget process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I'm looking for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's your motion?
I'll second it.
Okay. Anything else, Commissioner Henning?
Page 156
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, second by myself, Commissioner Coletta.
Any other discussion? Hearing none, all of those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
take
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Before we go on to the next item we have -- yes, we're going to
five seconds or five minutes or two minutes for a switch off.
(Brief recess.)
Item #13A
ORDINANCE 99-22, REQUIRING LOBBYISTS TO REGISTER-
DISCI ISSF. D
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're back on. Please take your
seats.
The Honorable Dwight Brock, Clerk of Courts.
MR. BROCK: Good afternoon, Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good afternoon.
MR. BROCK: -- Coletta and all the other board members. My
name is Dwight Brock, I'm the clerk of the circuit court.
I was invited -- I guess that's what you would call it -- when my
secretary calls me back in my office and says, "You've got to go
across the way, the board wants you." I guess I was invited to come
Page 157
November 19, 2002
over and speak to you with regard to the Ordinance 99-22, which is
the lobbyist ordinance.
Earlier this morning I came into the boardroom and I came in
for the purpose of telling Mr. Mudd, as well as the individual who
was fixing to appear before the board, that they were not registered in
conformance of this particular ordinance. I understand that this issue
has come up a couple of other times today.
Let me tell you the process that we have tried to go through with
regard to enforcement of this particular ordinance. As the ordinance
number indicates, back in 1999 the board passed an ordinance
requiring lobbyists to register for purposes of identification, a clearly
stated public purpose.
And from time to time there have been members who have
neglected to register. And the process that I have gone through to try
to inform them of the need to register in conformance with these
ordinances, I've tried to get ahold of them, when I could identify
them as attempting to lobby the board. And I would suggest to you,
in anyone's definition of lobbyist as has been defined by this board,
appearing before this Board of County Commissioners in a
professional capacity for which they are receiving remuneration is a
lobbyist.
I have tried to call them up and say, you know, obviously you
have forgotten to register, you need to go down and do that.
That has worked to a certain extent, but in conjunction with
your county administrator and my staff, we're taking a more
proactive role in trying to ensure compliance.
To begin with, let's first talk about what the penalties are for
lobbying this board or your staff in violation of this ordinance
without lobbying. The statute makes it very clear that you would be
prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and it sets forth the penalties
associated therewith, which indicates to me in very clear terms that
you have made this particular violation a criminal act.
Page 158
November 19, 2002
In reading the ordinance and its context, the question I think
Commissioner Coletta had for me was does that place any burden
upon the Board of County Commissioners to not allow people to
lobby who have not registered? Well, obviously if you have no
knowledge that they have not registered, you have no affirmative
obligation.
On the same hand, I think the courts in this state have struck all
of the misprision of crimes as being unconstitutional and therefore,
simply by watching someone engage in criminal conduct without
protest is probably not a criminal offense.
My concern, however, and I'm having to draw upon my past life
which was as a prosecutor, is there is a crime known as aiding and
abetting. And for you to know that an individual is in fact not
registered in conformance with his particular ordinance and then to
allow them to engage in a conduct that you know is in violation of
the ordinance by standing in front of you and lobbying you, I would
be a little concerned about.
I will leave that up to you and your better judgment, but I would
have some concern about whether or not if in fact you knew the
person was not registered and you allowed them to lobby you,
whether it was here in front of this board or it was back in your
office, I would be concerned about what's going on. Because you're
obviouSly allowing them to attempt to influence you in contravention
of the statute.
You know, I'm not the definitive word on this. I was simply
asked to give ya'll my opinion based upon my reading of the statute
-- or the ordinance.
Now, if I could, I'd like to take you to the section that I am
placing importance upon, and that is that all lobbyists -- and this is
section five of the lobbyist ordinance -- shall, before engaging in
lobbying activities, register with the clerk of the board located in the
board minutes and records department, period.
Page 159
November 19, 2002
And then it goes over to the penalties section, which says
pursuant to Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, person who violates any
provision of this ordinance shall be subject to prosecution in the
name of the state in the same manner as misdemeanors are
prosecuted, and upon conviction, such person shall be punished by
fine not to exceed $500 or by imprisonment in the Collier County jail
not to exceed 60 days, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Now, I would suggest to you that you need to think about
whether or not the person could lobby you if you did not recognize
him from the podium. And I would suggest to you that that could
potentially be construed as an enabling act, furthering the
commission of that offense, if in fact you know it is occurring.
Again, I say that with an abundance of caution and tell you that
I'm not the definitive word as it relates to that. But I would be
concerned about that from reading the language that we have
contained in this ordinance.
It does contain a provision that says simply by someone
violating this ordinance does not void -- and I'm paraphrasing, or
make voidable the actions of this board. So whether or not it impacts
the actions of the board, I think the ordinance makes it pretty clear
that that probably is not going to happen.
My concern would be in what role are you playing in allowing
someone that you know is not registered, and therefore in violation of
this ordinance, to be in front of you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Dwight, I apologize for the
emergency in dragging you over here, but we have an ordinance that
we have to live by or we have to change, one or the other. And I
think we should probably have to live by it since the fact it was
created for our own protection and to make sure that we have
government totally in the sunshine.
What I'm proposing, because this situation's never going to go
away, and we can't be -- if we're asking everybody if they're a
Page 160
November 19, 2002
lobbyist here who are coming in the front door, we may have a
problem.
I suggest we post signs coming downstairs in the lobby, on the
third floor, in the boardroom, and also in the commissioner office and
on the second floor of the county manager's office, outlining exactly
what this ordinance says, what you need to do to comply, and what
the penalties for noncompliance is. It's about the only way ! can
think of that we'd be able to have an effective mechanism to be able
to bring this under control.
What's your thoughts on that?
MR. BROCK: That's fine with me. I mean, I think if you were
here the first thing this morning, your county administrator, after
discussions with Jim Mitchell, who's floating around here
somewhere, pointed out to everyone, which was our clear attempt to
say to people, hey, folks, listen, you know, you need to be registered
if you're going to lobby in conformance with the ordinance. Any
other action that we can do that you think would be of benefit to the
public, we will assist you in doing that.
The clerk's office is not the enforcement agency of this
particular ordinance. This Board of County Commissioners, I think
in agreement with Mr. Weigel, is not the enforcement agency
associated with this particular ordinance. This ordinance makes
violating it criminal. And therein would be my concern for exposure
for you, as well as, you know, the potential public criticism that you
might receive.
You know, I would just be -- in an abundance of caution, I'd
want to be very careful about my dealings, if I knew someone was
not a registered lobbyist.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Speaking of caution, that's the very
reason that I -- with all the urgency we called you up and asked you
to come forward. Because if there's anything we want to do, we want
to make sure that we're totally within the law. We have
Page 161
November 19, 2002
Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coyle and then Commissioner
Halas that would like to address this. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Question, if I may. For instance, I
see somebody sitting in the audience who's just a volunteer, he's not
paid by the TAC. So he wouldn't have to be a lobbyist, right?
MR. BROCK: You know, there are exemptions for people.
And I think one of the general exemptions is people who aren't paid.
People who are appearing in here on their own behalf, under the
definition it's defined -- lobbyist is defined in the ordinance. And I
think that without going back and looking at it, I didn't spend a lot of
time looking, would fit into that definition. I mean, there are also
people that are involved in an association that are doing it without
further remuneration I think are exempt. There are exemptions built
into this process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, then what about the
developer who is representing himself?. We had one in here this
morning who is -- he owns his own property and he's developing his
own property and he was representing himself. Same with a property
owner that's representing themselves, they would -- now, the
developer stands of course to gain financially, but yet it's his own
property. He wouldn't be hiring himself to be a lobbyist is the way
I'd figure it out. But I think we need a lot of direction now.
MR. BROCK: I think what you need to do is to get your county
attorney's office to go through the definition of lobbyist with you and
give you some assistance in defining who constitutes a lobbyist under
the definitions of the ordinance and who doesn't.
For example, I'm looking -- lobbyist shall mean any natural
person who for compensation seeks or sought during the preceding
12 months to influence the governmental decision-making of a
reporting individual or procurement officer or his or her agency or
seeks or sought during the preceding 12 months to encourage the
Page 162
November 19, 2002
passage, defeat or modification of any proposal or recommendation
by the reporting individual or procuring employee or his or her
agency. A person who is employed or receives payment or who
contracts for economic consideration for the purpose of lobbying or a
person who is principally employed for governmental affairs by
another person or governmental entity to lobby on behalf of that
other person or governmental entity, or C, a person who registers
with the board is a lobbyist pursuant to section five of this ordinance.
So, you know, I think you need to sit down with your legal
counsel and get them to give you some guidance as to who represents
lobbyists.
But keep in mind, okay, as to your exposure -- you know, from
my perspective, as I think David indicated to you earlier, you don't
have any enforcement responsibility. The ordinance doesn't make it
your responsibility to determine whether or not people are lobbyists
and to prevent them from speaking.
My issue to you, my concern to you, is if you know that
someone is a lobbyist and they have not registered, and they're up
here engaging in a prohibited act and you recognize them for that
purpose, therein would be my concern as it relates to your exposure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got an easy solution. Before I
talk with anybody, I'm going to charge him $25 and have him
register.
MR. BROCK: You'd probably run into a constitutional problem
with that one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I think Commissioner
Coletta's ideas about posting signs is a good one. I think we ought to
post them on the door here and also on the door to our chambers. I
think that's a good idea, and that's really what I wanted to say, but he
preempted me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
Page 163
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about this, since you say that
we can't enforce the ruling: How about if the court reporter, when
we do the swearing in, says that all lobbyists have to be registered
and then go into so help you God, and must tell the truth.
MR. BROCK: Well, I think the court reporter's sole purpose is
to swear the witness in and, you know, since they work for me and I
contract with them, I would prefer that you not go down that route. ~
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the sign --
MR. BROCK: I think that would be more confusing both for
the court reporters and for everyone else. I mean, obviously most of
the people that are in here have been through the routine of being
sworn in many times, and that's just a rote process. They probably
wouldn't even hear what was being said.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to lastly wind this thing up and
move on, let me ask you, who is the enforcement arm?
MR. BROCK: The--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: State's attorney.
MR. BROCK: -- state's attorney.
You have made this a criminal act.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Dwight, thank you so much. We
appreciate you coming out on a moment's notice. Next time we'll
give you five minutes before we call you.
MR. BROCK: Not a problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We always have a chair here
for you.
Item #9A
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REVISION OF THE SIGN
ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR NEON OPEN SIGNS AT
Page 164
November 19, 2002
FJSTABIJSHMENTS - NO ACTION
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9(A), which
is discussion regarding the revision of the sign ordinance to allow for
neon open signs at establishments, brought -- Commissioner Fiala
wanted to talk about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion for approval.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before you go there, there's some
stipulations that you must understand. You can tell people how big
-- you can tell people that can only have one neon sign. You can tell
people how big that one neon sign can be. You can't tell that person
what they can display on that sign. So if you open this up and say
staff, I want you to change that ordinance and I want you to say an --
for instance, a standard open sign that they sell at Sam's or whatever
is 13 inches by 24 inches, but that doesn't mean that the client can't
say that one sign that you're going to allow him to have couldn't say
Bud or MGD or some vulgarity on the front of that particular issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They can, too.
MR. MUDD: They could say any of those things. It could say
"pawn", it could say any of those things. You can make it, the
dimension, you can limit the number that they can have on the front
window, but you -- because of freedom of speech, you can't dictate
what they can say with that particular sign.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For this point in purpose, I'm going
to withdraw my motion for the moment and probably reinstate it
later.
Commissioner Fiala, you brought this up, did you want to
address this first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't know there were any
stipulations involved here. All I wanted to do was give the small
businessman a chance to let the public know that they're open and let
the public know as they're driving by that that establishment is ready
Page 165
November 19, 2002
to receive them.
Is there a way to deal with this restriction so that we can have a
dimension that can be approved and that we can stipulate it only say
open? I understand that they say they couldn't, but is there
something that we can put into effect that would deal with that
problem?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
administrator, community development, environmental services.
Again, this is I guess another one of my responsibilities.
We have a problem in the county, as you all know. We have a,
quote, ordinance that says no signs, no neon signs. And I can go
through -- here's some examples. I'm just going to go through them
rather quickly. They just continue. So it's a matter of enforcement.
And this just kind of gives you an example. And these were just
taken yesterday and the day before. Kind of things we're finding out
there.
So what -- Commissioner Fiala, what you're stating is in fact
correct, there's owners out there that want the sign. And I think this
is where we're getting to where it makes sense, an open and closed
sign. I think the only way we can approach this, and we have to do
some staff work, but probably limit it to maybe two square feet of
copy, one sign per establishment. And I would guess 99 percent
would choose some kind of a sign that says open, rather than, you
know, sushi, like this one, or our neighbor right down the street here,
bail bond, those kinds of things. That's what exists now.
So I think what we need to do is look at -- oh, yes, it's the
gentleman right out in front.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that the proprietor?
MR. SCHMITT: I think we can look at this. We'll probably
have to bring it as an amendment to the land development code, look
at it either during the spring cycle or as a special cycle. But I would
recommend we just fed (sic) it through the spring cycle, that way go
Page 166
November 19, 2002
through the -- we'll start through the productivity committee and
through the community character, smart growth community
character, on through the land development code -- I mean the
Collier County Planning Commission on up to the Board of County
Commissioners. So we'll see that sometime in June.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If it's agreeable to my fellow
commissioners, I would want to move that forward. I know there's
going to be a special land development code cycle in March, so if my
fellow commissioners would agree to -- after you look at that, then I
would like to move forward with it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Joe, before you go away, while
you're thumbing through that, and put that one sign up there that said
50 percent off, I just have a question. Can we get this on the
December cycle or the amendment of land development code?
MR. SCHMITT: Is that the one you wanted?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the 50 percent off.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, the problem with the -- the greeting
cards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Don't show that to my
wife.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Too late.
MR. SCHMITT: The problem is we're in the final throes of the
land development code amendment. We've already been through the
planning commission twice, we have one item to bring to the
planning commission on Thursday and that is the LDC language for
3.15 concurrency amendment. So we're way -- we're far into the
process.
Now, we have two public hearings with the board. We have one
in December and again the final one in January, for this cycle's LDC
amendments. So to answer your question -- that was the long
Page 167
November 19, 2002
answer. The short answer is we probably can't do it, because we'd
have to -- we don't have time to meet all the other requirements to get
this in the amendment cycle for this fall. We'd have to do it in the
spring cycle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As much as I respect
Commissioner Fiala's desire to help the small business owners, I
very, very strongly oppose this effort. I do not think that garish neon
signs in our community do much for the image or ambiance I think
we're trying to create through landscaping and other methods of
quality community.
And my experience has been when we start permitting neon
signs, they really get out of control. Somebody's looking for the --
always looking for the brightest and most multicolored neon sign
around.
I don't know what the problem is with people not knowing
whether you're open. If you're a business, you have established
working hours. If anybody's been there before, they know what their
established working hours are. If you're brand new, then you put up
an acceptable sign of some kind, opening soon or open at a certain
time. If it's at night, they know you're open because the lights are on
inside. If the lights are not on inside, they know you're not open. So
I don't know that this creates a serious problem, but I might be in the
minority.
But I know that we struggle with this in the city, and it was
finally the decision just to ban them outright, because some people
just took advantage of them.
MR. SCHMITT: To follow up on that, one of the other things
we're starting to see in the county are the neon accent lights on the
buildings, and we're starting to see that come back again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may take the side of the
Page 168
November 19, 2002
businessman, because I was one for 16 years in Golden Gate. I can
remember times, especially with the shading on the window --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not talking about tattoo
parlors.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we're not, we're definitely not.
We're talking about respectable rental stores that offer nothing but
quality, right next door to Commissioner Henning's auto repair shop.
By the way, I got a little plug in for you.
But the problem being is with the shaded windows that
occasionally somebody would pull in the lot. And if things weren't
too busy, you're looking out there, waiting for them to park and come
in. They'd pull in, you'd see them looking, loOking, they're about
ready to back up and leave, go running out the door, you know, and
ask them to come in, usually you take their keys away from them so
you got them as a customer again.
But the problem was is that you really couldn't tell during
summer days that that business was open. Even when you had an
open sign leaning against the window, it was enough of a -- with the
windows being tinted and with the sun reflecting off it. And it does
have an impact. And the impact in my case might have been five
percent. But that five percent is what I took home to my family.
So when we're looking at it, I think we need to consider all sorts
of aspects. Maybe in certain areas along the coastal area or Pelican
Bay might be totally inappropriate. In other areas it might be very
appropriate. I know in Golden Gate City, it would certainly make
life a little bit easier if you knew an establishment was open as you're
driving down the road and you've only got a second or two or you're
going to have to miss the exit or turn into it.
So I would be for bringing this back for consideration. What I
realize is that we've got a problem with when this ordinance goes into
effect and when we're going to have a chance to be able to review it
through the land development code.
Page 169
November 19, 2002
Possibly, if this board is interested, we might be able to put off
the enforcement of this to a future date for just the open signs. And I
still can't understand why the word open can't be restrictive to what
the sign's going to be.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle, I
do respect your views. And in fact, I dislike immensely any neon
signs at all. I was just delighted to see that they were eliminated.
But then when I saw that it carried with it a hardship to some small
businesses, especially restaurants, because of the open signs, I had to
reconsider my feelings.
And I'll give you just a couple fast for instances. Pak Mail that's
located here in Town Centre, but they're located so far back from the
street, you can't tell if they're open or not. Even when you're driving
by, it's difficult with the darkening on the windows. And I've had -- I
think I got four letters from people that were involved, just
consumers that wrote to me on that particular one.
The barber shop, when you drive by and it's hard to get into this
barber shop right off of U.S. 41 near Rattlesnake-Hammock, and the
open sign helps people to identify where it is.
A woman who called me from a little shop she had just opened
on the south side of U.S. 41 across from Town Centre, but the bushes
in front blocked the view from her window, so even if she placed an
open sign in there, if it wasn't lit, nobody could tell she was open.
And lastly was Flemings Restaurant, and it's in a U-shaped -- or
horseshoe shaped, St. Andrew Square, and they have darkened
windows so the sun isn't shining through it, at -- the restaurant users.
And in that particular case, you can't tell if that place is open, even
at night or in the daytime, unless you see an open sign. So those
were four of the businesses that I was concerned with.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about if we don't use a neon
Page 170
November 19, 2002
sign, just use a small open sign that fits into a holder that's outside?
If you've got tinted windows, so you can just slide the sign in if
you're open, or turn it around and slide it to where it's closed?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What about dark days, night, to be
able to tell?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, this would be an open sign,
it wouldn't have to be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But in any case, let's just do this,
let's just see if we can move this forward to staff or if this is a dead
issue. Myself, Commissioner Fiala are willing to consider this
further. Is there anyone else here that is? If there isn't then --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, a land development code
takes a super majority to do it. And for my input, it has to be
something really conservative to fit the character of the community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to see it come back?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As something very
conservative, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we've got direction from three
people from staff to bring it back for consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there's no sense in
spending staff's time unless you have a super majority, because it
takes a 4-1, at least a 4-1, on a land development code amendment.
So you might want to ask Commissioner Coyle or Commissioner
Halas if they're interested.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a fair question.
If it came back and was conservative, would there be any way
you'd give a consideration?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so. Because I think
you're the voice to deal with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
Page 171
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I think that does for the
most part put that into Collier County's history. What we can do is
issue everybody a flashlight. That might take care of the problem.
That was meant as a joke, by the way.
Okay, we're on to Commissioner Henning's meeting-
Item #9B
DISCUSSION REGARDING EVENING BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONER MEETINGS- NO ACTION
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 9(B).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I can go ahead and start,
Commissioners, I'm asking you, and actually after thinking about it
over the weekend, it -- I think it's in the best interest of the public if
we have an extra meeting, one meeting a month, for land use items,
to consider land items, so that we can afford the opportunity for more
public input, since the majority of the people in Collier County work
-- the working class during the daytime and not at night.
And I think that we should test this out in the beginning of the
year and revisit this issue within one year and see how it works for
the general public and the board of commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to just make one or two little
comments here. Every idea that we come up with to try to increase
public participation is very much worthy of consideration. Back in
the year 2000, before this commission took over, it was 38 meetings
for the whole year. Last year we had a total of 60 meetings, which
set a record. This coming year, we're going to set a new record, and
it looks like it's going to be 64 or 65 meetings.
Now, what I'm saying is, is I think we need to get a grip on what
we're actually doing to be able to put this in a more logical form. In
Page 172
November 19, 2002
other words, some of these meetings that we're having run a little bit
late, some of them get through early. This past year we've been quite
successful at holding them down. A very few of them that ran late.
But I'd like to see the county manager assume responsibility for
the length of the meeting. In other words, how the agenda's put
together. And at that point in time that we start to get heavy, then
items are moved to a separate item -- in other words, we have
something that's going to have tremendous public participation -- let's
move forward to an evening meeting. Then if we have some heavy
schedules coming down because of whatever reasons, we have
everybody bunched up together, the two days of meetings in a row
might be the answer. Coming up with a flexible schedule that meets
the needs that's there rather than just plan a meeting out of the clear
blue to take place at a certain point in time might not be needed.
But your idea bears some merit, I'll tell you. Everything's worth
consideration.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know how you argue
against taking action to encourage additional participation, but I'm
going to do my best.
This is certainly a wonderful goal, but I think that there are
things that we could do that haven't yet been explored that would
solve the problem, and I think there are complications with trying to
add evening meetings. And some of them involve the utilization of
time, particularly in land use decisions.
We have some pretty heavy hitters as far as staff members are
concerned here, and we have our lawyers here. Now, they're going
to be working during the day, and during the night they'll be at these
meetings. What do we do with them the next day? Are they going to
be available to do work, are they going to take compensatory time
of~ How do we deal with that? I think it's a serious issue. The staff
time is important. We're overloaded now, as far as the staff is
Page 173
November 19, 2002
concerned, and I think this will tend to overload them even more.
The other thing, and I'll explain this in a little detail -- this is
going to take me some time, Mr. Chairman, so bear with me. The
other thing is I think we sometimes confuse public input with public
discussion. And I think there's a very big difference. Our job is to
make decisions and to solicit relevant, relevant comment from the
public so that we can be informed about the issues and to make the
decisions.
But frequently we encourage comments that has no relevance
whatsoever and, furthermore, encourage repetitive comments. And I
do not believe it's essential for public input that we go to those
lengths.' And let me give you one example today. And I don't want
to be critical of anything we've done today, but earlier today we
spent almost two hours or more talking about a subject that had
already been solved before we ever walked in the room. The county
manager had met with both sides of the issue. Both sides had
approved it. There was only one person in the entire audience who
opposed what we intended to do. Only one. We could very easily
have said it's our intention, or if it were not our intention to approve
this proposed settlement, how many people in the audience would
object to it? One person would raise their hand, that person could
have come up and spoken. If that person changed their mind, then
we could have so indicated. But if that person did not change their
mind, we could have proceeded and it would have been over in 15
minutes.
But I think that our attempt to provide people with the
opportunity to talk is sometimes confused with actually soliciting
meaningful comments that are relevant to the subject and to our
decision-making process. We even got one history lesson about all
the people who were involved in that bad decision. We already know
who they are, they're no longer here. But, you know, we got that
history lesson. And it takes time.
Page 174
November 19, 2002
So what I'm suggesting is that, yeah, I think we need to make it
easier for people, but the biggest problem, in my estimation, is that
people have to sit out there in the audience for hours and hours and
hours and not know when their subject is going to come up. And I
think we can solve that by having more time certain meetings,
particularly on all of the land development issues and anything else
that is contentious. And that might mean that we'll finish up early
and we'll have some spare time. Well, we'll just have to go back in
the back room and do some of our administrative work, which we
have to do anyway, and then come back out when the next time
certain issue is up. That makes it real easy for people to come here,
they know exactly when they're going to be heard, and they will not
be so inconvenienced to come here and make their voices known.
The other point is I am not convinced that working is a major
deterrent for most people if they know when they're supposed to be
here. If they have to come here and wait all day, you bet it's a
deterrent. But if they know they've got -- there's a meeting at 2:00
that concerns an issue that relates to them, I am confident most
people can and would take the time off to come here and express a
position.
And please bear in mind, this is not something that happens to
the same person every day. Some of the people who come here to
talk with us, it's a once-in-a-lifetime circumstance. They don't come
back every week and have to take time off. They come back
probably once in a lifetime to come in here and address an issue that
is of very, very personal concern to them.
So I think we have to remember that there are ways we can deal
with this without causing additional burdens on the staff.
And quite frankly, I know that there has been experience with
evening meetings and people simply will not stay here till 9:00 or
10:00 or 11:00 at night, particularly if they've got a job to go to the
next morning. And we do not know, we cannot predict how long any
Page 175
November 19, 2002
one of these topics is going to go, unless we control it, unless we
limit the staff's presentations to the essential information, unless we
limit the public's participation to relevant information dealing with
the issue. And if we start doing that, we can control the times and we
can get these things over.
But I'll tell you, if we had an evening meeting and we
considered land development codes during those evening meetings,
we would be there till after midnight every night. And I'll be willing
to bet you there won't be anybody sitting in the audience when we
finish.
So I'm not sure it's a solution, but I do believe we should
continue as we did shortly after I got here. It wasn't because I did
anything, but because the commission had already set them up, a
number of evening meetings or meetings on-site at places where the
public can come and make their-- express their concern. So there
are ways we can deal with that.
But the other things like public -- the public petitions, there's no
reason why somebody should have to come in here and stand at that
podium to try to get something on the agenda for consideration at
another meeting. It takes up our time and it takes up their time. They
should be able to write us a letter, county manager can circulate the
letter to the commissioners, we could say yeah, we think that should
come back, put it on the agenda. If you've got a majority vote, you
put it on the agenda. If you don't, it doesn't do anything. So you
eliminate that whole process. I'm not talking about public comment,
I'm talking about public petition.
And I also believe that proclamations have gotten way out of
hand. Now, we have proclamations for everything except sick dog
day, and we've got to get serious about what we're doing here. You
know, we have to do some really serious business here. And we're
not here for the purpose of giving free publicity and television time
to everybody who wants to come in here and either get recognized or
Page 176
November 19, 2002
make some comment.
But if we're serious about conducting our business in a
businesslike manner and doing it promptly and efficiently so we can
in fact serve the public, then we need to start establishing some of
these controls. And I don't think more meetings, more evening
meetings, will solve it. But I'll sure show up, if that's the desire of
the commission. And I'm sure you're all saying thank God he's
finished, and I believe I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I'd say I
probably agree with you about 90 percent of the time, but this is not
one of them. I think the right to petition your government is one of
the basic fundamentals of what we're all about. And to be able to
stand before you, whether it's about bears in the woods or sick dogs
or whatever might be important to that person, we're duty bound, I
believe, to listen to them. Possibly we might be able to come up with
a way to streamline the agenda for the most part, but when it comes
to public participation, I'll stay here till midnight every day before I'd
cut it back even a few minutes.
I know I've not been the most effective chair in limiting the
public Participation to the point, because I just want to make sure
everybody, including the commissioners here, have every possible
say, several different ways, several different directions. We've seen
people's opinions change at the last minute by the last person that
showed up and the last sentence they had to offer in their testimony
before us. So I can't say I'm overly thrilled with that part. Although
I've got to admit, there is a better way; there's always a better way to
do business.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas, did you
have something to say?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, I didn't see your button.
Page 177
November 19, 2002
No, no, no, don't do that now. We'll excuse you button-wise today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I kind of agree with
Commissioner Coyle to some extent, but I also think that the public
has the right to be listened.
But I think that as I look at what is (sic) the staff has to do in
regards to work and preparing for -- get these meetings and the
workshops, I feel that that's a bigger benefit to everybody in the
county in the sense that we the commissioners have to be brought up
to speed in regards to workshops, what's happening and what's taking
place. That takes a lot of time, not only from us but it takes a lot of
time from staff. And I think that we should also look at if we start
having evening meetings, that that's going to tax the staff even more.
And I feel that if we publicized the meetings and maybe if we
can come up with a timeline of when specific items are going to be
on the agenda, that those people that do find it difficult to get here
during the day, as Commissioner Coyle mentioned, that maybe we
can get people to be more actively involved in their government.
But I really think that we need to streamline the meetings. I
think Commissioner Coyle's on the right track, but I don't agree with
not letting people speak their mind now. I'm not sure -- we're going
to have to come up with a balance here. But I really think that in the
evening meetings, maybe like a Town Hall meeting, that might help
assist in getting the word out in regards to what the situation or the
problem is. But it's just -- as far as having evening meetings just to
have evening meetings, I don't -- I'm against that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think what we're hearing
today -- and we're going to come right to you, Commissioner Fiala --
is that we all agree there's some better way to do this. And possibly
when Commissioner Fiala finishes, we might want to give direction
to staff what to bring back to us as far as alternatives are to
streamline the process and make it work better.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 178
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I too feel that time
is -- the time could be changed around on our agenda packet. For
instance, we've had about four hours of discussion items such as this
one and the sign just before that we could handle in the morning.
And instead of telling everybody to show up at 9:00, when we know
they're not going to even be appearing before us till 1:00 would be a
safeguard right there. So if we tell people after 1:00 will be all of the
land use issues. And then if we even -- to take a step further and say
with those land use issues, we can usually tell if they're -- like, for
instance, Manatee today, we knew it would be mostly retired people
that would be talking about that particular issue. Whereas, there are
other issues that would really be a hot button for the working people,
so we could plan those later in the day, and this way they would have
an opportunity to be here as well. So I would appreciate that.
I certainly don't mind having daytime, nighttime meetings. You
know, just like everybody else here, my whole life here is just
devoted to this job, doesn't make any difference when.
I don't know that if land use issues began at 5:00, and say, for
instance, there are only three and they just take two hours each, we're
giving it a minimum right there, we're already at midnight,
practically. And I think even though I come alive at 10:00 at night,
guys, I think I get a little punchy. So -- and I would bet if I do that,
staff would, too. And I want to make sure we give the fairest
opinions to the people that are waiting out there for our vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd, how many more
items do we have to hear tonight-- today?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have 10 more items on the
county manager's portion, and you have one more item under the
county attorney, and then we have communications.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's not my intent to have
night meetings to add more to our agenda, in -- I was trying to work a
Page 179
November 19, 2002
little bit more efficient at just about 5:00.
And Commissioners, you know, God bless you, but 10 more
items at 5:00, I just hope that we make logical decisions. I am going
to remove my request, and let's see how it works next year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You don't want to give directions to
staff, Mr. Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't think we need to. I
think if the county manager comes up with some ideas on how we
can work more efficiently, that's what I'm hearing my colleagues say,
I am very much open to working to better the process. But it wasn't
my intent to add more items.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you had the best intentions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we came up with quite a bit
here today, and I think we got a lot more we discussed. There's
always a way to make it work better.
Shall we move on then? Where are we, Mr. Mudd?
Item # 10A
RESOLUTION 2002-479, APPROVING A REVISED RIGHT-OF-
WAY PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 10(A). And that's the approval of a
revised right-of-way permit and inspection fee schedule for the
transportation operation department.
MR. KANT: If you'll give me one second to try to bring this
up, Commissioners.
It worked. What did I do wrong?
For the record, Edward Kant, transportation operations director.
We've discussed the Collier County right-of-way permitting and
inspection fee with the commissioners individually. We've discussed
Page 180
November 19, 2002
it with the productivity committee. We've discussed it with the
development services advisory committee and my extension, the
CB IA, who had a representative at that meeting. Twice, as a matter
of fact.
And I want to take you very briefly through this, because what
we're doing is requesting an adjustment in the fee schedule for
right-of-way permits, and we have several new concepts that we are
going to introduce.
And I would ask your indulgence, I know it's late, but I'll try to
run through this very quickly, because these fees do affect the public.
We've made some changes, and it will just take me a couple of
minutes, if you will permit me to go through those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, sir, we're waiting for you.
MR. KANT: I want to talk about where we are and I want to
talk about where we need to go and why we need to get there.
In June -- I should say before June of 2001, the community
development division handled all right-of-way permitting.
Beginning in June of 2001, the transportation operations department
took over the permitting on the major arterials. And that was about
the time that we also refined the maintenance of traffic requirements
in the county operations manual.
Then beginning in April of this year, we took over -- we, being
transportation operations -- took over all permitting on all county
roadways, including local streets.
What does the right-of-way permitting section do? Well,
obviously they manage the permit tracking system. We look at the
engineering review of permit plans; we review our maintenance
traffic plans. Maintenance traffic is becoming even more critical
with our relatively limited road network and with the increases in
traffic. We're going to talk about that a little bit later also.
We do the field inspection for field proposed permit sites. We
do the field layout for residential driveways, because we want to
Page 181
November 19, 2002
make sure we get good drainage in the field. And then we also do
inspections for that work and for maintenance and traffic. Then we
do our final verifications and manage the records for perpetuity.
When community development environmental services was
doing some of this work-- and I say some of the work, because what
we have done is expanded on the work that they were doing and
consolidated it into one operation. They had several people, the
equivalent of about three people, three-and-a-half people. We have
six people assigned full-time currently. Some of those positions were
positions that were in community development, which has transferred
over, and some were positions that were already in transportation
operations, continuing to do the work that they were doing.
What we did in coming up with a fee schedule was we looked at
the positions that we have, we looked at the hours that were
available, and we went back and did a man-hour analysis based on
what our operating costs are for personnel, for overhead, capital
outlay, and did a very simple mathematical division. We took what it
cost to operate that section, divided it by the number of hours
available, came up with so much an hour, which includes all the
overheads.
We did this because again, during the beginning of the budget
cycle last year, the board made it very clear that this function should
be self-sufficient. That is, those people that are using the service
should pay for the service. If you have to get a permit, you need to
pay whatever it costs to service that permit. The right-of-way permit
I'm referring to.
The number we came up with, interestingly, was $49 and
change. And frankly, I took the liberty of, when we came up with
our new fee schedule, rounding it out to $50 an hour, more for the
ease of math than anything else.
We also did an analysis based on the first four months of our
operation. We now have seven months behind us, but we did it on
Page 182
November 19, 2002
the basis of our first four months of operation, and we found that it
takes certain rough average to service a residential permit, a
commercial permit, and we get a lot of miscellaneous permits, things
that you get familiar with, perai (phonetic), things like that.
Based on that, we came up with a fee schedule, based on the
average number of hours times that $50 an hour. The current fee, for
example, for a residential right-of-way permit for a driveway
connection is $125. Based on what it actually cost us to service that,
we're recommending an increase from 125 to $150.
What we're also doing, one slide in here shows that we've
serviced an average of over 200 permits a month. And we get almost
80 walk-ins every months. That's four or five a day.
There are -- there's very interesting things that have to take
place when we get a lot of those walk-ins, because a lot of those
folks are not builders, they're just folks like you and me that need to
get a driveway permit, for one reason or another.
So what we take care of, as I mentioned earlier, we have our
permit system management, our engineering review, site inspections,
culvert grade, very important, and our record drawing management.
The existing fee schedule is just what it is, it's very bare bones,
it doesn't take into account the difference between residential,
commercial or miscellan -- the only thing it really does is take into
account miscellaneous permits.
We're proposing a fee schedule which breaks out residential
from commercial, or I should say, nonresidential. There's
institutional, there's a few other things in there. And again, based on
what we've found to be our history of what it takes to service that
permit, we're recommending a significant change in the fees for those
nonresidential permits. In fact, anybody that wants to build a
shopping center today can get that right-of-way permit for the same
$125 that you would pay for a single-family house. There's an
obvious inequity there.
Page 183
November 19, 2002
We're recommending that on small resident -- small
nonresidential that go to a minimum of $600, and on larger
nonresidential to $1,200.
In the ordinance and in the notes to the table in the ordinance,
we've defined the difference between small and large. And that's
based on the number of trips that would be generated by that use.
And we pretty much follow the Florida Department of Transportation
recommendations so that our fee schedule is relatively consistent in
that respect with their fee schedule.
The other thing that we're requesting as part of this resolution is
what we're calling a lane use fee. One of the things that we've been
trying to do is discourage the closure of lanes for whatever reason on
our major roadways, our major arterials during the high season.
Obviously we can't not allow lane closures to take place because we
have to do that many times just to accommodate emergencies,
sometimes we have to do it to accommodate what will later on be a
much smoother flow of traffic.
However, one of the things we do feel that we need to get a
better handle on is what does it take to get that contractor to get in
and get out? And we figure the only way that they're going to pay
attention is if they're going to pay for the cost of making that closure.
We believe that the fee should only apply to the arterial network
as opposed to local streets because the majority of the traffic that's
impacted is on the arterial network. The lane closures consume
capacity. Obviously if you take a three-lane road, close a lane, you
have a two-land road, you've lost some of that capacity, even if it's
only temporary. That loss of capacity is a cost to the public in terms
of added fuel cost, added environmental cost, added lost time. And
those who consume that capacity should pay for it.
We've also come up with the proposal that those fees, if and
when they're collected -- I say if because we may never get another
lane closure. But when they're collected, those fees should not be
Page 184
November 19, 2002
intermingled with the other fees, those fees should go into a separate
fund so that we can use that fund to pay for roadway enhancements.
We're in the process of spending quite a bit of effort to lengthen
turn lanes, add turn lanes, re-time signals, to try to tweak the system,
because we do have a limited roadway.
So we're looking at a schedule that would offer a discount for
off-peak, a priority for-- that is a penalty, excuse me, for going over
the allotted time, and we want to limit the use of this to other
improvements in the schedule -- in the system.
We're also limiting it, as I said, to specific roadway segments,
and we put that into part of this resolution.
That's basically what it would look like. In February and March,
we're looking at $800 a day. If they can wait a couple of weeks, till,
say, the 1st of April, that drops down to $400 a day. So it's 50
percent savings. If they could wait another month, that's only a
couple weeks after that, it drops down to $200 a day. If they can do it
in August, we'll give them a break and let them do it for $100 a day.
The fact is that we want to stop having as many of these tie-ups
as we can during the real heavy season. Having said that, I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did a good job of explaining.
So basically what it is is we're charging them for the
inconvenience that they're causing the motoring public.
MR. KANT: That, and the fact that we have to spend more
time, staff time, in reviewing that maintenance of traffic. We've
gotten very aggressive in shutting these jobs down if they don't do a
good job of maintaining traffic.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You say you're going to be
starting to handle driveway permits? You're going to be --
MR. KANT: We have been handling all driveway permits since
April of this year, sir.
Page 185
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How was that permitted
in the past? Was that--
MR. KANT: Community development was the permitting
agency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that part of the -- if I was
to build a house, was that just automatically part of the permit to
build a house?
MR. KANT: No, you would still get a right-of-way connection
permit. That would be part of your building permit application
process. That hasn't changed. What has changed is where that
permit comes from, who services that permit, and how we can
inspect for that permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So how long does that add in
trying to get a permit to --
MR. KANT: We haven't found any significant change in the
timing --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I'm just too slow in
asking my questions.
MR. KANT: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any additional time
when I want to build a house, being that it has to go from community
development to transportation?
MR. KANT: No, sir, we haven't found any significant change.
Right now a residential permit, the turnaround -- and Mr. Schmitt can
verify this -- is about a week or so, maybe two weeks on certain
residential. Our permitting process is part of that. That hasn't
changed.
What we have found is that we have a number of folks that will
come in that are not going for building permits for a new house, but
are going for some modification, perhaps on an existing driveway.
That sometimes can take some time.
Part of the reason is because, as I said, they're not builders, they
Page 186
November 19, 2002
don't understand the process, and we have to work with them. We
sometimes have staff that will spend as much as a half a day with
somebody explaining the process to them in trying to get enough
information so that we can issue the permit.
But in terms of the general permitting for residential structures,
we have found no change in the turnaround time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The 3.5 persons that you
referred to from community development that handled this process
prior to that is a little bit higher than I was told, and I think that we
just need to verify it.
Do they have any other duties that transportation did not take on
what they're doing today?
MR. KANT: I'd have to defer to Mr. Schmitt. I can't speak for
how they ran that section over there.
I do know that for a lot of their inspections, they had five or six
inspectors and part of that inspection, as I understand it, was that
where they could pick up on some residential work, they did. But I
would defer to community development. I can only speak for how
we're operating today, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yeah, I think I need to
know that, because, you know, it's a significant increase in fees. And
I don't know what that 3.5 people are doing now, but I hope they
have found a new duty.
MR. KANT: As I said, there were some positions were
transferred to us. I believe we had two or two and a half positions
transferred over to transportation operations.
We -- the existing -- the other positions that we had, we have
always had. As a matter of fact, at one time I was involved very
heavily in doing a lot of this work myself because we didn't have the
staff. That was several years ago. Fortunately we have the staff now
to do it properly.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Henning, I spoke to you
Page 187
November 19, 2002
yesterday, and for the record, the other commissioners, we did speak.
The -- and I was asking -- I said it was one-and-a-half people, it was
actually -- it was one-and-a-half, but actually we sent over two
positions. But if you count the secretary, it was almost -- it was over
two positions that we were using.
What we did transfer was the right-of-way piece. We still do
the inspections of the driveways, but we do the inspections as a
service of transportation. They do the reviews, but our inspectors are
actually going out and doing the inspections.
But any private street or parking lot, they're still within the
purview of community development. And I can have the county
engineer talk about how this program was run in community
development. Tom?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. KUCK: For the record, Tom Kuck, engineering director.
Yes, we were handling, as Jim said, up to April of this year. We
had a little bit more flexibility, and we're still using that from doing
the inspections on all the residential units, because I have like five
inspectors in the field doing other functions.
So when it's time to issue a CO, our inspectors in community
development make the inspection for the driveway. That seems to be
an efficient and cost-effective way. It saves transportation from
making a trip out to the site.
So when we talk about we had two and a quarter or two and a
half full-time employees, it's a little bit misleading, because we did
have additional support out in the field.
But I will be happy to answer any specific questions you might
have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Was there any
other additional duties that these people did when it was in the
review process?
Page 188
November 19, 2002
MR. KUCK: At the time when we were doing the right-of-way
permits, one of the people who was involved that was issuing the
blasting permits, what we've done, we've reassigned some of the
duties. That key person now still is in charge of issuing the
right-of-way permits.
And we've had some problems over the last couple of years of
all the excavations from this, so we're -- we've assigned two of those
people to be working blasting permits and excavation permits so we
get a better handle on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, when these--
MR. KUCK: We've always been kind of shorthanded on
personnel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. When these two
positions, when they were doing right-of-way permits, did they do
any other kind of duties?
MR. KUCK: Basically it was all right-of-way permitting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so it's -- thank you. So
it's two positions what it was before. And what are we asking for
now?
MS. FILSON: Six.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six.
MR. KANT: I just want to make it clear, we're not asking for
anything. We have six people working full-time doing this work
currently.
In addition to the right-of-way permitting, as I pointed out, we're
doing all of the maintenance traffic work, we're doing all of the
safety inspections, we're doing all of the layout and work and
inspections for all of the permits that we are issuing. So we've
expanded the services which we're providing. It's not that we're just
doing the right-of-way permitting and asking for more -- we went
through this, the personnel issues, back at budget time. All this is is
an adjustment to fees so that we can make sure that we're paying our
Page 189
November 19, 2002
own way, so to speak.
When we took it over, we took the fee schedule that was in
place. And we've had some experience now, we've had four for six
months' experience, and we were directed to adjust that fee schedule,
and that's the only reason we're coming to you now. We're not
asking for more people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I guess somehow the
clarification in the budget process got past me. You know, in my
eyes, we're adding two more people to do very little more work-- or
four more people to do the same thing that they did before.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Henning, for the record again,
Joe Schmitt.
The piece of work that Ed talked about, they always did. We
never were involved in any lane closures or any of that activity in
community development. That's always been a transportation issue.
What has in essence happened, when we transferred the two
positions over, they were merged with those folks to become this one
element. And so I think that though it appears that it's more people
doing the same work, what really happened is we probably would
have had to come in this year -- when I went back after talking to you
yesterday, I went back and looked at our numbers. Given our work
load, we would have probably had to come in for an extra position
just for the right-of-way piece. So we would have gone up to three,
and counting the other activities, you're really looking at almost four
in that element that was doing that work, so --
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Henning, Norman
Feder, transportation administrator.
In transportation we had about one-and-a-half people dealing
with the issue before when it was with community development.
Community development had a little over two people directly dealing
with it, had their inspectors going out and doing inspections. They've
now reduced that down to only doing inspection of residential.
Page 190
November 19, 2002
What has been added to the process is maintenance traffic and in
particular on residential, transportation is doing actual survey and
profiling of the culvert so that we get the correct elevation, which is
one of the major problems we're having throughout this county on
drainage.
In addition on maintenance of traffic, what we found was we
weren't getting a quality product and we had a number of problems.
As a matter of fact, about the time we decided to make this
change is the problem we had on Airport Road just north of Golden
Gate where we had basically a washboard effect after almost all three
lanes in the southbound direction had been closed down to
accommodate development there.
So we weren't in a position under community development with
those inspectors to do the maintenance of traffic, to do the
management that was necessary. And we're doing some expanded
duties relative to drainage, siting of culverts and the like.
So your staffing has really gone from four, four and a half, and
they utilized their inspectors on other things, to about six positions
with an expanded role.
In addition, what we're adding now is some management of the
systems to try and make sure we don't have lane closures at the peak
part of the season.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The question I have was the funds
that are paying for this are coming totally from the fees, right, that
you receive?
MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval from
Commissioner Coletta, second from Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion?
Okay, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Page 191
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. KANT: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The voice in the distance.
We're going to take five minutes to stand up, stretch, give you a
chance for a break. Don't go too far, please.
(Brief recess.)
Item # 1 OB - additional action taken later in the meeting
FUNDING FROM TOURISM ALLIANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY
IN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $10,000 TO TERMINATE ITS
CORPORATE AFFAIRS - APPROVED AS A VALID PUBLIC
PI JR POSE
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we're ready. Go ahead, Mr.
Wallace.
MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
Bleu Wallace of community development operations.
You have before you an item for the board to consider, a request
for funding from the Tourism Alliance of Collier County in the
amount of about $10,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Recommend approval, with staff
stipulation that we limit it to 7,000 --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- $614.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: $7,614.
Page 192
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle for approval, we have a second from
Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, indicate
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Then the ayes have it, 3-0, with Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Halas missing for the moment. Next item?
MR. WALLACE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: George, you came all the way
down here for nothing, right?
Item #15A
STATUS REPORT REGARDING POTENTIAL EXPENSE ON
MOSQUITO CONTROL BOUNDARIES - DISTRICT TO POLL
RESIDENTS RF, EXPANSION AND COSTS
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item I'd like to move is
under staff communication, and it's 15(A). It's Mr. Dunnuck giving
you a quick update on the mosquito control boundaries. And the
reason I do that is because the only people we have from the public
here are from the mosquito control board, including their chair and
two of their members, and we can get that moving and they can go
home sometime this evening, with your approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
Page 193
November 19, 2002
record, John Dunnuck. I will try to keep this very brief.
We've had two meetings with mosquito control district since the
board's last direction, and I think they're moving in a very positive
format.
What they've recommended at this point in time is to do a
survey of the Immokalee community to add to the tax rolls of 2004,
and then follow -- come up at the following year to do a survey of the
Estates area, as outlined in our previous boundary where we did the
emergency spraying for 2005.
They wanted to get your blessing, even though it's not required,
because they're an independent district. They wanted to get your
blessing to move forward with this kind of proposal at this period of
time, recognizing that they will be putting funds in a survey and
moving forward with it.
My recommendation is that you support that endeavor.
At the same time, there's an issue with the Immokalee Airport
and the authority out there. There's an available hangar, and they'd
like your support in setting that aside until they can get the survey
results back and possibly enter into an agreement.
I've had initial contact with the airport authority in support of
that, and they're willing to do that. And we also just wanted to get
your blessing and maybe ask the chairman to send a letter of support
to the airport authority, requesting that we set aside that hangar,
which is available at this period of time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Dunnuck, just a point of
reference. This money that we're talking about doesn't come from
general fund, it would be an MSTU (sic). It would be formed at the
citizens' request through this survey that's going to take place.
MR. DUNNUCK: It would be an expansion of the existing
mosquito control district and would be funded by -- you know, the
expense from the district would be encumbered into what the
expense of that --
Page 194
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion that we approve this
to move forward with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, a second from Commissioner Fiala. And
we've got Commissioner Coyle for comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just a quick question. You
said it was going to be an expansion of the mosquito control district,
and I heard commissioner-- the chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Coletta, is that right?
-- say something about that there would be a vote or a poll of the
people.
MR. DUNNUCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a problem, okay? It
wasn't a vote or a poll of the people when they asked that we spend
the money to spray that area. And I think that this is a situation
where we need to make a decision that affects the health, safety and
welfare of the Collier County residents. And as far as I'm concerned,
if you're going to get the spraying, you're going to get charged for it.
And I think we just ought to go ahead and expand the district and
make that decision and go with it.
MR. DUNNUCK: I think in principle -- and I don't want to put
words in the mouths of the mosquito control district. I think in
principle they agree with you, that it's a health, safety and welfare
issue.
Part of the survey process is to educate the community. They
do know there will be people who will not want a mosquito control
district,, but they also recognize that there's a greater health, safety
and welfare issue. So they wanted to use that tool as a survey,
recognizing that I've had conversations with Abe Skinner's office,
and knowing that you can't get it on the tax rolls till any sooner than
Page 195
November 19, 2002
2004 and 2005, respectively -- for logistical reasons why they
separated it out -- they're recommending that we go forward in this
manner. So we can do the survey, it's an educational tool.
The only consideration the mosquito control district would
consider not expanding this boundary is if overwhelmingly the
community said we don't want it. We don't really anticipate that.
We anticipate that the number will be favorable.
The survey for Immokalee, we're looking to release as early as
the 1 st of December, have it ready by January, the numbers, have it
back to 'the mosquito control board. The ordinance has to be
expanded by the Board of County Commissioners probably in
February.
Abe Skinner's office has said tentatively that they will delay
submitting the tax rolls to the tax collectors, which is normally done
January 1 st, till after the survey and this work is completed.
So I think we're on a very good track to get it on the tax roll so
we can start charging those folks. They wanted to keep that survey
going so we could get it -- so we could educate the community, tell
them what's going on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I think that's a good idea.
But if-- there's a disconnect between the term educate and poll. I
think if you want to educate, you send out information that says why
we're going to do it and how it will improve your safety and how
much it's likely to cost you.
If you send out a poll, you're giving people the impression that
they can decide not to do this. And I'm certainly not going down that
path. Because the next time somebody comes up and says I want you
to spray in my area, it's not going to be free.
So I believe if you really want to educate, that you'll send out
brochures that say this is our plan, this is what we're going to do, this
is when you're going to get taxed for this, this is how much it's going
to be and this is why we're doing it. That's education. A poll is not
Page 196
November 19, 2002
education.
So I don't know if the rest of this commission agrees with me on
the education process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can help you with this a little bit,
Commissioner Coyle, because I was instrumental for getting the
mosquito control to move two steps forward before from where they
were about 951 going forward. With two districts we moved through
two different levels over a period of time. Went through the same
process, but we couldn't get it on quite the speed schedule that you've
got this one on. It was overwhelming, something like about 70 or 80
percent of the people that responded back were in favor of it.
I agree with you, Commissioner Coyle, when it comes down to
it, at the end it's something that's got to happen. But you've got to
listen to the will of the community. And when it comes down to it
and if we cannot get the community to back it, then we'll come up
with some sort of special taxing or some way to get funds from the
community to pay for their own spraying.
I agree with you, everyone pays their own way in this world.
And I think if we give them a chance, they're going to come through
in a big way and want to do this for themselves. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't agree with that. It may
be that the people know the risks out there, but they still do not want
to tax themselves. So I agree with Commissioner Coyle, that we do
need some of-- a majority of a vote out there to tax them for this
added service.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, well, we certainly have a
difference of opinion, but the objective is still the same, we're going
to end up with mosquito control. And that is a very positive thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not really.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, we do have a motion on
the floor and we have a second.
Page 197
November 19, 2002
We'll go to you, Commissioner Coyle, and I'd like to be able to
call the vote and then we'll go and take another vote if that first one
fails.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Remember that my comment isn't
directed to whether or not we do it, it's directed to how we go about
educating them --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- okay? And when you say
educate, I think that means giving people information about what the
benefits and the costs are going to be. You don't educate by sending
out a p°ll saying do you want it.
So my only concern is go ahead with your motion and I'll
support it, provided that the educational program is an educational
program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to have that included in my
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, mine too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- second, if you'll include it--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's fine. Just as long as it
goes to the people, and it's not saying we're telling them you've got
no choice, it's going to happen. It gives them a certain management.
I agree with you, Commissioner Coyle, and I appreciate you
taking us in this direction.
So we have an amended motion, and it's been-- the amended
motion was agreed to by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. DUNNUCK: If I could only make one final comment.
You know, technically this Board of County Commissioners does not
have jurisdiction over --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We realize that.
MR. DUNNUCK: -- the mosquito control district. This is an
independent district. And the mosquito control district, who is an
Page 198
November 19, 2002
elected body as well has a decision on the survey.
And I think they're much closer to what you think on what you
were talking about. We had -- much of the discussion was really --
and survey was a technical term that follows along their policy
guidelines, but they were talking about as much educating as
possible, and they didn't even indicate whether it was more than 50
percent whether they would say no to it. They said unless it was
overwhelmingly, which is pretty much what they -- they left
themselves a little outlawed. They said we're going to move forward
with this. We recognize it's a health, safety and welfare issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In that light, the motion is right in
tune with what mosquito control is saying.
Any other comments? Okay, I'll call the motion (sic), all those
in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Because I do not believe
there's a commitment to education here. All I hear is about polling. I
think the point has been missed, and if we don't have the authority
over the mosquito control district, we've got the authority over
money, I think. And they're not going to get my vote unless they get
out and educate people to get this done, not poll them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was part of our motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think it was.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, nobody really committed. I
didn't hear anybody say that they were going to commit to an
educational program. What I heard John say is that the mosquito
control district was proceeding in those directions, and it might be
Page 199
November 19, 2002
more of an educational process than a poll.
Until somebody tells me that this is an educational process and
not a poll, you're not going to get a vote out of me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, Commissioner Coyle, we've
already taken the vote. The issue is moot now. However, if you'll
like, we can have the minutes read back to where we asked it to be
included in the motion, the fact that it being an educational effort to
be made to be able to educate the public. You know, we can drag
this out forever, but the vote has been taken, it's 4-1.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's the way it will be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's move on to the
next item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, this young lady
would like to say something.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, please. I didn't mean to cut you
short. We always like to hear from mosquito control.
MS. WELCH: My name is Stacy Welch, and I'm the assistant
director of administration of the Collier Mosquito Control District.
And I certainly hear your concerns and what you have to say,
and we will certainly bring it back to the board.
I can't speak for the board of commissioners, as you know, but I
think they would like your blessing, and I'm sure that they're
interested in what you have to say.
And they certainly do want to educate the people in Immokalee
and the .people in Golden Gate Estates as to what we do have to offer,
and the difference between mosquito control for nuisance and
mosquito control for disease control. So I think it's a very valid
point, and I will certainly bring it back to the district for their
consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. We do
appreciate you waiting. Thank you, Mr. Dunnuck.
Page 200
November 19, 2002
Item #10C
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO ESTABLISH AN
AREA OF MUTUAL CONCERN WITHIN WHICH BOTH THE
CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER COUNTY WILL BE
PROVIDED A COURTESY REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INVOLVING INCORPORATED
AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS ALONG THE SR 951 AND
CR 92 CORRIDORS WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE MARCO
ISI.AND CITY IJIMITS - APPROVED
Okay, next item is 10(C), Memorandum of Understanding.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this is an item on 10(C) that
basically is an MOU, Memorandum of Understanding, where staffs
will pass information back on developments that will happen within
five miles of the city boundary along 92 and 92 Alpha. It serves the
City of Marco Island and it also serves some of the concerns of
Goodland residents --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MR. SCHMITT: Actually, State Road 951 and County Road
92.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle would
like to speak on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick comment. We're
doing this for Marco, I'd like to see us do it for Naples. I think it's
the proper thing to do for communication. They're going to ask the
question, once they see this has been approved, why don't we have it.
Page 201
November 19, 2002
So I'd like to see that.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, this was initiated by the City
of Marco Island in compliance with their comprehensive plan, and
certainly we complied. It's been in the works for a while. It's already
been approved by the City Council of Marco Island. And we can
pursue the same with the City of Naples.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, moving on to 10(E) --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, you're right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's getting late.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it's not, we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We could have saved a lot of time
earlier today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just vote on everything to begin
with, one vote?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel has something to
say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
Item # 1 OB -Discussion continued from earlier in the meeting
FUNDING FROM TOURISM ALLIANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY
IN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $10,000 TO TERMINATE ITS
Page 202
November 19, 2002
CORPORATE AFFAIRS-APPROVED AS A VALID PUBLIC
Pl JRPOSE; FI IRTHER ACTION TAKEN
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Coletta.
As the board worked forward rapidly on 10(B), we would like to
make sure that the motion that was approving the matter have a little
additional language in the record. And Ramiro Manalich will tell
you what he would like for you to have considered as part of the vote
already taken.
MR. MANALICH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, welcome new member Halas.
Real briefly, you've already voted on 10(B). Mr. Purcell's left.
I in no way want to discourage or try to get you to change that vote
in any way. I do think, though, our clerk is going to need for the
record something that was not included in the motion. And because
it went so quickly, I did not have a chance to interject it, and that is
simply on 10(B), which was the tourism alliance previous item, you
had voted in favor of approval, as recommended by staff. The only
thing I would add, I think if you could--
MR. WEIGEL: Place on the record.
MR. MANALICH: -- place on the record that there is a public
purpose determination by the board that technically although those
expenditures are outside the contract, they serve a public purpose. I
think that would assist our clerk on that matter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe I made the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would include that in the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll include it in my second.
MR. MANALICH: For clarification for the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And all those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 203
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, if--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Opposed, aye.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, a vote was already taken. There were
three members here. So we're not looking to do a revote or
reconsideration but merely an affirmation that the record should
include this indication.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: And I think you've done it. And I thank --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Have we got a speaker?
MS. FILSON: And for the record, there was a speaker, Mr.
Patrick Neale, but I don't believe he's any longer here.
MR. MANALICH: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: And he wasn't here.
MR. MUDD: And for the record, that vote was 3-0, and Mr.
Halas and Mr. Henning were off the dais at that time.
Item # 10E
TWO (2) FULL TIME POSITIONS IN ESTABLISHING A
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COl JNCIIJ- APPROVF, D (NOT TO F, XCF, F,D $200;000)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10(E)?
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Bleu Wallace,
community development operations.
Before you, you have a request for approval and funding of two
full-time positions to establish a tourism development department, as
recommended by the tourist development council.
Page 204
November 19, 2002
On October the 25th, the county's tourism consultant, Elaine
McLaughlin, briefed the tourism development council regarding the
status of tourism in Collier County, recommending the establishment
of a separate in-house department dedicated to tourism.
We were very fortunate in securing a tourism director about two
weeks ago, Mr. Jack Wert. He's currently the CEO of the Seminole
County Convention and Visitors Bureau. Will be joining Collier
County on December the 16th. And we look forward to him joining
US.
We would like to get approval to establish his department to
have these two new positions work for Mr. Wert in moving forward
the tourism effort. We've been trying now for I think 10 months to
find the right tourism professional to bring here to Collier County
and to take us into the new century. And I think this is the right
gentleman to do it, so long as he has the right toolbox.
And that's what we're asking, the board to approve these
positions and the funding through advertising promotion funds that
were not spent last fiscal year. There were over $200,000 from
carryforward into reserves that were identified effective October 1 as
unspent tourism dollars in advertising promotion. And those monies
could be utilized to -- for the start-up costs, capital cost for
computers, equipment, staffing of the new personnel for the first
year, and not to exceed the dollar amount in the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, after sitting a full year on the
tourist development council, I can tell you this is something I'd be
very proud to be able to make a motion for approval. Collier
County's lagging behind in the recovery in the tourist effort, and I see
this as a very positive step to get us moving again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second that. I was
actually -- that's why my light was on, I was going to say that I've
spoken to a number of representatives throughout the tourism
industry and they all have positive comments. They feel this is the
Page 205
November 19, 2002
right direction, and they feel this is a good use of the money. So I
was going to make the motion, but now I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
We have a motion from myself, Commissioner Coletta, a second
from Commissioner Fiala. Any comments?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace.
Item # 1 OF
TRANSFER OF $35,000 OF FUNDS FROM UTILITY
REGULATION RESERVES TO FUND OUTSIDE LEGAL
SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION 2002-428 OPPOS1NG
THE ACQUISITION OF THE MARCO ISLAND/MARCO
SHORES UTILITY SYSTEM BY THE FLORIDA WATER
SERVICES AIITHORITY- APPROVED
Transfer of $35,000 funds from utility regulation reserves --
regulation reserves to fund outside legal services. Mr. Wallace, you're at it again.
MR. WALLACE: For the record, Bleu Wallace, community
development operations.
I also act as the executive director of the Collier County Water
Page 206
November 19, 2002
and Wastewater Authority that oversees all the investor-owned
utilities in Collier County.
When this sale, proposed sale came up between the Florida
Water Services Corporation and Florida Water Services Authority
sometime last month, you were made aware by a request from Marco
Island to adopt a resolution with your concerns expressed toward this
sale.
Since that time, we have intervened because the utility has
moved forward to consummate the sale to go final by I think it's
December the 17th, and they are moving quickly. If they do that, as
they stand right now, they're in violation of our ordinance, because
they have not applied to the Collier County Water and Wastewater
Authority or this board for the approval of the transfer of those
assets.
I attended a public hearing yesterday in Orlando by this
authority. While I was there, I heard seven counties, three cities, one
civic association, one state senator and one state representative stand
up in front of that authority and tell them how wrong they were and
how illegal this was, and all the reasons why this sale should not go
forward. The public hearing lasted from 9:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.
yesterday. And just before 5:30, the Florida Water Services
Authority went ahead and adopted its resolution to move forward to
consummate the sale.
So the utility is in violation of our ordinance by not applying for
the transfer in moving forward.
I understand that Marco Island -- and that's one of the
municipalities that spoke yesterday, they're going to file their own
lawsuit, but they're going for condemnation to take over the system.
We feel that as regulators we need to go ahead and get in the
fray now, and we are in the fray, and the estimate is $35,000 in funds
from the trust fund for regulation of these utilities. And that's one of
the reasons why we have the funds there.
Page 207
November 19, 2002
The funds are collected only from customers of the utility, and
that's why we want to spend those in order to protect those
customers' interest in this case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much is in those funds,
Mr. Wallace?
MR. WALLACE: Around $900,000, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's just for, you know,
things like this for legal service?
MR. WALLACE: For legal services, engineering services, rate
case expenses. Also, as you'll recall, the Copeland issue, where we
have the small utilities, it's in receivership. We can spend money out
of those trust funds for those systems that Collier County is acting as
receiver for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve from
Commissioner Henning and a second from Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Believe it or not, I really do
represent Marco, but I haven't been fast enough with you guys. I'm
sorry, that was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We just did it for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We love you, Donna.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Please forgive me, Marco.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Thank you very much.
Just anxious to help.
Yes, you are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, any other comments?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 208
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item # 10G
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT UNDER THE FIXED TERM
ANNUAL CONTRACTS FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY OXIDATION DITCHES
IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 73251 - AWARDED TO D.N.
HIGGINS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $483,955 AND TO
HOI.EMONTES IN THE AMOI INT OF $130,000
Award of construction contract under fixed term annual
contract.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, for the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator.
Commissioners, this item is a follow-up to the 5 November
board agenda. This proposed work is part of an ongoing program
that we're instituting in public utilities to increase both the reliability
and capacity for our peak season in 2003, as well as to provide and
maintain compliance with all requirements of the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection in accordance with the USPCA
(phonetic).
Upon the board's direction, on the 5th of November, the public
utilities' staff has solicited proposals for three contractors of the
county's fixed term annual contract for this work.
We're asking the board's approval to award a construction
contract-- excuse me, construction work order to the apparent low
bidder, Ian Higgins, Incorporated, and insurance services work order
Page 209
November 19, 2002
for Hole-Montes in the amount of $483,955, and $130,000 to
accomplish the recommended improvements.
This will add a total of five new areas to the existing old plant
oxidation issues at the north county water reclamation facility to
ensure reliable sewage treatment capacity for upcoming peak
seasons.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this is -- these monies,
expenses, is nothing to do with the new addition as with the old
system on the north wastewater treatment?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, this has nothing to do with the new system
on the north county water reclamation facility. This is only with the
old plant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The old plant, okay.
I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion from Commissioner
Henning for approval and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any
other comments?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item # 1 OH
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND DREDG1NG CONTRACT FOR
WIGGINS PASS EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE DREDGING,
Page 210
November 19, 2002
1N THE TOTAl, AMOI JNT OF $340:000 - APPROVED
Moving on to item H, budget amendment for Wiggins Pass
dredging.
MR. DeLONY: Again for the record, Jim DeLony, public
utilities administrator.
Sir, we're back again here to explain what we're going to do
about Wiggins Pass. I came before you in October and said we had
an emergency situation there. But at the same time I told you we're
going to find the best value to solving that problem, as well as what
we need to do with regard to our future renourishment program for
this upcoming fiscal year.
We found that solution. We did look at several alternatives.
And the one we're proposing to you today is going to look at what I
would call the warrant solution. And that will allow us to dredge an
estimated 30,000 cubic yards, starting no later than the 2nd of
December, and this will cure the problem that we have with shallow
navigation waves at Wiggins Pass, as well as provide that much
needed material that we need to renourish our beaches.
We have looked real hard at this and we believe we've got the
right answer and the right solution to recommend to the board for
your approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I have a concern. We spent a
large sum of money to dredge this down to about 12 feet, I believe
this spring. And through the summer months we had a high amount
of erosion over there on Barefoot Beach, which I'm not sure if this is
what's really happened, but it looks like as we dug deeper in the
channel, we caused the wave action then to erode the -- along the
shoreline, which then caused the sand to go back into where we
dredged.
Page 211
November 19, 2002
The question I have here is what is the possibility of putting a
jetty out on each side there, similar to Doctors Pass? I know it may
have some implications here, but I think all we're doing here is
throwing money into the hole here, because as you dredge, you're
causing higher wave action, which is going to hit the shoreline which
cause the erosion process which sucks the sand back into the channel.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I understand your question. Not really
related to, but what we're proposing here, is certainly we'll take back
and work through both the coastal advisory commission and the TDC
with regard to how we might do better inlet management and address
your concerns.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you hear your answer?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I did. Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What are we going to do with the
sand?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, we're going to put it on the beach.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, we're going to put it -- as I have it in my
mind, it's going to be on the south side of that pass. The design and
the engineering of that is something we're going to make sure we get
right with regard to it. So I don't know if we've made the final
decision on that at this time, because I want to kind of get this in
order. We have a technical solution for the small solution, about
6,000 yards. Now we're looking at 30,000. We'll have the engineer
consultant services finish up that design, and I can give you the
answer separately.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
the southern--
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely.
line.
MR. MUDD:
And we need that much sand on
Or other places along the beach
Commissioners, I will tell you one correction, as
Page 212
November 19, 2002
far as south and north. The north area by Barefoot Beach right there
at the comer is severely eroded. And I think that's what Jim's
thinking about when he gave you directions. I really think it's the
north end at that particular item. But again, the final disposition of
where it's going to go will basically be done after we get the
engineering report for the final dredging activity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If it's on the north end, it's likely
to go back to the same place.
MR. DeLONY: Well, again, sir, that's something we'll take a
look back in the context of inlet management planning. Where we
stand right now, we're going to put it in the right spot, let's put it that
way. Some of it will probably go -- it will go in the most heavily
eroded areas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a matter of interest, how do
you transport it?
MR. DeLONY: This will be done by hydraulic dredge --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I understand. All right,
thanks.
MR. DeLONY: -- this particular proposal that we're asking you
to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're going to screen it
some way to make sure you don't have rocks coming out of there?
All I need is Bill Boggess up there complaining about rocks on the
beach.
MR. DeLONY: We have a way to deal --
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I'd ask one more question of Mr.
DeLony before you vote. You previously had passed an award for
up to $100,000 for mechanical dredging, and I would get him to
agree to the fact that that particular award would not happen, would
be voided out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, the answer to my question,
Page 213
November 19, 2002
because I was going to say, why don't they take the sand and put it on
the north side where it would come out of--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have a motion?
MR. DeLONY: I think we got the answer to that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I'll second it.
We have a motion for approval from Commissioner Fiala,
second from myself, Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Opposed?
(No response.)
The ayes have it 5-0.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Doing real good here.
Item #10I
TERMINATION OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST A COLLIER
COUNTY EMPLOYEE, WHICH SOUGHT REIMBURSEMENT
OF A DEBT OWED TO THE COUNTY BY THE EMPLOYEE IN
THE SUM OF ELEVEN HUNDRED THREE DOLLARS AND
SIXTY-TWO CENTS ($1,103.62), PLUS COSTS, ON THE BASIS
THAT THE COUNTY EMPLOYEE HAS FILED A CHAPTER 7
BANKRI IPTCY - APPROVFJD
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 10(K), Commissioners, which
used to be 16(D)(4), which is the Immokalee Airport park.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16(D)(47
Page 214
November 19, 2002
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16(K)(1), isn't it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What are you doing?
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, I went with the sheet. It's 10(I), which
is 16(K)(1), which is an employee lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Listen, I was the one who asked
for that to be pulled, primarily because I couldn't understand why
with an existing employee we could not take the money out of his
wages. I understand that our legal counsel has advised us that we
cannot do it legally.
MR. MANALICH: That's correct, because of the bankruptcy
laws.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That we apparently failed to do it
when we had a chance to do it, and the judge told us to pay it --
MR. MANALICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and we paid it and now we can't
get it back from the employee who still works for us. MR. MANALICH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is crazy, but I understand and
I'll accept your recommendation, if it's not legally possible, and we
can go on with this thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So that's a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It has to be, you pulled it.
MR. MANALICH: I don't know, you're essentially correct,
Commissioner. If you want, I can explain a little further. But that's
essentially correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, all I'm concerned about is that
we've made every legal effort possible to try to recover this from the
individual. And if you tell me that we cannot go further than that,
then I'm not going to push the issue.
MR. MANALICH: We were before the court in the domestic
Page 215
November 19, 2002
relations matter trying to get a garnishment there. The court said you
can't do it, you have to institute your own action. We then instituted
our own action. Subsequent to that, bankruptcy was filed. That then
stays and prevents us from collecting on the small claim, so that's
where we are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And rll second that. But I also
want to say that on this item, human resources failed to take another
action and that's by deducting the paycheck so we wouldn't have this
item. But it's my understanding that was the old HR, and those
employees are no longer there. We've got a --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, this garnishment order came to us on
3-12-2002, and was failed to be acted on upon by the HR department,
and we're reviewing the procedures to make sure that this does not
happen again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So 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 HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
The ayes have it, 5-0.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Item # 10J
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 101 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ROBERTO BOLLT,
Page 216
November 19, 2002
SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, UNDER LAND TRUST AGREEMENT
DATED 1/27/86, ET AL, CASE NO. 00-2433-CA (RANDALL
BOULEVARD/IMMOKALEE ROAD INTERSECTION) PROJECT
#60171 - APPROVED
The next one was formerly K(2), it's now 10(J).
MR. MUDD: This is an easement acquisition by Roberto Bollt.
MS. ASHTON: Actually, there's a little correction in the
caption. It is a fee simple acquisition.
Mr. Kant is distributing some exhibits, but this is a settlement of
an imminent domain suit. The first document that's going before you
is the legal description. That shows what we acquired, which was
one acres (sic) at the comer of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee
Road. This is a 2000 case, and that was an intersection improvement
project to make the intersection more of a T, a safer intersection than
currently existed.
The second document that's going around is a comparison sheet
that was used at our mediation. This case went to mediation, it did
not settle at mediation. The bottom shows the total, which is the
bottom line difference.
The county's appraiser valued the subject property, which is
commercial property, at $1.00 a square foot. The property owner's
appraiser valued the property at $10 a square foot. In my opinion,
both of them were flawed. Our appraiser failed to consider some time
adjustments, and he used some old comparables, and one was not an
arm's lengths transaction.
The first exhibit on the monitor is the legal description of what
we acquired, which is one acre at the comer of Randall Boulevard
and Immokalee Road.
The second document is that one, yeah. That shows the
comparison sheet between where the county was and where the
owner was. And the significant issue there is the difference between
Page 217
November 19, 2002
the $1.00 versus the $10.00. We were at 43,600, and the property
owner was at 435,600.
As I said, I believe both of them are flawed. I think the property
owner's evaluation was excessive and the county's evaluation was
low.
I asked our appraiser to do some adjustments, and we came up
to about 350 per square foot. The settlement that's proposed before
you is at $4.35 an acre. Previously we did bring an offer ofjudgment
before the board after the mediation was unsuccessful at $4.59,
which was approved by the board; however, not accepted by the
property owner in the time period he's allowed to accept. So we've
actually gone below what our previous offer of judgment was.
And the significance of that is it cuts off expert fees. There's no
-- no expert fees can be charged during the time period between the
rejection of our offer of judgment and the conclusion of the case. So
that's significant.
I might point out that the transportation division has
implemented two policies since this case. One is we were limited
under our existing purchasing policy as to the appraisers that could
be usedl And I think it was 2001, Mr. Hendricks of the
transportation department did go out with RFP's, and we do have a
wider selection of appraisers that we can use. And I believe we've
got some really good, high quality appraisers on our list.
The second thing is the transportation department did implement
an incentive offer policy, where the final offer is a certain percentage
over our appraised value that we get from our appraiser.
And that last offer is significant, because that's the baseline for
setting the attorneys' fees. In imminent domain suits, the attorneys'
fees as to full compensation is one-third the benefit that the owner's
attorney gets for his client. And in this case it was fairly sizeable,
and that's why the attorneys' fee is so high.
We're also required under imminent domain by statute to pay for
Page 218
November 19, 2002
the expert costs of the owner. We're required to pay reasonable costs
in the defense of a proceeding, and those costs include appraisal fees,
engineering fees and land use planner fees. So not only are we
paying for our fees for experts which we need in order to establish
our evidence, we're paying for theirs as well.
So, you know, that's good news for the property owner but not
for us. And other jurisdictions, meaning other states, are not as
generous to the property owners. And that's what we deal with as we
go forward.
At this point do you have any questions for me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They certainly do. Commissioner
Fiala first, Commissioner Coyle second, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, the reason I wanted this pulled
was because I felt that this seems to be happening quite often where
we give an unrealistic, and in my opinion, very unfair offer to the
landowner, and then we say but now we're going to pay for you to
sue us and so then we've already upped the price anyway. Here we're
giving him almost $50,000 for his attorney to sue us because we gave
him an unfair bid in the first place.
And I think that our county really needs to revise how they look
at that. I understand that there's the art of negotiation, but we
shouldn't take it to ridiculous limits, is my opinion.
MS. ASHTON: If I could respond to that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
MS. ASHTON: In this particular case, I believe that our
appraisal was low. However, it's a battle of the experts, and we have
to rely on our expert and the information that our expert gives us.
There are going to be cases where I think we'll have a solid appraisal,
but the other side is going to come forward with an appraisal that's
fairly solid as well, and it becomes a battle of the experts. And those
cases are difficult.
Our appraiser is projecting a value in the future. They're saying
Page 219
November 19, 2002
I've got this data today, but in our order of taking date, this is what I
believe the value is going to be. And then the property owners are
coming forward with their appraisals that can be even a year after the
order of taking. The date of valuation is the date when we deposit
the money in the registry of court, which is after the order of taking
date.
So in some cases, the information that's available to the
appraiser within the year following or six months following the order
of taking hearing can be significantly increased. We all know that our
real estate market is escalating at a very high rate. And six months
can make a huge difference. And in some cases there are property
owners that have their property under contract, and they don't
provide that information to the county.
We try to get as much information as we can, and many of our
appraisers are very diligent in gathering the data that they can, but
again, they're limited by the data that they have as of the time of due
order of taking. And unfortunately that's a reality in this market.
But we share your concern.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My interest in this item was
exactly the same as Commissioner Fiala's. This is awful. And it's
not the only circumstance that we've seen. It seems that we're
frequently making good faith offers at a very, very low level, and
then we wind up paying huge sums of money plus attorneys' fees for
the property.
I understand you've made some changes. What I find it hard to
believe is that any appraiser could make an error of that magnitude,
even if they had no data whatsoever. It seems to me that anybody
who has an appreciation for property in Collier County could walk
out to a piece of property and look at that piece of property and
determine how much it's worth within at least an error rate of 30 to
40 percent. In this case, it was a 500 percent difference. And that's
Page 220
November 19, 2002
inexcusable for the assessor or the person who established the value
for this thing.
And I would hope that our real estate acquisition people would
think twice before they use that person again. But that kind of an
appraisal is just criminal, in my estimation, and it very well could
have cost us almost $50,000 in attorneys' fees that we shouldn't have
had to pay if we'd come up with a realistic appraisal and sat down
with the property owner and tried to work out something reasonable.
Frequently in these cases, or what rational people will do is that
each one of them will get an appraiser and then those two appraisers
will choose another appraiser, and then they'll take those three things
and then arrive at a reasonable price. And we might very well have
come up with the same number without spending $50,000 for an
attorney. But who knows.
But I'm concerned about it and I hope we make some changes in
the way we do these things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm going the same place
there that Commissioner Coyle is, and that is that where I was going
to go is why don't we have three appraisers on a piece of property,
and I think we'd get a better indication of what the property's worth.
Unless of course the people realize that the county's going to pay and
they're going to hold us at bay and pay a large sum of money. There's
something that's totally wrong here. I can't understand that where
you gave the person a good faith of $43,000, and then they come mm
around and say no, it's worth $435,000. There's something wrong
with this picture big time. And either we don't deal with that
appraiser or we make it mandatory that there's three appraisers,
there's three separate appraisals on this piece of property before the
county gets involved in it.
MS. ASHTON: I'll certainly share your comments with the
transportation right-of-way department, and we'll look at alternatives
Page 221
November 19, 2002
and we'll respond to you with some proposals and address some of
your issues as to whether it can be implemented or what the
limitations -- or the pros and cons are to it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there's nothing --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. Yeah, we
need an. approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion of approval from
Commissioner Henning, a second from myself, Commissioner
Coletta, to keep this thing moving forward. Any discussion?
All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we've got two people opposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got three.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three against. Okay, so the motion
failed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What happens if we go to court
with this issue?
MR. WEIGEL: We go to trial.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how do we establish the
value?
MR. WEIGEL: It will be done by the experts in court.
MS. ASHTON: We would have an amended appraisal that
would probably be at about 3.50, and they would continue to be at
10, and then we would be paying the cost of our experts, as well as
their experts, so you can look at easily another $100,000 in expert
Page 222
November 19, 2002
costs. But it's certainly -- we'll do what you want us to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words, we're damned if
we do and we're damned if we don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How often do we take people to
court?
MS. ASHTON: Well, if they don't settle at mediation, we go to
court. We have one right now that's scheduled for trial, which is
likely to go to court because of the disparity in value between the
county and the property owner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, if there's no other direction
from this commission, that's the decision we make.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll change my vote. I'm not
interested in wasting taxpayer money just for principle, but I think
it's terrible --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How do we do this, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, you'll need a motion to reconsider the
item just voted upon.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll make a motion for
reconsideration of the item we just--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- voted upon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by myself for
reconsideration and second by Mr. Henning. Any --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Discussion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're saying in order to settle
this -- I mean, this has already been kind of settled before we even
got it, right? So now in order to settle it because we voted against it
initially, we'd have to go to court and it would cost us double the
Page 223
November 19, 2002
money, right?
MS. ASHTON: Well, this was set for trial, we had a mediation,
and the mediation was unsuccessful, and we prepared an offer of
judgment, which was approved by this board, for $200,000, which
was denied by the property owner.
The proposed value, I just put it away, but I think it was about
186,000 was our offer, which they've agreed to, so both parties have
agreed to it, the other side has signed the stipulated final judgment.
I would tell them that we do not accept the offer and we're going
to go forward with our lower valuation, in which case, as I said, the
county's responsible for the cost in the defense in the case, so we'd be
paying for-- they've got a land planner, an engineer and appraisal on
this case -- appraiser, excuse me. And we'd be paying for ours as well
to go forward with the trial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree, that I hate to waste
taxpayers' money. I believe this is also a waste in the way this is
derived, the figures are derived.
I would really hope -- I'll vote for it, but with the direction that
in the future we do a lot better job in negotiating these things. I know
it wasn't you that did this, I'm just saying, whomever it is.
MS. ASHTON: I hope that you'll see that with the appraisers
that we're hiring for future projects with our new ability to hire more
people, since Mr. Hendricks did the RFP, that you will see more
settlements. We have quite a number of settlements that we've done
for Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road and Livingston
Road. This is an older case.
I cannot tell you that there will not be a case like this where the
county pays a lot of money, but you do have property owners who go
to experts who are willing to give inflated values, and that gives the
property owner a misperception of the value of their property. And
that's one of the issues that we deal with.
But we'll certainly -- I will pass this on to the right-of-way
Page 224
November 19, 2002
department your concerns. And as I've said, they've already started to
implement policies to address that. We all share your same concerns.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for
reconsideration, a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we have one vote in the
opposition from Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion that we
approve this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What motion to approve?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: First we had to just bring it back for
reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now we're approving it. We've got a
motion for approval.
Motion for approval by Commissioner Henning, second by
myself, Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 225
November 19, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, Commissioner Halas is
in the opposition on that.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Are you all set?
No, we're correct. We have it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay.
Item #1 OK
WORK ORDER #PBS-02-06 AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF
$190,161 AWARDED TO PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS FOR THE RENOVATION OF IMMOKALEE
AIRPORT PARK
MR. MUDD: That brings us to item 10(K), which is 16(D)(4),
which is the Immokalee Airport park work order.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening, Commissioners.
I believe the issue and the reason this was pulled off the consent
item was the discrepancy between the fiscal impact statement and the
award of the general contract fee.
In the fiscal impact statement, it recognizes that there will be
$130,000 of grant funding and $130,000 will match, which is already
budgeted in the 306 funds.
The actual general contractor fee is for only $190,000. The
difference of $70,000 is actually to recognize that there are additional
costs to the project, which are architectural fees, engineering fees, the
additional playground equipment, and we may do resurfacing of the
parking lot. It's not recognized as part of the general contractor fee,
so we can save money by doing, it through somebody else, but it is
part of the total project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 226
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's exactly the reason I
brought it up, because the figures didn't match. And I wanted to see
on the record -- in case anybody else was studying this besides the
five of us, I wanted them to see that there was more to this, and as
you say, it was not reflected in the executive summary, nor in the
backup.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I will make a motion to
approve, now that I understand what the money is for and how it will
be spent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that.
So we have a motion by Commissioner Fiala for approval,
second by myself, Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0, with
Commissioner Coyle absent.
That brings us down to I guess the last item, if I'm not mistaken.
Item #12C
RETENTION OF TED TRIPP, ESQ., AND THE LAW FIRM OF
GARVIN AND TRIPP TO REPRESENT COLLIER COUNTY IN
THE BERT HARRIS ACT CLAIM FILED BY AQUAPORT
PIJAINTIFFS- APPROVED
Page 227
November 19, 2002
MR. MUDD: Brings us to 12(C), county attorney report.
MR. PETTIT: Good evening, Commissioners, Mike Pettit,
assistant county attorney.
This is a recommendation that we retain Ted Tripp to represent
the county as lead counsel on the Burt Harris Act claim in the
Aquaport matter.
I want to make one adjustment here on the floor. I also would
like you to, in your consideration of this, if you are going to approve
the recommendation, to the extent necessary, waive our purchasing
policy as in the best interest of the county.
And one of the rationales here clearly is that Mr. Tripp is the
person who has knowledge of the damages and has worked with an
expert witness that would probably be the same expert witness in this
lawsuit, should it go to court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And waive the purchasing
policies.
MR. PETTIT: To the extent necessary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To the extent necessary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion from
Commissioner Henning for approval --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- a second from Commissioner
Fiala. Is there any discussion on this item?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
Page 228
November 19, 2002
now.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
The ayes have it, 5-0.
Here we are, we're at that magic time
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't we have 16(E)(6)?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did we miss one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know, it's not -- Jim Mudd
didn't give it to us, but I see a 16(E)(6) here that somebody gave us a
bunch of paperwork on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are we missing something, Mr.
Mudd?
MR. MUDD:
MS. FILSON:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
I'm sorry, excuse me.
No, sir, not that I can tell.
That item was withdrawn.
Oh, it was withdrawn? I'm sorry,
Item # 15B
COMMISSIONER HALAS NOMINATED AS REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE ECONOMIC DEVEI.OPMF, NT COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Time for communications.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, you have a series of horizon
committees that are out there, one of which is the economic
development horizon committee, which is basically the public policy
committee for the economic development commission. And
Commissioner Carter was your representative on that committee, and
we're going to need a replacement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think Mr. Halas would be the
perfect one for that, and I'd like to nominate him.
Page 229
November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a nomination for--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks a lot.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay, sir, you'll get used to it.
Nomination from myself, Commissioner Coletta, second from
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's appropriate to ask
Commissioner Halas if he would like to serve as the liaison.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would you want to do that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no, why would you want to do
that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because there's a lot of things
that are going to come up that we're going to have to deal with, and I
-- if he doesn't really -- is not too interested, maybe somebody else is
really interested. And that's all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm not sure what the
responsibilities are. That's one of the things that I'm not sure about,
what the responsibilities are and getting filled in on that. Can we
hold off till maybe the next meeting and by that time --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We certainly can. I'll withdraw my
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll bring it back the next
meeting.
MR. MUDD: Sir, the next meeting of this public policy
committee is 26 November at 7:30 in the morning in the EDC office.
You can, but we're going to miss representation in that particular
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can somebody get me up to
speed?
Page 230
November 19, 2002
MR. MUDD: Sir, this is the -- these are the horizon committees
that the commissioners took on because the staff wasn't able to do it.
One of them had to do with affordable housing, and Commissioner
Fiala's doing that one. Health issues, Commissioner Coletta has.
Smart growth, Commissioner Henning has. Green space, and that
had to do with the referendum and whatever, Commissioner Coyle,
you had tagged deferred to conservancy. Very smart move. And so
that referendum is passed.
And the other particular committee was economic development,
and that was our representation on the policy committee of the EDC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll take it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There we go. Restate your motion?
And I restate my second.
MS. FILSON: Yours was the motion, hers was the second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more time?
MS. FILSON: You made the motion, Commissioner Fiala made
the second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I restate my motion, you
restate your second.
Any other discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
What else, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: I'll get with Commissioner Halas to go over the
details of the next meeting.
Page 231
November 19, 2002
Item #15C
STAFF TO WORK ON PAST ORDINANCES REGARDING HOW
TO CONDI ICT MEETINGS IN THE FIITI IRE
Sir, one of the next things that David and I wanted to talk about
in unison here is some board direction to work on some of our older
ordinances that have to do with how we conduct particular meetings,
may it be public petition ordinance and some other items as far as
speaker's time and things like that, and let the staff work on those
particular items so that we can work on it.
Because as I mentioned to some of the commissioners, I already
have my next petitioner request from Mr. Kramer in my hot little
hand that got faxed to us today for the next meeting. And I think we
need to take a look at that and examine our alternatives and what we
can do and not do. And I'd like to get some direction from the board
so that we can expend --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nodding heads.
MR. MUDD: -- that time in order to get that done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got three nods here. Any
nods down here? We've got three nods down at this end.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got one from me. You
know my position on that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I couldn't be in more agreement. I thank
you for that authorization.
As an example, this matter that we just chatted about, which was
16(K)(1), removed -- changed to 10(I) where we just did a quick
reconsideration. I need the record -- reconsideration is one of these
Page 232
November 19, 2002
ordinances we're going to be looking at with meetings and public
petitions.
I need on the record to reflect someone as a motion maker on
the motion to reconsider who voted with the majority that the initial
vote failed on a 2-3 vote. And Mr. Coletta made the motion to
reconsider, but he actually was with the minority on the initial vote,
so the three candidates would be Mr. --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make the motion.
MR. WEIGEL: -- Coyle -- thank you. Very good. So the
record will reflect that Mr. Coyle had made that motion on the
motion to reconsider. The vote is still the vote that was taken.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I missed that.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And I have nothing further.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good catch.
Item # 15D
DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES NAMED AS TOP AGENCY IN
FLORIDA FIY THE FI,ORIDA ANIMAI, CONTROI~ AGENCY
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, there's one piece of good news
that John Dunnuck just brought to my attention that I think's worth
public notice.
MR. DUNNUCK: In an effort to always end the meeting on a
good note, I just wanted to let the board know that the domestic
animal services facility was named the top agency in the State of
Florida by the Florida Animal Control Agency earlier this week, and
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's absolutely wonderful.
MR. DUNNUCK: -- just got the word today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're going to put out a press
Page 233
November 19, 2002
release on that matter, aren't you?
MR. DUNNUCK: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask one more question while
you're there?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know how they do the TV
programs and so forth? Have you ever thought of instead of
featuring one of us, featuring the bugs and bunnies? MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a good one. I like that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I like it, too. You've really got heart,
you know that, Commissioner Fiala?
Now, for communications, let's start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Being the late hour, I think I'll
pass.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, just two comments. One,
Farm City barbecue, I expect everybody to show up and help serve.
11:00 a week from this Wednesday. Steak, everything under the sun
you can think of that you would like. Bring your family, bring your
friends.
And the other thing I want to point out, that we've been at this
meeting, we started at 9:00, we finished approximately 6:00, allow
for one break, take away the hour for lunch, we have had an
eight-hour day today.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I will be at Farm City
barbecue and I will give them a donation for the pin that they gave
me today so that I didn't take -- and I bet everybody else is going to
-- I'll give them even more than the 87 cents, because -- we'll double
Page 234
November 19, 2002
that or something like that.
But other than that, it's been a good meeting, and welcome, Mr.
Halas -- Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. I want to
thank everybody here at the staff for assisting me, getting me up to
speed. And it's been quite a memorable day that I shall remember the
rest of my life, being sworn in and of course probably tonight I'll be
sworn at.
So other than that, it's a pleasure to serve on -- as a
commissioner here in Collier County. And I thank the voters very
much for that opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like any last minute
chances to give your wife instructions before you get home about
dinner or anything?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, she's not home, she's at
choir practice.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, we're adjourned.
*****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2002-466 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES
GATFJWAY, PHASF, 1".
Item # 16A2
Page 235
November 19, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-467 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CATAMARAN
COl JRT AT TARPON COVE".
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2002-468 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "TARPON
COVE".
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2002-469 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
MARSH I/NIT TWF, NTY-TWO".
Item #16A5
THE FINAL PLAT OF "HEMINGWAY PLACE" AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-WITH
STIPl HJATIONS.
Item # 16A6
RESOLUTION 2002-470 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
Page 236
November 19, 2002
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PINE AIR
I,AKES 1 INIT ONE"_
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2002-471 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "STONEBRIDGE
1 INIT THREE".
Item # 16A8
RESOLUTION 2002-472 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "HUNTINGTON
I.A KES l INIT TWO".
Item # 16A9
RESOLUTION 2002-473 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "HUNTINGTON
LAKES 1 INIT THREE".
Item #16Al0
RESOLUTION 2002-474 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "HUNTINGTON
LAKES IINIT FOI JR".
Item #16Al 1
Page 237
November 19, 2002
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2002-10 RE PETITION CARNY-2002-AR-
3335, PASTOR ETTORE RUBIN, C.S., OUR LADY OF
GUADALUPE CHURCH, REQUESTING PERMIT TO CONDUCT
A CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBER 27 THROUGH DECEMBER
1, 2002, ON CHURCH PROPERTY LOCATED AT 207 SOUTH
9TM STREET_ IMMOKAI,F,E.
Item #16A12
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-003 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. LLOYD
L. BOWEIN REGARDING VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 2.7.6.5,
AS AMENDED OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVEI.OPMF. NT CODE.
Item #16A13
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-065 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
LEONARDO PORTAL REGARDING VIOLATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 91-102 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 2.7.6.1
AND 1..5.6 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE.
Item #16A14
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.835/AR-3135
"LIVINGSTON LAKES COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION",
LOCATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
Page 238
November 19, 2002
EAST; BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY VACANT
AGRICULTURE ZONING AND STILES PUD, ON THE WEST
BY LIVINGSTON ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON THE EAST BY
DONOVAN CENTER PUD, AND ON THE SOUTH VACANT
AGRICI II,TI IRF, ZONING-WITH STIPI libATIONS
Item #16B 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COMBINE FUNDS IN THE RADIO
ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU INTO ONE PROJECT
NIIMlqF, R 60081 IN THF, AMOIINT OF $1557800.
Item #16B2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
ACCOUNT INTO THE C8951 PHASE A AND B LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCF, ACCOI INT.
Item #16B3
DONATION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF A
DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM THE SABAL LAKE
SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR A
PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 0.07 ACRES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE WITHIN
THE COMMUNITY WHICH WILL ALLOW THE COUNTY
LEGAL ACCESS AS REQUIRED FOR ALL COMMON
DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN THE COMMON AREA OF
THIS DF, VEIJOPMF, NT.
Item # 16B4
Page 239
November 19, 2002
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE UNANTICIPATED
REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,400,000 FOR THE
PROPOSED IMMOKALEE ROAD/I-75 INTERCHANGE
PROJECT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE
TARPON BAY BOULEVARD/NORTHBROOKE DRIVE
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS_ PROJECT NO. 66042A.
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2002-475 RE ESTABLISHMENT OF "NO
PARKING" ZONES ALONG THE COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD. RESOLUTION 2002-476
RE ESTABLISHMENT OF "NO PARKING" ZONES ALONG THE
COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CORPORATE SQUARE
BOI II.EVARD.
Item #16B6
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
FOR CONTINUED USE OF INMATE LABOR IN ROAD
MAINTF. NANCFi ACTIVITIES.
Item # 16B7
RESOLUTION 2002-477 RE AUTHORIZATION OF
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR AND
TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR TO SIGN
THE CERTIFICATION OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE FDOT
ASSET MANAGEMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
Page 240
November 19, 2002
CONTRACT NUMBER BD-418, FINANCIAL PROJECT
NI IMBER 412918-72-01_
Item #16B8
RESOLUTION 2002-478 RE WORK ORDER NO. BRC-FT-02-04
WITH BETTER ROADS INC., FOR MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,317.75 ON PINE RIDGE ROAD,
PROJECT NO. 60016, AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION
REDUCING THE SPEED LIMIT ON PINE RIDGE ROAD FROM
FORTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (45 MPH) TO FORTY MILES
PER HOUR (40 MPH) IN THE VICINITY OF NAPLES
BOI IIJF, VARD INTFRSFJCTION.
Item # 16B9
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO CARRY FORWARD FUNDS IN
SEVERAL PROJECTS TO RE-OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS IN
FY03 THAT WERE CLOSED BY MISTAKE IN FY02 IN THE
AMOIJNT OF $100~996.70.
Item # 16C 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO CANCEL THE MARCO ISLAND
BREAKWATER MODIFICATIONS PROJECT AND RETURN TO
THF, TOI IRIST TAX RF, SFRVES $699~500.
Item # 16D 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE INCREASE IN MEDICAID
WAIVER REVENUE AND PROGRAM COSTS IN THE
AMOI INT OF ~16,930.
Page 241
November 19, 2002
Item # 16D2
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR COLLIER BOULEVARD BOATING
PARK_
Item # 16D3
FLORIDA RECREATION DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT FOR UP TO $120,000 FOR
IMPROVEMENTS AT lqAYVIEW PARK.
Item #16D4-Moved to Item #1 OK
Item # 16D5
AUTHORIZATION OF TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF 11TH
STREET IN IMMOKALEE FOR SAFE ACCESS INTO THE
FARM CITY lqARBEOI JF, TO BE HF, IJD NOVF, MFIER 27_ 2002.
Item # 16E 1
CONTRACTS #02-3371 "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES"
(ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT $275,000)-AWARDED TO
FIVE FIRMS AS DETAIl,ED IN EXECI ITIVF, SIIMMARY.
Item #16E2
CHANGE ORDER NO. ONE FOR WORK ORDER BSSW-02-01,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,275.00, WITH BARANY, SCHMITT,
Page 242
November 19, 2002
SUMMERS, WEAVER AND PARTNERS, INC. FOR DESIGN
SERVICES FOR CONSTRIJCTION OF EMS #19.
Item #16E3
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY VS. CHESLEY MCDONALD, CASE
NO. 02-1520-CC, COUNTY COURT, TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCI;IT IN AND FOR COIJJER COIINTY. FIJORIDA.
Item #16E4
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS INC., FOR MANAGED
CARE SERVICES FOR THE COUNTY'S GROUP HEALTH AND
WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM.
Item #16E5
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF
GAC TRUST RESERVED LANDS TO THE DISTRICT SCHOOL
BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR FUTURE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES; NOT TO EXCEED TEN DOI,I,ARS ($10.00).
Item #16E6 - Withdrawn
ELIMINATION OF THE SICK LEAVE BANK PROGRAM AND
AN INCREASE IN THE SHORT TERM DISABILITY BENEFIT
PROGRAM.
Item # 16F 1
Page 243
November 19, 2002
HURRICANE SHELTER UPGRADE AND RETROFIT
CONTRACT #02-3429 TO STORM SMART BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC., FOR THE ROOF RETROFIT AND SHUTTER
UPGRADE OF THE LAUREL OAK AND VINEYARDS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,750. THIS
PROJECT IS 100% RFJIMFII IRSF, D FROM THE STATE_
Item #16F2
UNDERWRITERS SELECTED (RFP 02-3435) IN ANTICIPATION
OF FINANCING FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS IN COLLIER COUNTY-AS DETAILED IN
THE EXF, CI ITIVE SI IMMARY.
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FILED FOR RECORD AS
DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 244
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
November 19, 2002
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
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 October 19, 2002 through October 25,2002.
2. Disbursements for October 26, 2002 through November 1, 2002.
Districts:
Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes of the July
24, 2002 Meeting, Adopted Budget FY 2003 and Unaudited Financial
Statements dated 6/30/02.
Port of the Islands Community Improvement District - Minutes of
Meeting held September 20, 2002, Auditor's Report FY Ended 9/30/01,
Management Letter, Response to Management Letter and Financial Report
dated September 20, 2002.
o
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting
held August 12, 2002, Adopted Budget FY 2003 and Unaudited Financial
Statement 7/31/02.
Minutes:
Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U.Advisory Committee - Agenda for November
7, 2002, Minutes of October 3, 2002.
2. Library Advisory Board_- Minutes of September 25, 2002.
o
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for October
30, 2002.
4. Workforce Housing Advisory Committee_- Agenda for October 14, 2002
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board
Workshop_- Agenda for October 21, 2002.
H:Data/Format
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Value Adjustment Board_- Agenda and Minutes of October 2, 2002 and
the Agenda and Minutes of October 3, 2002.
Community Character/Smart Growth Committee_- Agenda for June 26,
2002 and minutes of September 18, 2002.
Development Services Advisory Committee_- Agenda for November 6,
2002, Minutes of October 2, 2002.
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee_- Minutes of October 14, 2002.
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for November 6, 2002.
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee- Agenda for November
12, 2002, Minutes of October 8, 2002.
Bayshore BeautifiCation M.S.T.U. - Minutes of October 9, 2002.
1-75/Golden Gate Ad Hoc Landscaping Beautification Committee -
Minutes of October 9, 2002.
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board_-
Agenda for November 6, 2002.
Collier County Planning Commission_- Agenda for November 7, 2002,
Minutes of October 3, 2002.
H:Data/Format
November 19, 2002
Item # 16J 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD
AND EXPENDITURE BUDGETS FOR OPEN PURCHASE
ORDERS AT THE END OF FISCAl, YEAR 2002_
Item #16J2
CARRY FORWARD FI FNDING FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
Item #16J3
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 GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENT IS ON DISPLAY
IN THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE, 3301 E. TAMIAMI
TRAII,~ W. HARMON TIIRNER Fll III,DING, NAPIJES; FI,.
Item #16K1-Moved to Item #10I
Item # 16K2- Moved to Item # 10J
Item # 16K3
ACCEPTANCE OF PAYMENT OF PREVIOUSLY UNPAID
EDUCATION, COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PARKS AND
LIBRARY IMPACT FEES FOR BENTLEY VILLAGE AND
EDUCATION IMPACT FEES FOR ENCORE SENIOR LIVING
AND APPROVAl, OF REFI INDS DIJE TO FACII,ITIES.
Page 245
November 19, 2002
Item gl 6K4
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 132 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JAMES R. COLOSIMO, TRUSTEE
UNDER UNRECORDED LAND TRUST AGREEMENT DA TED
12/10/92, ETA& CASE NO. 00-0138-CA (PINE RIDGE ROAD
PROJECT g60111)-STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $37,344.46
INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT_
Item gl 6K5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE
SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 171 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ISMAEL GONZALES, ETA&
CASE NO. 02-2159-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT g60018)-
STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $1,400.00 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COl JRT.
Item gl 7A-Moved to Item g8D
Item gl 7B-Moved to Item g8E
Item gl 7C-Moved to Item g8F
Item g 17D
ORDINANCE 2002-59 RE AMENDMENT OF COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 96-84 WHICH CREATED THE
RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TA X1NG l JNIT.
Page 246
November 19, 2002
Item #17E-Continued to 12/3/02
PETITION VA-2002-AR-2908, CRAIG J. PAJER, P.E., OF AEC
NATIONAL, REQUESTING A 40-FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 75 FEET IN THE PUBLIC
USE DISTRICT FOR THE ADDITION TO THE NAPLES JAIL
CENTER LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
lql III.DING "W". COIJJF. R COl JNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER.
Item #17F - Continued to 12/3/02
PETITION VA-2002-AR-2909, CRAIG J. PAJER, P.E., OF AEC
NATIONAL, REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35 FEET TO 110 FEET
FOR A PARKING GARAGE AT THE NAPI~ES JAII~ CENTER.
Item #17G - Continued to 12/3/02
PETITION CU-2002-AR-2759, CRAIG J. PAJER, P.E., OF AEC
NATIONAL, INC., REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE 3 OF THE "P" PUBLIC USE ZONING
DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN
EXISTING JAIL FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIl._
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:15 p.m.
Page 247
November 19, 2002
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
J~HAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented ,/ or as corrected__.
IZ- tr'/. ZIsOZ
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting
Service, Inc., by Terri Lewis, Dawn McConnell, and Cherie' R.
Nottingham.
Page 248